Streaming music services leave me cold

[John Drake]

A thing I wrote about streaming music services....

 

I’m starting to feel like a dinosaur.
The news that Apple are to launch a streaming music service, where anyone, anywhere can listen to pretty much anything in exchange for a monthly payment (or in other words, they’re copying Spotify and marketing it as an innovation) leaves me cold.
http://johndrake.co.uk/2015/06/10/stream-of-consciousness/

[Farmduck]

I've never paid for a streaming service. I have no need. I've never used a portable music player aprt from a Walkman knockoff about 30 years ago that I only used on long bus trips for about a year.

 

I've got hundreds of albums on my PC at home and I can listen to anything I like whenever I like in whatever order I like. I also have editing programmes so I can even play my music slower, faster, or chop it up or add tracks to it, etc.

 

I never touch any product with Apple written on it, except apples, of course. I'd like to try some of their products but it's clear to me from their advertising that I'm just not hip or cool or creative or artistic enough to sully their grossly overpriced lumps of plastic assembled in Chinese sweatshops.

 

Russian online music shops - the internet's greatest invention.

[Futtocks]

I do have the free version of Spotify, in case I'm reading something and an album or artist is mentioned that I haven't got in my personal library. I can check it out and decide whether to buy a copy.

 

Despite being an early adopter of computer audio, it is mainly for playing from the hard drive (a few thousand albums, mostly in lossless format) with Foobar2000, not streaming. But streaming is a useful thing to have, on occasion.

 

If I was going to actually have a paid subscription, I'd probably go for Tidal or the new Meridian-based Roon software, assuming my connection was fast enough.

[Dave T]

I have Spotify Premium as part of my mobile contract and love it. I listen to music far more than ever, including some brilliant acoustic versions and covers of songs that i would never have access to otherwisr.

[Tiny Tim]

We have spotify that we play through our Sonos speakers that we have around the house. I looked at saving all our music onto a NAS drive and streaming from that but decided in the end to go with Spotify. I will have a look at the new Apple service when launched to see if it offers anything different that might tempt me to switch.

 

It's nice to be able to try some new music without having to buy CDs and the it's great for our kids who love music....just not the music I like.

[John Drake]

I understand the appeal of free streaming services in that they allow you to listen to stuff and decide whether you like it before committing to buying it.

 

It's the notion of 'paid for' streaming becoming a replacement for buying and owning music that I just don't get at all.

 

What happens when you stop paying? You're left with nothing.

[tomdooley]

I've never paid for a streaming service. I have no need. I've never used a portable music player aprt from a Walkman knockoff about 30 years ago that I only used on long bus trips for about a year.

 

I've got hundreds of albums on my PC at home and I can listen to anything I like whenever I like in whatever order I like. I also have editing programmes so I can even play my music slower, faster, or chop it up or add tracks to it, etc.

 

I never touch any product with Apple written on it, except apples, of course. I'd like to try some of their products but it's clear to me from their advertising that I'm just not hip or cool or creative or artistic enough to sully their grossly overpriced lumps of plastic assembled in Chinese sweat shops.

Russian online music shops - the internet's greatest invention.

Well that settles that then.

I dont subscribe but i do listen to spotify.You type in your preference and get to hear artists you may never have heard of.;

I rather like that since the radio stations dont usually play what i like.

[gazza77]

I understand the appeal of free streaming services in that they allow you to listen to stuff and decide whether you like it before committing to buying it.

 

It's the notion of 'paid for' streaming becoming a replacement for buying and owning music that I just don't get at all.

 

What happens when you stop paying? You're left with nothing.

 

Rightly or wrongly, it's the way many things are moving in society. Rather than buying, you make a monthly payment to access the service. Photoshop is another example of this, whereby you now pay a monthly fee for their cloud based software, rather than buying it. 

[Futtocks]

Rightly or wrongly, it's the way many things are moving in society. Rather than buying, you make a monthly payment to access the service. Photoshop is another example of this, whereby you now pay a monthly fee for their cloud based software, rather than buying it. 

There's a lot of evangelism in the gadget media for streaming and cloud-based storage at the moment.

 

I'm not prepared to commit to it totally, as online services can crash and burn, leaving you with nothing. I'll use both, but I'd never rely on either.

[JohnM]

I understand the appeal of free streaming services in that they allow you to listen to stuff and decide whether you like it before committing to buying it.

It's the notion of 'paid for' streaming becoming a replacement for buying and owning music that I just don't get at all.

What happens when you stop paying? You're left with nothing.

A bit like gas, electricity, petrol, water, phone calls, library books, library CDs, radio and TV, programmes perhaps?

[John Drake]

Rightly or wrongly, it's the way many things are moving in society. Rather than buying, you make a monthly payment to access the service. Photoshop is another example of this, whereby you now pay a monthly fee for their cloud based software, rather than buying it.

.

I can see the logic with software to some extent, as it is constantly being upgraded and you'd always have the latest version instead of paying out a huge amount of money upfront for something that will soon be out of date and need replacing.

But a song doesn't need upgrading and the best ones just improve with age.

[John Drake]

A bit like gas, electricity, petrol, water, phone calls, library books, library CDs, radio and TV, programmes perhaps?

I don't think that's comparing like with like.

If you buy music, it's yours to keep. Forever.

Most of the other stuff you list you would buy to use only once at the time you buy it. However you pay for it you can only burn a unit of gas once. And you wouldn't want to replay a favourite telephone call.

Few people would read the same book over and over again in the way that music is repeatedly listened to. But if you buy the book, you would at least have the option to do so for your one-off payment. And libraries are generally free to lend stuff from.

Radio and TV are also instant mediums, though if you want to listen or watch stuff over again, you can buy and own most of he output on CD or DVD, not have to keep paying for it over and over and then lose it when you stop.

[Farmduck]

From the other end of the sausage-making process, I have a few tracks posted on free music-sharing sites and it's surprising when I log on every few months and find that somebody out there is still listening to my stuff. My home made version of Cissy Strut by the Meters is nearing 3,000 plays, so it must be on someone's playlist.

[Amber Avenger]

What happens when you stop paying? You're left with nothing.

 

Well that's the business model isn't it? Once you’re in, you’re in – it’s cheap enough that a lot of people probably will never cancel it, except to maybe go to a different service, or if they genuinely can’t afford it. There are so many ways to listen to music these days, that if you suddenly stop paying for Spotify, it’s not like your records have been burnt in a fire and you can never access what you listened to again.

 

I really enjoyed your blog John, even though I don’t agree with some of it I can see where you are coming from. I spend my tenner a month on Spotify not because I think I own the music, it’s so I can listen to what I want without the faff. I went from computer to computer, lost a phone or two and most of my digital music collection – my own stupid fault I know, but now I don’t have to bother with all that. In my mind I’m paying for the service – I can see where you are coming from on the ownership debate, I resent paying a tenner for an album on itunes with naff all to show for it and that’s probably why streaming services will slowly start to overtake paid downloads because you are getting better value for money for your virtual music.

 

I’m not as into music as some people on here, so I genuinely don’t think I have ever spent £120 a year on tapes/cds/downloads, but now I am through Spotify. I’m not going to say it’s the cure all, but I think over all streaming services work well for most people – and at the end of the day, nobody said it was only one or the other. The concept of “ownership” in the internet age is interesting though.

[Bob8]

I've never paid for a streaming service. I have no need. I've never used a portable music player aprt from a Walkman knockoff about 30 years ago that I only used on long bus trips for about a year.

 

I've got hundreds of albums on my PC at home and I can listen to anything I like whenever I like in whatever order I like. I also have editing programmes so I can even play my music slower, faster, or chop it up or add tracks to it, etc.

 

I never touch any product with Apple written on it, except apples, of course. I'd like to try some of their products but it's clear to me from their advertising that I'm just not hip or cool or creative or artistic enough to sully their grossly overpriced lumps of plastic assembled in Chinese sweatshops.

 

Russian online music shops - the internet's greatest invention.

Hipster.

 

Also, apples do not have 'apple' written on the normally.

 

Where can I find these Russian online shops?

[JohnM]

I don't think that's comparing like with like.

If you buy music, it's yours to keep. Forever.

Most of the other stuff you list you would buy to use only once at the time you buy it. However you pay for it you can only burn a unit of gas once. And you wouldn't want to replay a favourite telephone call.

Few people would read the same book over and over again in the way that music is repeatedly listened to. But if you buy the book, you would at least have the option to do so for your one-off payment. And libraries are generally free to lend stuff from.

Radio and TV are also instant mediums, though if you want to listen or watch stuff over again, you can buy and own most of he output on CD or DVD, not have to keep paying for it over and over and then lose it when you stop.

The library service is just that. A service. You don't own the books, you pay for the library service like you pay for Spotify, but through your council tax. You read the book, then hand it back, or you play the cd and the hand it back. The author gets a payment through the lending rights scheme.

All the other things you disagree about are also services. Exploration,transmission, infrastructure etc tend to outweigh the cost of the gas/oil/spoken words. Spotify is just like that. No more no less. You can go out and buy any record you hear on Spotify, search the net or the shops, store it at home, insure it, index it, maintain it, or you can pay someone else to do that for you.

You can go and drill your own oil, transport it, refine it, deliver it, store it,or you can pay someone else to do it.

[WearyRhino]

If you buy music, it's yours to keep. Forever.

 

Strictly speaking the music in not yours at all. The plastic disc, whether vinyl or CD, or tape is yours top do with what you want, but the music remains the property of the copyright holders.

[Tiny Tim]

I remember a guy I knew who was in a band in the early 80's getting a cheque for something like £80 because their single had been played on Radio 1 by John Peel and Kid Jensen (he wrote the song). I remember most of us being amazed...what? You get money because they play your record on the radio???

I wonder if it is still strictly monitored in this day and age? (with so much free broadcasting)

 

http://www.prsformusic.com/users/businessesandliveevents/pages/doineedalicence.aspx

[Tiny Tim]

Yeah but I was thinking more of things like people sticking albums on YT and making your own 'radio stations' on things like Reverb Nation, Last FM etc.

 

I guess that all gets a bit hard to police.

[WearyRhino]

Yeah but I was thinking more of things like people sticking albums on YT and making your own 'radio stations' on things like Reverb Nation, Last FM etc.

 

Essentially, the PRS is tasked with collecting money - royalties - for their registered copyright holders anytime a piece of music is 'used' by registered users in the UK. As you suggest, this is getting increasingly difficult to police as 'private' individuals are using music illegally online - which frankly makes the 'home taping' arguments of the 80s and 90s look petty. I heard on the radio the other day that the use of music in TV, movies and video games is now the big earner for composers and musicians.

 

The music industry has turned upside down over the last 10 years or so, particularly at the 'top' end. Where the money used to be in selling recorded material and doing loss making tours to promote albums the opposite is now true, the money is in touring. This is why U2 can give away their 'music' in the hope that punters will mortgage their house to buy a ticket to see them live.

 

I guess, if you're a young band, the opportunities that the internet has opened up in terms of direct access to an online audience is great. Previously, a young band could gig for a year and potentially gain an audience of 1000, they can do that in literally minutes now.  Sadly, the stuff that does seem to go viral is very similar to the highly commercial pap that the music industry has been forcing on us for decades. I guess the public do get what they deserve!

 

Interestingly, and not many people know, that authors get some dosh every time a book is borrowed from a public library from via the Public Lending Right office.

[Futtocks]

The PRS (Performing Rights Society) handles live performances. The MCPS (Mechanical Copyright Protection Society) handles broadcasts, both live and of recordings, but they are now part of the same organisation these days.

 

Most classical publishers do some of their own checking for the latter, scouring the Radio Times for Radio 3 and Classic FM listings, to compare them with their MCPS statements. Non-classical stations, of course, don't list every song they play in magazines like the RT.

[JohnM]

Big win for Spotify is the back catalogue, plus themed playlists introduce you to music and artistes you may not have heard of. Plus it's not run by Apple..the new world order.

[Futtocks]

Big win for Spotify is the back catalogue, plus themed playlists introduce you to music and artistes you may not have heard of. Plus it's not run by Apple..the new world order.

Question for other Spotify users - does the software take ages to load for you too? It is very slow on my laptop.

[westhuller]

I never use Spotiy on my laptop Futtocks I do find it laggy, is very fast on my iPhone or iPad, in fact I run my iPad through my pre and power amps using my iPhone to control my iPad, bonus is I don't even have to get off the couch now to search my library !

[Futtocks]

I used to have a wi-fi remote control app on my Kindle to control the laptop's various media players, but it was very buggy and a pig to set up.