The paradox of streaming

[kuniklo]

For a variety of reasons I dislike using streaming services. They don't compensate artists fairly. They track and analyze everything you listen to. You lose your entire music library if you stop paying or they cut you off for some reason. etc, etc.

But on the flip side if I only listen to music I own I'm a lot more conservative. I already have a big and wide ranging music library. The chance that your new album really fills a gap in there is increasingly small as my library grows and I'm much less likely to listen to your new record at all if I have to pay ~ $10 for it. Since the vast majority of musicians don't make any real money on streaming *or* record sales you could argue that at least streaming gives them a chance to be heard.

Maybe the most responsible thing to do as a listener is to use streaming services but go buy a real copy of the albums you listen to a lot?

[kuniklo]

As a case in point. I like this new Hoavi album:

https://peakoil.bandcamp.com/album/invariant

If I were streaming I'd listen to it at least a few more times. But I don't think I like it enough to buy it so if I'm only listening to music I own then this and many records like it won't quite make the cut to be heard at all beyond a preview.

[chim]

Streaming wouldn't be so successful if it weren't as exploitative. 

[kuniklo]

10 minutes ago, chim said:

Streaming wouldn't be so successful if it weren't as exploitative. 

Yeah for sure. I've let my streaming subs lapse and have just been listening to the stuff I already have. But that's reminded me how many great records I already have that deserve closer listening and sets a very high bar for new stuff to enter the queue.

[dcom]

2 hours ago, kuniklo said:

But on the flip side if I only listen to music I own I'm a lot more conservative. I already have a big and wide ranging music library. The chance that your new album really fills a gap in there is increasingly small as my library grows and I'm much less likely to listen to your new record at all if I have to pay ~ $10 for it. Since the vast majority of musicians don't make any real money on streaming *or* record sales you could argue that at least streaming gives them a chance to be heard.

From my point of view it very much depends on what your goals - if something like that can be defined - as a music listener are. If you're looking for the most variety for the least amount of money (as a consumer of music), streaming services are your thing. If you're a collector/curator, you wouldn't want to rent because then the streaming services control your collection (that might not be a bad thing to some). My attitude towards streaming services is already well documented (i.e. fuck the rent-seeking tech-bros and their algorithms), so what I'm going for is the collector/curator mode; I don't think about my music library - physical or digital - as something with "holes" to be filled, it's an idiosyncratic collection of records/releases I've found interesting or useful enough to own, a temporal sediment of music that I appreciate enough to want to own. I don't seek the maximum amount of variety - as an electronic (dance) music aficionado, I'm already squeezing myself to a very tight corner in a musical hyperdimension of immense - practically infinite - proportions; I seek associations and links between artists, labels, and collaborators, weaving a web of sound and information - culture, if you will. I prefer depth over superficiality, and tend to procure all releases from an artist or on a label to get the widest possible exposure on that particular theme (e.g. I was just going through Steve Pickton's all aliases and checking out if their compilation appearances have tracks that are not available anywhere else) - this is a holdover from my early days as a sad trainspotter on the IDM mailing list.

One thing I've thought about a lot is entitlement - streaming services produce it as an illusion, because you're paying peanuts and you have more music at your disposal than anyone can ever have, and the ease, comfort and convenience lull you into a laissez-faire mindset. I understand the psychology of convenience very well, because I'm constantly being seduced by it - why pay to get things you can get for a pittance, or even free, if you don't care about the ethics of piracy and/or freeloading? There are certain records that I'd want to have, as a collector, as a curator (in a subjective, personal sense, I'm doing it primarily for myself, but the curating spills over to e.g. WATMM), as a mook who's extremely easily beguiled by limited editions and exclusivity via artificial scarcity - but I wait for them to become available, if and when they do - and a lot don't, and then I just don't have or listen to them. Regardless, I already have enough music to listen for a lifetime several times over (30+ years of vinyl collecting/DJing will do that for you) - so why get more? To me, it's simply a hobby with benefits. It takes a lot of money, time and effort, but it's worth it to me. It takes space, and gets on my SO's nerves because there are vinyl records spilling over from shelves and on the floor all the time, although I've promised to keep everything sorted out. I, too, like a bit of novelty as much as anyone else, listening to Autechre's oeuvre for the umpteenth time just doesn't always cut it for me, and I still entertain the thought that I'm a DJ, so I also select to cater to that as well. It's what I love to do, and what I'm intensely interested it.

I do listen to other music besides electronic, too - but that's very much specific and limited to certain artists and/or selections (popular, even) from a genre, they cover only a handful of percentage points of my collection. This is the "wide array" portion of my listening habits, because this tiny sliver contains music from classical to heavy metal - but I'm definitely not claiming that I listen to "all kinds of music", because there's an infinity of artists/genres that I dislike or even loathe, and wouldn't be caught dead listening to. I don't think I'm conservative in my tastes, because I have explicitly selected the types of music I collect/curate for myself, it's not a stagnated, static leftover or residue from my youth - when I did listen to anything and everything I could get my hands on; I simply don't like the idea of spreading my attention (and money allocation) too wide and thin, as there's already way less of them available than I would prefer: depth over breadth. I habitually try new and different things out for size, but more often than not they don't make the cut and interest me enough to bring them into permanent focus.

I also like the idea of an anti-library (collection) from Umberto Eco via Nassim Nicholas Taleb - because there are records in my collection I have never listened to or played completely, or haven't returned to in a decade or two - but they're still important, because they're available when I need them. This is also the paradox of collecting, you'll have a metric ton (I have estimated that my vinyl collection weighs about that much) of things that mostly just take up space and are not actively used, so what's their use?

To me, the most responsible thing is to use Bandcamp, where one can (usually) listen to music before and after purchase. I still buy vinyl/CDs, too - from a couple of shops and directly from Bandcamp - but almost exclusively releases that are not available in any other format. The curating part does take a lot of time, I do some of it almost every day, but to me, it's definitely more interesting and feels worthwhile when I control my attention rather than delegate it to algorithmic subservience. I'm also fortunate enough to have enough financial resources at my disposal to feed the habit.

But, as always, YMMV. You do what you can with what you have.

Edited October 18, 2021 by dcom

[kuniklo]

Thanks for the thoughtful response dcom. Given what a pittance streaming services pay it seems like probably the best thing to do as a listener is not support them at all and just preview off Bandcamp and pay for the stuff you think is worth it. And I guess we all have our own ideas of how much we're able and willing to pay for new music.

Back in the CD era I would regularly spend $200/month on music. I could still do that now if I wanted to but given how much stuff I already have sitting here ready to be listened to I think for my own habits one new album a week is about my max. In general I'd rather pick up something from a new artist than an artist I already have in my library but I'll make exceptions for favorites or for artists that really vary their style from one release to another.

I do worry that there's a whole new generation of people that view music as something that's essentially worthless and belongs slotted into an algorithmically generated playlist to fit a particular mood.

[dcom]

16 minutes ago, kuniklo said:

algorithmically generated playlist to fit a particular mood

The Penfield Mood Organ.

Quote

Without reproducing the whole passage, I can’t convey just how funny it is. Among the other settings they discuss are 888, “the desire to watch TV, no matter what’s on it” and 3, which stimulates the cerebral cortex into wanting to dial.

 

Edited October 18, 2021 by dcom

[milkface]

2 hours ago, chim said:

Streaming wouldn't be so successful if it weren't as exploitative. 

Spot on, it's just so convenient. If streaming services all went down there's no doubt myself and millions of others would turn to piracy.

[Rubin Farr]

Really only stream my Bandcamp collection, so they already got my money. But streaming is such a battery killer doubt I’ll ever truly adopt it.

[beerwolf]

Love Spotify. I have a physical collection of maybe 2000 records, and if I find something exceptional on Spotify I’ll buy it (usually on CD, sometimes vinyl) not really because of guilt of royalties to artists but because my physical audio set up is far more superior compared to my laptop and AirPod Max. The joy of having an encyclopaedia of music at the touch of a button via my phone is something I find extremely hard not to love.

I sincerely wish Spotify would sort out how they pay artists, especially new or up and coming ones (because older more established artists who sold millions of records in the 70s, 80s and 90s are technically now getting paid twice), but that’s Spotifys responsibility not mine. Always said I would be happy to pay double each month (I guess not everybody would be happy with that though). 

Edited October 18, 2021 by beerwolf

[zero]

5 hours ago, kuniklo said:

probably the best thing to do as a listener is not support them at all and just preview off Bandcamp and pay for the stuff you think is worth it.

this summarizes my thoughts on the matter.

I know it's pretty much a given here, but Bandcamp is like the best thing ever. so much digital digging to occupy one's self with. if that site goes the way of the tech bro bogeyman, then it shall be a sad day indeed. 

[ignatius]

6 hours ago, chim said:

Streaming wouldn't be so successful if it weren't as exploitative. 

it's definitely exploitative but is it successful though? i mean.. music streaming is a convenience but are any streaming companies making a profit other than their evaluations of stock price?  spotify is worth $54 billion or whatever but hasn't made a profit and the only people who've made money from it are shareholders. some artists extract a bit of cash every month but it's mostly a top down financial environment when it comes to getting paid. 

[Amen Lare]

It is a paradox, and I could agree with general suggestion of combining two practices, but me personally -- I am disgusted by Spotify and the like, I hate (what became of) Youtube, I would immediately stop using Youtube videos for sharing stuff here when Bandcamp alternative is available. The numbers game (views, listens, likes etc) in deciding what matters is especially retarded since they are faceless.

Bandcamp is growing larger in terms of back catalogue and it is as close to a perfect mainstream platform as it ever was in digital era, so I feel like the solution is investing all attention/consumption there against all competitors (when there's no better direct-from-artist option).

I do not stream though, I just occasionally listen to music and do not care about musician's fates.

[Alcofribas]

4 minutes ago, Amen Lare said:

It is a paradox, and I could agree with general suggestion of combining two practices, but me personally -- I am disgusted by Spotify and the like, I hate (what became of) Youtube, I would immediately stop using Youtube videos for sharing stuff here when Bandcamp alternative is available. The numbers game (views, listens, likes etc) in deciding what matters is especially retarded since they are faceless.

Bandcamp is growing larger in terms of back catalogue and it is as close to a perfect mainstream platform as it ever was in digital era, so I feel like the solution is investing all attention/consumption there against all competitors (when there's no better direct-from-artist option).

I do not stream though, I just occasionally listen to music and do not care about musician's fates.

someone hacked amen lane's account and posted something cool

[Amen Lare]

31 minutes ago, Alcofribas said:

someone hacked amen lane's account and posted something cool

That's unfortunate, i'm against cool

[WurstPLUS]

I use streaming mainly coz. my wife loves it.. and also buy all the music that is important to me (most likely Bandcamp). I want to throw money at musicians, I want to own it, I want a lossless source which I easily convert to my many target devices with fb2k. Ah, I only buy files. As for books or audio, I lost interest in physical media long ago.

When I was young, in the 80s buying records, my dream was to have A WHOLE ALBUM on a small cube as big as dices. With maybe no need for direct contact as it was the case with tape or vinyl. I hated tape his and was sensitive about adjustment of the head. I hated vinyl crackles and noise. Disadvantages of the technology. I still don't need those. 

Dream more than came true

What I miss is being in record shops. I don't have to tell you, finding a new, purple record of WARP was some kind of world championship ejaculation jackpot.

Edited October 18, 2021 by WurstPLUS

[TubularCorporation]

It's the opposite for me, I only really listen to music I already know online, because the experience is so disposable that way that by the time I'm finished listening to a track I barely remember what the previous one sounded like, whereas with physical media I can listen to something once and remember it a decade later.  So streaming/Youtube/etc. become just a way to make some noise in the background, like radio used to be, or occasionally to check something and see if it's worth buying a physical release (although even that can be hard to tell, because a lot of stuff that sounds bland streamed sounds really engaging on vinyl or even a cassette if it's well made which they usually aren't).

 

Physical media, especially records, is where I actually learn about stuff.  Working at a record shop for 6 years and having access to their records taught me more than 4 years of lessons in high school and a music degree combined.

 

And it's not some demonstrative hipster fashion thing, that shit is driving up prices and making physical media worse.

Edited October 18, 2021 by TubularCorporation

[chim]

1 hour ago, ignatius said:

it's definitely exploitative but is it successful though? i mean.. music streaming is a convenience but are any streaming companies making a profit other than their evaluations of stock price?  spotify is worth $54 billion or whatever but hasn't made a profit and the only people who've made money from it are shareholders. some artists extract a bit of cash every month but it's mostly a top down financial environment when it comes to getting paid. 

I would consider it a success when you can give a certain publisher stakes in Spotify stock in exchange for cheaper artist streaming rates. The publisher would never agree to that if it's not a profitable move. The rest is just pulling at human nature. You don't want to pay $10 for an album that may or may not add to an already healthy playlist. 

[ignatius]

3 hours ago, chim said:

I would consider it a success when you can give a certain publisher stakes in Spotify stock in exchange for cheaper artist streaming rates. The publisher would never agree to that if it's not a profitable move. The rest is just pulling at human nature. You don't want to pay $10 for an album that may or may not add to an already healthy playlist. 

isn't that what spotify did w/the major labels? gave them $4 billion in stock in a trade (bribe) for access to their catalogs.. then structured the stock into the label's financials in a way that means the artists don't see a dime of that stock offer??? thought i read that somewhere. 

essentially an end run around the artists. good for the labels.. bad for the artists. it's another one of those 'race to the bottom' scenarios for lot's of artists i guess. i suspect many artists have different deals and different awareness of streaming royalties etc. a lot of record contracts were done long before streaming mechanics for payouts were in place. obviously beyonce and taylor swift etc will have a different experience than Hall & Oats or someone like that who was popular in the 80s. but then so will radiohead and the black keys or whatever... 

idk.. i think streams blow except for convenience and i don't find it very convenient for a listening experience unless it's at work or whatever. i'm still rocking the old ipod classic w/my playlists and all that.. no internet required except to downloading the files from bandcamp or bleep etc. 

i stream video via netflix and podcasts from the apple app and youtube or stitcher but can't be arsed otherwise.

[beerwolf]

No doubt a negative with Spotify is the disposable nature of the listening experience. I know for a fact I’ve dismissed an album on first listen because there’s an endless stack of other new stuff I could be listening to. I was and still am very aware of this and I think when I first signed up I was like a child in a sweet shop. Nowadays I don’t listen to loads of new music so that behaviour has cooled. And enjoy spinning a new record every other week.
 

I’m glad I didn’t grow up on something like Spotify and remember those days of blind buying an album and wondering on the journey home what would happen when I pressed play. Almost a mysterious experience. And of course if your gamble paid off (which thankfully most of the time it did) then the adrenaline rush one would receive was incredible. I’ve never had that feeling replicated with Spotify. But that could also have something to do with age and the fact I’ve heard lots of music. 

 

Edited October 18, 2021 by beerwolf

[kuniklo]

7 hours ago, beerwolf said:

No doubt a negative with Spotify is the disposable nature of the listening experience. I know for a fact I’ve dismissed an album on first listen because there’s an endless stack of other new stuff I could be listening to. I was and still am very aware of this and I think when I first signed up I was like a child in a sweet shop. Nowadays I don’t listen to loads of new music so that behaviour has cooled. And enjoy spinning a new record every other week.

I've noticed this as well. Having unlimited access to all the music in the world has actually made me enjoy listening to music less. I think there's a psychological effect at play here. Too much choice and too little investment in each choice. I'm much happier when I have deep engagement with a smaller number of records. But that does mean as an artist I'm less likely to ever listen to your work at all, which is ok.

[thefxbip]

I use youtube as a discovery tool. Its decent for that.

Then i buy bandcamp when i can if its available/if i like it enough.

Tried Spotify once, didnt get the hype. Did not like the interface.

Soulseek when im real broke, sometimes ill buy later for real good stuff/ dead musicians / rich musicians/vinyl only. (if theyre rich or dead they dont need my money, im poor, but i support everytime i can independant, living musicians)

FLAC warrior, i dont buy physical anymore. I still prefer physical books but for music i dont care, give me 'em FLAC.

Edited October 19, 2021 by thefxbip

[zlemflolia]

i got a new phone and it doesnt have a SD card slot so i use youtube for my music when im driving lately but im maintaining my digital music collection on my hard drive for the day when i upgrade to a phone that has an SD card slot (the reason it doesnt have one is because i run GrapheneOS which only runs on Google Pixels which don't have SD card because of Google's surveillance capitalism desires to force you to use cloud)

fuck streaming. not your bits on your hard drive in an easily interpretable format, not your music.

i dont buy physical anymore because after getting my house robbed twice in a row i can no longer let myself care about physical possessions though i get sucked into it often and am probably currently doing it again. i need to catalog everything i own soon so if i get robbed again i can just buy it back.

Edited October 19, 2021 by ilqx hermolia xpli

[dcom]

7 hours ago, ilqx hermolia xpli said:

getting my house robbed twice in a row

That's harsh, couldn't even imagine what that would do to my sense of security. There's been an influx of B&E in Finland in recent years, people coming from abroad to hit wealthier neighbourhoods - areas with separate houses more than apartment buildings - then disappearing back to whence they came from. 

[dcom]

Spotify and other streaming services propose ‘lowest royalty rates in history’ for songwriters (Music Business Worldwide)

I reiterate: fuck the rent-seeking streaming leeches and may they forever circulate through applicable circles of Dante's inferno.