|
|
Post by matt on May 4, 2015 10:58:40 GMT -6
I am looking to subscribe to a service, but can't do Spotify or any other site that has a similar business model. So, my question is: who does it right? Anyone? I want the following:
- legal (not the Grooveshark business model!)
- fair payment of royalties (not Spotify!)
- large song repository across all genres
- good Web interface for playlist management
Is this too much to ask? Grooveshark's old site was perfect from a usability perspective, but totally illegal, as it turns out. And they led users to believe that they were completely legit. Assholes.
I'd pay $20/month for the right streaming site. Guess I better start looking.
|
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on May 4, 2015 11:20:05 GMT -6
none. just buy from iTunes if you really want to support the artists. Also, you basically described iTunes with your description of requirements lol
|
|
|
|
Post by sopwith on May 4, 2015 18:31:29 GMT -6
This is last year's data, but take your pick...  Best way is still to purchase and download individual tracks from the service of your choice. |
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on May 5, 2015 13:49:01 GMT -6
This is last year's data, but take your pick... Best way is still to purchase and download individual tracks from the service of your choice. I'm using Google Play because I saw this chart and they seemed to pay the best. No complaints about it on my end. |
|
|
|
Post by sopwith on May 5, 2015 16:40:28 GMT -6
Yep, same, I use Google Music and it's pretty great. I tend to use it for deep-diving into classical/jazz back catalogue stuff, but purchase individual tracks for working artists.
|
|
|
|
Post by donr on May 5, 2015 17:24:09 GMT -6
I'm all for streaming, as long as the fees are at all equitable. I don't want to own physical product anymore. I DO wish you could .pdf the credits for everything. I miss the liner notes. I want to know who played/engineered etc. too. In the '50's, they'd even tell you the equipment used to record the record. Dawn of HiFi.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on May 5, 2015 17:31:35 GMT -6
I have to admit, I loved Grooveshark. The playlist builder was killer and the "catalog" deep deep deep. Bastards, they scammed me. I had no idea that the site was crooked or would have quit it long ago.
Jesse, sopwith, how deep is the Google catalog? Sounds pretty deep, from your description. My dream is to have every song ever written, and every version of each, like the old Qwest Communications commercial where a guy enters a roadside cafe and the jukebox is musically omniscient. And no, not like YouTube. Don't need no stinking video.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on May 5, 2015 17:40:28 GMT -6
I'm all for streaming, as long as the fees are at all equitable. I don't want to own physical product anymore. I DO wish you could .pdf the credits for everything. I miss the liner notes Yes, all of the above, that's me - unless it's collectable. Then I want hard copy. I hope to see the day where streamed content has all of this encoded in the data, and the player allows the listener/viewer to view/manipulate/save anything they want. Such a delivery system could actually introduce new means of creative expression. |
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on May 5, 2015 20:17:48 GMT -6
I have to admit, I loved Grooveshark. The playlist builder was killer and the "catalog" deep deep deep. Bastards, they scammed me. I had no idea that the site was crooked or would have quit it long ago. Jesse, sopwith, how deep is the Google catalog? Sounds pretty deep, from your description. My dream is to have every song ever written, and every version of each, like the old Qwest Communications commercial where a guy enters a roadside cafe and the jukebox is musically omniscient. And no, not like YouTube. Don't need no stinking video. I just finished my 1 month trial and didn't really hit any roadblocks. I think the In Rainbows album was missing, but was missing from Spotify too. Of course the album that was given away for "free" is what I couldn't find. Go figure. Either way, they have a free 1 month trial to check it out. |
|
|
|
Post by keymod on May 6, 2015 4:41:24 GMT -6
How is it any of you can actually use anything to do with Google? Did you not read the thread in the Songwriter section regarding the MIC Coalition? So in the long run, you're paying them to screw you? How can we expect positive change if we don't put our money where our hearts lie?
Maybe I'm wrong, if I'm the only one that feels this way..................
|
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on May 6, 2015 9:26:33 GMT -6
I'm all for streaming, as long as the fees are at all equitable. I don't want to own physical product anymore. I DO wish you could .pdf the credits for everything. I miss the liner notes Yes, all of the above, that's me - unless it's collectable. Then I want hard copy. I hope to see the day where streamed content has all of this encoded in the data, and the player allows the listener/viewer to view/manipulate/save anything they want. Such a delivery system could actually introduce new means of creative expression. You can do that already with mp3s. people are lazy and don't fill out the metadata when they encode their albums. |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on May 6, 2015 14:15:08 GMT -6
Problem with streaming is very simple: what it would cost to compensate artists and labels and writers for the lost sales is simply CRAZY money that no one, even hard core music fans would be willing to pay.
The socialism of the label system is rarely talked about....it's easy to say "look they took 80% of the profit from the sale of Pearl Jam's album--isn't that unfair"....yes and no. If Pearl Jam is only artist, sure--that looks horrible. But, it's really about taking that 80% to cover the employment of 150 other bands, TOO....including, I might add, Mother Love Bone....Temple of the Dog....and Pearl Jam's first album. Right? Just because Ten sold a billion copies and so THEN people went back and maybe bought those older releases, doesn't negate that they lost big money on both for years. If they hand't had the label there during the MLB phase, likely some of them would've quit to have families and get day jobs....and Pearl Jam would never have actually happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by sopwith on May 6, 2015 15:11:07 GMT -6
How is it any of you can actually use anything to do with Google? Did you not read the thread in the Songwriter section regarding the MIC Coalition? So in the long run, you're paying them to screw you? How can we expect positive change if we don't put our money where our hearts lie? Maybe I'm wrong, if I'm the only one that feels this way.................. Well I hear you, but they make my email platform, my phone operating system, the sites I use to get traffic reports and driving directions, the service I use 500 times a day to find information, etc etc. I'm fully entwined in Google's services, and having access to these incredible back catalogues is amazing for a music fan. I don't listen on Youtube because that pays nothing until you're streaming millions of times. They definitely need to sort out the Youtube payments. But otherwise, streaming is the way we're going to consume pretty much all of our media in the future, so I don't want to stick my head in the sand for years and not use a great service which pays the best of any of them at this point. I'd rather use it, purchase tracks from working artists, and add my voice to those lobbying for better terms for the content creators. |
|
|
|
Post by sopwith on May 6, 2015 15:18:20 GMT -6
That said, if Beats Music or Tidal are shown to offer better payouts for artists across the board, I'll totally switch to one of those.
|
|
|
|
Post by donr on May 6, 2015 16:14:15 GMT -6
Problem with streaming is very simple: what it would cost to compensate artists and labels and writers for the lost sales is simply CRAZY money that no one, even hard core music fans would be willing to pay. The socialism of the label system is rarely talked about....it's easy to say "look they took 80% of the profit from the sale of Pearl Jam's album--isn't that unfair"....yes and no. If Pearl Jam is only artist, sure--that looks horrible. But, it's really about taking that 80% to cover the employment of 150 other bands, TOO....including, I might add, Mother Love Bone....Temple of the Dog....and Pearl Jam's first album. Right? Just because Ten sold a billion copies and so THEN people went back and maybe bought those older releases, doesn't negate that they lost big money on both for years. If they hand't had the label there during the MLB phase, likely some of them would've quit to have families and get day jobs....and Pearl Jam would never have actually happened. Pop's right, although I wouldn't call it Socialism. When we signed to Columbia in 1971, they had rights to 10 LP's. Their philosophy was developing artists with intention of selling their records for a long time. Labels were still run by people who loved music, and the brutal efficiencies that computer databases enabled hadn't really kicked in yet. The money labels took from successes financed the artists that stiffed. Labels were signing lots of bands and singers, most didn't sell. Someone figured out at some point that labels would make more money if they dropped an act after one stiff instead of making three LP's to see if they'd catch on. BOC's first gold record was our fourth one. I'm still grateful Columbia stood by us for the first three LP's when we had modest but increasing sales. BTW, the long commitment at CBS was with a terrible royalty rate. When "Reaper" was a hit, we were able to renegotiate to make a better deal. But most of the money made on that record went to the record company. |
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on May 6, 2015 17:10:45 GMT -6
How is it any of you can actually use anything to do with Google? Did you not read the thread in the Songwriter section regarding the MIC Coalition? So in the long run, you're paying them to screw you? How can we expect positive change if we don't put our money where our hearts lie? Maybe I'm wrong, if I'm the only one that feels this way.................. Well I hear you, but they make my email platform, my phone operating system, the sites I use to get traffic reports and driving directions, the service I use 500 times a day to find information, etc etc. I'm fully entwined in Google's services, and having access to these incredible back catalogues is amazing for a music fan. I don't listen on Youtube because that pays nothing until you're streaming millions of times. They definitely need to sort out the Youtube payments. But otherwise, streaming is the way we're going to consume pretty much all of our media in the future, so I don't want to stick my head in the sand for years and not use a great service which pays the best of any of them at this point. I'd rather use it, purchase tracks from working artists, and add my voice to those lobbying for better terms for the content creators. +1. I agree with every point. Streaming is happening and isn't going away. I tried to do my part choosing the best service for the artists rather than Spotify for its user experience. If my choices are pay for a streaming service and become exposed to more artists or only listen the one album/mo that I can afford and supplement my listening with pop radio helping Dr. Luke make more money, I'll take the streaming. |
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on May 11, 2015 21:00:41 GMT -6
I'm all for streaming, as long as the fees are at all equitable. I don't want to own physical product anymore. I DO wish you could .pdf the credits for everything. I miss the liner notes Yes, all of the above, that's me - unless it's collectable. Then I want hard copy. I hope to see the day where streamed content has all of this encoded in the data, and the player allows the listener/viewer to view/manipulate/save anything they want. Such a delivery system could actually introduce new means of creative expression. Of course, now that I'm actually paying, I've found some stuff missing. The Eek-A-Mouse Eeksperience album is nowhere to be found. There is only a "clean" version of the Damion Marley album, Welcome to Jamrock. New Taylor Swift isn't there either. These are 3 albums that I physically own, but can't steam on Google. To do that, I'll have to dig up the disks, import to my computer, and upload to the Google Cloud. It's great to have that option, but I'm trying to avoid filling my HD back up with music. |
|
