independent music streaming site - any precedents?

[wearashirt]

I've been having strong ideas and feelings about establishing an independent music streaming site. This site would be the flagship weblink that I would use to promote my music in lieu of the usual spotify / apple music.

The music would be a combination of pop, jazz, and work-mood ambient music using a classical background.

As with any business, it would have an brand, and appeal, a differentiating proposal and what not. Revenue might come from offices that would want to subscribe the office to a "healthier" pool of music, whilst blocking bandwidth heavy sites like YT. They can also pipe in their announcements in the programming. Other revenue sources can be ability to do offline downloads. Anyway, these are just IDEAS.

But anyway my questions is, is there a precedent of such an independent music streaming website? I've been looking high and low and no one seems to be doing it. Any thoughts would be welcome, or how this would faceplant hard on the pavement of streaming giants.

[wearashirt]

Like, if Spotify is the Walmart, then so called "indie music streaming site" is the organic grocery

And other groups can follow suit and make their own companies. Make music that sort of what people look for in Spotify (common vibes, common genres), and also make music for reasons that people shop in organic grocery stores. AND, perhaps the bread and butter of such a website, is the work-mood music.

But aside from utiitarian music, ultimately fill an emotional gap that Spotify just cannot fulfill in people.

[Kwackman]

Could Bandcamp or Soundcloud be used instead?

[Drew Stephenson]

I suspect the challenge is really one of catalogue.
If I want a collection of pop / jazz / ambient stuff, I can just go onto spotify / deezer etc and find an appropriate playlist.
Whilst still having access to everything else.
I'm not sure why I'd pay to reduce my choice?

[wearashirt]

That's a question of value proposition, I can give a few:

1. Appeal to local-ism (e.g., again with the organic grocery)
2. Promise of editorialization
3. Appeal to sticking it to the big man

As a response to what you said, I would feel exactly the same, as my interests span the gamut with the exception of hiphop and drum n' bass. But at some point, the streaming sites just aren't doing what radio used to do, or walking into a vinyl record store does today - some sort of personal, serendipitous discovery. I use Apple Music, and I haven't opened the app in a while, really.

The website im talking about, would be the "serendipitous discovery" itself - and music inside would just be a bonus. Sort of ike Accuradio and Pandora. It would be like finding new love (lol).

(im thinking parallel music versions if onboard artists would still want to be present on streaming, whose aggregators have digital exclusivity for a specific digital asset).

[Drew Stephenson]

OK, but isn't that basically the model of local radio and the plethora of internet radio stations?

[wearashirt]

OK, but isn't that basically the model of local radio and the plethora of internet radio stations?

Yes, that's probably accurate. But this is more bespoke, and listeners would have a better grasp of what they're getting into, or whose music their getting (i.e., in house writers and composers will not be more than 50 people). This local-ity would be part of the appeal and selling point.

It's like how Spotify started, which I think they deliberately made available a lot of broadway soundtracks on their platform. So at the outset, people thought spotify was for broadway musicals.

In this manneer, such a music website would also have a specific connotation, a defined meñu.

And there can be many other kinds of websites, from different companies, or from the same company, but giving a different packaging and branding, different URL.

This polarizes the everything-in-one-place like Spotify (or Walmart).

[RichardT]

That's a question of value proposition, I can give a few:

1. Appeal to local-ism (e.g., again with the organic grocery)
2. Promise of editorialization
3. Appeal to sticking it to the big man

As a response to what you said, I would feel exactly the same, as my interests span the gamut with the exception of hiphop and drum n' bass. But at some point, the streaming sites just aren't doing what radio used to do, or walking into a vinyl record store does today - some sort of personal, serendipitous discovery. I use Apple Music, and I haven't opened the app in a while, really.

The website im talking about, would be the "serendipitous discovery" itself - and music inside would just be a bonus. Sort of ike Accuradio and Pandora. It would be like finding new love (lol).

(im thinking parallel music versions if onboard artists would still want to be present on streaming, whose aggregators have digital exclusivity for a specific digital asset).

I find Tidal is pretty good at suggesting new material for me.

I don't know whether your idea would work, but I would say that you will need a shed load of money to build and run it and generate content. Before you go any further, I would do some serious planning of the financials to see what you’re up against. Then I would research your potential customer base and income stream. I strongly suspect that you won’t be able to make it viable.

[S.Crow]

Spotify loses money as does Tidal I think.
Apple, Google and Amazon can afford to subsidise their streaming services.
The pricing model means that music is perceived as being cheap and many people just use free services.
I am not at all clear what you are trying to achieve but I think it will be difficult unless you are Elon Musk and like to burn money for laughs.

[Drew Stephenson]

Yep, the licencing side of things will be ruinous unless you stick to unsigned or royalty-free music.

[wearashirt]

Yep, the licencing side of things will be ruinous unless you stick to unsigned or royalty-free music.

All songs and other musical material will be original, and composers will be in-house either employed full time or given some sort of retainer.

Music as cheap is indeed the economic keyword, and is where all people involved need to be cognizant of. Only then will the company and the few of its associated artists will hopefully rise up.

[wearashirt]

Spotify loses money as does Tidal I think.
Apple, Google and Amazon can afford to subsidise their streaming services.
The pricing model means that music is perceived as being cheap and many people just use free services.
I am not at all clear what you are trying to achieve but I think it will be difficult unless you are Elon Musk and like to burn money for laughs.

Subsidy is also a keyword, as it represents an institution paying for something on behalf of lay or rank and file persons.

I'm thinking of presenting the platform as an alternative for companies' digital workspaces, where employees can come together for music - whether work-mood music or perk up music - and also see other relevant company material, such as a co worker's music cover (embedded from Youtube?) or radio-style announcement from top management. This would be an alternative to everyone tuning away on their individual social media feeds and instead create a novel digital stage that can bond workplaces or communities. This way, someone can subsidize and the website can have revenue. This is a LONGSHOT lol.

Quite literally, it will be a light and fast music streaming website with novel services that on the backend aims to provide an customers for a narrow pool of artists and on the frontend creates a novel music experience in localities whose needs are profoundly unmet by traditional streaming.

Kind of like how Lark is an integration of various, already-existing tools. It's just that they put it together. Of course yes, they had a lot of cash to spare.

[wearashirt]

As an example, websites of recording studios already do this. They have a "Listen" page or a "discography" page where there's a selection of free-to-play music. Open a website on your phone's browser, then turn the screen off or go to Home. The website still plays.

[Drew Stephenson]

Subsidy is also a keyword, as it represents an institution paying for something on behalf of lay or rank and file persons.

I'm thinking of presenting the platform as an alternative for companies' digital workspaces, where employees can come together for music - whether work-mood music or perk up music - and also see other relevant company material, such as a co worker's music cover (embedded from Youtube?) or radio-style announcement from top management.

I've been thinking about this more and I think the bit I'm struggling with is the same one that most musician-led propositions have; which is that most people just don't care that much about music. For most people, most of the time, it's just nice background noise. That's why library music and even muzak exist.
The people who care enough about it will search out their own curated sources, the ones who don't won't care enough to find another platform.

I think, but I have precisely zero company incorporations under my belt so I wouldn't take my advice.

[wearashirt]

Thanks anyway for everyone's shark tank questions!

To answer my own question, there indeed is some precedent, albeit with a old and slow website - of bollywood pop music. Everything's there a click away. Quality is awful though.

I guess this confronts the elephant in the room where majority of the business is electric guitars and effects devices: who are the customers?

I've always been entrepreneurial, and I've been burned before, don't get me wrong. But, these are my ideas so far.