Jump to content

💓 DAWN OF CHROMATICA 💓

Follow Gaga Daily on Telegram
other

UMG reportedly bans streaming exclusives


Bolkins

Featured Posts

migamiga

Yes!!!! Was so afraid lg5 was gonna be an apple exclusive which would be so stupid and so hypocritical of her! Homegirl needs all the streaming points she can get

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Bolkins

I think it's positive to see a behemoth group like Universal putting their foot down against these other companies like tidal and apple (that are clearly more concerned about bling, not music) Kanye was right that this method would further kill the already dying industry if something wasn't done, I just hope it's all true 

Link to post
Share on other sites

FATCAT
38 minutes ago, GAGA1972 said:

Good. These are unfair to fans. I'm not paying 120 dollars a year to own LG5. I'd download it illegally if she pulled that crap. I don't respect artists who do such things for money. Let the fans have the music!

It's precisely what these companies are seeing. Spikes in DL requests/seeds/leeches for torrents.

Make things harder to access legally, and they will become more readily available illegally.

Purr more, hiss less.
Link to post
Share on other sites

darkchylde

i'm sorry but i don't think this is fair? like, if x artists decides they only want to stream or publish their music on x site, i think they're on their right to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DiamondAngel
4 minutes ago, VenusOddity said:

i'm sorry but i don't think this is fair? like, if x artists decides they only want to stream or publish their music on x site, i think they're on their right to do so.

But the label makes money too... How are they gonna make money off of streaming? You have to think about these people and their jobs. The industry would collapse. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

FATCAT
4 minutes ago, VenusOddity said:

i'm sorry but i don't think this is fair? like, if x artists decides they only want to stream or publish their music on x site, i think they're on their right to do so.

I doubt this would effect certain boycotts, like Taylor staying off of spottify, but instead it prevents artists from only having their music on one platform. 

Purr more, hiss less.
Link to post
Share on other sites

darkchylde
4 minutes ago, GAGA1972 said:

But the label makes money too... How are they gonna make money off of streaming? You have to think about these people and their jobs. The industry would collapse. 

 

3 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

I doubt this would effect certain boycotts, like Taylor staying off of spottify, but instead it prevents artists from only having their music on one platform. 

well i just think that if an artist belives x streaming site doesn't match their politics, then they shouldn't be forced to have their work exposed on it.

like, it would really itch me too to have my piece that i've invested months and months on be giving for free on mediocre quality for everyone.

 

on the other side it's not like i pay for any streaming sites but when i listen to an album i do my best to buy it if i like it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FATCAT
Just now, VenusOddity said:

 

well i just think that if an artist belives x streaming site doesn't match their politics, then they shouldn't be forced to have their work exposed on it.

like, it would really itch me too to have my piece that i've invested months and months on be giving for free on mediocre quality for everyone.

 

on the other side it's not like i pay for any streaming sites but when i listen to an album i do my best to buy it if i like it.

This is just a rule against exclusivity, it's not a mandate that you have to release everywhere.

Purr more, hiss less.
Link to post
Share on other sites

DiamondAngel
8 minutes ago, VenusOddity said:

 

well i just think that if an artist belives x streaming site doesn't match their politics, then they shouldn't be forced to have their work exposed on it.

like, it would really itch me too to have my piece that i've invested months and months on be giving for free on mediocre quality for everyone.

 

on the other side it's not like i pay for any streaming sites but when i listen to an album i do my best to buy it if i like it.

If they want to do that they should join an independent label. Any artist under UMG expecting such a huge and generous label that gives them a lot of money to let them release their album in one place only is kind of dumb. It's simply bad business. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

StrawberryBlond

Thank heavens for that. I've had it up to here with this exclusive nonsense. It's bad business sense and unfair to fans who can't afford to pay a monthly subscription fee to a service on which they only want to listen to one album. Imagine back in the days when digital downloading didn't exist and the only way to listen to music was to buy it out a record store. Could you imagine if the new album from your favourite artist was only available at the biggest record store in the country, which is miles away from your local one? And you had to spend money on 2 way transport and food to keep you going just to get your hands on this record? Can you imagine how outraged people would be at this decision? So, why have the public not kicked up more of a stink about this exclusive streaming idea? Why have we just accepted it and lined these artist's pockets? But at long last, we've finally sent a clear message to artists that if you are going to release music, you have to make it available in as many formats and outlets as possible, so we can choose which one works for us. It makes for more sales, happier fans and an all-round cleaner industry. I was never all that struck on UMG's policies but they've finally begun to see sense now. That's the thing, record labels try to wrestle power off the public but we always win because there's more of us. And when you've got millions of people breathing down your neck, you'd be an idiot not to change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Juanjo

I think this is good. People should be able to access music in any platform, and artists should be able to reach as many audiences as possible. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

FrankGutz
5 hours ago, kvnrp said:

LG5 won't be an exclusive :diane:

My prayers have been heard :diane:

yas, we are safe :giveup:

Dᴄ • Dᴀʀᴋ Hᴏʀsᴇ | Hᴏʀʀᴏʀ • Tʜʀɪʟʟᴇʀ | Eʟᴇᴄᴛʀᴏɴɪᴄ | Fɪᴛɴᴇss | Mᴀɴᴅʏ Mᴏᴏʀᴇ • Lᴀᴅʏ Gᴀɢᴀ • Sᴏᴘʜɪᴇ Bᴇxᴛᴏʀ
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dayman

This is both better for the consumer and the record companies. Exclusives just anger consumers and limit the amount of people that will hear an album - which means lower merch sales, ticket sales, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, danwasd said:

A bit off-topic, but if in Bobby's promo there was sth this-related, I'm done :rip:

I WON'T SURVIVE ANOTHER MESSY PROMOTION :madge: OH, NO :madge:

I'M LEAVING EARTH :madge:

 

literally cannot handle another messy era :diane:

come through Bobby

tumblr_inline_o0vmn9APBo1qgt71j_500.gif

...ıllıllı c h e r r y c h e r r y b o o m b o o m ıllıllı...
Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...