3 ms·
I used to care about owning my music, but over time the money just kept adding up and so did the inconveniences. Want this artist's albums on my phone? Dammit,
by kactus 11y ago
I used to care about owning my music, but over time the money just kept adding up and so did the inconveniences. Want this artist's albums on my phone? Dammit, gotta take time and copy all that over. New music? Welp, there goes my food for the month (I don't like pirating). I made a new playlist on my computer, and I want it on my phone? Dang it, it didn't find the tracks that I copied on there before and so it's useless.
Paying $10 a month for a streaming service (I use Google Music) made a lot more sense to me for than paying $30-$100 a month buying albums.
- marpstar 11y agoNot to mention all of the space a large music collection can take up. I've managed to sell about 400 of the 450 CDs I had collected because I just didn't want the cases around anymore. All I was doing anymore was buying the disc, ripping it, and then tossing it on a shelf. I probably had $6k invested by the end. All of my food service and Geek Squad wages gone :) As a musician, I want to support other musicians (and I know that streaming services are a raw deal for smaller artists, but so were traditional album sales) so I try to go see them on the road (which is where they can actually make money) when they're in Chicago or Madison.
- dublinben 11y agoI doubt you were actually consistently paying $30-100 per month on new music. The average consumer spends roughly $60 a year on recorded music. Now, instead of building 'equity' in a music collection that you own, you'll be renting your music at $10/mo for eternity. Which do you think will end up costing more in the long run?
- kactus 11y agoWorth the convenience imo. It's not like I can get value back from digital music files.