Streaming Music Contributed 75% of Total U.S. Music Industry Revenues for 2018

[smirking]

All of you streaming cheerleaders don't see the very big downsides of the streaming model because they haven't really happened... yet.

You're also putting all of your eggs in one giant basket that's suspended by a single gossamer thread (the internet) which is neither as reliable or as pervasive or guaranteed as we'd all like it to be or think it is.

That's just a little too alarmist for me. I'm not a streamer, but I fail to see how it's all a conspiracy to fleece you for exorbitant subscriber costs once they get you to go all in. If Apple and Spotify suddenly decide they're going to cartel up and jack up prices, you just unsubscribe.

Then perhaps for a while there won't be a way to get a lot of music, but those digital files already exist out there and it's not cutting edge technology to sell downloads. If the demand exists, it won't take long for someone to fire-up some infrastructure to begin offering digital downloads again.

 

[mdatwood]

I can always see it the other way...

That's $7.4 Billion thrown away by music consumers. In the past, we'd buy an LP or CD and own it forever. Over the years if we were enthusiasts, we'd have hundreds of "Albums" we owned forever.

I pay $99/year (really $85 b/c of iTunes gift card deals) for AM. That equals ~6 CDs year given the prices they were when I stopped buying. I've listened to way more than 6 CDs of different music already in the first 2 months of this year. Some of it is throwaway pop, that I'll forget about, and some I may listen to again and again. I would hate to have to buy all of it, or know up front that which I want to own forever.

Also, enthusiasts in the past may have owned a piece of physical media forever but in some ways it was still rented. 8-track to cassettes to CDs had people re-buying all the music they had already purchased. What happens when there is another leap in technology or format? Admittedly these are less frequent now, but owning some physical media has never been an absolute guarantee either.

 

[Kabeyun]

It’s a personal preference, so there is no wrong way to do it, but I think that maybe it is not important to “own” the music you listen to. The time and resources saved by not having to own discs or even files covers the costs of streaming for life potentially.

My friends has endless bookcases of probably 8000 CD’s. It’s cool and he obviously loves his collection as part of his life, but for myself I go the streaming route and I get more space in the house I guess and I don’t have to put away CD’s and tidy up. Another computer dude has tons of hard drives and hours of work arranging files - for me streaming is good enough most of the time.

Album art is what I miss the most - but there again, that’s a vinyl thing. My buddy with the CD’s has album art, but not as good as the full size LP’s. That was a lot of fun, and you’d listen to the whole album side - another part of the art that is not as prevalent these days maybe.

I feel your buddies. After finally ripping all of my CDs I felt such regret at getting rid of the art & liner notes that I bought a bunch of CD albums where I now keep the inserts. LPs are even better but maintaining and properly playing LPs is too much of a hassle for me. The album art has sometimes fascinating photos of the band (remember bands?) and art/prose/poetry they felt was important to include with their music. And of course you had the lyrics without needing a web site. And when lyrics are omitted, an artist like Seal could write to their audience and describe their feelings as to why. And all in a visual style that was intended to enhance or be enhanced by the audio. It was a window into your favorite artists that Connect or any other baloney audience-artist networking platform has no chance at replicating, no matter how interactive they try to make it.

Also, something was lost moving from LP to CD, where the importance of a side, like on albums like Abbey Road, went away. And with digitized media, the entire idea of playing a side or an album disappeared. You can still do it, but no one really still makes albums intended to be taken in as one continuous experience. Had it started this way, luminaries like Yes, The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Frank Zappa, The Who, Genesis, and other pioneers of the concept album, would not have changed the landscape of music the way they did.

 

[iSayuSay]

Should probably compare to buying tracks rather than optical, where as you said you can’t buy à la carte. Not saying it’s practical to store water or electricity. Just using that as a thought experiment. I agree that most people stream rather than own. That’s the point of this article and no one disputes that. I just don’t like relying on it. And don’t worry about my losing anything; 30TB in a power-managed RAID will be just fine. And how many movies can you watch in a week? I’m good for maybe two, max, and we have over 2000. I’m in no danger of being bored for years by our collection, which I continue to build. But as I said, I think streaming services are complementary to con

Well at first I thought of that too. Just about 8 years ago I started using Spotify mainly for previews of album that I was going to buy. Two years ago made the switch to Apple Music and nowadays I find myself buy less and less album and rely on stream as main music source, and iTunes rentals for movies. Happens so slowly but it changes my habit of enjoying my music.

You are correct about the concern of certain tracks become unavailable to stream. I mostly find that those missing tracks also removed from iTunes Store, so I cannot buy them even if I wanted to. Meaning it's not really AM's fault as a service, rather the artists themselves don't want to sell/stream them through Apple anymore.

I really admire your effort to manage such huge content library. It's just I'm afraid the business model has changed. Next April, Apple is rumored to hold a keynote for new subscription services, presumably news and video service. That's just another nail in the coffin for media ownership.

 

[smirking]

And with digitized media, the entire idea of playing a side or an album disappeared. You can still do it, but no one really still makes albums intended to be taken in as one continuous experience. Had it started this way, luminaries like Yes, The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Frank Zappa, The Who, Genesis, and other pioneers of the concept album, would not have changed the landscape of music the way they did.

I don't find this to be true.

Concept albums are alive and well. One really good example that immediately comes to mind is White Lighter, a 2013 release by a Portland area band called Typhoon. The album is basically an autobiography from the lead singer of his Lyme Disease-like disability (that still affects him).

If anything, I think the advance of streaming and songs a-la-carte could actually be a motivator to lead some artists to pursue concept album projects. It's just that few have the talent level to succeed at it. White Lighter is a very moving piece of work when consumed from beginning to end and upon hearing a few tracks, I immediately concluded that I needed to buy the whole album instead of just picking off a few tracks I liked.

 

[Kabeyun]

That's just a little too alarmist for me. I'm not a streamer, but I fail to see how it's all a conspiracy to fleece you for exorbitant subscriber costs once they get you to go all in. If Apple and Spotify suddenly decide they're going to cartel up and jack up prices, you just unsubscribe.

Perhaps for a while there won't be a way to get a lot of music for a while, but those digital files already exist out there and it's not cutting edge technology to sell downloads. If the demand exists, it won't take long for someone to fire-up some infrastructure to begin offering digital downloads again.

Even if you wash the alarmist angle, I think he’s right. For a monthly fee, which will only rise over time, you’re letting another entity decide what you can listen to, how much, and whether or not imyou also get to enjoy advertisements as part of the experience, all primarily based on contracts they have (or don’t have, or no longer have) with artists & labels.

And where do you tune in when they all jack up their prices? (Isn’t that what “carteling up” means?)

 

[smirking]

And where do you tune in when they all jack up their prices? (Isn’t that what “carteling up” means?)

The carteling comment was a hypothetical extreme (which is illegal of course). What do you do? You unsubscribe. You might have to go without music for a while, but if there's money to be made, someone's going to fill in the void one way or another. The technology to sell downloads isn't cutting edge anymore.

Prices will go up over time. It's inevitable, but there's a difference between them going up to gouge you once an anticompetitive environment exists and them going up because of normal inflation. I have a hard time seeing how supporting streaming is going to lead to an unbreakable consumer fleecing monopoly, but I am sensitive to the idea that prices do go up and maybe I'm better purchasing my music. Indeed, that's exactly the conclusion I've come to for now because I already own such a large library. If I were 20 years younger and just getting started, I would likely make the opposite judgement. I'd be streaming.

My point is that if you make the barriers to consumption painful enough, the status quo won't hold. People will find a way around it either through new legal channels or by pioneering grey market channels like Napster. Even if Napster were still legal, I'm not convinced it would be as much of a success story as it was when it came out. Streaming and digital downloads are easy and cheap enough now that I wouldn't find it worth the pain of dealing with P2P networks to get my tunes.

 

[Kabeyun]

I pay $99/year (really $85 b/c of iTunes gift card deals) for AM. That equals ~6 CDs year given the prices they were when I stopped buying. I've listened to way more than 6 CDs of different music already in the first 2 months of this year. Some of it is throwaway pop, that I'll forget about, and some I may listen to again and again. I would hate to have to buy all of it, or know up front that which I want to own forever.

Also, enthusiasts in the past may have owned a piece of physical media forever but in some ways it was still rented. 8-track to cassettes to CDs had people re-buying all the music they had already purchased. What happens when there is another leap in technology or format? Admittedly these are less frequent now, but owning some physical media has never been an absolute guarantee either.

Heh:

Otoh, if I love a work enough to keep wanting it in some new format, I’m also happy to give the artists a few more bucks.

 

[sychox51]

I can always see it the other way...

That's $7.4 Billion thrown away by music consumers. In the past, we'd buy an LP or CD and own it forever. Over the years if we were enthusiasts, we'd have hundreds of "Albums" we owned forever.

Now with renting streaming music, after a year of listening to music, you own nothing. Zero. And after 5 years, spending all that money on monthly subscriptions, you'd still own nothing.
Renting music via streaming may be convenient and worthwhile in the short run, but in the long run it's definitely a loser. No wonder  is so excited about it.

ok.. but I mean owning a cd collection isn't like owning a house. even owning a car isnt really meaningful 20 30 years down the line. I dumped my cd collection when I moved cross country in 2015. I sold most for a few bucks tops. the music itself is more valuable than the medium its on, and if I pay $10 a month for every album that has ever come out or will come out, its money well spent since I'm discovering stuff id never buy in the first place. a year of buying cds, sure you own the cds but so what? the value of the collection is virtually worthless so its not really much different than burning the money on streaming

 

[pika2000]

Streaming really is helping the music industry, especially in emerging markets where services like Spotify made deals with local carriers to ease barriers by doing carrier billings and/or excluding their streaming service from being counted against the users' data quota (the complete opposite of net-neutrality). Add on family plans where a group of friends can chip in together, it's definitely more convenient to use this services than even trying to pirate the songs.

Personally, I'm not into streaming as it is only legitimizing DRM back (remember how hard we fought to get DRM-free music?). But can't argue with the data. If Apple can get my kind of music into their catalog of Apple music, then I'll start subscribing, but until then, unfortunately I'm still in the digital download/physical media group.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

I can always see it the other way...

That's $7.4 Billion thrown away by music consumers. In the past, we'd buy an LP or CD and own it forever. Over the years if we were enthusiasts, we'd have hundreds of "Albums" we owned forever.

Now with renting streaming music, after a year of listening to music, you own nothing. Zero. And after 5 years, spending all that money on monthly subscriptions, you'd still own nothing.
Renting music via streaming may be convenient and worthwhile in the short run, but in the long run it's definitely a loser. No wonder  is so excited about it.

Streaming isn't about owning, it's about listening...listening when you want to whoever you want. It's about convenience. Using your purchase model, if people had to go buy an entire CD to get the couple of good songs they want for EVERY song or artist they stream today, everyone would be broke and their homes littered with CD's, many of which they would never listen to again.

$15/mo ($180/yr) for a family to listen to whatever, whenever isn't that much. It's actually the cost of ONE CD. 12 CD's a year. If I had to only buy CD's to hear all the music I currently stream, I'd be sad as most CD's had only a few good songs and rest were always skipped over.

 

[ImAnAgent]

I love how physical media such as CDs and Vinyl have overtaken iTunes song/album purchases.

The article I read yesterday was titled, what's old is new again. People are buying albums and CDs again, who would have ever thought that?

 

[rp2011]

..and let's be clear here, no physical media last forever. Records are the media that seems to have outlived everything else when it comes to music, but I have worn out or messed up records in one way or another. And where it comes to physical digital content, I've been through computers and disk drives and formats that have gone bad or become obsolete that i have lost a lot of import files over the years. I became an early evangelist for cloud storage after having computer and storage problems when I first started my business. I went to cloud with backups but I know nothing lasts forever.

So I love having everything streamed. My only worry is about that is what would happen in a worst case scenario that involved electricity or the internet. But in that case, we would have far more serious things to worry about than my music or video collection.

 

[BlandUsername]

Apple is going to stop selling music. Soon. And that will be very sad.

Anyone else like to own, and not rent, their music? I ripped my collection (over 2000 CDs) but held on to them for a few years after. Still don’t like listening to Apple purchases but they will do until I can find the CD and rip a lossless version. But not being able to buy music....that’s gonna be weird.

And I’ll bet you Apple leads the way on this.

When they stop selling music, I will find some way of buying from someone else. Its great they are printing their own money with someone elses musical work, I just wont participate in that.

 

[bgalakazam]

Sub par lossy audio but thats what the masses want along with subpar “4k” streaming. A 320kbs mp3 still sounds like crap compared to a 16/44.1 track

 

[BuddyTronic]

When they stop selling music, I will find some way of buying from someone else. Its great they are printing their own money with someone elses musical work, I just wont participate in that.

Well, the easiest way is to pirate music from torrent sites etc these days, so to me this article shows that if you price things right, people will give up on pirating music because it’s “cheaper” in terms of time and money to simply pay to stream most music.

 

[rp2011]

Sub par lossy audio but thats what the masses want along with subpar “4k” streaming. A 320kbs mp3 still sounds like crap compared to a 16/44.1 track

I mean if you are that picky, you have an expensive sound system at home and vinyl records designed to be played on it. You are the 12 percent. Which is awesome.
Modern music is produced from the get-go to be played on smartphones and home streaming speakers.

 

[smirking]

Modern music is produced from the get-go to be played on smartphones and home streaming speakers.

Do you really mean that? Why do they hire all those sound engineers if the recording companies aren't that interested in audio fidelity? I don't think any recording artist worth their salt is intentionally trying to make history as a mid-fi superstar.

If you meant that modern music is packaged for distribution over streaming delivery then I'd agree with you, but that would be exactly what @bgalakazam was complaining about.

 

[rp2011]

Do you really mean that? Why do they hire all those sound engineers if the recording companies aren't that interested in audio fidelity? I don't think any recording artist worth their salt is intentionally trying to make history as a mid-fi superstar.

If you meant that modern music is packaged for distribution over streaming delivery then I'd agree with you, but that would be exactly what @bgalakazam was complaining about.

You mean all the kids with Protools recording in their bedroom? Everyone cares about fidelity but no one is naive about how people ultimately consume their music today.
Of course I am generalizing. There’s Max Martin producing all the hits today with all the tech and staff he wants, but irs still very processed with an ultimate artistic sound that bears no resemblance to the sound produced for The Eagles or early Mikes Davis.
And even then, as today, most music was ultimately listened to by the consumer on even worse like a cheap car radio or home stereo. The argument you’re trying to make is just fantasy. Everyone wants the best sound and things on the consumer side have been constantly improving and the tech to deliver it is getting better.

 

[az431]

Oh wow. A decade ago this would have been unthinkable. Even 5 years ago.

Maybe if you've been living in a cabin in Lincoln, Montana.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/business/26stream.html

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/jul/12/music-industry-illegal-downloading-streaming

 

[lederermc]

Amazing. After 30 minutes nobody has thought up anything they can argue about related to this article.

Figure 3 needs to go back further in time to the point where there was no internet.

 

[k1121j]

Streaming music services like Apple Music, Spotify, Google Play Music, Pandora, and others are continuing to grow in popularity and in 2018, were responsible for 75 percent of total U.S. music industry revenues, according to a new year-end music industry report released today by the RIAA. [PDF]

Revenue from streaming platforms grew 30 percent year over year and hit $7.4 billion. Total music industry revenue for 2018 was at $9.8 billion, up from $8.8 billion in 2017 and $7.6 billion in 2016.

Digital downloads from storefronts like iTunes made up 11 percent of total revenue in 2018, and physical sales of records and CDs made up 12 percent. Digital downloads fell for the sixth consecutive year and were eclipsed by physical sales, which were also down, with the exception of vinyl record sales (up 8%).

Paid on-demand subscription services like Apple Music were responsible for much of the music industry's revenue growth, with ad-supported services and customized radio services making up a smaller portion of the growth.

Overall subscription revenues increased a total of 32 percent from 2017 to 2018, totaling $5.4 billion, thanks to 42 percent growth in the average number of paid subscriptions.

The RIAA does not break down revenue by subscription music service, but at last count, Apple Music had 50 million paying subscribers, while Spotify had 87 million.

Article Link: Streaming Music Contributed 75% of Total U.S. Music Industry Revenues for 2018

Am I reading this wrong or are regular old fashond radio royalties missing?

 

[keysofanxiety]

Maybe if you've been living in a cabin in Lincoln, Montana.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/business/26stream.html

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/jul/12/music-industry-illegal-downloading-streaming

I’m aware steaming’s been around for some time. I meant in the context of revenue.

 

[smirking]

Am I reading this wrong or are regular old fashond radio royalties missing?

I was wondering about that myself and it does appear that these charts are only for direct to consumer formats. The actual report doesn't do a very good job of making this clear.

 

[Traverse]

One of my biggest issues is that a lot of my music just isn’t available.

Zelda and Kingdom Hearts soundtracks aren’t on any service.

I have Apple Music and like it, but I buy new music I like because if the artist decided to take it down, the I’d lose access to music I love.