The Music Biz Is the New Book Industry

jonerik writes "The new issue of New York Magazine includes this intriguing article by Michael Wolff which makes the case that the music biz will soon be going the way of the book industry. Arguing that larger-than-life characters such as Ernest Hemingway, John Steinbeck, and Dorothy Parker were the rock stars of their time, Wolff points out that 'where before you'd be happy only at gold and platinum levels, soon you'll be grateful if you have a release that sells 30,000 or 40,000 units -- that will be your bread and butter. You'll sweat every sale and dollar. Other aspects of the business will also contract -- most of the perks and largesse and extravagance will dry up completely. The glamour, the influence, the youth, the hipness, the hookers, the drugs -- gone. Instead, it will be a low-margin, consolidated, quaintly anachronistic business, catering to an aging clientele, without much impact on an otherwise thriving culture awash in music that only incidentally will come from the music industry.' Wolff also relates a recent lunch he had at Sony Music in which a sort of paralyzed acceptance had set in; 'The recent past was very bad; the future was likely to be worse. All money earned from here on in would be harder to earn. This felt like acceptance to me: We simply don't know what to do.'"

Comments

as a refugee from the music 'biz'...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm delighted to be working with computers rather than coked up overpaid wankers pretending to be friends with musicians for no reason WHATSOEVER except that it might make them lots of money. The most evil people I've ever met, in person, were A&R. (and one of the nicest, too... but it's the Clive Gabriels of this world that stick in the memory.)(
Oh and if this comment should happen to show up as a result from a search for Clive Gabriel of Chrysalis Music? He's pure scum. NEVER trust that man.)
The "biz" is actually worse than the average /.er could ever imagine. It almost makes me want to get back into management, just so I could steer yougn acts away from teh traditional industry, encourage them to use viral marketing, free mp3s etc etc and then sit back and grow rich. (But not quite: Perl6 is too interesting... =)

I'm sorry...

[freakinPsycho]

... that's just not going to happen.

Music has been a part of society for litereally thousands of years. People will continue to want to purchase music (even if that means digital format). If nothing else, concerts will continue to be the true source of income for performers.

Look at how much classical music is still purchased, along with various music forms that range from decades to centuries old.

I would venture to say that music is a part of human nature as a method of creative expression. Books are as well, but they don't have the portability and the quick and powerfull effects that music can have on people. Music's portability is its greatest advantage. Being able to listen to music as you do pretty much anything helps with its pervasiveness. Hell, there are a number of activities that are more enjoyable with proper musical accompanyment.

I do believe the format in which music is aquired will continue to change and the type of music will continue to change, as it ever has. But it will always be a lucritive business.

Wishful Thinking

[Carnage4Life]

Some bitter journalist forgot to factor in ticket sales which still bring in millions of dollars for artistes. Here are last years numbers

1. U2, $109.7 million
2. 'N Sync, $86.8 million
3. Backstreet Boys, $82.1 million
4. Dave Matthews Band, $60.5 million
5. Elton John and Billy Joel, $57.2 million
6. Madonna, $54.7 million
7. Aerosmith, $49.3 million
8. Janet Jackson, $42.1 million
9. Eric Clapton, $38.8 million
10. Neil Diamond, $35.4 million
11. Matchbox Twenty, $28.4 million
12. Rod Stewart, $27.2 million
13. Jimmy Buffett, $26.9 million
14. Andrea Bocelli, $26.8 million
15. Ozzfest 2001, $26.4 million
16. Sade, $26.2 million
17. Tim McGraw, $24.9 million
18. Britney Spears, $23.7 million
19. James Taylor, $23 million
20. Tool, $20.4 million

No more glamour, the influence, the youth, the hipness, the hookers, the drugs...Yeah right.

Even without concert sales, people are still buying CDs anyway. After all the crap about Eminem's album being pirated before it was released he still managed to sell 1.32 million copies in his first week. I think the reports of the death of the music industry have been greatly exagerrated.

Finally, innovative musicians can parlay their fame into dollars from other means. Just look at Ozzy Osbourne who's about to pull in 20 million for his reality-sitcom.

Re:Wishful Thinking

[Detritus]

Ticket sales are revenues. What are the profits? Many bands lose money while on tour.

Re:Wishful Thinking

[swillden]

Ticket sales are revenues. What are the profits? Many bands lose money while on tour.

It varies, most bands more or less break even, some make money, some lose money.

The really popular bands (i.e. the ones on the radio) tend to lose money on touring, but they and the labels who front the cash don't mind because it helps sell CDs.

Other bands, however, see it exactly the opposite. They try to have just enough radio and CD-shelf presence to become able to attract large crowds to their concerts, and then make all of their money from tickets and sales of merchandise at the concerts (CDs, t-shirts, etc.). This is pretty much how all metal bands have made a living for the last twenty years.

A lot of the difference in profitability comes from whether or not the band and label feel like they *need* to make a profit from touring. The really big bands can afford to view touring as a marketing exercise and so they can afford huge budgets for elaborate stages, lighting, laser shows, fireworks, etc. I don't know about the last couple of years, but U2 has historically been notorious for losing huge amounts of money on concerts, because they put on such an extravagant show. Their label never minded because whenever they went on tour their album sales went through the roof, far more than making up the concert losses (which record companies generally split with the bands).

Lesser-known bands, without radio airplay to push CD sales and without the ability to sell out huge concert venues, have to settle for more modest shows because they need to turn a profit. And many of them are quite successful, particularly in genres that are a bit off the beaten path but still have a solid core audience with a concert-going tradition.

Re:Counterpoint

[mjprobst]

Remember that until fairly recent times (Beethoven is often mentioned as the first) most well-known composers were supported by a state (royalty) or church, both of them amounted to the same thing anyway in most places in Europe. They just about _belonged_ to the local noble or church official, and had to churn out lots of fill for the sake of parties, church services, and propaganda. They were used as pawns in a big prestige game.

Yes, some of these composers became well-known, but there were hundreds and thousands of other composers who never lasted. In fact until the mid 1800s even these composers were mostly forgotten; the idea of a canon of time-honored masterpieces itself doesn't go much farther back than the 1840s or 1850s.

Johannes Brahms was one of the first composers we remember that never accepted commissions for works. Even Beethoven the freelancer had to accept commissions to live. Brahms made his living teaching lessions, taking conducting posts here and there (and invariably getting frustrated and leaving), and being supported by friends and family.

All these composers came up with lots of "fill" and a few masterpieces.

What's next?

[Jordan Graf]

The thing about Music is that nothing about it is _inherently_ expensive to produce. Sure, once you've thrown in the videos and the launch party and the services of the London Philharmonic it starts to get up there (Although I'd guess the services of the London Philharmonic are cheaper than you'd think) but the equipment, space and talent to just record music is generally within the range of every day people. Of course certain kinds of music are easier to record on the cheap than others (Moby can do it alone in his apartment because, well, he doesn't have any instruments) but with a nice Mac and $10K worth of extra hardware a talented bunch of people can put out some pretty respectable stuff. So music will live on, even if it's almost free. Same goes for books.

But what about Movies? Movies are going to be subject to the very same dynamic, although perhaps timeshifted a few years to the right. If the shit start to hit the movie industry, the world is going to start to look pretty different because movies are _expensive_. I mean even once you throw out the union pay scales and the staffing and the rules, blowing shit up (which is a staple of a lot of movies) is expensive; As are sets and crowds and animations and all the other stuff we see in our movies. Sure, you can still make "Clerks" and "The Blair Witch Project" pretty cheaply, but those aren't the only kinds of movies out there - not even an appreciable percentage if you're looking at Hollywood output. So the big budget movie could be a thing of the (soon to be) past.

Maybe movies will go all digital. Computing cycles will be so cheap and software so good that movies can be "filmed" at low cost by some Savant in his basement with the futuristic equivalent of an iMac and some Red Bull. But I wouldn't count on it.