5 ms·

I don't know if I even need to continue supporting Spotify anymore. Between Discogs and YouTube, I am having no trouble discovering and acquiring high quality

I don't know if I even need to continue supporting Spotify anymore. Between Discogs and YouTube, I am having no trouble discovering and acquiring high quality content that can be used arbitrarily. For a period of time, I thought that old-school CDs were actually dead. Today, I get regular emails from la-la land records about incredibly esoteric 90s cartoon soundtracks that I can purchase new. I believe that there has never been a better time to get into physical media. I've got a lot of stuff on hand that you cannot listen to on Spotify. You won't even find some of these artists or "labels" in there. Spotify also puts me in a really bad mood when they decide certain content is no longer permitted for playback. Every time this happens I spend about 3 hours ripping my most recently-favorited tracks via audio driver trickery, just in case it happens again. The only value proposition for me is that their app is ubiquitous and can be controlled from any device. If I could find something similar to the Spotify application experience that I could point at my own backend, I think I might go for it. And, I totally get the other target audience: People who just want some mindless background music or podcast while they drive or do cardio. Spotify is amazing at this, but it's not really a big selling point for me. Definitely not enough value for me to pay a monthly subscription fee.

mjr00 4y ago
> Spotify also puts me in a really bad mood when they decide certain content is no longer permitted for playback. As far as I know, this is rarely Spotify's choice; usually this is done by an artist, or more commonly their distributor, intentionally pulling their music from platforms.
- tartoran 4y ago
  Well, that’s because they get paid in peanut dust and breadcrumbs
  - mjr00 4y ago
    True but it's also really cheap to get/keep your music on there if you want. Distrokid is $20/year, CDBaby is $5 one-time per track/album, and if you just want Spotify specifically you can do it through Amuse for free (with slow release times and # of track limitations), or onerpm if you're willing to give away a % of the royalties.
    - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
      That means someone isn't using the other playback or download method that pays more.
- dotancohen 4y ago
  I just signed up for Spotify recently, and was completely flabbergasted to discover that an album that I've been listening to for over thirty years was rerecorded by the original artist, and the original album is now unobtainable. This rerecording is horrible, unlistenable, and I fear that this is the version that will be recognized in legacy because it is all that Spotify makes available. No, Spotify as a business is not to blame here. But the concept of storing our media in a fashion which allows it to be erased or altered (e.g. in the cloud) has consequences.
  - daydream 4y ago
    Curious - what album?
    - 1_1xdev 4y ago
      Not who you replied to, but one example is Megadeth — most of their albums from the 80s and 90s are only available remastered. I wouldn’t call them unlistenable but they are different. They do have one album, “Peace Sells… but Who’s Buying”, available with TWO DIFFERENT remasters but no original.
      - dotancohen 4y ago
        You nailed it. I was specifically referring to Rust in Peace, but the rest of the early albums suffer the same. For me the albums are unlistenable because I can hear that it's not e.g. Marty playing on Rust. And the songs are just slightly different in so many places, it is unexpected and unnerving to hear something one is so familiar with being suddenly altered. I'll listen to most performances of e.g. Beethoven's 9th and enjoy and embrace the changes and differences. Likewise, I'll listen to Rust in concert with the different guitarists and drummers (and bassist now) and enjoy their interpretations of the music. But albums recorded by the original artists are in my opinion a canonical immutable piece - some remasters for sound quality may be in order (The Beatles are a great example) but those remasters aim for preserving the original art. Not so with these rerecordngs which serve only to cut royalty payments to the original guitarist and drummer with whom Dave is now in a feud, the art itself (and fans of the art) be damned.
- rchaud 4y ago
  ...likely because Spotify offered a pittance to continue licensing the music. Bait and switch is the name of the game with Spotify and Netflix. No wonder they're shoveling money into creating their mostly garbage IP they can own.
teawrecks 4y ago
I was tired of Spotify's dominance in the music streaming space vs how poor their UI is, how little they pay artists, and how anticompetitive they grew vs other services (ex. last.fm scrobbling). I switched to buying tracks from artists, using Plex to stream the tracks from my home server, and using Tidal to stream tracks I don't have yet. What's nice is Plex also supports Tidal integration, so I have all my music in one place. It's not a perfect experience, but if I'm going to put my money toward a subpar experience, I'd rather it go to an underdog. Also, Tidal supposedly gives a slightly larger fraction of the profits to artists. Ironically, from what I could find online, Napster apparently gives the largest fraction.
- Bombthecat 4y ago
  Tidal will sooner or later cut plex out too...
  - teawrecks 4y ago
    Maybe, if they don't want me as a customer anymore. I almost exclusively use their service via plexamp, and I'm sure they know that. IMO it's in all but the largest streaming service' best interest to allow more ways for customers to access their service. It's their best chance at disruption. I don't see tidal cutting off plex until tidal feels dominant, or the plex userbase is too small. As long as Spotify and Apple are competitors, I don't see them feeling that level of dominance, but the number of people using plex tidal integration probably isn't huge...which is why I'm mentioning it in this thread!
lelandfe 4y ago
> You won't even find some of these artists or "labels" in there. Indeed! All of Traumprinz / Giegling are not on any streaming service (but are often wonderful) https://www.discogs.com/label/144751-Giegling https://www.discogs.com/label/144751-Giegling Some artists do limited runs, eg a handful of cassettes. Here’s one that was a 50 count run of USB sticks: https://www.discogs.com/release/14433973-Benton-Volume-Two https://www.discogs.com/release/14433973-Benton-Volume-Two
gjsman-1000 4y ago
Don't even need Audio driver trickery. All you need is a desktop PC, and a 3.5mm jack cable with male ends on both sides, about $5 on Amazon. Plug the headphone jack output into the line in and hit Record. Quality is decent enough, and its so stupidly easy that it becomes obvious why Audio Copy Protection DRM never had a chance.
- mkup 4y ago
  HDMI capture on desktop via USB-C to HDMI adapter can give even better quality, audio is transmitted digitally via HDMI.
Fatnino 4y ago
Theres also the bit where Spotify traffic is zero rated on tmobile. But net neutrality, blah blah blah. I strongly lean towards spotify instead of YouTube for music solely because of this.
siquick 4y ago
If you haven’t tried already it’s worth looking at Bandcamp. There are a lot of new CDs (and tapes and vinyl) for sale on there from independent labels.
antigirl 4y ago
Why would I want physical media? I listen to music on the go, at the gym, working, traveling and with friends. Do you have any favourite artists? what do you do when they have a new release? surely Spotify monthly sub out weighs the cost of buying new albums. I love the discover feature, I love being able to search for any artist, at any time - my taste changes with my mood. Not sure how YouTube even compares, especially with adverts, their monthly sub is costs more than spotify. BTW i'm an 80s kid and used to collect a lot of vinyl. I love physical media but it doesn't compare to what Spotify is offering, especially for 10.99 EUR/month
- matkoniecz 4y ago
  > Why would I want physical media? For me? So I am free to CD-rip them. I would be also fine with DRM-free digital files.
- rchaud 4y ago
  > Why would I want physical media? To put something on the shelves at home, perhaps? When I buy a record or Tshirt at a show, I know that a significant portion of the profit goes directly to the artist. When I pay for a Spotify subscription, it's like cable TV --- I'm paying for a bunch of crap I'm never going to watch/listen to.

mjr00 4y ago

> Spotify also puts me in a really bad mood when they decide certain content is no longer permitted for playback. As far as I know, this is rarely Spotify's choice; usually this is done by an artist, or more commonly their distributor, intentionally pulling their music from platforms.

tartoran 4y ago
Well, that’s because they get paid in peanut dust and breadcrumbs
- mjr00 4y ago
  True but it's also really cheap to get/keep your music on there if you want. Distrokid is $20/year, CDBaby is $5 one-time per track/album, and if you just want Spotify specifically you can do it through Amuse for free (with slow release times and # of track limitations), or onerpm if you're willing to give away a % of the royalties.
  - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
    That means someone isn't using the other playback or download method that pays more.
dotancohen 4y ago
I just signed up for Spotify recently, and was completely flabbergasted to discover that an album that I've been listening to for over thirty years was rerecorded by the original artist, and the original album is now unobtainable. This rerecording is horrible, unlistenable, and I fear that this is the version that will be recognized in legacy because it is all that Spotify makes available. No, Spotify as a business is not to blame here. But the concept of storing our media in a fashion which allows it to be erased or altered (e.g. in the cloud) has consequences.
- daydream 4y ago
  Curious - what album?
  - 1_1xdev 4y ago
    Not who you replied to, but one example is Megadeth — most of their albums from the 80s and 90s are only available remastered. I wouldn’t call them unlistenable but they are different. They do have one album, “Peace Sells… but Who’s Buying”, available with TWO DIFFERENT remasters but no original.
    - dotancohen 4y ago
      You nailed it. I was specifically referring to Rust in Peace, but the rest of the early albums suffer the same. For me the albums are unlistenable because I can hear that it's not e.g. Marty playing on Rust. And the songs are just slightly different in so many places, it is unexpected and unnerving to hear something one is so familiar with being suddenly altered. I'll listen to most performances of e.g. Beethoven's 9th and enjoy and embrace the changes and differences. Likewise, I'll listen to Rust in concert with the different guitarists and drummers (and bassist now) and enjoy their interpretations of the music. But albums recorded by the original artists are in my opinion a canonical immutable piece - some remasters for sound quality may be in order (The Beatles are a great example) but those remasters aim for preserving the original art. Not so with these rerecordngs which serve only to cut royalty payments to the original guitarist and drummer with whom Dave is now in a feud, the art itself (and fans of the art) be damned.
rchaud 4y ago
...likely because Spotify offered a pittance to continue licensing the music. Bait and switch is the name of the game with Spotify and Netflix. No wonder they're shoveling money into creating their mostly garbage IP they can own.

teawrecks 4y ago

I was tired of Spotify's dominance in the music streaming space vs how poor their UI is, how little they pay artists, and how anticompetitive they grew vs other services (ex. last.fm scrobbling). I switched to buying tracks from artists, using Plex to stream the tracks from my home server, and using Tidal to stream tracks I don't have yet. What's nice is Plex also supports Tidal integration, so I have all my music in one place. It's not a perfect experience, but if I'm going to put my money toward a subpar experience, I'd rather it go to an underdog. Also, Tidal supposedly gives a slightly larger fraction of the profits to artists. Ironically, from what I could find online, Napster apparently gives the largest fraction.

Bombthecat 4y ago
Tidal will sooner or later cut plex out too...
- teawrecks 4y ago
  Maybe, if they don't want me as a customer anymore. I almost exclusively use their service via plexamp, and I'm sure they know that. IMO it's in all but the largest streaming service' best interest to allow more ways for customers to access their service. It's their best chance at disruption. I don't see tidal cutting off plex until tidal feels dominant, or the plex userbase is too small. As long as Spotify and Apple are competitors, I don't see them feeling that level of dominance, but the number of people using plex tidal integration probably isn't huge...which is why I'm mentioning it in this thread!

lelandfe 4y ago

> You won't even find some of these artists or "labels" in there. Indeed! All of Traumprinz / Giegling are not on any streaming service (but are often wonderful) https://www.discogs.com/label/144751-Giegling https://www.discogs.com/label/144751-Giegling Some artists do limited runs, eg a handful of cassettes. Here’s one that was a 50 count run of USB sticks: https://www.discogs.com/release/14433973-Benton-Volume-Two https://www.discogs.com/release/14433973-Benton-Volume-Two

gjsman-1000 4y ago

Don't even need Audio driver trickery. All you need is a desktop PC, and a 3.5mm jack cable with male ends on both sides, about $5 on Amazon. Plug the headphone jack output into the line in and hit Record. Quality is decent enough, and its so stupidly easy that it becomes obvious why Audio Copy Protection DRM never had a chance.

mkup 4y ago
HDMI capture on desktop via USB-C to HDMI adapter can give even better quality, audio is transmitted digitally via HDMI.

Fatnino 4y ago

Theres also the bit where Spotify traffic is zero rated on tmobile. But net neutrality, blah blah blah. I strongly lean towards spotify instead of YouTube for music solely because of this.

siquick 4y ago

If you haven’t tried already it’s worth looking at Bandcamp. There are a lot of new CDs (and tapes and vinyl) for sale on there from independent labels.

antigirl 4y ago

Why would I want physical media? I listen to music on the go, at the gym, working, traveling and with friends. Do you have any favourite artists? what do you do when they have a new release? surely Spotify monthly sub out weighs the cost of buying new albums. I love the discover feature, I love being able to search for any artist, at any time - my taste changes with my mood. Not sure how YouTube even compares, especially with adverts, their monthly sub is costs more than spotify. BTW i'm an 80s kid and used to collect a lot of vinyl. I love physical media but it doesn't compare to what Spotify is offering, especially for 10.99 EUR/month

matkoniecz 4y ago
> Why would I want physical media? For me? So I am free to CD-rip them. I would be also fine with DRM-free digital files.
rchaud 4y ago
> Why would I want physical media? To put something on the shelves at home, perhaps? When I buy a record or Tshirt at a show, I know that a significant portion of the profit goes directly to the artist. When I pay for a Spotify subscription, it's like cable TV --- I'm paying for a bunch of crap I'm never going to watch/listen to.