I was chatting to a user online on another website in a debate. That debate then led to the topic of streaming music, where I stated "I stream because it's free!! The artists still get paid anyway." To which the un-named record store owner wished death upon me and called me a broken b*tch Philistine, an entitled c*nt and an idiot. He told me that I had to pay for my entertainment.  I want you to decide if I'm wrong. (And you have to hear me out.)

Here are the reasons why I believe I do not have to buy records, and I am able to stream online for free:

1. When you get food from a farmer, do you pay the farmer directly after instead of the store? Do you directly pay the author after you read a book? No, so it's the same with music.

2. Most of these people are already MILLIONAIRES.

3. They agreed to have their music on a streaming platform for a reason: for it to be streamed. They literally want me to stream their music.

4. I don't have a record player and, naturally, don't have an interest in listening to music that way.

5. Either way, my streaming supports them even if it's less; me not buying a £5 record isn't going to make the world crumble.

6. I'm not rich.

7. He calls me a broke b*tch, yet I have to pay for Wi-Fi and this device to listen to music. I have paid to hear this.

8. I do NOT owe artists a single penny.

9. If anything, the word spreads faster on social media, so supporting them here spreads their name more.

10. If I paid for the hundreds of songs and albums I enjoyed, then I would be homeless, and if you suggest not paying for all of them, then that's not equal distribution.

The owner expects teenagers to pay for it too! He also stated more insane opinions that I'm not going to get into. (In fact, maybe I'll save his second insane opinion for another post.)

But I'm shocked how someone who's been a reviewer for 13 years and has reviewed over 33 thousand tracks can be so wrong. Please give your opinions.

(Bonus note: my points are not to suggest that streaming is better but instead to suggest that I do not have to pay for records.)

I’m going to file that conversation under ‘never happened’.

I rarely stream and mainly use physicals these days so though I wouldn’t call you ‘wrong’, your points don’t actually negate many of his points.

You don’t have to pay for any music but I feel if you care about your favourite artists, you should. Your post seems to highlight that you only care for enjoyment. You do you but don’t expect everyone to agree.

Edited March 19Mar 19 by T Boy

1 hour ago, T Boy said:

I’m going to file that conversation under ‘never happened’.

I rarely stream and mainly use physicals these days so though I wouldn’t call you ‘wrong’, your points don’t actually negate many of his points.

You don’t have to pay for any music but I feel if you care about your favourite artists, you should. Your post seems to highlight that you only care for enjoyment. You do you but don’t expect everyone to agree.

1. You don't have to agree, I'm just asking for a quick opinion.

2. That conversation did actually happen.

I don't think it's necessarily the case that the artists are getting paid anyway. From what I gather in the industry, the money now comes from touring, not record sales. Not particularly surprising given streaming but it hasn't been a secret how little Spotify pays per stream.

Most things these days are paid via attention. Such as social media or YouTube. They need your attention anything else is a bonus. They can use your streams as evidence of their fanbase or appeal to get gigs or bookings or sponsorship etc so even if you’re not paying you’re helping them in some way

When you say it's free I assume you're using a streaming service like Spotify or Amazon but aren't a premium payer so you listen with adverts? If you do that then fine but this is all a moot conversation because it's perfectly acceptable to stream music on an ad-funded service.

While yes it is morally better to pay for your music to provide more support for artists (especially up and coming ones), It's completely legal to stream for free when it's ad-funded, artists agree to this when they put their music out on streaming so you aren't wrong at all. Total overreaction from that other person. Artists get paid in crumbs from streaming no matter what

If you're listening to Ed Sheeran, Taylor Swift, Drake, etc then sure, they're millionaires and the fraction of a cent they'll make from each stream doesn't really make a difference. It really does for small artists, though, and so many have spoken up about how there's no money in streams really. Touring, merchandise and endorsements are where the money really is for musicians.

That's not to say you shouldn't stream - it's a legal way to consume music so fair enough. I continue to download from iTunes and buy CDs for the music I enjoy though, for a number of reasons. Supporting the artist is one reason, but also because a place on streaming platforms is not guaranteed. Artists and labels take songs off streaming very easily and a number of songs I love have either been removed or have never made it on in the first place, so maintaining my iTunes library is the securest way for my music consumption to be kept secure and reliable.

I'm also a collector - it's my nature! - so buying CDs is a keen hobby of mine, but I like that it supports not just the artists, who may or may not be millionaires, but the many other people involved in the making of a product I enjoy, from the musicians to the studio personnel to the design team. I also invest money into going to many concerts as many of you know, and I'll often buy merchandise too.

Whilst I don't owe an artist anything, and it's not the primary reason why I buy music-related products, I do like that I've shown my appreciation for an artist's work, and I know it's felt even more when it's a small artist (e.g. Alex Spencer, an up-and-coming indie artist, who releases independently, and has included handwritten thank you notes when I've bought his CDs from his official store!).

If you watch anything on ITV or Channel 4 you don't pay for anything but the device you watch it on and the electricity. It's ad-funded. So not a massive stretch from streaming music for free.

If a song is streamed then it gets the artists name out there for touring, merch etc.

The record store owner is only narked because he owns a record shop and therefore believes in the physical product more than the on-line one and streaming doesn't do his business much good.

I personally like to buy records and have a streaming subscription but wouldn't judge others for how they consume music, everyone's financial circumstances are different. Morally I like to support favourite artists where possible, plus value owning my library and also like collecting / a more tactile experience.

Everyone's entitled to consuming their own way. I don't buy physical music much as I just don't have the money or space so streaming works well for me, I'm not claiming anything else. But don't be under any illusion that streaming is making a real difference in any other way than convenience for consumers though, it's very well documented how much the streaming giants exploit artists and it really does not pay them much unless it is a significant amount or you get a lucky break via social media, it's an uphill battle for lesser known musicians. If I discover smaller artists on YouTube crawls/playlist recommendations, I do at least try to buy the download or use Bandcamp in a way that helps them just that little bit more.

There's a strong case for both sides of the argument, however I can't say I agree with many of the points you make. At the end of the day somebody has put a lot of time and money into make that music, the same way a farmer has put time and money into providing food. Addressing your points:

1. some people do buy food direct from farmers or books direct from authors. In theory you pay the shop, the shop pays the farmer/author. You don't pay the streaming platform, so it's different

2. the CEO of Tesco is most likely a millionaire too, doesn't mean we should get our weekly shop for free

3. it's Hobson's choice for a lot of them, either only sell physical products in the knowledge you're narrowing your audience or at least make a small amount of income by widening your audience

4. yes a physical format isn't much good without anything to play it on, but it's like saying you only steal food you can eat raw because you have no cooker

5. true, the same way that not paying £1 for a loaf of bread isn't going to make a difference to the bread company but if everybody decided to just take a loaf of bread instead of not paying for it then the bread company won't last much longer

6. neither are a lot of people, doesn't mean we can just take anything we can't afford

7. that's like justifying stealing from a shop because you've paid your bus fare to get there. Plus if streaming didn't exist I'm sure you'd still pay for your wifi and device

8. and they don't owe you any music to listen to at your leisure

9. I do agree with you on that point

10. it does raise an important issue, but there's lots of things I'd like to have but don't because I can't afford them

I buy CDs because I prefer to have a physical product which is mine forever. I can't really say I'm supporting the artist because more often than not I buy them from a charity shop. I'm old and hate 99% of modern music so it's really my only option these days for CDs, any CDs available at HMV that interest me are ones I already have generally speaking.

As a youngster before even the internet was a thing I did have several copied tapes. When I first got pocket money it was £2 a week, the bus to town and back was £1.30 and a CD was around £13 so if you do the maths it didn't allow me to buy too many CDs. That said I did probably spend more on CDs than anything else. Plus I did buy some of the copied tapes on CD when I was older and had more money.

I know there will always be people that will get things for free if that's an option but I do think the combination of expensive CDs and musicians flaunting their wealth was a big factor in turning people towards illegal downloads once this was a possibility.

A regular CD isn't particularly expensive these days but we still have the issue of musicians flaunting their wealth and doing blatant money grabs. The problem is there's not that many artists in the grand scheme of things who are that rich but people assume they are. I too thought everyone who appeared on Top of the Pops in the 90s were millionaires but a lot of them work in regular jobs now, not something you'd do if you could afford not to.

I do however think that streaming has it's advantages for both the listener and the musician. There are certain artists I've seen in concert whose music I would not know had I not had the ability to listen to it on the internet. There's also a bunch of music that was deleted long before streaming came along that you can now listen to on streaming platforms, so no sales have been lost on that basis.

@My Random Music

Responding to those points.

1. My point still stands, because people don't pay the main maker in every situation, so you shouldn't just apply it to music.

2. Those are two completely separate things. I don't think the owner of Tesco should give us free food and the owner of Tesco giving us free food isn't about donating to his cause. Those things have nothing to do with each other.

3. Either way, the point still stands that they are asking for streams and agreed to these terms.

4. How does me not having interest or buying a record player have anything to do with stealing food? Not the same at all.

5. They are grown adults; it isn't my job to be their financial provider.

6. But it's free.

7. It's not justifying stealing because I've paid for all the necessary things to stream music and me still paying for my wife and device has nothing to do with the situation. What's that even supposed to mean?

8. They didn't, but they still gave me it. That doesn't mean that I now owe them.

9. Thank you.

10. But it's free. My point is that I'm not forced to pay these people and if I don't, then I'm not going to stop myself from enjoying the luxury of music.

I am a physical purist. I believe in owning the physical product, even though my main method for listening to music is through a streaming subscription. I just don't trust the streaming sites (and this is largely for Blu-Rays/DVDs etc... too) when something goes wrong and for whatever reason they pull the song and/or the artist from their platform due to licensing issues or something. Taylor not having stuff on Spotify back in 2014 is an example. The only way to listen to her stuff was to download or buy it physically, what's to say it won't get to that point again? I just don't trust streaming services, despite paying monthly for my subscription.

People can consume music however they wish, but I for one like to help the artist out in whichever way I can because unfortunately, labels see "sales" and will invest in artists more if they're "selling". So ofc I want more from my favourite artists. It's why I'm big on going to gigs whenever I am able to (financially) as that seems to be the artists main source of income nowadays.

46 minutes ago, Mellope said:

@My Random Music

Responding to those points.

1. My point still stands, because people don't pay the main maker in every situation, so you shouldn't just apply it to music.

2. Those are two completely separate things. I don't think the owner of Tesco should give us free food and the owner of Tesco giving us free food isn't about donating to his cause. Those things have nothing to do with each other.

3. Either way, the point still stands that they are asking for streams and agreed to these terms.

4. How does me not having interest or buying a record player have anything to do with stealing food? Not the same at all.

5. They are grown adults; it isn't my job to be their financial provider.

6. But it's free.

7. It's not justifying stealing because I've paid for all the necessary things to stream music and me still paying for my wife and device has nothing to do with the situation. What's that even supposed to mean?

8. They didn't, but they still gave me it. That doesn't mean that I now owe them.

9. Thank you.

10. But it's free. My point is that I'm not forced to pay these people and if I don't, then I'm not going to stop myself from enjoying the luxury of music.

I've said what I've wanted to say about your points. I don't think there's anything wrong with the fact you stream music instead of buying it, this is how a lot of people consume music these days and perfectly legal. I've also highlighted some of the ways streaming can be beneficial to the artist. What I don't like is the attitude of the artists not deserving a penny from you because you can legally listen to everything they've ever spent time and money producing for free.

Obviously you don't HAVE to pay for music, but then you shouldn't be surprised when brilliant artists can no longer afford to make music.

The advent of streaming has been severely detrimental to the music industry in many ways. Whilst it is true that access to music has become much easier and any artist can potentially be heard by anyone, anywhere in the world, the reality is the wealth has become even more concentrated in to the hand of the major labels over the last 20 years. The majors can afford to push chosen artists to the top of the recommended playlist, usually by picking the safest options because they have commercial appeal. Creative, innovative and brilliant independent artists fall by the wayside on a weekly basis because the streaming industry offers them virtually nothing in return for their work. And we should remember many groundbreaking acts changed the face of music without major backing but because fans paid for their records and kept them financially viable.

Ask yourself also why the price of a gig ticket these days is so much greater than it used to be. SImple answer - musicians don't make any money from streaming unless in the realm of the major act or superstar. It takes close to 7,000 streams of a song to match the payout an artist would receive from an individual buying the album once at £20.

If you truly care about the music you love, remember that every single artist or band out there was once struggling to make a living from it once. If there's no support network beyond streaming they would likely have never been able to afford to continue.

See this perspective from my friend, who's been working in the industry for nearly 2 decades.

https://www.facebook.com/themishkinfitzgerald/videos/893959495577497

1 hour ago, My Random Music said:

I've said what I've wanted to say about your points. I don't think there's anything wrong with the fact you stream music instead of buying it, this is how a lot of people consume music these days and perfectly legal. I've also highlighted some of the ways streaming can be beneficial to the artist. What I don't like is the attitude of the artists not deserving a penny from you because you can legally listen to everything they've ever spent time and money producing for free.

I'm not saying that they don't deserve a penny.

I’ve been pretty much moving towards a physical free existence lately, apart from things like food and clothes. Yes I love a shiny product, but I love it for 5 seconds and then put it down and it starts gathering dust. There’s no real need for that for me. It’s also a really important ADHD management - the best way to not be constantly losing and breaking things is to not have physical things, though I still manage to damage stuff like work computer equipment quite often.

So I stream. If Spotify said you can instead pay double for your subscription and the difference will entirely go to artists you’ve listened to I’d do that in a heartbeat. But I’m lucky that I could afford that, and I don’t judge anyone who listens for free at all. It is important to be reminded of these issues though so this is a good thread.