I gave up TV totally, somewhat by choice. There is a ton of free TV on youtube, from BBC documentaries, to old movies (globally) to old TV shows, to PBS news, also Fox and other news, to some entertaining "shows" put on by ordinary people. Many old movies from India or Japan are especially entertaining, and have subtitles, and are even enlightening as to cultural standards in other countries in times past.

Why pay at all for "content" from some Hollywood poseurs? Woo-woo, they have potty-mouths and show boobs. They even know the latest slang ad wear fashionable clothes.

Partially off-topic: Atlantic dropped a big article about Rogan yesterday. The piece has been harshly & convincingly deingrated. I haven't finished it yet, but early passages echo Amy this morning:

Rogan’s podcast gushes like a mighty river of content—approximately three episodes a week, usually more than two hours per episode, consisting of one marathon conversation with a subject of his choosing. Over the course of about 1,400 episodes and counting, his roster of guests can be divided roughly three ways: (1) comedians, (2) fighters, and (3) “thinkers,” which requires air quotes because it encompasses everyone from Oxford scholars and MIT bioengineers to culture drivers such as the marketing entrepreneur Hotep Jesus and the rapper turned radio co-host Charlamagne tha God all the way across the known intellectual galaxy to conspiracy theorists like Rogan’s longtime buddy and Sandy Hook denier Alex Jones. Also Dr. Phil. And David Lee Roth. And B-Real from Cypress Hill.

It’s impossible to be a Joe Rogan completist, so most of his fans pick a few tributaries. The rest may as well not exist. Who can keep track? Rogan is a key figure in the rise of MMA—Dana White once called him “the best fight announcer who has ever called a fight in the history of fighting”—but I don’t care about fighting, so I didn’t listen to any of Joe’s podcasts with fighters. I also didn’t listen to Dr. Phil, and I’m sure I’m not the only one who skipped it, which is just another way of saying there’s no real way to describe “Joe Rogan fans.” They’re not aligned around any narrow set of curiosities or politics. They’re aligned around Joe.

I couldn't imagine a better tool for sharpening your insight about the world that an un-moderated Twitter feed. Tracking the momentary and enduring interests of people you and admire and of people you dislike, and watching the fluctuations in those flows, is the quintessence of childhood, fer Chrissake. It's how minds are honed.

But because Jack Dorsey is a casual, thundering monster, your Twitter feed is anything but unrefined: Its manipulations are indescribably complex. And the distortions at Facebook and Google are famously encyclopedic.

Amy's media choices, and yours & and mine, aren't just about a preference for this or that kind of science fiction movies, or this or that cute girl on a sitcom…

…Human beings across the planet are seeking truth— But more importantly, they're seeking the information they want to know. And their desire is more important than whether you, personally & preciously, regard their preferred data streams as 'truth.'

See also this thread from the formidable Elaine about the protestors in Hong Kong. (Bang your home key a few times over seconds to be sure you're at the top... Starts with "If we swap....")

Netflix price just went up and their content isn’t very interesting anymore, but they had some good content in Japan.
I get dish for free because my son is an employee. Don’t watch it much at all. I don’t have much time for TV anymore. Kind of bores me.

Never watch tv news. Not even once.

Also, the Rogan piece sucks indeed.

It's so guilelessly disinterested in its subject, and so needful of self-flattering amusement. Even if you were an Atlantic reader who disliked Rogan, why would you read this piece? Why would you want your subscription to pay for it?

Netflix has that "steady stream of originals" because it got cut off from the old catalog that made the streaming portion of the company in the first place. Unfortunately for them while there is some audience for their new content it doesn't look like it is that profitable. The funny thing is while Disney and many of the other older companies do have that 'tried and true' content they pulled from Netflix they don't appear to be offering it on their own services. It looks like they were offended that their older content has a larger audience than their newer offerings, so they are trying to get rid of it so it doesn't compete. This is a non-economic decision, but it is their decision to make.

Unfortunately for them while there is some audience for their new content it doesn't look like it is that profitable. ~ Ben at August 20, 2019 5:59 AM

From what I understand, "new" content is not profitable across the industry, even with hit shows. A television show becomes profitable in syndication. Hence, the desire of more networks to own production companies in order to gain access to that revenue stream.

That's one reason Tim Allen's Last Man Standing was canceled - the network airing it was buying the episodes form a rival network and had no claim on syndication revenue. The airing network was essentially making a profitable product for a rival. The rival picked up the show when canceled in order to continue it and make enough episodes for a successful syndication (100+).

Now, what streaming is going to do that business model remains to be seen. Will people pay to stream The Sopranos or Game of Thrones ten years from now?

The funny thing is while Disney and many of the other older companies do have that 'tried and true' content they pulled from Netflix they don't appear to be offering it on their own services. It looks like they were offended that their older content has a larger audience than their newer offerings, so they are trying to get rid of it so it doesn't compete. ~ Ben at August 20, 2019 5:59 AM

Disney may have pulled its content from Netflix to form its own streaming service, the one that's always advertised as "coming soon." Certainly, Disney's catalogue is large enough to make streaming a viable business endeavor for the company.

Think of all those classics the company sold on DVD now available on a streaming service for the low price of $14.95 per month.

Think of all the Saturday matinee movies the company has that would fill the streaming menu - Flubber, Blackbeard's Ghost, The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes, etc.

> Think of all the Saturday
> matinee movies

I think Amy's post takes us elsewhere—

One of our most pathetic generational markers is our patience with, even affection for, mass-market entertainment. Old dogs can learn new tricks in terms of saving their money for the sources that mean something to them. And Iger seems to be catching on faster than most in the old linear media businesses, who haven't yet recognized out that central California is now in command of America's attention.

But the children in your life, and now their children, will never feel sentimental about a nationally shared media experience. Music, movies, series, whatever— They'll have their own entirely idiosyncratic favorites which they'll carry to the grave, with no tears shed for Walter Cronkite or Dick Van Dyke.

Recent decades have included a lot of time in senior care facilities. And no matter how advanced the dementia, no matter how (seemingly) diverse the crowd of wheelchairs in the Big Room, the can all sing along to the same campfire favorites of the 1930's and 40's. That will be ending in years just ahead.

Rap has been big for thirty years. (This was my own favorite, sitting nearly alone in its mental filing cabinet.)

If you were twenty in 1990 and loved rap, you're fifty now. How has the form improved? What melodic or rich rhythmic excursions have you enjoyed over your lifetime? What nuanced players have you come to admire? Why would you ever have tasted the enrichment of complicated jazz, classical or art music?

…Because we can be enormously confident that you haven't been variegated in your political tastes, either.

Sailer's had tweets this week about why today's Mexican music is indistinguishable from when you first heard it X decades ago, theorizing that it's mostly about emotional longing for a homeland, which we like to think of as unchanging. (The granddaughters of Mexican immigrants in the 1960's, when I first heard that dreck, are probably Beyonce fans.)

The spectacular individuation of media tastes is indisputably glorious, but there are a few costs as well. There are ghettos without rail service.

"The funny thing is while Disney and many of the other older companies do have that 'tried and true' content they pulled from Netflix they don't appear to be offering it on their own services. "

Evidently Disney thinks it's still 1985. They think they can still get away with releasing one classic movie a year, and panicked buyers will flock to get it "before it goes back in the vault forever". They also labor under the delusion that there is still a huge audience for ESPN.

Well, Disney's piecemeal distribution of the vault through VHS in the 80's was one of the greatest business successes in our lifetimes, proving that there's profit in knowing the difference between hard-to-get marketing and slutty distribution. I mean, they might not be wrong in making people wait. A little.

August 20, 2019 7:09 AM—

-"out"

"If you were twenty in 1990 and loved rap, you're fifty now. How has the form improved?"

Excellent question. Of course, the answer is that it hasn't, at least unless you start diving deep to find lesser known artists who are trying to do something about it. Rap was evolving in the '80s (go back and listen to Michael Jackson's Off The Wall, or some of the Sugar Hill Gang stuff), but someplace in the '90s it went down a dead end street, and it's been stuck there ever since. The last rap song I heard that grabbed me was LL Cool J's Going Back to Cali -- that's how long it's been. I try listening to contemporary rap, and there is just nothing new or interesting; it's all hos this and bitches that.

I have a peculiar attraction to surf music -- the guitar-driven rock of the pre-British Invasion early 1960s. The Beach Boys are the best know of this style, but I generally prefer the instrumentals. I listen to groups doing modern surf music like the Aqua Velvets or Los Straitjackets (or the late lamented Man or Astro-Man?), and although it's still surf and you can hear the roots of the style there, they've moved the form way beyond Ronnie and the Daytonas. A lot of evolution has taken place under the radar, but it's very much a niche form now, with maybe a few thousand people in North America who pay attention.

Some of the niches are going to advance, and some of them aren't. I admit to liking nostalgia as much as anyone, but I don't want to get trapped in one of the artistic dead-end neighborhoods Crid speaks of, with no way out. Some of what's happening in popular music now reminds me of the moribund days of the early 1950s, when the swing era was played out, and no one was sure what was coming next, and in the meantime there was a lot of pablum being produced.

We are stuck with high price cable in our rental property because there is only one internet provider available--Comcast--and the internet price is almost the same as adding cable TV. It's ridiculous how much it costs--about $240 month, no premium channels either.

It isn't just Disney. They actually the last ones to the party. Back in 2013 various studios started pulling their old content from Netflix. At the time Netflix didn't have any content of their own. So the move had the possibility of shutting Netflix down. Netflix sensibly responded by buying a studio and started making their own stuff.

I get the syndication thing Conan. And that is what I was talking about not being profitable. Netflix Originals doesn't have a Game of Thrones or a Friends to pay for everything. House of Cards and Daredevil seemed to do well. But no one is desperate to see Bill Nye Saves the World. Most of their catalog is garbage. Now to be fair most media companies are filled with garbage in their catalogs. So the question is can Netflix produce enough gold to support themselves for the short term.

Crid, on the music thing as far as I can tell the market has fragmented. I don't really have a musical taste so I'm not well keyed into that business. But from talking with friends in their 20s and 30s they are often buying MP3s direct from the artists. Without that centralized distribution system you won't have those songs everyone remembers and can sing along to. We all listened to different music.

> it hasn't, at least unless
> you start diving deep

Exactly. There were some truly interesting things happening with rhythm & atonal melodies in there.

I fear (but can in no way prove) that the show biz components of the form discouraged listeners from further exploration of the good stuff. It was and is replacing rock, so it ought to be able to deliver the exotics as well as rock did. The Beatles were brilliant songsters but moderate personalities; Nonetheless, they eventually got around to Revolution 9. (Man, I wish YouTubers would wear lavaliere microphones. To be heard through a camera mic on the other side of a cheaply resonant room is disrespectful of your audience.)

But didn't mean to pick on rap, or Mexican ranchero, either. Nashville is especially torpid, desperately recycling every fragment of melody which sells more than 300,000 copies.

For all the sphincter-constriction of popular culture in the 1970's, it was nonetheless great to be a boomer as rock and roll so brutally picked off its contenders. The atmosphere was just bleak enough that when something really colorful came along, you'd recognize it. You'd sit up and ask questions.

Even at it's best, social media doesn't convey that parade of outstanding talents (in any realm) from which you can select favorites. (And again, there's the sense that Dorsey and Zuck and Larry Page are doing their best to make sure it doesn't.)

Even at it's best, social media doesn't convey that parade of outstanding talents (in any realm) from which you can select favorites. (And again, there's the sense that Dorsey and Zuck and Larry Page are doing their best to make sure it doesn't.) ~ Crid at August 20, 2019 10:11 AM

Auto-tune doesn't help, making songsters out of mediocre voices and making every song flat. Like car design. They all look alike, not because only one guy is designing cars, but because all the designers are using the same software. All the producers are using Auto-tune and making the singers all sound alike.

The pretty face and packaging sells the singer today. Where are the modern-day Pogues, the ugliest band ever, but one whose talent sold their records?

Nashville is especially torpid, desperately recycling every fragment of melody which sells more than 300,000 copies. ~ Crid at August 20, 2019 10:11 AM

And you're right about country music today. Every song is the same: an auto-tuned tribute to blue jeans, dirt roads, and pick-up trucks.

My wife listens to modern country, but I could go the rest of my life without ever hearing another Taylor Swift or Carrie Underwood song, although they are nice to look at.

In pop, the casually-anthemic bellowing thing (day-camp brotherhood with tribal subtext) has been going on for about ten or fifteen years now. They should let go of it.

Call:

Woe-woe-wow, woe-who-woewow

Woe-woe-wow, woe-who-woewow

Ah, see here and here.

"Nashville is especially torpid, desperately recycling every fragment of melody which sells more than 300,000 copies."

Oh I know. Commercial Nashville is completely and utterly out of ideas. All the good stuff happening in country today is in alt and roots stuff. Living day-trip-close to there, I know that there is actually a lot of interesting stuff happening around town -- but unless you live in Nashville, you'll probably never get exposure to very much of it. Look up some Youtube videos of Mean Mary James.

I'm planning on cutting back my Cumcast subscription soon. No need for all the stuff I have there. Internet will work just fine for me w/out their $14/mo speed boost.

Crid, my lad---

When it comes to music, it's simple. One likes what one likes and dislikes what one dislikes. As long as one likes SOME kind of music, why would anyone else have input or a vote?

I love (and still sing) opera. I love and play classical music. I dislike country and western and also hip-hop. I live in southwest Florida where my favorite music isn't the choice of most people here. Elizabeth Taylor once said, "My dog loves my cat. To each his own."

I have a satellite doohickey the size of Jodrell Bank on my roof and it can get eversomany stations. I do not watch television. I have a husband who watches Canadian Football, Hockey, Curling, and the like. To each his own.

Actually, I DO watch television: there is a Fireplace Channel and a Tropical Fish Channel, one of which is on when my husband the Life Master is out playing bridge. I do not play bridge; we have enough to argue about as it is.

I believe what the situation boils down to is, the Big Media companies have so abused the public's trust -- not just by publishing fake news and poor quality material for at least the last half century, but also by screwing up the market so that there's no serious competition -- that we are abandoning their content offerings in droves, even though that pretty much leaves us with a lot of amateur blogs and podcasts and nobody to curate them for us.

Big Media will adjust to this by trying to make it as expensive as possible for the bloggers and podcasters to continue to produce. But meanwhile they'll go on acquiring all the telecommunications infrastructure they can. (They already own nearly all the world's phone and Internet services.) They really don't want the world to have fast, convenient, cheap Internet service, because in their view we'd either use it to compete with, or to infringe, the lovely content they already own. Soon they'll be agitating for Internet services to be licensed, to limit competition with themselves. The public has already fallen for this in the guise of "net neutrality," and it would be the end of freedom of speech.

We must resist any more consolidation in the industry, and support new competition in it.

> As long as one likes
> SOME kind of music, why
> would anyone else have
> input or a vote?

1. Nobody's making inputs or casting (or certainly not tallying) votes.

1a. Listen to whatever you want, I don't care… Dance naked and go with God. But if at the end of your life you want to argue that your culture cheated you out of something, don't come crying.

2. The enjoyment of music is not a binary proposition (between "SOME" kind or nuthin'). With proper understanding, the fulfillment it brings to us can be very greatly increased, and can affect our enjoyment of associated cultural currents.

2a. As Conan and others (ahem) have inferred, the commercial delivery of music has confused people, young 'uns especially, about the difference between music and showbiz, especially between music and beauty.

3. Our topic is more about the constraints of distribution that limit the appreciation of music. Corporate forces were dark in important ways when I was young, and they're dark in important ways today. We compare and contrast.




Jd talks about "Big Music," but that's a different set of influences than it used to be... And not necessarily a better or worse set.

"commercial delivery of music has confused people, young 'uns especially ..."

Nope. The young'uns aren't buying their music through those outdated commercial distribution systems. It appears to be the old'uns who got confused.

"I do not play bridge; we have enough to argue about as it is."

Lol... when I was a young child, my parents were competitive bridge players. My mom claims that they didn't fight a lot, but they witnessed some other couples have knock-down-drag-outs. She also says there was a ton of cheating, and that was the main reason they quit playing.

Nope. The young'uns aren't buying their music through those outdated commercial distribution systems. It appears to be the old'uns who got confused. ~ Ben at August 21, 2019 5:44 AM

The storefront may have changed, but the factory is still the same. The industrial complex churning out the Taylor Swifts and Beyonces of the world has not changed.

Occasionally an indie band slips through, but it’s usually captured later.

Young people don't buy Taylor Swift CDs Conan. They are buying MP3s from bands they met in a bar. And they are doing it at that bar.

https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/

That factory is churning things out for an older crowd not the 'young'ens'.

You are right that the factory hasn't changed. And that is why CD sales are a fraction of what they were back in 2000. Even single MP3 sales haven't made up that revenue. Instead subscription services are starting to fill the revenue gap. Still, if all you get are Taylor Swift and Beyonce in that service they may not last long.

I wasn't talking about CDs, Ben. I was talking about artist development and marketing, not the distribution channels and media.

And those young 'uns of whom you speak are streaming music on Spotify and other services. Young 'uns don't really buy music anymore.

Social media plays an important role in music dissemination these days. Social media that is not Facebook or Twitter.

Those young 'uns tend to prefer engaging with individual tracks instead of artists, which is why the album is a dead format and why artists like Taylor Swift are almost constantly releasing songs and keeping their publicists busy.

By the way, Ben, according to Quantcast, Taylor Swift's audience is heavily stacked in the 18-24 demographic. Female college students index heavily as visitors to her Web site. You don't become a global pop mega-star worth $200 million by appealing only to an older audience that buys CDs.

The alt crowd is buying .mp3s at bars - just like it did when it bought CDs from bands at bars or listened to college radio stations. But the alt crowd is still a relatively small portion of the music-consuming public. And even the alt crowd is moving over to getting its music from the band's Web site or social media.

> Nope.

As Tom Cruise once said of another tepid, self-sabotaging adolescent fantasy, The dream is always the same. Several times a week you'll announce to someone, usually by name at the top of an ill-composed and unrequested reply, that they're wrong about something, padding your imaginary money shots with misty, inconsequential analysis and distortions.

So I'm guessing you're a daydream-drunken cubicle droid from a broken home, and Mom was distracted. Someday you'll tell everyone how things really work… All of them, all the things.

> Young people don't buy
> Taylor Swift CDs Conan.

Missing punctuation, but you see what I'm getting at.

"I have a peculiar attraction to surf music -- the guitar-driven rock of the pre-British Invasion early 1960s. The Beach Boys are the best know of this style, but I generally prefer the instrumentals."

Cousin Dave, I beg to differ. I've recorded, mixed, mastered and produced surf/instro music and hosted an FM radio show playing surf/instro.

The Beach Boys play beach music, not surf music. Surf music is better defined as surf/instrumental. The BBs did play some surf on their first album, but that was the end of it. The guitar is the vocal in surf music.

Give a listen to a recording of The Mermen I did a while back:

https://archive.org/details/mermen2000-10-14.shnid19824.shnf

One, streaming is the replacement for radio.

Two, it isn't just the alt crowd that is buying tracks directly from the artists, either in bars or off of their websites.

Which is why if you look at that RIAA data in inflation adjusted numbers absent subscription services the music industry is dying. Yes Taylor Swift is an international pop star. But that doesn't mean the same thing it once did. She is the queen of an ever shrinking hill. As I said above the market has fractured. The centralized distribution channels are so boring and staid not only because the people managing them are risk adverse but instead because small bands don't really try to break in anymore.

Technology has removed the need small artists had for 'the factory' as you put it. Back in the day you needed special machines to produce an LP. Same with CDs. Today for a grand you can rent a pretty good sound studio and produce your own professional tracks. You can setup a website and sell them at minimal cost as well. The place where bands lose out is advertising. Well, most of them never would have made it anyways and most of them never would have seen any money from selling their tracks either. So giving up that advertising platform doesn't mean much to them. Without new bands always trying to 'make it big' the music industry has run out of fuel and is dying. The music isn't gone but the industry is.

"you see what I'm getting at."

Sure do Crid. You are old and out of touch. You don't have any refutation of what I've written. That pisses you off. Well buttercup put on your big boy pants and get over it.

One, streaming is the replacement for radio. ~ Ben at August 21, 2019 12:30 PM

Well, Ben, according to the RIAA chart you linked, in 2018, subscription services accounted for almost 70% of the industry's revenue while "download single" accounted for only 5%.

And like radio, those subscription services are looking to the "factory" for content. That content is going to be heavy on international mega-stars that the "factory" paid to develop.

Ever listen to Sirius XM? It came free with my car for a year. It's the same songs and artists over and over again, like cable TV. I tried Pandora once. Same thing - all megastars I'd already heard of.

International development and marketing of music stars whether Taylor Swift, Demi Lovato, or Katy Perry, still originate with the "factory."

And, yes, technology has reduced the need for smaller artists to depend upon getting noticed by the "factory" to sell their material. But if they want to expand outside their geographic market, they'll need that "factory" - or a lucky break, like someone connected to the "factory" putting them in a movie or a commercial or getting them a tour.

You still have to have heard of a band or a singer to find the song on Spotify or iTunes, or to find the Web site to download a song. That's where publicity "factory" comes into play. Not every Millennial or Gen-Zer is going to bars to listen to original music and buy .mp3s.

The old silo is broken, that's for sure. But it's not the Wild West with every garage band getting broad international sales because they played a college bar in Gainesville last week.

> You don't have any refutation

You bungling the dialect. You don't have any original thoughts, ever. You're never posting novel responses to anything... It's always your fantasy of the quick, personal (and utterly baseless) countermand —one not worthy or refutation— to someone who's actually given some thought to a topic. But in your comic book cape you're a daring figure. You dream of being right, and corrective, as a superpower.

Guessing childhood was rough, and adulthood isn't any more flattering for you.

Maybe it was a big, nasty family dinner table, and you had to identify your targets clearly. It's like you don't care unless you can make it personal:

I'm not a fan of tariffs in general Mpetrie98. But in this case they aren't a significant drag on the US economy.
- Ben at August 3, 2019 6:32 AM

You sure about that one Lenona?
- Ben at August 7, 2019 6:28 PM

I have to agree with the critics Gog.
- Ben at August 8, 2019 8:07 AM

I'm still skeptical Gog.
- Ben at August 8, 2019 11:57 AM

You can buy a tank if you have the money for it Lenona.
- Ben at August 10, 2019 11:01 AM

Lenona, In the US without a court order your phone is unlikely to be tapped.
- Ben at August 12, 2019 12:11 PM

We do not Cousin Dave.
- Ben at August 13, 2019 1:53 PM

Yep Conan. It isn't without downsides.
- Ben at August 14, 2019 12:08 PM

Look at your reactions Crid.
- Ben at August 16, 2019 12:07 PM

Not true IRA.
- Ben at August 16, 2019 7:18 PM

Yep, that is us Kara.
- Ben at August 18, 2019 11:28 AM

I have to disagree with you there Banker.
- Ben at August 19, 2019 6:20 AM

Young people don't buy Taylor Swift CDs Conan.
- Ben at August 21, 2019 8:07 AM

That's August. As many attaboys, as posts with correct punctuation. We could do the rest of the year.

Maybe it was a big, nasty family dinner table, and you had to identify your targets clearly. It's like you don't care unless you can make it personal:

I'm not a fan of tariffs in general Mpetrie98. But in this case they aren't a significant drag on the US economy.
- Ben at August 3, 2019 6:32 AM

You sure about that one Lenona?
- Ben at August 7, 2019 6:28 PM

I have to agree with the critics Gog.
- Ben at August 8, 2019 8:07 AM

I'm still skeptical Gog.
- Ben at August 8, 2019 11:57 AM

You can buy a tank if you have the money for it Lenona.
- Ben at August 10, 2019 11:01 AM

Lenona, In the US without a court order your phone is unlikely to be tapped.
- Ben at August 12, 2019 12:11 PM

We do not Cousin Dave.
- Ben at August 13, 2019 1:53 PM

Yep Conan. It isn't without downsides.
- Ben at August 14, 2019 12:08 PM

Look at your reactions Crid.
- Ben at August 16, 2019 12:07 PM

Not true IRA.
- Ben at August 16, 2019 7:18 PM

Yep, that is us Kara.
- Ben at August 18, 2019 11:28 AM

I have to disagree with you there Banker.
- Ben at August 19, 2019 6:20 AM

Young people don't buy Taylor Swift CDs Conan.
- Ben at August 21, 2019 8:07 AM

That's August. As many attaboys as replies with correct punctuation. We could do the rest of the year....

Still can't refute any of my points eh Crid?

Conan,

I agree that small bands won't get international appeal without the factory. Not even national.
But the very vast majority of them never would have even with the factory and in order to get that marketing they would have to give up a significant revenue stream for them. I made that point as well.

I also agree that the stuff you find on streaming services is the exact same stuff on Sirius or even on FM. As I said streaming is just the new radio.

And I agree with you that streaming is the music industry at this point.

All of those are points I've made repeatedly.

My question for you is do you believe that people stopped spending money on music after 2000? Do young people just not listen to music anymore? Or do people still buy singles but they don't buy them from stores tracked by the RIAA data?

"But it's not the Wild West with every garage band getting broad international sales because they played a college bar in Gainesville last week."

Never claimed that. As I said when this all started, the market has fragmented. There aren't international stars like there used to be. Instead there are lots of local stars.

Crid talked about going to an old folks home and everyone could join in and sing the communal songs of their youth together. I doubt my generation will have that experience. Once you get past 'Jesus loves me' and 'Happy and you know it' we don't listen to the same stuff. We plain don't have those communal songs.

Do young people just not listen to music anymore? Or do people still buy singles but they don't buy them from stores tracked by the RIAA data? ~ Ben at August 22, 2019 7:04 AM

I'd argue that young people still listen to music. They don't buy as much music as they used to. They stream custom-built playlists and preferred channels - party because streaming services update channels with new stuff and partly because their phones only have so much memory and streaming takes none of that.

Besides, buying music by the song requires Mom and Dad's credit card and streaming requires only a click. You've already paid for the service or are getting it free with ads.

And yes, those channels include, nay are dominated by, factory-repped pop and hip/hop mega stars or factory-developed newbies.

Crid talked about going to an old folks home and everyone could join in and sing the communal songs of their youth together. I doubt my generation will have that experience. ~ Ben at August 22, 2019 7:04 AM

You won't.

Not because you don't know the lyrics or the tune, but because the songs won't have meaning for you.

The Walkman made music portable; Steve Jobs made it more portable. Music is ubiquitous today. It's in stores, on PA systems, in the background almost constantly. It's on your phone, just waiting for you to put your ear buds in and touch PLAY.

Music to oldsters in the nursing homes had meaning, had community. It was the song played at their first high school dance, the LP they camped out in line with friends to buy, the 45rpm single they played until it wore out, the album cover that freaked Mom out, or the cassette that got eaten by the cheap car stereo they worked all summer to afford and installed themselves. It's the song they put on the mix tape that they made for their first crush.

Online music delivery - whether .mp3 or streamed - means few formative experiences are communally associated with specific songs. Touch the screen and it plays through your ear buds; and everyone is listening to something different.

We'll have to disagree about young people buying less music or just not buying it from traditional sources. The 'Mom and Dad's credit card' stuff doesn't convince. How many people were buying CDs that way that can't do so now? Also by young people I mean young adults. They have jobs. They have credit cards. What mom and dad want isn't really part of the conversation.

> can't refute any of
> my points

Make one worth considering, and it will bring its own enthusiasm.

Right back atcha sunshine.