When will the music industry get the change in the needs of its customers and invent something to compliment FREE music. No amount of moaning about Spotify will cut it. The demand has gone. We need to embrace FREE and create a value add product. But no we’re al to happy to whinge and moan.
Why should music be free meanwhile the person that treats you in a hospital, greets you in a hotel, makes your home decor item make money for their services and “passions”. If you think music should be “free”, whatever you do right now for work especially if it is a passion of yours then even more so it should in the same way by you should be performed for free. We should stop moaning about working for free or for the “community” then! Innovation and invention is only possible with capitalistic thinking that fosters and breeds it.
Radio has always been free and streaming providers that can adopt that model to the net are already succeeding. It’s a “freemium” model. Advertising revenue plus sales from premium services and links to purchase tracks you like support these services. For background music and casual listening, basic streaming is not only free, it’s also more convenient then having to download and manage tracks. But for music I want to listen to again and again, purchasing lossless or 320bps tracks and albums provides a far better listening experience, and for DJing or making edits the latter is the only way to go.
Why can’t there be a tiered service, so you stream old tracks for free (ad supported), and then pay a premium for new music. I don’t mind paying for music if I’m getting something I really want.
Also, I don’t think this graph demonstrates that streaming is killing CD/downloads. This article did not suggest it, but one that linked to it did. Those CD/downloads would probably have declined anyway. Streaming just allows a new source of revenue because it’s easier to pay $10/month to Spotify than steal music through torrents or whatever.
Free music is a very bad idea. It costs money to build a decent studio or even more expansive to book studio time make a record, mix and master it. Musicians should not get paid unless they hit the road playing for pennies and hope to make enough selling their merch? Been there, done that. Streaming is the future, paying $10-$30 a month for unlimited music is a pretty good deal. Support music and artists, so they can sustain their career and make music for you. A doctor get’s paid, so does the person working for google, spotify or Itunes. Musicians need to eat and pay their bills somehow.
With the internet and digital technologies driving rapid change within the music industry, articles about new releases and who has been hired and fired are no longer enough. Our up to the minute industry news alongside insightful commentary helps our readers sift through the rumors and developments to find the information they need to keep their businesses moving forward.
Hypebot is read daily by more than 30,000 music industry professionals including executives and senior staff of music related tech firms, internet based music sites, every major label group and most indies as well as many managers, artists and members of the live music community:
When will the music industry get the change in the needs of its customers and invent something to compliment FREE music. No amount of moaning about Spotify will cut it. The demand has gone. We need to embrace FREE and create a value add product. But no we’re al to happy to whinge and moan.
Why should music be free meanwhile the person that treats you in a hospital, greets you in a hotel, makes your home decor item make money for their services and “passions”. If you think music should be “free”, whatever you do right now for work especially if it is a passion of yours then even more so it should in the same way by you should be performed for free. We should stop moaning about working for free or for the “community” then! Innovation and invention is only possible with capitalistic thinking that fosters and breeds it.
Radio has always been free and streaming providers that can adopt that model to the net are already succeeding. It’s a “freemium” model. Advertising revenue plus sales from premium services and links to purchase tracks you like support these services. For background music and casual listening, basic streaming is not only free, it’s also more convenient then having to download and manage tracks. But for music I want to listen to again and again, purchasing lossless or 320bps tracks and albums provides a far better listening experience, and for DJing or making edits the latter is the only way to go.
Why can’t there be a tiered service, so you stream old tracks for free (ad supported), and then pay a premium for new music. I don’t mind paying for music if I’m getting something I really want.
Also, I don’t think this graph demonstrates that streaming is killing CD/downloads. This article did not suggest it, but one that linked to it did.
Those CD/downloads would probably have declined anyway. Streaming just allows a new source of revenue because it’s easier to pay $10/month to Spotify than steal music through torrents or whatever.
Free music is a very bad idea. It costs money to build a decent studio or even more expansive to book studio time make a record, mix and master it. Musicians should not get paid unless they hit the road playing for pennies and hope to make enough selling their merch? Been there, done that. Streaming is the future, paying $10-$30 a month for unlimited music is a pretty good deal. Support music and artists, so they can sustain their career and make music for you. A doctor get’s paid, so does the person working for google, spotify or Itunes. Musicians need to eat and pay their bills somehow.