Well, That Was Quick - Bored Already, Not Going To Keep Apple Music

[shandyman]

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.

Including the people that spend nothing on music, is skewing it. You tried using 7 billion as a figure earlier, that would include people that cannot buy music, babies, children, homeless, people that have no money.

Also, you're making a ridiculous assumption that adults 'stop buying music as life gets in the way'.

Also, if you're going to use the iTunes account figure, that includes duplicate accounts, accounts for children, accounts for people that have multiple countries (People in Canada have UK & US accounts, Some in the UK have US & Canadian accounts). All of that skews figures to be inaccurate.

 

[boltjames]

The argument isn't about one being better than the other, as the answer to that is subjective, depending on your situation. The argument is really just that boltjames is dictatorially stating that streaming is a ripoff for the entire world, because it doesn't suit his needs. The rest of us are saying that streaming is all about individual needs. For my friend that has hundreds of thousands of songs already, he doesn't need streaming. For my friend that only really owns about 20 albums, streaming works for them.

Stop misquoting me.

I've said repeatedly that anyone in their 20's or teens that has no parent with an extensive iTunes Library would find a streaming service like Apple Music a great thing. However, it has it's drawbacks. Perpetually paying $120 a year, finding a fragmented set of services down the road requiring more subscriptions, exclusive releases on Tidal, exclusive bands on Spotify, etc. And just like we saw in the Napster days, after the first few months of euphoria and offlining 1000s of tracks the inevitable moment arrives when you run out of things to pull down and you're back to where we all are today- waiting patiently for a great new song which can be pulled down for $1 a-la-carte.

Anyone in their 40's and 50's already has the back catalog of good stuff so $120 a year is too high a price to pay for the miracle prayer of a single album or song that you actually must-have being available.

BJ

 

[shandyman]

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.

I used 30 seconds, as your other half, BJ, kept banging on about 30 seconds. Also, some songs are limited to 30 seconds. 90 seconds is not universal....

 

[boltjames]

The loss leader only makes sense if it leads the consumer somewhere. If you can get unlimited streaming for $12 per YEAR, what is the incentive to buy from iTunes?

Take away offline mode, make it streaming-only. For the stuff you must have, you pay $1 per song just like you do today.

$120 per year = Apple Music Premium, unlimited offlines.

$12 per year = Apple Music Basic, no offlines.

The Apple Music detractors are universal in our thought that there is value in the service if it is priced more reasonably to suit the needs of those who don't need 30 million songs from the past because we already have what we need. We've done that curation patiently and personally since 1978. Understand that for us, the only things of value in Apple Music presently are a) convenience features, b) nice assortment of playlists in New, c) decent recommendations in For You. That's iTunes Radio on steroids. That's not worth $12 a month. That's worth $12 a year.

BJ

 

[shandyman]

Stop misquoting me.

I've said repeatedly that anyone in their 20's or teens that has no parent with an extensive iTunes Library would find a streaming service like Apple Music a great thing. However, it has it's drawbacks. Perpetually paying $120 a year, finding a fragmented set of services down the road requiring more subscriptions, exclusive releases on Tidal, exclusive bands on Spotify, etc. And just like we saw in the Napster days, after the first few months of euphoria and offlining 1000s of tracks the inevitable moment arrives when you run out of things to pull down and you're back to where we all are today- waiting patiently for a great new song which can be pulled down for $1 a-la-carte.

Anyone in their 40's and 50's already has the back catalog of good stuff so $120 a year is too high a price to pay for the miracle prayer of a single album or song that you actually must-have being available.

BJ

I'm not misquoting you. You're even proving it in your own post. You're dictatorially stating that anyone over 20 is being ripped off by Apple Music.

Again, you're pushing your situation on the rest of the world. I'm mid 30's, my collection is not massive, but I know for a fact it's bigger than anyone else my age. I know people in their 40's/50's, who have less than me.

Your pushing your opinion as common fact, when actually, you and the idea you're pushing about "Anyone in their 40's and 50's already has the back catalog of good stuff" is actually a small percentage.

 

[shandyman]

Take away offline mode, make it streaming-only. For the stuff you must have, you pay $1 per song just like you do today.

$120 per year = Apple Music Premium, unlimited offlines.

$12 per year = Apple Music Basic, no offlines.

The Apple Music detractors are universal in our thought that there is value in the service if it is priced more reasonably to suit the needs of those who don't need 30 million songs from the past because we already have what we need. We've done that curation patiently and personally since 1978.

BJ

With your model, the artists will get hardly any money. Therefore, you're screwing them right over, meaning the music industry will end up collapsing... Nice plan mate.

 

[shandyman]

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.

This post is perfect example of out of touch old man. You're the epitome of 'Back in the old days...'

 

[boltjames]

This contradicts itself entirely. Buying something outright when you only wish to have it for a period of time is throwing money down the drain.

If I just need a car for X amount of short time, I'm going to rent it. Not spend $25,000 on it and then stop using it.

That's because Apple Music is a contradiction in itself for those with hardcore iTunes Libraries. It's biggest offering (huge deep catalog) is unnecessary for us so the whole service is throwing money down the drain.

I played with Apple Music in depth for a few hours last night and there is value in "New" with all those curated playlists, I really liked what I found in there. Same for "For You" which I think, over time, will improve for my personal needs. They are better than the stock standard iTunes Radio stations. But they are not $120 better.

Offer me an Apple Music variant that doesn't have me pay for what I don't need and I'm all in. I don't need offline tracks and I don't want to pay for it. Let me pay to listen to the huge back catalog as served in "New" and "For You" without offlining it for less money. That's a fair request. That's iTunes Radio on steroids.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

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.

Yeah, hidden costs like a $5 thumb drive as a backup. Ooh, stop the presses.

The hidden costs of streaming services are massive down the road. Just you wait until some new album from some new artist is unavailable in Apple Music and the iTunes Music Store. Just you wait until Tidal or Spotify or some streaming service owned by a record company itself fragments the entire online industry just like cable TV networks. It's all coming. It's going to cost you a fortune.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

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.

I can listen to my entire 25,000 song library playing each song just once and not hear a repeated song for 5 years. I own more than enough music to keep me satisfied. In fact, I often feel guilty when I realize I've just gone 2 years without listening to Marvin Gaye or Lauryn Hill, like how could I let that happen? And when I host a party I just flip on iTunes Radio to a cool station, turn on Apple TV, turn on the Bluetooth outdoor speakers and I don't need to do any of the curation work, just let Apple do it for me.

So, yeah, Apple Music only provides me with the discovery of new music and it's not worth $120 when iTunes Radio will suffice. As stated earlier today, I like some of the features like "New" and "For You" but with zero need for offline listening it's just too much money for that privilege not to mention wanting to block my kids out from offlining as it's a concept that leads them down the perpetual payment path which I won't allow.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

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.

Please read what I write instead of imagining what you think someone with my point of view would write.

There is a reason why so few people spend money in iTunes for downloads these days- they already have huge libraries so full of songs they can't possibly listen to all of them anyway, so the incremental tracks become less important. You may love peanut butter but if you have a cellar full of the stuff it becomes more of a burden than something you enjoy.

Under 30 and no big library? Apple Music is great. Have at it. Spend the $120 a year. Makes perfect sense.

Over 30 with a big library? Save your money.

BJ

 

[Benjamin Frost]

I used 30 seconds, as your other half, BJ, kept banging on about 30 seconds. Also, some songs are limited to 30 seconds. 90 seconds is not universal....

The only 30 second previews I've come across are for tracks that are very short. For anything over about 2 and a half minutes, ie most music, it's 90 seconds.

 

[boltjames]

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?

I started ripping CD's in 1996 and converted entirely to the iTunes Music Store for my needs in 2003 when it was introduced. Much of my 25,000 songs were discovered in the 70s and 80s on FM radio and vinyl, downloading them became as simple as me saying "Oh, yeah, I liked The Monkees as a kid so I might as well pull down all the good songs they made".

I'm a hardcore music junkie who believes all the good music has already been created and has little hope for the art into the future. The last 10 years have proven me correct. I look for great artists. They simply aren't there.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

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.

Stop with this cliche already. It's not a generation gap. I'm cooler than my 17 year old, trust me. I have better taste in music, I am more plugged-in to new bands, it's something I'm passionate about and kids his age could care less.

What's happened is that there hasn't been a significantly new genre of music developed in 20 years and the best current offerings from those genres feature sampling and rip-off from the very old stuff we already own. Back in the 50s and 60s and 70s and 80s these genres exploded on the scene. Remember when you first heard Punk. Remember when you first discovered New Wave. Remember when you heard your first Rap song. There hasn't been a moment like that since 1993.

It's not a generation gap. It's a content gap.

BJ

 

[Benjamin Frost]

I started ripping CD's in 1996 and converted entirely to the iTunes Music Store for my needs in 2003 when it was introduced. Much of my 25,000 songs were discovered in the 70s and 80s on FM radio and vinyl, downloading them became as simple as me saying "Oh, yeah, I liked The Monkees as a kid so I might as well pull down all the good songs they made".

I'm a hardcore music junkie who believes all the good music has already been created and has little hope for the art into the future. The last 10 years have proven me correct. I look for great artists. They simply aren't there.

BJ

It seems that the Golden Age of Music is over.

Sad really, but at least we can cherish the glories of yesteryear.

 

[shandyman]

I'm a hardcore music junkie who believes all the good music has already been created and has little hope for the art into the future. The last 10 years have proven me correct.

Again, not actually factual. Just your own opinion.

 

[shandyman]

It seems that the Golden Age of Music is over.

Sad really, but at least we can cherish the glories of yesteryear.

And thus, between yours and boltjames last few posts, you prove this thread is basically just old out of touch people bitching. You're just Statler and Waldorf.

 

[boltjames]

Why are you still posting these pictures over and over again, even after it has been explained why those clubs are nothing like AM?

Those Club's are a terrific analogy. The excitement over a smorgasbord of music you always wanted. The orgy of downloads and the construction of the library. Then, when that awesome week is over, POOF, you're stuck paying perpetually for mediocre new releases that are few and far between. The Columbia Record Club and Apple Music show what the marketing folks at record companies and record stores have been attempting for years- use the proven back catalog to justify fixed spending on the lousy new releases.

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.

Not a barren musical wasteland, but just too few quality nuggets competing for my eartime. As stated earlier today, my decent 25,000 song library and my limited 500 minutes per week of listening means I play the whole thing and not hear the same song for 5 years. I have a great Alternative collection. A band needs to severely kick some ass if it's going to pull me away from Interpol, Death Cab, Spoon, and a dozen more. A band like that comes around once every 3 years for me these days. It's the price one pays for having great taste in music- you build a big library and it's hard for something new to make it in.

And for the love of God, can please - pretty please! - stop saying "you" when you mean "I".

You are wasting money with Apple Music. You should stop. You don't need it. You know you are right.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

There are till plenty of good new bands emerging, so that's wrong too.

Those that emerge within a genre just blend in with the rest of that genre on iTunes Radio or XM Alt Nation.

I'm into Tame Impala, one of those rare bands that I allowed to establish itself in my Library. "Pond" and "The Flaming Lips" are what you might call 'good new bands' but they just do what Tame Impala does better than they do so I don't need to own them. I merely need to hear them.

And I can hear them on iTunes Radio and a station I created called "Tame Impala" for free. When I want to hear Tame Impala's best songs, I play one of my personal playlists of their Top 20 tracks. When I want to hear that specific sub-genre of Alternative > Psychedelic I go to that "Tame Impala" iTunes Radio station and Pond and Flaming Lips and the rest are mixed in. So why do you need Apple Music? You don't.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

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".

Here. We. Go. Again.

When I was a lad and blasting Squeeze on my Technics SL-Q2 direct drive turntable and Pioneer SX-780 receiver my father would come into my room and exclaim "What is this garbage! Give me The Platters! Doo-wop needs to come back!" and I would laugh my ass off.

Today, as a father, I merely say "Can't Feel My Face 2015 sounds like Maroon 5 2010 who sound like Justin Timberlake 2005 who sounds like Janet Jackson 1995 who sounds like Michael Jackson 1985 who sounds like Earth Wind & Fire 1975 who sounds like Stevie Wonder 1965". I criticize the redundancy, not the genre. I'm not waving a cane. I'm bemoaning the lack of creativity.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

Because he realises that he's lost his argument and is desperately trying to change it.

I've won my argument before I ever made it. Streaming is less than 3% of the market. It's practically as unimportant a discussion as Do Not Disturb mode in an iPhone considering more people probably use that convenience feature as they do Apple Music.

You aren't making any arguments. You're just criticizing the posters. You still haven't answered the question of what makes Apple Music worth $120 beyond the convenience features you mention. Entering a password isn't that hard.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

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 an artist who is trying to be creative and release new works of art I commend you. Wish there were more like you, frankly. Please post a link to your iTunes offerings as I'd love to check them out.

As a businessman who is trying to make a living in the music industry, you are pointing out something that doesn't matter to fans. If Apple and/or record companies are greedy and rip off artists that's an argument to be made with them, not the listening public. I'm sure there is a potato farmer who is upset with McDonald's financial strategy that doesn't seem fair for the work involved. That doesn't make me want to pay 3x for french fries.

If the average iTunes user only spends $12 a year on downloading specific songs perhaps it would be of a benefit to an artist such as yourself to transform that narrow spend into one that exposes those same users to more artists for that same $12. That's the argument for Apple Music Lite, for those of us who don't want to take anything offline and just want to listen to the new stuff.

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.

So sad, so true.

Napster, Limewire, Kazaa, Spotify, Apple Music all contributed to changing music from something you treasure and cherish into a service like electricity.

I view it differently. Those services in the late 90s allowed people to download every song they ever wanted from the past. Things they knew already. When they were shut down, iTunes came around and allowed us to eschew Tower Records and HMV.

It's Streaming like Pandora and Spotify that changed the 'cherished treasure' into a utility. I'm the perfect example. I have a huge library, I took great pride in spending hundreds of hours of personally curating my mixtape-like playlists, yet when I have a backyard BBQ I just turn iTunes Radio on my notebook, connect to my Apple TV and Bluetooth outdoor speakers, and cue up a custom radio station like "Sunday Morning Radio" and call it a day. It's just easier. And my guests sill give me credit for great taste in music even if I'm not purchasing all the current songs they're listening to as they swallow my skirt steak.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

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.

Again, I am 100% agreeing that those who don't have large iTunes Libraries should have a great time with Apple Music so have at it.

You know the dangers of exclusive artists going to Tidal and Spotify, you know about the pull-outs of important artists, you know that you may need to subscribe to 3 or 4 of these services down the road to have access to everything, it's your money, I'm not going to tell you how to spend it.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

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.

Boom goes the dynamite.

BJ

 

[shandyman]

Those that emerge within a genre just blend in with the rest of that genre on iTunes Radio or XM Alt Nation.

I'm into Tame Impala, one of those rare bands that I allowed to establish itself in my Library. "Pond" and "The Flaming Lips" are what you might call 'good new bands' but they just do what Tame Impala does better than they do so I don't need to own them. I merely need to hear them.

And I can hear them on iTunes Radio and a station I created called "Tame Impala" for free. When I want to hear Tame Impala's best songs, I play one of my personal playlists of their Top 20 tracks. When I want to hear that specific sub-genre of Alternative > Psychedelic I go to that "Tame Impala" iTunes Radio station and Pond and Flaming Lips and the rest are mixed in. So why do you need Apple Music? You don't.

BJ

You have moaned that iTunes Radio only plays the 'popular' tracks previously, now you say about the Top 20 tracks, which appears to be good for you, which is a contradiction. What if there's songs you want to hear from them, that aren't in the playlist or played on iTunes Radio, as it's not widely popular enough. You cannot play stuff on demand, so your point fails.