Jimmy Iovine reveals what's wrong with streaming music, talks Steve Jobs

Posted:
in General Discussion edited March 2020
Former Apple Music executive Jimmy Iovine says streaming services are all facing the same problems about differentiation, but notes it's a great time to be an artist.

Jimmy Iovine launching Apple Music in 2015
Jimmy Iovine launching Apple Music in 2015


Around 14 months after leaving Apple, record producer and Apple Music co-creator Jimmy Iovine talked with The New York Times about the state of streaming music services. He says each faces the same difficulties and describes what he learned from Steve Jobs, Apple and Napster.

"It's all a response to Napster. I saw how powerful that technology was, and I realized we had to switch gears. The record companies were not going to exist without tech," he told NYT. "Why I got into the music business originally was to be associated with things that were cool. And I realized that the record business at that moment, the way it was responding to Napster, was not cool."

Iovine says that 20 years ago, the record industry was "putting up a moat" and suing people to protect its interests.

"So I said, 'Oh, I'm at the wrong party.' And I met a bunch of people in tech. I met Steve Jobs and Eddy Cue from Apple. And I said, 'Oh, this is where the party is. We need to incorporate this thinking into [my record company] Interscope.'"

Iovine also wanted to work on how his music was being listened to, and says that he learned a lot from how Dr Dre was concerned with "cheap, inefficient equipment." When he decided to form Beats music, he then learned from Apple just how complex hardware is.

"Steve Jobs used to sit with me at this Greek restaurant and draw out what I needed to do to make hardware," explains Iovine. "He'd say, 'Here's distribution, here's manufacturing,' and he'd be drawing on this paper with a Sharpie. And I'd go, 'Oh, [expletive].'"

Iovine says that his going from being a record producer to co-founding Beats, and then joining Apple, was not a case of jumping ship from music to technology. But also that while he sees technology and music as part of the same thing, others do not.

"The two sides don't speak the same language," he says. "Content doesn't know what technology is building. And engineers are just going by the way they see a problem. The streaming business has a problem on the horizon, and so does the music business. That doesn't mean they can't figure it out."

The problem for streaming, he says, is in the profit margins and how music services cannot really differentiate themselves.

"It doesn't scale," says Iovine. "At Netflix, the more subscribers you have, the less your costs are. In streaming music, the costs follow you. And the streaming music services are utilities -- they're all the same. Look at what's working in video. Disney has nothing but original stuff. Netflix has tons of original stuff. But the music streaming services are all the same, and that's a problem."




He also sees a problem in how record companies no longer have a direct relationship with music consumers. But equally, this can be tremendous for musicians and performers.

"The artists now have something they've never had before, which is a massive, direct communication with their audience -- from their house, their bed, their car, whatever," he says. "And because of that, everybody wants them. Spotify wants them, Apple Music wants them, Coke wants them, Pepsi wants them."

"So hail to the artists, because in the end they're winning," he continues. "It isn't their problem to figure out how the streaming company and the record company are going to make more money. It's the streaming company and the record company's problem to figure out how to become more valuable to that artist."
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 35
    And if that means there are fewer streaming companies in the world, so be it. 
    dysamorialostkiwiwatto_cobraFred257
  • Reply 2 of 35
    ``It's a great time to be an artist.'' Well, we can't have that can we? I mean, we can't give the artists the power to determine their value in this equation, can we?

    The only reason ``the costs follow you'' in Streaming Music is the juggernaut Music Publishing Cartel around the globe that owns a disproportionate amount of the original content.

    Netflix works because most of its original content is driving new viewers. Same with Apple and to a much lesser extent Amazon Prime and then there is rehash catalogs like Disney+ with very little new content so far.

    What Iovine is not saying but making it clearly obvious is that the evolutionary step is that Apple will create its own Label for Musicians as a separate entity from Apple [not Apple Music obviously], and how then Apple will develop both exclusive and licensed content to other streaming music platforms. T

    he same will have to be from those other platforms as well. In the end, Artists will get a larger chunk of the pie and Apple will grow as always by providing a seamless platform for its services with original and licensed content.

    Note: After all these years formatting on this site still is ignored at the top of the fold, until one re-edits back inside the forum. You'd think they'd invest on that fix.
    edited December 2019 dysamoriawatto_cobradewmemacxpressviclauyycdigitoljony0
  • Reply 3 of 35
    From the musician's point of view, many things are wrong with the "streaming model". Here are some :

    • the money that goes to the composers, authors and players is ridiculously low

      • small labels and producers make little money, which endangers their survival and their ability to produce new recordings.  

    • the system especially affects less famous artists, in various less "popular" genres. The diversity of artists is in danger.  

    • the idea that these platforms offer everything is an illusion. Many albums are missing, a.o. many LPs, several labels...  

    • the musicians pages are very poor : only the labels can add albums. If they don't do their job, the artist cannot do anything about it. He has no control over the albums present on his page, he cannot complete it with missing albums, which results in very incomplete discographies.  

    • the information that comes with the albums is mostly non-existing, to the point that it is an insult to the participants : who is the composer, the arranger, the author, who are the performers of each track, who plays this nice solo, when and where was it recorded ? No respect...

      I just hope that we are in a transitory phase which will evolve into a more satisfactory model, but I'm having my doubts.
    edited December 2019 mobirdwatto_cobrabaconstangmpw_amherstlarryjwdewmecy_starkmand_2razorpitviclauyyc
  • Reply 4 of 35
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    Am I the only one that read his quotes in a Joe Pesci voice?

    Let me see if I understand this:

     The streaming companies, in order to make more (any?) money, want to sidestep the problem of paying licensing to the record companies for all the content they own, right...?

    They want their own content ownership, which they think will come from amongst all the unsigned independent artists, so they can have “original” content on their streaming services...?

    In effect, the streaming companies want to become “recording” companies, and basically repeat the whole cycle of the recording industry having a say as to what artists make and how it’s marketed...?

    Is that what Iovine is saying?

    I don’t know where he gets off saying that it’s a great time to be a musician. It’s a great time to be a person that wants to make music (because the tools are plentiful and even free), but this is the opposite of a good time to expect to earn an income off of being a musician.

    There’s just no money in it. Even live performers struggle to make an income, and they put out way more work just for the little they make (travel, lodging, marketing, practice, maintaining a live band, maintenance of equipment and vehicles, etc).

    There are countless artists who make great stuff, but they have zero exposure to an audience that wants their work. This is despite the claim of full and direct access to the world.

    Iovine sounds like yet another lucky entrepreneur who thinks the examples of success he’s been surrounded by are proof of how it can work for everyone and anyone (survivorship bias).

    The music software and hardware business really lives off of the money coming from hobbyists, not paid musicians or studios. The stats collected by developers have indicated as such. The number of hobbyists far surpasses the number of people making a living off of making music (and the corporations make the bulk of the money possible, all on licensing of content).

    There’s no access point for the average artist. No path to having an income because there’s more than enough content available and the average artist doesn’t have the marketing might of a corporation (which they waste on 100% owned manufactured content, instead of finding interesting artists out in the world).

    Half of my own music library is music that was OFFERED for free online by the musicians that made it, and mostly because they saw no way to make money with it. They wanted someone to at least hear it, so they gave it away.

    I struggle constantly with getting myself to work on my music simply because of the reality that it will never provide me with any financial income. There’s no audience. The music business (and our dying economy & culture) have seen to that. People don’t even really value music much at all.

    Music is not a rare commodity. With all the commercially manufactured music constantly being pushed out on the radio, malls, restaurants, TV, and every other place with speakers, music is not a compelling item to seek out. Music has become homogenous, and the culture does not value uniqueness. They’re taught not to, by popular culture manipulators (ie marketing).

    Blah blah blah, who cares. I’m just one of thousands of artists who will permanently be stuck without an audience for, or an income from their art, struggling to afford just barely subsisting in my life, let alone being able to afford BEING a musician.

    It is NOT a good time to be an artist.

    Last comment: Visual artists are in the same spot. 
    lostkiwibaconstangWarrenBuffduckhcy_starkmanFatmand_2gatorguy
  • Reply 5 of 35
    What makes the music business so challenging is that a significant share of consumers only want legacy music recorded when they were adolescents or young adults. That music is available from many outlets and in several formats, which prevents any supplier from having exclusive content that it can charge premium prices for. The only way to earn meaningful profits is to cater to a modest share of the total market — today’s young adults —knowing that in ten years most of them will no longer have any interest in newly recorded music. Eventually, most everyone gravitates toward the music of their youth.
  • Reply 6 of 35
    I have been a composer and musician on the margins for 25 years.  It’s never been a worse time to be a musician from a financial standpoint.  I used to make money off of my recordings and live shows.  I still have large audience members at my shows.  It has nothing to do with attendance or interest.  The culture and corporate culture promote all music is now free (or for a fee which they reap most of the profits from).
    baconstanghydrogend_2dysamoria
  • Reply 7 of 35
    dysamoria said:
    Am I the only one that read his quotes in a Joe Pesci voice?

    Let me see if I understand this:

    There are countless artists who make great stuff, but they have zero exposure to an audience that wants their work. This is despite the claim of full and direct access to the world.

    It is NOT a good time to be an artist.

    Last comment: Visual artists are in the same spot. 
    Serious question; how is this different from the past, when the only way in was to sign with the gate keepers err... record labels? 
    watto_cobraAndy.Hardwake
  • Reply 8 of 35
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,396moderator
    dysamoria said:
    Am I the only one that read his quotes in a Joe Pesci voice?

    Let me see if I understand this:

     The streaming companies, in order to make more (any?) money, want to sidestep the problem of paying licensing to the record companies for all the content they own, right...?

    They want their own content ownership, which they think will come from amongst all the unsigned independent artists, so they can have “original” content on their streaming services...?

    In effect, the streaming companies want to become “recording” companies, and basically repeat the whole cycle of the recording industry having a say as to what artists make and how it’s marketed...?

    Is that what Iovine is saying?

    I don’t know where he gets off saying that it’s a great time to be a musician. It’s a great time to be a person that wants to make music (because the tools are plentiful and even free), but this is the opposite of a good time to expect to earn an income off of being a musician.

    There’s just no money in it. Even live performers struggle to make an income, and they put out way more work just for the little they make (travel, lodging, marketing, practice, maintaining a live band, maintenance of equipment and vehicles, etc).

    There are countless artists who make great stuff, but they have zero exposure to an audience that wants their work. This is despite the claim of full and direct access to the world.

    Iovine sounds like yet another lucky entrepreneur who thinks the examples of success he’s been surrounded by are proof of how it can work for everyone and anyone (survivorship bias).

    The music software and hardware business really lives off of the money coming from hobbyists, not paid musicians or studios. The stats collected by developers have indicated as such. The number of hobbyists far surpasses the number of people making a living off of making music (and the corporations make the bulk of the money possible, all on licensing of content).

    There’s no access point for the average artist. No path to having an income because there’s more than enough content available and the average artist doesn’t have the marketing might of a corporation (which they waste on 100% owned manufactured content, instead of finding interesting artists out in the world).

    Half of my own music library is music that was OFFERED for free online by the musicians that made it, and mostly because they saw no way to make money with it. They wanted someone to at least hear it, so they gave it away.

    I struggle constantly with getting myself to work on my music simply because of the reality that it will never provide me with any financial income. There’s no audience. The music business (and our dying economy & culture) have seen to that. People don’t even really value music much at all.

    Music is not a rare commodity. With all the commercially manufactured music constantly being pushed out on the radio, malls, restaurants, TV, and every other place with speakers, music is not a compelling item to seek out. Music has become homogenous, and the culture does not value uniqueness. They’re taught not to, by popular culture manipulators (ie marketing).

    Blah blah blah, who cares. I’m just one of thousands of artists who will permanently be stuck without an audience for, or an income from their art, struggling to afford just barely subsisting in my life, let alone being able to afford BEING a musician.

    It is NOT a good time to be an artist.

    Last comment: Visual artists are in the same spot. 
    You answered most of the issues you raised.  I’ll try to put it more succinctly, using other professions as an example.  

    In baseball or soccer, there’s not much room at the top.  How many Major League Baseball players are actively playing each season.  One thousand?  Those guys get the big bucks, and there’s not much money left for the millions who also love and play the game.

    But while it’s clear that baseball as a profession offers enormous income at the top, it’s also recognized that there’s a huge air gap between the relatively few who get to play at those levels and everyone else.  With millions upon millions passionate about the game, and those same millions willing to play for free due to their love of the game and their drive to compete, we don’t hear the same level of frustration about the majority not being able to make a living playing baseball. 

     It’s almost as though musicians, who presumably are musicians because they have a similar level of passion about music as people do about baseball, don’t understand that if you’re doing something that a huge portion of the population would do for free, you can’t reasonably expect to be able to make a living off it. 

    You should, in fact, not be surprised that there forms a market for that product that parallels the markets for other endeavors huge numbers of humans are passionate about and willing to engage in for no pay.  Like sports.  A small number of superstars showing off the game at its highest level, inspiring the rest to emulate.  Does the world need a million top-paid baseball players to showcase the game?  It apparently does not.  And that’s the role of top athletes, when you think about it.  To showcase their sport.  You need more than one, because they need competition at their level, but you don’t need more than a few dozen.  And so what has evolved?  Yup, a market that supports a few dozen top Olympic skiers, a few dozen top body builders (we’re talking the ones who get the big bucks) a few dozen major league baseball teams, football teams, soccer teams, nascar teams, formula one teams, etc.  It would be inefficient to have a world where there were tens of thousands of top baseball players.  You just don’t need that many to showcase the sport and inspire kids around the world to dream and find an empty lot to get some exercise in.  

    And so it is with music.  There are relatively few, at any given time, active at the top of each genre, showcasing that genre and making the big bucks.   

    All others better be sufficiently passionate to make their music for free or for less than required to make a living.  Because the world has spoken, has arranged the market as it has and just doesn’t afford the vast majority a means to make a living as musicians.  You may think otherwise, but I’ll offer you this simple mind experiment.  Imagine if all the money takes in by the record labels, which artists have long complained they don’t get a fair share of, magically had gone into the artist’s pockets.  So now all the money made in music goes to the artists who make it.  After marketing g expenses, etc, honestly accounted for.  How many artists would that support with a decent living?  Pick a number.  And what percent of those who dream about being a musician, spend money in instruments and equipment, travel to gigs, etc, would still be left without sufficient income to support themselves?  The vast majority is the answer.  More than half the kids I grew up with, significantly more than half, had the dream.  Music is so fundamental to being human, the market will always be flooded at any level of income with aspiring musicians.  And baseball players.  The lights and the cheering crowds are seductive.  But someone has to do all the other jobs that make the world function.  Not many complain there’s no money to be made as an electronics engineer.  Because the need for that greatly creeds the need for musicians at all levels, and so there’s both more money going into the engineering trades and it’s more evenly distributed.  That’s just how the world gets structured.  
    lostkiwiRayz2016WarrenBuffduckhkudujdb8167StrangeDays
  • Reply 9 of 35
    Most music today is just background music.  The only time I really care about music is when it enhances something else.  For example, quality music (added correctly) to a movie makes a huge difference.

    Most young people today have strong feeling about what music they like (just like previous generations) but they don’t consume music as much in isolation for entertainment.  They frequently use the music to create something themselves in a way similar to old school music videos...and they use apps like TikTok to do so.

    TikTok is great because it allows more people to express themselves in a creative way.  I see young people creating and consuming using TikTok all the time, but what I don’t see as much interest in creating the music itself.

    I don’t see how music producers (or studies) can monetize this new world.  Streaming music certainly isn’t going to do it, that leaves live music, music added to shows, movies, and games.

    What can music streaming companies do to differentiate?  I don’t really care.  I only use “free” ones... as background music.
  • Reply 10 of 35
    “What can music streaming companies do to differentiate?  I don’t really care.  I only use “free” ones... as background music.”

    Says it it all right there...
    edited January 2020
  • Reply 11 of 35
    dysamoria said:

    It is NOT a good time to be an artist.

    Last comment: Visual artists are in the same spot. 
    You answered most of the issues you raised.  I’ll try to put it more succinctly, using other professions as an example.  

    In baseball or soccer, there’s not much room at the top.  How many Major League Baseball players are actively playing each season.  One thousand?  Those guys get the big bucks, and there’s not much money left for the millions who also love and play the game.

    But while it’s clear that baseball as a profession offers enormous income at the top, it’s also recognized that there’s a huge air gap between the relatively few who get to play at those levels and everyone else.  With millions upon millions passionate about the game, and those same millions willing to play for free due to their love of the game and their drive to compete, we don’t hear the same level of frustration about the majority not being able to make a living playing baseball. 

     It’s almost as though musicians, who presumably are musicians because they have a similar level of passion about music as people do about baseball, don’t understand that if you’re doing something that a huge portion of the population would do for free, you can’t reasonably expect to be able to make a living off it. 

    You should, in fact, not be surprised that there forms a market for that product that parallels the markets for other endeavors huge numbers of humans are passionate about and willing to engage in for no pay.  Like sports.  A small number of superstars showing off the game at its highest level, inspiring the rest to emulate.  Does the world need a million top-paid baseball players to showcase the game?  It apparently does not.  And that’s the role of top athletes, when you think about it.  To showcase their sport.  You need more than one, because they need competition at their level, but you don’t need more than a few dozen.  And so what has evolved?  Yup, a market that supports a few dozen top Olympic skiers, a few dozen top body builders (we’re talking the ones who get the big bucks) a few dozen major league baseball teams, football teams, soccer teams, nascar teams, formula one teams, etc.  It would be inefficient to have a world where there were tens of thousands of top baseball players.  You just don’t need that many to showcase the sport and inspire kids around the world to dream and find an empty lot to get some exercise in.  

    And so it is with music.  There are relatively few, at any given time, active at the top of each genre, showcasing that genre and making the big bucks.   

    All others better be sufficiently passionate to make their music for free or for less than required to make a living.  Because the world has spoken, has arranged the market as it has and just doesn’t afford the vast majority a means to make a living as musicians.  You may think otherwise, but I’ll offer you this simple mind experiment.  Imagine if all the money takes in by the record labels, which artists have long complained they don’t get a fair share of, magically had gone into the artist’s pockets.  So now all the money made in music goes to the artists who make it.  After marketing g expenses, etc, honestly accounted for.  How many artists would that support with a decent living?  Pick a number.  And what percent of those who dream about being a musician, spend money in instruments and equipment, travel to gigs, etc, would still be left without sufficient income to support themselves?  The vast majority is the answer.  More than half the kids I grew up with, significantly more than half, had the dream.  Music is so fundamental to being human, the market will always be flooded at any level of income with aspiring musicians.  And baseball players.  The lights and the cheering crowds are seductive.  But someone has to do all the other jobs that make the world function.  Not many complain there’s no money to be made as an electronics engineer.  Because the need for that greatly creeds the need for musicians at all levels, and so there’s both more money going into the engineering trades and it’s more evenly distributed.  That’s just how the world gets structured.  
    Well put! Thank you for that perspective. Really enjoyed reading it! 🤓
  • Reply 12 of 35
    Jimmy’s remarkable praise of Daniel Eck and his cross-platform preference says enough about his struggle at Apple. 
    Daniel Eck = the Steve Jobs of Spotify, who created something special from the ordinary.
    Apple = the also-ran, banging its head constantly year to succeed - despite its immense platform advantage.
    This subtle criticism is lethal for Tim - the uninspiring methodologist always turning his head from issues instead of trying to understand & tackling them.
    Isolating icons like Joni and Jimmy - until they quit and Tim can identify with other, more successful things

    edited January 2020
  • Reply 13 of 35
    I like the comparison to sports made above. Music - like - sports can be perceived in two ways: a product (top-down) where many aspects are not only managed but determined by sales and marketing since they want to cater to the biggest audience in the most profitable way. And on the other side as a deep expression of art (bottom-up) where all is determined by the artist (who is potentially looking for the best way to create, distribute and market the art). I guess this has always been the case and every musician fits somewhere between the two viewpoints. What changed with streaming from my own personal POV are two things:
    1. The hope for independent/unknown artists to take above mentioned aspects of marketing and distribution I to their own hands and thus easier become known and earn more money. Turns out that for the majority it’s not happening. Why? For the same reason like the one kids book I put on the iTunes Store didn’t make me rich. There is a flood of offerings and to stick out you need in the end lots of marketing = money. Exceptions to the rule obviously granted. 
    2. Streaming IMO does somewhat degrade the experience of it as a form of art since it literally takes no effort to play, and even create playlists based on “moods”. Not only if I don’t want to I don’t need to care about how to play the music, it’s not even necessary to determine a specific artist, or song. Just quickly think back to the time of actual discs or tapes. Hard thing to do without being conscious about what you’re putting. 

    I’m not so sure whether and to what extent a third aspect plays a role here: that there is a generation which usually is one of the most economically strong in terms of age that now has been attributed to “want it all for nothing”. At least, if you believe what is being published about the Millenials, gen y etc. 

    Bottom line: there is and never was a thing such as free lunch. Stuff that’s good always will have a better chance to rise than stuff that isn’t.  Streaming didn’t change the game for artists but made live partially more difficult for end consumers (more services to check out and need to subscribe to) while taking the jam out of the doughnut of those who thought all would be better, fairer and more colorful. ;)

    happy 2020
  • Reply 14 of 35
    Other parts of the problem are the disposable nature of streaming.  In the ‘old days’ we would buy an LP, cassette or CD and play it all the way through. Some tracks would be better than others, but generally, the order of the tracks dictated what the artist wanted the listener to hear as a whole. Now, a lot of streaming is of single tracks. This defeats part of the artist’s endeavours and to some extent loses the soul of the production. Historically, a recording would be revisited a number of times over many years.  With streaming this doesn’t happen: a new recording arrives, a few tracks are listened to a few times and then deleted.  It hardly makes for an artist to create his or her greatest work. Streaming also produces far less income for the artist.
    d_2dysamoria
  • Reply 15 of 35
    dewmedewme Posts: 3,828member
    Steve Jobs and Bill Gates simultaneously agreed onstage in 2007 that it was a good time to be a CONTENT owner. Artists who do not own their content are probably not thinking that times are so good. 

    The main issue with streaming services is the universal commoditization and devaluation of music from a revenue perspective. Prior to the launch of Apple Music I had about 10K music tracks in my iTunes library on all of my Apple devices and computers, the vast majority of which I ripped from CDs that I purchased as well as CDs and tracks bought on iTunes over many years. Since the launch of Apple Music (and in conjunction with iTunes Match) I now have about 25K music tracks on everything. 

    Sure, if I canceled my Apple Music subscription I’d be back down to 10K tracks, which I could live with, but Apple Music has allowed me to discover a wealth of new music primarily through what I’d call genealogical relationships between the music and artists I like. It’s an amazing resource and it’s dirt cheap for the value and enjoyment it brings to my life. I’m at the opposite end of the spectrum to those who consume music as a background activity. In fact, it annoys the heck out of me that so many video formats today, like the local TV news, are starting to overlay music tracks behind their news presentations. I love music that's expertly woven into the sound tracks of movies, for example Hans Zimmer's amazing work, but gratuitous elevator music quality swill slathered on top of local news stories or a weekly TV “who killed the dead guy” drama series, makes me want to press the mute button and turn on closed captioning. 

    I totally understand what Jimmy is saying, but he’s simply describing the problem. I hope that the path to a solution, if there is one, doesn’t negatively impact those of us who are really enjoying what we’re getting right now. Those who are looking for profits may not be happy, but people who love music are in a pretty good, if not perfect, place right now.
    edited January 2020 dysamoria
  • Reply 16 of 35
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,302member
    What I notice is a further deterioration of music quality.

    Music used to be carefully curated and musicians sponsored and nurtured by professionals where It could take months and years of careful tuning to produce a single song -- The Mama's & Papa's spent hours in the recording studio trying to get hit a sound (and they were far from alone).  And then, even after all of that, it had to pass through the further filter of radio DJs to see if they got air time.

    The result was a highly constricted environment that yielded what some call a golden age of music.

    Today we have a single "singer" sitting in her living room with a background of electronic noise.   It's a cheap way to produce music and it shows.


  • Reply 17 of 35
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member
    Music streaming service problem?
    I would say the streaming and service part is the problem.
    dysamoria
  • Reply 18 of 35
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    michelp said:
    From the musician's point of view, many things are wrong with the "streaming model". Here are some :

    • the money that goes to the composers, authors and players is ridiculously low

      • small labels and producers make little money, which endangers their survival and their ability to produce new recordings.  

    • the system especially affects less famous artists, in various less "popular" genres. The diversity of artists is in danger.  

    • the idea that these platforms offer everything is an illusion. Many albums are missing, a.o. many LPs, several labels...  

    • the musicians pages are very poor : only the labels can add albums. If they don't do their job, the artist cannot do anything about it. He has no control over the albums present on his page, he cannot complete it with missing albums, which results in very incomplete discographies.  

    • the information that comes with the albums is mostly non-existing, to the point that it is an insult to the participants : who is the composer, the arranger, the author, who are the performers of each track, who plays this nice solo, when and where was it recorded ? No respect...

      I just hope that we are in a transitory phase which will evolve into a more satisfactory model, but I'm having my doubts.
    Back in the 80’s my buddy and I use to read and study the liner notes for every album/tape we bought. That was one of the major ways we found new bands. For us you couldn’t get a better endorsement than a shoutout from the band you were listening to at the moment. Those days, that appreciation are long gone.
    dysamoria
  • Reply 19 of 35
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member
    What’s the “problem” with streaming? Basic economics. There are too many musicians making too much music, much of it OK, or at least listenable. What happens in any industry when there is an overabundance? Prices drop. And in this business, sometimes even “free” is too much.
  • Reply 20 of 35
    maccadmaccad Posts: 87member
    Redarthekat really hit the nail on the head. One of the most well thought out comments I've read anywhere in a long time.
Sign In or Register to comment.