Slashdot Mirror
MP3s Causing Decline in CD Sales?
jocknerd writes "The RIAA is reporting that
MP3 is the
reason for declining CD sales. " God I hope so.
Do you guys realize how convenient it is to have all
audio on demand? I've ripped all my CDs- its just so
wonderful. Why won't the music industry give me
that? I don't think the music industry is totally doomed-
it just needs to change. The radio industry has
more to fear. Why would I listen to WXYZ
when I can select my own music mix for the the same cost
as cable? Thats where I hope this ends.
Disenchantment with the mainstream music industry is causing the decline in RIAA CD Sales.
Looking around locally (Albany, NY and NYC), I see the big chain record stores doing poorly, and the smaller independant stores doing well. I like seeing this. The independant stores are offering more of what people want: used music, local artists (often self-published, it's cheap to get your CD burnt in small batches now), and DJ Mixes (also self-published).
Music is all about freedom of expression. The freedom of the artist to make the music they want, and the freedom of the listener to set their style by the music they select. The RIAA and its member companies have been trying to play with this freedom, and it's now starting to backfire on them.
The self-published music industry started the decline in CD sales. MP3 is just another few nails in the RIAA's coffin. The RIAA blames it on the MP3's to divert attention from the real reason, because they don't want people to realize how a talented musician can make it without their "help". You can't really be a multi-million dollar megastar without them, but you can be a respected and fed musician with no help from the record labels.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
It isn't a lack of equipment that makes MP3 less than desirable to audiophiles. MP3 is a lossy compression format. You get those small file sizes because a certain amount of the information is discarded. This is how image compression works like in JPEG or your DVD player as well. The lossy compression also isn't the problem necessarily. The problem comes in when people rip an MP3 for optimal file size and either don't listen to it or listen to it through cheap PC speakers.
As an aside, even a CD is a lossy compression format. You're compressing the audio information with two mechanisms:
1) You're taking an infinite number of analog singal levels and compressing it down to 2^16th discrete steps.
2) You're taking a signal with infinite resolution in the time domain and sampling it at discrete points.
As another aside record albums are lossy too:
Any signal can be represented by an infinite weighted sum of smaller signals. During the process of cutting the LP there is a finite limit to the maximum frequency that can be represented in the grooves of a record. During playback there's also a limit to how quickly your needle can track the grooves. Overall this frequency limits the sound.
Anyway, the point of all of this is that regardless of the technology involved in reproduction if your source information isn't adequately reproduced it still won't sound good. Garbage in, garbage out.
FYI, that three to four dollars for a cd-club CD, not a dime goes to the artist. Part of the contracts they have with record labels is that CD's sold in certain circumstances don't pay royalties. The reason the CD's are so cheap is the CD-clubs pay a flat licensing fee to the label in exchange for access to its catalogs. They get masters -- and produce the copies themselves. That's why the printing is often inferior, and they usually say things like "Manufactured for BMG" etc on the case.
;)
You can tell the artists with real clout in the industry -- they're the ones that you can't get in any CD catalog. They control their royalties, they decide how their art gets marketed and sold, thus they don't get bundled into flat-rate licensing from the labels.
A CD, with jewel case and printed material costs around a buck. The artist usually gets in the order of a dollar per sold, although that varies quite a bit based on contract.
They're sold to distributors in the 5-6 dollar range. Distributors (like WEA) resell them in the 9-10 dollar range. Stores mark them up from there.
The price from the distributors is why you don't see any places coming out and selling on razor thin margins and selling big-name CD's for eight bucks. (Witness prices at places like CD-Now and Walmart...)
So if you're spending $18 on the CD, the store itself is making 80% on that sale. In mall situations, they have to if they want to cover outrageous mall lease rates. If you think 80% is bad, you should see the markup on the clothing stores...
Big stores and indie stores in lower-rent locations are the ones that you'll find the $12 CD's at. But they simply don't get lower than that because of the cost from the manufacturer.
I try to support the artists I actually think produce decent work -- their CD's come from stores. I have no problem buying CD's from hack bands that happen to have a song I find catchy from clubs... they're probably getting more $$$ than their music is worth anyway
I doubt MP3 has anything to do with declines in CD sales. I'd guess its just the general public getting bored with popular music these days. I mean seriously, among people on here who socialize with non-geeks, how many people do you know who have ever even heard of MP3, much less use it? Very few if any.
This is just a B.S. report from the RIAA to bolster their claims that MP3's are being used to pirate music and its severely hurting the industry. There's doubtfully any truth to it at all. Most people that have a few MP3's probably have them of something they wouldn't have payed any money for otherwise.
Its also silly given the way that CD clubs license music from record labels -- CD clubs hurt profits and particularly artist royalties more than MP3 ever will.
For the same reason the idea of TV tuners in PCs never really took off, MP3s playing through PCs for mainstream users will never take off. And I don't know a single person with a stereo component that plays them. No one wants to fire up their PC and sit in that room to listen to music or watch TV. I know a dozen people who've bought Toshiba or other "name" PC's with TV tuners, radios, etc... and none of them ever use them. These are virtually computer illiterate users. (ie, most of the general public)
On top of that, you've got the audiophiles -- people who tend to spend a lot of $$$ on audio-related hardware. No true audiophile would want to listen to anything on MP3. On anything but lousy headphones or low end computer speakers or stereo equipment they just sound lousy. (And that comment isn't flame bait -- people may disagree, but most people don't have even reasonable quality audio equipment...)
In a nutshell, I think its a growing lack of innovative and creative music in the mainstream popular music area thats responsible for the drop in sales. The big companies (and the companies that are RIAA members) aren't the ones selling the new and interesting music... The RIAA is an association of the big boys, and the big boys are growing old and tired.
Its good to see a drop in CD sales. Maybe one day the big labels will start to take risks again and promote quality music rather than generic clone bands. If the RIAA wants to twist that to their political agenda against MP3, who can stop them?
I disagree with this sentiment because one of the main reasons MP3's haven't taken off is the lack of rack components. If it was as simple as placing a CD full of MP3's into a player in your stereo system, you'd see it much more popular with the so called "computer illiterate".
I've personally created such a device and brought it to a party. It played 1 disk for the entire duration of the party and I had to explain to plenty of non computer people what it was. Each of them was very interested in the concept of MP3's.
I agree quality isn't there for the audiophiles (though I believe in ripping tracks from CD's at 256k datarate at the least...you can still fit many hours of songs on a CDR), but then again the same audiophiles also still have vinyl. I don't think the aim of any new technology in the music industry, be it CDs or MP3s is to replace completely high end equipment. There will always be specialized equipment available for those people.
However, MP3's can also support much higher data rates and as DVD-RAM drives catch on (let's hope anyway), you'll be able to fit many more "high-quality" MP3's on a disk. Sure it's a tradeoff for playing time, but once you get to 5 hours or so, there's a limit to how much more you need per disk.
I agree, radio isn't just music. Theres a whole load of other stuff going on too. If people only wanted the music, they'd just listen to CD's, yes?
I don't see MP3's affecting radio at all. Many radio stations are already broadcasting accross the net anyway. They are already with us on this digital medium. Why should MP3's change this?
First: A public forum in which the masses get exposed to new music is essential to the industry thriving.
Second: I, for one, don't have time to orchestrate the soundtrack for my day from my MP3 list. I find that, by knowing the radio "landscape" in my area, I can fill in any given part of my day with appropriate music.
Radio fills these two slots simultaneously: it gives me variety and novelty that I might not have otherwise been exposed to had I chosen all the songs for myself.
Whether radio's current formats can survive or not is another matter... however, I'm not aware of "cable radio" stations putting any broadcast stations out of business yet.
If you look more closely at how the RIAA phrased things, the 15-24 age group accounted for a smaller percentage of overall sales. This says nothing about how many total CDs were purchased by this age group, or how it compares to last year.
The RIAA press release brags that record buyers are increasingly older and female, as a general trend. Somehow, though, in one little bit of the greater trend, MP3 (their favorite scapegoat) is to blame.
--
Where are you listening? At an airport? MPEG Layer 3 is a substandard audio specification. Granted, the Blue Book CD specifications aren't the best way to record audio--hence the push towards 24/92 (Super Audio Disc, etc.) standards.
First off, you cannot possible compare the sound quality of these two mediums reliably. MPEG Layer 3 is not a lossless compression system. Played back though a computer with even the highest priced sound card you will never acheive the sound quality of a CD played back over even a moderately-priced audio system.
MP3s are the bane of high quality music lovers. Making music available on an inferior medium only pollutes the "gene pool" for people who treasure music and its faithful reproduction.
The record industry is really the only people to lose out in the mp3 revolution. The business is structured AGAINST the artists who make the music. An example from an excellent article on the topic of the music biz by Steve Albini at http://www.apk.net/cihs/verbal/albini.html:
This is in reference to a typical moderately successful MTV type band ---
This is how much each player got paid at the end of the game.
Record company: $710,000
Producer: $90,000
Manager: $51,000
Studio: $52,000
Previous label: $50,000
Agent: $7,5000
Lawyer: $12,000
Band member net income each: $4,031.25
-
This is the NORM, not the exception. Unless you really score the average artist is not destined to make much of any money in the business, while their art has financed the new homes of the executives and producers involved.
Think about how bands/artists will do with the middleman of the record companies gone. They could charge 1/2 the price for an album's worth of material, and still make gigantic cash.
Amen
obscure images/cDc obscure@cultdeadcow.com www.cultdeadcow.com