Owning Music

I prefer to have my own music under my own roof. I have over 20,000 songs on my server. That way, I never need to be beholden to the internet or an ever-increasing subscription fee if I want to hear music. (Of course, without internet, I'd have to switch to CD backup.)

Not saying I wouldn't have Spotify or whatever, but the ability to "disconnect" and still have music is valuable. One cannot predict things like layoffs and such, where a subscription fee might be more than I could afford.

Plus, unless or until more services have lossless format (and I readily admit to not knowing who has what in that arena) my interest would only go so far.

There is only one real vinyl lover in my house and though my better half does 'get' my vinyl collection and does appreciate the upgrade in sound over Tidal or the few hundred CD rips we own if it were up to her she would get rid of the whole lot and replace it with a Muso in a heartbeat.                                                                                                                                

Yeah well, I think it’s going to cost us in the end.

At the moment streaming is still a growing industry and the providers are trying to get their market in place. I suspect other providers will appear and some current ones will adjust their proposition. 

I then see it going the way of TV services. It used to be that to see all U.K. TV content you just needed to pay the licence fee. Then it was TVLF + SKY, then TVLF + SKY + BT, TVLF + SKY + BT + Netflix, now TVLF + SKY + BT + Netflix + Amazon Prime... Disney is about to throw their hat in too. Of course you don’t have to buy all this stuff but if you want the full ‘choice’, it’s going to cost you a lot in annual subscriptions or pay per views.

I foresee exclusive artists/content becoming the norm for audio streaming services. Again meaning you’re likely to end up having to pay for all of Spotify, Tidal, Amazon, Qobuz etc. if you still want full streaming choice. There will be winners (Amazon) and losers (take your pick but it includes us). Some, eventually many, consumers will get fed up of the whole thing and drop their paid for streaming, returning to pirate streamers and/or hard media. And the cycle will move on again and the press will wonder about the future of paid for streaming services.

Either way I see a return to music being made for entertainment and art with less cash sloshing around for the musicians, which will in turn deter many from choosing it as a career path.

I don't have Tidal, Spotify, Netflix, Disney etc, etc. I just use Freeview, iPlayer and Internet radio plus other rewind services. I do record video as I usually find it's of better quality than rewind services such as iPlayer. In my view there's enough program content with out resorting to pay to view or listen. It's just another way for big businesses to con more money out of our pockets and I'll not fall for that. I have a few friends on the breadline that are addicted to these pay for services that would rather do with out some essentials rather than cancel a subscription! Having read the articles, why no mention of the very high sales of cd's in Asia? I agree with some of the views but there is also a lot of twaddle and supposition in that it lacks depth and proper analysis. Rich 

Rich 1 posted:

..... why no mention of the very high sales of cd's in Asia? I agree with some of the views but there is also a lot of twaddle and supposition in that it lacks depth and proper analysis. Rich 

Alas an increasing amount of BBC media content these days appears to have an opinion the author/editor is trying or wanting to justify - rather than reporting the actual facts and letting the reader make put their own interpretation.

I must admit one thing I do feel however - is that the BBC regrettably is becoming increasingly irrelevant in terms of the vision that Lord Reith had when he set it up... I think this has resulted in an identity crisis for the BBC - it is struggling to make it self relevant to its new audiences - who consume and obtain their media in very different way to the controlled authoritative environment of  Lord Reith's days. In trying to patch things up it appears to dumb down those things that it has done  well  - albeit not necessarily hugely populist... but of course if its not populist it undermines the authority for the licensing model.. and so the struggle and decline continues

Very well said Simon. 

https://www.economist.com/open...managerial-feudalism

Perhaps an interesting connection with most of the consumers that have been represented ?

You never actually own the music. You own the carrier, with a licence to play the music and listen to it in private for non-commercial purposes.

Innocent Bystander posted:

For TV I do use online streaming services like BBC iPlayer and ITV player to catch up on things I have missed, or to avoid being bound by TV schedules for something I want to see - but that is only because they are available and free: otherwise I would happily use a video recorder as I used to.

 

I do also use Netflix, which has a reasonable and frequently updated content - and with two people in an extended family both using it enough to want to subscribe, I don’t have to (IIRC each subscription can have 3 simultaneous users, which enables multiple instances across 4 different households)

 

But there is a fundamental difference between streaming video content and music, in that I am rarely interested in seeing the same  film or other video material again, whereas with music I always want to hear things again, and again, and again...

 

That no doubt has an influence on why online streaming of music for any serious listening is of no interest whatsoever to me - and maybe also I am spoilt by being used to having the music I like always available:  but I would be distraught if it wasn’t, and that is the ever-present risk of relying on an external streaming service. Aside from the much greater risk of interruption of internet compared to home system failure, there is reliance on commercial business continuity, stocking of all the music I like, however obscure something might be -and continued stocking of it in perpetuity, and continued availability should I fall on hard times and be unable to afford subscription costs (of multiple suppliers as it is unlikely a single service would stock everything to which I want to listen).

 

However it is good to have free services available like Spotify, and even uTube, as a means of hearing new music to decide if I like (when I will buy).

 

Different of course for anyone who finds their musical taste changed over time, and who isn’t bothered about permanent availability of anything, particularly if they have mainstream tastes likely to be best supported by online streaming providers.

 

And the position may be quite different for someone starting out, where an online streaming service can instantly make a large array of music available for just the cost of buying an album or two a month - so for the generation where that is the case I can understand a difference in approach. (But if permanent availability is important such people would be well advised to also start collecting their own copies of at least their most favourite music.)

 

So overall online streaming services undoubtedly have a place even in music, but they are not a universal substitute for ownership of one’s own collection. Whether they ever will be will depend on people’s attitudes to ‘disposability’’ of music (which a vast amount of ‘pop’ music inherently is), and the reliability, dependability, universality and affordability of online streaming services.

 

I can relate to the last two paragraphs.  I like having TIDAL so that I can listen to a vast array of music, and then only purchase the content that moves me.  Spent a lot more on CD's and HiRez downloads than I ever did for TIDAL, but it saves me from wasting money on music and I don;t like.

Bailyhill

I find if the album is on tidal, then I don't buy the CD. I might buy the vinyl for the artwork, or the vinyl if it is an album I like a lot.

Dozey posted:

You never actually own the music. You own the carrier, with a licence to play the music and listen to it in private for non-commercial purposes.

True, from a technical angle - but you own a licence to play it as often as you wish in perpetuity, and if you want to be pedantic, in the case of LP and CD you also own a physical disc inscribed with the encoded recording, while in the case of a download you own a copy of a binary coded file transmitted to you electronically and stored in whatever medium you choose.

Bailyhill posted:

 

I can relate to the last two paragraphs.  I like having TIDAL so that I can listen to a vast array of music, and then only purchase the content that moves me.  Spent a lot more on CD's and HiRez downloads than I ever did for TIDAL, but it saves me from wasting money on music and I don;t like.

 

I find Spotify does a good job, free of charge, with quality adequate for the purpose. Adverts can be annoying, but they are easily muted, and it if I get into the music enough for that to be a serious interruption then the chances are I like it enough to want to play again’ so buy it!

Dozey posted:

You never actually own the music. You own the carrier, with a licence to play the music and listen to it in private for non-commercial purposes.

Which for our discussion purposes is irrelevant.  Because, if you "own" cd's or digital files, no one is going to come to your home to remove them.  (At least here in the West.)  But if you subscribe to a service, it may go out of business, or change its library, or charge fees you don't want to pay, or merge into another service that changes the library, or fail to be compatible with your home player . . . . 

Bart posted:

Dozey posted:

You never actually own the music. You own the carrier, with a licence to play the music and listen to it in private for non-commercial purposes.

Which for our discussion purposes is irrelevant.  Because, if you "own" cd's or digital files, no one is going to come to your home to remove them.  (At least here in the West.)  But if you subscribe to a service, it may go out of business, or change its library, or charge fees you don't want to pay, or merge into another service that changes the library, or fail to be compatible with your home player . . . . 

What Bart said...

And of course once you do own it, it becomes less elusive and ephemeral and more tangible and prone to our perception of old and less vital. So perhaps for the better.

Innocent Bystander posted:

...permanent availability...

Not sure anything can be described as "permanent" these days...

I'm afraid physical ownership of music is fast becoming outdated and old fashioned all of the people in my extended family under 25 listen to music exclusively on their smart phones and not one of them pays for a streaming service in fact when I tell them I do they look at me as if I'm mad and when I explain that it is because it sounds better then they really think I'm silly.

It's difficult to know which way it will go but paying for music full stop seems to be going out of fashion as far as I can see it is the free services like Youtube and Spotify that are popular as well as Apple Music which is increasingly being offered as a freebie incentive as part of a phone contract.

So maybe the way music is shared has changed forever and perhaps for the better as musicians will increasingly become people who play and share their music more for the love of it rather than as a way of getting rich and as that happens then perhaps Simon Cowell type music moguls will become a thing of the past. Well we can only hope.

Well, if one listens to music only on earbuds through a smartphone, it probably would seem silly. That is why the hi-fi industry is in a state of flux, and will potentially cease to exist in 20 years, at least in any form recognizable to us geezers.

SamClaus posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

...permanent availability...

Not sure anything can be described as "permanent" these days...

Indefinite. In perpetuity. And always... If not part of a collection that might be inherited, then 'permanent' means available whenever I want to listen for the rest of my lifetime (or until I go stone deaf), though of course interruptions may be unavoidable even with ownership and home storage in the event of equipment breakdown or power failure, but those very temporary and rare, and unlike the case of online streaming providers with vanishingly small  risk of total loss of availability (a benefit of 'electronic' files that can be backed up against theft or fire etc.

Dozey posted:

I find if the album is on tidal, then I don't buy the CD. I might buy the vinyl for the artwork, or the vinyl if it is an album I like a lot.

Similarly with Qobuz, I rarely buy any CD quality downloads if hi-res is unavailable unless they're items for a pound or two in a sale.

CD quality downloads generally also cost more than physical CDs which is crazy.

Inevitably with new albums it becomes: Hi-Res download or Hi-Res download + Vinyl if I really enjoy it.

If there's no Hi-Res download it's either:  Streaming in CD quality, buy CD cheaply or buy Vinyl.

TOBYJUG posted:

And of course once you do own it, it becomes less elusive and ephemeral and more tangible and prone to our perception of old and less vital. So perhaps for the better.

Or conversely more precious - you don't want to scratch the vinyl, lose the CD or the download if it's really good.  'My precious...', slithers off into the night.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Rich 1 posted:

..... why no mention of the very high sales of cd's in Asia? I agree with some of the views but there is also a lot of twaddle and supposition in that it lacks depth and proper analysis. Rich 

Alas an increasing amount of BBC media content these days appears to have an opinion the author/editor is trying or wanting to justify - rather than reporting the actual facts and letting the reader make put their own interpretation.

I must admit one thing I do feel however - is that the BBC regrettably is becoming increasingly irrelevant in terms of the vision that Lord Reith had when he set it up... I think this has resulted in an identity crisis for the BBC - it is struggling to make it self relevant to its new audiences - who consume and obtain their media in very different way to the controlled authoritative environment of  Lord Reith's days. In trying to patch things up it appears to dumb down those things that it has done  well  - albeit not necessarily hugely populist... but of course if its not populist it undermines the authority for the licensing model.. and so the struggle and decline continues

I have gone from having the utmost respect for the BBC's output to utterly despairing at the amount of politicised drivel they now churn out, and over quite a short time.

I really resent paying the licence fee these days as it seems to have a highly left-wing agenda and articles stories on 'diversity' seen to be far out of proportion to the statistical demographics of the UK's population.

I'm clearly getting old, but apart from natural history programmes and occasional highlights such as University Challenge (sadly I think I could answer more in my teens!), and some Radio 4 gems I find myself quite happy without it.

As for Radio 4 gems, you don't need to preach equality etc to the masses, you just need them to listen to something like this to see how far we've come in a few decades:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b016812j

The last Dr Who series for example has been such a disappointment, I feel so sorry for Jodie Whittaker having to take on the role with politically motivated scripts and little diversity quips and comments at every opportunity that they stand out like a sore thumb and seem completely contrived.

Alley Cat posted:

The last Dr Who series for example has been such a disappointment, I feel so sorry for Jodie Whittaker having to take on the role with politically motivated scripts and little diversity quips and comments at every opportunity that they stand out like a sore thumb and seem completely contrived.

 

 It’s so much better than reality TV drivel. We’ve watched Doctor Who as a series with our children since the reboot - and some older ones, I’m still slagged off over The Tallon’s of Weng Chiang! “ - and we’re enjoying this one as much as any. I thought my son was quite perceptive when he said by and large it was humans rather than aliens who were the “bad guys” in this series. In the age of Putin / Trump I’d prefer my TV to be sending messages of inclusivity. 

You really don’t know how good you have it with the BBC. It might not be where it once was but in a world that seems like one of those silly Star Trek episodes with people destroying their planet until Kirk intervenes, it’s head and shoulders above the alternatives. 

Be careful what you wish for....

.sjb

I'm not a big TV fan and generally just get my TV fix via the BBC iPlayer the Beeb is the only network worth watching and still churns out some great TV the current series of Luther with Idris Elba is great and the recent Attenborough series Dynasties was fantastic.  Admittedly it is the exception rather than the rule but if you spend your evenings sat in front of a TV screen then your going to find it difficult to find something worth watching.