News
Submit Cover with Spotify URL
Quote from DashBoardDJ856
It seems like most of us don't use Spotify.
VirileVagabond replied
That was my impression as well....
(....) so many here who don't us spotify-- aside from resource use for SHS or other purposes, most or all of my f&fs DO use spotify and they are not intereted in shs or any other look at music- they jsut want to listen and use it-spoty -- to do so. hmmm??
Great summary!
Indeed, not many editors and CCs admit to using or wanting to use or even rely on Spotify - for basics it may be an easy source, but in terms of details, it's unfortunately not a trustworthy one.
Although many of my friends (like myself) have a professional music world background, are musicians and/or knowledgeable about music, even those having Spotify accounts mainly use it for listening purposes.
The others, confirming your statement and likely representing a vast majority of Spotify, iTunes etc. users, express to not give a shit about origin(al)s and mainly don't care about anything but the releasing artists.
Last edit: 2019-09-22 03:58:44 UTC by camembert electrique
I do use Spotify regularly, daily in fact in my personal life. For SHS purposes, I mainly use it to verify whether a track is instrumental or has lyrics (something that cannot always be ascertained through a 30 or 90 second clip) or which melody an artist has used when a song commonly uses two or more different lyrics. For example, earlier today I used Spotify to learn that Redhead Express uses both the Mueller and Kirkpatrick melodies on their version of Away in a Manger .
Indeed, not many editors and CCs admit to using or wanting to use or even rely on Spotify - for basics it may be an easy source, but in terms of details, it's unfortunately not a trustworthy one.
I use Spotify quite a lot, but I agree it's not reliable in any sort. In other words: a spotify link means nothing to me, except for the possibility to listen to a song entirely.
Art makes a good point tho that clears some of the noise around this matter. As far as I can tell, the Spotify link is not for research but rather just for audio. How is this really different than YT?
My main beef is that Spotify sometimes soft locks my browser, so I have learned to avoid clicking if other typical sources are available. I feel I already exert a relatively high level of research and submission efforts and don't want another expectation....
I would add that Spotify can actually be useful for research in that the site often has pre-release singles and EPs that have disappeared from iTunes (now Apple Music). Just now I was looking at adding Shane & Shane's 2018 "A Worship Initiative Christmas, Vol. 2". But because the Spotify cover was different, the copyright was 2017, and it was clearly an EP rather than an album, I did further research and learned that the 2018 album was a compilation. There were indeed songs that were released a year earlier.
Spotify also has original content like the Spotify Sessions, Spotify Live, and Spotify Singles series. Some artists release covers there for the first time. The Spotify Singles series is dedicated to new covers.
I'm not sure why there is so much fuss over an optional feature. I think people can agree on the following:
-Management has added the OPTION for people to add a Spotify URL when submitting covers
-Most people here don't use Spotify and should not feel obligated to start using it
-Those who do use Spotify don't rely on the service as a primary resource for verifying originals, but use it for listening to songs in their entirety, which can be useful in verifying lyrics and melodies
I have discovered that if I find a Spotify link for a particular song I can apparently transfer it to the SHS submission form by copying and pasting the URL link. And I can (usually? often? sometimes?) get to a Spotify link by searching the name of the song + name of performer + the word "spotify."
Great!
Now if Spotify pops up doing my search, I will include it, leaving it up to the processing editor to use as they see fit....
If our users correctly submit a Spotify link in the appropriate Spotify field, then the editor processing the submission is expected to keep it included in the final database entry.
I use Spotify, but it doesn't matter because the option to submit the Spotify url does not appear when adding a cover.
Option appears after adding Performer… I encountered the same issue before I see that!
Correct
I do use Spotify regularly, daily in fact in my personal life. For SHS purposes, I mainly use it to verify whether a track is instrumental or has lyrics (something that cannot always be ascertained through a 30 or 90 second clip) or which melody an artist has used when a song commonly uses two or more different lyrics. For example, earlier today I used Spotify to learn that Redhead Express uses both the Mueller and Kirkpatrick melodies on their version of Away in a Manger .
This corresponds to how I use Spotify as well.
Indeed, not many editors and CCs admit to using or wanting to use or even rely on Spotify - for basics it may be an easy source, but in terms of details, it's unfortunately not a trustworthy one.
I use Spotify quite a lot, but I agree it's not reliable in any sort. In other words: a spotify link means nothing to me, except for the possibility to listen to a song entirely.
Thanks walt. And the latter ("the possibility to listen to a song entirely") is very useful, see for example JoAnn's comment. Also for our thousands of daily users who listen and compare versions.
Unfortunately Erik is trying to frame the discussion as "Spotify is not reliable, hence...". This is not basic idea of this project, nor was it presented it that way.
Art makes a good point tho that clears some of the noise around this matter. As far as I can tell, the Spotify link is not for research but rather just for audio. How is this really different than YT?
Exactly.
I'm not sure why there is so much fuss over an optional feature. I think people can agree on the following:-Management has added the OPTION for people to add a Spotify URL when submitting covers
-Most people here don't use Spotify and should not feel obligated to start using it
-Those who do use Spotify don't rely on the service as a primary resource for verifying originals, but use it for listening to songs in their entirety, which can be useful in verifying lyrics and melodies
This is a great summary of the whole discussion. Thanks for posting it, it's clear and constructive.
Now if Spotify pops up doing my search, I will include it, leaving it up to the processing editor to use as they see fit....If our users correctly submit a Spotify link in the appropriate Spotify field, then the editor processing the submission is expected to keep it included in the final database entry.
That's not what I do. To flesh out, before this change I avoided clicking (much less using) Spotify as a source, resulting in my rarely including these links in my submissions. After this change, if Spotify pops up during my submission process, I will include the link (usually to an applicable release) in the body of the submission, but I do not (and do not expect to) put a Spotify link to the actual performance in the dedicated field.....
Certified Contributor
Posts: 1448
Quote from artsinspired
... For SHS purposes, I mainly use it to verify whether a track is instrumental or has lyrics (something that cannot always be ascertained through a 30 or 90 second clip) or which melody an artist has used when a song commonly uses two or more different lyrics.
any of that can be done, as i do, on youtube; any task /confirmation/query that requires listening can be dne on youtube, e.g. language of a song, which version (when there are several of many). on occasion, when i cannat find information on a song, the record with label (data on the lable) shows up on youtube and gives me a place to start.
where is/are are the "a 30 or 90 second clip"?
Certified Contributor
Posts: 1448
Quote from VirileVagabond
"but rather just for audio. How is this really different than YT?"
youtube is lots more than just audio; the obvious of course videofor anyone who cares to see footage of any kind, not just music video. Quite often, there is a lof of information there, such as date of recording, of performance, album of recording, some history or other info on the song, artist, recording.
quite often yt info is the lead --for research--especially when i've been unable to fnd any info on a song r erformance
Quote from VirileVagabond
"but rather just for audio. How is this really different than YT?"
youtube is lots more than just audio; the obvious of course videofor anyone who cares to see footage of any kind, not just music video. Quite often, there is a lof of information there, such as date of recording, of performance, album of recording, some history or other info on the song, artist, recording.
quite often yt info is the lead --for research--especially when i've been unable to fnd any info on a song r erformance
a) We are not discussing the use of YT and Spotify for research but rather their use for audio; and
b) You are trying to explain to me the value of YT autogen notes when I have been defending them for now months and regularly cut/paste them in my submissions and reports? No need to preach to the choir....
BTW, Spotify again soft locked my browser when submitting:
And the latter ("the possibility to listen to a song entirely") is very useful, see for example JoAnn's comment. Also for our thousands of daily users who listen and compare versions.
Indeed. Among my performer friends, this is the killer application of SHS: Go to a song's page, see who recorded it, and listen to as many versions as possible. Spotify makes this simpler (as does youtube, but that requires popping up an extra window to see the visuals).
where is/are are the "a 30 or 90 second clip"?
I think this is alluding to Apple Music / iTunes in non-paying mode.