Home Forums Music Streaming Music Debate

Streaming Music Debate

CREATE A NEW TOPIC
CREATE A NEW POLL
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
Created
3 years ago
Last Reply
3 years ago
17
replies
730
views
9
users
5
3
3
  • Final2
    Participant
    Joined:
    Apr 4th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #403857

    OK if you haven’t heard Taylor Swift has started a debate of streaming music and the lack of royalties songwriters and performers receive and blames streaming companies such as Spotify as one of the main reasons music sales have hit a all time low. Taylor believes music is art and it should be valued and paid for. She then pulled her entire catalog from Spotify after requesting that her music be only available for paid subscribers and not for free . So what do you think?

    Reply
    Pieman1994
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 14th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #403859

    I would argue against Taylor. Music is an art, whose worth is entirely subjective, and whose value should not be quantified by how much a person spends on it. Also, it seems weird that Taylor would care about money. Additionally, there’s no way she isn’t super rich. By taking her music off of Spotify she’s just losing money. All she’s doing is strong-arming fans into buying her music, which is a pretty shitty move. “Hey, you like my music? It’s meaningful to you? Great. You know what’s meaningful to me? If I’m getting paid. Show your love by giving me money.” Absurd, but that’s what it looks like. Also, people don’t have to pay for her music to get it. It’s simply a lot easier to stream Spotify than it is to torrent music, or to burn it onto a disc, and share it with friends. This is a really dumb move, and a narrow line of thinking on Swift’s part.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Final2
    Participant
    Joined:
    Apr 4th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #403860

    I would argue against Taylor. Music is an art, whose worth is entirely subjective, and whose value should not be quantified by how much a person spends on it. Also, it seems weird that Taylor would care about money. Additionally, there’s no way she isn’t super rich. By taking her music off of Spotify she’s just losing money. All she’s doing is strong-arming fans into buying her music, which is a pretty shitty move. “Hey, you like my music? It’s meaningful to you? Great. You know what’s meaningful to me? If I’m getting paid. Show your love by giving me money.” Absurd, but that’s what it looks like. Also, people don’t have to pay for her music to get it. It’s simply a lot easier to stream Spotify than it is to torrent music, or to burn it onto a disc, and share it with friends. This is a really dumb move, and a narrow line of thinking on Swift’s part.

    Well you can’t say because she’s rich that mean she shouldn’t care about her work. For example I saw that “Wake Me Up” with Aloe Blacc it was a huge steaming hit but he himself as a songwriter and performer made only 4k$ from streams. The main argument is people undervalue music. Alot of of artist are starting to pull out of Spotify and don’t allow new material to be streamed. Also I dont think Taylor is losing money if anything she’s making money by not allowing her music to be streamed. I don’t stream music so I really don’t know much about it.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Pieman1994
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 14th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #403861

    [quote=”Pieman1994″]I would argue against Taylor. Music is an art, whose worth is entirely subjective, and whose value should not be quantified by how much a person spends on it. Also, it seems weird that Taylor would care about money. Additionally, there’s no way she isn’t super rich. By taking her music off of Spotify she’s just losing money. All she’s doing is strong-arming fans into buying her music, which is a pretty shitty move. “Hey, you like my music? It’s meaningful to you? Great. You know what’s meaningful to me? If I’m getting paid. Show your love by giving me money.” Absurd, but that’s what it looks like. Also, people don’t have to pay for her music to get it. It’s simply a lot easier to stream Spotify than it is to torrent music, or to burn it onto a disc, and share it with friends. This is a really dumb move, and a narrow line of thinking on Swift’s part.

    Well you can’t say because she’s rich that mean she shouldn’t care about her work. For example I saw that “Wake Me Up” with Aloe Blacc it was a huge steaming hit but he himself as a songwriter and performer made only 4k$ from streams. The main argument is people undervalue music. Alot of of artist are starting to pull out of Spotify and don’t allow new material to be streamed. Also I dont think Taylor is losing money if anything she’s making money by not allowing her music to be streamed. I don’t stream music so I really don’t know much about it. [/quote]

    Again, this assumes that art can only be appreciated a limited number of ways, which, in this case, means that music can only be fully valued if money is spent on it. Again, this is nonsense. Her music being streamed for free being an issue is not about the work. Obviously. If she cared about her work, wouldn’t she share it with anyone, regardless? Rather, she wants her music to yeild a profit, which has nothing to do with how much the music actually speaks to people. At any rate, the argument, then, is not that the music itself is undervalued, but that artists are not being compensated fairly. Artists have to agree to the terms and conditions to having their music streamed. It’s not as if Taylor is having her music released for free against her will. Even if that’s part of her deal with her label, again, she agrees to it, as does every artist who decides to put their music up for streaming on services like Spotify. That means that artists need to be willing to negotiate harder for royalties.  

    ReplyCopy URL
    Final2
    Participant
    Joined:
    Apr 4th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #403862

    [quote=”Final2″][quote=”Pieman1994″]I would argue against Taylor. Music is an art, whose worth is entirely subjective, and whose value should not be quantified by how much a person spends on it. Also, it seems weird that Taylor would care about money. Additionally, there’s no way she isn’t super rich. By taking her music off of Spotify she’s just losing money. All she’s doing is strong-arming fans into buying her music, which is a pretty shitty move. “Hey, you like my music? It’s meaningful to you? Great. You know what’s meaningful to me? If I’m getting paid. Show your love by giving me money.” Absurd, but that’s what it looks like. Also, people don’t have to pay for her music to get it. It’s simply a lot easier to stream Spotify than it is to torrent music, or to burn it onto a disc, and share it with friends. This is a really dumb move, and a narrow line of thinking on Swift’s part.

    Well you can’t say because she’s rich that mean she shouldn’t care about her work. For example I saw that “Wake Me Up” with Aloe Blacc it was a huge steaming hit but he himself as a songwriter and performer made only 4k$ from streams. The main argument is people undervalue music. Alot of of artist are starting to pull out of Spotify and don’t allow new material to be streamed. Also I dont think Taylor is losing money if anything she’s making money by not allowing her music to be streamed. I don’t stream music so I really don’t know much about it. [/quote]

    Again, this assumes that art can only be appreciated a limited number of ways, which, in this case, means that music can only be fully valued if money is spent on it. Again, this is nonsense. Her music being streamed for free being an issue is not about the work. Obviously. If she cared about her work, wouldn’t she share it with anyone, regardless? Rather, she wants her music to yeild a profit, which has nothing to do with how much the music actually speaks to people. At any rate, the argument, then, is not that the music itself is undervalued, but that artists are not being compensated fairly. Artists have to agree to the terms and conditions to having their music streamed. It’s not as if Taylor is having her music released for free against her will. Even if that’s part of her deal with her label, again, she agrees to it, as does every artist who decides to put their music up for streaming on services like Spotify. That means that artists need to be willing to negotiate harder for royalties.  [/quote]

    In the same breath though everything including physical art cost money to own. You have to pay to watch a movie and you have to pay to watch most television show. You have to pay to go to the opera or a Broadway show. That doesn’t mean that the only way to value it. Why should music be any different? Lets say you buy 1989 and it costs you 15$ while all your friends stream it for free that doesn’t seem fair. Also Taylor did decide to pull her music after weeks of negotiations with Spotify.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Atypical
    Participant
    Joined:
    Dec 1st, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #403863

    Streaming isn’t piracy, which is a definite problem in the music industry. The artists are being compensated for their work in a smaller degree. But the future of how music is disseminated to the masses is evolving, and Queen Taylor can be onboard with that or not, it’s irrelevant. That’s where things are heading now. Dictating how fans should be able to consume her music is also ripe grounds for a backlash. There will come a time when Swift won’t be as popular as she is currently, and she’ll wish that people were checking for her in whatever means are available, whether that is through digital sales, albums, concert tours, YouTube, or yes God forbid, streaming sites like Spotify. Everything, including popularity, is cyclical. She’s missing the bigger longterm picture for breaking current sales records and $$$.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Pieman1994
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 14th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #403864

    [quote=”Pieman1994″][quote=”Final2″][quote=”Pieman1994″]I would argue against Taylor. Music is an art, whose worth is entirely subjective, and whose value should not be quantified by how much a person spends on it. Also, it seems weird that Taylor would care about money. Additionally, there’s no way she isn’t super rich. By taking her music off of Spotify she’s just losing money. All she’s doing is strong-arming fans into buying her music, which is a pretty shitty move. “Hey, you like my music? It’s meaningful to you? Great. You know what’s meaningful to me? If I’m getting paid. Show your love by giving me money.” Absurd, but that’s what it looks like. Also, people don’t have to pay for her music to get it. It’s simply a lot easier to stream Spotify than it is to torrent music, or to burn it onto a disc, and share it with friends. This is a really dumb move, and a narrow line of thinking on Swift’s part.

    Well you can’t say because she’s rich that mean she shouldn’t care about her work. For example I saw that “Wake Me Up” with Aloe Blacc it was a huge steaming hit but he himself as a songwriter and performer made only 4k$ from streams. The main argument is people undervalue music. Alot of of artist are starting to pull out of Spotify and don’t allow new material to be streamed. Also I dont think Taylor is losing money if anything she’s making money by not allowing her music to be streamed. I don’t stream music so I really don’t know much about it. [/quote]

    Again, this assumes that art can only be appreciated a limited number of ways, which, in this case, means that music can only be fully valued if money is spent on it. Again, this is nonsense. Her music being streamed for free being an issue is not about the work. Obviously. If she cared about her work, wouldn’t she share it with anyone, regardless? Rather, she wants her music to yeild a profit, which has nothing to do with how much the music actually speaks to people. At any rate, the argument, then, is not that the music itself is undervalued, but that artists are not being compensated fairly. Artists have to agree to the terms and conditions to having their music streamed. It’s not as if Taylor is having her music released for free against her will. Even if that’s part of her deal with her label, again, she agrees to it, as does every artist who decides to put their music up for streaming on services like Spotify. That means that artists need to be willing to negotiate harder for royalties.  [/quote]
    In the same breath though everything including physical art cost money to own. You have to pay to watch a movie and you have to pay to watch most television show. You have to pay to go to the opera or a Broadway show. That doesn’t mean that the only way to value it. Why should music be any different? Lets say you buy 1989 and it costs you 15$ while all your friends stream it for free that doesn’t seem fair. Also Taylor did decide to pull her music after weeks of negotiations with Spotify. [/quote]

    Except you don’t. Not if you make your own art. Not if artists put their music out for free. Look at Radiohead with In Rainbows (tip-jar policy, but still extremely cheap,) Death Grips’ Government Plates, Run the Jewels’ Run the Jewels 2, De La Soul releasing their ENTIRE catalog for free, Not to mention all of the artists that release their work for free on services such as SoundCloud and Bandcamp. Many of those artists have garnered all kinds of acclaim. Their value was likely not underestimated. Similarly, what about services like Hulu, Crackle, or YouTube? Should those services also charge for their most basic services? Again, price of art, and intrinsic worth of that art are not remotely related.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Final2
    Participant
    Joined:
    Apr 4th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #403865

    Really it’s up to the artist. I doubt Taylor will ever “need” streaming even when she stops selling albums. She’s not going to disappear and need exposure anytime soon. It wouldn’t surprise me if more major artist start pulling their catalogs from free streaming.

    ReplyCopy URL
    M H
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 7th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #403866

    Is she going to keep radio stations from playing her terrible songs? Because the last I checked, listening to the radio is pretty free.  

    ReplyCopy URL
    KyleBailey
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 15th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #403867

    I think Spotify is a useful tool to really sell your music. If I listen to it a lot on Spotify I will go ahead a buy it on iTunes 

    ReplyCopy URL
    Renaton
    Member
    Joined:
    Jun 4th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #403868

    Taylor is not taking her music out of Spotify because she cares about the songwriters and labels. She did so because she is one of the few artists who can sell a gazillion records without having her music up for streaming. And her analogy is flawed, because it’s not like going to a streaming service like Spotify is the same as piracy, as you have to pay for it. The Spotify model just doesn’t compensate Taylor as much because she won’t make that much more (if she does more at all) than an indie band, given Spotify’s business model. I always roll my eyes at some young people who complain about sites you pay to listen to a lot of music. The acessibility of music through legal ways is one of the best things to have developed recently. Spotify isn’t prefect (and Radiohead has some very interesting takes on it), but it’s weird to see music fans being against Spotify when it allows people to experience more and more music. The industry just needs to let go of the past when records were overpriced and people didn’t have as much access to music as they do in the times of the internet.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Boidiva02
    Participant
    Joined:
    May 24th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #403869

    Well, I’m all for streaming music sites, but I do think artists and composers could and should be given a larger percentage of royalties from these sites. Now, the truth is I think most music consumers could care less how much the artist or composers are paid and will utilize stream so long as it’s available. and it’s not piracy since there is a royalty.  

    Frankly, if it weren’t for streaming there are many songs/artists I’d never hear or hear of.  It’s a useful tool because it allows me to check out an artist that I wouldn’t be willing to pay for and if I like them I’ll be able to pay for their music on traditional sources.

     

    ReplyCopy URL
    YoungSoo1313
    Blocked
    Joined:
    May 14th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #403870

    Well, I’m all for streaming music sites, but I do think artists and composers could and should be given a larger percentage of royalties from these sites. Now, the truth is I think most music consumers could care less how much the artist or composers are paid and will utilize stream so long as it’s available. and it’s not piracy since there is a royalty.  

    Frankly, if it weren’t for streaming there are many songs/artists I’d never hear or hear of.  It’s a useful tool because it allows me to check out an artist that I wouldn’t be willing to pay for and if I like them I’ll be able to pay for their music on traditional sources.

     

    I totally agree with you. Though I have some mixed feelings towards streaming music (even thought I do it, and I pay for it).

    First, you are totally right. We wouldn’t know about many songs/artists if it wasn’t for streaming music. But, we are also getting alot of crappy music because of this. I miss record labels, MTV, VH1, etc… that would actually expose talented musicians to the world. Sadly, that’s not happening. Yeah, we are getting some great artists from all over the world. But in the same time, we’re getting a lot of crap and that’s what becoming popular.

    Second, Taylor has a point (I AM NOT A SWIFTIE, I REALLY DISLIKE HER MUSIC SPECIALLY 1989) and now you may say that she’s only bitching and complaining; remember what happened to Metallica back in 1999 with Napster??? They predicted the decline of music sales but they were only criticized.

    Now, the only solution to the problem is that performers/composers should get more royalties than 1 cent for every 6000 downloads.

    I the same time, one thing I strongly dislike about digital sales (I still buy CDs, by the way) is that I don’t understand why would you get a record for the same price in both iTunes and at a record store. I mean, when you have the physical record you’re looking at the artwork, most of the time getting the lyrics, holding the disc, getting a case, etc. It is not just the music.

    A lot of weird things are going on in the music industry.

    Sadly, I believe in about 20 years we’ll only be getting one hit wonders. 

    ReplyCopy URL
    YoungSoo1313
    Blocked
    Joined:
    May 14th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #403871

    (I hope I’m not breaking any rules)

    By the way, the prize for Taylor Swift’s 1989 at an online store is CAD 14.99 (~US$13.23) whereas at a local record store is at CAD 12.99 (~US$11.46)

    Isn’t that ridiculous? even if the first one contains more songs than the other one. And she’s getting more royalties from the physical sales, of course. 

    ReplyCopy URL
    Final2
    Participant
    Joined:
    Apr 4th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #403872

    Jason Aldean is removing his new album from Spotify might pull his entire catalog later.

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
Reply To: Streaming Music Debate

You can use BBCodes to format your content.
Your account can't use Advanced BBCodes, they will be stripped before saving.

Similar Topics
sureash... - Oct 16, 2017
Music
KaRol - Oct 16, 2017
Music