Manchester City Forums
http://www.mancityforum.co.uk/forum/

Spotify
http://www.mancityforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=5480
Page 2 of 3

Author:  Timpblue [ Wed May 18, 2011 2:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

what is spotify please?

Author:  Danny's Studs [ Wed May 18, 2011 2:24 pm ]
Post subject: 

it is an online jukebox, you install in (takes 3 mins) adn you have instant access to any artist and song you wish (well most anyway).

It is very very handy. you want to hear a song you simply search for it and BOOOOM, the song starts.

Author:  Timpblue [ Wed May 18, 2011 2:25 pm ]
Post subject: 

cool


what's the damage?

Author:  Danny's Studs [ Wed May 18, 2011 2:27 pm ]
Post subject: 

Free. here.

Author:  South East Citizen [ Wed May 18, 2011 2:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

Danny's Studs wrote:
not quite the same but it may have to do.


Your gratitude overwhelms me! :)

Author:  Danny's Studs [ Wed May 18, 2011 2:34 pm ]
Post subject: 

South East Citizen wrote:
Your gratitude overwhelms me! :)


it's a bit like taking cinema away from someone and then saying 'But, don't worry! Here! I give you...youtube!'.

Author:  BiscuitBlueCheese [ Wed May 18, 2011 2:43 pm ]
Post subject: 

Timpblue wrote:
cool


what's the damage?


It was free and unlimited, now it's restricted to 10 hours a week and also you can only listen to each track a maximum of 5 times ever. £10 a month gets you the premium service with unlimited listens to whatever they have on there, which is a lot of music. It's the equivalent of an album a month but no-one wants to pay it, we've just got used to free music although I can't see how its sustainable in the long run for the artists.

Author:  gibbonicus_andronicus [ Wed May 18, 2011 2:58 pm ]
Post subject: 

BiscuitBlueCheese wrote:
It was free and unlimited, now it's restricted to 10 hours a week and also you can only listen to each track a maximum of 5 times ever. £10 a month gets you the premium service with unlimited listens to whatever they have on there, which is a lot of music. It's the equivalent of an album a month but no-one wants to pay it, we've just got used to free music although I can't see how its sustainable in the long run for the artists.


advertising.

oh, and cutting out the middle layer of money grabbing executives.

artist - manager - spotify
rather than
artist - manager - music exec's - disc printers - shops

Author:  BiscuitBlueCheese [ Wed May 18, 2011 3:36 pm ]
Post subject: 

gibbonicus_andronicus wrote:
advertising.

oh, and cutting out the middle layer of money grabbing executives.

artist - manager - spotify
rather than
artist - manager - music exec's - disc printers - shops


You've obviously not seen the total pittance that even the top listened to artists on spotify get?

Author:  BiscuitBlueCheese [ Wed May 18, 2011 3:38 pm ]
Post subject: 

Example: Lady Gaga, one of the most popular artists on spotify, made £100 for having one of her songs listened to a million times over a period of half a year.

Author:  Winston_Smith [ Wed May 18, 2011 3:43 pm ]
Post subject: 

I really feel for her. BBC shilling for the rich as per usual...:rolleyes:

Author:  gibbonicus_andronicus [ Wed May 18, 2011 3:51 pm ]
Post subject: 

BiscuitBlueCheese wrote:
Example: Lady Gaga, one of the most popular artists on spotify, made £100 for having one of her songs listened to a million times over a period of half a year.


and in contrast she made how much from torrent downloads?

also, fuck her. with switchblades.

spotifiy have obviously got themselves a hell of a contract there. who is getting the ad revenue? what do they propose doing with the $10 premium subs?

Author:  BiscuitBlueCheese [ Wed May 18, 2011 3:51 pm ]
Post subject: 

If she is getting £100 and is one of the most played artists on spotify how much are the smaller artists earning who may rely on dwindling album sales to earn a living?

Author:  Winston_Smith [ Wed May 18, 2011 3:57 pm ]
Post subject: 

BiscuitBlueCheese wrote:
If she is getting £100 and is one of the most played artists on spotify how much are the smaller artists earning who may rely on dwindling album sales to earn a living?


Dunno, get a real job maybe?

Author:  Paddington Blue [ Wed May 18, 2011 4:09 pm ]
Post subject: 

grooveshark has been better for about a year now.

you're all welcome.

Author:  Danny's Studs [ Wed May 18, 2011 4:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

Paddington Blue wrote:
grooveshark has been better for about a year now.

you're all welcome.


fuck, good job.

talk to me about tomo mate.

Author:  BiscuitBlueCheese [ Wed May 18, 2011 4:29 pm ]
Post subject: 

EalingBlue wrote:
Dunno, get a real job maybe?


You and GA are just proving my point. You want to listen to new music presumably not by the most successful artists yet you're being ignorant of the fact that artists do need money and don't just do what they do for people to pay nothing illegally downloading their stuff or getting paid only 0.01p for a listen of a track. I'm not trying to be self righteous, I'm guilty of it too.

Author:  BiscuitBlueCheese [ Wed May 18, 2011 4:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

I was going to suggest grooveshark but then I didn't. Another missed opportunity :sigh:

Author:  Paddington Blue [ Wed May 18, 2011 4:59 pm ]
Post subject: 

EalingBlue wrote:
Dunno, get a real job maybe?


like what? staying at home getting a long one thrown up their arse by their mrs?

Author:  Winston_Smith [ Wed May 18, 2011 5:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

BiscuitBlueCheese wrote:
I'm not trying to be self righteous


:rolleyes:

Paddington Blue wrote:
like what? staying at home getting a long one thrown up their arse by their mrs?


It's a dirty job but someone has to do it.
I do have another job though tbf, I'm not totally idle.

Page 2 of 3 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/