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.<p>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).<p>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).<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
Try this if it asks you to sign in:<p><a href="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" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...</a>
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.<p>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.
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.<p>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?<p>Different strokes and all that, but be careful to add up the cost of continued rental vs. purchase or other forms of acquisition.<p>Edit: I also prefer to support the artists I listen to rather than middlemen.
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.
<p><pre><code> Straight outta Compton,
crazy motherfucker named Ice Cube
From the gang called Niggas Wit Attitudes
</code></pre>
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".<p>But today? NO. Not for sale from iTunes at any price? Why not? Does it offend too many sensitivities?<p>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"?<p>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???
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.
An interesting aspect of this is that, to my surprise, paying for a Spotify subscription apparently costs more than people historically paid for music:<p><a href="http://recode.net/2014/03/18/the-price-of-music/" rel="nofollow">http://recode.net/2014/03/18/the-price-of-music/</a><p>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.<p>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.
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.