Spotify In Australia

Remove this Banner Ad

JimDocker

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 16, 2007
5,954
3,375
Fremantle
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Doncaster Rovers, Boston Celtics
As for artists having some stuff missing from their catalogue. Jim Croce - 1 song. Time in a Bottle is the only thing available in Australia.
 

rumply

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 11, 2002
21,382
20,961
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Iggles, 76ers
Started using Spotify a couple weeks ago & signed up for the premium a few days ago - got to say I am loving it, some of the playlists I've been listening to are just great.

I read there are mixed feelings out there regards artists getting their fair cut out from streaming services & hope that gets sorted as these technologies mature. It appears The Beatles & AC/DC are the only major bands that haven't released their catalogs to streaming sites, suspect they will make the move sooner rather than later.

Worth checking out if you haven't already.
 

swingdog

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 3, 2007
5,612
5,487
Melbourne
AFL Club
West Coast
Just updating this - a lot of the Stones seems to be up there. This has pretty much replaced my iTunes collection - running Spotify through the Sonos system.

Playlists are great for finding new stuff - my only wonder is why more radio shows (especially some of the better ones on 3PBS and 3RRR), don't put their playlists up as a playlist, after shows, if you see what I mean.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

MC Bad Genius

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 15, 2008
6,365
8,060
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Dragons FFC
That's interesting. I originally had Rdio before Spotify became available in Australia (well, I originally had US Spotify, but constantly got locked out because of it being location-locked), but I've never tried Deezer. From what I've just read online, it's pretty similar to Spotify, but has better curation, so it might be worth trying out.

I also found out about Qobuz that offers super-high quality streaming (some at studio 24-bit master quality), which is VERY intriguing.
 

Zarrix

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 15, 2008
5,874
2,199
Perth
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Everton
Geo-blocking pisses me off the most, just bizarre not having certain tracks and albums available in certain countries. Can understand if an artist is ideologically opposed to the service and doesn't want to release content on there though.
 

rumply

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 11, 2002
21,382
20,961
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Iggles, 76ers
An interesting take on where things stand now & the expected future for the music industry as streaming becomes the norm

http://venturebeat.com/2014/12/19/spotify-vs-taylor-swift-what-you-should-know/
Spotify cares more about an IPO than artists — and Taylor Swift cares about Taylor Swift. Here’s why.

Image Credit: Spotify
December 19, 2014 3:00 PM
Tom McAlevey, Radical.FM

Regardless of those truths, streaming will save the music industry and artists will soon make more money than ever before.

Daniel Ek is disingenuous when he claims that Spotify’s “reason for existence is to help fans find music and help artists connect with fans through a platform that protects them from piracy”. Spotify is a corporation. Its real reason for existence is to make billions of dollars for its owners through an IPO that won’t help artists at all, but will profit Mr. Ek handsomely. Every major music label will also make hundreds of millions of dollars on Spotify’s IPO, and they will not share a penny of that with artists either — despite having received their shares as a bonus for delivering artists’ music to Spotify.

Spotify did not eclipse Rhapsody and other competitors by being better, there is little difference between on-demand services. Spotify achieved its impressive growth by giving music away. Daniel Ek got in bed with the major labels in return for the right to be the first licensed on-demand music service to offer a free tier. YouTube also benefitted tremendously by offering free on-demand music, but its licenses were ‘accidental’ as it was not originally intended as a music service. It is Spotify’s massive free tier (which like YouTube pays less to artists than subscription-only services like Rhapsody) which raised the ire of Taylor Swift and her handlers.

But Ms. Swift has no intention of keeping her music off Spotify any longer than required to extract an acceptable deal. Comments like, “music should not be free, and my prediction is that individual artists and their labels will someday decide an album’s price point” is just posturing for moral high-ground. Swift knows that she gets paid even for plays on Spotify’s free tier. And she has not (yet) complained about YouTube being free. Nor has Taylor Swift or Scott Borchetta griped about old-fashioned terrestrial radio, which not only plays her music for free to listeners, but also pays her via Borchetta’s label exactly… nothing. And despite selling 1.2 million copies of 1989 in its first week, the savvy duo suffers no delusion that there is a rosy future for CD sales. Most of Taylor Swift’s fans don’t even own CD players, hell I don’t own a CD player. In fact, the scathing Thom York critique of a broken music industry wherein he called Spotify “the last desperate fart of a dying corpse” would be better applied to the CD.

The truth is that Swift, like Ek, is a shrewd business person. Swift and Co. are well aware that streaming represents the entire future of music consumption, including her own. And in that future she would like to make more money per stream than Spotify’s free tier pays. She is okay with the royalties Spotify would pay if it dumped 75 percent of its user base and retained only the paid subscribers.

Ek in his turn understands that dumping Spotify’s free tier would remove all advantage over rivals like Rhapsody, Rdio, and Beats. Ironically, dumping free users is exactly what would make Spotify a profitable company with long-term value. But reversing user growth now would reduce Spotify’s 2015 IPO valuation by billions, costing Daniel Ek personal hundreds of millions of dollars short-term, so he put his foot down.

We live in a money-driven era. Nobody is surprised by stars like Taylor Swift clawing for extra millions. We’re not even shocked when nerds like Ek become billionaires. But independent artists just get confused when two “one percenters” have a public lovers’ quarrel. What artists need is a more honest music industry. Swift and Ek are likely to get richer regardless of when streaming matures. But how will the new streaming music world play out for the “regular” artists? Media hype aside, they’ll be just fine too. Here’s what will happen…

All-you-can-eat on-demand services including Spotify and Apple’s forthcoming ‘iBeats’ will soon be relegated to subscription only. They will charge the current $10 per month and will eventually replace downloads completely. CD sales in turn will give way to high-end upgrades of on-demand services offering FLAC streaming at about $20 per month to aficionados. Swift, and every other musician, will supply all their music to these services because compensation will be fair. Rhapsody already claims topay artists three times what Spotify pays per active user.

Smarter music label executives will get wise to YouTube’s free-ride too. The video streaming juggernaut will be forced to pay comparable rates for comparable services. If they choose to continue offering free on-demand music, they will need to increase commercial load so dramatically that it will drive many users to the dedicated music subscription services. And if kids want to put up with full video ads pre-rolling every song they play on YouTube that’s fine, because the artists will be fairly compensated for their work. Should Google manage to ‘out-muscle’ demands of fair payments for YouTube plays through underhanded dealings that reward labels but not artists (like Spotify’s IPO), then artists will get wise and run away in droves until Google learns to play fair.

Grown-up music consumers who choose not to pay subscription fees will forego full on-demand just as they always have with FM radio. But excellent Personalized Radio services like Pandora and Radical will completely replace terrestrial radio (which pays artists nothing) creating a huge windfall for artists by compensating them for every track streamed, even on ad-supported services. And all music streaming services will see a modest increase in Composer Royalties vis-à-vis artist Royalties, as the latter is heavily favored in most of today’s deals. Virtually all recorded music will soon be consumed via streaming. This scares many artists trying to make a living in a quickly changing music industry. And this is what inspired Swift to call out Spotify’s poorly-paying free tier – she does not want a bad precedent set.

But armed with straight information artists will demand transparency from Labels. With transparent deals artists will see a bigger cut of payouts from on-demand streams. And with a level playing field between on-demand services, payments from Spotify and YouTube will be much higher. Finally, as free-riding FM music stations are replaced by personal radio services that pay for every stream, today’s musicians will be better and better off. The music industry has undergone a turbulent transition to an Internet economy, but as the exciting streaming industry matures musicians will begin to partake of their most lucrative era ever.

Tom McAlevey is the CEO of streaming music service Radical.fm
 

AcuteWhistle

Premiership Player
Aug 6, 2017
3,377
2,893
AFL Club
Essendon
After signing up a few years ago, it's fair to say Spotify has revolutionised my listening habits. I used to listen to a fair bit, well I thought I did, so I had a bit of a laugh when I got an email from them with a few stats for 2017...

Untitled.png
 

MC Bad Genius

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 15, 2008
6,365
8,060
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Dragons FFC
After signing up a few years ago, it's fair to say Spotify has revolutionised my listening habits. I used to listen to a fair bit, well I thought I did, so I had a bit of a laugh when I got an email from them with a few stats for 2017...

View attachment 443561
That yearly summary is a stroke of genius - not only is it interesting to see what you've listened to the most, it's almost impossible not to share it on social media (or on forums!), so it acts as further advertising for Spotify.

It's absolutely dominating the streaming music sector and I can't believe why anyone uses anything else. I had Apple Music for a while to compare and it's just so much more difficult to navigate and has none of the extra benefits that Spotify has. Their algorithm for recommendations is also incredible good. I've been listening to the personalised Discover Weekly playlist religiously and although there are always a few duds, I invariable save about half the playlist and keep listening to those songs again and again. Also, a random playlist recently popped up called Time Capsule where it has a bunch of songs from the timeframe where you listen to most of your music from (so for me, mid-90s) and when I put it on, it was better than any playlist I'd made my self. I was on a road trip at the time and my wife was almost scared at how perfectly it knew my tastes!
 

swingdog

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 3, 2007
5,612
5,487
Melbourne
AFL Club
West Coast
That yearly summary is a stroke of genius - not only is it interesting to see what you've listened to the most, it's almost impossible not to share it on social media (or on forums!), so it acts as further advertising for Spotify.

It's absolutely dominating the streaming music sector and I can't believe why anyone uses anything else. I had Apple Music for a while to compare and it's just so much more difficult to navigate and has none of the extra benefits that Spotify has. Their algorithm for recommendations is also incredible good. I've been listening to the personalised Discover Weekly playlist religiously and although there are always a few duds, I invariable save about half the playlist and keep listening to those songs again and again. Also, a random playlist recently popped up called Time Capsule where it has a bunch of songs from the timeframe where you listen to most of your music from (so for me, mid-90s) and when I put it on, it was better than any playlist I'd made my self. I was on a road trip at the time and my wife was almost scared at how perfectly it knew my tastes!
The Discover Weekly is a godsend for finding new music. Went to a top show the other night at the pub of an artist who I found in the Discover Weekly playlist and who happened to be touring. Would have had no idea otherwise.

The other less-commented upon aspect of Spotify is how it replaces radio. It's bundled in my Optus mobile package so it's replaced the radio around the house, in the car etc.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

AcuteWhistle

Premiership Player
Aug 6, 2017
3,377
2,893
AFL Club
Essendon
That yearly summary is a stroke of genius - not only is it interesting to see what you've listened to the most, it's almost impossible not to share it on social media (or on forums!), so it acts as further advertising for Spotify.

It's absolutely dominating the streaming music sector and I can't believe why anyone uses anything else. I had Apple Music for a while to compare and it's just so much more difficult to navigate and has none of the extra benefits that Spotify has. Their algorithm for recommendations is also incredible good. I've been listening to the personalised Discover Weekly playlist religiously and although there are always a few duds, I invariable save about half the playlist and keep listening to those songs again and again. Also, a random playlist recently popped up called Time Capsule where it has a bunch of songs from the timeframe where you listen to most of your music from (so for me, mid-90s) and when I put it on, it was better than any playlist I'd made my self. I was on a road trip at the time and my wife was almost scared at how perfectly it knew my tastes!

Discover Weekly is great & The Ones That Got Away playlist that came with the annual summary also rocks, had it on rotation for a day now:)
 

Top Bottom