Digital music sales drop for first time since advent of iTunes Store, execs blame streaming

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 82
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    kidmillion wrote: »
    The reason not to use Spotify and Pandora is because they pay a minuscule amount in royalties to songwriters. If it was their choice they would pay an even lower amount than they do now. They are thieves.

    See my post above.

    You have to look at the streaming services as "promotional tools and platforms"... very similar to radio of old. But this "radio" is so much more capable of being used to further your means and goals as an artist. You just have to think beyond "money now" and see how you can use it to make "money down the road".
  • Reply 22 of 82
    When radio plays a song they pay performance royalties. I don't understand your logic about being a promotional tool. When you write a song and it is played on the radio or on television or in a film or in an ad or in a video game you should be paid a royalty for it. There is no argument you can make that will make me think otherwise.
  • Reply 23 of 82
    I'm sorry if I sounded snippy. I understand what you are trying to say. I know that a lot of people hear a song on the radio or wherever and if they like it chances are they will purchase the CD or download. However, radio still pays performance license fees for the right to play music. That is fair.
  • Reply 24 of 82
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member

    At least they've stopped blaming piracy, so that's a small victory.

  • Reply 25 of 82
    dacloodacloo Posts: 890member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    1) You can prevent tracks that are not local to the device from streaming over cellular.



    2) You can keep tracks in iCloud that have not been downloaded to a particular iOS device from showing up in Music.



    3) You can easily delete playlists and tracks from the Music app in iOS.



    4) I personally don't want 3 or more different apps on Mac and Windows for storing and playing Music, Videos and Podcasts, and don't think that would be better for the majority. I personally don't want that on iOS either but I least see why that is better for the majority of users.

     

    Thanks!

     

    I'm aware of (1), but you can't filter the music app to only show songs which are available at the time. You see your entire list, with 80% greyed out numbers (not downloaded) and 20% downloaded once...it's a pain to browse.

     

    (2) That is awesome, didn't know that one.

     

    As for (3), I don't want to delete playlists but a playlist (or genre, etc) with its associated songs, not individual ones. So the functionality in the music app is there, but not exposed in a good and useful manner.

     

    (4) Makes sense, but I'm for a more sensible way of managing and playing songs, in iOS7 the usability has gone south to provide a more 'minimalistic interface'. It's beyond the scope for this forum subject so I won't go in detail here :-)

  • Reply 26 of 82
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    kidmillion wrote: »
    The reason not to use Spotify and Pandora is because they pay a minuscule amount in royalties to songwriters. If it was their choice they would pay an even lower amount than they do now. They are thieves.

    No more thieves then most big companies. Pandora pays the statutory rate required by Congress, which is much higher than the rate traditional radio broadcasters have to pay which is nothing. With the exception of a few eighties mega stars like Madonna who have fabulous contracts, artists do not make money through music sales. The money is made touring and though merchandise sales.
  • Reply 27 of 82
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    kidmillion wrote: »
    When radio plays a song they pay performance royalties. I don't understand your logic about being a promotional tool. When you write a song and it is played on the radio or on television or in a film or in an ad or in a video game you should be paid a royalty for it. There is no argument you can make that will make me think otherwise.

    Actually traditional radio broadcasters are exempt under the copyright act from paying royalties when they play music over the air. Internet broadcasters are not. The original thinking was broadcasters should not have to pay royalties as they help drive music sales. Internet radio was not around when the law was drafted.
  • Reply 28 of 82
    eriamjheriamjh Posts: 1,410member

    Streaming is kinda nice.  A 15s ad every 3-4 songs is better than 4m of commercials on the radio and an annoying DJ talking over the music at the beginning or the end.  I still don't tend to buy them.

     

    And new pop-music is mostly crap as previously mentioned.

  • Reply 29 of 82
    darklitedarklite Posts: 229member

    Is it any wonder digital sales are dropping?  Spotify offers £9.99 a month for unlimited music with no ads on your mobile / desktop and offline. Alternatively, people can pay £4-£14 for a single album (depending on how new it is and going by current iTunes prices). Streaming services such as Spotify are vastly cheaper than CDs if you like to browse for music or you want to get a lot of music quickly. The "pay once, own forever" argument also doesn't carry much weight with people (as seen from the success of subscription platforms) - even if a streaming service goes under, you just switch to another one and you've got everything back again. 

     

    I for one don't see any reason to go back to physical or digital copies - glancing at my current playlist, it's got upwards of 40 albums in it. Best case scenario, that would have cost me upwards of £300 on iTunes, which is 30 months' worth of Spotify. While it's nice to own something permanently, it's not nice enough to merit spending thirty times as much as I normally would. Two or three times as much, perhaps. But the premium being charged for a physical copy is looking increasingly silly. 

     

    On the other hand, the interesting thing about Spotify etc. is that they're putting a big dent in music piracy. People who used to pirate music are increasingly stopping in favour of streaming services, because they're a) reasonably priced b) easy to use and c) legal. Perhaps industry executives should be thinking more about that instead of "how can we get more money out of a dwindling market".

  • Reply 30 of 82
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,514member
    tbell wrote: »
    Actually traditional radio broadcasters are exempt under the copyright act from paying royalties when they play music over the air. Internet broadcasters are not. The original thinking was broadcasters should not have to pay royalties as they help drive music sales. Internet radio was not around when the law was drafted.

    One of my first jobs was as a DJ, eventually station manager (for a thankfully very short time). We certainly licensed broadcast rights and paid royalties, via ASCAP and BMI at the time. In an odd twist tho I don't think the song performers themselves got part of that but instead only the record company. It wasn't a lot we had to pay either IIRC. The jukebox folks also paid licensing fees for the music they offered. That may have been some time ago but radio stations still have to pay for a license to the music they play as far as I know.
    http://www.bmi.com/creators/royalty/us_radio_royalties
    http://www.ascap.com/licensing/

    EDIT: Looks like we're both correct TBell. It's kind of a convoluted payment process for terrestial radio play here in the US it seems
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/business/media/radio-royalty-deal-offers-hope-for-industrywide-pact.html?_r=0
  • Reply 31 of 82
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by boriscleto View Post



    It isn't the shitty music they're putting out at all...

    I agree, 99% of the new music is crap!

     

    I remember my  mom complaining about the Beatles in the early 60's. She said they were "shouting." And again, in the 70's. She listened to the White Album and thought the songs were "weird!"

     

    Me? The White Album is still one of my favorites. I pretty much only listen to music I can play on my guitar (which is not a lot). It took me 30 years to figure out the correct chords for "I've Got a Feeling" and I can still only play the first part. My "go to" song when I'm running is "Get Back." One of the best rock and roll songs! 

     

    The other night I listened to "Abbey Road" all the way through. It was considered the best Album for 25 years or so. Lennon and McCartney were brilliant but some of the individual songs on the first side of the album sound a bit dated and over produced (not Lennon's, though). The second side medley is just brilliant...including the Lennon bits. They really complimented each other.

     

    Oh well, rambling...

  • Reply 32 of 82
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    dacloo wrote: »
    Thanks!

    I'm aware of (1), but you can't filter the music app to only show songs which are available at the time. You see your entire list, with 80% greyed out numbers (not downloaded) and 20% downloaded once...it's a pain to browse.

    (2) That is awesome, didn't know that one.

    As for (3), I don't want to delete playlists but a playlist (or genre, etc) with its associated songs, not individual ones. So the functionality in the music app is there, but not exposed in a good and useful manner.

    (4) Makes sense, but I'm for a more sensible way of managing and playing songs, in iOS7 the usability has gone south to provide a more 'minimalistic interface'. It's beyond the scope for this forum subject so I won't go in detail here :-)

    Number 3 won't change. A Playlist will only ever consist of aliases, for lack of a better term, to the actual tracks. It would be nice to be able to delete entire albums or artists but I can see why they want it to be on a track-by-track basis.

    The problem with Apple's solution is that it is safe but it does keep all iDevices from truly being just another device like your Mac or PC, which is something Apple seems to now want. A couple ideas are making iTunes in the Cloud so you can access your content from web interface and delete items with ease that way (but even that is unlikely to work on an iDevice as they try to steer you toward iOS apps) or making another section in Music that would allow you to go in specifically to delete multiple items.
  • Reply 33 of 82
    I don't see how the music business did overall. So the absolute decline could actually mean a relative gain. Anyone has the full data?
  • Reply 34 of 82
    Streaming services are great, glad they are finally a reality. Same with digital downloading. But streaming music is just the poor mans version of trying to own everything.

    Owning music takes up space, with so much music out there it's hard not to have or want a large collection. Streaming music is a great tool for letting you decide exactly what you want to own. To me, that's it's intended purpose.

    Anyone who complains about how expensive music is or how much space it takes and just uses a streaming service instead of owning their music, is cheating. The end result is for you to buy music. There is nothing wrong with this. It's the way it's been done for 75 years or so. Actually paying for and owning an album that is good isn't antiquated or flawed. It's the point. It's why people make music. Streaming is for you to decided what you want to keep.

    So if you just stream and don't buy, I'm calling you a cheater. I'm saying you're cheap. You're a null and void person when it comes to fixing a broken industry. You're a leach.
  • Reply 35 of 82
    wozwozwozwoz Posts: 257member

    Popular music keeps on shifting to ever lower, even poorer quality formats. If MP3 was not bad enough for the noobs,  ... behold ... a whole new crappy experience with streaming music at about 1/10th the bit rate of CD. Oh yum: technology advances, and music quality goes back to the 1950s.

     

    As for me ... I've been moving in the opposite direction, ... ----> to higher-quality physical formats that retain their value ... like hi-rez SACD and (very occasionally, when I am really in the mood) ... pure analog vinyl.

  • Reply 36 of 82
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,514member
    wozwoz wrote: »

    As for me ... I've been moving in the opposite direction, ... ----> to higher-quality physical formats that retain their value ... like hi-rez SACD and (very occasionally, when I am really in the mood) ... pure analog vinyl.

    The same report noted vinyl sales were up almost 40%!
  • Reply 37 of 82
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    kidmillion wrote: »
    The reason not to use Spotify and Pandora is because they pay a minuscule amount in royalties to songwriters. If it was their choice they would pay an even lower amount than they do now. They are thieves.

    You know that whole story last year was just some confused song writers that did not understand the difference between a streaming play and a radio play. They all get a lot more per listener for streaming than they do for the radio. Something around 10-20x more. Pandora, Spotify, and now Apple are way overpaying per play relative to what broadcasters pay.
  • Reply 38 of 82
    Originally Posted by vaporland View Post

    stop paying, stop watching.

     

    Oh, I did.

  • Reply 39 of 82
    By the way, when is iTunes Radio coming to Canada??????
  • Reply 40 of 82
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,600member
    kidmillion wrote: »
    The reason not to use Spotify and Pandora is because they pay a minuscule amount in royalties to songwriters. If it was their choice they would pay an even lower amount than they do now. They are thieves.
    The royalty rates were all negotiated by the music industry as I understand it. So I don't see how they are a victim here.
Sign In or Register to comment.