maine
Moderator
Joined: February 2014
Posts: 27,246
Pronouns: he/him
Staff
|
Post by maine on Mar 5, 2017 14:42:45 GMT -5
. There's also the $4.99 a month subscription for students that I don't believe other streaming services have. Spotify also offers a student discount as well as Amazon Prime. I believe Spotify's is $4.99 too. Prime's I do have (I want to say it's $50/year?), but I think it's a separate subscription for their Unlimited service. The Prime Music is free downloads for like maybe 1/3 of their catalog, while Unlimited is like Apple Music and Spotify where everything is available. I used Prime Music for awhile, but the interface was awful. Horrible to navigate, poor selections, and it just wasn't really user-friendly. Spotify is great, but there are some features that I don't particularly care for randomly in the interface. I just think Apple Music is the all-around package to me. I've only run into a few problems (like my metadata getting wiped out a few years ago, grr). Also where's the love for Tidal? lol
|
|
Linnethia Monique
Diamond Member
Still 100% Snackable
🗣 NOW GET YOUR BOOTS AND YOUR COAT FOR THIS...
Joined: December 2004
Posts: 24,208
|
Post by Linnethia Monique on Mar 5, 2017 15:05:37 GMT -5
Spotify also offers a student discount as well as Amazon Prime. I believe Spotify's is $4.99 too. Prime's I do have (I want to say it's $50/year?), but I think it's a separate subscription for their Unlimited service. The Prime Music is free downloads for like maybe 1/3 of their catalog, while Unlimited is like Apple Music and Spotify where everything is available. I used Prime Music for awhile, but the interface was awful. Horrible to navigate, poor selections, and it just wasn't really user-friendly. Spotify is great, but there are some features that I don't particularly care for randomly in the interface. I just think Apple Music is the all-around package to me. I've only run into a few problems (like my metadata getting wiped out a few years ago, grr). Also where's the love for Tidal? lol I only used Prime Music when I first paid for the Prime membership and that only lasted a good hour because I got frustrated with almost everything about it and reverted back to Spotify. I currently have a Tidal membership but that's only because I take advantage of their multiple "free" promos that they do. The current Sprint promotion gives you 6 free months and it doesn't even require your credit card information, nor that you have Sprint, just your e-mail and the promo code. The playlists are subpar, interface is sometimes clunky, etc. I only really use it for the exclusives like some of the omissions of Jay-Z's catalog and Beyonce's from other services and for track information since they include that. They also have cute little niche documentaries but it's not something I would fork over $10+ a month for.
|
|
maine
Moderator
Joined: February 2014
Posts: 27,246
Pronouns: he/him
Staff
|
Post by maine on Mar 5, 2017 15:28:22 GMT -5
Prime's I do have (I want to say it's $50/year?), but I think it's a separate subscription for their Unlimited service. The Prime Music is free downloads for like maybe 1/3 of their catalog, while Unlimited is like Apple Music and Spotify where everything is available. I used Prime Music for awhile, but the interface was awful. Horrible to navigate, poor selections, and it just wasn't really user-friendly. Spotify is great, but there are some features that I don't particularly care for randomly in the interface. I just think Apple Music is the all-around package to me. I've only run into a few problems (like my metadata getting wiped out a few years ago, grr). Also where's the love for Tidal? lol I only used Prime Music when I first paid for the Prime membership and that only lasted a good hour because I got frustrated with almost everything about it and reverted back to Spotify. I currently have a Tidal membership but that's only because I take advantage of their multiple "free" promos that they do. The current Sprint promotion gives you 6 free months and it doesn't even require your credit card information, nor that you have Sprint, just your e-mail and the promo code. The playlists are subpar, interface is sometimes clunky, etc. I only really use it for the exclusives like some of the omissions of Jay-Z's catalog and Beyonce's from other services and for track information since they include that. They also have cute little niche documentaries but it's not something I would fork over $10+ a month for. Yeah, Prime Music sucks lol. I used Tidal for the download of Anti, but other than that, I haven't revisited it. I'm not a particular fan of their interface, as it is kind of inconsistent for the lack of a better word. I think we're all in agreement that Spotify and Apple Music are the only truly good streaming services out there. To kind of support Disco from what y'all were dragging him for on the last page, I do find Spotify's pop-up ads really annoying. Like, if you are away from Spotify for awhile then go back into the program, there's almost always an ad that takes up the whole screen and you can't click away for like 5-10 seconds. That's my only issue with the ads there. Is it weird that I would like more variety in their ads? lol. Like, it's always just the same ads that are talking about how you should get Spotify Premium nowadays. I liked the ones where they would highlight playlists because I found a few good songs from the ads actually when it was like that around a year ago.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 17:30:48 GMT -5
^^They've added Blue Apron and KFC to the mix now And they do still advertise different playlists. But yes, as weird a complaint as it is, they actually have too few audio ads (they tend to be a bit more varied with the banner ads). I'm guessing it's because they only play ads every 30 minutes or so, and they want to guarantee that each ad is heard. Too many ads in the rotation means yours might not even get played in the majority of listening sessions.
|
|
Caviar
Diamond Member
Queen X
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 30,884
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his
|
Post by Caviar on Mar 5, 2017 21:23:58 GMT -5
I can't imagine using Spotify with ads. That's the main reason I don't listen to radio. But it's an option for those that don't want to pay.
|
|
maine
Moderator
Joined: February 2014
Posts: 27,246
Pronouns: he/him
Staff
|
Post by maine on Mar 5, 2017 22:14:38 GMT -5
^^They've added Blue Apron and KFC to the mix now And they do still advertise different playlists. But yes, as weird a complaint as it is, they actually have too few audio ads (they tend to be a bit more varied with the banner ads). I'm guessing it's because they only play ads every 30 minutes or so, and they want to guarantee that each ad is heard. Too many ads in the rotation means yours might not even get played in the majority of listening sessions. It's been ages since I've heard a non-"sign up for premium!" ad on the service. I see multiple different advertisements for the pop-up ones though. The too many ads makes a lot of sense when you put it that way. Not a lot of people stream for hours at a time when they have the free service (or, at least I didn't), so it's not like you're going to get all that many ads (approx. 6-8, considering there's around 2-3 for the breaks).
|
|
bat1990
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2004
Posts: 12,944
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by bat1990 on Mar 6, 2017 9:13:17 GMT -5
I actually subscribe to Google Play music and I've been very impressed. I haven't yet run in to something that was on Spotify or Apple Music but not Google Play.
The user base is so low that there are barely any pre-made playlists, and the mobile interface is a bit klunky to navigate, but their radio kicks ass and it's very easy to sync music (e.g. Aaliyah's catalog) from Google Drive or OneDrive into the service. They also apparently have better payouts to artists than either Spotify or Apple, which was another item that swayed my choice.
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,464
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Mar 13, 2017 8:27:08 GMT -5
Pandora Premium is about to launch for $10/month. They won't be curating playlists, just having their usual radio stations. They are also saying they won't play the exclusives game.
First rollout is to existing Pandora customers on 3/15. Regular users get 2 months free, Pandora Plus users get 6 months free, if you dont have a Pandora account, you wont have access until April
|
|
deGonzz
New Member
Joined: December 2013
Posts: 290
|
Post by deGonzz on Mar 13, 2017 13:56:57 GMT -5
It's crazy how they almost all do something that the other ones don't do right, in my opinion.
Was a pretty happy Spotify user until Apple Music came around. I immediately switched. Apple Music is great for me for several reasons. A much larger database. Actually using the iTunes on Desktop and managing my music as an actual library rather than bunch of playlists (I'm more an albums guys). Plus I like to make my own playlists. And iTunes has a lot of nice sorting ans smart ways to organize your library and playlists as you want. Such as group together all songs with such keywords/such composers/from such period of time/etc and whatnot. Also, iTunes allows me to actually edit information about the tracks I import into my library and that is an ultimate factor for me. All these apps don't have the best way of processing the data content of their tracks. So it can be an organization nightmare. And that's the only thing that makes Tidal valuable to me. I am not subscribed there anymore (I tried it for a bit only) but I still have access to my very limited use account and still am able to search songs and most importantly view credits information about them. I need to see credits and Tidal at the moment has the best aggregation of information about individual tracks: going from the names of actual musicians on a song to the name of the songwriters, the composers, producers and all those lovely people!
In terms of mobile app experience, I think Spotify is the best! And that's where Apple Music needs to step their game up. They're either very buggy (especially since I use it on an Android...) or just not that intuitive. And the Spotify App just looks way sexier.
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,464
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Mar 14, 2017 7:54:25 GMT -5
Spotify definitely has the best mobile app, and their desktop and web apps are decent too.
Apple Music makes the most sense if you're fully into the apple ecosystem. Having a fully integrated experience across your iPhone, iPad, and Mac is nice, plus they have some great playlists and radio features. But if you're an android user, the experience kind of sucks.
Tidal is...well it's Tidal. I dont know why anybody would want it but I guess there's a market for it if you really want Beyonce exclusives?
Google Play has some decent playlists, but I think they've suffered by not trying to integrate it more into the Android OS.
Amazon's service seems like an afterthought. They obviously aren't going to invest the kind of money it would take to make it a trube competitor to Spotify or Apple Music
Pandorra's on demand service could be interesting, given that they already have a strong userbase for their ad-based radio. But if you haven't made the switch to a paid service by now, what is going to make you want to?
|
|
Caviar
Diamond Member
Queen X
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 30,884
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his
|
Post by Caviar on Mar 16, 2017 9:29:22 GMT -5
Spotify is reportedly going to block free users from listening to its hottest new musicPeople who use Spotify without paying may be blocked from listening to some of the hottest new music on the platform, according to a new report from The Financial Times. The music streaming service is reportedly nearing a new deal with the major music labels. And one part of that deal would — on a temporary basis — make some of the top releases on the platform available only to users who have paid for subscriptions. So the next Frank Ocean album, say, might become available on Spotify — but unless you've paid for a subscription, you'll have to wait a while before you can actually listen to it. These negotiations with labels are essential to Spotify's future plans. The Swedish company plans to go public, but first it needs certainty about the terms on which it uses the major labels' music on its platform. Spotify has been long resistant to the idea of restricting some of its music to just its paid subscribers. But according to the FT, it has received a concession in return — it will pay less to the labels in royalty fees on each song.Taylor Swift refused to put her new album on the platform in 2015 because the company would not restrict it to premium-only users, an incident that sparked heated debate over how music should be valued and whether ad-supported music streaming services pay artists properly. Competitors, like Apple Music, do not offer a free tier at all — though it does provide temporary free trials to potential subscribers. The negotiations, with Universal, Sony, and Warner, could reportedly be completed within weeks. Spotify currently has more than 50 million paid subscribers, according to its site, and over 100 million overall. There are more than 30 million songs on the platform. www.businessinsider.com/spotify-stop-free-users-listening-big-new-releases-ipo-report-2017-3
|
|
Rican@
8x Platinum Member
[Only dry eyes, I would love on you for years]
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,971
|
Post by Rican@ on Mar 16, 2017 9:45:26 GMT -5
I guess.
I would think we are at point that people would not be so cheap and want to pay the service anywhere. But ok.
|
|
newpower
3x Platinum Member
Joined: December 2005
Posts: 3,532
|
Post by newpower on Mar 19, 2017 16:55:33 GMT -5
|
|
bat1990
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2004
Posts: 12,944
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by bat1990 on Mar 21, 2017 15:14:01 GMT -5
Do they drop off old weeks when new ones come out? I went back and found the oldest available week but it had movement shown from the previous week.
|
|
Raccoon
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 1,950
|
Post by Raccoon on Mar 29, 2017 23:26:51 GMT -5
|
|
Rican@
8x Platinum Member
[Only dry eyes, I would love on you for years]
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,971
|
Post by Rican@ on Mar 29, 2017 23:38:26 GMT -5
I'm not surprised. Apple Music is built into a phone (somewhat) so it has upper hand because the company has several millions of millions iPhone users who would most likely preferred it over Spotify. However, I use my iPod for music and still I used my Spotify before anything, can't tell you last time I opened the Music icon on my iPod.
Apple was quite aggressive in its marketing tactic so this is not shocking at all. It will always have leg up because how the system is built in.
|
|
Caviar
Diamond Member
Queen X
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 30,884
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his
|
Post by Caviar on Mar 30, 2017 7:59:26 GMT -5
I just opened the Music app today on my iPhone in probably 5 months to play Trey's album (from iTunes). I use Spotify almost exclusively, but decided to switch it up today.
|
|
Linnethia Monique
Diamond Member
Still 100% Snackable
🗣 NOW GET YOUR BOOTS AND YOUR COAT FOR THIS...
Joined: December 2004
Posts: 24,208
|
Post by Linnethia Monique on Apr 5, 2017 12:13:23 GMT -5
SPOTIFY AND UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP ANNOUNCE GLOBAL, MULTI-YEAR LICENSE AGREEMENT
STOCKHOLM AND SANTA MONICA, April 4, 2017 – Spotify, the leading global music streaming service, and Universal Music Group (UMG), the world leader in music-based entertainment, today announced a new, multi-year global license agreement. Under the agreement, the companies will advance their partnership to ensure that streaming realizes its full transformational potential for artists, labels and fans by delivering a comprehensive range of music experiences, providing more flexibility for new releases, and collaborating on innovative marketing campaigns across Spotify’s platform. The new agreement will also provide UMG with unprecedented access to data, creating the foundation for new tools for artists and labels to expand, engage and build deeper connections with their fans. In making the announcement, Daniel Ek, Chairman and CEO of Spotify, said, “This partnership is built on a mutual love of music, creating value for artists and delivering for fans. We will be working together to help break new artists and connect new and established artists with a broadening universe of fans in ways that will wow them both. We know that not every album by every artist should be released the same way, and we’ve worked hard with UMG to develop a new, flexible release policy. Starting today, Universal artists can choose to release new albums on premium only for two weeks, offering subscribers an earlier chance to explore the complete creative work, while the singles are available across Spotify for all our listeners to enjoy. I want to thank Sir Lucian for his leadership in everything we have done so far and in everything that we will do together to deliver on the promise of the new music economy for all the people who make music and all the people who love it.”Sir Lucian Grainge, Chairman and CEO of Universal Music Group, said, “Eight years ago, when streaming was a welcome but small source of revenue, UMG embraced partners like Spotify as a way to help return music to a vibrant future benefitting the entire ecosystem. Working hand in hand with these digital services brought us the industry’s first real growth in nearly two decades. Today, streaming represents the majority of the business. Our challenge is transforming that upturn into sustainable growth. In a market this dynamic, one evolving more rapidly than ever before, success requires creative and continual re-evaluation of how best to bring artists’ music to fans. At UMG, we’ve not only reimagined distribution models and technologies, but entire business models. The only constants must be great music and fair compensation for artists and creators. To that end, the long-term success of Spotify, and others like it, is essential to the ecosystem’s enduring health. I congratulate Daniel on Spotify’s continued growth and innovation, and I look forward to working together with him and his team to develop exciting new ways to connect artists and fans around the world.” About Spotify Spotify is an award-winning digital music service that gives you on-demand access to over 30 million tracks. Our dream is to make all the world’s music available instantly to everyone, wherever and whenever you are. Spotify makes it easier than ever to discover, manage and share music with your friends, while making sure that artists get a fair deal. Spotify is now available in 60 markets globally with more than 100 million active users, and over 50 million paying subscribers. Since its launch in Sweden in 2008, Spotify has driven more than US$5bn to rights holders. Spotify is the biggest and most successful music streaming service of its kind globally. www.spotify.comFor more information, images, or to contact the team, please head over to our press page at press.spotify.com/About Universal Music Group Universal Music Group (UMG) is the world leader in music-based entertainment, with a broad array of businesses engaged in recorded music, music publishing, merchandising and audiovisual content in more than 60 countries. Featuring the most comprehensive catalog of recordings and songs across every musical genre, UMG identifies and develops artists and produces and distributes the most critically acclaimed and commercially successful music in the world. Committed to artistry, innovation and entrepreneurship, UMG fosters the development of services, platforms and business models in order to broaden artistic and commercial opportunities for our artists and create new experiences for fans. Universal Music Group is a Vivendi company. Find out more at: www.universalmusic.com.
|
|
Harx
5x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2016
Posts: 5,015
|
Post by Harx on Apr 9, 2017 0:06:06 GMT -5
|
|
Raccoon
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 1,950
|
Post by Raccoon on Apr 15, 2017 23:18:33 GMT -5
I wish Apple Music would buy TIDAL.
|
|
Raccoon
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 1,950
|
Post by Raccoon on May 25, 2017 22:54:35 GMT -5
1. I wish Apple Music would publish their streaming #'s.....
1. I wish Spotify and Apple Music would publish statistics about the amount of times a song has been added to a library... and that number would count towards the charts, almost like a download. I wonder how many times the #1 song on iTunes gets added to a library compared to the number of times it is bought that week
|
|
Caviar
Diamond Member
Queen X
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 30,884
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his
|
Post by Caviar on Jun 8, 2017 17:23:43 GMT -5
Anyone get their personalized summer playlist? It goes back 3 years I think with your most played songs.
|
|
Au$tin
Diamond Member
Pop Culture Guru
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 54,539
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his/him
|
Post by Au$tin on Jun 8, 2017 22:54:12 GMT -5
Taylor Swift is back on Spotify.
|
|
Raccoon
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 1,950
|
Post by Raccoon on Jun 19, 2017 11:00:24 GMT -5
|
|
yonnath
New Member
Dupe
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 84
|
Post by yonnath on Jun 20, 2017 8:30:22 GMT -5
This may be a stupid question, but does anyone know if you have Spotify Premium and you "download" a song, will it still count towards it streams even though are technically listening to it offline?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2017 10:13:07 GMT -5
This may be a stupid question, but does anyone know if you have Spotify Premium and you "download" a song, will it still count towards it streams even though are technically listening to it offline? Yes, the next time you're online your offline plays will be sent to Spotify's server. Your plays in private listening mode are also counted. Note, this only applies to songs downloaded from Spotify - Spotify doesn't count listens to personal ("local") files for streaming purposes.
|
|
Au$tin
Diamond Member
Pop Culture Guru
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 54,539
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his/him
|
Post by Au$tin on Jun 23, 2017 10:32:42 GMT -5
This will fix itself out, though. Large websites like this usually are a black hole for money for a few years before they become profitable. Facebook is a great example of this (and I believe YouTube as well). Normally, this would kill a site, but if it has the name recognition, it'll be able to stick around until the profits start to roll in, and Spotify certainly has the name recognition.
|
|
|
Post by JOJO SIWA DERANGEMENT SYNDROME on Jul 11, 2017 0:54:49 GMT -5
Spotify denies allegations it manufactured fake artists Mon / 10 Jul 2017 / 1:54 PM
The streaming company responded to an article that accused it of hiring producers to create songs under fake pseudonyms.
A spokesperson for Spotify denied allegations the company has been padding out its playlists with non-existent artists.
Music Business Worldwide originally made its allegations last summer, claiming that inside sources in the company had confirmed their suspicions. They claimed that Spotify was saving money by hiring anonymous artists to produce songs under fake pseudonyms, and offering them a one-time payment rather than paying hefty fees based on the number of streams.
Last week Vulture dug the accusations back up in a wide-reaching article about the platform's spam problem, whereby users are able to game the system to squeeze out revenue disingenuously. They pointed to one Spotify-owned playlist in particular, a selection of ambient instrumental music called Sleep, as a possible example of the fake artists scheme in action. On that playlist there is a track by Enno Aare, a band with four tracks on Spotify and no evidence of their existence elsewhere on the web—a sign that the artist may have been invented solely for use on the streaming platform.
Today Spotify responded in a statement given to Billboard. "We do not and have never created 'fake' artists and put them on Spotify playlists. Categorically untrue, full stop," a Spotify spokesperson wrote in an email. "We pay royalties—sound and publishing—for all tracks on Spotify, and for everything we playlist. We do not own rights, we're not a label, all our music is licensed from rightsholders and we pay them—we don’t pay ourselves."
Music Business Worldwide responded within hours, publishing a list of 50 artist names it believes are manufactured.
SPOTIFY DENIES IT’S PLAYLISTING FAKE ARTISTS. SO WHY ARE ALL THESE FAKE ARTISTS ON ITS PLAYLISTS? JULY 9, 2017BY TIM INGHAM Well… this is awkward.
Last summer, MBW ran a widely-read story which blew the lid off the fact that Spotify’s platform was being deliberately clogged up with music by ‘fake’ artists.
We were told that Daniel Ek’s company was encouraging and even paying producers to create tracks under untraceable pseudonyms – within specific musical guidelines – which were then being drafted into key first-party playlists.
After some consideration, Spotify declined to comment.
On Friday (July 7), nearly a year after our article appeared, Spotify issued a fierce denial of such accusations.
“We do not and have never created ‘fake’ artists and put them on Spotify playlists. Categorically untrue, full stop,” said a spokeperson in response to a Vulture article which cited MBW’s story.
“We pay royalties -sound and publishing – for all tracks on Spotify, and for everything we playlist.
“We do not own rights, we’re not a label, all our music is licensed from rights-holders and we pay them – we don’t pay ourselves.”
What’s essential to remember here: amongst Spotify’s indignant yet carefully-worded statement, you might have missed the bit where they deny that their service is littered with fake artists.
That’s because they can’t.
And, to prove the point, we’re about to reveal the names of 50 of them.
Here’s where this story veers somewhere towards scandal.
These non-existent acts are deliberately being chosen for inclusion, time and time again, on first-party playlists with millions of followers at the expense of label-signed music.
You’ve got to ask yourself why.
Does their music, as MBW is told, come with a more favorable royalty pricetag than tracks from traditional independent and major rights-holders?
We have a slight conundrum here, in that it’s difficult to now defend the veracity of our original story without breaking the confidence of our informants.
But we can say this much: last year, we learned about a producer in Europe who claimed that he’d done a deal with Spotify to create songs under ‘fake’ artist names.
“WE DO NOT AND HAVE NEVER CREATED ‘FAKE’ ARTISTS AND PUT THEM ON SPOTIFY PLAYLISTS. CATEGORICALLY UNTRUE, FULL STOP.”
SPOTIFY SPOKESPERSON These tracks were then included by Spotify on key genre-based playlists.
To further corroborate this information, we were handed the names of his Spotify pseudonyms. They all existed, and they all boasted tracks with 500,000+ streams.
Other senior sources in the industry weren’t shocked – telling us that ‘fake’ artists appearing on first-party Spotify playlists was now common practice, and was indeed a bid by the platform to drive down its licensing costs.
These playlists included, amongst others, Peaceful Piano, Piano In The Background, Deep Focus, Sleep, Ambient Chill and Music For Concentration.
So how do you know if an artist on Spotify is definitely fake?
You don’t. Not for sure.
Put it this way: if an act on Spotify has millions of streams from just a couple of tracks, but no other internet presence whatsoever, wouldn’t that strike you as odd?
No Facebook, no Twitter, no ReverbNation page, no homepage, no SoundCloud?
What about if they had no manager/lawyer and no industry relationships? And seemingly, according to their Spotify credits, personally owned all of their own rights?
“WE’VE BEEN TOLD THAT THIRD-PARTIES ARE INVOLVED, AND AT LEAST SOME OF THE PEOPLE BEHIND THE FAKE ARTISTS AGREE TO INSANELY LOW MARGINS, WHICH OBVIOUSLY HAS A FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO SPOTIFY.”
SENIOR MUSIC BUSINESS EXECUTIVE SPEAKING UNDER CONDITION OF ANONYMITY What if their music then only appeared on Spotify – and was nowhere to be seen on YouTube, Apple Music etc.?
That would be weird, right? That would make no sense.
In total, tracks by the 50 ‘fake’ artists we’ve rumbled below amount to over 520m Spotify streams.
By traditional rights-holder payout metrics, that’s worth more than $3m in royalty payouts.
And this is just what MBW knows about – almost certainly the tip of the iceberg.
Here’s an idea. If any of the individuals mentioned in MBW’s list below are not completely and utterly fictional, please contact us.
We’re pretty sure A&R teams from across the globe would love to hear about artists with no online presence who have managed to rack up millions of Spotify plays with their first few tracks.
The big time beckons! We could change your life!
“THIS STRATEGY IS DESIGNED TO LOWER THE SHARE OF MUSIC ON PLAYLISTS FROM LEGITIMATE LABELS – MAJOR AND INDIE – THAT ARE INVESTING SUBSTANTIAL RESOURCES TO DEVELOP QUALITY ARTISTS AND MUSIC, SO THAT SPOTIFY CAN LOWER ITS CONTENT COSTS AND LESSEN THE INFLUENCE OF THE LABELS.”
SENIOR MUSIC BUSINESS EXECUTIVE SPEAKING UNDER CONDITION OF ANONYMITY We don’t expect any of you to get in touch, of course.
Because you’re fake. Lifeless. Non-existent.
This is basically the equivalent of shouting motivational phrases to a warehouse full of mannequins.
Creepy.
Where were we, again? Right.
After Spotify’s no-way-never-not-in-a-million-years denial on Friday, MBW felt a bit hurt.
Last year, proper sources with proper verified industry credentials told us that Spotify had commissioned individuals to create music under fake names, before deliberately selecting these tracks for its playlists.
And here’s Spotify saying it’s all nonsense.
So rather than making sweeping statements, let’s just ask some questions. Logical, obvious questions.
Here’s what we know for sure: there are a plethora of made-up artists on Spotify, being created under anonymity by producers, racking up millions of streams, being picked to appear on key first-party playlists.
It already sounds a bit dodgy, right?
So here’s what we want to know:
Question 1: Who is recommending and/or commissioning these people to create these tracks? Question 2: If, as Spotify says, these producers are not selling their masters off as production music, what royalty rate are they getting compared to real artists and labels? Is it 0%? Question 3: The vital question. Why is Spotify picking these tracks to appear on its own playlists with such volume and regularity, and ahead of recordings from major and independent labels? We haven’t just posed these questions to a metaphorical roomful of mannequins.
Yesterday, we asked Spotify.
Guess what? They declined to comment.
Oh, actually, we didn’t just ask Spotify.
We also asked very senior figures in the music business – including those working at the top table of major and independent labels – who are familiar with Spotify’s practices.
Here’s what some of these people (anonymized) have told us in the past 24 hours.
“We’ve been very aware of these artists. Some of the acoustic covers playlists contain ‘artists’ owned by a third-party indie production company that’s been doing cheap covers for years. We’re confident that the acoustic piano stuff is owned by Spotify under assumed names.” “This has been going on for a long time. We’ve been told that third-parties are involved, and at least some of the people behind the fake artists agree to insanely low margins, which obviously has a financial benefit to Spotify. The labels hate it.” “What we can be sure of is that this strategy is designed to lower the share of music on playlists from legitimate labels – major and indie – that are investing substantial resources to develop quality artists and music, so that Spotify can lower its content costs and lessen the influence of the labels.” Once again, to be clear, Spotify has denied any ownership of master rights, and claims: “We pay royalties – sound and publishing – for all tracks on Spotify, and for everything we playlist.”
And again, it adds: “We do not and have never created ‘fake’ artists and put them on Spotify playlists.”
Spotify remains in negotiations with Warner Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment to renew long-term global licensing deals.
SPOTIFY’S FAKE ARTISTS: MBW’S BIG LIST (TOTAL STREAMS) Amity Cadet (9.2m) Gabriel Parker (24.9m) Charlie Key (23.6m) Ana Olgica (23.5m) Lo Mimieux (22.3m) Mbo Mentho (10.3m) Benny Treskow (14.9m) Greg Barley (21.4m) Relajar (13.4m) Jeff Bright Jr (15.8m) Mayhem (10.2m) Novo Talos (17.2m) Advaitas (7.4m) Clay Edwards (4.7m) Benny Bernstein (9.6m) Enno Aare (17.1m) Amy Yeager (5.7m) Otto Wahl (27m) Piotr Miteska (26.7m) Leon Noel (2.7m) Giuseppe Galvetti (2.7m) Caro Utobarto (1.2m) Risto Carto (1.7m) Karin Borg (24.2m) Hultana (3.2m) Hiroshi Yamazaki (8.6m) Milos Stavos (7.1m) Allysa Nelson (4.3m) They Dream By Day (16.2m) Evelyn Stein (14.3m) Józef Gatysik (10.4m) Jonathan Coffey (480k) Pernilla Mayer (4.2m) Hermann (11.8m) Aaron Lansing (11.3m) Dylan Francis (6.5m) Christopher Colman (509k) Sam Eber (1.6m) Fellows (3.3m) Martin Fox (2.5m) Deep Watch (4.8m) The 2 Inversions (10.3m) Bon Vie (4.7m) Wilma Harrods (5.3m) Antologie (5.8m) Heinz Goldblatt (513k) Charles Bolt (32.4m) Samuel Lindon (11.8m) Tony Lieberman (2.5m) Mia Strass (8.9m)
|
|
Caviar
Diamond Member
Queen X
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 30,884
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his
|
Post by Caviar on Jul 31, 2017 22:31:47 GMT -5
|
|
Mylo13 💜
Diamond Member
@grapefanatic
Wishing everyone an amazing day and life 💜
Joined: July 2017
Posts: 10,091
|
Post by Mylo13 💜 on Oct 25, 2017 18:43:36 GMT -5
|
|