Music Biz Predicts 6% Decline in '03 403
jonerik writes "According to this article from Reuters, music industry executives gathering this weekend for the global music industry conference Midem in southern France are being told that a 6% industry-wide decline in sales is being predicted for 2003; not as bad as last year's 9% decline, but bad enough since '02 and '03 come on top of a five percent dip in 2001 and a 1.4 percent fall in 2000. As a result, talk of consolidation is rampant at the conference, with the most likely scenario being a buyout of EMI by BMG-Bertelsmann. Critics, however, are skeptical that the labels' problems will necessarily be solved by simply bulking up. 'The politics at the major labels hasn't changed. The guy who puts his neck out on the line could get fired. Whereas the guy who keeps his head down is safe, and he gets to keep his BMW for another year,' said Paul Myers, founder of Wippit.com, a subscription download site."
Imagine That (Score:5, Insightful)
Music sucks
Downturn...must be piracy.
Re:Imagine That (Score:3)
Re:Imagine That (Score:3, Interesting)
For those interested, The BBC World Service [link in sig] is starting an interesting sounding series today [18th Jan] called "The Global Music Machine," about the way the Record Feudal Lords screw any artist that has the misfortune to have dealings with them.
In the trail, they cited the way they take original artists and force them to put out "radio-friendly" albums, and the extremely dodgy contracts they make them sign.
Should make interesting listening.
Re: Imagine That (Score:5, Interesting)
> Economy slumps
> Music sucks
> Downturn...must be piracy.
Another effect is that they've lost a free bonus market that they've had for the last 20 years. During the '80s the baby boomers shelled out millions or probably billions to replace their vinly with CDs of the same recordings, and during the '90s they did it again to get the remastered versions of those same recordings.
But both of those trends have almost completely run their course, so the record companies are back to selling new music for the first time without all the free bonus re-sales of old stuff to the large and economically powerful baby boomer generation. Unless they can think of a way to get the boomers to buy all that stuff for yet a fourth time, that "free bonus" revenue is gone for ever.
I would like to see a plot of sales growth/dips for the past 25 years that counted only new releases.
Re: Imagine That (Score:2)
But it's possible that CDs deteriorate like paper turns yellow. Slowly over time, the CD surface would distort and become unplayable.
Does anyone know if this happens? Have you heard of record companies researching this stuff to purposely deteriorate CDs?
Re: Imagine That (Score:3, Insightful)
No problem, I ripped all my CDs to mp3s and just make mix CDs for my car. When I get a new car CD player that plays MP3s directly I won't even bother converting them to CD format anymore. My originals are safely stored away and if a burned copy gets scratched, who cares, I'm out like 25 cents. Of course, the recording industry would have us all believe I'm worst than a child molester for doing this, but nobody's perfect right? Heaven forbid consumers actually are able to make backups of the data they bought in case it gets ruined.. they'd rather have you rebuy it again and again. Screw that.
Re: Imagine That (Score:2)
Re: Imagine That (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Imagine That (Score:4, Funny)
Re: Imagine That (Score:3, Informative)
My point is that good music still sells. Part of this is also due to a loyal fan base. As long as the music industry continues to manufacture these cheezy one-hit-wonder acts in the hope of quick money from Tower Records, their industry will continue to suck. If they start focussing on what the fans want, they will keep their loyal fan base and thus, their solid revenue flow.
Re:This is why theyhave SACD and DVD/A (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh, no... (Score:3, Informative)
For example, if you were storing music on a record with the needle traveling along the disc at one meter per second, and the needle track resolution was 100 microns, it would be equivalent to a 10khz sampled digital recording. If the needle's pitch was one millimeter, then it would be equivalent to a digital recording with just a 3.3219 bit depth (log 10, base 2), regardless of how fast the needle was spinning.
Making smaller and smaller tracks and more precise analog media is difficult. Just look at how much money is spent on building CPU fabrication plants and stuff. To improve digital sound all you need to do is crank up the sample rate (more then 32bit samples are a waste).
By the way, you can easily create digital media now that can produce far better sound then could ever be played back with normal speakers, recorded with regular microphones, or even heard by human ears.
Thank God for George Bush! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Imagine That (Score:4, Funny)
Re:DVD == more value than CD music (Score:2)
BTW- did anyone read the latest Wired (print) on the music biz? If thier predictions were correct they'd be lucky to get only 6% decline. But then, take Wired predictions with a grain of salt, and have a laugh reading this chestnut:
http://www.wired.com/wired/5.07/longboom.html [wired.com]
Of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Of course (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course (Score:5, Funny)
And whatever favorite music didn't get re-released on CDs... well, everyone's got those on MP3.
They have MP3z because the artist's label never re-released it. And nobody else, (including the artists themselves) could re-release the out-of-print stuff due to the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension, so nobody could have bought it on CD even if they might otherwise have wanted to.
Hey, Hilary! Try this out for a business plan!
1) Don't release any more from the backcatalog, ... ]
2) Act surprised when the backcatalog brings in no more revenue.
3) [
4) Don't profit!
Re:Of course (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Of course (Score:3, Interesting)
senseless pop songs.
kids putting out albums when they should be school. i mean when a 12 year old starts singing about love and world peace, i feeling like shooting him
rap artists who should be in jail
rock artist who just do head banging and no music
Music as we know as long been dead.
Re: Of course (Score:2)
> This slowdown of sales has everything to do with P2P and nothing whatsoever to do with a slowing global economy.
I wonder if anyone has actually compared the rate of rips and downloads today to the rate of people copying each others' albums onto cassette 25 years ago?
Heck, for most of that 25 years you've been able to buy dual-cassette boom boxes that were designed for the express purpose of copying one cassette to another, and could be operated by complete idiots. Unless p2p has been adopted outside the Geek Elite, the rate of bootlegging may have actually dropped.
everything to do with "rights" (Score:2, Interesting)
The Star Formerly Known As Prince called himself that because his record label wouldn't let him use his own name. Hell, the Carpenters from the 70s still have a huge following and all their video stuff is still in demand, but it can't be sold because clearance can't be obtained. Now who the hell would fight over them?
Same with the Partridge Family. There was a recent TV special, but their original recordings weren't replayed, it was easier to get more studio musicians to rerecord them.
I hope the industry chokes on that Supreme Court ruling.
Re:Of course (Score:2)
For the love of god man, don't do it.
Obligatory Business Plan (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Sign shitty artists
2. Sell shitt CD's
3. Piss on consumers rights
4. ??? (anything but restructuring)
5. Lose profit
Wait...that doesn't work
Maybe you've just grown up (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a big reason the music industry targets teenagers. People that go to college and start paying bills grow cynical about the status quo, including music. Not necessarily the music industry, but of course that's where people target their cynicism because the industry profits from listener's failure to find a musical style they're consistantly happy with (which is impossible).
People in high school don't really think about the music industry as being evil. They listen to what's popular, just like most wear what's popular, etc. Even if it's not 'popular', it's finding a niche, whether it be computers and academics, social life and sports, or drama/science fiction/goth. People in different clique's have a musical style targeted at them, and they take it mostly without thinking. They may complain about CDs being expensive, but they don't complain about quality or immoral lobbying.
As you get older, you think that it's not important to fit into a clique with your musical choices. Instead you try to find things that you like, both musically and morally. It's only natural that with your more mature, broader perspective on the world that you become cynical.
In conclusion, say all you want about the industry pissing you off and quality deteriorating. Everyone outside of high school says that, they did 20 years ago, they will 20 years from now. It's natural to purchase music less as you get older. Therefore it's not logical to expound your own buying experience with the revenues of the music industry.
When you're 50 and you never buy new music, the music industry will still be around and raking in even more money than it does now. Not that it's right, but that's how it is.
Song-oriented vs. album/artist oriented (Score:3, Interesting)
One major change, which doesn't require too many subjective evaluations to notice, is that the music companies have made a shift away from developing artists to a regime where they're more about developing songs. There's always been a certain amount of this throughout the past few decades, but it's taken on a particularly feverish industrial pitch in the last several years.
The end result is that listeners seem to be less attached to the artists that they listen to, and buying the album or becoming part of a following is less important; with the exception of a very small number of artists, all you need is that band's one or three major hits. Then you can forget all about them because chances are they'll just fade away.
This change really took off right around the time that it became easy to simply swap and collect songs in a convenient and reasonably high-quality (ie non-casette) format, with the Internet and p2p making it easy to share with millions of people all over the world. Instant disaster.
Re:Obligatory Business Plan (Score:2)
c cassettes, burners..
Raise the Price... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Raise the Price... (Score:5, Insightful)
I often wonder how I can get a 2 disc DVD of a movie that cost several hundred million to make(which includes over 2 hours of soundtrack) for less than I can buy a current Top 20 artist.
Hell, Jimmy Eat World released a DVD EP for 6.99. CD's don't make sense at the prices they're at. I'll just keep buying music DVDs for cheaper than the CD, and have video and 5.1 included.
Re:Raise the Price... (Score:5, Insightful)
$20 is just WAY too much to pay for a crappy CD, or even for a decent one for that matter. There are a zillion (mostly older) albums I would love to add to my collection, but I cannot justify spending that much for a stupid CD.
Price them at $6.95/each and watch revenue skyrocket, and MP3 downloads become less popular. I would buy a new CD at Borders each and every day, along with my coffee.
Instead of adapting, the dumbasses in the music industry prefer to whine to Congress for protectionist legislation.
Re:Raise the Price... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's easy to pirate the music... damn easy... and I have 3 burners and tons of software to manipulate the software and convert formats however I like... so I'm set but I think if music was that cheap, I would just go ahead and buy the cd's. It would be easier to buy them than pirate them and I wouldn't be spending all that much.
But we all know that this will never happen. Maybe the price will go down a little but I doubt it. I have noticed when going to concerts at small clubs around Seattle, when the band has cd's for sale at the show and they are cheap, like $10, they ALWAYS sell out. I'm sure they make a pretty good profit on those since they are selling them themselves. Maybe more bands should do this. What if at the next Metallica concert, you could buy all of the cd's they have ever released (except for box sets of course) for $10 each? Would you buy one? Would you buy all of them? I would buy all of them... and I already all but one.
Re:Raise the Price... (Score:3, Insightful)
If the marginal cost of producing a CD were $2, sales would have to quadruple for the $6.95 price tag to bring in the same profit as your $20 price point (or double to reach $13.49). Seems very unlikely that the price drop would spur that dramatic of a buying increase.
Re:Raise the Price... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, the point is that overall sales actually would likely double at that price point. A lot of my (non techie) friends pirate CDs because they're poor college students (note: a main target demographic of record companies) and aren't willing to spend part of their limited income on a grossly overpriced CD.
But you are right on one point.. this will never happen. No matter what the possible rewards, it's way too great a risk for the record companies to take. If it works, they're just moving more product and not making TOO much more money. If it fails, the industry goes under. More than likely something like this will happen over time, but it won't be overnight and consumers probably won't notice. Anyway, now that this post says many things and nothing at all, I'll stop.
Re:Raise the Price... (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong: CDs are overpriced. I'll never buy another one. DVDs are not a fair comparison.
Re:Raise the Price... (Score:2)
You must live in a boring suburb with nothing to do but listen to the radio. Have you never seen a live band ever? Seriously, live music costs some cash, more than a movie ticket. Cheap clubs will have a $10 cover and you have to buy a couple drinks just on principle. Live concerts by pop musicians can cost $50 or more very easily. Most successful bands make the majority of their money from concert ticket sales, which can be quite substantial.
THe reality is artists make the majority of their profit from concerts, the CD's are just the icing on the cake. Some of the top 40 bands do NOT do that, they are the infamous manufactured bands. But for 99% of musicians who try to make money from their art form, they get the majority of their money from performances.
Re:Raise the Price... (Score:2)
The upshot of the article you can't read [economist.co.uk] is that, even in this sluggish economy, spending on entertainment is UP, but advertising revenues are still DOWN, and so are entertainment profits (DOWN.)
Unfortunately, the story is "Premium Content" so I can't post the link (my room-mate subsrcibes in print.)
Of course, the Economist also thinks that piracy is responsible for the decline in CD sales (it is to laugh.)
Re:Raise the Price... (Score:5, Interesting)
I actually see non-Disney (boo his) DVD ads on TV on a regular basis now, more so than I see music ads, except those damn "Wow!" albums. Someone has to pay to get all those menus scripted, all the other language tracks recorded, the commentary tracks, the featurettes, the friggin' DVD-ROM content. Plus it comes in a nicer box than a jewel case, and is a fundamentaly more expensive media to produce. So why again are they close to if not less than the cost of a CD with 45 minutes of crap music?
Re:Raise the Price... (Score:2)
The next time you are at a movie rental place, take a good look at how many titles they have in the new release racks. Then think about how many movies have come to your local theater. A lot of those movies never went to the theater, yet they are making money for the stuido that produced them. Comparing cd's to dvd's is a great way to illustrate how the music industry is ripping us off.
Secondly, where the hell did you come up with your numbers? $9 to watch it per person and 40 million people? Are you claiming this is the average for all movies released onto dvd? If your not, then what the hell was your point?
I guarantee you that movie would not have been made
Since you offered a guarantee, I wish to collect because your argument is fundamentally flawed. Not all movies are expensive to make. Not all movies are ever shown in a theater. For a lot of movies the video sales are icing on the cake but for a lot of them, they are the cake.
It's the videos, I think (Score:2)
My guess for the cost differential isn't that movies make all their money at the box office, but that the music industry is spending too much on music videos and trying to subsidize it via the purchase of CDs. Videos are basically a giveaway (yes, you can buy them, but most people consume them for free on TV).
I'd wager the music industry actually makes decent money on audio, if you could subtract the cost of videos out of their finances.
Re:Raise the Price... (Score:3, Interesting)
To put a finer point on it, compare the price of the 2 disc DVD to the audio CD soundtrack of the same movie. They are usually about the same price. Which would you rather buy?
Hypothetical question: It is legal for me to copy an audio CD to a tape, in order to play in my car. Can I legally copy the soundtrack off a DVD to play (audio only) in my car also?
Re:Raise the Price... (Score:3, Insightful)
Give us something that doesn't suck... (Score:4, Insightful)
And, as an aside, many of us are so jaded from the recent crap, that we're unwilling to buy music basing our decision solely on the two (three if you're lucky) songs that get played on the radio. I want to hear a majority of the album before I buy it. Oh, sorry, that would require me to STEAL the music first. Oh well, no CDs for me.
Re:Give us something that doesn't suck... (Score:2, Funny)
But you're right. I don't get why the music industry is so interested in promoting "hot chicks" whose music sucks over ANYBODY whose music DOESN'T. I mean, aren't they the *music* industry? You'd think they were a soft-porn industry...after all, I'd much rather f%&k Britney than listen to her.
Re:Give us something that doesn't suck... (Score:4, Insightful)
No it doesn't. OK, so you want to hear more than just the singles played on the radio and the videos on TV. Well, if you can make your way to
Or just drop by your local music shop. Most have listening stations loaded with the current top sellers, and if you ask you can often get to hear any CD you like before purchasing.
Not true. (Score:2)
So, let's say I want to buy Pink Floyd's Animals. Or Paul Lansky's Fantasies and Tableaux. Or Nirvana's Nevermind. Believe it or not, (gasp) I can't preview the entire album online for free!
What if the CD's not in stock? That's usually the case for the kind of music I listen to, and to get it in stock you have to order it and pay a deposit. The only way for me to preview an album is to download "illegal MP3z" of it.
Re:Not true. (Score:2)
See my comment about walking into a "store".
What if the CD's not in stock? That's usually the case for the kind of music I listen to, and to get it in stock you have to order it and pay a deposit. The only way for me to preview an album is to download "illegal MP3z" of it.
Well, first off, the parent poster seemed to be mostly upset about the recent crap that's been released. So if it's recent, it's probably in stock.
And people!!! If you don't like the album, BRING IT BACK!!! Most store's have some kind of satisfaction guarantee, use it! Store's want your business and want you to be happy, they aren't out to screw you as many of the
Re:Give us something that doesn't suck... (Score:3, Informative)
Catch-22 (Score:2)
So, as everybody mentions, they feel like using this as an opportunity to hit P2P networks. But really, they get what they get - if you don't invest money in new, fresh artists, don't be surprised when sales are flat.
It's just like any other industry, and they've cut the equivalent of R&D. Well, when your market is in durable goods (you don't sell someone the same CD over and over, though it seems like it), and you have no innovation, guess what? Your sales will suck! Quit blaming MP3's, guys!
Re:Give us something that doesn't suck... (Score:2)
Video killed the radio star (Score:3, Insightful)
The Rolling Stones wouldn't get past the odd bar gig.
Janis Joplin? Joe Cocker? Anyone from CSNY? Ha. No hope in hell.
They don't sell audio, they sell image now.
The majority don't want to buy 'good music', they want to affirm some sort of image they associate with. That's why it's boiled down to a handful of cookie-cutter stereotypes: Hardcore Gangsta Rapper(tm), Edgy Club Kid(tm), Hard Rockin Mallcore Punk(tm)
Big corporate concerns cater to the majority - that's what they and their boardrooms and feasibility studies and market focus groups are good for.
Only little independent labels would take a chance on an unknown, gamble on the 5% who are actually interested in music (it's background noise to most).
Shame the government allows the biggies to systematically crush the smaller labels - doubly so since the smaller labels sell a different product (music) to a different audience (music lovers).
Already done... (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you seen the latest Christina Aguilera videos? (Specifically - Dirrty)
See what your P2P piracy has done! (Score:5, Funny)
Of course in this economy, lots of industries would give their first born for a mere 6% decline.
Re:See what your P2P piracy has done! (Score:2)
What they don't mention here.. (Score:5, Interesting)
begun, the flame war has..
Re:What they don't mention here.. (Score:2)
Karma whoring or redundantly informative? You decide!
Re:What they don't mention here.. (Score:2)
Answer? Both.. Who doesn't need extra karma to burn? I'm being redundantly informative because most people will say "awww.. poor RIAA, they're losing money". They need to be constantly reminded of the facts or else they'll forget about them.
Re:What they don't mention here.. (Score:2)
Yoda, you sound like.
Re:What they don't mention here.. (Score:2)
Shouldn't it be:
Like Yoda, you sound?
Of course what they really mean (Score:5, Funny)
ECH EIN RECORDER (Score:2)
Heres a thought (Score:4, Insightful)
Ya know, if this was the 'regular' industry... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets see, we'd expect to see the following:
1)A 5% reduction in operational expenses
2)A 10% reduction in global workforce, with a minimum of 3% coming locally
3)Announcements of 'diversification' by hiring some recognizably named 'diversification' consultant, who ought to leave after 5 months and make many speeches talking about how the environment wasn't conducive to change and (4 months later) will say it was a success
4)A number of consultants to help improve product flow
and finally
5)Several new products in time for a major tradeshow
Oh wait, this isn't 'industry', I forgot their lawyers make the money by paying off congress.....
This is so sad that... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This is so sad that... (Score:2)
I predict... (Score:2)
When the xxAA's tried to get their lackey Mr. Hollings to plug the "analog hole", they poisoned the well. Nothing less than Chapter 11 filings by the major record labels will please me at this point. They have permanently lost a customer.
I work in IT. If I have to choose between the IT and media distribution industries, I'll pick IT. Every time.
Re:I predict... (Score:2)
There must be a lot of interesting stuff out there, it would be good if it could be demonstrated that you can make a living selling music in a fair way.
They're pissing off their customers (Score:5, Funny)
Music exec's have had their heads up their bums... (Score:4, Insightful)
Reducing the cost of CDs will have a 2 fold effect:
1. More people will choose legal CDs over piracy [gives music companies more money].
2. The black market will be hurt because there will be fewer pirates to downloading and selling [eliminate the pirate competition].
do something decent about it (Score:3, Insightful)
I dont think they reallise that there are no satisfactorary ways of actually legallly paying for and downloading tracks. Most of the ones I have seen are poor. If a decent scheme was started, im sure at least some people would be willing to pay.
Re:do something decent about it (Score:2)
You'll be able to create and save massive play lists of all of your favorite songs. No more cd's to buy. No more cd cases to fill up the local landfill when everyone puts their cd's into binders and throws the cases away. A huge reduction in the cost of production since all the label has to do is load the new cd into the massive database.
It's great for the industry because it lowers costs, eliminates piracy, helps the environment, and increases profits. It's great for the user because you have access to way more music than you could ever buy or pirate. You suddenly want to hear some song from the 80's but you don't want to pirate it and you don't want to buy it because you only want to hear it once. Now about your only option would be to call the local radio station and ask them to play it. If my idea was to become reality, you would just type in what you wanted and it would instantly start playing. The best part is, the price would be very low to encourage wide acceptance.
Most people have some sort of television subscription service these days. Either cable or sat. You can still get some channels over the air but not many people bother with that because it's a hassle and the quality isn't as good in most cases. I think this could work the same way. It would be so easy and cheap that everyone would go for it.
Oh, and the artists could get paid based on how many times their songs are listened to. So you have $x of fees, with a certain percentage off the top for administration. Then you run stats for all of the music that was used for the month. You then calculate that by label and divide up the fees after administration by the percentage of each label. The label then divides it up with it's artists.
Seems like a win-win all the way around. But I'm sure I'm forgetting something that makes this entire idea both impossible and stupid... so go ahead, tell me what I forgot and why I'm just a stupid crack-head loser.
Cost still high! (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe if they would actually consider pricing CDs at an average of about $9-10 people would by a lot more. I know I would (honest!).
Re:Cost still high! (Score:2)
That's because the cost to manufacture CD players has dropped, thanks to experience and economies of scale. The price of music CDs, however, has never been about the cost of the materials.
I predict (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll wager that both of our predictions are correct.
at least they're cutting back (Score:5, Funny)
Well, the impending/current loss of profits hasn't stopped them from holding their global conference in the south of france.
They can all go bankrupt for all I care (Score:2)
Almost all the new music I buy is directly from musicians at their concerts now.
Congress must act now! (Score:2)
We don't need no water. Let the motherfuckers burn.
the bottom line is p2p (Score:5, Interesting)
QUESTION - How can you depend on a smaller subset of crappy music to support a more diverse and growing audience and still make a greater profit, with out Andersen Accounting 101....
ANSWER - you can't unless you can claim the losses due to an illegal act and get aid or a system slanted in your favor...
Re:the bottom line is p2p (Score:4, Insightful)
BMG+EMI - Not the first time (Score:2)
http://www.nypost.com/business/66512.htm [nypost.com]
Yippy! (Score:2)
Soon, they will die the death of 1,000 cuts!
Either that, or their patron, Satan, will do something to take care of them again....
Stupid (or inteligent) media companies. (Score:2)
I would buy alot more CDs and DVDs if they were marked at half or a quarter of the price. Meaning that I would spend more money if they were cheaper. But with all this nonsense about this being all about protecting the artists, the big labels are just bringing in the money.
What's the result then? I'm now much more inclined to go to a P2P system (I don't but I might start doing it) and downloading the music I want. I pay for concerts, and I know that money goes to the artists. When I buy a CD I'm thinking that this overpriced little round thingie that costs 17 cents to make is going to fund the record labels' lousy service to music and not the artists.
To top all this, I get kicked in the back with crippled CDs that try to prevent me from turning my music into MP3's that I can put in a playlist in my computer. And then they ask why I'm not buying so many CDs? Whatever...
You're not allowed... (Score:4, Insightful)
- To make backups of your music.
- To copy your music to a portable digital device.
- To create your own mix of music.
- To play CD's on your computer even though they support the 'Compact Disc' logo.
- To compress your music down to one CD so you don't have to carry tons of CDs around.
Yeah, I'm surprised about the decline. Everything people does to make music more fun is labeled 'piracy'.
Mu$ic (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd much rather see a live performance than pay for a recording anyway. I'd also like to actually be able to know the performer instead of being one of a zillion nameless fans. That's why as I grow older, I like trendy less, and whatever I can see in person at a local bar or small venue much better.
Music sharing and so on isn't the enemy -- for centuries, sharing is the way music perpetuated -- from one performer to the next to the next... I find it ironic that the music industry blames the fuel for creativity for it's decline...
Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
The more the major labels have to downsize and consolidate the more that specialized independent labels will be accessible to the mainstream.
I hear a lot of stuff like "boycott the RIAA - stop buying CD's" on slashdot. What about labels that are unaffiliated with the RIAA? Almost all of the music I have bought in the last 10 years is from independent labels - not only because I don't like the business practices of the major labels but because the music on independent labels is BETTER. Smaller labels are generally interested in good music over money (there's not really much money in it).
Of course this is a pretty wide generalization - there's a lot of shit on independent labels too. But almost everything I hear on the radio is shit.
"How can I find music without major labels shoving it down my throat", you ask? Read reviews! Try www.pitchforkmedia.com. There's a shitload there. Then download a couple tracks of something that sounds interesting off Limewire or whatever and see if you like it. If you do, go buy it.
Anyway, the point of this rant: The major labels loosing money and downsizing will not make it any harder to hear music - smaller labels will fill any void that appears. And that is good.
"They get to keep their BMW for another year."? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the thing. There's nothing wrong with producing fluff. However, if you're producing nothing but fluff, charging £17.99 for it, then stopping people from even copying the fluff for personal use, then there's something very wrong.
And what's their solution to the problem?
A merger. For goodness sake, how is that going to solve their problem? They'll be able to merge profits? Wow! As if they didn't have enough cash to buy their own laws already. A merger just means that the music industry will become yet more homogenised and yet more people will be turned off from what the 'superstars' are producing. People will buy less and pirate more.
Music Industry (Score:3, Interesting)
Ever wonder why the Foo Fighters sound just (almost) like Nirvana when that x-Nirvana drummer wasn't even with the band and didn't really much write songs when he did? Answer: it paid to write songs like Nirvana. Or, more specifically, the record company paid the FF's to sound just like Nirvana knowing that's what would sell to the stupid shit kids out there riding along on yesterday's pop-cool-whatever.
I can just see some record company execs schmoozin' that drummer and telling him that he could still have a fine future in the industry if he could just write songs like no-more-head-Kurt did: "Would you be interested in forming a new band like Nirvana, drummer?" Reply, "Well, ya. Uh, I could try... How much would you pay us?" "We could make it VERY worth your while if it sounds like Nirvana and the kids see you as the band reborn."
Some jack-off from that 90's Clash wanna-be band whatever-they're-called was defending himself recently about "the state of punk in the 90's" sort of thing in Alternative Press and saying that it can be about money and getting down on people who are giving him trouble for being commercially successful. Well, I say fuck these fair weather pop-punk bands pretending to be rebels and acting like they're breaking new ground. I mean, I have a 9-5 job at an ISP in Salt Lake City, Utah and I have pink hair and although my boss is liberal and customers make comments sometimes, most everybody likes it like it's fun, which it is. I bring up this example to simply point out that pink hair 20 years ago would be a statement and likely cause trouble and now slack, somehow-I-keep-a-job types like myself can have pink hair and keep a job-obviously things have changed. Hell, even extremists like Marilyn Manson hardly cause a stir outside of places like Utah and Florida.
I'm applauding this lack of concern for appearance and simply want to point out that punk music is not rebellion anymore-some of it is still damn good, but it is music and not some fucking costume party for pseudo rebels.
Back to my RANT that making music into an "industry" is not a good thing overall-one mostly gets copy-cat bands like the Foo Fighters and all those Epitaph bands, on a good day but more likely Alanis Mourisette female-singer -with-heart-on-shoulder pop radio hell.
This is not to say that one can blame record companies when I just heard on the news this morning that the most popular radio station in NYC is playing 80's disco music!!!! Nietzsche's notion of the masses as cattle clambering along seems quite fitting at moments like this. But anyway, what are people buying when they pay for an album? What do they hope to get from some LL Cool J song?
This idea of "music-as-industry" really gets me bad because I have to listen to this shit when I'm in someone's car or flipping through the radio station's in my honey's car since her tape player doesn't work. This is hellish. Where is the surprise in any of this shit? Where is the soul in it? how can anyone feel any emotion besides hatred when listening to this? I'm no Rocket Scientist *sob* but why can't music have some soul again? Are people so brainless and exhausted that most anything will do? Are people so lazy that they'll let radio and record producers choose what they will like and hear?
I see people gobbling up the feces over and over again and then see stacks of some "big" band's music at the used music store less than a year later. So many bands are liked and hip for no apparent reason-take Rocket From the Crypt. Their music is boring and lame and lifeless and unoriginal and yet Sympathy For the Record Industry (cool name) bothers to waste cool record art and vinyl on these San Diego kitch bitches. I keep hearing people talk about their wearing bowling shirts on stage like that's a good reason to buy and enjoy their albums and concerts. What am I missing here? And then Blacktop comes to town a year ago and less than a dozen people are out to see them.
Now I'm thinking about films and getting pissed about that too. Ever hear of "quote-whores"? I'll RANT about it sometime.
If you agree, don't be getting too full of yourselves too quickly. Most of you liked disco in the late 70's/early 80's--or would have if you had been around and old enough."
godlessmotherfucker.com
$13.99 vs. $18.99 (Score:2)
Is there a simple reason for this? It would be nice if the CD was $9.99 everywhere but my question still stands.
In other "unrelated" news..... (Score:5, Insightful)
From now on, they will select these very few videos, and then air them constantly.
The point? Such rigid control over the playlists, plus the dramatic scaling back of the numbers of new songs viewers and listeners are exposed to has killed MTV, VH1 and radio. If you don't like the NuMetal, Rap, PerlJamClone and TeenyBop tracks this week, you are out of luck. There will be nothing new for you to see. You will not be exposed to any new artists, new genres....nothing beyond what you already know.
So once you have all the U2, Radiohead, Bijork, They Might Be Giants, etc albums you got into, what else is there?
A lot.
But how the hell are you supposed to find out?
Play MP3.com roulette?
Good luck filtering out the crap from the music with some substance with the little guidance you can get. I lost track of the number of times someone reccomended a band to me that ended up being just another bottom-of-the-barrel garage band (not to dis garage bands in general, just the REALLY lame ones.)
MTV, VH1, etc have always shown lots of shit, but they also managed to dig up a few gems along the way. Playing video after video from bands that hardly sold anything, didn't have a good marketing budget and didn't fit into one group, live up to anyone's vision of what they "should" be, and what kind of music they "should make. The programmers were responsible for sustaining bands until they reached immense heights.
U2 albums didn't really start to sell well until their 4th album - "The Unforgettable Fire" - which had 1 top 40 hit. Before then, they never really had that much success on retail shelves -despite having a huge tour following.
MTV played them anywyay.
When their second album didn't do very well, they kept playing them.
When they went off in odd directions with their music they kept U2 videos in heavy roation. Didn't matter what rigid category they did or did not fit into.
It was music, and it was interesting.
Sometimes it sold well, sometimes not nearly as well as before.
But the videos kept playing.
That's over now. MTV has given up because they found the 14-year-olds love all their crappy non-music shows, and the single, 90 minute or so block of time when they do show videos (Total Request Live). These viewers are the most fiercely loyal. So MTV has decided to cater to them, and only them.
This demographic didn't tune in as much when a block of videos came on that didn't cater to only their tastes.
So MTV axed the very thing they are based on.
Radio isn't much better.
So now, it's down to 10 songs a week - mostly the same ones from last week - in a few, narrowly defined styles. Most of which will not appeal to a broad audience.
And the millions of listeners who have far fewer places to turn will find themselves uninterested in buying music. There simply isn't anything new being introduced to them.
And the music industry will see the downturn, and blame it soley on file-swapping.
And they will wonder why they can't find any new "hit" artists.
They will ignore the fact they simply don't have the paitence to nurture a band, but simply expect it to go Top 10 with its first album. A group that fails to do so will be dropped. And any group in the running will have no control over their music anyway, so the expectation that they will get any better is moot - considering they have no ability to grow as artists.
These people want 4 new U2s every year.
But, like many other groups before and since - the key to success was artistic control by the band, and relentless exposure - regardless of sales.
They didn't hit the Top 10 until album #5.
And few ever will again..
Nobody will wait that long anymore.
Re:In other "unrelated" news..... (Score:3, Informative)
Okay, now what is this really..? (Score:3, Interesting)
How the music industry can make money (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Return to a focus on music, as opposed to entertainment or product. Make a distinction once and for all that flash in the pan pop stars like Britney Spears or New Kids on the Block are not musicians, but entertainers. These groups are not so much recording artists as stage performers who also happen to have released an album. Considering relitivly short run longivity of these entertainers, keep promoting them the same way you've been doing for years: It works.
Now take the other side of the industry, the actual musicians; The folks who play their own instriments, the ones who formed a band together on their own and are creative and inovative forces are derived internally, not in a focus group. Employ A&R scouts and record executives with arts or music degrees, not business degrees. When deciding which bands to sign, make judgements based on individual merit instead of compliance to a winning formula.
In other words, promote and press music that is good, as opposed to an anaylist's predicted expectation for sales. In the end, this will provide quite a bit of profits as long as you:
2. Cut massive promotion costs. There is absolutly no reason why you should have to spend ~$5 million to promote an untested band. $1 million rock videos which are never viewed can be made just as effective as $50,000 videos in the hand of a novice filmaker who is allowed to innovate. Plastering the walls of every music store in America with posters will do nothing if nobody has heard of, or likes your band. Use low cost promotion methods, such as the Internet or word of mouth (hey, if the band is good, this does work). You can ultimatly generate low or no cost promotion with your best and most succesfull promotional outlet, radio, if you:
3. Stop orginized payola. Don't roll out a new untested band nationwide--they may fail! Allow individual radio stations and individual DJs the freedom to make programming decisions. If it's good, and the folks calling in keep asking for it, it will get played and eventually gain national attention. If it stinks, the DJs will soon drop it. When you allow programming decisions to fall into the hands of the folks who actually enjoy the music and talk on the phone every day and every hour with the people who will actually buy the music, you'll have a much better chance of knowing what music the people will actually buy then if you make those decisions in the board room.
Yes, this method is not as much a 'sure bet' as your current system, but then again, you will no longer blow millions on every new band which is essentially a crap shoot.
4. Finally, Value price recordings. ~$18 for a CD is simply too much money. Plain and simple. Consider a price point closer to the consumers willingness to pay. Make smaller recording runs for unknown or untested bands. As price per unit goes down, pass at least some of that savings to the consumer. Also, consider reviving the single. If you find yourself with a band that has a hit but an otherwise woefully uninspired album, charging $1.95 for a CD with just the one hit on it gives you more profit and allows the customer the ability to get the music he wants without making the often unprofitable (for you) decision to eschew the entire purchase.
As a personal note, you also might get me back as a customer if you stop calling me a theif or a terrorist because I've downloaded music off the Internet. Until recently I would purchase a few new CDs every month, but your public contempt for me has just frustrated me so much that I won't support your industry. You may think what I do is immoral, but you might want to consider this: If we make money in the long run, the custoemr is still always right.
New music? (Score:4, Interesting)
The record industry is an industry of parasites. Their business model is based on relentlessly screwing both the producer of their product (the artists) and the customer. The executives themselves, as in most industries, produce nothing and contribute little. Anyone who's ever worked in a big corporate office can attest to this: the highest level of management spends most of their time schmoozing and going to catered "meetings". Their jobs are the least at risk, they work the shortest hours, and yet they make the most money by several orders of magnitude. I think that C. Brown from Leaders of the New School said it best in "Scenario":
"We're all making pennies on our records, so who makes the paper?
The man in Manhattan laughing in the skyscraper."
You're all forgetting something!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
We are not spending less on music than in the past. It's just that many bands have eliminated the middleman (major labels, RIAA). The whole "jam" scene, which now has engulfed many of the music fans that used to buy tons of RIAA CDs (like me), has effectively eliminated the middleman. And it's not just "jam", it's many jazz, funk, and otherwise non-mainstream artists that are doing this.
Most of these bands have their own record labels now, and do almost all of their CD sales at live shows or directly from their own websites. Some of them are quite popular, like Ween for instance. They used to be on Elektra (major label), but their next album will be sold in the fashion I described.
If you were in touch with this large, growing scene as am I, I think you would agree that a lot of money is being spent on CDs and not being accounted for in these statistics. And that amount is growing quickly year after year.
Someone with a Slashdot account who agrees with me here, please repost this and get it noticed!
A 6% loss in this econommy and they complain? (Score:5, Interesting)
Find me another mutli-billiion dollar a year industry that's NOT hurting in this day and age and I'll give you a cookie. On top of that, they're a non-essential industry! They should be hurting more than anybody else out there right now!
Okay, lets assume this is horrible to the record industry. The industry is just decimated by P2P right now for arguments sake -- who the hell do you know of right now that's been laid off by them and is hurting economically because of it? Anybody?
Lets step back into the world of -real- products with value right now. They're hurting... badly. I've seen Steelcase (a fortune 500 company recently) cut back their staff by large marks because of the economy. People aren't pirating office equipemnt, it's just a bad economy. There's rumors of a automotive parts manufacturer shutting down here too -- and that's not because of piracy. People still drive cars, and beleive it or not, they usually buy them. Yet, still, they're hurting. People are getting laid of from real jobs in real industries, yet these SOBs have the gaul to say that their sales are slumping and beleive that it's somebody else's problem that it's happening.
Bull... fucking...shit. Welcome to the real world, fellas. When people who make products people actually need are out of work you can sure as hell bet people that make things that noboby really needs are going to be hurting for money.
Recorded music in decline since 1996 (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe this says something about the viability of recorded music in comparison with filmed entertainment and interactive entertainment. How long can a medium that has been around as long as recorded music ever hope to maintain a lofty position in the face of much more addictive and immersive media that incorporate music, visual stimulation and in the case of games, interactivity?
I'm not saying that nobody wants to listen to recorded music, but perhaps its time we realized that all of these arguments about who gets the money, how the music gets distributed, and so on are missing the point that while consumers will still shell out big bucks to go to a live concert, they are no longer willing to spend as much disposable income on recorded music. It has become a commodity in the minds of consumers, whether the recording industry realizes it or not.
Yeah....it must be piracy (Score:3, Insightful)
a) no raises for state employees
b) raise alchohol/cig taxes (doesn't affect me much)
c) raise property taxes
So I'm getting a double-whammy at least. For some reason, spending my money on something that is formula generated and over produced just doesn't seem to fit into my top 20 lists of things to do with my little bit left over.
But I'm sure it'll all get blamed on piracy and heaven knows what else.
Re:But I thought P2P meant MORE sales? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:But I thought P2P meant MORE sales? (Score:4, Interesting)
Hardly. As has been mentioned before, some independent industry analysts were actually surprised that the drop in sales was only as much as it was. They did the calculations of new artists signed, albums released, and all the other factors that go into the total sales equation, and estimated sales to be actually less than they ended up being. Some concluded that music sharing might have accounted for that.
Re:6% only? (Score:3, Funny)