17 ms·

In college about 5 years ago, I heard a presentation from some recording industry people who worked at a studio. They saw Spotify as the reason their industry w

• mfoy_ 8y ago
  It has always been, and always will be, about convenience first. Pre-Spotify and pre-bandcamp, getting music you could play on multiple devices was hard. Piracy was the only reliable way you could have the same songs on your walkman, your mp3 player, your phone, and your computer. Bandcamp is nice, in that it offers DRM-free music in high quality, but Spotify offers raw, unadulterated convenience. And Convenience is King.
  • velcrovan 8y ago
    Spotify is literally where I discovered Kings of Convenience https://open.spotify.com/artist/41AbNVba2ccpmcc9QtOJE7?si=4vt9sJDCSW2DITF2x1wBmA https://open.spotify.com/artist/41AbNVba2ccpmcc9QtOJE7?si=4v...
    • siquick 8y ago
      Great band. Check out Erland Oyes other band Whitest Boy Alive if you haven't already.
  • iamben 8y ago
    Exactly this. And this is exactly the reason why we'll probably all end up pirating movies again. Pretty much everything mainstream (with the exception of a few artists) is on Spotify. Netflix, Amazon, etc etc. get more fractured every day. Every studio wants their own streaming service. How many will you pay for? 2? 1? 0? Everybody loses.
    • hi5eyes 8y ago
      oh theres places to get all the shows streamed for free, and getting even the pirating the most obscure music is easier than ever piracy is currently the most convenient way to consume content now that all the streaming services/labels want to fragment their libraries
      • Moru 8y ago
        They know this but they will still milk as much as they can while they can.
      • kelnos 8y ago
        I don't think we're quite there yet. Assuming a title is on a streaming service that I have a subscription to, piracy is definitely not more convenient. I guess for someone starting from scratch, "what streaming service(s) should I should I subscribe to?" might be a difficult and paralyzing question to the point that the answer might be, "who knows, screw it, I'll just pirate everything".
        • asdff 8y ago
          Oh but it is, if not more so because there are no dark patterns, no screeching autoplay trailers within seconds of opening the app, no 2 second pauses until the next episode, just a very user friendly streaming interface that gets straight to the point. But I won't divulge the name here.
          • cujo 8y ago
            Well that's not very... convenient.
        • Faark 8y ago
          > Assuming a title is on a streaming service that I have a subscription to, piracy is definitely not more convenient. I'm not sure. A friend watches shows on a pirate streaming site, even though they are available for free (but add supported, not that this matters with addblock) on a legal streaming site. It's just easier to always first check the site that always has the desired content available for that particular target audience than some try and error or even an additional google search. But context matters. If you pay for a subscription, wanting to get the most "value" out of that makes sense psychologically (just like the other mindset... "already payed for that, who cares where i watch"). Also if you already got the necessary subscriptions and google always directly leads you to the latest weekly episode, starting there doesn't make a difference. One that's not the case (e.g. you can only watch ever other show an the high sea)... well, having to repeat the search on more than one site would certainly be more effort.
  • mlthoughts2018 8y ago
    I’ve given up trying to understand this. For me, buying a physical disc, transferring the files to my computer, and either putting them into Dropbox or transferring them via VLC to each of my devices is so easy. Amazon music downloads & Bandcamp downloads are even easier. What’s not easy is needing to manage a subscription account, log in on multiple devices, and either manage caching music local to the device (and frequently needing to clear items out of the cache to switch with other items) or always use cellular data services to stream music. I obviously cannot argue with massive consumer trends, but personally I do not understand how anyone thinks streaming services are more convenient. I cannot empathize with any use case where streaming would be more convenient. Whether I’m discovering new music, sharing music, making playlists, or anything else, the absolute number one thing I need is the raw music files. Convenience starts & stops with that.
    • diminoten 8y ago
      Okay, so you honestly can't understand how > buying a physical disc, transferring the files to my computer, and either putting them into Dropbox or transferring them via VLC to each of my devices is harder than > Search for song, click "Play" on song ??? And let's not even get into backing up, keeping in sync, correct song metadata, etc. If you honestly can't see how much easier the second thing is compared to the first, I would honestly go see a medical professional about it, because you're literally delusional.
    • piptastic 8y ago
      Really? You can't imagine that it's easier to search for a new song on Spotify and play it immediately VS buying a physical disc, transferring the files to your computer, then transferring them again to each of your devices? Just finding the physical discs is huge inconvenience
    • hindsightRegret 8y ago
      Having the same playlists, interface, and experience on various different mediums is more convenient. The vast majority of people do not have enough local music to have to clear out their local cache manually. It's easier to share playlists with your friends who are likely all on Spotify as well.
  • frogpelt 8y ago
    Okay, I don't disagree with your premise. And I was a small time pirate before Spotify and the like. But couldn't you legally copy music between devices without being a pirate? Also, surely nobody tried to have music for an MP3 player AND a Walkman. Those have got to be mutually exclusive, don't they? Even smartphones and MP3 players didn't exist together much. I personally started paying for Spotify to help myself feel more ethical about my music consumption. And it is very convenient. Except I haven't ponyed up for the family price yet, so only one person in my family can use it at a time.
  • jwr 8y ago
    Yes, convenience is important, but Spotify also appeals to certain groups which can't reasonably be served by physical media distribution (and individual song sales) at all. I use Spotify to listen mostly to classical music, and I might want to hear something performed by 10 or 20 different performers. There is no way I could afford that by buying "songs" individually. As a side note, Spotify treats classical listeners horribly, ignoring their requests (such as to show more of song titles, or search by label), which I do not understand, because these are the customers that would most likely pay a premium to get better features.
    • saaaaaam 8y ago
      > As a side note, Spotify treats classical listeners horribly, ignoring their requests (such as to show more of song titles, or search by label), which I do not understand, because these are the customers that would most likely pay a premium to get better features. This is actually largely to do with what metadata they take and then how they present it. And it’s really tricky. The metadata associated with classical music is generally speaking more complex than (say) a rock track. Until relatively recently there was not (IIRC) a clear format laid out in the DDEX standards (which are the metadata standards associated with delivering music and other media) for how you present the numerous different elements of metadata associated with a classical release. So it is a real mess. I don’t think Spotify necessarily even takes the full metadata spec that you can associate with a classical release. So for example: you may have a recording of the Allegro - which is the third (also written III) movement from Beethoven’s Symphony number 6 - also know as the Pastoral, also known as Op.68 or Opus 68 (and as the “Pastorale” in German) which is in the key of F major. I need to be sure that the track I’m listening to is not the 4th (IV) movement which is also Allegro and definitely not the 1st (I) which is Allegro but not too much - Allegro non troppo. Now - I want the version recorded in Austria by the Weiner Philharmonic conducted by Simon Rattle produced by Stephen Jones and released on Warner Classics. You however may well prefer the Decca version conducted by Erich Kleiber with the London Philharmonic (but not the London Philharmonia!) produced by Victor Olof. Or you may want the Kleiber-conducted version with the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra. How do you distinguish? As you can see there are a whole load of different pieces of metadata on which people might search - and when it comes to classical repertoire these things really matter to the listener. The way labels try to address it currently on Spotify is to simply stuff as much as possible into the track title. Spotify now have some of this listed in the “song credits” but that is relatively recent. And the info on many tracks is far from complete. There are some specialist classical services addressing this - but the problem is I would prefer not to have to subscribe to an additional service just for classical music when most of it is sort of available on my streaming service of choice. So yeah. It’s a mess :)
• diminoten 8y ago
  We told them; build it and we'll come. They built it, we came, and we're all better for it. Now if only MPAA and friends would listen...
• CPLX 8y ago
  > The average CD-buyer spent much less than that. Citation needed My understanding is that total spending on recorded music is way down from heights in the 90's. I could be wrong though.
  • jasonlotito 8y ago
    https://www.recode.net/2014/3/18/11624668/the-price-of-music https://www.recode.net/2014/3/18/11624668/the-price-of-music Cherry picking from the article from 2014: > At the 1999 peak ... according to the music trade group International Federation for the Phonographic Industry, across the total 18-and-over population (both across many countries or individually within one), the average amount spent came to $28 per consumer. Moving on: > But that includes people who did not buy any music that year. If we look at just the consumers who bought music, they spent $64 on average that year. > Another study by NPD Group in 2011 found similar spending, about $55 per music buyer per year on all forms of recorded music Note, that's all forms of music. > about $12 per iTunes account per quarter is spent on music, or about $48 per year.
  • cm2012 8y ago
    We're still down from the 90s heights, but increasing rapidly: https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/ https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/
    • CPLX 8y ago
      Yeah that looks like what I would have guessed, I actually made my living in the music business from 1997-2010 or so. The recent uptick is certainly interesting though.
    • cmurphycode 8y ago
      Great graph! It doesn't take much away from your observation about the increase recently, but I do think it's fair to point out that you should click the "Adjusted for inflation" button for a fair comparison.
  • chiefalchemist 8y ago
    But the 90's is not a good / true benchmark. In the 90's, for the most part the music industry pushed CD's and did not do CD singles. Therefore, if you liked a single song you'd have to buy the full CD (approx $15 to $17). That is, music sales were inflated. Eventually, this also helped set the stage for Napster, etc. The public didn't want to spend $15+ dollars for s single. And after getting too many one-hit wonders the public was glad to have it's needs met and were even happier when that was also form of revenge against the music industry. The artificial peak of the 90's was also one of the reasons the music industry took so long to adjust to digital (read: a return to singles buying normalcy). They go so used to those revenues that they forgot what reality was like.
• yellowapple 8y ago
  Spotify is the reason why I don't pirate music anymore, or at least not nearly as much as I needed to before. I only pirate music in cases where it's not available on Spotify (and that piracy is usually in the form of youtube-dl).
• NoPicklez 8y ago
  The average CD-buyer spent less than that? Given the amount of music I listen to, if I was to buy the singles or full albums I'd be paying significantly more. If I was to buy on iTunes for $1.99 each song that I wanted to listen to now, I would've paid a lot more money than I do now through the subscription model. As I am not limited on price whenever I decide to listen to different music.
• djaychela 8y ago
  Only anectodal (from my own experience), but prior to Spotify being widespread, a friend and I used to make maybe £10/month from sales of our (totally unpromoted, just for fun) trance that we make. Since streaming became the norm, we've not made that amount in over 2 years. We get streams, but the amount you get is miniscule compared to a single sale.
• smilbandit 8y ago
  I spend $180 on the family plan per year and I have for nearly 10 years because it's certainly convenient and allows for music exploration for my kids. Before spotify we used zune music pass.