Obviously Streaming is becoming big business, most charts around the world now encoporate Streaming Data and more and more people are Streaming their music instead of buying the CD or downloading the album.

Album sales are on a downward spiral and single sales are expected to follow.. Unless of course your Taylor Swift (who has banned her music from Spotify).

Nicki Minaj posted this earlier: "what happens when your album is streamed 70 million times. What happens when you're the most streamed artist in December? Nothing, that's what. Everyone benefits but the artist in 2015".

Does this mean more artists could soon follow Taylor's lead and abandon Streaming?

Is Streaming here to stay or will it not be sustainable enough to survive long term?

Streaming is here to stay, but like streaming movies the current model is unsustainable, eventually the prices will rise to accomodate the collapse of the physical media market that streaming has replaced - singers, producers, film makers etc aren't going to work for free no matter how much the audience wants them to.

The Spotify streaming chart is more of a reflection over which songs are genuinely the most popular.

So for example when Cheryl **insert surname** released Crazy Stupid Love, the song had accumulated several weeks of pre-order sales on iTunes that were added when the single was released, this meant the track topped the iTunes chart.

However, on Spotify the track only peaked at #22 which is a massive difference.

Can you imagine if the UK charts were like Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark? On the plus side the most popular overall songs would be the ones getting to #1 or at least getting a higher chart peak whilst the songs I regard as "non-numbers ones" would rightly fail to get anywhere near as high on streaming alone. UK media would have a field day if a brand new single by Cheryl entered the UK chart at #22.

The downside to streaming is that the turnover of popular songs is incredibly slow so this means once a song is #1 on streaming, it's going to be in the top 40 for a long time. Personally, I've always thought if a song is #1 it should be worthy of its chart peak, so both of Cheryl's chart toppers in 2014 were flash in the pan as they came and went at the blink of an eye whilst All Of Me by John Legend was still hovering around and that didn't even top the UK charts.

It the streaming chart was faster paced it'd be great, but new artists or established acts with a loyal following will surely struggle because they'd be relying on their fanbase to get them high up the chart. The days of a fan base #1 single (see McFly in 2006 & 2007 for example) will become a thing of the past. Ie; in 2006 Air Guitar by McBusted would've probably hit #1 in the UK with cd sales, but that era has well and truly passed.

In complete contrast to 2014, I think by 2016 songs spending just 1 week at #1 will become a rare thing with the most popular singles getting 3/4/5 or more weeks at #1 which to be honest I'd be far happier to see.

Streaming is brilliant. It means you can explore online and listen to all sorts of artists without sticking to just the charts. It shows you better than anything how chart music is a distortion of the music scene.

You can listen through an entire artists back catalogue and hear how they have developed (or not?) over time. It's probably unsustainable as a business model as it doesn't raise enough money for the artists.

Maybe recorded music won't be a big money maker in the future, I suspect it already isn't? But when the exposure of artists is fairer as with streaming, that's probably going to annoy the big record companies just as much.

Streaming has brought about a democratisation in music. With Spotify, Deezer, Rdio, Youtube, Bandcamp et al, smaller artists with a non commercial sound can gain exposure like never before. Put it together with social media and blogging, and the possibilities are endless.

I agree, I have discovered so many new bands through the likes of Spotify.

The problem is, as Nicki Minaj says, it is completely unsustainable for an artist. In many ways it is little better than illegal downloading the artists get so little.

I do love seeing songs spend longer than a week at #1, it's a nice change. However I really don't like songs spending so long in the charts. They are so slow these days and I do think streaming is partly to blame.

I mean songs like Rather Be, Let It Go, Stay With Me and Sing are STILL in the top 40. I expect All about the Bass will still be hovering around come August and Uptown Funk by Christmas.

True - but if those artists can't then translate that exposure into a sustainable business model, it's meaningless.

Streaming is good for consumers, bad for artists. To put it into context, an artist needs 3 million streams from Youtube and Spotify to equal the revenue from 1125 album downloads on iTunes.

If you want to support artists properly then buy their music direct from places like Bandcamp/Beatport/iTunes etc.

The problem is the monetary system. Its collapsing. The poor are getting poorer, and once they have paid their bills, taxes, food, rent etc there is very little money left for luxury.

Even if we went back to buying albums in CD format, the sales would never be as big as they were back in the 90's.

This does have one advantage. Thos who are in the music industry to make money, will begin to fade away. Those who are in the music industry because they like making music, will continue to make fantastic music, and maybe get a part time job, do crowdfunding etc. Like these guys. Plus - tours and concerts will always be a money maker.

http://youtu.be/Ez-apj-Od1I

Streaming hasn't really affected sales though cause for the most part the songs doing well on spotify are the same songs doing really well on itunes, I think sales have been going down for a long time, prices are way to much. Songwriters never made much money anyway from record sales, it was more of what lead after the sales, such as a song appearing in an advert or a movie, or getting lots of airplay or someone else having a massive hit with it, meaning they get all the royalties everytime the cover version is played on radio etc, think about the guy who wrote Love Is All Around. I think like streaming, labels made most money from record sales. But I think, if someone buys an album from itunes, that's it. The artist will make no more money from that person for that particular album, they could play the album 24/7 on their ipod, and the only money the artist will make is from that one sale, but if they're streaming a song 24/7, they're making money everytime that song streams. Maybe they don't get enough, but that's something they need to take up with the labels rather then spotify etc

After years of buying first cassettes, then CDs, then "aquiring" mp3s, I am now a convert to Spotify after getting a free subscription. I thought i would miss "owning" the music either in physical format or in file form, but I really don't, and I'm happy to just have access to it, though being able to download tracks to listen offline with Spotify does now make it a practical way to listen to music.