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)."

16 of 478 comments (clear)

  1. Umm.. by Gentoo+Fan · · Score: 5, Funny

    "from the imminent-death-predictions-getting-boring dept"

    Then why post it?

    1. Re:Umm.. by slothdog · · Score: 5, Funny

      Then why post it?

      So they'll have stories to choose from for tomorrow's news, silly.

  2. Hilary Rosen is obviously psychic... by 3waygeek · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Hilary Rosen is obviously psychic... by Kierthos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      According to the article, it's already sinking. And the mega-companies that own the Big 5 aren't helping any either.

      It's eerie how spot on that article is. I mean, when I was growing up, I would buy a copy of every single album I could find of certain artists, like ZZ Top or Queen. But nowadays, there just aren't any artists who can seem to pull that kind of longevity off, because the labels don't seem to be inclined to let them.

      We've got boy-bands that almost certainly won't be around in 3 years, much less 5. We've got "teen stars" who will almost certainly lose any fan base they have in a few years as well... I mean, it just seems outright unlikely that any artists that start today (or for that matter, started in the last couple of years), will have anything near the amazing amounts of success of the bands of 'yesteryear'.

      Sure, there are some bands who seem to buck those trends, but when you're looking at the real longevity of bands like Aerosmith, versus the possible (and tenuous) longevity of artists like Britney Spears... well, you know what? I think in ten or fifteen years, there will still be people listen to old Aerosmith tunes, but Britney Spears will be all but forgotten.

      Kierthos

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    2. Re:Hilary Rosen is obviously psychic... by rot26 · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's eerie how spot on that article is. I mean, when I was growing up, I would buy a copy of every single album I could find of certain artists, like ZZ Top or Queen. But nowadays, there just aren't any artists who can seem to pull that kind of longevity off, because the labels don't seem to be inclined to let them.

      First-record deals are notoriously BAD for the artist. If the first turns out to be successful, they then try to renegotiate the contract for more money. The record companies are neatly sidestepping this process by simply abandoning the band after one (or maybe two) successes and finding a soundalike clone and publishing THEIR music under another bad-first-record deal.

      --



      To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
  3. Paying customers? by Alcohol+Fueled · · Score: 5, Interesting
    "The industry rightly believes that if it can make file-swapping more difficult, and legitimate online services easier and less expensive, it can turn the kids on Kazaa into paying customers."

    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! (\(-__-)/)
    1. Re:Paying customers? by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They don't want to make Kazaa pay only, they want to make Kazaa disappear, and all services like it, so they can replace it with their own 'music download' service.

      Except their idea of an 'online service' is really just an online version of a retail store, without the added cost of producing the CDs and liner notes.

      And they want to make sure that it's illegal for anyone else to license the songs and offer a competing service, much like they dont want stores selling used CDs, which offer a competing service to the handful of 'retail outlets' they have in their pockets.

      The recording industry wont die, but it will evolve into something different. The "we must control everything from the artist's mouth to the consumer's walkman" business model simply cannot work in todays world.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  4. Quote... by dietlein · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.)

    1. Re:Quote... by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      NOTHING is wrong with the phrase: Rip, Mix Burn.

      If the RIAA thinks that this phrase is the equivalent of Apple Corp giving them "the bird", then it is the RIAA that has the problem. They're simply out of touch with reality and their genuine contempt for their customer is shining through.

      Consider this: The "Rip" part of the Apple slogan requires to have the ACTUAL ORIGINAL. All Apple is doing is to encourage inventive use of what you already PAID for.

      There is nothing particularly subversive about such an idea.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  5. I doubt it by Kickstart70 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Unless we advance some form of public ownership, and tear down the structure of corporate business, we will always have corporations. As long as we have corporate record companies, they will seek an organization where they can band together for self-protection.

    While it may not always be CALLED the RIAA, it will always BE the RIAA.

    Kickstart

    1. Re:I doubt it by Rary · · Score: 5, Insightful
      ...we will always have corporations. As long as we have corporate record companies...

      Your logic doesn't quite flow. Just because we will always have corporations, does not necessarily mean we will always have corporate record companies. The need for record companies is rapidly disappearing. When the service provided by a service company becomes obsolete, that company becomes obsolete. It doesn't remain just because corporations still remain and it's a corporation.

      I don't know if record companies, and subsequently the RIAA, will cease to exist. I do know that if they don't start to actually adapt to the changes that have occurred in the market right before their bewildered -- and apparently non-functional -- eyes, it's highly unlikely they will remain profitable.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

  6. Conglomerates suck out the life by gosand · · Score: 5, Insightful
    In the past two decades, every big label has been swept up into one of five major groups: Universal, Warner, Sony, BMG, and EMI, which together control about 75 percent of global recorded-music sales.

    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.

  7. if you treat customers like criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you threaten jailtime to your customers then your customers will go away.

    A very expensive lesson for them to learn

  8. Sure, just like AM radio died... by dpbsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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.

  9. Paying too much in the wrong direction by Vinnster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  10. Recording Industry != Recording Services by CharlieO · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.