Jump to content

Spotify


Recommended Posts

But if you want to listen to an album you just download offline and off you go. Think you can hold a couple thousand tracks too so just swap and change.

 

No need for wifi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bit curious here, Glen. I don't want to get into another discussion about downloading and stuff, but you've been pretty vocal about how much you despise people who download music illegally. Yet you are using a free version of Spotify, which as I understand it, allows you to hear basically what the people who download for free are able to hear? Just curious, nothing more. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free Spotify is perfectly legal.

 

The big difference is i dont own the music....i cannot download offline....i cannot listen mobile.....i cannot listen ad free.....i cannot burn discs.....i cannot distribute.

 

And i always buy the cd if i like the album.

 

My argument stands that if people claim they illegally download to hear music before they buy that argument is defunct as free Spotify exists.

 

Hope this clarifies.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free Spotify is perfectly legal.

 

The big difference is i dont own the music....i cannot download offline....i cannot listen mobile.....i cannot listen ad free.....i cannot burn discs.....i cannot distribute.

 

And i always buy the cd if i like the album.

 

My argument stands that if people claim they illegally download to hear music before they buy that argument is defunct as free Spotify exists.

 

Hope this clarifies.

 

Cheers

 

Fair enough, but I'm sure 90% of people who download will argue they also only do that to "test the waters" and that if an album is good, they will always buy it. I know up until the USD started anally raping everyone outside the US that was basically my sole purpose for downloading; to see which albums I'd be laying coin on.

 

Like I said, just curious. To me, it's basically the same in that you're hearing music without the artist being financially rewarded for it. Spotify may be legal, but the artists still benefit as much from it as they do from illegal downloads.

 

Anyway, Spotify is 100% useless to me because I never sit on a PC and just listen to music so I need it to be mobile. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Free Spotify is perfectly legal.

 

The big difference is i dont own the music....i cannot download offline....i cannot listen mobile.....i cannot listen ad free.....i cannot burn discs.....i cannot distribute.

 

And i always buy the cd if i like the album.

 

My argument stands that if people claim they illegally download to hear music before they buy that argument is defunct as free Spotify exists.

 

Hope this clarifies.

 

Cheers

 

Fair enough, but I'm sure 90% of people who download will argue they also only do that to "test the waters" and that if an album is good, they will always buy it. I know up until the USD started anally raping everyone outside the US that was basically my sole purpose for downloading; to see which albums I'd be laying coin on.

 

Like I said, just curious. To me, it's basically the same in that you're hearing music without the artist being financially rewarded for it. Spotify may be legal, but the artists still benefit as much from it as they do from illegal downloads.

 

Anyway, Spotify is 100% useless to me because I never sit on a PC and just listen to music so I need it to be mobile. ;)

 

 

I would dispute that mate.

 

I would say that 90% of people who download have no intention of ever buying the end product.

 

I have no issue with people downloading music 'just to hear it' - as long as they

 

1. Buy the album if they like it

2. permanently delete the MP3 files if they choose not to like it.

 

As I said, yes the free version of Spotify is very restrictive - it's meant to be so that people 'buy' the full version (which is mobile and you can listen offline so no need for wifi)

 

I question the free versions legality as well, but while it is available I cannot see how anyone can justify illegally downloading music.

 

The excuse that you need it to be mobile is rubbish sorry - you claim yourself that after one listen you know if you like an album or not - you have claimed that on numerous occasions in the 'is it a grower threads'.........in fact you have gone on to say that the very idea that an album could be a grower is complete rubbish......it's just like polishing a turd ......................so -

 

sit, listen once and decide.

 

Its that easy ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Free Spotify is perfectly legal.

 

The big difference is i dont own the music....i cannot download offline....i cannot listen mobile.....i cannot listen ad free.....i cannot burn discs.....i cannot distribute.

 

And i always buy the cd if i like the album.

 

My argument stands that if people claim they illegally download to hear music before they buy that argument is defunct as free Spotify exists.

 

Hope this clarifies.

 

Cheers

 

Fair enough, but I'm sure 90% of people who download will argue they also only do that to "test the waters" and that if an album is good, they will always buy it. I know up until the USD started anally raping everyone outside the US that was basically my sole purpose for downloading; to see which albums I'd be laying coin on.

 

Like I said, just curious. To me, it's basically the same in that you're hearing music without the artist being financially rewarded for it. Spotify may be legal, but the artists still benefit as much from it as they do from illegal downloads.

 

Anyway, Spotify is 100% useless to me because I never sit on a PC and just listen to music so I need it to be mobile. ;)

 

 

I would dispute that mate.

 

I would say that 90% of people who download have no intention of ever buying the end product.

 

I have no issue with people downloading music 'just to hear it' - as long as they

 

1. Buy the album if they like it

2. permanently delete the MP3 files if they choose not to like it.

 

As I said, yes the free version of Spotify is very restrictive - it's meant to be so that people 'buy' the full version (which is mobile and you can listen offline so no need for wifi)

 

I question the free versions legality as well, but while it is available I cannot see how anyone can justify illegally downloading music.

 

The excuse that you need it to be mobile is rubbish sorry - you claim yourself that after one listen you know if you like an album or not - you have claimed that on numerous occasions in the 'is it a grower threads'.........in fact you have gone on to say that the very idea that an album could be a grower is complete rubbish......it's just like polishing a turd ......................so -

 

sit, listen once and decide.

 

Its that easy ;)

 

 

But when? I listen to music at three points in my life, and three points only:

 

1. At work (driving around in a car)

2. Driving in my car to and from the train station and the beach

3. Riding on the train to and from work

 

If you can advise me how to fit free Spotify into that routine I'm all ears. Like I said, completely illogical for me.

 

And I should have clarified that I meant 90% of the people who listen to music in "our" genre. I'd still hope that 90% (haha, okay, so maybe not that high) would be planning to buy the best albums they download. But there's no real way to know those figures, though. Of course in terms of the whole downloading population, maybe 1% intend to buy CDs after downloading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Free Spotify is perfectly legal.

 

The big difference is i dont own the music....i cannot download offline....i cannot listen mobile.....i cannot listen ad free.....i cannot burn discs.....i cannot distribute.

 

And i always buy the cd if i like the album.

 

My argument stands that if people claim they illegally download to hear music before they buy that argument is defunct as free Spotify exists.

 

Hope this clarifies.

 

Cheers

Fair enough, but I'm sure 90% of people who download will argue they also only do that to "test the waters" and that if an album is good, they will always buy it. I know up until the USD started anally raping everyone outside the US that was basically my sole purpose for downloading; to see which albums I'd be laying coin on.

 

Like I said, just curious. To me, it's basically the same in that you're hearing music without the artist being financially rewarded for it. Spotify may be legal, but the artists still benefit as much from it as they do from illegal downloads.

 

Anyway, Spotify is 100% useless to me because I never sit on a PC and just listen to music so I need it to be mobile. ;)

I would dispute that mate.

 

I would say that 90% of people who download have no intention of ever buying the end product.

 

I have no issue with people downloading music 'just to hear it' - as long as they

 

1. Buy the album if they like it

2. permanently delete the MP3 files if they choose not to like it.

 

As I said, yes the free version of Spotify is very restrictive - it's meant to be so that people 'buy' the full version (which is mobile and you can listen offline so no need for wifi)

 

I question the free versions legality as well, but while it is available I cannot see how anyone can justify illegally downloading music.

 

The excuse that you need it to be mobile is rubbish sorry - you claim yourself that after one listen you know if you like an album or not - you have claimed that on numerous occasions in the 'is it a grower threads'.........in fact you have gone on to say that the very idea that an album could be a grower is complete rubbish......it's just like polishing a turd ......................so -

 

sit, listen once and decide.

 

Its that easy ;)

But when? I listen to music at three points in my life, and three points only:

 

1. At work (driving around in a car)

2. Driving in my car to and from the train station and the beach

3. Riding on the train to and from work

 

If you can advise me how to fit free Spotify into that routine I'm all ears. Like I said, completely illogical for me.

 

And I should have clarified that I meant 90% of the people who listen to music in "our" genre. I'd still hope that 90% (haha, okay, so maybe not that high) would be planning to buy the best albums they download. But there's no real way to know those figures, though. Of course in terms of the whole downloading population, maybe 1% intend to buy CDs after downloading.

Yeah I can see what your saying Geoff - unless you get Premium access you will be very limited during those times when you normally listen to music. What worries me about Premium is that Spotify could one day cease to exist, then what do you have? So I can understand why people would prefer actual MP3s over borrowing music from a cloud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never used Spotify personally. At first I was against it but maybe I'll try it myself for the reasons others are using it - get a feel for an album, hear full songs and decide if they're any good and later buy the album if they are.

 

What I still have a problem with is people who use Spotify as their main and ONLY way of listening to music, so just stream the latest songs from the top 20 on their crappy phones. But that's the new generation of kids and teens for you right there... So at age 27, I already feel old and out of touch with today's youth :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never used Spotify personally. At first I was against it but maybe I'll try it myself for the reasons others are using it - get a feel for an album, hear full songs and decide if they're any good and later buy the album if they are.

 

What I still have a problem with is people who use Spotify as their main and ONLY way of listening to music, so just stream the latest songs from the top 20 on their crappy phones. But that's the new generation of kids and teens for you right there... So at age 27, I already feel old and out of touch with today's youth :D

Yeah I must admit I have been using Spotify a lot in the last week or so after getting a new mobile and not one cent has gone to any of the artists. I do wonder how much the artist benefits from streaming music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Free Spotify is perfectly legal.

 

The big difference is i dont own the music....i cannot download offline....i cannot listen mobile.....i cannot listen ad free.....i cannot burn discs.....i cannot distribute.

 

And i always buy the cd if i like the album.

 

My argument stands that if people claim they illegally download to hear music before they buy that argument is defunct as free Spotify exists.

 

Hope this clarifies.

 

Cheers

Fair enough, but I'm sure 90% of people who download will argue they also only do that to "test the waters" and that if an album is good, they will always buy it. I know up until the USD started anally raping everyone outside the US that was basically my sole purpose for downloading; to see which albums I'd be laying coin on.

 

Like I said, just curious. To me, it's basically the same in that you're hearing music without the artist being financially rewarded for it. Spotify may be legal, but the artists still benefit as much from it as they do from illegal downloads.

 

Anyway, Spotify is 100% useless to me because I never sit on a PC and just listen to music so I need it to be mobile. ;)

I would dispute that mate.

 

I would say that 90% of people who download have no intention of ever buying the end product.

 

I have no issue with people downloading music 'just to hear it' - as long as they

 

1. Buy the album if they like it

2. permanently delete the MP3 files if they choose not to like it.

 

As I said, yes the free version of Spotify is very restrictive - it's meant to be so that people 'buy' the full version (which is mobile and you can listen offline so no need for wifi)

 

I question the free versions legality as well, but while it is available I cannot see how anyone can justify illegally downloading music.

 

The excuse that you need it to be mobile is rubbish sorry - you claim yourself that after one listen you know if you like an album or not - you have claimed that on numerous occasions in the 'is it a grower threads'.........in fact you have gone on to say that the very idea that an album could be a grower is complete rubbish......it's just like polishing a turd ......................so -

 

sit, listen once and decide.

 

Its that easy ;)

But when? I listen to music at three points in my life, and three points only:

 

1. At work (driving around in a car)

2. Driving in my car to and from the train station and the beach

3. Riding on the train to and from work

 

If you can advise me how to fit free Spotify into that routine I'm all ears. Like I said, completely illogical for me.

 

And I should have clarified that I meant 90% of the people who listen to music in "our" genre. I'd still hope that 90% (haha, okay, so maybe not that high) would be planning to buy the best albums they download. But there's no real way to know those figures, though. Of course in terms of the whole downloading population, maybe 1% intend to buy CDs after downloading.

Lol.

 

The restaints of your lifestyle does not excuse you from illegally downloading music.

 

I can just see you in a court of law - sorry judge i only listen to music when im driving around ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this all a bit strange. If Spotify were to cease to exist there are loads of other services you could move to and you could still buy the CDs or MP3. Or whatever comes next.

Almost every album that comes out now is available on these services.

 

For 10 yoyos a month seems to me to be great value.

 

And as for the artists. They've always got screwed. Not sure they are much worse off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this all a bit strange. If Spotify were to cease to exist there are loads of other services you could move to and you could still buy the CDs or MP3. Or whatever comes next.

 

Almost every album that comes out now is available on these services.

 

For 10 yoyos a month seems to me to be great value.

 

And as for the artists. They've always got screwed. Not sure they are much worse off.

I guess I could explain like this- imagine you spent forever creating a beautiful 3000+ song playlist on Spotify, carefully selecting all your favourites and making them available for offline playing. Then overnight Spotify goes bankrupt and ceases to exist. Yes there are plenty of other services to switch to but all that hard work of creating that beautiful playlist has now gone down the drain. This may be a reason some people still see downloading as the better option because with MP3s you can create this playlist and carry it around in your pocket forever knowing you have a back up.

 

I don't know what the solution is to reducing downloading and increasing artist support. Perhaps if CDs were affordable this might help? $10 an album would be more reasonable IMO. Is that realistic? Cheap CDs in combination with a free service to preview the tracks might be best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Never used Spotify personally. At first I was against it but maybe I'll try it myself for the reasons others are using it - get a feel for an album, hear full songs and decide if they're any good and later buy the album if they are.

 

What I still have a problem with is people who use Spotify as their main and ONLY way of listening to music, so just stream the latest songs from the top 20 on their crappy phones. But that's the new generation of kids and teens for you right there... So at age 27, I already feel old and out of touch with today's youth :D

Yeah I must admit I have been using Spotify a lot in the last week or so after getting a new mobile and not one cent has gone to any of the artists. I do wonder how much the artist benefits from streaming music.

 

$0.007 per play is about it, so we are getting sweet bugger all, unless you get played thousands upon thousands of times per day. Pay per track downloaded or buy the full download/ CD is the only way we'll ever get any money back for our hard work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Streaming is the way of the future.

 

People dont want 100s of cd boxes laying about their house anymore.

 

They want convenience and every album at their fingertips.

 

I guess its up to the record industry to adapt.

 

Maybe record companies should be paying the artists more upfront

 

I can guarantee one thing tho. Ours is the only genre where folk actually worry about the artist and what they are getting paid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • My Little Pony

I can guarantee one thing tho. Ours is the only genre where folk actually worry about the artist and what they are getting paid.

That does seem to be truu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was having the artist payment discussion with someone recently, and I gave the example of:

when you go and look at a painting in an art gallery, does the artist earn any money for each view?

when you borrow a book from the library, does the author earn any money for each page read?

when you look at a photographers photo in a magazine, does he earn money for each view?

They all received an initial outlay / purchase price for the 'artwork' and then its basically out of their hands.

Do you think maybe musicians need to go along the same lines of all these other artists and possibly charge the initial distributor or holder of the "art work" for an initial fee and not actually be concerned with the down-the-line costs and charges?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Never used Spotify personally. At first I was against it but maybe I'll try it myself for the reasons others are using it - get a feel for an album, hear full songs and decide if they're any good and later buy the album if they are.

 

What I still have a problem with is people who use Spotify as their main and ONLY way of listening to music, so just stream the latest songs from the top 20 on their crappy phones. But that's the new generation of kids and teens for you right there... So at age 27, I already feel old and out of touch with today's youth :D

Yeah I must admit I have been using Spotify a lot in the last week or so after getting a new mobile and not one cent has gone to any of the artists. I do wonder how much the artist benefits from streaming music.

$0.007 per play is about it, so we are getting sweet bugger all, unless you get played thousands upon thousands of times per day. Pay per track downloaded or buy the full download/ CD is the only way we'll ever get any money back for our hard work.

Wow so 143 listens of a song on Spotify = $1 for the artist(s).

 

Seems as though Spotify users are hardly supporting the artists either.

 

This seems like it may be a simplified way of looking at it but that's what the math says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • My Little Pony

 

 

 

Never used Spotify personally. At first I was against it but maybe I'll try it myself for the reasons others are using it - get a feel for an album, hear full songs and decide if they're any good and later buy the album if they are.

 

What I still have a problem with is people who use Spotify as their main and ONLY way of listening to music, so just stream the latest songs from the top 20 on their crappy phones. But that's the new generation of kids and teens for you right there... So at age 27, I already feel old and out of touch with today's youth :D

Yeah I must admit I have been using Spotify a lot in the last week or so after getting a new mobile and not one cent has gone to any of the artists. I do wonder how much the artist benefits from streaming music.

$0.007 per play is about it, so we are getting sweet bugger all, unless you get played thousands upon thousands of times per day. Pay per track downloaded or buy the full download/ CD is the only way we'll ever get any money back for our hard work.

Wow so 143 listens of a song on Spotify = $1 for the artist(s).

 

Seems as though Spotify users are hardly supporting the artists either.

 

This seems like it may be a simplified way of looking at it but that's what the math says.

 

 

Yup. Spotify is bull phuking shit! It's just a way for users to feel like they're making a difference, when, really, they aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Never used Spotify personally. At first I was against it but maybe I'll try it myself for the reasons others are using it - get a feel for an album, hear full songs and decide if they're any good and later buy the album if they are.

 

What I still have a problem with is people who use Spotify as their main and ONLY way of listening to music, so just stream the latest songs from the top 20 on their crappy phones. But that's the new generation of kids and teens for you right there... So at age 27, I already feel old and out of touch with today's youth :D

Yeah I must admit I have been using Spotify a lot in the last week or so after getting a new mobile and not one cent has gone to any of the artists. I do wonder how much the artist benefits from streaming music.

$0.007 per play is about it, so we are getting sweet bugger all, unless you get played thousands upon thousands of times per day. Pay per track downloaded or buy the full download/ CD is the only way we'll ever get any money back for our hard work.

Wow so 143 listens of a song on Spotify = $1 for the artist(s).

 

Seems as though Spotify users are hardly supporting the artists either.

 

This seems like it may be a simplified way of looking at it but that's what the math says.

 

 

Yup. Spotify is bull phuking shit! It's just a way for users to feel like they're making a difference, when, really, they aren't.

 

 

I think they got the model wrong , but that genie is out of the bottle. Would have been better to have a pay per play model with perhaps some tiers for bulk purchases. So 10 dollars for 1000 songs a month, or something like that.

 

However if the artists don't get paid then sooner or later the model will break.

 

Having said that I watched a show on Netflix the other day about the porn industry.

 

It struck me the porn industry, music and sports all work on the same business model. A few are allowed to get rich to act as the illusion you might make money. The rest are just meat to be fucked financially and in porns case physically. Every year sees a new set of young bright eyed young adults looking to make it big and every year the record companies, sports firms and porn producers spread their lies and coin it in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do wonder how much an artist gets say on Frontiers gets per cd sale?

 

What do reckon - $1 ??

 

So say they sell 5000 cds - pretty good for our unknown artists - that would be $5000. End of.

 

Seems to me having a revenue stream from spotify or the like isnt too bad considering you would get paid forever while those tracks were available.

 

It might not be huge amounts for our genre but imagine some bigger acts - folk could be playing their albums for years to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider this - $0.007 per track

 

So that $0.07 per album.

 

If you are a big artist and release a new album and 1 million people worldwide stream your album once you get $70k.

 

Thats just once...let alone years to come.

 

No wonder Metallica got their stuff on there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK this is interesting - I did a little research.

 

If an album / CD costs £8 ($11.20) here is how the split roughly breaks down -

 

Recording Company £2.40

VAT £1.36

Retail £1.36

Manufacturing £0.72

Distribution £0.64

Copyright £0.48

 

Artist £1.04 ($1.45)

 

So if my maths serves me correct if I played Jez's album 21 times on Spotify in my entire life I would actually contribute more to that artist than if I bought the CD.

 

All of a sudden streaming looks like a much better revenue source for artist than CD sales??

 

Amirite??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt it, one stream on Spotify (free version) equals 0.21 cents. Spotify takes 0.06 cents of that, the rest is split (publisher 0.026 and label gets 0.12 cents). Now remember, this is CENTS we are talking about here, I usually end up turning these numbers into dollars and always have to remind myself it is in fact cents and how little it actually is.

 

So let's go with the 0.12 cents the label gets... If you played an album of 10 tracks 20 times you would get 24 cents... Other question is, are you really gonna play an album 20 times? I know it doesn't seem much for an entire lifetime but still a lot of albums don't reach that number of plays for the average listener. Maybe a few selected tracks get played more often, yes.

 

By the way, Jez has a band / album out??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt it, one stream on Spotify (free version) equals 0.21 cents. Spotify takes 0.06 cents of that, the rest is split (publisher 0.026 and label gets 0.12 cents). Now remember, this is CENTS we are talking about here, I usually end up turning these numbers into dollars and always have to remind myself it is in fact cents and how little it actually is.

 

So let's go with the 0.12 cents the label gets... If you played an album of 10 tracks 20 times you would get 24 cents... Other question is, are you really gonna play an album 20 times? I know it doesn't seem much for an entire lifetime but still a lot of albums don't reach that number of plays for the average listener. Maybe a few selected tracks get played more often, yes.

 

By the way, Jez has a band / album out??

 

OK, I just checked a bit further and you are right the label does take some of the stream revenue............looks like the artist land a whopping $0.001128 per stream, so $0.01128 for a 10 track album play.

 

That would mean I would need to play the album 128 times to match CD revenue.

 

It's still better than nothing though, which is what they receive from illegal downloads.

 

I still maintain though that for big artists the earnings are decent........this provides a revenue source for years to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • 2022 HH Donation Drive

    Please support Heavy Harmonies! The donations goal is the out-of-pocket expenses to run the main site and this board for calendar year 2022.



    82% of donation goal reached.
    Donate Sidebar by DevFuse
  • Posts

    • This could spawn another interesting discussion. Would you rather see a terrible band perform terrible songs very well, or a great band perform excellent songs poorly? I know which I’d rather see.  And before anyone gets mad I’m sure RHCP are good at what they do, but I personally find them to be atrocious. Personally. 
    • Auri - II: Those We Don't Speak Of Amorphis - Tuonela Ash - 1977 Accept - Balls to the Wall
    • I thought One Hot Minute was underrated. Dave Navarro is a good guitarist. But their teeny bopper fans didn't like it and think it is their worst album.
    • Love, The Answer! "Raise a Little Hell" is a one of my all-time favorite albums.  
    • I am a Broncos fan, so obviously not a Chiefs fan, and never been a big Eagles fan, but I guess I'm leaning for Philly to win. Really wanted Cincy to get there.
    • All his albums with only Randy, Zakk and Jake E. These three are on the Mount Rushmore of guitarists for me. (Also Nuno, Eddie, Angus, Warren DeMartini.......okay, so it's a large mountain. )
    • From the Metal Church FB page:  Yes, the rumors are true, it's official! Please welcome vocalist Marc Lopes to the congregation! We auditioned a handful of vocalists and while they were all great, Marc quickly became the clear choice. Both David Wayne and Mike Howe had a very unique, irreplaceable quality to their voices, so we were not looking for a clone of either. We wanted someone new, who could embrace the past, and also bring something fresh and exciting to the mix. Marc brings a very classic yet modern feel to the songs and we are looking forward to getting this new album out to you later this year! Thank you for your continued support of Metal Church!  Love & respect, Kurdt Vanderhoof Photo credit: GianRock Photography by Giovanni Cionci #metalchurch #ratpakrecords #marclopes #newvocalist #ReaperEntertainmentEurope
    • Sunburst, features our own Thomas/Coastline. Heaven Tonight - Cheap Trick.
    • Machine 2 Machine - Doro.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.