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

[Supermallet]

Problem is, scenario A is already on the wane. Scenario B guarantees them a future. Plus, with streaming, it's a constant revenue stream for the labels and artists.

The days of owning music are slowly coming to an end.

I could see music going digital only, but I can't see it going streaming only. iTunes guarantees much more revenue for a record label than any streaming service does.

 

[johngordon]

Here, help me:

The bands I discovered back in the day that blew me away when I first heard them and made me a lifelong fan over, say, the last 20 years are:

Oasis, Radiohead, Foo Fighters, Coldplay, Death Cab, Spoon, Interpol

Not sure how they got on my radar, but the year that they did I was hooked. Some got better with age, some got awful, but those first years were awesome. Tell me the one band I missed out on that would have been equally mind-blowing that launched in the last year or two.

BJ

Obviously it's subjective, and mind-blowing is a big ask, but I have stuff by most of those bands.

Bands / artists that I would say have come along and been pretty great in the last few years would include:

Bastille
Chvrches
Django Django
First Aid Kit
Haim
Imagine Dragons
Mumford and Sons
Of Monsters and Men
Royal Blood
Wolf Alice
The 1975

Courtney Barnett
Ed Sheeran
FKA twigs
Hozier
James Bay
Lorde
Soak

 

[johngordon]

I've been thinking the very same thing myself. This is simply Apple's long-term play to lock people into renting music and paying monthly fees until they die.

My other concern is that it takes away the ability for consumers to vote with their wallet. If I like a band, I buy the CD and they get rewarded. If I don't like their sound, I keep my money and they go look for other careers. Natural selection at work.

Under the bundled, rented, all-you-can-eat model, there's less incentive for quality. Just like cable TV: Bundled crap (with the odd nugget in there if you can find it)

What is stopping you from buying music?

At the moment, if I really like a band, I'll buy a CD.

But there are lots of bands, including a lot of new bands, that I'm interested in hearing their album, but can't afford to buy every album I think I might be interested in hearing.

Streaming is perfect for that.

 

[Paco II]

We'll have to see how that plays out. I read online that in 1999, at the height of music buying, of those that bought music, the average spent that year was $64. ($92'ish in today's money). Imagine if that could be moved to $120 and spent by even more people. If the needle moves enough, record labels will do anything and everything to get people to only use streaming services.

I could see music going digital only, but I can't see it going streaming only. iTunes guarantees much more revenue for a record label than any streaming service does.

 

[maxsix]

Apple Music seems to be a bit of a dud. I gave it a good trial and found it's not bad, just rather cumbersome, dull, and unimaginative. It doesn't live up to the easy to navigate and fun to use aspect that other Apple products possess.

But it's early yet, as Apple does typically struggle a bit with new products that are as overhyped as Apple Music. I'd expect that they will get it sorted out so as to not be so unintuitive at some point in the future. How long that takes is another question however, as they're not known for speed of implementation.

 

[Supermallet]

We'll have to see how that plays out. I read online that in 1999, at the height of music buying, of those that bought music, the average spent that year was $64. ($92'ish in today's money). Imagine if that could be moved to $120 and spent by even more people. If the needle moves enough, record labels will do anything and everything to get people to only use streaming services.

But again, you're thinking about it in total dollars spent, when you should be looking at it as percentage of dollars spent. In 1999, the profit from that $64 per person was much higher than it is if people are spending $120 on streaming exclusively today.

Once an album is recorded, the record label has the hires files stored. There's no reason to only throw them into streaming services when you have storefronts that want to sell your music, again at a much higher profit margin for the labels. You've got lossy albums on iTunes for $9.99, and you've got hires albums on HDTracks for $19.99 and up. It's not an either/or scenario. The labels may have a lower total volume of sales, but the cost to them to distribute to digital storefronts is so minimal, and the product can sit there forever unlike in physical stores, that it's leaving money on the table not to offer it both ways. And then you've got those artists who don't like streaming and have enough clout to get their music pulled from streaming services, so there will always be a market for owning music.

I can certainly see a time where physical releases are relegated to vinyl and special editions to lure in the hardcore fans, but I think that there will always be a way to own a copy of the music you like.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Once an album is recorded, the record label has the hires files stored. There's no reason to only throw them into streaming services when you have storefronts that want to sell your music, again at a much higher profit margin for the labels.

Yep - No reason not to always be selling the digital files along with doing streaming deals. Cater to both markets and get everybody.

 

[Paco II]

People aren't buying music much anymore, and that trend isn't changing. And if the Industry sees streaming as a way to save themselves, they'll forget digital files in a heartbeat and throw everything into streaming. Will it be possible to buy digital files? Sure. But if the math of streaming works out well, they may not want you to, and they can price it accordingly.

Yep - No reason not to always be selling the digital files along with doing streaming deals. Cater to both markets and get everybody.

 

[turbineseaplane]

People aren't buying music much anymore, and that trend isn't changing. And if the Industry sees streaming as a way to save themselves, they'll forget digital files in a heartbeat and throw everything into streaming. Will it be possible to buy digital files? Sure. But if the math of streaming works out well, they may not want you to, and they can price it accordingly.

lol - anyways...

It's a ways off no matter what happens, so really nothing to worry about right now.

We still have CD releases - The world of "nothing but streaming" is a long ways from any form of reality

 

[Supermallet]

People aren't buying music much anymore, and that trend isn't changing. And if the Industry sees streaming as a way to save themselves, they'll forget digital files in a heartbeat and throw everything into streaming. Will it be possible to buy digital files? Sure. But if the math of streaming works out well, they may not want you to, and they can price it accordingly.

But really, they can't. Piracy and streaming has devalued music, and you're not putting that genie back in the bottle. Apple pushed to have AM priced at $7.99 and the labels resisted, but that just puts AM on par with every other streaming service that offers lossy streaming for $9.99 per month (Tidal offers lossless for $19.99/month and I'm guessing they have a very small audience for that particular option). If record labels tried to remove purchase options and only made their music available through streaming services that are more expensive than the current crop, I think you'd see a massive revival of piracy. Again, remember, the RIAA is petrified of piracy. Napster decimated the record industry, and when they cut off that head, 10 more grew up in its place (Hail Hydra!). Labels were very happy with the iTunes model, and much less happy with streaming.

The idea that music will go streaming only sounds more like alarmist rhetoric to me than anything else.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

I think Apple should offer the whole iTunes music catalogue to stream for free for a month each time you spend $10 on music in iTunes. That way, you are offered an incentive to regularly spend money in iTunes and can build up a library that lasts.

It also means that you are encouraged to seek out more music and may therefore be more likely to want to buy some.

 

[Paco II]

Hardly alarmist, more realist. Think Netflix, Showtime, HBO. Everything is moving to subscription/streaming. The idea of owning music is becoming passe. Signing up for a streaming service is now easier than pirating. The Music industry is looking ahead, and they are reading the writing on the wall.

But really, they can't. Piracy and streaming has devalued music, and you're not putting that genie back in the bottle. Apple pushed to have AM priced at $7.99 and the labels resisted, but that just puts AM on par with every other streaming service that offers lossy streaming for $9.99 per month (Tidal offers lossless for $19.99/month and I'm guessing they have a very small audience for that particular option). If record labels tried to remove purchase options and only made their music available through streaming services that are more expensive than the current crop, I think you'd see a massive revival of piracy. Again, remember, the RIAA is petrified of piracy. Napster decimated the record industry, and when they cut off that head, 10 more grew up in its place (Hail Hydra!). Labels were very happy with the iTunes model, and much less happy with streaming.

The idea that music will go streaming only sounds more like alarmist rhetoric to me than anything else.

 

[Supermallet]

Just because streaming is popular doesn't mean it will become the only way to consume media, especially for music, for the reasons I stated.

 

[Paco II]

First, let me be clear that this is all supposition. No one can really know the future. This intended to be an entertaining dialog. That said, will it be *possible* to buy digital and other music media? Sure. Just as its always been possible to get vinyl even in its dark years. But in 10 years, streaming subscriptions will most certainly be the way most people consume music. Did you think 5 years ago that Netflix streaming would, in just 5 years, be consuming 35% of downstream Internet traffic during peak periods?

Just because streaming is popular doesn't mean it will become the only way to consume media, especially for music, for the reasons I stated.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

Hardly alarmist, more realist. Think Netflix, Showtime, HBO. Everything is moving to subscription/streaming. The idea of owning music is becoming passe. Signing up for a streaming service is now easier than pirating. The Music industry is looking ahead, and they are reading the writing on the wall.

Really?

Virtually no-one pays for streaming music. TV programmes can be bought a-la-carte on iTunes. There's a move away from paying for monthly rentals in tv, not towards it.

The reason music sales are slumping is simply because music is dead. Perhaps it will revive, perhaps it won't.

 

[turbineseaplane]

First, let me be clear that this is all supposition. No one can really know the future. This intended to be an entertaining dialog. That said, will it be *possible* to buy digital and other music media? Sure. Just as its always been possible to get vinyl even in its dark years. But in 10 years, streaming subscriptions will most certainly be the way most people consume music. Did you think 5 years ago that Netflix streaming would, in just 5 years, be consuming 35% of downstream Internet traffic during peak periods?

Paco, it's worth pointing out that desires and habits around ownership and rental of media have always been very different with video vs audio content.

We've largely always felt differently about our music libraries than we have movies & tv shows. The usage scenarios are different, the repeat nature of listening is very very different than video content, etc

The Netflix/HBO stuff is not a great comparison.

 

[Supermallet]

First, let me be clear that this is all supposition. No one can really know the future. This intended to be an entertaining dialog. That said, will it be *possible* to buy digital and other music media? Sure. Just as its always been possible to get vinyl even in its dark years. But in 10 years, streaming subscriptions will most certainly be the way most people consume music. Did you think 5 years ago that Netflix streaming would, in just 5 years, be consuming 35% of downstream Internet traffic during peak periods?

See, if you had said that from the beginning, I would have agreed with you. I think streaming will become the dominant media consumption delivery vehicle in the future. But up until now you had been saying that the record companies won't allow purchases of music, and that's what I was arguing against.

 

[doug in albq]

It's a brave new world of streaming services. It's not hard to imagine a future where the *only* way to get music is by subscribing to a streaming service. Enjoy having a choice while you've got it.

If that ever happened then people would find ways to make "mix tapes" from the "radio/stereo" like some of us elder statesmen did back in the 1980s/90s. Of course the mix tape would be a digital product and the radio is the streaming service, in the modern version.

 

[Paco II]

Mix tapes will be some old retro thing. No one will need them in a future world of curated and algorithmically created playlists. Future people will think it was nuts that anyone had to go through the hassle of creating them.

If that ever happened then people would find ways to make "mix tapes" from the "radio/stereo" like some of us elder statesmen did back in the 1980s/90s. Of course the mix tape would be a digital product and the radio is the streaming service, in the modern version.

 

[dmccloud]

Two things:

1. It's too expensive if you're a father with 5 family members and data overages from AM's high quality streams. I'm looking at $660 a year which to me is ridiculous.

2. The onus is on the record companies to get their new bands out there and broken, not on the audience. They should pay us to steam new artists material if this is the new-norm. And, of course, we know it's not. Plenty of ways to get exposed to new bands on social media.

Think of it this way: If there were no attempt by computer companies to destroy free FM radio and replace it with paid Streaming radio would you be worse off? Turn the hands back to 2005 and you hear a song you like on the radio or on the internet, you buy it for $0.99. Have a good month of discovery? 20 songs, $20. Have a bad few months? $0. Apple Music and other streaming services have you paying for bad music in bad months and take away the ability to own the good ones permanently. Sounds like Cable TV. Sounds like HBO. Sounds like AMC which is a paid premium channel with commercials. No thanks.

BJ

AMC is not a premium channel. HBO/Cinemax/Showtime/etc are premium channels...

 

[jonnyb098]

Kudos to the OP bringing up a great discussion to read! I have to agree with many that to an extent, Apple Music is just a necessary "option" to offer music to the masses. But that's all. As much as people say buying music or CDs are dead.....I encourage a little research. Buying music is very much alive and will be for many years to come. The business model for streaming is still extremely messy, especially for artists.

I also have to agree that for me being born in the 80s, there isn't the degree of good music coming out that suits my tastes. Not all of us like bubble gum pop or hip hop. So I find a lot of my new discovery comes from the world of electronic music lately......Tycho, Ronald Jenkees, Little People, etc. Today's music reminds me a lot of the state of movies....bright flashes and loud explosions.....little substance. But that's my opinion growing up with amazing movies in the 90s and thankfully discovering the amazing music of the 60s/70s along the way.

As far as this new endeavor and music app. There's a lot .....I repeat...A LOT going on in the new app that I never feel grounded in what I'm doing. They would have been better off making it a separate app. And in all honestly, it feels pretty crummy that if you cancel the service you lose everything you've collected digitally. It just seems a little odd to me. Let's face it. None of these services will be around forever or be in their current form. At least with downloads or physical copies you have a chance of sustaining something.

This all brings me back to the current state of movies as an example. Many young people ( I'm talking Tweens) seem to not give a crap about anything but quick fixes of everything today. Crummy free to play garbage apps, large explosions in movies. I get it , things are changing, but hopefully it will all settle to a happy medium in the complex consumption world we live in.

 

[Paco II]

It's a mistake applying a physical, or even digital, notion of 'collecting' to a subscription service. There is no collecting. You start the subscription with nothing and end it with nothing. In the middle you get everything. It's all about on demand.

As far as this new endeavor and music app. There's a lot .....I repeat...A LOT going on in the new app that I never feel grounded in what I'm doing. They would have been better off making it a separate app. And in all honestly, it feels pretty crummy that if you cancel the service you lose everything you've collected digitally. It just seems a little odd to me. Let's face it. None of these services will be around forever or be in their current form. At least with downloads or physical copies you have a chance of sustaining something..

 

[Supermallet]

To be fair though, that's exactly what the streaming services are advertising themselves as: All you can eat for one low monthly cost. There's nothing in the advertising of these services that suggest creating a long term collection that you own if you don't use the service. In that regard, AM is better than most because it gives you the "Buy in iTunes" option for any song when you click the "...".

Again, if you were to buy all the music you could listen to on AM, you'd have to be a multimillionaire. Of course, no one will ever listen to all the music on any streaming service, so the question becomes: Do you listen to enough music that buying everything you might want to hear becomes too much of an expense? If so, streaming is likely for you.

If, however, you want to slowly build up a collection over many years and curate it highly, then it's likely not for you. On the other hand, if there are three or four albums you're considering buying in a given month or two, it might be worth it to pay for a sub for a month, listen to all those albums, and decide which ones are worth keeping long term as a purchase.

I will say that my biggest issue with streaming services is that you're usually stick listening to the latest release of a given album, even if that's not the best sounding release. I'll give you an example: Iron Maiden just remastered their catalog. The results have been disastrous, literally cutting the dynamic range of the recordings in half. But because they're the newest release, that's what you'll find on Apple Music. In that case, I've tracked down superior masterings and ripped them to my iTunes as lossless files to play at home and on my phone.

But you know what? In the car on my crappy manufacturer speakers the new remasters sound fine. It's only when I put on my headphones that it becomes an issue. So it's all about finding when and where a streaming service is useful to you.

 

[\-V-/]

What were you expecting it to do exactly? Make you toast? It does exactly what they said it would do and it does what other streaming services do. A vast library of music at your fingertips. I've made 40 playlists already ranging from party music to mood music to whatever. Sometimes I'll add an entire discography of an artist I like to a playlist so I can quickly skip through songs I do and don't like ... and favoriting the ones I do and eliminating the rest. It's allowed me to truly enjoy the artists I like by keeping only my favorite songs from their discography. It's allowed me to discover new artists I never would've before. It's truly amazing to me and I've enjoyed every second of it. I really don't know what you are expecting from the service. What do you want it to do exactly?

This is exceptionally true and *not* what I want.

So much of the excitement is "all the music in the world - add it to your library - play it anywhere and anytime (with data usage that is...or download it, more data)...

....but if you EVER stop paying the monthly fee?

It's all gone.

Not for me at all.

I'm sorry, but was there ever any miscommunication from Apple ... of them trying to trick you into thinking you'll get to keep your streaming music for all eternity? At no point did they say you get to keep all your music. The only music you get to keep is what you buy. They're not going to let you keep thousands of dollars worth of music for free. That was never part of the equation. Streaming services for years have been pretty clear about this. I don't know why this is a shocker to you. If you want to keep your music, purchase it. If you want to stream a gigantic library of music for a small fee, use a streaming service. It's not rocket science.

 

[doug in albq]

Mix tapes will be some old retro thing. No one will need them in a future world of curated and algorithmically created playlists. Future people will think it was nuts that anyone had to go through the hassle of creating them.

I am pretty sure you misunderstood my post and possibly did not notice the "quotes" around the phrase "mix tapes"...or maybe not. Cheers!