5 ms·

> 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 ch

by 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.

by mjr00 4y ago

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.