With streaming services, you can play your mp3s on the streaming service but only at the place where you’ve downloaded, you can’t take it with you. You can take it with you on Itunes, you can save your record collection on Itunes, but you can’t play your streaming files
The battle over streaming is a battle over prices not distribution. I don’t care what anybody says, the average person does not want to spend $10 a month on a streaming service, it is too expensive, but if songs and albums were cheap enough they would get back in the habit of buying them.
Kobalt’s writers ‘earned 13% more from Spotify streams in Europe during the first quarter of 2014 than they did from iTunes downloads on the continent’… and this is a new trend as it was not the case during the third quarter of 2013 when writers still earned 32% more from European iTunes sales than from Spotify royalties
The assumption is Spotify and ITunes are fighting for the same piece of the pie while it is blatantly clear that they aren’t at all. It is two different type of consumers. The average listener may buy “It’s All About The Bass” without considering for a second joining a streaming club
ITunes gave away $125,000 for no reason whatsoever. Publicity? I guess you can consider it a kind of advertising, right? I mean, all the people who bought it plus all the people who wrote about it and all the people who are writing about it? It can’t be to drum up interest,
The pitch to the vast majority of people is simple: it is the difference between owning your own house and renting your own house. Which would you prefer? If you could make the price palatable people would absolutely go back to buying, and a buying music ublic is the best thing possible for musicians.
The difference between streaming and buying music, is not the difference between renting and buying a house, it is the difference between enjoying what you own when you’re alive and losing it when you die and believing you are gonna take it with you.