|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
88.97.21.18
In Reply to: RE: Another case for Streaming Services posted by AbeCollins on January 20, 2020 at 15:55:41
" The point is, I see no need to ever buy another CD or vinyl LP because pretty much everything I want can be had at CD quality or better via streaming."
Sorry to bang on about this again but the fly in your ointment is that no lossless streaming service has yet posted a profit. So there is no indication that any will be in business this time next year.
Further the typical cashflow needs of small specialist record companies (say, classical, folk or jazz repertoire) cannot be sustained solely by payments from streaming royalties both in terms of size and with regard to the distribution points. Which is why some companies who have understood this withhold their repertoire from streaming (then you have to buy the CDs or downloads). My belief is that unless things change others will start to realise this too. Or go out of business.
In addition there is also the possibility that repertoire can be withdrawn from a given streaming service so that it can be offered exclusively to another though this tends to be in relation to big pop music artists rather then in regard to specialist repertoire.
So, if a particular title is important to me then I will still purchase it to ensure my long term access. Otherwise there is a reasonable chance that I will get up one day, go to stream it and it is no longer there.
"We need less, but better" - Dieter Rams
Follow Ups:
A couple thoughts...
Vinyl LP's typically sold for between four and five dollars for single disc albums back in 1975. Yeah, you could get them for less on sale and so on, but I'll use those numbers as a reference.
In adjusted-for-inflation dollars, that equates to roughly $20-25 today. So, maybe CD prices aren't so bad after all.
High res downloads cost more, but in theory they are, well, higher in resolution than LP's, so it makes sense that they sell for higher prices. (Again) in theory, you're paying for the music contained therein, not the cost of manufacturing and distributing the media itself.
By comparison, if you compare the price of concert tickets in the 70's to those of today, the prices have jumped up beyond the rate of inflation. Back in 1970, people were outraged that Crosby, Stills, and Nash were charging $10 for the highest priced tickets. That was much higher than most everybody else was charging. In 2019 inflated dollars, that equates to about $65. I have no idea what the best seats cost for the most recent Crosby, Stills, and Nash tour (whenever that took place), but I think I can safely guess that they were more than $65.
Keep in mind that the minimum wage in those days was about $1.60, which is what a college student might be making from a summer or part-time job then.
~~~
Now, for some of us, this all is just a hobby. Speaking only for myself, I have a theoretical budget for music and audio gear. This is part of the overall disposable money we have after paying for actual necessities. So, it's not actually a fixed number, since money not spent over a period of time can accumulate for purchases at a later time. It doesn't even need to be spent at all - it can just accumulate. (A good thing, btw...) There also isn't an infinite supply, and my wife and I have interests beyond listening to recorded music.
So, for me, making a business case out of a hobby purchase kind of violates the purpose of the hobby. I'm looking for fun and entertainment of some kind. To be fair, cost benefit analyses may be fun and entertaining for some hobbyists - I'm just saying that it's not for me. I may be alone in this, but perhaps not.
This applies for audio gear, which I really do not buy much of each year, as well as media and concert tickets. (To be fair again, my wife and I generally avoid most concerts now due to the hassle and mainly the wretched sound quality for anything other than jazz and orchestral performances at the local music college.)
~~~
That's the long way of saying that to me, streaming is good for finding new music, just as the radio was. (If you're in the right location, it still can be.) Otherwise, for some of us, even worrying about the economics of it all takes away from the enjoyment.
The genie is out of the bottle and the industry knows it. There's no turning back...
Indeed yes the genie is out. However most of that big blue 80% segment relates to pop music. Streaming is great for that. However,as I say below, the streaming royalties for minority interest genres are insufficient on their own to fund the making of the record in the first place.
A solo piano recital recording costs around 40,000 gbp to make. Call it $. That and more has be recouped to meet that sum and to help fund the next month's release. Think what that means when the royalty is $0.0084 per stream (the last reported and highest Spotify royalty). And that royalty has to be split with the publishers, artists etc. So the record company is getting $0.0042 ( I am probably being generous). So just to recoup the cost of making the recording over 9.5 million streams are needed. Say it is a recital of Feinberg (who? )piano sonatas*. Will over 9 million people stream it? Ever? No.
The switch from purchase to streaming will in due course, decimate minority interest recording. Solutions are going to be hard to find. Raise the royalty rate by making monthly subscriptions $2,000 per month instead of $20? That isn't going to fly. Ask the artist to fund the recording? Being tried now. Ask the artist to fund the recording but don't give them any payment or royalties, just let them pick a selection of CDs from your back catalogue? Being tried now.
* A real example. It will be released in March on Hyperion. Hyperion do not allow the streaming of their repertoire.
"We need less, but better" - Dieter Rams
and distribute as hi-res downloads?
I'm getting a little impatient waiting for Boult's VW cycle and Bax on Lyrita for starters.
HDTT has come to the rescue to a point but there's so much more I'd like to acquire.
The switch from purchase to streaming will in due course, decimate minority interest recording.
The switch is already here for the most part. There's no "if", just when. That's a different - but legitimate concern.
I enjoy lots of content that is not found on Tidal nor Qobuz.
OTOH, how much would I be willing to pay for QOBUZ hi rez per month.
Heck, I'm at $130 per month for Comcast and that's without HBO and the other crap they try to add every month. (OK, 250 Mbps ain't cheap where I live).
And I doubt I wake up and they are all gone. Consolidation? More likely and maybe Jeff Bezos ends up buying it all at fire-sale prices.
Or, maybe I'm back to cleaning records.
" More likely and maybe Jeff Bezos ends up buying it all at fire-sale prices."
Klaus Heymann (Naxos) who had run his own hi-res streaming operation but had to close down for economic reasons, predicted a few years back that the only way to run a streaming service given its costs was to own a business that could simply afford to bundle it as part of the overall offer and absorb the losses.
From the record company point of view streaming royalties for specialist repertoire are too small for them to recoup even a fraction of the cost of making the record in the first place as they are aggregating royalties from only hundreds or thousands of streams at best unlike the billions of streams for major pop acts. So the move by consumers from purchase to streaming is ultimately bad news for those specialist labels if things remain as they are now.
The danger for, say, classical music fans is not that Amazon may end up being the only streaming service but that it will contain no new classical music releases, only back catalogue (which is almost all that the majors now release for this genre given that only the majors may be left, funded by pop music).
"We need less, but better" - Dieter Rams
(In both senses of the words) music is a staple of North American bands and their exploiting, peddlar, colluding, corporations.
For most of the USA, ISPs are also making streaming untenable.
And, of course, - the artists don't get paid.
Apple and AMazon could close Tidal within the year. Europe might help out QoBuz, - but the market penetration of QoBuz in the uSA is about as close to zero as one can get.
High resolution, and high quality recordings, (as you said), aren't affordable, and the USA consumer doesn't want to pay for them, nor will they be able to tell if it's high quality or not.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Sorry but your rant is confusing me. What am I whitewashing? Why is it crappy? Homogenous means having a common property throughout or composed of parts of the same kind but I do not understand your use of the word in this context." (In both senses of the words) music is a staple of North American bands"
Which words? Music, staple? It is of course axiomatic that music is a staple of a band.
" And, of course, - the artists don't get paid. "
All of them? If so how can some complain about how much they get paid if they are not being paid? viz. Peter Frampton.
" High resolution, and high quality recordings, (as you said), aren't affordable," Where did I say that?
" For most of the USA, ISPs are also making streaming untenable."
Why is that? Is it something specific to the USA?
"We need less, but better" - Dieter Rams
Edits: 01/23/20
Not a rant....
""All of them? If so how can some complain about how much they get paid if they are not being paid? viz. Peter Frampton.""
Yes, - not being paid ENOUGH for their work. And, - being paid far less than the old model (which wasn't very good either, - but better than now).
"Why is that? Is it something specific to the USA?"
Yes,- due to monopolies, greed, oppression, Broadband Internet Access simply is either not available, or is so expensive that it's in effect, - not available.
""" High resolution, and high quality recordings, (as you said), aren't affordable," Where did I say that?""
Sorry, - I meant to say, - as you seemed to imply. In that labels aren't spending the money to produce and invest in high quality recordings because the market and (especially) US consumers don't want to pay for high quality recordings.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Heyman's decision in terms of technology and market acceptance (preference?) for streaming. Of course, how it works is determined by the non-Classical market.
Thanks Kal. But Heymann's difficulty was not with technology or acceptance but the ratio of costs v. turnover of which many costs ( e.g. royalties) are scalable against turnover. So, the game remains the same and, as you imply, with rules for minority genres set by those of majority interest. This, so far, results in a financial skew hugely in favour of pop music. Of course a utilitarian could argue that the skew is justifiable and if minority genres of music cannot survive then so be it. It is all to the benefit of the majority.
Having been professionally involved in setting royalty rates for the use of sound recordings for a large part of my working life all I can say is it will all turn out to be a honey pot for the lawyers :-).
"We need less, but better" - Dieter Rams
""It is all to the benefit of the majority.""
That was the argument: but is that really a benefit...
"Having been professionally involved in setting royalty rates for the use of sound recordings for a large part of my working life all I can say is it will all turn out to be a honey pot for the lawyers :-). ""
Having been professionally involved in songwriting and recording for a large part of my working life: I cannot disagree, - but would add exploitative corporations to the lawyers :-)
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Reminds be of a story Peter Q. of Audio Note UK likes to tell as to why he got into digital and made his first commercial DAC.
He's and avid record collector but there were few new classical releases on vinyl so he had to have a CD system he could stand to listen to. (His story, not mine).
So I guess my plan would be to stream everything recorded prior to 2020 and then buy CDs (or downloads) for everything else?
I can live with that. Maybe start downloading some Ultra Hi Rez stuff now? Say DXD, etc.?
Maybe should.
That said, I find the idea of having to stream music from Amazon as having little appeal.
There have been no NEW classical recordings in decades and I reached the same conclusion as did Peter Q. almost immediately. I have since devoted my efforts to ripping and downloading.
.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
I believe I saw an article about a year ago, which claimed that "best selling" classical releases (a heavily promoted Hilary Hahn release was mentioned) only needed to sell about 500 copies per month in order to attain a "No. 1" rating within the classical segment of recordings - at least during some months. The claim was that the market for "specialist" music is just not that big, no matter what the format (disc, streaming, etc.). I know, this could be one of those "I read it on the internets, so it must be true" kind of articles - but it didn't necessarily strain my credulousness.
"...but the fly in your ointment is that no lossless streaming service has yet posted a profit. So there is no indication that any will be in business this time next year. "
You make a valid point but I'm not willing to buy "insurance" at this time in the form of physical media based on speculation that both Qobuz and Tidal might not be here next year. There's another option to consider too. Amazon Music HD is backed by a company that's not going out of business anytime soon ;-)
"So, if a particular title is important to me then I will still purchase it to ensure my long term access. Otherwise there is a reasonable chance that I will get up one day, go to stream it and it is no longer there."
If a particular new album is important to me I still see no need to buy "insurance" if I can stream it lossless. I'll wait for all lossless streaming services to go belly up first so we'll cross that bridge when and if we get there.
As for albums that I already own, I'm no longer on that merry go round of buying better sounding remastered releases (and owning multiple copies) as I can hear and enjoy them via streaming.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: