Fans quitting Spotify to save their love of music

[5.1 4 Life]

From The Guardian.com-

Meg Lethem was working at her bakery job one morning in Boston when she had an epiphany. Tasked with choosing the day’s soundtrack, she opened Spotify, then flicked and flicked, endlessly searching for something to play. Nothing was perfect for the moment. She looked some more, through playlist after playlist. An uncomfortably familiar loop, it made her realise: she hated how music was being used in her life. “That was the problem,” she says. “Using music, rather than having it be its own experience … What kind of music am I going to use to set a mood for the day? What am I going to use to enjoy my walk? I started not really liking what that meant.”

It wasn’t just passive listening, but a utilitarian approach to music that felt like a creation of the streaming environment. “I decided that having music be this tool to [create] an experience instead of an experience itself was not something I was into,” she reflects. So she cut off her Spotify service, and later, Apple Music too, to focus on making her listening more “home-based” and less of a background experience.

Such reckonings have become increasingly commonplace in recent years, as dedicated music listeners continue to grapple with the unethical economics of streaming companies, and feel the effects of engagement-obsessed, habit-forming business models on their own listening and discovery habits. In the process, they are seeking alternatives.

“With streaming, things were starting to become quite throwaway and disposable,” says Finlay Shakespeare. A Bristol-based musician and audio engineer, Shakespeare recently deleted his streaming accounts and bought a used iPod on eBay for £40. With streaming, he says: “If I didn’t gel with an album or an artist’s work at first, I tended not to go back to it.” But he realised that a lot of his all-time favourite albums were ones that grew on him over time. “Streaming was actually contributing to some degree of dismissal of new music.” Even with digital downloads, he tended to give music more time and attention.

Jared Samuel Elioseff, a multi-instrumentalist who records as Invisible Familiars and owns a studio in Cambridge, New York, also felt the streaming environment was generally hindering his musical curiosity: “I’ve been Spotify-less for two years now. My musical experiences definitely feel more dedicated and focused. It’s not as convenient. I’ll reluctantly admit that I listen to less music. Although on Spotify, I wasn’t necessarily listening to stuff. I was checking out the first 15 seconds and hitting skip. Now, I have to work for it and I like that. I can use the internet as a search tool but I’m not using it as a means to listen. I really have to seek things out and research.

Read More Here:
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2...-their-love-of-music?utm_source=pocket-newtab

 

[winopener]

I can smell a 8-track tape comeback...

 

[kfbkfb]

I listen to my own music (Discs[vinyl&optical], Tapes, MP3s, YouTube[single songs]) at home, I used a clock radio for home listening to popular music on WHB AM and after 1972-08, KIIK FM.

I got a stereo receiver on 1989-09, I never programmed in the local AM&FM stations (on this or my later purchased receivers), the receiver was the cheapest way to get a stereo amplifier (or 5 channel amplifier).

I just use radio in my car (I don't have an unlimited data plan on my phone so I don't use it for streaming audio in my car), since other people choose the songs on the 12 FM stations I have programmed into my car radio, it's fine as a sort of low maintenance "background" music.


Kirk Bayne

 

[LB-V]

I think it's a matter of personal discipline and self awareness. I disagree that streaming is the problem...and digressing a bit, I disagree that streaming is something other than a product of the free market.

We have the option of clicking by a song in 15 seconds or listen to the entire length. Very few albums in my experience, grew on me after multiple listenings if I suffered through a first listen. The vast majority of music I like, is stuff that grabbed me in some way or another on the first listen. Always been that way for me...with a few exceptions.

Meg's realization about using music as a tool rather than experiencing it for its own sake really resonates.

I don't follow this idea of Meg's. I choose music that makes me feel a certain way...to me that's a tool for relaxing, reminiscing, getting sad or bright and happy. Other times I am struck by the pure artistry of the combination of musical sounds. And music is most certainly my tool for dancing!!

I believe Meg, like in more and more situations in today's world, is really overthinking and overcomplicatiing something pretty simple. Listen to music as you please, when you please, how you please and for as long as you please.

Meg could sum up all her thoughts on the subject with "...I'm not a big fan of music, I do not really find an emotional connection with music, and prefer other activities that bring me joy..."

I do not see the point of ending music subscriptions as a means of changing your listening habits unless you do not really enjoy listening in the first place. The habit she is trying to address is her need for instantaneous gratification and the resulting skipping songs that do not immediately catch her emotions.

 

[barfle]

The only music service I ever subscribed to was Amazon music, and that was because I got a free month with one of my purchases. I actually used it to identify some MP3s I had downloaded many years earlier that didnkt have adequate information in the metadata. And now when I want to hear a particular song (because I want to actually purchase it), I get some random mix algorithm that just pisses me off.

I’ve done a few trials with music streamers, and I haven’t found that they can find music I would like that I haven’t already heard. These days, if I want to find out if I would like the music on a disc, I’ll head to YouTube.

 

[par4ken]

Back in the day radio was the way to hear new (and old) music. The best stations provided more variety than others, not just the hits. My point is that you would listen to a wider variety of music, and the whole song. Sometimes a song would grow on you. With Spotify Meg came to realise that she was often skipping over tracks so never giving them a chance.

By switching back to a home based system she stopped doing that. Her behaviour using Spotify is not a fault of streaming but of her own behavior, she is not unique in that respect. People today have a very short attention span, made worse by streaming.

 

[Wagonmaster_91]

This began when the majority of music listeners started "consuming" music rather than "listening" to it. Why care about quality or dynamics when you have earbuds and 128kbs mp3s? The mixers will brickwall everything so it all sounds loud.

The people on this forum are a rare breed anymore, unfortunately. Some of my friends are shocked to find out I still listen to a whole album. "Every song?!", they exclaim. "Yep. Often."

 

[par4ken]

These days, if I want to find out if I would like the music on a disc, I’ll head to YouTube.

While I dislike streaming I agree that YouTube is a good way to sample music before you buy it. For me that was the purpose of Napster. The industry killed that, but in reality how was it all that different than the streaming model?

 

[barfle]

While I dislike streaming I agree that YouTube is a good way to sample music before you buy it. For me that was the purpose of Napster. The industry killed that, but in reality how was it all that different than the streaming model?

I didn’t bother with napster because I felt it was theft, although it was probably piss-poor quality theft, and because peer-to-peer connections were a great way to get viruses. Most streaming services have a subscription fee that supposedly means the music producers are getting paid, but not much. I know a couple of people who get quarterly royalty checks and they are less than $1.00. That pretty much makes their performance art a hobby.

Radio was a good way to hear new music before you spent the money, and the album-oriented rock stations cost me a bundle that continues its value. We know from the payola scandal that the producers paid the jocks to play their wares, and to my way of thinking, radio advertised the music so paying them would have been fine. The radio stations had the valuable commodity of bandwidth, and the record companies benefitted from it. Maybe that’s getting political, so I’ll stop my rant there.

 

[par4ken]

I didn’t bother with napster because I felt it was theft, although it was probably piss-poor quality theft, and because peer-to-peer connections were a great way to get viruses. Most streaming services have a subscription fee that supposedly means the music producers are getting paid, but not much. I know a couple of people who get quarterly royalty checks and they are less than $1.00. That pretty much makes their performance art a hobby.

I never felt that downloading via Napster was theft in any way! Youngsters downloading instead of buying maybe, I can't speak for others.

The beauty of Napster was that it allowed you to connect with people who shared your musical interests. I was constantly discovering new and old music alike. I wasn't satisfied with the quality of MP3's so would then look for the CD if available, if not a then good vinyl copy. I bought music because of Napster!

 

[Sal1950]

I didn’t bother with napster because I felt it was theft, although it was probably piss-poor quality theft, and because peer-to-peer connections were a great way to get viruses. Most streaming services have a subscription fee that supposedly means the music producers are getting paid, but not much. I know a couple of people who get quarterly royalty checks and they are less than $1.00. That pretty much makes their performance art a hobby.

I'm pretty cluesless on the $ aspect but I do wonder about the difference between the "pay per play" amount between todays streaming vs the biggest radio days of the 1960s -80s? And then there's also the issue that back in the day the radio mostly would play the top 40 of whatever genre was their market. Getting heard on radio was super hard.
There are so many ways today for a band to make a few dollars off a recording, (streaming utube and the rest) that never existed back in the day. It's a good way to make a little change but then as now, the way to get heard and "catch on" is to go to work. Play everywhere and anywhere you possibly can, if you excite the audience, it will catch on and spread.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

I'm pretty cluesless on the $ aspect but I do wonder about the difference between the "pay per play" amount between todays streaming vs the biggest radio days of the 1960s -80s? And then there's also the issue that back in the day the radio mostly would play the top 40 of whatever genre was their market. Getting heard on radio was super hard.
There as so many ways today for a band to make a few dollars off a recording, (streaming utube and the rest) that never existed back in the day. It's a good way to make a little change but then as now, the way to get heard and "catch on" is to go to work. Play everywhere and anywhere you possibly can, if you excite the audience, it will catch on and spread.

You overestimate how much streaming pays...I think 10000 streams got me something like 6 dollars...

 

[Sal1950]

You overestimate how much streaming pays...I think 10000 streams got me something like 6 dollars...

I have no idea, but my curiosity was, against your $6, how much would 10000 plays on radio
have earned you in 1970?

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

I have no idea, but my curiosity was, against your $6, how much would 10000 plays on radio
have earned you in 1970?

I've actually got no clue...someone smart please chime in!

 

[par4ken]

I used to think think that radio airplay got records noticed so that they sold. It never even occurred to me that they might be paying out royalties based on the number of plays a title got. I doubt that it was much money then or now but that might help to explain the very limited playlists of most stations.

 

[kfbkfb]

https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/kckc-fm-large-playlist-success.752120/

Large (radio) playlists don't seem to be very successful (I like the large playlist, my 1st FM radio selections are still 94.9 then 102.1 on my car radio).


Kirk Bayne

 

[madscot]

Sure I read recently than 5% of the artists make 99% of the cash from streaming, you need millions of listens to make serious money

 

[JohnN]

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/stevie-nicks-says-cassettes-sound-better-than-cds.179829/

I can smell a 8-track tape comeback...

What is Spotify?



I asked this to upset anyone born after 1960.

 

[PurpleMoustache]

I'll be the guy to defend streaming and say that streaming has opened me up to so much music that I wouldn't have otherwise listened to due to the financial/physical hurdle of having to find and buy something I might not like (and then sell it back to the record store for a loss). A recent example is Weyes Blood. Her 2019 album Titanic Rising blew up in music circles but I completely missed it... a few years later and her recent album (which was in Atmos which made it catch my eye) became one of my favorites of 2022. And all I had to do was type "Weyes Blood" into Apple Music, click 3 times and I'm listening to it... and if I don't like it... I can turn it off and try something else.

The wide catalogue of streaming also is a perk. I'm a fan of ambient music, and I especially dig the 90's UK Ambient House/Techno scene, most of which never really made their way to the states... and if they did, tracking down a copy may be hard to find. Nowadays... I can scroll through Rate Your Music (which I do to find highly rated albums of a specific genre), click the Apple Music button, and the album is opened, ready to listen to instantly. There's countless artists I've discovered and then gone to see live because they were on streaming. Without downloading Phish's "A Live One" off of Apple Music I would never have made the real life friends I have from going to see Phish! Hell, this morning, I got an email from Bandcamp that an artist I've bought vinyl from, Biosphere just released 4 previously un-released remixes of his second album from a group called Sketch, and specifically mentioned their album that was out at the same time of that album, Reasons To Sway... and now I'm listening to them without having to do any effort beyond typing their name and album name into Apple Music.

The difference is I tend to be more of an album listener, while streaming (especially Spotify) caters towards a playlist listener. I can see where the people in the article are coming from with music being a "background event" because it's so easy to pull up a playlist (Apple the other year added something like 400 for stuff like "doing the dishes", "spring cleaning", "studying", etc with the intent to ask Siri to "play some music for [insert activity]" and music starts...), but if you approach streaming music with the intent to experience and try something new it can be rewarding.

That being said, yes, the payout methodology is bad. I try my best to be as "ethical" as I can with my consumption of streaming music. If I like the album I'll likely buy a copy from their bandcamp, or order the vinyl, or see them live and buy merch (which my understanding is the way to give the most money to an artist these days). There's an ambient artist I like called 36 (three-six, not thirty-six), and he tends to put stuff up on his bandcamp about a month before streaming. I'll buy the album, upload it to my Apple Music Cloud Library, listen to it til the streaming version hits... then use that. In a way I both paid for it, and am continuing to pay for it, however small each stream may be.

It's not a perfect solution, but what solution ever is?

 

[barfle]

To the best of my knowledge, which is miniscule, radiomstations and record labels once were set up so the labels paid the station personell to play their music. Somehow that was called “payola” and a bunch of people changed their careers. After that, it seemed like it was more of a free advertising setup, where the stations got free stuff to fill the airtime anf the labels and artists got free publicity. I recall seeing more than a few “rsdio promotion copy” labels on records.

I know of a college radio station that was streaming along with their broadcast, and the streaming royalties, along with the record-keeping requirements, convinced them to stop.