7-spotify-light-mode

A full-featured DJ app can be yours for fifty bucks, and it can stream the songs you don’t have right off Spotify. djay Pro is here, and with it and a new generation of contenders come some serious shifts in digital DJing.

Algoriddim have been making user-friendly DJ apps for a while. That started with a beginner-friendly Mac app, but extended to iOS and the until-recently-neglected Android platform (which is now at last fairly viable for mobile DJing).

djay’s ease of use was already enough to make it appeal to casual DJs. Then, in May, Algoriddim pulled an ace out of their sleeve – Spotify integration. You still need a reliable WiFi connection, and streaming still isn’t quite as convenient as working from downloaded files, but for wedding DJs or anyone who has to take requests, it’s a boon.

Still, mobile gadgets are limited. Connecting hardware for control and sound is a pain compared to a desktop, and storage is restricted.

Today’s release of djay Pro is a serious salvo in the exploding DJ market. There are two big bombshells. One, Spotify DJing has just become a reality on desktop. Two, big players in the DJ market now have to contend with a friendly, affordable competitor.

And I don’t think that’s something to underestimate. In a world of DJ apps that looked like they were designed by Airbus engineers, djay (like rival Cross) represents something anyone can approach. Now, previously, that meant giving up some features serious DJs needed. But djay Pro closes a lot of that gap, without looking more complex.

Should makers of big DJ apps be a little worried? Absolutely. DJing is an expanding global market, and that puts lots of users on the table – and Spotify means some of those DJs would consider switching platforms. Traktor, which has cool-looking hardware but can be inflexible in what appears on the screen, I’m looking at you. Native Instruments’ own iOS efforts have shown that Traktor’s user experience could be better.

djay_pro_waveforms

Algoriddim promises “Pro” brings “pristine audio quality” – important, since other versions of djay suffer with time stretching and effects. They also say they’ve added high-definition waveforms in place of the crude representations of what’s onscreen. I’ll be testing that over our holiday break, but on paper, things do look nice:

Powerful DJ Interface: turntables, waveforms, four decks, sampler
Spotify Integration: instant access to over 20 million songs.
Music Library: Spotify + iTunes, history, queue, preview, search, light / dark switch
Four Deck Mixing: horizontal / vertical layouts, crossfader assignments
Waveform Layouts: horizontal / vertical, two deck / four deck, variable zoom level
Sampler: live sampling and presets editing, pre-bundled content
Recording: AAC / WAV, iTunes export
Advanced DJ Tools: sync, cue points, looping, skipping, slip, beat grids
Audio FX: 30 audio effects by Sugar Bytes (In-App Purchase), chain-able effects
Audio Processing: time stretching, pitch shifting, EQ, pan, highpass, lowpass, limiter
Audio Analysis: BPM with dynamic beats, colored waveforms, key, auto-gain
Hardware Integration: over 50 MIDI controllers, MIDI learn, multi-channel USB audio

1-turntables

5-four-deck-vertical

Effects are one area where something like Traktor is miles ahead – but Sugar Bytes makes great effects, so this is a horse race now.

And it’s likewise nice to see some hardware control options.

Spotify, though, is really the wild card here.

Cross DJ for Mac and PC – which offers the Windows support lacking here – is another major contender, and one I hope to write about in the next couple of weeks. It has deeper sampling and remix options, lots of Pioneer integration (important to those aforementioned “pros”), and vinyl control.

Here’s where things get interesting: Cross DJ does unlimited SoundCloud streaming, in place of Spotify. Pricing runs from free (!) up to US$129, with most functionality in the US$34 version.

You may have noticed Native Instruments steeply discounting their software lately. I really wonder if DJ software will get commodity pricing while makers like NI make up the difference on hardware.

But the other coming disruption really is streaming. With Cross with SoundCloud and djay with Spotify, others are sure to follow. I still love downloading music, and I’d never want to have a DJ set train wreck because of a WiFi connection, but it’s hard not to imagine a lot of DJs at least augmenting their setups with streams – especially those that do have to depend on requests. (And, let’s face it, the market for software has to encompass a lot of people who face that reality.)

By the way, this makes the news from Beatport this week even more interesting. Beatport downloads face competition direct from artists and labels – and streaming, too. The streaming service they’ve teased to The Wall Street Journal still isn’t available, while producers and labels are already used to uploading music to SoundCloud (where they have actual control over their content) and the public are used to Spotify. With Spotify and SoundCloud already integrated with these products, you wonder where the Beatport offering will even fit. Beatport has been integrated with Traktor before; maybe it’ll happen again. Otherwise, it seems like SoundCloud and Spotify may remain the bigger streaming players, with Beatport some sort of Raver Spotify for the Tomorrowland set.

Anyway, that’s the future.

Right now, djay Pro is a nice contender for casual DJs, for anyone wanting a fresh-faced app, or anyone who wants Spotify integration on the desktop. I look forward to reviewing this one.

Find it here:
http://www.algoriddim.com/djay-mac

djay Pro is for sale via Apple’s App Store at US$49.99, for a limited time.

  • richardcarter

    Please stop pushing Spotify. Streaming is killing music-making as a viable career option for many.

    • Michaelophone

      Myth.

    • SECONDED.

      • richardcarter

        Trouble is, not many people are interested in possessing a “music collection” any more. Me for one despite my vast iTunes library and old CD collection! Possession is the key word here because the thorny problem of revenue generation from music arises when times and social mores change and people are no longer interested in buying a physical product or download when they can simply dip in to an always-on-tap stream of music at will.

    • I’m not pushing Spotify. I’m predicting that the availability of Spotify in DJ apps is likely to be an unstoppable force in certain markets. If you don’t like it, you can release your music through outlets that don’t publish to Spotify.

      But CDM reporting on issues is not determinate of the success of a streaming service used by tens of millions of users.

      (I would need to have an enormous ego for that.)

      Better to identify this trend and work out how to react, how to maintain a livelihood than not.

      Better to be educated and aware about what’s happening rather than try to reshape reality based on wishful thinking.

      • richardcarter

        OK, perhaps “pushing” was a little strong but don’t be disingenuous Peter – one can easily conclude from the tone of your article that you see Spotify integration as nothing but positive, indeed the main factor likely to make this app a success.

        Funnily enough, I would say I’m pretty much fully “educated and aware about what’s happening” from first-hand experience already – and in trying to discourage as many people as I can – like yourself and your readers, for example – from seeing Spotify and their streaming ilk as anything remotely positive for the professional musician (which, quite simply, no myth, they are NOT!) I am actually doing my best to “maintain a (diminishing) livelihood.”

        Is it really only “wishful thinking” to recognise the need for a financial infrastructure that makes survival possible for those of us that create for a living, and to want to underline, in the strongest possible terms, that when music consumers have the option of everything for free, music itself becomes valueless in every sense of the word?

        Of course millions are using Spotify – it’s free and people are greedy – but that doesn’t mean that it’s healthy for the future of music and that we shouldn’t kick against it. Hard.

        • WhaWha

          Ironically , it was Richard Stallman who said “Somebody is saying this is inevitable – and whenever you hear somebody saying that, it’s very likely to be a set of businesses campaigning to make it true.”
          Everybody is saying music devaluation is inevitable and you just have to accept it and get used to it, and that is because there is a set of Silicon Valley businesses campaigning very hard to make it true. The more content is devaluated, the more money they can make.

          • richardcarter

            You may find it convenient to blame “big business” for the devaluation of music, and to an extent that may well be appropriate, but by far the most significant problem professional musicians have to face is the individual and collective belief that music should be free – and people’s greed and sense of entitlement is legitimised by streaming services none of whose revenue finds it’s way to the artist. To be honest I find the future pretty bleak because of this simple equation; if customers aren’t buying our product then we don’t get paid. Music is an incredibly precious and life-enriching commodity and should always have a real monetary value to ensure its future. And by the way, in the professional music community I don’t hear ANYONE saying that music devaluation is something simply to be accepted and got used to, quite the opposite in fact.

          • mercury

            This is bullshit. The reason music is almost free now is because the supply is infinite. You can’t blame the “industry,” although I guess you could blame the consumer if you live in denial. If people really want to pay $10 or $100 for your music, they can pay for it now easier than ever before. Everyone with a computer can make it and the overwhelming majority is clearly not voting for another Beatles record or anything of that caliber.

            Quite honestly, it is sheer arrogance that anyone automatically thinks they can make a living off of music indefinitely. If you are making music primarily to make a living today, you are delusional. I know a large number of people who would love to make a living off of their “art” but there is no shortage of artists in the world from an economic perspective!

            Spotify is not the monster, it’s the thought that you automatically deserve to make a living doing anything you want. I know this sounds harsh but I live in NYC and every millenial thinks they are a DJ, musician, actor, graphics design artist, and painter and then they pout when they can’t survive! Do the math.

          • mercury

            I should qualify this statement:

            “If you are making music primarily to make a living today, you are delusional.”

            I really mean if you think you can continue to make money with music in the same amount or way as before, you are delusional. I know musicians who are making a living but essentially they are playing live all of the time.

          • richardcarter

            So you think all musicians should be hobbyists doing it for the love of it?? And that it’s arrogance to want to try and make a career out of what talent you may possess? Frankly, you’re the one spouting bullshit. Whatever makes you presume that I think I “automatically deserve to make a living doing anything I want?” Of course i don’t and neither does any professional musician I know! We just make music and if its good, and people want to hear it then we get paid! It’s my job, it has been all my life, I work very hard at it and I’d like to keep it that way so my family won’t starve and my mortgage gets paid.

            You wouldn’t walk into a restaurant and expect to eat without paying for it, or call a plumber to fix a pipe and expect him to do it for free, this has always been the case and still is, yet the perception of musicians and their societal value has very recently shifted 180%. Why is this? Why should we now suffer the financial consequences simply so consumers can gorge themselves on their newly-acquired free content habit? If you saw your livelihood threatened would you just let it go without a fight?

            You’re right, the next Beatles, whoever they may be, aren’t going to be appearing any time soon if there is no financial incentive or means to spend their time perfecting their craft.

          • Mr. Ecklie

            This “newly aquired free content habit” isn’t exactly new anymore. It’s already 15 years since Napster started the shift towards “free music”… I used to make ringtones (yeah lol), but when that died out I had to think of other ways to earn a living, and I now work in a completely different field. The same goes for pager and fax machine salesmen, you just have to adapt to the changes around you.

          • WhaWha

            ” The same goes for pager and fax machine salesmen, you just have to adapt to the changes around you.”
            That’s a wrong comparison. There’s no demand anymore for fax machines and pagers. There is plenty of demand for music.

          • ElectroB

            As for mercury’s comments – they are full of straw men. “Technology has changed”, “artists are all whiney hipster wannabes”, yada yada yada. Heard it all before mate, I also read torrentfreak, you know?

            Anyways, richardcarter already said what needed to be said.

            Regarding Spotify and their “business”(?) model, I recommend reading this:

            http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/24/revenue-streams

            Personally, I use Spotify – it’s better that artists get a few cents than earning zero.

            But it’s still not a sustainable mdoel for conten creation no matter how freetards and search engine owners choose to spin it.

            Carry on.

          • richardcarter

            In a historical context it’s a very new phenomenon. People have been making a living as musicians for hundreds of years. How have they managed to do that? Because music is important to society and musicians have provided a service or product that people value and have always been willing to pay for without a second thought. Why should that change all of a sudden? Just because music CAN be had for free doesn’t make it morally right. People don’t like being confronted with the stark reality of the consequences of their not paying for the music they consume (sorry to use that word) so popular opinion now goes that being a professional musician is an undeserved privilege and that those of us who have made a career out of it have “had it good” for too long now and will have to “get a proper job like the rest of us.” Or just move on and “adapt to the changes around you.” That’s why there’s no outcry about this like there would be if the livelihoods in danger of being decimated were those of nurses, accountants, farmers, bankers, biologists, street-sweepers or pretty much anyone else whose right to earn a living we take for granted. Sorry to bang on about this…

          • Mr. Ecklie

            Ok, so the fax machine salesman-analogy wasn’t the best one… But how about journalists, writers, photographers and other creative people, whose livelihood is threatened by, not piracy, but new digital technologies and/or the consumer’s unwillingness to pay for what they produce? There’s just no going back to “the good old days”, despite how sad that may be.
            Also, the possibility to earn a living from record sales is actually a rather new phenomenon in a historical perspective. I’m too lazy to look up when the phonograph was invented, but you get the idea….

          • richardcarter
          • ElectroB

            I’ll help you out – 1877. Merely about 150 years ago.

            You’re welcome.

            Also, journalists writers and photographers’ livelihoods ARE also threatened by piracy.

            – Since people want news for free, without paying subscriptions and preferably without ads, then newspapers, TV outlets, news websites and related media cannot afford to pay expenses, travel and passports, communications, petty money funds, gear, and salaries for journalists reporting on serious subjects around the world that often require months of investigation.

            – Writers are screwed because, why buy books when you can get them free from several torrent websites supported by criminals and porn ads.
            – the devaluation of creative work has been used worldwide to lower budgets for creative professionals of all kinds: photographers, designers, illustrators, you name it, all have their work reproduced endlessly through the internet. But someone had to actually MAKE those pictures / illustrations / etc. That is a service that should be paid for by someone (i.e.. media outlets who no longer can afford to pay for the service, anyway you see where this is going).

            “The consumers unwillingness to pay” that you mention is utter rubbish: people don’t pay for creative professionals’ services because technology allows them to get away with not paying for services that they require.

            It has nothing to do with the laws of supply and demand in an open market – which, for these specific professions, has been replaced by anarchy and an all-you-can-steal dynamic.

        • elias nascimento

          i see where you coming from and i don’t use spotify. Technology should be about connecting the world and not to demise the work of those who depend on it to live,but i’m afraid that even if streaming services like spotify ceased to exist all together,you would still be wrong,all you see is the money you may loose,yes people are greedy,and you are no different,in the end of the day it all comes down to personal circumstances,if the situation was inverse and you had the chance to charge big bucks for an album you would be cashing in with no remorse.in a world of price tags you stand against free labels,the chance for someone to be inspired and create a different verse.It’s unfortunate that music is a business,it should have always been free,music will always have value for anyone with ears and soul,surely anyone that creates something in demand should be rewarded,because we are only human and require a tap in the back to fill the pitiless hole of our egos,but i believe that if you do something you love you should not put a price on it,naive as it may be one can only wonder what wonders could we accomplish just by giving away with selfish rubbish,hope your life doesn’t depend on it but,music is about expression,culture,identity and magic,not about money,takes one to see one,and you have forgotten what music is all about,if you do it just for money,eventually you will fail.its just beyond belief the amount of crap people come up with in these places,its a constant arms race to eradicate reasoning and replace it with their own flavour of nonsense. i believe anyone no matter how dumb or smart they may be,should question themselves always.arguments,are not facts,wishful thinking is not reality,preconceived ideas of any kind is not education,opinion is not a solution,pointing the finger does not make anyone better no matter how bad you want it,civilisation does not exist and inflated ego does not make us righteous. There isn’t a universal right or wrong,and money is the sickest allucination,that shackles our hearts and souls.

      • guille

        It is illegal to use spotify for Djing in venues and you can not use a external mixer with this.

        I would not call it a serious dj app.

    • Keil Miller Jr

      Spotify pays out royalties to artists. It is not killing the music industry. http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/

  • richardcarter

    Please stop pushing Spotify. Streaming is killing music-making as a viable career option for many.

    • TotallyCleverNickname

      Myth.

    • SECONDED. For the price of streaming music, you can actually support the artists you like and actually possess a music collection.

      • richardcarter

        Trouble is, not many people are interested in possessing a “music collection” any more. Me for one despite my vast iTunes library and old CD collection! Possession is the key word here because the thorny problem of revenue generation from music arises when times and social mores change and people are no longer interested in buying a physical product or download when they can simply dip in to an always-on-tap stream of music at will.

    • I’m not pushing Spotify. I’m predicting that the availability of Spotify in DJ apps is likely to be an unstoppable force in certain markets. If you don’t like it, you can release your music through outlets that don’t publish to Spotify.

      But CDM reporting on issues is not determinate of the success of a streaming service used by tens of millions of users.

      (I would need to have an enormous ego for that.)

      Better to identify this trend and work out how to react, how to maintain a livelihood than not.

      Better to be educated and aware about what’s happening rather than try to reshape reality based on wishful thinking.

      • richardcarter

        OK, perhaps “pushing” was a little strong but don’t be disingenuous Peter – one can easily conclude from the tone of your article that you see Spotify integration as nothing but positive, indeed the main factor likely to make this app a success.

        Funnily enough, I would say I’m pretty much fully “educated and aware about what’s happening” from first-hand experience already – and in trying to discourage as many people as I can – like yourself and your readers, for example – from seeing Spotify and their streaming ilk as anything remotely positive for the professional musician (which, quite simply, no myth, they are NOT!) I am actually doing my best to “maintain a (diminishing) livelihood.”

        Is it really only “wishful thinking” to recognise the need for a financial infrastructure that makes survival possible for those of us that create for a living, and to want to underline, in the strongest possible terms, that when music consumers have the option of everything for free, music itself becomes valueless in every sense of the word?

        Of course millions are using Spotify – it’s free and people are greedy – but that doesn’t mean that it’s healthy for the future of music and that we shouldn’t kick against it. Hard.

        • WhaWha

          Ironically , it was Richard Stallman who said “Somebody is saying this is inevitable – and whenever you hear somebody saying that, it’s very likely to be a set of businesses campaigning to make it true.”
          Everybody is saying music devaluation is inevitable and you just have to accept it and get used to it, and that is because there is a set of Silicon Valley businesses campaigning very hard to make it true. The more content is devaluated, the more money they can make.

          • richardcarter

            You may find it convenient to blame “big business” for the devaluation of music, and to an extent that may well be appropriate, but by far the most significant problem professional musicians have to face is the individual and collective belief that music should be free – and people’s greed and sense of entitlement is legitimised by streaming services none of whose revenue finds it’s way to the artist. To be honest I find the future pretty bleak because of this simple equation; if customers aren’t buying our product then we don’t get paid. Music is an incredibly precious and life-enriching commodity and should always have a real monetary value to ensure its future. And by the way, in the professional music community I don’t hear ANYONE saying that music devaluation is something simply to be accepted and got used to, quite the opposite in fact.

          • mercury

            This is bullshit. The reason music is almost free now is because the supply is infinite. You can’t blame the “industry,” although I guess you could blame the consumer if you live in denial. If people really want to pay $10 or $100 for your music, they can pay for it now easier than ever before. Everyone with a computer can make it and the overwhelming majority is clearly not voting for another Beatles record or anything of that caliber.

            Quite honestly, it is sheer arrogance that anyone automatically thinks they can make a living off of music indefinitely. If you are making music primarily to make a living today, you are delusional. I know a large number of people who would love to make a living off of their “art” but there is no shortage of artists in the world from an economic perspective!

            Spotify is not the monster, it’s the thought that you automatically deserve to make a living doing anything you want. I know this sounds harsh but I live in NYC and every millenial thinks they are a DJ, musician, actor, graphics design artist, and painter and then they pout when they can’t survive! Do the math.

          • mercury

            I should qualify this statement:

            “If you are making music primarily to make a living today, you are delusional.”

            I really mean if you think you can continue to make money with music in the same amount or way as before, you are delusional. I know musicians who are making a living but essentially they are playing live all of the time.

          • richardcarter

            So you think all musicians should be hobbyists doing it for the love of it?? And that it’s arrogance to want to try and make a career out of what talent you may possess? Frankly, you’re the one spouting bullshit. Whatever makes you presume that I think I “automatically deserve to make a living doing anything I want?” Of course i don’t and neither does any professional musician I know! We just make music and if its good, and people want to hear it then we get paid! It’s my job, it has been all my life, I work very hard at it and I’d like to keep it that way so my family won’t starve and my mortgage gets paid.

            You wouldn’t walk into a restaurant and expect to eat without paying for it, or call a plumber to fix a pipe and expect him to do it for free, this has always been the case and still is, yet the perception of musicians and their societal value has very recently shifted 180%. Why is this? Why should we now suffer the financial consequences simply so consumers can gorge themselves on their newly-acquired free content habit? If you saw your livelihood threatened would you just let it go without a fight?

            You’re right, the next Beatles, whoever they may be, aren’t going to be appearing any time soon if there is no financial incentive or means to spend their time perfecting their craft.

          • Mr. Ecklie

            This “newly aquired free content habit” isn’t exactly new anymore. It’s already 15 years since Napster started the shift towards “free music”… I used to make ringtones (yeah lol), but when that died out I had to think of other ways to earn a living, and I now work in a completely different field. The same goes for pager and fax machine salesmen, you just have to adapt to the changes around you.

          • WhaWha

            ” The same goes for pager and fax machine salesmen, you just have to adapt to the changes around you.”
            That’s a wrong comparison. There’s no demand anymore for fax machines and pagers. There is plenty of demand for music.

          • ElectroB

            As for mercury’s comments:

            “Spotify is not the monster, it’s the thought that you automatically deserve to make a living doing anything you want.”

            Bullshit. I don’t know which hipsters you hang out with, but over the years I have met and worked with several creative professionals, designers, artists, game designers, programmers, researchers and also musicians (some of whom have been doing tours for decades) and none of them ever thought they were automatically entitled to earn money. They rally against the fact that the right to earn money from a service that they perform – and for which demand clearly still exists – is being taken away from them.

            Your type of argument is always filled with straw men. “Technology has changed”, “artists are all whiney wannabes who want to automatically earn money”, yada yada yada. Heard it all before mate, way ahead of you.

            Anyways, richardcarter already said what needed to be said, so no point in repeating rebuttals.

            Regarding Spotify I recommend reading this:

            http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/24/revenue-streams

            Besides listening to online radio and podcasts, buying a few albums every year and paying for concert tickets, I also use Spotify – the platform is well designed and it’s better that artists get a few cents than earning zero (i.e. through illegal downloads in torrents and such).

            But it’s still not a sustainable model for content creation no matter how freetards, pirates and their allies – corporate investors and search engine owners – choose to spin it. It just means you get a terrible business model instead of getting no business model at all.

            Perhaps things will evolve. Perhaps a new balance will be found for this new type of music distribution.

            Or perhaps artistic pursuits will no longer be professions and will just devolve into inconsequential hobbies. That seems to be the most likely scenario at this point and personally, I believe the world will be much, much poorer for it.

            Carry on.

          • richardcarter

            In a historical context it’s a very new phenomenon. People have been making a living as musicians for hundreds of years. How have they managed to do that? Because music is important to society and musicians have provided a service or product that people value and have always been willing to pay for without a second thought. Why should that change all of a sudden? Just because music CAN be had for free doesn’t make it morally right. People don’t like being confronted with the stark reality of the consequences of their not paying for the music they consume (sorry to use that word) so popular opinion now goes that being a professional musician is an undeserved privilege and that those of us who have made a career out of it have “had it good” for too long now and will have to “get a proper job like the rest of us.” Or just move on and “adapt to the changes around you.” That’s why there’s no outcry about this like there would be if the livelihoods in danger of being decimated were those of nurses, accountants, farmers, bankers, biologists, street-sweepers or pretty much anyone else whose right to earn a living we take for granted. Sorry to bang on about this…

          • Mr. Ecklie

            Ok, so the fax machine salesman-analogy wasn’t the best one… But how about journalists, writers, photographers and other creative people, whose livelihood is threatened by, not piracy, but new digital technologies and/or the consumer’s unwillingness to pay for what they produce? There’s just no going back to “the good old days”, despite how sad that may be.
            Also, the possibility to earn a living from record sales is actually a rather new phenomenon in a historical perspective. I’m too lazy to look up when the phonograph was invented, but you get the idea….

          • richardcarter
          • ElectroB

            I’ll help you out – 1877. Merely about 140 years ago.

            You’re welcome.

            Also, journalists writers and photographers’ livelihoods ARE also threatened by piracy.

            – Since people want news for free, without paying subscriptions and preferably without ads, then newspapers, TV outlets, news websites and related media cannot afford to pay expenses, travel and passports, communications, petty money funds, gear, and salaries for journalists reporting on serious subjects around the world that often require months of investigation.

            – Writers are screwed because, why buy books when you can get them free from several torrent websites supported by criminals and porn ads.
            – the devaluation of creative work has been used worldwide to lower budgets for creative professionals of all kinds: photographers, designers, illustrators, you name it, all have their work reproduced endlessly through the internet. But someone had to actually MAKE those pictures / illustrations / etc. That is a service that should be paid for by someone (i.e.. media outlets who no longer can afford to pay for the service, anyway you see where this is going).

            “The consumers unwillingness to pay” that you mention is utter rubbish.

            If people don’t pay for creative professionals’ services it is not because there is new technology and new media. Photography and television did not destroy theatre and painting.

            Rather, a specific set of internet communication tools (including torrents and illegal content trackers) allows people to get away with not paying for services that they require and subvert the laws of supply and demand in an open market – which, for these specific professions, has been replaced by anarchy and an all-you-can-steal dynamic.

            I would be okay with that if we lived in a non-capitalist economic system. But creative professionals are forced to live in a capitalist economic system without the option of making a living from their work, no matter how good their work actually is – quality doesn’t matter if everything is for free.

            Spotify, which has been founded by a guy who made money by distributing content illegally, is also part of this problem. Personally, I can see it becoming part of the solution when musicians with 10000 plays a month receive more that a few cents (literally).

        • elias nascimento

          i see where you coming from and i don’t use spotify. Technology should be about connecting the world and not to demise the work of those who depend on it to live,but i’m afraid that even if streaming services like spotify ceased to exist all together,you would still be wrong,all you see is the money you may loose,yes people are greedy,and you are no different,in the end of the day it all comes down to personal circumstances,if the situation was inverse and you had the chance to charge big bucks for an album you would be cashing in with no remorse.in a world of price tags you stand against free labels,the chance for someone to be inspired and create a different verse.It’s unfortunate that music is a business,it should have always been free,music will always have value for anyone with ears and soul,surely anyone that creates something in demand should be rewarded,because we are only human and require a tap in the back to fill the pitiless hole of our egos,but i believe that if you do something you love you should not put a price on it,naive as it may be one can only wonder what wonders could we accomplish just by giving away with selfish rubbish,hope your life doesn’t depend on it but,music is about expression,culture,identity and magic,not about money,takes one to see one,and you have forgotten what music is all about,if you do it just for money,eventually you will fail.its just beyond belief the amount of crap people come up with in these places,its a constant arms race to eradicate reasoning and replace it with their own flavour of nonsense. i believe anyone no matter how dumb or smart they may be,should question themselves always.arguments,are not facts,wishful thinking is not reality,preconceived ideas of any kind is not education,opinion is not a solution,pointing the finger does not make anyone better no matter how bad you want it,civilisation does not exist and inflated ego does not make us righteous. There isn’t a universal right or wrong,and money is the sickest allucination,that shackles our hearts and souls.

      • guille

        It is illegal to use spotify for Djing in venues and you can not use a external mixer with this.

        I would not call it a serious dj app.

    • Keil Miller Jr

      Spotify pays out royalties to artists. It is not killing the music industry. http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/

  • Guest

    Would have been nice if it had an Available Offline switch like the Spotify app does. So you don’t need to rely on WiFi during the live performance. As an added bonus, your Spotify followers can see what you are playing live. I’m assuming Spotify still broadcasts what you play.

  • Guest

    Would have been nice if it had an Available Offline switch like the Spotify app does. So you don’t need to rely on WiFi during the live performance. As an added bonus, your Spotify followers can see what you are playing live. I’m assuming Spotify still broadcasts what you play.

  • Nikolozi

    Would have been nice if it had the Available Offline switch like the Spotify app does. So you don’t need to rely on WiFi during the live performance. As an added bonus, your Spotify followers can see what you are playing live. I’m assuming Spotify still broadcasts what you play.

  • Nikolozi

    Would have been nice if it had the Available Offline switch like the Spotify app does. So you don’t need to rely on WiFi during the live performance. As an added bonus, your Spotify followers can see what you are playing live. I’m assuming Spotify still broadcasts what you play.

  • dan

    Still can’t make a crate or playlist within the app. This to me is bizarre.

  • dan

    Still can’t make a crate or playlist within the app. This to me is bizarre.

  • FrankLogo

    Whoever in their right mind would rely on Wifi and streaming when DJing ? No one i know would ever do that because of the risk of the stream suddenly interrupting.Not really what you want to happen in the middle of a set.

    Btw, because in the article you kept on saying “app” i’m still confused if this article is about a mobile app or a desktop *program* or both.Since Microsoft has strated to call everything “apps” in Win8 on desktop, it’s getting more and more confusing what people actually mean..

    • lumpy

      hobbyist DJs
      DJs at whole foods and urban outfitters
      corporate party DJs
      wedding DJs

      actually, probably any DJ not working in a club or outdoor festival.

  • FrankLogo

    Whoever in their right mind would rely on Wifi and streaming when DJing ? No one i know would ever do that because of the risk of the stream suddenly interrupting.Not really what you want to happen in the middle of a set.

    Btw, because in the article you kept on saying “app” i’m still confused if this article is about a mobile app or a desktop *program* or both.Since Microsoft has started to call everything “apps” since Win8, it’s getting more and more confusing what people actually mean..

    • lumpy

      hobbyist DJs
      DJs at whole foods and urban outfitters
      corporate party DJs
      wedding DJs

      actually, probably any DJ not working in a club or outdoor festival.

  • Ned Bouhalassa

    Everything about streaming is depressing, at least from a composer’s POV. Too bad it’s only being criticized in the Comments section.

    • Freeks

      Why is that?

      In this context streaming can be better than MP3 sales:

      If DJ buys track from iTunes artist gets maybe $0.50 if even that. Thats all he will get ever from that dj from that track. Currently at least here Spotify Premium pays: $0,60/stream and artists gets maybe $0,40 BUT that’s from each stream. DJ most likely plays it few time. He can play it 100 times. Every play after the first play means more money than form MP3 sales. Streaming has long tail that physical sales don’t.

      Why then lady Gaga get’s so little money?
      Becouse 99% of the streams come from free accounts. Free streams pay fraction from what Premium accounts do. If her music would have been limited to Premium accounts she would have made loads of money. I’m pretty sure that that’s will happen: Big albums will be available for Premium accounts only. It’s used to be so that free accounts had limited catalogue but now they have the same.

  • Ned Bouhalassa

    Everything about streaming is depressing, at least from a composer’s POV. Too bad it’s only being criticized in the Comments section.

    • Freeks

      Why is that?

      In this context streaming can be better than MP3 sales:

      If DJ buys track from iTunes artist gets maybe $0.50 if even that. Thats all he will get ever from that dj from that track. Currently at least here Spotify Premium pays: $0,60/stream and artists gets maybe $0,40 BUT that’s from each stream. DJ most likely plays it few time. He can play it 100 times. Every play after the first play means more money than form MP3 sales. Streaming has long tail that physical sales don’t.

      Why then lady Gaga get’s so little money?
      Becouse 99% of the streams come from free accounts. Free streams pay fraction from what Premium accounts do. If her music would have been limited to Premium accounts she would have made loads of money. I’m pretty sure that that’s will happen: Big albums will be available for Premium accounts only. It’s used to be so that free accounts had limited catalogue but now they have the same.

  • Freeks

    Commenters seem to miss two things:
    1. Spotify works ONLY with Premium accounts. That means that artists get from streams 1000x more money than from free streams. If you get DJ hit on Spotify, you will make money.

    2. This does not require WIFI. It works “just fine” with mobile connections. My 4G mobile connection is 150mbps. That’s 10x faster than my home ADSL connection. Spotify connection needs less than 1mb connection. It means that even with bad connection you are just fine. Execptions are big events where there is thousands of ppl. Then the network might fail. But hard to think anyone who plays for such crowds to use Spotify tracks.

  • Freeks

    Commenters seem to miss two things:
    1. Spotify works ONLY with Premium accounts. That means that artists get from streams 1000x more money than from free streams. If you get DJ hit on Spotify, you will make money.

    2. This does not require WIFI. It works “just fine” with mobile connections. My 4G mobile connection is 150mbps. That’s 10x faster than my home ADSL connection. Spotify connection needs less than 1mb connection. It means that even with bad connection you are just fine. Execptions are big events where there is thousands of ppl. Then the network might fail. But hard to think anyone who plays for such crowds to use Spotify tracks.

  • James

    Who else would stream a tune instead of have it downloaded? Anyone who already spent $10-200 or whatever their budget is for new music each month and realized that there’s a tune, maybe a whole genre which they don’t collect, which would make a great transition, crowd pleaser, and can cross their fingers on a closed network for the interim of a stray tune here there. Oh yes, and don’t forget that we are ignoring sound quality here. So maybe a rule of thumb would be to stick with stuff that’s already ripping someone else off, because that already sounds like it’s been washed through a bath of formaldehyde.

    Like you, I’d probably buy that one track off the internet in a pinch rather than stream it.

    Now ethically, should I choose virtual DJ instead because it streams soundcloud? That sounds like fun, and I imagine this is more in the spirit of helping lesser known producers get some air. What about youtube? Then we have issues again, right? In the two above examples, there’s still the issue of indexing and searching. But would be neat if the buffering of a youtube set gave you the heads up as to whether you grabbed a music video or a still image backdrop to the track. Pacemaker DJ actually looks more fun https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/pacemaker-dj/id593873080?mt=8

    I think it’s not really telling the whole story to say “great for wedding dis” as if the only people, myself included, on this board have so much integrity that we only play festivals and after-hour clubs. Retail venues, runway shows, gallery openings, and I guess it applies to clubs more centrally to this conversation, are supposed to have their own licenses for playing music, but they break this all the time (someone’s personal pandora playing through the Best Buy, for example.)

    What about “parties”? Not just house parties, but also the ones at your favorite bar. Why do only wedding djs need concern themselves with what people want to hear? It’s a bit of posturing to make that conclusion, if we are being honest with ourselves. I promise you, if I play something someone else wants to hear it’s because we both love music, love to dig deep, and it’s a great juxtaposition in the moment. Even crowd pleasers can be a way to get out of our heads.

  • James

    Who else would stream a tune instead of have it downloaded? Anyone who already spent $10-200 or whatever their budget is for new music each month and realized that there’s a tune, maybe a whole genre which they don’t collect, which would make a great transition, crowd pleaser, and can cross their fingers on a closed network for the interim of a stray tune here there. Oh yes, and don’t forget that we are ignoring sound quality here. So maybe a rule of thumb would be to stick with stuff that’s ripping someone else off, because that will already sound like it’s been washed through a bath of formaldehyde (and girls in tube dresses don’t really care.)

    Like you, I’d probably buy that one track off the internet in a pinch rather than stream it.

    Now ethically, should I choose virtual DJ instead because it streams soundcloud? That sounds like fun, and I imagine this is more in the spirit of helping lesser known producers get some air. What about youtube? Then we have issues again, right? In the two above examples, there’s still the issue of indexing and searching. But would be neat if the buffering of a youtube set gave you the heads up as to whether you grabbed a music video or a still image backdrop to the track. Pacemaker DJ actually looks more fun https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/pacemaker-dj/id593873080?mt=8

    I think it’s not really telling the whole story to say “great for wedding dis” as if the only people, myself included, on this board have so much integrity that we only play festivals and after-hour clubs. This is called illusory superiority. It’s a common cognitive bias. I’m doing it right now by making my motives look wholesome. Retail venues, runway shows, gallery openings, and I guess it applies to clubs more centrally to this conversation, are supposed to have their own licenses for playing music, but they break this all the time (someone’s personal pandora playing through the Best Buy, for example.)

    What about “parties”? Not just house parties, but also the ones at your favorite bar. Why do only wedding djs need concern themselves with what people want to hear? It’s a bit of posturing to make that conclusion, if we are being honest with ourselves. I promise you, if I play something someone else wants to hear it’s because we both love music, love to dig deep, and it’s a great juxtaposition in the moment. Even crowd pleasers can be a great way to get out of our heads.

  • What everyone seems to forget is that Spotify’s music licensing agreements are for PERSONAL, NON COMMERCIAL use ONLY. Meaning not for real DJs to use, making money in public locations.

  • What everyone seems to forget is that Spotify’s music licensing agreements are for PERSONAL, NON COMMERCIAL use ONLY. Meaning not for real DJs to use, making money in public locations.

  • jony

    i think peter is right but u must check this out: http://dfa3e-kevff9fk4b-2ok9e7s7h.hop.clickbank.net/

    • jony

      i told u so
      this is the best