Malcolm Boyce wrote:Now this annoying reply:macrae11 wrote:This guy is so spot on that I might have to make him my home page.
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/201 ... onsidered/
http://www.wesleyverhoeve.com/quixotism/
See I don't mind that as much. I think he misunderstands and misrepresents lowery but he has a point. I welcome a new model that incorporates streaming and offline storage. It's coming soon anyways so might as well embrace it. Spotify is not it. But a similar service that is actually setup properly could save the music industry.
I would see it as a free service that you could stream lores music and videos ala YouTube on a voluntary basis by the artist. A place for them to release singles, promos, videos, vlogs etc, but preferably not there whole catalog. Then a paid premium service, maybe with tiers for $20-$30/month with premium content, offline storage, playlists etc. I don't think the average music listener ever spent on average that much per month, and the real fans will still buy hard copies special editions etc. there will always be people who steal. Just like with cable and illegal boxes. We just have to get enough people on this new model to make it feasible like cable. If apple came out and did this right with a model that could benefit artists it could work. The royalties could easily be tracked and managed and artists would directly get played based on popularity. Then the freehadists argument about creating good content would actually be valid. Apple I think is the only company right now that could pull this off, but I don't know if they're the right company for it.