Read in Indonesian

In part 1, we discussed the devaluation of music from a more dominantly economic standpoint. However, the word ‘value’ is rather vague and objective. With that being said, we will now assess value from a sentimental point of view. 

One may argue that streaming is what lead to debatably the ‘downfall’ of the music industry, or is what incited a negative perception towards music and its value. However, when we take a deeper look into the issue, pointing the finger exclusively at the streaming industry is rather unfair. We have to look at the bigger picture, which includes revisiting the whole timeline of music distribution, and how it suited each era. 

1877 – The invention of the phonograph, one of the first ways recorded music was made tangible.

1928 – Radio broadcast recording was made available.

1935 – Recorded music took the form of magnetic tape.

1948 – Columbia introduced the ‘unbreakable record’ or a redesigned format for the classic vinyl. In 1949, the vinyl became ‘playable’ at different speeds ranging from 33 1/3 rpm to 78 rpm.

1963 – The cassette became a popular choice for listening to music through the use of the stereo invented in 1957.

1980 – Music was made portable, with the invention of the Walkman. 

1999 – Peer to peer file sharing was first introduced via Napster– the backbone technology for Spotify today.

2003 – To combat internet music piracy, Apple launched the iTunes Store so that musicians could continue to put out music and still gain economic value from it while still making it portable and convenient for consumers.

2004 – Demand for free peer-to-peer file sharing and music downloading continued to grow, and was met with this change.

2008 – Spotify, along with other digital streaming platforms, came to light.


This timeline shows how the delivery of music constantly evolved into more practical and, more importantly, portable ways.

Streaming is a byproduct of a negatively growing music culture. Ever since it was discovered that music could be recorded on a medium, the society’s perception of the value of music had automatically shifted, now seeing its value through a lens that prioritises practicality and efficiency, not emotional experience or depth.

“Now anyone is able to listen to music wherever and whenever. They can easily consume their favourite works through the digital streaming platform of their choice,” said Indonesian musician Ben Sihombing (@bensihombing). 

However, when you prioritise efficiency on something that requires time to consume as well as process, you end up with a result where that object is pushed to the sidelines. As stated in the first part of this series, the main focus is no longer on the music. Music is treated as a secondary element or a companion to a certain situation at hand. 

“As a result of this technical surge, we come to find that music is no longer the product. Instead, the artist, or their name, is,” said Indonesian singer-songwriter Pamungkas (@pamungkas).

Pamungkas argued that streaming and the progressive age of technology has made the music world more inclusive. Digital streaming platforms are musical libraries that consumers could infinitely browse through. For artists, it’s considerably a goldmine for creativity– but it doesn’t stop there. 

“There’s more room for artists to express their personality in their work. Streaming erases the idea that music should be exclusive, because now anyone can upload music,” says Pamungkas. It’s an interesting take on the digitisation of music distribution. Platforms like Soundcloud and Spotify enable artists to publish their records independently, without having to be a part of a label. 

“There’s no longer a deadline or a guideline you have to stick to when you want to release something, nor is there any concept you have to strictly follow. It’s completely at your own disposal.” Pamungkas is not wrong. He himself has been capitalising on the freedom that comes with distribution in the digital age. 

For example, his recent album Solipsism is a full 11-track album written in English– a sentiment that is rare for Indonesian artists to share, considering that demand for music here in Indonesia centres around tracks written in Indonesian. 

Taylor Swift, though not an independent artist, was able to use the practicality of online music distribution when she decided to drop her album ‘Folklore’ out of thin air, without any promotional round or interview set prior to release. 

With demand for digital streaming platforms increasing year by year, demand for independent artists also increases. The independent artist sector alone was responsible for generating $643 million in revenue for the music industry in 2018 and an estimated $1.6 billion in 2019 according to Forbes. This in turn brings another side of music culture that questions the role music labels play.

“Now the relationship between a label and an artist is no longer based on a hierarchy, but instead stems from being mutual in power and side-by-side,” says Pamungkas.

Although the streaming era adds on to the sentimental value of music, and creates a new culture where artists are growing more independent, the fact of the matter is that the business model is too insufficient to ignore. 

“It’s safe to say that most of Indonesian musicians make most of their money from ‘offline’ scenarios, such as playing shows or through brand endorsement deals,” said Ben.

Before COVID-19, wedding gigs were one viable source of income for musicians outside of streams. Sale of merchandise during concerts was also an example. However, since the pandemic broke out, artists have to find other ways to continue making money with their craft.

Over the past few years and especially during the pandemic, there has been a surge in artists accepting brand endorsement deals. Selena Gomez, for instance, was selected as the new brand ambassador for Puma in 2017. She reportedly raked in $30 million for the deal.

Tokopedia signed K-pop group BTS as its brand ambassador. BLACKPINK members are flooded with endorsement deals from luxury brands, such as Lisa Manoban for Celine.

Some musicians, such as Rihanna, Beyoncè and Selena Gomez, capitalise their fame by creating businesses out of it. Rihanna’s Fenty Beauty is reportedly worth $3 billion. In 2019, Forbes named Rihanna as one of the richest self-made women in the world with a net worth of $600 million.

While streaming may not be a one-size-fits-all solution, it brings convenience for listeners to browse through the music catalogue and discover new artists. It also gives artists a chance to explore their musical creativity in ways that the constraints of reproducing a physical album wouldn’t have allowed.

However, it also poses a challenge for musicians. In the age of streaming where an endless library of music is just one tap away, musicians have to be as creative as possible in putting out as well as marketing their craft.

Related articles