AND all that’s beside the point since Daniel above - also in the U.S. - is able to play the first two tracks while I, also in the U.S. am NOT. Reliably NOT able to play them. What gives?
I don’t have a US account.
When Kate Bush’s remastered back catalogue was launched in 24/44.1 a few months ago, you could only get samples on Qobuz here in UK. Otherwise, you could choose to stream the ‘old’ versions of her work in 16/44.1.
To get the 24/44.1 remasters, you had to buy them. I did so, knowing full-well that that they were ‘worth it’ IMO, having listened to the samples. I also gained some reassurance that Ms. Bush would hopefully be receiving a bit of cash at the end of that month from my purchases. She deserves it, for all the hard-work she’s put-in over the years, and for all the pleasure she’s brought listeners.
Sometimes, you have to pay for what you want. There’s no such thing as a ‘free lunch’. And think of the artists.
With Qobuz here in the UK, I can stream all DG releases in 24/96, right from their release date. I’m not complaining one little bit. Why are you?
The issue here is that some albums on the Qobuz service are incomplete, and there are no alternative complete versions available. The only way to get the complete version is to buy the download. So it is not possible to stream all releases…
Now, some might consider this a bit “bait and switch”, whilst others (e.g. me) will find it annoying. I don’t mind purchasing albums, but I do somewhat resent being forced to.
Some labels here in UK decided to do the same with their Qobuz streams.
I think BIS did the same there in UK until recently. And I think Pentatone still do this?
I see it as a way to give the consumer a ‘flavour’, before they may decide to buy. As I’ve said before, these artists need supporting!
I just spent a few quid on Hyperion’s own website buying and downloading some of Stephen Hough’s back-catalogue in FLAC, which isn’t available at all on Qobuz.
Am I peeved? Not really. I know that my purchases will keep the artist and the label ‘afloat’. And anyway, to pay a few quid to hear who is arguably one of the greatest pianists of my generation is an absolute bargain IMO.
Allow me to try to make this clear. There are those of us who have large libraries of files but were hoping to go to a streaming model. It makes alot of sense for a variety of different reasons for both consumers as artists as well. Qobuz pitches itself as a possible replacement for buying physical media and downloaded files stored locally. They base their rather considerably fees which recur in perpetuity as payment for making that possible with an admittedly huge database. So I suppose if you’re “grateful” for being directed to one movement of a symphony as a way screen that recording for possible purchase that’s valid FOR YOU, but that’s not what I thought I was buying with Qobuz. Rather I thought I was buying a service that would at least largely be the “end” of buying physical media and downloaded files stored locally. I didn’t know I was buying teaser files that would waste my time when I’m trying to find what I’ve already PURCHASED from Qobuz. I NEVER want to listen to only one movement of a symphony so I would rather not be misdirected to “samples” when I’m searching for real music. If the “samples” were segregated that would be one thing. But they’re not. If I could filter them out altogether I would. But I have to click on the album and display the tracks before I have ANY idea that that album is in fact not available on Qobuz. So its a problem…right now its not enough of a problem that it obliterates all that is right and good about Qobuz but it IS a nuisance and a time waster if you’re attempting to use the service the way its pitched i.e. as a replacement for physical media and files stored locally.
Paul, I sympathise, but there’s also the issue that licensing is never guaranteed in perpetuity, so all the streaming services will have catalogues that are fluid over time - releases come and go in an arbitrary fashion. The only way to put a stake in the ground is to buy those albums that you really can’t do without…
I don’t think Qobuz was ever pitched as such a thing. It’s a streaming service, with an option to buy downloads.
Qobuz has ‘holes’. Tidal also has ‘holes’. I know it’s not ideal, but it is what it is.
If you want a comprehensive service, without many holes, then I understand Apple Music is good, but Iimited to AAC 256kbs.
Martin I totally disagree. You don’t even need a subscription to buy from the Qobuz download store and in that sense its a separate product altogether (yes I’m aware of the discount for purchases with the sublime plus plan. The most important point I can make is that I find it annoying that I’m directed to “parts” of symphonies that I have to purchase to hear and that these albums are not marked in any special way…I have to click on the album, scroll and reveal the tracks before I know that oops, oh well you can listen to movement 3 of this work but SORRY this album isn’t really available to you. End of story. I don’t mean to say that I’ve seen specific advertising from the company regarding a local media-free model …but its generally been the vague and not so vague “promise” of the world of streaming that you would eliminate at some point in the future the headaches associated with local file manipulation, multiple players, servers, storage, renderers and backups etc, for a more user friendly “rental” experience…one in which you never again have to worry about backing up multi-terabyte databases of files. Of course the actual content would vary from year to year however in the world of classical music the real landmark performances would usually be more or less permanent…not guaranteed to be permanent, but in practice perhaps more permanent than you realize. All you have to do is look at a typical symphony and you’ll find perhaps a hundred or more versions some going back 20 years or more because older versions have landmark status and have remained in the database. I fully understand that if you have one version you absolutely have to have you can own it but I also see the point in waiting until that version disappears from streaming to purchase it. Don’t misunderstand me I’m happy with Qobuz in many ways. But the little “surprises” of albums that just teasers I find extremely annoying.
Streaming is hideous for artists. If you care about artists then buy the music, preferably at their concert or website. On the other hand, streaming is too good of and probably unsustainable deal for the customer.
The truly expensive streaming plan is mainly based around the savings generated by the high resolution purchase discount .
I have never seen it pitched this way. I just re-read their entire website and FAQ and did not read anything like that claim. If you have a link, I’d be curious to read it.
But, either way, no streaming service is ever a replacement for owning your own music. For example:
artists/albums can go out of licensing and disappear without notification, or, albums can change versions without the option to listen to the previous version.
So really, Geoff said it best. If you care about listening to something specific, buy it.
Based on what I’ve read the revenue model needs to be fixed but streaming has definitely expanded interest in classical recordings as no other development has. And in one sense that’s necessary…before a sustainable revenue model can be developed there has to be demand. In classical that genre was all but given up for dead and for the first times in ages it seems to be recovering and streaming seems to have largely been the catalyst. As I mentioned I’m only really concerned with classical. I’m not a snob about it but I grew up playing violin having begun on a quarter size instrument when I was 7 and continued up to my college years. I don’t play professionally but I do think the revenue from recordings issue is different for classical musicians because I assume most of their income come from salaried positions in major orchestra. And OF COURSE streaming can be a replacement for owning hard drives full of files if you want it to be. You just have to live with the limitations and annoyances. Actually you may just be trading one set of annoyances for just a slightly different set. There is a huge imminently workable library of classical on Qobuz that goes way beyond even a basic or intermediate collection.
None of which answers the question of why Daniel can access the entire recording but neither Geoff nor I am able to access it. Now Daniel is in the US but his subscription is based outside the US (I assume the UK and a vpn was involved). Geoff is in the Netherlands but he sees exactly what I see. As for me, I’m in the same boat as Daniel having begun a subscription with an address in the UK on the account through which I access via a VPN. It would just be nice to know why these various results come up. We don’t seem to know whether this is built into the system because of Geographic concerns ie licensing OR is it simply that you have to buy the album to hear the album OR is it simply a malfunction. That last options certainly seems to be a possibility on those occasions when a track will play in Qobuz’ own app but somehow shows up as unavailable in Roon, yet another frustrating occurrence. I raise these issues because I like the service but I want the service to work reliably and predictably and I’d rather not waste my time being directed to tracks that aren’t available for streaming.
This is a quote from an article about the disadvantages of streaming in Gramophone. It is just not possible for a small, specialist classical label to survive on the tiny amount of money they receive from each stream.
“Such inherent disadvantages hit independent labels such as Hyperion Records, Delphian Records and Gimell particularly hard because they are still operating a traditional funding model whereby they largely foot the bill for the recordings they make. A recording can cost them anything between £10,000 and £40,000 to produce, so in order to stay afloat and keep making new recordings they need a steady stream of upfront, substantial income. This currently comes through a combination of new releases and back-catalogue sales. However, if customers were to suddenly stop buying and start streaming – a drip-by-drip economic model reliant both on huge volume, and on continued listening over a prolonged time period – the impact on these labels’ economics would be catastrophic.
Take the example of Hyperion Records, who have decided not to make themselves available on any on-demand streaming platforms. In 2013 a well-reviewed Baroque vocal album cost them £36k to make. During 2013, this album earned £10,847 through 2,104 CD sales and £2,152 through 444 download sales. However, 34,947 streaming events on iTunes Radio earned just £22.13. Not good, even within the context of iTunes Radio paying out less than a subscription service.
Next up, Gimell Records, whose recordings have been widely streamed. They also analysed their income for us and, looking at the six-month period ending in June 2015, they calculated that in order to generate the same revenue for their label as a single-track download from iTunes, a track would need to be streamed approximately 100 times by a Spotify subscriber, 700 times on the Spotify free service, and 825 times on YouTube. Gimell have just removed their music from Spotify, and are in the process of removing many of their recordings from YouTube.”
This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.