U.S. Music Fans Continue Shift to Streaming Services as Apple Readies Beats Revamp

[Digital Dude]

How else would they be downloaded? I'm wondering why downloadable movies, games, and music are being referred to as "digital" downloads as opposed to just "downloads" or something more sensible and less redundant.

Perhaps we're thinking too much here. Anyway, it's sad to see this rapid decline in smart thinking' following the loss of SJ. Going from Quad Core to Dual Core in the Mac Mini, watered down AppleCare techs who simply read TS from a screen script, and huge slips in production schedules to name a few. Heck, it's like they're operating on a shoestring budget with no clear direction.

 

[ghettochris]

I guess I'm old, or just don't get it...

I'll never understand "renting" music. I can't begin to see the appeal, I don't see any value.

If I want a semi-random stream of audio that I may or may not like, or be in the mood to listen to at any given moment, I already have that, it's called a radio... it's not dependent on an internet connection, and it's FREE.

I'll gladly pay to have the songs I actually like, stored on my devices, organized in playlists I can choose based on my mood, and not have to pay a monthly fee, and not be at the mercy of an internet connection and it's reliability (or lack of).

I can't begin to understand where anyone sees the value in the music rental business. Seems like flushing cash down the toilet to me.

Of course, I completely understand companies like Apple rushing to take money from suckers that are willing, hell eager even, to rent music.

Shrug.

Oh yeah..

And git off my lawn!

What is there not to get about the appeal of a radio station that can play exactly what you want to play. Normal radio if you don't have that control. If you have a good data service and unlimited data, streaming it's not a bad way of going. if you live in the mountains, streaming sucks.

 

[2457282]

ugh just goes to show how little people these days care about music. I want to OWN the music i listen to and just have my albums as always

I agree, I own all my music - approaching 15,000 individual songs. I make my own play lists and I listen to exactly what I want. Having said that I do use iTunes radio in a few situations like when I just want some background music or to listen to new music which then leads to me potentially buying something. For me paying to listen makes no sense. I have never bought into subscription systems of anything. Out of nessecity, I pay a mortgage, a phone bill, the electric bill, the water bill, and Internet service each month. I resist anything else that has me paying a monthly charge (the only non essential monthly charge is Netflix).

 

[lawrencewinkler]

I never understood people who buy or listen to one song from an album vs buying the album. I understand why my daughter does this, as she mixes and matches based on the classes she is teaching. And maybe others are buying individual tracks for like reasons.

But, I wonder about the general tendency to decide you like just a couple of songs from an album and ignore the rest. My guess is this tendency results in narrowing rather than broadening one's musical palette. Perhaps artists do create albums with a few quality pieces, the rest being flotsam to fill out contractual requirements. But, quality albums can create full "stories" in which each song is a "scene".

Somehow, pushing single songs simply diminishes the overall quality of what is being produced.

 

[sleepydinosaur]

Vinyl sales have been rising 50 to 200% per year for the last few years. It's reignited my passion for music that's for sure. I prefer to own, collect and curate my music collection. While I spent years buying through iTunes and curating that collection, it just never felt real.

I guess my age is showing, but having a physical record in hand really makes owning music feel like owning music.

I take my daughter to the record store and she has learned that music is s physical thing and that it had value, not just files one accumulates.

 

[icolove]

The death of the album continues, and no one seems to notice or care.

 

[KdParker]

You must have a small social circle.

And most of the people buying vinyl aren't reverting - they're buying it for the first time.

Well that makes since that they are buying for the first time but still this has to be a tiny, tiny market.

Cant imagine this will last once they hear the sound quality and limited options.

 

[wtmcgee]

Its amazing how parents have failed to educate their children in regards paying for what amounts to a glorified radio station.

It's kind of amazing how many people comment on these threads without even knowing what Beats, Spotify, Rdio etc are. You're paying $10/mo for access to listen to any song, on demand, on your computer, your mobile device, and via Sonos, etc. These services have, in addition, a 'radio' feature like iTunes Radio offers that plays similar songs to a genre/artist/song in a traditional 'radio' fashion, but that's not the main appeal to most users.

 

[SpinalTap]

I hope that Apple will take advantage of the recently announced audio codec 'MQA' - Master Quality Authenticated - that has been developed by Meridian. This is NOT a Meridian propriety codec, but a codec that is available to the whole industry.

MQA music will portray music in the manner that the original artist and engineer envisaged. MQA encoded audio tracks will provide the listener with very high resolution music in the space normally associated with compressed music.

IF Apple incorporate MQA decoders into their products an exciting time lies ahead.

I suggest checking-out CES next week for more news on MQA.

http://www.musicischanging.com/#homePage

 

[MacBH928]

tell me if I am wrong but for something like $15 per month you get unlimited music. I think that 15 is divided over all the music you listen to during that month. Each artist will make very very few pennies.

Also I did some calculation and an hour of music a day will cost you 1.5GB in cellular data or so

 

[zhenya]

tell me if I am wrong but for something like $15 per month you get unlimited music. I think that 15 is divided over all the music you listen to during that month. Each artist will make very very few pennies.

Also I did some calculation and an hour of music a day will cost you 1.5GB in cellular data or so

$15/month is more than most people spend on music today. The calculations for revenue from streaming music has not been fairly calculated in my opinion. Every article making such claims that I have seen has made the fundamental mistake of comparing the revenue on a short-term basis which is unfairly weighted towards an album purchase, because if you look only at a month or a year's worth of revenue, an album purchases' revenue is weighted entirely on the front-end whereas streaming is revenue accumulated over time. Further, they never break out the 'revenue' per play for owning an album because that wouldn't fit their story line. Even at Spotify's low per-play rate, one only needs to get about 140 plays to equal the revenue from an iTunes track sale. Sure, not every buyer will listen to a track 140 times, but some will listen many more, and a streaming service opens the doors to many more potential listeners who would never actually buy the track.

Your calculations for streaming data consumption are a bit off. An hour of 256k streaming (higher than most services default rate for mobile) consumes about 115 MegaBytes.

 

[StevieD100]

Still not as diverse as I want. Last time I checked, there aren't many Japanese songs in their collection. For physical copies, there is no such limitation.

Exactly my point.

How many tracks are there on Spotify by the likes of Dave Brubeck? Or 1960 New Orleans Jazz and blues? etc etc etc
No need to answer that because I have just about everything he ever recorded on Vinyl and now CD. All neatly ripped and stored on my NAS and my iPod.

Why on earth should I pay (and keep on paying) to listening to tracks (if they are there that is) that I already have with me on my iPod?

My music collection is close to 48GB in size. I can make my own playlists.

Now what is the advantage of Spotify to people like me (aged 60+)?

If you can crack the listening habits for the aging population then you will be onto a winner. IMHO, the likes of Spotify is not the solution for us wrinlkies.

 

[michelepri]

I have a bad feeling that Apple just have lost the touch when it comes to music. iTunes Radio is still limited to only 2 countries ( a disgrace), and the streaming business has already been taken. iTunes LP never made it (which is a shame). The iTunes store is in desperate need of tidying up (especially in multicultural countries, where all foreign language films are thrown into on category now).
Maybe Apple should have a year without new operating systems and other new features, but make the ones they have available to all their customers, and make them actually work properly.

Apple was accused of having lost touch with computers when they launched Iphones and Itunes music. Now they might lose touch with those as they concentrate on watches. Maybe Apple ha some trouble focusing on more than a few projects.

 

[0098386]

You never owned the music you listened to. You had a license to play it, whether it be on a disc or iTunes download

Pretty much. But once you've got that MP3 downloaded they can't take that away from you. All they (the distributor) can do is remove the ability to redownload it.

 

[bushido]

Streaming is great especially Spotify. I haven't illegally downloaded an album in like 2 years cuz I got everything at my disposal through Spotify. I just don't see the point of owning an album that I will never listen to again after a few weeks.also Spotify doesn't count towards my data on Tmobile so that makes the whole thing even greater

 

[zhenya]

Exactly my point.

How many tracks are there on Spotify by the likes of Dave Brubeck? Or 1960 New Orleans Jazz and blues? etc etc etc
No need to answer that because I have just about everything he ever recorded on Vinyl and now CD. All neatly ripped and stored on my NAS and my iPod.

Why on earth should I pay (and keep on paying) to listening to tracks (if they are there that is) that I already have with me on my iPod?

My music collection is close to 48GB in size. I can make my own playlists.

Now what is the advantage of Spotify to people like me (aged 60+)?

If you can crack the listening habits for the aging population then you will be onto a winner. IMHO, the likes of Spotify is not the solution for us wrinlkies.

The appeal should be that 48GB of music is not really all that much. If all you want to do is keep listening to your same music over and over again, then no, streaming doesn't offer you much value. If you'd like to instead continue expanding your collection, then, as I said above, a streaming subscription is a fantastic complement.

For example I have listened to Jazz as well my entire life, and thought I had a pretty good collection. With a streaming service though, I've been able to expand my interests greatly - moving in nearly every direction, following the careers of not just the front-men but each of the side men as well.

Considering that the Beats Music library has more than 70 Dave Brubek albums alone, I doubt your 48GB is quite as all-inclusive as you think it is.

 

[zorinlynx]

It's not that complicated; the reason is because modern albums tend to have one or two good songs, and the rest are filler garbage.

Even historically, albums that are entirely good (like Pink Floyd's, etc.) have been more the exception than the rule. People buy the best songs out of an album because they can. Even in the early 90s when CD and cassette singles came around, people started buying those in droves because they wanted those few good songs for less money instead of the entire album.

I have a on the shelf, myself.

I never understood people who buy or listen to one song from an album vs buying the album. I understand why my daughter does this, as she mixes and matches based on the classes she is teaching. And maybe others are buying individual tracks for like reasons.

But, I wonder about the general tendency to decide you like just a couple of songs from an album and ignore the rest. My guess is this tendency results in narrowing rather than broadening one's musical palette. Perhaps artists do create albums with a few quality pieces, the rest being flotsam to fill out contractual requirements. But, quality albums can create full "stories" in which each song is a "scene".

Somehow, pushing single songs simply diminishes the overall quality of what is being produced.

 

[E.Lizardo]

Your post is intriguing... but oh Lord I really don't want to go down that road again... Class A tube amps, dust, needles if sapphire... or diamond... balanced strobe turntables, etc etc. I don't even remember half the stuff any more and before I know it I'd be into $10,000 of mid grade equipment.. meh. I'll stick with streaming low bitrate music through my old Android phone with software graphic EQ and a cheap mono Bluetooth speaker lol!!!!!!

LOL I know what you mean! Like any hobby you can spend as much as you have on it! I looked for "Best value for the money" speakers and turntable,and "unretired"my nice Sony amp from the 70s and I'm set. Not too terribly expensive. Quality pressings are usually around $30 ,so I only buy music that way that I really love and that have outstanding performance and sound quality. For the record I got a Pro-Ject Debut turntable w/cartridge and Wharfedale Diamond 10.2 speakers. Plenty good enough for my ears and my budget. The real expense this year was records. Box sets by SRV,The Beatles,The Eagles,Dire Straits,CCR,The Allman Brothers Filmore Concerts,and a handful of RCA Living Stereo reissues that are astonishing. I'm constantly amazed at how great recordings from the 50s on up can be if real effort was put into their creation. The best are about as good as anything today.

SACD and Blu-Ray can be great too,often including surround versions(Like the new Quadrophenia Blu-Ray.) Hi-Rez files really are close enough to quality vinyl that I'd stick with that if I wanted to spend less. My Oppo Blu+Ray player plays everything.

 

[sleepydinosaur]

Almost the same as E.Luzardo

Project Carbon TT (450)
1970 Sansui Amp (80)
Sansui SP2000 speakers (80)

SpeAkers now replaced (I splurged) with
Focal 807v w/stands

I'm so happy with my setup. All told I've spent 1600. Not cheap. Not expensive when you consider there's $30k turntables out there.

The biggest thing though is that I now have fallen in love with music again. I look forward to Record Store Day every year and it meNs gathering at s social spot like the record store to find music, talk music and love music.

I'm installing this in my daughter as well.

Also worthy of note is that nearly every new album will have s card to download mp's for the computer. It's a win/win!

 

[E.Lizardo]

Why would I need a nice audio shop? I have a nice audio system (I love my Maggies) and a tuned listening room.

Downloads? Fine for live bootleg recordings from the '70's, but until someone provides loss-less format, I don't see the point.

Vinyl masks most of the issues with those recordings. Let me know how vinyl gets beyond 40dB signal to noise ratio. Have you compared the frequency response?

Bottom line - If you can't show it on an o-scope, it ain't real.

I don't own an o-scope and never listened to one.I do have a decent pair of ears and know what live music sounds like. If you need numbers to tell you whether you are hearing realistic detailed sound reproduction that's cool. Enjoy your system!

 

[iolinux333]

LOL I know what you mean! Like any hobby you can spend as much as you have on it! I looked for "Best value for the money" speakers and turntable,and "unretired"my nice Sony amp from the 70s and I'm set. Not too terribly expensive. Quality pressings are usually around $30 ,so I only buy music that way that I really love and that have outstanding performance and sound quality. For the record I got a Pro-Ject Debut turntable w/cartridge and Wharfedale Diamond 10.2 speakers. Plenty good enough for my ears and my budget. The real expense this year was records. Box sets by SRV,The Beatles,The Eagles,Dire Straits,CCR,The Allman Brothers Filmore Concerts,and a handful of RCA Living Stereo reissues that are astonishing. I'm constantly amazed at how great recordings from the 50s on up can be if real effort was put into their creation. The best are about as good as anything today.

SACD and Blu-Ray can be great too,often including surround versions(Like the new Quadrophenia Blu-Ray.) Hi-Rez files really are close enough to quality vinyl that I'd stick with that if I wanted to spend less. My Oppo Blu+Ray player plays everything.

Oh yeah, now I remember. DIRECT DRIVE! That was the turntable to have dammit. Had to have direct drive. With more wow and flutter. Or less. Or more of one and less of the other. Then all I need is a British car that leaks oil - with a choke and carburetors, lots and lots of carburetors I must tune daily so I can experience how good driving can really feel. And smell. Mmmmm I can smell that exhaust just thinking about it. Lexus is a lifeless flat digital download in comparison to the pure British driving experience today's whippersnappers have no idea what they're missing. No seatbelts full speed ahead zoom ZoOM ZOOM!

 

[Solomani]

Kind of like Netflix,and we all know what a disaster THAT was!

But your analogy is a poor one. Netflix is streaming for movies and shows. Many people have long embraced the idea of paying to 'rent' (watch) a movie once, and then not have to pay to keep the movie afterwards. The idea has been around since Blockbuster Video outlets in the 1980s. You rent movie, you watch it, then you return it. Done deal.

In other words, they only want to see most movies once. And most movies are not worth seeing more than once (since the majority of flicks from Hollywood are crap).

You are comparing this to MUSIC, which people have long embraced the idea of purchasing music (be it digital form, CD, etc) which they feel they are entitled to play anytime, all the time, every time, anywhere, everywhere, whenever they feel like it, as many times as they like. This has been an accepted idea that is decades old also….. and the ability to "play your music anytime you want" is as old as the Sony Walkmans portable music players in the 1980s as well.

You could be on a desert island, no cable internet access, and the Sony Walkmans/Discmans allowed you to listen to your favorite CDs (or cassette tapes) as you liked. No internet access required. No subscription requirement either.

The current streaming trend is strong and will grow, I am sure of that. But there will still be many holdouts that prefer the "classic method" where you buy your music, and you play it at will, no subscription needed. No contract needed. No Beats account needed. No monthly fees to worry about. No streaming account needed. No need to be forced to watch ads or connect to Google, YouTube, or FaceBook, etc.

 

[jdawgnoonan]

Beats+ iTunes

If Apple wants me back as a music customer then they need to fix iTunes. I used to love the software but today it even sucks on Mac (it has been mediocre on Windows for years). Presently I subscribe to Google Play Music and they (Apple) will have to do a lot of things right if they want my business back. If they merely cram Beats into the bloated thing called iTunes then I will not be interested. They need to figure out how to add Beats functionality whilst also cleaning up iTunes so that it is pleasurable to use like it once was.

 

[bobr1952]

Good to have options--buy music be it CDs, downloads, or vinyl--or to stream music via the many services out there. I used to buy a lot of music--in pretty much every format from vinyl to 8-track to cassette to CDs to downloads. Now I just stream--mostly Spotify or online radio stations. But Pandora is also a fine service--different than Spotify--but offers a good alternative. And Sirius and iHeart radio are out there as well. Lots of options--some free some not. Personally I don't mind paying a fee to stream--but there are plenty of free options as well.

 

[dstankus]

The death of the album continues, and no one seems to notice or care.

The music industry started this, by packaging albums with two good songs, two marginal songs and 8 crappy songs and making you buy the whole thing.

Now people have the option of just buying the songs they like, and the old model no longer works.

I for one am not sad.