Profile
Search
Register
Log in
'Is a Nirvana-style breakthrough looming w/90's revival?'
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > The General Forum

Author Message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19373
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

Captiv8 wrote:
I tried Spotify for the first time today so that I could listen to albums in full before buying them. I'm tired of getting an album that sounds good in the snippets but then ends up being mediocre when you hear the whole thing. Other than that, I can't see much use for it. I see the playlist option as cool, and the I listened to _________ popping up on facebook appeal, but the whole site just doesn't feel right. I'll stick to my legal downloading and give my crumbs to the artist.


You can't see the use of something that gives you almost limitless access music of your choosing, that you can take anywhere, with or without an internet connection?

Cloud based media is the thing right now. And even if you don't think it has much use for you personally, I can say with almost 100 percent certainty that that is the direction things are moving. And that in two years this is the main way that people will listen to music. It may or may not be with spotify(it probably will be though).

I think especially once they clean up the clunkiness of the social media aspect of it, and the app gets more integrated as a social media that's what's going to really kick it up. Allowing people to share to their network what they are listening to, and make connections based upon those tastes, or have discussions based upon those choices is something that very much engages the narcissism that drives every new social media thing.

Amazon's cloud service for video is also quite nice. I feel like I'm living in blade runner when I can buy a movie and it is instantly accessible to me from all of my media devices whenever I want it to, without the clutter on my harddrive or in my house.

Cloud media is where things are going/where they are at right now.

Which is a good thing for the listener--but it is probably going to have a continued negative impact on the artist, because once you're just a non-tangible series of 1s and 0s that people can't hold in their hands--the value of your art for people goes down the shit hole.

Professional recording artist has become professional celebrity. Which whatever. It's weird.
Post Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:15 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Captiv8



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8547
Location: Third Coast
 Reply with quote  

No, I meant I can't see the use for me personally. It's just not how I like to listen to music.
Post Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:43 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Brynjar



Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 1474
Location: Rivertown
 Reply with quote  

futuristxen wrote:
Cloud based media is the thing right now. And even if you don't think it has much use for you personally, I can say with almost 100 percent certainty that that is the direction things are moving. And that in two years this is the main way that people will listen to music. It may or may not be with spotify(it probably will be though).


While I agree with you on that cloud based media is the direction things are moving I can't agree with you on the time. 10 years minimum for it to be the main way at least here and we fucking love the internet. I think over 97% of households have internet and we spend the most time on Facebook according to Facebook. None of my friends use cloud based media and nobody at (film) school talks about it and all people there talk about is tech, music and movies.
Post Fri Oct 05, 2012 1:18 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Neuro
A champion of Kurtis SP


Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7789
 Reply with quote  

once again......

with cloud based media you have to have access to the internet to listen to the music

not everyone has that access or listens to music only while on the internet,

what happens if the power goes out or your wifi is down, traveling and much more, then you dont have access to your owned music....and thats wack
Post Fri Oct 05, 2012 1:28 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Raoul DeGroot



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 2437
Location: Son Quest
 Reply with quote  

Captiv8 wrote:
No, I meant I can't see the use for me personally. It's just not how I like to listen to music.


You don't like to listen to music by seeing an album, clicking the album, and then hearing the album?

It's exactly like a digital download if you want it to be. I don't get the distinction really. ...Cause it's "streaming" if you don't tell spotify to download it? Cause you can't see the labeled mp3 file in windows explorer?
Waddup here mang?
Post Fri Oct 05, 2012 1:35 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Raoul DeGroot



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 2437
Location: Son Quest
 Reply with quote  

Neuro wrote:
once again......

with cloud based media you have to have access to the internet to listen to the music

not everyone has that access or listens to music only while on the internet,

what happens if the power goes out or your wifi is down, traveling and much more, then you dont have access to your owned music....and thats wack


You can tell spotify to keep the content offline.

And really you can always just buy your favs on Amazon if it's a huge issue and you're going to be in bumfudge guatemala for a month and your internet there is powered by a waterwheel and a genie said you're going to combust if you don't listen to every piece of your music every day during that time.

Amazon has both streaming and traditional mp3 datafiles that can live in your windows explorer as opposed to kooky numerically named datafiles that live in your spotify temp directory

I use spotify for about 70% of my music listening. It's best as a discovery tool (though it can work in sit in your armchair and listen to albums mode). They have a pandora style radio feature, public radio and music mag playlists, and you can see everything your facebook friends are listening to.

I got some good songs off futur's lil updates, although she was swamping her playlists with witchy black metal shiz that was really throwing me off the scent.
Post Fri Oct 05, 2012 1:46 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Raoul DeGroot



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 2437
Location: Son Quest
 Reply with quote  

Brynjar wrote:
futuristxen wrote:
Cloud based media is the thing right now. And even if you don't think it has much use for you personally, I can say with almost 100 percent certainty that that is the direction things are moving. And that in two years this is the main way that people will listen to music. It may or may not be with spotify(it probably will be though).


While I agree with you on that cloud based media is the direction things are moving I can't agree with you on the time. 10 years minimum for it to be the main way at least here and we fucking love the internet. I think over 97% of households have internet and we spend the most time on Facebook according to Facebook. None of my friends use cloud based media and nobody at (film) school talks about it and all people there talk about is tech, music and movies.


I betcha all your friends use youtube like lil mofos. Hence they use cloud based media.
They just don't think about it. Cause they lil film school mofos and they are precious and european
Post Fri Oct 05, 2012 1:49 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Captiv8



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8547
Location: Third Coast
 Reply with quote  

Raoul DeGroot wrote:
Captiv8 wrote:
No, I meant I can't see the use for me personally. It's just not how I like to listen to music.


You don't like to listen to music by seeing an album, clicking the album, and then hearing the album?

It's exactly like a digital download if you want it to be. I don't get the distinction really. ...Cause it's "streaming" if you don't tell spotify to download it? Cause you can't see the labeled mp3 file in windows explorer?
Waddup here mang?


I was just trying to lure you out of the bushes of judgment.

I'm not explaining myself well. I tried spotify out today to see what it was all about, and to listen to a bit more than the snippets provided before purchasing MP3s. I decided that doing this really wasn't worth my time, and listening to full albums on there was detrimental to the artists that I want to support. I don't want to stream albums in their entirety as opposed to purchasing albums in their entirety and then playing them. I don't have tons of money, and I also don't like cluttering up my space with plastic crap, so I tend to stick to MP3 downloads almost exclusively. I can't even remember the last physical CD I purchased anymore. And, typically, when I was still buying CDs it was at a used store, so that money wasn't going to the artist anyway. At least this way some of the money is going back to the source. I had this thread in mind:

http://www.strangefamousrecords.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=49724&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30

And specifically, the information on this chart:

Post Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:02 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Raoul DeGroot



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 2437
Location: Son Quest
 Reply with quote  

ohhhh. Well that makes plenty of sense and is the nice thing to do.

I would still use spotify as a radio / music mag replacement though. -In conjunction to buying.
Post Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:14 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Brynjar



Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 1474
Location: Rivertown
 Reply with quote  

Raoul DeGroot wrote:
I betcha all your friends use youtube like lil mofos. Hence they use cloud based media.
They just don't think about it. Cause they lil film school mofos and they are precious and european


hah

Ofcourse they use youtube and shiiiiiiiii but I thought, for some reason, futuristxen was talking about people using cloud based storage themselves.
Post Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:28 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
anomaly
Loserface


Joined: 22 May 2008
Posts: 2579
Location: DFW, TX
 Reply with quote  

He/she is.......Youtube is cloud based storing of music and videos.
You're using the technology and not even realizing it.

Post Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:33 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
tommi teardrop



Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2216
Location: Las Vegas
 Reply with quote  

Whenever i see those charts, it makes me think about how back when we bought CDs or tapes or albums, we payed a flat price and then could listen as many times as we wanted. So some records you listen to only once and you pay roughly $1 per song. But when you listen to a record hundreds or thousands of times, you are paying pennies or fractions of pennies for each listen.

So doesn't it make a little more sense to only pay artists for the amount of times people actually listen to their music rather than a flat fee for taking a chance on a record you might get tired of and only listen to a few times?

And as far as the amount that's being paid to the artists for each spotify listen, that's why we read contracts before we agree to deals that will allow people to listen to our music legally for fractions of pennies, right?

Are you morally opposed to Netflix and jukeboxes as well?
Post Fri Oct 05, 2012 3:38 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Captiv8



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8547
Location: Third Coast
 Reply with quote  

Well, it all comes down to who owns the rights, or the majority of the rights, to the music, and the royalty contracts negotiated therein. I don't think it's any secret that record labels, for the most part, take an enormous chunk out of what the artist produces. While this is true for physical sales, it is even more true for digital downloads. The imbalance tips even further in the favor of the record label. Royalty proceeds go way down to the realm of 5-8%, which is pennies considering what the record label does (this is the paid by the listen thing you mentioned). Keep in mind as well that promotion of an album, tour costs, and recording costs are all recoupable by most labels, obviously dependent upon the contract. Point being, the artist doesn't necessarily have control over what the record label does with their music, again dependent upon the contract.

Given all of this, it makes the most sense for artists to establish their own labels in which more equitable contracts can be formed. You may not make a million dollars, but you won't get Merle Haggard-ed either, unless you really fucked something up. DIY is truly the way to go if you want to maximize profit, as you cut out the middleman and isolate who the profits are doled out to: you (and your band/tour mates).

But I'm not a music industry insider, and I'm not an artist, so I can't truly speak to the intricacies of either. Though I strongly suspect that they would never do this, Sage, Slug, Sole and even kHill and Shane Hall could illuminate how this process worked a bit more. Shit, even Jesse could drop some knowledge on the topic. But that's kind of taboo, so I doubt we'll ever know about it while they're still in the game, or even after.

One thing that does strike me as interesting, however, and is a very real example of building a fanbase, is Sole's kickstarter campaign for his forthcoming record. He set a goal, received donations in excess of it, and effectively made an album for free based solely (haha) on the support of his fans. In return, he releases a free track from time to time, and gives out hugs. So everything after the touring expenses is 100% profit. I'd say that's a pretty awesome accomplishment.

So it's all about artistic control in the end. How owns the music, or how much do the own? What's the fine print on the contract read? Who's putting in the legwork? And so forth.

As for Netflix, I'm not opposed to it. I'm not opposed to Spotify either from an objective standpoint. If someone wants to use it, cool, but there's a cost attached to that usage, and it's not coming out of their pocket, or the label's pocket. So if you use Spotify as background music and/or a way to discover new tunes, but you still buy music, I think you're in pretty good standing with artists. Anyway, Netflix isn't quite the same thing, is it? It's kind of an apples and oranges comparison, but I'll indulge in it for the sake of argument.

Let's start with the artists, in this case, the actors. If it's a studio (i.e. not indie) production, most of the time the actors will be paid an up-front sum negotiated by themselves or their agent. This is not an advance, but a flat "We'll pay you X to be in Die Hard 43." Boom, that's money in hand as long as the film is completed, and in some cases even if it's not. This is obviously quite a bit different from the nail-biting musician that has to recoup recording costs, touring, and promotion costs before they can see buck one (unless of course they received an advance, but then this money is paid back through royalties before the musician can make an actual profit of their own).

Then you have a sort of royalty system based off the box office sales. All of the principle actors, at a minimum, will receive some percentage of the box office sales (after the theater itself receives approximately half). These proceeds can range from massive to paltry, but they are there as an additional payment. Again, this is on top of the up-front payment for acting in the movie. Or, as is sometimes the case, the actor can wave the up-front payment in exchange for a higher percentage of the movie's proceeds after the majority of expenses are recouped. This also includes sales of all movie-related paraphernalia like posters, games, DVDs, and so forth

So don't worry, any studio production actor is doing just fine when their movie ends up on Netflix. Independent studios are a different story, of course, and this complicates things. Are independent studios and their actors being hurt by things like Netflix? Probably not. First off, independent films don't receive the same attention major productions do in terms of ad space, TV spots, actor interview promotions, reviews in Entertainment Weekly, and the like. Their movies aren't shown in nearly as many theaters either, and most won't be nationwide releases. So Netflix and DVD sales are a way for smaller productions to actually make some money. And because the bulk of an independent features budget will go toward the cost of filming, actors in this scenario tend to receive little up-front and hope that the movie does well enough in the available avenues to earn them something decent. There are also exceptions to this poor to only slightly less poor existence of the indie actor. Paranormal Activity is a phenomenal case and point. Made for roughly $15,000, the movie recouped it's budget and paid reasonably tidy sums to its actors from the box office draw alone, which was a relatively low $75,000. Why so low? Because the movie initially only showed in twelve theaters (I looked all this up on imdb, btw). But the real money came after news of the movie spread in a few short weeks. Suddenly every theater wanted to show the movie, and BOOM, Paranormal Activity made a truly massive $193 million worldwide. Why? Because it was an awesome movie that freaked people the fuck out, and they loved Oren Peli for it. The lesson? Don't make shitty independent movies and expect to do well. Same goes for music.

And jukeboxes? Seriously? I don't really know how those things work, but I imagine that the jukebox distributor has to pay the label, who then pays the artist their royalty, for the right to play a song. I don't know if this is a flat fee or a continuous royalty. I imagine it depends on whether the jukebox is old school or one of the new digital ones, where it's likely easier to track how many times a given song was played. But the bottom line here is that I don't partake in jukeboxes. Never will. I'm just fine with the Skynyrd and Sublime playing.
Post Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:09 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19373
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

Raoul DeGroot wrote:

I got some good songs off futur's lil updates, although she was swamping her playlists with witchy black metal shiz that was really throwing me off the scent.


Haha. Yeah I've segregated that stuff out now into it's own playlist(two playlists actually--one for stuff I'm still listening through, and then another for where the stuff I dig to go--like you say a service like Spotify is great for discovering new music. And exploring a lot of music really quickly. Someone tried to send me mp3s last week, and I didn't have the heart to tell them I pulled the stuff off of spotify two seconds after they mentioned the band--after they went through all of the trouble of organizing downloads and stuff). You weren't the only one that had that complaint.

I actually use the offline feature on spotify a lot because I don't have a good data plan on my phone, so I just download my playlists to my phone when I'm next to a wifi connection, and then I'm set for when I hit the road. And then the thing auto-updates whenever I get into a wi-fi connection. I find that shit useful.
Post Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:45 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Neuro
A champion of Kurtis SP


Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7789
 Reply with quote  

soooo do yall pay for spotify? or is this all usable in the default free mode
Post Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:54 pm
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Tue Oct 21, 2014 9:42 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon