Spotify Subscription



Ciro_DiMarzio said:
My mate pays £16 a month for the family carry on and gave me one of the spots for nowt. Great value.

If you buy a cd the music doesn't belong to you either. Would cost millions to buy physical copies of all the music available on Spotify or similar apps.
Click to expand...
The music on the cd is yours to play to yourself when ever you like. You own the cd with it on.
 
Big Jeff said:
It depends on how you use Spotify, Amazon, Apple.

I may not be representative as an avaerage user but for me it’s brilliant.
Click to expand...
I love it and I'm not a massive music listener. Back when I was 18-25ish I'd spend £40-£50 a month on 3 or 4 albums. Half of them would be a disappointment. Spotify emiinates that buyers regret and gives access to the majority of music that is released for a fraction of the price. Can't be robbed.
 
rudd said:
Can't see how anyone thinks streaming platforms aren't value for money unless you're scared of listening to new music and only listen to your vinyl from the 70's
Click to expand...
I'm pretty locked in now music wise but even I've discovered stuff I now love due to Spotify. It makes working out everyday that little bit easier. I wish there was an easier way to share my playlist between apps as I do tend to bounce between them. I know there's third party apps to do it but still doesn't work fully.
 
CEF said:
Bad for the music industry as well
Click to expand...
Created income that was lost to Napster, Pirate Bay and the likes. Also a platform for new artists who wouldn't get a look in when the industry was dominated by the labels. It's changed the nature of listening to music no doubt so by the nature of change there will be winners and losers.

Nothing wrong in liking CDs or vinyl over streaming services, each has its merits.
 
Ciro_DiMarzio said:
No it isn't. Stop being silly. Spotify is far better value for money than buying CDs. Access to 5 million albums for a year for less than the price of buying one album a month for a year.
Click to expand...
And that’s not to mention the fact that Spotify isn’t just a music streaming platform. Access to go knows how many podcasts and audiobooks along with the music catalogue.
 
DoctorMick said:
What a bizarre perspective.
Click to expand...
If they decide that a particular band or song should not be listened to, you won't be able to listen to it. Bit like when Netflix started censoring films.
r@mside said:
Created income that was lost to Napster, Pirate Bay and the likes. Also a platform for new artists who wouldn't get a look in when the industry was dominated by the labels. It's changed the nature of listening to music no doubt so by the nature of change there will be winners and losers.

Nothing wrong in liking CDs or vinyl over streaming services, each has its merits.
Click to expand...
Napster, that's a blast from the past
 
CEF said:
Bad for the music industry as well
Click to expand...
Only if you believe that despite the improvements in internet connectivity that people would have continued to buy physical copies of music. It has no doubt changed the model which does mean a lot of artists receive less cash from record sales but it’s also made it easier to gain exposure. If legit streaming services didn’t exist people would still be streaming or downloading music but the artists would be getting nowt.
CEF said:
If they decide that a particular band or song should not be listened to, you won't be able to listen to it. Bit like when Netflix started censoring films.
Click to expand...
That’s not how Spotify works tho is it? They’ll put owt on there that they’re allowed to. Previously if a record label decided that a band didn’t deserve a deal then you wouldn’t be able to listen to them…was that censorship?
 
Last edited:
The value for money is incredible. They should charge way more and pay artists a fairer fee.
Don’t think most people have any idea how little artists make from streaming, although I guess it’s better than zero from illegal downloads.
 

Back
Top