You must log in or # to comment.
This is by far the largest music metadata database that is publicly available. For comparison, we have 256 million tracks, while others have 50-150 million. Our data is well-annotated: MusicBrainz has 5 million unique ISRCs, while our database has 186 million.
Does this mean the MusicBrainz database will soon go from 5 million to 186 million tracks?
Asking the real questions here…
That’s exactly what I was wondering too.
Acquiring high quality music is already easy enough in most cases.
What I am interested in is the metadata. Accurate tagging of all my files is of high interest.
If I ran mb, I would be cautious importing the data directly. I’m sure Spotify would consider it trade information and go after anyone directly using it. However if a few million people added the tracks with individual edits then it probably won’t take too long.
I thought metadata couldn’t be copyrighted though?
I’ll strongly suggest to take out all the cheaply AI generated music from this “back up” and save themselves some space.
I’m not sure how they would go about doing that at scale without also getting some false positives and removing human music too
You could cut off your search around the time AI tracks started to appear. Not sure when that was, maybe 2023. You’d miss a lot of recent stuff, but you’d filter out a lot of spam too
I see your point, but as you say, there would still be the tradeoff of missing more recent stuff. That might only involve missing a couple of years’ worth of stuff now, but AI isn’t going away any time soon, so it would mean that there’d be an increasing amount of human made music not being archived; One of the things I like about Anna’s archive is that they seem to look at this problem as a long term, informational infrastructure kind of way, so I imagine they wouldn’t be keen on stopping the archive at 2023.
It seems they’ve opted for a different tradeoff instead: lower popularity songs are archived at a lower bitrate, and even the higher popularity stuff has some compression. Some archives go for quality, and thus prioritise high quality FLACs, so Anna’s archive are aiming to fulfill a different niche. I can respect that.
The data they compiled is really cool.
If reading the chart right, the genera with the most artists is opera.
Even if they didn’t have the music files, the analysis on the metadata is insane.
Publicly admitting they are the origin of the torrents is definitely
a riskyan insane move. I don’t think they want Sony going after them, but also fuck Sony for locking art behind shitty contracts that forces these kind of projects to exist.Publicly admitting they are the origin of the torrents is definitely a risky an insane move. I don’t think they want Sony going after them
Let’s be honest: Everybody is trying to go after Annas Archive. Every book publisher wants to get them, the US government, too and it really doesn’t matter if every music publisher wants them also. I hope that they are based in a country where the western systems can’t get them
I hope (also assume since it hasn’t been taken down yet) it’s more of a decentralised deal with servers in many places and backups in every nation under the sun
Yeah, it’s a wild move admitting that they are the source of pirated content for music here.
We don’t need Anna’s Archive to go under as a result of Sony going after them because of this…
They have had a dozen or more lawsuits/police actions against them. They are already enemy #1 in piracy terms, so I expect they are okay leaning into it and doing more good for the world.
The 3 major labels are equally predatory not only Sony
There’s definitely gonna be some crazy guy who will put this on their server and stream it to their phones lol
Hi it’s me
Oh im thinking of it lol
Please do if you can and keep seeding it if possible.
I stream mine through Plexamp. Up to almost 400k tracks.
If I had an extra 300 tb I’d do it.
Tagging /datahoarded
Just a random question. What would the cost be?
My first though as well
This is the one thing on Spotify I can’t get elsewhere. Would be nice to have a non transcode copy.
https://open.spotify.com/album/4emoC6C9fCDkWPdTuxN9an
…Like Cologne (Spotify Exclusive)
Queens of the Stone Age
2013 • 3 songs • 14 min 5 secWell, since this archive says it contains the original ogg @160kbps for all artists with a popularity >0, it’ll be in this collection. Your wait may be over soon.
sweet
deleted by creator
Spotify is why I set up a Funkwhale server
Is funkwhale also a sort of soulseek?
AFAIK: Yes. But it’s supposedly a pain to set up, so I’ll never know the difference.
TBH I plan to migrate off Funkwhale to something more featureful and yea it was a bit of complex set up. Props to the devs tho, it’s open source, stable, and does what it says on the tin
Ok, thanks
Soulseek afict requires dedicated clients. The Subsonic standard is supported by more & more mobile/PC apps, I wish it was supported
I guess I gotta donate more to anna
Damn, boy! That’s a big ass music collection.
So the artists get paid even less than from Spotify?
Its mostly Sony, UMG, and all the other leeches who would get paid less for their share holders.
I dont feel like editing the image but imagine the guy with most of the cookies in this picture was UMG and the artists are the guy on the right.
Yes, sure, but if those don’t get paid, artists don’t get paid. And artists are not forced to pick a label, they are free to go solo, but they still prefer labels, so it’s not that black and white labels bad, artists good
I’m not sure how you think Spotify compensation works, but it is not a “one stream and you get paid”-deal, but rather a revenue share model where artists are compensated from a large pool by total streams. The main share of your Spotify monthly subscription that goes to compensating artists goes to Taylor Swift, Bad Bunny etc. Being a top listener to your favorite, but underground band contributes negligibly to what they actually get paid.
If you care about their compensation, buy the album as directly from them as possible, or buy merch/go to concerts, and recommend their msuic to other people so they might end up paying customers. Subscribing to Spotify and thinking they get a fair deal out of that is not the way, and increasingly not the way (with their GenAI-shenanigans).
First, what am I using is beyond the point and I’m not using Spotify because of their payment method and their politics. And again, if albums are on streaming services, they are voluntarily there, are they not?
How voluntary is it when these platforms have a monopolistic grasp on how consumers access music these days? And the more people believe that the artists are actually fairly compensated from this model, the firmer this grasp becomes. What choice do they have of being there if they want to have any kind of reach?
A Spotify Premium subscriptions will cost someone 156€ a year. If that person instead spent that entire music budget on purchasing albums from select musicians according to the enjoyment they derive from their works, or buy concert tickets or merch, and decides to pirate the rest of their music listening, what changes? For the consumer, they are now left with actual, irrevocable access (legal and illegal) to the same music you had rented access to before, and have spent the same amount of money. For the musicians, the ones who received the purchases are left with much more of your dedicated music spend, and the rest will have marginally less (their share based on total streams of your monthly subscription x12). For Spotify and Taylor Swift, they receive marginally less money (but more than the artists you actually listen to) of which they should probably not have received to begin with.
Well if you genuinely care about seeing artists get paid the ones who need it most tend to make their conent available already for free on bandcamp or similar services, and have physical albums and merch you can buy.
Last night i spent $10 on 3 albums on bandcamp, those artists each made more on that single purchase then they would from thousands of streams.
Spotify making less (or more) money does not trickle down to artists on a per stream basis.
Dont be a corporate bootlicker. Say it with me now, "If buying isnt owning Piracy is not stealing. "
It is really refreshing how this thread spins in “we know what’s best for the artists, certainly not paying for listening to their streams, that’s exactly what they want”. If you don’t want to use Spotify, that’s fine, I don’t want to either because they are an awful company. But that doesn’t make you the person who create the rules for artists nor does it give you the permission to listen to illegal content.
I dont think its a huge leap to think artists would rather you be able to buy their music once and make a $ instead of stream it from a sevice that pays them next to nothing.
What is stopping them? But it seems that general consensus here is that artists would like you to listen for free and here and there buy something from them.
You have no idea how hard it is to go solo, how the fuck would they get their songs out there? They would have to get really lucky on social media. How would they book concert venues? They would be stuck playing in shitty venues that pay peanuts.
Anyways, artists make money off of music purchases, concerts, and merch
So, there is value in labels after all?
They’re a necessary evil
a few years ago, back when I was still using Spotify, I checked my Wrapped and apparently I was using Spotify more than 99.5% of users in my country, and when it came to my most listened artist, I was in top 0.05% listeners worldwide. doing some back-of-the-napkin math with the data I got online about Spotify’s payouts, it turned out the money the artist got during that year from me amounted to
less thanjust a bit over a dollar.if you’re really concerned about supporting artists, use the money you’d pay for your music streaming subscription and buy their album or a piece of merch every two months.
Yeah, I’ve been seeing an increasing number of artists who are pro piracy, who basically say “steal our music, save your money, and if you want to support us, come to a gig and buy some merch”.
I’ve also seen more and more artists staying off Spotify entirely. One such artist is the wonderful folk artist Lucy & Hazel . This was the first time I actually bought music in years, and a big part of that was because I wanted to support their active choice to stay off Spotify.
An unexpected side effect of this is that because I’m aware these guys are situated less optimally for algorithmic discoverability, I find myself actively recommending them to people. It feels nice compared to the more passive mode of algorithmic music discovery
I’ve had Spotify since it basically released. I fully switched to a self hosted music library about 5 months ago. I imagine I’ve supported artists more in those 5 months than I did during my 18-ish years of Spotify premium. I still use Soulseek for large artists or quite old albums, but most new releases and remix tracks I pay for.
How many buyers are there
isif entire archive is available for free? 10? 20?okay so this next bit might shock you, but there’s already a HUGE amount of music available on Youtube for everyone to search through and listen to with just a few click. and in addition to that, there’s the Soulseek network, countless torrent trackers – both public and private – that let you download entire discographies, as well as Youtube download tools, websites and tools that let you rip music from streaming services. and all of those are free! more than that, they have been around for years! and before that, people would download songs from Limewire or Kazaa or Napster, tape songs from radio, or buy bootleg albums. and somehow, there’s still people buying music and T-shirts from their favourite bands, and paying to attend their concerts. absolutely bonkers.
I buy at least 5 cds a month from groups I like. Usually on bandcamp or the artist website. Usually smaller groups. If theyre massively famous or were hugely successful 40 years ago I may not purchase it though. Or get a used copy.
It might shock you, but content on YouTube gets paid. And illegal sources out there don’t make it more legal to share it. It’s funny though, you are basically saying what? Listen for free, middle finger to authors, and buy merchandise? As opposite to listen legally, authors get something and buy merchandise? But hey, I’m glad that you speak for authors.
It might shock you, but content on YouTube gets paid
similar fraction of pennies as in Spotify’s case, and often the people who receive the money aren’t the people behind the content, especially when it comes to older or less popular music, because it’s been uploaded by some random guy 14 years ago.
you are basically saying what? Listen for free, middle finger to authors, and buy merchandise? As opposite to listen legally, authors get something and buy merchandise?
no, my good guy, I say middle finger to Spotify and their warmongering, slop-embracing, Joe-Rogan-loving business, and spend money in a way that skips at least one middle man which hopefully results in the artist getting a bigger cut, and in you actually owning something even when the company you’ve bought from goes down, rather than renting it.
But hey, I’m glad that you speak for authors.
right back atcha!
right back atcha!
How so? You are the wiser what artists really wants - not being paid for listening to their music and would like you to listen to it for free. I merely follow what they offer and not trying to listen to it illegally.
I am a small indie artist. I earn nearly no money from streaming services, but I do from Bandcamp, SoundCloud (though fuck Soundcloud, they also suck), actual LPs and CDs sold, etc.
If someone decides to listen to my music over Spotify, or really any streaming service, they are also “stealing” my music. Because I get no money from that, and listening to my music over those platforms strengthens their monopoly (this mostly applies to Spotify).
I need to publish my music on Spotify et al (fuck you discogs) for discoverability, because they have an evil fucking global monopoly, but the moment anyone finds my music there, I would ask them to listen to it elsewhere.
It will literally benefit me, and indie artist, more, if you bootleg my music instead of listening via streaming services, as this weakens their monopoly. Seriously.
I have a different job, I don’t need to live from my music right now, so the stakes are fairly low for me. But it still sucks to see streaming services ruin independent music like this. I would ask everyone to bootleg music, and then support artists like me through Bandcamp (especially CDs and LPs) and donations (or merch, though I don’t have any), if you appreciate the art.
I don’t expect anyone to immediately buy niche music they don’t know, so bootlegging until you become a fan seems reasonable to me. I’ve discovered many of my favorite albums like that, eventually buying LPs online and donating to the artist; that is far more beneficial to those artists than listening over any streaming service (including the slightly better tidal and Amazon music).
/rant over
Well, we are talking pennies here so… /s
It’s not just Spotify, it content is free for all, then who is buying?
Dont have the space but love to see this. I hope people seed this for a long time
So hear me out. Streamio can stream video from various sources including torrents. So it should be possible to create some music frontend that can access the music library similarly. Right? There are probably someone who is creating this right now.
