Does It Matter Whether We Own Music?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 гру 2018
- For the last 500 years, the music business has built its economic model on convincing people to own their favorite songs. We are now shifting rapidly from owning to streaming. In this video, music historian Ted Gioia looks at the reasons for this change, and explores its likely impact on the music ecosystem.
This is the latest installment in a series of unscripted videos in which Ted Gioia addresses key matters related to music and society. "In these videos," Gioia explains, "I am aiming to provide an informal and conversational entry point into the 'big picture' issues in our current-day music culture."
For more information on Ted Gioia, visit his website at www.tedgioia.com or follow him on Twitter at / tedgioia . His next book, Music: A Subversive History, will be published by Basic Books in 2019.
From a consumer point of view, and speaking as a music lover, music ownership is EXTREMELY important. We identify with the music we listen to, it becomes part of our identity.
Owning a vinyl record or CD really meant that little piece of recorded property belonged to you and that the money you spent on that CD went towards the pocket of the artist or band you love.
On more than one occasion, I was so enamored by a record album that i would purchase multiple copies just to give them away to friends and fellow musicians. Jaco Pastorius’s birthday album was one such album. My friend Kainoa and I would both buy multiple CDs just to give them away. That music affected us so much that we felt compelled to spread the love of that music.
Nowadays, you don’t own anything you buy if it is digital. If you buy a movie on iTunes, it clearly says in the terms and conditions, that Apple can rescind your ability to access to watch those movies, even though you PURCHASED an Apple TV and PURCHASED the movie.
Btw, movies on iTunes, Amazon Video, etc. cost just as much or more than DVDs used to. But with DVDs, you have to ability to watch the movie forever as long as you have a DVD player and a TV. You dont even need the internet.
It is honestly all about control. The bigs don’t want the consumers to own anything, they want a steady revenue of renters. If the bigs were cool and fair, they would co-op the consumer in a mutually beneficial relationship and they’d actually make MORE money. As it stands, they just want to own everything, which disincentivizes ownership and incentivizes piracy.
It is an incredible shame that I can no longer fall in love with a music album, and purchase a physical CD and give it away as a gift.
Great comment - It makes me so sad to see what has happened to everything. We talk about music and movies, but this concept is everywhere. Last year I bought a physical copy of Photoshop off ebay - packaged with CD's and manual and stuff. I loaded it on a computer that I planned on not connecting to the internet. Well, my older computer was having problems so I started using the newer one on the internet. I kinda forgot that I did not intend to browse the internet with it - and I mistakenly clicked the Photoshop icon one day. It send a hidden notice over the internet back to Photoshop. They assumed that it was a pirated copy and disabled my copy. This is why I didn't want to use this computer on the internet. I'm not as pissed as I really should be because I don't use the program anymore - but if I would want to in the future I WOULD BE PISSED RIGHT NOW. Like you said, the pirate revolt is coming. Just wait for 5 to 10 years when everyones automobile is being held hostage to the software upgrade requirements that these car companies are going to demand from all this over-teched bullshit people are buying today. WE ARE ALL FOOLS FOR ALLOWING THIS TO HAPPEN. ACTUALLY, WE ALL DESERVE IT.
@@danherrick5785 If you use a computer to run a whole bunch of essential programs like Photoshop, or older versions you don't want to be upgraded you have to use a computer that in no way can ever, ever connect to the internet, that's why I use a desktop. If I ever wanted to connect it to the internet I'd have to deliberately connect it via Lan to a router or use a USB WiFi dongle. So that's what I do. I use a laptop for all my internet and day to day stuff and I use a much more powerful Desktop to run Cubase, Photoshop, CyberLink PowerDirector, Sound Forge and all my other editing programmes. I even block all the programmes in Windows Firewall and set up an Inbound Rule to block all connections just in case. As for being held hostage by the big software companies, you don't have to buy or even use their software. If you're not using your software in a high-end professional environment, similar, compatible and free Open Source software is always available and it's often very similar or just as good as the overpriced stuff offered by huge companies like Adobe. For example, I've not used Microsoft Office in ten years, instead, I use LibreOffice. As for Photoshop, I have an old stable copy on my Desktop, but on my internet connected Laptop, I've been using GIMP for the last few years. Its User Interface is initially slightly more abstruse compared to its competitor but for the majority of projects it's perfectly adequate.
Yet, but you have the compensation of getting your tune FOR FREE, from the comfort of your own desktop.
@@spindriftdrinker nothing is free. You pay for it one way or another. Paying for something and owning it as a piece of sovereign property is the best way to go. That's what the bigs do, and they don't want anybody else to own things. They want renters. In exchange for giving you a free song, they get access to your whole computer and data profile. That's worth a hell of a lot more than a song.
@@michaelkiese7794 I am so sick and tired of this business model. I am glad I won't live forever. Within a short period of time (10 to 20 years) everyone will be slaves to technology, rental housing, GMO food, too expensive electric transportation, etc. Unless we fight and refuse to let this continue.
My several thousand LP's and CD's agree with you.
This is especially frightening as the devices we use to play music and movies on are becoming obsolete. CD players are disappearing and even iPods are becoming a thing of the past, making it increasingly difficult to build a collection of music from a source that can’t be streamed on Apple Music or a similar service. The younger generation will only know streaming, which is one reason why your argument here is so strong and valid. It’s frightening to think about what may happen to the culture of the arts.
AMEN. I very much miss the music stores like Tower Records, Kemp Hill, and BORDERS BOOKS & RECORDS where could listen to music and -- with the help of store employees who had a deep love and knowledge of music -- make informed choices about the music one wished to buy.
But nowadays most music can only be acquired via digital and online sources. I see this as a mixed blessing because these sources can - if so inclined - limit our access to various types of music from across the world and decades past. We, the listening public and lovers of music, must avail ourselves of as many different music sources as possible. Perhaps by doing so, we may witness in this decade, a re-emergence of music stores in cities and towns that are widely patronized by music lovers.
If you own something you value it more.
Wow...I hope a few million people watch this video and truly understand what is happening!...Well said Sir
I strongly believe in buying and having physical possession of my music. First option is to buy used CDs and rip them to my hard drive. Second option is to purchase and download, usually in mp3 format. For current or new music I often try to buy directly from the artist's website because I think and hope this provides maximum income to the artist. Streeming is very convenient, but it will never be my primary way to listen to music.
I can still kick myself for getting rid of some of my LP's 20 years ago. However, I have found music on UA-cam that I never heard of that I enjoy.
Never knew about Paramount Records dumping their musical stock in the river!
It's not dissimilar to the Universal Records' warehouse fire in 2008 - which happened in part due to the company's devil-may-care attitude to its archives. Universal also showed a dreadfully offhand attitude to its artists who were worried that their master recordings might have gone up in smoke.
In fact, that may have been worse than the Paramount episode. Back when that happened, Paramount might have reasonably assumed that there was no money in reissuing existing recordings, so there was less of a a business reason for these to take up precious storage space.
By 2008 though, Universal knew full well the value of their historical assets. And yet, they still cut corners with their preservation.
Moral of the story - record companies will only look after their bottom lines, not music. Big tech is the same.
I started collecting records in the late sixties and early seventies. I didn't have much money, being a college student, but there were always record clubs with discounts and used record stores . I still wanted as many new albums as I could afford. As you said in another video, When you went to a friend's house or a friend came to yours, the first thing you would do is check out the record collection. My buying tailed off as the music changed to music I didn't like as much, but every now and then, I would find a band I liked and bought their albums. With streaming music, I have a harder time finding music I like, but if I do, I still go back to buying the album. An aspect of the music scene that doesn't get enough attention is the radio. We used to do our sampling that way and connect with our culture through DJs. That, too, has been lost.
Very good points Ted. Thank you. I use the streaming platform to discover, and then strive to purchase the physical LP. I do however have a very long history of buying used records at my local shops . I know that these sales give nothing to the artist, but keep my local economy alive and thus provides a physical space for artists to sell their wares.
Music can disappear from Spotify or any other streaming service but Neil Young isn't going to break into my house and steal my CD or vinyl copy of Harvest.
And I've noticed that young people know less about the music they listen to than I did when I was a teenager or when I was in my twenties. I put this down to the fact that they don't look at cassette/CD/vinyl covers while listening to music. When I got a new album I used to look at the record cover or flick through the CD booklet while listening to it. It would be ingrained in my head who wrote the songs or who played what instrument.
I recently saw a video on UA-cam of an interview with Wendy Melvoin where she talks about her guitar playing on Purple Rain. Someone left a comment questioning who she was and why she's 'suddenly part of the song'. I'm guessing this person has never owned a Prince album in his life. He might consider Purple Rain one of his favourite songs but he'll never know anything about the musicians who played on it. And then there's all the people who have no idea how to even spell 'Jimi Hendrix' or that think David 'Gilmore' is the guitarist with Pink Floyd.
Good insights! I was ready to correct you on David’s last name until I fully read the last paragraph. I think having a physical object where the music is fixed onto it facilitates the relationship between listener and important aspects surrounding the making of that music, but is not absolutely necessary to create that relationship. I had learned tons of relevant information about the Floyd from the Wikipedia and Gilmourish websites long before I got my first physical Floyd. This all happened in the pre-streaming era, so maybe my experience would have been different if it happened today.
Ten years ago, even if I didn’t possessed the physical albums of the music I listened to, the concept of ‘album’ was really engraved into how I thought about listening to music. So, maybe it’s not so much the physical object what makes us care about who and how the music is made as much as having a perception that the music is coming from an entity. In this case, it being ‘the album’, even if its a virtual one.
I agree with Mr Gioia's premise that music is most appreciated and most likely to be preserved by the people who invest in it - but he skips what I believe is also an important point, that the profiteering by the record companies has led to the streaming industry gaining popularity. For decades we've all learned about or heard about the unfair practices of the record companies. I am glad that many artists are selling their products privately and dis-associating themselves with the industry greed. I also believe that the decline in quality of new music within the industry (especially in pop music) is a direct result of the industry not being concerned with anything other than the bottom line. Will it help for all of us fans of music (and professional musicians like myself) to insist on owning our music? Probably, but until the music recording industry is held to better standards I think we're still on a sinking ship.
Yes. And those companies didn’t innovate to improve music. They were companies who made many products, music among them. Sony and CBS records were divisions of companies who mostly made other things, not record labels who invested in music presentation. It’s an accident of history and technology that we ended up with so much good stuff
"the profiteering by the record companies has led to the streaming industry gaining popularity."
I SERIOUSLY doubt that he average consumer who streams (or pirates) usic cares about the artists making money.
If anythingm you're probably making them less money by streaming rather than buying the album.
The late Gerry Garcia, founding member of the rock band the Grateful Dead was interesting on this subject. He was talking about bootlegging live shows and this was long before we even had the MP3 format (it was the piracy wot done it). Other bands at the time were going to great lengths to keep bootleggers out of their concerts and to keep their offerings off the market. The Dead realized there was an actual cult forming around their brand, the Dead Heads, and it wanted to get its hands on as many Grateful Dead bootlegs as it could. Which only served to reinforce the band’s brand. And all these people bought the official records anyway. They were hard core fans (and yes, collectors of Grateful Dead product). So what did the band do? They set up official bootlegger enclosures at their shows to help improve the sound quality! And what did Gerry Garcia say that was so interesting about it? “When we’ve finished making the record we’re done with it. It belongs to the kids after that”. Now, as a songwriter myself I am not sure I entirely agree with him, rest his soul, and it never stopped him from banking his royalty and publishing checks, but he did build up an amazing amount of fidelity, and in truth make a lot more money by giving some of it away.
I think people should be expected to buy the music they consume just as they are expected to buy their baked beans, but we musicians still need to understand the value of a loss leader.
I sorely miss just getting out and going to Tower Records…enough said.
Great talk. Amazing that it's unscripted. I own a collection of CDs and LPS. There is a lot to be said having a CD which recalls a memory of a great concert. . I own Paul Simon's Graceland album because I went to hear his performance at the Jones Beach Marine Theatre. The CD evokes a memory in my personal life. If streaming was around in 1987, I doubt I would have the same emotional connection to a file on my computer. Every-time I listen to Graceland, I return to Jones Beach. What an amazing gift! We need to figure out more ways to encourage ownership of music.
Music is the magic of our lives. Renting instead of owning creates a throw away mindset - just like everything today. Either you understand this problem, or you don't. Soon it will be too late for the current generation to realize their youth has been thrown away...
This is a really important trend. I'm surprised more people aren't concerned about it.
Beautifully said & thank you for taking the time to make this.
His point is even more critical for movies. With music, statutory and compulsory licensing tends to allow each streaming service to offer anything available. With movies, there are no statutory or compulsory licenses. When Netflix was buying and renting DVDs, it could rent them forever until the DVD wore out without needing the copyright owner's permission. But as it has moved to streaming, the number of titles Netflix can offer has shrunk dramatically. Movies must be licensed from the copyright holder, and for far too many movies, either the cost of the license is too high or the cost of negotiating a license is too high. Plus, copyright owners offer "exclusive" deals, which means that if your preferred service does not have it, you must either sign up with the competing service which has the exclusive or forgo the experience. Consequently, he is quite right that the number of movies available on Netflix or your favorite streaming service is awfully low in comparison to the number of movies that have been published.
Oh my god look what spotify just did! They takes down Neil Young and chooses Joe Rogan! You’re so right!
Thanks Ted. This is a very interesting and useful video. I may use it in my introductory economics classes.
You have put forward such great points about preserving Music. Mostly none think in that direction. Thankfully when people will watch these videos, they will think how owning music is such a great asset. I think as owning a physical product, CDs are the sweet spot in terms of Longevity (Vinyls may get damaged early due to its material), portability (Vinyls take up more space), cost effectiveness (Vinyls costs more to press) & preservation of audio quality over a period of time.
Performers sent out sheet music and lyric sheets , broadsides as advance notice. The first non-European musicians I can find touring are the Ethiopian Serenaders in 1845. In the 1920s musicians often saw records as promotional rather than source of cash.
M. Gioia is enlighting us on everyone accountability toward culture, to keep alive and preserved the beautiful aesthetics expressions/creations of our life
Thank you for this. Deeply impactful message.
As always, very insightful.
More of these ted!! Just read how to listej to jazz and it’s awesome!
Thank you Ted Gioia! Well spoken! I collect and own music and have done that sice 1964...
Essential argumentation and video!
I guess I could say that I used to be a music and movie collector. Now I only collect playing lists and lists of movies I have watched and want to watch. But I can't let go of my best music albums on CD, and my best movies on DVD or Bluray. The main reason for keeping them is the bundle of content and the package, album, that gives insight to the interested listener, the liner notes. The graphical part is also a dying art form that I love.
The Liner notes (and lyrics) have become separated from the streaming content and I miss it. For Movies on DVD and Bluray you usually got extra content, like commentaries where the Director and maybe an actor talks about the movie. This is also lost in the streaming model.
Awakening musically in the 1980s meant that I experienced all the strange formats that came and went, like different forms of vinyl records, Cassette tape, CD and minidisc. I don't miss the frequent change of formats that required buing the same content again, but a large part of the experience is lost in the streaming model.
spot on and brilliant. thank you for posting this.
Thanks for making me aware of it.
My first thoughts are: you have to offer a different piece of value that cannot be offered by tech companies and megacorps and etc. Which is why I think live performances are not so likely to disappear any time soon (I suspect there probably are fewer than a few decades ago when music was less accessible and there were also fewer alternative and internet-based forms of entertainment and the whole social fabric of society was in a way more communal). I think this is also why vinyl and even cassettes have made a bit of a comeback the last 10+ years, at least in some underground scenes - because there's something of value to them that streaming music cannot give. 1) a physical item with artwork offers a different experience to the senses than yet another visual stimuli on a screen. 2) listening to vinyl especially in a room is a different experience than music coming from a laptop or a phone, whether it's through speakers or headphones doesn't matter. Having to physically walk to the record player to move the needle means you're less likely to change the music, and therefore more likely to keep listening to it. 3) there is of course the possibility that your internet doesn't always work. I had this last night. Instead of doing a bit of gaming (which was my plan for a late sunday night after bandpractice) I ended up playing guitar for hours. 4) a bit of a deviation from the topic but my thoughts are flowing... looking at screens and engaging through the internet all day long is both inherently human and inhumane. It's not good for us to sit for hours, it's not good for us to stare for hours, it's not good for us to use repeated hand motions for hours... and then there's the mental strain from being bombarded by stimuli all day long, including a lot of trivial nonsense and dangerous disinformation. It's incredibly healthy to take un-plug, lock away your phone and laptop for hours and engage the world and other beings with all your senses. If you read all my ramblings, may you be well!
Thank you for sharing your views, Ted. I have been waiting to listen to a voice like Yours
This is why I collect. I have music that the tech companies will never play. It is depressing that market pressures will probably make all older music disappear, especially when making music with vocals is fully digitized.
Old stuff that is lost = typing up a Word document only to have your computer crash and autosave was not turned on. i.e. if it is important, you will recreate it. And, often, the recreation is actually better than the original document. At least, that was my experience.
I hate the streaming trend. Although this stems from having bad internet and cell phone reception and my propensity to not plan ahead to download playlists, I feel like when I buy music, I should own it. This video brings an entire other argument to light. Thanks so much for bringing this up!
Wow! Thank You, Ted, for this one. Actually a short, but pretty concise history of music publishing. I have been thinking about this a lot, coming from the vantage point of a somewhat traditional musician. In the times after Beethoven and the arrival of the piano in bourgeois salons and with it sheet-music adaptations of the latest, now classical, "hits" some traditional barn-dance fiddler may have fallen on hard times or worse because of radically declining demand for their services.
So, I see that having to adapt to new business models is probably not a phenomenon of only our modern times. That's one reason, why I don't worry too much about the future of music within itself. The other is that I see so much young talent, that have all the chops from all kind of styles ready at their hands, that my generation spent decades in discovering.
It has become incredibly hard to forge a living out of one's talents as a musician these days, though. I think we need worldwide legislation to force Spotify and the likes to pay a fair share to the creators. I have no idea how that can be achieved, though.
As for the collectors, they're still around. So we best keep producing collectable items like CDs as long as we can, I guess.
Yes! I truly think it’s better to own music! It‘s a different kind of relationship with the artist/album/art…for me anyway…
There is this double album "Reves / Yo soy" from a mexican band "Cafe Tacuba", that is regarded as their best work by the fans, it even won the Latin Grammy, however it was not a huge sales success as their previos albums. Because of this Warner music decided to stop producing the album very early on. It is not in Spotify or any other streaming platform, only available as an upload to UA-cam by the hardcore fans. This is a same, Warner music almost sent a grammy winning album to oblivion because they don't care about the album and don't see it as a way to make money, only collectors keep it available for the fans. You are 100% correct.
Great video!
Also applicable to other media, such as books, comic books, and video games.
We need to own it ! When we buy it the Artist makes money , and it off sets touring costs.
Thanks Ted.
Excellent points raised.
Tangential to this is how the use of computers to record music is also having an impact.
There are no doubt recordings from the last couple of decades that have been lost because the masters weren't backed up anywhere, and the original computer was deemed obsolete, which may have been the only location of these masters.
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts
Well done
Thank you, Ted. I’m just discovering these videos now, and they have only become more relevant!
I like this and agree--I don't stream. But in his mini-history, it would be interesting to hear what he thought about radio--since that is a method of distribution without collection.
WOW!!! That Was Eye-Opening & A Sobering Thought Process. Love The Historical Detail You've Provided. Because Even As A Musician I Am STILL One Of Those Collecting Types. I Have 1,000's Of CD's & Vinyl Records. I Continue 2 Order CD's By Artist I Love!!! Wish I Had Made My Mark In Music's Hey Day Where I Could Sit Back With My Feet Up Collecting Royalties. Instead I Drop A CD & Hear It Land Like A Lead Balloon As The Masses Don't Love Music The Way We Do!!! Something Will Have To Change 2 Bring The Love Of Music Back, So People Value The Art Form 1nce Again!!! SMH!!!
Merci beaucoup Monsieur Ted- une bonne douche froide!!
That's why anytime I find a good 'classic' album I may like posted, I immediately download a copy (sorry, original poster. It's what I do). "To have"...if a CD isn't available on eBay or something...
I've been listening to music all my life.... since streaming, much less so. It seemed cool at the moment, having access to all that myriad of songs instantly in my iPhone..... I believe the starting again creating incomplete playlist for my old collections, that turned me off.
Incomplete because the streamers do not have all the albums, songs or versions I havew in physical collections.
I think it's important for more to realize that the Lomax's of the world (the folklorists of blues and folk, let's say) had a stake in selling a product (or maybe, the idea of one) as well. Robert Johnson would've died 100x and no one would have noticed if it was not for his legend.
The playing of Lonnie Johnson was more influential, the style of Leroy Carr more copied; and by Robert Johnson's recordings in 37, his style was long outdated and being replaced by Cab Calloway and the new Harlem sound. The folklorists had a product to sell too, and that has been responsible for what most people view as the very idea of blues itself.
For all we know, Robert Johnson and his contemporaries would've called the Carter Family blues. And for all we know, these men and women knew much more music; the ethnographers just would not record it. There's a reason we all know Robert Johnson and not Papa Charlie Jackson, even though the latter sold infinitely more records.
But I'm sure you already knew all of that! Great videos! Thank you!
Of all the blues players, Lightnin' Hopkins was the most influential bluesman for the modern blues based rock sound of the '60's, '70's, and beyond.
Great point about collectors, also about the complete disrespect that distribution companies had for music and artists. It's very unfortunate & confusing that you say "own music" People who buy a CD or LP own the physical object but DO NOT OWN THE MUSIC, as you know.
Your Twitter thread that brought me here is an excellent view into one of the many ways people are able to abuse capital markets - and a very good catch.
Interesting, so music is being moved into the cloud, onto computer hard drives, where the music could be be erased, gone forever, possibly even if the electronics are simply unplugged or lack electricity. Is this also happening with poetry publications as well, fewer magazines, where hosting companies delete data all the time if the service goes unpaid either by accident or default?
And all your money and fortune and income in a hard drive somewhere as well. uh oh. Ted Gioia, you're doing good work.
But people can download music and therefore preserve it.
Thanks, Ted.
CDs will need to make a comeback. Portability and physical possession are the two main factors in growing and maintaining music and sales of music…
Also political movements might ban certain music if deemed inappropriate. If you own that music, you still can listen to it, but it might be unavailable on streaming platforms. Special editions or bootlegs are seldom part of the streaming platforms catalogue but often vital in discography of certain artists.
Amen, brother. I buy physical music. I'm an audiophile record collector. There has been an explosion of interest among old and young alike in traditional music through the resurgence of vinyl record collecting. Vinyl records made for the best sound quality and packaged in a celebratory fashion is the way to cherish and preserve our musical history. 🎶🎶🎶🎶🎶
I very much miss the music stores like Tower Records, Kemp Hill, and BORDERS BOOKS & RECORDS where could listen to music and -- with the help of store employees who had a deep love and knowledge of music -- make informed choices about the music one wished to buy.
But nowadays most music can only be acquired via digital and online sources. I see this as a mixed blessing because these sources can - if so inclined - limit our access to various types of music from across the world and decades past. We, the listening public and lovers of music, must avail ourselves of as many different music sources as possible. Perhaps by doing so, we may witness in this decade, a re-emergence of music stores in cities and towns that are widely patronized by music lovers.
We’ll said, Ted. Couldn’t agree more.
This is a huge concern.. I am do glad that I grew up when I did . I remember records moving to tape, then moving to CD and then finally digital ans streaming. The state we find ourselves in is caused by the cd burner, the internet ans then piracy/sharing over the internet. This caused the record companies to find a model to combat privacy ans sharing. I stream, but I also buy vinyl, tapes , and CDs. Music is an experience that involves more that just the auditory part. I preserve music in any way possible while listening in any way possible. I invest in artists when ans where I can
The psychology of ownership is very important. I have STOPPED buying music as a result of the CD disappearance due to cost. I want my CD. Without it, I do not buy and I DO NOT stream. We as consumers are losing control over everything. That needs to STOP!
The significance of Ted Giola‘s comment on owning the music cannot be overestimated.
That is why written music will last much longer than recorded music. Recordings are technologically overweight whereas written music is technologically light weight. Written music spans and outlives the life cycles of any recording technology. That is also why written music will outlive most popular music that is not written, which is a vast majority. This is also why traditionally educated musicians are necessary to preserve the music we care about.
I think he means 100 years. Before that you only had the ability to buy the sheet music and perform it yourself or hire someone to perform it. Technology allowed people who performed music to get rich on something that didn't used to pay much. And then technology took it full circle. Nowaday, if they could, they would charge you a royalty fee for singing a song in the shower.
And streaming is exactly like radio was. It's free for the listener and is paid for with ads. Or you can pay for "premium" services.
I love music. I have bought hundreds of albums. I have spent thousands of dollars. I have rummaged through old record shops and gone to questionable places to get hard to find music. Having said that, I don’t think it should be on regular middle class folks to preserve music. There should be a library of congress type of national collection of professionally published music. This is an industry problem. People with more money than most people on the planet can make sure that there are physical copies available. This is all the result of greedy companies caring more about making money than making art.
I'm a record collector/listener, but not all streaming is bad. Qobuz for instance is a bit more aimed at music lovers and audiophiles (there is a high correlation between those two). I see streaming more as a way to explore new music and to listen on the go. So I'll use both: if I like something, I'm buying it on vinyl or CD. Or even cassette, because the counter culture is already there and growing...
I just bought "The City is a Chinese Vase" from an Amazon seller on CD, you tell me. (FYI - only one copy left there!)
Vinyl growth can help fix a lot of this but we need a new physical mobile offering and I don't see that coming. I just can't see people buying any new kind of physical player even if it was a great device anyway. I am buying records again like crazy but in my car or while travelling I still have to rely on streaming. What are our options there beyond ripping vinyl, which wouldn't be adopted widely? Anyone have any ideas? People only carry their phone. It's frustrating for all the reasons cited in this video but I wish we had a proposal for a better way. It's happening to video games right now too. We are going to greatly regret choosing convenience over quality and ownership. It's already done so much damage.
Is streaming the result of greedy corporations or consumer demand? 3:38 "Music industry revenue peaked in 1999" Is it no coincidence that Napster was created that same year? Don't forget that the industry was very slow to react to the obvious demand for music sharing - non-ownership if you will. I'm 60 and understand the joy of owning recorded music, making decisions of what to buy based upon my limited budget, and never knowing what I might have missed out on, I am now able to enjoy a significantly higher variety of music than ever before, both from the past and more recently. I hear what you're saying, but let's agree there are pros and cons of both eras.
Do not underestimate a streaming service's willingness to decrease its offerings of music to make more money or for cultural cleansing and eventually give you less choice. What if a streaming service deems music you like to be counterproductive to society and removes it from their service? That can and will happen. Censorship of everything is just around the corner. If you own a physical copy of the music, they cannot take it away from you.
I need to own it because I need it in the highest quality possible. Although it may not really be worth the effort in 2024 since now we can stream lossless FLAC files, that wasn't the case until very recently.
Maybe online streamers could rise up to create specialty services in Jazz, Classical. We already have Blues, Classic rock stations.
As a musician and recording enthusiast, I both agree and disagree. I prefer streaming (Apple Music) because of one thing: Access. I have access to all the music I could ever want. It is way more music than I could ever afford to buy. Also, I have access to that music literally everywhere. This is something that physical product cannot offer. In addition, when we commit any content to physical media, we are hoping the players of that physical media will always exist. History has proven that is not the case. Not mention, what does it take to store that physical media? What does it take to move that physical media to a new location?
In short, physical product has both advantages and disadvantages. So does streaming. But, in the end, access, in my view, is the critical factor. I do not think the streaming platforms have any interest in preserving music. That is up to the audience. What they do give us for our monthly subscription, just like the electric companies, water companies, etc, is access. If, like me, that is important, streaming is a significant way to hear what you could maybe otherwise not experience.
You make good points - but are you missing the point he made in the video. The point is these companies are making the desisions for YOU. They can and will remove access based on something that IS NOT YOU. You have given up your ownership for convienience today. The real question is - is it worth it to risk your access to your music to someone else. Also - you can go to any thrift store to by a CD player of a cassette player. Buy as many as you think you need to last you the rest of your life. And if you can think of a way to transfer your music to the afterlife, you could make some real money of that device.
Great video. There is a problem though: I love music, but in what format shall I buy it to last?
I have had the same problem myself. Been collecting LPs since the 60's - first purchase was Rubber Soul and at one point my personal collection numbered into the thousands. As you can imagine it took up a LOT of space and wasn't very portable. Over the last few years I made the decision to go pretty much exclusively CD ( with the exception of a few rare albums which I just couldn't bear to part with ) and sold off all of my vinyl ( which really hurt ). This, however raises another problem - hardware. With the decision by Oppo to exit the high end CD player market, there are very few options left for high quality players ( same problem with DVD / Blu Ray players ). I'm in my early 70's and figure I need enough equipment to last me ( optimistically ) for another 15 / 20 years so I've begun to purchase backups whenever I find them at a reasonable price and condition. As for CDs and DVD / Blu Ray? Valu Village, used record shops and Ebay are still good bets. Also, I've heard that Apple has discontinued iPods ( which I use as my portable source when travelling or through the sound system when I want to listen to a random playlist of my choice ). Just my 2 cents worth. Hope it helps with your dilemma.
Also, liner notes.
Gioia doesn't take into consideration the fact that so much of the entire recorded music is available on line. See youtube, for example. With the great advantage that you can find items not easily available at a time when you had to look for the particular record and not finding it because out of print or not well distributed. Let alone the fact you had to pay for an item that, once heard, you could even decide wasn't worth much and try to recycle it. And do we want to talk about filmed music? And do we want to take into consideration the fact that many unknowns now can publicize their stuff themselves instead of being in the thrall of record producers. I would also like to know how and if the consume of live music has changed i the last 20 years. If there's a jazz festival with some unknown musicians now I can go on line and check and decide if they're worth the admission price. No, I think the situation is better now than before. Not perfect, but better.
Not for musicians and songwriters these days, sad to say. Streaming pays pennies on the dollar vs physical sales. And Spotify, the largest streamer in the world, pays the worst. And yes, you can go independent, but you’re also a drop in the ocean. It’s very rough out there.
@@DeesNerds So you agree that for listeners is better now. About musicians and songwriters, there's the live market, which may lead to success based on word of mouth that now can be checked on line.
@@trickydick6152 On the backs of musicians not making enough money to live on, even with touring and merch. But look, it’s clear that you don’t care about that as long as you get convenience. You’re exactly what record companies want. Good for you.
Also, I’m sure glad an artist like the Beatles didn’t make music during a time when recorded music was seen as throwaway; otherwise they wouldn’t have been able to stop touring and live in the studio and give us Sgt Pepper’s.
@@DeesNerds So record companies want musicians not to live by selling records: hadn't realized that, sorry. And I think that the Beatles did their best when touring. Pepper is not the best they did.
The electronic format is no guarantee. 78 RPM players? I guess you can make one if you're a museum. Or what about storing on Zip Drives? Floppy disks? Even CDs don't last that long. But I get his point. Any physical storage is better than non. I don't stream because I know they don't pay the musicians.
I believe recorded music was technically never owned. Theoretically, records are licensed and your supposed to not sell used records. Now, of course that's not enforced. But I think that's the fine print, that nobody cares about. Similarly, your not supposed to copy them, for instance taping them and the reselling.
I think music is on borrowed time. Most of the artists I work with, no longer promote their own music. I’ve been trying to make an effort ask these people about their music. I try to listen to it & have been trying to get them, at least the artists, involved by building a playlist of artists who we all have connections with. #1. It’s not easy to get them involved. & #2 it still doesn’t translate into views. Many of these artists will play shows. Some people will go to the event but, it seems more like an alternative place to have a beer, with people you know. People who attend these venues don’t seem to translate their money into purchases of music, or even merch. It seems to be more about something to do. For the artist, it seems more like an even than actually selling a recording of what they’ve produced. & a performance, it should be but, it just seems to stop there. Maybe we’ve all given up on the idea of selling our art form? Maybe it is just a performance art, now?
Own.
👏👏👏👏
Music will be around forever. I agree with him on ownership but streaming has enabled people to hear more types of music than I ever could 58 years ago.
I don’t think Sony had a record label when they invented the Walkman but other than that I’m with you %100.
Sony got into the record business more than a decade before the launch of the Walkman. See details here: www.sony.net/SonyInfo/CorporateInfo/History/capsule/15/index.html
Sony had a label way before the Walkman and remain one of the last three majors standing, to the day.
I assumed you meant Columbia. My mistake.@@schoolkidsrecords5169
Every musician on the plant? Maybe some talented or lucky Americans, but not every musician on the planet. Most musicians have always eked out a living any which-way they could. And while we are on the subject, if written music is important, why do so many contemporary musicians denigrate it as the dots, or boast that they cannot read it.
3:38 is it good for our broader culture..... how many realms and categories are there where we chose not to think about or positively avoid it in order just to muddle trough. obesity, gun control, the military complex. why should we do it now? the music industry thought their revenue is more valuable than privacy rights of the whole world since napster decades ago.
what about geolocation? that was not intended by the inventors of the internet.
make an archive of music, laying dormant whatever reason.
…and don’t forget to mention the blues man professor Cornel West!
One of my old bands got offered a record deal recently. How much did they get? $8000. They then spent months in the studio recording the album and spent $11,000 doing that. And so they ended up LOSING $3000 providing an album for the masses. This is typical of what is now going on in the music business. And why most PRO musicians have quit the music business. To be replaced by 800 MILLION Hobbyist musicians working in their bedrooms while all working DAY JOBS! Remember Napster and Megaupload? And how the fans decided to avoid paying all the Artists? And now they wonder why there is so much crap on the radio! Go listen to 'Bohemian Rhapsody' which cost $600,000. Wonder how Queen managed to make such a classic song back In the old days?
add to that the " music " nowadays is so BAD that there's just no sustainable base to build on...leading us to a very precarious place where we can start hearing the Deat Knell of Music as we know it
I really miss those maxi cd singles that would contain instrumentals, remixes, demo versions, etc. Nothing like actually owning the music. They can't take that away from you. Streaming is a 'Reset' era thing and I am 100% against it.
Sure. why not!
Isn't streaming the modern version of radio?
Music will continue through live performances and old songs will evolve as they are passed down to younger generations via word of mouth. Hopefully anyway. I do think intellectual property law applied to music is going to be a big help in destroying old music. Why else would companies be buying all the rights to classic artists songs?
Just a thought : music has been in our lives for 10 000 years (I am making up the number), but we buy physical music objects since less than 100 years. Is music in danger ? Is selling record was just a tiny piece in the music history ?
The Company s doit for the money. Buyers are music lovers and collectors.
Sounds convincing but since I don't know much about this, I can't tell if you're telling the truth.
I would say that this is a typical old people’s view on world changes.
The argument is built on streaming services versus music preservation.
Why should Spotify responsible about preservation? Same as Tower Records, it only focus on distribution part of music industry. The physical relics like records, cassettes and CDs are the necessity to distribute music back then which is already rendered irrelevant by today standard.
Dont worry though, there will always be a niche market that caters to nostalgia market.
Wait 10 to 20 years and you want to listen to your music THEN. Then you might understand... The "typical old people’s view" will become clearer THEN. Your either a renter or a physical holder. Are you going to take that chance on the music you love...
Smart as usual Ted although storage costs are decreasing not increasing as you suggest.
I am referring to the aggregate storage costs. Every week, thousands of new recordings are released. Streaming platforms need to constantly expand their storage capabilities to add these titles, while also maintaining the back catalog. But will they continue to do so? This is not a trivial cost. Already Netflix is reducing the number of titles available, and it's probably only a matter of time before music platforms start eliminating recordings.
@@tedgioia Ah. Gotcha.
TS Eliot's take on tradition and literature always resonated with me. Time is the arbiter of artistic value and determines the canon - the works that get passed down and the works that get forgotten.
While the quantity of music recorded might be accelerating, Im not so worried about the great stuff not getting stored.
As an aside, a pro of streaming, which has affected me in a huge way, is access to music...
I referenced spotify 100 times from wc handy down as i read your great book on jazz history.
People have never owned music by purchasing sheet music, vinyl records, and CDs. Rather, the purchaser is granted a limited license to the music and owns the physical medium containing the music.
Yes - but it's alittle harder for the record companies to come to my house and take my CD copy of "their" album.
@@danherrick5785 True, but not the point. You don’t own the music.
@@Musicwithoutthought The point here is access - not really ownership. Who really cares about the legal term being used here - it's access. If you don't have something physical, you can't "use" it. If it's being "rented" thru a subscription, it can be taken away...
@@danherrick5785 Yes, that is correct. The other thing is that if the people who own the rights to the music lose the masters in a fire or something then a physical copy of the music may resurrect it. This is the case with many songs from the 1920's and 1930's where the only copies of the records exist in the form of 78 records owned by collectors.
@@danherrick5785 The point is the impact of the psychology of "ownership" on the economics of making music. - not access. If anything, access is greater with streaming. The video makes the excellent point that buying a physical object associated with the music turns you into a collector with a connection to the artist. Subscribing to music does not provide the same connection. However, it is important to understand what you own (the physical object) and what you have a license to (the music). For example, making a copy of your vinyl record before selling it is not permitted under your license. Selling the vinyl, along with the license, is permitted.
Interesting history but don't worry, music is safe. You can easily find historical recordings and live performances on UA-cam that were previously available only to collectors. More and more young people are making more an more great music and able to distribute it without labels guarding the gates. And for the, er, record, the major labels haven't really cared about music in decades. As far as owning physical product, thought, they appear to have discovered vinyl.
You show great confidence that virtual music will always be there. Yet every day there are discussions in the news and social media about de-platforming artists-and arguments for censorship are made with ever increasing vehemence. Are you really sure that all the music you love will be accessible on UA-cam forever? That’s putting a whole lot of faith in the overseers in Silicon Valley.
@@tedgioia5333 I haven't seen any of those discussions and my only faith in the Silicon Valley overseers is that if they can monetize it, it will continue. Also, much as I love the music of the past, I think the trade-off that it is easier to make and distribute the music of the future than it has ever been is as, or more, important. And yes, I know it is harder to monetize it, but in my experience that fact has done nothing to slow down the amount and quality of new music being made.
Just in the news this week MySpace has lost every song uploaded to the site between 2003-15-a total of 50 million songs. expi.co/01n8BB
@@guitarmoderne You said "if they can monetize it, it will continue" - is precisely the main point here. When it no longer makes money for "the company", they will and are removing it!
It is extremely important! All sound is free! Ownership of music is absurd. My goal is now to get wealthy enough to own the letter "e" (uppercase, lowercase, script and printed) anyone who uses this letter without express written permission shall be sued. When the motivation to create becomes self serving art no longer exists.
This should be the top comment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If a composer cannot make a living by composing music, he or she won't compose music. They'll go do something else. The world would lose great new music that way.
@@audiophileman7047 you're equating "making a living" with "making money" with "making art". I agree that capitalism is a deeply flawed system and is extremely destructive to creativity and art in general through it's perversion of desires, needs and motivation to work and produce and earn, repeat ad nauseum... Surely, the artists of Lascaux & Chauvet weren't collecting royalties so what was their motivation then? Hymns, anthems, songs of love & loss... Odes to pain & joy. Art creates itself through it's necessity to be expressed. Otherwise it's fake titties.
@@audiophileman7047 you used my "e" 13 times, plus once in your name. Let's see, you owe me ...