- 44,189
- 73,221
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2004
taylor swift just saved the music industry
- Thread in 'Music' Thread starter Started by cash money 1999,
- Start date
tony plush
Banned
- 468
- 464
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2014
Would let her bukkake me/10 
I haven't listened to 1989 yet (I'm on that Fearless wave right now) but I'm reading it's a pop album and based off the two singles (Shake It Off & Blank Space), I'm curious to hear it... once I get off this Fearless wave tho.
I haven't listened to 1989 yet (I'm on that Fearless wave right now) but I'm reading it's a pop album and based off the two singles (Shake It Off & Blank Space), I'm curious to hear it... once I get off this Fearless wave tho.
john hancock
Banned
- 924
- 563
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2014
Since when? Do you mean streaming companies can't replace "imprints"? Labels are the distributor, they oversee how music is distributed to the public.
Last edited:
john hancock
Banned
- 924
- 563
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2014
Yes all MAJOR labels quintessentially are the distributors ...an IMPRINT would be something like "WE GHETTO RICH, ENT", or "LILAC GUITAR STRINGS, LLC".
example: Universal Music Group (distributor) > Cash Money Records (record label/imprint) > Young Money Entertainment (imprint)
- 22,843
- 29,555
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2003
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?
You think what Spotify does and what those companies you just listed do are even remotely comparable?
john hancock
Banned
- 924
- 563
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2014
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.
- 6,182
- 1,951
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2009
****** on the internet love giving expert analysis on **** they not experts on. 
- 22,843
- 29,555
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2003
^^^
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. And terrestrial radio ultimately. For people's ears.
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.
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. And terrestrial radio ultimately. For people's ears.
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.
Last edited:
- 7,165
- 1,812
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2012
hbo has been offering streaming content since like 2007 when they actually had the wire episodes early on demand . if anything a pioneer in streaming .... And hbo go has been a thing for some years .
john hancock
Banned
- 924
- 563
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2014
^^^
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.
You mad
"Internet Intellectual"? ... Who do you think you are to begin with to even benchmark the standards of intelligence by which to call someone an "internet intellectual"
The internet was built by INTELLECTUALS and researchers to do EXACTLY what I'm doing now and that's sending and receiving information traveling at a fraction of the speed of light speed to other intellectuals across the globe. So by calling me an internet intellectual you're actual calling yourself a "tool", someone to be used because you're not here to share ideas and make it more comprehensive to the mass public. You're here to just to be here. Not only that, you're MAD! Mad at YOURSELF because you feel inferior and the sad part is I'm just "kickin' it" with kinfolk on a sneaker forum. I can only imagine what your life is like offline or the caliber of people that surround you.
I do know what I'm talking about, and I stated that HBO opt'd out to partner with Netflix when SHOWTIME did not ...making HBO a COMPETITOR because they're failing to adapt to the streaming epoch.
"Showtime says it actually grew subscribers in the past year — to hit 23 million at the start of 2014, up from 22 million a year ago. HBO’s subscriber count in the U.S. has been flat at around 28 million" - Source, Variety.
If anything, Spotify competes with AMAZON ...not with "Pandora, Beats, iHeartRadio". And show me where I stated labels don't work with them. I simply pointed out that for the last five years DISTRIBUTION companies have been working with Spotify. Here's where some of you are having a difficult time comprehending Spotify's relationship with labels. As I stated before there's a DIFFERENCE between a LABEL and an IMPRINT. Major labels supply their own distribution. Unless you're unprofessional like DJ DRAMA and the FBI can find you pressing up rewritable CD's in your studio, your IMPRINT has a distribution deal with your record label, which is a CHILD corporation or partner of a MAJOR LABEL.
"Contract all ****** up, I guess that means you’re all ****** up
You signed to one *****, that signed to another *****, that signed to three ******,
now that’s bad luck
Damn that **** even the odds now, you better off selling this hard now"
EGHCK!
You signed to one *****, that signed to another *****, that signed to three ******,
now that’s bad luck
Damn that **** even the odds now, you better off selling this hard now"
EGHCK!
Their application looks and works much like iTunes. The big difference is that Spotify gives you instant, legal access to millions of tracks without any charge. With all the big labels signed up, there's an astonishing range of albums available. Source, Guardian (2009) .
Your exact words were "People don't choose Spotify over a "label" and mine were "Companies like Universal, Sony, and WB have been working with Spotify for the last 5 years" ...so Sir, what's 2014-2009 equal ( as in the article was written in 2009)?
Last edited:
- 22,843
- 29,555
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2003
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.
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.
Last edited:
meek meals
Banned
- 6,867
- 1,769
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
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.
.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.
john hancock
Banned
- 924
- 563
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2014
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.
john hancock
Banned
- 924
- 563
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2014
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.
- 22,843
- 29,555
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2003
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.
You're looking at a SMALL part of the larger equation though. If artists do these deals directly with Soundcloud, Beats and EVERY SINGLE streaming service, then they need to do the same with Clear Channel, Entercom, CBS and EVERY SINGLE broadcast corporation.
And Viacom for VH1, MTV etc.
And who is going to handle their licensing? Who will do their deals for film and television placement?
Who will handle their international? Who will make sure the record is out in the UK, Asia, Benelux etc?
Labels do SO much more than just put songs on Spotify. Of course an artist could do that directly.
You think Spotify wants to do direct deals with EVERY single artist out there? Do you have any idea how tedious that process would be?
And again, you think Spotify wants to pay artists advances....and then pay royalties on top of that? You say it just takes a few big artists....but those artists will command big checks that these services just do not want to pay.
Especially when they aren't spending any of that money now and they're still getting the majority of the content they need for their services. FROM labels.
They don't even want to pay royalties and actually work with labels to do deals with them directly so they can bypass the CRB rates they normally pay out via SoundExchange. Basically partner with labels to REDUCE the royalty rate by offering something else in exchange (increased plays/positioning etc.)
I love how everyone wants to be forward thinking, but so many of these ideas aren't practical.
This line was my favorite..."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."
So once they figure out how to get money from streaming companies, then they need to figure out how to do the other 95% of **** that a label does? Of which you only listed a small portion.
That is EXACTLY why Spotify cannot replace a label.
How can Spotify replace a label when Spotify is a SMALL portion on the entirety of a label's operations?
Last edited:
- 22,843
- 29,555
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2003
Go ahead and write to the major labels. Maybe the letter will land on my desk and I can school you some more.
I don't WANT you to be wrong. I'm trying to help you be right. But you seem to want to stay wrong. Which is fine by me.
Being right more often than not is why I've managed to maintain employment....in the music industry....for the better part of 2 decades.
john hancock
Banned
- 924
- 563
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2014
Okay to put things in perspective ...I sound like Egon Spangler and you're acting like Jack Hardemeyer.
- 22,843
- 29,555
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2003
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
We're in here talking about business and this dude is talking about a Ghostbusters character
- 6,182
- 1,951
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2009
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
Look like I said earlier. People talk about stuff, especially the music industry, like they know the ins and outs. You're making complete sense but you also have direct experience and know what you talking about.
tony plush
Banned
- 468
- 464
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2014
Mr Dink
formerly foamposite xi
- 12,027
- 10,032
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
Last edited:
- 497
- 75
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2012
- 4,444
- 5,560
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2002
Michael Jackson's Estate says Thank You! Lol