I have narrowed down to apple and spotify but i cant seem to decide which to go, both service have artists I like and are missing a few which one of which has.
Right now my decision is based on the playlist curation. And i have not use both discovery fe
ature enough to know which is the better one so really need mu help here.
Which music streaming is the better playlist curator? Apple or Spotify and which do you use?
i've used both (using apple atm) and apple music's playlists are 1000x better than spotify's. i've found tons of artists through apple music's playlists and they have tons more experimental stuff that you would never see on spotify
>>64625606
Yeah i definitely found more artist on apple too but it looks like spotify has alot of playlist variation even in a single genre
>>64625538
Get both, like me.
https://blog.vellumatlanta.com/2016/05/04/apple-stole-my-music-no-seriously/
read that before you go with apple music. i had it because i have an iphone and it's convenient to have it built into the music app but it's really not worth it
>>64625538
Used Spotify premium for almost two years. It was okay. Then, I switched to Apple Music overall it is pretty good but, the iTunes on Windows is very much bloated and Android app is pretty bad.
FOR FUCKS SAKE JUST DOWNLOAD IT FOR FREE DUDE DONT BE A MORAL PUSSY
Apple does the job
>>64626144
Just use the Apple Music cloud and don't put your music into any iTunes folders set in it's preferences. Use Foobar or Musicbee for personal files.
>>64626413
So far I have no problems like the ones you guys mention cause I have never bought any music from itunes before. Too bad apple music can't chromecast to my tv
>>64626266
I am not gonna be cheapskate retard scavenging the net just to download a stupid album when I just click once and play newly discovered music curated just for me.
Google Play Music is superior to both. Storage of up to 20,000 of your own songs for free so you can stream you illegally downloaded music alongside your streaming stuff. Means I've got loads of super obscure stuff that you can't get on a streaming service out and about.
Oh, great playlists and recommendations too.
>>64626878
I've never bought any music either from there.
Streaming is so fucking gay I can't believe it. Have fun listening to mp3s and burning all your goddamn data just to hear TPAB one more time. The only good thing about the current streaming services is that the playlists offer artists a chance to be discovered - but that's absolutely ridiculous because a lot of those artists or their labels are paying money to be put on those playlists which has been technically illegal in broadcast radio for years. The music industry LOVES that you faggots want to stream music.
>>64626905
>trusting your illegal files with Google
>>64626894
>curated just for me
Do you really fucking think this?? You wouldn't believe that people have developed algorithms just to spoon feed you whatever they think you want to hear and/or what you'll eventually put money into somehow, would you?
>>64626894
>being this indoctrinated
>>64626931
I've done it for a couple of years now, it's fine. How would they be able to distinguish between illegal and legal files?
>>64625538
Apple is better at making themed playlists
Spotify is better at making you a weekly playlist you may actually like.
>>64626915
You realise you can download music for offline play, yeah?
>>64626973
>hell be fine
>>64626999
Oh awesome!!! You mean I can NOT PAY for music and even keep it on my device, all through an official service!? Wow, it's like no one gives a fuck if the artists make a living at all!
i use apple music on iphone and ipad and spotify free on laptop because itunes is too heavy for my cheap hp stream lmao. apple music is better though.
>>64627127
We don't, it's just if you use Spotify and iTunes Music you're getting it all without piracy paranoia.
>>64627142
Wow you faggots really are the worst. There's so much cognitive dissonance going on inside the heads of people that obsessively "support" their favorite artists and then literally admit that they don't give a fuck if the artists get paid. Fuck you.
>>64627127
Artists sell their recordings to the labels. If they don't like that situation they're free to self fund.
>>64627171
>be a good consumer :)
>using apple products
you naive little cunt
>>64627171
i support indie artists by buying their tunes on bandcamp or from the label and i dont want to support some uber rich pop stars like lady gaga or beyonce and their mainstream labels so i use streaming for this. some people don't have money to support their faves do you think they should be deprived from music at all?
>>64627171
We just want free (or cheap) legal music. Fuck what our slaves think.
>>64627263
This, I buy shit not on Spotify or iTunes.
Spotify >>>>> Apple Music > Google Play Music >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tidal
>>64627171
They're cuckolds who live to line the pockets of Spotify, Apple or [insert business here] just for the slightest of conveniences they may offer.
>>64627393
That's the free market my sweet-natured friend, enjoy supporting piracy which also means supporting child sex trafficking and terrorism. At least we know our money isn't going into the pockets of the Russian Mafia or Yakuza or whatever.
>>64627393
It isn't a "slight" conveniance. Being able to listen to new music without having to use your PC to torrent it and manually copy it over to a player is a big deal.
Not to mention most the revenue from these services goes in rights fees
>>64627411
Who said anything about piracy?
>>64627211
This is rarely how it goes. Most of the time, the labels front the artists anywhere from $20,000 to $250,000+ so that they can record, tour and promote an album. Then, the artist has to pay this back either out of pocket or through sales. Surprise, you're fucking the artist while the industry gets the money.
>>64627253
Lol are you fucking serious? You probably typed that out on your fucking iphone. If you aren't paying for music you are actively making the artist's life worse.
>>64627263
>like lady gaga or beyonce and their mainstream labels so i use streaming for this
Uhh if you're listening to them on Spotify you're supporting them, dumbfuck. Not to mention, top 40 pop stars get higher cuts from these streaming services because the services have shelled out money directly in order to secure their library.
>>64627283
How do you expect people to continue making a product when you literally do not pay for it? Goddamn greedy mouthbreathers.
>>64627421
Oh wow holy shit you can't be bothered to A) pay about $10 for something someone worked on for probably months and then B) copy and paste that folder to another device. Fuck you lazy, entitled assholes. Also:
>most the revenue from these services goes in rights fees
What the fuck does this even mean?
>>64627476
>This is rarely how it goes. Most of the time, the labels front the artists anywhere from $20,000 to $250,000+ so that they can record, tour and promote an album. Then, the artist has to pay this back either out of pocket or through sales. Surprise, you're fucking the artist while the industry gets the money.
The artist doesn't have to sign with a label.
Besides, you're arguing that the label, who takes the financial risk, isn't entitled to a chunk of the profit. Most albums don't make back their advance.
>>64627411
please enlighten me on how downloading an album illegally directly or indirectly supports sex trafficking and terrorism
>>64627476
>If you aren't paying for music you are actively making the artist's life worse.
explain
>>64627567
>artist doesn't have to
Practically every artist that you're listening to on a streaming service has a label, which they signed with. What you're saying about the labels taking on financial risk is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the artists are the poor ones, the ones that just love creating music and taking it out on the road. They don't create it for money but they also can't create it without money, therefore they need support from people that don't want to fuck them over i.e. not music industry personnel. They need the people listening to their music to give them a few bucks sometimes. The biggest insult to your favorite artists is not paying money for their work.
>>64627655
If the music industry didn't have people paying for money, including via streaming, they wouldn't be in a position to release millions of albums that make zero money.
>>64627476
I see no problem with piracy as long as you support a few artists that you really enjoy. I have about 100gb of music in my library. There's no way I, or many others, could afford to have that legally. So does that mean you go without it? Even if possessing those files costs nothing to anyone? I pay for what I really appreciate, and can afford, and I pirate the rest. If every artist has a decent amount of people who really appreciate them, it works out.
>>64627600
>Artist spends years and probably thousands of dollars acquiring the necessary tools just to get to square one in the music industry
>Manages to find a label that wants to "help" them by loaning them thousands of dollars
>Artist is then required by contract to produce music for the label
>Label typically overspends and the artist foots the bill
>Artist, now with the equivalent of a college debt, releases new album, only to have Millennial faggots "appreciate" it so much that they won't actually spend money on it
>Artist is permanently indebted to the label
>Cycle begins where artist must continue to produce content solely to fulfill contractual obligations but never makes enough money to get out of the hole
This is probably happening to multiple artists you're listening to right now. You're contributing to it. They hate you for it.
>>64627666
Wrong. The industry has financiers outside of the music world. Former CEOs of film companies will sign million dollar checks for artists they never even plan to listen to because it's just another investment and they're just another filthy rich asshole with more money than sense. I love how no one on this board actually knows what goes on in the music industry.
>>64627753
i want you to explain how an artist is in a worse situation after i pirate something instead of ignoring it
also it seems like the labels are the real problem here
>>64627714
>Even if possessing those files costs nothing to anyone
This is where you're wrong. If I spent money and sweat on making an album and then it magically appeared on your computer without me making any money, I'd say you've cost me something. Sure is easy to have zero sympathy when you're so far removed. If you actually want to make a difference, pay $25 for a concert ticket and then buy a shirt. Most artists right now make their money from playing shows.
>>64627798
>I'd say you've cost me something
in what way?
is everyone who doesnt give you money costing you something?
>>64627792
hey idiot, it's not that you're making the situation worse it's that you're choosing not to help
>>64627753
>Former CEOs of film companies will sign million dollar checks for artists they never even plan to listen to because it's just another investment
okay the money is still coming from somewhere
>I love how no one on this board actually knows what goes on in the music industry
sorry friendo, it must be tough being the only real music fan here
>>64627792
>also it seems like the labels are the real problem here
hurrr durrr
>how an artist is in a worse situation after i pirate something instead of ignoring it
Well this is kind of silly since they're two completely different scenarios. If I were to create music and you ignored it, that would be fine since you don't care about it and I don't care that you don't care about it. If you were to pirate it, I would directly be out money. Then, you might show it to your friends, and then I'd be out even more money. The music you downloaded doesn't contribute to any sales counters, which are a large driving factor in what consumers want to buy.
>>64627854
why am i obligated to help
>>64627854
following that logic, I'm obligated to throw money at any band I've heard and thought was pretty good.That is financially impossible for anyone
>>64627881
>hurrr durrr
stunning logic
>would directly be out money
how
>>64627885
who said you are? not everything that is subjectively 'right' or helpful is an obligation
>>64625538
iTunes is a bloated piece of shit on Windows so I use Spotify. It's also free and has generally better interface
>>64625538
Apple has a shit interface and Spotify is ran by Jews.
Tidal is better
>>64627838
Effort, you fucking dunce. It's why you pay someone to come over to your house and fix your air conditioner. It's why you pay someone to fly your plane. Yeah, they might enjoy it, but they are literally taking time out of their comparatively short life just to serve you somehow. They spent money on tools and countless hours learning how to use them in a way that best serves you. Without compensation for their efforts they have no reason to continue their services.
>>64627867
I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make. Yes, there are a lot of dumb people in the industry with a lot of money. Yes, they love fucking over everyone they possibly can.
>>64627922
exactly
>>64627922
>not everything that is subjectively 'right' or helpful is an obligation
but the people who think it is right claim that it is an obligation... which is the basis of this whole discussion. thanks for the useless comment
>>64627958
so as long as you aren't legally obligated to do something good or morally right you don't do it? kek, luckily you faggots will regret it when apple deletes your library or spotify shuts down and you have nothing to listen to
>>64627885
>Why should I pay money for something I enjoy and that cost other people money to create in order for me to enjoy it????
Stunning logic
>>64627898
How would I be directly out money if you didn't pay for something that I normally charge money for? Are you really this fucking thick?
>>64627365
This
although my phone carrier got a deal with Tidal and I have free premium for 2 years so guess what I use
>>64627946
>They spent money on tools and countless hours learning how to use them in a way that best serves you. Without compensation for their efforts they have no reason to continue their services.
any quality musician's main reason to make music should be that they have something to express. I don't make music to make money, and I barely do make any money. And that's okay, because I do it for fulfillment.
>>64627946
that analogy would only work if the artist has to use extra time for every pirate
>>64628017
you just didnt make any money, no one took anything from you
>>64628059
>no one took anything from you
...except you literally did if you downloaded something I made and you didn't pay the price I put on it.
Tripfags confirmed to be the absolute scum of the earth.
>>64628055
Sure, that's a fine argument. It's different when you're trying to make your living off of your art.
>>64628017
>How would I be directly out money if you didn't pay for something that I normally charge money for? Are you really this fucking thick?
because it costs no money to reproduce a digital copy, and if I'm not going to pay for it whether I acquire it or not, you lose nothing.
>>64628100
>you didn't pay the price I put on it.
where did you lose money
you dont even know i did anything
Streaming is the worst of both worlds. You're paying money but barely anything goes to the actual artists. If you're poor just pirate and don't pay for Apple's permission to listen to music while fucking over the artist. If you have money pay for the music like a reasonable person.
if you want to make the "w-well what if Spotify shuts down??" argument, then we can also pose the possibility of your house burning down and you losing your collection that way. It's a stuid argument.
>>64628100
>It's different when you're trying to make your living off of your art
I wish I could make a living off of my art. Doesn't everyone? I don't think anyone would choose to not be able to make a living off of their art. But trying to make a living should never be the basis of the creation of art. So I disagree that it is "different"
>>64628101
Okay cool so if someone spends an equivalent amount of time writing a book and wants to charge $20 for it, but hey it's so much easier for a faggot pirate just to copy and paste the text and not pay for it, you're saying that the author isn't out anything. It doesn't matter if it doesn't cost money to copy something, it costs money upfront to produce you idiot. You're paying for someone's intellectual property. If you don't value that then you honestly can't say you like art.
>>64628126
What a dumb, dumb train of thought. You're serious too.
No one cares what the artists get through record sales. Bringing up the pennies on a dollar argument is irrelevant.
>>64628144
websites go offline far more often than your house gets burnt to the ground you fucking retard.
>>64628117
>he didn't see me steal it!
>that means he isn't losing money!
Are you literally 13?
>>64628166
>No one cares what the artists get through record sales
....Except the artists relying on the money from sales to pay for the food on their tables. You fucking greedy cunts blow my mind.
You know, if there was some way of pirating food and sharing it with the world, it would be considered a miracle, but because it's music, books, films, etc, it's called a curse. Funny that.
>>64628144
It's not because your house is your responsibility - something which you have control over. The point of streaming is that you are giving control over your library to a company. Music is important to me, so I want to have the power over my collection.
>using Spotify
>at all
Admittedly, Spotify has a decent percentage of the music I want/like, but not everything. Wouldn't you want all your music under one platform for all the other random esoteric shit you listen to?
Download or bust.
>>64628200
i didnt steal anything, i copied it
>>64628205
see mosanto
>>64628196
There's a download function for offline play. Eat shit.
>>64628164
but if I'm not going to pay for it either way, nothing changes except that I got to hear the person's ideas and witness their artistic contribution.
>>64628200
I'm just stating a fact anon. no one cares therefor your argument has no grounds.
>>64628205
thread
>>64628218
>at all
>poses an argument based solely on using Spotify exclusively.
It is possible to have a paid collection alongside a streaming service.
>>64628200
>steal it!
But she didn't steal it dude, she just downloaded it.
>>64628269
Not him, but the argument was quite clearly based on the inconvenience of having two different libraries.
>>64628205
It's not like music is a luxury, unlike food or anything lol.
>>64628219
Monsanto charge money for their food.
>>64628286
Didn't catch that. Still, I'm almost certain all services let you hold local files under their platform.
Majority of the arguments ITT are based on ignorance of not even knowing how these services work.
>>64628219
Are you trolling? Are you really this fucking dense?
Steal: take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.
Here, the other person's property is the artist's intellectual property - art they spent hours and days or even months creating and which wouldn't exist without that human being putting their mind to it. Notice the "permission" and "legal right" stipulations, whereby you are stealing something from someone if they did not expressly grant you permission to posses it or you do not have the legal rights to posses it without asking.
Luckily for me, human beings have been trying for a long time to make sure dumbfucks like you can't twist words around and we have these amazing definitions of words that you can't change.
>>64628290
Basic food is a luxury for some.
>>64628196
>>64628220
it's not about the website going offline for a short period, it's about the business shutting down because its model is unsustainable. Even if streaming is here to stay, Apple could easily crush Spotify in a few years' time. And all those playlists they encourage you to make in order to keep you tethered to their ecosystem will be gone.
>>64628317
Spotify's handling of local files is truly awful. It's almost like they want to make it as much as an inconvenience as possible while still claiming they have the feature.
>>64628324
Are you trolling? Are you really this fucking dense?
Steal: take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.
Here, the other person's property is the artist's intellectual property - art they spent hours and days or even months creating and which wouldn't exist without that human being putting their mind to it. Notice the "permission" and "legal right" stipulations, whereby you are stealing something from someone if they did not expressly grant you permission to posses it or you do not have the legal rights to posses it without asking.
Luckily for me, human beings have been trying for a long time to make sure dumbfucks like you can't twist words around and we have these amazing definitions of words that you can't change.
Are you trolling? Are you really this fucking dense?
Steal: take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.
Here, the other person's property is the artist's intellectual property - art they spent hours and days or even months creating and which wouldn't exist without that human being putting their mind to it. Notice the "permission" and "legal right" stipulations, whereby you are stealing something from someone if they did not expressly grant you permission to posses it or you do not have the legal rights to posses it without asking.
Luckily for me, human beings have been trying for a long time to make sure dumbfucks like you can't twist words around and we have these amazing definitions of words that you can't change.
ok how much money did you lose there
Piracy is a miracle, it's literally Jesus and the fish. Praise miracles, don't demonize them. History will look back on piracy and entertaining billions of poor people and making them happy. No-one will remember corporate logos.
>>64628338
>it's about the business shutting down because its model is unsustainable
Fair, but it goes back to the burning house argument. That's a pretty strong "what if?" that at most would inconvenience you for a week. I've lost entire collections quite a few times and it's not that big of a deal.
>>64628205
Music is abstract, and thus limitless in its possibilities. Food is limited in its physicality. Every type of food would have to be made once and then it could be pirated infinitely with no more labour. The same does not apply to music
Even ignoring that, reasonable people suggest that you should pirate music if you can't afford it.
>>64628403
>I've lost entire collections quite a few times and it's not that big of a deal.
do you only have like 10 albums
>>64628354
stop using fucking trips, this is an ANONYMOUS image board for the discussion of music. FUCK OFF ATTENTION SEEKING FAGGOT.
I'm glad we got that cleared up.
>>64628413
>reasonable people suggest that you should pirate music if you can't afford it.
yes
>>64628439
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3OTgTyujtE
>>64628403
The point is in that situation Spotify has fucked you over and you've had no control over it. If the house burns down, at least it was your fault and you could have done something to stop it.
If it's a small inconvenience to you then fine, but I suspect it could only be considered a small inconvenience because of the fact Spotify offers low quality music, few rare albums etc., whereas a physical collection would be more personal and harder to recreate.
Play and upload your own
>>64628434
>>64628485
I have a handwritten list of every album I "own". Again, a pain in the ass? Sure, but a disaster that some of you describe it as? No.
>>64628324
Yeah but the artist still has the music they worked on, stealing is when you take something from someone, downloading the music is taking a copy of it.
desu the thing about this argument is that it used to take a lot of money to ship and distribute an album, that was usually where a lot of the money was being spent. Now that's basically free thanks to the internet and honestly I can't see any major holes besides recording and promotion where artists are sinking their money into.
I haven't actually heard anyone give a good argument as to why you shouldn't use spotify or download music yet, since and can't like feasibly imagine most of the artists people on this board are listening to are making any more or less money than they would have done before internet problem. Like yeah they probably sold more physical records per person relative to the size of their listener base back then but now since distribution is free and everyone has a copy of their album, their listener base is bigger than it ever could of been before the internet. So subsequently you have a bigger base of people who might invest in your physical media and an even bigger base that are going to see you live.
Unless you're a fucking metallica, lady gaga or radiohead I can't see how you're losing money from any of this.
>>64628547
Oh and of course booking a tour is fucking hard.
That is a big money sink but it's more of an investment than a sink, albeit an unpredictable one at times.
>>64628547
Can we just admit it's a grey area? The argument shouldn't be that piracy = stealing, it should be that piracy is bad in its own way exclusive to stealing (depending on what you believe).
The benefits of the internet in terms of increasing potential audience base could still be had even if audiences had to pay for albums. There are tons of small artists on Bandcamp I wouldn't have heard of without the internet, but I still had to (and was happy to) pay for their albums.
The money artists get from streaming is paid pro rata anyway, so artists like Gaga and Radiohead benefit from it financially a lot more than smaller artists. If that could be changed somehow it might be salvageable, but that is kind of the fatal flaw of independence.
I bought Apple music for a month just for the playlist and album recs
>>64628657
>The benefits of the internet in terms of increasing potential audience base could still be had even if audiences had to pay for albums.
I don't think so dude.
You also have to consider just how many artists there are now trying get a listener's attention. You throw paying for media into that and its slow at best and unpredictable at worst.
We do kind of have that though, it's a little thing called Spotify?????? 30 million paying users get potential access to your music (and 50 milion non paying users) and you get backdoor promotion (through the playlist, discover and new releases functions) and a little bit of money for that????
idk dude in some ways I don't think smaller artists have ever had it better
They're all still a drop in the ocean but in some ways they're getting reimbursed for being a drop in the ocean.
>>64628853
>I don't think so dude.
I just explained how. A lot of Bandcamp artists are not available on Spotify and are difficult to find illegally. They still have an increased audience because of the internet.
The money from Spotify mainly benefits major label artists - it is, after all the music industry's response to piracy, not the artist's response to piracy. If you stream a small artist's album and then stream Radiohead afterward, the small artist is making less money than if you just streamed them exclusively. If you buy the small artist's album, buying a Radiohead album wouldn't impact their income. That's the problem with streaming.
I would also steer away from the argument that because things are better now (and, even then, only arguably in some ways) that means they can't be improved.
>>64628547
I seriously just gave you the definition of stealing, and piracy of music is definitely included within it.
So you're saying that since artist and label costs have shifted more towards recording, promotion and booking instead of shipping and distribution, you shouldn't have to pay for music? So you don't care if an artist spends money creating something, they don't deserve compensation for that work?
Also, I've already mentioned that bigger artists are making plenty of money from streaming. The services pay them directly to ensure their music is in the library, not to mention they get massive amounts of streaming.
>>64628853
>and a little bit of money for that
Spotify pays regular artists practically zero dollars per stream. From personal experience, over a million plays on a song resulted in around $1000.
>>64628920
Well yeah they are but they're probably not making enough money to support them as a functioning, touring band and as soon as these artists arrive at a bigger audience (if they ever do) they're going to have the download problem.
That's not a fix for the industry that's just being outside of the industry's scope to enough of a degree that you can benefit from being unseen in some small way.
>>64628967
>I seriously just gave you the definition of stealing, and piracy of music is definitely included within it.
lol no
>they don't deserve compensation for that work?
No? No one asked you to record a fucking bedroom pop album in your garage or whatever, why the fuck should you be compensated for making music? The world does not owe you a living automatically for your work and if you're trying to actually make money (and I mean big money, not just a living wage) from music then you're just being naive.
It's not actual fucking labour and thanks to the freedom of the internet it doesn't even cost you anything to distribute your music.
Also bigger artists get a bigger cut because duuhh more people are listening to their music and keep returning to spotify for that music.
But that's the thing, potentially, tomorrow I could release an album through spotify and through some miracle of viral advertising I could get as many plays on spotify as someone like Lady Gaga.
And guess what? Because of that I will now have a bigger cut of the advertising revenue that's being generated through spotify just because spotify recognises that a lot of people are returning to spotify to listen to my music.
It's complete bullshit to argue that artists are worse off now because suddenly they have access to a potentially huge audience and some level of promotion that they never had before, minus the cost of distribution.
Plus a bit of reimbursement (and yeah its not much) for putting their music on there.
>>64629286
>lol no
Sorry bruv, the laws apply to you as well. Luckily there's also a definition for faggot and you happen to match right up.
>No one asked you to record a fucking bedroom pop album in your garage or whatever, why the fuck should you be compensated for making music
Because if you want it, you have to pay for it you fucking asshole. Just like everything else in the world. That's the point. If you like it, and want to posses it and use it whenever you want, you have to pay for it, unless the person that made it is giving it away for free.
>It's not actual fucking labour and thanks to the freedom of the internet it doesn't even cost you anything to distribute your music.
HAHAHAHAHA get the fuck off a music board if you don't think making music is labor. It costs whatever the monthly subscription to the internet costs, plus whatever fees are being paid to an aggregator to distribute music to popular services, plus promotion. Oh, and you're conveniently forgetting about the costs associated with owning instruments and recording an album. Goddammit you're so fucking stupid.
>streaming music through Apple
let me guess, you buy music through Apple too?
disgusting.
>>64628538
i think youre underestimating how much music people have
you don't see how getting all this again would be hard
can barely get this to fit on 4chan
>>64629454
>Because if you want it, you have to pay for it you fucking asshole
why
Apple Music for selection alone m8, I've never had difficulty finding an album on Apple but I have with Spotify
>>64626905
This. I've been using it for years without even paying.
>>64629569
I want your stuff. Can I have it for free?
>>64625538
>Paying $10/month for something you don't own
>Dealing with commercials
>Can't listen to all of your favorite artists on one streaming service due to exclusivity deals
>Can only listen to your music when the internet is up
>Buffering
Streaming is literally the most retarded thing ever.
>>64626266
>>64626266
>>64626266
>>64626266
This. Download everything and buy vinyl of what you think is worth it.
>>64629642
yeah sure its on slsk
>>64629660
No you fucking asshat. I want something you paid money for, and I don't want to pay you anything for it. Do you understand?
>>64629679
i dont see how thats relevant to copying digital files
>>64629642
>Real thing
>There's only one copy of it
>Digital thing
>Can make many copies of it while still having the original
>>64629454
>Sorry bruv, the laws apply to you as well. Luckily there's also a definition for faggot and you happen to match right up.
That's why I use spotify friendo :^)
>Because if you want it, you have to pay for it you fucking asshole
I do through spotify but even so how do I know if I want it when I can't even listen to it???
>HAHAHAHAHA get the fuck off a music board if you don't think making music is labor.
Working in a shop is labour, working at a car wash is labour but making music in your bedroom or a studio???
Sorry what are the actual benefits or services to people for you to record your pop album?
>It costs whatever the monthly subscription to the internet costs, plus whatever fees are being paid to an aggregator to distribute music to popular services
So basically nothing when you compare it to how much distribution cost before, great!
>Oh, and you're conveniently forgetting about the costs associated with owning instruments and recording an album.
Yeah man fuck people who won't give me money for me to talk about my model trainsets on the internet. Also fuck people for not giving me money for all the blue ray discs I own.
ALSO FUCK PEOPLE FOR NOT GIVING ME MONEY FOR THE PORTRAIT I MADE OF MY CAT THAT I PUT ONLINE, EVEN THOUUGH I SPENT SOOOO MUCH MONEY BUYING THE PAINT, THE CANVAS, THE STAND AND THE CAT.
See what I'm getting at?? Why should the world owe you a living for you to indulge yourself in your fantasies and hobbies?
If you're going into music to try and make money I'm so glad you're just not going to because it's obvious you need a wake up call.
>>64629286
>Well yeah they are but they're probably not making enough money to support them as a functioning, touring band and as soon as these artists arrive at a bigger audience (if they ever do) they're going to have the download problem.
I'm arguing that piracy and streaming are bad. Admitting there is a "download problem" proves my point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz_CPzuwSk4
>>64629692
If you made something, and I wanted it, I expect you would want money for it or something in return for your investment. Stop acting like you don't know what the fuck is going on.
>>64629702
Possessing a digital file is the same exact thing as possessing a CD or a tape. Format is irrelevant. Unauthorized distribution is still illegal, but if you're and idiot and don't care about laws, unauthorized distribution still hurts the artist, which has already been explained above.
>>64629655
>buy vinyl instead!
Jesus Christ is everyone fucking dumb
>>64629794
btw intellectual property isnt real
>Unauthorized distribution is still illegal
i dont care
>>64629728
>"download problem"
Poor choice of words.
It's only a problem when you have a traditional form of distribution/music selling scheme and you don't have an infrastructure in place to deal with people pirating your music.
I mean it's really not a problem since the band will just be able to enjoy the reaction their music gets from a wider audience now, which is really fucking cool if you're just a bandcamp band (you should honestly just be fucking thrilled that people are talking about your music or going out of their way to get it).
The problem lies in how they have no promotion or touring or in some cases physical media to capitalize on people downloading their music.
>>64629719
>how do I know if I want it when I can't even listen to it???
Stop acting like literally all artists nowadays don't have some sort of streaming example of their music available i.e. Soundcloud or an exclusive stream on NPR etc.
>what are the actual benefits or services to people for you to record your pop album?
If you want the music, the benefit is the enjoyment you get out of the music. You really are either trolling or total scum.
Also you must be retarded because people literally WILL give you money to talk about your model trainsets on the internet because they WANT IT and they are willing to PAY for it, you idiot.
The point is that if you w a n t something you have to p a y f o r i t. It doesn't fucking matter if you don't want it, don't buy it. If you want it, just like anything else in the world, you compensate the person creating or providing it.
>>64629890
>if you w a n t something you have to p a y f o r i t
no i dont
>>64629770
Steve Albini is a huge faggot that sucks analog's dick. He's also another rich asshole that loves to tell poor working people how to handle their lives.
>>64626905
You can do this with Spotify Premium too, hence why I have Prince, Tool, my own music etc alongside all the standard Spotify stuff
>no matter how mad this guy gets you can still pirate all you want
>>64629918
Sorry, reality functions differently than the world in your head you fucking tripfag
>>64629819
>intellectual property isnt real
>says someone clearly so obsessed with identifying their mark on the world that they are a tripfag
Cognitive dissonance at its finest
>>64630018
i dont own the name Lauren, use it all you want
>>64630005
>I don't care about being a shitty human being!
>lol fuck the artists, I just want their art
>>64630049
yep :)
>>64629889
Right, and the streaming infrastructure is inherently flawed and skewed towards major label artists. That cannot be fixed if people are complacent about it and happy to keep paying for it so long as they get to hear the new Drake and Beyonce albums. Because smaller artists are dispersed there is no way for them to band together to demand a fairer system. If major labels want to hold out for more money (i.e. Tidal) they can do that with ease and force the hand of the streaming service. In the short-term there are benefits for smaller artists, but long-term it will centralize music and make it appealing only for artists who are willing to sell their soul to Warner Brothers or whatever.
It's OK for disposable indie bands who make music casually in their spare time and are just happy for their five minutes of fame, but I think this new system will serve to shrink that middle group - cult independent artists for whom music is a full-time job.
>>64629794
>Possessing a digital file is the same exact thing as possessing a CD or a tape
No. It isn't.
It doesn't COST you anything to let someone listen to or even copy your digital file. If you want to copy over a digital file, you can without there being any downside to you.
If you want to lend someone your CD, the COST will be that you won't have the CD to listen to anymore.
If you want to steal a CD, then that company will be missing 1 (one) CD and loss of revenue.
If you steal one digital file, it doesn't matter because they still have infinite copies of that digital file to sell.
Also
>Completely ignoring the other points and only focusing on the vinyl part
Address the other points faggot.
>>64627892
Are you fucking retarded? That is what streaming services are for!! they get paid every time you paly any of their songs and the money comes out from the streaming services. All you need to do it fork our FUKCING TEN DOLLARS!! If you're that fuck in poor maybe you shouldn't even be here!
>>64629890
>Stop acting like literally all artists nowadays don't have some sort of streaming example of their music available i.e. Soundcloud or an exclusive stream on NPR etc.
Or dude, there's also spotify.
Dude omg I think we solved the problem.
Allsoooo fucko what is the difference between me downloading their music and streaming it from the artists fucking soundcloud?
>If you want the music, the benefit is the enjoyment you get out of the music. You really are either trolling or total scum.
Lame, I get enjoyment out of a lot of things people make for free, why is music any different when it doesn't cost any money to get it to me?
>Also you must be retarded because people literally WILL give you money to talk about your model trainsets on the internet because they WANT IT and they are willing to PAY for it, you idiot.
Yeah dude, that happens exactly how you described relative to music. You go online, you make a bunch of videos about model trainsets and then you make sure people have to pay if they want to watch any of them first.
Gotta protect that model trainset niche hobby investment dude, can't have people watching your shit unless they pay up first, the fucking scum actually expect to watch me talk about my hobby for freee?????
HAHAHAAAHA
And then you see immediately that no one wants to pay for your model trainset rants because oh you're no actually doing anything besides providing light entertainment and talking about YOUR hobby to people. Funny how the world works in such a way where people usually want to pay for things they know they can get some kind of reimbursement from isn't it??
>The point is that if you w a n t something you have to p a y f o r i t
Yeah dude right on, that's why I got spotify and netflix so I can stream music and movies when I want to for a price.
Awesome and hey maybe an artist I find and love on spotify will come to a city near me so I can pay money to go to one of their shows???
>>64630207
It doesn't work quite like that. Buy my album for £10 and buy 5 major label albums and I still get £10. Stream my album and then stream five other albums and my proportion of the streams goes down, so I get less money. Spotify pays pro rata because it suits major label artists, and major label artists are the lifeblood of their operation. It's in their best interests for people not to listen to too many indie artists.
>>64630207
>FUKCING TEN DOLLARS!!
I could buy lunch with that money. Fuck outta here.
>>64630047
Are you top or bottom?
>>64628219
Haha you're one real serious retard.
I didn't rape her! I just fuck her without her permission!
>>64630303
I'm not in a band, it's an example. There is no such thing as a 'real job.' In the most basic sense in a consumer society you create something and then get paid for it if people want it. Being in a band and releasing music clearly fits into that template.
>>64630173
>and the streaming infrastructure is inherently flawed and skewed towards major label artists.
Well no more than the entire music industry was before the internet. Most of the time the only people who made any actual money were the popular artists.
I mean that's fucking obvious, I don't know why I have to spell it out for you dude.
Like I said before, you or me could make an album today, put it on spotify (for practically nothing) and in a week through some miracle the album that you or me made could be as big as lady gaga's new album or Beyonce.
It's almost impossible but due to that we would get a bigger cut of the streaming revenue because of how popular are albums are. I mean smaller artists have it bad but they don't have it worse, sure their music now gets downloaded for free or streamed for pittance but their music is now in the hands of more people than would ever be possible without streaming or downloading.
Those people who like your music now translate into ticket sales and even sales for physical media.
The system has never been completely fair, I mean sure if I had it my way Tim Hecker would be as rich as beyonce but that's not gonna happen due to how noncommercial his music is.
>>64630192
>It doesn't COST you anything to let someone listen to or even copy your digital file
You are paying for the MUSIC when you buy a CD or a file, you fucking retard.
>>64630222
Hurr durr except we're talking about how streaming on Spotify doesn't pay artists anything.
> what is the difference between me downloading their music and streaming it from the artists fucking soundcloud?
Soundcloud: they authorized you to listen to the music
Downloading: you are paying money to privately posses a copy of the music
>when it doesn't cost any money to get it to me?
I'm not even going over this anymore. You're so fucking stupid.
>>64630393
>you or me could make an album today, put it on spotify (for practically nothing)
>after spending thousands on musical equipment and software or tape and then mixing and mastering and paying an aggregator!!!!
>>64630393
>Well no more than the entire music industry was before the internet.
So why support the music industry's new incarnation? You're keeping it alive. If you think artists don't need to be paid and that attention is all that matters, pirate their music. Otherwise you're supporting the shitty music industry. Or you could buy albums from independent artists if you feel they should compensated. And, shit, even buying albums from major label artists is better for them than streaming, even if it supports the industry. Spotify is not a solution to the music industry it's a continuation of it.
>>64630321
am i supposed to be upset by this
>>64630334
>piracy is rape
>>64630349
why am i supposed to pretend i have to pay for things when i don't
am i supposed support musicians like theyre doing some noble task
it's effectively a donation to some who's probably fine without it
if no one got paid for albums again people would still make music
>>64630534
>am i supposed support musicians like theyre doing some noble task
If you like the music, you should pay for it. Another human being created something with their mind, body and soul that you enjoy and you're saying that's worthless.
>to some who's probably fine without it
>if no one got paid for albums again people would still make music
You literally have no idea what the real world is like
>>64630439
>You are paying for the MUSIC when you buy a CD or a file, you fucking retard.
Holy shit you're stupid.
That's not the point. My point is that you don't lose anything from letting someone copy your music file (I guess besides the fact that you paid and they didn't, but if you're not a petty little bitch it really shouldn't matter). Unlike with a CD where you lose the CD and can't listen to it any more if you lend it to someone.
COST doesn't necessarily mean money. It means how much you need of something for something else. The cost of letting my friend listen to a new CD on his own is one of CDs. The cost of letting my friend listen to a new digital file is nothing (except the time and effort to copy the file to his phone, I guess).
>>64630534
No one's forcing you to do anything. Imploring maybe, but that's it. It is a donation. I've said repeatedly that it's not an obligation, just a good thing to do if someone puts in effort to create something you like.
>>64630595
why can't you get a job?
>>64630534
>am i supposed to be upset by this
Naw, I'm genuinely curious. I know some trans folk like being on top every now and then.
>>64630661
im a virgin
>>64630646
>working for other people is the only real job
lol
>>64630687
This speaks volumes
>>64630687
a virgin in your current form or overall?
>>64630439
>Spotify doesn't pay artists anything.
It pays them relative to the amount of people who listen to their music, which is how much they should be played.
>Soundcloud: they authorized you to listen to the music
And somehow they didn't through spotify?
>I'm not even going over this anymore. You're so fucking stupid.
It's obvious who's the stupid one here bro and it's not me.
>>after spending thousands on musical equipment and software or tape and then mixing and mastering and paying an aggregator!!!!
Again, why should you be payed for pursuing your hobby?
>>64630486
>So why support the music industry's new incarnation? You're keeping it alive.
I just explained to you why its better for the artists, they get backdoor promotion and a potentially huge base of convenience based music listeners that they would never of had before.
> Otherwise you're supporting the shitty music industry.
You support the music industry no matter what you do, that includes buying the physical media. And I don't give a shit if I support the music industry? Like whatever they still don't get that much money from me streaming their music and when i go to whatever artist's gig I go to through finding them through spotify, they're getting much more out of me than the music industry will ever get.
>>64630595
>if no one got paid for albums again people would still make music
>You literally have no idea what the real world is like
That's almost exactly what happens right now, present day, present time.
Physical media sales are fucking tiny there are actually a lot of artists who do actually create things for free and don't expect money from any other means than touring.
Maybe its time to come clean about the act you're putting on sonny.
>>64630727
useful work is a real job
and i really just don't care about sex, its not like im some r9k loser crying about it
>>64630732
overall
>>64630752
>they get backdoor promotion and a potentially huge base of convenience based music listeners that they would never of had before
They get nothing that the internet doesn't offer inherently, as I've pointed out.
>You support the music industry no matter what you do, that includes buying the physical media.
Depends which artist's physical media I'm buying. If it's a manufactured major label artist of course, but otherwise no.
>>64630752
>which is how much they should be played.
Nice one except you're saying that someone enjoys listening to an independently produced song objectively less than a major label pop hit.
>spotify?
Yup still talking about how it doesn't pay enough
>hobby?
Yup also still talking about how people try to make their living off of playing music
>>64630792
>useful work is a real job
>I hate music but I just download it illegally to spite the artists
>>64630860
Also: 'convenience-based listeners' will rarely pay to go to shows
>>64630884
you're deliberately misinterpretating what I'm saying now
>>64630922
Nope, you're just being literally insane. If you like the music you're listening to, then the artists that created it did "useful work". Goddammit you've got to be autistic or something.
>>64626266
It's morally like the same. We all know how much they pay the author.
>>64625538
Pirate or buy proper music.
>>64630948
ok profitable work
you know what i mean
the only way you make money with music is out of charity or convincing people to pretend they can't copy mp3s
The apple playlists have 100 times more heart put into them, but they are still good at best. The UI is kind of a fucking mess and its a resource hog.
Its better than Spotify, but its still not great. Nothing beats downloading shit in terms of practicality once you have the music.
>>64627263
>some people don't have money to support their faves do you think they should be deprived from music at all?
Yes. Are you a high school stoner so you think fucking SOUNDS are your human right or something?
>>64630687
Interesting. Any anal play in your masterbation?
>>64630860
>convenience base listeners
>They get nothing that the internet doesn't offer inherently
The internet does not provide convenient streaming of your music from over 50 million people inherently dude.
>>64630884
>Nice one except you're saying that someone enjoys listening to an independently produced song objectively less than a major label pop hit.
Nope, just the one is more popular and gets listened to by more people, so they get more money.
That's funny how it works exactly how it would work if everyone just bought music like you proposed.
>Yup also still talking about how people try to make their living off of playing music
I can't even put into words how stupid someone must be to think this is a viable idea without some kind of audience or label behind them already to think they can make a living off music. Even from before the internet was a thing that's stupid.
This is kind of stupid argument since you seem to be some fucking red neck or something that can't comprehend that the world has changed for the better.
>>64630885
Now you're just projecting.
I am a convenience based music listener and I still go to shows.
>>64631011
You lawful neutral or something nigga? Why is whether something is legal or possible all that matters?
>>64631084
Having your music streamed is not a benefit if you get nothing out of it. People who are interested in music and go out of their way to look for it will find it elsewhere on the internet if streaming isn't around. Those who casually stream, as you put it, are unlikely to be people who contribute by paying to go to shows etc. So that potential audience is functionally meaningless (not to mention that, again, they are buried under bigger artists so 50 million is not an accurate representation of the people who will see your music).
>>64627714
I see no problem with piracy as long as long as there are some rings you've seen on strangers but didn't steal. I've stolen thousands of gold rings from various people. There's no way I, or many others, could afford to have so much gold legally. So does that mean you go without it? Even if possessing that gold costs nothing to anyone [sic]? I pay for rings that I really appreciate, and can afford, and I steal the rest.
>>64631084
>Now you're just projecting.
>I am a convenience based music listener and I still go to shows.
Didn't see this part. A large number of people use Spotify because they don't want to spend more than a cup of coffee on music a month. They will even admit that. Going to see artists or buying merch is a much higher cost than that.
>>64631142
im saying it doesn't matter, did you reply to the wrong post?
>>64631011
Nice, a self fulfilling prophecy. Of course music can't be profitable work if you are literally refusing to pay money for it. Idiot.
>>64631052
>implying these SOUNDS just occurred naturally without any human input or investment whatsoever
>>64631084
>implying independent artists have an equal shot at being exposed to said 50 million people
>works exactly how it would work if everyone just bought music like you proposed
Except you're fucking wrong because I've already explained that big artists get paid more PER STREAM than independent artists.
>how stupid someone must be to think this is a viable idea
>music is nice and I like it but no one should make it because a label won't want it so I'll never hear it because I don't like music
You're actually fucking crazy
Apple Music is shit. UI is a joke.
Google Play is fucking ugly as shit to look at too. Also has WOAT discovery.
Spotify is pretty, but really it's for people who only upgrade to Chrome in 2015.
Tidal is secretly the best streaming platform (playlists are very high quality for every genre, highest quality, best looking, great, regular exclusives) but most people are too poor to find out.
>>64631198
you keep doing this thing where you never explain your logic and just call people stupid and post meme arrows
>>64631198
Stop shitting up this thread.
>>64631197
From your posts I get the sense you're saying you pirate music because there's nothing to stop you from doing it and because it technically isn't stealing (and thus illegal).
>>64631287
i pirate because its free
it is illegal, but its not stealing
i really don't care if somethings illegal
>>64631287
>Stop shitting up this thread.
lol???
>>64631270
And you keep doing this thing where you claim to like listening to music but then you say making music is dumb, shouldn't be paid for, and generally disregarding all common sense and sense of morality
>>64631378
i said you can't reasonable expect to make money off of it
why should I pay for things i can get for free
>>64631369
But you would care if the law was actually enforced and you could realistically be punished for pirating, right? Basically your argument is not a moral one, which is what everyone is arguing about
>>64631446
i don't think I'm morally obligated to support someone who can get a real job but chooses not to, which is effectively what you're doing when buying music
>>64631252
Apple Music works fine unless you have a crap PC.
Chrome is botnet.
Tidal might be all that, but it doesn't have as much content as Apple Music. A little more than Spotify maybe.
>>64631142
>Having your music streamed is not a benefit if you get nothing out of it.
I've explained this to you like three times, you get a wider audience and that translates into people who are actually interested in seeing you live or buying your shit.
>Those who casually stream, as you put it, are unlikely to be people who contribute by paying to go to shows etc
Projecting, like I said I go to shows and I buy physical media when I can but I am a convenience based music listener these days.
>(not to mention that, again, they are buried under bigger artists so 50 million is not an accurate representation of the people who will see your music).
like fucking obviously, that's the potential you have though, that's your audience. In a way it's the same as radio, except now it has a much wider scope.
>>64631178
>Spotify because they don't want to spend more than a cup of coffee on music a month. They will even admit that
Nope, the thing is going to see someone live isn't like a failed charity attempt like buying a vinyl copy of their album is. You're actually paying to experience something and people are fucking into that if your music is good enough.
Convenience based music listening isnt about paying less for music, if that were true people would just download it, it's about listening to music conveniently.
>>64631198
>Except you're fucking wrong because I've already explained that big artists get paid more PER STREAM than independent artists.
Yeah because their music is what makes people return to spotify. Like I said anyone could make an album and potentially go through the exact same channel to arrive at the same paycheck lady gaga gets every month.
That's just good fucking business.
>>music is nice and I like it but no one should make it because a label won't want it so I'll never hear it because I don't like music
I don't even know what you're trying to say here bud, try rereading what you write next time or something You do sound like a fucking hick
Alright this has been a blast guys but I gotta go and make my wife bacon pasta.
hmu if you want to be destroyed in the colosseum of music streaming and pirating discussions again.
kys kys
>>64631577
Do you honestly think you are representative of the average Spotify user? Your argument is entirely anecdotal. A wider potential audience is not the same as a wider audience, and a wider audience is not the same as a wider committed audience. These are huge leaps and there's a reason many artists complain about streaming and not so many praise it for its supposed benefits.
I use cracked Spotify on android.
Is there any alternatives? Or maybe a cracked version that also allows keeping the songs for offline playback?
>>64631698
Piracy
>>64631504
Being a musician is a job.
People like you, that don't want to pay money for their services, is what makes it hard.
If you weren't an asshole and you paid for music, you wouldn't even have an argument. See how you create a self fulfilling argument?
>you get a wider audience
Yeah about as wide as if I stood out on an overpass above a busy freeway and shouted about my music. And about as useful too.
>paying to experience something
Oh you mean like... listening to music?
>Like I said...
...And like I said, you're fucking wrong. And I've already explained it. Paying someone $0.0008 for a single play of their song and then turning around and paying someone else more than that is total bullshit. If a song is $1.29 on Amazon, $0.99 somewhere else, and practically free on streaming services, the value of the product is being artificially manipulated. That is horrible fucking business.
>>64631751
Replying to >>64631577 in part
>>64631751
>Paying someone $0.0008 for a single play of their song and then turning around and paying someone else more than that is total bullshit
This is the ultimate problem with streaming that no one wants to acknowledge. It's not just that major label artists get more overall (that would be fair), it's that they essentially get more per stream simply because they're more popular. It's actually pretty fucking incredible that the music industry, which has been god awful for an eternity, has somehow managed to capitalize on the internet to make an even more lopsided system. The evil thing is that they portray streaming services as this amazing system which is saving all artists from piracy, when in fact it's just labels taking advantage of the situation piracy has created for their own ends.
>>64632017
Not to mention the fact that labels can pay to have their music placed on high-traffic playlists, which is really a violation of payola laws that are already in effect.
>>64632077
>Cognitive dissonance
Jesus christ people can we get back to the subject for which playlist is better instead of acting like y'all are some music industry analyst!
>>64632707
Nice contribution
Apple music just announced student discount.
is it worth it over spotify?
>>64632904
Yes, it has more stuff than Spotify.
>>64632904
I trust Spotify more than Apple
>>64633018
>>64633050
See this is why this thread is going over 100, you can't decide which is better!
My 9.99 is on the line here!!
>>64633170
Get both, like any rich, smug bastard would do.
>>64633234
But I am not a rich smug bastard! Also, I prefer to keep my music library in one place where the service can curate music for me according to my updated taste on music.
>>64633394
Be glad you're not.
>>64633394
Well, this is the exact reason free trials exist. Spotify have pretty good customer service. I forgot to cancel my account before the bill date and not only did they refund me, they gave me an extra free month on top of the original free trial month and the month I accidentally paid for.
May as well try them both, and Google Play Music while you're at it.
>>64633466
how ironic cause I was billed when i unsub last month maybe I should contact customer service and see if i can get any free month hehe
>>64633513
Go for it.
>>64633567
Just did it and I made it sound like I am really angry :D
