Qobuz and Gramophone

51 posts / 0 new
Last post
Streaming media.

As far as I can understand what you call as "streaming media", Ted, are access to commercial recordings that have been and keep being released in the form of a final product (CD, SACD, Blu ray etc.) which is for sale.

I do not know whether deleted items from the catalogue of the various labels, who participate in providing their "streamed" recordings, can be still available for streaming, whether never released items can be provided and so on.

The critical question (for the future anyway) may be whether labels can have any reason d'etre if they have no reason for producing a final physical product for sale. If there is no need for recording companies (no physical product, no market competition), then, who is going to produce what?

Anyway, I tend to believe that we still live in a "colourful" world...but who knows what is in store for us...

Parla

 

parla wrote:

parla wrote:

As far as I can understand what you call as "streaming media", Ted, are access to commercial recordings that have been and keep being released in the form of a final product (CD, SACD, Blu ray etc.) which is for sale.

I do not know whether deleted items from the catalogue of the various labels, who participate in providing their "streamed" recordings, can be still available for streaming, whether never released items can be provided and so on.

The critical question (for the future anyway) may be whether labels can have any reason d'etre if they have no reason for producing a final physical product for sale. If there is no need for recording companies (no physical product, no market competition), then, who is going to produce what?

Anyway, I tend to believe that we still live in a "colourful" world...but who knows what is in store for us...

Parla

 

 

Parla must be right and thinks having the last word proves it, even if that involves a wilful disregard of any alternative argument, as here.

 

He stubbornly defends "the physical object" and will not acknowledge that there could ever be an alternative model for making music accessible for sale. 

 

Purchasing streamed music from "record" companies could be as commercially viable as purchasing CDs.   Parla buys CDs and does not stream music, therefore it is impossible that making music available through streaming is or could be viable or profitable.

 

No argument can be valid if Parla does not agree with it.  Facts and logic are wilfully disregarded in the relentless pursuit of being right on every subject.   No wonder so many have given up in frustration and left.

 

 

VicJayL wrote:

VicJayL wrote:

 

Purchasing streamed music from "record" companies could be as commercially viable as purchasing CDs.   Parla buys CDs and does not stream music, therefore it is impossible that making music available through streaming is or could be viable or profitable.

 

Translating Parla's point slightly, what the issue seems to be is who is it profitable for? The streaming companies or the original record companies? I don't think we have enough information in these threads to fully understand the economics of the situation for a small classical record company. Maybe at the moment diversifying how their product is delivered is helping them financially. But presumably those of you who have signed up to streaming services are now spending far less per month in total on classical music? So naively at least I would have thought that there could be financial issues for the recording companies at some point in the future if the streaming trend continues without thought.

 

I personally favour streaming plus still buying things I really like. 

Ted

 

 

But Ted, why buy the things

But Ted, why buy the things you really like, unless (a) you can buy them in better than CD quality, and that matters to you (it does to me), or (b) they aren't available via your chosen streaming service? Does the physical manifestation of the bit of plastic really matter to you, as it seems to to Parla?

 

There are some wholly valid issues re who makes any money out of this, and how, but they will ultimately get resolved, and streaming is surely here to stay. For what it's worth, my overall spend probably isn't changing much - but I am listening to a lot of different stuff that I wouldn't have bought.

 

Paul

Service versus product.

Paul, the difference is that streaming is a service, while the CD (SACD etc.) a product. Some people prefer the product, for various reasons (not to rely on internet, no to use computer and other gudgets, not to rely on the imposed changes resulted from contracts between recording and the streaming companies and so on).

Parla

Yup, Parla, I think I

Yup, Parla, I think I understand the distinction between service and product perfectly well. But this is a service in its infancy, and I know that many won't yet comprehend quite what it can do for them. And for me (and I think I can speak for Vic in this matter, at least), the ability to read a review in G, and in seconds be listening to the disc in CD quality while reading the booklet, is a very positive thing.

pgraber wrote:

pgraber wrote:

Does the physical manifestation of the bit of plastic really matter to you, as it seems to to Parla?

Paul

I prefer to buy most music in a form that is flexible enough for me to play when I want for the rest of my life on any device at home, at work, in the street, in the car, on a plane etc. I am not bothered by the format too much so I buy both downloads and CDs.  I am more likely to buy downloads when I only want a certain number of tracks on a disc or where the CD packaging is generic or undesirable, or when the CD is too expensive or unavailable.

 

Ted

 

 

 

 

parla wrote:Paul, the

parla wrote:

Paul, the difference is that streaming is a service, while the CD (SACD etc.) a product. 

pgraber wrote:

Yup, Parla, I think I understand the distinction between service and product perfectly well

Actually, you are both wrong. The correct distinction is that between a "good" and a "service". Both of these are "products", so it makes no sense to distinguish between products and services. (A "category" error in the jargon.)

A good, finally, is distinguished from a service on the basis of its tangibility. If you can touch it and pick it up, it is a good. If not, it is a service. (This is elementary economics. Look it up, by all means.) So Parla's (apparent) case against streaming is really based on a metaphysical prejudice in favour of the tangible: a traditional prejudice for those with a limited outlook. Apparent? Because it is, of course, a feigned, artificial position. He is a professional troll, so he doesn't actually have real opinions. He simply takes up contrary positions in order to waste other people's time for his personal enjoyment. Hence the empty forum.

Beyond the "tangibility"...

Eliza, I do not have any problem if you wish to use the economic term of "good" instead of the "product". In any case, the "good" is a different thing than a "service" beyond the "tangibility" (I and few other members here, like just above TedR, explained the different benefits a good can offer vis a vis the particular service and quite a few here have articulated the different benefits of opting for the service of "access" to the listening of existing recordings).

Besides, I used the term "product", not from the economic aspect of it but based on the view of the outcome of a production line. I guess when one gets access to Beethoven's Fifth with Kleiber on a streaming service, there is no production line for the particular recording but only for the access to the general service provided.

One of the basic difference of the "good" is not that you can touch it, but you can own it, manage it and use it anywhere and in any way you wish. Besides, you can build a real collection compared to a virtual one the "service" can provide, as long as and in any way it can provide it. I do not believe services can replace goods per se (I hope we won't eat, one day, virtual food or we won't sleep in virtual beds).

As for the other "compliments", rather repetitive as usual, I can assure you that I express my very personal experience on this matter, after almost a lifetime of collecting these "tangible" things, and I found this experience more rewarding than one can guess. I can also assure you that I do not mind if these services prevail. I just wonder how they can replace the exact benefits of having a physiacal product, because if they replace only aspects of what a physical product can do, some people will miss certain rather significant things.

The "personal enjoyment" lies in having you back, in any way, Eliza. Welcome!

Parla

Thirty posts in and this

Thirty posts in and this obsessive, relentless quest continues, making the same points over and over, disregarding other arguments, all over the trivial matter of some people finding streaming a valuable and satisfying way of accessing the music they love.

 

To "prove" what?  That the ownership of CDs is not just preferable but superior, and that to deny it threatens the very future of classical music. 

 

And how fatuous the "evidence" submitted as proof.  Not that fact or logic is necessary, of course.  Just that Parla believes it and writes it.  Repeatedly.  Until others give up.  And then he's proved "right".

 

You don't need a GCSE in psychology to know what is going on here of course.  (Parla recently made the mistake of asking why a reader might think he pursues points to this length and got very upset with the few suggestions posited.)

 

Having a bit of an obsession with exposing nonsense myself, I submit the following. 

 

parla wrote:

 ...  I guess when one gets access to Beethoven's Fifth with Kleiber on a streaming service, there is no production line for the particular recording

 

Like it just magicked into existence.

 

 

parla wrote:

 One of the basic difference of the "good" is not that you can touch it, but you can own it, manage it and use it anywhere and in any way you wish.

 

Spooky!

 

 

parla wrote:

 Besides, you can build a real collection compared to a virtual one the "service" can provide

 

And when you have built it what do you do with it?  Listen to music, for instance?

 

parla wrote:

 I do not believe services can replace goods per se (I hope we won't eat, one day, virtual food or we won't sleep in virtual beds).

 

Fatuous.

 

parla wrote:

 after almost a lifetime of collecting these "tangible" things, and I found this experience more rewarding than one can guess.

 

I don't even want to go there.  But I am reminded of William Randal Hurst at the end of Citizen Kane.  Parla's home as El Dorado - with bragging rights.

 

parla wrote:

 I can also assure you that I do not mind if these services prevail.

 

Allowing the streaming service company executives to sleep easier at night, no doubt.

 

 

parla wrote:

 I just wonder how they can replace the exact benefits of having a physiacal product, because if they replace only aspects of what a physical product can do, some people will miss certain rather significant things.

 

Yes, we've read this before.  I think he means the booklet.  What else can a bit of plastic "do"?

 

parla wrote:

 The "personal enjoyment" lies in having you back, in any way, Eliza. Welcome!

 

 

We can agree on that, at least.

Pages

Log in or register to post comments

Gramophone Subscriptions

From£67/year

Gramophone Print

Gramophone Print

no Digital Edition
no Digital Archive
no Reviews Database
no Events & Offers
From£67/year
Subscribe
From£67/year

Gramophone Reviews

Gramophone Reviews

no Print Edition
no Digital Edition
no Digital Archive
no Events & Offers
From£67/year
Subscribe
From£67/year

Gramophone Digital Edition

Gramophone Digital Edition

no Print Edition
no Reviews Database
no Events & Offers
From£67/year
Subscribe

If you are a library, university or other organisation that would be interested in an institutional subscription to Gramophone please click here for further information.

© MA Business and Leisure Ltd. 2019