2 ms·

Actually, I disagree that there is more good music produced and released by major labels in a single month than you could ever listen to, although I liked the i

Actually, I disagree that there is more good music produced and released by major labels in a single month than you could ever listen to, although I liked the implied condescension of "tragically limited tastes" And this is essentially a thought experiment - extend it out to a year, where you're downloading 24/7 and what I'm saying holds true. Paying a fixed amount for (legal) unlimited DRM free downloads isn't a model that's going to work.

JonnieCache 16y ago
There is a lot more on spotify than the major labels. And even the majors put out a lot of good music beyond what makes it into the charts. And it doesn't make sense to consider someone downloading 24/7 because unless you're on dialup, you can download a lot more than 24 hours of music in 24 hours. However it is clear than the value you get from spotify and similar services is very much determined by your attitudes to music. If you cast your net wide and look for gems from across all styles and niches of music, then it's easily worth it. If you just want to listen to indulge your relatively static tastes in the one or two areas of music that concern you, then its a less obvious choice. The question is, are there enough obsessive people who are into Music in the wider sense, and have a need for on demand "random access" to any and all artists/genres, to sustain spotify? Because they are the people for whom the service makes sense. People who want to listen to the same 50-100 albums on rotation are unlikely to be persuaded by the pricing model. PS. Yeah, "tragically limited" was a thoughtlessly flippant thing to say. Didn't mean to be so condescending. Compare it to the attitude of a hacker looking down on someone who doesn't feel the need to learn anything except Java because it "does the job" :)
swombat 16y ago
Having lots of music does not preclude you from discovering more music that you like. Extend it to a lifetime, and in the last year I would still be downloading new music.

JonnieCache 16y ago

There is a lot more on spotify than the major labels. And even the majors put out a lot of good music beyond what makes it into the charts. And it doesn't make sense to consider someone downloading 24/7 because unless you're on dialup, you can download a lot more than 24 hours of music in 24 hours. However it is clear than the value you get from spotify and similar services is very much determined by your attitudes to music. If you cast your net wide and look for gems from across all styles and niches of music, then it's easily worth it. If you just want to listen to indulge your relatively static tastes in the one or two areas of music that concern you, then its a less obvious choice. The question is, are there enough obsessive people who are into Music in the wider sense, and have a need for on demand "random access" to any and all artists/genres, to sustain spotify? Because they are the people for whom the service makes sense. People who want to listen to the same 50-100 albums on rotation are unlikely to be persuaded by the pricing model. PS. Yeah, "tragically limited" was a thoughtlessly flippant thing to say. Didn't mean to be so condescending. Compare it to the attitude of a hacker looking down on someone who doesn't feel the need to learn anything except Java because it "does the job" :)

swombat 16y ago

Having lots of music does not preclude you from discovering more music that you like. Extend it to a lifetime, and in the last year I would still be downloading new music.