Jump to content

Recommended Posts

for me it serves several purposes. it's a great way to dabble in genres that I'm not too familiar with. for example, I know I like piano sonatas from a certain period but I don't really know what composers or performers I like so it's great for discovery in that way. a second way is that it's great for checking in on a old stuff you used to love but lost the CD or an ex took it or whatever. i wouldn't be surprised if my top listens on spotify were smashing pumpkins and jawbreaker.

 

w/r/t to the poor payment to artists i agree that it sucks. it's better than downloading and i hope that an empowered user base will soon be able to pressure the company to direct fewer profits into their pockets and more into those of the artists.

Well i think that they do direct a reasonable amount of their income back to the artists and as they expand and their overheads decrease, they suggest that they'll increase the proportion of their revenue directed to copyright holders, well according to an article with graphs on arstechnica or somewhere a few months back. One thing in their favour is that because it's a subscription model, over the years it may payoff more than a single sale of music would, should users pick the same track over and over again. But if you were an artist releasing all the time, you'd probably find your income a touch diluted as fans shifted over to listening to your new music but didn't buy it.

A member of the non sequitairiate.

  On 3/5/2014 at 7:26 PM, murphythecat8 said:

but where is the 26 mixes tracks. his most underated work imo

 

they would show up under the artists remixed name

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×