A Quote by John Seabrook

The difference between Spotify and Internet radio services like Pandora is that Spotify is interactive. You can sample the complete catalogue of most artists' recordings.
People are experimenting with streaming, with subscription services, whether it's a Spotify or a Pandora or a Rdio.
There are a number of start-ups in Europe that are able to reach beyond their own country. Take Spotify - Spotify just in Sweden isn't that interesting compared to Spotify all over the world.
The fact that 'Honey, I'm Good' made such a splash and that people were catching it on radio, on Spotify, on Pandora, it's driving everybody to go hear the album.
Kids are taking music for free all the time. They have Spotify, Pandora... The record companies aren't making the kind of music that they used to make. Artists make their money on tours, not from album sales.
With iTunes and Spotify and Pandora and this and that, you don't need to buy CDs any more.
I always looked askance at Pandora and Spotify, regarding both as a passive means of experiencing music; they feed you music they presume you will like, and eventually you like it.
With Spotify and all those streaming services, you don't get paid anything. You have to be, like, Madonna or something to actually make a real royalty from that.
There's definitely some sort of dissent brewing between record labels, publishing companies and artists [about the compensation they get from streaming services] Spotify is returning a HUGE amount of money [to the record labels]. If we continue growing at our current rate in terms of subscriptions and downloads, we'll overtake iTunes in terms of contributions to the recorded music business in under two years.
Spotify was one of the first services that actually focuses on the consumer because they don't have to spend hundreds of dollars a year on music.
This is a way for artists to communicate directly to their fans. If you think of an artist like Bruno Mars, he's using Spotify, creating playlists and listening to music through it.
With Spotify, I think people are discovering a lot of artists they might not discover otherwise.
Spotify favors hits. It's very much a meritocracy: It's not like radio, where whatever is being played is what you hear. We offer songs up, and from there, it's up to consumers to stream the music or not.
Companies like Spotify, the new Apple service, and all the others are really going to have to pay artists more. And I think it's a matter of time; I think a lot of these companies and the individuals that are involved in them realize that as well. They know that artists are not getting what they should be getting.
I was brought onboard to strengthen the bridge between Spotify and the music community.
Spotify has paid more than two billion dollars to labels, publishers and collecting societies for distribution to songwriters and recording artists.
I suppose Spotify is a good thing. The ads are quite annoying, but a lot of people seem to like it and use it. I don't myself, but it seems like a good idea, and the labels are getting a huge amount of money off it, but the artists aren't, so that must be good for them... but not us.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!