Beatport Will Relaunch As Free Streaming Service in 2015

It’s been nearly two years with SFX Entertainment at the helm of Beatport, which in the last year alone has seen the launch of Beatport Pro (the desktop organization system + media player) and identically-named Beatport Pro (the new redesign of their online music store).

Now is about to have a major pivot, according to the Wall Street Journal, designed to attract fans of the many festivals that SFX is also behind. The pivot? Music streaming:

“Rather than selling downloads, the new site will feature a free, ad-supported music streaming service and the ability to listen on-demand to a catalog of mostly electronic songs”

If you’re concerned about one of the best services for buying electronic music going stream-only, don’t fear. Beatport Pro will stick around as the storefront.

Beatport is now mounting the difficult obstacle of negotiating streaming rights for all of the music on the site – something that’s easier when dealing with small labels than with massive majors. WSJ speculates that many of SFX’s acquisitions will play a role in the new Beatport, which could act as

“a community center for dance-music fans, showcasing event information, artist profiles and, potentially, live-streamed performances […] The site is likely to incorporate SFX’s latest acquisitions: a music-based social network called Listn, and, which allows users to listen in real time to what’s being played in clubs around the world.

The goal: To funnel the roughly 300 million fans each year who visit SFX’s 59 separate websites, or view its content elsewhere, into one place, so that advertisers can reach them more efficiently, the company has said.”

We’re still waiting on more details to emerge from Beatport themselves – but it seems pretty clear that the Journal’s source knows what they’re talking about.

What do you imagine the new Beatport will be like? Let us know in the comments. 

beatportbeatport profree streaming servicerelaunchsfx entertainment
Comments (65)
Add Comment
  • Tesno

    I actually suggested this. I just think it would be awesome if I could listen full tracks from my basket/news while jogging and delete the ones I don’t like on the run. =) As long as the main idea is to sell mp3s this should be awesome. Djs propably still need the tracks.

  • Steven

    If i ever make a song, it will be simply from the love and passion for the music. I don`t expect that you can make a living out of just producing music nowadays.

  • ColourCode

    I don’t understand why there is all this hate for this, in my opinion very small and positive, decision to get into the music streaming market.

    The type of tracks present on BeatPort are electronic music and it has a large number of DJ users (I would say it is the #1 site that DJs use to buy music). A lot of the tracks on BeatPort would not be present on Spotify or iTunes.

    As said by others in this thread DJs are perhaps the largest musical audience that pays for listening and playing music. A DJ will never play a set with a track that is streamed over the internet. So I just see it as a great opportunity to give more publicity to artists that would otherwise just stay in the shadows (because, for example, they aren’t in Spotify) and push DJs to buy their music to play in their sets.

    Overall I think this choice will increase the revenue of also small indie artists either directly, by attracting leads to buying their tracks on BeatPort or indirectly by attracting people to their sets or lives.

  • RogueMURICAN

    So how will this be used for DJing now?

  • Michael Wachala

    I think this is really great. Most people just illegally download the music anyways, only hardcore fans or DJs actually buy the songs in question. I really don’t see this having an effect on sales, but rather boosting bottom lines by adding the stream of revenue from streaming (no pun).

    Also, I’m sure pretty soon Beatport will offer a streaming service or a “DJ bin” service for Traktor and Serato where a DJ can stream or temporarily download songs into a playlist for a gig for a flat monty fee of something like 9.99 or 19.99.

    Personally, I would love that and would pay for it no problem.

  • ItsWesSmithYo

    As the chief donut maker for a fully DIY, #1 Genre label on Beatport, I think this is a good direction. We are on a lot of stores, and a lot of stream services. The trend we see is downloads are for DJ’s/Collectors, and streams are for “Fans”. Most of these services handle anything that can be squeezed into a wave form, vs. say, “EDM”.

    So Beatport probably isn’t perfect, but neither are we. What we like with Beatport is we know where we stand, and we get paid fairly and on time based on accurate reporting. The volume of downloads, streams and whatever is next is up to our fan base, not the services, so we have to earn that every day. This is what the label and artists do.

    Having Beatport behind streaming is definitely worth a try for us. if nothing else we trust them and already know the workflow. Beyond this, with the SFX parent, we are optimistic that this could lead to some fair use rights enforcement as well, IE we get some better publishing royalties and exposure for all our jams that get hammered across festivals and clubs but go largely unrecognized by would be fans. Small steps, maybe, but every penny counts, trust me;)

  • Jay.Vail

    SFX, Clearchannel, Live Nation, AXS, another conglomerate to take all the $$ and tell you to go see a bunch of over hyped garbage a $150 bucks a pop. Going to Junodownload. Beatport’s been on a downhill slope for quite awhile anyway.

  • Alex Jarvis

    It’s not really fair to the artists.

  • Fermin

    I’d like something like stream to traktor, where you pay very little money to play that track, but after you close traktor you don’t own it anymore.
    Or perhaps pay a subscription and stream as many songs as you want ?

  • Roy Claessen

    I dont think i would like this idea if I was a producer, the more people stream, the less music is sold. Also the percepted value of music could go down because it is so easily available. But then again there is YouTube which already streams a lot of music so maybe thats where they want to have a share.

  • Slee

    sorry i guess I’m old school in that i like to have the music i want to play, and i like to choose the music i want to play. streaming…..meh. i’ll continue to buy and download tracks from beatport, but will not sign up for some streaming service

  • PanPan

    A traktor integration with the streaming music would be awesome. Dj could have all of beatport dj music pool like some other sites.

    • Roy Claessen

      This would be cool for DJs but not for the producers who made the music since they are just giving it away for free then, which makes less incentive to make more music, which means less creativity, less awesome music,..

      • Panpan PanPan

        I would def pay a monthly subscription to be able to have accesses to better dance music even paying indie labels to have access to their catalog each month. It would also encourage creativity and pushing boundaries for those labels.

  • CUSP

    This is potentially very good news, but will they compete with Spotify’s service of allowing a DJ to download a track (or even allow one-time license use) every time the DJ wants to call it up? I have a program (Cloud Browser, from Stagecraft Studios) that allows me to pull up tracks and loops from the internet through a window that allows me to buy a track on the fly if I want to. I’m curious if they will allow integration with apps like this.

    I’ma fan of having tracks on my local drive when I play out, but I recognize there are some people who prefer to use a service like this when they play out.

  • RogueMURICAN

    so what the heck does this mean for downloading records for the use of actually doing what Beatport was meant to be used for, DJING?!!

    I mean really do we need another Spotify?

  • Rob Ticho,Club mU

    Let’s not forget that SFX runs a bunch of EDM festivals and, as such, will likely tailor search results to promote their interests.

  • Toontown

    I am not an active music producer, but if I was I would likely give away most of my music for free. I would just want my music to open up opportunities for me, not be the sole source of income. I mean some money would be nice but I would want it to get me relevant, then keep me relevant.


    These artist are way over payed anyway, this a reality check for greedy music executives… Anybody that loves music is gonna continue to make great music, maybe even better music now that money is not the motive…

    • midiman

      stupid post of the year. do you do your job for free? what is your motivation to work everyday without money? making music is a job! it has to be paid. making music in your bedroom is a hobby. just because producing music is a cool job its still a job. the only greedy persons put there are all that parasites that want everything for free.

      • lambdoid

        There are very few people making money from music these days, and a streaming business model will mean they make even less because no-one apart from DJs, who are a niche market, will buy the music.

  • Chris Combe

    why is this not a paid subscription service.. making it free ruins it for the artists and labels.. did we learn nothing from the spotify and taylor swift fiasco?

  • Vscrl

    This is going to happen whether people like it or not. SFX has too much money behind it for them not to do exactly what they please. People may not like the way things are going but labels will have to adapt or suffer the consequences. Streaming is only going to grow and Taylor Swift is one of the miniscule few who can opt out and increase their popularity.

  • killmedj

    They will always sell this as an “alternative income stream” and exposure for artists. But I believe it dilutes the value of music.
    Artists will get paid sweet FA and their music will be as used sonic wallpaper so beatport can sell advertising space. This seems like a cynical push from a company who wish to expand their income stream beyond DJ’s and electronic music enthusiasts. Let’s try and keep some degree of value in the music we make.

  • FrankLogo

    I wonder if, as a producer, in order to continue to sell your tracks you are obliged to also provide them for streaming ? I’d rather have my tracks NOT streaming – like, anyone who wants my music has to buy it (except where i give it away for free on my own terms).Streaming won’t make me a penny and if i’m obliged to participate will rather diminish the actual sales of tracks.

    • SynthEtiX

      You mean, like how you’re letting your music be streamed unlimited, for free on Soundcloud right now so you can possibly gain some followers?

      People love a “random” feature in streaming services. If they add one, people will jump to it.

    • CUSP

      You should be able to do whatever you want with your own music… until you sign a contract and you get paid not to do certain things you agree not to.

  • D-Jam

    So does this mean we go to Beatport Pro to buy music as files…and is a streaming site like Spotify?

    If it’s just streaming only then it’s a loss…as I want to pay for files, not a monthly fee to stream.

  • ksandvik

    Producers will earn 0.000002 $US per streamed song. Nice.

    • midiman

      yea wonderful thing for edm producers who already sell much less than the lady gagas of the world. edm producers will got to have a day job because if people can stream their work for free they dont buy anymore. next thing will be a traktor or serato version that can use streaming music to dj what will kill the business for edm producers and small labels completely.

    • calgarc

      where did the extra 0.000002 come from??

    • CUSP

      This is how all markets grow. At first, you have the bleeding edge (whom bleed because things are so very difficult at first), which are necessarily tied to high pricetags. As the market matures, there are more competitors, and the margins shrink, while the customer gets more. Eventually, whatever product/service becomes balanced in their environment, until something better comes along.

      Right now, the artists may see .2 cents per play (that’s $ 0.002), but in the future, these streaming services will have to contend with companies representing the fiduciary interests of the streaming service’s content providers. Eventually, making music becomes something people choose to do (desire, plus acceptable compensation), or people won’t do it.

      • ksandvik

        Yes, its’ basically like in the renaissance, if you don’t have a wealthy sponsor music is only a hobby for a huge majority.

  • midiman

    that is shit. beatport will earn more money and artists/producers will earn less. music is nothing worth anymore. there is a reason that taylor swift who is no longer available on spotify sold 1.7 millon albums the following week and now is the only artist that has a album that reachet plantinum level. if you can stream it you dont buy it, with streaming electronic producer earn next to nothing .

    • djsicknarf

      where are you reading this?

      • midiman

        what do you mean ? the taylor swift thing?

        • Herher

          I think he means the people who couldnt write a beat to save their life commenting on how musicians will lose out on money.

          Selling records hasn’t been a means for income for over a decade now. Get with the times now.. Good lord

    • Seville Lilly

      DJs are the few music fans still paying for music. i could see a streaming service on the side. but why shift the focus of the #2 online store for per-track downloads (after iTunes) to a streaming service? and how will streaming affect existing labels’ sale contracts w beatport? will beatport insist that any and all labels stream their product for miniscule royalties if they’re to be permitted to still sell their music as downloads? how many indies will opt out?

    • Rob Ticho,Club mU

      It is important to consider that Taylor Swift probably benefited greatly from Spotify in the years running up to her latest release, in the sense that it helped grow her fan base. I’m not trying to defend Spotify, but it’s part of the story that she leaves out. I do think the streaming thing isn’t good for independent artists but I think the listeners and market are dictating the future.

      • Spectator

        If it wasn’t for my Spotify account I wouldn’t know who have these artist are, nor would I be checking for their music, artist have find new ways to make money, through shows, and merchandising, but streaming is not a bad thing trust, if anything it will make artist relavant in music industry once again…

  • Chaser720

    Sounds cool. Hopefully they make it available via an iPhone/Android app.

  • Heath

    As long as the fix up beatport pro I don’t mind. It’s still very limited in what it can do. You can’t even sort by title for goodness sake. Lots of work to be done…

  • Marco Hooghuis

    So this means we won’t be limited to the preview clips to check if a track is worth buying?

    • Chaser720

      That how I read it. Probably only for labels they get streaming rights from though.

    • Dan White

      Assuming you’re ready to listen to ads for it.

      • djsicknarf

        So we can now listen to the full song of tracks before purchasing but we have to listen through ads?… about taking one step forward and two step backwards.

        • midiman

          nothing is free in this world . what did you expect?

          • Maxwell James Mansfield Burgoy

            or just go to juno to listen to full tracks with better prices?

          • ItsWesSmithYo

            Or iTunes etc;) With the (I believe unique) SFX/Beatport relationship seems like a good move. BTW, as far as I know, Beatport has always been fair paying labels/artists and respecting the law if nothing else. Perhaps they will monetize this and carry that torch. TBD;)

  • Der Langhaarige

    That would be actually pretty cool. That way you can (if they manage to make it work that way) listen to all new releases several times in full length. I just hope they won’t start until Beatport Pro is bugfree.

  • QCube

    I think i still gonna prefer Soundcloud. Acording to a popular saying: The condemned live longer. I am rather willing to use a service that focuses on music then on money. For sure SC now want to earn money too, but I understand their point, they have to to persist. Beatport should have a pretty good welfare already so…

  • Mark Smith

    Beatport Pro will still exist solely to sell music. will become the streaming service. You have nothing to worry about @calgarc:disqus.

    • calgarc

      and what if i don’t want to download Beatport Pro.

      • Deividas .Jaroška

  • calgarc

    Turd on a stick!!! just like other sites, EMI and Sony will make all the streaming money while the indie labels get under cut… Also some of us may not have or want Beatport pro, buying tracks from a web interface is easier, specially if some of us use linux among other OS’s