Slashdot Mirror
Moby Says Techie Fans = Fewer Sales
jalefkowit writes: "Launch is reporting that Moby explains the recent slide in sales for his newest album, "18", by describing what he calls the 'Pearl Jam Effect': bands and artists with more tech-savvy fans sell fewer albums than those with less tech-savvy fans, as the techies will disproportionately get their copies of the album from friends with CD burners or P2P services rather than from record stores. What do you think, are we putting our favorite bands in a bind?"
Well, if you like the music that a band puts out, you should buy the CD to support the band in the first place.
"Techie fans" have been able to pirate songs for years now. Perhaps Moby's latest album just isn't that good? I haven't heard it, but that seems like the most likely explanation.
Yeah, let's completely ignore the fact that Pearl Jam hasn't made a video in a decade, is never seen on TV promoting their music and doesn't pay for FM radio play.
Has Moby ever considered that he just might suck? And that's the reason for poor sales?
I didn't buy it because the reviews sucked, and because it didn't seem like enough of a departure from 'Play' to be interesting.
On the other hand, I don't steal music.
Its funny how you only see the old washed up artist compaining.. Sure there are people not buying albums cause they burned the cd but I always download the cd before I buy it cause frankly most cds just have like one good song on them and no way am I going to buy an album for just one song.. Our parents all copied tapes Don't fear the technology, abuse it
Artists like Moby are precisely the sort of artists who stand to benefit the most through distribution of their music through p2p networks. The reason is simple: Moby's music would be considered by many "alternative" and consequently it doesn't get a lot (any) air play. So where am I supposed to hear it to know whether I like it enough to buy the album?
If that's the case, then why hasn't this album taken off then? Well, I'd say the recent successes of the RIAA in getting p2p networks shut down has probably helped, but ultimately, maybe the album just isn't as good? Not having heard it, I can't comment on that.. Maybe someone else can. Maybe the marketing of the album sucked? (I haven't heard of it all until now). Either way, I think it's clear that blaiming the p2p networks is based on opinion (And FUD) rather than fact.
I belive that tech savvy people easyer understand the legal aspect of piracy, EULAs and modern copyright protection. They might not agree with RIAA on means and do share and download songs, but very often they end up buying the album. I belive this is either because they want the real stuff or because they belive that everybody are entitled to their own opinion, even if it means accepting that others can creat destructive EULAs and over protecting their copyrights because they only think about profit in a short term.
The ones who hurt music are those who are less tech savvy, less hackish/geekish. Most youths know how to operate a computer, burning CD's and sharing files is a piece of cake. What they are not aware of is the impact this has on musicians and record labels. They are just not thinking, what they really do is think like RIAA: "How can I get the most without paying?"
Look a monkey!
> Well, if you like the music that a band puts out, you should buy the CD to support the band in the first place
...)
In the current market yes, if you like the band the best way to show your support seems to be to buy the CD (and merchandise and concerts and
Ideally though the artists would be a little bit more technologically savvey they would allow fans to fund their music without there being so many middlemen skimming off profits.
And Moby in particular will probably make more money selling his songs to advertisers than he will on record sales (and the advertisers often end up adversting Moby as much as their product).
The music industry is on crack, and Moby has fallen for their rhetoric. I think my subject sums it up neatly. Will they ever learn?
--
wher eis the spllchkr when u need it...
Remember how eminem's album was the most played album on the internet before it was released? Well most people liked it and it has easily been #1 since it came out. All the internet is doing is forcing people to write good albums. I recently bought the dvd of the matrix even though fairly easily I could have downloaded it. Why is that? Because it was a badass movie. Make a good cd and people will buy it.
Moby is only saying something that's been repeated a million times elsewhere. He's an intelligent enough to address the issue without berating his fans Metallica-style.
I would say this is hard to refute. Indie, geeky, techno, and others in the technophile musical demographic are being copied left and right. Oh course there are huge advanteges to this in terms of exposure, concert attendence, etc. For instance, even before the broadband P2P revolution, back in 1998/1999 Stereolab managed to sell out two good sized Chicago venues. This is a band that never got any local radioplay and never came close to the top40 or top100 record sales.
Shameless copying is a tradition that started with music lovers and has simply been made easier through technology. Moby questions how the industry measures success. That's a very important issue. The genie is out of the bottle, but the industry measures success through outdated methods.
In another way this isn't exactly new. A lot of talented artists who take risks instead of sticking to pop formulas tend to be undervalued and underexposed. At least P2P can fix the latter.
Before tech savvy people had the computer we had the radio and tape cassette.
People could ALWAYS pirate music, yet michael jacksons triller sold 20 million copies, funny how no one decided to pirate him even though it was all over the radio all the damn time and everyone had it and could copy the cassette.
I know, I had one of those dual cassette players, you stick both cassettes into it, play one and record on the other. Funny how when everyone was using cassettes the RIAA didnt complain about sales but now, that they are losing their monopoly, piracy is suddenly a big problem?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Scenario: Artist makes a fantastically creative (in mainstream music sense) album that sells a boatload of copies, sells out to the absolute maximum with every track being licensed for an advertisement somewhere along the way, thus turning the artist in question into a very very rich man with more popularity than he's ever seen in his life. Then in an effort to extend his 15 miuntes of fame, he records a follow-up album to the last one, that happens to be as close to an exact duplicate of the previous album. The fans are bored, the general public is apathetic, sales aren't lively and drop off the table when everyone buying the album the first week (henceforth known as "suckers") tell their friends "stick with the last album, this one's the same, but not fresh". The artist then goes on to blame everyone but himself for putting out a mediocre follow-up effort to what could be his finest work ever.
Move over Pearl Jam, we now have The Moby Effect.
Here's a clue Moby - maybe you're not selling as many records because you suck. You're like the MPAA or the RIAA - always blaming someone else and you're especially vicious when you don't have any evidence.
--Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
I found the CD to be quite boring. I own Play and Downloaded 18. I don't even desire to listen to it again. I think the lack of high sales is due to both piracy and crappy music
I preordered my copy of 18 from Amazon.com, and got it a few weeks ago. I can say after listening to it more than 5 times, this CD sucks. Really. Do not buy it. Do not copy it illegally. Do not listen to it.
nuff said
People who copy albums have neither the incentive or the bandwidth to compete. It really is a competition. A business' product vs. their product for free. Fine. Let's look at a comparison. (Businesses here mainly includes independent artists):
1) Businesses can afford readily available and reliable bandwidth in large amounts.
The free copies probably can't.
2) Businesses can advertise.
The free copies probably won't.
3) Businesses have an incentive to provide a higher quality product at a better price due to increased competition.
The free copies probably won't put in the required time, and certainly not for free.
4) Businesses can make new products.
Copies, by definition, are never new.
5) Businesses have an incentive to make it very convenient to find and purchase their products.
Free copies are usually very difficult *and time consuming* to find. That's not free. Time is money.
Add to this the fact that most people are honest, and the whole "piracy" argument becomes quite flimsy indeed.
I'm not in support of draconian *AA legislation and irrational copyright controls, but I *am* in support of artists earning a fair living from their work. Technology should be used to encourage that.
"Illegal" copying will never go away. It's no different than shoplifting or people writing bad checks. It's going to happen. That should not be an excuse to treat everyone else poorly (Best Buy, are you listening?). If you treat people like thieves, that's exactly how they will behave, mainly because of the implied insult, not because they weren't willing to buy your precious "content."
Note to the music and video publishers: Put your stuff on line sooner, and these problems will be reduced.
Another $0.02
Moby sounds like a certain whiney metal band: "Wah! My CD isn't selling well! It must be because of those eeeeevil CD pirates." It pisses me off that "CD pirates" are everyone's scapegoat these days, refusing to acknowledge the posibility that their sales are low because they suck. Can't tell you how often I see that whiney metal bands CDs on the used rack at Amoeba.
Maybe he should go back to making music for commercials? That's where he made most of his $ on previous albums (before he hit mainstream).
Ironically, he recently stated that he would never do it again with '18' or any album in the future.
Yes, the album does suck. I've heard clips of the entire album (from his website). It consists almost entirely of old songs with a wee bit of techno sound in it, much like 'Natural Blues' in 'Play' (which I own & love).
As other have mentioned: go back to techno!
Taking into account that I have yet to hear Moby's new album, I feel it is a bit pretentious for him to believe not only that every album he sells will sell "x" amount. Also he believes he can attribute his slump in sales to an outside force, rather than considering that perhaps his "Play" sales were a fluke or a fad, and not a real indication of his market ability.
Also he is using the current Record Industry cop-out of blaming music sharing or p2p for lower sales. Let us not forget the record high sales that went on during the hayday of Napster.
Once again I have not heard his new album, however the record business is driven mostly by the ability to give people what they want to hear. They may have become sick of Moby's attitude which I have found at times to be quite pretentious.
"I am deep inside your children, they'll betray you in my name!" --Zack De La Rocha
i liked older moby. i own those CDs. I listened to some of his newer stuff, then didn't really like it and got rid of the cds. The reason his current cd isn't selling well is because it's not very good, not because it's being pirated. That's a lame, scapegoating approach, moby. Go back to your old electronica stylings, and maybe your sales will pick up again.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
As a former music store employee who witnessed the MASSIVE sales of Moby's last album, "Play", I can state with some authority that his fans are NOT necessarily tech-type people. Most of the thousands and thousands of people I sold that album to were completely unfamiliar with electronic music, and many were just buying it because they heard it on a commercial... Many of these customers proved their "no-tech" status by asking, "Are you sure this is a cd, not a dvd?" My humble opinion is that Moby has dug his own grave here by choosing to release "We Are All Made of Stars" as his first single. It bears little resemblance to the songs on his last album, and I think that the teeming masses who bought that only want more of the same.
First, let me say I'm not a huge Moby fan. I don't dislike the guy, but I remember when he was a basic rave DJ in the San Francisco area.
Funny that he made his money for so long by mixing records of other peoples' stuff together. Somehow I doubt he paid the appropriate ASCAP or BMI fees. So right off, I have a hard time sympathizing with his complaints about piracy.
But beyond that, isn't it notable that artists with a large fanbase in the tech community blame that fanbase whenever sales slip? Metallica was the first; Moby is just the latest.
My theory is this: Acts like Metallica or Moby build up a cult following over years. By nature, that cult following is largely techies and other folks who don't follow the Christina Spears of the month club. People who actually care about music and are willing to follow smaller bands to get what they want.
At some point, some of these bands go to pot (literally, figuratively, or both). Their later work becomes increasingly detached and less and less like the early work, eventually ending up as a mellowed out, regurgitated pablum made up of bits and pieces of all of their early work, mixed with maybe a few mainstream artists whose stolen sounds might help draw in a few more customers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hfans. Fans lose interest and buy less.
And then, as the final stage of intellectual and moral decay, these acts engage in a strange form of denial crossed with egotism crossed with paranoia. "The fans must still love us!" they shout. "We're sure they're still listening to this new crap we put out, but for some reason sales are down. It's those goddamned fans! They must be stealing our crappy new stuff, because after years of paying for our old, quality stuff, they've suddenly become a backstabbing pack of thieves! Yeah, that must be it! Those fans of ours sure do suck!"
Anyways, that's my theory. It would just be sad, if it didn't have the dangerous potential of impacting our legal system.
Cheers
-b
More examples of this would be the last two albums from Radiohead (Kid A, Amnesiac) as well as The Fragile from Nine Inch Nails. All the die hard fans went out and bought them as soon as they were released, so they would debut at #1 on the Billboard charts, but they had no radio/video airplay to keep them going. Both bands might still be great (and Radiohead is as good as anyone in the world right now), but without a single and a video that's really popular (and I mean higher than #15 on the Modern Rock chart), you won't stay up there for long.
I have a rolls royce. Do you have a problem with this. No one cares if you think he has too much money. If you are making 12 thousand a year, but then your wage is lowered to 6 thousand a year, would you go oh well, I have enough money. 6 thou American would look pretty darn good to most people living in mexico. They might think that you have enough money, but don't you still want more?
Has anyone considered that it's a bit of both? I.E. It sucks, and is suffering from "The Pearl Jam Effect"....Anyone?
When it comes to debating/arguing/deciding something. Only a fool assumes everything is black or white. /.
But then again, this is
This is the funny thing I've noticed with a few bands - especially REM, Counting Crows and Pearl Jam - who take their music seriously. Each new album they are simultaneously accused of reinventing themselves AND producing a clone of their previous material.
I agree with the undercurrent of this thread - there is a fair degree of denial out there that some people didn't like the second albums simply because their appreciation of the first one was a fad.
What the hell is wrong with you people? Moby didn't attack anyone in his journal entry. He didn't editorialize. He didn't whine or complain, or moan about lost sales. At no point did Moby even say that he minded this supposed effect. He put forth a reasonable theory with some empirical evidence to back it up, for the sake of discussion. Why is everyone attacking him? He's done nothing wrong. He hasn't even suggested that we've done something wrong. Why is everyone on this board acting like a total asshole, instead of reasonably debating the points that he made? I can't help but notice that very few people have mentioned Weezer at all to this point.
I think it isn't a case of lots of "techo-savvy" fans burning and copying instead of going out to buy the cd. It's a case of people like me who refuse to buy any new music, because I want to buy the MUSIC, not the stupid distribution media. The RIAA wants me to buy the physical media and be stuck with that, so I'll have to buy it again when blue-laser cd's are out, and again when crystal hologram storage comes out, and again when RNA-enhanced neurons come out. Sorry, I have about 400 cd's that mostly collect dust now that their contents exist on a file-server on my LAN. I don't plan to go back to the days of swapping discs every 35 minutes just because some pointy-haired business exec can't give up the old ways.
Let me download a good-quality 256k-bit mp3 or ogg directly from the publisher and I'll happily pay $1 a song. Until then, I have my collection, alternative music through non-RIAA sources, and the radio.
It's sad that artist quality is judged on album sales when it's such a manipulated statistic. Whoever gets airplay gets sales. Whoever gets sales gets a higher rank. See the problem?
The Fragile was a phenomenally produced album. No one got it. Britteny Spears album was cheesy, predictable, studio crafted (i.e. Sound Engeneers, not Artists) pop music, and it sells out. Who has more commercials and exposure? OK, thanks.
Let's not even get into artists like the Pranksterz and Paul Glazby. They're techno (well, hard house/nu nrg/hard trance/etc, but as far as most are concerned, same thing), and they're MUCH better and more creative than Moby. Ever see them on any pop charts? Think they even would have the money to do a video? Ever even HEAR of them? Nope. Real talent hidden away. <rant>And now I take flak for being too "underground" in my music tastes from Eminem fans who sing "Nobody listens to techno!" Ironically enough that lyric is about Moby...</rant>
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
moby's out of touch. it doesnt take a techie to burn a cd anymore. your average 12 year old is better at it than i am. their parents, however....
How many true artists care about where their album stands on the charts. The charts are one of many ways for the artist to feel validated by their hard work and accomplishment. To be honest, I think Moby's just being upfront and "real" about how he feels about all of this and the fact that he's wondering about it can have the positive effect of creating a dialogue amongst music fans about his point.
BTW, if anything, Moby sold out last album with the licensing of "PLay". Note that this album is not as easily bought for commercial use.
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
Hmmm, so how can Moby explain Bands Like TMBG?
where their entire audience is highly tech-savvy? they sell albums at a awesome pace and their older albums sales increase all the time as new listeners of TMBG get to love their music and spend gobs of money and time buying all the older albums.
Tech-savvy does not equal loss in sales.
BTW, I am a newish TMBG fan, only have been listening to them for 2 years now... and I still am buying the older albums and new albums... Hell, I bought their kids record! Liar's Island is a Kick butt song!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I'm replying to this because I want to voice a similar sentiment, and speak to Moby's invocation of "The Pearl Jam Effect" The reason everyone and their brother bought "Play" and Pearl Jam's "Ten" is that they were the right kind of album at the right time. "Play" came along just as everyone wanted to hear what this whole electronica thing was about, and, thus, sold well. "Ten" also sold well because people wanted to hear good old fashioned rock-n-roll after 80's new wave became old wave.
Subsequent albums by Pearl Jam (and here, Mr. Moby, is what the real "Pearl Jam Effect" is) were exactly the same as "Ten", except not so good. They sold poorly because the public's taste had changed, the music did not change in the same way, and nobody wanted to hear Eddie Vedder's political vitriol.
What "18" has shown us is that Moby is likely interested in only making albums that are almost like "Play" but not quite as good. Thus, our study of history teaches us that we are seeing the beginnings of another "The Pearl Jam Effect", and that no future Moby album will be good, or relevant.
Before you start railing against me because I bash Pearl Jam and Moby, note this; this whole reply is purely my opinion. I think that both "Ten" and "Play" are two of the more influential and well-crafted albums of my day. I own both, and I still listen to both. I've heard "18" and all I thought was "ho-hum". That is the exact same thing I thought after I purchased Pearl Jam's "vs.", which is one of the albums that taught me to make damn sure I like it before I drop my hard-earned cash on it.
I whole-heartedly agree. This is *exactly* the reason I never bought "18." The only song I've heard is the new "We are all made of stars" and let me tell you how incredibly disappointed I was. I thought both his "Play" and "Songs" CDs were amazing, and I also own his B-Sides album. They were all very focused on the BGMs and funky electronic beats versus this new drab monotone style. Why buy something just because of a name, even if you don't like it? I certainly have no reason to waste my money...
Advice to Moby: if you're going to go that far away from your old style, don't expect it to be an instant success based on previous success alone.
I really can't offer any more conjecture than anyone else that replied, but I thought I'd add my two cents. Maybe there is a drop in sales of 18 because IT SUCKS!!! I actually bought the CD unheard and wish I had burned a friends copy first. Moby is lucky to have gotten a fraction of my $18, because next time he releases a CD he won't. I've never heard so much formulaic crap in my life. From the corny offset song of "...we are all made of stars..." to the retarded "...jam for the ladies..." I can't believe he didn't release this CD with B-sides written all over the front cover. No wonder people share music so much these days--we can't count on big name artists like Moby to produce quality material!
When a CD sells a zillion copies, but not a bazillion copies, that's not a flop. That's more success than just about any of us reading this will ever have.
All the people blasting Moby as being old and over the hill are pretty funny. 36 is not old, except to know-it-all teenagers.
There sure are a lot of people with bottled up angst, wanting to put down this CD in some sort of all-encompassing way. It's just a CD! If you don't like it, don't listen to it!
And then there are the people who say you should copy it because either (a) it sucks, or (b) Moby has an attitude problem. What weird logic! If those cases you think you wouldn't want anything to do with it, but it's the old double standard of "I hate you music industry, but I desperately need what you sell."
Listen to Eminem's album. It's not shit.
Listen to Moby's album. It's not techno.
This is just one more time where Moby is saying stupid things. I have to say really liked his album Play.. I thought it was a really good album and spanned a lot of different music types and paces. I saw Moby live.. the man puts on one of the best live shows i've seen, he's got a lot of energy on stage, running around and jumping and stuff. BUT.. and this is a BIG BUT.. the man just says stupid things in every interview i've seen him in. He doesn't think or maby he thinks but he comes to a stupid conclusion.. like ben afleck did in the Kevin Smith movie "Chasing Amy" he's got this plain.. and reads something completely wrong. I'll tell you this the reason why his record hasn't sold as well isn't because of tech savvy fans.. I buy my music, and i'm pretty technically savvy. THE REASON why it hasn't sold is because he remade his last DAMN album... the one song i've heard sounds the same as Play and it just doesn't make we want to buy it. I really wished he could have become more inovative with a new album but he just put out another album of the same stuff. I got no problem with him.. I just figure.. hell if i want the same thing i'll just listen to my album of Play instead of shelling out another 20 bucks on a CD that really just doesn't do it for me.
Who makes you Sig?