[Go to page: 1,...15,16,17]

[BaronVonAbelDong]

Cheers. At least that's a clear reason...

What financial good does boycotting formats do people that are still trying to put food on the table? Anyone got proof or real results?

[Harmonic Progression]

Okay, I read the first 3.5 pages of this thread and nothing has changed my mind. But maybe I'm just in a grouchy mood.

I've been losing interest in a lot of current music. Mostly because of lyrics I can't relate to.

Having said that, Maybe I should try to get Taylor Swift to dis me in a song; that would be AWESOME! I'd probably have more new dates than ever for the rest of my life, which might make it worth dating her for a week or two.

[beatz01]

@ohigetbywithalittlehelpfrommyfriends :

The length of your screenname is annoying as fuck.Because it destroys the forum layout for i guess most people.
You probably think it's funny or makes you special but let me assure you it's neither of both.
So could you please be so kind and show some fucking courtesy by shortening it to normal length ?

Thank you.

[ohigetbywithalittlehelpfrommyfriends]

.
.
.







.











.


































.




















.


















.



























.










.




































































































.

[beatz01]

use safari bitch

I have a feeling you won't last very long here.

As you won't change your name anyway may i suggest we cut out the normally to be expected back and forth discussion and i will report you to the mods right away if that's ok with you ?

Great.

[TomViolenz]

So, if we can opt out of Spotify and all streaming. What is seen as the true benefit of that? In real terms, not simply 'Spotify are decimating the industry', that's a personal stance and I respect it. What end result are people hoping to gain? Strictly more money?

I could just be an old negative spinster here, but I think mainstream music has alread shifted somewhat because of piracy. Here in Germany (which never had such a strong mainstream music scene to begin with) the only people who still make good money are the Schlager and Volksmusik people (Cheesy pop for old people and even cheesier faux traditional music). The reason is simple their audience still buys their music instead of stealing it. I wouldn't be surprised if the big wave of Country in the US is supported by similar mechanisms.
This blow was somewhat softened, because during the same time making music and releasing it has become so much cheaper and more accessible. And some people of the younger generations are still honest.

But if the honest people are tricked into thinking that all you can eat music buffets are sustainable and 10 bucks a month is enough to pay for all that, then there will be nothing left to support a living for non-mainstream or even indie-mainstream artists. Some will get by because their music is conducive to being watched and played live. These people will then use their tracks truly only as advertisment for their concerts.
But many other styles can not go that route, because either in any one place there may be not enough people to sustain a concert infrastructure for that (while in a global aggregate, it would be enough to be sustainable via album sales), because it's just nothing people go to concerts for (when was the last Ambient concert you have seen by an unknown act?!), or they are just not good live.

I hope that this train can still be stopped (not likely, I know), but all you can eat music will destroy way too much culture.

So in a way yes, it's about more money. Enough money to be sustainable that is.
But it's also about dignity, all you can eat, for any art, is just shamefull, and making your money as an artist by selling t-sirts and branded cups even more so!

There's so much music out there that we usually get one shot, to get a listener to decide we are worth more of their time. Seconds even.

Surely unless you are in their pocket, on their gizmo, on their preferred format to meet and greet us and our wares, accessible at any moment, we're doing ourselves an injustice? Or am I just dense?

But that power differential stacked against the artist is turned into its extreme, when by trying to give your audience the format they want, you also agree to living under the poverty level. (Which everyone who can't at least get 4 million streams a month will)
That's why I mentioned iTunes plus before. Technically there is already infrastructure in place, to be in their pockets, but also earn a living.
But giving your audience what they want for (almost) no return for you is a fools game.

They want their cake and eat it too, nothing else.

Is the idea that not being on Spotify will encourage/force me come to the artist's preferred way of delivering the product and accept that as the only way to listen?

Fans who rather see me starve than to allow me to live of the art they enjoy, are not fans at all.
I can well do without them.
Sure as a popular musician you are always a whore to your audience, that's the price we pay.
But I refuse to be a back alley crack whore for them

So yes, in a way I will either force my fans to accept that, or I will vanish as an artist, because society as it is apparently does not value my services.
But my prediction is that the ones who don't try to force their fans to do that, will end up the same way.
Because Spotify is just an expression of society not really valuing our services.

Don't we need (only in the case of maximising financial returns) to be on everyone's preferred music format? What's the perceived/real benefit from blanking streaming services?

I guess the hope is that the all you can eat model is just a temporary thing, that if enough artists see it for what it is and avoid it, it will wither and be replaced by a streaming model that is sustainable.

Taylor Swift acted in her self interest, let's hope other artists wisen up and follow her lead.

[ohigetbywithalittlehelpfrommyfriends]

.
.
.







.











.


































.




















.


















.



























.










.




































































































.

[BaronVonAbelDong]

Cheers. At least that's a clear reason...

What financial good does boycotting formats do people that are still trying to put food on the table? Anyone got proof or real results?

its too soon to find that answer. my question is i wonder if she has some deal with a major store like target or walmart and to help sells, she pulled out spotify?

You can bet that her distribution was all primed and ready for the 'surprise' announcement and the media attention it got... Cynical? Was cool though.

[BaronVonAbelDong]

Sure as a popular musician you are always a whore to your audience, that's the price we pay.
But I refuse to be a back alley crack whore for them

... genuinely... at splitting hairs between the levels of whoring.

Listen. Thanks a lot for taking the time to write your thoughts. I completely agree with what you say... and then weirdly disagree also. It's a crazy time.

No kid growing up now will ever even know that people used to pay to play music!

And that's what we are facing I guess.

The need for a product existed, so that you could own it control when the music was played. On demand, on your hifi. Now there is no need for the product... we can hear pretty much anything we want. Maybe the only argument for a physical product is audio quality? But who cares anymore? Hopefully the audio quality angle will be a strong argument for not listening to everything through phone speakers in the street!

I watched a program about two artists in the UK. They bought up loads of old paintings and basically painted extra stuff on top of them and had exhibitions. Like sampling basically, but they are allowed to because it's 'art'... not music.

http://www.monopol-magazin.de/kalender/ ... a-Die.html

Their creation is tangible. When they create, there is a piece of something in the room, that wasn't there before.

I guess a real issue with music then is that it's not perceived as tangible. It's invisible and so there is not much worth associated with a bunch of vibrating molecules bouncing around on your eardrums.

Painting 'art' doesn't get caught up in the mechanics of the format... it's on a canvas or whatever, but it's the painting that is the focus. If it's painted on a piece of wood then it's even more 'arty'! Not the same with music.

We as creators are talking about which format to deliver the 'art' on in order to make more money. Not the music itself. It's sad. ...but it's exciting at the same time because it's completely up to us now.

Lots of ideas...

Have fun!

[ohigetbywithalittlehelpfrommyfriends]

.
.
.







.











.


































.




















.


















.



























.










.




































































































.

[BaronVonAbelDong]

I watched a program about two artists in the UK. They bought up loads of old paintings and basically painted extra stuff on top of them and had exhibitions. Like sampling basically, but they are allowed to because it's 'art'... not music.

http://www.monopol-magazin.de/kalender/ ... a-Die.html

Their creation is tangible. When they create, there is a piece of something in the room, that wasn't there before.

whoah whoah whoah, thats not art, that is 'defacing'

Like sampling a whole record and just playing a few keys on top, out of tune, and then having an exhibition.

Got to hand it to them for doing it.

'Artists' get celebrated.

Musicians get a lawsuit.

[ohigetbywithalittlehelpfrommyfriends]

.
.
.







.











.


































.




















.


















.



























.










.




































































































.

[H20nly]

@ Tom - i get that Spotify could pay more for the random track of any given artist that they've pulled out of a huge ever growing catalog... what i don't get is why you keep dealing in absolutes. you speak as though you have to choose only one avenue for people to be exposed to your music. this is not good business sense.

yeah, if you only choose to have your music played on Spotify you won't make a lot of money (unless a lot of people hear it, like it, and then buy it) but why put all your eggs in one basket? why not spread out the methods that people can discover music?

i think that there is a lot of blaming the listener going on... meanwhile the centuries old goal of making and playing music morphs into making something at home, posting it to iTunes or whoever pays the most and expecting to make a living. musicians used to be performers that would play live. now what? introverts that get a check?

what if 'Zamfir and his Pan Flute' just sat in his living room bemoaning the fact that people weren't coming to his house? he'd be expected to get off his ass, no?
what if buskers complained they are broke because not enough people give them money at the one spot they choose to sit at on Main Street? it would be reasonable to expect them to try on some other streets/corners too, no?

if your goal is play music and reach audiences, then reach audiences ffs.

if your goal is to pick the perfect audience for your ideal dream job, then good luck with that.

[ohigetbywithalittlehelpfrommyfriends]

.
.
.







.











.


































.




















.


















.



























.










.




































































































.

[beats me]

All Macs come with GarageBand preinstalled for free. The default value of a composer has been slid to zero.