Streaming Qobuz almost does seem too good to be true — it’s awesome! Rather than being overwhelmed or dumbed down to music as the article implies, I find incredible new music across many genres on a daily basis I would’ve likely never otherwise heard. My music vocabulary/collection has grown more over the past five years than it has over the prior two decades. I fail to see how that’s bad in any way whatsoever. It’s not the tool that’s to blame, whether that be Spotify or any other streaming service, but rather how the listener decides to use it. People who care about music will find it to be a gold mine and a revelation, and people aren’t as serious about music and who just want generic background music can be happy with that. This article’s assertion that streaming music is a problem for listeners is a stretch IMHO. How artists get paid is another issue, but it is true that unknown artists have many more platforms today to get noticed than they ever had in the past, so as usual there are trade offs and streaming will continue to evolve. All I know is that this is the best time I’ve ever had in my 40+ years as an audiophile, and it’s solely due to the convenience and new music discovery through streaming.
Streaming Leads to Brain Rot
The linked article doesn't outright say that, but the implication is clear. "Spotify Syndrome" is a threat to music lovers everywhere.
The promise of unlimited access to millions and millions of songs for less than the price of a single CD. When it sounds too good to be true it's because it probably is too good to be true.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/12/30/mood-machine-liz-pelly-book-review
"Streaming leads to brain rot" What kind of a stupid, lame brain, imbecile would stoop so low as to write such an article in the first place? Are you kidding me? Anyway, it’s always been commonly known amongst "Audiophiles" that Spotify isn’t of the highest sound quality for streaming music. This is why Audiophiles primarily stream their music at the highest of sound quality levels via Qobuz or Tidal, along with their high quality audio systems to facilitate high quality streaming. So, what are we talking here? Are we criticizing those non- Audiophiles who choose to listen to their music on a more casual, less than Audiophile caliber basis? The reality is that, most music listeners, and most music lovers in the world are, in fact, non-Audiophiles, and really could give a rats ass about what’s going on in our little insane Audiophile world. Neither do they care about what the heck we think about them, as they’re just going along their merry way simply enjoying the music. Some stupidly arrogant Audiophiles have a habit of taking themselves way to seriously, thereby taking some of the fun out of the hobby, as well as taking some of the fun out of the pleasure, enjoyment and the experience of music listening in general. Music listening is supposed to be a pleasurable experience, no matter how one chooses to listens to it. Happy listening. |
Streaming through Qobuz is the most wonderful advancement in music delivery technology in my lifetime. The very highest sound quality and access to over ten million albums. It is great. Not sure exactly what the article said, since the screen would keep going black, with a window wanting me to subscribe to The New Yorker. Some nitwit trying to get attention by saying something controversial. |
@ghdprentice Bingo!!! My sentiments exactly. |
It was worth reading, I am definitely not like the "average" impressionistic streamer the article is pointing toward, as I sit here and stream to Genesis- A trick of the Tail in its entirety in the background. I think 99% here on AG are the same. Two contrasting takeaways I noticed: "The United Musicians and Allied Workers, a music-industry trade union, was formed in 2020 in part to lobby on behalf of those most affected by the large-scale changes of the past decade. Four years later, Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Jamaal Bowman introduced the Living Wage for Musicians Act, which would create a fund to pay artists a minimum of a penny per stream. With a royalty rate at around half a cent—slightly more than Spotify pays—it would take more than four hundred and eighty thousand streams per month to make the equivalent of a fifteen-dollar-an-hour job. But the bill hasn’t made any legislative playlists." And: "Meanwhile, during a twelve-month stretch from 2023 to 2024, Spotify announced new revenue highs, with estimates that the company is worth more than Universal and Warner combined. During the same period, its C.E.O., Daniel Ek, cashed out three hundred and forty million dollars in stock; his net worth, which fluctuates but is well into the billions, is thought to make him richer than any musician in history. "
|