How deep is the jazz selection at Spotify?

[medjuck]

I think I can answer this myself : "Not very". I was going to ask the question because I read the following article this past Sunday in the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-spotify-cloud-20120513,0,2453673.story

The writer brings up a idea I've had for the last several years: If all music is available all the time over the internet do I really need a music collection? Who knows because it seems that if your interests are even slightly esoteric the music is not that readily available. Before I posted the question about Spotify I thought i'd test it myself by seeing if they had the alternate take of Shoe Shine Boy from the first Prez/Basie recording session. They didn't even have the master take!

(Though they did have version by Louis Armstrong, Ellington, The Rhythmakers and, surprisingly Richard Tabnik playing "Lester Young's Solos on Shoe Shine Boy" which is comprised of the Prez's solos from both takes.)

[JSngry]

I'm kinda the same way with memory - if I have an internet at my disposal, how much do I really need to remember?

Some stuff, the character-shapers and the life-protecters, obliviously, but the just everyday facts and figures, places and things, uh....that's mental hard-drive space that can be cleared unless and until.

[Noj]

I've fully rejected Spotify, Pandora, etc. because I refuse to tolerate commercials. The moment those stations played any commercials whatsoever I felt like my collection was fully justified and retained all of its value.

[Big Wheel]

I've fully rejected Spotify, Pandora, etc. because I refuse to tolerate commercials. The moment those stations played any commercials whatsoever I felt like my collection was fully justified and retained all of its value.

Uh, they have to make money on the thing somehow. It comes down to whether you decide $120/year is worth killing the commercials. I haven't bitten the bullet at this point, but it's definitely a better value to me than, say, cable TV.

The jazz selection on Spotify has in some ways gotten a little worse over the last year and a half. Zorn pulled almost all of Tzadik's stuff a year ago and ECM yanked most of their catalog a couple months ago. For medium to large jazz labels, you could still do worse. Most of the Blue Note catalog that was still in print when Spotify launched is still up there, even if some titles were deleted by BN after and have disappeared from stores. The Verve catalogs were mediocre but have gotten much better (including most if not all of the Verve material put out by Mosaic, even the sets that are still in print), and it looks like Concord is finally starting to put a lot of stuff on there from Fantasy labels.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Big Wheel

[PHILLYQ]

I've fully rejected Spotify, Pandora, etc. because I refuse to tolerate commercials. The moment those stations played any commercials whatsoever I felt like my collection was fully justified and retained all of its value.

Uh, they have to make money on the thing somehow. It comes down to whether you decide $120/year is worth killing the commercials. I haven't bitten the bullet at this point, but it's definitely a better value to me than, say, cable TV.

The jazz selection on Spotify has in some ways gotten a little worse over the last year and a half. Zorn pulled almost all of Tzadik's stuff a year ago and ECM yanked most of their catalog a couple months ago. For medium to large jazz labels, you could still do worse. Most of the Blue Note catalog that was still in print when Spotify launched is still up there, even if some titles were deleted by BN after and have disappeared from stores. The Verve catalogs were mediocre but have gotten much better (including most if not all of the Verve material put out by Mosaic, even the sets that are still in print), and it looks like Concord is finally starting to put a lot of stuff on there from Fantasy labels.

This highlights one of the problems of these services. If Blue Note /ECM or any other label has a spat with the service, then what you've enjoyed listening to suddenly disappears.

[GA Russell]

...and it looks like Concord is finally starting to put a lot of stuff on there from Fantasy labels.

I'm glad you've pointed that out, BW! I hadn't noticed. I took a brief "How are we doing?" poll at spotify a couple of weeks ago, and I said that they need to add the Concord catalogue.

[Big Wheel]

I've fully rejected Spotify, Pandora, etc. because I refuse to tolerate commercials. The moment those stations played any commercials whatsoever I felt like my collection was fully justified and retained all of its value.

Uh, they have to make money on the thing somehow. It comes down to whether you decide $120/year is worth killing the commercials. I haven't bitten the bullet at this point, but it's definitely a better value to me than, say, cable TV.

The jazz selection on Spotify has in some ways gotten a little worse over the last year and a half. Zorn pulled almost all of Tzadik's stuff a year ago and ECM yanked most of their catalog a couple months ago. For medium to large jazz labels, you could still do worse. Most of the Blue Note catalog that was still in print when Spotify launched is still up there, even if some titles were deleted by BN after and have disappeared from stores. The Verve catalogs were mediocre but have gotten much better (including most if not all of the Verve material put out by Mosaic, even the sets that are still in print), and it looks like Concord is finally starting to put a lot of stuff on there from Fantasy labels.

This highlights one of the problems of these services. If Blue Note /ECM or any other label has a spat with the service, then what you've enjoyed listening to suddenly disappears.

Of course, but that's the nature of any media. The same kind of thing happens with cable companies too, it's just that that industry is established enough for a) those kinds of disputes to be infrequent, since it's long since been accepted by both the service and the TV channel what constitutes appropriate pricing, b) the customer base is big enough and concentrated enough that there are big disincentives to both service and channel to get into disputes serious enough to pull their stuff altogether.

[Noj]

It costs money to own a collection too, obviously. And I'd rather be my own selector. And only pay for the same song once.

[David Ayers]

I have lot of LPs/CDs/MP3s, so Spotify is perfect for me - I've got enough hard and digital copies to keep me going forever! So I can listen to new stuff on Spotify without shelling out, and in fact I often listen to stuff I already own on Spotify, it's just easier. Anything I really want to hear on the 'stereo' in the 'living room' I can (and do) still buy on CD or more likely (for classical) SACD. Spotify prompts me to buy some things on CD, but mainly I use it to listen and move on. The UK subscription deal you can cancel any month so I don't feel tied. Sure, many labels are not on it right now, but over time maybe it will be necessary. I held off subscribing to Spotify for a long time but basically it is at least half of what I need it to be, and I just think it's the future. None of that stops me 'buying' music if I feel like it - it's just another (very welcome) route.

[i see I've gone 'Jim' on the 'scare quotes'. 'Yikes']

[Daniel A]

[i see I've gone 'Jim' on the 'scare quotes'. 'Yikes']

No, 'Jim' would've gone "Jim".

As for Spotify I use it exactly like you, except that I'm too frugal even to shell out 5 Euro/month for the ad-free version.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Daniel A

[Pete C]

I think I can answer this myself : "Not very". I was going to ask the question because I read the following article this past Sunday in the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-spotify-cloud-20120513,0,2453673.story

The writer brings up a idea I've had for the last several years: If all music is available all the time over the internet do I really need a music collection? Who knows because it seems that if your interests are even slightly esoteric the music is not that readily available. Before I posted the question about Spotify I thought i'd test it myself by seeing if they had the alternate take of Shoe Shine Boy from the first Prez/Basie recording session. They didn't even have the master take!

(Though they did have version by Louis Armstrong, Ellington, The Rhythmakers and, surprisingly Richard Tabnik playing "Lester Young's Solos on Shoe Shine Boy" which is comprised of the Prez's solos from both takes.)

I see an alternate take on a set called America's #1 Band, and the original take on an album called Count Basie, The Early Years, but they sound the same to me.

Putative original take:

Putative alternate take:

[clifford_thornton]

As an archivist, I still separate physical collections from the non-physical, or "soft" collections of files. Conceptually, it's hard for me to align digital files with literal, tangible objects, whether they're CDs or LPs or pens or stamps, letters, whatever. I understand why you could have a collection of files, but I'm wired old-school. The attributes of a physical object that contains music are far more interesting to me.

[David Ayers]

As an archivist, I still separate physical collections from the non-physical, or "soft" collections of files. Conceptually, it's hard for me to align digital files with literal, tangible objects, whether they're CDs or LPs or pens or stamps, letters, whatever. I understand why you could have a collection of files, but I'm wired old-school. The attributes of a physical object that contains music are far more interesting to me.

I'm going to print this out and file it!

[mjazzg]

As an archivist, I still separate physical collections from the non-physical, or "soft" collections of files. Conceptually, it's hard for me to align digital files with literal, tangible objects, whether they're CDs or LPs or pens or stamps, letters, whatever. I understand why you could have a collection of files, but I'm wired old-school. The attributes of a physical object that contains music are far more interesting to me.

I'm going to print this out and file it!

not before you copy, paste, save it, surely?

[A Lark Ascending]

I find downloads more spiritually satisfying. The lack of tangibility reminds me that the sense of the material self is but an illusion.

[JSngry]

Except when hard drives crash and data is lost. Then it gets tangibly material in a BIG mutherfukking hurry.

[A Lark Ascending]

Be at peace, glasshopper. The 0s and 1s are merely realigning themselves to create another chimera.

[Pete C]

The attributes of a physical object that contains music are far more interesting to me.

Then you really must check out this museum.

http://www.museumspeelklok.nl/?Language=en

I find downloads more spiritually satisfying. The lack of tangibility reminds me that the sense of the material self is but an illusion.

Wouldn't that make streaming the more "spiritual" option?

[A Lark Ascending]

I find downloads more spiritually satisfying. The lack of tangibility reminds me that the sense of the material self is but an illusion.

Wouldn't that make streaming the more "spiritual" option?

Having found the first steps to enlightenment through the download, I hope that in my next life I can progress to streaming.

[Pete C]

It costs money to own a collection too, obviously. And I'd rather be my own selector. And only pay for the same song once.

So would you stubbornly refuse to use the free version of Spotify to check out tracks before you spent your hard-earned cash on a tangible product? Then you could make better selections, no? There's a $5 a month option that kills the commercials but doesn't allow offline or portable device access. That's the price of 4 CDs per year. I believe Pandora is only $36 a year for the no-commercial, higher bitrate version. I love Pandora for discovering new music and for the sometimes surprising choices within my given parameters. The person who posts here as Face of the Bass made a similar claim, that he buys anything he might be interested in and then will sell what he doesn't like later, but that can be a very expensive proposition, and I can guarantee the resale market for CDs is definitely shrinking. These days only about 20% max of my listening is on a good system with good speakers, the rest is portable player on the run, or computer speakers at low volume at work. I'm now very selective about CDs I'll buy, definitely fewer than 10 a year for the last couple of years. Frees up my dollars to buy music DVDs--for me that's the best way to experience music at home without distraction: watch the concert and play the audio through my system.

Having found the first steps to enlightenment through the download, I hope that in my next life I can progress to streaming.

Perhaps your next life itself will be streamed.

[mattes]

Spotify has the entire Nat King Cole Mosaic. There's really no sign up, just log in through Facebook and the first 6 months are free. Then you can choose a monthly premium membership of either $4.99 or $9.99 per month. After spending a few hours there, it's almost too good to be true.

[medjuck]

I have to admit that since I first started this thread I've turned to Spotify several times when I wanted to hear something I didn't own and I've found everything I've looked for. BTW I think it's free if you're willing to hear some commercials.

[mikeweil]

Yes there is a mode free of charge - you get commercials between tracks in this case.

Listened to a whole lot of Nat King Cole this afternoon. Being on a no-buy policy at the moment this helps to stay clean ... thanks for the recommendation.

Edited July 14, 2012 by mikeweil

[A Lark Ascending]

How high is the sky?

[Shawn]

If it wasn't for Spotify I probably wouldn't hear any new music as the days of having any disposable income are long gone. I've only been to a record store once in 2012.