>Pay $10/month for something you don't own
Or
>Have to deal with commercials
>Can only listen to music when you have an internet connection
>No subscription has every artist due to exclusivity deals
>Buffering
Say it with me kiddies: Streaming is retarded.
Paying 1200$ a month for a house/car you DON'T own, renting is retarded.
Paying 50$ a month for internet/cable/electricity you DON'T own, utilities are retarded.
Really good reasoning my dude.
Yeah renting is retarded too. But also lol if you're paying $1200 in rent for anything ever.
Utilities aren't retarded, by nature. It's not about owning them, it's about the fact that without that $50 you wouldn't be shitposting on here right now.
These are awful analogies because they're not something you can easily get for free, unlike digital files of music.
>$50/month for utilities
Maybe you're just underage.
>unlimited music for the price of about 10 albums a year
How is this not worth it for most Sup Forumstants?
What if Spotify Premium is included in my cell phone carrier deal, with no-data-charged-streaming included?
Yeah seriously. Spotify saves me the headache of having to search out links for every single release that I might want to hear. I understand that 20% of the stuff I want to listen to isnt on there and that sucks, but $10 a month for the other 80% is a great deal
bad code. i had a moto g, one of the most owned android phones in the world, but tidal, spotify, soundcloud and amazon music all stutter and skip, its enfuriating senpai
Glad you faggots like "supporting the artists"
Streaming is the worst thing for independent artists, period.
Not actually. It spreads the word, gives them very good PR and exposure. I have discovered very many independent artists on Spotify which I would have not known. Spotify is way better than YouTube and Soundcloud, whatever, for independent artists.
Spotify web player with Adblock on is free with no adverts ;)
>spreads the word
How?? By giving them playlists they can pay to be on?
>very good PR and exposure
Again, how?? Large amount of people using a product does not equal "very good" exposure.
I don't think many of you understand that the "independent" artists you're talking about are actually signed to labels which are shoveling money into things like being put on spotify playlists
I have a Moto G and it suffers from only having 1 GB of RAM and how android manages that. Not necessarily the software's fault.
It's really for the convenience man. It's super easy to download songs on my android, and most of what I want is there.
They are featured in many playlists daily under the Browse section on the main page. Some of these artists have less than 5000 monthly listeners.
>less than 5000 monthly listeners
Okay so you understand they're making like, $14 a month from 5000 people listening to their music, right? I hope you see why this is a bad deal for independent artists. Unless streaming services start paying artists fairly, they are utter bullshit.
But it's legal so sit on it and spin, Robert.
Tell me, how is streaming worse than piracy when it comes to supporting artists?
"I love music"
>contributes practically zero dollars ever to the artists
uh huh
>I get to shit on people who contribute practically zero dollars to the industry while contributing literally zero dollars to the industry
I play music for a living, ding dong. But nice try.
I pirate my music but if I like sometime I'll generally buy it on vinyl to support the artist.
Do you pay for music?
It's an addiction, fuck paying for it.
hahahahahahahaha
who the FUCK uses streaming website bullshit services? if you arent conscious enough to explore on your own, you should be losing money, in fact you should die
Yes I do
Do you pay for most of the music you listen to, or just the occasional vinyl record?
All of the music I listen to was either paid for or given to me by the artist.
Also vinyl is fucking retarded.
People who don't want piracy paranoia.
Dude, stop talking.
Where I live, there quite literally is not a rental home, let alone one for sale, that's under $1000
And where do you live? Some buttfucked city? If your mortgage is $1000 a month you dun goofed. And a mortgage should be less than a rental payment. No one knows how money works anymore.
Seriously, the music selection on spotify is fucking garbage. I can't imagine the others being any better.
If Bandcamp came out with a streaming service for all the music they've got on there I'd definitely sign up.
Did you know: the average person spends $20-$50 a year on music (depending on whether you include live music), while someone subscribed to a streaming service spends at least $120 a year?
I got a laptop last month that doesn't have much memory space, so I use spotify on this sometimes but it sucks.
Youtube is the GOAT music streaming service.
really, it's just that capitalism is retarded :^)
This board gets so fucking commie during the European hours
Interesting. I would pay $20 a month if it garaunteed me all the music that I could possibly want to listen to.
>I love not paying for music!! LOL fuck the artists!!
I've never had trouble finding an album through Apple's streaming service. My tastes aren't the most obscure, but every indie artist I've looked for is there.
I primarily use Spotify buy buy records digitally on Bandcamp regularly and also buy vinyl so I think it evens out desu
also Spotify is great for discovering new music, i can live scrobble from my iPhone, make playlists available offline, turn up or down the volume on my PC from my phone when I'm laying on my bed
...
eh. I think all music should be free anyway. If I ever release an album i would never expect people to pay a dime for it.
If there's albums that I can't find dls for i will happily buy them.
I buy stuff from Bandcamp if it's not on there.
Music will never be free because it costs money to make music. You live in an unsustainable fantasy world.
The professional artists you listen to have spent thousands of dollars and countless hours creating a product that you enjoy. Why shouldn't it cost you $10 to own a copy of it?
>>Pay $10/month for something you don't own
You don't own the music you ""buy"" anyway; you just get the rights to listen to it.
>Or
>>Have to deal with commercials
I have literally never seen an ad in Google Play Music All Access, and neither in YouTube either because it comes with YouTube Red.
>>Can only listen to music when you have an internet connection
Not true. You can pin albums to your heart's content. You still can't access the raw files, but they'll be there, sitting on your phone, waiting for you to play them. I currently have about 16 gigs of music saved offline so I don't have to stream them.
>>No subscription has every artist due to exclusivity deals
This is where Google Play wins again. Of course they don't have every artist, but that's OK because you can upload your own songs anyway and keep them forever, regardless of a $10 fee. So if you pirate an album and upload it to your Google Play library, it'll be there, forever, without you having to pay anything, unless you delete it yourself. It works like a mixture between Google Drive and Spotify that way.
>>Buffering
Buffering is your fault for choosing a shit plan on a shit network.
Say it with me kiddies: OP doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
>usually cheap
>can sometimes literally pay what you want/can afford
>money goes almost entirely to the artist depending on their label situation
>can download in FLAC if you want that
what's not to love
This.
I get the sense that you guys really, honestly do not care whether or not the artists you're listening to can even afford to make another record
I buy the albums I really enjoy. I steam albums I normally wouldn't purchase
thats literally what the bandcamp app is senpai
Not the same user, but I live in Vancouver, British Columbia. Regularly listed as one of the most desirable places on earth to live, and thusly one of the most expensive places to live.
I'm an hour outside of the downtown Vancouver and pay $1000/month for a little bungalow atop some dude's garage. In the city you're looking at $14-1500 minimum.
and only 15% of all houses are under $500,000
Where the fuck do you live, Tennessee?
North Carolina, actually. You can rent a duplex within walking distance of a major college campus for about $500-800 a month.
Didn't they make like 300 million dollars or whatever from just streaming recently?
Who is Jeff Magnum?
>2016
>paying for music
>paying for anything digital
>"they"
You mean top 40 artists and bands that have been popular for decades? Sure. Did the average independent band make more than $50 from people listening their music? No.
Not everyone lives in a 10 bedroom house.
You say that, and it's a nice thought, but the reality is that we live in a world where money is kind of mandatory for quality of life. I'm as guilty of piracy as the rest of you but at least try to support the smaller artists if you got cash, they gotta eat too.
Shut the fuck up you hillary shill piece of trash
What about digital and physical purchases and touring if they're that sort of band/artist?
Fripp, is that you?
>muh commuinism
You are a fucking idiot, if someone makes art and they want to make some money off of it so they can keep making shit, they should. If they cab do it free fine but most people can't afford that.
Gained new respect for fripp.
>tfw you bought your favorite artist's album on vinyl and you still stream it on spotify
these fuckers are getting double the revenue
Only think that's off is the vinyl part but yeah Fripp is super anti-streaming. It took him years to slowly one by one place the KC catalog on iTunes
Independent bands rely primarily on touring, and the few merch sales they can scrounge up while touring. Few people in the 15-25 age bracket are buying merch because they've bought into streaming and, for whatever reason, seem to think CDs are too oldschool now.
>double the revenue
Right, when they make about $3 from your vinyl purchase and $0.07 from your streams. Great job, you've really helped put food on the table.
they can do concerts if they are desperate for money. i thought capitalism was for merit? i thought you believed that people shouldnt make money sitting on their asses?
>you guys
user...
Anyway, musicians have never, ever made any substantial amount of money on just music sales alone, unless they're a multimillion-copy-selling mega pop star. All the munies comes from touring, sponsorship deals (which are a dying breed) and merchandising. Musicians have been complaining about not earning enough money from their labels for decades. Streaming isn't here to make it any better or worse; it's just not part of the question here. Musicians, especially the "indie" ones, are going to be fucked over one way or another.
>make money sitting on their asses
What part of "spend months writing and recording an album" sounds like "sitting on their asses" to you??
Why is hating Hillary so closely associated with anger, belief in debunk conspiracy theories, and hatred of dissenting views? Calm down, pal. I'd vote for Bernie if he won the nomination.
I used to buy shitloads of CDs, have about 500 of them sitting in boxes in a cupboard. It's easier to stream them than drag them out and rip them.
great! now they made good material for touring where they can make real money.
ideas shouldn't cost money until they are served.
Ok, that's pretty crazy. What's minimum wage though?
But I mean, how can you not spot the difference?
I live in a Libcuck utopia where the yuppies run wild n free. Of course it's going to be considerably more expensive than Homophobia, U.S.A.
We're not 'stupid' for paying that. That's just how it fucking is, m8. At 23 I can't afford to be on the profiting end of the housing market, so I get blasted by paying way too much in rent. Such is the life.
What an argument...
it's not about being 'conscious'. It's about not having the time or energy to round up every fucking song from every fucking album that your entire friend group may possibly want to hear. I have 12,000 songs in my library, and then pay the $10 a month so I can play whatever else I don't have on there at the snap of a finger. It's been great desu. I get the hate on for Apple, but for the past decade I've bought nothing but Mac products and never had any single issue - and have found Apple Music to be very functional, as it has nearly everything I've wanted to hear. Anything else, I download. Or look for a physical copy.
What a defeatist attitude. It's people like you saying "eh, it is what it is" that are making it worse every day. Musicians haven't made money off of music sales historically because labels have cut them totally shit deals and it was their only way to make a living in their eyes. Labels are still operating on the 70's fat cat mentality, blowing money on big names and "opportunities" when the artist could have just been using self promotion from the start, without signing away their money.
Streaming is absolutely part of the question. When the industry shifts and starts pushing their top acts on streaming services (because surprise, the services are paying the labels millions up front, not just streaming royalties), indie artists have no choice but to follow the rend or become irrelevant. Listeners expect you to have your music available for streaming, otherwise they might never listen to it.
If people want art they enjoy, they should also want to pay for it.
horrible line of thinking.
a recording is literally supposed to be the perfectly distilled form of an idea. That is the point at which it becomes a 'song'. I refuse to let that slip away. A live performance was the way music was enjoyed in the Dark Ages. That's like watching four of your friends try to recreate an entire big budget movie in real time.
>until they are served
What the fuck is BUYING IT AND LISTENING TO IT then you mouth breathing faggot?
Minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. It's also not Homophobia, USA, despite what you're reading in the news. It's sort of like Iowa here - largely rural (the idiots voting for more idiots) with small concentrations of very liberal people near the big universities. I actually kind of love how low NC is going to fly under the radar after all this HB2 nonsense, less yuppies coming in and fagging the place up.
>not flac
>3 from vinyl
It's more than that.
>If people want art they enjoy, they should also want to pay for it.
You could buy a beautiful painting for full price and take that one piece home with you, or you could see a bunch of 'em for a much smaller price. You're still paying for it, but just not in full.
So, which is the best streaming service? Spotify or tidal?
Not when it costs $10 a copy to produce and their label is taking half of what's left after that.
The general consensus is that if you use apple products then their service, but otherwise google play
>or you could see a bunch of 'em
I assume you're talking about a museum or gallery, where y'know, the art has been paid for by the museum or gallery? Or, it's y'know, for sale for full price?
Besides, I think streaming is much better than pirating anyway. If you twist people's arms into buying a record full price, do you think they'll buy it?
No, they'll just steal it from the pirate bay or slsk because that option is there. I'd rather be paid very, very little than have my work stolen from me.
i'm taking my line of thinking from academia. i personally study pure math, and the capitalist society doesn't think that my research is worth a dime. that is why i have to work on the side as an assistant teacher. same with my professors who are actual researchers. they do their research and help expand human knowledge, but they have to also teach students in order for the university to pay for them.
i think that should be the line of thinking in music too. you can draw an analogy between research - album composing; teaching students - performing in concerts.
$22 - 10 = 12/2 = 6. Does it really cost $10 an album to produce?
>I assume you're talking about a museum or gallery, where y'know, the art has been paid for by the museum or gallery?
I was typing quickly, sorry. I'm not really talking about how the artist gets paid; I'm viewing this from a perspective of a customer. How are they more likely to pay an artist? Are you more likely to buy a +$10,000 painting or pay ~$10 to see it once?
Also thank you for not calling me a faggot.
true
> twist people's arms into buying a record full price
No one is twisting your arms to buy music you admit to enjoying.
And no, you would not rather be paid very, very little. The entire point of having a price on art is that the funds go towards producing more art. If you don't make that much money, your art has essentially been stolen.
Except touring isn't side work. It's part of the entire process. You perform songs from an album or perform in order to rehearse songs that will eventually be recorded.
Yes it does. Unless you're a major label buying thousands of copies.
It's just not the same equation when an album might be $10 and a ticket to a show might be $15
>And no, you would not rather be paid very, very little. The entire point of having a price on art is that the funds go towards producing more art. If you don't make that much money, your art has essentially been stolen.
Eh, that's fair.
my point still stands.
That's not true
I wasn't talking about going to a show. I was comparing buying an album vs paying monthly for streaming. I think an artist should feel welcome to charge as much as they want for live performances.
An average album's full price could range anywhere from $10-$25, where alternatively you could just add that album to your library among the others for $10 a month. I think, from a consumer perspective, it's reasonable. It feels like the closest possible compromise between the artist and the fan.
All that shit music
>you can draw an analogy between research - album composing; teaching students - performing in concerts
but that's wrong. Production is still the highest form of art in the realm of music - I'd rather hear a densely layered album a la Pet Sounds with creative mixing techniques and flawless mastering than go see a band play the songs at 1.5x speed who turn the mic to the audience so they can sing the parts.
Composing you can certainly compare to research, but there is no analogy for a production that's been slaved over for a year, utilizing the very best in technology, and presenting new sounds and sonic ideas to the listener.
From a consumer perspective, yes, it's technically the most affordable and therefore reasonable option. Unfortunately it also results in a majority of more indie artists making practically no money. From that perspective, streaming isn't morally sound unless the services are adequately paying royalties.
this
Streaming is retarded.
Streaming services like spotify, are very greedy with their money and don't pay the artists enough.
if an artist is worried so much that he songs would be """"""stolen"""""" then he should release only on vinyl. if he ever makes the digital song available to the public, his music will definitely be pirated. no matter how many laws are passed to stop it, piracy will always exist.
take a look at classical music for example. do you honestly think composer make any serious amount of money from selling digital records? the vast majority of their income is from concerts, or they get paid royalties from musicians who perform their creation.