Slashdot Mirror
Recording Industry Extinction Predicted RSN
nautical9 writes "There's an interesting commentary from Wired's Charles Mann, speaking of the imminent death of the recording industry as we know it. Nothing really ground-breaking here, but it is a good summary and somewhat fair treatment of the RIAA's current state-of-affairs, and offers a little insight into what the world of music may be like without them (hint: perhaps better off)."
"from the imminent-death-predictions-getting-boring dept"
Then why post it?
That's why she chose now to resign her position as head of the RIAA. She doesn't want to preside over a sinking ship.
Umm.. They just mention Kazaa. I imagine that if Kazaa became pay only, people would just get their music elsewhere.
Ah am not a crook! (\(-__-)/)
This show to me that the music industry makes big money up to this point so most people are buying from them and it's only a small percentage of people who read slashdot who have problem.
Slashdot community little fish in big pond.
All the best,
--Achmed
Swaribabu Consulting Inc. -- We code so you don't have to
And the electronics industry's attitude toward the labels is summed up by an Apple slogan: Rip. Mix. Burn. Which, a music executive once told me, translates into "Fuck you, record labels."
Funny, I don't agree that the "electronic industry's" attitude can be summed up by Apple's slogan. Apple is one of the few that dares to encourage people to Rip/Mix/Burn.
(Thinking Sony, etc.)
While it may not always be CALLED the RIAA, it will always BE the RIAA.
Kickstart
But what really worries me is the possibility that the companies that build what we love, eletronic devices and gadgets, take RIAA's place.
RIAA is trying to protect its business model, where they control everything on the mainstream music chain. Technology can break a link of this chain, the distribution of an artist material.
But! The laws and the mentallity that RIAA is leaving is the most dangerous thing. Tech industries may (or will?) have control on distribution.
RIAA is showing them that this IS possible, and that consumers aren't doing much besides complain. No changes on the institutional power and the supplu of money is coming steady.
The recent agreement between the tech industry and the RIAA shows exactly this. Most of the RIAA associates are, in one way or another, connected to the tech industry. It was a PR move to soften its images with the public.
What I really think is that we are becoming less political involved with a lot of issues, but that's a subject for another post!
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
What do the recording agencies do? Record, remaster, produce, manufacture and market musicians.
Nearly as I can tell computers and the Internet have pretty much taken over those roles. As far as getting paid for their hard work, I guess musicians are left to concert money and merchandise. Most listeners aren't going to be paying for an album that they can download for free, either legally or illegally.
Maybe the recording studios will be replaced by concert halls. Maybe the future is a movie theator with a band stage. Hey that'd be cool.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
I more or less knew about this, but it was nice to see it put so well. Of course, they are blaming everything under the sun except themselves. I can't think of one conglomerate that didn't just suck the life out of everything it touched. The music industry is supposed to be about the art of music, but it has just turned into another lifeless business.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
If you threaten jailtime to your customers then your customers will go away.
A very expensive lesson for them to learn
... killed off by FM. And then all radio died, killed off by television. And then both the movies and television were killed off by people home-taping movies on their VCR's. And then books died, killed off by eBooks and photocopiers.
Oh, wait, none of that happened, did it?
The existing recording industry power structure may be in for a rough time, and the Deccas and Polygrams and Capitols may join the likes of Studebaker and Eastern Airlines and Crossley, but people will be recording CD's and selling them to other people for quite some time.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Interesting idea. How about a DVD and a (Red Book) CD sold together? The DVD has all the audio tracks, plus the bouncing titties videos, plus the "making of" the bouncing titties videos. The CD just has the music so that you can play it in your car, or if (gasp) you haven't got a DVD player (yet).
Seems to me that you've got a good point there. Much of the cost of selling an audio CD is in making the singles videos to promote it. It's strange that the music business hasn't thought about trying to sell them as content.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I believe we will soon be entering the age of independent records. I've been preparing to record my solo debut record independently, and I will be distributing/promoting it myself. If in fact the record industry does collapse soon, I believe many artists are going to have to turn to independent labels and/or producing records themselves. Of course, with this route, one gets much less exposure than if a big league label was to be in charge. But I think that there can be ways around this.
If a new artist makes a CD, and begins promoting it, and selling online, eventually the word will get out. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's rather difficult to find and download independent music off of major file-sharing apps like Kazaa and Gnutella. So, in turn, this is a measure of the artists popularity. So if an independent artist can become popular enough for people to start downloading his music online, then this creates the potential to tour and perform live. And perhaps that's the ticket -- live performances could possibly make up for money lost on file sharing. As popularity grows, more money can be made off of live shows, and thus more albums can be produced, etc.
I'm sure I am leaving a lot of out of this theory, but it seems that there still may be some hope for the music business, in the form of independent labels and records.
mund freud.
Ultimately, Timothy suggested to me that night, the industry as we know it could vanish not so much because of technology but because few people over the age of 30 would care if it did.
This is very true. In some cases, I know people in their mid 20's who wouldn't care.
Being in my mid-30's, most of the industry does nothing for me, does not interest me, and when its not ignoring me, its insulting my intelligence or calling me a theif. Meanwhile it churns out lame, uninteresting, repetitive music. Good riddance I say.
All of these models would produce fewer global superstars and more locally successful musicians. We might not see another Michael Jackson circa 1982, but we also wouldn't see another Michael Jackson circa 2002. Not a bad tradeoff.
There's already a lot of good work going on on city, state, and geographic-area levels. Bands working on these levels seem to have a whole different mindset and be more in touch with their listeners.
And yeah, I'll give up any future Michael Jacksons to avoid . . . any future Michael Jacksons.
Good article
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
The need for the label isn't disappearing, it's changing. We'll see the majors start contracting instead of expanding just like every other industry affected by technology. More outsourcing specific tasks (a&r for example). The label will take on a more management style role, and will become more of a "branding" issue. (Think punk scene: you know what a fat records band is going to sound like before you even press play). We'll also see labels start providing health insurance and accounting assistance to aid future MC Hammers. Ahhh, the possible return of the career artist
People love entertainment, people love music. It'll always be around, and there will always be money in it. It's just going to take some restructuring, even if it costs a whole lot of people their jobs.
Just a thought..
Ask anyone where the money they pay for their CDs goes, and they'll tell you: 5% to the artists, 95% to the executives. No one feels like they are actually supporting the artists when they buy a CD! If we wanted to support the artists, we should buy Concert tickets! sell the CD for $5 (most of the CDs out there are only worth $5) and sell the concert tickets for $10 more! Much more of the profits from concert tickets goes into the pockets of the artists! The record labels are an obsolete marketing model. Radio play and file sharing works. The word spreads. When you hear something your friend burned onto his/her last CD, and you like it, you also want to know what it is! If something is of good quality, the people will buy it, period. Not everyone will pay for 100% of the music they burn, but they will pay for enough to keep the artists living the life, but only those who deserve it, and entertain us enough.
Oh, and by the way, Britney can whine all she wants, but for every $1 she's whining about, the execs are out 15! She's just the puppet in "her" anti-piracy campaign.
It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end.
I remember recent discussion regarding the role of producers and publisher and the article stating that the function of producers is 'filtering of all the crap they are getting and presenting the consumer with the best staff'. I wish it were true. In reality, producers invent the product they believe consumers would like, and since the product is rather vacuous, that is, has no contents, they put the excessive amount of efforts on packaging and advertising (junk food, anyone?) The sooner the present system goes the better. Doesn't look like anyone (except producers) will loose anything.
More importantly, two of the foundation elements of this article are misleading and/or potentially wrong. First, the 11% decline of sales this year can be attributed to
a) the 25% decline in output by the labels
b) the economy
c) the generally boring content
My vote is on a and b. c never seems to have an effect.
Also, the usage of P2P services does not necessarily bode ill for the recording industry. As has been advanced here before, P2P services often drive sales (they have for me and quite a few others). Just because the Suits don't believe it doesn't mean it isn't true.
Still, you gotta wonder about musicians: If someday all music were free, what would they do? Would they still make music, just getting money off of concerts and stuff? I know some bands would, but some of the other more popular bands, I dunno...
People only interested in Top 40 pop/rap radio shit listen to "songs". I listen to whole albums... real musicians write songs and release them as albums for a reason. Many songs just don't make sense on their own.
"For years, the safest path to success in the music business has been to hunt the teen market. But by ignoring career artists at the expense of the latest trends, the labels have lost touch with wide swaths of society. Ultimately, Timothy suggested to me that night, the industry as we know it could vanish not so much because of technology but because few people over the age of 30 would care if it did."
Well written.
I'm 34 years old, and the only CD I've purchased in the last 18 months was for a gift. I am no longer able to stomach most new music that the labels promote. I do not like rap, I do not like teen pop, older bands are ignored and anything that is new and fresh is immediately duped and run into the ground as the latest profit mill. Meanwhile, good local bands are ignored and routinely GIVE away their music online.
I purchased an insane amount of CDs between 1986 (my first CD player) and 1996. I had a nice amount of disposable income and thought nothing of dropping $40 on CDs on a weekly shopping trip. No longer, there's nothing worthy of my hard earned dollar.
If the record companies want to make a quick buck, all they need to do is simply create a web site that offers ALL their out of print music in their entire collection and allow me to download it and burn it for $2 per song. I can fit 10 songs per CD, and the weekly revenue stream magically re-appears.
Alas, they are too stupid to see how profitable it is to satiate a demand in the market. They are too arrogant to admit that they need to make an adjustment. And they are too greedy to do anything about their problem but to buy legislation and call their customers criminals.
It's sad, really.
Yay Capitalism! The market decides! The good drives out the bad! Ayn Rand is my copilot!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
But what would be the main delivery of the art [music] to the public?
I think we will probably see a shift to some sort of enhanced CD, or a DVD. Some sort of format what will offer extras above and beyond the music itself. As it is, one of the main reasons I am willing to buy a CD is the lyric sheet that is often put in the cover booklet. In a way, I fell ripped off if the lyrics aren't in there. And even then, I'm not up for paying $20 for a CD. A two disc set maybe (if its got a lot of songs I like on it), but never for a single disc, I can wait for it to hit the discount rack.
Also, I think we will see a rise in legal mp3/oog/[insert format here] sites which sell songs. I would expect that there will be a bit of a price war for a while, but it will probably settle at something below $1 a song. Unless, of course, the labels get their way and the labels control the online distribution. Though, wasn't this type of control the one of the things that landed Microsoft in hot water? But I digress.
I think that the death of the major labels could be a boon for the small performer. First and foremost, this may help to end radio payola. (Ok, so technically they go through a middleman, so it isn't payola, but its still a way to buy airtime.) It would be nice if the practice of buying airtime died. I for one am really damn tired of hearing the same 10 or so songs repeated ad nauseium, thoughout the day. Sadly, the only radio station in my area, which even closely matches my tastes is owned by Clear Channel, so all I get are loads of commercials interspersed with the same 10 songs. And with a 30 minute commute each way, I'm lucky to hear more than one song each way. The rest is commercials or the DJ's that don't shut-up.
More than the RIAA, I think that radio payola and the Clear[ly a trust] Channel, are the biggest problems with the music industry. If we could re-instate the pre-Telecommunications Act rules about station ownership, and make third-party payola illegal, we might see an improvement in music. At the very least, it might make it harder for the labels to foist the newest pop band, "he/she's a superstar because his/her fans all want to have sex with him/her" on the masses. We might also get some sort of veriety in radio. But this is probably just a dream.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
As I sit here in Dayton, OH, I ponder why I don't have a radio in my cube and the answer comes to me rather quickly - because truly and honestly isn't a radio station around worth listening to. I could listen to any number of classic rock or 80's radio stations if I wanted to hear the same songs over and over again every day...forever. Or I could listen to the country music stations that play the same crap over and over again (never once have I heard truly talented country artists like Dwight Yoakam or Steve Earle get air time). I could flip on the local "alternative" station but, good God all the songs they ever play are what I call "white boy rage rock" - the sound never changes. It sucks and it's because the record industry essentially feeds them their playlists. There is one great station that's close but I can't get it (WOXY 97X in Cincinatti) here and it's an exception to the rule.
I am beginning to rediscover the joy of music again through digital cable music channels and swapping MP3's. My friend and I have set up FTP servers on our computers and upload interesting music (which we almost always buy) for each other to listen to. We've also swapped songs from vinyl albums or CD's bought in our youth that aren't physically playable anymore. It's not like we we're going to buy that particular CD again but it was nice that one of us had a digital copy of it so we could continue to enjoy it. Both of us like to buy CD's still but if the industry collapses I suppose we'll adapt. Really though, we're doing nothing that we weren't already doing for years - making mix tapes from albums and CD's and swapping them. It's just now we a a higher-quality medium to achieve the same thing. I don't get how Rip-Mix-Burn says "Fuck You Record Industry". Twenty years ago it was Cue-Mix-Tape and we never heard them complain.
In my case, technology is not to blame for my change in listening habits. Technology has been the savior in reviving my passion for music. It has allowed me to listen to what I like. The RIAA almost killed that part of my life because I found nothing worth listening to anymore that was easily accessible. The RIAA and its unchecked greed and totalitarian control tactics is really the culprit for the death of the music industry. At least for those of us that are too old to find Britney Spears appealing or talented.
What do they contribute to the process today?
At one time, it was very difficult to record and distribute music. Letting the listeners know the music was available was a problem, too. All of this costa lotta dollah! An industry was born, they provided those services, and they charged a fee. I don't forget that industry has abused and defrauded both the artists and the listeners; I'm keeping this basic, here.
Anyhow, the services are simply not as precious as they once were. The most difficult part of getting a recorded piece of music onto media is to create the art itself. Today, anybody with a few grand can put together a decent recording studio. More and more, when the band's in the studio the most expensive collection of hardware in the room is their instruments.
Editing and mixing a decent track from the audio your engineer has just captured? Again, the limiting factor is talent, not capital.
Marketing and Distribution? I don't think we need help with that.
The RIAA is doomed because they have no product. They may hang onto some "talent" through old contracts, but I can't forsee the majority of new artists waiting to be "discovered" when they can do it themselves.
Torque, Torque--the Beast needs more Torque.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
She's WON!
The way I see the "radical change" in the direction of the RIAA is as follows.
It is not so radical. The RIAA has gotten absolutely everything it wants.
Every large CPU chip maker (Intel, AMD, & Transmeta) have recently (in the last quarter) unveiled DRM enabling technologies. Inevitably touted as "security" or "trustworthy computing" features, they generally support the TCPA (Trusted Computing Platform Alliance), which in turn can be used to prevent users' access to portions of their computer and to the files on their computer (i.e. DRM).
With the CPU & chipset taken care of via these companies, all that is left to get on board are the BIOS makers, since any DRM technology is dead in the water if the BIOS doesn't enforce certain rules about what can run at boottime (not to mention run HASH checks, key checks, etc). The support that BIOS makers such as American Megatrends, Inc., have recently annouced for TCPA puts all the pieces for effective hardware DRM in place. Of course, the other portion of the pie that is necessary for DRM is a DRM enforcing OS, but Microsoft is working on that with Palladium.
With all the above, the Hollings bill becomes irrelevant. No GOVERNMENT mandated DRM technologies are needed, because the chip makers are implementing the exact DRM "features" the RIAA has always wanted. Control of individual PC users data will now be wrested away from them and given to the content owners. The RIAA has been given exactly what they wanted and they didn't have to go to the government to get it; in effect, the computer industry caved.
From what I know firsthand, it is clear that a trade has been made. The computer industry will supply the DRM framework if the RIAA (and eventually the MPAA) will provide the content that keeps the PC platform as a viable alternative to set top boxes (i.e. get people using "media PCs").
The other thing that makes this an absolute coup for the RIAA is the announcement that the computer industry will no longer fight the DMCA or support users fair use rights. This may effectively kill Rep. Boucher's attempt to reform the DMCA through the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (the "DMCRA"). DRM with the DMCA still in effect is almost too horrible for me to contemplate.
There is room for disagreement perhaps, but it seems that the computer companies have sold out the American consumer for a cut of the "content" pie.
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur
This comment is VERY misleading.
The big 5 record companies DO NOT RUN ALL the Recording Services that artists use.
First point - most good musicians end up having a home studio anyway. A lot of people I listen to (Will Kimbrough, Ani DiFranco, Slaid Cleeves to name a few) are hard working live and session artists and have invested in thier own gear - they are craft workers that want to have control of the final product.
Second point - Each artist does not have to master thier own music - the same mastering services will be available as there are now that the record companies use. Mastering CD's is not a technically difficult job at all - but properly producing a good album is and needs a good team to do it. (I have done this for come college bands so they can send decent demos to promoters and such - I'm no proffesional but the tools available mean I can cut a pretty acceptable live album.) Most of those people are contractors of a kind either independant or attached to a studio like Abbey Road. These people right now are being requested by artists that care about thier music, and will still be if record companies disappear in the morning.
Point Three - you don't make squat from CD sales NOW because so many people take a cut. Yes artists give up 85% of sales, but many of them end up being charged for all the costs out of THIER 15%. If an artist can pay for the album to be produced and the CDs to be created once they have broken even everything is pure profit. Most of these guys make thier break in the live circuit and selling signed cds for 10 bucks at the end is a great way to meet fans, make money and spread the word of your music for those people who didnt make your gig. This is where I get most of my CDs now because its cheaper and the artist I respect gets a bigger cut of the money.
Point Four - Promoters hire and organise concerts, these people will also not disappear. The difference will be the artists will have to have a bit more financial backing to put the capital up, but will get more of the returns. Without a slush fund from the Record Companies in the future you will find promoters being more flexible becasue they themselves will want to evolve and adapt and stay in buisness. I can, and have, see the artists I mentioned above for 10UKP a time in the Borderline in London - that MUST be profitable otherwise it wouldn't happen and I can tell you for certain that no Record Company is involved. I've run band nights myself and we ALL made profits for far less outlay than you suggest.
Point 5 - Yamaha/Korg/Roland arent going to go out of buisness. Big News - artist have thier own instruments these days, even session musicians. Cubase and other such programs can generate very very reasonable sound on commodity PC hardware. Even college bands can afford good mid range equipment these days.
Point 6 - artists are willing to give up 85% of thier sales because if they want to break out of the niche live and touring circuit and bring thier music to a wider audience they need airplay. Try getting that in the US without playing ball with an A&R man. Thankfully in the UK we have more choice with guys like Bob Harris who actually care about the music they play and don't have a playlist and a script.
Point 7 - a lot of independant artists manage themselves or are managed RIGHT NOW by management groups without any affiliation with the Big 5.
Point 8 - the attitude of 'those poor dumb artists don't want to be bothered with buisness' is condescending and insulting. ALL of the craftspeople in the industry from writers to session musicians to producers to sound engineers generally take pride in thier work. Thats why so many of them set up thier own record labels and studios so they can keep control of thier work. A lot of 'real' unmanufactured music is pretty much only distributed by the Big 5, everything else is done by the people themselves. Its not economics, its an issue of control.
Point 9 - computers have brought cheap good quality synthesisation and sequenceing into the homes of college students and teenagers. This in turn has brought down the price of higher level kit. Good studios are now available for hire. We no longer need the massive outlay of money to set up a studio that required a Record Company to do it - indeed these days a large number of studios are set up by existing artist who hire them out to make it profitable. What computers have done is bring down the costs and made good music production available to many many more people. The internet has now offered a distribution channel that was previously only available to a large buisness. Thats the point.
Point 10 - nothing in your post is about supporting the artist. Its about supporting the status quo. I support artists by supporting efforts to limit the massive lobbying for control of thier livelhood that is going on, by going to thier gigs, by buying directly from them.
My hatred of the Recording Companies (NOT the recording industry itself) is not hatred, and nor is it blind. They are just as relevant to the task of getting music from the artist into my hifi as coal mining is to fueling railway trains - namely redundant as things have moved on.
YYYESSSSSSSS!!!!
It may be a little early to crack open the champagne, but I'm ready to celebrate evolution in action. Record companies served a purpose when the technology to make copies of records was expensive. This service is no longer necessary, or even beneficial, to musicians or the public. The promotional services that record companies still legitimately provice could be replaced by a promotion industry. Hopefully one that's based on sane business agreements, rather than the take-it-or-leave-it usury model which the record industry chose to follow, and which is finally biting it in its big ugly ass.
What I really hope happens is not just the extinction of record companies, but that other businesses will take this as proof that the path to long-term survival lies in serving a purpose, not in forcing the public to support your business model.