Paying for music or not ?

[chrismuzz]

If I'm learning a song I just stream it on YouTube. Not sure on the 'morality' of that one

I used to download a lot of music, but I've always bought CDs, shirts, gig tickets and sung the praises of bands that I like. Nowadays I hardly download any music at all!

[redstriper]

More and more people don't want to 'own' stuff anymore, they don't want CDs or DVDs or even mp3s.
Everything is streamable now, so 'ownership' isn't necessary.
It's still useful to download music from i tunes, but even that will decline with the increase of quality streaming, higher bandwidth and universal access.

I think it's great

[MrTaff]

I use spotify most of the time, if I need to learn a cover song that it's there I have no problem using youtube, both are legal so I have no issue with it.

[quote name='mrtcat' timestamp='1357424865' post='1922614']
I don't like paying for the fuel to do a trip to the in laws just cos my wife wants to go but I wouldn't steal it.
[/quote]

Why do people say this? it's hardly the same thing.

[crez5150]

If I need to buy a song to learn, I'll buy it then share it with friends if they want it. We never own downloads anyway....

[BigRedX]

Streaming is all very well, but although these days server space and bandwidth are relatively cheap, they aren't free nor are they infinite. Your choice of music is completely dependent upon the whims of the provider of the service. Just because something is available today doesn't mean it will still be there tomorrow.

Plus it's reliant on you having an internet connection of some kind. Once you get outside urban environments there are still plenty of places where that is flakey at best.

Edited January 6, 2013 by BigRedX

[Les]

[quote name='MrTaff' timestamp='1357484107' post='1923197']
Why do people say this? it's hardly the same thing.
[/quote]

I don't know, but I didn't respond cos' I was starting to feel a bit defensive about the whole post. I obviously have some moral issues that I'm trying to resolve that's all, and it doesn't look like I'm alone.

I too, like previous posters have used youtube to learn stuff as well but I sort of lump that with downloads for that purpose, your still not buying the track.

Or is it acceptable cos' it's streaming not downloading ?

[crez5150]

I find it ironic that people used to find it acceptable when they used to record the top 40/ favourite song/ whatever off the radio onto their tape cassette but now find it unacceptable to stream a tune off of Youtube....

[MrTaff]

Considering a lot of music on youtube is uploaded by the band or record label, I can't see why it's such an issue.

[BigRedX]

Recording off the radio or a copy of your mate's album required a level of dedication, time and financial outlay that downloading doesn't.

Back in the 70s and 80s a decent quality cassette cost about half what the album did, was pretty obviously not as good quality (it inherited all the flaws of the vinyl original plus the crappy bandwidth and tape hiss of compact cassettes) and you didn't get the album cover artwork and information. It was hardly worth doing - if you couldn't afford to buy the albums you weren't very more likely to be able to afford the cassettes for rampant home taping.

Nowadays downloading and album takes only a few minutes and the hard disk space for several thousand CDs cost less than the cost of 10 of them.

The two are hardly comparable.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1357488234' post='1923306']...The two are hardly comparable.[/quote]

I'm confused. Does this mean that one is theft and the other not, in your view..?

[BigRedX]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1357491622' post='1923433']
I'm confused. Does this mean that one is theft and the other not, in your view..?
[/quote]

No, what I was trying to say was that home taping required lots of time and effort and in the end it was hardly economically viable and so, despite what the record companies were trying to tell us, was hardly any kind of threat to the income of those involved with the production of recorded music.

[Dingus]

I don't know what the answer is - nobody does , that's why the music industry is in a state of panic - but the simple fact is that unless people pay for recorded music in one way or another the well is going to run dry when it comes to record companies signing and financing bands , new and already established . Even big -name acts are feeling the squeeze , and the amount of money circulatiing in the industry is decreasing year by year . I pay for downloads ect , and you still get massive amounts of music for very little money compared to the old days when you bought a record ect . If you're a music fan then things like subscription serveces are fantastic value for a very small amount of money .

Edited January 6, 2013 by Dingus

[flyfisher]

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1357482249' post='1923164']
More and more people don't want to 'own' stuff anymore, they don't want CDs or DVDs or even mp3s.
Everything is streamable now, so 'ownership' isn't necessary.
It's still useful to download music from i tunes, but even that will decline with the increase of quality streaming, higher bandwidth and universal access.
[/quote]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1357485467' post='1923239']
Streaming is all very well, but although these days server space and bandwidth are relatively cheap, they aren't free nor are they infinite. Your choice of music is completely dependent upon the whims of the provider of the service. Just because something is available today doesn't mean it will still be there tomorrow.

Plus it's reliant on you having an internet connection of some kind. Once you get outside urban environments there are still plenty of places where that is flakey at best.
[/quote]

Two interesting points and I don't really have any argument against either of them - at the present time. However, let's not forget that the web is only about 20 years old, maybe only 10 or so as far as effective streaming of music is concerned, and the changes we've seen are really quite astonishing. Yes, BRX is right about the current state of bandwidth provision, rural areas etc, but do we really believe that will last for long? Who can tell what will be the norm in another 10 years time?

I don't watch much TV but it seems to me that the days of the video recorder (even HDD ones) are pretty much numbered because of all the 'on-demand' services available to catch up on anything we miss and broadcast schedules are becoming less and less important for that very reason.

A similar thing is happening with music. It's now quicker to stream a song or video via YouTube than it is to dig out the CD/DVD from a collection and put it inthe appropriate player. Us 'old school' types may still like our gatefold vinyl ablums and CD collection but our kids are growing up in an age where they can get immediate access to pretty much whatever they want using their smartphones! 10 years is a hell of a long time in technology terms!

The music industry couldn't predict - or effectively deal with - the impact of the internet so I see no reason why we expect they - or anyone else - will be able to predict how things will pan out in another 10 years time.

The ironic thing is that many of us now seem to be decrying the freedom, democratisation, anarchy - call it what you will - that many 'angry young musicians' used to bang on about that is being enabled by the internet and associated technologies. it seems to me that the very last thing we should be wishing for is for some sort of governmental or corporate control of all the freedoms that the web affords us all. Sure, there will be some downsides - like bands having to actually tour and play to make money instead of just living off royalties in their tax havens - but I'm convinced the balance is for good.

It has never been easier for bands to get their music out there in front of millions of people. Long may it continue that way.

[Rick's Fine '52]

[quote name='Les' timestamp='1357408120' post='1922296']

Well, I asked it , but I take your point.

I don't think any of us would disagree that music should be paid for, it's just the scenario I mention in my first that's got me questioning my ethics.
[/quote]

I don't think it's staggering at all that this question is being asked. Its human nature, right or wrong to get something for nothing, if you don't have to pay for it. The fact is, which has been pointed out before, you can't get coffee for free sat on your sofa, you can get music free whilst sat on your sofa. Not saying it's right, that's just how it is. From someone who doesnt own digital media devices, i have to pay for my music, unless i steal a CD from HMV. Yes, I'm sure its the same thing, but yawn, yawn, no it isn't is it.

Life is life, people will do what they want, and take responsibility for their actions, whatever they may be. I have no issue with people downloading music for free, if the industry is losing so much money because of it, then they should spend some money making it not possible.

I think if I wanted a song on a permanent basis, i would happily pay for it. If i wanted it for a day or 2 to learn a song, i almost certainly wouldnt. Youtube would probably serve that purpose though, so the dilemna wouldnt arise.

[redstriper]

You got it right flyfisher - the times are a changing and it makes no difference what anyone thinks about it.

The recording industry already spends a lot trying to stop illegal file sharing, but they can't seem to accept the reality change is not reversable.
Governments are concerned about too much freedom of information and they want to control the internet, so file sharing is demonised, but the kids don't care

I live in a rural community and we get an excellent connection.
Many such locations receive subsidies to improve connectivity and as flyfisher says...... we've seen nothing yet.

[BigRedX]

Here's a thought.

With the emphasis slowly moving away from the recorded version being the dominant product to the live performance, and streaming subscription services taking over from having a "local" copy of the audio file, what happens when a band coming up to renew it's streaming licences decides that the pittance being offered by services such as Spotify is no longer sufficient and from now on the only way an audience can continue to hear their song will be to pay to see them play live?

Streaming services still have a long way to go. If they are going to be people's sole means of listening to music. Myself and my friends spent Christmas away from home in a rented house. Despite only being an hour's drive from Nottingham we were in an area with no mobile phone signal, and no WiFi signal either free or subscription. Without local copies of the songs we wanted to listen to, we'd have been without music for the whole week.

[Mornats]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1357505855' post='1923788']
[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Streaming services still have a long way to go. If they are going to be people's sole means of listening to music. Myself and my friends spent Christmas away from home in a rented house. Despite only being an hour's drive from Nottingham we were in an area with no mobile phone signal, and no WiFi signal either free or subscription. Without local copies of the songs we wanted to listen to, we'd have been without music for the whole week.[/font][/color]
[/quote]

Spotify Premium lets you download local files and play them offline. I use my Galaxy S2 in my car with Spotify in offline mode all the time now. Streaming services are moving faster than the music industry itself ever will.

[redstriper]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1357505855' post='1923788']
Streaming services still have a long way to go. If they are going to be people's sole means of listening to music.
[/quote]

Good point and I wonder if the same sort of thing was said about radio or TV in their early years.
it makes me wonder what is the nearest to sole means of listening to music now and what will it be in 10 years?

[Mornats]

I do like how streaming services are coming along. Here's an example of how it's worked for me.

I was in Tesco, looking at the pap they have in their top 10 CD chart. I saw the Paloma Faith CD that looked interesting and I was vaguely aware that it was quite4 decent. So rather than risk £10 on the album, I whipped out my phone, looked her up on Spotify, dragged her albums into my "new music" playlist and headed home. Once home, I opened up Spotify on my PC and the albums were there in my playlist. I listened, liked and then made a radio station from her songs. Regina Spektor came up, as did Lana Del Ray - all of whom I quite liked. So I've got around half a dozen new albums to listen to, without risking money on a CD that may have been pants. Oh and when I'm at work, I can change around my playlist that I use in the car, download anything new whilst I'm there and have a totally different set of music for the trip home.

This, to me, is simply awesome. Probably more awesome than my taste in music lol

[flyfisher]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1357505855' post='1923788']
Here's a thought.

With the emphasis slowly moving away from the recorded version being the dominant product to the live performance, and streaming subscription services taking over from having a "local" copy of the audio file, what happens when a band coming up to renew it's streaming licences decides that the pittance being offered by services such as Spotify is no longer sufficient and from now on the only way an audience can continue to hear their song will be to pay to see them play live?
[/quote]
Interesting idea but do you really think that will happen? After all, there's nothing to stop bands from doing such a thing already. But my bet is that 'giveaway' streaming will be the main promotional tool to build up a big enough fan base of people willing to pay to see live gigs. Also, most bands WANT people to hear their music and are more than happy to post their stuff on line.

Perhaps the real problem is that now it is so easy for bands to distribute their music around the world, there is an abundance of music out there to choose from. This will inevitably devalue music in financial terms. We all know there is a wealth of incredibly talented musicians and songwriters out there, so if one band decide to 'hold out' against the increasing tide of free music, then the chances are that they'll just disappear without trace as the public's attention shifts to another band offering their stuff for free.

The interesting thing is that in most other markets, we'd expect the quality to fall as the price goes down, but that doesn't seem to necessarily apply when it comes to music.

But, when all's said and done, do we want a world of music heavily regulated by a few big labels and studios or do we want a world where any band can put their music in front of thousands, or millions, of people without needing to sell their souls?

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1357505855' post='1923788']
Streaming services still have a long way to go. If they are going to be people's sole means of listening to music. Myself and my friends spent Christmas away from home in a rented house. Despite only being an hour's drive from Nottingham we were in an area with no mobile phone signal, and no WiFi signal either free or subscription. Without local copies of the songs we wanted to listen to, we'd have been without music for the whole week.
[/quote]

They might have a long way to go, but that's a quite different thing to the time it may take. People seem to have short memories and forget that iPods, smartphones and music streaming were lab dreams only 10 years ago. Now they are ubiquitous. Why should we think future progress is going to be any less incredible?

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1357505855' post='1923788']
With the emphasis slowly moving away from the recorded version being the dominant product to the live performance, and streaming subscription services taking over from having a "local" copy of the audio file, what happens when a band coming up to renew it's streaming licences decides that the pittance being offered by services such as Spotify is no longer sufficient and from now on the only way an audience can continue to hear their song will be to pay to see them play live?
[/quote]

Isn't that more of a 'moving back to' since recorded music in audible form isn't something that existed for the majority of time music has.

[Mornats]

You know, if the future turns out in such a way that bands could only survive if they played live and people paid to see them play live, then it might finally end the tirade of crap that the likes of Simon Cowell spews out.

[redstriper]

[quote name='Mornats' timestamp='1357509570' post='1923881']
I do like how streaming services are coming along. Here's an example of how it's worked for me.

I was in Tesco, looking at the pap they have in their top 10 CD chart. I saw the Paloma Faith CD that looked interesting and I was vaguely aware that it was quite4 decent. So rather than risk £10 on the album, I whipped out my phone, looked her up on Spotify, dragged her albums into my "new music" playlist and headed home. Once home, I opened up Spotify on my PC and the albums were there in my playlist. I listened, liked and then made a radio station from her songs. Regina Spektor came up, as did Lana Del Ray - all of whom I quite liked. So I've got around half a dozen new albums to listen to, without risking money on a CD that may have been pants. Oh and when I'm at work, I can change around my playlist that I use in the car, download anything new whilst I'm there and have a totally different set of music for the trip home.

This, to me, is simply awesome. Probably more awesome than my taste in music lol
[/quote]

This is indeed awesome.

[uncle psychosis]

I certainly don't think that the music "business" will survive long in its current format---if people want to illegally obtain your music there's no way to stop them. It seems that the fairly traditional roles of gigs versus records are swapping---you used to go on tour to promote your cd, now you release a cd to give you an excuse to go on tour. Personally speaking, I will continue to pay for music that I like (as I have always done) but I suspect that its going to become nearly impossible to make money off a record (monstrous hits excepted).

The likes of Cowell won't really be affected, his business model is just as much about TV and newspapers as it is about selling cds.

[uncle psychosis]

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1357513612' post='1923978']
This is indeed awesome.
[/quote]

The spotify technology is awesome, but the revenue that the artists get is so pitiful that I'm put off using them. Call me sentimental/naive/stupid but I'd rather use spotify purely as a preview service and then go and buy the record.