Doin' the New Download: Should We Post Streaming Tracks or Not?
Our Little Ones post didn't get a lot of comments about the music itself, just the way it's presented- in this case, a stream you can't download. Apparently, it proves we're "in the label PR machine's pocket" when we don't just post an mp3. We clear every single mp3 we post for a couple (obvious) reasons and sometimes a band or label isn't comfortable with making an mp3 available for download when we ask, in which case we post it as a stream. They're not paying us to post it, or rewarding us in any other way. Well, we're rewarded by not having them hate us, but keep in mind some of these labels are also run by people who love the music they're putting out and they've got a right to decide if they want mp3s floating around. Other ones are giant faceless corporations who don't really get anything and are using slave labor to boost D3spoil3r's friend count, but that doesn't mean there aren't also good bands on said label whose management won't let some track loose as an mp3.
Anyway, here's the question: would you prefer that we not post a track at all if we can't post a downloadable mp3?
Posted at 6:33 PM
Here are my two cents. I appreciate the stream but really only bother to listen to about 1/10 entries (with streams) whereas every mp3 link, I download for later listening. With that half-assed answer, I say rather have an mp3 to download or nothing else.
Score = 0
yes
Score = 0
give me liberty or give me heck!
Score = 0
hell, if i really want it, i can audio hijack the stream. and, then, if i really like it (i'm talking to you record companies), i go and buy it.
Score = 0
something is better than nothing at all, i think everyone can agree with that.
Score = 0
Agree with anybody who says I'd rather have something than nothing at all. First of all, if you know what you're doing, most times it's easy to enough to download 'em anyway... but even in the case that it isn't, if it's a high enough quality stream it doesn't make too much of a difference to me.
This is coming from someone with a really nice internet connection though, when I had DSL I'd probably have felt a lot differently about streaming media.
Score = 0
I would definitely like something over nothing. I share the same feelings as "krup" down below. If I really like something, I will hijack a stream in lieu of actually buying the album.
Score = 0
Stream! A wonderful spring glade, with a babbling brook, a creek, a stream!
So, yeah. Streams are good.
Score = 0
I prefer streaming anyways, don't like having loose downloads running all over my computer.
Score = 0
NO. Post it however which way you can, but clearly preference towards mp3 links (and such).
Score = 0
I prefer the streams. Instant gratification.
Score = 0
I'd like the Curb theme tune if you're offering..
Score = 0
what curb theme? our lawyers tell me i have no idea what you're talking about.
Score = 0
Streams when it's a major artist or really something that can't go without being posted. I wouldn't take a hard-line approach against it. With that being said, since Stereogum is a major outlet and labels are desperate to get coverage, this is one blog that can help contribute to leveraging labels into presenting music in the way that most agree it should be posted, as mp3s. Management pressure put on the label often creates exceptions, which often become the rule with labels.
Score = 0
only streams on new singles. if anyone else is like me, they have a.d.d and use the 30 sec sampler on itunes
Score = 0
I agree with anonymous coward,
I rather have a download or probably nothing else (unless the song is just to awesome not to post).
I download a lot the mp3s and listen to them at my leisure. And I listen very infrequently to streams, or if I do, I only listen to the first 20-30 seconds then get bored or busy with work...
Score = 0
Whatever. I just stumbled on to this site when I googled headphones and Hubba Bubba
Score = 0
Streaming's cool. My only request: NO MORE QUICKTIME.
Sometimes I click in quickly, just to see if there's a new post. If any Quicktime is linked up, I have to wait for the blasted plug-in to finishing loading before I can leave. It's annoying. And with all of the other options, it's unnecessary.
Score = 0
Streaming's cool. My only request: NO MORE QUICKTIME.
Sometimes I click in quickly, just to see if there's a new post. If any Quicktime is linked up, I have to wait for the blasted plug-in to finishing loading before I can leave. It's annoying. And with all of the other options, it's unnecessary.
Score = 0
Yes to mp3s; Yes to streams.
I think everyone should be grateful that there are so many mp3 blogs out there to choose from and that don't get harassed every day by record companies (remember Kazaa and Napster?).
So when an mp3 isn't available on one site (like stereogum), yeah, i can get a little frustrated but eventually I'll find that song elsewhere some time later or just listen to the stream and bookmark the link to it.
Learn to appreciate both the free streams and free mp3s from the Stereogums of the world, cuz five to ten years ago, we didn't get music this way. Now, we can get free streams of ENTIRE ALBUMS! And unless they're ripped from radio, these streams are high quality (and you all know how shaky mp3s can be in quality from time to time).
And ten years from now, who knows if we'll still be getting all this music, especially in advance of release dates, for free (with labels' permission or not) from mp3 blogs/websites.
So take whatever you can get.
Score = 0
Yes to streaming and mp3s.
Years ago, we didn't have this much streaming audio of full albums, songs from albums that haven't come out yet, and the like on the Internet.
So be grateful that we have so many mp3 blogs like Stereogum out there that offer us as much new music as possible, whether it be through mp3s or streams.
Score = 0
Whenever a band I like has new music out, I love to listen to it in stream OR in download -- if I like it, I'll buy it. Stereogum helps me make that decision.
Score = 0
MP3s when possible, streaming otherwise. Why would you refuse to post streams if that's the only option available? To stick it to bands that don't allow MP3s or something?
Score = 0
Computer time during the day is also work time and, unfortunately, can't be streaming audio. MP3s are much preferred. I visit sites several times a day but never for too long. By the time one song is done I could have been to multiple sites or pages within that site. Too impatient. Streamed songs are quickly forgotten songs.
Score = 0
Computer time during the day is also work time and, unfortunately, can't be streaming audio. MP3s are much preferred. I visit sites several times a day but never for too long. By the time one song is done I could have been to multiple sites or pages within that site. Too impatient. Streamed songs are quickly forgotten songs.
Score = 0
Streams are OK, unless it's MTV. that site is bane to macs.
Score = 0
it would be stupid to not post anything at all just because its not an mp3.
Score = 0
@obvious- like i said, i was just shocked that 2 of the 3 comments on the little ones post were seemingly pissed about there being a stream instead of an mp3, so i wanted to find out if this is what people liked or not.
Score = 0
I would rather you do not post streams. This tells the labels that if they want the free exposure/word of mouth that Stereogum provides, they have to allow you to post the MP3, period. I'm just not going to bother to listen to anything on my crappy work computer speakers, so unless I can download it to my digital music drive/iPod for quality listening, I'm not going to bother.
Score = 0
do what you gotta do.
Score = 0
Do some of you think it's your "right" to hear music other people have created? That's the impression I'm getting with some of these posts-- not to mention the general attitude toward piracy and file sharing in general.
If you work hard and apply your mind you will be rewarded with enough money to spend your leisurely time BUYING all the music you enjoy. If you don't, or instead you wish to spend your money elsewhere, that's YOUR choice.
So if a song isn't availble to download, why should it matter as long as you can still get a good enough taste to determine whether it's worth the 99 cents to download?
Because you don't feel it's worth the 99 cents to download. And if you don't feel it's worth that, you have two options; 1) Buy it anyway and feel cheated , 2) Don't buy it.
"Testing" the song on your IPOD for as long as you want, then deciding it's not really worth buying is not an ethical option. This is why cars are not free to drive until we decide they are not really what we want 20,000 miles later. This is why theaters don't offer a chance to watch a movie for free before you decide whether or not to purchase the ticket. The "test-drive-on-the-ipod" IS the product, it is not a 5 mile test-drive before buying the Prius, it is not the 2 minute trailor before the film is released; it IS the Prius, it IS the film-- it IS the product.
The record industry has spent the last 100 years investing its own time and its own money into developing succesful technologies to spread the sounds of recorded music to as many people as it can, why? Not because the masses have the right to it, but because it is/was profitable for the record industry to do so.
There is nothing evil nor wrong with this process. Though the record industry moguls have made billions we have each benefitted much more through our enjoyment of the technologies they developed! But now we bear resentment toward that very hand that has fed us all the fruits of modern music.
Stereogum, don't stoop so low as to cater to folks selfish enough to assume they were born entitled to all the music the world has to offer. Continue to offer streams, and ignore this foolishness.
Score = 0
I listened to the little ones stream several times at work yesterday.
I like music.
Score = 0
It's no skin off my back if you want to post streams. However, I think record companies should know that many, including myself, will not listen to streams. On the other hand, if I've got an mp3, I'll usually get around to it.
Score = 0
pretty much, yes.
Score = 0
Obviously downloadable mp3s are optimal, but if you can't get permission to have it downloadable, definitly at least post a streaming track. It's still good to listen to the songs, and if you like it you can download it somewhere else.
Score = 0
If the question is stream or nothing, I don't know who would choose nothing...
Score = 0
Chase-
Wise words there about paying for tunes.
To a whole lot of people, music is viewed as an entitlement, which is wrong. Bands and labels deserve to be paid for entertaining us. Sure, they may have gotten a bit greedy back there in the nineties, releasing sub-par albums for 19 bucks, while at the same time discontinuing singls. Now in the post-Napster iTunes world though, there's no excuse for not buying a track if you like it.
If streaming is the only way I get exposed to a new band or song, so be it. It is OBVIOUSLY better than nothing. I have sat radio though, so I guess I'm used to music being somewhat transient. If I hear a song I like, I hit the memory button and download it later, legally.
Score = 0
i vote for mp3s only. if a band/label/management won't allow it then it's there mistake
Score = 0
i prefer mp3!!!
Score = 0
No streams. They suck.
If the artist or its management or its label don't want mp3's, scr*w 'em.
Score = 0
To be honest, I prefer the streaming player. I don't like downloading singles. For mainstream records that rely on the success of their singles, I think the mp3 download is fine, otherwise I get the whole album. I guess I'm a "completist" as pitchfork would say.
Score = 0
mp3 is the prefered format, but i'll DEFINATELY take streaming to nothing. isn't hearing the music, in any format, the ultimate goal?
Score = 0
Stereogum has always used good judgement in the past--so don't question yourself, and go with what you think.
Chase,, many of us bear resentment towards the RIAA because they know longer invest in new talent, their inferior product is overpriced, they haven't adopted new technologies, and instead of listening to their customers, they sue them. If they provided a good product for a reasonable price and make it easiy accessible, t here wouldn't be any resentment. But if you were to make the same argument about the independent companies, then you will get no argument from me--they're the only ones making music that people who hang out here want to listen to, any way.
Score = 0
dudeasincool-
I have to disagree with you there.
While it seems to be a general consensus that the collective bodies that compose the RIAA don't invest in new talent and their products are inferior and overpriced, you have to admit that they could invest in all the new technology in the world and still, no one would give a shit! I mean, how do you explain being given the choice to legally download music and then still choosing to pirate it anyway?
Although, you did manage to make me laugh with this one: "...instead of listening to their customers, they sue them."
You see, the problem with that statement is the word "customers". They're not suing customers, because in order to be a customer you had to have bought something! They are suing thieves, and just like you would try to throw a burglar in jail for breaking into your house, they have a right to be pissed off and to take legal action as such.
And then you offered this nugget of brilliance: "If they provided a good product for a reasonable price and make it easily accessible, there wouldn't be any resentment."
Well how much more accessible can music be? You can either go to a store and buy the entire album,
or you can buy the songs individually online; it doesn't get anymore accessible than that! Hell, do you want them to drop the shit off on your doorstep (in fact, online companies do that already)? And again, even if they made every stride you suggested, thieves still wouldn't buy the music. Because the fact is that no matter how much you want to blame the RIAA, it doesn't justify or explain why all these people still feel comfortable stealing! No one can debate the fact that even if you repackage and rationalize pirating as hatred of the RIAA and its practices, that doesn't make it any less illegal or unethical. The sad part in all of this is that the same independent companies you speak of, tend to be the biggest victims of this type of idiocy.
------------------------
Amen to Chase, I couldn't have said it any better.
------------------------
Stereogum, do what ever you feel is right. But I'd rather have streams than have you not report at all.
------------------------
Blogs are a valuable music info source, so don't knock 'em. Just work with whatever they have to offer, because after all, we're all here for the same purpose - love of the music!
Score = 0
I guess I never really thought about it. But in the end, I think I prefer streams -- if I want the mp3 before the record is released, I can just go to slsk and find it there. Streams only require one step to determine whether or not I like a song or band, while downloads require three or four. YES, I am just that internet-lazy.
I guess I'm just not a fucking crazy conspiracy theorist who gives a crap if one of the hundreds and hundreds of mp3 blogs out there is "in the pocket" of the RIAA. Sorry, guys. I am a threat to free speech everywhere :(
Score = 0
If you said no to streams, you are, plain and simple, not an intelligent person.
Also, if you treated the question as "Streams Vs. MP3s," you're potentially not an intelligent person. Of course it's nicer to have something you can "take" with you.
You're here because you like music. If you won't listen to new music because of some childish irrational preference, don't, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be posted. It just means you're spoiled and entirely too picky about the way you listen to something for free.
Score = 0
id really like it if every blogger didnt read the next blog over to get their information. how can anyone read 6 different blogs all about being able to lay audio on the sopranos finale, or voxtrot's release. did anyone really care the first time they read about lily allen's tour exhaustion?
Score = 0
Why don't you jackasses (who are against streaming music) just learn to save streams as mp3s? It's not hard, you just have to find the file in your internet cache and relabel it as an mp3. OR download one of the many programs avaliable that will do it for you.
Score = 0
Streams are perfect because if I like that song than I'll just go look for the whole album. Streams are instant, and yeah, something is better than nothing. I don't need to horde ownership over a single mp3 to keep me satisfied.
Score = 0
any way we can get directed to
http://www.seeqpod.com might also work
Score = 0
Streaming is better than nothing. If that is all you can get clearance for than you might as well stream it, but I am way more likely to listen to a song I can download.
Score = 0
This debate is kinda ridiculous, because ANY music is better than NONE. If I really like something, I buy it, so the streams vs. MP3 battle is not really worth worrying about.
Stereogum should decide based on the tides of the ocean - on that particular day, if it's high tide at an odd time (i.e. 1143 am), post an MP3. If the time is even, then stream it, baby!
All you need is...an almanac.
Score = 0
Hey, if you can post an MP3 then yeah, of course do that, I can listen to it away from my computer. If that is not an option for you then yeah, DUH! Post it as a stream, Music is good, no music is bad. Thanks for all the great music and leads over the years in the first place!
Score = 0
I actually like to listen to a song before I download it. Even if I can't download from the same website, if I like it I'll get it somwhere else. Besides, I agree, something's better than nothing at all.
Score = 0
I agree with the proposal to post mp3 only. Again, if we don't use our position as gateways for the major labels, and leverage it to our preference (mp3s), then they will never evolve. Streams are good, but it's preferable to download, then evaluate the songs on an i-pod at OUR leisure, not at their beck and call.
Score = 0
Ju Bean, I think we have to agree to disagree. BTW, I work in the entertainment industry and I'm ashamed of the RIAAs policies.
Score = 0
Why don't you just have links to the bands/artist's myspace page. That is the way most people hear their music first anyways. Torr does it that way, and his blog is the best.
Score = 0
I'm down with streaming, as long as the label refuses to release an mp3. No reason not to hear good music for such a stupid reason.
Score = 0
please stream! i want to hear the tracks regardless of format. for me, it's all about being introduced to music i otherwise wouldn't have heard. if i like it, i will be happy to SUPPORT THE BAND and actually BUY it (imagine that! what a concept!). the "mp3 or nothing" peeps are lazy idiots. if the 'gum ends up catering to them, i will lose all respect for you...
Score = 0
Yes. iTunes and ipods have made an ocd feeling out of collecting mp3's
Score = 0
i say post streams if absolutely necessary because there are some songs i'd just rather hear instead ofh ear about. besides, it's really not thath ar to get a hold of the mp3 rip or leak soon after anyway, if you are that serious about it.
Score = 0
I don't understand why this is even a question. Those who don't like streams can just, uh, not click play (I rarely do, to tell the truth). Many of the anti-stream commenters here seem to have some kind of "if I don't want to listen, the option shouldn't even exist" mentality, and that's completely bizarre. If you don't like streaming, ignore the stream! But plenty of others do want the feature, and even if they're not the majority, I don't see any reason to deny them.
Score = 0
I'm a total music whore, so I'll take it any way I can. I actually prefer streams, cause then I can listen to it and decide if I like it without taking up space on my computer. Plus I feel bad about downloading music I haven't paid for.
Score = 0
i prefer the stream because i'd rather download the whole torrent rather than just one song ;)
Score = 0
I think streams are just dandy. I hate being thrown all over the web just to listen to one song that I've never heard before that I probably won't like because I'm not pretentious enough. It's pleasant to stay on the same page with no new windows opening all over the place.
Score = 0
Well, there is a politics here. If you feel there's a sense of communal interest/communality between yourselves and other mp3 blogs, then it would seem to make sense that you'd at least express a strong preference to record labels for mp3's, and make it clear why. Personally I don't think that's a stand that would particularly inconvenience your readership or the bands involved- if people want to hear a song, there are enough ways to do it online, legitimately or otherwise.
Score = 0
I think it's bullshit to post just a stream. When you do that, you're giving the label free publicity for nothing in return. Don't let the labels tell you what to do. If they refuse to allow a download, tell them to fuck themselves. And watch how many times they'll give in.
Don't be a pussy. Don't give in to their bullshit demands. They will bend over. You don't have to.
Tell them simply, "We will not post it unless our readers can download it."
Score = 0
I say a good number of the people that post here have music blogs also that have little to no readers. Probably not the best bunch to take advice from. Do whatever the hell you want.
Score = 0
I never listen to streams. Ever. If a band wants to be promoted on a blog they should be willing to have an mp3 shared. A single song isn't going to undermine their album sales.
Score = 0
Keep posting streams. I'll keep ignoring them, but I guess some people listen to them.
Score = 0
I think it's simple. If they don't want us to listen to an mp3 of their music, we shouldn't listen to it AT ALL. If record labels don't start to re-think their strategies, they'll sink quickier then they think. I listen to stream musics oftenly, but like most of the people here, sometimes I just ignore them or forget to press PLAY after loading it.
Info is gold.
Score = 0
Chase: it isn't my "right" to listen to all the music in the world, but it doesn't necessarily hurt anyone if I do. Downloadable music is not a zero sum game, so it can't be compared with cars or other physical products, even CDs. Obviously if someone would have bought something, but instead downloaded it for free, that's a bad thing, but this isn't usually the case.
"So if a song isn't availble to download, why should it matter as long as you can still get a good enough taste to determine whether it's worth the 99 cents to download?"
But that's just the issue, many of us obviously feel that we CAN'T get a good enough taste.
Every album I've bought in the last 5 years has been because I downloaded a couple of mp3s off it and LIVED with them for a while, and decided I liked them.
Of course this process has an entertainment value in itself and is more than a simple "product evaluation period", but that's true of listening to the radio or watching music videos, pretty much any method of promotion has to give us some enjoyment or we wouldn't bother with it. Even listening to streams, for some, has a value in itself.
Personally I find streams annoying for various reasons and I rarely bother with them, unless for some reason I like TOTALLY HAVE TO HEAR THIS. I prefer it when bloggers take the same attitude, and when I have to wade through several pages to get anything downloadable that's when I start to look elsewhere.
And in case this isn't obvious: I never bought anything based on a stream.
Score = 0
I friend of mine runs DAZ.com and had the same problem. Clearing mp3's was to much work and most artists don't even react. So he developed a streaming player which is also embeddable (like youtube video's). Maybe this is interesting for your blog...See over here a sample: http://daz.com/tracks/Bullet%20For%20My%20Valentine/Tears%20Dont%20Fall.html
Score = 0
Count me in the "post an MP3 if you can, but a stream is better than nothing" camp.
Score = 0
It's up to you. But the streaming plugin drove me nuts when I was trying to listen to that Tegan track, so I won't be listening if it's not mp3.
Score = 0
Either way but give me a few options to click-thru for purchase. If you give me an MP3 the stickiness becomes greater - the track will most likely be heard by others in my circle (now playing in iChat, playing at home, me telling friends about how great it is as a result of playing it over and over again.
Streaming is - "yeah i think i've heard that new single" - meh - not as effective.
Score = 0
Let me put it this way to you and any other Music Blogs out there that might read this: since Peel came along, I rarely read Music Blogs anymore. Stereogum is one of the few that I skim through and actually read if a article sounds good. A lot of the others, I just let Peel download what is posted and rarely open their site.
In that sense, if it isn't a mp3, Peel doesn't download it and I don't listen to it. All of my Blog music listening is done at a later date and I don't have time to stay at your site and listen to streams.
Score = 0
i like your music posts better than 'anxious celebrity muzzles recreational activity boastfully' posts, so anyway you can do more music posts is ok by me.
Score = 0
Dear record labels (c/o Stereogum)
You can only allow streaming, but it's very easy to get that music file. Or download it from another blog. Or file sharing or torrent. At least allow the mp3 to be somewhere that people can find links to bands websites, products, and comments by writers who want to promote, and somewhere that it will get attention. Mp3s are your friends.
Score = 0
MP3 please! I never listen to the streams, but I download all the MP3 tracks for listening at a later date. Streams are inconvenient and I'd prefer that Stereogum take a stance so that record companies see what we consumers prefer. As many have noted, streams can be ripped anyway, so what's the difference to the record company??
Score = 0