Will streaming services a la Spotify make music "better"?

[Lunkhead]

I read recently an analysis on Spotify and how it's paying out to artists. One upshot was that repeated plays over a long term resulted in artists getting the most payout, more or less. So the potential ramification is that, rather than focusing on making singles that are wildly popular for just a brief introductory period then have little to no replay value, musicians could potentially make more money in the long term by focusing on making songs that listeners will want to keep listening to over and over for years. To me that sounds like making "better" music, because the music I really love is stuff I keep listening to over years.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 3352482930

I was also just reading that digital download music sales are down for the first time, and CD sales are continuing to decline, leaving streaming music as the one growth sector.

http://business.time.com/2014/01/03/spo ... sic-sales/

What do you all think? Will this new world of commercial music wind up channeling the industry's efforts into generating not just disposable hits but also "new classics"?

[jb]

Put in that light, if true, it would seem to raise those artists making music intended for the long term. But then I think of early in Madonna's career and whether she intended those songs for the long term-- and yet we still sing them almost 30 years later.

Also consider the live music angle. That quick fix, popularity contest, "dance hit of the summer" generates a lot of revenue outside of music sales. "Blurred Lines" might have sold a lot of digital copies, but were digital revenues the primary driver of the song's success? Or was it radio play royalties, concert sales, and merchandise? Aimee Mann is going to have a hard time matching a phenomenon like that.

Pretty interesting question.