Over the past few years, we have been hearing the term "subscription" used more and more often. It is a shortened way of saying "subscription. Some Japanese love to shorten words, and once again, they have demonstrated their specialty.
AI Translate translates "subscription" as "I agree to pay in advance to receive or participate in something.
The word "script" means "screenplay. Add the prefix "sub" to it to make "subscript" and it is said to mean "subscript." Since "subs" means "below ~," it is explained as "a letter or symbol written or printed below the line.
The word "subscription" can also mean "application" or "subscription". This is exactly what I am talking about now in this article, "subs" (I will use the shortened form as well).
It may also mean "to sign at the end of a document." To sign or stamp the end of a contract in order to subscribe to some organization or service. This may be the root meaning of the word subscription.
In this article, we use the term subscription to mean "subscription music service" or "subscription video service. It refers to a service in which a certain amount of money is paid in advance over a fixed period of time, either monthly or annually.
Well, today, subscriptions are employed in services offered by a wide variety of companies. For listening to a single piece of music, Apple Music, Spotify, Amazon Music, and others allow you to enjoy a tremendous amount of music for a monthly or yearly payment.
Even the cost is almost free compared to buying albums on vinyl, CD, or download as it used to be. For an expense of about $8 per month, you can listen to music that would take a lifetime to listen to, whenever and wherever you want.
The same is now true for movies and dramas: Netflix, Apple TV+, Hulu, and many other subscription services are available.
However, in the case of films, the production costs are orders of magnitude higher than for music, so for the first few months or so after the film's release, they only allow the purchase of the film for about $25, and after a few months, they charge a rental fee ranging from $4 to $7.
However, there are many works that are also allowed to be watched at any time without additional charge, after even more time has passed.
And in the case of music, as noted above, perhaps because production costs are lower than in the case of movies, newly released albums are often distributed through subscription services from the beginning.
Well, when I say convenient, there has never been a more convenient time. You can enjoy a vast array of music and movies in high sound and picture quality from the comfort of your home. There is no need to go to the rental store to return the CDs and DVDs you have rented.
In addition to that, the price/performance ratio of audio/visual equipment is also improving rapidly. From the standpoint of the audience and audience members, it saves a great deal of money and time.
But, as is my usual habit, I stop and think. Wait a minute. Is it really only a good thing that the subs have brought?
For years now, it has been said that people do not spend as much money on listening to music as they used to. As a matter of fact, I myself am the same way. This is despite the fact that I have been a music lover since childhood.
Until just a few years ago, buying and listening to music on CDs or downloads had the advantage of "better sound quality" over subscription services, which are dominated by lossy (sound quality-sacrificing) compressed music.
But now, finally, most of the sound sources offered by Apple Music are also lossless or high-resolution. I love Apple, and frankly, I've been waiting for this day.
One of the advantages of Apple Music is that users can freely change tag information. They can choose to display information about artists, albums, genres, etc. in the language and manner of their choice. As a result, it is easy to manage the library properly.
And most importantly, the sound quality is excellent. The sound quality when it was lossy (AAC) and the current Apple Music sound quality (Lossless/Hi-Res) are really different dimensions.
While I find myself thrilled that this is a great time to be here, I imagine something like this.
All musicians have become professionals through hard work and dedication. However, albums that they have spent so much time and effort recording between concerts are now suddenly being listened to for free.
Due to the pandemic that has been going on for two years now, musicians around the world are finding it difficult to perform live in front of an audience. With no concerts available and income from recordings drastically reduced, one might think, "I can't do this anymore.
However, since I was a child, there have always been means of listening to music for free: radio and television. Furthermore, by recording radio programs on cassette tapes, one could listen to one's favorite songs repeatedly for only the cost of buying the cassette tapes.
Or, if you rented an LP record from a rental store, you could copy the entire album onto a cassette tape and listen to it.
Still, my generation, the generation a little older than mine, and the generation a little younger (up to the 1980s?) were buying their favorite records and CDs with their not-so-large allowance.
I don't think the reasons were necessarily "the sound is better than a cassette tape recorded from the radio" or "I can hold it in my hand and look at the jacket.
Some critics theorize that people no longer spend money exclusively on music because entertainment has become more diverse today. Or we hear that today's young people can't afford it, so they listen to free or subscription services. However, something seems to be wrong with all of these theories.
In the past, I did not pay for music in order to support musicians.
Now that I am a good adult, I can think of some good arguments that are plausible, such as "it is only fair to pay fair compensation to musicians who provide us with excellent music.
When I was a little younger, why did I pay what I was willing to pay for music and audio equipment, and why was I willing to pay to listen to it? To be honest, I don't know for sure. I just wanted to. That's all.
One thing that concerns me is whether the unit price of remuneration paid to the creators of works whose copyrights have already expired and those whose copyrights are still alive is properly managed in the subscription-based distribution service.
In addition, when looking at a screen showing the results of a search for music or movies on a subscription service, one may make new discoveries, such as "I didn't know there were such works," or "I didn't know there were such musicians.
Such an experience is a bit like going to a bookstore or record store and encountering an unfamiliar book or record. This may also be beneficial to the creator, as he or she can make his or her work known to a large number of people.
As I write, I am flooded with thoughts about this and that, which I can't quite put together. For this issue, I'll end the discussion here.
I would like to continue to think about the significance and problems of providing music and video in this form of subscription-based distribution.
P.S. Still, it is strange to me that a movie nominated for an Academy Award can be seen on my TV at home before the Academy Awards are announced. Am I old-fashioned to think so...?