Let me listen to it: Are music exclusives turning us back to torrenting?

Beyonce’s album is still not available on Spotify. It’s been 6 months. No-one disputes that artists should be allowed to release their music where they want, but they have to realise that if they don’t release music everywhere, then we’ll acquire it via other means. We speak to Spotify users about whether they’ve started torrenting albums yet

The party season is almost upon us, but if you want to elevate your party from ‘just a few family and friends’ to Project X, then you need to start choosing music now. But if you’re going to be DJ-ing a party that closes out 2016, or if you can see a situation arising where your playlists are going to have to go toe to toe with other partygoers, then you might also want to think about getting together an Excel spreadsheet of what music is available on what streaming service.

Image courtesy of Beyonce.com. Above: image courtesy of arvzdix / Shutterstock.com

Image courtesy of Beyonce.com. Above: image courtesy of arvzdix / Shutterstock.com

If you’re planning on playing Beyonce’s Lemonade then you’ll need Tidal; if you want to listen to Taylor Swift then you better have access to Apple Music; but if you’re thinking about listening to anything from Prince’s back catalogue then it’s back to Tidal.

Like many people, I’ve listened to all of these artists, but I’ve not subscribed to separate providers or had to open up separate apps to do it. I’ve taken advantage of alternative resources described by Spotify’s global head of creator services, Troy Carter, who said, in an interview with Billboard, “limiting access to music only incentivises fans to seek it out on pirate sites or YouTube, where it generates less revenue”.

To find out whether exclusive albums offered by Tidal and Apple Music are pushing people back to torrenting, we asked Reddit’s /r/spotify/ group what they think.

The situation was probably best summed up by JeffZorzz, who said: “Every artist knows the cowboy laws of the internet. If you’re going exclusive you know you’re missing out [because people will be] torrenting your shit. Perhaps their exclusive contract offers a great deal, but still it’s ignorant to act otherwise.” Well said, JeffZorzz. Well said.

Are Tidal and Apple right to keep music exclusive?

Since Jay Z purchased Tidal in 2015, I haven’t been the only person to ask: if a record’s only available on Tidal and no-one’s around to hear it, does it still make a sound? Any popularity that Tidal has is pretty much down to exclusive albums. So, what was initially proposed as an artist-owned streaming platform, is essentially maintained by a cabal of some of the music industry’s biggest players.

Tidal has around 4 million subscribers – compared to Spotify’s almost 40 million and Apple Music’s 17 million – and the fact that the service has a mild surge in popularity every time a massive album drops is fooling no-one.

Spotify, Apple Music and Tidal will all be in bidding wars for the best of the best

But some redditors think Tidal’s strategy is justified and here to stay. Alexei_Kovalev_GOAT says: “When TLOP (The Life of Pablo) came out look at how many people signed up for Tidal. Even if most of them quit after the free trial, it was enough to get people to realise that this is a legitimate way to release albums going forward.

“The future of music, at least for the foreseeable future, will be to see which streaming platform big-time artists will use to drop their album ‘exclusively’. Spotify, Apple Music and Tidal will all be in bidding wars for the best of the best. They’re all going to offer exclusives to reel people in.”

There were rumours that Apple Music was considering purchasing Tidal in order to secure the service’s close relationship with a number of high-profile artists. But this would be such a lazy tactic by Apple. Why can’t they improve the service they offer, rather than just putting content behind a paywall? Apple exclusives don’t make up for a shoddy app and the inability to share music with peers.

“I’ve been a Spotify premium user for a few years now,” says kermagod. “When Apple Music had some exclusives I wanted to listen to I signed up for a free trial. I paid for about 3 or 4 months after my trial expired, but the Android app was awful so I cancelled. Plus, I didn’t need to pay for two music subscriptions. Now my stance is if it’s not on Spotify I won’t listen. I haven’t heard the latest Beyonce album.”

Think of the artists

The reason for writing this article isn’t just because I’m a disgruntled fan who can’t get hold of Beyonce’s latest record. Pushing people back to torrenting isn’t good for artists either.

record-ssIn August, Lucian Grainge, CEO of Universal Music Group, sent out a directive that appeared to order the company’s labels to stop the practice of making “exclusive” distribution deals with streaming services to discourage artists from “enter[ing] the marketplace with one hand tied behind your back”.

According to Bob Lefsetz, author of influential music industry newsletter Lefsetz Letter, Grainge said: “Most people don’t give a crap about the new Frank Ocean album. We’ve got an industry that promotes marginal products that appeal to few and makes them unavailable to most people? That’s hysterical!”

Grainge’s reservations probably have something to do with the fact that music labels could become obsolete if artists like Frank Ocean can engage directly with streaming services. But Reddit’s users agree that as well as not being good for music fans, online exclusivity deals are no good for artists, and lead people to use torrent sites.

We’ve got an industry that promotes marginal products that appeal to few and makes them unavailable to most people? That’s hysterical!

“If artists want to act like hobos and sell their albums out of the trunk of their cars then more power to them. However if they want to give their fans a wide swath of streaming options then it is only going to be beneficial to their exposure,” says Third_Planet.

“Musicians can do as they please as it is their intellectual property. However, as a consumer, I don’t listen to artists not available on Spotify and I go out of my way to avoid listening to, promoting or caring about artists wrapped up in exclusivity deals,” says LifeinParalysis. “If I really love an artist, I will support them by buying an album and merchandise, but I won’t subscribe to multiple streaming services.”

“I agree artists should be able to make their music available wherever they want. I haven’t had an issue in the past with an album not being available except for one time, which was for Frank Ocean’s new album. It was hyped, yet it wasn’t available on Spotify, so I will admit I torrented it,” says BlackSapper.

Buying music

While some people have been pushed back into torrenting thanks to the increasing number of exclusive album deals, other have chosen to go old-school and just buy records that aren’t available to stream. And by ‘buy records’ I mean that they purchase digital tracks rather than actually going to a store and picking up a record. Because, let’s face it, no-one does that anymore.

Most of the time I won’t listen to it if it’s not on Spotify

“Most of the time I won’t listen to it if it’s not on Spotify. That said there’s only ever been one artist’s album not on Spotify that I’ve been bothered about. In that case I actually purchased the album because I’m a big fan of the band,” says Junglebreath.

“When, say one streaming service has one exclusive album you really want, you might as well buy the album rather than spend a single monthly fee for the service. The cost evens out at around $10 anyway,” says LILMACDEMON.

Not everyone is burdened by their own integrity and feels compelled to buy music rather than torrent it. Nielsen revealed in its Mid-Year Music Report that purchasing digital tracks is down 24%, while purchasing digital albums is down 18% compared to 2015.

ftr_1611_feature-footerBut despite the drop in numbers, people aren’t listening to less music, so they will find another way, and if you’re keeping your music off the most popular streaming site then expect it to get stolen. A lot. Beyonce’s Lemonade topped the torrenting charts, as well as the actual charts, when it was released in April. If artists continue to put limits on their music’s availability then don’t expect that to be the last time it happens.

Only 6% of space enthusiasts would like to live in the first low-Earth orbit settlements

A new survey has found that only 6% of respondents would be happy to live in a proposed Equatorial Low Earth Orbit (ELEO) settlement, where humans live in a small cruise ship-like space station at a similar orbit to the ISS.

Four conditions were set for respondents to assess and while at least 30% said they agree with at least one of them, the number shrank significantly when it came to those who could accept all the conditions.

These were that the settlement itself would require permanent residence, would be no bigger than a large cruise ship, would contain no more than 500 people and would require residents to be willing to devote at least 75% of their wealth to move in.

The example settlement used in the survey is Kalpana Two, pictured, a conceptual cylindrical space habitat visualised by Brian Versteeg. Measuring 110 m x 110m it would rotate to provide simulated gravity on the “ground” and zero-gravity near the cylinder’s core where occupants can ‘fly’, and would be capable of housing 500 – 1,000 people

The study, conducted by researchers from San Jose State University (SJSU) and the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) sought to assess the desirability of such a settlement. Previous similar studies had suggested early space settlements would need to be significantly smaller than believed, and located far closer to Earth.

The research was conducted via an Internet survey made available to the public between 8 January 2016 and 17 June 2016. The survey, using Qualtrics software, received 1,075 responses and was distributed via an email list, social media and spac- related organisations. It should therefore be noted that the respondents are not representative of the general population: 95% actually identified as space enthusiasts.

“95% of respondents were self-described space enthusiasts and 81% were male. 70% were from North America and 20% from Europe,” the study authors Al Globus, from SJSU, and Tom Marotta, from AST, wrote in the research paper.

“This is not surprising as the authors made no attempt to select a random sample of any particular group, but rather to simply distribute the survey as widely as we could.”

Kalpana Two, the conceptual space station the survey was based on. Images courtesy of Brian Versteeg

The paper itself is rather enthusiastic about the 6% figure, pointing out that while it is a low percentage of those who responded, if considering it 6% of those who globally identify as “space enthusiasts” there are likely more than enough to fill these early settlements.  The authors also acknowledge that such a number is not all that surprising given the demands of the move.

However, while the enthusiasm and optimism is laudable, it’s worth noting that those principally willing to give up the most were small in number and tended to fall on the wealthier spectrum. So while the possibility of the project exists, it seems that, as with all commercial space projects so far, it would principally have to cater to the rich.

Moreover, when responding to the main attraction of life in space, “the most common remark was simply that it was ‘in space’ not any particular characteristic of living in space”. There seems in the responses to be a certain enthusiasm that may not hold up in the actual moment of decision.

The fact that people like the idea of living in space is no surprise; the survey however does little to assuage the realities of the situation. Enthusiasm is promising, however the main result of this survey seems to be that blind optimism is only truly backed up by vast amounts of money.

Life expectancy to break the 90-year barrier by 2030

New research has revealed that the average life expectancy is set to increase in many countries by 2030 and, in South Korea specifically, will improve so much as to exceed an average of 90 years. The study analysed long-term data on mortality and longevity trends to predict how life expectancy will change from now until 2030.

The study was led by scientists from Imperial College London in collaboration with the World Health Organization. Looking at 35 industrialised nations, the team highlighted South Korea as a peak for life expectancy; predicting expectancy from birth, they estimate that a baby girl born in South Korea in 2030 will expect to live 90.8 years, while men are expected to live to be 84.1 years.

Scientists once thought an average life expectancy of over 90 was impossible, according to Professor Majid Ezzati, lead researcher from the School of Public Health at Imperial College London:

“We repeatedly hear that improvements in human longevity are about to come to an end. Many people used to believe that 90 years is the upper limit for life expectancy, but this research suggests we will break the 90-year barrier,” he said.

“I don’t believe we’re anywhere near the upper limit of life expectancy -if there even is one.”

South Korea leads in life expectancy. Image courtesy of jedydjah. Featured image courtesy of Carey and Kacey Jordan

Ezzati explained that the high expectancy for South Korean lives was likely due to a number of factors including good nutrition in childhood, low blood pressure, low levels of smoking, good access to healthcare, and uptake of new medical knowledge and technologies. It is likely that, by 2030, South Korea will have the highest life expectancy in the world.

Elsewhere, French women and Swiss men are predicted to lead expectancies in Europe, with 88.6 years and nearly 84 years respectively. The UK is expected to average 85.3 years for women (21st in the table of countries studied) and 82.5 years for men (14th in the table).

The study included both high-income countries and emerging economies. Among the high-income countries, the US was found to have the lowest predicted life expectancy at birth. Averaging similar to Croatia and Mexico, the researchers suggested this was due to a number of factors including a lack of universal healthcare, as well as the highest child and maternal mortality rate, homicide rate and obesity among high-income countries.

A lack of universal healthcare is one of the reasons the US trails behind in life expectancy. Image courtesy of HSeverson

Notably, the research also suggests that the life expectancy gap between men and women is closing and that a large factor in increasing expectancy is due in no small part to older sections of the population living longer than before.

Such increased longevity is not without issue, however, as countries may not be prepared to support an ageing population.

“The fact that we will continue to live longer means we need to think about strengthening the health and social care systems to support an ageing population with multiple health needs,” added Ezzati.

“This is the opposite of what is being done in the era of austerity. We also need to think about whether current pension systems will support us, or if we need to consider working into later life.”