Spotify Loses Over 200 Labels Following NPD Report

More like this
18

Comments

Comments are closed on this article

avatar

crazygoji

November 20, 2011 at 2:00pm

A whole bunch of nothing to get the name of STHoldings in the news.  Did anyone look at the labels distributed by STHoldings?  I just did and recognize none of them. Doesn't Spotify pay royalties to the labels on the service?  Better that than nothing which is what companies like STHoldings' labels will be seeing after this move.

Seems to me that services like Spotify are the only way artists are getting to listeners because we all know the shape of radio.  Like some of the other responders here, I use Spotify Premium to sample new music before buying it. 

 

avatar

essjay22

November 19, 2011 at 7:31am

This might a generational thing  here but when I go to the trouble of buying an album I do not get  "bored" with it. Good , well crafted, enduring music will never be tiring. I see value in supporting the musicians I like and actually owning a copy complete with liner notes that no one can ever take away from me. I would never pay 1$ for a track either. Album or nothing. If a musician can do one track well the album will be just as good. If it isnt then one hit wonders do not deserve my cash.

Pandora has opened up my ears to many great artists I had not heard and as a result I have purchased more albums since i started listening  online than I ever had listening to terrestrial radio.

This is repeated with people I Know, they are buying  music. That makes me think this whole                " damaging music sales" is a disinformation misdirect. I dont know why this report is out there  but I would suspect old guard RIAA tacticians and we all know how clever those ppl are.

I would not resort to piracy, and saying so is just plain foolish.I have always downloaded music, first as a way to get digital copies of my beloved vinyl and then to listen to artists to see if they were worth buying. If it stays on my iPod I buy it. Eventually, as finances allow. period

;-)

avatar

Scatter

November 20, 2011 at 10:37am

I'm a little confused at a few things here

1) I thought that the studios always believed that these services hurt music sales anyway and if they didn't then why were they complaining about them in the past?

2) What makes these kinds of services any different than radio which has been around for decades and was supported by the artists and studios?  It only makes sense to me that a studio isn't going to sell an album unless people hear it first. 

avatar

kevaskous

November 19, 2011 at 12:03pm

Being I listen to every single genre of music out there, sorry, I don't agree with you. And no matter how you look at it some people don't have the money to go out and buy everything they like, some people barely got money to justify something like spotify premium, much less a 20$ album of which a person can oly listen to so many times in a row.

 

Your ideals are flawed for most people, I'd rather a good solid and reliable media streaming service, fits my needs and those of most people alot better. But they rather get nothing, then something.

avatar

poee

November 19, 2011 at 8:43pm

So... if "some people don't have the money to go out and buy everything they like," it's cool to just take it, then?

If I want something and I don't have the money for it, I should just go ahead and take it anyway, since we are all entitled to whatever we want, when we want it, and for whatever price we are willing to pay (including zero)? Have I got that right?

avatar

rdross80

November 20, 2011 at 7:05am

 

I think you misunderstood him. The music labels are bailing out on Spotify because they think they are losing money on this service. But their thought process is that if their music isn't on Spotify people will instead pay the $10 to buy the album. But kevaskous is saying most people might only have $10 a month budgeted to spend on music, period. So are they going to spend that money on just one album, or on a service like Spotify where they can listen to as much music as they want? It will most likely be the latter. Streaming services discourage piracy because it gives people the option of spending little money for a great value and the artists/labels still make a profit. Would it be as much as if everyone bought the albums individually? No, but most people don't have that money to spend anyway, so it's a moot point.

avatar

kevaskous

November 20, 2011 at 5:41pm

Yep rdross gets it, as I'm currently unemployed atm, and work has been slow, I'm in exactly that circumstance, and loving music as I do, I try to atleast do something, but if that isn't good enough for them, well then they can take it and stick it.

avatar

atx4us

November 18, 2011 at 9:25pm

I'm so glad to see there are people who just don't give into the Facebook account requirement.  I obviously can survive without the FB collective assimilation!

avatar

Scatter

November 20, 2011 at 10:39am

I can understand you're not using the service if you don't like having to sign into Facebook but why would you care if others use it?

avatar

Holly Golightly

November 18, 2011 at 4:53pm

You know, they would raise more revenue if they just got rid of the damn FaceBook requirement. I refused to use anything that requires a FaceBook account to log in.

As for record labels dropping out from Spotify, there are other online radio stations. If they ban every single online radio, then I would just resort to pirating. Plain and simple.

avatar

livebriand

November 18, 2011 at 7:14pm

That facebook login requirement is the EXACT reason I refuse to even consider Spotify. Pandora is good enough. And as the other guy said, it just isn't worth paying $1 per track, since you'll get tired of them eventually and it adds up. (With Pandora, once I've fine-tuned it to my tastes, I don't have to bother picking out things I might like.) That said, I might be willing to pay for Pandora Pro ($36 per year, given what it is, is a pretty good deal).

avatar

Holly Golightly

November 18, 2011 at 10:03pm

What drives me really insane how they still insist on using FaceBook accounts to log in. I was willing to pay for a membership if the radio was as good as critics say. But because of their actions they lost out on a potential loyal customers. Oh well... I guess it is on them.

The music industry is insane to think I will pay $1 for each and every random song I listen to that I may or may not even listen to again. Back when Virgin Mega Store was still around, I used to randomly buy albums because there were no trance radio stations here in New York. Thanks to internet radio, discovering new music is even easier.

I used to listen to Last.FM but switched to Tune-In Radio because it is free to listen. I think that Live365 and Pandora Radio are the best radio subscriptions money can buy and they best part is, FaceBook is not required. Is it me, or does requiring a FaceBook account to log in seem a little unprofessional?

avatar

livebriand

November 18, 2011 at 10:31pm

Personally, I don't use Facebook because of the privacy issues with it. I have no use for it, it's a waste of time. And why should I need to let facebook have ANY of my information just for this? Hate it. I am completely opposed to FB in all ways.

avatar

iheartpcs

November 21, 2011 at 8:50am

I'm not sure how someone who doesn't use Facebook can proclaim there is privacy issues. I have used Facebook since day 1 and never had an issue with my privacy being violated.

avatar

Holly Golightly

November 21, 2011 at 12:22pm

The privacy in question is not one you would know of. If you read their terms of use agreement, you will see that they, themselves reserve the right to sell your personal information for ad dollars. And they do. Also, the moment you post a photo on FaceBook, it is forever the property of the FaceBook servers. Even long after you delete your FaceBook account, it does not simply go away. As a customer, I want to be respected. I do not want my personal information or private life being sold for ad dollars. Whatever I post should be mine and not that of paid advertisers. It's not like it matters, I run Ad Blocker. So they are spending their money foolishly. It is what they deserve for selling my private information. Anyhow, here it is:

http://www.facebook.com/terms.php

http://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/

avatar

kevaskous

December 09, 2011 at 9:05pm

FYI i signed up without facebook, really dunno what you're on about, think you're looking for a reason to bitch, tbh.

avatar

Holly Golightly

December 09, 2011 at 10:31pm

Nice try Troll Face!

https://www.spotify.com/us/signup/open/

It still says that you need a FaceBook account if you are an American. So my question to you is, what are you on???

avatar

kevaskous

November 18, 2011 at 6:31pm

These people just don't want my money. I am not gonna pay 1$ per track, or 20$ for a album I'll get bored of listening to in the first day. I love my music but I value my money more. I am more then willing to pay for good streaming services, but they just won't let it happen, until then they can kiss my ass.

 

I paid for Spotify but with all these troubles I'm most likely gonna stop, the quality is funky in the first place even with premium and honestly it's less hassle to pirate the shit and get good tracks worth listening to from the bands I like, I like grooveshark for this reason aswell but it lacks a ASIO interface with my soundcard, but most of all, it's music catalogue is too volitale to be worth paying for. Got my fav bands one day, next, gone, same with Spotify, screw that.

 

Edit: Would like to note if i want to support my bands, I'll goto their concerts. I am not supporting record label middlemen.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.
Don't have an account? Join Now.