Is streaming technology saving the music industry?

[medjuck]

 

For clarification, I do not use my data plan when I download a recording to my phone. Instead I do it from my wifi network at home. When home I will stream from my desktop computer, but that obviously does not impact my data plan either.

 

Thank you for the clarification. I got a different message from your previous post.

 

Though my question does still stand.

 

well, in most cases the digital re-mastering I did sounded better than the original. But it was still on physical media - CDR.

 

I prefer doing everything in real time; it reduces errors and forces me to be a bit more careful.

 

But you didn't answer his question, Allen.

 

Did the media itself make a difference? I would have to think it didn't. The mastering, no matter the format, should sound the same.

Guys: Media is plural. Medium is singular. (The pedant in me comes to the surface after a drink or two and I'm having a gin and tonic.) 

[A Lark Ascending]

 I can only imagine a lot of kids are getting chased off Neil Young's (presumably many acred) lawn at present. 

[Scott Dolan]

 

Guys: Media is plural. Medium is singular. (The pedant in me comes to the surface after a drink or two and I'm having a gin and tonic.) 

Weren't we talking about multiple forms of audio media in that conversation? 

[Shawn]

...and I'm sure 0.0004 percent of those kids give a shit about Neil Young and what he does with his catalog.  

[Scott Dolan]

I'm just wondering exactly what kind of AM radio ol' Neil had back in the day! It must have been a real motherfucker!

[medjuck]

 

Guys: Media is plural. Medium is singular. (The pedant in me comes to the surface after a drink or two and I'm having a gin and tonic.) 

Weren't we talking about multiple forms of audio media in that conversation? 

Then you should say say "...the media themselves", not "the media itself...".  And I'm sober this morning.

Guys: Media is plural. Medium is singular. (The pedant in me comes to the surface after a drink or two and I'm having a gin and tonic.) 

Weren't we talking about multiple forms of audio media in that conversation? 

 

Guys: Media is plural. Medium is singular. (The pedant in me comes to the surface after a drink or two and I'm having a gin and tonic.) 

Weren't we talking about multiple forms of audio media in that conversation? 

 Then you should say "media themselves.." not "media itself...".  What's happening to the quote function here?  And I'm sober this morning.

Edited July 17, 2015 by medjuck

[Scott Dolan]

What…in…the…fuck...

[ombudsman]

Then why all the hand-wringing over all of this?

Shit, I listened to the radio for free every day. I also made a ton of cassette tapes of tunes I recorded, for free, off of the radio. 

Are the current trends really that different? 

Yes, they are.

Radio pays far more than streaming (albeit in the US, only to those with songwriting credit).

Back in the day when you (and many, many millions of others) were listening to the radio, so many records were being sold partly as a result of that radio exposure (and MTV, for those of a certain age) that there was a viable revenue stream relative to the real cost of creating music - which relates to whole careers of musicians and other professionals and very substantial marketing, not just recording costs. Lots of people made their living from that revenue stream, and it supported many middle class jobs of one kind or another as well as labels big and small and musicians big and small... not that it was perfect by any means.

Now, consumer purchase of music is the exception rather than the rule, and a laughably small fraction of the revenue for listening without purchasing a copy makes it back to the people that made and invested up front in the music compared to before. Albums (the only format really relevant to jazz) have been hit particularly hard, currently making up about 1/3 the sales compared to the high in the 90s. That's across all formats including legit digital downloads.

If this was all due to decreased consumption, I would have no fairness/ethics -based complaint. But consumption is as high as ever, it's just become a pirate economy where most of the income generated from the work of a few people goes to others who are positioned to sell data access and ads on the sidelines of the huge flow of pirated information.

[Scott Dolan]

Fair enough.

Which brings me back to one of my earlier points, why don't artists just take control of their own distribution? If they pulled their product from streaming services, and only offered their product for purchase either via iTunes, or their own personal web site, it's seems as though it would start moving things back in the right direction. 

[Milestones]

I love Neil Young, but admit it: sometimes you cringe when you hear his vocals, and he cut many records with what amounted to a garage band.  It's all about the sound? 

[Scott Dolan]

I love Neil Young, but admit it: sometimes you cringe when you hear his vocals, and he cut many records with what amounted to a garage band.  It's all about the sound? 

That last part seemed to add a bit of confusion to his statement for me as well. 

But, I think it can be dispelled with one word: Pono. 

[JSngry]

Hey, before FM became a commercially popular medium, AM radio RULED. Damn near every kind of music that America was listening to was there (I'm old enough to remember FM being almost 100% Classical & Easy Listening, and they were on AM too), and regionality was a strength, not a weakness.

And before everybody got all segmented and formatted and stuff, Top 40 RULED. Not a lot of depth but breadth out (or would that be across?) the ass.

So, I get what Neil Young is saying about AM radio. The rest of it sounds like the ramblings of some wantonly frothing discombobulationary, but the part about AM radio, I get.

[Shawn]

Then why all the hand-wringing over all of this?

Shit, I listened to the radio for free every day. I also made a ton of cassette tapes of tunes I recorded, for free, off of the radio. 

Are the current trends really that different? 

Yes, they are.

Radio pays far more than streaming (albeit in the US, only to those with songwriting credit).

Back in the day when you (and many, many millions of others) were listening to the radio, so many records were being sold partly as a result of that radio exposure (and MTV, for those of a certain age) that there was a viable revenue stream relative to the real cost of creating music - which relates to whole careers of musicians and other professionals and very substantial marketing, not just recording costs. Lots of people made their living from that revenue stream, and it supported many middle class jobs of one kind or another as well as labels big and small and musicians big and small... not that it was perfect by any means.

Now, consumer purchase of music is the exception rather than the rule, and a laughably small fraction of the revenue for listening without purchasing a copy makes it back to the people that made and invested up front in the music compared to before. Albums (the only format really relevant to jazz) have been hit particularly hard, currently making up about 1/3 the sales compared to the high in the 90s. That's across all formats including legit digital downloads.

If this was all due to decreased consumption, I would have no fairness/ethics -based complaint. But consumption is as high as ever, it's just become a pirate economy where most of the income generated from the work of a few people goes to others who are positioned to sell data access and ads on the sidelines of the huge flow of pirated information.

One major flaw here.  "Pirated information".  It's not pirated, it is licensed by the record labels to the streaming services.  The record labels take 70% of the revenue from streaming.  Want artists to receive more?  Convince the labels to share some of that 3/4 of the pie they are walking off with.  

 

 

[ombudsman]

Then why all the hand-wringing over all of this?

Shit, I listened to the radio for free every day. I also made a ton of cassette tapes of tunes I recorded, for free, off of the radio. 

Are the current trends really that different? 

Yes, they are.

Radio pays far more than streaming (albeit in the US, only to those with songwriting credit).

Back in the day when you (and many, many millions of others) were listening to the radio, so many records were being sold partly as a result of that radio exposure (and MTV, for those of a certain age) that there was a viable revenue stream relative to the real cost of creating music - which relates to whole careers of musicians and other professionals and very substantial marketing, not just recording costs. Lots of people made their living from that revenue stream, and it supported many middle class jobs of one kind or another as well as labels big and small and musicians big and small... not that it was perfect by any means.

Now, consumer purchase of music is the exception rather than the rule, and a laughably small fraction of the revenue for listening without purchasing a copy makes it back to the people that made and invested up front in the music compared to before. Albums (the only format really relevant to jazz) have been hit particularly hard, currently making up about 1/3 the sales compared to the high in the 90s. That's across all formats including legit digital downloads.

If this was all due to decreased consumption, I would have no fairness/ethics -based complaint. But consumption is as high as ever, it's just become a pirate economy where most of the income generated from the work of a few people goes to others who are positioned to sell data access and ads on the sidelines of the huge flow of pirated information.

One major flaw here.  "Pirated information".  It's not pirated, it is licensed by the record labels to the streaming services.  The record labels take 70% of the revenue from streaming.  Want artists to receive more?  Convince the labels to share some of that 3/4 of the pie they are walking off with.  

 

 

By pirated information I was referring to pirated information - illegally downloaded or copied with no licensing whatsoever. Streaming through Spotify, Pandora and such is legal, of course. It's also blatantly exploitative, but that is a different subject.

[David Ayers]

Not so much a different topic as about the only one we have left 

[Scott Dolan]

Hey, before FM became a commercially popular medium, AM radio RULED. Damn near every kind of music that America was listening to was there (I'm old enough to remember FM being almost 100% Classical & Easy Listening, and they were on AM too), and regionality was a strength, not a weakness.

And before everybody got all segmented and formatted and stuff, Top 40 RULED. Not a lot of depth but breadth out (or would that be across?) the ass.

So, I get what Neil Young is saying about AM radio. The rest of it sounds like the ramblings of some wantonly frothing discombobulationary, but the part about AM radio, I get.

He was talking about sound quality. Not what was available on it. 

So you're telling me that the sound quality on AM radio was/is better than the sound quality of digital streaming?!

[Scott Dolan]

Then why all the hand-wringing over all of this?

Shit, I listened to the radio for free every day. I also made a ton of cassette tapes of tunes I recorded, for free, off of the radio. 

Are the current trends really that different? 

Yes, they are.

Radio pays far more than streaming (albeit in the US, only to those with songwriting credit).

Back in the day when you (and many, many millions of others) were listening to the radio, so many records were being sold partly as a result of that radio exposure (and MTV, for those of a certain age) that there was a viable revenue stream relative to the real cost of creating music - which relates to whole careers of musicians and other professionals and very substantial marketing, not just recording costs. Lots of people made their living from that revenue stream, and it supported many middle class jobs of one kind or another as well as labels big and small and musicians big and small... not that it was perfect by any means.

Now, consumer purchase of music is the exception rather than the rule, and a laughably small fraction of the revenue for listening without purchasing a copy makes it back to the people that made and invested up front in the music compared to before. Albums (the only format really relevant to jazz) have been hit particularly hard, currently making up about 1/3 the sales compared to the high in the 90s. That's across all formats including legit digital downloads.

If this was all due to decreased consumption, I would have no fairness/ethics -based complaint. But consumption is as high as ever, it's just become a pirate economy where most of the income generated from the work of a few people goes to others who are positioned to sell data access and ads on the sidelines of the huge flow of pirated information.

One major flaw here.  "Pirated information".  It's not pirated, it is licensed by the record labels to the streaming services.  The record labels take 70% of the revenue from streaming.  Want artists to receive more?  Convince the labels to share some of that 3/4 of the pie they are walking off with.  

 

 

By pirated information I was referring to pirated information - illegally downloaded or copied with no licensing whatsoever. Streaming through Spotify, Pandora and such is legal, of course. It's also blatantly exploitative, but that is a different subject.

How many people illegally download music anymore? Most softwares that were popular for that became all but unusable from viruses.

And free streaming pretty much negates the need. 

I'd say the percentage of people still doing it would be on par with those who dubbed cassettes for their buddies back in the day. So, not very many, relatively speaking.  

[sonnymax]

According to one study, "Americans illegally downloaded more music than any other country in 2012, with more than 96.8 million downloads recorded in just six months."

[Scott Dolan]

Wow! I find that to be amazing. I don't know a single person who has done it since the days when Napster was a big thing. 

Maybe it's mostly the younger set? 

[GA Russell]

According to one study, "Americans illegally downloaded more music than any other country in 2012, with more than 96.8 million downloads recorded in just six months."

Sonny, I wonder if 2012 statistics are relevant to today.  Not arguing, just speculating.

[JSngry]

Hey, before FM became a commercially popular medium, AM radio RULED. Damn near every kind of music that America was listening to was there (I'm old enough to remember FM being almost 100% Classical & Easy Listening, and they were on AM too), and regionality was a strength, not a weakness.

And before everybody got all segmented and formatted and stuff, Top 40 RULED. Not a lot of depth but breadth out (or would that be across?) the ass.

So, I get what Neil Young is saying about AM radio. The rest of it sounds like the ramblings of some wantonly frothing discombobulationary, but the part about AM radio, I get.

He was talking about sound quality. Not what was available on it. 

So you're telling me that the sound quality on AM radio was/is better than the sound quality of digital streaming?!

No, I'm not telling you that, nor am I sure that the notoriously rambling Neil Young was trying to tell you that.

The only point I got out of it was that AM (and all those other things) kicked streaming's ass about was the "common culture" thing, like how if 5000 people were listening to the same station, then 5000 people were all hearing the same songs at the same time. Or how with tapes, things were really "hands on" in the way they brought music to groups of people...but I have no feelings about tht, really. AM radio, yes, AM kicked streaming's ass in terms of building a common culture.

When he went off into the business about "sound quality", I figured it was just another case of that guy starting off on a road and ending up in a tree,

Sound quality of AM, though, I will say this - those 45s were usually mastered to sound good coming out of car speakers, jukebokes, cheapass home hifis, etc.I've yet to hear a "modern" presentation of that era's pop music that sounds like it did on 45. Not talking "bettter" here, just "the same as" in terms of the type of presence and impact. People talk about regretting getting rid of their old LPs and all that, when what they should be considering is do they regret getting rid of their 45s, because 45s sound even less like digital than do LPs. So if you want to "relive" the "sound of the times" without 45s, hey, good luck. 50 bajillion people "reliving" their memories of cheap AM car radios on high dollar digital audio systems, that's a joke.

[Scott Dolan]

It's interesting that you can paint it that way, but he's been carrying on about the supposedly crappy sound quality of digital for many years now. And his statements made it perfectly clear he was again whining about sound quality. 

He later went on to say: "It's not because of the money, although my share (like all the other artists) was dramatically reduced by bad deals made without my consent," Young wrote. "It's about sound quality. I don't need my music to be devalued by the worst quality in the history of broadcasting or any other form of distribution. I don't feel right allowing this to be sold to my fans. It's bad for my music."

http://www.cnet.com/news/neil-young-to-pull-his-music-from-music-streaming-services/

 

Edited July 18, 2015 by Scott Dolan

[GA Russell]

Speaking of car radios and AM, I read years ago that Berry Gordy deliberately had the bass too loud on his records so that it could be heard on AM car radios.  When the kid bought the record, took it home and found the bass too loud, old Berry didn't care at that point because he already had his money! 

[JSngry]

Yeah, well, Neil Young carries on about a lot of things. I've long ago learned to hear the parts that make sense an ignore the rest. Kinda like those other old guys who go off on rants where they get a good starting point and then end up with foil hat stuff.

And truthfully, I can see his point about AM sound quality if he's talking about what came out of the speakers relative to what the object of the game was. Pop music wasn't always - and isn't now -  about "sound quality" as we came know it in the glory days of The Era Of Album Rock. It was about making an immediate impact, a visceral, glandular tingly impact. And AM radio playing records mastered for AM Radio being delivered by AM radio...people figured out how to make that shit WORK, ya' know?

So, I'm thinking that's at least part of his starting point, in whatever parts of his brain he's still using. And if it's not, then, that's the point I'll make - that AM Radio delivered its content with a more successful collective impact of intent than do the current steaming models, and not the least of the reasons why was that the creators of the product figured out how to tailor its sound to perfectly the delivery mechanism. Random example - "California Dreaming" - that record on CD, of oldies FM or any other "superior" format (including LP), all nice and roomy and echo-y just....endless ceiling, you know? That shit came on a car radio, those ceilings weren't there, all the reverb had nowhere to go but back onto itself, all that overdubbing didn't grow the sound taller, it pushed it out harder. Buy an original 45 and play in on a not-great record player of the approximate era and then play a CD of it...there's a fundamental difference. That's not a value judgement either, because, you know, I've heard it all I care to hear it, and whatever. Just sayin', In a time where collective listening was more often a necessity of circumstance than an option of luxury, stuff like that should not be overlooked, and definitely not forgotten. People today thinking that Lowest Common Denominator Songwriting is how you get a lot of people on your hook, and they may be right, given the delivery mechanisms they've got to work with today, but there was a time...you made a good record (so many great records have been made of so many at-best mediocre songs), and then you get that record on the air to where mass number of peoples are guaranteed to hear it all at the same time, several times per day, in any number of different individual circumstances...that's just a different social/musical/industrial paradigm than the ones we've got today,

Simply put - no streaming service today has the potential for immediate collective impact that that broadcast pop radio had. It's a different thing altogether. And my gut feeling is that the an element of nostalgia figures in to make a collective pleasure "sound better" in memory than does an individual one, especially if that pleasure is based around an experience designed to be a collective success (i.e. - sell them 45s!).

All this may or may not have been rattling around in Neil Young's head before it came out as "sound quality". If it was, he can thank me at his leisure for for translating. And if it wasn't, well, ok, this is what he said triggered in me.

[Scott Dolan]

Well, just so long as you know you weren't truly translating for him, but making another (VERY!) loosely related point. 

There was absolutely no ambiguity in his statements. 

Edited July 18, 2015 by Scott Dolan