Spotify's U.S. Landing Page(spotify.com)
spotify.com
Spotify's U.S. Landing Page
http://www.spotify.com/uk/coming-to-the-us/
67 comments
It seems that we're quickly heading toward a point where all music becomes essentially free [1], and serves only as PR for boosting ticket sales. Keep in mind that, currently, most musicians can be broken into two groups:
1. Superstars that make so much money that they won't be missing your Spotify dollars.
2. Most other musicians, who don't really make that much off album sales compared to ticket sales (unless they sell physical CDs at their concerts, in which case, maybe).
I'm curious if there are any indie musicians out there with a different opinion, though.
[1] http://techcrunch.com/2008/11/08/360-music-deals-become-mand...
1. Superstars that make so much money that they won't be missing your Spotify dollars.
2. Most other musicians, who don't really make that much off album sales compared to ticket sales (unless they sell physical CDs at their concerts, in which case, maybe).
I'm curious if there are any indie musicians out there with a different opinion, though.
[1] http://techcrunch.com/2008/11/08/360-music-deals-become-mand...
My take as a former professional classical musician is to say that your idea of PR boosting ticket sales is not valid for (at least most) classical music. That's not to say you're incorrect, just to add a different (hopefully slightly interesting) perspective from another genre with a very different audience.
One reason for this is that classical music is focussed much more on the music than the musician, when compared to "popular music" (what's the best term for non-classical music that doesn't sound patronising?). Sure, Yo-Yo Ma or the London Philharmonic can attract people based on who they are, but even then a lot of decisions to see them or buy their recordings will be based on what they are playing. If you're a Katy Perry fan, chances are slim that you really want to see her live, look up a concert, then say "ah, but I'm not a fan of those songs, I'll give it a miss".
Another reason is probably range of repertoire - again this comes down to caring more about the music, not having the piece tied directly to the person/group who always performs it. If you love Francois Couperin's music, you're going to find it a lot easier to buy recordings than find performances. I suppose the same is true for indie performers, but I think a classical listener is more likely to find a wider range of classical music that's hard to see live than the equivilent situation for indie music.
Probably plenty more reasons too, but not too much off the top of my head. Oh, and demand I guess. A classical music concert will typically either perform once, or perform a short run, or perform a few times in different cities (or countries). That's the case even for the very biggest performers. A big pop performer, on the other hand, can do a much longer tour, and can sell far more tickets for each.
As to recordings, I think classical recordings have a longer shelf life - sure, some people still buy music from the 80s, or whenever, but much less than around when it was released. Whereas classical music, all the music is so dated (not in a negative way, just literally) that who cares if it was recorded a month ago or thirty years ago, if it was originally written centuries ago. On top of that, I suspect classical music listeners are less likely to pirate music. Possibly that's a generic snobbish view, but I think it's accurate.
One reason for this is that classical music is focussed much more on the music than the musician, when compared to "popular music" (what's the best term for non-classical music that doesn't sound patronising?). Sure, Yo-Yo Ma or the London Philharmonic can attract people based on who they are, but even then a lot of decisions to see them or buy their recordings will be based on what they are playing. If you're a Katy Perry fan, chances are slim that you really want to see her live, look up a concert, then say "ah, but I'm not a fan of those songs, I'll give it a miss".
Another reason is probably range of repertoire - again this comes down to caring more about the music, not having the piece tied directly to the person/group who always performs it. If you love Francois Couperin's music, you're going to find it a lot easier to buy recordings than find performances. I suppose the same is true for indie performers, but I think a classical listener is more likely to find a wider range of classical music that's hard to see live than the equivilent situation for indie music.
Probably plenty more reasons too, but not too much off the top of my head. Oh, and demand I guess. A classical music concert will typically either perform once, or perform a short run, or perform a few times in different cities (or countries). That's the case even for the very biggest performers. A big pop performer, on the other hand, can do a much longer tour, and can sell far more tickets for each.
As to recordings, I think classical recordings have a longer shelf life - sure, some people still buy music from the 80s, or whenever, but much less than around when it was released. Whereas classical music, all the music is so dated (not in a negative way, just literally) that who cares if it was recorded a month ago or thirty years ago, if it was originally written centuries ago. On top of that, I suspect classical music listeners are less likely to pirate music. Possibly that's a generic snobbish view, but I think it's accurate.
When people talk about artists compensating fewer sales with more concert revenues, they always forget that not every artist is an indie rock band - there are genres that are less likely to be enjoyed live.
For instance think about that ambient, downtempo artist whose music is primarily meant for quiet listening sessions at home. Furthermore I could very well imagine that this kind of music and probably a lot of other niche stuff won't make their listeners buy fan shirts - there are genres that are less suited for live gigs and whose audience won't be attracted to merchandising.
To cut it short - what may work for a majority of artists isn't necessarily the solution for everyone and shouldn't be considered as a general fact that compensates for lower sales revenue or even justifies it.
For instance think about that ambient, downtempo artist whose music is primarily meant for quiet listening sessions at home. Furthermore I could very well imagine that this kind of music and probably a lot of other niche stuff won't make their listeners buy fan shirts - there are genres that are less suited for live gigs and whose audience won't be attracted to merchandising.
To cut it short - what may work for a majority of artists isn't necessarily the solution for everyone and shouldn't be considered as a general fact that compensates for lower sales revenue or even justifies it.
The group (user) consensus on music seems to be that it should be, for the most part, accessible for free, and that live shows are how music is expected to be monetized. That seems like pretty ridiculous and greedy reasoning on the behalf of consumers. You're essentially eliminating one large revenue stream, in hopes that it generates new business in another revenue stream. While labels certainly rake plenty of revenue away from the artists, I think people largely underestimate the amount of money recorded music brings in to musicians, producers, songwriters, etc. Many people who are either not part of the tour, or who cannot tour, are going to be adversely affected by the incorrect idea that the music industry is zero-sum and revenues will just shift accordingly for all. If that were the case, the labels would have been on board a long time ago and 360 deals would be significantly more prevalent than they are.
There are lots of revenues to be lost by reducing, or making free, the cost of recorded music. How much is the Beatles catalog worth (in terms of albums sales, not licensing) and what is the lifetime value of their album sales vs. their touring receipts?
There are lots of revenues to be lost by reducing, or making free, the cost of recorded music. How much is the Beatles catalog worth (in terms of albums sales, not licensing) and what is the lifetime value of their album sales vs. their touring receipts?
I have different kind of problem, but related to this one: Spotify is partly owned by major labels, so when I pay those 9.99€ I help those guys survive, whereas I'd prefer them to go bankrupt and have a totally different model of music industry, as I find the old/current one being seriously broken.
As for the artists, I don't know, Spotify (and Internet in general) helps all those little bands to get some listeners, as discovering new artists is much easier now thanks to technology (20 years ago it all depended on labels, MTV and music press). As for the "big" artists? I don't think they should have been earning as much as they were during the heydays of music industry, nor do I feel like helping Mick Jagger or Bono funding a new yach or private jet.
As for the artists, I don't know, Spotify (and Internet in general) helps all those little bands to get some listeners, as discovering new artists is much easier now thanks to technology (20 years ago it all depended on labels, MTV and music press). As for the "big" artists? I don't think they should have been earning as much as they were during the heydays of music industry, nor do I feel like helping Mick Jagger or Bono funding a new yach or private jet.
You said in your first paragraph what took me this much to say http://copymix.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/on-music-industry-an...
I'm not sure if this is the case or not, and if it is then I don't have data to back it up, but a theory that, if correct, would mean you don't have to feel guilty: Just because you're giving less money for each song you listen to, you're also listening to many more songs, meaning more artists see your money. Add in many other people doing the same thing, and artists will be getting a smaller amount but from many more people, because of people who will listen to a song that they wouldn't have bothered paying to purchase.
I am totally willing to pay more than £10 a month for Spotify model. It's just so much more convenient. Besides, on Spotify I started listening to music which I would never buy otherwise.
Give the music away for free and sell subscriptions like Angels & Airwaves are doing with www.modlife.com
I've been a spotify subscriber for two years now, and it's more less the only player I use for music on my PC, mobile and ipad.
Together with the related artists feature of Spotify, Spotify social(sharing playlists etc.) and scrobbling to Last.fm, I've discovered lots of new music I enjoy. It really is fantastic. The client is also pretty quick and fairly sparesome on resource usage.
It's a bit annoying when music surreptitiously disappear from their library -- in that case you have to use local files.
Together with the related artists feature of Spotify, Spotify social(sharing playlists etc.) and scrobbling to Last.fm, I've discovered lots of new music I enjoy. It really is fantastic. The client is also pretty quick and fairly sparesome on resource usage.
It's a bit annoying when music surreptitiously disappear from their library -- in that case you have to use local files.
I know this is exciting to people who have been envious of UK Spotify, but we've had Rdio for like a year now, right? Rdio is pretty excellent.
I think it's going to depend on the selection for me.
Also, I have to say I really hate Rdio's queueing model. They make it really tough to just navigate the queue and add and remove various songs from different artists. For example, I find it really annoying when they add an entire album to my queue when I just pressed the play button on one song.
Also, I have to say I really hate Rdio's queueing model. They make it really tough to just navigate the queue and add and remove various songs from different artists. For example, I find it really annoying when they add an entire album to my queue when I just pressed the play button on one song.
Whats the difference between Spotify and Rhapsody? I've been a subscriber to Rhapsody for years and it's been a terrific experience.
Grooveshark already does everything listed. And it's been available in the USA for years. The only problem is their iPhone app has been continuously rejected by Apple so they've been forced to publish for iOS on Cydia's store for jailbroken apps. That and licensing/litigation issues with some large recording companies. They have deals with a few and have been through court with others.
Grooveshark is great and since moving the US I've used it a lot. Where I think Spotify wins out over Grooveshark is the quality of their music library. I frequently find that albums on Grooveshark are missing tracks, in the incorrect order, or are incorrectly named. I guess it's a little thing but it feels like a big difference.
I have no idea why it doesn't get more attention. Inferior marketing department, I suppose.
I don't think Grooveshark is a very good product, but I'm not crazy about Spotify either. Last time I used Spotify (about a year ago) they didn't even have the ability save albums to a collection or library. You could only create playlists which turned into terrible UI once you had more than a few. Not having a web interface is also a major minus in my book.
Grooveshark allows you to build a library of music, favorites, playlists, follow friends, find and buy concert tickets from Artists page through SongKick (YC 07), listen on your mobile device if you have Grooveshark Anywhere. Their other paid plan, Grooveshark Plus gives you access to early features before they're rolled out to the normal users like their desktop client, visualizations, Last.fm scrobbling, no limits on library + fav size and more.
If they can find a way to fix their content quality problem and licensing issues with the RIAA, they have a really bright future. They're the most innovative company in the space right now and I think it would be a damn shame if they were forced to close due to different recording companies constantly suing them and turning back on their settlement deals. Having to deal with EMI, Sony Warner MG, Universal and their ilk separately is part of the problem as well. The reason their iPhone app got pulled from the App Store[1] was because UMG filed a new copyright infringement lawsuit against them Jan 2010.
You have to understand they function quite similarly to how Youtube works and is obligated to follow the DMCA.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grooveshark#Legal_issues
If they can find a way to fix their content quality problem and licensing issues with the RIAA, they have a really bright future. They're the most innovative company in the space right now and I think it would be a damn shame if they were forced to close due to different recording companies constantly suing them and turning back on their settlement deals. Having to deal with EMI, Sony Warner MG, Universal and their ilk separately is part of the problem as well. The reason their iPhone app got pulled from the App Store[1] was because UMG filed a new copyright infringement lawsuit against them Jan 2010.
You have to understand they function quite similarly to how Youtube works and is obligated to follow the DMCA.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grooveshark#Legal_issues
The thing with Spotify is the 'adding albums to your collection' model isn't one they're keen to promote. The idea is really (as far as I can tell - and I've been a full-price paying user for a long while now) that you have this HUGE collection of music always available, and if you want to listen to an album - you search, then there's playlist support as well.
You can ofc save albums as a playlist on their own - and this is quite well supported, but personally, after the first 10 albums I'd saved there, I have never found it to be very useful.
You can ofc save albums as a playlist on their own - and this is quite well supported, but personally, after the first 10 albums I'd saved there, I have never found it to be very useful.
Sure, every subscription music service has search. It's essential, but navigating their entire library and navigating just stuff I like is not the same. Some times I just want to browse my favorite artists. I can't do this effectively on Spotify. The user experience here is bad. I don't think I'm the only person who wants to "favorite" albums.
All saved music lists in Spotify has clickable Album, Artist and Track links so in effect you can easily make "Album" lists. I have done that for ages.
The problem with music players is that not everyone wants to consume music in the same way.
BTW you can create folders of playlists. Between that and search, it makes it manageable enough for me.
BTW you can create folders of playlists. Between that and search, it makes it manageable enough for me.
[deleted]
Grooveshark is user uploaded which means duplicates, fakes, bad tagging (so the "same" song might have widely different total times). Use Grooveshark if you like trial/error in your music listening.
I've been using it for more than 3 years and have noticed lots of duplicates in searches like you mention, but the flagging feature has removed virtually all crappy songs. I bump in to way fewer of these types of tracks now than in 2008 when it was called Grooveshark Lite. The vast majority of songs are great quality. But I agree, there are lots of duplicates and bad tagging around.
Another upside to user uploaded content is that Grooveshark has a massive library of available songs. I have found the most obscure artists in different languages on Grooveshark. I listen to a lot of music and artists and there are very few musicians I haven't found on Grooveshark.
Another upside to user uploaded content is that Grooveshark has a massive library of available songs. I have found the most obscure artists in different languages on Grooveshark. I listen to a lot of music and artists and there are very few musicians I haven't found on Grooveshark.
With the recently updated jailbreak.me, I just jailbroke and installed Grooveshark for my iPhone just now.
Grooveshark should make a major marketing push given the current jailbreak window.
Grooveshark should make a major marketing push given the current jailbreak window.
Spotify has completely replaced iPod on my iOS devices and iTunes on my MacBook. Coming from Europe, I'm using Spotify in the States for over a month now so I guess that once you get a (paid) subscription it works everywhere in the world (it has no streaming restrictions). So all you need to do to try it out is create an account through a proxy/VPN and you're all set!
I've been paying for Spotify in the UK and been using the desktop client without any tricks in the US since moving here. The big problem is that the Spotify iPhone app isn't available in the US app store. Is there anyway around this?
Switch to (and pay in) the UK store, links at the bottom of the itunes store home page.
I pay for it too. Got addicted in Sweden... it changed the way I consume music. You go to a party and it's always just a laptop with spotify. You and everyone else can access your playlists or any song, anytime. It's brilliant.
I think as long as you can pay from an account in one of the licensed countries, it will work.
If you are interested in how Spotify works and how they use Python you should check out this talk from EuroPython: Spotify and Python: love at first sight
http://ep2011.europython.eu/conference/talks/spotify-and-pyt...
Earlier this year, Spotify put more restrictions on the services they offer to their non-paying users: http://www.spotify.com/blog/archives/2011/04/14/upcoming-cha... . For example, there is no more unlimited listening: each track can now be listened to only five times for free.
It might be that this tightening of free content was only a preparation for the U.S launch, i.e. the record labels would not let Spotify in to the U.S. market without Spotify changing its services to something more restricted.
It might be that this tightening of free content was only a preparation for the U.S launch, i.e. the record labels would not let Spotify in to the U.S. market without Spotify changing its services to something more restricted.
I believe Spotify paid the labels for each and every track played. So their burn rate was something like £20million per year. They needed to convert free users to paying users.
Personally I'm incredibly happy with Spotify.
Personally I'm incredibly happy with Spotify.
A few of us at our office have had beta access for a few weeks, everyone with it (for some reason I got left off the invite list :/) likes it, but the one person I know who also has an rdio account prefers rdio.
Spotify is an awesome service. Now we need Netflix to come to Europe.
is canada still shunned? or will it launch here with the US launch?
[deleted]
Rdio.com works in Canada, though you do occasionally run into artists/albums that are not "available in your region."
I'm wondering the same thing... No word in the news about Canada
This will likely never happen.
A couple of questions to Spotify users:
What advantages does Spotify have over Rdio? Can Spotify be used as a streaming service and a digital locker for tracks they don't have?
What advantages does Spotify have over Rdio? Can Spotify be used as a streaming service and a digital locker for tracks they don't have?
Im not sure since I've never used Rdio. But here is what I love about spotify (I am a premium subscriber for a laughable fee of £10 per month for all the ad-free music I want).
- The collection is enormous, and newly released albums become available pretty quickly. There are of course artists who are not available but there is so much out there its insane.
- The speed. Since its pretty much legalized P2P, I never need to wait for a song (well maybe sometimes there is latency but its rare).
- Its mobile, across international borders. I live in the UK and travel a lot. I can still access the service from anywhere.
And also, yes I can index my local catalogue (but the local tracks are not available on other machines/devices).
- The collection is enormous, and newly released albums become available pretty quickly. There are of course artists who are not available but there is so much out there its insane.
- The speed. Since its pretty much legalized P2P, I never need to wait for a song (well maybe sometimes there is latency but its rare).
- Its mobile, across international borders. I live in the UK and travel a lot. I can still access the service from anywhere.
And also, yes I can index my local catalogue (but the local tracks are not available on other machines/devices).
The most important: Audio quality. If you have a paid Spotify subscription, you get 320kbps ogg streams (when they're available).
Almost forgot about that - my speakers don't do the service justice :)
> And also, yes I can index my local catalogue (but the local tracks are not available on other machines/devices).
They sync just fine to my phone and iPod, so long as they are in playlists.
They sync just fine to my phone and iPod, so long as they are in playlists.
I'm a former Spotify user. Rdio is better. The thing I disliked about Spotify was there wasn't a way to save an album or song to a collection or library. You could only create a playlist which lived in the left pane. So if you had 1 artist you liked you might have 5 different playlists for 5 different albums. Do this for a few artists and it quickly turns into an innavigable nightmare.
Also, it doesn't have a web interface.
Also, it doesn't have a web interface.
For one thing: user interface. The one of Rdio is pretty confusing, whereas the one of Spotify is, for me at least, the best UI of a music player ever.
That's the great thing about Spotify (and I think it's often overlooked): it's not only that their idea is great, but also that the execution of that idea is stellar (for the same reason I prefer Spotify over Grooveshark).
Yeah, exactly. I've used the mobile apps of both, and Rdio's has 9 confusing icons and requires you to learn a complicated mental model of your music library will work, whereas Spotify just has 'Playlists', 'Search', and 'What's New' - couldn't be simpler.
Yes, you can upload tracks they don't have (at least in the paid for version, not sure the free service lets you).
I don't know Rdio.
I don't know Rdio.
You can't really upload tracks, as in upload to the cloud. You can only import tracks into the client so that you don't need another media player to play them.
You can upload tracks to the cloud, but you can only play them with a Spotify client.
Further: if the track is in the GraceNote database, you can share the track (via a playlist) with friends on Spotify.
Further: if the track is in the GraceNote database, you can share the track (via a playlist) with friends on Spotify.
Not according to Spotify themselves:
http://www.spotify.com/nl/help/faq/local-files/does-spotify-...
As I have always understood it, your local music collection is included in the client. If you share playlists containing tracks from your local collection. But if they are not provided by Spotify, friends need to have the same tracks locally as well to be able to play them.
http://www.spotify.com/nl/help/faq/local-files/does-spotify-...
As I have always understood it, your local music collection is included in the client. If you share playlists containing tracks from your local collection. But if they are not provided by Spotify, friends need to have the same tracks locally as well to be able to play them.
To clarify if I upload a few track from my home computer that Spotify does not have a license to, I can then play these tracks later on my phone?
You have to manually import the tracks in both the client on your home computer and in the client on your phone. Spotify doesn't provide any upload / cloud functionality.
No, that's not correct.
I have loaded several track to Spotify on my PC, and can listen to them using the client on my phone without having to manually load/import them there. They sync automatically when you connect.
I have loaded several track to Spotify on my PC, and can listen to them using the client on my phone without having to manually load/import them there. They sync automatically when you connect.
Is your computer running when this sync happens or is it uploading to the cloud?
I have used both and the only real difference for me has been the availability of music. However this is probably just a result of a US Rdio account and Swedish spotify account. I have found finding new music to be slightly easier in Rdio.
You cannot upload tracks to Rdio
I am aware. I am just wondering if an Rdio/Amazon Music mashup service exists.
Perhaps their partnership with Facebook will be discussed again at Facebook's event today.
That's my prediction. I have a hard time believing it's a coincidence, but I could be wrong of course
I feel like Spotify has been "coming soon" for the last 3-4 years. Lets go all ready! :)
[deleted]
I'm a European Spotify subscriber, and I'd be hard pushed to go back to purchasing albums again. Access really does trump 'ownership', and it would take Apple introducing a similar subscription service for me to go back to iTunes now.
But I wonder how Spotify can scale and actively support musicians. It might sound strange, but -- even as a paid subscriber -- I feel guilty when I use Spotify. I can't help feeling that musicians get an even rougher deal when I listen to their music over Spotify than when I buy tracks from iTunes or directly from their websites.
There is something unsettling about having instant access to a huge array of songs and only paying £9.99 a month for the service. It is so different to the traditional model that it almost feels like stealing. It's a feeling I don't get listening to the radio; with the radio, you're a passenger hitching a lift. With Spotify, you're in control. And somehow it feels wrong. Like joyriding[1], It's hard to shake the feeling that there will be consequences.
I'm sure that won't dent your enjoyment of the service if you're in the US, but I thought it worth sharing the viewpoint.
[1]: So I'm told.