How Long Will It Take Streaming To Dominate the Music Business? 169
journovampire writes with this story about the booming music streaming business. "Streaming is on course to make more money for the U.S. music business than downloads and physical sales combined within the next three years. The U.S. appears poised for streaming to become its most valuable music format in either 2016 or 2017, according to MBW forecasts – so long as you include SoundExchange royalties generated by digital radio platforms like Pandora alongside subscription and ad-supported platforms like Spotify. But in the other three biggest recorded music markets in the world – France, Germany and Japan – the public appears more hesitant to allow streaming to take over."
No thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
I already have enough monthly bills.
Re: No thanks (Score:5, Informative)
I'm thrilled with what I get for 9.95 with Google play.
A selection of "radio" stations tailored to my interests and the time of day/day of week, with holidays accounted for, really good automatic station based on whatever I've been listening too lately, but within a genre, and the ability to have a library that I can side load to.
It's increased my music spending a little, but made driving so much more pleasant.
Re: (Score:3)
Data plan (Score:2)
I'm thrilled with what I get for 9.95 [per month] with Google play.
Plus how much per month for the cellular data plan so that it'll work while you're away from home?
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube transmits very low sound-quality music (bass and treble are very much muted). The day they start transmitting hi-fi music, is likely the day they go kaput, like napster.
The problem with streaming is, like amazon ebooks, it pays very little to the artist compared to traditional publishing. Until they come up with pricing model that is affordable to the consumer and generous to the artists, it's unlikely they will take off.
Re: (Score:2)
But not supporting an industry that tries hard to destroy the free internet is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And for me, a single 20$ iTunes gift card usually lasts between six months and a year.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep...iTunes and compatible player and you can listen to What you want, When you want, Where you want.
I can't imagine being tied to an internet connection AND an entity on other end of the connection controlling things. Might as well just buy a freaking FM radio.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No thanks (Score:4, Interesting)
I already have enough monthly bills.
Eh. I used to buy at least one CD per month. Each CD cost more than I pay now per month for streaming, and I got a couple of good songs and some filler (most of the time) instead of thousands of good songs.
Yes, I could buy used CDs and store and organize them in my basement and digitize them all myself and store and back the digital files up in my own RAID array, and then they'd be mine, all mine my precioousssssss ...
Or I can just pay 9.95/mo and not worry about any of that. I'll take option B.
What about radio? (Score:4, Insightful)
>> money for the U.S. music business than downloads and physical sales
What about radio? That seems like the closest competition. (When I use a streaming service, in large part it's because I want some background music without worrying about picking songs.)
Re: (Score:2)
Radio is a form of promotion and does not pay performers royalties. http://abcnews.go.com/Business... [go.com]
https://www.futureofmusic.org/... [futureofmusic.org]
Singer-songwriter (Score:2)
Performing artists don't get paid for radio play
What you say is true for musical performers who don't write their own songs. Singer-songwriters get songwriter royalties at whatever rate BMI or ASCAP is paying out.
Re: What about radio? (Score:2)
That's the way it SHOULD be.
Performances are naturally scarce, and can provide all the necessary funding.
Making things that are naturally abundant artificially scarce is wrong. It is economically wrong because it reduces our return on an already sunk investment, it is morally wrong because it causes needless hardship to massive numbers of people, and it is strategically wrong because cultured neighbours are safer neighbours to have than culturally starved savages.
There are valid arguments on the "for" sid
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Radio pays much, much less than streaming. The industry does not want anyone comparing streaming to radio, because it disrupts their "Pandora and Spotify are getting rich off the artists backs" narrative.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/07/17/spotify-royalties-appear-to-be-awfully-high-despite-what-thom-yorke-says/
"So, for a song to be played to one person (which is what Spotify is) the radio play gets .024 pence, the Spotify play gets 0.4 pence."
Re: (Score:2)
Radio plays the same tired top-100 hits or the songs the music industry is currently trying to sell. Radio is not very comparable to streaming music, where you can listen to whatever song you want. Streaming is more like a renting/subscription model.
Let's say a good song ma
Re: (Score:2)
Basically the only time I listen to music is in my car, so ya, the radio is critical. Sure I have some podcasts I'm behind on too but that's not streaming.
give it 10 years (Score:2)
Viable for artists? (Score:3)
Re:Viable for artists? (Score:4, Interesting)
My band(s) has already given up any notion of making any money on digital sales or streams, not to mention CDs. We press records and cassettes these days, and do CDRs of live show recordings and that's it. No CD press runs at all. Weird how it seems we're back in 1992. (CDs basically mean they sit around in boxes in the garage, taking up space. We've sold out of every record and (recently) cassette we've produced. It's still not a huge number (like 300 or so of each.. for a local band that's not bad) and none of us can quit our day jobs, but basically one record or one cassette sale is > everything we've gotten from digital at this point).
Re: (Score:2)
Who the hell is buying cassettes any more? I didn't even know they still made those things. You can't even buy a cassette player any more, except of course on Ebay. And why on earth would anyone use those things when you can use CDs instead? At least with vinyl, I can understand how people might get some warm n' fuzzy nostalgic feeling, or actually be deluded into thinking they sound better, but not with cassettes. No one has ever thought those things sounded good; they only were popular because they w
Re: (Score:2)
You can still buy lots of cassette players.. Urban Outfitters sells them (*shudder*), for example. Bestbuy has a few models, etc. The Walkman may be what you're thinking of, and that's true, Sony discontinued that IIRC. But as to the consumers, I really don't know either. I'm old and I'm too tired to question what young people want these days. I swear, kids will be wanting Commodore 64s and dial-up BBSes again soon.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, I never even heard of this. WTF is with these idiotic hipsters these days?
And you're exactly right about the usefulness of cassettes vs. LP covers.
Re: (Score:3)
a cassette lets you... play it in your '95 Ford Windstar?
Then when it tangles aronud the capstan, you can rip it out and hurl it out of the window in disgust.
Re: (Score:2)
Owning the artefact is what matters, and buying a band's cassette isn't that much different from buying their poster - it just so happens that you get to play it as well as having it look cool on your shelf.
Then buy the CD, like I do. You get the artifact, the best possible sound quality (since SACDs and DVDAs never took off), and can put it on your shelf.
Streaming sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as you can be blocked based on location, it's no damn good. We have to tear down the borders to make it work the way the internet is supposed to work, wide open worldwide, otherwise just stick with torrents to get what you want when you want it.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to get it any way you want it is by listening to Journey [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
But only Fleetwood Mac lets you Go Your Own Way.
Re: (Score:2)
Although I generally agree with you, I must say: As an American living in the midwest, I don't notice much about location-based blocking.
And when I visit another country (which I don't generally ever do), I'll hopefully be far more entertained by local customs and exploring things that are new to me, than I will be worried about whether or not my Spotify playlists are operating correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
Years on a contract? I call that "moving."
Contract ends? I call that "moving, again."
I don't think I'd expect the same streaming services if I moved to another country, any more than I would expect the cuisine to be identical.
Re: (Score:2)
If only there was a toggle called "Available offline" in Spotify (yes, premium, and also thus not ad-supported like the ./ summary incorrectly claims). It would be so great. Why haven't they implemented it already.
[insert heavy sarcasm tags here]
I'm amazed (Score:5, Insightful)
I jsut don't get why all the people that will make streaming more popular than downloading are ignoring the obvious downsides of streaming vs. local storage:
1) You can't listen to your music when you dont have an active internet connection.
2) You're basically paying regularly/multiple times to hear the same music you could just pay for/download once.
Re: (Score:3)
The answer to the question would appear to be "when all the old farts like you, me, and MightyMartian are either dead or doolally".
Re: (Score:2)
The cloud makes sense for syncing but streaming is wasteful for things like music where you will play the same song many times.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Spotify lets you download tracks to your device.
Re: (Score:2)
Spotify lets you download tracks to your device.
As DRM-free mp3s? Because if not, so what?
Re: (Score:2)
My most important reasons: not dependent on Internet (ergo more reliable) and less data usage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I like Netflix's subscription model too, but that's because I never rewatch the same movie over and over and over again. If I really liked a movie *that* much, I could just buy it on Blu-Ray (but if it's on Netflix instant viewing, even that isn't necessary). But again, I don't actually watch movies over and over. I might rewatch a movie after 5-10 years, and that's it.
Music is totally different. I listen to the same music over and over. Led Zeppelin never gets old, and between driving and work, there'
I wanna watch Fwozen again (Score:2)
I like Netflix's subscription model too, but that's because I never rewatch the same movie over and over and over again. If I really liked a movie *that* much, I could just buy it on Blu-Ray
Children are more likely to rewatch because they value familiarity more than novelty. This is how Disney and DreamWorks Animation make their money.
but if it's on Netflix instant viewing, even that isn't necessary
Until the film expires from Netflix. Or until your ISP starts charging you overages every time you watch. And it's not just cell ISPs that do that; satellite ISPs and even DSL in parts of Iowa [slashdot.org] do it too.
Re: (Score:2)
Until the film expires from Netflix
This has only been a problem with some things (like ST:TOS episodes). Lately, I haven't heard of this being a problem anymore.
Or until your ISP starts charging you overages every time you watch. And it's not just cell ISPs that do that; satellite ISPs and even DSL in parts of Iowa do it too.
This is only a problem for some people; anyone with ISP service should know if they have data caps. I seriously doubt most Netflix subscribers have this problem. But yes, if you have
Re: (Score:3)
1) I don't care. Most of the time I am listening to music I either have an internet connection or am in my car with XM
2) I consider 'ownership' vastly overrated. I have probably $3000 worth of paid for music I almost never listen to. My taste in music has changed often through the years. If I hear some of the old stuff, OK. If I don't, also OK. On the other hand, I really like being able to say 'today I want to hear classic rock, yesterday it was jazz, tomorrow maybe classical, maybe some trop rock la
XM on public transit (Score:2)
Most of the time I am listening to music I either have an internet connection or am in my car with XM
You drive; I don't. I'm not aware of any city that provides XM receivers on its buses.
I really like being able to say 'today I want to hear classic rock, yesterday it was jazz, tomorrow maybe classical, maybe some trop rock later on, maybe some new adult music. Streaming lets me do that for a pretty low price.
So does FM radio, but if you just choose by genre, you can't be assured of ever hearing a particular song or even a particular artist.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll take a stab at this.
Twenty years ago, my wife and I would spend from about $100 a month to $200 on CDs. Most of the music we've bought on CD hasn't been listened to in a decade -- despite having every single note ripped and stored on a media server.
Now, we spend $10.
Just for giggles, I stream music from bands I like, even if I have the CD, just so they can get a couple bucks from me.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:4)
Thank you for the 1/10th of a cent.
Signed,
the bands you like.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for the 1/10th of a cent.
Signed,
the bands you like.
In the case of Spotify, it's not even a tenth of a cent; it's more like a quarter of a tenth of a cent. (Put it another way: a MILLION plays, which most musicians would be lucky to see once in a lifetime, nets you about $250).
The Wikipedia article on Spotify is worth reading, if you really want to understand how insanely f*cked up the Spotify business model is. Out of respect for the professional musicians I know, I *will not* use Spotify or similar services. I'd rather donate money to the Illinois Nazi
Re: (Score:2)
I use Spotify because it works for me.
I used to buy music regularly, on CD, but the last music store here closed almost 8 years ago.
Not that CDs and other physical album sales were generally a particular profitable item for artists, either. The music industry is and was and by all observations will continue to be a completely fucked up mess when it comes to paying artists for recorded music.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the record stores are mostly gone (still a few in Chicago but they're better suited for browsing than for finding a specific item), and yes, record sales were usually not a big moneymaker for the artist. Still. You can buy almost any music you can think of online-- and today the artist just might earn a healthy percentage off that sale. (Not always, but it's more common than it used to be).
I do understand that sometimes you may want to cue up a piece of music *right now*, without wanting to buy it,
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube? Really?
Youtube doesn't work on my Sonos gear, and chews up data on my cell phone.
Spotify works well in both places, and is lean on cell data.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:4, Interesting)
You're basically paying regularly/multiple times to hear the same music you could just pay for/download once.
True. On the other hand you don't have to buy songs you only listen 2 twice, or listen to for a week and then tire of never to listen to them again. Depends on your personality.
The economics becomes a question of do you explore new music more or less than you return to old favorites.
Because your right, if you just like pink floyd, then buy the discography and never pay for music again. Win!
On the other hand if you've got 10,000 tracks in your itunes collection and not one of them has been listened to more than 3 times then what is the point of buying anything ever?
Most of us are somewhere in between those two extremes. And at the right price points streaming becomes more sensible than buying.
I'd take spotify at half the current price. I already sub scribe to netflix.
1) You can't listen to your music when you dont have an active internet connection.
Spotify has offline support. Its not quite as bad as you suggest.
Re: (Score:2)
I jsut don't get why all the people that will make streaming more popular than downloading are ignoring the obvious downsides of streaming vs. local storage: 1) You can't listen to your music when you dont have an active internet connection.
On Spotify you easily can and I do it all the time, just mark your playlist as offline.
2) You're basically paying regularly/multiple times to hear the same music you could just pay for/download once.
Well, yeah, but the sum of what I pay for my music use is so much lower than with downloads and CDs, so why does that matter? And as a bonus I have no monetary reasons to limit discovery of new music, explore shared playlists, let friends add whatever they like to the playlist when they are over, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Ditto. I don't mind listening to new music online, but I prefer listening to my own collection of favorite (song/tune)s.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I jsut don't get why all the people that will make streaming more popular than downloading are ignoring the obvious downsides of streaming vs. local storage: 1) You can't listen to your music when you dont have an active internet connection. 2) You're basically paying regularly/multiple times to hear the same music you could just pay for/download once.
Every time I organize or reorganize or back up my files, I'm paying for it, one way or another.
Time is worth something ... space is worth something ... mental energy is worth something.
$10/mo to have an impossibly vast music storehouse, maintained, backed up, and cataloged by someone else, is a bargain, in my book.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about how much it costs you, but how much you are willing to pay for the content. Watching a movie on a big-screen in a theater once may cost you $10, whereas watching the same movie on a smaller screen, but unlimited times costs you $19 for the DVD. Some people prefer to watch only once and get the better experience of a big screen, whereas others prefer to collect DVDs for repeat watchi
Re: (Score:3)
Older generations were also just like that when they were in middle school.
Current kids will also grow out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Two months? Get with the times, grandpa [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Also a lot of people aren't interested in hearing the same music throughout their lives like older generations did.
I'm an old(ish) person (56) and i hate old music - i've heard all that old crap far too many times. But i don't live in a city and i don't have internet everywhere and i want mp3s. And i'm quite happy to pay for them - but i won't pay for streaming.
The only Australian mp3 seller (Bigpond Music) has recently stopped operating in favour of a streaming service, which really only leaves Google Play (which is a pain in the arse). Itunes is completely useless if you use Linux, and there's fuck all else as far as
Re: (Score:2)
Because I have a hard drive with 50,000 CDs worth of music on it.
Want a copy?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would he still only have 594 songs?
Re: (Score:2)
...because he will be an old geezer set in his ways pining for the "good old days" when everything wasn't total crap.
My problem is that there is a big gap between "wanting to buy anything new" and having these radio cable services available. So my costs are already spent and there's nothing for the likes of Pandora to sell me.
The main bulk of what I would listen to on such a service was already bought and paid for and ripped before even iTunes was launched.
Even if I were just starting out now, there would b
Re: (Score:2)
MTP is useful to move files between your laptop and your phone while you're not near a usable access point, such as if you're a passenger in a vehicle or if you're in a home or office whose householder or manager is unwilling to disclose the WPA2 key to you. Or do the major mobile operating systems support acting as the access point without a separately billed tethering subscription?
Time to buy vinyl? (Score:4, Insightful)
This economy baffles me. I rent a house, lease a car, subscribe to a Adobe software, pay-per-view TV, stream music, and play online-DRM games and god knows what else. The day I stop having income, I don't own a thing. I am not by any means going back to the age of carrying chunks of gold on my person, but I get the impression property is quickly being replaced by service in too many aspects of our living. Although practical and convenient, this can only amplify the financial insecurity of the middle/lower classes.
Well, if the shit hits the fan, I can always listen to my vinyl collection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
rent things that depreciate.
Rent a CAR over buying it? I don't think so...
I would say:
1. Always pay off credit cards at the end of each month; don't carry unsecured debt month to month.
2. Don't use credit, except to buy *real* property (houses, cars, durable goods) and always secure the credit with the item being purchased.
3. Never owe more on an item than it is worth..
4. Never rent unless you are *SURE* you don't need the item long enough to pay for it in your rental payments
. AND my favorite..
. 5. NEVER buy the extended warra
Follow the jobs (Score:2)
Well, you should be mortgaging the house rather than renting it
That depends on how often you plan to move to another state to follow the jobs. Transaction costs of buying and selling a house whenever you relocate can add up.
Re: (Score:2)
I rent a house
Well, if the shit hits the fan, I can always listen to my vinyl collection.
Where?
Re: (Score:2)
His turntable is the old school kind - hand crank powered.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Vinyl doesn't have a shuffle option.
Novels don't have a shuffle option, either. The songs are in that order for a reason, or at least they should be! I'd hate to listen to Sgt. Pepper's on "shuffle"... Also $10 per record isn't necessarily such a "low price" for vinyl anymore... a lot of people just want to get rid of their LPs, and will sell them to you by the boxload.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't already? (Score:2)
I like to use BTSync to keep all of my music where/how I like it on every device, but the users in my organization along with family/inlaws all seem to be obsessed with streaming. I know people who will skip the movie/music on their HDD to stream it because it's easier to find.
Geeks, DJ's and old folks seem to be all that's left not streaming. (old folks using physical media of course)
Does radio count as streaming?
Don't see the point (Score:2)
I hated when one of my favourite podcasts went streaming only. I always forget about it. Before it would download automatically and would show up in my podcast player every week. I found a lot of great new bands that way. But the CBC changed it
Re: (Score:2)
but when I'm out it would just drive up my cell bill for the data usage.
You need to switch to T-Mobile; streaming music doesn't count against your data cap.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no T-Mobile in this country.
Re: (Score:2)
Spotify can store the data on your device and update playlists when there is wifi.
You just need a large-ish storgage in the phone. My Spotify music folder is 9.25 GB. It is on the external SD card if that is available so it doesn't clutter your internal memory.
Music on a NAS (Score:2)
Hasn't it already? (Score:3)
I'd say streaming and digital sales have already won.
Re: (Score:2)
Just buy it over the internet. I get mine mailed to my house for less than the cost of a store purchase, and the selection is massive. It's not as cheap as when the were able to grey import it (Australia), but it's still strangely cheaper to have it sent from china than for me to pick it up and ask a store clerk to sell it to me ^-^
Disposable music (Score:3, Interesting)
Streaming really only makes sense to me for disposable music, like modern pop music. You know the stuff. The candy sweet radio friendly tunes that are auto-tuned to hell and EQ'd and processed to sound just like a previously successful pop song. The stuff you can hear a few times then want to turn off the radio if it comes on again. I don't listen to that sort of music, it bores me, so I don't bother with a streaming account.
I'm the sort of person who still buys albums, albeit on CD these days. I only buy the ones from artists which I think have a long shelf life and a lot of re-playability. I like the fact that I can toss on an album I've had for almost 30 years and just listen to it again, without needing an internet connection or a current subscription. I like that I get to hear the 'b-sides', the tracks which don't get promoted or aren't considered good enough for radio / streaming highlighting. I actually enjoy many of those tracks far more than the one or two that are there to sell the album. If an artist can't place 6-10 good tracks on a record, then I'm not really interested in hearing what they have to say.
I rip all my CDs to lossless FLAC, iTunes, and MP3 at the same time, then store the archive quality FLACs on my media server. ITunes can't play back FLAC, so I basically don't use it any more, preferring XBMC to get the job done.
I have about 350 albums now that I own and can playback whenever and wherever I choose without needing an internet connection or the permission of some greedy corporation who lock my playback down to only work on their hardware (I'm looking at you Apple!).
I've been collecting music for about 30 years now and still have access to every track I bought (bar the early stuff on LP). If I subscribed to a service for 30 years, all I'd have at the end is the sense of regret I couldn't listen to any music any more, despite the thousands I had spent on it over the years. That's approximately $5400 at today's rates, about the same as I pay for close to 380 albums. The cost is about the same, but if I stopped collecting today, I'd still have 350 albums to listen to.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I do buy some music.
From some artists.
Some of the time.
These days.
Now that streaming is relatively cheap, and music is relatively difficult to walk down the street and just legitimately buy.
I prefer actual pressed/injection-molded CDs (to play in my Krell CD player...), and have quite a number of them.
But the rest of the time, I use Spotify. Spotify allows me exploration and endless background noise for way less money, billed once a month, than buying an exploratory CD or two.
And I don't have to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not an asset, it's a money sink. I've spent money on something I love, and there's no reasonable way to recover that cash. Also, I already said I don't own vinyl anymore, I either threw it out or gave it away about 20 years ago.
I just can't wait... (Score:2)
.. until we start hearing stories about how even though people are listening to streaming music and paying for it, it isn't enough, and the studios are "losing revenue" that "they deserve".
The business model is amazing:
1 - Claim you should be making more than you are based on whatever stupid math you can put in front of the congressman you're lobbying where everybody pays for everything they ever listened to all the time.
2 - Profit from special taxes on sales of CD-Rs, internet subscriptions (everybody infr
When internet connectivity is ubiquitous and free. (Score:2)
When internet connectivity is ubiquitous and free.
And not before.
Until then, streaming won't dominate, because everything else is still needed to deal with the gaps in, and cost of, Internet connectivity. When cars start coming with radios which will no longer play music from AM, FM, or SirusXM, don't have CD or DVD drives, even for navigation data, and will only play streaming, THEN streaming will have dominated the music business(*). Not before.
(*) I am well aware the article is about revenue; revenue i
City buses already lack radios (Score:2)
When cars start coming with radios which will no longer play music from AM, FM, or SirusXM, don't have CD or DVD drives, even for navigation data, and will only play streaming
City buses already lack radios. Passengers are expected to bring their own entertainment, be it local audio files or streaming or (in my admitted edge case) a hobby programming project.
revenue is, however, not the question the headline asks.
"Dominate the Music Business?" suggested revenue to me.
What about the QUALITY of sound? (Score:3)
"Music" vs. "Recording" business (Score:2)
"Will" it take? What? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I guess if you're the kind of person who only ever listened to the radio, streaming services would substitute perfectly for that (though still at cost). It doesn't replace a music archive in your actual ownership.
Re:Japan is easy to explain (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't need it on physical CD, but I do need to actually own the music files themselves, in an unlocked non-DRM fashion. Basically, if I can't buy it as at least an MP3 that I can play on everything from an iPod to an FreeBSD workstation, the record label doesn't get my money. And I could care less about streaming.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to give the record label your money (directly) when you use streaming. If you just use Pandora, they somehow get money for that (I'm not sure how that works to be honest), but there's no requirement that you pay any money for that service.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh look, it's the rare and wondrous Idiom Nazi.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh look, it's the rare and wondrous Idiom Nazi.
Next he'll be complaining that you don't really "pinch to zoom."
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you multiply it by six.
Cult classics and children's animation (Score:2)
What we should be asking and encouraging, is how long until streaming stops dominating the video business.
If a work is viewed only once, streaming is more efficient than having to ship a disc around. Music is listened to on playlists that are repeated or shuffled. With video, on the other hand, conventional wisdom holds that rewatching is mostly for cult classics and children's animation ("I wanna watch Sin-duh-weh-wuh again").