"Streaming has killed the mainstream"

I can't make a call for musicians. If I were told that my days work was no longer worth $5, but was instead worth 0.0001 per day, you know - because of the kids, well I'm pretty sure I'd feel annoyed by it. Especially as, this really isn't a movement by the kids, but is something that the labels themselves benefit from. It's the trickle down that isn't working, not the model itself.

 

You may be right, more like the wrong line of work to be in.

 

I got a $6 check a couple years ago back when I still had my music on Spotify. A person who knows a lot more than me about how it all breaks down told me the $6 means I got a million plays (or at least skips lol) so, yeah ....

 

Basically the equivalent of one of your songs being played just once on, say, 15 big-market stations.

 

Maine stream

 

I know a heck of a lot of avant-garde, outsider etc. musicians who would be more than happy for the mainstream to be killed off.

 

Enjoy the rock and roll lifestyle!

 

the $6 did go to beer

 

They probably think they're open minded too!

 

I'm one of those dang milleniums (32). I'm certainly in the minority among my age group. I straddled the transition from physical media to streaming as I grew up. In my teens, and early 20's I embraced mp3 players and such, and listened as a young person does spastically jumping from song to song. It was an embarrassment of riches in comparison to the giant CD binder I had that forced me to listen to whole albums. I can only imagine now with the plethora of streaming services available how listening habits have evolved for teens and young adults. I feel like due to the insane selection music is curated into playlists that are more mood or activity based rather than within the cofines of an album.

Having got into vinyl a few years ago I've come full circle in my listening habits. I regained my appreciation of album based listening, and now take somewhat of a hybrid approach to music. Streaming is great! I have Tidal streaming through Roon. I use the radio function to discover new tracks I like, from there I listen to the album that track is on, and if I like that I'll either purchase it on vinyl or digital download! What a time to be alive!

 

I think they're more just focused on wanting to be able to pay rent/a mortgage etc. without having to also work some other job. The mainstream being killed off would imply that music dollars that normally went elsewhere might be coming their way instead.

 

Yup. “Rock n Roll” kinda needs a healthy middle class to thrive.

 

Your premise--like your math--is way off. In your example, there is Michael Jackson (1%) and there are local bands with fewer than ten actual fans (99%). But not long ago there was a thriving indie community that could produce relatively successful bands as varied as Belle & Sebastian and the Melvins. These artists made a living, sustained by fans who bought their records and attended their shows. If any of these bands started today, few would have much of a chance of making a decent living, and the only reason for that is streaming.

Streaming hasn't killed the mainstream; it's killed the mainstream's competition: the underground. The mainstream (and its associated corporate interests) is as healthy as it has ever been. And that's why the future looks a lot more like "Gangnam Style" than Gang of Four. Well done, everybody.

 

Question: was streaming inevitable or did the high price of CD’s create a necessity for it?

 

I don't think the price of CD's played a role, other than comparatively. No physical format can compete with $10 a month, or free if you don't mind ads. Streaming simply gives everything away from my point of view. They gave away the keys to the record store, and physical formats just can't do anything about that.

 

I would say it was inevitable ever since internet speeds got decent enough to where it was capable of existing

 

Network connected music delivery and consumption was inevitable since the arrival of the commercial internet in the 1990s. It was not at all clear however, 20+ years ago when Napster arrived, that a business model would arrive for network delivery of music. CD began falling thing and fell, and too the industry into free fall with it, for 15 years before paid streaming finally began growing, and with it overall music industry revenue also began growing again. Streaming didn't cause CD to fail. But the internet did. A lot of factors helped turn the corner -- high speed cellular, the growth of all you can eat cellular data plans, a generational turnover, and a sea change in how people feel about paying for content online. In 1997, getting people to pay for online media and entertainment content was a tough sell. In the Netflix era, it's reflexive for millions and millions of consumers. I think in the context of the development of the commercial internet, music streaming overtaking other formats was inevitable. But boy, for a long time there is sure did seem like few people would ever be willing to pay for these kinds of services.

 

A million plays on Spotify is worth (in payout from Spotify) roughly $5000. So no, he doesn't know how it works - unless you owned just a teeny-tiny fraction of the rights to your music.

Spotify has very detailed stats, so it is easy to see exactly how many plays you have generated (and where in the world people listen to you music). They might not have had that level of detail available years ago though.

 

streaming will never kill the want for physical media here LOL...

 

Streaming is saving the music industry right now, with physical sales all but at a standstill, revenue from Apple Music, Spotify, Tidal, and YouTube are keeping thousands of artists afloat in these tough times.

Video Rules Amid Coronavirus, While Audio Streamers Trickle Back

 

I was thinking about this the other day. New albums are still being released and a lot of people cannot obtain or afford physical media right now. With streaming, at least everyone can still hear the music.

 

I don't know if Dylan is mainstream today, but the just got his first #1 song because of streaming.

Bob Dylan Scores First-Ever No. 1 Hit With 17-Minute ‘Murder Most Foul’

 

Inasmuch as today's charts actually tell us anything meaningful.
No intended slight on Dylan, more the way in which charts themselves are compiled these days. Given the complete paradigm shift in how music is bought and sold these days, I wonder if it's time to retire the Top 100 singles and albums charts and say they were a good idea for their time.

 

true. If nothing else one should apply an asterisk when evaluating charts from now vs from yore.

 

And that's why I love it!