Yeah ... imagine what would've happened to Mozart if he was distracted by all those newfangled rotary phones and instruments that plug into the wall. He would've just been chatting up all the ladies and making noise in his garage!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Well, That Was Quick - Bored Already, Not Going To Keep Apple Music
- Thread starter boltjames
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
So if people don't spend $30,000 on music they will end up paying $120 a year for the next 300 years at which point they will potentially start losing money?
Any kids out there ignore these guys. I have a library bigger than both of them combined and if I could have given the 10 year old me streaming music at $10 a month instead I would have done it in a heartbeat.
Not to mention all the hidden costs they leave out in maintaining said libraries and protecting them.
Well nobody but flood, fire , theft or any number of other things, and in this case the mortgage is 300 years and the snazzy apartment gets all the latest and greatest upgrades as soon as they are available. While the ramshackle hut owner has to pay out of pocket for every single upgrade. The snazzy apartment owner can use the hot tub once a year and not pay a penny more. Meanwhile you have to buy a hot tub for your Adobe hut , pay to have installed and pay to have it maintained.
Again, artists won't be getting any "Hey guys - FYI - we have enough good music now. Can you just right some really bad songs?" memos.
With AM you don't pay $12 a month to listen to Katy Perry. You pay $10 a month to listen to virtually anything you like.
Oh, so my view is based on a lack of understanding? Presumably because I'm not smart enough to understand?
No-one is saying its an "earth shattering service that's a breakthrough for all mankind". In fact, people have been very clear in saying that it simply is what it is - a streaming subscription service that will likely suit people interested in music enough to hear as few as around 15 albums a year.
How on earth does that put someone in the top 1% extreme of hardcore music fans?
Assuming 12 tracks per album, that's 180 tracks a year.
So it would take this mythical "hardcore music junkie" nearly 140 years to amass your 25,000 song library.
Going by your own numbers you seem to be tripping over your own arguments again.
I imagine there are people with libraries far bigger than yours - perhaps a 55 year old has a library of 50,000 songs, which took 40 years to amass.
That would be 1250 tracks, or around 100 albums, a year.
So this notion you have that a mere 12-15 albums a year makes them a "hardcore music junkie" in the top 1% seems completely wrong.
You're big mistake seems to be including everyone who spends £0.00 on music which is massively skewing your figures.
Plus you still miss the point that a streaming subscription lets you listen to stuff that you probably wouldn't actually buy.
Last edited:
Way to go and deliberately pick an absurd choice..... There's many around that could be potential ones tho.
Pandora is US only, iTunes radio is not free in the rest of the world, in the US it's only free with 6 skips an hour. You cannot use these as an universal argument against streaming. Again, you're just proving your own argument invalid by dictatorially ruling that because you hate streaming, it's a ripoff for everyone.
That's a subjective thing. A more appropriate way is to say 'Despite their father exposing them to, what he thinks is, some of the best music ever made'
Also, you claimed they liked all the music you liked. Now you're contradicting that?
Keep digging....
Exactly. There's a couple of artists I'd never heard of before, discovered via Apple Music, that if I had followed BJ's model of just listening to the 30 second previews, I probably would have not bothered with. Now I have all their albums and been listening for days.
Regarding your 25,000 song library - can I ask how many years that took to amass?
And if I'm in the top 1% of "hardcore music junkies" with my 15-30 albums a year, which would take me up to 140 years to reach 25,000 songs, where does that put you on the scale of hardcore music junkies?
This simply isn't true.
Its just something a lot of people have always said when they hit their late 20s / 30s.
Is there more music? Sure.
Is there more bad music? I don't doubt it.
Is there less good music? I very much doubt it.
Yeah, but we know how this plays out. For a 20 year old this will be like 1999 and Napster where we pulled all-nighters for a week to download all the songs we every wanted and then after that week only went to Napster when a new disc we wanted was being released.
After the first month of "I just took 10,000 songs offline in Apple Music for $12!" euphoria wears off, you realize it's the Columbia Record Club. You got a huge amount of songs for nothing but now you have to pay for that gluttony forever.
BJ
Why are you still posting these pictures over and over again, even after it has been explained why those clubs are nothing like AM?
So if you downloaded a ton of stuff in 1999 from Napster, what about the decade and a half since then? Just some barren musical wasteland?
The way you go on, you'd think that music just stopped in 2000.
And for the love of God, can please - pretty please! - stop saying "you" when you mean "I".
There are till plenty of good new bands emerging, so that's wrong too.
Um, you realise you could say that about most albums from any decade or year?
In which case, what's your point?
Why are you moving the goalposts from "new music" to "new genres of music"?
Although even then, I'm pretty sure there are new genres, or sub genres that I'm unfamiliar with.
The point is that there is still plenty of great new music coming out, and cliche or not, people have always bemoaned the fact that "its not like it was when I were a lad".
Well, given that your off-the-top-of-your-head example of what might be a classic was Britney Spears, possibly not.
Because he realises that he's lost his argument and is desperately trying to change it.
(I am on a pop music forum, where you'll find plenty of people declaring that Britney's albums In The Zone (2003) and Blackout (2007) are classics. You'll also see people claim that Lady Gaga is incredibly original, which is really funny to anyone over the age of 30 who remembers Madonna and Mylene Farmer. But that is a discussion about taste, not Apple Music.)
As an artist I feel quite upset when people write that music, to them, is worth $12 a year. With $9.99 tier Apple pays 0.0072$ per stream (that's the correct amount of zeroes) when trial is over, and 0.002$ during the trial. I self-release my music. Putting an album up for a year costs $49. I need approx. 7,000 streams to cover just the cost of putting the music on Apple Music, iTunes, etc. That's before you count the cost of recording, mastering, equipment, time put into making the record. With iTunes sales, I need to sell seven copies to cover the cost of putting the music online. Let's say an album has ten tracks and I have seven fans. In order to make the same amount of money from streaming as I do from sales, each of my seven fans would have to stream the entire album 100 times. I went to the trouble of checking how many tracks in my 35k library I played 100 times or more, and the answer is 0.7%. If the tier was $12 a year rather than $120, the payment for RECORD LABEL (not artist) would be 0.00072$ and my hypothetical seven fans (since I self-release, the label doesn't take their cut) would have to play the entire album 1000 times. There is no track in my library that I played 1000 times.
As for new music genres... last years brought us dubstep (which is basically eurodisco slowed down to 50% and with added farting noises), many exciting (to some) hybrids of rap and R&B, and that's indeed about it. But it doesn't mean there is no new music of quality being made. If you listen to the new Laura Marling album, there are no new genres being invented, but the experience is beautiful and rewarding. The new M.I.A. song, "Swords", mixes Indian and Bangladesh influences with a type of sampling made popular by Björk. Hozier has a great record out. And so on.
As for my library of 35k, it took me approx. 20 years to build. I used to go on short holidays to London, plunder second-hand record stores and return home with 100 or more CDs bought for 50p or 1 pound. Spotify makes my life much easier, although admittedly less exciting -- I remember hunting for Electronic's debut album on a record fair and when I was at 80th or so stall I decided I'm giving up after this one... and then I found the album. I still have it and treasure it. Streaming service takes this sort of excitement out of music. I don't remember the first song I streamed, when was it and what I was doing. Napster, Limewire, Kazaa, Spotify, Apple Music all contributed to changing music from something you treasure and cherish into a service like electricity. I agree with the Netflix comparison much more than record club comparison, except there is so much more music than TV series. I still haven't gotten around to watching the last series of "Game of Thrones" or last six episodes of "Vikings". I also haven't gotten to checking out the new Chemical Brothers album. Or Jamie xx. Or Tame Impala. But if not for streaming services, I wouldn't know there is a new Chemical Brothers album for me to check out when I have time to do so.
As an artist I feel quite upset when people write that music, to them, is worth $12 a year. With $9.99 tier Apple pays 0.0072$ per stream (that's the correct amount of zeroes) when trial is over, and 0.002$ during the trial. I self-release my music. Putting an album up for a year costs $49. I need approx. 7,000 streams to cover just the cost of putting the music on Apple Music, iTunes, etc. That's before you count the cost of recording, mastering, equipment, time put into making the record. With iTunes sales, I need to sell seven copies to cover the cost of putting the music online. Let's say an album has ten tracks and I have seven fans. In order to make the same amount of money from streaming as I do from sales, each of my seven fans would have to stream the entire album 100 times. I went to the trouble of checking how many tracks in my 35k library I played 100 times or more, and the answer is 0.7%. If the tier was $12 a year rather than $120, the payment for RECORD LABEL (not artist) would be 0.00072$ and my hypothetical seven fans (since I self-release, the label doesn't take their cut) would have to play the entire album 1000 times. There is no track in my library that I played 1000 times.
As for new music genres... last years brought us dubstep (which is basically eurodisco slowed down to 50% and with added farting noises), many exciting (to some) hybrids of rap and R&B, and that's indeed about it. But it doesn't mean there is no new music of quality being made. If you listen to the new Laura Marling album, there are no new genres being invented, but the experience is beautiful and rewarding. The new M.I.A. song, "Swords", mixes Indian and Bangladesh influences with a type of sampling made popular by Björk. Hozier has a great record out. And so on.
As for my library of 35k, it took me approx. 20 years to build. I used to go on short holidays to London, plunder second-hand record stores and return home with 100 or more CDs bought for 50p or 1 pound. Spotify makes my life much easier, although admittedly less exciting -- I remember hunting for Electronic's debut album on a record fair and when I was at 80th or so stall I decided I'm giving up after this one... and then I found the album. I still have it and treasure it. Streaming service takes this sort of excitement out of music. I don't remember the first song I streamed, when was it and what I was doing. Napster, Limewire, Kazaa, Spotify, Apple Music all contributed to changing music from something you treasure and cherish into a service like electricity. I agree with the Netflix comparison much more than record club comparison, except there is so much more music than TV series. I still haven't gotten around to watching the last series of "Game of Thrones" or last six episodes of "Vikings". I also haven't gotten to checking out the new Chemical Brothers album. Or Jamie xx. Or Tame Impala. But if not for streaming services, I wouldn't know there is a new Chemical Brothers album for me to check out when I have time to do so.
Wow. So many songs. 25,000 songs of the best music ever made. I guess there are about 15,000 songs in that great library that I don't own yet.
So I will start buying them now, and I will try to finish within the next 50 years.
That means, each year, I will be buying 300 songs. That's 25 songs per month, i.e. about 2-3 albums. That's somewhere between 12 and 30 bucks a month, if I buy complete albums.
That is clearly more expensive than a streaming service.
Your post just proves that you're in a small minority of people that buy music. Streaming is not for you, which is fair enough, no-one has an issue with that. Doesn't mean that streaming is a ripoff for everyone, like the dictatorial OP is stating, which is what the main issue is in this thread.
Actually, streaming is for me as well and I pay for it (Spotify Premium for the last two years). There's a lot of records that I am happy to hear once or twice, but never again. Buying a CD or download would be a colossal waste of money. But I end up buying some records I find through streaming, because I love them so much I want to support the artist and I have no delusions that my $0.007 constitutes supporting the artist properly. Streaming would be a ripoff is you could convince my mother to pay for it despite the fact she never listens to music. But I think the "1%", "2%", "97%" etc. percentages weaken the argument of the person using those numbers, unless they are willing to provide the source of the data used.
While I previously stated the analogy with Netflix is good, it's not perfect. I have maybe three movies that I have seen 10 times and two TV series I bothered seeing more than once. I have countless albums which I played 20, 30 or more times. I guess I'd be a Netflix user that goes out and buys the boxed set anyway
While I previously stated the analogy with Netflix is good, it's not perfect. I have maybe three movies that I have seen 10 times and two TV series I bothered seeing more than once. I have countless albums which I played 20, 30 or more times. I guess I'd be a Netflix user that goes out and buys the boxed set anyway
Why shouldn't you include people who spend nothing on music?
If you don't, you are skewing the statistics. Most people spend nothing or very little on music. Even five albums a year is unusually high. Teenagers and young people spend far more because they have plenty of free time in which to listen to music. Then people's lives get in the way, so they stop listening to music and buying it.
Enjoy your music and be happy with it. Just admit that you're not representative of the people.
You keep saying 30 second previews.
iTunes has had 90 second previews for years, which is more than enough to get the feel of most songs. The average song is 3 and a half minutes, so the 90 second preview gives you almost half of that, which generally includes a verse and a chorus.
Agreed. I think it may be as simple as this really:
Under 30: Music isn't a priority the way it was for their parents because they have been raised with so many more entertainment options. Internet, video, gaming, Instagram access to girls, no one is lonely and bored and disconnected in a bedroom in suburbia anymore, no one needs a great album to escape to another world anymore.
Over 30: We have enough music. We've been exposed to so much and own so much we simply don't need any more. We have so many songs from our narrow scope of likeable genre's it takes a lot for us to accept a new band or even a new song each year. We have the luxury of being picky.
Speaking for myself, I have too much music. I can't listen to it all. I've taken my 25,000 songs and curated 250 playlists for each mood or environment, about 100 songs on each. That's 2,500 songs representing the very best of the best of my musical tastes. That's 12,500 minutes of music. I commute by car 120 minutes a day or 600 minutes a week. After sports radio, news radio, phone calls, I probably listen to 500 minutes of music per week. My curated playlists can last me 25 weeks or half a year. So I can go an entire year listening to 'Sargent Pepper' or 'The Joshua Tree' or 'What's Goin' On' or 'Out Of The Blue' or 'Nevermind' only twice each and have enough musical diversity and satisfaction to not feel like I'm missing out on anything. Like I said, I almost have too much music, this subset of songs is only 10% of what I actually own.
BJ
- Status