INTERACT FORUM

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Streaming and Money  (Read 6303 times)

blgentry

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 8014
Streaming and Money
« on: July 24, 2015, 03:41:25 pm »

My objection to streaming is about how consumption of music is perceived and valued by the end user, as well as the actual money changing hands.

Let's talk about consumer perception first.  The older model of buying music, physically, on some storage medium (vinyl album, cassette, CD, etc) made consumers think of music as having value.  Listening to it was in some way special because you had to go buy it to hear it when you want and for as long as you want.  You can listen to the radio, or go to a club, or other things, but to get the personal experience of music, you have to pay for it.  ...and the "contract" you have with the music industry is simple:  Pay for the physical media and you own that copy forever.  Play it as much as you want, whenever and wherever you want.  Music has value.  Music is special.  Music is art.

As music shifted to more and more digital distribution, it's consumer value decreased dramatically.  I'll bet the average age of people reading this is over 35.  As such, you remember a time when there was NO digital distribution of music.  Younger people ONLY know a world where music is digital, it's easy to get, it's (mostly) low quality, and can almost all be had for free, thanks to youtube and other forms of questionable or outright pirated distribution.  MP3s made music cheap.  Not valuable to consumers in their eyes.  Worse, lossy compression has made music less exciting.  Less special.  It's still art, but it's cheap art.  It's everywhere.

Streaming makes this even worse.  Because the time investment of the consumer is even smaller.  Now there's not even a need to go find it in a digital store, or to find a pirated copy to download.  There's no download involved.  Just search and hit play.  Or SO MUCH worse, just tune in to your "channel" which has all the music already picked out for you.  Which removes your involvement in picking the music.  Which makes it more and more like radio.  Which makes it cheap and not special.

The financial side of this has gone from bad to worse.  Musicians don't get paid for illegal downloads of any type.  Their "cut" on legal digital music is very, very small.  But at least it's still there.  With steaming, as I understand it, the financial model pays WAY less per song.  After all, this is just like a "radio play" of a song.  It's not a download for ownership.  Why do I care?  For two reasons.  First because it's the RIGHT THING for people to get paid for their work.  That includes musicians.  But more importantly, if there's no financial incentive for record companies, they won't have money to spend recording new music, finding new acts, and doing the BUSINESS they do.  Which is making and distributing music, this thing we ALL LOVE.

Digital music has almost killed the record industry.  Streaming is going to hurt it more.

I would love to figure out a way to bring back the VALUE to music.  To make people under 30 think of music as being as special as I do.  That my friends, is why I oppose streaming.

Thanks for reading this overly long diatribe.

Brian.
Logged

rec head

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1009
Streaming and Money
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2015, 12:43:43 pm »

I don't hate streaming. I also don't argue that music may be devalued by it either in that artists get paid less. But I don't think that not listening to albums front to back has devalued music, just changed it. After I buy something I rarely listen to it as an album again. I love random playlists.
Logged

flac.rules

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1268
Streaming and Money
« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2015, 03:50:37 am »

To be brutally honest, I find some of the viewpoints a bit elitist. The fact that music is easier and cheaper to get for everyone is seen as a problem? Why? Why is the "democratization" of culture a problem? More people can enjoy more music than ever before if they please. There is more music produced and more variety in music than it has ever been. When it comes to the art, music is more alive than ever. If you need to pay money or eventually restrict other peoples ability to get the same product to feel something is of worth, I think it is more appropriate to look into changing ones own behaviors rather than the industry.
Logged

blgentry

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 8014
Streaming and Money
« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2015, 08:33:32 am »

^ You don't understand economics Elvis.

When the price of a commodity being sold is very low, at some point it's not worth it for the producer to continue producing it.  That's one of the big points here.  The other point is that, in many people's eyes, music is not valuable.  It's just background.  Is that how you feel?  If so, we probably can't have a meaningful discussion.

Brian.
Logged

flac.rules

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1268
Streaming and Money
« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2015, 08:58:27 am »

^ You don't understand economics Elvis.

When the price of a commodity being sold is very low, at some point it's not worth it for the producer to continue producing it.  That's one of the big points here.  The other point is that, in many people's eyes, music is not valuable.  It's just background.  Is that how you feel?  If so, we probably can't have a meaningful discussion.

Brian.

The price of music has been lowered for many years, the production is bigger than ever, its easier for "everyman", to publish their music than it ever has been. People are motivated by more than money. And even if they weren't the cost of production and distribution is lower.

I don't feel music is background, would you if music was too cheap? Why do you let the price dictate how much you value music?
Logged

blgentry

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 8014
Streaming and Money
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2015, 09:08:03 am »

I don't feel music is background, would you if music was too cheap? Why do you let the price dictate how much you value music?

There are two different arguments I'm making:

1.  The music production industry is a business and it needs money to continue.  Lowering the price of music provides less money for the music producers to produce more music.  You seem to think that music production is better than ever.  I disagree.  I see current music production as being focused on lowest common denominator pop and rap that I think sucks artistically.  I don't want to listen to the majority of the mass market music produced today.  The ECONOMICS tie these things together.  The music industry is a business.

2.  Widespread availability of cheap or free music makes it seem less valuable to consumers.  I think this is terrible because music is a great art form.  It is diminished by it's easy availability.  I'm not suggesting to restrict music in some way.  I'm saying that the phenomenon of easy and cheap makes things less special.  A steak dinner every night is no longer a special meal.  I hope that makes some kind of sense.

MY enjoyment of music has NOTHING to do with the price.  I want the music industry to produce MORE MUSIC THAT I LIKE.  A dying industry isn't going to produce much that I'm interested in. They will continue to market to 13 year olds, which sucks for all of us.

Brian.
Logged

mwillems

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 5234
  • "Linux Merit Badge" Recipient
Re: Streaming and Money
« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2015, 09:46:45 am »

1.  The music production industry is a business and it needs money to continue.  Lowering the price of music provides less money for the music producers to produce more music.  You seem to think that music production is better than ever.  I disagree.  I see current music production as being focused on lowest common denominator pop and rap that I think sucks artistically.  I don't want to listen to the majority of the mass market music produced today.  The ECONOMICS tie these things together.  The music industry is a business.

I agree with most of your points about streaming and the devaluation of music, and think streaming is pretty terrible for artists trying to make a living. But, with respect, I think your economic analysis is faulty and I need to stick up a little bit for modern music here.  

The major label stuff is, as you say, pretty lowest common denominator, and if music were like film (requiring many millions of dollars to produce a top notch product) your economic argument would be a good one.  But it doesn't require millions to produce a very good album, it just costs millions to promote one.  The cost of actually producing music is lower than it's ever been because recording equipment is available for a few hundred dollars that would put the most expensive studio equipment from the 70's or 80's to shame.

The cost of production is so low in fact that it's led to an enormous boom of "bedroom production" of really very competently made music. More and more people are making music at home or in small studios, and a lot of it is really excellent.  Self-publishing is easier and cheaper than it's ever been. So the supply side of the curve is doing just fine, primarily because music doesn't cost anywhere near as much to produce as it did ten or twenty years ago.  The ability to record music cheaply has not cheapened music, it has introduced competition into a semi-closed market by reducing barriers to entry.  It has opened the door for a lot of talented artists who never would have gotten a major label deal to start small labels or just do it themselves. But because they're doing it themselves, they can't spend millions on a media blitz: you have to find them, they won't find you.

I think if you focus on the music available through mass media (radio, tv, etc.) you can get the misleading impression that modern music is a wasteland.  It's not.  There's an ongoing renaissance of truly incredible music, but you'll never hear it if you don't go looking for it.  I worked in radio for several years in the late oughts, and still follow music pretty closely.  I think the future will look at the music output of the late 2000's and early 2010's the same way we currently think about the music output of the 60's and early 70's; they just won't be talking about what was on the radio ;)

I think streaming is a nightmare for artists because it pays terribly, but so far I don't think it's squelched innovation in any meaningful way.  But in part that's because people still buy digital downloads which pay much better for artists than streaming does, and there's a lingering physical media market (but that's not as profitable for small artists as it used to be: in some cases they make less on physical media than on downloads).  So those other revenue streams may be "confusing" the picture, and if streaming completely takes over, we may begin to see economics really start to bite, but I wonder about that too.  The big industry may die, but artists don't really need the industry, and as long as artists can make money gigging (like they've always done) there will be some artists making music.  I wonder if what streaming will do in the end is just kill the middlemen.  I guess we'll find out in a few years one way or the other.

I agree that streaming leads to a casual/devaluated consumer approach to music, though, which I don't appreciate.  FWIW I have no interest in streaming for the most part because I want to support artists as directly and substantially as possible.  The way to most effectively do that will vary from artist to artist (some make more on physical media, some make more on digital, some make the most on merch, etc), but it's never, ever streaming.
Logged

flac.rules

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1268
Re: Streaming and Money
« Reply #7 on: July 29, 2015, 09:51:01 am »

There are two different arguments I'm making:

1.  The music production industry is a business and it needs money to continue.  Lowering the price of music provides less money for the music producers to produce more music.  You seem to think that music production is better than ever.  I disagree.  I see current music production as being focused on lowest common denominator pop and rap that I think sucks artistically.  I don't want to listen to the majority of the mass market music produced today.  The ECONOMICS tie these things together.  The music industry is a business.

2.  Widespread availability of cheap or free music makes it seem less valuable to consumers.  I think this is terrible because music is a great art form.  It is diminished by it's easy availability.  I'm not suggesting to restrict music in some way.  I'm saying that the phenomenon of easy and cheap makes things less special.  A steak dinner every night is no longer a special meal.  I hope that makes some kind of sense.

MY enjoyment of music has NOTHING to do with the price.  I want the music industry to produce MORE MUSIC THAT I LIKE.  A dying industry isn't going to produce much that I'm interested in. They will continue to market to 13 year olds, which sucks for all of us.

Brian.

1. But why do you care about what is made for the billboard top 100? Do you disagree that the total amount of music produced and made available to "everyone" is higher than ever? I don't listen to the majority of mass marcet music either, but the sheer volume, even in pretty narrow genres is so immense I have no problem finding good music outside the mass market, if anything, there is so much music the problem is finding the good music. I am sure i could listen 24/7 to great music and still never being close to touching 1% of the great music made.

2. I guess you can say it makes music less of a novelty, just as good quality loudspeakers makes good sound less of a novelty, but I don't think this diminishes the art form, I think it would be more diminished if it was less available, everyone can enjoy great music today, and that's a good thing. People can always restrict their own intake of beef or music if they think its better inn small portions.
Logged

kstuart

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1955
  • Upgraded to MC22 Master using preorder discount
Re: Streaming and Money
« Reply #8 on: July 29, 2015, 01:47:11 pm »

  I see current music production as being focused on lowest common denominator pop and rap that I think sucks artistically.  I don't want to listen to the majority of the mass market music produced today. 

Music production has always been "focused on lowest common denominator pop".

Generally, people's musical tastes are determined when they are around 20 (+/-).

All current music styles are generally thought to be "crap" when people get older.  For the last 100 years, parents have always thought their children's music "sounds like noise".

kstuart

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1955
  • Upgraded to MC22 Master using preorder discount
Re: Streaming and Money
« Reply #9 on: July 29, 2015, 02:26:00 pm »

I think if you focus on the music available through mass media (radio, tv, etc.) you can get the misleading impression that modern music is a wasteland.  It's not.  There's an ongoing renaissance of truly incredible music, but you'll never hear it if you don't go looking for it.  I worked in radio for several years in the late oughts, and still follow music pretty closely.  I think the future will look at the music output of the late 2000's and early 2010's the same way we currently think about the music output of the 60's and early 70's; they just won't be talking about what was on the radio ;)
I would say that the situation is not quite as good as you say, and not quite as bad as blgentry says. :)

I do a lot of listening in all genres - especially to whatever people says is "truly incredible".

If the best music from the 20th Century is rated from 1 (worst) to 10 (best), then I have not found anything in the 21st Century that rates better than roughly 7 or 7.5.

99% of the music made in the 21st Century is imitations of 20th Century forms.   There are 21st Century bands of young musicians who play "60s Psychedelia" or "80s Hair Band".  Almost all new jazz musicians do imitations of mid-60s Miles Davis.

There is 1% new music, but it is quite limited to certain specific genres...

mwillems

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 5234
  • "Linux Merit Badge" Recipient
Re: Streaming and Money
« Reply #10 on: July 29, 2015, 02:50:14 pm »

99% of the music made in the 21st Century is imitations of 20th Century forms.   There are 21st Century bands of young musicians who play "60s Psychedelia" or "80s Hair Band".  Almost all new jazz musicians do imitations of mid-60s Miles Davis.

There is 1% new music, but it is quite limited to certain specific genres...

All current music styles are generally thought to be "crap" when people get older.  For the last 100 years, parents have always thought their children's music "sounds like noise".

I think you're falling into your own trap  ;D  

A great deal of 20th century music was effectively imitating earlier music (the rolling stones recycling old blues, country music aping old time, folk music imitating folk music, etc.).  Many of the most famous names of 20th century music (Bob Dylan, the Stones, Elvis, the Beatles, Bowie, Miles Davis) were imitators of previous forms (at least at the start).  The difference is that many people didn't have ready reference to recordings of the earlier music being imitated in the 20th century, so it sounded completely "new" as opposed to just incrementally new.  Music has always been about imitation and subtle recreation, but we have a much larger recorded past to draw on now.  There's only ever 1% of music that's truly "new," except during periods when new instruments or sound technology are invented (like the introduction of synthesizers, electric instruments, or sequencing).

I don't dispute that a fair proportion of modern music draws heavily on older music.  I do dispute that that's anything new.  And FWIW some of my favorite 21st century music sounds very little like anything made in the 20th century  :P
Logged

kstuart

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1955
  • Upgraded to MC22 Master using preorder discount
Re: Streaming and Money
« Reply #11 on: July 30, 2015, 03:18:05 pm »

A great deal of 20th century music was effectively imitating earlier music (the rolling stones recycling old blues, country music aping old time, folk music imitating folk music, etc.).  Many of the most famous names of 20th century music (Bob Dylan, the Stones, Elvis, the Beatles, Bowie, Miles Davis) were imitators of previous forms (at least at the start).
Yes, there was certainly the "white guys playing black music for white audiences" thing, and like everything in the 60's, it was done previously in the 20's. ;)

But it is certainly true for the Stones and Elvis throughout their career.

The other four are bad examples, because while Dylan, the Beatles, Bowie and Miles Davis all started out doing the same music as  their childhood musical idols, all four were great examples of creating entirely new musical styles and genres.   All four actively tried to use new musical techniques and create new types of songs.  (Miles was personally almost entirely responsible for the "jazz-rock fusion" sub-genre, which was then absorbed into rock music, and abandoned by jazz in favor of an eternal repetition of Miles' mid-60's acoustic style.)

Today, for example, if you are an " 80s Hair Band " group, then you have to conform to all the characteristics of those bands.   The sub-genre identification itself is automatically musically limiting.

This trend is accelerated by services like Sirius XM and Pandora.  The former has specific channels devoted to tiny sub-genres and thus encourages the concept that one should pick one of those 100 sub-genres in which to form your new band.   And Pandora uses those sub-genre formats to identify what you listen to, and "suggest" more " 80s Hair Band " music for you to listen to.

All this ensures that in 2270, everyone will still be listening to " 60s Psychedelia " and " 80s Hair Bands ".   And in the movie theater, they will be watching the 47th reboot of Spiderman and the 38th reboot of Batman.

musicdetector

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Streaming and Money
« Reply #12 on: August 04, 2015, 07:52:25 am »

I agree with many of your points regarding consumer value and appreciation, blgentry

The nuts about digital rights is that suddenly your favourite artist has been removed due to misc reasons. I was informed that Neil Young recently pulled out from Spotify and was replaced with a cover band?

I mean.. that would get me angry as hell if I had Spotify as my only medium.

As for the present and future, I think that true music lovers will still store their music on NAS and eventually perhaps all in the Cloud. And yes, also on vinyl  :)

I invested in a Synology Nas 1815+ with 6 x 4tb WD red drives. I am happier than ever and the music keeps playing just as I want it to.
Logged

mwillems

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 5234
  • "Linux Merit Badge" Recipient
Re: Streaming and Money
« Reply #13 on: August 04, 2015, 08:51:48 am »

All this ensures that in 2270, everyone will still be listening to " 60s Psychedelia " and " 80s Hair Bands ".   And in the movie theater, they will be watching the 47th reboot of Spiderman and the 38th reboot of Batman.

Kstuart, Simon Reynolds wrote an excellent book on this exact phenomenon called "Retromania".  If you haven't read it, I recommend it highly, he's a great cultural critic and has some interesting ideas on the subject.
Logged

kstuart

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1955
  • Upgraded to MC22 Master using preorder discount
Re: Streaming and Money
« Reply #14 on: August 04, 2015, 12:51:23 pm »

Kstuart, Simon Reynolds wrote an excellent book on this exact phenomenon called "Retromania".  If you haven't read it, I recommend it highly, he's a great cultural critic and has some interesting ideas on the subject.
I found a review of the book combined with an interview with him.  A term was used and the wikipedia entry says:
Quote
Recent uses of hauntology describe a state in which late capitalist civilization, persisting after postmodernism's "end of history," has become inundated by the perpetual pastiche and recycling of retro cultural and aesthetic forms, therefore obscuring the possibility of novelty in contemporary art, culture, and politics while producing a stagnant sense of historical disjunction.[10][11] Theorist Mark Fisher has specifically presented the term to describe a sense in which contemporary culture is haunted by the "lost futures" of modernity resulting from the shift into post-Fordist economies in the late 1970s and the subsequent rise of neoliberalism, which he argues has "gradually and systematically deprived artists of the resources necessary to produce the new."[12]

The one element missing from that - and from Reynolds' analysis is the role of sub-genres - the concept that if music is conceived by both artists and fans as having a very specific form, then nothing will ever change.
Pages: [1]   Go Up