kutta
Footballguy
No. You have to play it through Spotify. Well, I’m pretty sure.Does it download as an mp3?
No. You have to play it through Spotify. Well, I’m pretty sure.Does it download as an mp3?
I have prime music and love it as well. The downloading to the cloud though, I don't know if that's true. My phone has way over 1GB of music on my phone and I downloaded it all from the Prime website. I can listen to it on any device though, so it must be in the cloud but my phone is loaded. I giess I just don't udnerstand that partIf my wife didn't already have a spotify account that she's paying for, I'd get amazon music. We have prime so its 2 bucks cheaper and the biggest thing is that you can upload music to their cloud and listen on every device which I find better than having a copy of that music on every device.
And yes its worth it. To think about what I waste $100 on throughout the year and instead having all the music I want accessible to me whenever and wherever seems like a great value.
This is true. I think my daughter gets like $.08 per song downloaded, if that.If you are talking about the "old" old days, no way was it only that for me. Sure, I'd get a bunch used, but I was spending quite a bit more than that/month on music. If you are talking about my adult self with kids a few years ago when I signed up for Spotify, then you are correct, I was probably buying a couple CDs a year tops.
From what I understand the business model works because artists don't get jack for this compared to a huge record deal back in the day and the music companies went in on the cheap to get in on these streaming services, so there's that too.
You serious Clark?I don't think I'd call it getting ####ed over. It just means they generally have to play live shows to make money. Not to sound like southern sports talk radio caller, but what's the harm in that. Most of us poor schlubs have to keep working to keep making money. We don't get to retire off of 6 months of good work.
That's what I thought. don't like thatNo. You have to play it through Spotify. Well, I’m pretty sure.
Yeah but through what else would you play it?That's what I thought. don't like that
Yeah, you know those music artists. They pick up a guitar for the first time,then 6 months later they are seasoned musicians writing great songs.You serious Clark?
Downloading is when you want to listen offline or when only on 4g where you don't want to incur data charges. I'm talking about uploading where you have a bootleg concert and you can upload it to their cloud so that you can listen to it on any of your devices (you can of course download it to those other devices as well). Amazon and google offer that but spotify doesn't b/c they don't have cloud storage.I have prime music and love it as well. The downloading to the cloud though, I don't know if that's true. My phone has way over 1GB of music on my phone and I downloaded it all from the Prime website. I can listen to it on any device though, so it must be in the cloud but my phone is loaded. I giess I just don't udnerstand that part
So if I delete all the stuff on my phone Ill still be able to listen to it?Downloading is when you want to listen offline or when only on 4g where you don't want to incur data charges. I'm talking about uploading where you have a bootleg concert and you can upload it to their cloud so that you can listen to it on any of your devices (you can of course download it to those other devices as well). Amazon and google offer that but spotify doesn't b/c they don't have cloud storage.
Yes just like you're able to listen to everything in amazon's cloud without having to download it.So if I delete all the stuff on my phone Ill still be able to listen to it?
That actually sounds high. Or is she self-distributing?This is true. I think my daughter gets like $.08 per song downloaded, if that.
Do you know how long it takes to delete songs 1 at a time? I just freed up nearly 2GB, one-song-at-a-time. Because there's no other wayYes just like you're able to listen to everything in amazon's cloud without having to download it.
I think this is correct. My badThat actually sounds high. Or is she self-distributing?
even so, I think it would be more like .008. Though frankly, if someone plays it 100 times, that's .80, which is still probably around what you would get from a label for a cd.
Yeah they don't get hardly anything. I have a buddy in one of the bigger country groups and if they don't tour a lot, they don't eat.Long Ball Larry said:That actually sounds high. Or is she self-distributing?
even so, I think it would be more like .008. Though frankly, if someone plays it 100 times, that's .80, which is still probably around what you would get from a label for a cd.
I was kidding about the retiring part. But not about the rest. I don't see the problem with artists that want a lucrative career needing to generally have to do it by playing live shows.Mr.Pack said:You serious Clark?
I pay for prime unlimited, it’s full albums. You can make playlists. You can download locally. It’s just like Spotify. I have yet to search for an album it didn’t have.Do the Amazon and Google options have full albums to listen to, or are they more like Pandora?
The Very Best of Monkees?I pay for prime unlimited, it’s full albums. You can make playlists. You can download locally. It’s just like Spotify. I have yet to search for an album it didn’t have.
“Alexa, play album a Charlie Brown chiristmas by Vince Guaraldi trio”JoeSteeler said:Did it ask you to log in to spotify?
I see both sides here. On one hand, yes, does making an album like Led Zep 4 or Hotel California entitle you to live in luxury forever? On the other hand, does Zep 4 or Hotel California even get made without the business model of having enough $$ for an entire band to take a year-plus off to sit around and create?I was kidding about the retiring part. But not about the rest. I don't see the problem with artists that want a lucrative career needing to generally have to do it by playing live shows.
I was commenting more on the percieved "6 months" of work. Sure they may only tour for those 6 months but they are constantly writing, rehearsing, etc. Way more than 6 months workI was kidding about the retiring part. But not about the rest. I don't see the problem with artists that want a lucrative career needing to generally have to do it by playing live shows.
What do you think would be a fair compensation?Mr.Pack said:This is true. I think my daughter gets like $.08 per song downloaded, if that.
No clue, but I know they work their asses off and they should, especially the small artists who don't go on the big tours, be compensated more than $.008 per song.What do you think would be a fair compensation?
But you know it’s a business, yes?No clue, but I know they work their asses off and they should, especially the small artists who don't go on the big tours, be compensated more than $.008 per song.
It's a travesty
Guess you think it's fine. That's cool.I don't get why you don't think musicians should be fairly compensated. But I'm not going to try to debate this. You have your view which is cool.But you know it’s a business, yes?
Lets say it gets doubled. Would that be sufficient? Or are you looking for 10X revenue
From your article:Don’t take it the wrong way. I am honestly interested in a good alternative, but it has to make business sense as well, yes?
lets say you think they should receive 10X more $ per stream (not saying that is your position but trying to keep the conversation going). Who should pay for that additional $?
The revenues increased to $3B. They aren't losing moneyWhile Spotify losses are mounting, it's important to note that Spotify's revenue increased by 52.1 percent
I don't know a thing about the music industry, but I'd guess it's just going to be hard to figure out "fair compensation" in the midst of some very saturated markets. There are a ton of musicians, and a ton of affordable ways for consumers to spend their entertainment dollars. Artists are just going to have to make the best of that reality.No clue, but I know they work their asses off and they should, especially the small artists who don't go on the big tours, be compensated more than $.008 per song.
It's a travesty
But the article says exactly that.From your article:
The revenues increased to $3B. They aren't losing money
I can only assume that he’s confusing revenue and profit. The article is pretty clear that they are losing money.But the article says exactly that.
I used the standard Prime Music for a while, but kept running into songs that weren't on it. If the regular Prime Music works for you, stick with it, but it's a pretty big difference to me and certainly worth $79/year (or $150 for the family plan).I keep seeing ads for 3 months of Amazon unlimited for .99
standard Amazon music seems to have enough for me already. Can't imagine paying $10 month for some additional songs.
Spotify lets you download playlists for offline listening. A full album shouldn't be a problem. I don't know about Apple MusicSpotify or apple music?
can i freely download new whole albums to my phone for offline listening while on a plane?
Yes. You can have revenue of $10 B a year but you have to look at your expenses to know that that really means.I can only assume that he’s confusing revenue and profit. The article is pretty clear that they are losing money.