A little while back we wrote an article about the so called “music like water” debate. The idea behind “music like water” is that instead of paying a per unit price to purchase music, listeners instead pay a fixed price to stream music from an existing library. For some, this set up signals the future of the music consumption. For some, the reinstatement or a centralised distribution/consumption oligopoly.  However, these fears should be allayed, for there are some great streaming services now on the market, such as Spotify, Last FM , Deezer, Lala, Napster which are determined to keep their library open and diverse.

From a listener perspective, streaming services have some distinct up-sides. Subscription based services generally allow streaming of unlimited amounts of music until the subscription expires – this makes the music they listen to “feel free” even though the artists are earning money from their music. Advertising based services work in the same way, though you might have to put up with advertising in between songs or some banners here and there. This “feeling free” aspect is quite in tune with how many listeners would prefer to engage with music, and may well dissuade them from not paying for their music – which is great for artists. Though pay out structures vary between services, artists usually receive money based on the percentage of times their music has been played relative to total plays.

Streaming services provide a viable option to those who would like to listen to music for a fixed cost or don’t mind advertising. Streaming services which are similar to radio in that they decide what track comes next (e.g. Last FM) lend themselves well to music discovery, whereas click-to-play services (e.g. Spotify), allow people to chose exactly which track they want to play. All in all, providing the mechanism is in place to make sure artists receive their share from the revenues, and that streaming libraries remain open and accessible, streaming services provide a good balance to the per-unit structure many of us are accustomed to.

Should we pay for music in the same way that we pay for water? This is a question which is being debated by the music industry at the moment. The idea is that everyone should pay a kind of flat tax to music providers which will enable listeners to stream as much music as they please from their library. No longer a product, music will be sold as a service. There seem to be many merits with such an approach: all the music we can listen to for a flat fee, a proportionate distribution of revenue between artists, a way to overcome the DRM controversy, and a solid revenue base for the music industry. To see points in favour of such a system, this article by Gerd Leonhard is recommended, as is David Kusek´s article in Forbes.

However, there are still a few points to consider before being too enthusiastic about such a structure. Firstly, one could wonder where independent music would feature in such an environment. Andrew Dubber of New Music Strategies makes the observation in a very informative interview with MyMusic.dk, that this kind of broadcasting structure could result in a “globalised music administrative bureaucracy”. In this view, “the purpose of the flat fee ‘music-like-water’ system would be to reinforce, rather than eradicate, the current power structures of existing labels and media outlets” (ibid). Rather than going beyond the decentralised distribution environment which has dampened the controlling influence of centralised distribution conglomerates, this view has the potential of reinstating their power over the market. It would make the market harder for independent and unsigned artists to enter.

A major factor which will affect the outcome of this debate is no doubt consumer behaviour. Because the traditional supply chain between the producer and consumer has essentially been broken, how we consume music is still a very open question. At the moment, enforcing DRM encoding seems increasingly futile, and many people have got used to not paying for the music they listen to. The “music like water” system would compliment this, as music would in many ways feel free. Then again, some like  the feeling of purchasing a single track or album; it is in some ways a more personalised contact between listener and artist. The listener pays the artist because their music has a positive effect on them. And now that there is less distance between artist and fan (one does not need a Record Label to sell music), one can be sure that this money reaches the artist more or less directly. In addition, purchasing a track or album is more versatile.   “Music like water” services will presumably allow you to stream your music from a program as opposed to having the music file yourself; so until there is a single streaming platform on all music devices, audio files will be more versatile. These factors will surely play some role in the final outcome of this debate.

The debate, as you can imagine, is far more complicated than is presented here, but as a musician or fan it is worth having an opinion on this matter, for how the future of music will look will be directly influenced its outcome.