The Future of Sharing Music
By: Chris Linner
Over the years the ways one can acquire music has changed
drastically, changing from the popular Cd to online radio such as Pandora, to
Itunes and downloading ones music on their devices, to the now popular online
streaming of music. A example of this online streaming service would be
Spotify, which this year has reached up to 50 million users worldwide. Spotify
has almost any music you could ever want on its database, it also makes it very
clear that they do pay the artists for the music that they use. With this comes
a free package where you can listen to any song you want but it comes with
advertising in between songs, or you can choose the option of paying $5 to $10
for the premium service that eliminates all advertising. They pay them by using
a streaming payment method, giving a certain amount of money to the artist for
the amount of times their songs have been listened to. Which raises the
question, are they getting enough revenue from this company for allowing them
to use their music? In November of 2014 it was very highly publicized that
Taylor Swift had decided to protest the online streaming service by removing
all of her recent music from Spotify because she did not think that she was
getting paid enough from it, while saying that she thought that fans that went
out to go buy her music were getting disrespected because when they ask their
friends why they didn’t go buy it they would just say “why would I when its
free on spotify?”. She doesn’t agree that music has no value, saying “I just don’t
agree with perpetuating the perception that music has no value and should be
free.”
Which
brings me to the point of should artist follow in the foot steps of Swift or is
this just the future of music? In the following months after Swift had made
this move many thought more and more artist would follow her on this protest,
but the fact is no one as big as her or close has stepped up and removed their
music. Jay Z along with other artist’s have taken over a Swedish online music
streaming business named “Tidal” for the efforts to try and help compensate
artists better through this new way of sharing music. With Tidal there is no
way to listen to music freely, you must own an account and pay a certain amount
to listen to music. Although a good idea their efforts have been not very
successful trying to use the stance that we should feel sorry for these artists
that make millions of dollars. In fact ever since they have started this
advertising stance services like Spotify and Pandora have both risen drastically.
My point
being that I think that this is the new way of music, a faster way and more
convenient way of sharing the artists music with their fans. Although they might not be making the money
they think they deserve through the selling of their songs, they will be making
new fans that discover them on these websites like Spotify and will sell more
tickets to their concerts and merchandise and etc. I think this is the future
and in the end will find a way to make both the artists and the companies happy. It might even help to stop most of the illegal downloading of music that has also been taking place over the internet, because if you could just listen to music for free on Spotify why would you even take the time and effort to look for and download the music? and maybe they might not be getting money from these people they would still get their money from the streams that they use on their music. Which I think is another reason why I think in the end this will be better for everyone.
I believe that the future of music comes from streaming company's like spotify, tidal, and google play. While some artists may argue that they are not getting paid enough, streaming music with ads is ultimately more revenue than having the majority of people illegally downloading through torrent. The reason I see people pay the monthly fees for streaming is not to completely get rid of ads, it also has to do with the fact that it enables higher quality music that isn't compressed. The benefit of streaming to me is the ability to listen to music I would not have found on my own without the use of google plays radio that selects random music for the user to try out. While streaming music may not be as profitable for big name artist, I do think it allows for smaller artists to become known to people who will really enjoy their music, but would not have found their music if it weren't for a streaming service.
ReplyDeleteI think that the future of music is terrible. We are able to but one song from an album without listening to the whole album, which is not what the artists intent to happen. An album is a story and it is meant to be listened to. Ipods and iTunes have evolved so much so quickly that we have lost the respects for music and the artists that create it. We have no appreciation for an album as a whole, but rather just one song that we hear and are able to get that song in the blink of an eye, which is very sad for the future of music.
ReplyDeletei would love to see what tidal does in the future and if it can really achieve what they are trying to do because tidal is forward linking. the biggest problem is the illegal downloading of music. some people will say why pay for something i get for free? but if these new streaming services can beat illegal downloading then skys the limit for the future of music
ReplyDeleteStreaming services are definitely key for lesser-known artists. It helps them get their music out there, and hopefully they can gain more popularity. To me, mainstream artists like Swift shouldn't worry about Spotify. She has a huge fan base, is making plenty of money, and will always continue to as long as she puts out good music.Tidal could be helpful for some in the future, but there will still be plenty of illegal downloading in this new age of technology.
ReplyDeleteThis is something I thought was very interesting! I wondered about how artist would feel about people listening to their music for free. I, myself, am a frequent user of Spotify and Pandora. I love them because they open up a new world of music when you search for a name of an artist. There are artist that I would have never listened to before if it weren't for these two apps. I think that it will all balance out in the end because people will here new artists and want to go to their shows because the actually know their music. I really like how you looked at it from the prospective that everything will balance out.
ReplyDeleteI am conflicted when it comes to this issue. On one hand, I feel that fans appreciate artists by buying their apparel and going to their concerts, and therefore, music streaming should continue to pay artists whatever it wants, whether that is little or not. On the other hand, it is the artists' careers, creativity and hardwork, and they should be compensated for that. However, My first second side wins out (as much as I want free music). After all, you wouldn't expect a high class art museum to see their art for free (though some are free), and when you go to a gallery, they expect you to at least consider buying something.
ReplyDelete