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."

18 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 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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?
  2. 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.

  3. 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.
  4. 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.

  5. 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!

  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.)

  11. 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.