Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Music Media Businesses

CD Music Sales Down 20% In Q1 2007 544

prostoalex writes "Music sales are not just falling, they're plummeting — by as much as 20% when you compare January-March 2007 with the 2006 numbers. The revenue numbers are actually worse, since CD prices are under pressure. The Wall Street Journal lists many factors contributing to the rapid decline: 800 fewer retail outlets (Tower Records' demise alone closed 89); increasingly negative attitude towards CD sales from big-box retailers (Best Buy now dedicates less floor space to CDs in favor of better-selling items); and file sharing, among others. Songs are being traded at a rate about 17 times the iTunes Store's recent rate of sales. Diminishing CD sales means that you don't have to sell as many to get on the charts. The 'Dreamgirls' movie soundtrack recently hit #1 by selling 60,000 CDs in a week, a number that wouldn't have made the top 30 in 2005."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CD Music Sales Down 20% In Q1 2007

Comments Filter:
  • by TheDreadSlashdotterD ( 966361 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @01:20PM (#18445753) Homepage
    "You're not entitled to my money" is that lesson.
  • by rednip ( 186217 ) * on Thursday March 22, 2007 @01:22PM (#18445803) Journal
    Only recording artists will be hurt over the long run. Those who are willing to sing for their dinner will do well.
  • by lawaetf1 ( 613291 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @01:23PM (#18445821)
    I wonder a bit about iTunes vs. peer-to-peer metrics. On iTunes one is liable to buy a single track or two whereas on file sharing services downloading the album is usually the only choice (even if you only want one track). This alone would account for some of why file sharing is so much more voluminous.
  • No wonder (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dsginter ( 104154 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @01:25PM (#18445875)
    The other day, I was in a trendy clothing store. Embarrassment aside, I could not believe all of the innovative music that they were playing. There was one particular track that I wanted to buy so I queried the sales folk as to the artist name and title. They had no idea and were not provided with any resource to fine out.

    But that got me thinking: The ClearChannel monopoly on our radio stations is the source of this problem. They "pay to play" the same 40 songs all day.

    I remember back in the early 90s when the FCC allowed this sort of thing (it was previously not legal for a single company to own more than a certain amount of radio stations in a given market... I don't know the exact detail but I remember the discussion). I look back on the variety of music from pre-monopolization and it really illustrates the difference.

    But they can always blame the pirates.
  • by shimbee ( 444430 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @01:26PM (#18445891)
    The idea of buying an entire CD for one song on the radio has gone out of fashion. People now realize that one popular song can be found on iTunes, obviating the need for buying 12 to 15 other, useless tracks. If this fact alone doesn't account for 20% plummeting in CD sales, I would be surprised.
  • by malsdavis ( 542216 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @01:26PM (#18445901)
    And the fact that Q1 of 2007 has had virtually no decent new music released couldn't have anything to do with it?

    This is a time when the R&B era is over and Hip-hop is on the decline. Traditional Pop music seems to have all but vanished, rock music has never recovered since the 90's and Punk for several years has been hit & miss.

    Is anyone surprised people are buying less music?

  • by CannonballHead ( 842625 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @01:27PM (#18445941)
    For the most part, I agree, the stuff that most of the music industry churns out is just that - stuff the music industry CHURNS out. It's default, boring, rehashed stuff. Why even listen to it, let alone buy it.

    Places like iTunes, better yet, offer ways to buy just one track (how many times do people buy an entire CD simply because they like one, maybe two tracks?). Much cheaper.

    Maybe it'll force "artists" to produce somewhat decent quality music.
  • I wish (Score:3, Insightful)

    by teflaime ( 738532 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @01:29PM (#18445979)
    we could say it was the music buying populace engaging in a measured boycott of the industry fronted by the thugs at the RIAA, but sadly, I don't think that's it. And I can't even say that it's because popular music (you know, the kind that climbs the charts) sucks, because it has sucked for 20 years or more (I blame The Cherry Hill Gang). I know why I so rarely buy CDs anymore (there's little I like, and Pandora hasn't catalgued bands I do like yet), but I am considered a social deviant so I don't ascribe such simple and straightforward motives to the mass of the music buying populace.
  • Plus ca change (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Silver Sloth ( 770927 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @01:29PM (#18445985)

    the garbage that the record industry keeps churning out
    But it has always been that way. If you're a boring old fart like me then 1967 was the great year for singles (Beatles and the Stones at their prime, the Motown glory days and the US west coast just beginning to wake up) and the top selling single in the UK in 1967 was Tears for Souvenirs by Ken Dodd, not exactly great music. Good (difficult term but I'll let it ride) music tends not to have mass appeal, the charts have always been full of mass produced pap.
  • Lots of reasons (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Thaelon ( 250687 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @01:30PM (#18446009)
    I have admittedly narrow tastes in music. As one of my friends pointed out I only like bands that released stuff between the years of 1994 and 2000, with a couple of exceptions.

    So the part of the reason sales are down is because I haven't heard anything I wanted to buy in years.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22, 2007 @01:31PM (#18446029)
    No offense, but when you morons finally get to gloat over the demise of the recording industry, what exactly do you plan to steal from then on? Or is a world of nothing but Ogg Vorbis files of Bruce Perens reading crazed threats from Richard Stallman what you're looking forward to?
  • by Smidge204 ( 605297 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @01:32PM (#18446047) Journal
    Music is one of those things that you just don't need a brick-and-mortar shop to sell, or even a physical item. I'm sure the established industry will do everything it can to blame illegal file sharing for this trend, but that is only a vain attempt to prop up a dead business and keep a whole lot of useless people employed collecting big paychecks.

    The simple fact: Their business model is obsolete. I would even go so far to say that the recording industry as a whole is obsolete now that the people who actually make the music have to power to self-publish and self-promote to the entire world.

    =Smidge=
  • by russ1337 ( 938915 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @01:39PM (#18446171)
    FTA:

    Digital sales of individual songs this year have risen 54% from a year earlier to 173.4 million, according to Nielsen SoundScan. But that's nowhere near enough to offset the 20% decline from a year ago in CD sales to 81.5 million units. Overall, sales of all music -- digital and physical -- are down 10% this year.


    Sure they're down 10% overall, but as someone else mentioned, how are the Indi bands doing? I'd say they're up.

    Music industry needs to spend less time blaming P2P and pirates (Arrhhh!), and way less time recording dicks like K-Fed.
  • by doom ( 14564 ) <doom@kzsu.stanford.edu> on Thursday March 22, 2007 @01:47PM (#18446327) Homepage Journal

    I will agree with you though, to look upon the complete destruction of this industry with glee is not something I share with some others.

    Neither do I, I just think that they destroyed themselves back around 1980, when they decided to rely on manufactured pseudo-bands instead of attempting to discover new music. Thought experiment: would a big outfit like Columbia give a Leonard Cohen a recording contract today?

    Their current problems are largely, though not entirely, reflections of the fact.

  • Re:Poor CD Sales (Score:2, Insightful)

    by seriesrover ( 867969 ) <seriesrover2@yahoo.com> on Thursday March 22, 2007 @01:47PM (#18446329)
    oh come on now, they've been saying that for decades. And besides we're talking about a 20% drop between 2006 and 2007. Whilst much of the music I find is crap to my taste there is some good stuff around, and I haven't noticed a 20% drop in quality of music a year ago.
  • by TheDarkener ( 198348 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @01:48PM (#18446353) Homepage
    ...when the compact disc (CD) arrived.

    This is no different than the other evolutions of music distribution.

    GET WITH THE PROGRAM, RIAA, or die a shameful, greedy death.
  • by splodus ( 655932 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @01:49PM (#18446365)
    None taken.

    I think what we're hoping for though is to be able to gloat over the demise of the current recording industry, which many people feel is corrupt and not conducive to creativity.

    An industry that does well should be one that creates or adds value without the need for artificial controls over supply. The bottled water industry does very well indeed without needing legislation restricting the supply of drinking water from other sources. It adds value by providing a quality controlled, conveniently packaged product. If the water in the bottle was poor quality, or you needed special controls to get the bottle open, people would probably prefer the tap in the public conveniences, after all, that water is free...

  • Re:Plus ca change (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gr8Apes ( 679165 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @01:56PM (#18446521)
    Heck, the other "golden age" of popular music was from around 75-84, when Madonna and her ilk hit the airwaves. You had the punk/heavy metal revolution followed immediately by a revolution caused by MTV. MTV was so desperate for material they'd play anything anyone sent in as long as it wouldn't get them fined. Try to imagine someone like the Talking Heads coming out in today's world if you doubt it. Then again, you'd have to have a music channel on TV that actually played music.
  • by benzapp ( 464105 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @02:00PM (#18446603)
    You don't understand however that the music of these artists is not why people buy the music. Since the 1960's, music has been an accessory to a lifestyle. Despite what you may think, the Beatles, Fleetwood Mac, etc will be forgotton in 50 years. Hell, most kids today easily would never recognize a single Fleetwood Mac or Beatles song... they'd recognize Beethoven's Fifth however.

    We long ago lost an appreciation for true musicianship - what these scoundrals push upon the masses is degenerate filth that caters to the most base desires. It's no wonder these artists have to become addicted to vice - they know deep inside their lives are worthless and they have abused their Apollian gifts to corrupt the masses instead of improving them.

    From the very beginning, institutionalized "popular" music has always been overt propaganda, pushed upon the people by a wealthy elite in control of the mass media infrastructure. They clammor endlessly on slashdot against Payola, but that is how the system has always worked. THe Beatles became famous because record company executives bribed radio stations around the world to play the crap constantly. The drug culture aspect was in addition to a panacia to the despair of these artists, an inducement to the nihilistic children of the post-war world. They two were filled with the despair of impotence, as they adopted without question the pacifistic, materialistic ethos of that new era.

    In short - the artists can never be proteted. They are used like the animals they are, and always have been.

  • by wakingrufus ( 904726 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @02:06PM (#18446711) Homepage
    According to wikipedia, the total population of Asia is 3,902,404,193. North America has 518,575,412. I would venture to say their music industries are probably more diverse and robust than ours. Just because you have heard J-pop and/or K-pop, does not mean that is the only type of music coming from that region.
  • by itsdapead ( 734413 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @02:15PM (#18446871)
    many factors contributing to the rapid decline

    How about

    1. Everybody over 20 has now finished replacing their vinyl and cassettes with CDs

    2. The only records you get to hear about are the handful of rubbish on the radio playlists that you're already sick of.

    3. Under 20s are now pissing their money away:

    • Buying DVDs
    • Buying expensive games for consoles
    • Walking around with a mobile phone glued to their ear talking about nothing in particular
    • Or, voting people out of the Big Brother house at HOW MUCH!? a minute
    • Buying Crazy Frog ringtones without realising that they're subscribing to a "we'll take your money away" service at $$/month
    • Getting legless every weekend on sticky drinks in little bottles sold for exorbitant prices in night clubs (of course, in the UK under-21s can buy alcohol without proving that they drive a car and own at least two guns).
    • Buying expensive clothes (sorry, buying expensive logos attached to clothes made in China for 10c per gross)
    • Buying expensive trainers (ditto the above)
    • Buying cosmetics (Even the boys, god help us - must be the chemicals leeching into the water supply)
    • In severe cases, still doing all the above while also having kids.
    • Paying huge amounts of interest having used a credit card for all the above
    • If boring, sensible and nerdy and NOT doing all the above, desperately saving money in the hope of being able to afford the downpayment of a small shoe-box nearly within a days commute from the city before they hit 30.

    PS: Kids! Get off my lawn!!!

  • by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @02:15PM (#18446879)
    The reason why only certain people manage to establish themselves as money makers through live performance is because RIAA members and ClearChannel are the gatekeepers to that prosperity. The Internet can permit people to market their own music and establish their own popularity without the control and oversight of the RIAA. Once the RIAA hegemony is broken down such that free Internet distribution, not radio or MTV, is the dominant form of bringing one's music to the people, then good performers will be able to make a living from their live performances.

    They'll probably have to cancel MTV's Cribs due to lack of subject material, but at least talented performers will be able to make an honest living without first being "discovered" by some overpaid record exec.
  • by UnknownSoldier ( 67820 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @02:19PM (#18446951)
    Yeah, because we all know, that all the old music (previous recorded) is just going to suddenly disappear...

  • by quarrelinastraw ( 771952 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @02:32PM (#18447237)
    Bands have been manufactured long before the 1980s. Peter, Paul, and Mary is one well-known example. I'm sure many of the nice sounding groups from the 40s and 50s were created by producers as well.

    Many of the bands we still listen to (such as the Beatles) weren't label stooges, but I'm sure they were the exception. Labels have always tried to sell bubble-gum tripe and take as few risks as possible.

  • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @02:32PM (#18447249) Homepage Journal
    I dunno, but, one thing I DO fear from reading this...is the demise of the CD itself.

    Until we have another way to get music in a lossless format...I really don't want them to stop pressing CD's.

  • by IamTheRealMike ( 537420 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @02:35PM (#18447303)
    I dunno. That's a pretty common sentiment. But I have two problems with it:
    • Clearly some people like this music. It gets bought, it gets downloaded.
    • Taste is so subjective ;) I don't like a lot of 70s/80s music but I'd never claim it was bad because I don't care for the guitar.
    • Not everybody listens to bands. I listen to a lot of electronic music. My parents think these are manufactured pseudo-bands. These groups often don't "do" concerts or tours or the other solutions usually given for the music biz
  • by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Thursday March 22, 2007 @02:39PM (#18447393) Homepage

    There really seems to be a sense of entitlement here (by record companies). They made money once upon a time with their business model, and so they expect that their old business model must necessarily be enforced by law. Now, the truth is that they still do make money, and they can continue to make money, but just not as much money with the same business model.

    Anyway, people seem to forget that our population wasn't born to be disposable consumers for large corporations. We do not exist to be bullied and exploited for profit. Companies and corporations are a means to an end. They are artificial constructions so that we can organize ourselves into a society that can work efficiently to provide for ourselves. Record labels, for example, aren't entitled to money for simply creating a product; they must create a product we want, but more than that they must create a product efficiently enough that they can sustain their endeavor. Their endeavor is really our endeavor. The corporation is created and empowered by our society for the good of society, and if it fails to benefit us, if it fails to succeed in our endeavor, if it is so inefficient that they cannot sustain their own endeavor, then they've failed us. They are bad businessmen and their business has failed to provide us with what we, as a society, need.

    Believe it or not, I've been accused of being a "communist" for saying things like this. Listening to some people talk, reading some people's comments, you'd think "capitalism" was a moral doctrine in which companies are the true individuals and profit is the only true good. "Morals" should be outlawed from business practices, and all should be sacrificed on the alter of short-term gains and increased stock prices.

    Listen people, capitalism is just an economic theory that personal economic freedom will generally result in greater efficiency than an economy that is run by the government. What we're after here is efficiency in providing for society's needs, but the idea is that if you allow the system to provide benefit to the most efficient and productive, then you will see greater efficiency and more productivity. That's it. There's no moral component. There's still no purpose to it other than to order society efficiently.

    Giving unlimited artificial monopolies to large bodies and guaranteeing inefficient business models against obsolescence is *not* capitalism. Yes, it benefits large companies, but that's not what capitalism is. It's actually a form of communism in which the "government" is supplanted by a partnership between the government and the small number of large companies that run everything. I don't know what you'd call it, but if you ask me, it's not good.

  • This just in! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by boxxa ( 925862 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @02:48PM (#18447571) Homepage
    VHS tape sales down Q1 2007! CDs are old technology. They skip. Their expensive (still). People would rather make their own. I haven't found a CD in quite some time to listen all the way through. MP3s are in now. Their portable and don't skip and are cheap to buy online. Its not file sharing that is decreasing sales, its just the fact they are easier to pay 99 cents and download online versus going to a store. Finding the CD. Hoping you like it. Etc. VHS tapes were down when DVDs came out. DVDs will start to dwindle eventually when HD-DVD/BlueRay is standardized and comes down in prices. Its just trends that the RIAA still likes to focus on as a reasoning for action when that really isnt the only cause of sales dropping. /end old information that keeps coming back as NEW
  • I don't know his answers, but here're mine:

    Wow, I guess if one musician from one band can do it, so can everyone else.
    Yes. This is a market thing: either you do what customers want and profit, or you do what you want (as a hobby or some kind of personal-improvement) not caring for profit, or you discover you're not fit for that function and go search something else you are able to do and people are willing to pay you for.

    So my method of making income as a musician should be limited to what 19th century musicians did?
    Yes. It was good enough for them, it's good enough for you.

    And what if I would like to be able to sell my recordings so I don't have to travel? Maybe so I could raise my son, or have a family or social life in general. Or maybe I have a job I can't take major time off of.
    Then I say to you that you don't understand what "making money" is. Again: it is you doing what others want and are willing to pay you for, not what you want.

    I know I'm sounding harsh, but there are good reasons for things being this way. I've discussed this matter extensively on another /. thread I suggest you read [slashdot.org]. For some people it's simply a matter of principles.
  • The number of people who want major label contract could be explained by the fact that many of those people are ignorant about the record industry. You have to recognize, at least, that many of the big name artists are fracking teenagers, and teenagers are naive. They don't know about business in general, and the record industry is particularly slick and seductive.
  • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @02:56PM (#18447751) Homepage Journal
    "Some suggestions:

    While your suggestions were helpful, you should omitted the most basic one, that should have been #1.

    - Actively look and cultivate talented groups that MAKE good music to publish on a CD...and make it a full disk worth of good music.

  • by Amiga Trombone ( 592952 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @03:01PM (#18447811)
    Neither do I, I just think that they destroyed themselves back around 1980, when they decided to rely on manufactured pseudo-bands instead of attempting to discover new music. Thought experiment: would a big outfit like Columbia give a Leonard Cohen a recording contract today?

    Well, you also have to consider that the entertainment industry of the 20th century was largely a fluke of the times and the technology. Prior to the 20th century, before performances could be captured and redistributed, it was unusual for a musician or an actor to be earning the outrageous amounts of money they earn now. In fact, those were generally rather low-paying occupations, even among the more celebrated performers.

    Now that the gate-keepers who controlled access to distribution are being circumvented, what you're seeing in the entertainment industry is a return to artists having to earn their livings through live performances and endorsements rather than selling copies of the same performance over and over again.

    Basically, the entertainment industry is returning to it's normal circumstances, and entertainers and those who made big bucks from them due to a fluke of the times are going to have to get over the sense of entitlement they cultivated through getting a free ride through most of the 20th century.
  • by 87C751 ( 205250 ) <sdot@@@rant-central...com> on Thursday March 22, 2007 @03:19PM (#18448097) Homepage

    The one thing that everyone on Slashdot seems to misunderstand about the music industry is that they don't tell us what we want to hear, they react to changes in the general public's musical taste.
    Are you claiming that the music industry makes no attempt to influence the popular taste (by, say, only presenting acts that are generally similar to established successful acts)?

    Isn't that somewhat naive?

  • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @03:23PM (#18448159) Homepage Journal
    "You might be surprised by the number of people who just listen to "whatever's on the radio", or at least nothing but what's on the radio (they don't seek out music, but listen or don't to what's handed to them). In that sense, the music industry absolutely has a measure of control over what we "like". It's my firm belief that there are enough of those people out there to make at least a minor star of a new artist who simply happens to be "the best thing on right now".

    I'm guessing you're a good bit younger than I am, but, in the past...pre-internet, that WAS how we got our new music, and our good music. The Stones, Zeppelin and the Beatles were discovered by us on the radio...I remember hearing Bohemian Rhapsody the first time on the radio getting up for school one morning thinking "Wow...what the hell is this? It's GREAT!".

    One thing to consider, radio is still very powerful...the reason it used to give us the new music was because then, there was no internet. Many hours spent in a car, driving to/from work, and errands gives radio a huge captive audience. Many of us out here work for a living, and often streaming music is blocked at work, so, the radio should still be a great place to find and listen to good music.

    But, alas...2-3 corporations now own all the stations...and between them and the music labels...radio is no longer the same fertile ground for new and great music that it once was.

    One other thing that killed it...is how splintered current music is. Back in the day, on the 'rock' or album stations...you'd hear a HUGE range of music...Stones, Air Supply, Eagles, AC/DC, Bob Welch, Fleetwood Mac, Starland Vocal Band, Elton John, Foghat, Rush, Doobie Bros......get the picture? One hit wonders, harder rock, softer rock...etc. Nowdays, you have the Rock channel, the Heavy Metal channel, the Death Metal Channel, Classic Rock (which by the way plays a very minute subset of the Classic rock I listed to before it was classic), Easy Listening, etc. Each station or channel is so splintered.....hard to get a band that crosses over that many different genres....

    But really...not everyone has the free time during the day, to set, and hunt for sites that have new tunes, then go through all the cruft on each site to find the gems....

    If we could somehow take back radio, it would be a great place to find the new music...just as it once was. Radios are much more portable than internet connections...at least for the time being.

  • by quag7 ( 462196 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @03:41PM (#18448461) Homepage
    You know, this is true. While overall I've never been a fan of Top 40 music, it's only in the last 7 or 8 years that I have not been interested in *anything at all* on the charts. Admittedly, I'm getting older (in my 30s now), but my disdain for what's out there now is not that I find the music necessarily "too loud and offensive for my early middle age years" or that I "don't get it" but that it is all...like product, barcoded, generic...I can't tell one band apart from the other. I can't remember the damn melodies from half the songs I hear. A minute after a song ends, if you asked me to hum it, I couldn't (there are some isolated exceptions).

    I mean, it's like so many mediocre, flattened McDonalds hamburgers which have been left under heat lamps for an hour. I doubt this is the *full* reason why the industry suffers - I am pretty sure it's mainly piracy - but really, and I do think I'm being far, the stuff in top 40 now is the most generic, forgettable, all-sounds-the-same stuff I can recall in my lifetime.

    I grew up in the 80s and I *hated* that. I hated most of the music but looking back, there was way more diversity even in synth-pop and crap like that, than there is in what people call emo today (I mention emo just because being white and middle class, this is supposed to appeal to me...or a younger version of me).

    And let's not forget the aesthetic sewer hip hop and R&B is in. R&B was already dying in the early 80s, but rap had its golden age at the end of that decade, and has steadily declined since around 1993 or so, leaving what we have today - music so awful I am afraid to be in an elevator with a fan of it (not because I think they're bad-ass thugs, but because I think they must be barely sentient and might try to like, eat me or something, and not in the good way). And I'm not talking about underground/alternative rap - I'm talking about the top 40, "Hi I'm a big dumb idiot, I'm throwing money at the camera while a bunch of sluts dance behind me, all of which I'm going to have to pay the record company for, which will bankrupt me and launch me into obscurity back in the ghetto I came from."

    There's obviously an audience for these albums and singles - really, really, really stupid teenagers. (Music execs like to say "teenagers" but what they mean are the dumbest of teenagers. Any of you reading this who are a teenager now and have to go through your teens in this culture have my utmost sympathy. And yes, it's as bad as you think it is.)

    You know, what I really want is art and poetry; I want to be moved, like what I'm listening to *means something*. I want an emotional response, and if not that, then at bare minimum I want clever and quirky or even funny, but what's out there now doesn't even deliver *that*. I still pay attention to pop music because I am trying to understand why people listen to it. I understand why a bunch of posers out with their friends listen to it as a shared ritual of simian idiocy, but I don't get why I see these white boys driving around in pimped out hatchbacks listening to this shit when they don't *have* to? Do they not have a stash of like, real music to listen to when they don't have to pretend to like what everyone else likes? Are there really that many stupid, empty-eyed kids?

    You know, I could chalk this up to a difference in aesthetics because clearly I probably listen to a lot of stuff other people really dislike, but in most cases I can *understand* why people would like something I'm not into (For example, I despise Nine Inch Nails, but I understand why someone would like its visceral energy). But I really don't understand why today's top 40 appeals to anyone at all. I can't abstractly understand why someone would like dickless tripe like AFI which the local Clear Channel stations just won't stop playing. This is an actual experience:

    Me: "This is complete, crap, what is this, who would possibly like this, there's nothing here?"
    Wife: "It's AFI. You asked me the same question about this same s
  • by souhaite ( 873831 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @04:20PM (#18449041)
    Stones, Air Supply, Eagles, AC/DC, Bob Welch, Fleetwood Mac, Starland Vocal Band, Elton John, Foghat, Rush, Doobie Bros...... At the risk of pointing out the obvious, that's not exactly what I'd call a huge range of music.
  • by monkeydo ( 173558 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @04:25PM (#18449139) Homepage
    That's a very nice quote, but the only circumstance that has changed is that music is easier to steal. People still want to listen to it, but now they don't have to pay for it.

    But the thieving pirates will continue to rationalize. First it was the claims that you'd be happy to pay for the music, if you could only buy the songs you wanted. ITMS, Napster, et al put the lie to that. Then there were the claims that nobody was getting hurt because the labels were still selling plenty of CDs. Now we know that was a lie too.

    It's all just a bunch of bullshit excuses for the oldest desire. You want to get something for nothing. Don't worry. Soon enough the record labels will all fold, and all that will remain is the guy on the corner playing his sax for quarters.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22, 2007 @04:58PM (#18449681)
    Have you heard of Fay Wong? or did you know that Jacky Chan is actually a very successful singer.

    Jay Chou is a pretty good hip hop artist compared to many US artists.

    I picked that up from a 1 week stay in China, without knowing a single word of Chinese. the music I heard while there was often much better than anything else. The variety was staggering, I wish I knew the artists names.
  • by nariusseldon ( 1079059 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @07:56PM (#18452055)
    A song is on the order of around 4Mbytes encoded in MP3 (yes, I know about lossless and that is bigger). There is NO economics value of distributing music on CDs anymore. People stop uses horses when the automobile came about. I am sure all the stable hands were crying bloody murder about losing their jobs then, but people can't stop progress just because they are in the wrong industry. Same thing happened to typists. Same thing happened to slide rules manufacturers. Same thing happened to VHS. Same thing happened to cassette tapes. The same thing will happen to distributing music by CDs.
  • by quag7 ( 462196 ) on Thursday March 22, 2007 @11:03PM (#18453939) Homepage
    You should try actually reading my post, wherein I specifically talk about *dumb teenagers* and then address the ones who are not, rather than "just skimming" (your words) and making shit up and completely misrepresenting what I said. I was one of those young people who felt patronized and spoonfed crap, and this is happening at an even greater rate today. There's not a teenager with a brain cell alive who doesn't know who and what I was talking about.

    You can also quit sucking up to teenagers yourself, you sanctimonious queef. This post wasn't about "providing alternatives." This was about slinging shit.

    And yes, it did feel good, because I do love music and always have. It was what fueled me and kept my spirits up when I was young and alienated and stuck in miserable test-pattern suburbs with a bunch of spoiled assholes who worshipped and enshrined the brain-numbing monoculture of suburbia and didn't like what the world was offering. I still draw strength from it. Good music is spiritual nutrition, and like most nutrients, the young need it most.

    Music can and should show us what we're really capable of; in sadness and discontent and angst and frustration it should show us we're not alone; it should help us feel defiant rather than beaten. It should be there to help us celebrate the milestones in our life. Like a river, like blood, music ought to carry what you need to the part of you that needs it, when you need it most. It should not stupefy, dispirit, corrupt, dull one's mind or blunt the soul.

    I don't apologize to anyone for having this opinion, nor for the strident tone I've taken here.

    "I hate a song that makes you think you're not any good. I hate a song that makes you think you are just born to lose. Bound to lose. No good to nobody. No good for nothing. Because you are either too old or too young or too fat or too slim or too ugly or too this or too that...Songs that run you down or songs that poke fun of you on account of your bad luck or your hard traveling. I am out to fight these kinds of songs to my very last breath of air and my last drop of blood. I am out to sing songs that will prove to you that this is your world and that if it has hit you pretty hard and knocked you for a dozen loops, no matter how hard it's run you down nor rolled over you, no matter what color, what size you are, how you are built, I am out to sing the songs that make you take pride in yourself and your work. And the songs I sing are made up for the most part by all sorts of folks just about like you." - Woody Guthrie
  • by MtViewGuy ( 197597 ) on Friday March 23, 2007 @12:07AM (#18454475)
    Let's face it folks. The problem with declining CD sales is due to one reason: the retail price is too high.

    With prices going for US$15 or more per album-length CD even at Best Buy and Wal-Mart, the recording industry has priced their product in a cartel-like fashion that actually encourages ways to beat the system, whether it's piracy or buying music at a lower price through legal download sites. Why do you think the iTunes Music Store has done so well? Anyway, the RIAA should seriously consider setting a much lower price for a new album-length CD, probably more like US$12 per album maximum. At these lower prices, there is vastly lower incentive to pirate music, since more people can actually afford the real product.

  • by XSforMe ( 446716 ) on Friday March 23, 2007 @06:55PM (#18466003)
    "They all sound like the same thing to me - old white people. "

    Zeppelin sounds the same as Eagles? Wow. Guess its true what they say about those iPods headsets.

UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker

Working...