Quitting Spotify for the LOVE of music

[David Emm]

Hmmmm... so now the Terminator won't shoot you, he'll bore you to death. 🤔

 

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/sep/27/theres-endless-choice-but-youre-not-listening-fans-quitting-spotify-to-save-their-love-of-music?utm_source=pocket-newtab

[KuruPrionz]

I've never been on there, don't listen to much of anything for the most part. 

Somehow I lost the inclination after playing 3,000+ gigs...

 

A friend told me yesterday that her newest album release got 22,000 streams on Spotify. I googled the rate of payment to the musician for a stream and 22,000 streams comes to about $96 and change. 

 

Me so very happy now...

[DeltaJockey]

It's heartening to see that other people are realising music is an "experience" rather than a consumable commodity!

 

I've never used Spotify or any other streaming service. I have my own historic music collection, spanning way back   My collection has sentimental value, and a life of associating memories.

It's the same as cloud services, I don't trust my data to be saved outside of my own control. I frequently listen to new music put up by artists on Bandcamp etc,  and if I like it, I will support artists and purchase it and have my own copy saved locally for as long as it serves me, thank you very much! This music will also then go one to create my own personal life experiences through association with it.

Besides, my musical tastes are too eclectric and non mainstream for these services. I much enjoy supporting the the less known budding artists, like myself,

[CyberGene]

Love it or hate it, streaming is the way people listen to music now. If one became a musician thinking he would get rich selling CD-s, he apparently chose the wrong field of work. 

[eric.B]

Similar:

https://saxdavid.com/therevengeofanalog

 

Streaming has its purpose but older media formats as well (for some people).

I love (the physical aspect of) my compact cassettes, vinyls, minidiscs, reel to reels, DAT and DCC.
But I use Spotify, Tidal, Youtube, etc. when I want/need it.

 

There is no shame in using either, whatever suits your needs.

[Docbop]

I used Pandora back in the day but only for some background music hopefully playing stuff I liked.   Then one of the guys started using Spotify and tell us all to check it, but he got fired for being on Spotify more than actually working.     Then I went to work at the church in media and we had a lot of music biz celebrities and I discovered how much little Spotify pays the artists and I refused to use it and streaming in general.    So these days the only time I'm on Spotify is when someone creates playlist and I go to Spotify just to see the list and create my own on Apple Music.     The only reason I even stream is physical media has become so expensive and as a musician I listen to a lot of different music for lessons or research and steaming make sense for that.  For music I personally like listen to I will buy CD's and try to buy them from the artist if possible so they make more $. 

 

As for formats I prefer CD more dynamic and frequence range and amount of music that can fit on a single disc.  My favor of that is when CD first came out and record companies were taking the old analog recording and remastering them digital.   So you still had that analog warmth and full sound from the sessions, but in digital format that when they mastered they didn't have to juggle to meet the RIAA curve for vinyl.  Well unless your Motown records and said screw the RIAA crank up the bass even if it means we have to put less music on a record. 

[CyberGene]

12 minutes ago, Docbop said:

As for formats I prefer CD more dynamic and frequence range

As a matter of fact AAC has wider dynamic range and higher sampling rate than the CD since it supports 24 bits and 192 kHz. It’s also why Apple introduced Mastered for iTunes, so that mastering engineers can prepare the files from the original masters to preserve the higher bit depth and sampling rate, rather than just converting the CD which is limited to 16-bit, 44.1 kHz. 

[Docbop]

1 hour ago, CyberGene said:

It’s also why Apple introduced Mastered for iTunes, so that mastering engineers can prepare the files from the original masters to preserve the higher bit depth and sampling rate, rather than just converting the CD which is limited to 16-bit, 44.1 kHz. 

 

Having engineers that had nothing to do with the original recording and mastering do remastering is why I'm not into this re-marketing of vinyl as a platform.   I'd say 99% of the remastered vinyl no one associated with the original record was involved.  Yes, I know in many cases none of the original teams are still with us, then at least get someone the current owner of the masters recommends to oversee/approve the remastering. 

[jarrell]

AAC is a lossy compression format, while CD is not lossy, so a CD will always have better fidelity. Whether anyone can hear this difference depends on one's hearing ability (which one could say is also lossy depending on age and hearing exposure).

 

There is a lossless extension for AAC, Audio Lossless Coding, or ALS, but I don't think it is widely supported. Perhaps you were thinking of Apple Lossless, or ALAC? While it isn't part of AAC, it is indeed lossless.

[CyberGene]

I was speaking about dynamic range in particular. Even the lossy AAC supports 24-bit. The lossless ALAC and hi-res are a new addition to Apple Music although I can’t hear any difference even with an external dedicated DAC (my Apogee Groove) and Sennheiser HD650s, maybe my ears are just not that good.

[dazzjazz]

I use Qobuz streaming. High fidelity and they pay artists the most. I still prefer CDs though. 

[nursers]

Apple Music pays marginally better so that's my platform of choice. As previously mentioned a bunch of times, there's an Apple Music and Spotify playlist featuring a bunch of fellow forumites. See my signature - I take pride in earning even a little revenue for those on the playlist and if a lot more forumites bothered to plat those playlists it'd be even better for everyone.

[ProfD]

Most people including those make music do not truly understand how the business of music really works.

 

Recording artists, bands and musicians make the bulk of their money from advances (record company) and live performances.  

 

A recording has to sell a lot of units and receive a lot of airplay before recording artists, bands and musicians break even (recoup advances) and get paid from publishing and mechanical royalties.

 

Otherwise, until it reaches Gold, Platinum or Diamond status, recorded music works like a business card moreso than an income stream. 

 

That's why 22k streams only generates $96 but 100M will bring about $400k.

 

Needless to type, a tiny percentage of artists, bands and musicians actually make real money from their recordings.

 

Consumers get to enjoy glorified business cards in the form of vinyl, cassette tapes, CDs, streams, downloads, etc.

 

This is the CliffsNotes version of how the music business works. 😁😎

[Docbop]

When working at the church back around 2010 we had a lot of big name artist that were members of the church.   Talking to them they say most there income these days comes from endorsements,  their own products like shoes, colones and swag.   They don't make much money from their music anymore.   

 

I remember coming up first artists did make money from records and concerts.   Then recording costs starting growing and growing, then artists started making most their money from tours.  Then a few artists started doing big productions and then audiences started expecting big productions from everyone, got so back artists had to start working with major corporation to underwrite tours in trade for ad placements in show promotion and onstage.   There when the money from touring.    Streaming came along and screwed everyone.    It's weird some small artist doing self production, selling at shows and small distributors are making more that some bigger artists.   A artist makes so much more from selling you a CD at a show or their website than thousands of streams will.   Music has become too much of a business and it's killing the business.    Thats one part of the reason I'm a Jazz fan.   Simpler recordings usually live in the studio.  Playing live no big productions just go out and play because the music is the real star of the show.   Even the touring a mini van and maybe a car and all set.      I miss when Rock was simple like that, going to see Traffic, Mothers, Hendrix and other just show up  stack gear onstage use house lighting and just play.  Sadly music business will probably have to crumble apart to get things reset to simple is good again. 

[ProfD]

1 hour ago, Docbop said:

It's weird some small artist doing self production, selling at shows and small distributors are making more that some bigger artists.   A artist makes so much more from selling you a CD at a show or their website than thousands of streams will.   Music has become too much of a business and it's killing the business.   

 

Sadly music business will probably have to crumble apart to get things reset to simple is good again. 

Not really weird.  The music business started out that way.  It grew into the behemoth that we know.

 

Artists, bands and musicians will be free when the music business as it is currently structured dies.

 

Actually, the Jam band scene is a great example of  a music business reset. 

 

Indie artists recording and selling their own music at live shows is another example of it.

 

That way, the folks get paid who actually do the work of playing and performing music, sound crews and stage hands, drivers, etc. 

 

There will always be a Pop music industry.  But, making it to the *big time* won't be the major motivating force behind playing music.😎

[David Emm]

Good input here from everyone. DeltaJockey is new to the place ("Welcome! How ya doin'?"), but I'm mostly on his wavelength in the matter. I prefer to have things in my actual hands more than not. I don't stream anything like Spotify, as its a raw deal for the creators. I stream Bandcamp because you can discover a ton of worthy pieces every day. Its overkill to let it roll for too long, true, but productively so, I think. I'll buy from them and Spitfire because they pay the musicians properly. I also stream a few channels that super-specialize in ambient styles or random experimental works. Some of that sounds like granular car wrecks, but the good stuff is humbling. 

 

I'm pleased to see that some are disenchanted by Spotify. A.I. can become F.U. too easily. I'd prefer to have my "radio" curated by a real person from the underbelly of society, whose tastes are all over the map. I'd do it, but Skynet got me by the nads.        

[DeltaJockey]

Thanks David!

 

I am relatively new to contributing, but have to confess, have been a bit of a lurker for many years, partly because I've not had the opportunity to visit here regularly over the years, but also have finally built up a bit of "courage" to post my thoughts too

 

As far as Bandcamp is concerned, I like the ability to purchase an artist's entire collection for a discount. If I like their music, it's worth supporting them in further creations. I enjoy it when I get a personal email from the artist, thanking me for buying their whole collection. It gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling, and I hope they will remember me when they become rich and famous...ha!

[bill5]

I had Pandora for awhile, seemed like a good idea, get a random stream of music to listen to but ultimately wow it sucked. Their libraries are as tiny as the local radio stations. No matter what genre I pick or how I try to modify it, I get the same small set of songs overandovernandoverand.........

 

Now I mostly play my existing CDs that are all ripped to my computer or listen to free radio stations online.