They’re selling the latest work by a country singer, which one can acquire “wherever you consume music”. Although not technically wrong, this sounds weird to me. Music is delicious!
I agree it sounds ponderously corporate and contrived. But I’m struggling to come up with a better formulation.
I don’t think I would ever use the word “consume” to apply to music.
But if I did, I would apply it to the part where I listen to the music, not the part where I acquire it.
“Everywhere”? Actually music purchaseable online can be bought in a superset of the locales where it can be listened to.
Redundant or inexact statements in ad copy should be made illegal (well a person can dream…)
It’s odd, but accurate.
Either someone produces content (producer) or consumes content (consumer).
The word “consume” is awkward and (to me) downright annoying in just about any context except food, and usually awkward even there except in a dry technical or medical sense (“she consumes too many calories per day” might not be out of place on a medical chart). I found it really annoying, for instance, when iPads first came out, and various pundits were saying that they were “more useful for consuming content than for creating it”. As if the purpose of iPads was to somehow suck up the contents of the internet and destroy it in some virtual flaming inferno. No, iPads don’t “consume content”, they display information. They let you read stuff, listen to stuff, and view images and videos.
As for the nonsense of “wherever you consume music”, no. Just no. One typically has two kinds of interactions with music: you buy it, and then you listen to it. The idiot ad writer probably meant to say that you can acquire this work “wherever music is sold” or “anywhere you buy music”.
“Consumer” is acceptable as an extremely generic term for what has generally come to mean the retail customer base, but that doesn’t justify its abuse in other contexts like the ones I mentioned above. I am, by that generic definition, a consumer. But if someone approached me for an interview and asked, “what do you do these days, now that you’re retired?” I could honestly answer “I’m a consumer. I consume.” It would be, as you say, “odd, but accurate”. And no one would say it.
True.
But in most cases you’re not “buying” music. You are paying for it, but you’re not buying it. instead you’re getting a license to use it. In the case of a physical artifact such as a CD you are buying the piece of plastic but you are not actually buying the recorded bits on it, etc. So the lawyers want to insist they don’t use the magic word “buy” or “purchase”.
And in many cases you’re only renting it, such as with an e.g. Spotify subscription. You don’t in any sense have a right to retain the listenable experience for later reuse. It goes from their computer into your ear at that moment and that’s it. Ditto material checked out from a traditional lending library.
So how to succinctly describe all the legal ways by which one can obtain the bits and the legal right to use them? And also describe generically all the kinds of sources, technologies, and counterparties from which one might obtain said bits & rights? Whether such rights are one-time use only or on-going to various degrees including perpetual? And whether paid for al la carte or all-you-can-eat buffet style or free or anything in between?
All the while also disclaiming / discouraging any non-legal ways or sources that might (Heaven Forfend!) exist out there in illicit commerce-space to get the same listenable experience?
That’s a tall order for ~6 simple words in a canned slogan.
No. They mean where one can stream it. Their main audience is people who have subscriptions to music services.
They aren’t idiots, you’re just out of touch.
Buying music? In 2023?
Then they can say so. Which just underscores the point that “consume”, besides having the vague connotation of destruction (“consumed in flame”), fails to convey what the hell they’re actually trying to say.
What can I say, I’m old, and traditional. Also a hoarder. If I pay for a product, I generally want to possess it. I even occasionally buy vinyl records. In 2023.
I think that’s an overly pedantic interpretation of what “buy” means. Even the most evil and legalistic of corporations, Microsoft, who is more obsessed about “licensing” versus actual ownership than just about anyone else, has no qualms about letting you “buy” their licensed software. Try to imagine those “Buy now” buttons instead reading “Consume now”! 
They don’t need to say so. Everyone they care about reaching understands them just fine.
Does it fail, though? Were you confused when you read the ad into thinking they were actually destroying music with fire, or did you immediately understand what they meant, and just didn’t like the aesthetics of how they said it?
If you’re “old and traditional,” you should be right at home with the concept of listening to music for free on an ad-supported medium. Unless you used to pay radio stations by the song?
I get they wanted a compact way of including Spotify and similiars. This does not stop it from sounding slightly contrived, though I realize it is a valid definition of the word. I don’t lose sleep over stuff like this.
I didn’t like the aesthetics. But, since it wasn’t specified who “they” are, there was also ambiguity (and still is) as to just what they’re selling – access to streaming, downloadable digital music, physical media, or possibly not selling anything at all, but just publicizing a new release that’s being streamed, broadcast, and/or sold. The overuse of the word “consume” is one of those trendy things that’s mostly counterproductive – it’s not only awkward, it creates unnecessary ambiguity.
I do that, too. Streaming jazz on Spotify is great background music when I have guests over. It doesn’t preclude the other ways I enjoy music, too.
FWIW I really did not like the word “consumer” when it became a common term for the rank and file public’s role as purchaser of goods and services in the economy. Made me think of a horde of mindless locusts or something. Greedy, insatiable, ill-mannered, and utterly indistinguishably interchangeable with one another. An unflattering moniker to say the least.
I have long since come to terms with the term. And “consumerism”, “consumer safety”, “consumer rights”, and all the rest. In essence, it’s become an idiom I don’t mind, made up of words I find mildly off-putting when I stop to think about them. Which I rarely do.
Overall though, as the OP says, that advertiser’s phrase is culturally apt even if slightly clunky in this new unfamiliar context. But I bet it won’t sound clunky for long.
It means the music is generally available via all common channels (streaming, purchasing, radio, etc.). It’s not that confusing.
Is there? Seems pretty clear they’re selling the artist. Just as I wouldn’t expect an ad for a new Stephen King book to specify which book store to buy it from, I wouldn’t expect an ad for a musician to specify which platform to listen to them on. Outside of a special promotional deal between the artist and the platform, of course, which doesn’t seem to be the case here.
Fifteen years ago it became fashionable for hospital administrators to start referring to patients as clients, consumers, stakeholders, etc.
Although all of these terms are accurate, using them did not result in better care — I wonder if the opposite is true. I do not use these terms in that context.
Not that new, just getting more exposure. I found this article from 2016:
https://wp.nyu.edu/musedlab/2016/01/15/please-stop-saying-consuming-music/
My work involves providing information, so we spend a lot of time analyzing how our customers consume information. And that’s the terminology we use.
It becomes less about how something is consumed (or accessed/sold/bought), and more about the what.
People have been talking about “consuming media/content” for a long time now.