18 Comments

1. Why not both. I personally like to own though. Once its mine its mine and no one can take it away.

2. It would be very difficult for artists to make money off of streaming, but it will not fail. I use it as a way to find new music separate from the set artists I listened to from what I purchased and downloaded. There just has to be another way for people to make money off of it.

3. I think Doctorow isn’t anticipating the evolution of “streaming” in his conclusions. Of course access is spotty now, and delivery of streams can be unreliable – I get buffering issues sometimes using YouTube on my home PC, even when connected via ethernet. So if you look at how it works today, then yeah, streaming is a different product and a different experience than downloading. In some ways, downloading is superior.
   But let’s say the delivery issues get resolved, and streams can be reliably delivered in most places wirelessly (they can put wireless repeaters in coal mines, Cory).
   And let’s say the streaming product has a “download” feel to it: the music starts instantaneously, no buffering. You add songs to your library, but they aren’t downloads, they’re really tags or links to the content which sits in a cloud – one piece of content which many users access. So your device has a local library, which isn’t really actual copies of the songs, but links, and you can listen to them just as you would a downloaded file.
   One huge benefit of this vs. downloading is that the user (if we’re talking about a legitimate, purchased download) doesn’t actually have a copy, just a link – so there is no (or perhaps a much smaller) mechanical fee for the delivered stream.
   From an end-cost to consumer standpoint, streaming should undoubtedly win long term, because it costs a lot less money. If I’m listening to thousands of songs or 10 songs, my monthly fee from Rhapsody or MOG is going to be the same. If I download 10 songs from iTunes, that’s $9.99. A thousand is of course $999.
   Part of the appeal of collecting is discovery, and also, sharing that with other collectors. Not all collectors are the same – some will fork out 500 bucks for a rare Porcupine Tree CD, others are just happy to get an MP3 file of an unreleased track. You can’t put them all into one bucket, there’s a difference between having a fetish and being a completist. The latter group could (and should) be defined as hardcore fans, a much bigger group than the former.
   If I go to Europe for 2 weeks, I might get in the mood to hear something that I didn’t load onto my iPhone while I’m there. I might be walking in Paris and get a mad desire to listen to Edith Piaf. Now I could download the songs via my iPhone, but given the file sizes, it might take a while. I’d also have to know what Piaf record to buy. With a streaming service, I just hit Edith Piaf and shuffle. If I hear something I really like, I add it to my library. And the social features that are being integrated with streaming services, like MOG, where I can listen to Piaf songs that my trusted tastemakers recommend, greatly enhance that experience.
   It’s going to take a while for streaming to be “instant on” like playing back a download, the infrastructure isn’t there. But it’s still SO EARLY – digital music as we know it is barely a decade old. Ten years ago, how many people even knew what wi-fi was? It’s really short sighted to make predictions like “streaming will fail” when we’re in such an early stage of the development of all this stuff.
   If using a stream feels the same as using a download, and it’s far less expensive (because a user is accessing, not owning a file) then I don’t see how anyone can believe that streaming will fail.

4. streaming music is one important revenue stream more for the artist or the music company of the present and the future, there are so many way to monetize content nowadayz, the company just has to make the best out of the possibilities for each artist.

5. I agree, downloads are still far and away the most convincing way to sell music.
   Music listeners want to own copies so they can carry those copies with them across platforms, whether it’s the PC or the MP3 player.
   Streaming is also a cop-out because it’s ad-supported. I can’t stress enough that music like radio won’t be the way people collect music. People will collect music through purchase. In other words, the world as it exists today isn’t going away any time soon.

6. Umm – streaming music is ad supported when it’s FREE and legal (licensed).
   If you want streaming without ads, you pay a sub fee. How else are the artists and labels supposed to get compensated? They have to generate revenue somewhere.
   Given the choice, I’d rather have ads and get my music for free, or pay $5.00 a month and have no ads, then pay .99 cents a track for low resolution files, especially given that if my hard drive crashes, I am S.O.L.

7. I think the key to whether streaming will be a sucess is the fate of physical. From where I see it, adding an mp3 file to a device just takes up space and doesn’t really provide any collectibility that say a Vinyl record would have. Unlimited choice that cloud streaming provides is more attractive when it comes to digital. I think the mp3 is kept alive right now by 1) limitation of streaming (its not there yet) 2) you can still download mp3s for free 3) Apple does a good job with the legit market 4) Lingering cultural mindset where you must own and control your music.
   If labels can find a way to SECURE their physical products and take back control of distribution, I don’t think that streaming will get a chance to really take off as the traditional record buying mindset will be preserved for future generations. If however, they fail in this you will see new generations of people who don’t have the same ownership/collectable mindset…in this case streaming can provide all they will need.

8. This conversation is about the establishment and viability of distribution brands. But people only care about artists. Distro systems are now just an annoying obstacles to artist access.
   Unless it’s vinyl, distro is no longer important.
   bbb
   wheatus.com
   @wheatus

9. I don’t understand your point wheatus, please clarify. To me, digital distribution is the most important issue right now, at least in terms of the future. Distribution has never been shared as much as it is now; iTunes, Amazon, even bittorrent as distribution…its a giant power struggle for who is going to come out on top.

10. It isn’t the same if you collect a “tag” or a “file” or “physical music” because labels or artists or whatever entity holds a copyright can disable a stream of a song, quit offering a certain file for download or delete a record. Now if you collect physical albums, you can still get them on the reseller market when they are deleted. If you collect files, you cannot get a deleted song legally in file format anymore when it’s deleted. But you can still have the file on your harddrive and must then archive it carefully to be able to keep it.
    But if you collect tags that link to streams, they are gone by very the minute that it is decided that they will be deleted. That is tough for every music listener who has read a tiny bit about these songs in question and therefore want to have them. They cannot, because they are basically gone.
    As a music lover and CD collector, I’m against something like this model of collecting tags because music by “unrecouped artists” will surely get deleted at some point and no longer available as a tag – to save the money that it costs of keeping it available on the server – and because marketing gurus fear it could distract consumers from buying the “next big thing”. They won’t reissue the deleted music either.
    Collecting tags isn’t worth anything. My experience with the availability of streaming music through bookmarking links says that every stream will disappear in at least 3 years. So collecting tags to streams just doesn’t make sense when you want to listen to a song later than that, which most people do that buy a song.

11. Jay,
    Sorry for the vagueries… I think 3rd party distro is, unless it’s vinyl, headed towards being a total dead end.
    In my very recent experience, people seem much more interested in paying a band directly through the band site than they are in paying for a 3rd party download. That goes for physical and digital.
    Regardless, the contest you refer to is for supremecy in a smaller and smaller pond. There was a time when music sales could justify and sustain a third party infrastructure, but a decline in interest coupled with technology that replaces many of the old jobs has done away with that.
    Basically, if it isn’t vinyl it’s DIY. And the record you cut into that wax better have 10 or 12 great songs on it….
    Much dsd,
    bbb
    wheatus.com

12. The key word is “collectors.” How many people under 25 consider themselves to be “collectors” of any type of physical product? For now, that concept appears to be toast. Thankfully.

13. You forgot to mention internet access with the current speeds, caps, available and rates it will not succeed many parts cant even get dsl or cable and those with it; it goes out and is never constant.

14. Hi all,
    A*STAR (Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore – http://www.a-star.edu.sg) MPEG-4 Scalable to LosslesS (SLS) real time network adaptive audio streaming concept, probably the 1st in the world MPEG-4 SLS network adaptive audio streaming has been completed. So, what are the benefits it brings?
    To the Music Lovers:
    1) Seamless streaming: No more abruptly stoppage and re-buffering issue due to ability to scale in fine grain of 0.4kbps with the real time dynamic channel’s bandwidth.
    2) Stream the best quality (even up to Lossless/HD) if the channel’s bandwidth allowed.
    3) Music quality bitrate need not be in steps (example 196kbps or 128kbps or 96kbps or 64kbps..?) but adaptively scale at the best quality bitrate along the dynamic channel bandwidth. Possible Lossless or HD music quality can be streamed if the mobile/wireless/wired broadband allowed.
    4) All are empowered to control the max quality bitrate streamed over the channel at real time and scale down adaptively according to the channel’s bandwidth.
    To the service providers:
    1) 1 file solution instead of the need to encode to multiple bitrate files of the same media content in-order to adapt to the multiple platforms which digital format like MP3, AAC, etc have to.
    a. Lower the cost of media database Archival
    b. Lower the cost of media files Maintenance
    c. No redundancy media file require = storage space gained
    2) Providing different bitrate QoS package option according to the subscribers’ needs.
    This is honestly an exciting moment for us and we will be showcasing this technology at CES 2010 in Las Vegas (from 7th to 10th Jan’2010) Booth: North 4638,North 6817. Please do visit us if possible. For more information, do email me at kent@exploit-tech.com.

15. Hi all,
    A*STAR (Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore – http://www.a-star.edu.sg) MPEG-4 Scalable to LosslesS (SLS) real time network adaptive audio streaming concept, probably the 1st in the world MPEG-4 SLS network adaptive audio streaming has been completed. So, what are the benefits it brings?
    To the Music Lovers:
    1) Seamless streaming: No more abruptly stoppage and re-buffering issue due to ability to scale in fine grain of 0.4kbps with the real time dynamic channel’s bandwidth.
    2) Stream the best quality (even up to Lossless/HD) if the channel’s bandwidth allowed.
    3) Music quality bitrate need not be in steps (example 196kbps or 128kbps or 96kbps or 64kbps..?) but adaptively scale at the best quality bitrate along the dynamic channel bandwidth. Possible Lossless or HD music quality can be streamed if the mobile/wireless/wired broadband allowed.
    4) All are empowered to control the max quality bitrate streamed over the channel at real time and scale down adaptively according to the channel’s bandwidth.
    To the service providers:
    1) 1 file solution instead of the need to encode to multiple bitrate files of the same media content in-order to adapt to the multiple platforms which digital format like MP3, AAC, etc have to.
    a. Lower the cost of media database Archival
    b. Lower the cost of media files Maintenance
    c. No redundancy media file require = storage space gained
    2) Providing different bitrate QoS package option according to the subscribers’ needs.
    This is honestly an exciting moment for us and we will be showcasing this technology at CES 2010 in Las Vegas (from 7th to 10th Jan’2010) Booth: North 4638,North 6817. Please do visit us if possible. For more information, do email me at kent@exploit-tech.com.

16. I agree that there’s far less money for 3rd party distribution, but I think musicians nowadays have always got to be making it as easy as possible to make a sale. If you’re not in iTunes or eMusic or Amazon, then there is presumably some percentage of sales you are losing out on. People are fickle and have infinite options on what music to buy, and expecting everyone who looks you up in itunes, to find nothing, then google your band’s name, find your store, enter their credit card or paypal, etc… well, you’ll undoubtedly lose some of them. Does Apple really earn their 30% cut? Hell no — it’s literally just hosting files and processing transactions. But is it worth it for a musician? Probably.

17. Hi,
    I fully agree with you wheatus, on the “studio-work” front (I mean recording and selling songs/albums directly from artist to consumer). Now, it seems to me that we still lack a way to avoid 3rd parties as soon as we want to tour at a national scale (I’m talking from France though…).
    I fully produced and distributed my first album in a DIY way (www.le-scal.com to hear it all[*] or myspace.com/lescalbdr for a selection of tracks), and even… “DIA” (alone… 🙂 and today I’ve found excellent musicians to be able to get on stage fully backed up (we are in the hard-working phase), but I wonder… if the band is suddenly strongly expected by fans outside our neighbourhoods (and without any kind of pride behind that, I must take the hypothesis into consideration), will we have enough resources on our own to tour nation-wide…? I don’t know.
    Scal

18. It is still early days for the New Music Industry and while the Major Labels hold on to their diminishing returns through small genre’s of music, Indie music has taken off.
    Streaming to me, is another part of the package. And it might look kind of like this.
    1) Streaming is a digital version of Radio, depending on technology it will be an easily accessible way (wifi) to listen to and promote new tracks. Low Quality. Tags yes not collectable. Purely for listening and finding new bands.
    2) Downloading Mp is the next step, a cheap product with obvious quality deficiencies. (I know tons of Gen Yers with Gigs of music they will never listen to, so it’s kind of disposable) I call these, the Macca Collectors (cause it’s a little like McDonalds) …cheap (I certainly would not buy an MP file, yikes, please bring back the 70’s)
    3) The next level up on Quality and seriousness in collecting is CD. It’s still here after 30 yrs (someone please kill it)
    Now for serious HiFI buffs we could introduce a new listening experience pretty close to the studio recorded sound quality… Master Files
    4) The USB drive is the next possible level of Quality as it could hold a Master Quality (24bit) as opposed to CD (16bit)
    It’s a real shame that the current generation of listeners have never been introduced to Hi Fi … isn’t it about time we did?
    The USB could be sold preloaded by artists or take your own USB and load it up at kiosks in Wall Mart etc etc, with the purchase codes bought online. yadda yadda
    Streaming – Free or Subsidized
    MP3 – 99c 89c or whatever
    CD – 16bit These should be priced higher than MP3 perhaps EP size for 9.99
    USB – 24bit – What would you pay?

Comments are closed.