Is streaming technology saving the music industry?

[Scott Dolan]

And with home studioes to rival the big boys, as well as digital distribution, it will hopefully be returned in full to its rightful owners. Personally, I'm glad to see the old dinosaur model dying off.

Edited November 8, 2014 by Scott Dolan

[GA Russell]

And now Jason Aldean has pulled his new album (which hit #1 on the country chart) from Spotify.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/11/10/jason-aldean-follows-taylor-swift-pulls-new-album-off-spotify/?intcmp=obmod_ffo&intcmp=obnetwork

[Scott Dolan]

Rock on.

Musicians are learning their true place.

As sole owners of their rightful property.

[Tom 1960]

Rather than go back and read this lengthy thread, I believe I came across a discussion that it was possible to listen to Spotify over my traditional home stereo system? My desktop and stereo is located in the same room. I run off a Windows operating system. Can I make this happen? Do I need additional cables? Thanks!

[Shawn]

And with home studioes to rival the big boys, as well as digital distribution, it will hopefully be returned in full to its rightful owners. Personally, I'm glad to see the old dinosaur model dying off.

Home studios do not "rival the big boys". Some schmuck recording his album in a 1-bedroom apartment isn't going to get the same quality as going to a professional studio, recording in isolated, acoustically-designed rooms with floating floors, with thousands of dollars of microphones and other gear to use. Not to mention having the expertise of a professional recording engineer available.

At the very least you need to book studio time to cut the drum tracks. If you have to you can run everything else direct at home...although that's not my preference.

[Scott Dolan]

You haven't seen some of the modern home studios. They are indeed professionally engineered. And even those that aren't can be corrected through superior software.

Many home studios these days are far superior to professional studios from just a couple of decades ago. Not all, mind you.

[Shawn]

All the software in the world can't approximate the sound of an instrument recorded in a superior physical space. Plugging a guitar into a Marshall Stack, cranking it up and capturing the sound with high-end microphones in a great sounding room does not sound the same as plugging a guitar into a software emulator.

[Scott Dolan]

Any room can be acoustically treated, and professionally calibrated. Any room.

[Shawn]

Any room can be acoustically treated, and professionally calibrated. Any room.

Hopefully no train tracks, highways or airports are nearby, all the acoustical treatment in the world won't stop vibrations getting into the recording.

This is a pointless argument, I think nothing beats a professional recording studio, you think any room (even an outhouse!) can be used for recording. I'm not going to budge on my opinion, you most likely won't either. So this is a useless exercise.

[Ligeti]

What a thread to jump into.

Is streaming saving the music industry? Clearly, no. We sometimes overlook the obvious - musicians are part of the music industry, and I've yet to read a single musician who has come out in support of the likes of Spotify. Seeing as half a million streams of a song generates £3000 (picked up this figure today from a new story on the BBC web site) it is safe to say that nobody is being saved. Spotify argue they give back 80% of revenues (in which case they're not charging even half as much as they should), and they at least give something while piracy gives nothing (a silly statement, since there is a lot of music that is not available even to pirates). They compare their numbers to radio - but that's a totally ridiculous comparison. Spotify is not like listening to the radio.

I'm also going to upset some by my next statement. The legacy musica industry, defined at the major labels, have done some pretty evil things in the past. In fact they continue to. There's no excuse for it. They should be ashamed, and while you can never go back and correct wrongs, they could at least do things right from now on - which apparently isn't happening. BUT - let's pause for a moment and think about all the good they've done. If it were not for the major labels we wouldn't have all those great Miles Davis recordings, the lavish box sets, a historical record going back to the 1900's. A lot of music simply wouldn't have existed without record labels. Even if it did, we'd likely of never gotten a chance to hear it. Record labels need to shape up, but they have left an indelible mark on music that I personally applaud. I am not saying they're perfect, fair, or reasonable. As I say, they need to reverse some fo the things they've gotten used to - at the same time we all enjoy pristine recordings throughout the life of the labels - long before even tape recorders were affordable.

So let's not wish them dead. Let's try to get them to do the right thing.

Also, I really don't want to get involved in the discussion above, but it bothers me when someone exagerates in order to make a point. Every professional recording studio has a level of expertise and quality. Some good, some not so good, true. But home recording? Come on - how many home studios have been "acoustically treated, and professionally calibrated"? Come on. And why is it a good idea for ten people to have ten studios, when one would do? And who is producing this stuff? To what standard? I'm sure there are some very good examples of it, but let's not ignore the bad. Let's have respect for the art of sound reproduction, the engineers, the producers etc. It's silly to suggest it's easy to do at home, or even ultimately cost effective. I supposer Madonna can afford it - but everyone? Hardly.

I am reminded of a time when I did some professional writing (meaning I was being paid to do it). You were never allowed to edit your own work. It made sense - you simply cannot edit your own work. Our brains overlook certain things, we don't see our flaws even if they're glaringly obvious to others. Musicians sometimes - even often - produce their own works. But if you read the liner notes as I assume we all do, they're rarely ever truly alone. And even if they are, are they really the best people for the job? Even at the higher end - take Peter Townsend. He admits to be partially deaf from years of playing. How do you think he'd due producing his own works? Maybe good, but maybe not.

For all the ioppy-dippy flower waving, the "stick it to the man" rants, and people with other agenda's - the truth is I've yet to read a convincing alternative to the big label setup. I know artists who use crowd-funding, produce their own discs sold through their web sites etc. Yes, I know they're out there. At the same time, take someone like Tim Berne and Screwgun Records. Tim is on record (sic) as saying that he can't make money from Screwgun records any more due to piracy. Those records - most live - were completely made and distributed through his own web site, and he still can't make it pay. That's the reality. I think people over-do the benefits of home studios and self-made CD's - surely even the most devote can accept there are down sides? If not, then you're likely not worth debating the topic with. I mean, if all you see when you leave your home is that everything is light - but you never look up and see the sun - then you've clearly got blinders on.

[Д.Д.]

Rather than go back and read this lengthy thread, I believe I came across a discussion that it was possible to listen to Spotify over my traditional home stereo system? My desktop and stereo is located in the same room. I run off a Windows operating system. Can I make this happen? Do I need additional cables? Thanks!

Yes, you can use Gramofon (http://gramofon.com/spotify/ ) with your cell phone as a Spotify remote control.

[Scott Dolan]

Any room can be acoustically treated, and professionally calibrated. Any room.

Hopefully no train tracks, highways or airports are nearby, all the acoustical treatment in the world won't stop vibrations getting into the recording.

This is a pointless argument, I think nothing beats a professional recording studio, you think any room (even an outhouse!) can be used for recording. I'm not going to budge on my opinion, you most likely won't either. So this is a useless exercise.

Point being, any room can be calibrated to be acoustically neutral.

Look, are you going to get the exact same results as a professional studio? No, but for a multitude of reasons. Hell, you aren't going to get the same exact results from any two professional studios!

Either way, it's possible, especially for richer artists, to build a home studio that can rival the big boys. The Barn and Astoria bears that out.

On top of that, if most artists retained the rights to their album sales they could easily afford studio rental fees along with marketing and distribution (the former would essentially be bandwidth for their website), and still make a pretty handsome profit in most cases.

Lastly, yes it is a pointless argument. And no, neither of us will budge. But, let me make it perfectly clear that while I don't agree, I DO completely respect your opinion on the subject. Not only are you a valued and respected member here, but you've never given me a reason to believe that you're simply talking out of your ass just to be heard.

Now, to address the final paragraph in Ligeti's (outstanding username, BTW!) post. Yes, piracy is a major concern. Now more than ever, I'm afraid, since a simple mouse click and Dropbox (not to mention p2p) have made it almost too simple. The Tim Berne example is problematic only because he's a "marginal artist". Smaller audience, smaller results.

But, let's not even begin to fool ourselves that a recording contract with a major label somehow shields any of these artists from piracy. Or, we can state the question this way: which artist has, in the grand scheme, suffered more from piracy? U2, or Tim Berne?

[Shawn]

I think Steven Wilson did it the correct way with The Raven That Refused To Sing.

Book a professional studio, hire Alan Parsons as the recording engineer, record all the instrumentals live-in-the-studio in 6 days. Then complete vocals, mixing and mastering at the home studio later.

Retain all ownership of masters and license the recording to a label for distribution purposes only.

[Scott Dolan]

Fair enough, brother.

[Ligeti]

We're in a new paradigm where people won't buy music unless they've heard it first. The concept of an album is dying slowly. You can't beat free, and you can't appeal to the conscience of people who pirate, because they don't have any with regards to downloads. Artists have to find a way to connect to their fans like never before, which is an advantage of new technologies. I'm thinking of people like Kristen Hersh of Throwing Muses fame. Richard Thompson has a nice sideline in live recordings too - few of them every get distribution beyond his web site.

I can only repeat though - we have a lot to thank the labels for as music lovers.

To me, we won't ever be able to have a reasonable and fair discussion about the music business until be exclude the top 1% of earners. I'm so tired of reading about the likes of Taylor Swift removing herself from Spotify, I didn't know who she is, but having looked it up..... suffice to say that she doesn't relate to the musicians I cherish much at all. Forget the U2's, the Floyds, the Beatles etc. It's the small guys who need the largest voice - and they never get heard.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Ligeti

[JSngry]

It's the small guys who need the largest voice - and they never get heard.

Hello, salient point. The "music industry" is no longer about "records" in any form. It's about....industry. Getting heard is not as important as getting seen. The emerging "industry" is gonna be happy as hell to let all the "artists" own their own material and sell it to a few handfuls of people who still buy stuff. They're going to want to own the images, because that's where the money will be. Hit song = gateway to Imageland. Hit album = Rotary Phone, still works, but really?

Inevitably Emerging Paradigm:

Record Industry = Gentleman Farmer

Music Industry = Monsanto

Either way, though, hold on to your publishing.

[Ligeti]

Music is not about being seen. I think you're confusing music with celebrity. None of the musicians I enjoy and follow with my money are going to care about image - they make music, they don't have need for videos, sponsored hats, fizzy drinks, and movie tie-in's.

This is precisely why I said that for anything meaningful to be done the top 1% need to be excluded. Hell, you could exclude the top 5% for all I care. Fortunately, they don't make any of the music I enjoy. Pop music has always been about image, at least as long I can remember anyway (I go back to the late 60's). But popular music is about fashion, trends, influence. Always has been. But I have no use for any of it. The artists I support don't seem to either.

[JSngry]

No, I'm not confused.

There is music, the business of music, the music business, and the music industry. This thread is about the music industry, and the emerging "new" music industry is increasingly going to be all about, as you put it, "celebrity", which is all about being seen. Not who or what is being seen (much less heard, even much less listened to), but just about having somebody in that place that is being looked at, for however long there is a hook to have that particular occupant looked at.

Am I enthusiastic about this? Not particularly. But the decision is being made without my input.

Idol, Voice, all that stuff, that's your music industry today. It sure as hell ain't the unheard 99% just needing that one big break to get heard. That's now, at best, at the level of the music business.

Wait another 25-50 years when all the old-schoolers, players and audiences are dead, see what's left, who, and how.

It's gonna get a whole helluva worse before it gets better, if you want to look at it in those terms. "Industry" is built on mass, masses demand "content", and the more interchangeable content becomes, the easier it is for industry to thrive. So if the discussion is genuinely about the "music industry", I think we have our answers right in front of us. Resistance might be advisable, but nevertheless remains futile.

This is not really new, but the level of efficiency might be, and the people figuring it out definitely are.

And yet/so, the beat goes on.

[Ligeti]

Yeah, I'm just not understanding your point. The top 1% of the music business has always been about celebrity, fashion etc. Always. At least, it's never been about anything other than that for as long as I can remember. In fact, most of the music I buy today isn't even on major labels. Being a jazz fan, the majors aren't exactly much interested in selling me much beyond Miles Davis reissues. Although I must say, they have done a great job on some of those.

And of course, record labels are about maximizing their investment. I don't have anything against capitalism. I expect them to try and make money, perhaps in ways that bug me. It's expected. I hate commercials on Youtube, and email blasts for the latest casino's. I deal with it. As is often quoted - correctly I think - a minority of releases on a major end up funding smaller projects one way or the other. If they're not interested in smaller acts then the technology will help us remain in the loop of things.

Idol and Voice? I know what they are, but I don't watch them. In fact, I don't watch ANY television. Again, easy to avoid. Does Idol or Voice ever have avant garde jazz artists? How about string quartets playing contemporary composers? I'm going to guess not. As I must accept the majority of people aren't interested in the music I listen to, I accept that the majority of what the labels put out isn't of interest to me either.

What is the music industry doing that any business wouldn't do?

[GA Russell]

Spotify's CEO says today that if Taylor Swift (and of course her label, distributed by Universal) won't let her music be on Spotify, the kids will just go to the pirate sites to get it.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/spotify-ceo-to-taylor-swift-the-pirates-are-going-to-get-you/ar-AA7DCyz?ocid=ansWrap11

[Scott Dolan]

What a douche...

[David Ayers]

Well, streaming is the new PD on this board.

This is a commercial decision by the label in conjunction with the artist to maximise revenue by not on this occasion using the Spotify platform, and in doing so generate publicity.

Nothing really follows from that.

U2 went the opposite way and distributed their album for free on iTunes.

So what, either way.

[JSngry]

Spotify's CEO says today that if Taylor Swift (and of course her label, distributed by Universal) won't let her music be on Spotify, the kids will just go to the pirate sites to get it.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/spotify-ceo-to-taylor-swift-the-pirates-are-going-to-get-you/ar-AA7DCyz?ocid=ansWrap11

And that is more likely to hurt whom - Taylor Swift or Spotify?

All Taylor Swift needs to do is be in the place where people are looking and she'll get her money. If Spotify's not that place, it ain't gonna hurt her.

I sincerely do not believe that "selling records" is going to be a viable primary survival strategy for anybody of any stature in any kind of music. At best, they're promotional tools, calling cards for whatever means of sustainable monetization are out there at any given time.

I mean, in today's world, this shit here is laughable right here, Flintstone-ly analog, but that was the "music industry" at its rip-roarin', nostril-snortin' absolute peak.

Again - Inevitably Emerging Paradigm:

Record Industry = Gentleman Farmer

Music Industry = Monsanto

I hate Monsanto, not only have they skullfucked agriculture, but they also invented Astroturf, thereby skullfucking sports. So I'm ok with the gentleman farmers of the world having this new opportunity to sell to their neighbors. But both "they"s in this equation, the gentleman farmer and their neighbors, should view this as an opportunity for mutually beneficial/reliant protection, not a loss, and for damn sure not an "opportunity" for anything other than a stay of execution for the termination of their Utopic independence/survival/protection. Because if/when Taylor Swift can destroy Monsanto, then good for her, even if the likely outcome is that she'll become her own Monsanto, or partner up with those who will be.

Tell me again how United Artists came to be?

[Scott Dolan]

The once mighty horticultural tattooing industry is also hanging by a thread. There is a definitive parallel there.

[Shawn]

Why are billboards horribly "stone-age"...yet I still see albums advertised on the side of buses to this day? And if you go up on the Sunset Strip (near where those billboard pictures you posted were taken) you'll still find billboards advertising albums.