Music industry better off with streaming...

[uofmtiger]

I hear a lot of talk about people getting rid of their music and plan on streaming from now on.

A lot of people sold their vinyl albums and moved to CDs. There are still a lot of vinyl albums out there. I suspect CDs and their ripped files will outlast us by a long, long time.

With CD's seemingly going away long term forecast and even new cars without any players we could wake up one day with a couple huge corporations owning the rights to the music and running the show on streaming.

CDs aren't going away. There are hundreds of billions of CDs already out in the world and many of them have been ripped to drives. What proof is there that we are anywhere close to the CD/files being eliminated from Earth? I see nothing showing that this is happening.

We could wake up one day and be in a nuclear war, famine, electric power grids under attack or aliens from other worlds coming here to destroy us. If huge corporations take over the music business (which I thought they already had?), I think their goal will be similar to their goal now. Make a profit and/or use it as a way to make money in another part of their business. Corporations aren't going to just hoard music and not make it available. I think the chances of a meteor hitting earth would be more probable.

and at that point they could quite easily raise prices, maybe not uncomfortably high at first like PB, but high enough.

Don't know what you mean by "high enough"? If prices get unreasonably high, more people will find illegal ways to get their music. That is the alternative and as long as we have an internet that makes it easy to get files from point A to point B, it will continue to be streaming's main competition.

I If the big corps (apple, amazon etc) decide to start sign exclusive contracts it could be a deal changer for us listeners. Watch out for the hooks, subscription software is loaded with them, and while streaming is still wide open it may not always be so.

It would be more of a deal changer for artists. Being able to get rid of one of the middle men could be more money for the artist. Even when you get anti-trust laws out of the conversation, Apple and Amazon sell a lot of other stuff, so coming out with the idea that they want to buy up all music and the make it very expensive to access would hurt their branding and would eventually make them so unpopular that music fans (which is most people) would consider them to be hostage takers. Not sure any company would want to go down that road.

I'm just saying, enjoy the free ride, and think carefully about it before unloading your CD's at the flee market..

I haven't touched a CD in a long time, but there really isn't much point in getting rid of the music files I own. Even lossless versions take up relatively little space, so not much point in deleting all of them. I still have every CD I own in boxes, but I would guess that most of the CDs you are seeing at the flee market have already been ripped to a hard drive. Apple, Google, and Amazon all have services that will allow you to match your files to the cloud and download them to a computer of your choice. It would take generations for the physical media and probably longer for the digital media to go away.

In other words, I don't think people should just throw all the music they have in the trash, but I don't think that is happening with much frequency, either.

 

[Alobar]

Don't know what you mean by "high enough"? If prices get unreasonably high, more people will find illegal ways to get their music. That is the alternative and as long as we have an internet that makes it easy to get files from point A to point B, it will continue to be streaming's main competition.

I think high enough will be when they stop hemorrhaging red ink for their shareholders. How high that has to be is for someone like +48V to fill us in on.

Amazon sell a lot of other stuff, so coming out with the idea that they want to buy up all music and the make it very expensive to access would hurt their branding and would eventually make them so unpopular that music fans (which is most people) would consider them to be hostage takers. Not sure any company would want to go down that road.

But subscription software is in a way hostage takers already. Norton is always offering to set up all my passwords with them. How long would I have them if I didn't renew? Take photo software such as Adobe for instance. It is going subscription based which means that if you do a bunch of work to your photos, clean them up, organize them with elaborate tags etc, the minute you stop making payments to that company, ALL your work and time just went down the drain. You may say what does that have to do with streaming? Well perhaps nothing, or, if you are like me you want music in your collection, and with streaming in our immediate future some of us are going to collect from within whichever streaming outfit we have hitched our wagon to. Thousands of tracks, built up over time, perhaps years will be down the drain if they suddenly decide to raise rates. I for one like to have my music with me over the long haul, decades even. Any music library simply must be there, perhaps for the rest of my life. Now granted not everyone is like that. Some don't care if they ever hear the same song again ever. It is like a huge FM station and there is no hook in that, but for me I couldn't easily abandon Spotify or Tidal or whoever just like that with all the thousands of tracks I would have to search and get back in my favorites with the next streaming scheme. That is a huge hook for me to stay no matter how much they suddenly start charging. I am at that point at their mercy.

In other words, I don't think people should just throw all the music they have in the trash, but I don't think that is happening with much frequency, either.

I hear it quite a bit on AK.

 

[tubeyea]

uofmtiger said: ↑
In other words, I don't think people should just throw all the music they have in the trash, but I don't think that is happening with much frequency, either.


I hear it quite a bit on AK.[/QUOTE]

Please cite.

 

[uofmtiger]

I think high enough will be when they stop hemorrhaging red ink for their shareholders. How high that has to be is for someone like +48V to fill us in on.


But subscription software is in a way hostage takers already. Norton is always offering to set up all my passwords with them. How long would I have them if I didn't renew? Take photo software such as Adobe for instance. It is going subscription based which means that if you do a bunch of work to your photos, clean them up, organize them with elaborate tags etc, the minute you stop making payments to that company, ALL your work and time just went down the drain. You may say what does that have to do with streaming? Well perhaps nothing, or, if you are like me you want music in your collection, and with streaming in our immediate future some of us are going to collect from within whichever streaming outfit we have hitched our wagon to. Thousands of tracks, built up over time, perhaps years will be down the drain if they suddenly decide to raise rates. I for one like to have my music with me over the long haul, decades even. Any music library simply must be there, perhaps for the rest of my life. Now granted not everyone is like that. Some don't care if they ever hear the same song again ever. It is like a huge FM station and there is no hook in that, but for me I couldn't easily abandon Spotify or Tidal or whoever just like that with all the thousands of tracks I would have to search and get back in my favorites with the next streaming scheme. That is a huge hook for me to stay no matter how much they suddenly start charging. I am at that point at their mercy.


I hear it quite a bit on AK.

Last I checked, Apple, Google and Amazon were doing quite well. Show me the financials that show any of them on the brink or disappointing their shareholders with streaming. This is a point you have brought up numerous times. Is Apple/Amazon/Google going out of business and no one told me about it? Your point only applies to small companies that are competing with the most powerful companies in the world. I would bet against these smaller companies before I would bet that they would have the power to drive prices upward. If anything, these three would lock in on prices to eliminate the competition.

As I already mentioned, the downside to paid streaming is that you have nothing (other than the experience) when you stop paying. That being said, the competing services, like Apple Music/Google, allow you to import playlists from other services, so if Tidal raises their prices, it is easy to move your playlists to a service that has a better business model.

Also, as I said before, streaming isn’t for everyone. It is simply where most of the market is and is headed.

 

[Alobar]

Is Apple/Amazon/Google going out of business and no one told me about it? Your point only applies to small companies that are competing with the most powerful companies in the world. I would bet against these smaller companies before I would bet that they would have the power to drive prices upward. If anything, these three would lock in on prices to eliminate the competition.

I'm old fashioned I guess. I am used to divisions of companies being required to make profit.. The new model says otherwise.
I think even the biggest still compete among one another though. They seem to eliminate the competition not by running them out of biz but to buy them out.

As I already mentioned, the downside to paid streaming is that you have nothing (other than the experience) when you stop paying. That being said, the competing services, like Apple Music/Google, allow you to import playlists from other services, so if Tidal raises their prices, it is easy to move your playlists to a service that has a better business model.

Sounds good!

Also, as I said before, streaming isn’t for everyone. It is simply where most of the market is and is headed.

I can't say it isn't for everyone. Even me, an extreme skeptic on streaming has had and will again have a streaming account. I use them for auditioning and discovery only and then buy the new music I like. My real concern is the future. No way to tell what will become of the future of music under this. What will happen once the newness wears off and companies want to actually make a profit with it? As I said all along, stream away, but don't get rid of your hard copy music.

 

[uofmtiger]

I'm old fashioned I guess. I am used to divisions of companies being required to make profit.. The new model says otherwise.
I think even the biggest still compete among one another though. They seem to eliminate the competition not by running them out of biz but to buy them out.

Sounds good!


I can't say it isn't for everyone. Even me, an extreme skeptic on streaming has had and will again have a streaming account. I use them for auditioning and discovery only and then buy the new music I like. My real concern is the future. No way to tell what will become of the future of music under this. What will happen once the newness wears off and companies want to actually make a profit with it? As I said all along, stream away, but don't get rid of your hard copy music.

I was referring to paid (on demand) streaming (which we have been discussing). I can say that it isn't for my parents, my girlfriend, or a lot of people I know. They simply don't listen to enough music to make it worth $10 a month. Heck, I added my girlfriend to my Apple Music account and after a month she hadn't even opened the app, so I went back to just paying for myself.

First off, there is no evidence that the bigger companies aren't making a profit on streaming. If you have that proof, I would like to see it. As I have mentioned several times, Apple puts streaming into their "Services" division which is one the fastest growing segments of their company. They don't break out the smaller items like streaming, so shareholders have no clue if they, Amazon or Google for that matter, are making or losing money with streaming. Music Streaming, in a bubble, is minuscule to their bottom lines. Assuming they aren't making a profit, which is a stretch, they are eating the cost for a reason. It is to get you more involved in their hardware or to sell you ads (or both).

Apple for example, makes most of their money on the iPhone. Siri (Apple Watch, iPad, Mac, AppleTV, iPhone and the coming HomePod) is only compatible with one paid streaming service....Apple Music. If you get accustomed to using Siri with Apple Music every day, chances are better than you will stay loyal to Apple. Apple doesn't just sell the iPhone, they sell an ecosystem and that is how they have a "stickiness" that other companies can just dream of.

Below is a quote from a Recode article that explains the concept better:

"4. It’s the glue that sells more Apple products.
This is perhaps the most important point, and a good reason why Apple’s Services business couldn’t easily be split off from the rest of the company.

It’s not just a random internet business, it’s a key part of what makes Apple’s tightly integrated hardware, software and services ecosystem work so well together.

Ideally, that creates loyalty and lock-in. So if someone buys an iPhone and gets hooked on Apple’s services, the hope is that they’ll be more likely to buy an iPad, Mac, Apple TV and Watch — and more services — and maybe even a car someday."

As a side note, companies have had products/services they hand out, sell below cost or at cost to boost up customer loyalty for a long time. No one is going to the checker at your local bank and saying that the lollipops they are handing out are blowing their bottom lines. In this case, Apple Music, Google Music, and Amazon Music are all using streaming like a lollipop and it probably puts about as big of a dent in the bottom line (if we assume they are all operating at a loss..which I doubt) as a lollipop to my local bank.

I agree that the streaming companies that are failing would have a better chance of being merged in with another company or being bought by Facebook or a tech giant with big pockets. My main point was that Tidal and Spotify have no control over Apple/Amazon/Google pricing. I don't believe your hypothetical that they would raise prices over their competitors to begin with. They would sell the company or merge it with another company before they committed harry carry.

 

[Alobar]

I was referring to paid (on demand) streaming (which we have been discussing). I can say that it isn't for my parents, my girlfriend, or a lot of people I know. They simply don't listen to enough music to make it worth $10 a month. Heck, I added my girlfriend to my Apple Music account and after a month she hadn't even opened the app, so I went back to just paying for myself.

First off, there is no evidence that the bigger companies aren't making a profit on streaming. If you have that proof, I would like to see it. As I have mentioned several times, Apple puts streaming into their "Services" division which is one the fastest growing segments of their company. They don't break out the smaller items like streaming, so shareholders have no clue if they, Amazon or Google for that matter, are making or losing money with streaming. Music Streaming, in a bubble, is minuscule to their bottom lines. Assuming they aren't making a profit, which is a stretch, they are eating the cost for a reason. It is to get you more involved in their hardware or to sell you ads (or both).

Apple for example, makes most of their money on the iPhone. Siri (Apple Watch, iPad, Mac, AppleTV, iPhone and the coming HomePod) is only compatible with one paid streaming service....Apple Music. If you get accustomed to using Siri with Apple Music every day, chances are better than you will stay loyal to Apple. Apple doesn't just sell the iPhone, they sell an ecosystem and that is how they have a "stickiness" that other companies can just dream of.

Below is a quote from a Recode article that explains the concept better:

"4. It’s the glue that sells more Apple products.
This is perhaps the most important point, and a good reason why Apple’s Services business couldn’t easily be split off from the rest of the company.

It’s not just a random internet business, it’s a key part of what makes Apple’s tightly integrated hardware, software and services ecosystem work so well together.

Ideally, that creates loyalty and lock-in. So if someone buys an iPhone and gets hooked on Apple’s services, the hope is that they’ll be more likely to buy an iPad, Mac, Apple TV and Watch — and more services — and maybe even a car someday."

As a side note, companies have had products/services they hand out, sell below cost or at cost to boost up customer loyalty for a long time. No one is going to the checker at your local bank and saying that the lollipops they are handing out are blowing their bottom lines. In this case, Apple Music, Google Music, and Amazon Music are all using streaming like a lollipop and it probably puts about as big of a dent in the bottom line (if we assume they are all operating at a loss..which I doubt) as a lollipop to my local bank.

I agree that the streaming companies that are failing would have a better chance of being merged in with another company or being bought by Facebook or a tech giant with big pockets. My main point was that Tidal and Spotify have no control over Apple/Amazon/Google pricing. I don't believe your hypothetical that they would raise prices over their competitors to begin with. They would sell the company or merge it with another company before they committed harry carry.

Well you have certainly defended streaming well and have brought up good points without the need to attack. I've probably learned more about streaming from you than most others. Still having difficulty seeing how such a paltry monthly sum can get us so much music knowing that this is going to seriously put a huge dent in the traditional income stream of sales of music from now on. The premise of this thread being the self proclamation by industry that it is better off with streaming. If they say so it must be so, but I just wonder who is keeping the lights on and who isn't under this new shift in music playback.. Maybe it is all good, great in fact.

If what everyone has been telling me is in fact true, that the artists are being compensated as well as before streaming then I have nothing further to bitch about. Not convinced at this point however. +48V has yet to provide data to back up the claims and answer a few questions but he is a busy guy so may get to it at some point. If it is true, what I would like to see is software, perhaps third party that will make the streaming experience more like what I can do with JRiver. Imagine setting up metadata driven playlists that can pull from millions of tracks from all sorts of criteria. I like a certain musician and I could easily follow him or her through their various bands etc and instantly create playlists based on that. I understand Roon has some of this now and can seamlessly play from online and personal drive sources but they are expensive, and subscription based which I strongly dislike. There is a lot that can be improved on. I think they all should now be streaming in lossless as a base. I don't care about MQA and all the bs that goes with it including new MQA DAC's etc. I don't even need or want Hi Rez, but 16/44.1 FLAC shouldn't be that difficult to manage. And of course the ability to stream in mp3 for the car or otherwise through the cell network where bandwidth is more dear.

 

[uofmtiger]

Well you have certainly defended streaming well and have brought up good points without the need to attack. I've probably learned more about streaming from you than most others. Still having difficulty seeing how such a paltry monthly sum can get us so much music knowing that this is going to seriously put a huge dent in the traditional income stream of sales of music from now on. The premise of this thread being the self proclamation by industry that it is better off with streaming. If they say so it must be so, but I just wonder who is keeping the lights on and who isn't under this new shift in music playback.. Maybe it is all good, great in fact.

If what everyone has been telling me is in fact true, that the artists are being compensated as well as before streaming then I have nothing further to bitch about. Not convinced at this point however. +48V has yet to provide data to back up the claims and answer a few questions but he is a busy guy so may get to it at some point. If it is true, what I would like to see is software, perhaps third party that will make the streaming experience more like what I can do with JRiver. Imagine setting up metadata driven playlists that can pull from millions of tracks from all sorts of criteria. I like a certain musician and I could easily follow him or her through their various bands etc and instantly create playlists based on that. I understand Roon has some of this now and can seamlessly play from online and personal drive sources but they are expensive, and subscription based which I strongly dislike. There is a lot that can be improved on. I think they all should now be streaming in lossless as a base. I don't care about MQA and all the bs that goes with it including new MQA DAC's etc. I don't even need or want Hi Rez, but 16/44.1 FLAC shouldn't be that difficult to manage. And of course the ability to stream in mp3 for the car or otherwise through the cell network where bandwidth is more dear.

I am glad I have provided useful points to the conversation.

I love the "For You" section of Apple Music. The playlists and albums they recommend are typically spot on. However, I would love to see additional features, like Roon employs, than what we have now. As you said, Roon is expensive, but for those that need the ultimate use of metadata, none of the services can touch them. I am happy enough with the For You suggestions, but I would love to see Apple buy out Roon and use the tech in iTunes and Apple Music.

I just think that too many options may be the main reason why we haven't seen that happen. Just the number of genres Roon can pull out of one song can be overwhelming. I believe Apple and Google both realize that most people listen to music on their phones, so they probably don't want an extensive list of options. Even with Apple Music's current interface, you have a lot of people wanting even more simplicity.

Lossless is available on Tidal. Very few people in the on demand streaming market care enough to pay extra for it. The world isn't really full of audiophiles and I would bet most people couldn't tell which version was lossless when comparing them to the compressed streaming versions with any statistical accuracy. Apple Music often uses Mastered for iTunes versions of the files that are remastered specifically for AAC, so some people might actually prefer some of the 256k remastered albums to the CD. That being said, with Apple touting the sound quality of their upcoming HomePod, maybe they will eventually add a lossless tier to Apple Music as a way for Apple Music and the HomePod to fall in line as the best sounding option in the smart speaker market.

 

[Alobar]

I love the "For You" section of Apple Music. The playlists and albums they recommend are typically spot on. However, I would love to see additional features, like Roon employs, than what we have now. As you said, Roon is expensive, but for those that need the ultimate use of metadata, none of the services can touch them. I am happy enough with the For You suggestions, but I would love to see Apple buy out Roon and use the tech in iTunes and Apple Music.

I have not as of yet considered Apple Music because I don't run Apple hardware and it usually seems that Apple limits the functionality on other platforms as a lure to buy hardware from them. Being primarily a hardware company it is understandable, but certain apps and programs I use heavily keep me running Windows and Android. Maybe Roon would be a good fit for Itunes and maybe not. I think Itunes could certainly benefit from Roon, as Itunes just never had the functionality I wanted. Most people don't want to spend time learning new software so Itunes is a good fit, and for those that want more functionality, Roon might fill the void.

Lossless is available on Tidal. Very few people in the on demand streaming market care enough to pay extra for it.

Oh absolutely true. It takes several things going on at once before the differences come out IMO. First the sound system has to be good enough, second hearing abilities need to be good. Then the ability to listen comes to play. Frankly the differences even then are such that the vast majority of people even if they could hear a difference simply don't care. And for what I use a streaming service for, auditioning and discovery, it is okay although I would probably be more willing to use it more often if its sound and interface were as good as my own media. I am in a minority, probably a marginalized one and can't expect them to jump through hoops over.

 

[tubeyea]

Tidal lossless streaming is certainly as good as anyone's own media as long as they have the kit to render it properly. In this case when I refer to kit I'm referring to a properly setup dedicated computer configured for music playback, properly set tidal lossless settings (or Deezer elite for that matter) and a fast internet connection.

I've seen postings on this forum disputing this fact but nothing that adequately backs up their assertion.

While lossless streaming naysayers dispute the difference between lossless streaming and 320 bit streaming as far as the ability of anyone being able to tell the difference reliably, in nearly the same breath or another thread they'll assert that it isn't as good as hard media from a sound quality standpoint. But it simply isn't true, I understand an attachment to hard media, I like it too but it's high time the constant spreading of false information with regard to streaming and lossless streaming in particular stop in the defense of hard media.

Hard media, like streaming in 2017 simply is. It will always be.

Digital downloads and streaming are a wonderful addition to our mutual obsession, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[E-Stat]

Tidal lossless streaming is certainly as good as anyone's own media as long as they have the kit to render it properly. In this case when I refer to kit I'm referring to a properly setup dedicated computer configured for music playback, properly set tidal lossless settings

I use an LMS based system playing Tidal through either a microRendu or Raspberry PI endpoint. The setting is pretty straight forward. No biggie.

 

[tubeyea]

I use an LMS based system playing Tidal through either a microRendu or Raspberry PI endpoint. The setting is pretty straight forward. No biggie.

Very true yet some don't do the simple settings check to assure they are getting what the format is capable of.

 

[E-Stat]

Very true yet some don't do the simple settings check to assure they are getting what the format is capable of.

I guess I'm the curious sort. And enjoy lossless playback.

 

[uofmtiger]

I have not as of yet considered Apple Music because I don't run Apple hardware and it usually seems that Apple limits the functionality on other platforms as a lure to buy hardware from them.

Exactly, that was my main point. Most of their services are there to help sell hardware.

Tidal lossless streaming is certainly as good as anyone's own media as long as they have the kit to render it properly. In this case when I refer to kit I'm referring to a properly setup dedicated computer configured for music playback, properly set tidal lossless settings (or Deezer elite for that matter) and a fast internet connection.

I've seen postings on this forum disputing this fact but nothing that adequately backs up their assertion.

While lossless streaming naysayers dispute the difference between lossless streaming and 320 bit streaming as far as the ability of anyone being able to tell the difference reliably, in nearly the same breath or another thread they'll assert that it isn't as good as hard media from a sound quality standpoint. But it simply isn't true, I understand an attachment to hard media, I like it too but it's high time the constant spreading of false information with regard to streaming and lossless streaming in particular stop in the defense of hard media.

Hard media, like streaming in 2017 simply is. It will always be.

Digital downloads and streaming are a wonderful addition to our mutual obsession, nothing more, nothing less.

I am not anti-lossless for sure. I have all of my own music ripped to lossless.

That being said, I don't think very many people can ABX differences between 320k and lossless with statistical accuracy. Either their equipment can't show the difference, the music they listen to can't show the difference, and/or their ears can't detect the difference. You have to be trained to listen for certain cues and most people are't going to do that (and probably shouldn't because I think it it gets in the way of enjoying music). I think the bigger issue is mastering. The "loudness wars" left us with a lot of albums with compressed dynamic range. Apple has their Mastered for iTunes program to help alleviate that issue for artists that care about it. Not sure you can say a well mastered 256k AAC file will sound worse than a poorly mastered lossless file (especially those with clipped wave forms). Of course, I am hoping Apple offers the original source files from Mastered for iTunes program rather than the AAC files, which would have the potential to give us great mastering and lossless (24 bit) files.

Of course, I have no issue with the people that subscribe to Tidal, I just don't think paying twice as much for lossless is the path that most people will choose (and haven't). If lossless streaming becomes available at the same $10 price point as compressed, then more people will get on board.

 

[Condorsat]

I don't think very many people can ABX differences between 320k and lossless with statistical accuracy. Either their equipment can't show the difference, the music they listen to can't show the difference, and/or their ears can't detect the difference. You have to be trained to listen for certain cues and most people are't going to do that (and probably shouldn't because I think it it gets in the way of enjoying music). I think the bigger issue is mastering. The "loudness wars" left us with a lot of albums with compressed dynamic range.

I like these points ... dead on IMHO.

In my case there are some well recorded albums that I can tell a difference between ... but they have full dynamic range & I am extremely familiar w/ how the recording sounds. IMHO ... w/ most modern recordings ... it's a moot point.

Modern recordings don't sound terrible ... just different ... like recordings from 50s, 60's, 70's, 80's ... etc sound different or tend to have a decade associated sound IMHO.

I'm perfectly content to just stream most modern albums and don't have the desire to add hard copy (especially "loudness war" type albums). Sub Streaming was a Godsend for me ... I can enjoy many modern artists (recorded albums) this way.

 

[+48V]

Grrr...summer vacation is over. Looks like I'm overdue to pick up where I left off two weeks ago on the commitment front. Lots on my plate still, just popping in to catch up. I'll try and get back/address a few posts soon.

In the meantime, this one caught my eye and I just had to give props now.

We could wake up one day and be in a nuclear war, famine, electric power grids under attack or aliens from other worlds coming here to destroy us. If huge corporations take over the music business (which I thought they already had?), I think their goal will be similar to their goal now. Make a profit and/or use it as a way to make money in another part of their business. Corporations aren't going to just hoard music and not make it available. I think the chances of a meteor hitting earth would be more probable.

LMFAO....

 

[VinylHanger]

I wouldn't mind if Spotify had a buy this album/cd button. I've bought a few from artists I really enjoy, and would never have really heard if it wasn't for Spotify. I have a few that I'll pick up this fall when I'm doing more relaxing. Nikki Lane is one. I found her from listening to Lindsey Ortega. Lots of people would get zero recognition if it wasn't for streaming. Sure, Taylor Swift can play games with it, but groups like The Dead South wouldn't even be a blip on anybodies radar.

 

[Alobar]

Grrr...summer vacation is over. Looks like I'm overdue to pick up where I left off two weeks ago on the commitment front. Lots on my plate still, just popping in to catch up. I'll try and get back/address a few posts soon.

In the meantime, this one caught my eye and I just had to give props now.


LMFAO....

Yeah that was very cleverly put by the tiger, and you can certainly have a good laugh at my apparent tin foil hard hat liner! I even got a chuckle, but really I don't think anyone knows the real long term impact that virtually free streaming of this scale will have on either the industry, the artists, or the music.

On another note, I have recently opened up an account (free trial) to Spotify premium and have to say their system, interface, the way it intro's new music has been working pretty well. I think it is better than Tidal was, as well as Amazon Unlimited and I have already bought a CD directly because of streaming. I may pay for this one once the trial is over.

 

[+48V]

I had to laugh. First the.... pomp "purposefully sensationalistic infograph for the masses".... Why would the masses care? To me, this makes no sense. I don't care and I am a great consumer and appreciator of music and artists. I will say, when I found this graph in the posted link I intermediately saw some glaring faults, not that it matters.

It's not about that they or you "care", it's the fact that the media in this general space was/is notorious for spoon feeding the public twisted "trainwreck" bullshit rhetoric that streaming services are ripping off artists on a grand scale; all the while any disclaimers are keenly buried or non-existent. That sensational graph gets picked up and parroted back by countless other outlets and inevitably digested hook, line, & sinker by Joe Blow music customer. It's awfully disingenuous, ultimately deceptive, and well...chaps my ass as an advocate for both artists and streaming providers. Does that make sense?

Just out of curiosity, whether it matters to you or not, exactly what "glaring faults" did you see in the infograph and/or related article?

The "shitty" and "barely survivable" online royalties is arrived at how? Define what an artist is entitled to and why. Seems the people that sell a lot or get streamed a lot do just fine. .....

You're asking me? As if I'm pro entitlement? LOL
I realize this thread is a long dirt road, but I suggest you review my stance in the batter's box from the first few innings. Maybe then you'll understand how that one, directed at me, is a big swing and a miss.

I have not even read the rest of the post thread this struck me as so opinionated that it had to be challenged immediately.

See how that works?

What is it you "demand" and of who? (to correct your perception that online royalties are not adequate)

hopefully this is now moot.

 

[eljr]

It's not about that they or you "care", it's the fact that the media in this general space was/is notorious for spoon feeding the public twisted "trainwreck" bullshit rhetoric that streaming services are ripping off artists on a grand scale; all the while any disclaimers are keenly buried or non-existent. That sensational graph gets picked up and parroted back by countless other outlets and inevitably digested hook, line, & sinker by Joe Blow music customer. It's awfully disingenuous, ultimately deceptive, and well...chaps my ass as an advocate for both artists and streaming providers. Does that make sense?

Just out of curiosity, whether it matters to you or not, exactly what "glaring faults" did you see in the infograph and/or related article?

You're asking me? As if I'm pro entitlement? LOL
I realize this thread is a long dirt road, but I suggest you review my stance in the batter's box from the first few innings. Maybe then you'll understand how that one, directed at me, is a big swing and a miss.

See how that works?

hopefully this is now moot.

you must be very bored