5 ms·

Yeah i disagree. In 20 years, the Beatles and ac/dc will be less relevant and easier to live without. If Spotify start their own content channels now, and i ima

by verelo 9y ago

Yeah i disagree. In 20 years, the Beatles and ac/dc will be less relevant and easier to live without. If Spotify start their own content channels now, and i imagine they have, the situation could easily be reversed, where they have exclusive rights to the content that others want. Time will tell but i feel like this can go either way.

bogomipz 9y ago
>" In 20 years, the Beatles and ac/dc will be less relevant and easier to live without." If you made that statement I'm guessing that you don't realize that the Beatles have been relevant for 50 plus years now and AC/DC for 40 plus years. They are so enduring because they are classics. It's amusing that you believe that when yet another generation discovers these artists they are somehow going to become less relevant. Both of those artists that you used in your example were long time hold outs to allowing their music to be streamed. And it was huge news for Spotify when they were added to their catalog. It's worth mentioned that Beatles tracks were streamed 50 million times in the first 48 hours that they were available for streaming.[1] [1] https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2015/12/beatles-songs-were-streamed-50-million-times-in-th.html https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2015/12/beatles-songs...
- orbitur 9y ago
  They have been relevant, yes, but that doesn't mean their primary audience isn't aging. If you truly believe the Beatles and AC/DC are gaining more followers than they are losing, you are woefully out of touch. Spotify was excited to get them because it means older people might join. A larger audience, that's it.
  - alphaalpha101 9y ago
    The Beatles is definitely gaining more fans that they're losing.
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    You are flat out wrong. 65% of those 50 million streams in the first 48 hours were by people under the age of 34. See: https://www.thewrap.com/beatles-songs-stream-50-million-times-in-48-hours/ https://www.thewrap.com/beatles-songs-stream-50-million-time... So yeah, catalog is king.
    - jsjohnst 9y ago
      And you don’t think those folks weren’t streaming because they were heavily pushed towards it? First 48hrs is completely irrelevant, I want to see sustained numbers. I’m not saying the later numbers don’t show them leading still, I’m just saying your choice of facts doesn’t support the argument you are making.
      - bogomipz 9y ago
        >"And you don’t think those folks weren’t streaming because they were heavily pushed towards it?" It's very bizarre that you don't understand the magnitude of the The Beatles. They are not something that requires a push. So here's some number regarding the first 3 months of their catalog being available on Spotify: "24 Million Hours Of Beatles Music Has Been Played In Their First 100 Days On Spotify The company revealed today that in just over three months, people around the world have played 2,793 years worth of Beatles tunes. Yes, that’s right — years. When that figure is broken down, it can be better understood as about one million days, or over 24 million hours. Considering that the average Beatles song is less than five minutes long, those 24 million hours multiply into several hundred million plays." In fact, a conservative estimate of total Beatles plays on Spotify is still over a quarter of a billion. [1] [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2016/04/08/in-their-first-100-days-on-spotify-24-million-hours-of-beatles-music-has-been-played/#6ddfd104cb82 https://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2016/04/08/in-thei...
        jsjohnst 9y ago
        Your original point was that millennials and younger love the Beatles on Spotify. How does this new reply show that? I’m not sure why I’m bothering because you continue to miss the point and instead use multiple logical falicies to try to belabor your point. I get it, you have an obsession with this and you want to convince the world you’re right, doesn’t make it so. I’m happy to be proven wrong as I have no skin in the game, but so far, you’ve not done so.
- verelo 9y ago
  I’m not totally stupid (just a little...), of course they have been relevant for a long time, but i think their ability to be a differentiator in what people choose to pay for exponentially deminishes as time passes. They will matter to some for sure, but i doubt it’ll be enough to really make or break the offering. Also, maybe in 20 years they’ll manage to license the content?

by verelo 9y ago

bogomipz 9y ago

>" In 20 years, the Beatles and ac/dc will be less relevant and easier to live without." If you made that statement I'm guessing that you don't realize that the Beatles have been relevant for 50 plus years now and AC/DC for 40 plus years. They are so enduring because they are classics. It's amusing that you believe that when yet another generation discovers these artists they are somehow going to become less relevant. Both of those artists that you used in your example were long time hold outs to allowing their music to be streamed. And it was huge news for Spotify when they were added to their catalog. It's worth mentioned that Beatles tracks were streamed 50 million times in the first 48 hours that they were available for streaming.[1] [1] https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2015/12/beatles-songs-were-streamed-50-million-times-in-th.html https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2015/12/beatles-songs...

orbitur 9y ago
They have been relevant, yes, but that doesn't mean their primary audience isn't aging. If you truly believe the Beatles and AC/DC are gaining more followers than they are losing, you are woefully out of touch. Spotify was excited to get them because it means older people might join. A larger audience, that's it.
- alphaalpha101 9y ago
  The Beatles is definitely gaining more fans that they're losing.
- bogomipz 9y ago
  You are flat out wrong. 65% of those 50 million streams in the first 48 hours were by people under the age of 34. See: https://www.thewrap.com/beatles-songs-stream-50-million-times-in-48-hours/ https://www.thewrap.com/beatles-songs-stream-50-million-time... So yeah, catalog is king.
  - jsjohnst 9y ago
    And you don’t think those folks weren’t streaming because they were heavily pushed towards it? First 48hrs is completely irrelevant, I want to see sustained numbers. I’m not saying the later numbers don’t show them leading still, I’m just saying your choice of facts doesn’t support the argument you are making.
    - bogomipz 9y ago
      >"And you don’t think those folks weren’t streaming because they were heavily pushed towards it?" It's very bizarre that you don't understand the magnitude of the The Beatles. They are not something that requires a push. So here's some number regarding the first 3 months of their catalog being available on Spotify: "24 Million Hours Of Beatles Music Has Been Played In Their First 100 Days On Spotify The company revealed today that in just over three months, people around the world have played 2,793 years worth of Beatles tunes. Yes, that’s right — years. When that figure is broken down, it can be better understood as about one million days, or over 24 million hours. Considering that the average Beatles song is less than five minutes long, those 24 million hours multiply into several hundred million plays." In fact, a conservative estimate of total Beatles plays on Spotify is still over a quarter of a billion. [1] [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2016/04/08/in-their-first-100-days-on-spotify-24-million-hours-of-beatles-music-has-been-played/#6ddfd104cb82 https://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2016/04/08/in-thei...
      - jsjohnst 9y ago
        Your original point was that millennials and younger love the Beatles on Spotify. How does this new reply show that? I’m not sure why I’m bothering because you continue to miss the point and instead use multiple logical falicies to try to belabor your point. I get it, you have an obsession with this and you want to convince the world you’re right, doesn’t make it so. I’m happy to be proven wrong as I have no skin in the game, but so far, you’ve not done so.
verelo 9y ago
I’m not totally stupid (just a little...), of course they have been relevant for a long time, but i think their ability to be a differentiator in what people choose to pay for exponentially deminishes as time passes. They will matter to some for sure, but i doubt it’ll be enough to really make or break the offering. Also, maybe in 20 years they’ll manage to license the content?