- 44,336
- 73,944
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2004
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Since when? Do you mean streaming companies can't replace "imprints"? Labels are the distributor, they oversee how music is distributed to the public.Streaming companies can't "replace" labels.
They're 2 totally different services.
Yes all MAJOR labels quintessentially are the distributors ...an IMPRINT would be something like "WE GHETTO RICH, ENT", or "LILAC GUITAR STRINGS, LLC".A label is not the same thing as a distributor.
It has everything to do with streaming service, look at the effect Netflix had on HBO. They were forced to stream their premium content to retain subscription.What does any of that have to do with a streaming service?
You think what Spotify does and what those companies you just listed do are even remotely comparable?
What does any of that have to do with a streaming service?
You think what Spotify does and what those companies you just listed do are even remotely comparable?
It has everything to do with streaming service, look at the effect Netflix had on HBO. They were forced to stream their premium content to retain subscription.
I'm old enough to remember record stores, where a line would be wrapped around the entrance to purchase a CD. People would hang out in the record store all week and just talk about albums and artists, tours and other industry info. Blogs replaced that, and with that came the demand to facilitate public forums for music (not like Niketalk but physical public forum). Spotify revolutionized that experience, and can reach more people a lot faster than record stores ever could. Companies like Universal, Sony, and WB have been working with Spotify for the last 5 years.
So yes, Spotify are doing exactly what record companies used to do. When CD's came along record companies were reluctant to adopt the technology, higher quality audio than vinyl or cassette tapes, and more portable. Record companies have to adapt just like HBO and network television had to. While HBO opt'd out partnering with Netflix, Showtime saw the profit and understood the hegemony of the streaming epoch. Showtime can retain subscriptions while aquiring new ones from customers introduced to shows through Netflix, and customers eventually become fans of shows airing on Showtime.
Just like we discuss Netflix shows to recommend to others, and Showtime figured out how to profit from social marketing. Spotify does the same thing with music, and as I stated before record companies have been figuring a deal similar to Showtime for the last 5 years.
^^^
This era of the "internet intellectual" is a joke. Cats think because they have Google they experts on everything now
The first line of your reply was so wrong, I couldn't even read the rest.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Netflix and HBO are competetive services. Labels and streaming services are not.
They may not have the same interests at heart, but they are not at all competetive. Period.
Spotify competes with Pandora, Beats, iHeartRadio. Labels work with all of them.
People choose Netflix over cable subscriptions. People don't choose Spotify over a "label".
A label's relationship with Spotify is just a small portion of that label's services.
Spotify doesn't sell anything. It's one of MANY mediums that a label uses to market and promote (expose) their music and one of many revenue streams that a label has.
Your parallel between Netfix and cable companies and Spotify and labels is not even remotely close.
So a streaming service can't "replace" a label. It can "replace" radio, or Youtube etc as a medium by which people listen to or "discover" music.
But not a label. Just look at the functions each perform and you'll realize that the very idea is foolish.
Spotify isn't even the largest player in the streaming market. Pandora is. Labels like Spotify more though because it actually pays out more than Pandora.
Spotify is just getting a ton of press because of this Taylor Swift madness.
Remember you posted this, I'm gonna write to these major labels and have them explain to you everything I've said. But it wouldn't matter, because it's not about right or wrong, it's about you WANTING me to be wrong.Yes, internet intellectuals.The kind that post gifs of Michael Jordan photoshopped on a WWE wrestlers body in an attempt to articulate themselves.
Because that's not something an intelligent human being would resort to. You're a child who seems to think they know more than they do. As do most children.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. So much of what you're saying is false, it's hard to know where to begin.
Here is a comparison of streaming services. Amazon Prime is one of many. And it's not even listed.
They are ALL competing for ears in the digital space.
http://time.com/30081/13-streaming-music-services-compared-by-price-quality-catalog-size-and-more/
Major labels DO NOT supply their own distribution. Columbia is a major label. So is Epic. So is RCA. All distributed by Sony.
Interscope is a major label. So is Def Jam. So is Republic. All distributed by Universal.
But back to the point at hand, the issue here is that you don't seem to understand what "replace" means.
Spotify isn't replacing labels as originally suggested. They have to co-exist.
Your argument seems to be that labels have to work with Spotify because they have to adjust to a marketplace that is changing. Which is correct.
But you're dead wrong to believe Spotify is replacing labels. Because they aren't even close to doing the same thing. And Spotify is just one player in their arena.
Unless they start a label. At which point they aren't replacing, they're just competing.
Thank you.That MJ on Vince's body gif is gold..
When I said Streaming Services are eventually replacing labels here's what I meant:
Artists are going to start signing directly to services like Soundcloud, Beats, spotify, etc. to stream their projects. They will get signed for a fee then collect royalties for their streams.
Right now it seems like a foreign idea but it just takes a few big artists to set that trend to command that money.
By the end of the decade I think a big artist is going to cut a deal with a streaming company to exclusively stream their album.
Once artists figure out how to get money from streaming companies for their music + figure out a way to count the streams as record sales, the only thing record labels will be able to offer is distribution, marketing, and that radio/television push. The first two can be achieved without the label.
IMO 2025/2030 there will be no record labels, or at least they will have changed drastically from what they are now in terms of the services they provide and how they treat/deal with artists.
That MJ on Vince's body gif is gold. .
When I said Streaming Services are eventually replacing labels here's what I meant:
Artists are going to start signing directly to services like Soundcloud, Beats, spotify, etc. to stream their projects. They will get signed for a fee then collect royalties for their streams.
Right now it seems like a foreign idea but it just takes a few big artists to set that trend to command that money.
By the end of the decade I think a big artist is going to cut a deal with a streaming company to exclusively stream their album.
Once artists figure out how to get money from streaming companies for their music + figure out a way to count the streams as record sales, the only thing record labels will be able to offer is distribution, marketing, and that radio/television push. The first two can be achieved without the label.
IMO 2025/2030 there will be no record labels, or at least they will have changed drastically from what they are now in terms of the services they provide and how they treat/deal with artists.
Yes, internet intellectuals.The kind that post gifs of Michael Jordan photoshopped on a WWE wrestlers body in an attempt to articulate themselves.
Because that's not something an intelligent human being would resort to. You're a child who seems to think they know more than they do. As do most children.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. So much of what you're saying is false, it's hard to know where to begin.
Here is a comparison of streaming services. Amazon Prime is one of many. And it's not even listed.
They are ALL competing for ears in the digital space.
http://time.com/30081/13-streaming-music-services-compared-by-price-quality-catalog-size-and-more/
Major labels DO NOT supply their own distribution. Columbia is a major label. So is Epic. So is RCA. All distributed by Sony.
Interscope is a major label. So is Def Jam. So is Republic. All distributed by Universal.
But back to the point at hand, the issue here is that you don't seem to understand what "replace" means.
Spotify isn't replacing labels as originally suggested. They have to co-exist.
Your argument seems to be that labels have to work with Spotify because they have to adjust to a marketplace that is changing. Which is correct.
But you're dead wrong to believe Spotify is replacing labels. Because they aren't even close to doing the same thing. And Spotify is just one player in their arena.
Unless they start a label. At which point they aren't replacing, they're just competing.
Remember you posted this, I'm gonna write to these major labels and have them explain to you everything I've said. But it wouldn't matter, because it's not about right or wrong, it's about you WANTING me to be wrong.
I can't explain it any more without becoming redundant...
http://niketalk.com/t/610881/taylor-swift-just-saved-the-music-industry/90#post_21973374
http://niketalk.com/t/610881/taylor-swift-just-saved-the-music-industry/90#post_21973844
...you just want to me to be wrong. And it's clear you don't have a modicum of an idea how the music industry works.
Thank you for putting things in "perspective" with another one of your asinine parallels.
We're in here talking about business and this dude is talking about a Ghostbusters character