
Apple iTunes Sees Big Drop in Music Sales - alceufc
http://www.wsj.com/articles/itunes-music-sales-down-more-than-13-this-year-1414166672
======
michaelpinto
Something to keep in mind is that music "ownership" may be a generational
thing. My parents were members of the silent generation (born in the 30s) and
they owned very few physical records. And it's not to say they didn't love
music, they did -- but the way they enjoyed music was listening to the radio.
So if you had a love of opera and classical music you'd listen to WQXR 24/7
(here in NYC) which isn't too different than a millennial who is into
streaming.

As a Gen X member we grew up imitating Boomers by buying music in our youth
(see side note below). But something to keep in mind is that unlike digital
music, this was very much a tactile experience. This was because you were by
the physical album as much as the music itself. And if you look at those
albums you realize that the package acts as a mini-poster so it was really
merchandise (as much as buying a t-shirt).

Also in a pre-digital age you'd get the lyrics included with the album as
well. This doesn't sound like a big deal, but in a pre-Google era getting your
hand on the lyrics was something that you'd have to work at if you didn't own
the album (you might have to go to a sheet music shop, and those weren't in
every town).

So streaming (or what we use to call radio) may in fact be the natural order
of things. Part of this may also be that music as a medium isn't on the
cutting edge of culture anymore. We tend to forget that from say the 60s until
the late 80s music was leading the way as a voice for cultural change, but
sadly as rock as a genre is now about 65 years old, and even rap is about 35
years old.

So I think the biggest challenge for the music industry isn't technology at
this point, but focusing on how to be culturally relevant again. So it's not
about a decline in digital sales, but a decline in connecting with their
audience.

Side note: It should be noted that while Gen X did buy records we tend to
forget that in the 80s the music industry was terrified by declining sales
which were attributed to the youth market spending their money on new things
like video games. Of course we loved music as much as previous generations
did, but thanks to MTV we were experiencing it also as a streaming medium.

~~~
api
Might be true, but I can't help but be nostalgic for it. I get the sense that
for millennials and younger music is just another kind of light entertainment,
take it or leave it. Music for many gen-Xers including myself was practically
religion. You loved it so much you built a chunk of your identity around it.
You were moved by it. I guess I can't really be sure, but I don't get the
feeling people care about music like that anymore.

Of course it might have nothing to do with packaging. I routinely look for new
music and I do find gems that move me the way the music of my youth did, but
they seem really few and far between. So much of what I hear is so spineless
and trite. Of course there is always a temporal selection effect in that only
the best stuff of the past is remembered, but it does feel like I really have
to dig hard for anything good these days.

At the worst I wonder if the golden age of music as a popular art form is
behind us. How many people follow sculpture or painting? There's plenty of
work being done, but only aficionados of those forms follow it. Is that where
music is headed?

~~~
michaelpinto
I agree, but let me submit this you:

The music that spoke to me was what you would call "college radio" in the
mid-80s and "alternative" in the late 80s and early 90s. But if you think
about it that was a small niche market and not the mainstream until Nirvana
broke through circa 1991. And even then that was a short lived revolution
which gave way to the Spice Girls and Britney Spears.

But before you get too nostalgic the realty of that era is that most of the
music that people listened to was light weight pop music. That was really the
era of "adult easy listening" and hair metal bands, and yet we think of the
music that holds up like say REM or something that pushed the limits.

------
iamben
You can't put the genie back in the bottle. The way we consume changed
dramatically over the last 20 years, and with change, it means where, how and
who profits changes.

I'm all for competition but I feel it's going to end up ruining it for those
that consume, and ultimately those who create - in both music and movies.

Spotify is as close to 'perfect' as I think we've seen a streaming service so
far. Most, if not all of the people I know who'd prolifically or casually
pirated music (but rarely, if ever bought it), now pay for Spotify. Most, if
not all those who bought music now pay for Spotify instead. Because it's
easier. And it's all there - and it doesn't cost you to experiment and change
your mind.

But when artists (Taylor Swift, etc) start leaving because it doesn't pay as
much as the heydays, and start moving to services that promise more cash,
everything becomes more fractured. The reason people pay is because it's
easier that pirating. Napster was easy. Everything was there so you consumed.
But no one wants to pay for 5 services / install 5 apps / whatever. So they'll
just end up not bothering, and by that point they won't be buying either. And
everyone will lose.

~~~
diminoten
Spotify is not as good as Google Music.

Why does everyone forget Google Music? And you can't leave Google Music to
boot -- not without leaving YouTube too!

~~~
mynegation
No, Spotify is better than Google Music, at least for me. When I went to
Spotify's mobile site they did not require cc number before I even seen
anything, Google music did. Spotify gave me tens of not hundreds pre-canned
playlists, Google Music iOS app presented me the blank slate and nothing else.

If you think Google music is better, it would be interesting why you think it
is.

~~~
orbitingpluto
I noticed that Google Play plays at 320kbps while Spotify plays at 128kbps (or
lower). I don't splurge on $200+ headphones so I don't notice a quality
difference, but I suppose some people can.

Google Play can be murderous to a data plan, but they also allow you to upload
your own music. I don't think Taylor Swift is on a Google Play subscription
either, but you can upload your mp3 and then have it available to you.

~~~
mynegation
Thank you, this is the kind of answer I would expect in defence of Google
Play. I do notice the difference between 128 and 320 kbps on some musical
pieces. I am not Spotify Premium now and they stream 320 to premium users.

The point about uploading your music is very valid one, it is just that I
personally do not want Google to have it and manage it between devices myself.

------
notnickwolf
Try this if it asks you to sign in:

[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fitunes-
music-sales-down-more-than-13-this-
year-1414166672&ei=GdIhVY74FIu8sAX_9IKgBQ&usg=AFQjCNE2Wci9AA-
fr7EfrCg6vJrFFImcYw&sig2=1KIgpzhrJvzoGFjZPGkn_A&bvm=bv.89947451,d.b2w)

~~~
click170
I still get asked to sign in when I view that link, but that's besides the
point: I wish paywall'd articles weren't accepted here.

Maybe there is a place for paywalls in this world, I just don't think we
should be posting links to them here.

~~~
a3n
Ironic comment, considering what the article is about.

If you don't like paywalled sites, just don't go there. What have you really
missed? There are plenty other articles elsewhere.

(Big Music/WSJ) vs (streaming/any other article on any other subject on the
internet). Same thing.

~~~
click170
IMO posting paywalled sites to a news aggregator detracts from the experience
of using the aggregator for anyone who doesn't subscribe to that paywalled
site.

Its established that a low percentage of people are convinced into signing up
by a paywall. There for, posting paywalled articles to a news aggregator
detracts from the experience of everyone who chooses not to subscribe to that
particular site because it robs us of front page real estate that could be
held by other non paywalled but interesting stories.

Consider a news aggregator where every link went to a paywalled site, so many
disparate sites that you couldn't afford to subscribe to all of them. Would
you find the aggregator more or less valuable than one that had freely
available information.

------
steven2012
I'm curious what the net amount of money going to musicians are, as opposed to
the amount of money going to record labels. That's much more important to me,
because I don't care if the music labels starve, but if the musicians go
broke, then there is no more content. And in this age, it seems strange that
there isn't a good way for a musician to completely bypass labels altogether
and just release music on their own, in a profitable manner.

Based on the numbers I've seen from posts here, Spotify clearly isn't the
answer, it's just another mechanism to drive the value of content to $0. Maybe
we'll see Spotify start their own music label and give artists money more
directly, the way that Netflix and Amazon Prime are essentially creating their
own TV stations.

~~~
Steko
The artists are the ones that let the labels make all the sales/straming
money. Take 10 decent artists, the label says "ok we like all of you, whoever
will sign for the lowest % of music sales/streaming will get signed and
promoted and has a good chance to get famous and make that much more from
concerts, etc.". Of course they end up making all the sales/streaming money.
That's not evil that's just how it works.

------
AshleysBrain
Note this article is from October 2014.

------
jleyank
Judging from the tenor of comments here, the typical user doesn't have to
worry about bandwidth limits on their smart device, never drives where the
connection's spotty, never flies and stays within one country. Or, I guess,
just has a slug of money to pay whatever fees for internet connection arise.

I tend to do a number of these things, so having music "in my hand" is
advantageous. I also like to listen to both the hits and non-hits for the
artists I like and had a largish legacy CD collection. Most of the CD's I
purchase now are mementos of concert trips, especially for the bands that sign
what they sell. Ripping the CD's, I get the music that the bands laid down,
without the compression artifacts and pitch changes I get from radio. Do the
internet services do the same, or are their offerings pristine?

Different strokes and all that, but be careful to add up the cost of continued
rental vs. purchase or other forms of acquisition.

Edit: I also prefer to support the artists I listen to rather than middlemen.

~~~
prostoalex
Both Spotify Premium and Rdio Premium (and I'm sure others, but can only speak
for the ones I've tried) offer "offline mode" for whatever your device can
hold.

The music will then play even in airplane mode, the only gotcha is that you'll
have to come online every 30 days or so for them to re-verify that you're
still paying for the service.

------
ams6110
Congratulations to the music publishing industry. After years of claiming that
we didn't actually own the songs we purchased, we finally decided not to
purchase songs anymore.

~~~
dreamfactory2
That applies to any copyright material - you license it for limited usage
(e.g. you can't create copies and redistribute, which is what ownership
implies)

------
PhantomGremlin

       Straight outta Compton,
       crazy motherfucker named Ice Cube
       From the gang called Niggas Wit Attitudes
    

A number of years ago I purchased the music video to the above song from
iTunes. I paid $2, because I enjoy the song and I think it's "culturally
significant".

But today? NO. Not for sale from iTunes at any price? Why not? Does it offend
too many sensitivities?

Countless other examples like that. Do you want to buy the music video of the
song that won the 1986 Grammy Award for Best Rock Performance? Can't buy that
anymore either. Is it because of the words "See the little faggot with the
earring and the makeup"?

Why can't I pay someone US dollars to legally "buy" non-DRMed music videos?
Everyone in the business complains constantly, but they won't take my money???

------
zaidf
I rarely ever purchased music. And yet, thanks to Spotify I've been paying
~$10/mo for the last 4 years. For all the hate it gets, its turned people who
rarely ever paid for music into paying for it every month.

~~~
dublinben
You might be interested to know that your $120/year is several times what the
average consumer has ever spent on music per year.[0] It's quite likely that
streaming services have already captured all the consumers willing to pay this
much. The only growth will come from lowering prices.

[0][https://recode.net/2014/03/18/the-price-of-
music/](https://recode.net/2014/03/18/the-price-of-music/)

~~~
NeutronBoy
I would never have normally spent $120 per year on music, yet I do for
Spotify. I also listen to a ton more music than I would have otherwise,
because after my $10 per month its 'free' \- if an artist I'm tangentially
interested in releases an album, it's likely I'll listen to it. Traditionally,
I would never have done that because I wouldn't have paid >$20 for the album.

------
api
So now the race to the bottom continues down to streaming services that pay
artists even less.

------
ghaff
An interesting aspect of this is that, to my surprise, paying for a Spotify
subscription apparently costs more than people historically paid for music:

[http://recode.net/2014/03/18/the-price-of-
music/](http://recode.net/2014/03/18/the-price-of-music/)

I'm not sure if this is the right way of looking at it and I paid more during
my peak music purchasing years but it's thought provoking.

I confess that owning my favorite music, at least digitally, is something I
feel fairly strongly about. But I can't really unravel my feelings from just
the fact that I always have.

------
mehrzad
I go to shows, buy vinyl when I can (albeit rarely), and download and stream
for everything else. This is what most music junkies do these days, I guess.

------
alyx
Personally, I have not bought music since streaming services started covering
90% of the music I listen to.

~~~
acheron
That's so bizarre to me. I'm pretty much with Penny Arcade on this: "it's
basically infinity dollars." [1] I mean, the idea of "owning" a digital file
is a bit nebulous, but streaming offers nothing to me.

Though I'm completely the opposite when it comes to movies, where I'm
perfectly happy with streaming. So who knows.

[1] [http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/05/15](http://www.penny-
arcade.com/comic/2009/05/15)

~~~
wvenable
It might be infinity dollars but it's also infinity music. As new music gets
released you can listen to that too as well as a back catalog larger than you
could conceivably own. The concept of renting something is neither new nor
strange. Penny Arcade's example is the same for housing, gym memberships, etc.

