Music streaming services, charges are TOO CHEAP? Agree or disagree?
- Thread starter valet
- Start date
it has devalued music, since people would rather play a monthly or annual price for millions of songs.
It isn't cheap per se, but the labels are, since they still get the bulk of the profit, and not the artists.
It isn't cheap per se, but the labels are, since they still get the bulk of the profit, and not the artists.
Or it was too expensive to begin with.
Artists are funny people, they always act like they’re not the most capitalistic people out there cause they run around with Bernie shirts.
Go ahead and remove your shyt from streaming services and sell it for whatever price you want. No one is stopping you if you own your shyt.
Artists are funny people, they always act like they’re not the most capitalistic people out there cause they run around with Bernie shirts.
Go ahead and remove your shyt from streaming services and sell it for whatever price you want. No one is stopping you if you own your shyt.
Last edited:
The Truest
A nikka talkin sh*t
They could definitely charge more and I'd pay, but I buy hard copies of the shyt I need
But if u do that. Bootlegging would destroy u
I'm about to start buying the physical copies of what streaming doesn't have full albums of, such as The Show sdtk
Interesting point. But the fact remains that major labels just moved too quickly to secure the streaming platforms, consolidating their position as the middle man between consumer and artist once again. We though the advent of the internet would bring us more independent artists who would at least set the terms for how every $10 dollar the consumer pays for their album is spread/shared. But noo, the industry moved quick and basically now collects all $10 dollar payments(guaranteed monthly) , giving artists cents off it and raking in millions.
It was the biggest move of the century. ITunes was all high and untouchable, and suddenly every media site, billboard, every label embraced streaming consensually.
You can't beat the suits. They stay 3 steps ahead
It was the biggest move of the century. ITunes was all high and untouchable, and suddenly every media site, billboard, every label embraced streaming consensually.
You can't beat the suits. They stay 3 steps ahead
Bro,
nooooo, the consumer did when Mediafire and all these file sharing apps came into play
Music and porn are free to me.
bigdaddy88
The King Of Power
Yes...once u see what ur favorite artist gets am like
KnickstapeCity
RIP Big Dikk :wow: :mjcry:
This horny fakkit over here
captures your whole posting history.
dora_da_destroyer
Master Baker
I agree, it’s the one streaming service I’d be willing pay like $25/month for, but I’m old and still value music. I remember buying $30-80 worth of music every 4-8 weeks so $25/month for access to everything in their library would be nothing to me
If you asked me back in my cd book days hypothetically what I would pay if I could access my entire collection plus pretty much everything that’s ever been recorded and everything new that comes out the second it drops, any time I wanted, unlimited, all with a couple taps of my thumb, it would probably be close to a small car note.
The fact that I get it for what one CD at full retail used to cost is actually insane.
And you have nikkas that remember the 8 track days actually crying about how things are today.
The fact that I get it for what one CD at full retail used to cost is actually insane.
And you have nikkas that remember the 8 track days actually crying about how things are today.
Last edited:
Of course, but the price everyone sets is the price that maximizes profit. They are running completely oligopolistic capitalistic profit maximization schemes and still crying about "oh devalue" this and that.
As soon as they are big enough they are charging you and arm and leg to see them perform, but until then, they are whining.
People spend 132 bucks or more per year on listening to music. I recall that I saw some report stating that the average consumer spends more than previously. That's without considering the fact that they jacked up the prices on concerts and merch to the another planet. You had some power users like the guy above, and you had mad three cds per year people. But obviously, the average consumer also listens to more artists than previously. But not as much to one artist. I guess that's the devaluing aspect of it. It wouldn't matter if I spent 100 or 10, the fact that I can listen to all the music in the world without spending millions to buy all the music it devalues it.
Me spending 30 instead would just mean more money to the owners of the music and Spotify, would it change the intrinsic value of the music?
Last edited: