Music industry on verge of collapse

[mancroft]

Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke is warning the music industry is on the brink of collapse, insisting young musicians should resist signing record deals because the major labels will “completely fold” within months.

http://blogs.chron.com/celebritybuzz/2010/06/radiohead_frontman_music_indus.html

[Ferrus]

Is the time of its death correlated with the speed at which one shares files? If so... I'm going to crank out limewire this evening.

[SensEye]

I'll check back for the predicted demise in a few months. September long enough? What the heck, let's give it all the way to year end.

For the record (pun intended), I predict this guy is 100% wrong.

[Will2009]

Thom Yorke may be overstating the case a bit with his prediction of an imminent collapse within months, but the essential message he is conveying is hard to dispute. Everyone knows of course that downloads and file sharing have caused the annual sales of CDs to plummet for several consecutive years. The writing in that regard is on the wall.

Yorke's message is of course aimed at fellow musicians and recording artists. Radiohead was perfectly positioned to conduct its grand experiment in 2007 by releasing "In Rainbows" over the internet themselves, without a middle man or a record company devouring the bulk of the proceeds. It was a self-recorded, produced, and distributed album. The genius was in making it available for download for whatever price the customer thought fair, including nothing. Human psychology being what it is, although there were many freeloaders, a very substantial portion of the downloaders voluntarily paid what they considered fair. If I recall correctly, the median "fair" price selected and paid voluntarily was approximately $6US. What is significant about this is that since no middlemen were involved, and the costs of recording, producing, and distributing were kept very low, the vast majority of the proceeds collected were profit to the artists themselves, without being exploited or tied down and obligated to a recording company that does not have the best interests of the artists themselves in mind. Indeed, many fans, myself included, paid not only for the download, but also for a self-produced CD released shortly thereafter. "In Rainbows" was a huge hit and a very financially successful venture in its own right, even apart from the advertising it provided for Radiohead's subsequent and lucrative tour following the release.

Not only was this a bold and smart experiment on Radiohead's part, but it was also a giant "fuck you" to the recording industry. It was a loud, clear message that successful artists can still record and release hit records without the record labels, and they can do so profitably. This is a bit of a chicken or the egg problem for artists who are still struggling and haven't made it big, however. I think most are trying to get around that via the promotional leverage MySpace and Facebook provide, and through videos on YouTube and the hope of one going viral, a la OK Go's mega hit "Here It Goes Again."

Of course the old recording label model really isn't the business model for successful performing popular musicians today. Today, recordings may in fact be loss leaders, but they act as promotional aids for concert tours, which is where the real money is for popular touring performers. Contrast this business model with that of 35-40 years ago, when concert tours were regarded as the loss leader (and sometimes given free, a la the infamous Rolling Stones Altamont concert) to promote record sales. Selling records was how recording artists became and remained successful. Back then, concert tours were like press junkets to sell records.

That model is clearly dead. That's York's message, and it is as plain as day. Although I may disagree with York's assessment of the timing of the recording industry's demise, it is all but certain that it is dying fast and headed for extinction. Like he says, that's not really a bad thing.

[nonperson]

More R&B and gangsta rap that's what's needed. Oh! and more sampling.

[avolkiteshvara]

More R&B and gangsta rap that's what's needed. Oh! and more sampling.

Word Yo. The result of pumping out gallons of shitty music.





Wonder what the prediction is for smaller labels like sub-pop that actually put out quality music.

[bootness]

I wouldn't be too sad to see it go. Music and "industry" just don't seem to belong together, in my book. I'd love to be able to find music I like and download it, possibly from "undiscovered" and unique artists, without being told by the industry what I should be listening to. With streaming radio that you can control by what you select and then finding things that are similar to it, who needs the "industry" at all anymore?

[edge walker]

Everyone knows of course that downloads and file sharing have caused the annual sales of CDs to plummet for several consecutive years.
Oh, is that what everyone knows.

(Agree with the rest of your post though.)

[bootness]

I like buying home-made CDs from the trunk of the drummer's car.

[Hexchild]

Everyone knows of course that downloads and file sharing have caused the annual sales of CDs to plummet for several consecutive years.

I'm assuming you refer to piracy here.

It is also a lot easier these days for musicians to spread their music in ways that do not involve the established music industry (some of which does, of course, involve downloads and file sharing) which has the subsequent effect that there are plenty of alternative ways for people to get music. I would think this trend is responsible for a significant part of said plummeting.


I don't think the industry will truly collapse, though, but it will certainly have to evolve.

[Oso Mocoso]

I would think this trend is responsible for a significant part of said plummeting.

Just for the record, their CD sales have not exactly plummeted.

These are their U.S. CD sales figures in billions, per annum 2000 - 2007.

14.0 13.4 12.6 11.8 12.2 12.3 11.5 10.4

Note that digital music sales were growing over these years, and (oddly) vinyl sales were on the upswing as well.

Recent article re: 2009's figures:

http://leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com/turn_it_up/2010/01/music-sales-for-2009-are-up-but-numbers-are-deceiving.html

So ... now people are buying digital, overall sales are down a little but not by much. Long term this trend is grave news for your local record store, but overall it's hardly a "plummet" of music sales.

[Will2009]

Oh, is that what everyone knows.

(Agree with the rest of your post though.)

Communication breakdown.

Downloads includes legal downloads through iTunes, Amazon, Napster, etc. I don't think anyone in the CD biz would dispute that iTunes alone has put a huge dent in the sales of physical CDs, so yeah, I'll stand by my assertion that "everyone knows" it. iPods and mp3 players have all but killed CDs. Hell, I still buy CDs myself -- and I have over a thousand of them -- but I think it's a very safe bet that between what I loosely called "downloads" and streaming music services (which I use too, BTW), the days of mainstream CDs are numbered, and that number is short.

[stuck]

What the hell is wrong with sampling?

[Will2009]

I'm assuming you refer to piracy here.


No. Downloads would include lawful downloads from iTunes, Amazon, and other online music stores offering digital downloads. Does it also include pirated files? Of course. My use of "filing sharing" was referring to those, but I was careful to make that distinction.



I don't think the industry will truly collapse, though, but it will certainly have to evolve.

The model of the major record labels holding a recording and publishing oligarchy and being the only game in town for musicians and recording artists to get their music distributed being dead is the point. Sure, the big labels will survive in some format, but their business model is going to look a lot different, and an awful lot of the power over their own music is being shifted away from the labels and to the musicians themselves. No one but Sony BMG, RCA, etc. is arguing this is a bad thing.

[Qfwfq]

More R&B and gangsta rap that's what's needed...

This is precisely why I'll be smiling when MTV's ship sinks. If 50 cent is their captain, and the wind in their sails the self-conscious egoism of confused suburban white boys, then let the kraken of file sharing swallow them into the abyss.

[Karl]

If the major record labels collapsed it would only help me. (Edit: As someone who plays an instrument but is not rich, attractive, or famous)

[earwax]

This is precisely why I'll be smiling when MTV's ship sinks. If 50 cent is their captain, and the wind in their sails the self-conscious egoism of confused suburban white boys, then let the kraken of file sharing swallow them into the abyss.
What does MTV have to do with music?

[barrylevon]

Communication breakdown.

Downloads includes legal downloads through iTunes, Amazon, Napster, etc. I don't think anyone in the CD biz would dispute that iTunes alone has put a huge dent in the sales of physical CDs, so yeah, I'll stand by my assertion that "everyone knows" it. iPods and mp3 players have all but killed CDs. Hell, I still buy CDs myself -- and I have over a thousand of them -- but I think it's a very safe bet that between what I loosely called "downloads" and streaming music services (which I use too, BTW), the days of mainstream CDs are numbered, and that number is short.

Sure, but there will always be a demand, even if it is slight, for a hard copy. The CD is much more than just a collection of music. Fans buy the cd to have the pictures, lyrics, etc. just as much as they buy it for the music. If this weren't the case, they'd just download it.

Downloads from legitimate sites are money in the pockets of the person, or business, that owns the distributing rights of the recording. If that's a label, and downloads keep growing, then the label keeps profiting.

So long as they control the content of the radio they'll stay on top. How many people do you know that actively search for music they've never heard, by an artist they've never heard of? How many people do you know that own copies, in any form, of stuff they've heard on the radio (probably until their ears bled)?

[Kleptocracy]

The music industry collapsing would be a good thing. Fuck the middle man.

[Karl]

Major record labels =/= the music industry.

[Kleptocracy]

Major record labels =/= the music industry.

That's what I mean.

[LongSilence]

There is no doubt that labels need to wise up, downsize, reassess and refocus. The fact is- there's still a huge market out there in place for music for which people are still willing to pay. Fans will still purchase legitimate hard copies of recordings and relatively expensive downloads in large numbers even if there are significant proportions who will always be able to find a way to extract the data from the internet without cost.

The point is- the labels need to accept that the pie is not as big as it once was, accept it and find ways to cope with smaller revenues from record sales. Music will still require someone to facilitate distribution, widespread promotion, advertising deals [media still pay a LOT of money for song use], networking etc. and so someone will always fill the hole. I'm not saying that certain companies won't be brought down by the size of their debts and overheads but there will be others who will fill the hole to keep recording studios in work and the "charts" supplied with songs for people to fork over their cash for.

[barrylevon]

There is no doubt that labels need to wise up, downsize, reassess and refocus. The fact is- there's still a huge market out there in place for music for which people are still willing to pay. Fans will still purchase legitimate hard copies of recordings and relatively expensive downloads in large numbers even if there are significant proportions who will always be able to find a way to extract the data from the internet without cost.

The point is- the labels need to accept that the pie is not as big as it once was, accept it and find ways to cope with smaller revenues from record sales. Music will still require someone to facilitate distribution, widespread promotion, advertising deals [media still pay a LOT of money for song use], networking etc. and so someone will always fill the hole. I'm not saying that certain companies won't be brought down by the size of their debts and overheads but there will be others who will fill the hole to keep recording studios in work and the "charts" supplied with songs for people to fork over their cash for.

Yeah, but it would sure be nice if the playing field were finally leveled. The notion that the music industry (major record labels) is on the verge of collapse sounds like wishful thinking. I count myself amongst those who would like to see their demise, or at least see things made a bit more "fair" for independent/new aritst but... yeah fuckin' right.

Part of the problem is the consumers. What passes for quality music is more often than not just a copy of everything else. Look at one of the most popular bands of the last decade, Nickelback. Almost every song is identical to the next. Then there's Theory of a Dead Man, and another one that sounds the same. And pop music, I can't tell any of the artists apart (I'm leaving country and rap out because, well, there should be a smiley that sticks a pencil through it's ear drum). There are a few mainstream artists that stand out, but they are very few and far between. Still, it's hard to say that consumers are the problem. Afterall, they're the ones buying the shit up. The one's that go out of there way to find new and good quality music usually don't pay for it when they do find it.

[Will2009]

Sure, but there will always be a demand, even if it is slight, for a hard copy. The CD is much more than just a collection of music. Fans buy the cd to have the pictures, lyrics, etc. just as much as they buy it for the music. If this weren't the case, they'd just download it.


Good point, and I agree as to what fans do. I think a good illustration is my own purchase of "In Rainbows" on a physical CD at retail after having downloaded it for my voluntary price of $7. I'm happy with both purchases and transactions. They both seemed fair to me. I would like to see the industry continue in this fashion, but what's so notable about this particular case is that it was the artist who determined the model and set the conditions for those transactions, not any recording label. The success of the self-distributed download model and self-produced CD model of "In Rainbows" was a terrific victory for artists, and Radiohead showed other artists that it can be done.



Downloads from legitimate sites are money in the pockets of the person, or business, that owns the distributing rights of the recording. If that's a label, and downloads keep growing, then the label keeps profiting.


True again, but the organization of the labels is changing rapidly, and the power of the artist in business negotiations is increasing substantially. The model Pink Floyd scorned and mocked in "Have a Cigar" is in its death throes. I'm sure Roger Waters is very satisfied about that.

[Cbug]

I just heard someone claim that this is what microsoft originally said to guilt people into paying for their software - "we'll go out of business if you don't!" And the people paid.

Myth?

[LongSilence]

Yeah, but it would sure be nice if the playing field were finally leveled. The notion that the music industry (major record labels) is on the verge of collapse sounds like wishful thinking. I count myself amongst those who would like to see their demise, or at least see things made a bit more "fair" for independent/new aritst but... yeah fuckin' right.

... The one's that go out of there way to find new and good quality music usually don't pay for it when they do find it.

I agree. It would certainly be nice to see even the tiniest shift in power to upset the hegemony that formula-worshipping money-spinning corporations seem to have on the lives of musicians. Because they will almost always conservatively follow first the processes that bring the dollars back with interest, rather than take chances or explore new creative fields.

In the end, the arts are always in a struggle to shake off the yoke of centralising / criticising governing bodies and I think most people would agree that the 'pop manufacturing' of music has reached ridiculous levels. Hell, the prevalence of this man's image and methods are testament enough to that.
http://www.celebritywonder.com/picture/Simon_Cowell/SimonCowell_Granitz_13092157.jpg
Still, while I'm all for decentralising mainstream music which might compel everyone to look around a little for music they like a little more I try to be pragmatic about the necessity for companies who invest in music they believe in, work closely with recording studios and distributors and have relationships with advertising media.

And while there are still CDs on the shelves of stores there's room for at least a few of the current industry corporations. I'm not saying some might fall in the near future but the smart players will no doubt capitalize on that.

[SensEye]

As has been said, the music industry must evolve. I think there will always be a middle man, "an industry", so to speak, but I think they need to be prepared to accept a smaller piece of the pie. And that is a good thing. Because when they could dominate and control a hardcopy distribution system, it really allowed the industry to price gouge consumers.

P2P file sharing has really put a dent in that, as it should. Even legal downloads cost a fraction of what hardcopy media does to distribute, and consumers should benefit from this reduced cost structure. Of course, the industry would never even consider passing those savings on if they could avoid it (more likely they would double the cost under the guise of convenience - see bank ATM fees if you don't believe me).

I can't see musicians ever achieving full independence, or even something like a common distrubution system (think of a internet wide music vending machine run at a nominal cost that artists could deposit their work in directly).

The fact is, music still has to be marketed. It needs to be heard, be it on radio, tv, etc. Not many people, myself included, will just go fishing for songs/artists they have never heard before. You need an industry for that. Unfortunately, this gets you what the industry thinks you want to hear, which may be nowhere near what you actually want to hear.

[edge walker]

Because when they could dominate and control a hardcopy distribution system, it really allowed the industry to price gouge consumers.
That was the absolute least of their evils. Exploiting artists, driving art toward the lowest common denominator, and lobbying for culture-stunting laws are -- increasing in that order -- the far worse effects of the "content" industries.


P2P file sharing has really put a dent in that, as it should.
That's patently untrue, even if it's been repeated so often that everyone takes it for a fact. File sharing has put no more of a dent in those profits than did the cassette in its time. On average, the people who use file sharing are those who spend the most for music -- simply because they're the people who have an active interest in music consumption in the first place. People who don't download music also generally don't buy CDs; they are content to just listen to the radio or MTV, if that much.

[Thirsty]

Heh, funny thing about paying for a download is that if you're looking for quality, you're better off pirating...

To the best of my knowledge, iTunes and Amazon both sell 128kbps files - As low as you can go with a sound file. Meanwhile, most torrents are ripped directly from a CD into MP3 v2 or v0 (much higher quality).

You might not be able to tell the difference between a lossless file (CD) and an MP3 320, but it isn't terribly difficult to discern the difference between a shitty iTunes-purchased AAC file and an average CD.



I'd prefer it if CDs stuck around a while longer - at least till the online retailers get their shit together.

[md5fungi]

Radiohead needs to write an album about this.

OK PIRATEBAY, featuring angsty hot tracks like "DRMbag", "Paranoid RIAAndroid", and "The Tourist who loiters in record shops".

[Arcturus]

Heh, funny thing about paying for a download is that if you're looking for quality, you're better off pirating...

To the best of my knowledge, iTunes and Amazon both sell 128kbps files - As low as you can go with a sound file. Meanwhile, most torrents are ripped directly from a CD into MP3 v2 or v0 (much higher quality).

You might not be able to tell the difference between a lossless file (CD) and an MP3 320, but it isn't terribly difficult to discern the difference between a shitty iTunes-purchased AAC file and an average CD.



I'd prefer it if CDs stuck around a while longer - at least till the online retailers get their shit together.
Yeah, although I think I heard that iTunes recently upped their bitrate to about 192 kbps or something, which is a substantial improvement on 128 (to my ears at least).

With disk space getting cheaper and hi speed connections common, they should probably offer some kind of lossless download like flac.

[kendoiwan]

The fact is, music still has to be marketed. It needs to be heard, be it on radio, tv, etc. Not many people, myself included, will just go fishing for songs/artists they have never heard before. You need an industry for that. Unfortunately, this gets you what the industry thinks you want to hear, which may be nowhere near what you actually want to hear.

:yes:

[elijahlucian]

lol you guys . this isnt going to happen. haha. its an INDUSTRY. thinking it's going to collapse is ignorant.

businesses learn to adapt to new situations. the demographic is still there. the thing most artists don't realize is that they are a 1% that thinks that they know everything.

99% of the population will still pay $200 for a concert ticket. thats where the money in the industry is from. not record sales.

the sad thing is. that its usually the unsuccessful people that complain about the way it is instead of ballsing up and ACTUALLY trying to be successful.

its the same in any industry. but artists ar emore prone to "gimmie"

this thread obviously springs from some notion that "omg pop music sucks these days why doesnt the industry just DIE WAHHHH"

POP MUSIC HAS ALWAYS SUCKED TO SOMEBODY! you're nothing different. pop is nothing different.

[Will2009]

lol you guys . this isnt going to happen. haha. its an INDUSTRY. thinking it's going to collapse is ignorant.

businesses learn to adapt to new situations. the demographic is still there. the thing most artists don't realize is that they are a 1% that thinks that they know everything.

99% of the population will still pay $200 for a concert ticket. thats where the money in the industry is from. not record sales.

the sad thing is. that its usually the unsuccessful people that complain about the way it is instead of ballsing up and ACTUALLY trying to be successful.

its the same in any industry. but artists ar emore prone to "gimmie"

this thread obviously springs from some notion that "omg pop music sucks these days why doesnt the industry just DIE WAHHHH"

POP MUSIC HAS ALWAYS SUCKED TO SOMEBODY! you're nothing different. pop is nothing different.

Wow. You didn't read the article or pay much attention to the thread, did you?

So many strawmen and fallacies. Reading comprehension fail.

[SensEye]

99% of the population will still pay $200 for a concert ticket. thats where the money in the industry is from. not record sales.
The music writer in my local newspaper was talking about this the other day. He was comparing concert ticket prices today to that of his youth. When he was a teen, a concert went for about $12-15, and minimum wage was around $3. So an afternoon's labor at McDonalds would enable you to attend a concert. I don't think that is the case any more.

I would never pay today's asking prices and I haven't been to a concert for probably 10 years, and only 3 or 4 over the last 20 years. Mind, I have become an old fart so concert going is no longer that high on my list.

[kendoiwan]

Of course the old recording label model really isn't the business model for successful performing popular musicians today. Today, recordings may in fact be loss leaders, but they act as promotional aids for concert tours, which is where the real money is for popular touring performers. Contrast this business model with that of 35-40 years ago, when concert tours were regarded as the loss leader (and sometimes given free, a la the infamous Rolling Stones Altamont concert) to promote record sales. Selling records was how recording artists became and remained successful. Back then, concert tours were like press junkets to sell records.


This +


lol you guys . this isnt going to happen. haha. its an INDUSTRY. thinking it's going to collapse is ignorant.

businesses learn to adapt to new situations. the demographic is still there. the thing most artists don't realize is that they are a 1% that thinks that they know everything.

99% of the population will still pay $200 for a concert ticket. thats where the money in the industry is from. not record sales.


This


Wow. You didn't read the article or pay much attention to the thread, did you?

So many strawmen and fallacies. Reading comprehension fail.

= this.

What do I win?

[elijahlucian]

its not a reading comprehension fail. its a fail on the part that i didnt bother to read the thread. its the same argument thats on any music forum. the independant artists claiming that the music industry will die, and then finally they can have their limelight.

thats like saying the film industry will die. or fast food will die.

concerts and royalties have always been the breadmaker for recording artists and songwriters.. in the end. record sales may mean a bit less than before. but big deal. the writers are still getting paid by royalties and hire, the studios are getting paid by the labels, the radio stations are getting paid by their sponsors, and the stupid artist takes it in the butt. thats the way it is and always will be. sure maybe some artists are getting smarter and promoting themselves because they have the means now, but the fact remains, most of the run of the mill artists (in any genre) simply want to be FAMOUS and thats it. you think that desire will just go away? there will always be a jane or john doe that the record labels can sell.

also if something CAN be commercialized it WILL be commercialized. and commercialization is good for 1 thing.

it weeds out the CRAP.

because honestly... if you surf myspace music there is a TON of crap on there. i'd say probably 99% of it are people who put no effort into their performance/production/mixing/presentation etc. and then they whine that its "the man holding them back" fuck that.

i definately disagree with the "collapse in a few months"

you gotta remember. that the other 99% of the population aren't as sensible as we are. haha. and a lot of people like to worry about what people think if they "didn't get tickets to that awesome show" etc etc.

[Oso Mocoso]

its not a reading comprehension fail. its a fail on the part that i didnt bother to read the thread. its the same argument thats on any music forum. the independant artists claiming that the music industry will die, and then finally they can have their limelight.

Except that's not what anyone said.


concerts and royalties have always been the breadmaker for recording artists and songwriters..

That is simply not true. There were musicians long before there was a recording technology, and then concerts were where they made their money. Then, when the market changed and recordings were the way to make money, concert tickets became much less expensive in order to encourage recording sales. The lower ticket prices were subsidized by the new income stream.


in the end. record sales may mean a bit less than before. but big deal.

Bolded to point out the crux of your comprehension failure.


thats the way it is and always will be.

No. A sea change is happening, and the market will transform into something new. Not in a few months, though. It'll take years. What form that will ultimately take is anyone's guess, but for example EMI (one of the old market giants) is now embarrassingly bankrupt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMI#Recent_developments


sure maybe some artists are getting smarter and promoting themselves because they have the means now, but the fact remains, most of the run of the mill artists (in any genre) simply want to be FAMOUS and thats it. you think that desire will just go away? there will always be a jane or john doe that the record labels can sell.

Well, except that "record labels" aren't as necessary as they used to be, and they have enormously less influence in the new market reality. Music retail and radio aren't what they used to be. There are new sales channels where people spend their money, and the old companies do not control the new channels.


also if something CAN be commercialized it WILL be commercialized. and commercialization is good for 1 thing.

it weeds out the CRAP.

Well, you at least got one thing partially right. It'll still be commercialized, but even so most of the music always was and will continue to be crap. I don't think the record companies were ever good at weeding any of that out back in their day.

[elijahlucian]

1. i was referring to other threads in other forums

2. you have no idea what you're talking about. go read up on the music business please before making claims like that. the fact is. whoever owns the music makes the $$$ and its definately not from cd sales. its from licensing music for commercial use and radio play. (for example one of my songs was played on CBC radio TWICE and i got $50. $25 / play? thats a fuck of a lot more than i get from a CD sale. think of major artists that get played a lot on radio stations.)

3. see above

4. until people change, the biz will not drastically change. entertainment is and always has been run by vain greedy people. the world is not a place where we trade hugs. its a place where shit gets done and people get paid. wow a couple record labels go under. thats nothing new. GM went under... your point? its not like nobody drives a fucking car.

5. give me an example of how they are losing their market influence. they are a brand name, as are the radio stations and everything else that licenses your music. the music industry goes beyond music, in order for music coorporations to fail, a lot more than them will have to fail too.

6. well. crap when it comes to music is entirely subjective, I find great things in what Lady Gaga does, but im sure a lot of other people would like to see her die.

by "crap" im talking it weeds out people that don't have any drive to actually try and succeed. like people who try for a year and say "fuck this".

im talking about people who sit in their moms fucking basement and smoke pot claiming that the record labels are EVIL.

record labels have always been good for weeding out people who don't deserve to succeed. but every industry regulates itself. even if all the major record labels failed. there would still be a huge market for music in everything. but I think you'd have to dissolve all the big coorporations that use their services first.

[kendoiwan]

Appeal to Authority.
Base Assertion.
Red Herring.
Proof by example.

Did I miss anything?

[elijahlucian]

Yeah, although I think I heard that iTunes recently upped their bitrate to about 192 kbps or something, which is a substantial improvement on 128 (to my ears at least).

With disk space getting cheaper and hi speed connections common, they should probably offer some kind of lossless download like flac.

i thought apple's downloads were compressed with their lossless codec (MP4).

[edge walker]

AAC. Better than MP3 but not lossless. On some songs you can shell out extra for a double-bitrate download.

[Oso Mocoso]

1. i was referring to other threads in other forums

Yeah, I'd gathered that. Do you understand why applying that to the discussion taking place here indicates that you have a weak grasp on logic?


2. you have no idea what you're talking about.

Oh no. Really? Maybe I could learn something from you! I hope you're going to back that up with something more substantial than an anecdote!


go read up on the music business please before making claims like that. the fact is. whoever owns the music makes the $$$ and its definately not from cd sales. its from licensing music for commercial use and radio play. (for example one of my songs was played on CBC radio TWICE and i got $50. $25 / play? thats a fuck of a lot more than i get from a CD sale. think of major artists that get played a lot on radio stations.)

Damn. Oh well. If you want some grasp of how the industry works in a larger sense, you could look at the revenue models of the publicly traded companies that do business in the music market. Yes, I know that's aggregate data which reflects how the money flows for large numbers of artists of varying levels of success. Obviously, the payout for individual artists to do with the arrangements of their particular contracts. However, for making claims about historical trends in the industry, what I'm saying holds true. I referenced EMI before, but what I was saying worked similarly for the other Big Four. UMG, EMI, SME, and WMG are all in big trouble because they failed to react to a disruptive technology that's rapidly changing the way the industry does business.


4. until people change, the biz will not drastically change.

You're an idiot if you believe this. It's technology. It screws up old revenue models.


wow a couple record labels go under. thats nothing new. GM went under... your point? its not like nobody drives a fucking car.

Wow. I am impressed by your ability to miss the significance of something that represents a massive power vacuum in a multi-billion dollar industry.


5. give me an example of how they are losing their market influence. they are a brand name, as are the radio stations and everything else that licenses your music. the music industry goes beyond music, in order for music coorporations to fail, a lot more than them will have to fail too.

Umm ... yeah. So you're saying people who buy music care what record label or lack of record label their favorite artist is signed to? Like "Oh, I would have bought a Radiohead record, but I only listen to musicians who are signed to Sony."?

Anyway. You're right about this not being about hugs and whatnot. It's still capitalism, but it's shaping up to be a marketplace possibly dominated by Apple and the people who control the new centers of distribution. That doesn't involve retail stores, so a lot of people will lose their livelihoods and new people will be making lots of money.

[elijahlucian]

this is pointless.

you clearly have an ignorant understanding of the music industry. you read a couple financial journals and see a dip in profits (when everyhing is taking a hit) and claim that you know everything

in any case record labels will adapt. and if they don't then new record labels with new visions will arise (apple records?) that will take up the spot. corporations aren't going to die with nothing in their stead.

of course it will involve retail stores. just people wont be buying the music, they will be buying merch or whatever. like how muchmusic and mtv hardly ever actually show music videos.

and im not an idiot for believing in consumerism, thanks.

EVERY business in the world comes down to MAN hours spent. technology or not

everything

--

p.s. i wasn't talking about the average listener caring if they were big labels or not thats not where the money is. but big companies do care. they want something done right,. and done now. not dick around with joe studio that doesnt know wtf he's doing.

[V Profane]

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Warner_Music_CEO_Lyor_Cohen

[elijahlucian]

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Warner_Music_CEO_Lyor_Cohen

wow. they must have told that guy his demo sucked. hahahahahaha