Streaming: why is it so unsatisfying?

I don't find streaming to be unsatisfying. I no longer have to rip CDs to my library to put them on my device or lug a bunch of CDs into my car to enjoy music. I can enjoy listening to pretty much anything I want when the mood hits and I love that convenience. I still buy physical product to collect but it gives me a way to "test drive" some of these deluxe reissues and box set releases to see if it's worthy of me purchasing a second or third time. I used to enjoy reading the liner notes of albums but the CD ruined the visual aspect and my old man eyes struggle to read lyrics or liner notes.

Living in a rural area it's a 45 minute drive to the nearest record store or book store so being able to stream something or download something to my Kindle is a huge convenience. Yes I know the artists are getting hosed on royalties so I do buy physical copies and support the acts I like even if it's not to the extent I used to.

 

But but just over a year ago you could not listen to every NY album via streaming.whos to say he won’t pull them again off these platforms to make a statement about quality. I am paying him a yearly fee to have access to his work from his website yet bought Colorado to hear it over my nice system rather than streaming speakers etc

 

Why is so unsatisfying? Personally, it's a pain streaming music since I like to move around a lot. Constant internet connection is a burden compared to having a downloaded song that's ready to play.

For me? I see steaming as "testing the waters" before a purchase. It helps more nowadays before I blow my money on something i felt underwhelming.

Neil Young's Live at Massey Hall is a good example. Just now hearing this on Spotify and now I'm tempted to purchase when my next paycheck comes.

 

You don't need a constant connection. You download albums for use offline when you have one, which is most of the time one isn't travelling, I find.

 

Music lovers Stream. Audiophiles collect music and audio equipment.

 

Read the fine print. In *his* words, he described it as "the same listening experience" and went so far as to say that listening to a downloaded FLAC "feels infinitely more satisfying" than streaming.

So, there's no banger-to-Bentley comparison to be made here; purely apples to apples. And he finds that apple that he buys piecemeal to be infinitely more satisfying than the one he gets an unlimited amount of per month under a subscription, for the price of a single apple purchased as its own entity.

This is called a "mental hang-up;" a product of the music industry's successful marketing campaign of the '70s/80s/90s/2000s which influenced consumer behavior to think that owning a piece of plastic was an important component of hearing music.

 

Great sound quality and easy to buy cheap as there is just one mastering.Be aware that it may be harder than normal to rip the CD because it has HDCD encoding.

 

They are available on Spotify right now and I am taking advantage of that. If he pulled them, I could listen on his website or perhaps on YouTube. I own every one of his '68-'79 and '89-'99 albums on CD and can listen to those any time I wish. I may buy more if I find more in his collection that I really love. I don't advocate for streaming above all else, or Spotify above any other streaming platform. I advocate for music lovers using the tools they have available to them to experience the music they want to experience.

Especially for people like myself who do not have unlimited funds and resources. Being able to buy physical media--especially fancy box sets and hi-res MOFI type pressings--is a privilege.

 

Even though I generally listen to vinyl, I like streaming. When you're mobile, that record sitting at home is useless. I'm not really the sort to look through the artwork after I buy an album. I don't watch my records when they're spinning. It's about the music. When I can get a fuller experience of listening, I like the way records sound on my system. Mind you, my system is build with vinyl playback in mind. I will say I also have a respectable digital collection, but I my digital gear isn't up to level of my vinyl gear.

 

I did read the fine print. As I said, the sound experience might well be identical, but that only tells part of the story.

The way we interact with things, the rituals of how we use them (and the context they are presented in) effects our appreciation of them, whether we consider ourselves to be above such superficialities or not.

There is some research that buying things often over a period of time brings a higher sum total of happiness than making a one-off substantial purchase. So maybe there is something to what he saying.

 

Actually I view Spotify as more like a radio station where you never hear any ads or any DJ and your requests are always played immediately. And the requests can be whole albums and requests you have made recently or repeatedly.

 

Never downloaded music before. It's never appealed to me. For the music snob in me I would think it would be like a leap into becoming a casual music fan. I might aswell go full hull and stream a Now This is What I Call Music compilation whilst I was at it if I ever started streaming music.

 

Again, I'm not saying that he's making something up, I'm saying that this perspective comes from being in a mental cage, which to some degree is self-imposed.

If the industry has created a subset of consumers who literally just don't feel "right" in their degree of musical satisfaction from hearing a sound recording until that recording is paid for on a unit basis and stored on a hard drive instead of accessible from a cloud for a subscription... I mean, wow.

To repeat, I am not talking about playing an audiophile quality recording on fantastic equipment vs. streaming the same album on earbuds, or something similar, but sticking to the apples to apples situation that the OP mentioned specifically.

 

I'm a more knowledgeable music fan with wider tastes because of the option of downloading and streaming.

I got an iPod/iTunes for my high school graduation gift and I spent my four years of college going down the rabbit hole and listening to music in every genre and style you can imagine. This gave me a much greater breadth of knowledge, appreciation of music history and interest in more artists and kinds of music. If I liked a song I downloaded by an artist, I would explore further. All of this was possible because of the ability for me to think of almost anything ever recorded and hear it pretty much immediately for only a dollar.

I'm not sure how downloading or streaming equates to being a casual music fan. Both allow the musically curious to explore to their heart's content on a reasonable budget.

 

I stream movies I watch once & never again.
I own the music I've listened to thousands of times & will continue to do so.

 

My phone is full of physical music files of which I've carefully chosen each one.
It's my old time CD jukebox in my pocket.

 

Thank you for a thoughtful response.

Firstly, it's important to remember that we're not all the same. Anyone who paints with too broad a brush in these types of discussions is going to paint over some important detail and nuance. Also, we have to somewhat project into the past or future to some extent - what would happen if... what might I have done if.... and so on.

For example, let's look at books. Some books, such as reference books, may or may not warrant owning. A biography may or may not be something you want to keep forever. They're not all equal in terms of a personal value one puts upon them. To be more concrete, I've read Tolkien's Lord of the Rings (all of it) but I no longer own a physical copy. It's a great read, and as good as many found the movies, the books were so much better; but personally, I don't need it around. However, my favorite author is JG Ballard - and I can't imagine not owning all of his books in paper form. In fact, I own some of them in multiple copies, and we're not talking about 1st Editions here, just cover designs that I had to have.

People tend to overlook the fact that a book is in fact technology. It was technology created many moons ago, and we've become so used to seeing and using it, we forget it's just that - technology. However, when it comes to Ballard, I hate reading him on a Kindle. I got a bunch of his titles, and I couldn't get on with that at all. Same words, different experience. On the other hand, I've been reading some books on how experts are no longer valued in our society, and I find them fine on a Kindle. In short - all books aren't created equally.

You reference people not being able to afford a book, and therefore using a library, but let's not forget the high cost of accessing Spotify. You seem to asking me to believe that someone who can afford a Smartphone, tablet, laptop, or desktop computer - and can pay for an internet connection, AND be educated enough to navigate all this and fix problems as they inevitably occur, is to be pitied for not having access to sufficient funds to satisfy their desire for music. Hm, I'm not feeling that. They clearly have some money and time. They simply choose to spend it elsewhere, and in different ways. I can't readily equate that with a kid from a poor background and an insatiable appetite for reading. Honestly, I think most Spotify users are like that those you mentioned using the Oxford Companion. Listening to music isn't about a cursory listen on the move, it's about a deeper listening experience, imo.

Now, a library is many things - a resource for the printed word, music, a meeting place, a place to get community information, Internet access, and some have cafes etc. A library isn't just a set of books on a shelf. We also live at different stages in our development. So, a young kid and his parents may well not have enough money to afford all those books he/she wants - and a library can satisfy that need. They're important as an option. The question is, are they a substitute when you have other options? For me, it'd be "sometimes yes, sometimes no". I grew out of libraries myself. As a kid I used them, as I got older, earned my own money and commuted, I stopped.

It's worth noting - libraries are being closed across the UK due to lack of funding, which pretty much tells you how much they're valued by most people in power.

I object to two phrases you used, "fetishising owning stuff", and "people hole themselves off from them in order to hoard their own purchases". You're wrong on both counts. Liking something, and spending your money and time on it, isn't "fetishising" it. It's simply a matter of expressing both pleasure and pride at something well done. I have always, and still do, sit and listen with friends (well, mostly a singular friend these days). My wife and I share our musical experiences. I'm on this site daily talking about music I like, dislike, and so on. There's a terrific thread here about Avant Garde music which is almost entirely recommendations. All that music is shared in so many ways beyond that one physical disc that sits in my own collection (which, in the vast majority of cases, isn't unique in any way since many other people have the very same discs in theirs). By describing it as "fetishising" you're over-cooking it, imo.

As for "hoarding", that too isn't correct. What is the difference for you between a "hoard" and a collection you've spent a lifetime putting together? A "hoard" to me infers it's just a grab bag of whatever I could lay my hands on, sitting in piles in the corners of the room.

Now let's consider "time constraint", which you say is "equally" prevalent on Spotify. I disagree with you on that. I'm reminded of people on this very site who insist albums have "filler" on them. Meaning, there are X number of really good tracks, but the band just threw on the others to make up the numbers. I believe this is (almost) complete nonsense. Filler doesn't really exist. What exists is personal preference. You like some tracks, you don't like others.

Let's look at Billion Dollar Babies by Alice Cooper as an example. When it came out back in the day, Mary Ann was pretty damn weird, and that's coming on an album where weird veers between verbose political rants, necrophilia, and tongue in cheek outrage. I mean, it's nice and all, but when you compared it to the other tracks, it just wasn't as good and comes off as a bit of a prank. I've also never been thrilled by Elected. In a Spotify world, I could skip those tracks very easily. I probably would if I'd used streaming back then. Yet, I stuck with it. skipping tracks wasn't easy back in the day. So the songs played, even if I couldn't wait to get to I Love the Dead ASAP. And over time, you know, I'd miss those tracks now. They're part of the record, and removing them would take something away from the experience. Buying an album was/is a commitment. I'd never buy something I thought I was only going to listen to once, and even if I could listen to it once ( via Spotify, for example), why would I do that if I have lots of music to listen to that I *do* want to spend more time with?

I believe Spotify encourages you to move quickly. It's specifically designed to make you consume music. That's why recommendations are so prevalent on the platform. Spotify only makes money if you're streaming their music, and they'll know down to the number of clicks how you're using it. Just as Facebook and other Social media sites have teams of psychologists helping them design interfaces and the like, to exert control over their users, so does Spotify. Facebook is so seductive that people are willing to share all kinds of details about their lives to complete strangers - yet if they received a questionnaire asking the same things, they're tear it up and throw it away. The key thing is, they're designed to make you share things. Spotify is designed to make you stay logged in. There's a layer of subterfuge going on. For example, you'll never see a title in your recommendations list if its not carried on Spotify, which is an obvious example, but a salient one. They do studies tracking eye movements of their users to see how best to control what you look at, etc. They're not alone in doing it, either.

So, while a time constraint is indeed something we all must face, I don't think it plays in at the same intensity. It's very easy to change course on Spotify, which some may think is good, and some bad. I've grown up never being able to afford all the music I wanted to own. I never will. All the constraints, space, money, time - have fluctuated over time. Space I've not worried about, I make space for the things I love. If the dining room table has to go, the table has to go. Money is always an issue, but I've been fortunate that for the most part I've always been able to afford something, even if it's not been everything I wanted. Note I have made sacrifices elsewhere to make this happen - I don't smoke, I don't drink alcohol, I don't do weed, I don't own a TV. This isn't because I wanted to live a pious life, but was a honing of what was truly important to me. Listening to music is very important. I simply couldn't listen to all the music I want, and watch Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad, or whatever - so I've not seen either of them.

Perhaps we have our strongest disagreement when you write "I think that spotify increases the need for music-lovers to engage with what they choose to listen to". This I strongly disagree with. A title comes up on the screen, you click on it, or not. You listen to the entire track, or not. You listen to album it's from, or not. Now, it's true that's possible with Vinyl or CD - but I'd argue it's nowhere near the same incentive to do so. A click is.... hell, I've clicked 20+ times thus far writing this reply! Distractions are many - what other tabs do you have open? What emails are coming in? What status updates have you been alerted to on Facebook? etc. Accessing the Internet is a pot puree of attention grabbers and things screaming to claim your next click. Again, it's by design. There's no cost associated with bailing on one piece of music over another other than time. Time in the sense I used it is apportioned in, let's say, 20 minute chunks (a side of an album on Vinyl), on Spotify, it's measured in seconds. Which is not to say every Spotify user does this.

Live music.... an interesting one. There's a bit of a mantra these days that artists shouldn't complain about not making money on records, they should tour - as though we as fans have a right to arbitrarily decide what revenue streams they should enjoy. I actually believe this thinking must be horrendous for many artists, especially aging ones.

Let's get real for a moment. When it comes to Rock/Pop, I've absolutely no interest in going to a gig. Not anymore. I've done plenty in the past, but that part of the experience is over for me. I don't like the travel, I don't like the crowds, and I don't like the cost. I can't think of a single artist I'd pay to see live at this point. I don't go to Jazz or Classical performances either, but I'm not willing to say I never would, so that's an open door. What's clear is that, over the years, my desire to see any musician live has dwindled to almost zero. I had a good time when I did go, but that's over for me now. Of course, not drinking or doing drugs plays into that. If an artist stops making records and releasing them on physical media, then they move out of my purview.

Finally, is Spotify simply a library? Mmmmmmm, no. It's a library in the sense that's it's a catalog of titles you can pull out, in essence "borrow" and then return, but that's as far as it goes. Spotify is all about the hard sell. Spotify is a corporate entity focused on market share, competition, and profits. They're taking in oodles of dollars, and while they're not showing a profit just yet, they're very focused on it, and are using those funds to forever expand their market share. At the very heart of Spotify there's a business mentality, dollars and cents, and that's not a library. Not in spirit. I also have never seen a library hard selling you to read author X next, not next, now!

I end where I began - we mustn't paint with broad brushes. I love music, and it's been part of my life for too many years. For all that love, all that passion, all that time commitment - not having enough music to listen to has never been a problem. Have there been things I've wanted that I didn't have, or couldn't get? Sure, of course. But the thing is........ when I got into Jazz in the early 1990's, I didn't know where to start. I was led to jazz from Punk and Stockhausen, itself a heady mix. I found a book, the Allmusic Guide to Jazz. Almost a 1000 pages in a softback cover, and man I wore that thing out. I bought what I could. I too have a ravenous appetite, but being ravenous can often lead to over-indulgence. I sometimes bought too much music at once, I overdid things, but within the bounds of finances and availability. Today? Well, as you say, with Spotify you can hear most anything, and right away. How, exactly, is that better, or even useful?

How many times must one listen to a piece of music to truly get it, to see inside it, to feel it? It varies, I guess. For rock and pop it can be pretty quick for me, instant even. For Jazz, that's a longer haul, and for Classical, yet longer. While you could keep clicking on the same album on Spotify, I don't find it encourages it. When I've bought a title - I'm prepared too. I know I'm a dying breed, but I don't think it's fair to right me off as simply being old school, or not up on the tech. I also don't think it's fair to suggest the way we did things have merit (not saying you're doing these things)

I've had a thought.... back in the day we got paper carrier bags from the store to carry our groceries in. They did the job, but not without incident. They'd get wet, they'd tear, they'd wear out and the handle would rip at the most inopportune time. But hey, no worries - we then got plastic bags! Plastic was great, it didn't get wet and soggy, didn't tear as much, could be reused. Plastic bags were better in almost every way. They were cheap too, instead of one or two big paper bags, you could get 15 plastic bags! Woo hoo!

Fast forward to 2019 and the landfills are full, plastic bags are being found wrapped around animals in the deepest depths, and we have a full blown disaster of plastics in the ocean. Plastic was better in almost every regard, but failed in some key ways. We got lazy and used too many of them, we threw them away because, why keep them all? Well, all those "improvements" have come to bite us on the bum. Counted in decades, the benefits turned into hindrances, and we're all shaking our heads at how we ever allowed it to get this way. I think Spotify is like those bags.

 

A very important point. Accessing Spotify costs more than $10 a month.

 

I feel like you’re wrong. Streaming is awesome.

 

Right now its connection issues and the little spinning wheel that interrupts a song on and and off. Worse with Amazon currently.

so there is that.

 

I personally don’t agree with the original post, I love streaming, but I will say there is one big area that is lacking. I wish the major streaming companies were made to put more effort in on the artwork front, album booklets should be available to look at for all albums.

 

I have a bunch of relatives in the Bucyrus area. My grandfather was born on a farm in Bucyrus around the turn of the 20th century.

 

Q. Streaming: why is it so unsatisfying?

A. Because you don’t own it.

 

Small world! That's 20 minutes up the road from me. That little town is another perfect example for streaming. The only place in town that sells music is Walmart. Little, if any, selection. Nice little town though. Bratwurst Festival every August. Great pizza shop downtown.

 

I would love that! I've cut way back on blu ray purchases due to space concerns and the fact so much stuff is available for streaming. But I miss the commentaries and the special features that are often part of the releases (especially with classic films). For example, it's great that Disney + offers every episode of the Simpsons but the commentaries on those sets made them worth purchasing because they added so much value. Streaming gives us convenience but as collectors we miss out on the smaller but value added bonus stuff.