It’s Now Officially Time to End the Stigma Over Streaming Music
To stream or not to stream. That has been the question weighing on the minds of socially-conscious music consumers over the last half decade or so as physical sales and downloads have plummeted in the pie chart of overall music consumption, and the rise of Spotify, Pandora, and a dozen other services have begun to dominate the music space.
The initial rise of streaming was met with endless sob stories about artists and songwriters getting paid fractions of pennies on the dollar, while a host of new middle man media companies absconded with most of whatever advertiser and subscription revenue was being generated. Creators must get paid, or they can’t create. Even the most passive of music listeners can understand that economic principle. Yet it’s so easy to download an app and have nearly every single piece of recorded music at your fingertips.
Let’s not sugar coat it: the economics behind music streaming are still brutal for many, especially smaller artists and songwriters. This was a problem when streaming first emerged as a new alternative to physical and download sales, and it remains a problem today. And it’s a problem that the industry, rights organizations, labels, and governments should continue to address. Yes, the economics of streaming are beginning to shift in a more positive direction, but that doesn’t mean the problems are over. For some, the move to streaming continues to exacerbate their financial woes.
But streaming is here, and dominating everything in music. Trying to fight back against the incredible appeal streaming has found in consumers is fruitless. Helping streaming music gain further momentum is the recent news that the music industry is on a dramatic rebound not in spite of streaming, but because of it, seeing the first double digit growth in nearly 20 years. The same amount of money may not be getting channeled to the same people as it did before streaming, but there is money being generated; lots of it. The fight is no longer if streaming will take hold, it’s how to fairly divvy up the revenue it is creating, and how to get streaming to generate even more to allow an even more equitable playing field for all creators.
The stigma should no longer be on consumers who stream. The stigma should be on those who stream for free on ad-supported platforms. Pony up the damn $10 a month you cheapskates, and make sure that the people who are making the music you love can continue to do so. A paid subscription to a streaming service is a measly penance compared to what your average Audiophile used to pay monthly for physical copies, while this money ensures more resources go to the artists and labels to keep new music flowing, and older artists supported off of their past output.
If you’re in someone’s house at a party, or driving around with one of your buddies listening to tunes on Spotify and all of a sudden a commercial comes on, that’s your opportunity to be like “Dude, it’s ten bucks.” That’s where guilt should enter the streaming music economy. Who wants to be driving through a picturesque desert painted in the setting sun, listening to Sturgill Simpson’s Metamodern Sounds in Country Music and becoming immersed in a musical moment, and then all of a sudden a Skittles commercial comes on? You’re giving up so much value in your musical experience when you don’t pay for streaming.
On top of that, we’re starting to see some leeway from the streaming companies in complying with the wishes of labels, publishers, and artists who’ve been asking the streaming giants to incentivize consumers onto the paid tier for years. A new deal between Spotify and Universal will allow for new albums to be “windowed” before they hit the free side, not just enticing listeners to pay for their streamed music, but hopefully to not stop buying physical products from their favorite artists.
See that’s the thing: engaging in streaming, paid or otherwise, doesn’t mean you have to stop buying physical music, or even downloading the albums you most enjoy. The rise in streaming has been paralleled with the rise of vinyl sales. Music lovers should be encouraged to still participate in the old modes of music consumption, and to stream their favorite artists at the same time. In fact the best way to support your favorite artists in 2017 is not to just buy the record, but to buy the record, and also register some streaming activity for your favorite artists while you’re away from the comforts of your home stereo.
Buy your favorite records on vinyl, enjoy them at home during your down time, purchase a T-shirt when you see your favorite artists in concert, and stream them during the daily commute. You’ll still spend just as much cash as you did before, and the artists will continue to get paid for their work. In this new streaming economy, your favorite artists actually need that streaming data to gain the attention of playlist builders and such.
Where do songwriters fit in the new streaming music economy? This is one of the hardest questions to answer. Where before a performer would release a physical copy of a new record and it would register tons of sales in the first few weeks and the songwriters would receive a handsome check, now that same amount of money takes time to accrue because of the incremental payouts behind the streaming model. Also, an album cut doesn’t mean as much as it used to, since most streamers tend to focus more on the big singles. This is where songwriters are really getting squeezed.
Some studies have shown that over time, songwriters eventually make the same amount of money off of certain songs, but it sometimes takes years to get there. Meanwhile bills are due. Perhaps an advance option, like book publishing uses, could be a way to support the songwriters. Some authors receive advances on future royalties, sometimes before a book is written, or once a book is published, to help support them through the creative process.
Maybe this is a stupid idea, but it illustrates how there are options in how we could solve some of the final problems with streaming to completely eliminate the stigma from it. It’s also worth pointing out that music is still a results an appeal-oriented business. No different than the physical or download model, creators have to put something out that’s appealing, and get the attention of the public to make money in music. Some of the bellyaching from old guard musicians and songwriters would be happening anyway in the normal progression of taste for current music, and the cataloging of older artists, albums, and songs. Making music is still a privilege, not a right.
Read: The Best Way to Buy Music and Support Your Favorite Artists
The point is that streaming is here to stay, and nobody’s protestations at this point is going to change that. Artists that exclude themselves from the medium are only doing themselves a disservice, unless they’re Taylor Swift. Streaming is the new music economy, and it is convenient, fun, can foster the discovery process better than simple racks of CD’s or radio, and can really give artists with the most appeal an advantage in the marketplace. Let’s work to get liner notes and lyrics to become part of the streaming experience. Let’s get the songwriting thing figured out. Let’s make sure our creators are getting paid equitably, and the charts still reflect the greater commitment fans show when purchasing physical music as opposed to streaming.
But let’s also give up on the idea that streaming is a bad idea. It’s a way for music to be integrated easily in our busy lives, to share our passions for certain music with others, and, if done right, makes sure the creators still get compensated for their contributions. It’s time to stop painting streaming as a bad idea, and come together to make it a good one.
matthew rutledge
April 11, 2017 @ 8:44 am
“Who wants to be driving through a picturesque desert painted in the setting sun, listening to Sturgill Simpson’s Metamodern Sounds in Country Music and becoming immersed in a musical moment, and then all of a sudden a Skittles commercial comes on?”
F***ing poetic, penmanship gold there Trig. Nicely done article.
Honky
April 11, 2017 @ 3:55 pm
If I I was driving through the desert, and Sturgill Simpson was playing, I’d be begging for as many Skittles commercials as I could get.
matthew rutledge
April 12, 2017 @ 9:46 am
Puking rainbows and shitting skittles, does that surmise your feelings? LOL
Jtrpdx
April 12, 2017 @ 8:28 pm
Not to worry Honky. The mainstream “country” radio you listen to doesn’t play real country like Sturgill. No need to get worked up.
Michael Reddy
April 12, 2017 @ 7:00 pm
The days of the average music fan buying albums is done. The artists need to find other ways other then just ticket sales and merchandise to make money. My suggestion would be to have the Artist put a “tip jar” on there site so fans can support them whenever they want to.I also would love to see a monthly club where hardcore fans can get first dibs on tickets to concerts, discounts on merchandise and free live tracks for a monthly fee. I will gladly support my favorite artists if they did this.
Convict charlie
April 11, 2017 @ 8:45 am
Few years ago I read a fairly in depth article on streaming. It had the payouts being 76% to labels, 17% to artists, and 7% to the writers. Labels are major Back door partners to the streaming service. Most people just don’t know it.
I’m not certain if the layouts have change or not. Even if it’s by 10% there’s still a lot more room for it to be equitable.
LibertyPaulM
April 11, 2017 @ 10:30 am
This is where the stigma should be, with the labels and other rent seeking rights holders. It has been known for years that the labels are creaming off the lion’s share of the revenues and yet it’s the consumers and services themselves who still get the blame.
Zues
April 11, 2017 @ 7:15 pm
I don’t want to get into a discussion on economics, mostly because I’m not an expert. To be honest, I’ve done no research on how the streaming services whack up the royalty payments. I do know that record companies have done a lot of shady shit over the years and shouldn’t be trusted. That said, and playing devil’s advocate a bit, maybe the labels do deserve a larger percentage than the artist and writer. The label is the one putting up the money for recording, producing, and promoting the work of the artist and writer. As much as it may irritate me, the next Luke Bryan album is probably a safe bet for Capitol and will make them truck loads of money. But, maybe Dierks Bentley decides he wants to do another bluegrass album and loses Capitol loads of money. My point is, it’s a gamble. Not every record makes the label a lot money, even with an Inequitable percentage of the profits. I do wonder if the “extra” money made on Bryan’s albums is part of what’s used to fund passion projects, like Bentley’s bluegrass, or in giving a chance to new untested artists? Like I said, I’m not an expert on economics or the music industry. I am genuinely curious how this works, if anyone knows. I keep reading (until recently) about how the record industry is struggling, so they couldn’t have been making that much money.
Ultimately, is streaming just an issue because it’s still new? I have to believe that going forward, musicians are going to demand in their contracts that they get a higher percentage for streaming than what they’re getting now.
Convict charlie
April 12, 2017 @ 7:19 pm
It takes 2-3 million to break a new artist. Cost of cd/ep, promotion for radio singles, radio tours, and a bus.
Out of 12 artists on a label only 11 and 12 make money. 11 pays for the first ten and it’s break even at that point. 12th is where they kill it for the A lister.
MArgin is less than 1%. It’s about $9.22 out of every thousand spent. New artist may get close to a six figure signing bonus. Will not get any money until everything is paid back to the label for costs, many times they lose.
Only different royalty rate is Garth. He got 16%. He paid for his own production and cd costs. Delivered it to the label as a final product. He kept his music rights. Except thirty tigers records/indie artists that doesn’t happen. It was detailed before his comeback in “the Garth factor” by Patsy bale cox.
DanielB
April 11, 2017 @ 9:12 am
I agree that it’s absurd to fight against the market and the preferences of the consumer. You have to work with it, not against it. However, it’s not going to be easy. It seems to me that individual artists are in a weaker position now than they were before streaming.
Scott S.
April 11, 2017 @ 9:21 am
I have avoided streaming services for the most part with exception of trying Pandora a while back. I have a few questions.
What is the quality of the music? Does it compare in sound to a CD or high quality download?
What is your ability to make a playlist of your favorite songs?
What happens when you travel in to an area without internet service?
I have also noticed that some services offer exclusive albums. Seems this would require you to have several services at $10 each to have acces to all music. Still not convinced I should give up owning my music, but somewhat curious.
Trigger
April 11, 2017 @ 10:01 am
The quality of the music is not CD level, but if you pay for your service, is better quality than if you use it for free, or at least it is that way for Spotify. They are also beginning to test high definition streaming. But this is the reason physical music, and specifically vinyl are still important. Streaming is for convenience. Physical music is for immersing yourself in a full-bodied musical experience.
With Spotify and Apple music, you can make your own playlists, yes. Most of the services off you the ability to download the music to a device if you go out of a service area. Yes, the exclusives are an issue, but after numerous debacles (mostly via Tidal, Jay-Z’s streaming service), exclusives are really out of favor, and not likely to be a part of streaming in the future. And if you have to pay for two services instead of one to pick up gaps between two services, this is still a deal, and helping to support creators even more.
Scott S.
April 11, 2017 @ 10:17 am
Thank you for the answers.
Jack Young
April 12, 2017 @ 2:47 pm
Trigger, I have Apple Music but I download all of my favorite music instead of just streaming it. So it’s pretty much just like iTunes except I pay a monthly fee to download anything for free instead of buying individual music off of iTunes. The quality of the music seems 100% to me, so is that true? The quality concert is only if you are straight up streaming music that isn’t downloaded, correct?
Jack Young
April 12, 2017 @ 2:48 pm
Quality *concern, not concert
Megan
April 11, 2017 @ 9:23 am
Well written.
Senor BB
April 11, 2017 @ 9:24 am
How does paying the $10 subscription put more money in the artists’ pockets? Am I missing something? Last I checked it’s .002 cents a play roughly (at least on Spotify). If you’re really lucky, a spun song is purchased, but that is rare. Doesn’t the subscription money mainly go to the streaming company? I don’t see them raising the pitiful .002 per play due to more subscriptions?
Honestly, if I knew for sure more of that money was going to the artists I’d pay for it.
Also, not to totally deflate the joy of this article, but Pandora also has to accept your music!
So, many are left out of that huge outlet. I appreciate their quality control, but just saying…for one reason or another you might get a “No” from them, cutting off a big market for an artist to get more pennies. ; )
I agree that the music discovery from streaming services is fantastic. I love it. But I don’t understand how the subscriptions help the artists sustain themselves. I understand this is the future (at least for now) In principle, it seems stupid that an artist makes a great record, gets paid less than a penny per spin and has to sell t-shirts or koozies at their shows to generate income to sustain themselves.
With that model, I should probably sell a hotter, more expensive product with my name on it and make more money!
Trigger
April 11, 2017 @ 9:53 am
Subscribers generate more revenue for labels and creators than free users of streaming services do. That is one of the reasons Taylor Swift is not on Spotify, but she is on Google Music, because Google doesn’t have a free tier. The amount generate by a stream varies. It is not .002, though sometimes it may be. But if it is .002 lets say for the sake of argument, then it would be .004 on the paid side compared to the ad-supported side.
Of course the amount generated by a single stream is going to look paltry, and it probably should be. I’m also not arguing that it’s enough to compensate creators fairly. I think we should work to make sure creators get more of the money generated by streaming. BUt part of the way to do that is to eliminate the free tier.
Senor BB
April 11, 2017 @ 10:41 am
Ah, ok. I didn’t know this. Then it does help a bit. That’s progress in the right direction.
Thanks for the additional info. I would love to see a way to direct some of your subscription money toward the artists you want to support every month, beyond the plays. Almost like you do w/ some charity donations…I want 50% of my $100 to go to charity x and the other 50% to y.
Maybe they could allow some amount, say $2-3 (probably way too much ; ) of your subscription to be split into percentages to the artists you want to support monthly. There’s probably many holes in this idea, but that would give the artists a bit more income in this streaming format.
Love your comment on getting liner notes and lyrics available digitally! Those really were important to the whole album experience.
scottinnj
April 11, 2017 @ 4:41 pm
I think what Spotify has said it does is it takes the share of revenue it agrees to pay to the record labels – around 70% of that $10/month and then it divideds the ‘pie’ into ‘pieces’ with the share based on plays. So if Katy Perry has 10x the plays of Sturgill she (or more accurately her label) gets paid 10x because here share of the pie is higher.
In my (limited) understanding I think to some degree the label contracts with the artists that provide sharing date back to the days of the physical sale. That is if say a CD sold for $12 but it cost say $9 to manufacture/ship/promote etc the CD so the label took 75% off the top (these are hypothetical #). I think the contracts still give the record company that similar cut off the top since that is what the contract says but the cost to distribute the song to Spotify is basically zero. But the artists gets paid like it cost the label the samme to shipt a CD
Kent
April 11, 2017 @ 1:16 pm
Thanks for the article Trigger.
“Last I checked it’s .002 cents”
0,002/0,004 CENTS??
I’ve made some calculation for fun…
If paid streaming (on Spotyfy) would give the artist $0.00004/stream. I checked the total number of streams on album that was released on Spotify 3 years ago..
The total was (about) 132,700,000 streams in three years which would generate an total of, (with $0.00004/stream), $5308 or approximately $1770/year, And if, like someone said in an earlier post, the artist get about 10% of that it would yield an annual income of $177 minus of course taxes…Didn’t you mean $0.004?
And this for an artist that’s doing fairly well. I mean there are many artist that don’t even reach a total of 1,000,000 stream/year. I really feel sorry for them. They really HAVE to sell cd or vinyl album to make ends meet.
But fortunately most people seem to understand this, and when it comes to artists that they really love, they DO buy their CD or vinyl albums.
hoptowntiger94
April 11, 2017 @ 9:37 am
Another side effect of all the streaming, pirating is down. For 11 years, I could find new release weeks before street date. Now, I’m lucky to find new releases on street date. Fringe or specialty albums (non-mainstream) I can’t find at all anymore. I’m buying more music today than I have in a decade.
Trigger
April 11, 2017 @ 9:41 am
Good point.
Drew
April 11, 2017 @ 11:16 am
Great point. A lot of music piracy in the beginning was about convenience. You had everything you wanted at your fingertips. Spotify essentially gives that to you now.
The Senator
April 11, 2017 @ 9:47 am
Call me a Luddite, but I still refuse to use any streaming service. I like to collect physical product, and when I’m not listening to a CD or vinyl album, I’ve got a high end MP3 player that I put my files on. I don’t have anything on there that I don’t have backed up physically.
I understand that my way isn’t the way of the general populace, but I like owning my collection, and it keeps me from building up too much of an insurmountable backlog of music. I’m lucky to have multiple record stores in my area, and for the stuff I can’t get to through those, Amazon serves a purpose. Through sites like this, local concert venues, my Amazon searches and the record stores, I have more than enough routes to discovery. That’s not to begrudge people who get real value out of streaming(and support artists), but it’s not my route.
I do think that streaming is not doing the artists any favors in the long run, but music has been steadily losing value as a product since napster made the free download ubiquitous. When people take music for granted, they’re not paying for it, nor investing in ways to listen past the lowest common denominator.
Trigger
April 11, 2017 @ 12:58 pm
The streaming model ONLY works as long as there is still a physical market to help support it. That is the reason that we’ve seen the rise of streaming parallel the rise in vinyl sales, even as CD and download sales decrease.
Mike
April 11, 2017 @ 9:50 am
I love streaming. I still buy physical copies (and other merch) straight from my favorite artists, but as a songwriter (who understands that it’s not going to pay the bills), I enjoy the opportunity to listen to what’s out there without having to pay for the entire album. Buying music was always a gamble, now it is less so.
On the flipside, I do feel like streaming might hurt those songs which take repeated listenings to truly appreciate. I tend to go through a not more music and find fewer “keepers” by streaming. I know there are gems that I might not have given a fair shake that I’d love if I gave them a chance… but I guess that’s why I love Saving Country Music… it rescues some of those tracks for me.
Mark
April 11, 2017 @ 10:10 am
Even in the new music economy, curators are required to sift through the expanse of tracks available. (Thank you Trigger) Which is precisely why we still need radio, critics et al.., or perhaps why they are more important, to ensure that the best artists get attention and are able to break through.
One thing that isn’t mentioned in this discussion often, is that people have much less disposable income (on average) than in the heyday of the music industry. As well as the relatively rapid format shifting which resulted in people purchasing their album collection on tape and cd. This is a complex pheneomna which can’t be reduced to pirates stealing all the revenue. However convenient that may be for the major record labels.
truth5
April 11, 2017 @ 10:24 am
Streaming is great for the consumer. I listen to my favorite artists daily through Spotify Premium. When my favorite artists come to town, I’ll spend $20-$40 for a ticket, buy a shirt, coozie, album, etc…
CountryCharm
April 11, 2017 @ 10:37 am
I find I listen to a lot more music since I went with a streaming service. Having an Amazon Echo I just tell Alexa to play whatever I feel like. No CDs to exchange. Hands free convenience.
seak05
April 11, 2017 @ 10:41 am
Interestingly, country is definitely behind the times when it comes to streaming, but it’s physical album sales are holding better.
Anyways with the rise in streaming, and overall decline in album sales. we’re seeing more labels move to 360 contracts with artists. The money is really in shows and merchandise. You can really see it in a genre like hip hop, which is really dominated by streaming. Chance for example has never sold a cd, all his albums are streaming only, but he has a wildly popular merch line, and sells shows (he also is ind so no record label).
The worry is, that in a push for $$ the live market gets over-saturated…and I think we’re starting to see that happen, especially in bigger east coast markets like Boston.
Trigger
April 11, 2017 @ 1:02 pm
The country touring market is definitely oversaturated. The Country MegaTicket was scaled back in certain markets for 2017, and we’re seeing some bigger acts taking breathers from the road. Too many festivals, too many major tours. The public is getting stretched too thin in country.
JB-Chicago
April 11, 2017 @ 10:43 am
I’m like a couple of others in this thread. I don’t stream. I have no idea what the quality of streaming services is and really don’t care. I like to have the files to do what I want with em. Preferably Lossless WAV or FLAC files but MP3 320 will do. I have them on my iPod and in both of my vehicles. I’ve been finding it harder to find some Lossless stuff by newer artists (not big names) because they don’t put out physical CD’s (Luke Combs) or if they did it was such a small quantity that they’re now collectors items going for astronomical prices. If an artist doesn’t put out a CD for me to buy it just hurts them believe me. I’m not against streaming for those of you it “works” for but for some of us that care about the quality of the recording as well as wanting to own something tangible it doesn’t.
Trigger
April 11, 2017 @ 2:59 pm
There will never be anything wrong with buying albums or downloading music.
David
April 11, 2017 @ 11:15 am
I use Spotify to preview albums. If I like them, then I buy them. While I like to think I listen to a lot of music, I probably don’t listen to enough to make good use of a $10/month subscription. I might as well just buy what I want.
My internet went on the fritz for a few days last week and I have bad cell phone service at my house, so I didn’t have any data. I was only able to listen to CDs and the music I had downloaded from iTunes. That’s why I buy stuff. If my internet goes out I have nothing. Also, there’s nothing like the feeling of holding your favorite album in your hands and looking through the liner notes and photos.
Wheeler Walker Sr.
April 11, 2017 @ 11:34 am
In 2014 I was looking for new traditional sounding country music and not really knowing where to look I created a Jamie Johnson station on apple’s free streaming service. After several months of listening to a lot of regurgitated dog shit on the station like Colt Ford and Brad Paisley I had accepted that good country ended with George Strait and anything after him sucked. Then in August of 2014, a song came up that I initially thought was Alabama because of the intro. It was Turtles All The Way Down by some perceived stoner fucker goof off I’d never heard of before. Fast forward to today, Sturgill’s music has touched my soul and my music tastes quickly discovered Isbell, Hank III, and Jinks. Today I pay $15 a month for Apple’s streaming service and sample the hell out of a lot of country that is legit. Sturgill, Margo, and Jinks being my favorite. If I like the album enough I buy it just to give more $$$ to that specific artist. My point is, without streaming, I never would have discovered all the music I listen to now. It literally changed my life.
Nate
April 11, 2017 @ 2:57 pm
Exactly this! I went on a twitter rant about this a year ago. I’ve discovered artists such as Shelly Colvin, Fantastic Negrito, Liz Longley, Jesse & Joy, and Dawes, to name a few. If it wasn’t for Spotify, I would have never spent money on those artists. I like to jokingly complain that Spotify is actually causing me to spend MORE money on music because not only am I dropping $120/year (which is about what I would have normally spent in a year on music), but I’ve gone to concerts, bought albums & merch, from all these artists that I wouldn’t have even known about. Plus the physical copies of albums from the artists I already loved. I’m spending so much money on music, I don’t have time to feel like the problem when it comes to streaming. In my eyes, if you’re not on Spotify, I’m not going to hear your song so I’m not going to discover your music and buy your album or a ticket to your show. So get on board.
Andrew
April 11, 2017 @ 11:36 am
For me the decision to keep downloading most albums has nothing to do with the economics of it and everything to do with the fact it could be pulled from a streaming service at any time but once it’s on my hard drive it’s there permanently.
Alexander Grant
April 11, 2017 @ 11:58 am
Not only is streaming only 10 bucks a months for most people but college students only have to pay half that on Spotify and Amazon’s new service is only 7.99 a month of you have a prime membership. But even at 10 a month that’s ridiculously cheap when you consider that you have all the music you could ever want at your fingertips. If you buy 1 album a month it’s more expensive than a premium membership. Also I didn’t see it mentioned but wouldn’t you say that smaller indie artists benefit from streaming because people are able to discover them when they wouldn’t be seen before? I know personally I have discovered lots of artists and given lots of albums a chance because it doesn’t cost me anything extra.
AC
April 11, 2017 @ 12:10 pm
Like others, I enjoy streaming because I can try out the music. If I find something I like, I usually buy a physically copy whether it be vinyl or CD. For college students like myself it’s only $5 per month for Apple Music…an absolute steal. I’d be willing to pay more if more went to the artists/songwriters.
CountryKnight
April 11, 2017 @ 12:26 pm
Why pay $10 for the cow when I can have the milk for free with just a little effort?
On Spotify, just click the repeat button on, pick whatever song you like and rinse and repeat. Sure, it is not a constant flow but this college student saves $120 bucks a year.
Mike W.
April 11, 2017 @ 2:18 pm
Spotify also has a healthy college discount available. They shave off 50% of your monthly payment, which is hard to beat. I think Apple and Tidal offer the same incentive. My music listening habits can ebb and flow, but even on months where I don’t use Spotify a ton, it is hard to complain about “throwing away” $5.
Zues
April 11, 2017 @ 6:49 pm
I wonder if the “$5” you’re saving comes out of the artist’s share? $5 a month is super cheap, I wonder why we can’t pay the artists more than fractions of a cent per song, hmmm….
Mike W.
April 15, 2017 @ 5:29 am
Well, it’s not like any of the streaming companies are making money hand-over-fist to start with. Spotify still loses money and they are the biggest game in town. Google, Amazon, and Apple all support their music streaming services by digging into their substantial corporate pockets.
I feel for artists, but this is a no-win situation for everyone involved except for the record labels who seem to be doing just fine. Music streaming services don’t make money, artists don’t make money directly from streaming, and raising prices to pay artists more would simply drive more consumers to pirating their music again and everyone losing.
Jimmy F.
April 11, 2017 @ 1:56 pm
I’ve tried all these different services, but none of them have worked out for me because the music I primarily listen to is not available on any of them. Try putting together a decent Faron Young playlist or some Ernest Tubb and Hank Snow. It’s not gonna happen with these guys unless they somehow manage to get Bear Family Records on board which I don’t see happening. They seem to be alright if you are just looking for modern stuff or the greatest hits of classic artists, but you can give up finding any deep tracks for these type of artists.
Justin s
April 11, 2017 @ 4:31 pm
Ya finding full albums of say Johnny paycheck Is impossible, u can find decent compilations but that’s bout all they have
Almost Out of Gas
April 12, 2017 @ 12:47 am
There’s 36 albums from Erbest Tubb on Spotify, 197 albums from Faron Young, and 8 albums from Hank Williams. Of course a lot of best of, but also original ones. You gotta look in the right place. Lately, there isn’t much I haven’t found on Spotify. And to add to the discussion; yes, I will buy physichal copies (vinyl) as soon as I get settled enough to vuy me a nice vintage stereo. I really like my Spotify but nothing beats wax on a turntable.
Corncaster
April 11, 2017 @ 1:56 pm
Dinosaur alert: I buy CD’s, from the artist when I can, whenever I feel the quality of the music or production deserves it. I listen to a lot of stuff on YouTube with an adblocker. I go to local music shows, pay my cover, and hit the tip jar. “Music Inc.” isn’t making a lot of money off me, I guess. I bought a car with that Sirius thing in it, but despite all the money Sirius spent on postage trying to convince me to subscribe, I haven’t, because, well, I have all the music I want, none of the music I don’t, and I know where to score the good stuff when I want more.
I fall short of expectations in general, so it’s not like this is news.
FeedThemHogs
April 12, 2017 @ 6:34 am
Amen to the line about Sirius XM. I will never pay for radio, but I’ll for sure take advantage of the free trial offers when they come.
Sam Cody
April 11, 2017 @ 2:35 pm
Here to stay, or not – it still deserves all the shitty stigma it gets – and always will.
Texting and driving is here to stay too…now get out of my fucking lane!
norrie
April 11, 2017 @ 2:44 pm
Mmmmm Skittles..
Topher
April 11, 2017 @ 2:54 pm
Finally caved and got a Spotify account about 2 months ago.
Turns out vinyl is very expensive. Still buy my favourites on LP but just can’t afford to buy everything that way.
Sam Cody
April 11, 2017 @ 3:52 pm
Not only is it expensive, but if it’s anything recent – it’s just another crappy digitally recorded, mixed, mastered software developer’s representation of “music” shit onto a piece of plastic, then marked up 500%. Still a few exceptions – but not many.
scottinnj
April 11, 2017 @ 4:45 pm
Just to note Spotify offers a family plan that is $14.99 month and you can have six members in the plan.
I think streaming is fine, but it seems too cheap. Netfilx is I think $10/month, but you get only a fraction of the amount of movies and TV out there (more than anyone could watch in a lifetime. On Spotify you get (say) 90% of the music ever recorded.
Where I think we will go (and maybe once critical mass is hit) that you will get more pricing tiers. For example $10/month might get you 100 hours a month, $15/month will get you 200 and $20 unlimited. I’m sure smart Harvard MBA can come up with other ways to slice and dice. In other words once we are all streaming the pricing will go up.
Therealbobcephus
April 11, 2017 @ 5:23 pm
I probably will never stream on a regular basis. I buy all my music, and maintain a digital library of over 10000 songs in three backed up locations. I prefer having my archive than relying on a streaming service that is dependent on a data connection.
Ron
April 11, 2017 @ 8:41 pm
I understand your dilemma. I have over 20,000 songs on my iPod. It is also backed up in three places. I have too much invested there in terms of songs and playlists. It would take a lot of time to duplicate on a streaming service even if they had all the songs.
Stephen M.
April 11, 2017 @ 10:55 pm
I don’t stream, but I know I am a dinosaur. I probably have poured over $1000 into my stereo system as I prefer to listen to my music over best speakers I can afford rather then earbuds. Even the headphones I have are audiophile grade. But my own kids have no desire to listen to music the same way. They don’t think in terms of albums like I do. I own in one format or another every official Dylan release. I wonder if someone starting now can continue to release music for 40+ years like Dylan (56 actually in his case), or do all new artists have a limited shelf life because of how we consume music now.
Leather Telecaster
April 12, 2017 @ 5:23 am
I finally confronted one of my dreams in life and invested in a serious audio system, complete with a state of the art stream player. With this, I bought a lifetime subscription to ROON. Roon is state of the art, the wave of the future. My opinion is it will change the way you listen and expand your listening map as much as you wish. Man, this sounds like a commercial.
Plus, you can do a 14 day trial, absolutely free. Look it up!
Randy
April 12, 2017 @ 7:25 am
I’ve been a paying customer with Spotify for about two years now. I see it as important to supporting my favorite artists. Plus, with the family plan at only $14 a month you can have up to 5 users on your account. It’s a great deal for loads of ad free music and the ability to build a library and playlists. I still buy vinyl or even mp3s from my favorite artists, just to have more freedom with the music and to support my favorite artists more. I think as true music lovers if we are going to use a streaming service we should pay for it. It’s about like buying one album a month price wise. Thanks for the good read Trigger.
Dan
April 12, 2017 @ 9:40 am
I used to listen to music primarily on the radio. I rarely purchased CDs. Since country radio sucks now, I drop 10 bucks a month on Spotify and listen that way, to music that I actually want to hear. So that’s a win for labels & artists because it’s $120.00/yr that I wasn’t spending previously. The only losers are radio stations, but as they all suck, I don’t care.
matthew rutledge
April 12, 2017 @ 9:58 am
I really delved into this more as I have a new album dropping…this definitely stands true for me. It’s a bitch while we transition out of the old ways where things had shelf lives and are governed by the economics of scarcity. I think people are starting to wake up to the fact that we are in an economy of creative niches with infinite choice and that makes demand high for more choices. People are still hit focused because of the belief that we need to put music on shelves at chest height, “so put the hits there and we’ll make money and nobody else should be there”. We don’t need shelves at all anymore in the world of bits.
Labels still make money this way but are sadly in control of streaming services…which is why I need the band I am helping do some work from the inside. It’s easy to mock the industry but its distribution system is nightmarishly efficient. You can’t win against the market share of hits and their ability to gain ad space. So the goal is to make a record that sounds commercial enough to catch the average wal-mart listener and still keep respect by audiophiles across multiple genres. After that, I can fart in a can and sell it as dumpford and sons greatest hits I guess.
Everyone complains about broadcast radio, so yes pay for the service or stream free and donate directly to bands so they can keep making actual music. It really matters.
Sam
April 12, 2017 @ 4:10 pm
Funny how much this describes me. I listen to my vinyls at home, listen to Amazon when I’m out, and I happen to have a Chris Stapleton shirt from a concert.
TJ Neyland
April 12, 2017 @ 4:19 pm
Why the fuck you hate music streaming services?
They are amazing streaming services like Spotify, Pandora, Google Music, Apple Music and Amazon Music
Trigger
April 12, 2017 @ 8:08 pm
You’re a moron. Didn’t even read the article.
Jen
April 13, 2017 @ 12:19 pm
I would rather buy good music, but I don’t buy digital downloads. I’d rather buy an entire CD. I just listened to a survey of Rascal Flats’ latest album. All I can say is yuck. That was bad. Nothing but drum beats, and a lot of high-pitched wailing. I used to love them, but that was God-awful! Just reminded me why I no longer care to listen to mainstream country, anymore. Matter of fact, it’s apparently become so bad, that the main country station here, just changed format! There’s still another, and it’s a newer station! This station doesn’t just play newer mainstream, but some older stuff, but then there’s the station I listen to, HANK FM. All older country, all the time! I love it. I really love the music vault, from which might spring Patsy Cline, or even (though rarely) Hank Sr! I will keep it turned to that. Nothing good is ever on the other stations, anymore. As for streaming, I just can’t see buying songs, when I can hear them for free on the raio, or even find on the internet. I would buy CDs, if I really liked what I was hearing, but most of the artists I hear, that are any good, aren’t sold here. Maybe when I’m more settled, I’ll buy some off the internet, but I just don’t really pay attention, anymore.
Rene
April 17, 2017 @ 2:17 am
I am a paying subscriber to Spotify. Have been for years. I think it is awesome to have all the music in the world at my disposal anytime, anywhere. So much so that I would actually gladly pay let’s say 30$ instead of 10$ for this service. Especially if the majority of extra 20 bucks would go the artists.
Trigger
April 17, 2017 @ 6:59 am
I’ve always thought that if a service offered an opportunity to pay more, and possibly, unlock more options like HD streaming, liner notes, etc. that could pay for the additional overhead and increase the amount of money for creators, more people would do it than you would anticipate. All of these streamers obsess over price points, but you have a large portion of the population that appreciates the finer things and life, and would gladly pay $10 to $20 more a month, and brag about it. Think about it. An cashier at McDonald’s pays just as much for their Spotify stream as a billionaire.