the week the music (biz ) died

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (159 of them)

It's interesting that this thread's been started as my father is trying to make some paper in the music business after being chewed up and spit out by Nashville in the late 70s/early 80s. He's remastering some of his 70s material and playing a few house concerts, selling his CD's at the show.

I'd like to see the sales numbers of large independent labels since the advent of p2p, I'm guessing they've improved. I'd wager that sales of all music has remained somewhat constant, but major label sales have slumped as a percentage of that pie.

― m bison, Sunday, 25 March 2007 17:41 (seventeen years ago) link

i also don't believe that these people are popular at all, and I don't believe that she is selling 1 million copies..this is propaganda....

― marissa, Sunday, 25 March 2007 17:42 (seventeen years ago) link

I just don't believe that people who can't sing write of play are selling millions of records...
I don't believe their numberes..

― marissa, Sunday, 25 March 2007 17:46 (seventeen years ago) link

My guess, as somebody who works in a retail music environment, is that people are spending their money on DVDs and video games, leaving them less to spend on CDs. Especially DVDs, which our customers consider fairly priced compared to CDs, which everyone thinks are a ripoff.

― f. hazel, Sunday, 25 March 2007 20:11 (seventeen years ago) link

all of this, it should be pointed out, though it rarely is, has little to do with "music" or the "music industry." the current slump is affecting one particular facet of said industry, the cd manufacturing and distribution business, and, frankly, it is their problem, not ours. BMI and ASCAP (who pay lots of money to musicians) continue to brag about healthy profits. the harry fox agency (which pays musicians) is enjoying big business. investors and businessmen are tripping over themselves trying to get into the internet music business. i don't exactly hear live nation crying these days. dear RIAA and all your member labels: discuss THAT, please.

― fact checking cuz, Sunday, 25 March 2007 21:19 (seventeen years ago) link

One week, "American Idol" runner-up Chris Daughtry's rock band sold just 65,000 copies of its chart-topping album; another week, the "Dreamgirls" movie soundtrack sold a mere 60,000. As recently as 2005, there were many weeks when such tallies wouldn't have been enough to crack the top 30 sellers. In prior years, it wasn't uncommon for a No. 1 record to sell 500,000 or 600,000 copies a week.

let's break that down.

One week, "American Idol" runner-up Chris Daughtry's rock band sold just 65,000 copies of its chart-topping album; another week, the "Dreamgirls" movie soundtrack sold a mere 60,000.

and yet another week, neil young's "live at massey hall," a 35-year-old recording by a weathered, old dude who hasn't had a hit in a generation, sold 56,000 copies, what does THAT mean?

In prior years, it wasn't uncommon for a No. 1 record to sell 500,000 or 600,000 copies a week.

but in how many prior years, exactly? maybe for four or five out of the last 50 years? should that really be held up a standard by which to measure an industry's health today?

― fact checking cuz, Sunday, 25 March 2007 21:24 (seventeen years ago) link

I predict patronage will be the only viable means of supporting musicians in the years to come
http://www.liberliber.it/biblioteca/m/medici/immagini/ritratto.jpg

"HOORAY"

― BLASTOCYST, Sunday, 25 March 2007 21:45 (seventeen years ago) link

the current slump is affecting one particular facet of said industry, the cd manufacturing and distribution business

OTM.

Why does the record industry blame the consumer for all its faults?

Discuss.

― MaGoGo, Sunday, 25 March 2007 21:57 (seventeen years ago) link

Because it's easier to do that that admit they're the ones who have made mistakes.

― Brigadier Lethbridge-Pfunkboy, Sunday, 25 March 2007 22:18 (seventeen years ago) link

But record labels are not merely in the "cd manufacturing and distribution business," they're in the recorded music business.

― Hurting 2, Sunday, 25 March 2007 22:21 (seventeen years ago) link

Anyway, regardless of how much money artists ultimately make from CD sales, it's often the record label that gives them the advance that allows them to record and tour in the first place. That's where I see potential problems.

Fact is, it's pretty hard to get any notice without getting out there and touring, and it's pretty hard to tour extensively without money. You can't hold a normal day job to speak of, so you either have to a) have a trust fund, b) have some kind of sweet alternative job situation, or c) be young and able to live with mom or d) be willing to live in utter poverty until things pick up (which they probably never will.)

A label can give you the advance to make this possible and also the promotional muscle to make it less likely that your tours will be a wash. So without labels, I'm not sure what the workable model would be for bands to make a living, barring the incredibly savvy ones who know how to work other angles of the music business well -- and I don't think that should be a prerequisite for being a successful band.

― Hurting 2, Sunday, 25 March 2007 22:29 (seventeen years ago) link

Or rather, I'm not sure what the workable model would be for most bands to make it to a place where they can make a living in the first place.

I guess one possibility is the management/promotion/booking hybrid companies that are starting to pop up - maybe these will handle advances instead of record labels.

― Hurting 2, Sunday, 25 March 2007 22:30 (seventeen years ago) link

But record labels are not merely in the "cd manufacturing and distribution business," they're in the recorded music business.

i'm not sure i see the difference. they may do other stuff, sure, but it's all in the service of trying to make money in cd distribution, since that is quite literally what they DO.

most record companies also have music publishing arms. and, funnily enough, those arms are raking in the cash these days. perhaps if a company like EMI spent less time thinking about the internet seekers and the general blahs and whatever else it thinks is dragging down its record sales, and more time thinking about what whatever it is that has turned EMI publishing into a moneymaking machine at exactly the same time ... well, i'd like to hear some of that thinking.

― fact checking cuz, Sunday, 25 March 2007 22:42 (seventeen years ago) link

Anyway, regardless of how much money artists ultimately make from CD sales, it's often the record label that gives them the advance that allows them to record and tour in the first place. That's where I see potential problems.

is that true, though? don't most artists tour before they sign to a label? i would think the price of gas would be a much bigger detriment to touring than the state of the recorded music industry. and how much exactly does it cost to make a quality recording these days? i live in the most expensive market in the country, and i record on great equipment for basically peanuts.

― fact checking cuz, Sunday, 25 March 2007 22:50 (seventeen years ago) link

fact checking cuz, On Top of and Over the Mark on pretty much all points.
also, Marissa OTM but that's pretty much a given.

― forksclovetofu, Sunday, 25 March 2007 23:09 (seventeen years ago) link

don't most artists tour before they sign to a label?

Most artists lose money touring before they sign to a label or barely break even. Even if you're lucky enough to make a couple hundred bucks a night, subtract gas, road food, motels in any town where you don't have friends, and split the rest between the band. Not exactly a living.

When one of my bands had its brief shot at success with a major manager (which didn't pan out, obv.), we were told that even with him we should be prepared for it to take about two years of heavy touring before we had any real success. One of his big artists had managed this because they were very young when they started and just lived with their parents. The only feasible way for us to do it, it seemed, would be to get a modest advance from a record label to hold us over.

I think the home recording factor is true but also overstated. Yes, recording software and equipment is now relatively cheap, but not every band is going to have a member who's a skilled enough engineer to make a radio-ready recording, something above the quality of a demo.

― Hurting 2, Sunday, 25 March 2007 23:53 (seventeen years ago) link

Yeah, that's one of the most important things to remember, the actual overhead cost of recording music, and making it sound as good as it can possibly sound (i.e. radio-ready), is relatively low, unless you're a symphony orchestra or something. If the major labels all crash and burn tomorrow, there'll still be plenty of people recording perfectly good music in home studios, compared to, say, if the Hollywood movie studio system ran out of money, you'd miss out on all sorts of cool special effects and expensive sets and on-location scenery.

― Alex in Baltimore, Sunday, 25 March 2007 23:56 (seventeen years ago) link

xpost to Hurting 2, who kind of has a point, but honestly, it takes what, a few thousand bucks to make a record that radio programmers wouldn't reject on the basis of sound quality (if you spend your money right). compared to movies or TV that's peanuts.

― Alex in Baltimore, Sunday, 25 March 2007 23:59 (seventeen years ago) link

Because of family and neighbor issues, home studios often don't allow production to the final stage.

― blunt, Sunday, 25 March 2007 23:59 (seventeen years ago) link

One thing I think is already happening, for better or for worse, is the rise of the need for a band to be a sort of self-contained unit. You can get further without a label if you have technical know-how, planning ability (booking), marketing savvy, some degree of recording ability (as discussed), and are able to put together your website and promotional materials yourself, put up the money to get your CD pressed, etc.

I see this as good and bad, the bad side being that there are plenty of good musicians out there who are not necessarily good at all these other things.

― Hurting 2, Monday, 26 March 2007 00:01 (seventeen years ago) link

a few thousand bucks to make a record that radio programmers wouldn't reject on the basis of sound quality (if you spend your money right)

Are you basing that on studio or home-recording? Are you factoring in what it actually costs to set up a soundproofed home studio or rent a space? Are you including equipment? Are you including pressing/manufacturing costs? How many copies? Are you including professional mastering?

How many records have actually made for a few thousand dollars and then seen anything above limited college radio play? I'm sure there are a few out there, but they are exceptions.

― Hurting 2, Monday, 26 March 2007 00:07 (seventeen years ago) link

And plenty of even shadier middlemen...

― blunt, Monday, 26 March 2007 00:08 (seventeen years ago) link

Are you including pressing/manufacturing costs? How many copies?

How long before this part of the model collapses, though?

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 26 March 2007 00:09 (seventeen years ago) link

Another way to look at it is that 10 years ago, 97% of bands couldn't make a living doing music alone, and soon that figure will be more like 99%.

― Mark Rich@rdson, Monday, 26 March 2007 00:24 (seventeen years ago) link

How many records have actually made for a few thousand dollars and then seen anything above limited college radio play? I'm sure there are a few out there, but they are exceptions.

Hurting 2 on Sunday, March 25, 2007 8:07 PM (30 minutes ago)

http://entimg.msn.com/img/prov_w/150_80/093624273608.jpg

― and what, Monday, 26 March 2007 00:42 (seventeen years ago) link

OK we're kinda getting sidetracked into the nuts and bolts of recording now. Point is, unless you're already famous and are used to using expensive studios/producers, making a good sounding record is, compared to almost any other endeavor in the entertainment industry, really cheap. The end of multi-million dollar projects wouldn't hurt the quality of music like it would for TV or movies.

― Alex in Baltimore, Monday, 26 March 2007 00:54 (seventeen years ago) link

one more thing on the recording-costs thing. i don't exclusively mean building a studio in your own apartment or house and having your own recording know-how. in any decent-sized town, there are plenty of good engineers who'll be happy to record you either in their home studio or in their studio studio, at a price that's cheaper now than it was 15 years ago, and with equipment that's significantly better (leaving aside, of course, the whole digital vs. analog thing, which is a whole 'nother thread, obviously).

and ned is OTM about the pressing/manufacturing issue. the wall st journal was right about that part: we're in a digital age and we aren't going back. pressing and manufacting costs are essentially zero if you want them to be. and, hell, if you want to press up a bunch of cd-r's, which lots of "successful" bands have done, you can do that for significantly less dough than it would have cost to copy your record onto a bunch of TDK cassettes 10 or 15 years ago.

on other points, keep in mind that there are plenty of sources, besides labels, for handling your booking and marketing needs, from seasoned professionals on down to your friends. and if you think a record company can put up a better website for your band than your 12-yr-old brother can, then your 12-yr-old brother isn't paying enough attention.

― fact checking cuz, Monday, 26 March 2007 01:56 (seventeen years ago) link

Well, I think the point is "What are the economic models available to bands going forward, assuming recordings continue to equal less and less revenue?"

I think the potential for bands that are completely DIY making it is greatly exaggerated. But I think we'll continue to see an upsurge in bands that have their own imprint and contract everything out or use some kind of hybrid management/promotions/booking company.

I agree that we won't miss much if no one makes million-dollar records anymore, but I don't see a time in the near future when $25,000 or $50,000 or even $100,000 recordings will be outmoded, and even $25,000 is more money than most starting bands can come up with themselves.

― Hurting 2, Monday, 26 March 2007 01:58 (seventeen years ago) link

Even hiring an independent promotions company is pretty expensive.

― Hurting 2, Monday, 26 March 2007 02:05 (seventeen years ago) link

inasmuch as SONGS continue to equal more and more revenue (as ascap, bmi, etc., will tell you, as noted above), and inasmuch as someone has to record the songs in order for them to realize that revenue, i assume that in the future bands will continue to be subsidized by companies like sony and universal. instead of the subsidies coming from the "record" "label" divisions of sony and universal, they'll come from the video game division of the label, or the ad-agency division, or the music-supervision division. to wit, note the story in this week's billboad about the music supervisor for shows such as "the OC" and "grey's anatomy," who is launching her own label, chop shop records, to be distributed by atlantic records. that is one very possible future.

― fact checking cuz, Monday, 26 March 2007 02:10 (seventeen years ago) link

The music industry died the day it killed the idea of the 7" single.

The moment you make it too expensive for a 6 year old girl to buy a single with part of her allowance is the day an entire generation stops buying music.

― Display Name, Monday, 26 March 2007 03:03 (seventeen years ago) link

The other thing to consider is that Asia has not had a profitable record industry for years. Piracy is so bad over that that music is considered a promotional offering and labels manage the "careers" of their artists. The label gets a chunk of product endorsement, media appearances, and concert revenue.

The biggest problem facing artists right now is promotion. Street teams in multiple markets don't come cheap.

― Display Name, Monday, 26 March 2007 03:07 (seventeen years ago) link

Personally, I'm of the opinion that guitar hero/ddr music downloads (or similar games to it) may be the next ringtone; I figger there'll be billboard listings for guitar hero song sales within two years.

― forksclovetofu, Monday, 26 March 2007 03:08 (seventeen years ago) link

"we won't miss much if no one makes million-dollar records anymore"

Doesn't this remain to be seen? If there aren't million dollar records anymore, will they have a chance of the promotion that in the past drove records to be mass-culture phenomenas? Sure, some records might reach that kind of ubiquity without promo help, but it's hard to think of examples in the past where a record came out of nowhere and was on everyone's tongue. (I'm taking it that we agree it's valuable to have a record be on everyone's tongue now and then, e.g. "Hey Ya", even "Crazy",)

American Idol-type promotion is probably pretty cheap relative to other big-biz promos, since it's ad-supported. Maybe that's a way forward for ubiquity.

― Euler, Monday, 26 March 2007 03:13 (seventeen years ago) link

No matter what your taste, on some level, the labels serve as tastermakers and/or helping the general public separate the musical wheat from the chaff. Back in the 50s, wasn't it local DJs who served this purpose? Weren't there many more regional hits (as opposed to national hits) because a DJ in New York really liked a particular artist whereas that wasn't the case elsewhere? Is it possible we could return to this model in some form if major labels disappear, or perhaps certain music sites like Pitchfork or some other (please) becomes the tastemakers?

― Mr. Odd, Monday, 26 March 2007 03:25 (seventeen years ago) link

every band's dream: a ring-tone contract.

― tipsy mothra, Monday, 26 March 2007 03:41 (seventeen years ago) link

Pitchfork already is become teh tastemaker for a certain sub-demographic, but it's worth noticing that most of the music in their "Best New Music" section is still on some sort of label or other. Some of those labels may only be a notch or two above vanity imprints but the money still had to come from somewhere.

― Hurting 2, Monday, 26 March 2007 03:44 (seventeen years ago) link

Some of those labels may only be a notch or two above vanity imprints but the money still had to come from somewhere.

What does this mean?
(I'm quite hungover and brain is bad atm)

― Drooone, Monday, 26 March 2007 03:49 (seventeen years ago) link

http://pitchforkmedia.com/page/best_new_music/current

All I'm saying is that you go through this list, almost all of the bands are on a "real" label. Many of them are on large to huge indie labels (Merge, Sub-Pop, Drag City, etc.) that are approaching the clout of majors. I see little evidence so far of a revolution involving self-produced/recored/backed artists challenging the industry.

― Hurting 2, Monday, 26 March 2007 04:02 (seventeen years ago) link

What does this mean?

Vanity label = self-produced but with a nominal label

Lindstrom was the one artist I noticed who seems to be the only one on his own label, but he still might be backed by a larger label/distributor.

― Hurting 2, Monday, 26 March 2007 04:04 (seventeen years ago) link

Riiight. I guess my question should be: Are peefork accepting money for putting these artists in their "best new music" section?

― Drooone, Monday, 26 March 2007 04:08 (seventeen years ago) link

I doubt it, but I also doubt they're just listening to everything they get with open ears.

― Hurting 2, Monday, 26 March 2007 04:15 (seventeen years ago) link

And also the labels buy ads on Pitchfork. I'm not saying that influences coverage, but I'm not saying it doesn't.

― Hurting 2, Monday, 26 March 2007 04:16 (seventeen years ago) link

I doubt it, but I also doubt they're just listening to everything they get with open ears.

ahhh. Now the penny drops..

― Drooone, Monday, 26 March 2007 04:20 (seventeen years ago) link

It could partly just be a matter of wanting to cover bands that seem on their way to establishing themselves. It looks kind of silly to give the Johnny Fuckhead self-released album a 9.3 when you can't buy it most places and he won't be coming to your town anytime soon.

The larger point just being that it still takes financial backing to make it in music and labels are still a reliable source for that.

― Hurting 2, Monday, 26 March 2007 04:24 (seventeen years ago) link

Well, financial backing and clout, I should say.

― Hurting 2, Monday, 26 March 2007 04:25 (seventeen years ago) link

Am I the only one who thinks music is less and less important for newer generations?
I work in a record store, and our average client is currently more than 35-40 years old.
They're the only ones still buying records.

― Marco Damiani, Monday, 26 March 2007 13:36 (seventeen years ago) link

Also, I'm pretty sure that for many people free music basically means worthless music.

― Marco Damiani, Monday, 26 March 2007 13:41 (seventeen years ago) link

Surely buying records is becoming less and less important rather than music per se. If "newer generations" consider music "less and less important" then we might as well pull the plug on the human race now and have done with it.

― Marcello Carlin, Monday, 26 March 2007 13:45 (seventeen years ago) link

I was at a marketing conference last week Marco and a guy working in youth research (i.e. someone with zero financial interest in the 'biz') said that if you ask teenagers in the UK what their main hobby or interest is the overwhelming winner is music - three times as many votes as sports at #2. This hugely surprised me but as I say he had no reason to lie. What seems to be happening is that music is working like a decryption code to a load of other aspects of culture - clothes, sex, drugs, movies, who you admire, what you do when you hang out, the common element to them all is the kind of music yr into. (Of course it always has worked like this, so whether it's a matter of degree I don't know)

― Groke, Monday, 26 March 2007 13:57 (seventeen years ago) link

Skipping 59 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

Yea, his criticisms of the way they market themselves were not consistent with the point of view he espoused in that excerpt above. Weird.

― curmudgeon, Monday, 26 March 2007 16:38 (seventeen years ago) link

It seems like everything that blames the recording industry for putting out bad music, not listening to consumers, not "developing artists," and all that means little next to the fact that you can get almost all music now for free. Has there every been an example of a product that could be had for free but people decided to pay anyway because they liked the way the industry ran their business? Maybe there has been, I don't know. But downloading a torrent is roughly the same number of clicks as downloading an album from iTunes or ordering it from Amazon, so it seems like a no-brainer which choice consumers will make.

― Mark Rich@rdson, Monday, 26 March 2007 18:56 (seventeen years ago) link

To answer my own question -- yes, there is an example where people pay voluntarily and it's called shareware. And I could definitely see the music industry going to a new two-tiered system whereby big artists team with corporations to sponsor their albums and insert advertising into their songs (Levis sponsors a pop album, etc.) while indie artists go to a shareware system of donations. I bet some of them would do OK, especially if they had a close interaction and trust w/ their fanbase.

― Mark Rich@rdson, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:15 (seventeen years ago) link

"Has there every been an example of a product that could be had for free but people decided to pay anyway because they liked the way the industry ran their business?"

I don't think people buy off iTunes because they like the way the industry runs their business. They do it, I would guess, because (a) it's the legal way to get music or (b) because they want to help the artist make a living, or (c) because they don't know how to find and download torrents.

But as to your question of an example: people leave tips at restaurants even though they don't have to, to be served. People order food in restaurants and only pay after they've eaten it.

― Euler, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:16 (seventeen years ago) link

Thing is, the indies seem to do okay by building up just the kind of artist identification/loyalty you're talking about. They don't make great heaps of money, but fans tend to be dedicated and willing to spend substantial sums on music (albums, shows, merch) and keep up that spending over years and even decades. So they don't currently need to "go to a shareware system". Any more than they already have, I mean...

It seems to be the majors who are having a hard time making the old model work in the manner to which they've grown accustomed.

― Pye Poudre, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:20 (seventeen years ago) link

The weird thing about the Leftsetz bit is that Jay-Z is actually a good example of someone who did the "slow build" kind of career he's talking about and built a lasting brand, fan loyalty, etc. that will continue to make him and his eventual estate money for a very long time.

Meanwhile, I actually see the danger of the opposite trend in the indie world - a fast-moving, loyalty-free world where the availability of such a wide variety of music and the sheer number of new albums coming out every year leads people to be mercurial and dismissive and rarely stay with artists for the long haul.

― Hurting 2, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:21 (seventeen years ago) link

Could be. Dunno. At present, indie kids still seem pretty serious about their favorite artists and about spending money on music in general. Then again, I don't really have my ear to the ground WRT trends in the business...

― Pye Poudre, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:25 (seventeen years ago) link

Meanwhile, I actually see the danger of the opposite trend in the indie world - a fast-moving, loyalty-free world where the availability of such a wide variety of music and the sheer number of new albums coming out every year leads people to be mercurial and dismissive and rarely stay with artists for the long haul.

Hurting OTM

― Alex in Baltimore, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:32 (seventeen years ago) link

But downloading a torrent is roughly the same number of clicks as downloading an album from iTunes or ordering it from Amazon, so it seems like a no-brainer which choice consumers will make.

i wonder how many people out there are like me. it was worth it to join emusic for a number of reasons (nb not street teaming for emusic here but fuck it i think it's great). the first was just the overall lower hassle of getting shit from one place, with uniform and high quality, FAST, (usually) correct tags -- as opposed to illegal d/ling which is a crapshoot as far as availability, reliability, and speed. plus i was excited by being able to SHOP again, i really missed that experience. browsing thru every month is a lot of fun. somewhere in there was a niggling moral concern with wanting to see someone get paid for what they did, too.

so it's not a 'no-brainer' really! i added it up and decided paying a little was a good thing. i still rip shit off all the time, still, so, it's not either-or anyway.

― gff, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:32 (seventeen years ago) link

the point being that if a legal service can offer something that beats the negatives of the illegal experience and price it right, there you go, success.

― gff, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:36 (seventeen years ago) link

This doesn't get mentioned too often, but how do you think the separation between the computer and the stereo plays into this. Of course, tons of people are fusing the two, or only use computers. But there's still enough of a divide for folks to have only music they listen to on their computers and music they listen to on their stereos. By they way, what are the recent trends in the sale of stereo components?

― QuantumNoise, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:42 (seventeen years ago) link

Has there every been an example of a product that could be had for free but people decided to pay anyway because they liked the way the industry ran their business?

drinking water (i'm not sure that people liking the way the industry runs its business is the reason for this. rather, people just like the product, whether its taste, or marketing, or packaging, or whatever, and they see the price as reasonable)

― fact checking cuz, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:43 (seventeen years ago) link

sorry, that middle sentence doesn't read well.

― QuantumNoise, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:43 (seventeen years ago) link

"Has there every been an example of a product that could be had for free but people decided to pay anyway because they liked the way the industry ran their business?"
http://www.sooaf.com/quebec/bouteilles/aquafina.JPG

― forksclovetofu, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:43 (seventeen years ago) link

whoops, just beat to it by fact checkin' cuz.

― forksclovetofu, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:44 (seventeen years ago) link

Quantum's question totally OTM. Gear purchasing = canary in the coal mine.

― Pye Poudre, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:45 (seventeen years ago) link

This doesn't get mentioned too often, but how do you think the separation between the computer and the stereo plays into this.

This is still a slight issue for me, as I haven't invested in really good computer-to-stereo equipment (I have a crappy headphone jack adaptor), and I'm still nervous about the permanence of my computer-based music (external hard drive could fail, etc.)

If it wasn't for emusic, I'd probably just keep buying physical recordings, but the economics and convenience of emusic have made it irresistable.

― Hurting 2, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:46 (seventeen years ago) link

I totally agree. I only own a laptop, and I use one of those headphone-RC cable jacks into the aux.

― QuantumNoise, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:48 (seventeen years ago) link

Thought of that, but that's not why people byt bottled water.

― Rockist Scientist, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:58 (seventeen years ago) link

buy. sorry, busy.

― Rockist Scientist, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:58 (seventeen years ago) link

Srsly if I were in the hardware business, I'd create a specially-designed and marketed hard drive just for music, or maybe for music and video - one that's designed to last a long time and rarely fails and also maybe looks cool and has some built-in features beyond just being storage. Sort of a bigger, more permanent iPod.

― Hurting 2, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:59 (seventeen years ago) link

A jukebox lockbox, if you will.

― Hurting 2, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:02 (seventeen years ago) link

I don't feel like I'm getting "user value" or whatever if I don't have a CD with a sleeve. Call me old fashioned. Also, I have a fucking great big hi-fi on a rack and stands with expensive cables and it sounds better than any computer I ever heard.

― Scik Mouthy, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:41 (seventeen years ago) link

While there's a few good points here, the whole basis for this discussion is completely pointless.

Overall Music Sales: 2004 - 817,000,000, 2005 - 1,003,000,000, 2006 - 1,198,000,000

That's a 19.4 % increase from 2005, and 46.6% from 2004. And that's just according to Nielson Soundscan, which I don't think does a great job in covering all the boutique stores and sites.

So how about we tell the RIAA and all the other chickn' littles to shut the fuck up and get on with it?

First step is to provide deep catalog titles in high bandwidth formats. Music Giants is getting the idea. However, the prices are just stupid. While it's taking the right step in offering uncompressed downloads, I'm still not getting printed album art and a disc, which still happens to be very reliable, convenient backup storage. There are also no manufacturing and distribution costs. So rather than $14 to $20, shouldn't they be priced at around $5? Wake me up when they are.

― Fastnbulbous, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:47 (seventeen years ago) link

if you read what you'd just linked to, you'd see nothing that really contradicts this thread's point (which specifically covers first quarter 2007 sales). that statistic converges album and single sales -- album sales are down, so net gross is plummeting. though it's definitely a good point that overall sales are up.

OVERALL MUSIC SALES (01/02/06 - 12/31/06)
(ALBUMS, SINGLES, MUSIC VIDEO, DIGITAL TRACKS - IN MILLIONS)
UNITS SOLD 2006 2005 % Chg.
1,198 1,003 19.4%

TOTAL ALBUM SALES (01/02/06 - 12/31/06)
(INCLUDES CD, CS, LP, DIGITAL ALBUMS - IN MILLIONS)
UNITS SOLD 2006 2005 % Chg.
588.2 618.9 -4.9%

― Milton Parker, Monday, 26 March 2007 20:57 (seventeen years ago) link

Thought of that, but that's not why people byt bottled water.

i don't think it matters why people buy bottled water. i think it only matters that they do, even though they don't have to.

― fact checking cuz, Monday, 26 March 2007 22:27 (seventeen years ago) link

Total units moved does not give you a financial picture. Even a 20% increase comprised mainly of digital single songs does not offset a mere 5% drop in album sales. And that's just one year.

― Hurting 2, Monday, 26 March 2007 22:45 (seventeen years ago) link

People buy bottled water for:
1) oft-imaginary safety reasons
2) ease of portability
3) impulse needs
4) ease of access

Sound familar?

― forksclovetofu, Monday, 26 March 2007 22:57 (seventeen years ago) link

and 5) good packaging and marketing.

which is exactly what a certain four multinational distribution companies have always said they're especially good at.

― fact checking cuz, Monday, 26 March 2007 23:33 (seventeen years ago) link

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.