Print

Print


There have been plenty of "Everything old sucks! This is the new paradigm! Go there or die!" 
statements over the past 20 years or so. Most of them have turned out to be BS and those who "went 
there" lost time and money in their failure. Streaming is just radio without airwaves (well, 
actually it's radio if it's done over a cellphone). The main difference is that it's customizable 
radio, because we now have a generation of listeners who want robots to pick their music rather than 
human taste-makers (who pretty much ceded the field in the age of Clearchannel and Evergreen). Many, 
many people, myself definitely included, will still want to OWN and HAVE good-sounding digital files 
or physical artifacts (ie CDs and/or LPs with real graphics and liner notes). Yes, your best way to 
digest Mecklemore or Gaga may be via your cellphone, but permanent music will always gravitate to 
permanent formats. I am quite confident I will be proven right in 24 months, and 24 years.

For what it's worth -- and I know my "model" is unlike any kid, but I bet I actually spend more on 
music so the industry should be paying at least as much attention to me -- I have never bought lossy 
downloads unless there is no other option to hear the music. The ONLY non-physical format I am 
willing to spend any significant chunk of my money on is high-resolution downloads, which I think 
are great as long as they start out as a great transfer/remaster or original recording. I buy, on 
average, a half-dozen or more CDs per month. And in recent years, I'm buying nearly as many vinyl 
platters, both used and new. What I spend is many times what a kid will pay per year for one of 
those streaming services. I consider those things less appealing that satellite radio, and would 
never pay for either. I do use the free version of Pandora sometimes, but it often gets stuck in a 
rut or only plays stuff I already own so it's marginally useful at best. The folks behind Beats 
headphones now have a streaming service, so there is big money trying to strongarm the record 
companies into giving away music, yet again. If I were them, I'd sit in the room with Dre and Iovine 
and stick to my guns that they will pay artistic, performance and copyright royalties for everything 
they stream, every time it's played. Or, probably a better deal is to demand a direct percentage of 
gross revenue. Figure each record company should get a piece of the pie based on number of 
offerings, so if Warners offers up 1000 tunes it gets X% and if UMG offers up 10,000 tunes it gets 
XX%.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Lewis" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 11:09 PM
Subject: [ARSCLIST] Interested in Emerging Trends and Distribution Models? Watch this


> You might not agree with Marc Geiger (of William Morris) has to say. But
> this sure provides a lot of food for thought.
>
> http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/global/5893871/wmes-marc-geiger-stresses-streaming-in-vision-of-100b-recorded
>
> Dave Lewis
>
>