Listeners navigate increasingly digital music industry

With digital sales now dominating, CDs are a thing of the past. The music industry has adapted accordingly, such as Billboard including digital streams in their album charts. Courtesy of Blue Coat Photos/Flickr
With digital sales now dominating, CDs are a thing of the past. The music industry has adapted accordingly, such as Billboard including digital streams in their album charts. Courtesy of Blue Coat Photos/Flickr
With digital sales now dominating, CDs are a thing of the past. The music industry has adapted accordingly, such as Billboard including digital streams in their album charts. Courtesy of Blue Coat Photos/Flickr

In 2016, the easiest way to listen to a newly re­leased album is on your phone. With stream­ing services such as Apple Music, Spotify and Tidal providing access to thousands of artists in mere seconds, you have to question whether CDs will be prevalent in the near future.

Digital sales eclipsed CDs for the first time in 2014 and the number has only grown since then. With more and more artists each year re­lying on exclusively streamed albums for their income, I believe that this market will reduce CDs to vintage collectibles that your parents once cherished.

Billboard announced in 2014 that it would re­vamp its album charts to include digital streams, providing a more comprehensive method of al­bum sales. This change has resulted in Rihan­na’s latest album, “Anti,” becoming RIAA certi­fied platinum, which indicates that the record has sold one million copies, without a single physical sale. Chance the Rapper’s third mix­tape, “Coloring Book,” was released exclusively on Apple Music and was streamed over 57 mil­lion times in one week. This equated to 37,000 album sales and a debut at No. 8 on the Billboard 200. Digital streaming being counted in album sales is truly changing the game in the music in­dustry, and I believe for the better.

While digital albums have been overall suc­cessful, they have brought about questions about exclusive streaming, paying artists and the cost to consumers. 2016 has been the year of exclusive streaming, as artists such as Kanye West, Beyoncé and Frank Ocean utilized this method when they released their respective works. Kanye West was the strongest advocate of this. As a shareholder in the streaming site Tidal, the controversial rapper vowed never to release “The Life of Pablo” on iTunes. Howev­er, the record appeared on iTunes and Spotify about a month after its release.

Exclusive streaming allows a service the sole ability to release an album. Music streaming is an enormous business with over 100 million people using platforms such as Spotify and iTunes. More than one million people created accounts on Tidal when Beyoncé exclusive­ly streamed “Lemonade” on the network for a week. Exclusives can be either a certain amount of time such as 24 hours or hold the streaming rights of an album indefinitely. This has created battles between artists and streaming compa­nies and this may not be benefiting fans.

Exclusive streaming means that fans will need to continue to pay a certain amount a month to use a particular platform to listen to an artist. So if you wanted to be the first to lis­ten to “Blonde,” Ocean’s exclusive album, you need Apple Music. If you wanted “Lemonade” or “The Life of Pablo,” you went with Tidal. Even the video streaming site YouTube has cre­ated a form of streaming in an attempt to get in on the action. A poll conducted by The Verge found that a majority of fans find that exclusive streaming hinders their listening experience.

Spotify does not take part in exclusives but appears to blacklist artists that use it on other platforms. When “Blonde” was put on Spotify after its exclusive deal with Apple Music was completed, you could not find the album unless it was specifically searched for. It did not appear on the new music charts or pop up when listen­ing to similar music. This manipulation is only further hindering fans from finding artists and listening to newly released music.

This streaming war arose out of companies such as Spotify paying artist dismal amounts of money every time their records were streamed. Tidal was formed by artists such as Jay-Z, Chris Martin and Rihanna to give artists a fair share of their earnings. While Tidal is more expensive than Spotify and Apple Music, I understand that it is important that artists are able to make a liv­ing, and paying to stream music is a cheaper and easier method of listening to music than buying CDs.

With all of these platforms on the internet, why are people still releasing music on CDs? Many have argued that it is easier for new bands to release music using this method due to the inexpensive cost and distribution. CDs cost about a dollar each to produce and you can even hand them out to strangers on the street if you are that desperate for attention. Listeners also reference nostalgia and better listening quality on CDs. Western ideals about ownership drive people to want to physically possess what they are listening to rather than pay a fixed price ev­ery month to continue to have the same access.

In contrast, the competitiveness of digital streaming results in newer artists becoming lost in the sea of search engines and genres. Thus, while they are not as popular as it used to, CDs still provide a substantial method for listening to new music and they are helpful for those long car rides if you don’t have an aux cord.

Overall, whether streaming companies con­tinue to fight over artists or CDs make a come­back, fans just want to support the artists that they love. I personally have bounced through different platforms and pay for whichever one is offering the best deal. It doesn’t matter where I am listening but rather whether I can hear my favorite artists through my earbuds.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Miscellany News reserves the right to publish or not publish any comment submitted for approval on our website. Factors that could cause a comment to be rejected include, but are not limited to, personal attacks, inappropriate language, statements or points unrelated to the article, and unfounded or baseless claims. Additionally, The Misc reserves the right to reject any comment that exceeds 250 words in length. There is no guarantee that a comment will be published, and one week after the article’s release, it is less likely that your comment will be accepted. Any questions or concerns regarding our comments section can be directed to