Have you not made a purchase of an album because you could stream it?

I bought so many bad albums in the past by blindly pursuing completionism and 'loyalty'. Capitalism wants us to want more than we can afford - and not everyone here is flush to spend $15-$35 on everything they want to hear. I'm done pouring out money on music merely on faith.

But I'm happy and eager to buy music I really like, both on vinyl and CD - and I'll often circle back to pick up something that's grown on me, that I expect to enjoy for the rest of my life.

But I have no compunction about streaming, auditioning and deciding before I part with $$$. The new Pretenders album being an example.

 

I answered 'No'. I have a nagging fear that some things may stop streaming. Also, since dynamic range is often too narrow in modern masterings, I prefer to track down better masterings on older compact discs.

Not that it matters so much to me anymore, but before streaming, my CD collection used to be a thing of uniqueness. I suppose people do that now with digital playlists.

 

No, but I'll admit to making MP3s from a well known (legal) site because the CDs are, to me, a ridiculous price. Some of these albums are over fifty years old.

 

I'm a big Neil Young fan but there's only a few previously unreleased tracks that I'd want from each archive, otherwise I'm duplicating too much that's already in my collection.

 

Update. We have fiber internet to the house now, a gazillion times faster and more reliable than HughesNet and cheaper too. I'm doing a lot more youtubing now but still no streaming music services.

 

If something is available via streaming, I don't buy it, and the artist only receives streaming royalties from me.

If something isn't available via streaming, in the vast majority of cases, if I buy it it's only second-hand, and the artist receives NO royalties from me. Something not being available via streaming doesn't at all mean that I don't acquire it somehow and regularly listen to it. It just means that the artist gets zero royalties from me rather than getting streaming royalties from me.

I'm not the only person in this boat. So if you want some royalties rather than zero royalties, make your music available to stream.

By the way, if something is available via streaming, I try to make sure that I listen to a streaming copy of it rather than a local copy on my hard drive, and if we're talking about youtube, I listen via the artist or label's (etc.) official account, so that I help the artist at least receive streaming royalties and/or payment from youtube, and I like to encourage everyone to make everything available via streaming.

Re people who still have an official anti-streaming policy, including when it's a label--a prime example is Cuneiform, which has a lot of artists I'm a fan of--I try to contact the artists to let them know that as long as their music isn't available via streaming, they're receiving no money from the fact that I'm listening to their albums.

 

I'm sort of at the same point as you. The only physical product I've bought over the last 4 years have been the Beatles box sets. (Pepper/White/Abbey Road). ATMP and LIB will happen also. And even those at this point is for the 5.1 mix.

Bern

 

Absolutely will stream first and do the research on the recording/mastering and decide if I want it on LP...most cases the answer is yes, but sometimes streaming does save 'mistake' purchases...

 

I try to listen first then I buy it.

 

For me, the only purpose of streaming is to try before you buy (or decide not to buy).