|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Dec 25, 2015 11:33:45 GMT -5
We're probably going to discuss this on the next "Things We Said Today," but I'd like to get your opinions for a possible article. Do you think the streaming is a big deal or not? I'll hold my opinion until I hear from a few of you.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Dec 25, 2015 14:30:01 GMT -5
We're probably going to discuss this on the next "Things We Said Today," but I'd like to get your opinions for a possible article. Do you think the streaming is a big deal or not? I'll hold my opinion until I hear from a few of you. Any way Beatles music reaches more young people is great. Big deal? All in how you look at it. Money? Not significantly probably. New fans? A "few" more relatively speaking. Good idea? Yes. Now, where the hell is Ron Howard's documentary film on The Beatles Concert Years? Where is Shea Stadium on Blu-ray, remixed? Where is the Rooftop Concert on Blu-ray, remixed? Where is the rest of the catalogue remixed to 2015 standards? Those also will introduce The Beatles to new fans as well. As well as satisfy the rest of us....
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 25, 2015 15:22:30 GMT -5
It certainly got a whole lot of press. I heard one newscaster say that the Beatles were reluctant to get into the digital era because being able to buy the singles cheapened the whole catalog. Streaming might be the best way to sell the Beatles. If you can pull up any song you want, eventually you'll want to hear everything.
I've seen stories though that had recommendations for what to listen to. I disagreed with just about everything I've read. I mean Eleanor Rigby is a work of art but is it a good song to get someone hooked?
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Dec 25, 2015 16:04:13 GMT -5
I read somewhere that the people who are going to get hurt by this are the tribute bands. Unlike cover bands, tribute bands work hard to get every nuance close to perfect to the original Beatles' recording. The problem is that many of them have been recording their versions and sellling them on ITunes and elsewhere. Now, their is no need to buy a tribute band's recording when you can stream the real thing. (They shouldn't have been able to record and sell in the first place.)
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Dec 25, 2015 18:28:14 GMT -5
I read somewhere that the people who are going to get hurt by this are the tribute bands. Unlike cover bands, tribute bands work hard to get every nuance close to perfect to the original Beatles' recording. The problem is that many of them have been recording their versions and sellling them on ITunes and elsewhere. Now, their is no need to buy a tribute band's recording when you can stream the real thing. (They shouldn't have been able to record and sell in the first place.) Whoever wrote that about tribute bands was talking out of his head, in my estimation. Tribute bands will exist with and without streaming Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Dec 25, 2015 18:30:55 GMT -5
We're probably going to discuss this on the next "Things We Said Today," but I'd like to get your opinions for a possible article. Do you think the streaming is a big deal or not? I'll hold my opinion until I hear from a few of you. Any way Beatles music reaches more young people is great. Big deal? All in how you look at it. Money? Not significantly probably. New fans? A "few" more relatively speaking. Good idea? Yes. Now, where the hell is Ron Howard's documentary film on The Beatles Concert Years? Where is Shea Stadium on Blu-ray, remixed? Where is the Rooftop Concert on Blu-ray, remixed? Where is the rest of the catalogue remixed to 2015 standards? Those also will introduce The Beatles to new fans as well. As well as satisfy the rest of us.... Yeah, initially I thought it was meaningless, but then I added them to my Amazon Prime account and used it at the gym. Works for me. It's convenient, and like you say, gets more people to the Beatles. And people have to remember they ARE getting paid for this. And I agree with your questions ...
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 25, 2015 20:48:16 GMT -5
I read somewhere that the people who are going to get hurt by this are the tribute bands. Unlike cover bands, tribute bands work hard to get every nuance close to perfect to the original Beatles' recording. The problem is that many of them have been recording their versions and sellling them on ITunes and elsewhere. Now, their is no need to buy a tribute band's recording when you can stream the real thing. (They shouldn't have been able to record and sell in the first place.) Yeah, there were tons of Beatle cover versions on iTunes before they got the actual Beatles signed. But my understanding is anybody can record anything they want. That's the decision of whoever owns the publishing. They are pretty much just wanting as much income for the songs as they can get. As for streaming, I'm not interested at all for the service for myself. I already have more music than I'll ever be able to listen to. I have it on my iPod so I am mobile with it.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 26, 2015 6:58:49 GMT -5
I don't like Streaming, but I LOVE it that The Beatles are now being Streamed! No matter what your feelings are about Streaming as a format, one thing is certain, and that's that many younger people of new generations will be discovering The Fab Four and their wonderful music as a result of it. Hopefully once they realize that there are superior physical formats out there such as vinyl and CD, they will branch off ... but the main thing is that they'll have a convenient indoctrination.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Dec 26, 2015 14:17:00 GMT -5
I read somewhere that the people who are going to get hurt by this are the tribute bands. Unlike cover bands, tribute bands work hard to get every nuance close to perfect to the original Beatles' recording. The problem is that many of them have been recording their versions and sellling them on ITunes and elsewhere. Now, their is no need to buy a tribute band's recording when you can stream the real thing. (They shouldn't have been able to record and sell in the first place.) Whoever wrote that about tribute bands was talking out of his head, in my estimation. Tribute bands will exist with and without streaming Beatles. Yes, they will exist, but they won't be able to make money from recording "their" songs since people will now be able to stream or buy the real thing. That is "not talking out of [one's head]". It's the recordings he was referencing. Tributes will always be around as live entities.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Dec 26, 2015 14:33:43 GMT -5
As for streaming, I'm not interested at all for the service for myself. I already have more music than I'll ever be able to listen to. I have it on my iPod so I am mobile with it. Yes, for those of us who already have tons of music in our physical or digital collections, we do not need streaming services to hear what we have. But, what about what we don't have? We now no longer need to buy anything - unless we are collectors or want to hear the warmth of vinyl or whatever. How many times have we listened to the radio and kept on changing the station until we got to something we wanted to hear. With streaming, we can now create or own station, but hear any song we want. (Again, I'm not talking about music we already have). Assuming these can be streamed, one could have in their own "station" the new Adele, Green Day, Dandy Warhols, Robert Plant, Avett Brothers, Anushka Sharma, Kylie Minogue, Rhianna, Neil Diamond, Paul Simon, Justin Timberlake . . . EVERY song available, more than any of us have in our collections, is at our fingertips. We can still buy what we want, but for that one-off song we heard in a movie or in a commercial, we can have it as "ours" in our steaming collection. This works for me. I'd never stream Beatles or solo-stuff, but there is a place for streaming in my life.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 26, 2015 16:53:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 26, 2015 17:26:12 GMT -5
As for streaming, I'm not interested at all for the service for myself. I already have more music than I'll ever be able to listen to. I have it on my iPod so I am mobile with it. Yes, for those of us who already have tons of music in our physical or digital collections, we do not need streaming services to hear what we have. But, what about what we don't have? We now no longer need to buy anything - unless we are collectors or want to hear the warmth of vinyl or whatever. How many times have we listened to the radio and kept on changing the station until we got to something we wanted to hear. With streaming, we can now create or own station, but hear any song we want. (Again, I'm not talking about music we already have). Assuming these can be streamed, one could have in their own "station" the new Adele, Green Day, Dandy Warhols, Robert Plant, Avett Brothers, Anushka Sharma, Kylie Minogue, Rhianna, Neil Diamond, Paul Simon, Justin Timberlake . . . EVERY song available, more than any of us have in our collections, is at our fingertips. We can still buy what we want, but for that one-off song we heard in a movie or in a commercial, we can have it as "ours" in our steaming collection. This works for me. I'd never stream Beatles or solo-stuff, but there is a place for streaming in my life. I listen to music in the car more than anything. I guess you can download a playlist from ITunes to your iPod. How do you get Spotify in the car? If I had a streaming service, I'd probably spend about 20 minutes a month listening to it. If I want to sample new music, youtube works pretty well for that. I budget about $20 a month for CDs. A lot of that is remastered albums that I already have. I like holding them in my hands and looking at them. I got the Led Zeppelin reissues; double disks with rarities on the second disk. I already had about half of them; the later period ones. Bad Company's first two albums have been re-issued with the same treatment. I was kind of burnt out on Bad Company from hearing the same tracks on the radio. I hadn't bought any Bad Company before but I loved them when they first came out. I doubt I would be interested at all in re-issued streams, rare songs included. When I listen to new music, I like that it is mixed in with my music.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 26, 2015 17:39:08 GMT -5
Who want's to bet that the cost of these services are double in 10 years? The execs are making less money on the Beatles and Taylor Swift because they have demanded more royalties. The article above that has the Beatles surging from being streamed also means the services are paying out more royalties. They will make this money up some way.
If I lost my job tomorrow, I'd still have some pretty good music to drown my sorrows in.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Dec 26, 2015 19:49:26 GMT -5
Merry Crimble everyone. I hope you all had an enjoyable holiday.
And now to the points raised:
Debjorgo you said
Of course it does. Youtube is a streaming service as well.
I suppose when the first mass market vinyl records came out people were discussing how it would kill live music. Then it was taping off the radio. Then the same companies who produced recordable CD-R wanted to protect their precious music by adding CD protection to their music CDs!
We've been through vinyl, cassettes, CDs, mini-disc, mp3, and a number of other forms of delivery. The music hasn't died.
The smart phone generation now get their music fixes in a different way. People will still collect vinyl and CDs in a niche market for a while yet. But if you want a quick fix then the various streaming services are the way to go. It's a global jukebox. Perhaps something none of us on this board dreamed possible when we heard our first Beatles' tracks.
I would say that the major problem for the music industry has been it's obsession with trying to stop the latest technology in the belief that it hurt sales. The problem being that if people don't hear the music first then how do you ever generate sales?
I think we are now very close to the age where music and visual entertainment will cease to be sold as a physical product at all (like CD and DVD) and will form part of an 'entertainment' subscription like we have seen starting. The Beatles have already let their back catalogue be used in commercials and succumbed to I-Tunes so I just see 'streaming' as a natural progression in the ways of the world.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 26, 2015 20:51:37 GMT -5
Merry Crimble everyone. I hope you all had an enjoyable holiday. And now to the points raised: Debjorgo you said Of course it does. Youtube is a streaming service as well. Albeit a free one. If I remember it right, cassettes were getting so popular in the seventies that they were predicted to replace vinyl. The charts show the then current rate of growth extended up and off the chart while the then current rate of vinyl dropping off extended into nothing. Only thing, cassettes never surpassed vinyl and vinyl did not become the second favorite medium until CDs came along. And you have to admit, CDs are a pretty good medium. The physical market store has virtually disappeared but amazon.com still does pretty good business.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 27, 2015 8:42:52 GMT -5
The smart phone generation now get their music fixes in a different way. People will still collect vinyl and CDs in a niche market for a while yet. "For a while yet"...? There are tons of physical media fans, and they will never stop. It's in their blood and they love it. Read on.. I can't believe people still are predicting that physical media will one day die. It's hilarious to me, and I have heard this "sky is falling" proclamation for at least 10 years now already, and maybe longer. Perhaps you just aren't around the physical media people to gauge it yourself .. but as someone who hangs out on an almost daily basis at my record store for hours on end and likes to talk with other collectors, I have witnessed so many young kids all glowing with excitement over acquiring both used and NEWLY PRESSED vinyl. They have their parents with them in the store, some of them -- and are asking for turntables, which my store owner cannot keep in demand. Just in the past few days alone around Christmas, I have seen teenagers buying The Beatles, Frank Sinatra, Billy Joes, Elvis Presley -- all on vinyl. And also I have seen new albums freshly pressed, by artists like One Direction, Justin Bieber, Elle King, and Adele ... all brand new records in the "smart phone era of 2015". Now, I am not denying that smart phone listening and streaming is VERY popular, and is very likely in the MAJORITY... but that does not automatically cancel out physical media, not today, nor tomorrow. I have learned that human beings are very physical-oriented, in that they DO like tangible items, and holding, feeling, acquiring, etc. Right now the young generation is divided into two camps: the one that only sticks with soul-less downloading, and the others (in a minority, but that's okay) who are exhilarated by the thrill of owning tangible items as a bonus to just listening to music in the air or in the cloud somewhere. The companies still do big business numbers with physical media, even if those numbers are less. The idea that at some time there will never be anything physical produced again (be it CD, Records, DVDs, Blu-rays, Books, or anything) is really a fantasy. Let me pose this as a curio: Did anyone ever think Vinyl Records -- of all things -- would ever have a resurgence? I sure didn't... and here is the real point to ponder: Why NOW? Why in the year 2015, of all years, are records coming back? Since "streaming is the wave of the future and physical media is dying"... then why NOW is vinyl so popular amongst the youth? It's almost like some sort of rebellion and proof that the kids are not interested in disappearing into their phones so willingly. Vinyl was not popular again in the year 2000... but it sure has been from 2010 - 2015. Why now during the 'streaming takeover', of all times? (And yes, I do realize that Vinyl is a small niche market and will never become #1 ... but it wasn't even this prevalent 6 years ago).
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 27, 2015 8:52:00 GMT -5
The physical market store has virtually disappeared but amazon.com still does pretty good business. Yes, and I think that's a common trap people fall into. Right now in this present day, stores are just not stocking physical media like they used to. So they mistakenly think that physical items are "going away", when in reality they're just offered now ONLINE. People shop online now mainly, and that's not the same thing as physical media just not getting produced anymore because the store shelves are not stocking it. Moreover, I do believe that store stocking will one day come back big. At least it will never disappear totally. People like to browse, to shop. Take walks in little villages, go in the stores.. They are instinctively creatures who enjoy looking at things, holding them, checking them out. There are always going to be shops and stores for people to mill about and browse in ... to kill time, have somewhere to go, something to do. Do some people here actually believe that one day all stores will be vanquished from the surface of the Earth, and all we'll have is wasteland and our cell phones to do everything?
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Dec 27, 2015 12:39:24 GMT -5
. . . soul-less downloading . . . Not sure I really know what is meant by this judgement. I was listening to Pandora yesterday - being presented song after song of music that was similar to Tomorrow Never Knows. Then, 4 songs came up that really perked my ears. I'd never heard them before, a couple from the 60s. They resonated with me. They stirred me. I instantly pressed buy and now they are valued parts of my collection. Don't really know how being instantly effected by a song enough to want to "own it" can be called "soul-less." Yes, I remember the good old days of holding an album cover in my hands and examining the art and pouring over the lyrics. But, I doubt if many of us did this with singles. Picture singles covers were nice, but rarely were the lyrics on them. So, today, many of us have become song buyers again. What I end up doing after I buy a song is Google the band or performer and read up on them, look at all their photos, and even look for live clips on them on YouTube. I also go to TicketMaster and list them as a favorite in order to get notifications should they come around LA for a concert. All that is more than I could do if we were back in the day at the local record store and perhaps more than people today who prefer going to record stores. I'm not down on record stores. I go to them all the time. But, just as in politics, religion, who makes the best pizza, or who downloads vs who buys physical music, it always seems fairly dismissive when people are labled negatively for their preferences.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Dec 27, 2015 12:46:18 GMT -5
The physical market store has virtually disappeared but amazon.com still does pretty good business. Yes, and I think that's a common trap people fall into. Right now in this present day, stores are just not stocking physical media like they used to. So they mistakenly think that physical items are "going away", when in reality they're just offered now ONLINE. People shop online now mainly, and that's not the same thing as physical media just not getting produced anymore because the store shelves are not stocking it. Moreover, I do believe that store stocking will one day come back big. At least it will never disappear totally. People like to browse, to shop. Take walks in little villages, go in the stores.. They are instinctively creatures who enjoy looking at things, holding them, checking them out. There are always going to be shops and stores for people to mill about and browse in ... to kill time, have somewhere to go, something to do. Do some people here actually believe that one day all stores will be vanquished from the surface of the Earth, and all we'll have is wasteland and our cell phones to do everything? Could be. Multiple Brick & Mortar stores require rent, maintenance, utility bills, employees scattered nationwide. Amazon and others reduce costs considerably as a result of their style of retail. Apple ITunes and others, including streaming make music available instantly, and selectively. Albums are dinosaurs. Purchasing of individual songs are preferred now. Statistics show that. If anything is certain besides death and taxes, it is that lifestyles change constantly. It is inevitable. I don't condone all change, but I have learned one must constantly adapt. 50 years from now, how we shop for everything will be nothing like it is today. Just like 50 years ago it was nothing like it is today...
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Dec 27, 2015 15:27:58 GMT -5
Huge front page article on Youtube in Barron's weekly newspaper this week. I am an avid investor so I devour this periodical. I am a capitalist all the way..
I digress;
Youtube is going to make Google (it's owner) stock hit $1000/share (it is around $740/share at the moment). The audience potential for YouTube is basically the current population number in the world. Some Youtube postings have recorded over 2 billion hits. They are all not necessarily music videos, but lets focus on just them for a moment.
The Beatles are one of the top-selling bands in music ever. They have multi-platinum levels on just about every one of their albums. They spent 8 years in the studio creating those albums and millions of Pounds/Dollars in advertisement.
I decided a few years ago to post on Youtube clips of classical operatic arias or songs that were products of archival recordings by opera companies or from hand-held tape recorders of myself to satisfy fans and friends who encourage me to do so since my professional recording output is just 5 DVD opera recordings and two studio recordings of operas (one of which did get nominated for a Grammy). So I have about half a dozen clips uploaded and posted on Youtube. I realized that the potential audience for my postings is in the billions. All they have to do is do a search using my name and voila, there they are. Now, I don't get paid for every viewing like The Beatles do (or should..) nor do I command the sheer numbers that they get, but the potential is now there for me to reach most of the people on this planet with my artistry. And my work is now forever out there for the foreseeable future. And it cost me nothing to do this.
Youtube is one of the most incredible sources of access for any kind of art that can be seen or heard. Blew my mind last night reading the article of its power in the 21st century. I never dreamed as a kid this kind of vehicle would be open to just about anyone, anywhere.
Incredible...
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Dec 27, 2015 15:40:26 GMT -5
The smart phone generation now get their music fixes in a different way. People will still collect vinyl and CDs in a niche market for a while yet. "For a while yet"...? There are tons of physical media fans, and they will never stop. It's in their blood and they love it. Read on.. I know Joe. I am one of those 'physical media' fans and there is still a younger generation who grew up with CDs as well who like to buy something physical. There used to be a number of places to purchase records when I was a kid and ex-jukebox singles used to go for pennies in the local market stall. God I miss those days hunting for a bargain with my pocket money. But times change as the generations pass. I was looking at things from a global perspective and the way the music industry is headed. (Not what I want to happen - there is a difference) See : Digital Music Report 2015We all know of your love of vinyl and some good news for you is that : Vinyl offers a great package for collectors but at the end of the day is an expensive hobby. From the same source I don't know about the USA. But there are no video rental stores around any more here in the UK. Online services have completely killed them off. VHS has all but died a death in the last decade. Cassettes and minidisc long gone. I also don't think music is important to the youth of today as perhaps it was to those of us born a few decades before them. Even though they have everything instantly accessible within a few seconds. I see Amazon now allowing audio streaming as part of their Prime package as well. The future is still unwritten and who knows what's around the corner? But the music industry is pushing towards a way of sustaining itself through monthly subscriptions and digital downloads. It's the cheapest means of delivery. It's also the easiest and fastest means of consuming it.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 27, 2015 16:55:29 GMT -5
I guess it's legal to use a streaming service at work. What, I guess you hook speakers up to you phone and play the app that way? I guess using someone's PC would be better. You wouldn't have to worry about the battery running down.
I don't think our gang at work could decide on a playlist that everyone would enjoy. We normally listen to WNAS, a New Albany Indiana High School radio station. They play a pretty wide variety of songs and barely no commercials.
I don't think anyone at work has a paid account. Doesn't the free streaming services play commercials and limit the hours of playing? I don't think the ability to pick the tracks played would be enough to sell the service.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 27, 2015 18:40:02 GMT -5
I was looking at things from a global perspective and the way the music industry is headed. (Not what I want to happen - there is a difference) I'm not merely speaking for "what I want to happen" either. (That's always where people go when I discuss this topic).. I do think rumors of the "impending death of all physical media" are extremely exaggerated, and I also believe it's what some people (not you, as you say) actually WANT to happen. There are indeed people out there who feel a "good riddance" to "cumbersome and physical clutter", but I explained in detail in my last post reasons in the human nature why I don't think that extent will ever happen as conclusively as some predict. That depends on how you look at it. I have heard exactly the OPPOSITE in some cases... it's been said that some young people like vinyl because they can buy old used records at flea markets, used record stores, and thrift stores, for one to three dollars per album. Now, of course I would concede that the brand NEW albums are absurdly over-priced, though. But I see kids at my store thrilling to getting 20 records used for 20 or 30 bucks every time I'm there. I've heard endless "sources" for a decade or more now. Meanwhile, the vinyl numbers have increased, the amount of books (be they Beatles or otherwise) are always coming out that I cannot keep up with... and that goes double for me and my Blu-ray movie collection -- I just am unable to keep my wallet full with all the physical stuff I am ordering. I have no problem with streaming for RENTAL; my thing is, I want to OWN a movie I want. It's fine to stream a movie like a rental, straight to your TV... just to see it once... but what I'm saying is, some people imagine that this will satisfy the entire world, and I'm saying there are people who like the collecting and owning of a physical movie in their library that they'd actually love to "have". Yes, of course VHS is long dead... it was inferior to DVD/Blu-ray. You know, I even hear that VINYL is long dead and is an antiquated old format, and... hey - wait a minute! I see youth every day who have music as a very important part of their lives.. but the thing is, we only can go by what we encounter personally. I don't go for the "everybody feels the same" approach, which is what is implied when flatly saying "The Youth Of Today does not think music is as important---". I'll take a stab at guessing the future will be "something for everyone". Sure the Streaming thing is going to be #1, but what does that matter so long as Vinyl will outlive the cockroach and is not going anywhere? People are still able to buy and play old 78 records, 8-Tracks, jukeboxes, 8mm Reels of Film and movie projectors, etc. There are always repairmen, always parts available. I have come to realize this.. there is no such thing coming as "you won't ever have physical media - Period". In my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 27, 2015 18:47:40 GMT -5
Not sure I really know what is meant by this judgement. That's fine. Others don't either. But there are people like me who I always talk to, both online and in person, and we know what we mean. My nephew came over on Christmas Eve and popped out his little phone, and scrolled to a Beatles track off WITH THE BEATLES, and played several seconds for me as we talked over the poor sound. A completely soulless experience. What do you have it "on"? A cloud in space somewhere? Is it a physical medium that will always be physically there for you to tangibly "have'? I've got news for you -- those "good old days" are still here. I encounter it virtually every day, as I often frequent my record store and hang out and have fun with like-minded people, old and new. To many people, this is not some kind of dinosaur thing of extinction.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 27, 2015 19:10:15 GMT -5
Could be. Multiple Brick & Mortar stores require rent, maintenance, utility bills, employees scattered nationwide. Amazon and others reduce costs considerably as a result of their style of retail. Apple ITunes and others, including streaming make music available instantly, and selectively. Albums are dinosaurs. Purchasing of individual songs are preferred now. Statistics show that. If anything is certain besides death and taxes, it is that lifestyles change constantly. It is inevitable. I don't condone all change, but I have learned one must constantly adapt. 50 years from now, how we shop for everything will be nothing like it is today. Just like 50 years ago it was nothing like it is today... OK. Well, y'all be sure to let me know when all this occurs in our lifetimes and I cannot get or enjoy physical items because they're literally nowhere, just like the dinosaurs -- hmm? Because I've been replying the same thing the same way for a decade or more, and none of it has occurred to this "End Of Times" extreme that most are drinking the Kool-Aid to. Albums may be dying for a majority -- yet there is always a grateful segment of the new young generation who, on the contrary, are just now starting to DISCOVER albums, and they are loving it. They're a minority next to their peers (and I hesitate using the word "peers", because I think a young person who has the patience and sophistication to appreciate full albums are a step above them) , but they're always going to be there. We're not all pre-programmed robots --- yet.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Dec 27, 2015 20:45:48 GMT -5
My nephew came over on Christmas Eve and popped out his little phone, and scrolled to a Beatles track off WITH THE BEATLES, and played several seconds for me as we talked over the poor sound. A completely soulless experience. I actually think the issue is that smart phones are not really conducive to a good listening experience. With good earphones though maybe that's different? Currently Amazon (UK) stream and also allow you to download tracks to their own branded tablets/phones at CD quality so I am going to test it out as I also want to watch "Man in the High Castle" as well.) By the way Joe I truly love your passionate and optimistic view of the future of music where we can all have vinyl, CD, or whatever it is we want. Who knows with these 3D printers you may well be able to create your own vinyl records, covers and album notes for pennies one day? Of course the second hand vinyl record market is enhanced because of the internet as well. So maybe we really can have it all?
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Dec 27, 2015 21:35:48 GMT -5
Huge front page article on Youtube in Barron's weekly newspaper this week. I am an avid investor so I devour this periodical. I am a capitalist all the way.. I digress; Youtube is going to make Google (it's owner) stock hit $1000/share (it is around $740/share at the moment). The audience potential for YouTube is basically the current population number in the world. Some Youtube postings have recorded over 2 billion hits. They are all not necessarily music videos, but lets focus on just them for a moment. The Beatles are one of the top-selling bands in music ever. They have multi-platinum levels on just about every one of their albums. They spent 8 years in the studio creating those albums and millions of Pounds/Dollars in advertisement. I decided a few years ago to post on Youtube clips of classical operatic arias or songs that were products of archival recordings by opera companies or from hand-held tape recorders of myself to satisfy fans and friends who encourage me to do so since my professional recording output is just 5 DVD opera recordings and two studio recordings of operas (one of which did get nominated for a Grammy). So I have about half a dozen clips uploaded and posted on Youtube. I realized that the potential audience for my postings is in the billions. All they have to do is do a search using my name and voila, there they are. Now, I don't get paid for every viewing like The Beatles do (or should..) nor do I command the sheer numbers that they get, but the potential is now there for me to reach most of the people on this planet with my artistry. And my work is now forever out there for the foreseeable future. And it cost me nothing to do this. Youtube is one of the most incredible sources of access for any kind of art that can be seen or heard. Blew my mind last night reading the article of its power in the 21st century. I never dreamed as a kid this kind of vehicle would be open to just about anyone, anywhere. Incredible... Just curious, lowbasso - can you give us your real name (or at least PM it to me) so I can hear your work on YouTube (or maybe even invest in your studio recordings)? I'm sure I'm not the only one!
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Dec 28, 2015 2:30:18 GMT -5
Huge front page article on Youtube in Barron's weekly newspaper this week. I am an avid investor so I devour this periodical. I am a capitalist all the way.. I digress; Youtube is going to make Google (it's owner) stock hit $1000/share (it is around $740/share at the moment). The audience potential for YouTube is basically the current population number in the world. Some Youtube postings have recorded over 2 billion hits. They are all not necessarily music videos, but lets focus on just them for a moment. The Beatles are one of the top-selling bands in music ever. They have multi-platinum levels on just about every one of their albums. They spent 8 years in the studio creating those albums and millions of Pounds/Dollars in advertisement. I decided a few years ago to post on Youtube clips of classical operatic arias or songs that were products of archival recordings by opera companies or from hand-held tape recorders of myself to satisfy fans and friends who encourage me to do so since my professional recording output is just 5 DVD opera recordings and two studio recordings of operas (one of which did get nominated for a Grammy). So I have about half a dozen clips uploaded and posted on Youtube. I realized that the potential audience for my postings is in the billions. All they have to do is do a search using my name and voila, there they are. Now, I don't get paid for every viewing like The Beatles do (or should..) nor do I command the sheer numbers that they get, but the potential is now there for me to reach most of the people on this planet with my artistry. And my work is now forever out there for the foreseeable future. And it cost me nothing to do this. Youtube is one of the most incredible sources of access for any kind of art that can be seen or heard. Blew my mind last night reading the article of its power in the 21st century. I never dreamed as a kid this kind of vehicle would be open to just about anyone, anywhere. Incredible... Just curious, lowbasso - can you give us your real name (or at least PM it to me) so I can hear your work on YouTube (or maybe even invest in your studio recordings)? I'm sure I'm not the only one! Sure, I love chalking up more hits on my Youtube postings. My name is Kevin Langan. Punch in my name in the search box and they will come up. They are all audio excerpts from live performances from a number a opera companies and recital work I have done circa 1985-2000. Some of the these opera performances, I don't list the company due to union restrictions, but the year recorded is listed. Commercially, I am involved in a number of DVD operas produced by The San Francisco Opera from 1980-1994 (Samson et Dalilah, Aida, Orlando Furioso, and Turandot), as well as one from The Teatro Communale in Florence, Italy (The Cunning Little Vixen)recorded in 2009 and released in 2014 on Arthaus.. They are all available on Amazon if you do a search using my name. The Grammy nominated audio CD opera is Mozart's Le Nozze di Figaro (The Marraige of Figaro) recorded in Amsterdam, Netherlands in 1992 by the German label Teldec.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Dec 28, 2015 2:46:30 GMT -5
What do you have it "on"? A cloud in space somewhere? Is it a physical medium that will always be physically there for you to tangibly "have'? Debit cards and checks are the monetary equivalent of streaming and ITunes - not tangible things, but available for our use and pleasure. Unless your boss pays you cash and you pay cash for EVERYTHING, you should understand the benefits of streaming and downloading. But, I guess there are some people who only use cash or barter who cast dispersions on those who are in bed with the evil international banking system. As for the sound, I really do appreciate the value of the purity of sound and the greatness of hearing everything on really good systems. However, ALL the music I fell in love with when I was a kid was heard on a tiny transistor radio. Sometimes this little radio was strapped to my bicycle steering wheel. This teeny, sometimes static-laden sound did not take away from my enjoyment. That is why I'm not so much of an audiophile. I don't think the fact that I don't really care too much about the sonic superiority of analog vs digital makes me any less "soul-less." I'm not saying my way of procuring music is better than the record store way. It's a preference of mine. It seems, though, you and your record store peeps have developed this little superiority conflict at the expense of those who are not like you. You threw the first salvo by labeling the digital world as being soul-less, and then smarmily saying "we know what it means." Yes, it means that you think your way is more superior. Let's face facts. The entire recording process from the recording studio to the living room is fake. There is nothing real about it. Nothing organic. Even the concert experience is fake, unless it is an acoustic instrument unmic'd. So don't be so self-satisfied about your music listening choices being pure. It's simply a preference of yours. No more, no less than any other way of hearing music.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2015 4:27:34 GMT -5
I'm not into streaming music. I had Spotify on my computer for a few years, the free version, not the Premium one you have to pay a monthly fee for.
I lost interest in it very quickly.
And i only listen to music in my car so vinyl is out for me, plus, i just don't like that as a music format at my vintage.
I'm also wondering why vinyl is having a resurgence, music shops like JB HIFI have floor space dedicated to vinyl, something i haven't seen since cd's took off big time.
There must be more to it than vinyl records make good frisbees.
|
|