-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Tom DeLonge (blink-182): Streaming music = Chinese people killing elephants for ivory
- Thread starter ElectricBlanketFire
- Start date
- Status
Perfect.
RumblingRosco
Member
Works in a couple of ways. Well-done.
terribletwo
Member
What if he's right... what if streaming sites are powered by the ivory of Chinese elephants? damn..
Terrible analogy but he is a dude who probably shouldn't talk most of the time.
I pay for Spotify but I also see the point that it conditions people to pay less/nothing for music and that being ok. Reminds me of issues with f2p games and ios pricing...I don't think there's any one answer really. I do like what Wu-Tang is doing.
I pay for Spotify but I also see the point that it conditions people to pay less/nothing for music and that being ok. Reminds me of issues with f2p games and ios pricing...I don't think there's any one answer really. I do like what Wu-Tang is doing.
TheChewyWaffles
Member
Well gosh I guess the labels shouldn't be licensing the music then.
TwntyOneTwlv
Member
Nailed it.
No, it's fundamentally different because you can choose what music you want to listen to. You no longer have to buy an album if you want to relisten to it at any time like you did when radio was the only option.
Radio was advertising for buying music. These days streaming is the music, and is basically advertising for (less profitable) other revenue streams.
I've heard so many people say something along these lines, and it just doesn't make sense. We hear about it from rich, famous musicians because these are the people that the media pay attention to. You can be damn sure there are heaps of tiny bands and musicians who are against streaming.
Musicians should be allowed to choose their own business models. In this instance Tom came up with a dumb analogy, however.
Musicians are overpaid anyway, this is just a symptom of the free market adjusting itself.
No it isn't. This is a symptom of piracy. If there was no music piracy then people would pay for music what they think it is worth. Because there is a free (though illegal and immoral) method of getting music, there is an unnatural downward pressure on the price of music.
frankie_baby
Member
His analogy is terrible and its hard feeling sympathy for people who used to make millions but the internet in general (streaming, piracy, ect.) Have killed the industry people at the bottom end where once they might have been able to at least earn an ok living are now making buttons
Piracy exists BECAUSE people are paying what they think music is worth: nothing. The consumer has dictated it. People don't see an inherent value in consuming music.
But convenience is a bigger factor here and that's why streaming is as popular as it is. People are willing to throw some money for convenience.
But it doesn't change the fact that the consumer has decided that music has no value. If artists want to try and fight the future they can. They'll fall behind.
Valtýr;140114254 said:
Strongly disagree with you here.
If people didn't see an inherent value in music, how come we paid for albums for so many decades? Was it a complete coincidence that the devaluation of music happened at the same time as the rise of online piracy?
You've got the causation all wrong here.
TheSinkingKnight
Member
New Angels and Airwaves album December 9th.
Probably gonna be another clunker that I stream.
Probably gonna be another clunker that I stream.
Josh with a J
Member
Mark was always cooler
I'm sure they would be better off if people went just back to straight piracy.
Seriously though, I don't even understand how services like Spotify make money. I never had a premium account and yet I'm almost never getting any ads, so... Uh... Where's that money even coming from? Feels to me like the real issue of streaming is that not enough people can be convinceced to pay for it yet. You can't really demand more money per song when the company offering the service isn't earning enough money to pay more.
Seriously though, I don't even understand how services like Spotify make money. I never had a premium account and yet I'm almost never getting any ads, so... Uh... Where's that money even coming from? Feels to me like the real issue of streaming is that not enough people can be convinceced to pay for it yet. You can't really demand more money per song when the company offering the service isn't earning enough money to pay more.
I guess he meant one of the biggest markets and consumers are chinese people.
Love Part 2 was such garbage. Not getting my hopes up.
TheSinkingKnight
Member
I thought Love part 1 and part 2 were both horrible. It's like Tom didn't even listen to what he was making.
At least the 3 songs released off of The Dream Walker are pretty good.
Eh.. I haven't kept up on it, but I would guess that new up and coming artists are mostly indie (begging for attention) or have given streaming rights to their labels (thus unable to say much on the matter). On the other hand, I read Taylor Swift removed her music from Spotify.
I think streaming helps new songs or bands and probably harms relatively well known bands, on the whole. For example, "What does the fox say", "All about that bass", etc probably benefited from easy searching and sharing. But by this point, what segment of music listeners haven't heard of Blink 182 and decided whether it's for them or not? There are new music listeners born every day, people finding Beatles for the first time, etc, but I think it's a small market. Thus, if streaming takes revenue away from CD sales for these artists without giving the benefit of exposure, I can see it hurting that segment of musicians.
Rabbit Clock
Banned
Glad I'm not the only one who thinks so. Love 1 and 2 were mostly lousy. Dream Walker seems good so far.
Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
Tom DeLonge makes music for children.
ToyMachine228
Member
They both look pretty pathetic still acting, dressing and styling their hair the same way they did at 18.
Coriolanus
Banned
'it's killing the industry!"
15 billion dollar industry that grew .5% last year.
Yeah, it aint a 38 billion dolalr industry no more, but it sure as fuck aint going away.
Adapt to new service models and get a better contract with your label, i guess.
15 billion dollar industry that grew .5% last year.
Yeah, it aint a 38 billion dolalr industry no more, but it sure as fuck aint going away.
Adapt to new service models and get a better contract with your label, i guess.
TheSinkingKnight
Member
Mark still does, Tom doesn't really dress the old way. He acts like he did then, though.
ultraspank
Member
Oh no, poor industry! She's so fragile!
Can anyone think of her and her feelings? ;.; What are we gonna do if she died?!?!?!?!?
Can anyone think of her and her feelings? ;.; What are we gonna do if she died?!?!?!?!?
Josh with a J
Member
Not everyone is in a rush to be a boring old person
PseudoKirby
Banned
Advertisements from Pandora play for licenses.
do these people think Radio is wrong too?
do these people think Radio is wrong too?
I enjoyed Part 1 quite a bit, but yeah, Part 2 was meh.
The Dream Walker sounds pretty good so far. Rubin seems to be changing up the old formula a bit, which really elevates what would be pretty bland songs.
not psycho
Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uePsL2ulb3M
"Everything is free now,
That's what they say.
Everything I ever done,
Gotta give it away.
Someone hit the big score.
They figured it out,
That we're gonna do it anyway,
Even if it doesn't pay."
No problem with artists saying this. It doesn't change anything; the industry still has to adapt to technology. And the record industry was never artist friendly. But that doesn't mean artists are making good money with the current system, and doesn't mean they shouldn't speak up about it.
"Everything is free now,
That's what they say.
Everything I ever done,
Gotta give it away.
Someone hit the big score.
They figured it out,
That we're gonna do it anyway,
Even if it doesn't pay."
No problem with artists saying this. It doesn't change anything; the industry still has to adapt to technology. And the record industry was never artist friendly. But that doesn't mean artists are making good money with the current system, and doesn't mean they shouldn't speak up about it.
Part 1 was fine. Had some interesting songs and was thematically consistent.
Part 2...scattered as hell. Songs weren't that great and felt like a mishmash.
Looks like they're going the multimedia route again with The Dream Walker, which is fine, as I quite liked the LOVE movie. But I hope it doesn't detract from the music.
Edit- oh, fuck me. I'm going to end up buying that vinyl preorder bundle, aren't I?
He's got Ilan Rubin on this one, the other members fucked off so maybe it will be good, not that the other members did much in terms of writing but Rubin is heavily involved with it like Stomping thr Phantom Brake Petal.
Herpes Reasons
Banned
He's right. It's why streaming should be outlawed.
blame space
Banned
what's my age again is a hoppus song
Well, he does have a point. If you look at music back when CD's were $17.99 (which is absurd) and compare it to the amount of revenue they get now from online services, I am sure it warps his mind.
That said the alternative is everyone just pirating it again. Times have changed, trends have changed, the economy has changed -- people really cannot afford to pay for music like they used to. It just sucks.
That said the alternative is everyone just pirating it again. Times have changed, trends have changed, the economy has changed -- people really cannot afford to pay for music like they used to. It just sucks.
It's a double edged sword. Yes, artists got hurt big time which ultimately changed the face and overall relevancy of the industry for good. That said, the RIAA and co. overplayed their hand by deciding to sue people for outlandish amounts of money. I think that in and of itself left a bigger stain on the industry even more profound than the arrival of Napster and the subsequent digital era of piracy. To this day, it's hurting them. Really, they never should have sued anyone -- maybe the 'big fish' that were distributing the material but not everyday users just snatching stuff from P2P/torrents. That was fucking dumb.
CALLED THE FUCK OUT GET THAT SHIT OUTTA HERE SOCKSANDSHOES
blame space
Banned
i just thought it was relevant
TwntyOneTwlv
Member
SocksAndShoes
Banned
Listen guys, I would be jealous of a witty first post like that too. You'll get your turn!
Now go get some orange slices and we'll try some more practice posts!
SocksAndShoes
Banned
"Hey do raspberries remind you of cold sores?"
I can't put into words how random that interview is.
whatever77
Banned
In majority of the human history artisans were not "paid" for their creative works.
Most of the time they did it for free or were patronized. I argue paying musicians by songs is an anormony.
Most of the time they did it for free or were patronized. I argue paying musicians by songs is an anormony.
D
Deleted member 325805
Unconfirmed Member
More like Tom DaDong.
This is going to be a frequent occurrence now, ain't it? Established artists coming out of the woodwork to slam music streaming services?
Hey, it's a bad predicament for them, but them's the breaks. One might say that the iTunes boom brought about a natural progression to music streaming services such as Spotify. This is the inevitable trend society is heading in. You can't stop it. You certainly aren't going to get many people buying frequent music albums as they used to.
Hey, it's a bad predicament for them, but them's the breaks. One might say that the iTunes boom brought about a natural progression to music streaming services such as Spotify. This is the inevitable trend society is heading in. You can't stop it. You certainly aren't going to get many people buying frequent music albums as they used to.
SolidChamp
Banned
The irony in this is that he released their third album for free. That's right, you could go to their website and download it absolutely free. He encouraged people to "pay whatever they wanted for the album", but insisted that making it free was the right thing to do because he wanted as many people do hear it as possible and figured most people would download it illegally anyway.
If somebody were to pull some quotes from the interviews he conducted regarding this, we would see the hypocrisy.
Wonder what's changed between now and then? Oh, and the hyperbole here makes him sound like an asshole.
Edit: Okay, I decided not to be lazy: http://www.mtv.com/news/1632245/angels-airwaves-explain-their-free-album-logic/
I guess back then he must have had way more money and was feeling charitable and was all into that "connection to the fans through love" thing. Seems like he forgot.
What about the LOVE, DeLonge???
- Status