Moby Says Techie Fans = Fewer Sales 1249
jalefkowit writes: "Launch is reporting that Moby explains the recent slide in sales for his newest album, "18", by describing what he calls the 'Pearl Jam Effect': bands and artists with more tech-savvy fans sell fewer albums than those with less tech-savvy fans, as the techies will disproportionately get their copies of the album from friends with CD burners or P2P services rather than from record stores. What do you think, are we putting our favorite bands in a bind?"
Well.,.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Excuses, excuses. (Score:3, Insightful)
Pearl Jam Effect (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe he just sucks? (Score:1, Insightful)
excuses, excuses (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, I don't steal music.
washed up (Score:2, Insightful)
I disagree.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Artists like Moby are precisely the sort of artists who stand to benefit the most through distribution of their music through p2p networks. The reason is simple: Moby's music would be considered by many "alternative" and consequently it doesn't get a lot (any) air play. So where am I supposed to hear it to know whether I like it enough to buy the album?
If that's the case, then why hasn't this album taken off then? Well, I'd say the recent successes of the RIAA in getting p2p networks shut down has probably helped, but ultimately, maybe the album just isn't as good? Not having heard it, I can't comment on that.. Maybe someone else can. Maybe the marketing of the album sucked? (I haven't heard of it all until now). Either way, I think it's clear that blaiming the p2p networks is based on opinion (And FUD) rather than fact.
Re:Excuses, excuses. (Score:2, Insightful)
Not the tech savvy (Score:3, Insightful)
The ones who hurt music are those who are less tech savvy, less hackish/geekish. Most youths know how to operate a computer, burning CD's and sharing files is a piece of cake. What they are not aware of is the impact this has on musicians and record labels. They are just not thinking, what they really do is think like RIAA: "How can I get the most without paying?"
Tech savvy fans turn on the radio :P (Score:3, Insightful)
In the current market yes, if you like the band the best way to show your support seems to be to buy the CD (and merchandise and concerts and
Ideally though the artists would be a little bit more technologically savvey they would allow fans to fund their music without there being so many middlemen skimming off profits.
And Moby in particular will probably make more money selling his songs to advertisers than he will on record sales (and the advertisers often end up adversting Moby as much as their product).
The music industry is on crack, and Moby has fallen for their rhetoric. I think my subject sums it up neatly. Will they ever learn?
--
wher eis the spllchkr when u need it...
What about eminem? (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh course its true (Score:5, Insightful)
I would say this is hard to refute. Indie, geeky, techno, and others in the technophile musical demographic are being copied left and right. Oh course there are huge advanteges to this in terms of exposure, concert attendence, etc. For instance, even before the broadband P2P revolution, back in 1998/1999 Stereolab managed to sell out two good sized Chicago venues. This is a band that never got any local radioplay and never came close to the top40 or top100 record sales.
Shameless copying is a tradition that started with music lovers and has simply been made easier through technology. Moby questions how the industry measures success. That's a very important issue. The genie is out of the bottle, but the industry measures success through outdated methods.
In another way this isn't exactly new. A lot of talented artists who take risks instead of sticking to pop formulas tend to be undervalued and underexposed. At least P2P can fix the latter.
Indeed (Score:4, Insightful)
The real question is: how many of these bootlegs constitute a lost sale for the record company? The anti-pirate zealots would have us believe that every bootleg means a lost sale, and there are others who would have us believe none of these kids would have bought the records anyway if the bootlegs were not available, or even that bootlegs are increasing sales.
I believe there is some truth in all these statements. Some kids might not want to buy a record, but get the bootleg if it's available. This is simple economics: decrease the price from $20 to $2, and you'll increase demand. Some kids might go buy albums of a band they got a bootleg of and liked. Yet, if I look at the highschoolers I know, none of them are buying nearly as many CD's as my friends and I bought CD's and records, back when we were in high school. And these days all kids have some sort of part-time or evening job, where we would have to make do with what pocket money we got fro our parents. I'd say there are definitely many lost sales through piracy. Of course one could argue that through bootlegging, these kids are being exposed to a far wider range of music than what would be possible legally on their budgets. As a result they might legally buy more music when they get real jobs, but personally I think that is stretching it a bit.
All that said, I am still firmly opposed to anything that prevents me from playing the music I have paid for, when I want and on what platform I want, from the medium of my choice.
Pirating is NOT new (Score:5, Insightful)
Before tech savvy people had the computer we had the radio and tape cassette.
People could ALWAYS pirate music, yet michael jacksons triller sold 20 million copies, funny how no one decided to pirate him even though it was all over the radio all the damn time and everyone had it and could copy the cassette.
I know, I had one of those dual cassette players, you stick both cassettes into it, play one and record on the other. Funny how when everyone was using cassettes the RIAA didnt complain about sales but now, that they are losing their monopoly, piracy is suddenly a big problem?
Lets call it "The Moby Effect". (Score:2, Insightful)
Move over Pearl Jam, we now have The Moby Effect.
Re:I disagree.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, talk about living in denial. P2P does hurt sales directly. Does that mean that ALL those people would have necessarily bought that album? No, but you have to accept the fact that many/some people would rather download than buy. Moby makes a good point here:
I think its fairly obvious that Moby understands the exposure benefits of P2P, but is trying to point out how success can never just be based on sales alone anymore.
I'm also curious as to the assumption that more sales = better music. We know that the way to make a superstar doesn't start with muscial ability but with marketing, PR, gimmicks, manufactued controversies, bubblegum pop, etc. What Moby is saying, and its been said before, is that sales cannot determine any meaningful information about the artist especially now with P2P and he asserts there's a victim demographic. Arguably, there is a victim demographic. Whether or not exposure, concert sales, and fandom outweigh album sales is the real question.
Re:I disagree.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, have you been listening to the radio recently? Moby's single We Are All Made Of Stars is getting lots of airplay in mainstream radio stations. It's currently #19 on the Billboard Dance/Club list, and the album is at #35 on the Billboard top albums list. I think it's safe to say that Moby has moved into the mainstream.
If you ask me (or him), Moby is not condemning people for burning/filesharing his music. He's just trying to explain that his music is more popular than the record sales give him credit for. From the Launch article:
He's not bitching, he's just musing. Give him some credit.Re:Pirating is NOT new (Score:4, Insightful)
What people on the internet are doing is *sharing*. When I stick 20,000 songs up on Gnutella and people download them, I don't make a dime and they don't pay a dime. We're sharing.
So the issue is, how does fair-use apply? Is it fair use when I share with one friend? What about when I share with ten friends? What if I share with 100,000 strangers?
I think that's the real difference. When one person buys a tape and shares with 10 people, you still have 10% of people who have the product *paying* for it. When one person can buy a CD and instantly share it with the world, you could have one purchase for every 100,000 people who have the product. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but I could see that you wouldn't call *that* fair use possibly.
On the other hand, part of the blame lays with the record companies. When I buy a DVD or CD, what am I buying? If I'm buying the physical media, then I should be able to do anything I want with the contents of it. If I'm buying the data on it, then I should be able to get it replaced either freely or cheaply (the cost of the actual media it is going to be replaced on).
If I have a CD and it is stolen, broken, wears out, I can't just send the record company $1.50 to get another copy (since I already paid for the right to own/listen to the music itself). Instead, I have to pay another $20+ to get the music all over again. So, I have to pay for the media *and* the content -- but have no rights over either the media or the content. So if I've paid for both twice and have only one copy, then I should be able to make a copy of the second copy I bought and give it away (since I paid for two existing copies in the world and one is gone).
The problem is that they have a clamp on everything. They sell you *nothing* for your $20+ and they get everything. When a format is obsolete, they get to ream you *all over again*. When your copy is damaged, stolen or worn out, they get to ream you *all over again*.
So from that stance, i say "fuck it". They don't give a shit about giving me what I paid for so why should I give a rats ass about their bottom line? Feel bad for the artist, but fuck -- I'm not your manager.
Re:Woe is.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a clue Moby - maybe you're not selling as many records because you suck. You're like the MPAA or the RIAA - always blaming someone else and you're especially vicious when you don't have any evidence.
Boring (Score:2, Insightful)
Moby is smoking something (Score:2, Insightful)
Techies Say Bad Music == Low Sales (Score:2, Insightful)
No Incentive (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Businesses can afford readily available and reliable bandwidth in large amounts.
The free copies probably can't.
2) Businesses can advertise.
The free copies probably won't.
3) Businesses have an incentive to provide a higher quality product at a better price due to increased competition.
The free copies probably won't put in the required time, and certainly not for free.
4) Businesses can make new products.
Copies, by definition, are never new.
5) Businesses have an incentive to make it very convenient to find and purchase their products.
Free copies are usually very difficult *and time consuming* to find. That's not free. Time is money.
Add to this the fact that most people are honest, and the whole "piracy" argument becomes quite flimsy indeed.
I'm not in support of draconian *AA legislation and irrational copyright controls, but I *am* in support of artists earning a fair living from their work. Technology should be used to encourage that.
"Illegal" copying will never go away. It's no different than shoplifting or people writing bad checks. It's going to happen. That should not be an excuse to treat everyone else poorly (Best Buy, are you listening?). If you treat people like thieves, that's exactly how they will behave, mainly because of the implied insult, not because they weren't willing to buy your precious "content."
Note to the music and video publishers: Put your stuff on line sooner, and these problems will be reduced.
Another $0.02
Re:The real reason (Score:1, Insightful)
Moby sounds like a certain whiney metal band: "Wah! My CD isn't selling well! It must be because of those eeeeevil CD pirates." It pisses me off that "CD pirates" are everyone's scapegoat these days, refusing to acknowledge the posibility that their sales are low because they suck. Can't tell you how often I see that whiney metal bands CDs on the used rack at Amoeba.
Re:Indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was in high school, my friends and I still bootlegged everything like crazy. We just made tapes of tapes. I've paid real money getting legitimate copies of the things I bootlegged. I think that most high school students just don't have that much money. Honestly, they're maybe losing some money now, but six years from now, if the band is still around, they'll still have fans. Besides, you love what you listen to a lot, and you go to concerts of what you love, and buy T-Shirts and posters ....
I don't think it's really too much of a stretch.
Go back to making commercials! (Score:2, Insightful)
Ironically, he recently stated that he would never do it again with '18' or any album in the future.
Yes, the album does suck. I've heard clips of the entire album (from his website). It consists almost entirely of old songs with a wee bit of techno sound in it, much like 'Natural Blues' in 'Play' (which I own & love).
As other have mentioned: go back to techno!
Must be p2p... (Score:2, Insightful)
Also he is using the current Record Industry cop-out of blaming music sharing or p2p for lower sales. Let us not forget the record high sales that went on during the hayday of Napster.
Once again I have not heard his new album, however the record business is driven mostly by the ability to give people what they want to hear. They may have become sick of Moby's attitude which I have found at times to be quite pretentious.
Moby and quality (Score:3, Insightful)
um... maybe the album just sucks... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oh course its true (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah, I think the music industry is measuring success just like any other industry, by the money entering their pockets. P2P, tape swapping, and CD copying may increase exposure for unkown musicians, but when the musician is on top, it ceases to help them.
Re:I disagree.. (Score:4, Insightful)
My theory: tech fans = critical buyers (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny that he made his money for so long by mixing records of other peoples' stuff together. Somehow I doubt he paid the appropriate ASCAP or BMI fees. So right off, I have a hard time sympathizing with his complaints about piracy.
But beyond that, isn't it notable that artists with a large fanbase in the tech community blame that fanbase whenever sales slip? Metallica was the first; Moby is just the latest.
My theory is this: Acts like Metallica or Moby build up a cult following over years. By nature, that cult following is largely techies and other folks who don't follow the Christina Spears of the month club. People who actually care about music and are willing to follow smaller bands to get what they want.
At some point, some of these bands go to pot (literally, figuratively, or both). Their later work becomes increasingly detached and less and less like the early work, eventually ending up as a mellowed out, regurgitated pablum made up of bits and pieces of all of their early work, mixed with maybe a few mainstream artists whose stolen sounds might help draw in a few more customers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hfans. Fans lose interest and buy less.
And then, as the final stage of intellectual and moral decay, these acts engage in a strange form of denial crossed with egotism crossed with paranoia. "The fans must still love us!" they shout. "We're sure they're still listening to this new crap we put out, but for some reason sales are down. It's those goddamned fans! They must be stealing our crappy new stuff, because after years of paying for our old, quality stuff, they've suddenly become a backstabbing pack of thieves! Yeah, that must be it! Those fans of ours sure do suck!"
Anyways, that's my theory. It would just be sad, if it didn't have the dangerous potential of impacting our legal system.
Cheers
-b
Re:That's Not The Perl Jam Effect! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh no (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Vinyl quality (Score:2, Insightful)
Bloody hell... (Score:2, Insightful)
Has anyone considered that it's a bit of both? I.E. It sucks, and is suffering from "The Pearl Jam Effect"....Anyone?
When it comes to debating/arguing/deciding something. Only a fool assumes everything is black or white. /.
But then again, this is
Re:Well... what happened to the tour? (Score:3, Insightful)
But I guess the only important thing is making truckloads of money...
Fuckin'-A right.
It is about the money. This world is not free.
Should a person be prevented from not making as much money as arguably possible? Its not like Moby just picked up instruments on Monday and released an album. The guy was poor his whole life till he hit big. He wouldn't push it without that promise... that dream.
All of this money makes you evil crap makes me sick. And by the way, I'm poor by most people's standards, so that must make me a saint.
Re:do tastes really change that much? (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with the undercurrent of this thread - there is a fair degree of denial out there that some people didn't like the second albums simply because their appreciation of the first one was a fad.
Re:The real reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry Moby, you're getting the RIAA effect. (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me download a good-quality 256k-bit mp3 or ogg directly from the publisher and I'll happily pay $1 a song. Until then, I have my collection, alternative music through non-RIAA sources, and the radio.
Re:That's Not The Perl Jam Effect! (Score:3, Insightful)
The Fragile was a phenomenally produced album. No one got it. Britteny Spears album was cheesy, predictable, studio crafted (i.e. Sound Engeneers, not Artists) pop music, and it sells out. Who has more commercials and exposure? OK, thanks.
Let's not even get into artists like the Pranksterz and Paul Glazby. They're techno (well, hard house/nu nrg/hard trance/etc, but as far as most are concerned, same thing), and they're MUCH better and more creative than Moby. Ever see them on any pop charts? Think they even would have the money to do a video? Ever even HEAR of them? Nope. Real talent hidden away. <rant>And now I take flak for being too "underground" in my music tastes from Eminem fans who sing "Nobody listens to techno!" Ironically enough that lyric is about Moby...</rant>
Re:Indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
We bootlegged tapes. Dual tape units had not come out yet. We had taping parties where we'd bring over multiple cassette decks and dub tapes.
The record companies screamed "Home taping is killing music!"
Since then they've gone on to make more and more and more money.
What's the difference?
it doesn't take a techie (Score:1, Insightful)
moby's out of touch. it doesnt take a techie to burn a cd anymore. your average 12 year old is better at it than i am. their parents, however....
I hate the cry of "Sellout!" (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW, if anything, Moby sold out last album with the licensing of "PLay". Note that this album is not as easily bought for commercial use.
Re:That's Not The Perl Jam Effect! (Score:3, Insightful)
where their entire audience is highly tech-savvy? they sell albums at a awesome pace and their older albums sales increase all the time as new listeners of TMBG get to love their music and spend gobs of money and time buying all the older albums.
Tech-savvy does not equal loss in sales.
BTW, I am a newish TMBG fan, only have been listening to them for 2 years now... and I still am buying the older albums and new albums... Hell, I bought their kids record! Liar's Island is a Kick butt song!
Re:Woe is.. (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm replying to this because I want to voice a similar sentiment, and speak to Moby's invocation of "The Pearl Jam Effect" The reason everyone and their brother bought "Play" and Pearl Jam's "Ten" is that they were the right kind of album at the right time. "Play" came along just as everyone wanted to hear what this whole electronica thing was about, and, thus, sold well. "Ten" also sold well because people wanted to hear good old fashioned rock-n-roll after 80's new wave became old wave.
Subsequent albums by Pearl Jam (and here, Mr. Moby, is what the real "Pearl Jam Effect" is) were exactly the same as "Ten", except not so good. They sold poorly because the public's taste had changed, the music did not change in the same way, and nobody wanted to hear Eddie Vedder's political vitriol.
What "18" has shown us is that Moby is likely interested in only making albums that are almost like "Play" but not quite as good. Thus, our study of history teaches us that we are seeing the beginnings of another "The Pearl Jam Effect", and that no future Moby album will be good, or relevant.
Before you start railing against me because I bash Pearl Jam and Moby, note this; this whole reply is purely my opinion. I think that both "Ten" and "Play" are two of the more influential and well-crafted albums of my day. I own both, and I still listen to both. I've heard "18" and all I thought was "ho-hum". That is the exact same thing I thought after I purchased Pearl Jam's "vs.", which is one of the albums that taught me to make damn sure I like it before I drop my hard-earned cash on it.
I whole-heartedly agree. This is *exactly* the reason I never bought "18." The only song I've heard is the new "We are all made of stars" and let me tell you how incredibly disappointed I was. I thought both his "Play" and "Songs" CDs were amazing, and I also own his B-Sides album. They were all very focused on the BGMs and funky electronic beats versus this new drab monotone style. Why buy something just because of a name, even if you don't like it? I certainly have no reason to waste my money...
Advice to Moby: if you're going to go that far away from your old style, don't expect it to be an instant success based on previous success alone.
18 sucks anyway. (Score:1, Insightful)
What a surreal discussion! (Score:4, Insightful)
All the people blasting Moby as being old and over the hill are pretty funny. 36 is not old, except to know-it-all teenagers.
There sure are a lot of people with bottled up angst, wanting to put down this CD in some sort of all-encompassing way. It's just a CD! If you don't like it, don't listen to it!
And then there are the people who say you should copy it because either (a) it sucks, or (b) Moby has an attitude problem. What weird logic! If those cases you think you wouldn't want anything to do with it, but it's the old double standard of "I hate you music industry, but I desperately need what you sell."
Re:damnit moby, listen to Eminem (Score:1, Insightful)
Listen to Moby's album. It's not techno.
I really need to say this (Score:2, Insightful)