7 ms·

Apple iTunes Sees Big Drop in Music Sales

34 points by alceufc 11y ago

iamben 11y ago
You can't put the genie back in the bottle. The way we consume changed dramatically over the last 20 years, and with change, it means where, how and who profits changes. I'm all for competition but I feel it's going to end up ruining it for those that consume, and ultimately those who create - in both music and movies. Spotify is as close to 'perfect' as I think we've seen a streaming service so far. Most, if not all of the people I know who'd prolifically or casually pirated music (but rarely, if ever bought it), now pay for Spotify. Most, if not all those who bought music now pay for Spotify instead. Because it's easier. And it's all there - and it doesn't cost you to experiment and change your mind. But when artists (Taylor Swift, etc) start leaving because it doesn't pay as much as the heydays, and start moving to services that promise more cash, everything becomes more fractured. The reason people pay is because it's easier that pirating. Napster was easy. Everything was there so you consumed. But no one wants to pay for 5 services / install 5 apps / whatever. So they'll just end up not bothering, and by that point they won't be buying either. And everyone will lose.
- diminoten 11y ago
  Spotify is not as good as Google Music. Why does everyone forget Google Music? And you can't leave Google Music to boot -- not without leaving YouTube too!
  - freehunter 11y ago
    People forget about Google Music because Google seems to have forgotten about Google Music. Same with Google Voice. They don't push it, no one will use it. Personally for me, I switched from Google Music to Spotify because Google boycotts Windows Phone. I don't have the patience to put something in my workflow that doesn't work on every platform I use.
    - ewzimm 11y ago
      There are a lot of good streaming music services, but Spotify is the only one that seems to be committed to working everywhere on every device. That means a lot more to most people than having a specific artist or audio quality.
  - morkfromork 11y ago
    The problem I have with Google music is every time I upgrade the OS or hard drive it counts that as a new device. Max of 10 devices. You can only remove 4 devices from you account per year. I ran out of devices so no more Google Music.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    > Spotify is not as good as Google Music. > Why does everyone forget Google Music? I believe you've answered your own question. Spotify doesn't have to be better, users just must enjoy the experience more. “No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.” —CmdrTaco, Slashdot (regarding the ipod versus the Nomad)
  - mynegation 11y ago
    No, Spotify is better than Google Music, at least for me. When I went to Spotify's mobile site they did not require cc number before I even seen anything, Google music did. Spotify gave me tens of not hundreds pre-canned playlists, Google Music iOS app presented me the blank slate and nothing else. If you think Google music is better, it would be interesting why you think it is.
    - orbitingpluto 11y ago
      I noticed that Google Play plays at 320kbps while Spotify plays at 128kbps (or lower). I don't splurge on $200+ headphones so I don't notice a quality difference, but I suppose some people can. Google Play can be murderous to a data plan, but they also allow you to upload your own music. I don't think Taylor Swift is on a Google Play subscription either, but you can upload your mp3 and then have it available to you.
      - mynegation 11y ago
        Thank you, this is the kind of answer I would expect in defence of Google Play. I do notice the difference between 128 and 320 kbps on some musical pieces. I am not Spotify Premium now and they stream 320 to premium users. The point about uploading your music is very valid one, it is just that I personally do not want Google to have it and manage it between devices myself.
    - diminoten 11y ago
      Google Music has radio stations, as many (if not more) "precanned" playlists as Spotify, it's a higher quality music (as another user mentioned, double the bitrate), it has more music (if it's on YouTube, it's on Google Music), it's Google so the UX is solid (and if it's not, you know it's continually getting worked on), and not to mention the integration it has with Android -- as a Google product, it gets first-class treatment by its devs (Google would never release a sub-par Android app for one of its top tier offerings). I have $7/month to spend, and I want the best I can possibly get for that $7. Google Music is that product.
- freehunter 11y ago
  Exactly. And if music I want isn't on Spotify... I just don't listen to it. For better or worse. I like Garth Brooks, but I haven't listened to his stuff in ages because it's just not available to me. I don't own a CD player and I have a 16GB iPhone so local music is out even if I wanted to pirate it. I mean, I'm not even going to switch to piracy. Local music is out and it's not coming back for me. If Mr or Miss Big Name don't want me to listen to their music, there are a thousand other bands I will switch to.
- radley 11y ago
  That's unlikely. Music has historically been fractured: - radio stations only playing certain genres - stores only carrying certain labels, hits - releases only on vinyl or cassette, but not CD - available on CD, but not digital download - available for digital download, but not streaming and so on... Music flows through channels.
- api 11y ago
  Maybe not, but I am afraid one consequence might be less really great music and less people pursuing it as a dedicated career. Not that it was ever easy, but it's only getting harder.
notnickwolf 11y ago
Try this if it asks you to sign in: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fitunes-music-sales-down-more-than-13-this-year-1414166672&ei=GdIhVY74FIu8sAX_9IKgBQ&usg=AFQjCNE2Wci9AA-fr7EfrCg6vJrFFImcYw&sig2=1KIgpzhrJvzoGFjZPGkn_A&bvm=bv.89947451,d.b2w https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...
- click170 11y ago
  I still get asked to sign in when I view that link, but that's besides the point: I wish paywall'd articles weren't accepted here. Maybe there is a place for paywalls in this world, I just don't think we should be posting links to them here.
  - freehunter 11y ago
    The trouble with paywalls is, am I going to pay for NYT, WSJ, Boston Globe, MoneyWeek, Newsday, The Onion, etc, all individually? No. I might subscribe to one paper, but that's not how the Internet works. Even then, I never subscribe to the paper. I get it free at work or at the library or in a hotel.
  - a3n 11y ago
    Ironic comment, considering what the article is about. If you don't like paywalled sites, just don't go there. What have you really missed? There are plenty other articles elsewhere. (Big Music/WSJ) vs (streaming/any other article on any other subject on the internet). Same thing.
    - click170 11y ago
      IMO posting paywalled sites to a news aggregator detracts from the experience of using the aggregator for anyone who doesn't subscribe to that paywalled site. Its established that a low percentage of people are convinced into signing up by a paywall. There for, posting paywalled articles to a news aggregator detracts from the experience of everyone who chooses not to subscribe to that particular site because it robs us of front page real estate that could be held by other non paywalled but interesting stories. Consider a news aggregator where every link went to a paywalled site, so many disparate sites that you couldn't afford to subscribe to all of them. Would you find the aggregator more or less valuable than one that had freely available information.
api 11y ago
So now the race to the bottom continues down to streaming services that pay artists even less.
steven2012 11y ago
I'm curious what the net amount of money going to musicians are, as opposed to the amount of money going to record labels. That's much more important to me, because I don't care if the music labels starve, but if the musicians go broke, then there is no more content. And in this age, it seems strange that there isn't a good way for a musician to completely bypass labels altogether and just release music on their own, in a profitable manner. Based on the numbers I've seen from posts here, Spotify clearly isn't the answer, it's just another mechanism to drive the value of content to $0. Maybe we'll see Spotify start their own music label and give artists money more directly, the way that Netflix and Amazon Prime are essentially creating their own TV stations.
- drawkbox 11y ago
  I think for this reason we will see more distribution platforms like Tidal started up because of this to challenge this even if many of them fail. Almost a renaissance that is similar to when Charlie Chaplin and others setup United Artists. Being your own artist + label isn't enough, now you need the distribution platform to really own the revenues.
  - ianlevesque 11y ago
    Yeah, as a music consumer I'm looking forward to using the next dozen music distribution platforms.
    - drawkbox 11y ago
      Louis CK created his very own for his comedy and I prefer it for sure, I know he does as well. You can still get it from all the normal channels, there will just be channels that you can get it better and more direct. I hope it doesn't turn into exclusives though and into a mess, it could if the labels keep with their greed.
- Steko 11y ago
  The artists are the ones that let the labels make all the sales/straming money. Take 10 decent artists, the label says "ok we like all of you, whoever will sign for the lowest % of music sales/streaming will get signed and promoted and has a good chance to get famous and make that much more from concerts, etc.". Of course they end up making all the sales/streaming money. That's not evil that's just how it works.
alyx 11y ago
Personally, I have not bought music since streaming services started covering 90% of the music I listen to.
- alanfalcon 11y ago
  Personally, I've bought more music since streaming services (iTunes Radio with iTunes Match) exposed me to more music than I normally listen to (i.e. my existing iTunes library). Not a lot more music, but a couple more albums and a dozen more singles than the few new releases I normally would have purchased from my favorite artists. That ability to, on demand, listen to any song I want to listen to... it's too valuable to me to let go of completely even if much of the time I'm okay with listening to whatever comes on a stream.
- acheron 11y ago
  That's so bizarre to me. I'm pretty much with Penny Arcade on this: "it's basically infinity dollars." [1] I mean, the idea of "owning" a digital file is a bit nebulous, but streaming offers nothing to me. Though I'm completely the opposite when it comes to movies, where I'm perfectly happy with streaming. So who knows. [1] http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/05/15 http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/05/15
  - TheCondor 11y ago
    How many movies do you rewatch? A really infectious song, you'll listen to it tens or even hundreds of times. It's a different kind of investment
  - wvenable 11y ago
    It might be infinity dollars but it's also infinity music. As new music gets released you can listen to that too as well as a back catalog larger than you could conceivably own. The concept of renting something is neither new nor strange. Penny Arcade's example is the same for housing, gym memberships, etc.
  - Retra 11y ago
    Music is already 'nothing.' Just sounds in the air. But then, life is also pointless if you want to go down that road.
michaelpinto 11y ago
Something to keep in mind is that music "ownership" may be a generational thing. My parents were members of the silent generation (born in the 30s) and they owned very few physical records. And it's not to say they didn't love music, they did -- but the way they enjoyed music was listening to the radio. So if you had a love of opera and classical music you'd listen to WQXR 24/7 (here in NYC) which isn't too different than a millennial who is into streaming. As a Gen X member we grew up imitating Boomers by buying music in our youth (see side note below). But something to keep in mind is that unlike digital music, this was very much a tactile experience. This was because you were by the physical album as much as the music itself. And if you look at those albums you realize that the package acts as a mini-poster so it was really merchandise (as much as buying a t-shirt). Also in a pre-digital age you'd get the lyrics included with the album as well. This doesn't sound like a big deal, but in a pre-Google era getting your hand on the lyrics was something that you'd have to work at if you didn't own the album (you might have to go to a sheet music shop, and those weren't in every town). So streaming (or what we use to call radio) may in fact be the natural order of things. Part of this may also be that music as a medium isn't on the cutting edge of culture anymore. We tend to forget that from say the 60s until the late 80s music was leading the way as a voice for cultural change, but sadly as rock as a genre is now about 65 years old, and even rap is about 35 years old. So I think the biggest challenge for the music industry isn't technology at this point, but focusing on how to be culturally relevant again. So it's not about a decline in digital sales, but a decline in connecting with their audience. Side note: It should be noted that while Gen X did buy records we tend to forget that in the 80s the music industry was terrified by declining sales which were attributed to the youth market spending their money on new things like video games. Of course we loved music as much as previous generations did, but thanks to MTV we were experiencing it also as a streaming medium.
- api 11y ago
  Might be true, but I can't help but be nostalgic for it. I get the sense that for millennials and younger music is just another kind of light entertainment, take it or leave it. Music for many gen-Xers including myself was practically religion. You loved it so much you built a chunk of your identity around it. You were moved by it. I guess I can't really be sure, but I don't get the feeling people care about music like that anymore. Of course it might have nothing to do with packaging. I routinely look for new music and I do find gems that move me the way the music of my youth did, but they seem really few and far between. So much of what I hear is so spineless and trite. Of course there is always a temporal selection effect in that only the best stuff of the past is remembered, but it does feel like I really have to dig hard for anything good these days. At the worst I wonder if the golden age of music as a popular art form is behind us. How many people follow sculpture or painting? There's plenty of work being done, but only aficionados of those forms follow it. Is that where music is headed?
zaidf 11y ago
I rarely ever purchased music. And yet, thanks to Spotify I've been paying ~$10/mo for the last 4 years. For all the hate it gets, its turned people who rarely ever paid for music into paying for it every month.
- joeblau 11y ago
  I think the only people that are really angry about Spotify are the artists. It seems like the way their payments are calculated, they get the short end of the stick.
  - themoonbus 11y ago
    Not that this excuses Spotify, but artists got the short end of the stick in the traditional system too.
    - dreamfactory2 11y ago
      Much more so on spotify (and streaming generally). In the traditional system an artist might have got 10% of retail price. That equates to much more than 10% of profit (could be around 40% of profit in some cases). While record companies do have various ways of chipping away at that, the fundamentals of a traditional points deal aren't actually as bad as usually presented and way better than in other retail industries (e.g. clothing).
    - aikah 11y ago
      that's not true , compared to Spotify, that's a total lie. Artists don't get a 10% cut each time a song is played on Spotify. The only people getting rich with Spotify is Spotify and the label that grants the content rights. The artists do get almost nothing.
      - zaidf 11y ago
        Spotify pays the labels who pay the artists. So shouldn't the artists work on negotiating better agreements with labels? That might compel labels to negotiate a better agreement with Spotify assuming that is possible. If any party overplays its card, it could all come tumbling down: - if artists demand too much payment from labels, labels won't sign them - if labels demand too much from spotify, spotify won't sign them - if spotify doesn't sign enough labels or pays too much to them, it will die either due to not enough music or not enough revenue to find growth.
AshleysBrain 11y ago
Note this article is from October 2014.
mehrzad 11y ago
I go to shows, buy vinyl when I can (albeit rarely), and download and stream for everything else. This is what most music junkies do these days, I guess.
ams6110 11y ago
Congratulations to the music publishing industry. After years of claiming that we didn't actually own the songs we purchased, we finally decided not to purchase songs anymore.
- dreamfactory2 11y ago
  That applies to any copyright material - you license it for limited usage (e.g. you can't create copies and redistribute, which is what ownership implies)
ghaff 11y ago
An interesting aspect of this is that, to my surprise, paying for a Spotify subscription apparently costs more than people historically paid for music: http://recode.net/2014/03/18/the-price-of-music/ http://recode.net/2014/03/18/the-price-of-music/ I'm not sure if this is the right way of looking at it and I paid more during my peak music purchasing years but it's thought provoking. I confess that owning my favorite music, at least digitally, is something I feel fairly strongly about. But I can't really unravel my feelings from just the fact that I always have.
PhantomGremlin 11y ago
Straight outta Compton, crazy motherfucker named Ice Cube From the gang called Niggas Wit Attitudes A number of years ago I purchased the music video to the above song from iTunes. I paid $2, because I enjoy the song and I think it's "culturally significant". But today? NO. Not for sale from iTunes at any price? Why not? Does it offend too many sensitivities? Countless other examples like that. Do you want to buy the music video of the song that won the 1986 Grammy Award for Best Rock Performance? Can't buy that anymore either. Is it because of the words "See the little faggot with the earring and the makeup"? Why can't I pay someone US dollars to legally "buy" non-DRMed music videos? Everyone in the business complains constantly, but they won't take my money???
jleyank 11y ago
Judging from the tenor of comments here, the typical user doesn't have to worry about bandwidth limits on their smart device, never drives where the connection's spotty, never flies and stays within one country. Or, I guess, just has a slug of money to pay whatever fees for internet connection arise. I tend to do a number of these things, so having music "in my hand" is advantageous. I also like to listen to both the hits and non-hits for the artists I like and had a largish legacy CD collection. Most of the CD's I purchase now are mementos of concert trips, especially for the bands that sign what they sell. Ripping the CD's, I get the music that the bands laid down, without the compression artifacts and pitch changes I get from radio. Do the internet services do the same, or are their offerings pristine? Different strokes and all that, but be careful to add up the cost of continued rental vs. purchase or other forms of acquisition. Edit: I also prefer to support the artists I listen to rather than middlemen.
- prostoalex 11y ago
  Both Spotify Premium and Rdio Premium (and I'm sure others, but can only speak for the ones I've tried) offer "offline mode" for whatever your device can hold. The music will then play even in airplane mode, the only gotcha is that you'll have to come online every 30 days or so for them to re-verify that you're still paying for the service.

34 points by alceufc 11y ago

You can't put the genie back in the bottle. The way we consume changed dramatically over the last 20 years, and with change, it means where, how and who profits changes. I'm all for competition but I feel it's going to end up ruining it for those that consume, and ultimately those who create - in both music and movies. Spotify is as close to 'perfect' as I think we've seen a streaming service so far. Most, if not all of the people I know who'd prolifically or casually pirated music (but rarely, if ever bought it), now pay for Spotify. Most, if not all those who bought music now pay for Spotify instead. Because it's easier. And it's all there - and it doesn't cost you to experiment and change your mind. But when artists (Taylor Swift, etc) start leaving because it doesn't pay as much as the heydays, and start moving to services that promise more cash, everything becomes more fractured. The reason people pay is because it's easier that pirating. Napster was easy. Everything was there so you consumed. But no one wants to pay for 5 services / install 5 apps / whatever. So they'll just end up not bothering, and by that point they won't be buying either. And everyone will lose.

diminoten 11y ago
Spotify is not as good as Google Music. Why does everyone forget Google Music? And you can't leave Google Music to boot -- not without leaving YouTube too!
- freehunter 11y ago
  People forget about Google Music because Google seems to have forgotten about Google Music. Same with Google Voice. They don't push it, no one will use it. Personally for me, I switched from Google Music to Spotify because Google boycotts Windows Phone. I don't have the patience to put something in my workflow that doesn't work on every platform I use.
  - ewzimm 11y ago
    There are a lot of good streaming music services, but Spotify is the only one that seems to be committed to working everywhere on every device. That means a lot more to most people than having a specific artist or audio quality.
- morkfromork 11y ago
  The problem I have with Google music is every time I upgrade the OS or hard drive it counts that as a new device. Max of 10 devices. You can only remove 4 devices from you account per year. I ran out of devices so no more Google Music.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > Spotify is not as good as Google Music. > Why does everyone forget Google Music? I believe you've answered your own question. Spotify doesn't have to be better, users just must enjoy the experience more. “No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.” —CmdrTaco, Slashdot (regarding the ipod versus the Nomad)
- mynegation 11y ago
  No, Spotify is better than Google Music, at least for me. When I went to Spotify's mobile site they did not require cc number before I even seen anything, Google music did. Spotify gave me tens of not hundreds pre-canned playlists, Google Music iOS app presented me the blank slate and nothing else. If you think Google music is better, it would be interesting why you think it is.
  - orbitingpluto 11y ago
    I noticed that Google Play plays at 320kbps while Spotify plays at 128kbps (or lower). I don't splurge on $200+ headphones so I don't notice a quality difference, but I suppose some people can. Google Play can be murderous to a data plan, but they also allow you to upload your own music. I don't think Taylor Swift is on a Google Play subscription either, but you can upload your mp3 and then have it available to you.
    - mynegation 11y ago
      Thank you, this is the kind of answer I would expect in defence of Google Play. I do notice the difference between 128 and 320 kbps on some musical pieces. I am not Spotify Premium now and they stream 320 to premium users. The point about uploading your music is very valid one, it is just that I personally do not want Google to have it and manage it between devices myself.
  - diminoten 11y ago
    Google Music has radio stations, as many (if not more) "precanned" playlists as Spotify, it's a higher quality music (as another user mentioned, double the bitrate), it has more music (if it's on YouTube, it's on Google Music), it's Google so the UX is solid (and if it's not, you know it's continually getting worked on), and not to mention the integration it has with Android -- as a Google product, it gets first-class treatment by its devs (Google would never release a sub-par Android app for one of its top tier offerings). I have $7/month to spend, and I want the best I can possibly get for that $7. Google Music is that product.
freehunter 11y ago
Exactly. And if music I want isn't on Spotify... I just don't listen to it. For better or worse. I like Garth Brooks, but I haven't listened to his stuff in ages because it's just not available to me. I don't own a CD player and I have a 16GB iPhone so local music is out even if I wanted to pirate it. I mean, I'm not even going to switch to piracy. Local music is out and it's not coming back for me. If Mr or Miss Big Name don't want me to listen to their music, there are a thousand other bands I will switch to.
radley 11y ago
That's unlikely. Music has historically been fractured: - radio stations only playing certain genres - stores only carrying certain labels, hits - releases only on vinyl or cassette, but not CD - available on CD, but not digital download - available for digital download, but not streaming and so on... Music flows through channels.
api 11y ago
Maybe not, but I am afraid one consequence might be less really great music and less people pursuing it as a dedicated career. Not that it was ever easy, but it's only getting harder.

notnickwolf 11y ago

Try this if it asks you to sign in: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fitunes-music-sales-down-more-than-13-this-year-1414166672&ei=GdIhVY74FIu8sAX_9IKgBQ&usg=AFQjCNE2Wci9AA-fr7EfrCg6vJrFFImcYw&sig2=1KIgpzhrJvzoGFjZPGkn_A&bvm=bv.89947451,d.b2w https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...

click170 11y ago
I still get asked to sign in when I view that link, but that's besides the point: I wish paywall'd articles weren't accepted here. Maybe there is a place for paywalls in this world, I just don't think we should be posting links to them here.
- freehunter 11y ago
  The trouble with paywalls is, am I going to pay for NYT, WSJ, Boston Globe, MoneyWeek, Newsday, The Onion, etc, all individually? No. I might subscribe to one paper, but that's not how the Internet works. Even then, I never subscribe to the paper. I get it free at work or at the library or in a hotel.
- a3n 11y ago
  Ironic comment, considering what the article is about. If you don't like paywalled sites, just don't go there. What have you really missed? There are plenty other articles elsewhere. (Big Music/WSJ) vs (streaming/any other article on any other subject on the internet). Same thing.
  - click170 11y ago
    IMO posting paywalled sites to a news aggregator detracts from the experience of using the aggregator for anyone who doesn't subscribe to that paywalled site. Its established that a low percentage of people are convinced into signing up by a paywall. There for, posting paywalled articles to a news aggregator detracts from the experience of everyone who chooses not to subscribe to that particular site because it robs us of front page real estate that could be held by other non paywalled but interesting stories. Consider a news aggregator where every link went to a paywalled site, so many disparate sites that you couldn't afford to subscribe to all of them. Would you find the aggregator more or less valuable than one that had freely available information.

api 11y ago

So now the race to the bottom continues down to streaming services that pay artists even less.

steven2012 11y ago

I'm curious what the net amount of money going to musicians are, as opposed to the amount of money going to record labels. That's much more important to me, because I don't care if the music labels starve, but if the musicians go broke, then there is no more content. And in this age, it seems strange that there isn't a good way for a musician to completely bypass labels altogether and just release music on their own, in a profitable manner. Based on the numbers I've seen from posts here, Spotify clearly isn't the answer, it's just another mechanism to drive the value of content to $0. Maybe we'll see Spotify start their own music label and give artists money more directly, the way that Netflix and Amazon Prime are essentially creating their own TV stations.

drawkbox 11y ago
I think for this reason we will see more distribution platforms like Tidal started up because of this to challenge this even if many of them fail. Almost a renaissance that is similar to when Charlie Chaplin and others setup United Artists. Being your own artist + label isn't enough, now you need the distribution platform to really own the revenues.
- ianlevesque 11y ago
  Yeah, as a music consumer I'm looking forward to using the next dozen music distribution platforms.
  - drawkbox 11y ago
    Louis CK created his very own for his comedy and I prefer it for sure, I know he does as well. You can still get it from all the normal channels, there will just be channels that you can get it better and more direct. I hope it doesn't turn into exclusives though and into a mess, it could if the labels keep with their greed.
Steko 11y ago
The artists are the ones that let the labels make all the sales/straming money. Take 10 decent artists, the label says "ok we like all of you, whoever will sign for the lowest % of music sales/streaming will get signed and promoted and has a good chance to get famous and make that much more from concerts, etc.". Of course they end up making all the sales/streaming money. That's not evil that's just how it works.

alyx 11y ago

Personally, I have not bought music since streaming services started covering 90% of the music I listen to.

alanfalcon 11y ago
Personally, I've bought more music since streaming services (iTunes Radio with iTunes Match) exposed me to more music than I normally listen to (i.e. my existing iTunes library). Not a lot more music, but a couple more albums and a dozen more singles than the few new releases I normally would have purchased from my favorite artists. That ability to, on demand, listen to any song I want to listen to... it's too valuable to me to let go of completely even if much of the time I'm okay with listening to whatever comes on a stream.
acheron 11y ago
That's so bizarre to me. I'm pretty much with Penny Arcade on this: "it's basically infinity dollars." [1] I mean, the idea of "owning" a digital file is a bit nebulous, but streaming offers nothing to me. Though I'm completely the opposite when it comes to movies, where I'm perfectly happy with streaming. So who knows. [1] http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/05/15 http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/05/15
- TheCondor 11y ago
  How many movies do you rewatch? A really infectious song, you'll listen to it tens or even hundreds of times. It's a different kind of investment
- wvenable 11y ago
  It might be infinity dollars but it's also infinity music. As new music gets released you can listen to that too as well as a back catalog larger than you could conceivably own. The concept of renting something is neither new nor strange. Penny Arcade's example is the same for housing, gym memberships, etc.
- Retra 11y ago
  Music is already 'nothing.' Just sounds in the air. But then, life is also pointless if you want to go down that road.

michaelpinto 11y ago

Something to keep in mind is that music "ownership" may be a generational thing. My parents were members of the silent generation (born in the 30s) and they owned very few physical records. And it's not to say they didn't love music, they did -- but the way they enjoyed music was listening to the radio. So if you had a love of opera and classical music you'd listen to WQXR 24/7 (here in NYC) which isn't too different than a millennial who is into streaming. As a Gen X member we grew up imitating Boomers by buying music in our youth (see side note below). But something to keep in mind is that unlike digital music, this was very much a tactile experience. This was because you were by the physical album as much as the music itself. And if you look at those albums you realize that the package acts as a mini-poster so it was really merchandise (as much as buying a t-shirt). Also in a pre-digital age you'd get the lyrics included with the album as well. This doesn't sound like a big deal, but in a pre-Google era getting your hand on the lyrics was something that you'd have to work at if you didn't own the album (you might have to go to a sheet music shop, and those weren't in every town). So streaming (or what we use to call radio) may in fact be the natural order of things. Part of this may also be that music as a medium isn't on the cutting edge of culture anymore. We tend to forget that from say the 60s until the late 80s music was leading the way as a voice for cultural change, but sadly as rock as a genre is now about 65 years old, and even rap is about 35 years old. So I think the biggest challenge for the music industry isn't technology at this point, but focusing on how to be culturally relevant again. So it's not about a decline in digital sales, but a decline in connecting with their audience. Side note: It should be noted that while Gen X did buy records we tend to forget that in the 80s the music industry was terrified by declining sales which were attributed to the youth market spending their money on new things like video games. Of course we loved music as much as previous generations did, but thanks to MTV we were experiencing it also as a streaming medium.

api 11y ago
Might be true, but I can't help but be nostalgic for it. I get the sense that for millennials and younger music is just another kind of light entertainment, take it or leave it. Music for many gen-Xers including myself was practically religion. You loved it so much you built a chunk of your identity around it. You were moved by it. I guess I can't really be sure, but I don't get the feeling people care about music like that anymore. Of course it might have nothing to do with packaging. I routinely look for new music and I do find gems that move me the way the music of my youth did, but they seem really few and far between. So much of what I hear is so spineless and trite. Of course there is always a temporal selection effect in that only the best stuff of the past is remembered, but it does feel like I really have to dig hard for anything good these days. At the worst I wonder if the golden age of music as a popular art form is behind us. How many people follow sculpture or painting? There's plenty of work being done, but only aficionados of those forms follow it. Is that where music is headed?

zaidf 11y ago

I rarely ever purchased music. And yet, thanks to Spotify I've been paying ~$10/mo for the last 4 years. For all the hate it gets, its turned people who rarely ever paid for music into paying for it every month.

joeblau 11y ago
I think the only people that are really angry about Spotify are the artists. It seems like the way their payments are calculated, they get the short end of the stick.
- themoonbus 11y ago
  Not that this excuses Spotify, but artists got the short end of the stick in the traditional system too.
  - dreamfactory2 11y ago
    Much more so on spotify (and streaming generally). In the traditional system an artist might have got 10% of retail price. That equates to much more than 10% of profit (could be around 40% of profit in some cases). While record companies do have various ways of chipping away at that, the fundamentals of a traditional points deal aren't actually as bad as usually presented and way better than in other retail industries (e.g. clothing).
  - aikah 11y ago
    that's not true , compared to Spotify, that's a total lie. Artists don't get a 10% cut each time a song is played on Spotify. The only people getting rich with Spotify is Spotify and the label that grants the content rights. The artists do get almost nothing.
    - zaidf 11y ago
      Spotify pays the labels who pay the artists. So shouldn't the artists work on negotiating better agreements with labels? That might compel labels to negotiate a better agreement with Spotify assuming that is possible. If any party overplays its card, it could all come tumbling down: - if artists demand too much payment from labels, labels won't sign them - if labels demand too much from spotify, spotify won't sign them - if spotify doesn't sign enough labels or pays too much to them, it will die either due to not enough music or not enough revenue to find growth.

AshleysBrain 11y ago

Note this article is from October 2014.

mehrzad 11y ago

I go to shows, buy vinyl when I can (albeit rarely), and download and stream for everything else. This is what most music junkies do these days, I guess.

ams6110 11y ago

Congratulations to the music publishing industry. After years of claiming that we didn't actually own the songs we purchased, we finally decided not to purchase songs anymore.

dreamfactory2 11y ago
That applies to any copyright material - you license it for limited usage (e.g. you can't create copies and redistribute, which is what ownership implies)

ghaff 11y ago

An interesting aspect of this is that, to my surprise, paying for a Spotify subscription apparently costs more than people historically paid for music: http://recode.net/2014/03/18/the-price-of-music/ http://recode.net/2014/03/18/the-price-of-music/ I'm not sure if this is the right way of looking at it and I paid more during my peak music purchasing years but it's thought provoking. I confess that owning my favorite music, at least digitally, is something I feel fairly strongly about. But I can't really unravel my feelings from just the fact that I always have.

PhantomGremlin 11y ago

Straight outta Compton, crazy motherfucker named Ice Cube From the gang called Niggas Wit Attitudes A number of years ago I purchased the music video to the above song from iTunes. I paid $2, because I enjoy the song and I think it's "culturally significant". But today? NO. Not for sale from iTunes at any price? Why not? Does it offend too many sensitivities? Countless other examples like that. Do you want to buy the music video of the song that won the 1986 Grammy Award for Best Rock Performance? Can't buy that anymore either. Is it because of the words "See the little faggot with the earring and the makeup"? Why can't I pay someone US dollars to legally "buy" non-DRMed music videos? Everyone in the business complains constantly, but they won't take my money???

jleyank 11y ago

Judging from the tenor of comments here, the typical user doesn't have to worry about bandwidth limits on their smart device, never drives where the connection's spotty, never flies and stays within one country. Or, I guess, just has a slug of money to pay whatever fees for internet connection arise. I tend to do a number of these things, so having music "in my hand" is advantageous. I also like to listen to both the hits and non-hits for the artists I like and had a largish legacy CD collection. Most of the CD's I purchase now are mementos of concert trips, especially for the bands that sign what they sell. Ripping the CD's, I get the music that the bands laid down, without the compression artifacts and pitch changes I get from radio. Do the internet services do the same, or are their offerings pristine? Different strokes and all that, but be careful to add up the cost of continued rental vs. purchase or other forms of acquisition. Edit: I also prefer to support the artists I listen to rather than middlemen.

prostoalex 11y ago
Both Spotify Premium and Rdio Premium (and I'm sure others, but can only speak for the ones I've tried) offer "offline mode" for whatever your device can hold. The music will then play even in airplane mode, the only gotcha is that you'll have to come online every 30 days or so for them to re-verify that you're still paying for the service.