Discover

News

Submit Cover with Spotify URL

VirileVagabond

Certified Contributor
Posts: 3963

VirileVagabond @ 2019-09-24 01:08:53 UTC

i posted to the discxussion NOY a personal message to u


Understood, but it is clear a) that Spotify/YT as research tools is out of the thread's scope and b) that issue in regards to YT has been discussed in detail elsewhere....

maryhelen

Certified Contributor
Posts: 1409

maryhelen @ 2019-09-24 02:16:45 UTC

someone, u i thnk said, "...but rather just for audio. How is this really different than YT?"

i was merley answering that question and poingint out ho spoticy and yt are different. not re reserach

case closed

VirileVagabond

Certified Contributor
Posts: 3963

VirileVagabond @ 2019-09-24 04:20:54 UTC

someone, u i thnk said, "...but rather just for audio. How is this really different than YT?"

i was merley answering that question and poingint out ho spoticy and yt are different. not re reserach

case closed


Not to turn into a flame war, but ahhh no. When one clicks on a YT vid from SHS, one just gets the video/audio and the vids title; one does not get any notes, comments, etc. I can likely safely assume that clicking the Spotify thru SHS only yields cover art, audio and a similar title. As I understand this discussion, that's what's at issue....


One can dig deeper using that YT vid info/link to find more on that external site and elsewhere, but that's would be for research....


So other than some presentation differences (video vs. cover art), there is no real difference for the purposes at hand....

maryhelen

Certified Contributor
Posts: 1409

maryhelen @ 2019-09-24 04:28:52 UTC

you're silly!!

VirileVagabond

Certified Contributor
Posts: 3963

VirileVagabond @ 2019-09-24 04:36:58 UTC

B... I now feel your pain as a thread goes off course, even tho I bet I have been a guilty party from time to time....

camembert electrique

Editor
Posts: 4815

camembert electrique @ 2019-09-25 02:14:27 UTC

...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.

General answer, Bastien: Don't get me wrong, I have no animosities against Spotify. It's a really great site for finding and streaming music (and more). The problem is their being pushed at every SHS level. Some reasons, also to answer to others:

At least for non-subscribers, clicking on Spotify track links added as external links to our 'performance' pages redirects to Spotify release pages, often enough not going for the 1st releases we attributed the recordings to.

Next step, on such release pages clicking on track or any other links leads nowhere but to a sign up resp. in banner. That's it. No possibility for non-subscribers to on site listen to anything, let alone full-length tracks.

Spotify links on 'performance' pages at least result in 20 sec. 'video substituting' listening snippets. Such will (only) play full length to Spotify subscribers simultanously being logged in over there, though. At least that's what Mathieu explained.

Besides non-subscribers apparently hardly being able to identify versions on Spotify at all: If not verified by 'high(er) class' sources that tracks were indeed 1st released as they attribute them, we, even by listening, can't be sure if they are previous B sides, re-recordings or whatever.

The above may go for (a. o.) Apple Music and YT, too. But (if available), YT clips will always run full lenght for everybody. That's actually a main difference.

And, as a big share of editors and CCs for good reasons refrain from adding Spotify links, I'm still wondering why there is a Trac ticket for in the editor stats mirroring the number of Spotify links added. Or did I misread that one?


Attachments:

camembert electrique

Editor
Posts: 4815

camembert electrique @ 2019-09-25 02:30:47 UTC

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

Pretty much agreed at my end, but

- if adding Spotify links is considered nothing but an option, there should be no indirect force to do so - which aslo includes not monitoring who does

- listening to songs in their entirety doesn't work for non-subscribers. See above comment

and so on ;-)

camembert electrique

Editor
Posts: 4815

camembert electrique @ 2019-09-25 03:00:30 UTC

You don't have to subscribe to listen to full-length songs on Spotify. You just need an account, which is free. The subscription option gives you more perks (see https://support.spotify.com/us/account_payment_help/subscription_information/sub… for more info).

Except for one option costing you money, there isn't any difference between subscribing and registering. Both involve needing to have an account. No account -> no access -> no listening (or anything else).

We should simply stick to sites and sources accessable by and available to each and everyone without any need for assigning.

maryhelen

Certified Contributor
Posts: 1409

maryhelen @ 2019-09-25 04:17:51 UTC

Quote from Oldiesmann

You don't have to subscribe to listen to full-length songs on Spotify. You just need an account, which is free.


having an account IS subscribing-- free or for more options, one can have a paid account. that's how it works on many many sites including youtube and nonmusic sites