Slashdot Mirror


The Music Industry's Crisis Writ Large

The NY Times has an opinion piece that makes starkly clear the financial decline of the music industry. It's accompanied by an infographic that cleverly renders the drop-off. The latest culprit accelerating the undoing of the music business is free, legal online music streaming. "Since music sales peaked in 1999, the value of those sales, after adjusting for inflation, has dropped by more than half. At that rate, the industry could be decimated before Madonna's 60th birthday. ... 13- to 17-year-olds acquired 19 percent less music in 2008 than they did in 2007. CD sales among these teenagers were down 26 percent and digital purchases were down 13 percent. ... [T]he percentage of 14- to 18-year-olds who regularly share files dropped by nearly a third from December 2007 to January 2009. On the other hand, two-thirds of those teens now listen to streaming music 'regularly' and nearly a third listen to it every day."

62 of 554 comments (clear)

  1. Let it die. by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The words 'music' and 'industry' were never meant to go together. Music should come from the heart, not the wallet. This idea that you can become wealthy by being a musician is a new one and we've suffered for it.

    1. Re:Let it die. by sopssa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The words 'music' and 'industry' were never meant to go together. Music should come from the heart, not the wallet. This idea that you can become wealthy by being a musician is a new one and we've suffered for it.

      You might like to come live in the current world. Like everything else in entertainment (movies, games, comics whatever), music is entertainment and professionally made. It requires time, effort and money. Just as stupid RIAA's lawsuits against studenst are, pirates reasoning to get content for free are too. Music *IS* industry. You dont get around that as much as you'd like to deny it. Or well, if you like to, stop listening to commercially produced music and go listen in the streets; they're nice sometimes and you can tip those who you think are good. But if you're against commercial music, the answer isn't to pirate it. Answer is not to listen to it all. You're just being hypocrisy and making excuses for pirating if you still listen to them.

      And now besides the point, record labels aren't there just to rip people off. Artists actually need them. They actually find the artists that could be something, provide them studio time and sponsor them so they can get their job done, help making the music videos, doing promotion, making sure the actual product is somewhat quality (yeah, quality can be argued!) to actually delivering the products to retailers, tv and radio stations and whatever other places. Lots of times people forget that record labels do lots of other work too and sponsor the bands, and they're not there just to collect money forgefully.

      This is why I think the record labels will continue to exist and will be used by artists. Yes, I said used. Its not necessary for artists to use them, noone force's them to. But lets face it, all that usually needs lots of money and time and work. Not a single person can usually do so much, but go work with record labels so they can handle all the other stuff and artists can spend the time on their core thing -- making music.

    2. Re:Let it die. by Moryath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No shit.

      The latest culprit accelerating the undoing of the music business is free, legal online music streaming.

      Counterpoint: the real culprit accelerating the undoing of the music business is:

      - anticompetitive business practices (price fixing, etc) that have given potential customers a sour attitude towards music labels
      - destruction of diversity in radio broadcasting (something the music industry ironically pushed for) via the death of media ownership regulations mid-'90s

      And finally, the main reason:

      - replacement of almost all talented acts that produced good music, with hyperproduced kiddie-shit "artists" whose assets are not musical talent or singing voices, but barely-covered bikini bottoms and tits. Just you wait: in 4 years, tops, "Hannah Montana" will be pulling a Britney-style selfdestruct. And neither of them are capable of producing "music" even remotely worth listening to.

    3. Re:Let it die. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hi, the 1950's called and they want their arguments back. I know a few musicians who can afford their own studio setups that are just as good as anything you'll find in the 'major labels'. Studio time isn't that big of a barrier to entry anymore.

      So do you need big labels for quality? Well, you have me there, no indie label could match the musical genius of somebody like say, Brittney Spears.

      The "industry" the GP refers to is the big labels that screw over everybody -- artists and listeners -- in the guise that there's barriers or a scarcity that's just not there anymore. Those are the companies that go away.

    4. Re:Let it die. by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And now besides the point, record labels aren't there just to rip people off. Artists actually need them.

      Before advent of easy recording, just about every family that wanted to appear civilized owned a piano or some other musical instrument. That is, people used to play music themselves. I personally record my own music for my family and listen to a lot of bands of friends or ones that play small venues. You know, I listen to music that people can actually play. I'll never forget in high school going to one concert for some bands I liked quite a bit (U2 with the Pixes opening) and realizing that they sounded absolutely awful live and that the sound on their records has been manipulated to the point of being false. That was the day I stopped believing that the "current world" was the best solution. I don't need the RIAA, I can keep playing my own music and traditional, non-copyrighted music to my heart's content. I'm not alone in this. Don't believe me? Go spend a few hours on youtube.

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    5. Re:Let it die. by cdrguru · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The primary benefit that record companies provide to the artist today is promotion. Without promotion, most artists will remain in some kind of local niche. A few might get national attention for doing something that gathers lots of publicity - like running through a public park naked or something like that. That is about it.

      What people do not understand is the full spectrum of promotion. Kill off the record companies and promotion dies. With it go a lot of magazines that music promotion is supporting. FM Radio is going to change a lot in the US, because it is mostly a music promotion vehicle. I would expect most stations to just give up and shut down. The rest will do something else. They will not be playing popular music.

      How far do the tenacles of music promotion go? I don't really know. I suspect that the ripples from ending music promotion will go much further than anyone suspects.

    6. Re:Let it die. by FelixNZ · · Score: 3, Informative

      Regarding Live performances - This isn't always the band's fault, although I haven't been to see either of those bands in person, but I have been to several venues where the guy behind the mixing desk is spot on, and the experience is far, far better than any recording. Conversely, the same bands in a different venue and some sort of bespectacled Human-Gorilla hybrid behind the desk, seemingly randomly playing with knobs and sliders have rendered the performance absolutely abysmal.

    7. Re:Let it die. by clarkkent09 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      - anticompetitive business practices (price fixing, etc) that have given potential customers a sour attitude towards music labels

      There is some truth in that, but come on. People really stopped buying music because of that?

      - destruction of diversity in radio broadcasting (something the music industry ironically pushed for) via the death of media ownership regulations mid-'90s

      Wrong. Radio hardly has any influence on what music people listen to these days.

      And finally, the main reason: - replacement of almost all talented acts that produced good music, with hyperproduced kiddie-shit "artists" whose assets are not musical talent or singing voices, but barely-covered bikini bottoms and tits. Just you wait: in 4 years, tops, "Hannah Montana" will be pulling a Britney-style selfdestruct. And neither of them are capable of producing "music" even remotely worth listening to.

      I doubt very much that the music industry is replacing musicians who would sell more music with those who would sell less. What you or I might consider quality music doesn't come into it at all and shouldn't. If people like "hyperproduced kiddie-shit artists", which they obviously do, then that's what they get. Just like on a typical weekend out of the top 10 grossing movies I would consider 9 or more to be completely unwatchable garbage, but other people obviously have different tastes so how can I say that unless movie industry makes more movies that I would like its profits would suffer? Your personal problems with the music industry are not necessarily the same ones that are causing its troubles.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    8. Re:Let it die. by enrevanche · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Killing off the record companies could possibly be the dawn of a new age with much more diversity. Without the massive inefficiencies of the current music business, how many more musicians can be supported with the same revenue? The fact is, their massive control over the market, requires draconian control and just a few over-promoted stars that blot out the rest. The changes in the music world brought about by technology and the internet has already dramatically increased the access to many artists that we would have had previously.

    9. Re:Let it die. by Falconhell · · Score: 4, Informative

      I did live sound for 20 years. It is not always the engineers fault if the sound is crap. Some rooms are just impossile to get a good sound. Some bands are so loud on stage that the PA system cannot keep up, again bad sound. Some PA systems are crap.

      Bottom line is if you werent at the mixing desk yourself you have no idea of the problems that are in front of the Sound guy.

      How many times have you actually mixed a band?

      Yeh right never, it shows.

    10. Re:Let it die. by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Probably the only utility the record industry provides to artists is that of promotion. Yes, the Internet makes it very easy to distribute music for next to nothing, but how do you find people to distribute it to? Word of mouth only goes so far, and advertising is expensive.

      No, let me repeat that, advertising is very expensive. Go look up the numbers on Google Adsense and you'll see it's not unreasonable for every visitor to cost you (on average) $1. Assuming 10% of those people actually buy something from you (which is a very high conversion rate, more realistic would be 1-5%), and you need to make $10 sales (on average) per person, just to cover your advertising costs!

      But, back to the record industry. They have large coffers and deals with all the radio stations, so they can easily push out a $$$$ ad campaign and get airtime for songs they think they can make a return on. They probably don't make huge profits on most artists (indeed, they may even lose money), but in aggregate they still (obviously) turn a tidy profit.

      I don't know about you, but I don't have 6 figures to lay down on advertising, so as an independent content producer (of which I am, see Game!), it puts you in a very awkward position. For musicians, you can sell your soul to the music industry and hope there's some profit left over for you in the end, or you can go it alone and probably reach only a tiny audience, but keep all of the (tiny) profit for yourself. Or, you can lay down for advertising and promotion, which is expensive (as discussed already) and may or may not pay itself back.

      Don't get me wrong, obviously the record industry is only interested in turning a profit for itself (and will probably screw over most artists that sign with it in the process), but if the Internet had completely obsoleted the record industry, artists would have wised up by now and the record industry would actually be gone by now.

    11. Re:Let it die. by davester666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you're saying that we're currently operating on a 'music bubble', where the labels just promote whatever they choose via payola to music stations to make appear popular, then people buy it en-masse, thus actually making it "popular"?

      That the industry is too big for the gov't to allow it to 'pop'?

      I'm sorry son, we have to listen to this crap. It's to save the economy.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    12. Re:Let it die. by Falconhell · · Score: 5, Informative

      Plenty thanks, only 2000+ shows in 20 years, most of which were repeat bookings, some in the hundreds of shows. Not to mention at least that many more that I had to refuse as I was already booked, often 6 months in adavance.

      Where did I say poor equipment that wont go as loud as I want? You just made that up, re read what I wrote. How many times have you mixed a band? Ah of course none.

      I will explain it simply as you don't seem to have a clue about live sound. If a rock band for example is very loud on stage(Instrument amps and speakers can be surprisingly efficient)say 105 dbspl one needs to be able to add 10db of volume (115dbspl)above the off stage volume for the vocals to be heard clearly.

      A snare drum on its own can when hit hard, exceed 120dbspl.

      Hence you need a powerful system capable of exceeding the off stage level. Turning down the volume is not an option in this scenario, unless the band is willing to turn down on stage, and let me tell you that virtually never happens, or if it does only for a few minutes then they are back up again.

      To ensure quality some "headroom" (Unused power)is required, that is power above what is required, to keep all points in the signal chain below the threshold of clipping, and hence the sound clean. Even so most systems I used would flash the clip lights on the peaks of the bass drum, this is not unusual with high powered actively crossed over systems.

      In an active xover system clipping of the bass amp does not effect the higher frequency channels.

      One of the things I discovered was that clean sound can be very loud without bothering listeners, whereas dirty or poorly equalized sound can be annoying at almost any volume.

      At no stage did I say I wanted a system to be louder if it was crap. That would just result in louder crap.

      As a long time live sound professional I did not choose crap systems for my shows, but some were equipment provided, so one had to make do with what was there. When I specified the systems it was never a problem.

      Obviouslyly the quality of the band and their instruments and amps has a huge influence too.
      On many occasions I mixed multiple acts, some of which sounded like crap and had me working my ass off thinking I was doing something wrong.

      When the next act came on all of the problems were gone and the sound great without any changes on my part, but even after many years it is sometimes very difficult for me to be sure whether it was the engineer/system causing the bad sound or just a bad band!

      Like I said if you are not at the desk doing the gig you have no idea under what limitations the sound guys is operating, and no real basis for criticism.

    13. Re:Let it die. by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 4, Interesting

      - anticompetitive business practices (price fixing, etc) that have given potential customers a sour attitude towards music labels

      There is some truth in that, but come on. People really stopped buying music because of that?

       

      I did. I spent many thousands of dollars on music in the 80s and 90s. The music industry went from selling $7.99 LPs that cost $1.50 to make, to selling CDs that cost less than 50 cents to make - yet they charged $15. WHY?

      Well one exec at the time said the reason why was because "they sound better so its worth it," which was akin to saying "fuck you, we do because we can."

      But the REAL reason was because they were illegally price fixing. They were NOT competing companies, they were an illegal cartel, violating anti-trust.

      They were found GUILTY of this, and yet the fine for the entire music cartel was less than what they sue one filesharer for.

      THAT'S why I swore I'd never give them another damned cent of mine - and I haven't. They were found GUILTY of being essentially organized crime, of ripping off their own customers to the tune of billions of dollars... they got a slap on the wrist and then complain that their CUSTOMERS are the crooks.

      And that's after notoriously ripping off most of the musicians whose product they are peddling in the first place.

      --
      This space available.
    14. Re:Let it die. by russotto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What people do not understand is the full spectrum of promotion. Kill off the record companies and promotion dies. With it go a lot of magazines that music promotion is supporting. FM Radio is going to change a lot in the US, because it is mostly a music promotion vehicle. I would expect most stations to just give up and shut down. The rest will do something else. They will not be playing popular music.

      OK, sounds like a deal... wait... is there a downside to all this?

    15. Re:Let it die. by TheLink · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > unless the band is willing to turn down on stage, and let me tell you that virtually never happens

      Yeah, because a band that plays that loud is usually extremely hearing impaired. If they turn it down they won't be able to hear themselves.

      So kids, if you do that "band thing" remember to use ear protection. Too bad so many musicians think they don't need it. Many end up being so deaf that they have problems hearing stuff even when the monitors are at max.

      In the racing industry the professionals don't think they're too cool to wear safety gear. Yes it does negatively affect their performance a bit, but it's worth it in the long term.

      --
    16. Re:Let it die. by drsmithy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Word of mouth only goes so far, and advertising is expensive.

      In the days of people having 100s (if not1000s) of "friends" on sites like Facebook, "word of mouth" is a hell of a lot more effective than it ever was before - and that's likely to remain true going forward.

    17. Re:Let it die. by Falconhell · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actaully, the way the drummer plays is the biggest influence on volume, a loud drummer gives the rest of the band little choice of how loud they play, they have to be able to hear themselves.

      Pete Townsend of The Who had hearing damage, which occoured due to excessive headphone volume in the recording studio, not live gigs.

      You do kinda have a point regarding volume, but in my experience it is not as big a problem as you may think. As exposure to loud levels is relatively short (At most about 2 hours at a time) the level needs to be very high to cause hearing damage.

      Despite mixing (Loudly)for 20 + years I have no hearing damage!

      I was always very careful to remove myself from the gig when not mixing, to avoid the usually loud distorted DJ music in beteween sets.

      More hearing problems result from loud industrial envronments where repeated exposure to loud uncompressed transients can last all day. Exposure time is the key factor.

      Few of the musos I worked with had hearing damage.

      Some kinds of music just do not work well unless at a relatively high volume.

      A classic example was Bob Marleys backing band The Wailers. I worked with them for a short tour once and they were incredibly loud, but mostly in the low bass area.

      This produced a most extraordinary effect, of the whole airmass in the room moving back and forth at very low frequency, producing an incerdible groove in the music.(Having 8X dual 24" sub woofers helped too)

    18. Re:Let it die. by Metrol · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, let me repeat that, advertising is very expensive.

      Why is this? I know this probably sounds hopelessly naive, but where do these "marketing" funds go to? I'm not talking about advertising a live show. More along the lines of how any of us ever heard of Miss Spears in the first place.

      It may be the more interesting aspect of this story isn't the record industry losing customers, but the younger generations skipping the main marketing arm of the recording industry, FM radio. The overtly corporate and hopelessly generic radio stations across the country all playing the exact same line up paid for by the "recording industry". I'm old enough to have witnessed this transition from edgy to safe FM stations in my life. Due to this I have satellite radio in my car, and I listen to streaming Internet stations at home.

      If FM survives the fall of the RIAA giants it will likely mean that stations will go back to when they chose for themselves what they would play. I think we'd all be better off if that kind of marketing money were to vanish.

      --
      The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
    19. Re:Let it die. by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As much as I know this is heated topic in slashdot -- and i probably get modded down for it

      Yeah, you will. Evidently 'flamebait' and 'troll' are the new 'I disagree with this person and am too lazy to write a good rebuttal' mods.

      the big label records AREN'T there to fuck everyone over.

      See, I was with you until you said that. I find the anti-business sentiment around here to be annoying and naive but I can likewise find no redeeming value from the big record labels. Their specialty seems to be litigation and lobbying, not music. They've run their business into the ground with a series of stupid decisions and if it wasn't for their lobbying clout and deep pockets would probably have been replaced by more nimble competitors a long time ago.

      But I think record labels are needed to support the artists.

      I would agree with that to a certain extent -- but I still refuse to give any RIAA member a penny of my money. I also agree with you that it's not really fair to pirate their product just because you don't like their business model. I've done my share of filesharing in my younger days but nowadays it's just not worth the hassle -- particularly when better stuff is available for a fair price from non-RIAA record labels.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    20. Re:Let it die. by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The overtly corporate and hopelessly generic radio stations across the country

      It's fucking sad, isn't it? I can literally set my watch by the music that is played on local radio stations. Umm, Nickelback, it must be 4:30.......

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    21. Re:Let it die. by nolife · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've never done any studies or analysis of what people like and why but it seems a lot of people like something after hearing more often and if someone else likes it or if it is trendy. Think about it, teens twenty years ago were listening to 80's music and loving it. Why aren't teens listening to 80's music now? If Eddie Grant's Electric Avenue was good and a number one hit then, shouldn't it be good and a popular hit now? Did humans somehow evolve and now naturally like some other type of music? The trend makes something "good" in pop music. How does the music industry take advantage of this? Pick a few artists to promote (get them interviews, guest appearances on popular tv shows, special contests with soda makers etc...). The music industry can only promote so many dumb blonds or a limited amount of any genre at a time. The music did not find the diamond in the rough with many of these stars, they promoted them to that position. Those artists would have the same talent with or without the music industries blessing. With less involvement of the music industry,the trendy part would change but I don't think the there would be a lack or good quality music. People might have to figure out what they consider good for themselves and not let the music industry do it for them.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    22. Re:Let it die. by tsm_sf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I find the anti-business sentiment around here to be annoying and naive[...]

      I have to butt in on this. There is no anti-business sentiment on slashdot. There is an anti-getting-screwed-over sentiment. I don't know when we started equating "not buying their bullshit" with "anti-business", but it's a pretty scary trend.

      Personally, I feel that this has been driven by an influx of young republicans (sorry, libertarians) without a lot of real world experience. If you've never worked in a corporate environment, it would be hard to believe how twisted some people are.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    23. Re:Let it die. by ThePromenader · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The music industry has always been fucking us over, it's only their tactics that have changed; it is interesting to note that their 'jump the shark' moment came when they were making the most money, because it was then that they refused to evolve with the market.

      To elaborate on the evolution of 'fucking over': From its early (quite honest) goals of trying to appeal to as many listeners as possible, the music industry tried to influence and control the airwaves (airtime = records sold) to make themselves even more the only 'door' to stardom... but as we grew more educated (especially in recent years), the industry began targeting a younger and younger audience (explaining the '13-17-year-old' statistics mentioned ITFA - even the thought that this bracket is considered by them to be a major source of income is disgusting) and even 'creating' artists (with doubtful talents) especially for them. They have been stuck in this rut since the CD heyday - from the early 90's. In short, the music industry is failing because they are failing, through all their (expensive) manipulations, to keep the market mentality and structure exactly the way it was then.

      I personally don't care who gets the money when I buy an album, but hearing a catchy tune that interests me is not easy these days - I used to rely on internet radio stations, but these seem to be coming under the influence of the mainstream as well. The more popular streaming sites (Deezer, etc) will probably go that way as well.

      The irony of it all is that I can't help but thinking that the early music-industry days could be a good model: when there was only radio and records, we would buy the record to get the entire album (also instead of having to wait by the radio for hours to hear our favourite song); even when cassettes appeared, there was no comparing the quality of an original album to the sound of a cassette copy.

      If the music industry really wanted to protect itself, it would have to evolve with the market, as well as working (objectively, not profit-oriented-ly) with other organisations to find a definite definition of 'piracy' that could be put into law.

      The music industry would fare much better if it were illegal to a) make an entire album available in one place at one time for free and/or b) provide for free music above a certain quality.

      --

      No, no sig. Really.

      ThePromenader
    24. Re:Let it die. by damburger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah, the struggling musician chestnut. Do you know what? Musicians should struggle, because teachers, nurses, scientists, construction workers, and every other fucker in the economy has to struggle. Musicians, for a brief period of modern history, were able to make income beyond that they were given for their performances. That era is coming to an end, and there is no a priori reason why it should not.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    25. Re:Let it die. by damburger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Agreed. Capitalism might seem like beautiful mathematical perfection to anybody who hasn't been under its heel 50 hours a week. Libertarianism rarely survives ones first graduate job.

      And for the record, fuck yes I am anti-business. Corporations are, from my personal experience, a completely malignant form of social and economic organisation. I have found them to be places that stifle creativity, individuality, hope and happiness.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    26. Re:Let it die. by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To me their ultimate "jump the shark" or "nuke the fridge" as the kids say, was when they made the music unlistenable. This is why I only buy from local independent artists now, because they are actually the ones that compose the music and therefor don't want it sounding like shit.

      I had the pleasure of helping an old friend to convert his LP collection to MP3, and we took the "Pepsi test" by comparing his original 70s albums with the "remastered" CDs you buy in stores today. Frankly I wouldn't call the "product" the CDs had on them music. Compare say....Bat Out Of Hell 1, or Queen A Night At The Opera with the 'remastered' and it seems like a bad joke. The CD sounds like it is being broadcast down a long distance telephone line with all the compression. Why would anyone want to buy product that sounds like dogshit?

      Sadly 'articles' like this prove that it doesn't matter whether you are legal or not, all they know how to do is scream "Piracy!" and demand more cash and more draconian laws. Before the loudness war I bought quite a few CDs, now I buy none. They will of course put me down as a pirate even though I wouldn't take their product even if offered for free on a silver platter. They will just keep pushing more insane laws with treasonous bribery....err I mean lobbying, while the young simply ignore the laws because they are bullshit. Maybe if they would actually put out a usable product at a decent price their sales would pick up? Nah, that's just crazy talk. I'm waiting for them to be labeled "too big to fail" and just get a check from us monthly whether we want their "product" or not.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    27. Re:Let it die. by damburger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What bugged me most about the loudness war was the overt contempt it showed for listeners. Those behind it clearly considered people who bought records as little more than Pavlov's dogs, who could be conditioned to respond predictably to a simple sensory stimulus (loud music). Dynamic range compression is, to me, a microcosm of pretty much everything that is rotten about western capitalism.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    28. Re:Let it die. by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Libertarianism rarely survives ones first graduate job.

      Liberalism rarely survives ones first paycheck and the discovery of how much of your money the Government is taking from you. To borrow a quote, "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain."

      And for the record, fuck yes I am anti-business. Corporations are, from my personal experience, a completely malignant form of social and economic organisation. I have found them to be places that stifle creativity, individuality, hope and happiness.

      Got a better suggestion? For all it's flaws our capitalist system has produced much of the wealth and technology that we take for granted. I've yet to see a system that I'd rather live under.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  2. Film at 11. by palegray.net · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Industry with a track record of charging insane prices for crappy products, ripping off artists who they claim to represent, and developing a business model of suing their own customers in gross abuse of the legal process is experiencing financial difficulties. We'll be providing blow-by-blow coverage.

    1. Re:Film at 11. by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It really is bizarre, much more than the usual situation. Actors and directors, for example, kvetch about Hollywood, but I haven't seen nearly the same level of anti-studio invective from prominent directors and actors as I have seen anti-music-industry invective from prominent musicians. The RIAA types seem to have done a remarkably thorough job in pissing off the people they claim to represent, across a wide swathe of genres.

  3. irony by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 5, Insightful

    An article about an industry that is dying, published by an industry that is dying. Both are being killed by the same new technology.

    1. Re:irony by Saxerman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Right, these are RIAA numbers. Since when did we care what spin doctoring they did to their own numbers to try and justify their war on piracy? The only slant this article gives the numbers is that there are more and growing opportunities to listen to music for free... a fact the RIAA mentioned no where. But, guess what? Since around the 1950s or so, we've all been able to listen to music for free over the radio. And the Boston Strangler aside, the advent of the portable music player has only made music more accessible.

      The fact that we're in a fairly serious global recession coupled to the inflation they sprinkle on the numbers might make them look tragic. But last I checked, everyone still wants music. They just don't have as much to spend on it right now. I don't see the music industry going anywhere.

      Well, the major labels might vanish. But they stopped being a required piece of the music industry more than 10 years ago. Course, they won't really vanish unless their copyrights actually expire. Or our generation dies out and is replaced by a culture that believes music should be enjoyed rather than owned.

      --

      A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.

  4. Re:Streaming services by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Somehow the fact that you refer to pirated music as "warez" makes me somewhat skeptical that you have ever actually done so. Warez is the term for cracked software, not music.

    That aside, streaming music services are at least as bad as the ITMS and similar services for the music industry. Back prior to all that hogwash you were pretty limited in your ability to buy music in single track increments. Sure you could get a single, but you couldn't buy 8 out of 11 songs, and if you wanted a song which wasn't as popular you were stuck with buying the album.

    These days, that's not how it's done, you only have to listen to the songs you like without ever having paid for the rest of the tracks. I'm sure that sounds good in theory. But take a look back at previous albums, I doubt most people would've really appreciated the higher quality of Nirvana's Nevermind over their later In Utero, worse in a sense is that if you clip off the non-music from In Utero it's would seem like a better period of work. As things are done more and more like that there is less and less incentive to spread the effort out, rather than focusing on a quality album experience to justify buying the album, that time and money tends to get funneled into a couple of tracks.

    That and the generally poor production quality of so many albums pretty much insures that quality music is going to be much harder to come by than it has been in the past. If we get really lucky, all of this will be largely neutralized by the increasing easy of independent groups getting exposure and producing their own work without the suits.

  5. The traditional music industry is a buggy whip by lena_10326 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The artist will win. No more signing away most your rights with shady contracts. No more skimming 99.9 cents on the dollar for CD sales. No more lock in for future albums. Artists are making their money by selling direct to consumers with online distribution channels because it gives the unknown artist a shot. It also promotes better music because when the consumer has better choice, they will choose better music.

    The direct sales channels will continue to grow and standardize so I expect the traditional industry losses will accelerate.

    --
    Camping on quad since 1996.
    1. Re:The traditional music industry is a buggy whip by FormerComposer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It also promotes better music because when the consumer has better choice, they will choose better music.

      I got out of the retail record business over 25 years ago because the industry was rapidly losing its customers to consumers. They weren't choosing better music; they were choosing cheaper music. Saving 50 cents on Saturday Night Fever was more important than their store actually having a wide selection of interesting sounds. Eventually, it wasn't worth it to stock the better; only the popular.

      I blame the Decline of Western Civilization on the Rise of the Consumer. YMMV.

      --
      For most purposes, 355/113 is close enough.
    2. Re:The traditional music industry is a buggy whip by countertrolling · · Score: 3, Funny

      The rumors of our death are highly exaggerated

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  6. The reason... by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The reason why streaming music is taking over is because radio is crap. Seriously, if you don't like hip hop, pop, country or classic rock, there are -no- stations other than that anymore. If you have musical tastes other than that, too bad. You won't find any terrestrial radio that plays that. So because of that people stream more, in general streaming music ends up being better and have a greater variety. If I can't find a terrestrial radio station that plays music I like, I'm going to then listen to streaming music. Because of that, why buy the music when you can with a bit of searching find the streaming music?

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:The reason... by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The radio plays those genres? I thought it just played DJ's and ads.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    2. Re:The reason... by intx13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The reason why streaming music is taking over is because radio is crap. Seriously, if you don't like hip hop, pop, country or classic rock, there are -no- stations other than that anymore. If you have musical tastes other than that, too bad.

      You could easily write that as: "If you have musical tastes that aren't the same as the majority, too bad." But that's pretty much expected, right? Imagine liking orchestral music when big band took off. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's "crap". A lot of people like Miley Cyrus and don't care if it's not skillfully performed music. Radio, like any limited-spectrum broadcast medium, caters to the majority.

      If dislike in radio genres was substantial enough to impact the music industry's bottom line (via "switchers" to streaming media) the radio stations would adjust accordingly.

      I think what is increasing demand in streaming media is availability, ease of use, and cost. The state of streaming "Internet radio" 10 years ago was pitiful. Since then we have standardized technologies, better quality, and (however grudgingly) music label support. Along with reasonable costs (free in many cases!), increased access to high-bandwidth Internet connections, and more legitimacy in not owning physical albums, tapes, CDs, etc. streaming becomes a viable media delivery method.

  7. "Music Industry" by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If by music industry you mean anything that is distributed in the form of iTunes or mp3's with a useful half life of a month or so, I'm all for its demise and good riddance.

    The vast majority of that sort of stuff is dung. If we are talking about taxing cigarettes and sugary carbonated soda and fast food, no reason to not extend that to this sort of "music" as well.

    Once this sort of stuff is gone maybe people will get a chance to listen to real music, in person or played back on high-fidelity equipment.

    It might be an epiphany.

  8. Decimated... by HisMother · · Score: 4, Informative
    ... refers to the loss of one out of ten soldiers. If their sales are down by half, they've already been decimated five times over.

    </pedantry>

    --
    Cantankerous old coot since 1957.
    1. Re:Decimated... by Tau+Neutrino · · Score: 5, Funny

      If their sales are down by half, they've already been decimated five times over.

      Actually, if sales had been decimated once, they would be at 90% of their previous level. Twice, they'd be at 81%. Five times, at 59.049%.

      To get to 50%, they'd have to have been decimated approximately 6.578 times.

      Pedantic even longer.

      --
      Lemmings are silly; dinosaurs are extinct.
  9. Update the pricing of music by zlel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There was once, music tapes cost SGD $8. When CDs hit the market, they cost SGD $30, but it was promised that they would go down to the same price as tapes one day. Isn't it time to sell full albums at SGD $5, considering the volume that the music industry is able to produce? Isn't that what industries do best - to give what the market wants at a cost leveraged by the economics of scale? Given that the packaging that comes with the CD does cost something to make, but essentially, isn't music, as a commodity, like software - make once, and sell it many times over? Given the international market exposed by the internet, is online music, too, overpriced? Or perhaps society needs to rethink the place of musicians - perhaps they could be like open source software authors, who have a day job?

  10. Record Industry by bjustice · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Record Industry's Crisis Writ Large

    There, fixed that for you. The record industry is the one that makes money on recordings. The music industry is the one that makes money on music in general including concerts. The music industry is fine and will be fine. The record industry is fucked.

    1. Re:Record Industry by Relic+of+the+Future · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Absolutely right! There are more artists, making more music, doing more concerts, and pulling in more money, than ever before. Music is doing fine. Selling records is the only thing that's hurting. (Requisite car analogy: it wasn't the transportation industry that cars put out of business, it was the horse and buggy industry.)

      --
      Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
  11. Music industry not dying by RedWizzard · · Score: 4, Informative
    It's not the music industry that's dying, it's the recording industry. It's become clear that the money people are not spending on recorded music they are instead spending on live music:

    These reports all say the same thing: concert ticket sales growth more than makes up for the decline in recorded music sales.

  12. Streaming in the 80s by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When I was a teen, about 15 years ago, I was also listening to streams. But at the time, it was called ... FM radio!

  13. Hi. by tthomas48 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hi. I'm the American actor, violinist, ballet dancer, and sculptor. We have little sympathy. Welcome back to having to make art because you love it, and not because you expect it to be a lottery ticket.

  14. The $250,000 economy car by zogger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These "music industry" people want the equivalent of 250 thou for a 25 grand commuter car. nuts. They wonder why sales are off, whereas a billion music purchasers know exactly why sales are off, they just don't feel like getting price gouged anymore.

    I suggest the "music industry" lay off all the coke and booze for a year or two then come back and rethink their stance on pricing, for digital bits down the tubes or the same digital bits on two cents worth of plastic. Their "per unit" pricing is from decades ago, it doesn't come close to anything rational anymore. When it was very expensive to make a copy for sale, sure, it was understandable, but now, today?? Who are they kidding besides themselves?

        Tech advances and much cheaper bandwith should have allowed them to both drop prices dramatically, plus increase sales dramatically, instead, they have clung to those old price models like a wino to a jug of t-bird with ten drops left swirling around the bottom. It's pathetic really. I bought music pretty steady from the late 50s until the 90s, that's forty years of being a customer..then...just finally one day got annoyed with the price gouging, quit then, my one guy boycott. I don't pirate, but I won't pay those ludicrous prices either for some digital download copy (a buck for a few megs, who do they thing they are, telco ringtone sellers??), and certainly not a lot of folding dollars for a dime's worth of plastic with some cardboard "liner" nonsense.

    OK, maybe the car analogy sucks, how about computers? A decade ago, what did a decent desktop system go for, and what were the specs? Now, today, you can get something much faster, with equivalent increases in installed RAM and larger HDD and better video card etc, and for much less cash. You gets lots more, for less money, because of tech advances. And that's tangible hardware, manufactured stuff.

        A decade ago, an album cost how much? And what do they want for it today? Oh ya, the same. And to *download* it they want similar loot? HAHAHAHA

        Like I said, "nuts", you lost a good customer for being price gougers. In fact, looks like you lost millions and millions of customers, and the younger folks are starting to not even *be* customers in the first place, because they know even better that those "copies" just aren't worth what you ask.

  15. Correlation isn't causality by wonkavader · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd like to know what titles people were buying as CDs in 1999. New stuff or old?

    Could it be that people were replacing their vinyl in 1999 and before, and that the whole peak in 1999 was really an effect of replacing one version of something with another? I'm not saying that the decline isn't real, I'm suggesting that the curve is much less than it seems and the peak is artificially high.

  16. Let's be honest with ourselves... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A little bit of common sense is in order for this topic. A lot of people seem to be on the right track, though.

    The main consumers of new music tend to be people younger than 30. The average person in that age range, for the most part, grew up with the internet in their home. Napster alone is 10 years old, and how many million people were using that? MP3's were around and traded long before that, too. I myself am a youngin' compared to a lot here on /. and I remember trading .wav files for music swapping before mp3's were the norm.

    Let's face it. No one can reasonably believe that the record industry couldn't come up with something better for distribution in the 10 years since Napster. Consumers have become disillusioned and know they're being taken for a ride every time they buy a CD. I have a hard time justifying even walking into a record store, unless it's privately owned. If it's a chain, I laugh at the older people inside as I walk by.

    The radio is being programmed by computers based on how much radio advertising dollars can be generated. There is NO variety in the music whatsoever on terrestrial radio, and you'd know it too if you could catch a few songs back to back. But... when's the last time that's happened?
    I haven't been able to go 15 minutes on any given station without hearing 5 minutes of commercials. They even have commercials promoting the station you're already listening to. And, to top it off, some of those commercials advertise how few advertisements the station has as compared to the other station in your town that plays the same songs and to complete the cycle of absurdity, you can bet your ass both stations are owned by the same company... Clear Channel. The people who still listen to terrestrial radio do so only when there is no other option. It's the musical equivalent of public transportation.

    It's their own fault no one wants to buy a CD to listen to the same garbage they hear every 30 minutes on the radio, too. Who the hell wants to hear the same garbage on CD's, that they're forced to listen to already on the radio. Nothx.

    Americans lost the right to choose what they listen to years ago. The internet is giving it back to them. It seems only natural that this would happen to the recording industry. But hey... the recording industry made a SHITLOAD of money, right?
    What I can't figure out is how can they still feel sorry for themselves, and how can they expect consumers to feel sorry for them?

  17. You Only Rip Me Off Once by Nightspirit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I bought the first Velvet Revolver CD, which installed a rootkit on the computer to prevent you from doing anything other than listening to some shitty WMA files. After that I swore I would never buy a CD again, and I haven't. You only screw me once. So until we have no DRM and a perpetual license (buy the music once, have the rights to any format) I'm done playing their game.

    1. Re:You Only Rip Me Off Once by Nightspirit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I refuse to give up culture just because it is a one-sided deal.

  18. What do you get for the music fan who has it all? by Aurisor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think a lot of the discussion around this issue ignores the fundamental fact that most of the activity in the music industry for the past twenty years has been due to the need for the music-consuming public to 'catch up' on the music that has been produced in the last 500 years or so. The industry went out of its way to force us to re-acquire this back catalog first on tape (replacing vinyl) and then cd (replacing tape). The bottom line is that the actual amount of salable new music produced each year is tiny compared to the amount of new material being produced.

    I view the late 90s as an enormous aberration in history. The back catalogs of western music were basically thrown open to the public and there was just this frenzy of buying as well as looting (piracy). Now the cat is largely out of the bag, and the industry (in whatever form it survives) will have to get back to reality and balance its expenditures with whatever it actually is producing. Unfortunately for them, without some massive disruption in continuity of digital information, they will never have an opportunity to re-sell that many hundred years of human labor again.

    (The previous two paragraphs are based on conjecture, anecdotes, and my own reasoning. I think my conclusions are fairly pedestrian, but if anyone has any statistics or studies as to the revenue generated by back catalog, I'd be interested to see them.)

  19. What happened t that Fat Tail? by hemp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    80 percent of all revenue came from about 52,000 songs. That's less than one percent of the songs.

    So much for the internets "fat tail".

    I am predicting that the book industry will soon find itself in the same boat as devices like the Kindle become more.

    --
    Skip ------ See the latest from http://www.anArchyFortWorth.com
  20. Resurgence for FM Radio? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I read in a few of the comments posted here that many of the users here believe that this bodes ill for FM Radio. As someone that was just recently laid off from the interactive portion of a large radio broadcaster here in the states, I can tell you the only thing that will kill FM radio is FM radio.

    What I mean by that is that the broadcasters themselves, like the rest of the music industry, have largely been highly resistant to change. Be it the embracing of interactive advertising, or even recognizing that they now have a lot more competitors than just the other radio stations across the street (Hi Internet Radio!!).

    The way I see it, this is an amazing opportunity for music in-general to become much more highly diversified and with more emphasis on bands being local/regional sensations rather than the end-goal of national/international sensations (although that possibility will always be there). Anyway, local FM radio stations could very well be positioned to be the thought/taste leaders when it comes to which local/regional bands become "big." A hearkening back to the hay-day Program Directors and DJs had in the 80s where they pretty much ruled the roost in radio stations and had much more weight in determining which bands became popular. It would allow each radio station to become a sort of... mini-label in and of itself.

    However, FM radio has been moving away from local largely due to Clear Channel and its crowd-sourcing, cost-cutting efforts of sharing content across stations/regions. But perhaps with how the economy has been kicking CC's butt, this trend could change. But it will take time, and it will take some of the larger broadcasters taking a risk. Will it happen, I don't know. But the opportunity I think definitely exists.

  21. Not streaming: missing option by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Funny

    The graph is indeed pretty illustrative, but to suggest the CD is being killed off by streaming is misleading, because they don't graph the main competitor to the CD.

    That's right, the minidisc.

  22. Wow, so that is what delusion looks like by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The records labels screw EVERYONE over, including themselves. If this wasn't the case, why do SO many artists start their own labels or fight long legal battles to get out of the constricting contracts they signed when young?

    Why has the music industry not leapt on digital distribution from the beginning? They could have totally controlled the market by just creating iTunes before iTunes.

    But they don't because the music industry is NOT about promoting artists or giving customers the best value for their money. it is about making the maximum amount of money for the least amount of work. Now you might call that sensible business, but it isn't.

    McD sells you mayo for your fries as an extra, that is sensible. Selling you the salt as extra isn't and would just turn customers away.

    The music industry would wish that you had to buy a CD for your stereo, a seperate MP3 for your portable, another CD for your car, a ringtone for your phone and then also pay them a fee for any blank CD's, hard-disks and media players you buy. That has nothing to do with promiting music anymore, that is pure and simple greed and comes bloody close to strip-mining the industry. Getting the last money out before it all collapses.

    Record labels support the artists. My god man, read a book, just once.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  23. I have cash to burn by aepervius · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have cash to burn, but I am definitively too old. The stuff which they put out for sale, DO NOT interest me. What I like is stuff like electrical music vangelis/Jean michel Jarre , classic from funeral march for a marionette to tocatta in c minor, and a few rock/hard rock group and strange stuff (queen, megadeth, smashing pumpkins, and a few other less known ; commercial stuff like e-nomine, and a few other like in-extremo). For the first group, there isn't much which was put to sale recently and has got the quality of an oxygen, or heaven and hell. For the second group you can own so many version of them until nothing new comes out, for the third group, i search and search but rarely find stuff of interrest.

    So what bring us this long rambling on my taste ? I started buying a lot of CD end on 90. Then by 2002 it dwindled down. Because my classic collection was complete, and for electronic music I did not find anything new, except a few rare stuff coming from Japan (Idea/eufonius). Sure, I would wish to see much more new stuff, but my exposure (university) has dwindled only to friend and colleague. So now a day I try pirate stuff in hope of finding something to buy which please me , and I throw everything away after trying. The bottom line is that I buy no CD , not because of the crise, but because nothing cater to my taste.. Yeah my taste are eclectic.But hey nobody is perfect.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  24. Who is RIAA real competition? by s52d · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If we assume average teenager has 100 Euros per month to spend ...

    20 years ago, they mainly spend it on music, beer and cigarettes.

    Today they spend it on mobile, internet, DVDs, computer games and some for music.
    There are so many options beside CDs.

    Music industry simply lost entertainment money share.

    Few years ago a pool was made in London: kids prefer to stop going out for beer in order to spend last pounds on their mobile phone.

  25. Recoupable by Darth+Cider · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's a general misunderstanding I see here anytime record companies are discussed. Time after time, people say that the label pays for all sorts of things to help artists. The truth is that all of that stuff isn't given to the artists, it's an advance on future royalties.

    The artist has to repay the label for the cost of recording an album. The labels charge artists for promotion, too. It's a universal practice to include a "breakage" fee, which means the artist only receives royalties on 90% of sales. Concert touring expenses are also recoupable, paid for by the artist. Royalties are calculated on wholesale prices, not retail prices, so deals with record clubs can be based on deeply discounted wholesale prices and lower royalties

    The industry is geared to produce a few smash hit artists. Those who aren't given preferential treatment are generally stuck with big debt to the label. If the label decides not to release an artist's music, the artist can't release it on his own - and this happens quite a lot. The label can insist that the artist remain under contract for 7 years or more, while never releasing any recordings, so the artist is essentially silenced

    There is no hope of getting a song on a commercial radio station without the influence of "independent promoters," who have a lock on what stations will play and only promote songs after receiving huge payments. Radio airtime has nothing to do with the merits of the music. No song gets played on commercial radio without a payment to an independent promoter

    Most people who have very strong opinions against the music industry have little idea of exactly how bad the industry is. It's a rotten and corrupt industry.

    Read what Janis Ian has to say. Read The Truth about the Music Industry."