Is streaming technology saving the music industry?

[Daniel A]

Oh, and one last thing, the whole "cutting edge rebel" remark was in response to his I don't do Facebook/Twitter/television/radio/smartphones blather. Because what he was doing was patting himself on the back for eschewing all the evil things in this society that the rest of us unintelligent schlubs are too weak to resist. Thereby propping himself up as a superior being of sorts.

And in case you don't believe that was his intent, he went ahead and confirmed it for you in his following post where he said:

"It's easy to get sucked into trends without ever making a truly conscious decision to do so."

The cutting edge comment was your first reply to Ligeti. Obviously you found him full of himself, and it bothered you enough to make a sarcastic and rude remark. That kind of action does not exactly serve to generate civil discussion or move the thread forward. I think here are other ways to read Ligeti's post.

Edit: further comments deleted.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Daniel A

[Ligeti]

Scott Dolan - you are the worst kind of Internet bully. Rather than reflect on what you wrote and how it might be interpreted, you simply get increasingly defensive. That's what Internet bullies do. It's not original, interesting, or convincing - and no amount of trying to cover your ass with more nonsense is going to make cover up the fact you posted a lot of assumptive crap to criticize me for buying too much music. Setting aside the fact that you got most of your assumptions plain wrong,

it's all a bit juvenile and dare I say - stupid. Strange how it never once occurs to you to ask someone a question, preferring instead to interject some fantasy of your own. Since you're incapable of self-reflection, and seem to have a habit of assuming the very worst at every turn, how about we simple agree that you and I aren't going to get along, and leave it at that? You have more than 2000 posts on this board - I truly hope a lot of those were constructive, conversational, amiable, and interesting. In other words, the exact opposite of what you've posted here.

Final thought on that - if you want to address your silly comments to me, can I suggest you send them to me in PM? That way you don't derail a topic, and the bullying isn't read by visitors to the board. Seems reasonable, so you'll likely not do it. I tried.

Back to streaming music folks....... I confess I had self-control issues with it. I didn't do well when offered a huge library of things I could play whenever I wanted. This entire process of enjoying music works far better for me when I maintain control over what enters the house, and is limited in some way (usually money). I appreciate others don't suffer this issue, perhaps I'm unique. The trouble is my musical tastes span a wide berth of genres and artists - and Spotify allowed me to access all of it at once. It caused me issues.

Another issue I had with Spotify - cover art is a small JPG - and liner notes were nowhere to be found. The latter is heinous, imo. Yes I could go to Allmusic and get the information, but by the same token I could to a pirate site and get the music too. I'd put it this way, Spotify doesn't feel like a music lovers site. it feels like a commercial enterprise that sells access to albums. It's all a bit corporate. IMO, of course.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Ligeti

[Scott Dolan]

Strange how it never once occurs to you to ask someone a question

Hmmm...

"Just wondered how buying the amount of music you do is somehow different than streaming?"

You might also note in that post that I said that I was glad that you are on the musical journey that you are, and that I hope you get pleasure from it. Because, you know, I like to bully people by saying complimentary things.

[Ligeti]

Give it a rest - you've just proven once again that you've simply gone into defensive mode. I have read your messages, as have others. We seem to interpret them in the same way, and you're busy trying to pretend everyone is wrong except you.

Look - I just don't care. Let it go. Move on. Let's talk about the thread topic and forget the bullying.

[Scott Dolan]

1. There's no wrong or right concerning this. There have been misinterpretations, whether through my own clumsy wording, or reader error.

2. I never once "put you down" for buying the amount of music that you do. I simply wondered, yet again, how that level of consumption was that different from using a streaming service.

3. I also never once said that ANYBODY should consume music the way I do. Not once.

You explained your habits after I asked the question that I never asked , I understood what you were saying and where you were coming from.

Time to move on. But let's please stop with making shit up out of thin air.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Scott Dolan

[Ligeti]

1. There's no wrong or right concerning this. There have been misinterpretations, whether through my own clumsy wording, or reader error.

2. I never once "put you down" for buying the amount of music that you do. I simply wondered, yet again, how that level of consumption was that different from using a streaming service.

3. I also never once said that ANYBODY should consume music the way I do. Not once.

You explained your habits after I asked the question that I never asked , I understood what you were saying and where you were coming from.

Time to move on. But let's please stop with making shit up out of thin air.

You first.

Believe it or not the BBC web site ran a story on that lady I'd never heard of. It occured to me that if I assume Spotify are on the up and up and their statements about fund distribution is correct, then they really ought to consider charging considerably more for their service. Seems to me £20 a month rather than £10 would be a step in the right direction. I wonder where the tippy point is for subscribers?

[David Ayers]

Spotify's fees are based on research showing how much the average purchaser spends per month on music. So they reckon that's the tipping point.

[Scott Dolan]

Is that true, David?!

Isn't the premium fee something like five or ten bucks?!

That doesn't make sense.

[Ligeti]

I'm in the UK. The other evening I downloaded the software and installed the free version. There is a "Get Premium" button - I clicked on it and it wanted £10 a month, around $15...... I swear when I had it before it was half that.... but that's what it wanted. Maybe there's a "Super Premium"?

Here's what their web site says:

Music without limits. Try Premium free for 30 days.

Premium lets you play any song, anytime. You can even listen when you're offline. No restrictions. No ads.

only £9.99 per month

Edited November 14, 2014 by Ligeti

[David Ayers]

Is that true, David?!

Isn't the premium fee something like five or ten bucks?!

That doesn't make sense.

Yes it's true. That is what your average punter spends. Of course that includes everybody who buys music, not just collectors. That said, the average spend is probably less now than ever. Few young people pay for music under any circumstances.

[Ligeti]

£10 is basically one CD a month or thereabouts. If you're someone who listens to a lot of music on the radio, or are into buying MP3's, then it's probably good value. Personally it doesn't suit me. I think I will be forced to go purely digital eventually, but it certainly won't include me handing over money for MP3 files.

The biggest problem for the recording industry is surely the younger generations who are growing up never accepting music has to be paid for - as David wrote.

I'd really appreciate a vendor who designed a site to satisfy collectors though, with a focus on at least trying to match the physical product in terms of information etc.

Spotify's fees are based on research showing how much the average purchaser spends per month on music. So they reckon that's the tipping point.

Sorry, I didn't see this post until after I'd clicked POST.

Huh, it seems rather simplistic doesn't it? I mean, the average person today isn't buying anywhere near the amount of music as I have and do. Doesn't taking an average like that water everything down to such an extent the free guys are winning, and the artists are losing? Maybe I'm over-reacting. Returning to my earlier point, the fee needs to be a lot more if artists are going to get the kind of return that will make them happy. Seems with this pricing model Spotify will never be a good deal for the artists.

[Scott Dolan]

Of course it's never going to be a good deal for the artists. That's kinda been the entire point of this thread.

That said, I'm not sure why you'd be adverse to going fully digital (files). The modern codecs are so advanced these days, and most companies, i.e. iTunes, are selling them at such high bit rates that it's nearly impossible to discern a difference between them and their CD counterpart. I've tried several times. On computer sub/sats, through my main system loudspeakers, and through my headphones through my main system and headphone amp.

I've tried to talk myself into hearing a difference, but the AAC files that iTunes sells sound no different than CD as far as I can tell.

Either way, it's definitely the future, and having become quite the minimalist in recent years, I actually welcome it.

[Ligeti]

Reasons I don't like MP3's (and some other digital formats):

1. There is often no price advantage
2. Often they only sell parts of albums (seems to be tracks over 12 minutes don't get sold on amazon)
3. I won't ever give money to Apple - I will never install iTunes, nor buy their products
4. If I'm going to go digital, I want something better than I have now, otherwise I might as well stick with what I have. I've never heard an MP3 that is better than a CD
5. MP3's don't have cover art, and don't have liner notes - both of which interest me greatly
6. There are non-lossy formats out there that are much more compelling
7. I come from a background of buying physical product, and I am accustomed to having my music that way
8. I sometimes trade CD's or (rarely) sell them. You can't do that with an MP3 (if you're going to do it with an MP3 you might as well use nefarious web sites)

For me MP3's are a non-starter. I admit - I just don't feel there is any value in them. Clicking on an MP3 is not, for me, a satisfying experience. I make MP3's of recordings because I want to play my music on the go - but when at home I don't have a reason to play them - I have a perfectly good setup without them.

And yes, of course digital files are the future - no doubt. Hence I never went back to vinyl. If I'm going to move away from CD, it will be a lossless digital format. It seems to me that it's inevitable - but that doesn't mean I am in any rush to get there. In truth, much of the music I buy is back catalog. While I've had two instances this week where a release was announced and there is no CD, it's rare. Of course, with new music it will get increasingly common, and a move will be forced. On the other hand, I might be able to sneak it. I don't have infinite time left on the planet, after all, and as stated earlier, with 2500 items in my WIsh List, it'll take plenty of time to get through them.

EDIT: A year or so ago I downloaded and installed several MP3 Catalog applications (not iTunes, but I've already said I won't ever use Apple products). They were universally horrible. Maybe they've gotten better in the mean time...... Tonight I went on Spotify to listen to an album I'd just read about..... and inevitably, they don't have it. I tried another, and they never had that. Pffft. They cater to a mainstream audience mainly - which makes sense money wise - but as a music lover with eclectic tastes, it's a long way from being a perfect tool, imo.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Ligeti

[Shawn]

Dave Grohl weighs in on the Taylor Swift/Spotify debate:

“I don’t fucking care.”

“I want people to hear our music, I don’t care if you pay $1 or fucking $20 for it, just listen to the fucking song,” he added. “But I can understand how other people would object to that.”

“You want people to fucking listen to your music? Give them your music. And then go play a show,” Grohl said. “They like hearing your music? They’ll go see a show."

http://www.avclub.com/article/dave-grohl-enters-spotify-debate-says-he-doesnt-fu-211892?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default

[Ligeti]

I've heard the view that live shows is where it's at. My main issue with it is that it may work for top rock acts, but what about everyone else? If I feel like listening to some Ligeto tonight, just where would I go to see it performed live? It's difficult enough for Jazz acts to find a venue, let alone an audience to fill the place.

I think what he's saying is true of popular music - but I don't know about you, but I've not been part of the scene for some time.

[JSngry]

Dave Grohl weighs in on the Taylor Swift/Spotify debate:

“I don’t fucking care.”

“I want people to hear our music, I don’t care if you pay $1 or fucking $20 for it, just listen to the fucking song,” he added. “But I can understand how other people would object to that.”

“You want people to fucking listen to your music? Give them your music. And then go play a show,” Grohl said. “They like hearing your music? They’ll go see a show."

http://www.avclub.com/article/dave-grohl-enters-spotify-debate-says-he-doesnt-fu-211892?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default

You know I loveoratleastverymuchlike Dave Grohl, but that formula only works if you

• can get a gig and/or a venue
• can get people out of the house
• can do this often enough to make enough money to keep going
• can do this for enough people at one time so you can keep going
• etc

Certainly love the spirit of Grohl's attitude, always have, but if that's how it's going to work, then local bands playing alternative music with limited "popular" appeal are only going to get more local and even less appealing.

Hopefully getting back into this lunacy in a few months, and dreams of anything past being extremely local and totally unappealing are virtually non-existent. But so are expectations of ever again doing a strictly-for-sale record/document/whatever.

So...I'll give it away, put on a show, maybe 5-10 people will show up, and I'll not quit my day job. Big thanks for small favors, eh?

Which of course begs the question, well, if I were better, more people would come. And maybe they would. But there's any numbers of adjectives you could use instead of "better", and believe me, people have been using them for centuries, and would things be better or worse if they accepted the reality, or is it denial that keeps things going for better and worse?

So consumers of the world, relax - there are always going to be people to make noise of some sort for you to put in your ear. Always.

[Shawn]

The reality is that a very small percentage of professional musicians are actually going to be able to support themselves entirely from their music. A lot of people need to face the fact that their day job is going to remain a necessity.

While I think the revenue from streaming is ridiculously small, I still think it's an advantage for a smaller artists to at least get their music out there and get some free publicity for it. Maybe some of those people that find your music on Spotify will go see one of your shows, or might buy your album via bandcamp or some other similar site. I know I've discovered quite a few bands via Spotify that I might never have heard otherwise...and I've gone and seen some of thme in concert, sometimes I've also bought t-shirts and LPs or CDs.

A minuscule royalty check from a streaming site is still better than receiving nothing from illegal downloads.

[psu_13]

The live show argument would be more compelling if every non-classical (and non-jazz) live show I ever went to, except for two or three, didn't sound like complete crap.

[JSngry]

A minuscule royalty check from a streaming site is still better than receiving nothing from illegal downloads.

Maybe, maybe not...there's something to be said for genuinely not giving a fuck if you see a dime when it comes to music-making. Otherwise, not so much, but at least for that, maybe.

[Scott Dolan]

Reasons I don't like MP3's (and some other digital formats):

• There is often no price advantage
• Often they only sell parts of albums (seems to be tracks over 12 minutes don't get sold on amazon)
• I won't ever give money to Apple - I will never install iTunes, nor buy their products
• If I'm going to go digital, I want something better than I have now, otherwise I might as well stick with what I have. I've never heard an MP3 that is better than a CD
• MP3's don't have cover art, and don't have liner notes - both of which interest me greatly
• There are non-lossy formats out there that are much more compelling
• I come from a background of buying physical product, and I am accustomed to having my music that way
• I sometimes trade CD's or (rarely) sell them. You can't do that with an MP3 (if you're going to do it with an MP3 you might as well use nefarious web sites)

1. I have no idea if that's true since I no longer buy CDs.

2. If that's the case on Amazon, that's a shame. It is definitely not the case on iTunes.

3. Fair enough.

4. I never said digital files sounded better than CD. But 256kbps VBR AAC (the standard for iTunes) sounds just as good.

5. All AAC files from iTunes have cover art, and many of them do indeed have liner notes. And more and more are being added everyday. I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but it is terribly outdated.

6. I have multiple albums which I have converted to both ALAC as well as higher bitrate AAC. ALAC is no more compelling than AAC, and neither are less compelling than CD/.wav.

7. So keep buying physical media. I personally have moved away from it so that I can avoid more clutter.

8. You can trade files to your hearts content. Just get something like Dropbox. Sure, you can't sell them, but since you say you rarely do it, I'm not seeing the big deal.

Either way, many of your opinions seem uninformed, or at best about ten years old. The technology has moved forward by leaps and bounds.

Another enormous advantage is that when you purchase music through iTunes, it's yours for life. Pretty sure Amazon is the same way. So for example, lets say your house burns down. Everyone's worst nightmare. Well, how will you replace all of those CDs that were lost? Well, if you bought your albums through a service like iTunes, they are all still right there on your account. So all you have to do is download them again without paying a penny out of your pocket.

That's an unparalleled upside.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Scott Dolan

[Shawn]

Tracks over 12 minutes long generally are only available if you purchase the entire album, they are not available as individual track downloads.

______________________________

Is anyone else getting tired of this endless sniping back and forth going on in this thread? Some of these comments are getting mighty personal.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Shawn

[Ligeti]

Reasons I don't like MP3's (and some other digital formats):

• There is often no price advantage
• Often they only sell parts of albums (seems to be tracks over 12 minutes don't get sold on amazon)
• I won't ever give money to Apple - I will never install iTunes, nor buy their products
• If I'm going to go digital, I want something better than I have now, otherwise I might as well stick with what I have. I've never heard an MP3 that is better than a CD
• MP3's don't have cover art, and don't have liner notes - both of which interest me greatly
• There are non-lossy formats out there that are much more compelling
• I come from a background of buying physical product, and I am accustomed to having my music that way
• I sometimes trade CD's or (rarely) sell them. You can't do that with an MP3 (if you're going to do it with an MP3 you might as well use nefarious web sites)

1. I have no idea if that's true since I no longer buy CDs.

2. If that's the case on Amazon, that's a shame. It is definitely not the case on iTunes.

3. Fair enough.

4. I never said digital files sounded better than CD. But 256kbps VBR AAC (the standard for iTunes) sounds just as good.

5. All AAC files from iTunes have cover art, and many of them do indeed have liner notes. And more and more are being added everyday. I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but it is terribly outdated.

6. I have multiple albums which I have converted to both ALAC as well as higher bitrate AAC. ALAC is no more compelling than AAC, and neither are less compelling than CD/.wav.

7. So keep buying physical media. I personally have moved away from it so that I can avoid more clutter.

8. You can trade files to your hearts content. Just get something like Dropbox. Sure, you can't sell them, but since you say you rarely do it, I'm not seeing the big deal.

Either way, many of your opinions seem uninformed, or at best about ten years old. The technology has moved forward by leaps and bounds.

Another enormous advantage is that when you purchase music through iTunes, it's yours for life. Pretty sure Amazon is the same way. So for example, lets say your house burns down. Everyone's worst nightmare. Well, how will you replace all of those CDs that were lost? Well, if you bought your albums through a service like iTunes, they are all still right there on your account. So all you have to do is download them again without paying a penny out of your pocket.

That's an unparalleled upside.

1. It's not difficult to check, but why you would I don't know since it's not a consideration for you.

2. I don't care about iTunes, it's not at all relevant to me, since I won't ever use it.

3. Indeed.

4. You know what's just as good. Buying the CD, making your own MP3's at whatever bitrate you want.

5. Irrelevant - I won't ever use iTunes or Apple products.

6. 24-bit and more, with lossless, is better than any lossy format. FLAC is better than MP3. I much prefer the data to be in the file.

7. Avoid clutter? Wow. It's not clutter, it's a collection. It's part of who I am, my musical journey. It's anything but clutter, it's important beyond simply holding physical music. I can't see ever feeling the same way about a hard disk. But each to their own, I don't see any value in just having the files. I think it's great when I go to someones house and they have a collection to look through. Not true of looking at folder and files.

8. Nah, it's daft. To me they're just files, like documents and spreadsheets. Sure I can copy them for someone else, which I'm suggesting is the normal way it goes rather than truly trading. And seriously, Dropbox? So now I need another account and password, and another site I need to deal with. No thanks, CD's by comparison is nice flexible, and simple. Like me.

The music you buy from iTunes is yours until they don't sell music anymore, change their terms and conditions, or maybe even forever. Personally I don't want to be reliant on a software vendor. Whatever - I have the CD. I can make MP3 files whenever I want, as many times as I want.

As for my house burning down - you ever heard of insurance?

Plus - just about every CD you buy on Amazon comes with the MP3 version which they store for you in the cloud........ not that ever I access them...... but it's there.

[Clunky]

I've lived with Spotify premium for about a year . My use is pretty settled now , I use it really as a quality sampling service that allows me to decide whether I buy a CD or LP of a given session. I think the cost is justified for the money (and shelf space) I save not buying dates which I'd return to rarely. I don't find Sporify good for sustained listening. If I find something that interesting I'll seek out a physical copy if possible.

My only gripe about Spotify is that I can't ever seen to find any of the African music that MG shares here. Probably because I have no idea what I'm looking for.

[medjuck]

I've already said I won't ever use Apple products). T

And your reason is.....?

[David Ayers]

On the topic of the advantage to musicians and labels of exposure on Spotify, it is worth remembering that many independent labels, jazz and classical and no doubt all genres, have massive chunks of their catalogues on Spotify.

Of course the labels can add or withdraw material at will - ECM were on for a time but plainly thought they were losing money and did a Taylor Swift. When ECM were on Spotify it stimulated me to buy their stuff. But I may be one if a minority using Spotify as an extended sampler, and of course I only bought a few of the many titles I audited. But now I have moved on to Intakt and NotTwo, same principle. Similarly in classical I investigate BIS and Ondine.