the week the music (biz ) died

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

And plenty of even shadier middlemen...

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

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

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%.

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

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.

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.

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.

Even hiring an independent promotions company is pretty expensive.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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?

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

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.

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)

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

ahhh. Now the penny drops..

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.

Well, financial backing and clout, I should say.

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.

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

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.

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)

Marcello you're right about buring records I don't think music is becoming less & less important to young people. I base this on close observation of an 11 y.o. who's as obsessed w/music as we ever were. What's really different is this sort of pragmatic attitude toward the way music is consumed, like for him hearing a song on the radio or as the soundtrack to a music video or TV commercial all = the same thing.

buring records = buying records. burying records?

If you bury vinyl carefully over a million years it can be petroleum again! How thoughtful of us!

Music is shorthand, you're right Tom, and shorthand for lots of things, one of the leats important of which is actually music itself, judging by my girlfriend's little brothers. (One of whom is into music=grafitti, and the other is into music-nobbing-catholic-schoolgirls-over-park-benches.)

"i work in a haberdasher and the only people i see buying homburgs are old men - i think it's pretty obvious that young people and women are no longer interested in clothes"

The Album, a Commodity in Disfavor



By JEFF LEEDS
Published: March 26, 2007

LOS ANGELES, March 25 — Now that the three young women in Candy Hill, a glossy rap and R&B trio, have signed a record contract, they are hoping for stardom. On the schedule: shooting a music video and visiting radio stations to talk up their music.



But the women do not have a CD to promote. Universal/Republic Records, their label, signed Candy Hill to record two songs, not a complete album.

“If we get two songs out, we get a shot,” said Vatana Shaw, 20, who formed the trio four years ago, “Only true fans are buying full albums. Most people don’t really do that anymore.”

To the regret of music labels everywhere, she is right: fans are buying fewer and fewer full albums. In the shift from CDs to digital music, buyers can now pick the individual songs they like without having to pay upward of $10 for an album.

Last year, digital singles outsold plastic CD’s for the first time. So far this year, sales of digital songs have risen 54 percent, to roughly 189 million units, according to data from Nielsen SoundScan. Digital album sales are rising at a slightly faster pace, but buyers of digital music are purchasing singles over albums by a margin of 19 to 1.

Because of this shift in listener preferences — a trend reflected everywhere from blogs posting select MP3s to reviews of singles in Rolling Stone — record labels are coming to grips with the loss of the album as their main product and chief moneymaker.

In response, labels are re-examining everything from their marketing practices to their contracts. One result is that offers are cropping up for artists like Candy Hill to record only ring tones or a clutch of singles, according to talent managers and lawyers.

At the same time, the industry is straining to shore up the album as long as possible, in part by prodding listeners who buy one song to purchase the rest of a collection. Apple, in consultation with several labels, has been planning to offer iTunes users credit for songs they have already purchased if they then choose to buy the associated album in a certain period of time, according to people involved in the negotiations. (Under Apple’s current practice, customers who buy a song and then the related album effectively pay for the song twice).

But some analysts say they doubt that such promotions can reverse the trend.

“I think the album is going to die,” said Aram Sinnreich, managing partner at Radar Research, a media consulting firm based in Los Angeles. “Consumers are listening to play lists,” or mixes of single songs from an assortment of different artists. “Consumers who have had iPods since they were in the single digits are going to increasingly gravitate toward artists who embrace that.”

All this comes as the industry’s long sales slide has been accelerating. Sales of albums, in either disc or digital form, have dropped more than 16 percent so far this year, a slide that executives attribute to an unusually weak release schedule and shrinking retail floor space for music. Even though sales of individual songs — sold principally through iTunes — are rising, it has not been nearly enough to compensate.

Many music executives dispute the idea that the album will disappear. In particular, they say, fans of jazz, classical, opera and certain rock (bands like Radiohead and Tool) will demand album-length listening experiences for many years to come. But for other genres — including some strains of pop music, rap, R&B and much of country — where sales success is seen as closely tied to radio air play of singles, the album may be entering its twilight.

“For some genres and some artists, having an album-centric plan will be a thing of the past,” said Jeff Kempler, chief operating officer of EMI’s Capitol Music Group. While the traditional album provides value to fans, he said, “perpetuating a business model that fixates on a particular packaged product configuration is inimical to what the Internet enables, and it’s inimical to what many consumers have clearly voted for.”

Another solution being debated in the industry would transform record labels into de facto fan clubs. Companies including the Warner Music Group and the EMI Group have been considering a system in which fans would pay a fee, perhaps monthly, to “subscribe” to their favorite artists and receive a series of recordings, videos and other products spaced over time.

Executives maintain that they must establish more lasting connections with fans who may well lose interest if forced to wait two years or more before their favorite artist releases new music.

A decade ago, the music industry had all but stopped selling music in individual units. But now, four years after Apple introduced its iTunes service — selling singles for 99 cents apiece and full albums typically for $9.99 — individual songs account for roughly two-thirds of all music sales volume in the United States. And that does not count purchases of music in other, bite-size forms like ring tones, which have sold more than 54 million units so far this year, according to Nielsen data.

One of the biggest reasons for the shift, analysts say, is that consumers — empowered to cherry-pick — are forgoing album purchases after years of paying for complete CD’s with too few songs they like. There are still cases where full albums succeed — the Red Hot Chili Peppers’ double-CD “Stadium Arcadium,” with a weighty 28 tracks, has sold almost two million copies. But the overall pie is shrinking.

In some ways, the current climate recalls the 1950s and to some extent, the 60s, when many popular acts sold more singles than albums. It took greatly influential works like The Beatles’ “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” and the Beach Boys’ “Pet Sounds” to turn the album into pop music’s medium of choice.

But the music industry’s cost structure is far higher than it was when Bob Dylan picked up an electric guitar. Today’s costs — from television ads and music videos to hefty executive salaries — are still built on blockbuster albums.

Hence the emergence of scaled-back deals with acts like Candy Hill. Labels have signed new performers to singles deals before, typically to release what they viewed as ephemeral or novelty hits. Now, executives at Universal say, such arrangements will become more common for even quality acts because the single itself is the end product.

With Candy Hill, Universal paid a relatively small advance — described as being in “five figures” — to cover recording expenses. Ms. Shaw, who formed the group with Casha Darjean and Ociris Gomez, said the members had kept their day jobs working at an insurance company and doing other vocal work to be able to pay the rent at the house where they live together.

If one of their songs turns into a big hit, they hope to release a full album, and to tap other income sources, like touring and merchandise sales.

But turning a song into a hit does not appear to be getting any easier.

Ron Shapiro, an artist manager and former president of Atlantic Records, asked, “What are the Las Vegas odds of constantly having a ‘Bad Day?’ ” — referring to a tune by the singer Daniel Powter that sold more than two million copies after it was used on “American Idol.”

While music labels labor to build careers for artists that are suited for albums, he added, “You have to create an almost hysterical pace to find hits to sell as digital downloads and ring tones that everybody’s going to want. It’s scary.”

if music ceases to be "owned" and stored in little plastic coffins i will be very happy; i don't have the collector mentality, though, and others may be sadder about this.

But for other genres — including some strains of pop music, rap, R&B and much of country — where sales success is seen as closely tied to radio air play of singles, the album may be entering its twilight.

After digging into old country for the past couple months, I realized just how singles-oriented the genre was up until the outlaw movement (which was influenced by rock). I mean, even those classic Haggard records from the mid to late 60s feel like a hit single surrounded by a smattering of odd recordings (someof which are awesome and some are forgettable). I suspect R&B/soul went through a similar transformation during that same time. So maybe internet could help create an "new" industry that's not totally unlike what the music industry was before 60s rock music made the LP the heavyweight.

if music ceases to be "owned" and stored in little plastic coffins i will be very happy

How dare you speak that way about my computer.

if music ceases to be "owned" and stored in little plastic coffins i will be very happy

Even by your standards that's a particularly stupid and crass comment.

you're acting as if recordings have some inevitable destiny to remain commodities, or that if they aren't, people will stop making music.

i think it's far more likely that certain types of fans will no longer love music if they are no longer able to purchase it as an object. which i'm not denigrating, i can see why it would be so.

I don't understand that at all.

"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

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

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

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.

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

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

buy. sorry, busy.

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.

A jukebox lockbox, if you will.

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.

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.

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%

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.

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.

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

Sound familar?

and 5) good packaging and marketing.

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