Tell Me :
Talk
It's always been about owning your masters.
This sounds vaguely like a band I love that used to record...
Rod
Yikes! Yeah, I wasn't thinking of the Stones but it does ring - similar to the Mick and Monty Python bit.
I guess I just despise cover bands. At least the Stones are covering themselves!
what's the Mick and Monty Python bit?
plexi
You could try Apple Music (iTunes) with 'iTunes Match' where you can upload your ripped files and Apple exchanges the files to the full quality iTunes-version - [Support.Apple.com] , [en.Wikipedia.org] . iTunes is Cloud-based so that your Music is always available on every of your (Apple) devices. Apple has beside Streaming also a 24/7 Music-Radio-Station, called 'Apple Music 1' - [en.Wikipedia.org] . Apple Music works on Android devices - [Support.Apple.com] .
Google really screwed up by getting rid of Google Play Music. I can't stand YouTube Music. It's awful. It's garbage. I was furious when they got rid of GPM because I had bought a good amount of downloads, some that I really loved, like the THE BEATLES and ABBEY ROAD deluxe reissues... and it turned out to be a waste of money. Had I known they were gonna get rid of it I would've stopped using it and put my music on a similar site, which I did find, but I lost interest.
Amazon's music player is a lot like GPM but it's only the free rips I have on there from buying CDs. I'm not interested in paying for it like AppleMusic or Spotify. A majority of what I listen to on Spotify is music I own anyway.
With what little I listen to music these days it's mostly Spotify. I had a ton of CDs on my PC but I removed a lot of it so it wasn't so bogged down. I bought two boom boxes with CD players so when I want to really listen to something I play CDs, which I've found to be extremely rewarding again.
True, and another example is NETFLIX. Great business, great company, but certain movies/programs 'disappear' when they don't renew the license. You now need to subscribe to another service, if you can even find it again. Physical copies, or at least your own digital copy for things you want to view again can have it's advantages.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
OT: The music streaming debate
Posted by:
dmay
()
Date: April 11, 2021 18:41
Interesting commentary on the music biz today. The suits always seem to reign. It explains a bit about why artists are selling off their song catalogs. Also made me think I'd hate to be a young artist/band trying to break into the music industry today.
[www.theguardian.com]
[www.theguardian.com]
Re: OT: The music streaming debate
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: April 13, 2021 05:46
It's beyond absurd for any record label to cry about losing money for A&R etc. They spend nowhere near the percentage they did in the 1970s, 80s or 90s. There's no reason to.
Artists without a major or even indie record label, which is probably most of them, pay all or a majority of production costs, which is in the thousands, pounds, Euros or US dollars and etc.
Getting .04 cents or whatever per stream... there's no equation to when people bought 45s or LPs (regardless of format). Steve Jobs was against streaming when the iPod came out... yet AppleMusic is one of if not the biggest streaming services.
There are those who will record for artistic integrity and those that can afford to do whatever. One day both will meet in the middle of Nope, not doing this anymore.
Unless an artist, a successful one at that, owns their record label, little artists and bands will just have to keep plugging away with the current set up to simply be heard (listened to, hopefully).
The industry, including radio, has been dead for years - it just doesn't know it yet and continues on with what is now an archaic mindset.
At least it seems that way, anyway. What the hell do I know. Well, I know a little. But it hasn't helped. Yet.
Artists without a major or even indie record label, which is probably most of them, pay all or a majority of production costs, which is in the thousands, pounds, Euros or US dollars and etc.
Getting .04 cents or whatever per stream... there's no equation to when people bought 45s or LPs (regardless of format). Steve Jobs was against streaming when the iPod came out... yet AppleMusic is one of if not the biggest streaming services.
There are those who will record for artistic integrity and those that can afford to do whatever. One day both will meet in the middle of Nope, not doing this anymore.
Unless an artist, a successful one at that, owns their record label, little artists and bands will just have to keep plugging away with the current set up to simply be heard (listened to, hopefully).
The industry, including radio, has been dead for years - it just doesn't know it yet and continues on with what is now an archaic mindset.
At least it seems that way, anyway. What the hell do I know. Well, I know a little. But it hasn't helped. Yet.
Re: OT: The music streaming debate
Posted by:
longlongwinter
()
Date: April 13, 2021 06:06
Well said and very accurate! Our boy Mick was way ahead of his time in creating Rolling Stones records in 1970 or so.
Re: OT: The music streaming debate
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: April 13, 2021 08:09
Quote
longlongwinter
Well said and very accurate! Our boy Mick was way ahead of his time in creating Rolling Stones records in 1970 or so.
It's always been about owning your masters.
Re: OT: The music streaming debate
Posted by:
Irix
()
Date: April 17, 2021 01:20
Apple Music pays 1 penny per stream, according to The Wall Street Journal. Spotify pays an average of one-third to one-half penny per stream (its larger user base generates many more streams) - [www.WSJ.com] , [iorr.org] .
See also: "Where the money currently goes in case of Music Streaming" - [iorr.org] .
Artists still get more royalties from Streaming-Services than from AM/FM-Radio airplay - [iorr.org] .
"Artists at the end of the year get the cost of a Pizza without pepperoni" - [iorr.org] .
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-04-17 02:35 by Irix.
See also: "Where the money currently goes in case of Music Streaming" - [iorr.org] .
Artists still get more royalties from Streaming-Services than from AM/FM-Radio airplay - [iorr.org] .
"Artists at the end of the year get the cost of a Pizza without pepperoni" - [iorr.org] .
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-04-17 02:35 by Irix.
Re: OT: The music streaming debate
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: April 17, 2021 03:53
If one is an artist or in a band and wants to develop a following - have people come to shows - then having music out - available for streaming wherever - is just what has to be done.
It costs a lot of money to record. It's the cost for artistic integrity now. Is it ever made back? No. Most likely not. But if it's what one wants to do that's just the way it is. You ever get your money back from paying a plumber to fix your broken pipe? No. But you may have them do the next repair.
It's that similar.
If you don't want to be a musician/band/artist doing your own thing then there's no need to be an artist that records, just go play weddings or the stupid roadhouse in town that prefers to hire cover bands or whatever festival that hires cover bands and do the same old boring stupid boring songs that everyone knows and can hear on the radio - or Spotify etc - any day.
In a hundred years none of this will matter.
It costs a lot of money to record. It's the cost for artistic integrity now. Is it ever made back? No. Most likely not. But if it's what one wants to do that's just the way it is. You ever get your money back from paying a plumber to fix your broken pipe? No. But you may have them do the next repair.
It's that similar.
If you don't want to be a musician/band/artist doing your own thing then there's no need to be an artist that records, just go play weddings or the stupid roadhouse in town that prefers to hire cover bands or whatever festival that hires cover bands and do the same old boring stupid boring songs that everyone knows and can hear on the radio - or Spotify etc - any day.
In a hundred years none of this will matter.
Re: OT: The music streaming debate
Posted by:
bitusa2012
()
Date: April 17, 2021 06:15
Quote
GasLightStreet
If you don't want to be a musician/band/artist doing your own thing then there's no need to be an artist that records, just go play weddings or the stupid roadhouse in town that prefers to hire cover bands or whatever festival that hires cover bands and do the same old boring stupid boring songs that everyone knows and can hear on the radio - or Spotify etc - any day.
This sounds vaguely like a band I love that used to record...
Rod
Re: OT: The music streaming debate
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: April 18, 2021 03:07
Quote
bitusa2012Quote
GasLightStreet
If you don't want to be a musician/band/artist doing your own thing then there's no need to be an artist that records, just go play weddings or the stupid roadhouse in town that prefers to hire cover bands or whatever festival that hires cover bands and do the same old boring stupid boring songs that everyone knows and can hear on the radio - or Spotify etc - any day.
This sounds vaguely like a band I love that used to record...
Yikes! Yeah, I wasn't thinking of the Stones but it does ring - similar to the Mick and Monty Python bit.
I guess I just despise cover bands. At least the Stones are covering themselves!
Re: OT: The music streaming debate
Posted by:
timbernardis
()
Date: April 18, 2021 12:35
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
bitusa2012Quote
GasLightStreet
If you don't want to be a musician/band/artist doing your own thing then there's no need to be an artist that records, just go play weddings or the stupid roadhouse in town that prefers to hire cover bands or whatever festival that hires cover bands and do the same old boring stupid boring songs that everyone knows and can hear on the radio - or Spotify etc - any day.
This sounds vaguely like a band I love that used to record...
Yikes! Yeah, I wasn't thinking of the Stones but it does ring - similar to the Mick and Monty Python bit.
I guess I just despise cover bands. At least the Stones are covering themselves!
what's the Mick and Monty Python bit?
plexi
Re: OT: The music streaming debate
Posted by:
Nate
()
Date: April 18, 2021 13:04
Long time ago water used to be free and everyone paid for music.
Nate
Nate
Re: OT: The music streaming debate
Posted by:
kovach
()
Date: April 19, 2021 16:43
Spotify (and perhaps my family) gives me fits.
My family was tired of hearing so much of my music on family trips, because I probably have 5X the music my wife and kid have combined.
We could never agree on SIRIUSXM channels either, I bounce around between Outlaw Country, Classic Vinyl, Margaritaville, reggae, blues, my kid loves heavy metal and my wife is stuck in the 80s, so I cancelled it.
So rather than search for my favorite 5k songs I've ripped to WMA's, I found a way to convert to MP3 and upload to Spotify and download to our devices (yes, I know audiophiles, lossy is bad enough, converting is even worse, but they sound surpringly good!).
All just to get back to my favorite songs before and allow my family access to a bunch more quickly and cheaply.
The end result is my kid has a more varied musical taste than I thought and matched my ~5k songs, my wife is still stuck in the 80s so now hears her music half as much as before and now doesn't like Spotify.
I do wish somebody had something more like Google Play Music that had a music manager that backed up your stored files automagically for playing in any device so you could log into your Google account and play anywhere, but sadly that's gone and its replacement, YouTube Music, is a far cry from its predecessor.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-04-19 19:34 by kovach.
My family was tired of hearing so much of my music on family trips, because I probably have 5X the music my wife and kid have combined.
We could never agree on SIRIUSXM channels either, I bounce around between Outlaw Country, Classic Vinyl, Margaritaville, reggae, blues, my kid loves heavy metal and my wife is stuck in the 80s, so I cancelled it.
So rather than search for my favorite 5k songs I've ripped to WMA's, I found a way to convert to MP3 and upload to Spotify and download to our devices (yes, I know audiophiles, lossy is bad enough, converting is even worse, but they sound surpringly good!).
All just to get back to my favorite songs before and allow my family access to a bunch more quickly and cheaply.
The end result is my kid has a more varied musical taste than I thought and matched my ~5k songs, my wife is still stuck in the 80s so now hears her music half as much as before and now doesn't like Spotify.
I do wish somebody had something more like Google Play Music that had a music manager that backed up your stored files automagically for playing in any device so you could log into your Google account and play anywhere, but sadly that's gone and its replacement, YouTube Music, is a far cry from its predecessor.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-04-19 19:34 by kovach.
Re: OT: The music streaming debate
Posted by:
Irix
()
Date: April 19, 2021 19:35
Quote
kovach
I do wish somebody had something more like Google Play Music that had a music manager that backed up your stored files automagically for playing in any device so you could log into your Google account and play anywhere
You could try Apple Music (iTunes) with 'iTunes Match' where you can upload your ripped files and Apple exchanges the files to the full quality iTunes-version - [Support.Apple.com] , [en.Wikipedia.org] . iTunes is Cloud-based so that your Music is always available on every of your (Apple) devices. Apple has beside Streaming also a 24/7 Music-Radio-Station, called 'Apple Music 1' - [en.Wikipedia.org] . Apple Music works on Android devices - [Support.Apple.com] .
Re: OT: The music streaming debate
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: April 20, 2021 03:34
Quote
kovach
Spotify (and perhaps my family) gives me fits.
My family was tired of hearing so much of my music on family trips, because I probably have 5X the music my wife and kid have combined.
We could never agree on SIRIUSXM channels either, I bounce around between Outlaw Country, Classic Vinyl, Margaritaville, reggae, blues, my kid loves heavy metal and my wife is stuck in the 80s, so I cancelled it.
So rather than search for my favorite 5k songs I've ripped to WMA's, I found a way to convert to MP3 and upload to Spotify and download to our devices (yes, I know audiophiles, lossy is bad enough, converting is even worse, but they sound surpringly good!).
All just to get back to my favorite songs before and allow my family access to a bunch more quickly and cheaply.
The end result is my kid has a more varied musical taste than I thought and matched my ~5k songs, my wife is still stuck in the 80s so now hears her music half as much as before and now doesn't like Spotify.
I do wish somebody had something more like Google Play Music that had a music manager that backed up your stored files automagically for playing in any device so you could log into your Google account and play anywhere, but sadly that's gone and its replacement, YouTube Music, is a far cry from its predecessor.
Google really screwed up by getting rid of Google Play Music. I can't stand YouTube Music. It's awful. It's garbage. I was furious when they got rid of GPM because I had bought a good amount of downloads, some that I really loved, like the THE BEATLES and ABBEY ROAD deluxe reissues... and it turned out to be a waste of money. Had I known they were gonna get rid of it I would've stopped using it and put my music on a similar site, which I did find, but I lost interest.
Amazon's music player is a lot like GPM but it's only the free rips I have on there from buying CDs. I'm not interested in paying for it like AppleMusic or Spotify. A majority of what I listen to on Spotify is music I own anyway.
With what little I listen to music these days it's mostly Spotify. I had a ton of CDs on my PC but I removed a lot of it so it wasn't so bogged down. I bought two boom boxes with CD players so when I want to really listen to something I play CDs, which I've found to be extremely rewarding again.
Re: OT: The music streaming debate
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: April 20, 2021 03:41
Quote
timbernardisQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
bitusa2012Quote
GasLightStreet
If you don't want to be a musician/band/artist doing your own thing then there's no need to be an artist that records, just go play weddings or the stupid roadhouse in town that prefers to hire cover bands or whatever festival that hires cover bands and do the same old boring stupid boring songs that everyone knows and can hear on the radio - or Spotify etc - any day.
This sounds vaguely like a band I love that used to record...
Yikes! Yeah, I wasn't thinking of the Stones but it does ring - similar to the Mick and Monty Python bit.
I guess I just despise cover bands. At least the Stones are covering themselves!
what's the Mick and Monty Python bit?
plexi
Re: OT: The music streaming debate
Posted by:
daspyknows
()
Date: April 20, 2021 07:07
I can stream anything from my own collection from my hightail account. I mostly listen to live recordings and this works great for it. I also use the site for my cloud storage. It is $15/month unlimited storage. Not interested in paying for Spotify or other services.
Re: OT: The music streaming debate
Posted by:
Green Lady
()
Date: April 21, 2021 13:54
What you have to remember about streaming services is that you are basically buying a tailored radio station: the music is never yours and can be withdrawn or cancelled at any time. Fine for well known stuff that will always be around, but for anything unusual that you really value, it's worth having a personal copy. It's like all those photo-hosting sites - lovely until they pull the Photobucket blackmail trick on you or go out of business taking your collection with them.
Re: OT: The music streaming debate
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: April 21, 2021 16:21
Quote
Green Lady
What you have to remember about streaming services is that you are basically buying a tailored radio station: the music is never yours and can be withdrawn or cancelled at any time. Fine for well known stuff that will always be around, but for anything unusual that you really value, it's worth having a personal copy. It's like all those photo-hosting sites - lovely until they pull the Photobucket blackmail trick on you or go out of business taking your collection with them.
True, and another example is NETFLIX. Great business, great company, but certain movies/programs 'disappear' when they don't renew the license. You now need to subscribe to another service, if you can even find it again. Physical copies, or at least your own digital copy for things you want to view again can have it's advantages.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1791
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10