From Billboard: Studios Are Rushing to Record Music in Hi-Def Surround Sound

[marcb]

Like I said above, the music industry may be done with the ownership model but if people want to own music they will find a way. For instance, there is software that will convert anything on YouTube into a file that the end user now controls. You can sell it to us and make a profit or we will find a way to take it for free. It has happened before and I can't believe you don't think it will happen again. Also, wouldn't it still be possible for individual artists to sell their own music directly to their fans?

If there is a demand for something it will be accommodated by someone, legally or illegally. So, if you are saying there will no long be a demand for music ownership then that would be another story but I don't think that is the case.

Of course people will find a way to get copies of music if they're so inclined (although I'm still looking for those Apple Music atmos and surround mixes on the interweb "sharing" sites). But how many people are so inclined? And what will be the quality of those copies? I say very few in the scheme of things and the quality will be all over the place (as it has always been).

I wasn't talking about the demand to own music per se, but it's certainly part of the equation. I do think the concept of "owning" and "collecting" music is increasingly seen as quaint and antiquated outside of forums like this and the general demographic that populates said forums. Hell, I'm not remotely young and I know nobody in real life who doesn't stream all or most of their music.

The music industry not only wants to kill the ownership model for music, but the vast majority of the broad music consuming market are willing accomplices.

My point is that if you see yourself as a law abiding, ethical person and/or you're not willing to jump through the technical hoops (and I'd say this covers 99% of the music buying public), the options to "buy" a legal high-quality physical copy or even download of music - even if you're so inclined - are diminishing and will only continue to diminish. The current picture with surround music isn't the anomaly, it's a picture of the future for the music industry. And all of the being perplexed about it, complaining about it, and wishful thinking is not going to change that.

I don't like it either. I am the quintessential music owner/collector. I have thousands and thousands of vinyl LPs, CDs, SACDs, DVD-A's, BD-A's, hi-rez downloads, concert DVDs, and so on. And don't get me started on the quality and availability issues - plus the quite possible (maybe even likely) Balkanization of subscription services requiring multiple subscriptions. But I'm not going to put my head in the sand either.

Ask yourself - would you invest your own money - today - in a download provider like HDTracks or a physical plant for producing vinyl records or CDs? I sure as hell wouldn't and, by and large, the smart money isn't either.

 

[Bill B]

Of course people will find a way to get copies of music if they're so inclined (although I'm still looking for those Apple Music atmos and surround mixes on the interweb "sharing" sites). But how many people are so inclined? And what will be the quality of those copies? I say very few in the scheme of things and the quality will be all over the place (as it has always been).

I wasn't talking about the demand to own music per se, but it's certainly part of the equation. I do think the concept of "owning" and "collecting" music is increasingly seen as quaint and antiquated outside of forums like this and the general demographic that populates said forums. Hell, I'm not remotely young and I know nobody in real life who doesn't stream all or most of their music.

The music industry not only wants to kill the ownership model for music, but the vast majority of the broad music consuming market are willing accomplices.

My point is that if you see yourself as a law abiding, ethical person and/or you're not willing to jump through the technical hoops (and I'd say this covers 99% of the music buying public), the options to "buy" a legal high-quality physical copy or even download of music - even if you're so inclined - are diminishing and will only continue to diminish. The current picture with surround music isn't the anomaly, it's a picture of the future for the music industry. And all of the being perplexed about it, complaining about it, and wishful thinking is not going to change that.

I don't like it either. I am the quintessential music owner/collector. I have thousands and thousands of vinyl LPs, CDs, SACDs, DVD-A's, BD-A's, hi-rez downloads, concert DVDs, and so on. And don't get me started on the quality and availability issues - plus the quite possible (maybe even likely) Balkanization of subscription services requiring multiple subscriptions. But I'm not going to put my head in the sand either.

Ask yourself - would you invest your own money - today - in a download provider like HDTracks or a physical plant for producing vinyl records or CDs? I sure as hell wouldn't and, by and large, the smart money isn't either.

Fair enough. I just wanted to point out that your basic premise; "that the music industry holds all the keys and we are powerless and must accept the gruel that they feed us" isn't necessarily true. What most likely will happen if demand for physical music ownership all but dries up is that collectors will become even more of a niche and prices will increase as economies of scale lessen. Once again as long as there is demand for something someone will fill it. My overall motto is that if I want something I will look for a legal way to procure it, if there isn't a legal way then I will do whatever it takes to get it (unless of course it means hard time in prison).

BTW, "if you see yourself as a law abiding, ethical person and/or you're not willing to jump through the technical hoops ", is also a faulty premise. Look how many people were willing to use Napster. Look how many people do illegal drugs. Millions. I have also been told on this forum by someone that a sizeable number the younger people streaming aren't paying for it, they have found a way to pirate it.

 

[SHB]

Maybe the music industry can get Home & Garden to write articles that a bunch of wires exposed from your av system is in style and here to stay. That might help

 

[marcb]

Fair enough. I just wanted to point out that your basic premise; "that the music industry holds all the keys and we are powerless and must accept the gruel that they feed us" isn't necessarily true. What most likely will happen if demand for physical music ownership all but dries up is that collectors will become even more of a niche and prices will increase as economies of scale lessen. Once again as long as there is demand for something someone will fill it. My overall motto is that if I want something I will look for a legal way to procure it, if there isn't a legal way then I will do whatever it takes to get it (unless of course it means hard time in prison).

BTW, "if you see yourself as a law abiding, ethical person and/or you're not willing to jump through the technical hoops ", is also a faulty premise. Look how many people were willing to use Napster. Look how many people do illegal drugs. Millions. I have also been told on this forum by someone that a sizeable number the younger people streaming aren't paying for it, they have found a way to pirate it.

Well...except Napster was operating legally - albeit dubiously. And most people weren’t even aware it was potentially illegal. Once copyright infringment claims were made against Napster and individuals, it was done pretty quick. And even then, Napster users getting almost entirely lower quality lossy copies.

A better analogy would be torrent sharing sites. They provide for sharing of protected content, are constantly on the run, require some level of technical expertise and action - AND are used by a very, very, very small fraction of the music buying public.

 

[key_wiz]

what's the conspiracy?? It's a fact you can't purchase and own any surround music on Apple music.

Why do you need to own it if you access it on demand?

 

[salsdali]

Why do you need to own it if you access it on demand?

I have albums from the 60's and cd's and blu-rays from 30 years ago

Apple music isn't going to exist in 30 years and I'd like to be able to listen to the music that I paid money for (even if just by subscription.) in 30 years like I do right now with my physical collection.

You're also not factoring in the cost of having to pay for high bandwidth internet for the next 30 years. By the time you factor that in your streaming music collection will be much more costly that just buying up front.

I live in SoCal. 30 years ago you could buy a house for $300,000 and today it would be worth 2 million. If you paid rent on that house for 30 years as opposed to a mortage you wouldn't own a 2 million dollar asset today. Same concept for music.

 

[salsdali]

I find it a bit shocking that we've reached the point where people are talking about downloading music illegally (again) in order for the customer to get what he really wants.

I'm pretty sure the cause of that around the napster era was companies were gouging and new tech became available.

That sounds errily similar to today.

 

[AYanguas]

I think the issue is that simple.

The music industry, as it has developped since the 70's, is just that. An industry.

The main objective of big companies is to increase (or at least to maintain) the profit margin. So they look for strategies to achieve that, and they are targeting (mainly) the masses market not the niches.

Only some small companies would try for emotional niche goods (Prog rock, Physical Hi-res Multichannel, etc.)

We, from that niche customers area, have to adapt, look for and find whatever we like. Digital technology and the internet provide us with many valuable resources.

 

[MidiMagic]

One other factor:

The European Union has the fanciful idea that any artist or musician should be able to live a life of ease after creating one work. They worship artists.

They want huge copyright royalties for each use of a work, including playing a recording on the radio.

They want the fee for listening to a track to be equivalent to buying a ticket for concert with that work played. Even though the artist did no more work.

The fact that despotic kings of earlier times paid handsome salaries to artists does not mean they deserve such salaries.

 

[RustyStatic]

Doing off-site backups is certainly a good idea, but, alas, one that almost nobody actually does, including me. If my house burns down, my digital collection is toasted. But then, so is my physical collection.

If I’m home when the defecation hits the ventilation, I can grab my drobo 5N and run, but if not, I’ll have to see how good my insurance policy is.

FYI I solved this one by using a relatively cheap service ($7/mo) that automatically backs up over the internet to a secure physical location, in the background:

https://www.backblaze.com/cloud-backup.html#af3249
It provides me with a ton of peace of mind... if I come home one day to find my house a smoldering crater in the ground, I reach out to Backblaze and they send me a hard drive (for a fee, but it's just the price of the drive and shipping) with all of our family photos and videos, documents, and downloaded/ripped music (!) on it. Hugely comforting. I feel like I could rebuild from anywhere if I had to, as long as that stuff wasn't lost.

 

[Cheezmo]

I have albums from the 60's and cd's and blu-rays from 30 years ago

Apple music isn't going to exist in 30 years and I'd like to be able to listen to the music that I paid money for (even if just by subscription.) in 30 years like I do right now with my physical collection.

I am unlikely to exist in 30 years. The model works for me.

 

[salsdali]

I am unlikely to exist in 30 years. The model works for me.

but just like a house there is something called inheirtance.

I remember when I was 13 years old and my sisters boyfriend gave me a whole box of albums and 8-track tapes.

We're talking The Kinks One for the Road, Aerosmith Rocks, Led Zeppelin I-IV, etc.

I had never heard any of that kind of music before and needless to say it altered my life dramatically.

Shame no streamers will ever get to enjoy such a gift

 

[fizzywiggs41]

Ooh, this thread.......far too much negativity for me.


So meh

 

[key_wiz]

I have albums from the 60's and cd's and blu-rays from 30 years ago

Apple music isn't going to exist in 30 years and I'd like to be able to listen to the music that I paid money for (even if just by subscription.) in 30 years like I do right now with my physical collection.

You're also not factoring in the cost of having to pay for high bandwidth internet for the next 30 years. By the time you factor that in your streaming music collection will be much more costly that just buying up front.

I live in SoCal. 30 years ago you could buy a house for $300,000 and today it would be worth 2 million. If you paid rent on that house for 30 years as opposed to a mortage you wouldn't own a 2 million dollar asset today. Same concept for music.

I have all sorts of physical media from decades ago as well. I like having it. That doesn’t mean I need new physical media going forward.

Is Apple Music or something else that will stream the same music going to still be here in 30 years? I have no idea and neither do you.

in 30 years I’ll be likely be dead anyway.

 

[key_wiz]

but just like a house there is something called inheirtance.

I remember when I was 13 years old and my sisters boyfriend gave me a whole box of albums and 8-track tapes.

We're talking The Kinks One for the Road, Aerosmith Rocks, Led Zeppelin I-IV, etc.

I had never heard any of that kind of music before and needless to say it altered my life dramatically.

Shame no streamers will ever get to enjoy such a gift

on the other hand, people share music with me all the time via streaming and social media.

 

[salsdali]

One other factor:

The European Union has the fanciful idea that any artist or musician should be able to live a life of ease after creating one work. They worship artists.

They want huge copyright royalties for each use of a work, including playing a recording on the radio.

They want the fee for listening to a track to be equivalent to buying a ticket for concert with that work played. Even though the artist did no more work.

The fact that despotic kings of earlier times paid handsome salaries to artists does not mean they deserve such salaries.

This is what I love about the intrawebs. I never knew this about the EU. I think it's cool in an abstract way but implementing it in American Capitalism seems so foreign when really it shouldn't.

I just think that's the disconnect currently globally in a lot of things.

There's a saying in America about recycling "Think Globally, Act Locally" but it seems Capitalism is not a friend of the recycling philosophy.

 

[nikomen]

I agree with owning the physical media. Have no interest in streaming services. They are a business, and when songs/albums are no longer popular, they delete them from their data bases to conserve space. If I want access forever, even with drive and database crashes, it’s mine, and like many here, am more than happy to share. 4000+ CD’s, hundreds of R2R’s, several hundred vinyl albums still, mostly those never released digitally, a couple hundred 45’s, a hundred or so cassettes, about 50+ 8 tracks, DVD-A’s, SACD’s, DTS discs, many box sets with Blu-Ray discs, etc. and all of the original hardware to play all those different types of media, and of course hi-def FLAC files on multiple drives, but always with the original “hard” backups. 63 now, collecting since 5. Back in the day, I had a few thousand Napster downloads, didn’t really play any and got rid of years ago. Never had attachment to it without the original artwork, etc. that you get to read, etc. when you bought it. Just a whole different feel/experience for me. Acknowledging another thread here on QQ, “Why do we collect?”, to me, collecting is much more than the +++ and —- of a digital download, IMHO.

 

[Cheezmo]

They are a business, and when songs/albums are no longer popular, they delete them from their data bases to conserve space.

Do you have any evidence for that claim? It is really hard for me to believe that Apple is running out of space and has to delete songs from their catalog to make room.

 

[nikomen]

Yes, my wife had a few files that she used to be able to stream on Apple Music in her car which she no longer available, like they never existed. She’s stopped paying for that service, and I added 100 GB of my downloads to her phone. Streaming is a business, and just like 45’s, cassettes, R2R’s, Q4, Q8’s, DTS discs, DVD-A’s, mini-discs, VHS, beta-max, etc., etc. medias are constantly changing, with profit and loss being more important than preserving the music of the artists and ability for you to continue to play it. That’s not IMHO. Just look at all the “lost” vinyl, quad music and otherwise that it’s never been profitable to bring into the 21st century.

 

[Cheezmo]

I realize that songs are removed from services like Apple all the time (likely due to licensing issues, replacement with a remaster, some studio dispute, or some such).

I'm just taking issue with your claim that they are doing it to save space. I'm pretty confident space is not an issue for a company like Apple.

"Just look at all the “lost” vinyl, quad music and otherwise that it’s never been profitable to bring into the 21st century."

Um, just look at all the lost quad music that Apple just brought into the 21st century?