The Future of Music? (Interdisciplinary Issue Analysis)

Music has evolved substantially over the years as well as the means in which we acquire it. Originally music was created and performed at live shows. Then as convenience was proven to be a commodity the nifty fifties introduced vinyl records. Following this huge jump, cassette tapes were popularized in the seventies followed by the compact discs of the nineties. After the music industry seemed to reach its ceiling distributing music with the CD, the digital age headed by the newly developed internet reinvented how consumers could enjoy music. Apple created the iTunes store in 2003 in which albums and individual songs could be purchased and stored in one's own personal digital library. Along with utilizing the internet for music also came the parasite that is piracy. This monstrosity deprived music labels, artists and songwriters of their monetary dues. The only way to solve this issue was to create something that is more convenient than piracy which leads us into our current state of streaming music. Legal streaming of music has been pioneered by giants such as Youtube, Pandora and Spotify in their own respective ways; symbolizing, what seems to be the end, of purchasing music via download. It is important for any fan of music to be aware of the current state of music and if this new form of streaming is sustainable. To better comprehend how the future landscape of streaming music will pan out, I will be analyzing how a technological disciplinary stance views streaming as revolutionary through Spotify's innovative services compared to an economic disciplinary stance which considers two different business models to weigh the benefits of streaming.

(Spotify developed their own unique streaming service that is not web-based
and includes complex features to make it efficient)

Within this paper I will be evaluating two different scholarly papers that address the current and future state of accessing music. The first article is entitled “Spotify – Large Scale, Low Latency, P2P Music-on-Demand Streaming” was written by Gunnar Kreitz and Fredrik Niemelä and tackles this topic from a technological discipline. The second article identifies as an economic discipline entitled “An Economic Analysis of Online Streaming Music Services” and was written by Tim Paul Thomes. These two papers address the same topic yet they use different methods and reach the same outcome. To understand how they came to the same conclusion, the paths they took that led to their conclusions must be evaluated.

Addressing the technological article first, rhetorical devices are used to distinguish the idea that Spotify has advanced the process of streaming music. It is clear that this article is in fact scholarly because it addresses a particular group of people with a background in technology such as programming and uses discipline specific jargon. There are voluminous amounts of technology-based units of measure for example: MB and GB (storage), q5 and q9 (quality), kbps (bitrate), etc. The use of these measurements are important to the content of the article to demonstrate how Spotify’s streaming service exceeds the specs of many other services. The article breaks down the streaming service Spotify has developed into steps that are in depth such as “Playback Latency and Stutter” and in turn very precise when further elaborated technologically. Because there are so many steps covered and from a certain disciplinary view, the reader gets a very accurate insight to what the author sees in the topic addressed. In this case the author sees various categories that are involved in streaming music and compares them to previous developments to illuminate the advancements taking place. A very unique way I believe that the author highlights these advancements is by translating the content in the article to graphs that can only be used in the respected field of technology. The graphs display average usage times and system outputs for the times indicated.

(Example of graph used to express usage)

When developing this article the author holds certain aspects at greater value than others and this is how a conclusion is formed. The author clearly has a background in the mechanics of technology and therefore places importance on the capacity of streaming rather than on monetary values such as the case with our economic focused counterpart. Because of this concentration there will be strengths that cater to the author’s discipline and weaknesses that do not compliment this certain expertise. The ability to evaluate smaller pieces of a system and recognize their function in the bigger picture is a strength that this particular discipline possesses. As with any discipline a topic is only evaluated through a specific lens and it is difficult to see the topic from other perspectives. Additional breadth on the future path of streaming music simply cannot be provided by this article. Additionally the article describes a particular system for streaming music and predicts future growth in streaming. Potential road blocks are also proposed, yet the author only lists them and fails to expound upon them. I feel as if this was a weak point for this paper to build up the power of streaming in such great detail and then end the paper on a note that requires further elaboration. This leaves the reader with a hazy idea of the future of streaming music

Now that we have seen a specific stance on this topic, by analyzing the second article “An Economic Analysis of Online Streaming Music Services” we can note differences in perspectives to understand how these two authors reached the same general outcome. The first thing I noticed when reviewing this article is that it too uses a jargon specific to its discipline, which correlates to the first technology article. However in comparison the economic discipline was much easier for the reader to follow, which could be a result of the general population’s familiarity with finances. Furthermore, Thomes employs numerical statistics from credited studies to support his stance such as this excerpt: “In the US, the volume of digital music sales grew from $0.2 billion to $3.1 billion from 2004 to 2009 (see RIAA, 2010).” The article also features words that demonstrate relatability between the author and reader, for instance “obviously” gives the impression that both parties are aware of the issue.

(Example of economic equations used to determine streaming value)

To briefly describe the economic paper, the author proposes two models of streaming; one free with advertising and one with a subscription. The author outlines each model in terms relatable to the economic field, and then proceeds further with tools such as economic functions and equations to back up his proclamations. Comparing the two disciplinary papers, they both have visuals to support their claims however they are different visuals to convey different points. The equations given in this article are clearly specific for viewers of similar background and to simply prove prior calculations have been done to align with his content. Adding to this analytical viewpoint, most of the information given was in the form of cause and effect. The two proposed business models for streaming would be introduced and then various scenarios were given with likely outcomes, for example “ If the nuisance cost of advertising is small such that no flat-rate service is launched, the advertising level can be either too high or too low depending on the number of advertisers in the market.” It can go without saying that the author’s breadth in the field of economy was a strong point in his paper and allowed the topic of music streaming to be seen from different angles. The conclusion by Thomes was ultimately in the favor of streaming music due to the factors of reducing piracy and potential revenue from advertisement. The conclusion was not reached, however, without acknowledging the issue of property right holders not being adequately compensated by streaming services. The dilemma was addressed fairly and outweighed by determining that proper compensation to artists is feasible and discerning that piracy was the bigger issue at hand. I believe a hindrance to this paper was clarity. Yes it was addressed to a specific group, yet with better phrasing the concepts could be grasped by a larger audience.

Different disciplinaries have different values that discuss the same issues. Technology was used to demonstrate how streaming speed, storage capacity and reduced server costs pave the way for the future of streaming music. An economical disciplinary was used to weigh the financial hurdle of royalty payouts with the elimination of music crippling piracy to come to the conclusion that streaming has more upside. They each used tools to back their support of streaming services. The article with a technology focus had a well working knowledge of the intricacies of streaming to evaluate its efficiency as a whole. An economists, as shown here, is cautious to weigh each possible outcome from multiple angles and come to a sensible conclusion. Each discipline utilized visuals to back their claims, one through graphs and the other through financial calculations. With every unique discipline there is a central focus which highlights strengths and also includes weak points in the material overlooked. Technology and Economy were used to address the same topic and they both came to the same conclusion. Each author had different aspects of streaming music that were valuable. Through agreeing on the same outcome it demonstrates how advancements are made in society and the angles that are used to validate these important decisions.

Works Cited

Jarnow, Jesse. "Apple’s ITunes Is Alienating Its Most Music-Obsessed Users." Wired.com. November 17, 2015. Accessed December 4, 2015. http://www.wired.com/2015/11/itunes-alternatives/. 

 Dörr, Jonathan, Thomas Wagner, Alexander Benlian, and Thomas Hess. "Music as a Service as an Alternative to Music Piracy?" Bus Inf Syst Eng Business & Information Systems Engineering 5, no. 6 (2013): 383-96. Accessed December 4, 2015. doi:10.1007/s12599-013-0294-0.

Hong, Seung-Hyun. "Measuring The Effect Of Napster On Recorded Music Sales: Difference-In-Differences Estimates Under Compositional Changes." J. Appl. Econ. Journal of Applied Econometrics 28, no. 2 (2011): 297-324. Accessed December 4, 2015. doi:10.1002/jae.1269.

Kreitz, G., and F. Niemela. "Spotify -- Large Scale, Low Latency, P2P Music-on-Demand Streaming." 2010 IEEE Tenth International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2P), 2010, 1-10. Accessed December 3, 2015. doi:10.1109/P2P.2010.5569963.

Seabrook, John. "Spotify: Friend or Foe? - The New Yorker." The New Yorker. November 24, 2014. Accessed December 4, 2015. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/24/revenue-streams.

Thomes, Tim Paul. "An Economic Analysis of Online Streaming Music Services." Information Economics and Policy 25, no. 2 (2013): 81-91. Accessed December 4, 2015. doi:10.1016/j.infoecopol.2013.04.001.

Wang, Ye, Ali Ahmaniemi, David Isherwood, and Wendong Huang. "Content-based UEP." Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM International Conference on Multimedia - MULTIMEDIA '03, 2003, 412-21. Accessed December 4, 2015. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/957013.957099.

Weijters, Bert, Frank Goedertier, and Sofie Verstreken. "Online Music Consumption in Today’s Technological Context: Putting the Influence of Ethics in Perspective." J Bus Ethics Journal of Business Ethics 124, no. 4 (2013): 537-50. Accessed December 4, 2015. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1892-y.