Yep, still have option to download if you feel the need to own. Another consideration for me has been storage. I have well over 3.5k cd's and same with vinyl, I have this physical media stored all over my house, total pain, don't need or want any more physical media.
What am I missing?
When discussing streaming we often hear the quality achieved by streaming compared to "cd quality". "Cd quality" seems often to be the standard by which streaming is favorably compared while cds have at the same widely fallen into disfavor as a medium. If "cd quality" continues to be a quality standard by which we judge streaming services -which it appears to be- why exactly do we hold cds in such disfavor? More sophisticated dacs can always be employed with cd transports as they are with streaming. I understand the convenience and storage issues with cds but I also understand that with streaming you will never own the music which you do with cds. This becomes even more unclear to me when considering the resurgence of vinyl and the storage and convenience issues involved with this medium. I don't believe the music industry ever wanted us to own the music we listen to but rather preferred we only rent and pay for that music each time.
Showing 5 responses by sns
Lack of artist compensation is not an inherent problem with streaming, rather its business model. Present business model works because a critical mass of consumers don't value music greatly. Consumers could demand greater payouts to artists and artists could refuse to release music to streaming services, perhaps this would lead to fairer compensation. I doubt you'll ever see either of these scenarios take place, vast majority of consumers certainly happy with present situation, and artists want their music to be heard. Think about how many of these artists wouldn't get to be heard if only physical media existed. Distribution of physical media costly, unknown artists have no chance for exposure with that business model.
I still receive mailings from physical media sellers, don't see vast majority of contemporary artists in my streaming libraries with vinyl or cd offerings, mostly twentieth, thirtieth, whatever remaster of older popular artists. How many copies of a single release from artists llike the Beatles, Stones, Steely Dan, etc do I need! Physical media ain't making vast majority of artists rich! |
When you compare cost, even with the ongoing monthly subscription costs over a lifetime, the value of streaming is unbeatable. It would cost me at least multiples of $10k to own all the music in my streaming libraries. While I appreciate the art and tactile sensation of physical media, in the end its the music that matters most for me. |
For those who feel the need to own the music vs renting/leasing whatever you want to call it. I already own far more physical media than I can play, I derive virtually no value from physical media I no longer play due to new listening preferences, tons of my vinyl and all cd's in storage with difficult access to. Since my listening preferences constantly changing and evolving, at least some music becomes obsolete, don't need or want more obsolete possessions, already far too much of that.
The other thing I love with streaming is the ability to access my music via smartphone at workplace and in car. Long trips made far more pleasurable with this. |
@larryi That may be true in some cases, but for artists with larger catalogs there are generally many versions of same recording to choose from. Very rare case when I can't find at least decent sound quality from one of the available versions. I do have both Tidal and Qobuz. Also, both Tidal and Qobuz constantly adding to titles available.
With most newer or more obscure artists multiple masters not available either via physical or streaming media. |