Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24

Thread: Spotify

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Shanghai
    Posts
    239

    Default

    For anyone that wants to sign up but doesn't have an invite:

    http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/55406...without-invite

  2. #17
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,453

    Default

    I quite liked finding the full forty minutes or so of that 'Paralyzed Mind of the Archangel Void' Mercury Rev thing on there. It's good that, played right through without ads, wyatting spotify.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,453

    Default

    Really long tracks are good if you are using Spotify free.

    This mix for instance, 68 minutes uninterrupted:

    Henrik Schwarz, ┬me and Dixon - The Grandfather Paradox

    01. Steve Reich & Pat Metheny - Electric Counterpoint - Fast (Movement 3)
    02. Etienne Jaumet - Repeat After Me (┬me Mix)
    03. Kenneth Bager - Fragment Elevenů The Day After Yesterday Pt.1
    04. Liquid Liquid - Lock Groove (Out)
    05. Cymande - For Baby Oh
    06. Patrick Moraz - Metamorphoses 1st Movement (Live)
    07. To Rococo Rot - Testfeld
    08. Mathematics - Blue Water
    09. I:Cube - Acid Tablet
    10. ě - Atomit
    11. Conrad Schnitzler - Electrocon 11
    12. Green Pickles feat. Billy Lo & M. Pittman - Feedback
    13. La Funk Mob - Motor Bass Gets Phunked Up (Richie Hawtin's Electrophunk Mix)
    14. John Carpenter - The President Is Gone
    15. Yusef Lateef - The Three Faces Of Bala
    16. Robert Hood - Minus
    17. Raymond Scott - Bass-Line Generator
    18. Moondog - Invocation

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    5,237

    Default

    includes lots of favorite labels...

    http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...g-from-spotify

    200+ labels withdraw their music from Spotify: are its fortunes unravelling?

    Following a study that claims that streaming music is damaging to record sales, a distributor representing more than 200 labels has withdrawn its entire catalogue from Spotify, Napster, Simfy and Rdio.

    The study, which was conducted by NPD Group and NARM, came out with results suggesting that subscription services -- where you pay a flat fee each month to access a giant jukebox in the sky, rather than owning individual tracks -- is discouraging other forms of music purchasing. You can find the further details of that study over at Digital Music News.

    That prompted STHoldings, which focuses on techno, grime, dubstep and bass music, to contact the 238 labels that it has on its books to ask if they wanted it to keep distributing content to Spotify or withdraw it. Only four said they wanted to keep their content on Spotify. Interestingly, though almost certainly unrelatedly, Music Ally has noticed that a band signed to one of the labels counts Apple's director of music for iTunes Europe as one of its members.

    A statement from the distributor reads: "As a distributor we have to do what is best for our labels. The majority of which do not want their music on such services because of the poor revenues and the detrimental affect on sales. Add to that the feeling that their music loses its specialness by its exploitation as a low value/free commodity. Quoting one of our labels, 'Let's keep the music special, fuck Spotify.'"

    We asked Spotify for comment, and a spokesperson told us:

    "We have strong support from the music industry, and of course respect the decision of any artist who chooses not to have their music on Spotify for whatever reason. We do however hope that they will change their minds, as the Spotify model is adding, and will continue to add, huge value to the music industry. Right now we have already convinced millions of consumers to pay for music again, to move away from downloading illegally and therefore generate real revenue for the music business.

    "In addition, 'revenue per stream' totally misses the point when considering the value generated by Spotify. The relevant metrics are: 1) how many people are being monetized by Spotify; 2) who these people are (usually young people previously on pirate services which generate nothing for artists and rightsholders); and 3) how much revenue per user Spotify generates for rightsholders.

    Artists can -- and do -- receive very substantial revenues from Spotify, and as Spotify grows, these revenue streams will naturally continue to grow. Spotify is now the second single largest source of digital music revenue for labels in Europe (IFPI, April 2011) and we've driven more than $150 million of revenue to rights holders (ie whoever owns the music, be it artists, publishers or labels) since our launch three years ago."

    Disquiet from musicians and labels over the royalties paid out by Spotify has plagued the music service almost since it first launched. Back in 2009, a storm in a teacup erupted after it was revealed that Lady Gaga got just $167 for more than a million plays. That figure was thoroughly debunked, but the idea behind it has persisted and Spotify hasn't helped matters by keeping any royalty discussions under a strict veil of secrecy.

    Charles Arthur from the Guardian attempted to pierce that veil in late 2009, and the results were a mess of calculations and corrections. A second attempt wasn't much clearer, and a recent infographic trying to piece things together has been universally condemned by all parties. Recent top-sellers like Coldplay and Adele have actively avoided Spotify for their newest albums, because their management know the record will sell widely regardless and Spotify's audience isn't likely to be especially keen on those artists anyway.

    Complicating matters is that the four major labels own part of Spotify themselves. 18 percent, according to TechCrunch, which was likely part of the conditions for licensing their catalogue to the streaming service in the first place. Merlin, which represents independent labels owns one percent. It does beg the question -- if streaming is so bad for the music industry, then why invest in it?

    Meanwhile, even the smallest labels yanking their content is bad news for consumers, because it turns a service that has everything into a service that has "most stuff" -- that's a life-and-death difference to a hardcore music fan. Surveys have suggested that fans are still very wedded to the ownership model and that the chief reason for that is that they have no confidence that their favourite album might not just disappear. If Spotify can't stem this tide, then that lack of trust might well be what finally does the Swedish streaming service in.

    Perhaps, as PaidContent's Robert Andrews argues, it's time for some transparency on music streaming rates.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    5,237

    Default

    Danvers Dude Makes $23k Musically Spamming on Spotify

    http://bdcwire.com/danvers-dude-make...ng-on-spotify/

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    5,237

    Default

    can't afford to pay artists more than a sliver of a penny per stream but hey, average salary is $168,747!

    http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016...tify-employee/

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    لندورا
    Posts
    3,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo View Post
    Danvers Dude Makes $23k Musically Spamming on Spotify

    http://bdcwire.com/danvers-dude-make...ng-on-spotify/
    this is brilliant

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    10,757

    Default

    That's amazing. How to stop others from doing it though? (More to the point, how to stop ME from doing it?)

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    5,237

    Default

    god, my social media feeds are rammed with all those fucking 2019 wrapped/decade wrapped posts. apparently I know a lot of people who've listened to a lot of shit music in the past year/decade.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •