Vinyl to Spotify: The Evolution of Recorded Music…

Regardless of whether Spotify ultimately survives, most predict a streaming-dominant future.  For all of mankind…

evolutionrecordedmusic

100 Responses

      • tanaka
        tanaka

        I agree. I’ve stopped streaming altogether and only listen to vinyl now. also really digging feedbands.com that sends me a new vinyl record every month from talented independent artists

        Reply
  1. Visitor
    Visitor

    “The Evolution of Recorded Music”
    Paul, we have 3 possibilities here:
    1) You are unaware of the amount of money it takes to write, produce and distribute the kind of music people want.
    2) You are unaware of the amount of money creators make from streaming.
    3) You have a secret plan to finance music production in the future.
    So which is it?
    Let’s hear how professionally recorded music would survive your scenario. Is magic involved? Prayers?

    Reply
    • antivisitor
      antivisitor

      I’m telling you now, people are gonna pay for music in the future. If you’re thinking about piracy, you’re thinking wrong, because stealing is just too difficult, it’s easier to just pull up Spotify and listen, just like you pay for convenience in so many other areas.
      So there will be money to write, produce and distribute the kind of music people want. No magic needed.

      Reply
      • Visitor
        Visitor

        “I’m telling you now, people are gonna pay for music in the future.”
        So how’s the prophecy business these days? Are you paid well for your services?
        Why not?

        Reply
          • Visitor
            Visitor

            “My business is called trendwatching”
            But of course. Here’s a trend you can watch, my friend:
            It’s Contagious: Taylor Swift Is Withholding Her Latest Release from Spotify…
            Spotify Now Has Another Gigantic Holdout: Rihanna…
            Vampire Weekend, a Spotify Holdout, Scores a Number One Album…
            Why Is Daft Punk Streaming on iTunes, But Not Spotify?

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            …this version may be easier to watch… 🙂
            It’s Contagious: Taylor Swift Is Withholding Her Latest Release from Spotify:
            http://dmnrocks.wpengine.com/permalink/2012/121022swift
            Spotify Now Has Another Gigantic Holdout: Rihanna:
            http://dmnrocks.wpengine.com/permalink/2012/121127rihanna
            Vampire Weekend, a Spotify Holdout, Scores a Number One Album:
            http://dmnrocks.wpengine.com/permalink/2013/20130522vampire
            Why Is Daft Punk Streaming on iTunes, But Not Spotify?
            http://dmnrocks.wpengine.com/permalin

          • antivisitor
            antivisitor

            The latest Taylor Swift album is on Spotify now, so is Daft Punk. 99% of new releases are on streaming services from the start. That’s the trend. Some fool still believe they sell more by witholding from Spotify. What a fool believes…. he sees.

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            “Some fool still believe they sell more by witholding from Spotify”
            Like Taylor Swift, you mean? (Spotify holdout, #1, 1.2 million sold first week, best sales in 10 years.)
            Or Rihanna? (Another Spotify holdout, another #1.)
            Or Daft Punk? (Another Spotify holdout, another #1.)
            Please explain:
            1) Why are these artists fools in your opinion?
            2) Why do you think their results will inspire artists and labels to choose different release strategies?

          • Me
            Me

            Daft Punk was NOT a Spotify holdout. It was available on Spotify the day it hit stores.

          • antivisitor
            antivisitor

            I can give you a long lists of #1 albums that were on Spotify from day one. “But what a fool believes … he sees
            No wise man has the power to reason away….”

          • antivisitor
            antivisitor

            I can give you a long lists of #1 albums that were on Spotify from day one. “But what a fool believes … he sees
            No wise man has the power to reason away….”

  2. Yves Villeneuve
    Yves Villeneuve

    Those predicting a streaming future are merely doing a lot of greedy wishful thinking.
    TV watching is more often a family affair than music is, which is more an individual event. Music listening in the home is hardly as popular as TV watching and the former would require a much smaller monthly subscription fee even to compete with the much higher priced cable TV fee. Won’t necessarily increase revenues, and profits especially, if music fees must be reduced to increase popularity…more likely the end result is decreased industry profits.
    Record Companies are chasing a pipe dream. It all falls apart when the average consumer figures out it is cheaper to download and stream from a device hard drive while more convenient and timely to receive song recommendations from radio and music charts.

    Reply
    • GGG
      GGG

      How is it greedy? Unless they work at a streaming service, I’m fairly confident 100% of the music industry would love to go back to the day when people bought $18 CDs because of one song, or at this point, stay with $10 DLs.

      Reply
      • Yves Villeneuve
        Yves Villeneuve

        Simply put, it is greedy wishful thinking if record companies expect everyone to pay $10 per month in addition to extra bandwidth costs. Not going to happen except only in the minds of the deluded.
        Even the “average” Swedish customer will eventually figure this out with the help of some honest education because for them irrational national pride has taken over their music buying habits therefore they need a little help to understand making wise consumer choices.

        Reply
        • GGG
          GGG

          Wait, what? Wanting $10 a month for all music is greedy but you wanting everyone to buy a ton of $10 DLs isn’t? Maybe I’m missing something here but I don’t get your argument, besides your dislike of streaming.
          I don’t think any record companies REALLY want streaming to be the norm. They just decided not to fight this as much as they fought piracy.

          Reply
          • Yves Villeneuve
            Yves Villeneuve

            The average person does not spend $10 per month on either streaming, downloads or CDs. It’s delusional to expect people to spend more than their normal consumption patterns for an extended period of time…eventually people will figure it out.
            I am pro-consumer as being the best choice in business decision-making. I don’t believe in milking the consumer for short term revenues and profits. The average person won’t pay $10 per month for 18 Million songs they don’t want, browse or ever listen to unless they mistakenly get caught up in a temporary hype, read: national fad.
            This conversation with you from my end is now over. Good night.

          • GGG
            GGG

            People pay for hundreds of TV channels when they only probably watch 10. Plus, there’s a difference between wanting to spend $10 for ten songs and $10 for all songs. Either way, it’s still not “greedy” thinking like you first said. It’s “fuck, people aren’t buying music anymore, guess we have to get in bed with Spotify” thinking.

    • hippydog
      hippydog

      Quote Yves Villeneuve ” ”
      I read your post like three times.. and it makes no sense.. It seems to make sense, but then I keep reading and it starts to seem like you randomly spliced together different thoughts..
      1.) “Those predicting a streaming future ”
      my personal opinion is I dont want a streaming future, but anyone with the basic ability to read, can not deny, that it seems to be the way the industry is going.. thats a fact.. not wishful thinking..
      2.) “TV watching”
      Video VS music is handled so differently the two industries cant even be compared..
      3.) “It all falls apart when the average consumer figures out it is cheaper to download and stream from a device hard drive while more convenient and timely to receive song recommendations from radio and music charts.”
      whadda huh??

      Reply
      • Yves Villeneuve
        Yves Villeneuve

        1- Services like Rhapsody and Spotify are not the future. There subscriber numbers are so low compared to the ownership model they aren’t even worth mentioning. The access model has been around before the download model but with little traction even with the blinding press coverage they get. I suppose it is the latter where you read your facts.
        2- TV watching competes with music listening. You have to compare to know the reasons why one is more popular than the other. Ie limited programming, anticipation of new episodes of favourite shows every week, regular scheduling, no work involved in finding good entertainment(just sit back and relax at the scheduled time), TV Guide, more often done in a social setting as humans tend to be of the social species variety.
        3- According to NPD Group, there are 78 million CD buyers and 45 million download buyers in the USA, meaning the number of buyers in the USA fall within 78 to 123 million buyers. In 2012, the RIAA reported total CD and download revenues of $5,359 million. Therefore the average buyer spends $43 to $69 per year or in other words, roughly $4 to $6 per month. If you think these consumers will spend $10 per month on music subscriptions involving more work discovering new music than the time relaxing to music listening then you do not know how to spot a trend, my friend. It only works if music listening were as appealing as TV watching… This could never be the case.

        Reply
        • GGG
          GGG

          For 3, what is the difference between hearing about an artist, looking them up to buy on iTunes or listen on youtube and hearing about an aritst and looking them up on Spotify? Why do you make Spotify out to be some service where you have to dig through stuff to find what you want?

          Reply
          • Me
            Me

            I’m pretty sure this guy’s never actually used Spotify.

          • Yves Villeneuve
            Yves Villeneuve

            By far, radio and friends are the primary modes of music discovery. Spotify and similar services are near the bottom of this list at 5% using this discovery mode.
            Typically, average music consumers discover through radio and friends.
            The much heavier music enthusiasts, naturally a minority of all music consumers, discover through catalogs, whether iTunes or Spotify.

          • GGG
            GGG

            I hope you include social networking in the ‘friends’ category, because at this point, the internet is a much better driver of success than radio, which yes, still carries artists, too/after their web growth.
            But more to the point, I don’t disagree that Spotify isn’t the best discovery tool in the sense starting from scratch. I just mean it’s no different than hearing about an artist and checking them out any other way. The search function works and the content is there. I can discover a band’s name but not their music. In that case, if I don’t feel like dropping money on an unknown-to-me artist, Spotify is a fantastic discovery tool. I hear at least 5 or 6 albums every week, both new and old, on Spotify that I never heard before. 99% of the time, you are correct that I didn’t discover them on there (though related artists has brought me to some) but I still discover the actual music on Spotify because it’s a centralized outlet.

          • Yves Villeneuve
            Yves Villeneuve

            The difference between you (Spotify user) versus the average music consumer (iTunes user) is that you listen to 5 to 6 albums per week while the average music consumer maybe listens to one album per week/month if lucky(just an educated ballpark guess).

          • GGG
            GGG

            You’re still avoiding the question. How is Spotify “more work” when it literally takes the same amount of time to search on there as it does on iTunes or on YouTube? You can’t buy music directly from the radio when you hear it, or from your friends (unless you’re online already) so your premise that discovery is any different is flawed to begin with.
            Sure, I get told about bands initiall outside of Spotify the vast majority of the time. But if my friend tells me about a band, I have to listen somewhere. I’m not just going to become a fan without knowing what they are. If I hear a song on the radio and want to hear it again, I have to go somewhere. I’m not gonna sit up all night to hear it again. Spotify is exaclty the same in this regard as iTunes or youtube.

          • Yves Villeneuve
            Yves Villeneuve

            All the other Spotify users admit to spending a lot of time reviewing playlists from other Spotify users to find new music. This is where it is too much work for the average consumer.
            ITunes tried Ping to sort of emulate this Spotify experience but it failed because the typical ITunes user is different than the typical Spotify user. The average music buyer is not interested in browsing other people’s favourites and reviews, unlike the Spotify user.
            The average music buyer only needs 90 seconds to most always make a correct purchase decision. It helps to have previously listened to one or two full-length songs from the same artist but that is all that is needed. You could say the average music buyer is wiser in this respect ie. no need to waste time reviewing an entire album before deciding to buy and be proud of the purchase decision, made with limited listening resources but with good personal instincts.

          • GGG
            GGG

            Well I’ve never really heard of anyone perusing playlists to find music because they can’t do it any other way. It’s an additional choice. So yes, they are different than the avg iTunes user, but it’s not like other modes of discovery are cut out. It’s just another one. An iTunes user that switches to Spotify won’t stop talking to friends. They can still hear about and listen to new music without disecting tens of playlists. So, you’re right in a sense that it might be too much for the avg user, but your argument is based on the idea that once you get Spotify you are somehow forbidden to discover music any other way. So it’s pretty much moot.

          • Yves Villeneuve
            Yves Villeneuve

            As I already mentioned, the average music buyer does not need more than 90 seconds previews and additional expenses extending beyond their normal time and financial music budget.
            The conclusion is subscription services like Spotify are a waste of time and money for the average music buyer. Nothing has changed in my views.
            I’m ending this conversation from my end. No need to further repeat my expanded statements.
            As far as I can tell, the only Spotify benefit that you propose is full-length previews. The average music buyer is not interested.

          • GGG
            GGG

            First off, your 90 seconds idea is only there because it’s what Apple has, I guarantee it. If they had 45 second or 20 second previews you’d say that’s how much a consumer needed, too.
            But anyway, you, like many people, are just so against Spotify because of their shitty payouts it makes you react delusionally to everything else about them. If you even say the avg person spends like $6 a month on music, dropping $4 more to hear ALL music you could want is not a waste of money. And like I said, which you still refuse to acknowledge because you know you’re wrong, if you use Spotify you can still discover music elsewhere. You don’t have to limit finding music to scouring playlists once you get Spotify. So it’s not a waste of time either. It’s whatever time you choose make of it. Youtube and itunes aren’t blocked when you install it.
            And lastly, you still cannot grasp the concept of people wanting to hear music without wanting to buy it, and I can’t understand why. Does curiosity not exist in your brain? Full previews are not even the use of Spotify I’d talk about the most. I’ve bought albums after hearing it on Spotify but very few when compared to how many I’ve heard on there. At this point, as I’ve said below, it’s best as a quick way to get around piracy. A lot of people want to hear a lot of music for a lot of reasons. The fact that you would much rather have someone not hear your music at all than listen to your album and you get a couple cents and maybe a fan is just strange to me.

          • Yves Villeneuve
            Yves Villeneuve

            Whether it’s 30 seconds or 90 seconds, it doesn’t matter. The average music buyer does not need to listen to a full album to almost always make a correct purchase decision, therefore for these music consumers a subscription is a waste.
            To be clear, last week I ordered my distributor to deliver my catalog to Rhapsody. Why only this streaming service? For various reasons but mainly because they don’t have a subscription for less than $10 per month and their Premium stream rate passes my fair value test and are much higher than Spotify’s Premium rates. That said, I won’t hesitate to pull it from this store if my fair expectations are not met.
            Go ahead, promote a lousy paying service that is in Spotify while I promote the better option, at least for the time being. I am confident in making the right business choice without discounting my music to the lowest bidder just to get a sale/stream.

          • GGG
            GGG

            I’ve never even made the assertion they did need to/want to hear a full album preview, you just decided to pretend I said that to help your lousy argument. Like I did just say, my argument isn’t just about previews, it’s about listening for any number of reasons.
            Also, you keep changing what we’re talking about. We were talking about consumer actions and you now bring up your choices from the artist side. This is also the first time you’ve ever promoted Rhapsody so I’m not even against that. Spotify was mostly just the synecdoche for streaming since you’ve been so against streaming until now apparently. And it’s certainly your prerogative to not go on Spotify, though, honestly, your most effective marketing is probably coming on here and being a weirdo, so by sheer numbers, it’d make sense for you to put your music on Spotify. You’d probably make a nice little income of DMN visitors checking out your creepy albums.

          • Yves Villeneuve
            Yves Villeneuve

            You’re like hippydog today. Wagging your tail between your legs.
            When you are ready to be straightforward, don’t hesitate.
            I choose not to sell my music like a cheap prostitute. It’s a business decision, nothing to do with pride in case you are wondering. Unless I’m mistaken(it’s quite possible), you initially brought up the artist perspective in this article.
            Here is my twitter, though not spending much effort promoting it except to indicate I will be tweeting some time this week. I have zero followers and not expecting any changes in this respect in the near to intermediate future. @YvesVillen

          • Yves Villeneuve
            Yves Villeneuve

            Rhapsody offers 25 free streams per month to non-subscribers, and yes the artist still gets paid the premium rate for these streams. There is no need to be a Spotify customer to try out music.

          • GGG
            GGG

            I don’t think you know what a tail being between your legs means….I’m neither afraid or embarassed…but anyway….
            In this specific discussion I did not bring up the artist perspective. It (de)volved from you asserting record companies are “greedy” for (kind of) pushing Spotify (which is dumb), to you trying to show Spotify is somehow a puzzle to operate (which is even dumber).
            Lastly, if Rhapsody is so much better, great! You have always been vehemently against streaming, there was no reason to compare/contrast services with you before. You’ve brought up Rhapsody but not until now as an artist utilizing it or using it to defend streaming in the slightest.
            PS-You really need to hire some social networking coach. You don’t tweet that you’re going to tweet in the future. You just tweet.

          • Yves Villeneuve
            Yves Villeneuve

            Don’t get ahead of yourself, for the record, I believe streaming is a bad business model because it caps revenues at $10 per month and it is a bad consumer model because the average music consumer does not spend $10 per month.
            You’re not the sharpest tool in the tool shed if you believe promoting a future tweet in an account with zero followers is dumb.
            I look forward to you streaming my weird, creepy, horrible music. My music tends to grow on people. Listen two days in a row. This advice is not specifically meant for between the legs tail wagging GGG.

          • GGG
            GGG

            Well, I don’t use Rhapsody so if you’re not on Spotify I will unfortnately not be streaming. Though, even if you were on Spotify, that 4 minutes I listened to your “music” about a month ago was enough to turn me off for good. I listen to people with talent, not delusional hacks.
            Also, get an idiom dictionary and learn some things.

          • Yves Villeneuve
            Yves Villeneuve

            I just made a tweet.
            I knew people would accuse me of being a delusional hack, so I had this tweet prepared days ago.
            Some trained musicians at the post-secondary level feel entitled to success because of their formal education. #YvesVil

          • Yves Villeneuve
            Yves Villeneuve

            You are entitled to dislike or hate my music. Thanks for 4 minutes of your time, anyways.
            another prepared tweet (full version at @YvesVilleneuveX)
            …#ActionEq

          • Yves Villeneuve
            Yves Villeneuve

            To be honest, it doesn’t matter what you think. The fact remains is that there are many trained musicians at the post-secondary level who feel entitled to success because of their formal education. I believe you are one of these. I also don’t believe you are an artist manager except to your own music career.
            By the way, it’s clear from my tweet I know what my limitations are. The average music buyer cares much more about a song they like to hear than the capabilities of a musician especially if the musician is honest about it. Sorry if your music professors misled you.
            Facebook ad conversions? Do your own research. Aren’t you taking some sort of SEO course. Don’t expect a free tutorial on how to create and convert an ad.
            At least you stopped accusing me of “buying Likes”.

  3. hippydog
    hippydog

    Randomly spouting different statements that are tenuously connected to your original statements does not make for a winning arguement..
    and stating them as facts, when they are obviosly opinions, doesnt help either..
    1.) i never said anything about any particular service.. Your allowed to have your opinions.. still doesnt make it factual.
    but it is a fact that the music industry is moving increasingly to the streaming model of music delivery..
    2.) its called leisure time.. and they all compete..
    You still cant compare a subscription model of one, to the other. Even the ‘value’ of one to another is almost impossible to compare becuase they are used, (consumed) so differently..
    so NO, you DONT have to compare to know the reasons why one is more popular, because any comparison is most likely to be meaningless..
    3.) http://76.74.24.142/4A176523-8B2C-DA09-EA23-B811189D3A21.pdf
    How about we try 7 billion? and then try and add in the almost 40% lost revenue to pirating in the last decade.. (also reported by the RIAA)
    Thats a ‘potential’ of almost 10 bill. divided by 100 mil equals an achievable $8 per month..
    add in a service thats better then finding CD’s in a store, has a larger catalog, and is easier to use? $10 is easily in the realm of believability..
    I am NOT saying this service is brought to you by either Spotify or Rhapsody.. I AM saying its a clear possibility that a streaming service could pull it off..

    Reply
    • Yves Villeneuve
      Yves Villeneuve

      Nothing random about my statements.
      1- I made the original statement and was referring to services like Rhapsody and Spotify and cable TV services. Maybe you should stay on topic. If it is fact the music industry is moving toward a music subscription model, I’d like to see hard evidence.
      2- I was comparing leisure time and why one is more popular and valuable to the average consumer versus the other. Again, you should stay on topic to my original statement. TV watching is much more valuable therefore a subscription makes much more sense.
      3- I was comparing Apples to Apples, sound recording to sound recording. $5,359 million is roughly correct. Spotify does not stream videos. Music buyers versus music streamers. The former are unlikely to spend $5-$10 on a music subscription. Don’t forget, $4-$6 per month is an average. Half of music buyers spend less than $5 per month and very unlikely to buy a monthly subscription whether it’s $5 or $10. Even the record companies realize this and won’t go down that road unless they are doing alot of greedy wishful thinking. Spotify is an IPO play for the majors labels, not much more. They also licence to everyone to reduce Apple’s or any dominant retailer’s bargaining power.
      As for piracy affecting sales, true. But it still won’t convince the average music buyer to pay for a music subscription until the ripe old age of 100. The average music buyer adds very little new music to their library as they grow older therefore a music subscription does not make much sense in old age. This is one major key to understanding why subscription has little value to the average music buyer.

      Reply
      • hippydog
        hippydog

        I have been on topic and I think at least tried to approach my conclusions from different but related ideas..
        I have also tried to refrain sating my opinions as “fact”
        You? .. not so much
        most of your arguements consist of… A cat has a tail.. A dog has a tail.. therefore a dog must be a cat..
        As to “proof” I’m the only one who cited a reference.. Maybe you should try it.. I have no ‘need’ to prove anything to you, and judging by your past conversations with others, any type of back and forth is an excercise in frustration..

        Reply
  4. hippydog
    hippydog

    Quote: Yves Villeneuve ” I look forward to you streaming my weird, creepy, horrible music. My music tends to grow on people. Listen two days in a row. This advice is not specifically meant for between the legs tail wagging GGG.”
    Yes please stream Yve’s music..
    weird, creepy, horrible music, meant for people who’s english is their second language and who think beating dogs is normal..
    😉

    Reply
    • Yves Villeneuve
      Yves Villeneuve

      If you ask me, you just made a sick joke in very bad taste. You should probably distance yourself from making future jokes. You don’t seem cut out for it, at least in this example ie dog beating

      Reply
      • GGG
        GGG

        Responding to your last post here since your reformatting coveniently deleted my reply:
        “To be honest, it doesn’t matter what you think. The fact remains is that there are many trained musicians at the post-secondary level who feel entitled to success because of their formal education. I believe you are one of these. I also don’t believe you are an artist manager except to your own music career. By the way, it’s clear from my tweet I know what my limitations are. The average music buyer cares much more about a song they like to hear than the capabilities of a musician especially if the musician is honest about it. Sorry if your music professors misled you.”
        Yea, definitely not that pathetic to lie about what I do. I have formal education in music, but I know enough incredible college-education-less musicians to know it doesn’t matter. What matters is if you can play and/or sing and/or write compelling music. You fail terribly at all of this, sorry to burst your bubble.
        “Facebook ad conversions? Do your own research. Aren’t you taking some sort of SEO course. Don’t expect a free tutorial on how to create and convert an ad.
        At least you stopped accusing me of “buying Likes”.”
        I’ve been around Facebook fan pages long enough to know what a buying ads spike and dip pattern looks like. Not to mention what a fanbase that actually gives a shit about you looks like. For example, a band I work with has less fans than you, 3,380. But shocker, their most popular city is the one they actually live in, not one thousands of miles away. Those are called real fans, who also actually interact on their page. I’m happy your ad conversion is working, but let me know when it actually converts people who end up caring.

        Reply
        • Yves Villeneuve
          Yves Villeneuve

          My last post was also deleted. I still don’t believe your bullshit that you’re an artist manager except to your own career.
          I’m not in a bubble. Can’t you read. I know what my limitations are and admit it. You don’t seem to know yours, however. My tweet remains relevant to you as well as other musicians with same background.
          As I said in my deleted post, I’m not a live performer therefore don’t bother promoting locally. Not worth it.
          I also said I don’t engage these facebook fans whom have been fans a mere two months… Last post was May 10. On April 30 I had 500 fans. Your fan caring expectations are premature when my posts are geared towards fan secrecy re “Am I your best kept secret?” Not likely to like my post with that kind of question, but I don’t expect you to escape your cookie-cutter analytical mindset to understand my intent. They click on my ad, read a few strategic posts, visit my official website or iTunes and like my page if a true fan. Not all clicks convert to a sale but a minimum 10% do is all I’m going to say. I’ve got a special arrangement with iTunes to block all ratings/reviews/popularity bars except rare exceptions. No desire to give details of this strategy…I don’t care if you don’t understand it.
          So again I say, suck it up to your SEO prof because you are a clueless musician pretending to be self-sustaining as a fake artist manager.

          Reply
          • GGG
            GGG

            Haha, you’re too much. If I was lying about being an artist manager why would I have told you my my bands were all small, except two that are regionally decent. Why wouldn’t I say I manage some band with 100K fans? Might as well make my fake career a bit more glamorous, dumbass.
            You are also so full of shit it’s absurd. A special arrangement to block reviews/bars, etc? Give me a break…haha. Nobody likes your crummy music so they don’t review it, stop making excuses. iTunes isn’t going to bend to the will of some talentless hack with no fans. Also, the fact you think a post of “Am I Your best Kept secret?” will actually make people not talk about you because they are keeping you secret is possibly THE most delusional thing I’ve ever heard. People don’t talk about you because you’re music is terrible, not because they are playing into your weirdness.
            Also, look up SEO. You’ve tried to make fun of me for it twice now and it hasn’t made sense either time. It’s Search Engine Optimization.

          • Yves Villeneuve
            Yves Villeneuve

            I still don’t believe your bullshit. It’s easier to make others believe you are less successful or a minor player than hugely successful. You’re just trying to sound modest and humble when in fact your head feels bigger than your entire body.
            SEO is often discussed with advertising and Facebook pages and other things too.
            I don’t care if you believe I have zero or near zero sales or no deal with iTunes. It falls within my arrangement I’ve got with iTunes.. BTW, I am using my real name and opening myself to great embarassement by saying I have a special arrangement with iTunes. Prove me wrong, embarrass me… Someone, anyone, please embarrass me.
            You’re a clueless and anonymous musician pretending to be self-sustaining and also pretending to be an artist manager. You seem to contradict yourself at nearly every turn. My tweet remains relevant to you and other musicians with similar formal training.
            Sorry dude, you are no genius and you keep proving it with your constant bullshit. Stay off the dope. It makes drug users believe they are smarter than they actually are.

          • GGG
            GGG

            Ha, yep, you got me. Found out!
            Please, give me some examples of being contradictory. Never said I was a genius and never would. Not sure why it’s hard to believe I work with some marginally successful acts, though. Every asshole on the planet is in a “musician” now (as proven by you), so low-level artist managers aren’t exactly a rarity hah.
            As for your tweet, I’ve never even disagreed with it! haha. I know plenty of overly pretentious musicians, trust me. I also know plenty of guys who aren’t necessarily pretentious but do give some rock/pop music a harder time than they should. The issue with your stuff isn’t that I’m comparing you to like Berklee grads, it’s that it’s just sooo bad. Really. It’s not good. At all. Music is boring and goes nowhere, your voice is creepy and devoid of any emotion, your lyrics are cliche and meaningless at best. And let’s say for argument sake I loved one song, the rest are the same thing over and over. I’d get bored after 2 more songs.

          • Yves Villeneuve
            Yves Villeneuve

            I still don’t believe your BS.
            As I said before, you are entitled to dislike or hate my music. Consider yourself a member of the hater group, 24% of the general population. Dislikers represent a different 24% of the general population. There are plenty of fans on MySpace.com/yvesvilleneuve who have commented and disagree with you. You’re not considered an average music consumer, so it matters very little what you think, in the grand scheme of things.
            You couldn’t make a living as a musician therefore choose to anonymously belittle any musician perceived a success whether or not you like the music. I totally get you. Remember, my tweet remains valid to you.
            thank you for 4 minutes of your time reviewing my music. Not necessarily an accurate overview for the average music consumer, but will allow the natural order to take its place. I urge others to also be very critical when they preview, rate and review, as I sincerely state on my artist websites.
            Good luck with your imaginary self and imaginary career.

          • GGG
            GGG

            Good lucky with your imaginary talent and imaginary fans. Oh, sorry, I mean, ‘secret’ fans.

          • GGG
            GGG

            You shouldn’t expect much support from anyone with that music haha.

  5. hippydog
    hippydog

    yves, you have some serious issues dude..
    At first I was thinking, maybe english is not his first language? that would explain his ramblings, and inability to stay on topic (as he doesnt actually know what people are saying..)
    Then I started thinking, maybe he’s a high level autistic (not artistic) which might also explain his weird jumping around of ideas that barely connect, and his need to accuse others of exactly what he is doing..
    Then i realized..
    hes probably just a douchebag..

    Reply
  6. the doodler
    the doodler

    The only image missing is the tombstone declaring that the music industry is dead…
    The value for an album is zero, can’t go down from there. Although if there is an industry stupid enough to pay people to own their products… it’s the music industry. They deserve all of this.

    Reply
      • Visitor
        Visitor

        well true, for at least only for the 40% left who think so from 10 years ago. On that trajectory, it’s got about 6-7 years left. As a veteran of the industry of 13 years and once a very active consumer, I can justify spending $10 on the sub par music of today, when I can go on Spotify, listen to the album 2-3 times and then let it fade away to oblivion, like 60% of the former music consumers in the last 10-12 years. It’s still in a tail spin.

        Reply
  7. New Spotify Subscriber
    New Spotify Subscriber

    As a recent Spotify Premium subscriber I thought I would weigh in here.

    I have been an itunes buyer for years. I like listening to whole albums, and usually bought 1 to 2 a months.
    I would occassionally download from youtube certain old songs that I wanted. As many of you know, that can be time consuming.
    I recently got my first smartphone. (Yeah, I’m a geezer.) I decided to try out Spotify Premium for mobile (which I had on my desktop at work.)
    My intial impresion is, are you friggin kidding me? For 10 bucks, I get access to 22,000,000 songs. And I can download them to my phone? At 10 bucks, that’s a steal, and it’s far less than I was spending at iTune
    To put things in perspective, when I was in college in the 1970s, two new albums would cost $10. Considering the rate of inflation, $10 for millions of songs is next to nothing.
    I have discovered some great new albums this week (like John Fogerty’s new album), and listened to some oldies I haven’t hear in years, like Layla (which was on when I smoked my first joint) and Silk Degrees (which was on when I unhooked my first bra.
    How Spotify makes money or whether it makes money is not my concern. Spending $10 to download music LEGALLY is a great value.

    Reply
    • Chris DeVito
      Chris DeVito

      Although money is important, not everyone has the time to sort through 22 million songs. Consumers might be willing to pay a little extra for expert genre-specific guidance.

      Reply
  8. Juju'nile
    Juju'nile

    my contribution to this is as a young producer and musician coming up,i think most musician and label gonna avoided putting/releasing they music on Spotify and other similar site’s as a result of the low royalty rate being paid

    Reply
      • Xmpla
        Xmpla

        As a producer and musician I think its going to be less incentive to create big and amazing tracks when they get 0.012 cents per hit from online streaming services. If u don’t support the music industry it will fall apart. Then they will get computers to make music, get rid of everything that’s creative in this world and we will turn into fat slobs that only consume.

        Reply
        • GGG
          GGG

          With how cheap it is to record a song these days, it won’t stop anyone. Pride and the potential to simply have a hit song will be enough to entice plenty of people.
          Also, computers pretty much make most hit music these days…haha, and it’s not overly creative. Listen to music from the early 2000s and today. It’s almost identical. That has never happened in any other ten year span of modern music. And with how fast information travels and how much music you can hear these days, that’s even worse than if it was 1960-1970.

          Reply
          • Visitor
            Visitor

            “Also, computers pretty much make most hit music these days”
            You have a lot to learn…

          • GGG
            GGG

            Way to take out the “…haha” part of that statement that clearly indicates I was joking.

  9. John Smith
    John Smith

    Why must streaming replace downloading? Why can’t one complement the other? There are those of us who do not have unlimited data plans to stream everything, and there are always modem and ISP failures. And if Spotify goes out of business, there goes your collection. Spotify is great for sampling new music, but I’d prefer to have copies of them locally at hand, and not depend on the cloud.

    Reply
    • steveh
      steveh

      Absolutely. Your post is bang on.
      The rot started in early 2009 in the UK when Spotify launched, loudly proclaiming that music ownership was dead and that Spotify was the future.
      A few months later when some music creators started getting digital sales statements with pathetic Spotify income this proclamation came back to bite Spotify.
      Spotify almost universally lost cred with music creators at that point and despite the modestly impressive increases in streaming income we’ve seen in the last year the Spotify model is still largely regarded as economically damaging and potentially disasterous if/when it starts to eat into iTunes income..
      And when Spotify Nazis shout that this is “the future” the music creator response is still “fuck you Spotify”…..

      Reply
      • Visitor
        Visitor

        So you are in complete denial? Streaming services are not catching on among consumers ?? Music and film on demand is not the way things are going? Wow! how did you come to that conclusion?
        A bit like religious nuts defying reality it would seem. Shouting F%$# you Spotify is not really much of a reasonable respons. Not very useful either. To me it sounds like the word nazi might be more appropriately used for your rather fanatical viewpoint.

        Reply
        • steveh
          steveh

          I am not in denial.
          Yes streaming services are “catching on” amongst consumers, but whether they are catching on enough to make a sustainable model is still not clear.
          I am primarily making the point that among music creators (ie. not consumers) the generally held belief is that decline in music ownership equates to a decline in income.
          You seem to be in denial of that point.
          And by the way my Nazi metaphor is perfectly apt – have you heard of the song “Tomorrow Belongs to Me”? (from the film Cabaret).

          Reply
          • Visitor
            Visitor

            But owner is in decline already. Scream and shout whatever you want, doesn’t help. Face reality and work out plans to make streaming work for you..

          • steveh
            steveh

            I live in the UK not in Sweden.Perhaps we see things a bit differently here.
            ” Face reality and work out plans to make streaming work for you.. ”
            OMG you really do think that “Tomorrow belongs to you”, don’t you.
            Kinda scary…

          • HansH
            HansH

            Hi Steveh,
            You have a point. Things are a bit different in the UK. It’s the only country that had access to Spotify from the start where streaming income is still low.
            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22064353
            Compare UK to Sweden, Finland and Norway. Even here in The Netherlands streaming is good for 52% of digital revenues.
            Any idea why?

          • Yves Villeneuve
            Yves Villeneuve

            Regional and small country pride with a mostly locally headquartered corporation is the reason for popularity in these limited number of countries.
            Alot of these paying subscribers mistakenly got caught in over zealous hype and pride. Eventually they will come to their senses.
            Worlwide, paying Spotify subscribers amount to roughly 10% of its registered users. Half of these 6 million paying subscribers only pay $5 per month. In any event, 5% to 10% is not exactly a strong vote of confidence.
            There are only 2 million active Spotify users of the free tier. Not a strong vote of confidence there either.
            The writing is pretty much written on the wall. Good luck Hans with your pro-Spotify blog site.

          • HansH
            HansH

            Come on Yves, Spotify HQ is in the UK! BTW Good luck with your non streaming music 😉

          • steveh
            steveh

            As far as Sweden is concerned – and probably Norway and Finland also – it is widely known that iTunes failed to take off and that piracy was massive. Hey that’s where Pirate Bay comes from.
            To its credit Spotify has succeeded in converting many people in those countries from illegal downloading.
            The UK is a huge market compared to the Scandinavian ones and iTunes quickly became very powerful here, so by the time Spotify arrived there was already a strong digital music culture of paid downloads.
            So for Spotify to greatly increase its share in the UK it HAS to eventually cannibalise iTunes. There is simply no other way. That is a different situation from Sweden.
            I don’t really know where Holland fits in to this – it really depends on how entrenched music ownership and iTunes purchasing was there before the arrival of Spotify.

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            iTunes failed to take off in The Netherlands as well, so that could well be the explanation.
            On the other hand downloading music is legal in my country, regardless of the source being legal or illegal. Still streaming is doing fine here. Maybe because streaming is more convenient even when you can download for free and legally?

    • GGG
      GGG

      I think this is why it hasn’t caught on as fast as it could have. At best, Spotify is just an alternative to piracy at this point…barely. We’ll have to wait and see what happens…

      Reply
  10. Michael
    Michael

    Really?

    So the hipster douche bag who streams shitty sounding files of shitty music into his shitty player and listens to it on shitty ear buds is the upright human and the guy who listens to analog is the monkey? Go fuck yourself, you ignorant ass hat. If your fashionable music was any good at all, you’d be willing to pay for it. Bottom line, your current scarf wearing, over-rated “music heroes” are, at best, talentless hacks who crank out poorly produced crap that isn’t worth paying for and you’re stuck paying way too much for a device to listen to their crap on that’s always going to be cooler that whatever crap you download onto it to “listen to”. Any monkey can do that, you jack-off.

    Keep that nose in the air, though; it will make it all the more amusing when you inevitably step your fashionable shoes into some dog shit, slip and crack the back of your empty skull on the sidewalk.

    Reply
    • GGG
      GGG

      Uh….it’s pretty clearly just a visual of evolution via time passing, not quality. Easy, sailor.

      Reply
    • hippydog
      hippydog

      QUOTE Michael “Really? ”
      DUDE, your reading way to much into a simple graphic thats been used a thousand times in different ways..
      put down your ghetto-blaster with its 12 ‘D’ size batteries and your ‘Boney M’ 8-track, and take a chill pill 😉

      Reply
    • wallow-T
      wallow-T

      European royalty in the 1700’s had the best fidelity: they kept a staff of musicians on hand to play live, more or less on demand.
      Haydn, IIRC, wore a servant’s livery and began each day by inquiring if his employer required a concert that day.
      Since then, everything has been a tradeoff among affordabililty, portability, and sound fidelity. ( 1/2 🙂 )

      Reply
      • Visitor
        Visitor

        “European royalty in the 1700’s had the best fidelity”
        Good thinking and funny writing. 🙂
        But not correct. You can do a million things they couldn’t back then, and sound is (or can be) way better than ever before.

        Reply
  11. P Money
    P Money

    CD’s aren’t going away any time soon. The data trends prove that CD’s will be around for years to come. People who say otherwise have been saying this for nearly a decade and have been wrong every year but continue to base their opinions on emotional values sparked up by tech blogs and/or their friend’s opinions instead of fact and analysis.
    Now, that’s not to say one day the CD will go away and be replaced by another medium, most likely streaming. Streaming is the future whether you want to admit it or not. One day, 4G will be a thing of the past and we’ll have really consistent data transfer systems in place and ALL cars (even old used ones) will have some sort of streaming connectivity built in to the dashboard. This is way down the line folks, but if it’s an open enough dashboard to where you can download apps then you can use any streaming service in your car. This removes the need for the CD altogether.
    So, where does the physical medium land? Vinyl. Vinyl will make a larger comeback than it already has because it will be more of a collector’s piece that can be used to show-off your favorite artist’s album artwork. For pure convenience, services like Spotify and whatever Apple chooses to call their streaming service will dominate. BUT, don’t be surprised to see artists offer up vinyl versions that have something special packaged with them to lure in mega-fans. Music fans will have both vinyl and streaming as the medium to listen to their tunes.

    That’s my prediction anyway.

    Reply
  12. Just Another Voice in the Crow
    Just Another Voice in the Crow

    I’m 58. I have five kids and 11 grandchildren. I have not purchased a CD in over 5 years. None of my children have purchased a CD in over 5 years. My car has streaming capability. My smart-phone has streaming capability. I have my collection on the cloud. I am in the music business. Local bands still make cds because they’re easy to sell from stage. Most of the time I download whatever single(s) I want from those bands – on the spot – via 3G and/or 4G and/or wifi … at the show .. while the band is playing.
    Technology is great. I have a history degree and over 500 books on various historical subjects including econ history and the history of technology … .
    Technology wins every time.

    CDs, like vinyl, will one day be a niche market medium.

    Deal with it LOL.

    Reply
  13. Jefferson Thomas
    Jefferson Thomas

    “Michael” is a goddamned bona-fide hero. If I could have added anything or said it better, I would. I’m just going to drink this beer instead.

    Reply
  14. Manuela
    Manuela

    Digital Streaming and live music are the future! Whilst vinyls, tapecassettes and cds are beautiful “gadgets” to have but no more than that [email protected]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *