Moby Says Techie Fans = Fewer Sales 1249
jalefkowit writes: "Launch is reporting that Moby explains the recent slide in sales for his newest album, "18", by describing what he calls the 'Pearl Jam Effect': bands and artists with more tech-savvy fans sell fewer albums than those with less tech-savvy fans, as the techies will disproportionately get their copies of the album from friends with CD burners or P2P services rather than from record stores. What do you think, are we putting our favorite bands in a bind?"
Woe is.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Woe is.. (Score:3, Informative)
BUT, I usually only do this to see what the album is like before i buy it, because MP3's dont really get all of the musical information (because im a techie i know this).
This album really sucks and i knew it before i bought it. That this the reason i didnt buy 18!!
Re:Woe is.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a clue Moby - maybe you're not selling as many records because you suck. You're like the MPAA or the RIAA - always blaming someone else and you're especially vicious when you don't have any evidence.
Re:Woe is.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Subsequent albums by Pearl Jam (and here, Mr. Moby, is what the real "Pearl Jam Effect" is) were exactly the same as "Ten", except not so good. They sold poorly because the public's taste had changed, the music did not change in the same way, and nobody wanted to hear Eddie Vedder's political vitriol.
What "18" has shown us is that Moby is likely interested in only making albums that are almost like "Play" but not quite as good. Thus, our study of history teaches us that we are seeing the beginnings of another "The Pearl Jam Effect", and that no future Moby album will be good, or relevant.
Before you start railing against me because I bash Pearl Jam and Moby, note this; this whole reply is purely my opinion. I think that both "Ten" and "Play" are two of the more influential and well-crafted albums of my day. I own both, and I still listen to both. I've heard "18" and all I thought was "ho-hum". That is the exact same thing I thought after I purchased Pearl Jam's "vs.", which is one of the albums that taught me to make damn sure I like it before I drop my hard-earned cash on it.
do tastes really change that much? (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought it was the other way around: the public wanted another Ten, but got "Not for You" and the aforementioned politics. When it comes to a platinum album, most fans don't want a radically different sequel. This is a band we're talking about, not Picasso.
Re:do tastes really change that much? (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with the undercurrent of this thread - there is a fair degree of denial out there that some people didn't like the second albums simply because their appreciation of the first one was a fad.
Re:Woe is.. (Score:3, Interesting)
But Moby has sold out. His liner notes are filled with diatribes against eating meat, polluting, human rights abuses etc. etc. and yet he peddles his songs to huge corporate advertising campaigns and idiotic TV shows. Moby doesn't drink and hates cars, yet his songs help sell cars and hard liquor. While I think it's unfair to criticize people with strong beliefs for slight hypocracy (it's far more noble to have somewhat compromised beliefs than to have no beliefs at all) Moby has gone a bit too far in his attempts to be a ubiquitous cute little media icon.
Besides, DJ Shadow is far far far better.
... and "Everything is Wrong" was better than "Play"
Re:Woe is.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Amen. I liked a few songs from Moby's previous album, so I bought "18" on the day it came out. I think it sucks balls. I will happily sell it for cheap to anyone who wants to pay for the postage (I'm in Canada).
I think that Perl Jam and Moby don't sell many albums because they suck. That's pretty simple. That whole article is Moby, up on his high horse, trying to explain why his latest effort is crap.
Blame it on the fans. Sure. Whatever.
Just for the record, I have every Weezer CD too. Even that crappy Pinkerton one.
Well.,.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well.,.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well.,.. (Score:3, Interesting)
A big problem is that the artists are caught in the middle on this one. They want wide exposure, which can come through bootlegged copies of their works being available on the 'Net. However, they also want to be able to make money with their works, which doesn't happen anytime someone decides to grab an MP3 file and burn it onto a CD.
It seems to me that one way around this problem is to allow artists a larger percentage of the revenues accrued via their concert appearances. The problem with that is the recording industry is notorious for using accounting rules that allow charging almost all of an artist's expense against the gate receipts of that artist's concerts, leaving little or nothing for the artist to put in his/her pocket at the end of the tour.
Somehow we must devise incentives for organizations such as the RIAA to stop opposing the advance of technology. Also, accounting rules need to be changed so that artists see a larger proportion of the income from concert tours, etc. What the incentives are I don't know. We need to come up with something soon or Ernest Hollings and friends will force us to continue to live in the past via legislation that will also have the side-effect of outlawing Linux and the Open Source movement.
Just my $.02,
Ron
Vinyl quality (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Vinyl quality (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Vinyl quality (Score:3, Funny)
of course, for a system us mortals can afford, CDs sound perfectly fine (espeically since the amp's probably digital).
Re:Vinyl quality (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe there are boxes that can be bought to convert the tranfer function of a CD to make it sound like an album.
I think the RIAA equalization curve for vinyl also plays into it too, as it boosts the bass below 120Hz by several dB.
Tech savvy fans turn on the radio :P (Score:3, Insightful)
In the current market yes, if you like the band the best way to show your support seems to be to buy the CD (and merchandise and concerts and
Ideally though the artists would be a little bit more technologically savvey they would allow fans to fund their music without there being so many middlemen skimming off profits.
And Moby in particular will probably make more money selling his songs to advertisers than he will on record sales (and the advertisers often end up adversting Moby as much as their product).
The music industry is on crack, and Moby has fallen for their rhetoric. I think my subject sums it up neatly. Will they ever learn?
--
wher eis the spllchkr when u need it...
Indeed (Score:4, Insightful)
The real question is: how many of these bootlegs constitute a lost sale for the record company? The anti-pirate zealots would have us believe that every bootleg means a lost sale, and there are others who would have us believe none of these kids would have bought the records anyway if the bootlegs were not available, or even that bootlegs are increasing sales.
I believe there is some truth in all these statements. Some kids might not want to buy a record, but get the bootleg if it's available. This is simple economics: decrease the price from $20 to $2, and you'll increase demand. Some kids might go buy albums of a band they got a bootleg of and liked. Yet, if I look at the highschoolers I know, none of them are buying nearly as many CD's as my friends and I bought CD's and records, back when we were in high school. And these days all kids have some sort of part-time or evening job, where we would have to make do with what pocket money we got fro our parents. I'd say there are definitely many lost sales through piracy. Of course one could argue that through bootlegging, these kids are being exposed to a far wider range of music than what would be possible legally on their budgets. As a result they might legally buy more music when they get real jobs, but personally I think that is stretching it a bit.
All that said, I am still firmly opposed to anything that prevents me from playing the music I have paid for, when I want and on what platform I want, from the medium of my choice.
Re:Indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was in high school, my friends and I still bootlegged everything like crazy. We just made tapes of tapes. I've paid real money getting legitimate copies of the things I bootlegged. I think that most high school students just don't have that much money. Honestly, they're maybe losing some money now, but six years from now, if the band is still around, they'll still have fans. Besides, you love what you listen to a lot, and you go to concerts of what you love, and buy T-Shirts and posters ....
I don't think it's really too much of a stretch.
Re:Indeed (Score:5, Informative)
I used to run the official web site for a major-label band and learned a couple things about the music industry through dealing with the band's management (and occasionally, their label).
First, the majority of bands make practically nothing on album sales. Record labels are only there to fund the recording, production and promotion of an album so that they can own the majority rights to all the songs and hopefully strike it rich with one of them (either through sales or through sellings the rights for advertising and sampling). It's sort of like playing the Powerball lottery thousands and thousands of times - every once in a while you'll get three numbers and a couple bucks back, and on rare occasions you might get five numbers, but if you get them all plus the Powerball with a chart-topper hit, you've made enough money for your label to make all the duds worth the risk. It was surprising to me how little labels really have to do with anything - oftentimes they don't even do their own promotion! Usually they hire promotion companies to do radio, TV and print promotion so they don't have to.
Second, the bands make very little, if anything, at concerts and live performances because of the extreme costs that come from putting on a live show. The venue usually (if not always) requires a significant deposit that isn't returned unless so many tickets are sold (or sold out, if it's a big enough venue or name). The management company has significant costs involved with transporting the performers, their roadies and crew, and their extremely expensive equipment (which is usually rented, save for instruments and some amps) on a daily basis throughout the tour. Also, don't forget the costs involved with housing the band and trying to work with the label to promote the band while they're on tour. Most signed bands go on tour only to pay back the money the labels loaned to them to record their albums and videos in the first place, and that's if they have a successful tour.
So where do bands make their money? Moby has a good point that everyone seems to be missing while they're ripping on his album - future existence of bands will be determined in part by their record sales, and that model may not work any more with the rise of file-sharing software and cd burners. The way bands make the most money usually has very little to do with the labels at all - merchandise! When you buy a $25 extra-large t-shirt at your favorite band's concert, that's money that's more or less funnelled straight to the band (once the cost of the shirts is covered). Short of finding them after the show and shoving a couple dollars in their hands, you can't get more direct than that.
You can also help them out by joining their fan club, although many are operated by management companies. Still, the money generated by the merchandise sold through there largely goes to the bands, not the labels.
What we really need is a band whose songs are only available online to become so popular that radio and maybe even MTV can't ignore them, and they do it all without the help of labels. Of course, this could never happen due to the strangehold the industry has on all forms of promotion, but it's worth dreaming about.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
Steve Albini (Score:3, Interesting)
Here you get all the dirt: the cruel tricks of labels, A&R's, managers.
As a staunch independent musician/producer/label owner in the industry over 20 years he would know.
Re:Indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
We bootlegged tapes. Dual tape units had not come out yet. We had taping parties where we'd bring over multiple cassette decks and dub tapes.
The record companies screamed "Home taping is killing music!"
Since then they've gone on to make more and more and more money.
What's the difference?
Pirating is NOT new (Score:5, Insightful)
Before tech savvy people had the computer we had the radio and tape cassette.
People could ALWAYS pirate music, yet michael jacksons triller sold 20 million copies, funny how no one decided to pirate him even though it was all over the radio all the damn time and everyone had it and could copy the cassette.
I know, I had one of those dual cassette players, you stick both cassettes into it, play one and record on the other. Funny how when everyone was using cassettes the RIAA didnt complain about sales but now, that they are losing their monopoly, piracy is suddenly a big problem?
Re:Pirating is NOT new (Score:4, Insightful)
What people on the internet are doing is *sharing*. When I stick 20,000 songs up on Gnutella and people download them, I don't make a dime and they don't pay a dime. We're sharing.
So the issue is, how does fair-use apply? Is it fair use when I share with one friend? What about when I share with ten friends? What if I share with 100,000 strangers?
I think that's the real difference. When one person buys a tape and shares with 10 people, you still have 10% of people who have the product *paying* for it. When one person can buy a CD and instantly share it with the world, you could have one purchase for every 100,000 people who have the product. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but I could see that you wouldn't call *that* fair use possibly.
On the other hand, part of the blame lays with the record companies. When I buy a DVD or CD, what am I buying? If I'm buying the physical media, then I should be able to do anything I want with the contents of it. If I'm buying the data on it, then I should be able to get it replaced either freely or cheaply (the cost of the actual media it is going to be replaced on).
If I have a CD and it is stolen, broken, wears out, I can't just send the record company $1.50 to get another copy (since I already paid for the right to own/listen to the music itself). Instead, I have to pay another $20+ to get the music all over again. So, I have to pay for the media *and* the content -- but have no rights over either the media or the content. So if I've paid for both twice and have only one copy, then I should be able to make a copy of the second copy I bought and give it away (since I paid for two existing copies in the world and one is gone).
The problem is that they have a clamp on everything. They sell you *nothing* for your $20+ and they get everything. When a format is obsolete, they get to ream you *all over again*. When your copy is damaged, stolen or worn out, they get to ream you *all over again*.
So from that stance, i say "fuck it". They don't give a shit about giving me what I paid for so why should I give a rats ass about their bottom line? Feel bad for the artist, but fuck -- I'm not your manager.
Fair Use and Physical Media (Score:5, Informative)
1) Fair Use. Sharing is not Fair Use - never has been. Consult a lawyer if you need convincing, or read up on it.
2) You do have rights over the physical media but not the contents. You claim you don't have rights over the media because you are prevented from using the contents as you wish! Why distinguish between media and contents if you don't see a difference.
3) Fair use DOES cover making a personal backup copy. So if your media fails you have still got the music.
Re:Well.,.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Well... what happened to the tour? (Score:3, Insightful)
But I guess the only important thing is making truckloads of money...
Fuckin'-A right.
It is about the money. This world is not free.
Should a person be prevented from not making as much money as arguably possible? Its not like Moby just picked up instruments on Monday and released an album. The guy was poor his whole life till he hit big. He wouldn't push it without that promise... that dream.
All of this money makes you evil crap makes me sick. And by the way, I'm poor by most people's standards, so that must make me a saint.
Excuses, excuses. (Score:3, Insightful)
Excuses, excuses this time from the techies (Score:2)
your average 6 year old britney fan probably wants a cd because it's not just the music, it's a piece of britney. hell, i'd rather download the album, it is really only mediocre, but that doesn't make downloading it alone any more excusable. People before would be more willing to buy the cd because mediocre music could not be obtained in any other way. Now that people can get it free, why pay for it? There's no incentive to support the artist like there is with great music where you are truly grateful to the artist. I don't think this situation is right at all. But i'm poor and morals are expensive so feh.
I believe moby is right on the money with his claim but the times are a changing and little aside from legislation can stop them.
Re:Excuses, excuses. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Excuses, excuses. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Excuses, excuses. (Score:4, Informative)
Unfair labeling & the new album *SUCKS* (Score:4, Interesting)
Same here.
I *do* buy CD's I've heard and know I'll enjoy listening to (end to end, not for some stupid single).
Moby's "Play" was one of those must-buy CD's... it had a nice groove start to end, while "18" has *one* good track.
Now, perhaps "18" will bring Moby some new fans. Or maybe he just wanted to experiment (good for him)... but I just don't like the new album. It's far too melow and slow.
PS -- It's *completely* unfair to label "techies" as CD copy fiends. It seems the last time I checked, the #1 CD on cddb.com was Eminem... that's *hardly* music for the "techie crowd" (I'll resist the opening to label the Eminem crowd
Wilco used "pirating" to break records! (Score:4, Interesting)
and Moby is "barely floating".
Good! First off, Moby may know a thing or two about making music, but what exactly does he know about Economics, and specifically those that are related to album sales? Ah! He doesn't have any qualifications. Thats fine, I am not a slave to "pieces of paper" that say Harvard or Yale, what is his evidence?
1) he's not doing so hot.
2) Weezer's not doing so hot.
3) Pink is beating the PANTS off them both.
Hmmm, could it be that PINK spend mad money on songwriter (Specifically the lady from 4 Non Blondes) Linda Perry [undercover.com.au]
Hunh, maybe she's just getting more air play and has better quality songs?
okay, okay, fine. WEll, what about Wilco, who's album has been available for ages on the web, I would think they have a techie fan base?
And didn't wide spread MP3 availability simply help them out?
So let us re-phrase the Pearl Jam Effect- when your new album sucks in comparison to your previous albums and you don't sell because you don't deserve it?
Give it time (Score:4, Funny)
And you never know. All that repressed homosexuality may well come to the surface.
Re:The real reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Not how I see it (Score:2)
-Evan
This is what the RIAA gets for suing Napster... (Score:2, Interesting)
excuses, excuses (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, I don't steal music.
"Pearl Jam Effect" (Score:4, Funny)
Re:"Pearl Jam Effect" (Score:3, Informative)
To me, the parent (and others posting to this article) sounds like FUD who's maybe heard the aforementioned albums a time or two, if at all, with very narrow and simple tastes in music. And FUD (or"xyz sucks"-type flames) should not be modded up to 5 (nor 3 for that matter).
Chris
Gateway Music? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually I'm just kidding, I still kinda like Moby. I do miss my monkyradio and somafm due to the stupidness of CARP.
Makes no difference. (Score:2)
Maybe I'm not the average "criminal" though...
Re:Makes no difference. (Score:2)
washed up (Score:2, Insightful)
Read the stupid article, he isn't complaining! (Score:2, Informative)
---- Moby from launch
Moby's CD is selling as well as it deserves to (Score:2, Interesting)
Excuses.. (Score:2)
I really do wish they weren't so anal about all this. If you could conveniently buy high-quality non-crippled copies of your favourite artist's songs, that *might* eat into p2p-"marketshare"
I'm just one person, but I do buy CDs from artists I like. First I rip 'em and then put the CDs away. I usually go for the "mid price" discs, tho..
the real reason (Score:2, Redundant)
Blaming bad sales of a weak album on technology is pretty lame.
The Real Reason (Score:2, Funny)
I disagree.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Artists like Moby are precisely the sort of artists who stand to benefit the most through distribution of their music through p2p networks. The reason is simple: Moby's music would be considered by many "alternative" and consequently it doesn't get a lot (any) air play. So where am I supposed to hear it to know whether I like it enough to buy the album?
If that's the case, then why hasn't this album taken off then? Well, I'd say the recent successes of the RIAA in getting p2p networks shut down has probably helped, but ultimately, maybe the album just isn't as good? Not having heard it, I can't comment on that.. Maybe someone else can. Maybe the marketing of the album sucked? (I haven't heard of it all until now). Either way, I think it's clear that blaiming the p2p networks is based on opinion (And FUD) rather than fact.
Re:I disagree.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, talk about living in denial. P2P does hurt sales directly. Does that mean that ALL those people would have necessarily bought that album? No, but you have to accept the fact that many/some people would rather download than buy. Moby makes a good point here:
I think its fairly obvious that Moby understands the exposure benefits of P2P, but is trying to point out how success can never just be based on sales alone anymore.
I'm also curious as to the assumption that more sales = better music. We know that the way to make a superstar doesn't start with muscial ability but with marketing, PR, gimmicks, manufactued controversies, bubblegum pop, etc. What Moby is saying, and its been said before, is that sales cannot determine any meaningful information about the artist especially now with P2P and he asserts there's a victim demographic. Arguably, there is a victim demographic. Whether or not exposure, concert sales, and fandom outweigh album sales is the real question.
Re:I disagree.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I disagree.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, have you been listening to the radio recently? Moby's single We Are All Made Of Stars is getting lots of airplay in mainstream radio stations. It's currently #19 on the Billboard Dance/Club list, and the album is at #35 on the Billboard top albums list. I think it's safe to say that Moby has moved into the mainstream.
If you ask me (or him), Moby is not condemning people for burning/filesharing his music. He's just trying to explain that his music is more popular than the record sales give him credit for. From the Launch article:
He's not bitching, he's just musing. Give him some credit.Confusing Causality (Complex Cause) (Score:2)
Saying that it is because the techies "trade more music" is really oversimplifying something which is, in truth, much more complex. There are issues such as the number of them who listen to the particular style of music, the percentage of them who purchase music, and so on. This is particularly relevant since "technical savvy fans" probably make up a very small percentage of the potential fan-base.
Seems that this is more scapegoating than anything having to do with music trading.
Adverts (Score:2)
So...less people have heard the music. Fans will know there's a new album out, but the casual listener won't. Me, for example. I'm a 'casual' Moby listener - I bought Play because I'd heard the tracks on adverts and liked them, whereas I doubt I'll be buying '18' because I haven't really heard any of it. Except 'Made of Stars' or whatever its true title is, and that really wasn't to my taste.
Summary: no music in adverts = less exposure.
Cheers,
Ian
It a good, but not great, album (Score:2)
And that's what he delivered. A good album that is highly derivative of Play. It isn't a bad album at all, and I'm sure it will sell well. I like it a lot. But Play was revolutionary. But Moby is, by his own admission, an egotistical prick. It's easier to blame downloaders and copiers than it is to admit that he will probably never, ever, have a record as popular as Play ever again.
exactly... 18 is incremental (Score:2)
But after a couple of plays, I'd have to say that 18 is probably the better album, musically. It's more refined; it's generally less repetitive and punctuated; it has a better flow. Those old-timey (heh) vocal samples seem less wedged-in.
If this is Moby's "old samples" phase, so be it. The very fact that people complain of similarities in his songs between two albums says a lot about the impact Play had and the variety he's shown himself to be capable of in the past (Animal Rights, I Like To Score...)
Timo Maas dub (Score:2)
First, you decided to release the same record again. Then, you whored yourself -- and admitted as such -- by putting yourself on the cover of literally every magazine you could find. To blame people with burners is missing the point. Hell, how the hell did you get to be where you are today? Aren't you the artist who lives in downtown Manhattan with the ascetic's loft and the loaded studio and the Macintoshes?
I appreciate Moby, I think he does valuable work, but when he says, 'I'm not blaming tech-savvy people...' you have to wonder why he feels the need to rationalise in that way.
All too common ... (Score:2)
Disposable Income (Score:2)
There's a subset of the populace who don't have work (who DID during the dot.com bonanza). They aren't likely wasting any remaining saved income on non-essentials.
There's another subset of the populace who is just happy to have a job, and having recently experienced joblessness, or having watched people they know go through it, aren't real likely to be wasting any disposable income. They might even be saving for a rainy day.
Don't burn bridges... Don't piss off your fans. (Score:2, Redundant)
I would agree with the majority of the posters here is that it's not his audience that's the problem, it's his album itself.
It seems by making comments about his album sales not doing so well due to the fact that his fans/audience don't want to pay for his music and would rather steal seems like he's shooting himself in the foot.
Don't piss on the people who made you. If you screw up (produce an album that doesn't hit the top of the charts), make something better.
Are we likely to see more and more people blame their crappy album sales on piracy? Of course, it's not fun to take responsibility for your work if it sucks.
NO..I pay for music I like (Score:2)
damnit moby, listen to Eminem (Score:3, Funny)
"And Moby, you can get stomped by Obie,
You 36 year old bald headed fag blow me
You don't know me, you're too old
Let go, it's over, nobody listens to techno"
See its easy, NOBODY LISTENS TO TECHNO!
Single Sucks... (Score:2)
I liked the last album and bought it, but the only song I've heard off the new album SUCKS so I'm in no hurry to go buy it... imagine that...
Not the tech savvy (Score:3, Insightful)
The ones who hurt music are those who are less tech savvy, less hackish/geekish. Most youths know how to operate a computer, burning CD's and sharing files is a piece of cake. What they are not aware of is the impact this has on musicians and record labels. They are just not thinking, what they really do is think like RIAA: "How can I get the most without paying?"
Fuck Moby (Score:2)
Click here [buddyhead.com] for some real opinions on music.
I think eminem said it best.... (Score:2)
Moby vs Eminem [mtv.com]
Damn techies. (Score:2)
Battlefield Earth - the finest film of all time
Waterworld - second finest film of all time
Art Garfunkel's solo career
Joe Pesci Sings [martin-scorsese.net]
;)
So please, everyone, stop the filesharing! If you want the artists to continue making music and movies of this quality they need to be paid now, or else the quality might change...and that would be terrible!
He has it backwards (Score:4, Interesting)
It is the non tech people who hurt sales; they see $0 vs $19 and don't consider things like quality, bandwidth, time, and value as measures of money. A lot of my non-tech friends used to buy CDs, but now don't understand why the money needs to change hands.
It is those people who will download with no intention of buying, not tech savy economically conscious slashdotters. (In most cases at least)
Oh course its true (Score:5, Insightful)
I would say this is hard to refute. Indie, geeky, techno, and others in the technophile musical demographic are being copied left and right. Oh course there are huge advanteges to this in terms of exposure, concert attendence, etc. For instance, even before the broadband P2P revolution, back in 1998/1999 Stereolab managed to sell out two good sized Chicago venues. This is a band that never got any local radioplay and never came close to the top40 or top100 record sales.
Shameless copying is a tradition that started with music lovers and has simply been made easier through technology. Moby questions how the industry measures success. That's a very important issue. The genie is out of the bottle, but the industry measures success through outdated methods.
In another way this isn't exactly new. A lot of talented artists who take risks instead of sticking to pop formulas tend to be undervalued and underexposed. At least P2P can fix the latter.
Re:Oh course its true (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah, I think the music industry is measuring success just like any other industry, by the money entering their pockets. P2P, tape swapping, and CD copying may increase exposure for unkown musicians, but when the musician is on top, it ceases to help them.
Direct Quote... (Score:5, Informative)
I hate the cry of "Sellout!" (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW, if anything, Moby sold out last album with the licensing of "PLay". Note that this album is not as easily bought for commercial use.
It's a sad state of afairs.... (Score:5, Interesting)
He thinks that sales of his and other band's CDs are lower because people are d/ling mp3s instead of buying them. He thinks the recording industry doesn't properly account for that when it "decides" how popular an artist is. (They're probably too busy suing people to worry about it.)
I'm not sure why 20 bazillion posts need to be made about how you think the CD sucks. I think that ground has been covered just a tad.
And another quore from Moby about this issue:
"What do you think about Napster and CD burning?
Moby: On one hand the thought of people in the music business losing their jobs makes me sad. I have a lot of friends who work in record stores and at record companies, and I know that they're nervous these days. So I hope that some way is found to protect their jobs. But I do hope that as the music business becomes less profitable that the people who are in music only to make money will be forced out. People who love money more than music shouldn't be involved in the music business, in my opinion."
From a random interview i found. [virginmega.com]
No Incentive (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Businesses can afford readily available and reliable bandwidth in large amounts.
The free copies probably can't.
2) Businesses can advertise.
The free copies probably won't.
3) Businesses have an incentive to provide a higher quality product at a better price due to increased competition.
The free copies probably won't put in the required time, and certainly not for free.
4) Businesses can make new products.
Copies, by definition, are never new.
5) Businesses have an incentive to make it very convenient to find and purchase their products.
Free copies are usually very difficult *and time consuming* to find. That's not free. Time is money.
Add to this the fact that most people are honest, and the whole "piracy" argument becomes quite flimsy indeed.
I'm not in support of draconian *AA legislation and irrational copyright controls, but I *am* in support of artists earning a fair living from their work. Technology should be used to encourage that.
"Illegal" copying will never go away. It's no different than shoplifting or people writing bad checks. It's going to happen. That should not be an excuse to treat everyone else poorly (Best Buy, are you listening?). If you treat people like thieves, that's exactly how they will behave, mainly because of the implied insult, not because they weren't willing to buy your precious "content."
Note to the music and video publishers: Put your stuff on line sooner, and these problems will be reduced.
Another $0.02
What about the 'Weezer effect'? (Score:3, Interesting)
Weezer have continued to have great success, and Maladroit has sold more than the green album. All this despite a -very- easy to obtain high quality rip coming out weeks in advance! Weezer aren't anti file-sharing either, so it's all good.
Moby can go stick his head in a grinder. I actually like Moby and what he stands for, I even like his music.. but really, his music is pretty damn dull. It's no surprise people wouldn't buy it.
That's Not The Perl Jam Effect! (Score:5, Interesting)
Moby says Weezer is also suffering from the "Pearl Jam Effect." "Weezer sold a lot of records in their first week of release, but since then their sales have dropped off considerably, even thought they have radio hits..."
What happened to Weezer (and Moby) is that the audience changed. They have a group of core fans who went out and bought their album as soon as it came out. But their sound, though solid, no longer bit the general audience as hard. Pearl Jam is a perfect example of this. It's not that their music is overshared, it's that no one in the larger audience cares, they've moved on to something else (not neccesarily something better).
I can't believe this FUD came from Moby. I can't believe he had this thought and then sat down at his computer and then typed his thought out and then sent his thought to his website. File sharing isn't hurting the record industry any more than MTV and the radio have.
Moby claims that he has "very technically savvy fans" and that everyone else who manages to sell records does not. That's such a silly argument, it's hard to believe he said it. Does he have numbers to show that his audience consists solely of super-intelligent computer geeks? Or that only computer geeks participate in file sharing or CD burning?
Poor Moby, you're album is at 35. Last week it was at 15! Sorry, buddy, I've heard it and this album isn't "Play", it's just another silly Moby album. The people that are dedicated Moby fans are going to run out and buy it immediately. Word of mouth is going to say, "It's not all that good, unless you're a big Moby fan", and then sales drop as people who aren't as into you (e.g. me) stay home in droves.
Saying that his fans are more savy is rediculous. Stealing music isn't technically difficult. You need only a computer and internet access (can you say "College Student"?). One person with ripping software gets the MP3s on the web and the rest is just the personal choice effect. I would bet that the most shared music is also the most sold music. Moby's music isn't getting shared more than Eminem's. That's the bottom line.
Sweat
Re:That's Not The Perl Jam Effect! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's Not The Perl Jam Effect! (Score:3, Insightful)
The Fragile was a phenomenally produced album. No one got it. Britteny Spears album was cheesy, predictable, studio crafted (i.e. Sound Engeneers, not Artists) pop music, and it sells out. Who has more commercials and exposure? OK, thanks.
Let's not even get into artists like the Pranksterz and Paul Glazby. They're techno (well, hard house/nu nrg/hard trance/etc, but as far as most are concerned, same thing), and they're MUCH better and more creative than Moby. Ever see them on any pop charts? Think they even would have the money to do a video? Ever even HEAR of them? Nope. Real talent hidden away. <rant>And now I take flak for being too "underground" in my music tastes from Eminem fans who sing "Nobody listens to techno!" Ironically enough that lyric is about Moby...</rant>
Re:That's Not The Perl Jam Effect! (Score:3, Insightful)
where their entire audience is highly tech-savvy? they sell albums at a awesome pace and their older albums sales increase all the time as new listeners of TMBG get to love their music and spend gobs of money and time buying all the older albums.
Tech-savvy does not equal loss in sales.
BTW, I am a newish TMBG fan, only have been listening to them for 2 years now... and I still am buying the older albums and new albums... Hell, I bought their kids record! Liar's Island is a Kick butt song!
Moby and quality (Score:3, Insightful)
"Pearl Jam Effect:"? (Score:3, Informative)
My $.02 which is more than I have spent on Moby albums in the last few years...
Never listen to Moby again....... (Score:3)
Techies out of work (Score:3, Interesting)
While the unemployment rate of the US population in general is a mere 6%, among techies, unemployment plus underemployment is somewhere between 25% and 35%. Techies are not that big a portion of the whole population. With no disposable cash, of course they won't spend where it can be avoided. Of course there will be many who steal music even if well employed, but many others won't.
My theory: tech fans = critical buyers (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny that he made his money for so long by mixing records of other peoples' stuff together. Somehow I doubt he paid the appropriate ASCAP or BMI fees. So right off, I have a hard time sympathizing with his complaints about piracy.
But beyond that, isn't it notable that artists with a large fanbase in the tech community blame that fanbase whenever sales slip? Metallica was the first; Moby is just the latest.
My theory is this: Acts like Metallica or Moby build up a cult following over years. By nature, that cult following is largely techies and other folks who don't follow the Christina Spears of the month club. People who actually care about music and are willing to follow smaller bands to get what they want.
At some point, some of these bands go to pot (literally, figuratively, or both). Their later work becomes increasingly detached and less and less like the early work, eventually ending up as a mellowed out, regurgitated pablum made up of bits and pieces of all of their early work, mixed with maybe a few mainstream artists whose stolen sounds might help draw in a few more customers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hfans. Fans lose interest and buy less.
And then, as the final stage of intellectual and moral decay, these acts engage in a strange form of denial crossed with egotism crossed with paranoia. "The fans must still love us!" they shout. "We're sure they're still listening to this new crap we put out, but for some reason sales are down. It's those goddamned fans! They must be stealing our crappy new stuff, because after years of paying for our old, quality stuff, they've suddenly become a backstabbing pack of thieves! Yeah, that must be it! Those fans of ours sure do suck!"
Anyways, that's my theory. It would just be sad, if it didn't have the dangerous potential of impacting our legal system.
Cheers
-b
original post by Moby (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry Moby, you're getting the RIAA effect. (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me download a good-quality 256k-bit mp3 or ogg directly from the publisher and I'll happily pay $1 a song. Until then, I have my collection, alternative music through non-RIAA sources, and the radio.
Well that explains it (Score:4, Funny)
Hmmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, "purchased" might be too strong a word. I think I might have used some GeoCities GeoPlus points that got turned into gift e-certificates to order the CD via Amazon (or similar).
Personally, I believe he's reached "terminal saturation" -- that is to say that's we've all had enough of him. Guy Pierce is suffering from the same thing (actors must hate it when three movies come out at once). Britters is pretty close too. That Pepsi/soccer ad combined with the photo of her smoking has probably pushed her over the edge. Then add the PS2 game...
Just downloaded it... (Score:3, Funny)
No, Moby's last ablum -sucked- (Score:5, Interesting)
Go to any record store which sells used CDs... you can find a million and one copies of 18 used. Used CD stores are a -great- way to tell if a new album is good or bad. If a lot of people are buying it, and keeping it... it is probably good. Yet, if a lot of people are buying it and selling it back for 4 or 5 bucks, it probably sucks.
I think the numbers speak for themselfs. I'm obviously not the only one that ran out to buy 18 and was let down.
What a surreal discussion! (Score:4, Insightful)
All the people blasting Moby as being old and over the hill are pretty funny. 36 is not old, except to know-it-all teenagers.
There sure are a lot of people with bottled up angst, wanting to put down this CD in some sort of all-encompassing way. It's just a CD! If you don't like it, don't listen to it!
And then there are the people who say you should copy it because either (a) it sucks, or (b) Moby has an attitude problem. What weird logic! If those cases you think you wouldn't want anything to do with it, but it's the old double standard of "I hate you music industry, but I desperately need what you sell."
Alternate explanation... (Score:3, Interesting)
The average well-trained fanboy who instinctively buys everything that happens to have the right logo that he's been brainwashed to respond to, whether or not it's crap, can't really be considered "intelligent".
Re:Hmm (Score:2, Interesting)
probably not 100% accurate quote, but that's what he said when Jon Stewart asked him about the whole Eminem thing on the Daily Show. No, he wasn't kidding.
Re:Hmm (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yeah... (Score:2)
Re:Defensive (Score:2)
Um, reviews? friends? singles? You don't need to hear an entire album to decide you don't want to plunk down $20 for it...
But the poster has, accidentally, expressed one more reason the RIAA hates ripping. The last thing in the world you want to do -- if your business model involved bundling lots of crap together -- is to create informed consumers.
Re:Did anybody read the article? (Score:2)
Re:Maybe he just sucks? (Score:4, Informative)
"18", the new album, just isn't as good IMHO, and I'm sure that's the reason why it's selling less, and not due any music copying going on.
Amusingly, Moby used to be an MP3 advocate, even appearing in an advert for the Apple iPod.
Re:Slashdot laziness (Score:3, Informative)
go to moby.com, look up his journal and read entry 6/16/2002 titled LA- record sales
here it is:
Record Sales
6/16/2002 - LA
difficult sort of update, sort of.
about record sales. and charts. and etc.
i've written about this before, but i thought i'd address it again, especially in light of the fact that i have a new-ish record in stores.
a while ago i wrote about the 'pearl jam effect'. i described the 'pearl jam effect' as being a phenomenon wherein bands who have very technically savvy fans will see their records do poorly in the charts, whereas bands/artists who have less technically savvy fans will see their records do quite well in the charts. this is owing to the fact that bands/artists with technically savvy fans will have a lot of fans who will end up downloading music or burning cd's, whereas less tech-savvy fans will generally end up buying their cd's. looking at the 3 week sales history of weezers new record, for example, has proven to me that this 'pearl jam effect' is strongly influencing the album charts in the states (and elsewhere, although not so much with weezer cos they seem to only sell a lot of records in north america). weezer sold a lot of records in their first week of release, but since then their sales have dropped off considerably. even though they have radio hits. even though they have a very loyal fan-base. even though they've made a record that their fans really like. even though there's good press coverage on the band and their new cd. etc. i would be very interested to know not how many cd's weezer have sold, but how many copies of their record are actually in existence.
i have a feeling that there might be almost twice as many copies of their new record in existence (in the form of mp3's or burned cd's) as have actually been sold.
i'm not saying that this is a good or a bad thing. i'm not writing this to voice my opinions. my concern is more for the way that the industry looks at the success of a musician or of a record that sells or doesn't sell. popular artists traditionally sold a lot of records. in the future that might not be the case. in fact even now that might not be the case. pink outsells weezer in the states not so much because she's more popular, but because her fans are more likely to buy, as opposed to burn, her cd's.
i don't mean this as a criticism of pink, i'm just using her as an example. just look at the american top 20 and you'll see what i'm talking about. most of the records in the american top 20 are by bands whose fans are, for the most part, more inclined to buy a cd as opposed to burn or download it.
again, i'm not editorializing. i'm just pointing out a strange phenomenon and wondering at what effect it will have on the future of music. this whole issue of burning and downloading is too big and too complicated for me to really voice my opinion on it (not to mention the fact that having an opinioin on burning and downloading is kind of like having an opinion on the weather. meaning that having an opinion about the weather isn't really going to change anything.)
ok, that's it.
good night.
moby