Recording Industry Extinction Predicted RSN 493
nautical9 writes "There's an interesting commentary from Wired's Charles Mann, speaking of the imminent death of the recording industry as we know it. Nothing really ground-breaking here, but it is a good summary and somewhat fair treatment of the RIAA's current state-of-affairs, and offers a little insight into what the world of music may be like without them (hint: perhaps better off)."
I think we've known this for a while.. (Score:3, Insightful)
But what would be the main delivery of the art [music] to the public?
It is certainly difficult to say.. 20 dollars for a CD with 12 songs, of which 2-3 are usually "good". (poor generalization) Is it web radio or some other streaming service? Possibly.
Maybe 'albums' need to get bigger, like DVDs that include music videos. Traditional CDs are sold more like singles - very cheaply.
Quote... (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, I don't agree that the "electronic industry's" attitude can be summed up by Apple's slogan. Apple is one of the few that dares to encourage people to Rip/Mix/Burn.
(Thinking Sony, etc.)
I doubt it (Score:5, Insightful)
While it may not always be CALLED the RIAA, it will always BE the RIAA.
Kickstart
Re:Paying customers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm.. They just mention Kazaa. I imagine that if Kazaa became pay only, people would just get their music elsewhere.
Read less literally. The writer isn't saying that everyone will have to pay to use Kazaa, he's saying that if the music industry can get its act together and figure out its own legitimate distribution system, without DRM blocks, that users will move to that.
He's saying that all of the "elsewhere" will become "legitimate online services."
Re:Paying customers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except their idea of an 'online service' is really just an online version of a retail store, without the added cost of producing the CDs and liner notes.
And they want to make sure that it's illegal for anyone else to license the songs and offer a competing service, much like they dont want stores selling used CDs, which offer a competing service to the handful of 'retail outlets' they have in their pockets.
The recording industry wont die, but it will evolve into something different. The "we must control everything from the artist's mouth to the consumer's walkman" business model simply cannot work in todays world.
Songs vs. Albums (Score:3, Insightful)
This excludes of course, classic albums like Rumours, Dark Side of the Moon, etc. But those are few and far between.
Conglomerates suck out the life (Score:5, Insightful)
I more or less knew about this, but it was nice to see it put so well. Of course, they are blaming everything under the sun except themselves. I can't think of one conglomerate that didn't just suck the life out of everything it touched. The music industry is supposed to be about the art of music, but it has just turned into another lifeless business.
if you treat customers like criminals (Score:5, Insightful)
A very expensive lesson for them to learn
Re:I doubt it (Score:5, Insightful)
Your logic doesn't quite flow. Just because we will always have corporations, does not necessarily mean we will always have corporate record companies. The need for record companies is rapidly disappearing. When the service provided by a service company becomes obsolete, that company becomes obsolete. It doesn't remain just because corporations still remain and it's a corporation.
I don't know if record companies, and subsequently the RIAA, will cease to exist. I do know that if they don't start to actually adapt to the changes that have occurred in the market right before their bewildered -- and apparently non-functional -- eyes, it's highly unlikely they will remain profitable.
Sure, just like AM radio died... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, wait, none of that happened, did it?
The existing recording industry power structure may be in for a rough time, and the Deccas and Polygrams and Capitols may join the likes of Studebaker and Eastern Airlines and Crossley, but people will be recording CD's and selling them to other people for quite some time.
Re:Hilary Rosen is obviously psychic... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's eerie how spot on that article is. I mean, when I was growing up, I would buy a copy of every single album I could find of certain artists, like ZZ Top or Queen. But nowadays, there just aren't any artists who can seem to pull that kind of longevity off, because the labels don't seem to be inclined to let them.
We've got boy-bands that almost certainly won't be around in 3 years, much less 5. We've got "teen stars" who will almost certainly lose any fan base they have in a few years as well... I mean, it just seems outright unlikely that any artists that start today (or for that matter, started in the last couple of years), will have anything near the amazing amounts of success of the bands of 'yesteryear'.
Sure, there are some bands who seem to buck those trends, but when you're looking at the real longevity of bands like Aerosmith, versus the possible (and tenuous) longevity of artists like Britney Spears... well, you know what? I think in ten or fifteen years, there will still be people listen to old Aerosmith tunes, but Britney Spears will be all but forgotten.
Kierthos
The age of independent records. (Score:3, Insightful)
If a new artist makes a CD, and begins promoting it, and selling online, eventually the word will get out. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's rather difficult to find and download independent music off of major file-sharing apps like Kazaa and Gnutella. So, in turn, this is a measure of the artists popularity. So if an independent artist can become popular enough for people to start downloading his music online, then this creates the potential to tour and perform live. And perhaps that's the ticket -- live performances could possibly make up for money lost on file sharing. As popularity grows, more money can be made off of live shows, and thus more albums can be produced, etc.
I'm sure I am leaving a lot of out of this theory, but it seems that there still may be some hope for the music business, in the form of independent labels and records.
Two Quotes Stand Out: (Score:5, Insightful)
This is very true. In some cases, I know people in their mid 20's who wouldn't care.
Being in my mid-30's, most of the industry does nothing for me, does not interest me, and when its not ignoring me, its insulting my intelligence or calling me a theif. Meanwhile it churns out lame, uninteresting, repetitive music. Good riddance I say.
All of these models would produce fewer global superstars and more locally successful musicians. We might not see another Michael Jackson circa 1982, but we also wouldn't see another Michael Jackson circa 2002. Not a bad tradeoff.
There's already a lot of good work going on on city, state, and geographic-area levels. Bands working on these levels seem to have a whole different mindset and be more in touch with their listeners.
And yeah, I'll give up any future Michael Jacksons to avoid . . . any future Michael Jacksons.
Good article
Re:Hilary Rosen is obviously psychic... (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect more than likely she's been asked to resign by other rats who wants will pin some blame on her later, but that's still pretty much the same idea.
Changing not disappearing (Score:3, Insightful)
People love entertainment, people love music. It'll always be around, and there will always be money in it. It's just going to take some restructuring, even if it costs a whole lot of people their jobs.
Just a thought..
Re:Quote... (Score:5, Insightful)
I say to the Record Gorillas: If you want to collect the levies on media, shut the hell up if I decide that I'm going to use what I've already paid for.
Only Extinction if they dont adapt (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, the *industry* will do fine, its just the companies that have a stranglehold over it that are in trouble and must adapt, or die.
Paying too much in the wrong direction (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and by the way, Britney can whine all she wants, but for every $1 she's whining about, the execs are out 15! She's just the puppet in "her" anti-piracy campaign.
Webcasting Issue (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem isn't the demand for royalties per se -- it's the demand for royalties over and above what over-the-air stations pay.
Re:Quote... (Score:3, Insightful)
Again, for the umteenth time, why doesn't the record labels give the customers what they want? Why is it that dvd's and cd's are close to the same price, but dvd's have much much more content on them. Why can't they include an iso9660 disk with the mp3's already on it along with the music cd?
Re:Quote... (Score:2, Insightful)
The differance is Rip/Mix/Burn is legal, while Download/Mix/Burn isn't.
Apple even put's "Don't Steal Music" on their iPods.
The point of Apple's ad campaign was to allow people to make mixes of their own music and listen to them on CD's that they burned on their iMacs. Now that they have the iPod that slogan dosen't exist. The point is moot.
Re: Quote... (Score:2, Insightful)
> Funny, I don't agree that the "electronic industry's" attitude can be summed up by Apple's slogan. Apple is one of the few that dares to encourage people to Rip/Mix/Burn.
Last time I looked at hard drives in a retail shop, the box made no bones about storing music as one of the "needs" for a high-capacity drive.
And of course, even those parts of the industry that aren't saying it may still hold that attitude. Surely you don't think all those CD recorders are being bought by people who want to back up their data?
The electronics industry, like the music industry, wants to make a buck. They don't have much reason to give a fig about the music industry's wishes. You could think of them as competing industries on this topic, in the sense that what's good for one is bad for the other.
Not in my lifetime (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Quote... (Score:2, Insightful)
I would think "Download/Mix/Burn" would be more like "Fuck you, Recording industry."
Re:Paying customers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Kinda reminds me of this statement:
"These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel." Abraham Lincoln, speech to Illinois legislature, Jan. 1837.
Re:Songs vs. Albums (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Paying customers? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Umm.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The only significance seems to be whether you want to be lead blindly, or free your mind (lame matrix reference).
Re:Paying customers? (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps the music companies, given that they're already part of this media complex, will in essence become programming arms for their TimeWarnerAOLDisneySony masters. They'll provide content, which be programming that can be sold on the big networks, in whatever form they take. Sports went from selling the event to selling people's desire to watch the event; maybe music will go from selling CDs to selling access to the fans who want to hear or see the artists perform.
This would obviously require a sea change in how the labels relate to radio stations, but the monolithic nature of radio these days has put it in a dangerous place; as alternate channels of music promotion grow in power and scope, radio will be in a tight place. It will be interesting, regardless.
Re:Umm.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed. Very loosely.
Most computer hardware companies have links to the US nuclear weapons programme. Should we boycott them as well?
They refuse to acknowledge change. (Score:5, Insightful)
I also remember this was around the time the labels started to pick some new artist (talent not important) and promoting them to the hilt to turn them in to a cash cow. In the UK there was Jason Donovan, Bros and to a certain extent Kylie Minouge, in the USA there was New Kids on the Block. Although this wasn't a new concept, the capitalist 80's had encouraged record companies to promote an artist with a new ruthless zeal, where anything that could carry the artitsts name was sold as merchandise and young fans were encouarged to cover their bedrooms with anything carrying the artists name. The labels knew they could do this as targetting young fans meant that their parents would splash the cash to keep them happy.
This relentless promotion of teen-idols alienated a lot of proper artists and people who liked good music. I don't think its no accident that the rave and acid house scenes of the late 80's and early 90's came about by accident, it was a reaction to the cr*p that was being splurted out by the labels.
As the labels tried to rely on the teen-idol model to make money, decent artists were negelcted. This is a fact check the chart stats for the past 10 years, you will see that the teen-idol market sells more than the decent music market. Problem is that this sort of market makes money in the sort term only and the audience is finite. By focusing on the teen market too much, mostly only the teens were buying singles. People who liked good music were buying their favourite artists albums and nothing else. But albums don't make the labels much money, they need accompanying singles sales as well, plus merchandising and concert profits. A lot of the labels seem to now realise that all the time and effort they put in to Bros, the Spice Girls, NKOTB etc was wasted, this sort of music does not make money in the long term. When was the last time you heard any of these artists music on the radio, hearing a Spice Girls song is a rariity these days despite them only splitting up a few years ago. Compare with late 80s/early 90s artists like the Housemartins and the Happy Mondays who still pop up on the radio and on VH1 and must be making some money for the labels.
The labels got greedy in the late 80s and have aliented a lot of people. The internet merely speeded up the alienation process. I for one would buy more CD's if they were cheaper, £16.99 for a new release is a silly money I can fill my cars tanks for cheaper. £10-£11 would be a realistic price for a CD in my opinion. They need to price CD's within the "spare money" range so that people feel happier buying a CD and not thinking "thats expensive".
The labels refuse to accept that people and artists do not like the way they have behaved for the last 10 years, they want to get back to the high profit days of the late 80's and early 90's. That is why they are trying to exert more control and send the crack lawyers out on everyone, left, right and centre. Just look at the explosion of reality talent shows such as Pap Idol and Lame Academy which whip teenagers in to a frenzy and makes them rush out and buy all the associated merchandise. A quick buck for the labels and very happy TV executives. This is a sign of desperation, it will not last. They need to realise there is a new business model in operation, they are hiding their heads in the sand. Artisits will no longer accept the labels owning all their work, the punters will just refuse to pay £17 for a CD with only 10 songs on it. In my opinion, the records companies need to become distributors and service providers (studios, technical services etc) rather than controllers of music. If they try to keep control of music, the music creators will simply walk away from them and the labels will simply vanish.
The article is 100% correct. Here's why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's why:
1) In the 90's The List Price for CD's have steadily gone up in price from 10-12 dollars to roughly 18-20 dollars. Most of the money goes to the execs and to the record stores. The artists sees very little of the money made from an average CD sale. Artists make their money on live shows, not CD's. I remember when CD prices were reasonable I would see numerous people in CD stores buying stacks of 10 or more CD's in an average visit. Heck, I used to do the same.
2) Crap Music=No Sales. With the amount of crap music that is on the market (thanks in part to MTV and other media that had been promoting bubble gum pop), not many people are willing to make the investment on a CD that may hold only one or two good songs. I don't know how many times I've been pissed off by artist that have a really good song or two, but the rest of their CD sucks ass. The RIAA needs to put out quality artists and hire artistic minded people to find these artists. Cive Davis (who was fired from one of the companies that make up the RIAA for being too old) is a master of finding talent. He is the man behind signing Carlos Santana in the 60's, and orchestrated his comeback with 'Supernatural'. He is also the man who is credited with discovering Alicia Keys. I will always buy CD's based on the people he backs.
4)Marketing. The RIAA needs to get on the ball in marketing all artists. Not just the to 2% of popular artists.
5)Information age. Plain and simple, the RIAA needs a new business model for the information age. Their industrial age business models are no longer working for them and their profits are going down the tubes. The longer the RIAA holds on to this archaic business model, the longer their collective companies will go down the tubes.
6)Going after KaZaa's or Napsters will not stop piracy. This is a very reactive and costly approach to the issue. If you notice, KaZaa (IMO) seems to have been designed from the mistakes and loopholes of Napsters ashes. People will still keep creating mechanisms for swapping songs. The RIAA needs to come up with a Proactive approach to piracy.
IMO, the piracy in this day and age is a revolt against the RIAA for trying to make the average person pay an astronomical sum of money for CD's and crap artists they are trying to shove down our throats.
Once the RIAA addresses these issues and put out better music the piracy will slow to a trickle or stop.
Dolemite
____________________________________
The Year The Music CARTEL Dies (Score:5, Insightful)
As the article points out, the Cartel has a well-deserved reputation of screwing everyone and I think that in their passing, we will all benefit provided what replaces them isn't a smaller stronger Cartel or effective monopoly (like Microsoft Music or something). And that possibility is truly frightening since monopolization is the way of business and the governments that they sponsor.
Fuck them, I've moved on. They haven't gotten a penny of my music budget in 10+ years - it goes to independent artists and labels. I've had to work a little harder to find it, but what I've found far exceeds in quality anything the Cartel has to offer. It's been 10 years of pure listening pleasure for me.
Re:Paying customers? (Score:2, Insightful)
Some readers will no doubt take the existence of small independant record labels as evidence that the market is working and everthing is ok, but the samll indies know that if they step out of line the big boys will crush them or buy them out, they exist only on the suffrance of the powerful.
Napster and Kazaa present their biggest problem because it has shown people that they don't have to go to a shop and buy a cd filled with trash in order to get the three songs they like.
We shall no doubt see what the result of this is in time but it is well worth writing to MPs, senators etc to voice your opinion that 'state aid' should not be given to these companies, quite simply they don't deserve it.
Re:What do they do? (Score:4, Insightful)
What do the recording agencies do? Record, remaster, produce, manufacture and market musicians.
Nearly as I can tell computers and the Internet have pretty much taken over those roles.
Let's see:
24-track digital multi-track recorder($3,500) ; 40-channel mixer/sound board($6,000) ; studio musicians ($???/hour) ; booth construction (ca. $10,000) ; sundries such as cables, media, beer, etc. ($1,000)
This is just to record. Now each artist has to remaster their own music (a very technically difficult job for which people study years). Then they have to shop around for a place to stamp CDs for them. These artists now have over $30,000 wrapped up in their album, which they have to recoup from concerts, because everyone knows you don't make squat for profit on CD sales. So you book a music hall, hire ticket printers, take out an insurance policy, and suddenly add another $50,000 to your bill. I sure hope your /. buddies bring their friends.
Taking care of these "business" tasks are the major perks of studios -- and the reason why artists are willing to give up 85% of their sales to them. Exactly where did a computer take over these roles? Destroy the recording agencies, and I can guarantee you will destroy quality music. How good do you think that Pink Floyd album of yours would have sounded if it had been recorded in a garage using bicycle spokes and wooden spoons for the synthesized sound? Do you think U2 could charge $75 a ticket if their only exposure had been to the geek music community?
In your blind hatred of the recording industry, you are failing to see what positive qualities they do have. Don't destroy them, change them. Help change the copyright laws. Buy from independent recording labels who don't have a history of persecuting file sharers. Support the artists. Quit whining.
"...I'd rather have my appendix removed by baboons weilding unsterilized tuna can lids..." -- Dave Barry
This Sums It Up (Score:5, Insightful)
Well written.
I'm 34 years old, and the only CD I've purchased in the last 18 months was for a gift. I am no longer able to stomach most new music that the labels promote. I do not like rap, I do not like teen pop, older bands are ignored and anything that is new and fresh is immediately duped and run into the ground as the latest profit mill. Meanwhile, good local bands are ignored and routinely GIVE away their music online.
I purchased an insane amount of CDs between 1986 (my first CD player) and 1996. I had a nice amount of disposable income and thought nothing of dropping $40 on CDs on a weekly shopping trip. No longer, there's nothing worthy of my hard earned dollar.
If the record companies want to make a quick buck, all they need to do is simply create a web site that offers ALL their out of print music in their entire collection and allow me to download it and burn it for $2 per song. I can fit 10 songs per CD, and the weekly revenue stream magically re-appears.
Alas, they are too stupid to see how profitable it is to satiate a demand in the market. They are too arrogant to admit that they need to make an adjustment. And they are too greedy to do anything about their problem but to buy legislation and call their customers criminals.
It's sad, really.
Lots of persona agendas are clouding things (Score:3, Insightful)
I also don't see all music in stores as crap. Yeah, there's Mariah and so on, but there's alot a whole lot of it that I really like, both new and old. Saying that music publishers deserve to die because they're foisting unlistenable garbage on the world is a narrow view. If you hate all the music you find in the average, say, Borders, then I'm sorry, but You Just Don't Like Music.
All of the things that can be said about the Big Music Corporations can just as easily be said about smaller labels and music from local bands. They're trying to get you to pay for plastic CDs just like the big guys, and they're charging more than the fifty cents for materials. If you're arguing for the death of big music, you're arguing for the death of small music too.
I also find it hypocritcal that many people won't touch music in stores--calling it crap--but then will download it and enjoy it. Either you don't like it or you don't. These arguments come across as those from poor students trying to justify their lack of funds.
It's also not clear that CDs are really being killed by online music. I live near a CD store by a college campus, and it's always busy. The industry being down 11% is meaningless. No business grows forever and ever. So they're down 11% after growing 200% in the last decade. Does that matter? Look at how much the entire stock market has dropped in the last few years! And now they're only making _billions_ of dollars instead of billions + 11%. Hmmm. I'd take that.
The only real issue is that MP3s are more convenient sometimes, especially if you only want one song, and sure, that makes people buy fewer CDs (but it's arguable that people wouldn't buy those "for just one song" CDs anyway). But this has nothing to do with record companies being evil and so on. If you think music publishers are evil, then you should think video game and movie publishers are too. It's more that they're being branded as evil because people like the dodges that downloading music give them.
Re:Hilary Rosen is obviously psychic... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news (Score:3, Insightful)
America doesn't run as a pure capitalist market. This is probably a good thing, as it would fail just as surely as a pure anything, since no matter what the anything is, it's inflexible.
It's important for you to understand that the music industry in America is a cartel. Just like a South American drug cartel, it consists of a group of companies that compete fiercely against each other, but band together to take on common opposition, and are led by a public face you can think of as a ringleader.
The RIAA cartel does not simply aggressively compete for your dollars against other music choices. They control the entire system, from radio payoffs to music video airtime, to ensure that their acts are the ones the public sees. Therefore the public is left to choose from a fast-food Chinese menu where every meal is a different combination of the same foods ("I'll have the U2 and some wonton soup.")
This is further enhanced by massive contributions to our Congress which are designed to persuade it to pass laws to further restrict our choices (See Bono, Sonny.) Most of believe that there is an equal representation system in Washington only in the sense that every dollar gets an equal voice.
Most of us over here believe in the idea that the best product should succeed. We're willing to make allowances for superior marketing and other quirks of the system that might influence that natural selection. We're not willing to accept the outright mutation of that order.
Re:Paying customers? (Score:5, Insightful)
The secret is to provide accurate ID3 tags, 192kb/s quality, and accurate/standardized filenames. I'd pay up to $.50/song for all that, which is a lot more than they're getting now (hint: nothing).
Re:I think we've known this for a while.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think we will probably see a shift to some sort of enhanced CD, or a DVD. Some sort of format what will offer extras above and beyond the music itself. As it is, one of the main reasons I am willing to buy a CD is the lyric sheet that is often put in the cover booklet. In a way, I fell ripped off if the lyrics aren't in there. And even then, I'm not up for paying $20 for a CD. A two disc set maybe (if its got a lot of songs I like on it), but never for a single disc, I can wait for it to hit the discount rack.
Also, I think we will see a rise in legal mp3/oog/[insert format here] sites which sell songs. I would expect that there will be a bit of a price war for a while, but it will probably settle at something below $1 a song. Unless, of course, the labels get their way and the labels control the online distribution. Though, wasn't this type of control the one of the things that landed Microsoft in hot water? But I digress.
I think that the death of the major labels could be a boon for the small performer. First and foremost, this may help to end radio payola. (Ok, so technically they go through a middleman, so it isn't payola, but its still a way to buy airtime.) It would be nice if the practice of buying airtime died. I for one am really damn tired of hearing the same 10 or so songs repeated ad nauseium, thoughout the day. Sadly, the only radio station in my area, which even closely matches my tastes is owned by Clear Channel, so all I get are loads of commercials interspersed with the same 10 songs. And with a 30 minute commute each way, I'm lucky to hear more than one song each way. The rest is commercials or the DJ's that don't shut-up.
More than the RIAA, I think that radio payola and the Clear[ly a trust] Channel, are the biggest problems with the music industry. If we could re-instate the pre-Telecommunications Act rules about station ownership, and make third-party payola illegal, we might see an improvement in music. At the very least, it might make it harder for the labels to foist the newest pop band, "he/she's a superstar because his/her fans all want to have sex with him/her" on the masses. We might also get some sort of veriety in radio. But this is probably just a dream.
recording doesn't need an 'industry' (Score:2, Insightful)
For $2000 (price of a mid-level PC just a few years ago), you can have a decently (though minimally) equipped home studio consisting of a digital multitrack recorder, a passable mic pre-amp and a mic or two. And that's with new equipment, and probably with some change. For far *Far* less you can record yourself by other means (eBay, local classifieds, a few hours of studio time
Being able to *record* decent quality doesn't mean record companies don't matter -- it's just that "recording industry" is a misnomer. The various things which make up that "industry" could better be thought of as a big weird system of legalese + marketing + other forms of influence.
The "recording industry" postures as the *source* of music, and as standing up for the musicians whose work ends up being filtered through it. That might be true of most individuals involved, too; I can't really believe that Satan himself secretly heads all the big record companies, and does it because he hates all musicians. But it's not a secret that the reason record companies, including their high-priced studios and high-priced studio engineers, marketeers, etc, exist is to, hopefully and eventually, make some money.
I'm sure many if not most of everyone below the esoteric upper management level (where people float between companies seemingly on the basis that they've
timothy
the music industry stat vacuum (Score:2, Insightful)
People aren't buying as much music more from 1-it's just too expensive for what you get, and 2-less disposable income. Music on CDs is not a necessity like the home note, vehicle note, food and utilities are.
Re:Quote... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the RIAA thinks that this phrase is the equivalent of Apple Corp giving them "the bird", then it is the RIAA that has the problem. They're simply out of touch with reality and their genuine contempt for their customer is shining through.
Consider this: The "Rip" part of the Apple slogan requires to have the ACTUAL ORIGINAL. All Apple is doing is to encourage inventive use of what you already PAID for.
There is nothing particularly subversive about such an idea.
Long Time Coming (Score:5, Insightful)
I am beginning to rediscover the joy of music again through digital cable music channels and swapping MP3's. My friend and I have set up FTP servers on our computers and upload interesting music (which we almost always buy) for each other to listen to. We've also swapped songs from vinyl albums or CD's bought in our youth that aren't physically playable anymore. It's not like we we're going to buy that particular CD again but it was nice that one of us had a digital copy of it so we could continue to enjoy it. Both of us like to buy CD's still but if the industry collapses I suppose we'll adapt. Really though, we're doing nothing that we weren't already doing for years - making mix tapes from albums and CD's and swapping them. It's just now we a a higher-quality medium to achieve the same thing. I don't get how Rip-Mix-Burn says "Fuck You Record Industry". Twenty years ago it was Cue-Mix-Tape and we never heard them complain.
In my case, technology is not to blame for my change in listening habits. Technology has been the savior in reviving my passion for music. It has allowed me to listen to what I like. The RIAA almost killed that part of my life because I found nothing worth listening to anymore that was easily accessible. The RIAA and its unchecked greed and totalitarian control tactics is really the culprit for the death of the music industry. At least for those of us that are too old to find Britney Spears appealing or talented.
Re: CD Pricing (Score:2, Insightful)
music CDs in a boxed set for $45. At $1.50
a disc it was well worth it for me to buy
the CDs rather than downloading and burning
that much music myself.
The interesting thing for me was the fact
that someone is making money selling them
at this price. Sure, the music itself is
out of copyright, and the orchestras they
used to record the music were from eastern
europe where labor is cheap, but it
demonstrates how low CD prices can get.
Add back some reasonable royalties for the
writers and performers, and single unit
packaging, and you should be
able to sell CDs for $3 apiece.
Daniel
Re:Hilary Rosen is obviously psychic... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hilary Rosen is obviously psychic... (Score:4, Insightful)
Partly this is the fault of the music industry, yes, for pushing crap. Partly it's the fault of musicians themselves, who are more interested in being Rock Stars(tm) than in making actual music. Partly it's the fault of the buying public who listen to whatever crap is hot this week. Say what you will about Madonna's music (personally I think most of it is mediocre and some is pretty good) but you can't deny that she's a lot smarter than most of her contemporaries when it comes to keeping her career going.
Madness to the Method (Score:2, Insightful)
At the point in time Rosen decided to kill Napster, older downloaders were largely grabbing out-of-print music, while youngsters grabbed the same hits as were on the radio. We didn't like Rosen or the RIAA, but most of us had yet to realize what a slimeball she is, and by association the RIAA. Cars with CD players were still a small minority, and CD burning software and hardware were as yet unpolished. Most importantly, though, was that downloaders were still thinking has nice it was going to be in the future when they could easily and reliably download high quality music, artwork, lyrics, etc, and also access thousand of out of print or difficult to get albums. Those whose main goal was to get free music for the sake of IP theft/piracy were the minority; most people simply thought that although what they were downloading was not top quality, it would get better once Napster went legit.
That was three years ago. Retail buyers of CDs find it even harder to find what they want, and a large portion of this is caused by the RIAA's using Golden Goose economics. E.g, fewer artists, fewer titles, and even pressing fewer copies to save money. At first glance it seems that if you press 200,000 and only sell 160,000, then you only should have pressed 160,000. However, what really happens is that if 160,000 are pressed, then sales will decline to probably around 110,000. Such is the power of having something in stock when the the buyer is there. Likewise, if there are six groups, you might like one; with just three, you probably don't like any.
Just imagine if there was a web site where a user go after discovering a new (to them) group, and click a button to purchase their entire catalogue. Print/burn/assemble/ship. By now everyone can do these steps, while the RIAA members's back catalogues have actually shrunk. In many cases they've cancelled contracts with independents (such as Rhino) and then .... done nothing.
The RIAA's members couldn't, can't and never will even agree with each other on how to do anything that would involve voluntarily giving up one penny.
So, Rosen, now we hate you. Things should have gotten better, but you made things considerably worse. We don't want to give you or your RIAA member's money so you can sue us, buy politicans and judges, and snort coke in your private jets all day (or whatever it is you need the money for).
They have no product. Of course they're doomed. (Score:4, Insightful)
What do they contribute to the process today?
At one time, it was very difficult to record and distribute music. Letting the listeners know the music was available was a problem, too. All of this costa lotta dollah! An industry was born, they provided those services, and they charged a fee. I don't forget that industry has abused and defrauded both the artists and the listeners; I'm keeping this basic, here.
Anyhow, the services are simply not as precious as they once were. The most difficult part of getting a recorded piece of music onto media is to create the art itself. Today, anybody with a few grand can put together a decent recording studio. More and more, when the band's in the studio the most expensive collection of hardware in the room is their instruments.
Editing and mixing a decent track from the audio your engineer has just captured? Again, the limiting factor is talent, not capital.
Marketing and Distribution? I don't think we need help with that.
The RIAA is doomed because they have no product. They may hang onto some "talent" through old contracts, but I can't forsee the majority of new artists waiting to be "discovered" when they can do it themselves.
Torque, Torque--the Beast needs more Torque.
Thank God I'm Not a Teenager (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm over 30, and buy fewer than a dozen CD's per year. I stopped feeling a "gotta have that CD" compulsion a long timer ago. (Hence, the hundreds of CD's sitting in boxesx in my closets.)
I haven't paid to hear a musician play in anything larger than a neighborhood bar for years. And, when I think of a "band" it's more likely to be a bunch of jazz players found on a Bluenote reissue.
I've played with the p2p networks, found them rather chaotic, and, more importantly, found little music that I'd bother to listen to, on any medium.
I care about audio quality, so I don't listen to music on my PC.
I don't know if my experience mirrors that of others (I suspect it does), but the same thing is likely to happen to the big demographic currently targeted by the music industry.
My criteria for a music distribution system that succeeds the current system includes: distribution of music I like; sufficient revenue back to the musicians I like to keep them in the business; simple and convenient way to locate and acquire music I like; simple means to transfer the music files to a format acceptable to my playback method of choice.
Cost? Less is better than more expensive, but it isn't a primary factor.
Quote from the article (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't it more like:
"record companies are detested by youth (for corrupting politicians)"
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the big labels, they are a bunch of old (and very greedy) dinosaurs that are still trying to use a business model from the 1940's. Technology has moved on, and what used to be exclusive to them: studio equipment, distribution channels, and promotion contacts, are no longer exclusive. Studio equipment is cheap enough now for a well-off college student or a small business to afford. Distribution can be handled by ecommerce, and possibly a fulfillment center if one is selling a lot of CDs, something a musician just getting started wouldn't need to worry about. Promotion can be handled via P2P (already proven to work for indie artists), internet radio, the web, and word of mouth.
All that is dying is a bunch of greedy companies and a way of doing business that deserves to die. Music will live on in a new industry that is already waiting in the wings. Only instead of mega labels that "manufacture" a select few pop stars (that can't half sing), this will be an industry of indie artists, basement studios, and small indie labels, where the artists are in charge, prices are low, and variety is endless because there are no barriers to entry. Anybody who can carry a tune and get an mp3 made of the event will be able to be an artist. Run that mp3 up on your favorite P2P network and see if anyone salutes. If they do, make more and you are on your way to a fun hobby or even a career if you can find enough people interested in buying your mp3s and CD albums. If your first mp3 isn't noticed, either try again, perhaps with a different sound or style, or else don't and do something else with your life.
Want to hurry the death of the big labels along? Go here:
http://www.riaa.org/About-Members-1.cfm
This is a list of the members of the RIAA, including all the subsidiary labels of the big five. Boycott them. Also boycott anybody foolish enough to copy protect disks. Take your hard earned money and enthusiastically support indie artists. Find some you like and tell all your friends about them. This way, you may give the RIAA some ammo to complain about piracy in the short term (don't worry, they would make up something to complain about even if you were their best customer), but in the long term you will have built up a better future for both the artists and your fellow music lovers.
"Mothra's attack is working."
Shouta, "Mothra 3: King Ghidora Attacks"
Re:Umm.. (Score:2, Insightful)
So, I suppose we should boycott every industry?
Recording Industry != Recording Services (Score:5, Insightful)
The big 5 record companies DO NOT RUN ALL the Recording Services that artists use.
First point - most good musicians end up having a home studio anyway. A lot of people I listen to (Will Kimbrough, Ani DiFranco, Slaid Cleeves to name a few) are hard working live and session artists and have invested in thier own gear - they are craft workers that want to have control of the final product.
Second point - Each artist does not have to master thier own music - the same mastering services will be available as there are now that the record companies use. Mastering CD's is not a technically difficult job at all - but properly producing a good album is and needs a good team to do it. (I have done this for come college bands so they can send decent demos to promoters and such - I'm no proffesional but the tools available mean I can cut a pretty acceptable live album.) Most of those people are contractors of a kind either independant or attached to a studio like Abbey Road. These people right now are being requested by artists that care about thier music, and will still be if record companies disappear in the morning.
Point Three - you don't make squat from CD sales NOW because so many people take a cut. Yes artists give up 85% of sales, but many of them end up being charged for all the costs out of THIER 15%. If an artist can pay for the album to be produced and the CDs to be created once they have broken even everything is pure profit. Most of these guys make thier break in the live circuit and selling signed cds for 10 bucks at the end is a great way to meet fans, make money and spread the word of your music for those people who didnt make your gig. This is where I get most of my CDs now because its cheaper and the artist I respect gets a bigger cut of the money.
Point Four - Promoters hire and organise concerts, these people will also not disappear. The difference will be the artists will have to have a bit more financial backing to put the capital up, but will get more of the returns. Without a slush fund from the Record Companies in the future you will find promoters being more flexible becasue they themselves will want to evolve and adapt and stay in buisness. I can, and have, see the artists I mentioned above for 10UKP a time in the Borderline in London - that MUST be profitable otherwise it wouldn't happen and I can tell you for certain that no Record Company is involved. I've run band nights myself and we ALL made profits for far less outlay than you suggest.
Point 5 - Yamaha/Korg/Roland arent going to go out of buisness. Big News - artist have thier own instruments these days, even session musicians. Cubase and other such programs can generate very very reasonable sound on commodity PC hardware. Even college bands can afford good mid range equipment these days.
Point 6 - artists are willing to give up 85% of thier sales because if they want to break out of the niche live and touring circuit and bring thier music to a wider audience they need airplay. Try getting that in the US without playing ball with an A&R man. Thankfully in the UK we have more choice with guys like Bob Harris who actually care about the music they play and don't have a playlist and a script.
Point 7 - a lot of independant artists manage themselves or are managed RIGHT NOW by management groups without any affiliation with the Big 5.
Point 8 - the attitude of 'those poor dumb artists don't want to be bothered with buisness' is condescending and insulting. ALL of the craftspeople in the industry from writers to session musicians to producers to sound engineers generally take pride in thier work. Thats why so many of them set up thier own record labels and studios so they can keep control of thier work. A lot of 'real' unmanufactured music is pretty much only distributed by the Big 5, everything else is done by the people themselves. Its not economics, its an issue of control.
Point 9 - computers have brought cheap good quality synthesisation and sequenceing into the homes of college students and teenagers. This in turn has brought down the price of higher level kit. Good studios are now available for hire. We no longer need the massive outlay of money to set up a studio that required a Record Company to do it - indeed these days a large number of studios are set up by existing artist who hire them out to make it profitable. What computers have done is bring down the costs and made good music production available to many many more people. The internet has now offered a distribution channel that was previously only available to a large buisness. Thats the point.
Point 10 - nothing in your post is about supporting the artist. Its about supporting the status quo. I support artists by supporting efforts to limit the massive lobbying for control of thier livelhood that is going on, by going to thier gigs, by buying directly from them.
My hatred of the Recording Companies (NOT the recording industry itself) is not hatred, and nor is it blind. They are just as relevant to the task of getting music from the artist into my hifi as coal mining is to fueling railway trains - namely redundant as things have moved on.
Re:Hilary Rosen is obviously psychic... (Score:3, Insightful)
They might as well keep their artists in cages and call them slaves. Mothra never saw a difference anyway.
"They bind our hearts: 'Let's sell them again and again!'
Our plan understands the sea; we can wait for her coming."
From the song "Infanto no Musume" in the Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961).
Re:This Sums It Up (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm 34 years old, and the only CD I've purchased in the last 18 months was for a gift.
Agreed. What's amazing to me is how common this story is nowadays. I'm 24 and I haven't bought music in about a year and a half. All my friends are in their mid-twenties and they say the same thing. It's like somewhere in the middle of 2001, everybody just.... lost interest.
I look at the billboard charts today and I see a lot of familiar faces. Nelly, Eminem, Christina Aguilera, Kid Rock, Jennifer Lopez. All squarely targeted at the teen market. Even stalwarts like the Dave Matthews' Band and U2 lack most of the vibrancy that made them great in the past. We just acquired a great new radio station in San Diego that plays "Music that doesn't suck." They play a wide variety of fantastic music, none of it younger than two years old.
What's really frustrating to me is that I know that somewhere, great music is being made. Groups like Thievery Corporation, Ozomatli, and Los Lobos are still out there making great music. But where am I supposed to find out about it? FM Radio? MTV? Internet Radio? Napster? Every channel I used to find new music is either dying under the weight of RIAA legal action or playing the same five songs.
Especially sad is the fact that this is an old rant, heard a million times from a million different people. Zentec is right. There's a huge demand out there, but it's being totally ignored. I hope the article's right. We're due for a change.
All right, off the soapbox. I feel better.
I haven't seen any more comments on this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmm... (Score:2, Insightful)
The music industry does not equal music.
I'm not so sure they'll go away, the less money the make the less money they have to influence politicians, the less powerful they become and the more realistic and monopolistic they will be. Independent Labels will be able to exist again in this more competative environment and the fat cow of the current music industry will be transformed into a much leaner, healthier animal. The Star Machine will roll on, but music might be the stuff they give away for free so you will buy the dvd-video, concert footage of whatever multimedia star (notice they all are now, the "musician" has given way to the "performer") is currently hot.
Of course the conglomerates, frustrated at losing money because they can no longer afford the excesses will become like cornered rats and who knows what they they will do. There is talk of the "p2p tarriff" on all broadband accounts, I think that if they can get it applied to blank cd-r's that can and are used for data and a myrid of other things, they can get their tarrif, this will fund their lawyers who will constantly crack down on this activity you just paid for. And of course the isps will cite this as a reason there is more traffic and another reason to cut the upload bandwidth yet again.
Re:Paying customers? (Score:2, Insightful)
It only takes a few minutes? When was the last time YOU baked a loaf of bread? I'll tell you what... we can both start in my fully-stocked kitchen. On the count of 3 I'll walk to 7-11, buy a loaf of bread, come back and be eating my sandwhich before you even get your "loaf" in the oven. Not sure how you conclude that you can bake a load of bread faster than you can buy it, moreso when you consider the time to clean up the kitchen afterwards.
It's not hard to shoplift, either. Just walk into the grocery store, pick up a loaf of bread, and walk back out again.
Two things:
1. Try doing that. You'll get caught. The bubble-gum example was more appropriate because you can perhaps hide that in a pocket. It's kind of hard to conceal a load of bread in your pocket unless you like totally compressed bread.
2. I'm opposed to stealing. I've never physically stolen everything, not even candy when I was a kid. And I never would regardless of how much it costs or how badly I want it. But I won't hesitate to download an MP3. If I steal candy, the store no longer has the candy. If I download the MP3, no-one has lost possession of anything.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet you'd pay a quarter for gum even if it came out of your computer for free. Why? Because $.25 = about .5-1 minute of most Americans' time.
Like the parent post said, he can do something else while he waits for the gum. If I could get a free stick of gum but bad to wait idle for 10 minutes to get it, I would rather walk to 7-11, buy the gum for 25 cents, and walk back. But if I could order the gum for free, continue working, and have the gum pop out in 5 minutes, yeah, I'd do it. At least if it doesn't short someone else their legitimate stick of gum.
There's almost no way the effort of pirating something you can get for $.50 is ever worth it. Only if you're extremely poor, extremely bored, or just plain vindictive.
You're dreaming. If I have the choice of logging on to Kazza, finding the song I want, and downloading it for free and listening to it in less than 5 minutes OR going to a music site, hopefully finding the song I want, downloading it for 50 cents after identifying myself and my credit card number and be listening to it in 7 minutes (call it 2 minutes for giving CC info, etc.), guess what, I'll choose the no-hassle, no-risk, completely-anonymous approach every time.
Re:Paying customers? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd stop downloading from P2P networks altogether. Why waste my time and bandwidth on a bunch of amateurs when I could be doing business with respectable professionals?
I wouldn't bother to share my non-copy-protected music with anybody. Why waste my bandwidth pushing files to some punkass who a) can't scrape together 10 cents to get his own copy, and b) is apparently too stupid to figure out that Kazaa really can't compete with proper customer service.
I'd still burn copies of my music, because hey, it's my music--I'm paying for the right to listen to it on my own terms, after all. So I'd have one copy on my computer/multimedia center, one copy in my mp3-man, and one copy in my car. BFD. I might burn the occasional compilation or sample album for a friend, but probably not too often. That whole "it's so cheap and easy they could do it themselves" thing, again.
And you know what? The price would actually be negotiable. After all, I could throw some files around to acquaintances, and maybe use limited P2P to preview new stuff... but I wouldn't ask my friend to let me download every single track by an artist he'd introduced me to--why waste our time and bandwidth? I could simply go to the official server and pay 20, or 30, or maybe even 50 cents for tracks I know are worthwhile. And how do I know they're worthwhile? Because it's so damn easy to hear about them from other people.
So first off, everybody would be too busy making money to sue, and second, everybody would be too busy getting on to the official website where all the marketing, distribution, collating, and... what was that word? Oh, right... where all the money is to prompt a lawsuit anyway.
If the record "industry" survives at all, it will be as an Internet-based pay-for file sharing service.
One Word (Score:4, Insightful)
It may be a little early to crack open the champagne, but I'm ready to celebrate evolution in action. Record companies served a purpose when the technology to make copies of records was expensive. This service is no longer necessary, or even beneficial, to musicians or the public. The promotional services that record companies still legitimately provice could be replaced by a promotion industry. Hopefully one that's based on sane business agreements, rather than the take-it-or-leave-it usury model which the record industry chose to follow, and which is finally biting it in its big ugly ass.
What I really hope happens is not just the extinction of record companies, but that other businesses will take this as proof that the path to long-term survival lies in serving a purpose, not in forcing the public to support your business model.