Music Industry
- Thread starter jmspald
- Start date
letuinmybackdoor said:
That is a horrfying thought if there ever was one....
Daneeeboy said:
I just don't think the demand will ever be there for what you are describing. The overwhelming trend over the last two decades now has been for convenience and ease of use over sound quality, and I see no particular reason why that would change. I think it is worth remembering that for many people, the initial upgrades to CDs were about a smaller disc that wasn't damaged as easily and could be carried around in a discman or used in a car, rather than some massive sound upgrade; the vast majority of people don't have or want the equipment to hear nuance in sound. Same follows for MP3, but I'm sure you're familiar with all the reasons people like those. SA-CDs and DVD-A has already been tried in the market and by and large there is very little market for it. Dualdiscs with 5.1 audio also failed. There is also the fact that the very same people who would want such HQ upgrades, are the type who won't go near digital formats, which is something of an issue.
I'm also not sure the technology is there in terms of broadband to make such a thing feasible; in this country at least, and the US, two of the world's biggest music markets, we're dealing with legacy copper wire, where getting more than a couple of megabits out of it is very very difficult, particularly to the numerous homes far from the exchange. Japan/Korea etc. and some small cabled areas of the UK are fortunate enough to have fibre-optic cables that mean tremendous speeds, but for the vast majority of music consumers worldwide, I cannot envision broadband arriving in the next decade which would make downloading tracks hundred of megabytes in size a snap. Even if, through a massive and expensive cabling programme, it did arrive, would consumers want to go back to waiting 2 or 3 minutes for a song to download? Consumer adoption is also way behind what hard drives are capable of, it took years before the majority of PCs were sold with anything over a 40gb hard drive, even now 120gb is as good as it gets in a lot of lower-end PCs and less in notebooks. To get to terabytes we are talking many years.
The equipment required to hear anything better than CD quality is also prohibitively expensive, cumbersome and requires often a large and suitable space for use. I want the music industry to be salvaged as much as anyone, but offering anything higher quality than a CD digitally is simply not possible for the vast, vast majority technologically, nor is there a market there.
Egalité said:
I don't disagree with anything you've said - certainly not when it comes to Joe Bloggs, but I think it would be shortsighted for the industry to ignore certain trends and rely on Joe Bloggs' opinion. It would be in no way like the introduction CD in terms of 'upgradability' - but it has the potential to grow.
Convenience has been a big part of media distribution over the past few decades, but i think there is a large proportion of people of my generation who do have a genuine interest in quality aswell as convenience. DVD-A and SA-CD failed miserably, but they were dreadfully handled. They were a premium product that came at a premium price - far out of the reach of the average consumer. They were an audiophile only product. Dualdiscs were pretty worthless because they still came at a premium price - why would you buy the HQ version that sounds the same as the regular version, for a higher price?
I look at the case of HDTV and Blu-Ray, both of which are gaining significant ground in the US and the UK because they have been made accessible. It's been a slow adoption, sure, but certainly the fact that the PS3 is also a Blu-Ray player, and that manufacturers took the HD experience seriously inspite of the enormous costs of plasma televisions ten years ago have made having a true HD home cinema system within the reach of many. I have friends now who demand everything in HD, something which seemed unobtainable even 5 years ago.
Furthermore, I think there is a huge market out there who are downloading large files. People are bittorrenting computer games, software and films and purchasing HD films for the iTunes music store in file sizes running into multiple gigs. So I think there is a class of people willing to wait on quality downloads if they are good quality and easily accessible.
Many computer manufacturers are now including 1TB disks in their higher end consumer models - including Apple. They are not aimed at Joe Public of course, but power home users like gamers and home entertainment junkies. Standard for everyone? No. But when Napster was the pirating method of choice we only had hard drives of 10GB or so. I can remember upgrading to 15GB and thinking it was masses of space. It's certainly having a use for the new technology that drives it's growth, development and adoption.
HD Television technology has advanced so much in recent years, and become so affordable, that I imagine technology manufacturers will be looking to add more premium products to their line-up. That has so far meant better quality audio systems. I see that progressing, especially if there is a product that can take advantage of, and show the power of, better quality systems. Plus, as blu-ray begins to be incorporated into consumer entertainment devices (there are hints that Apple will be adding blu-ray to it's upcoming releases), the need for higher quality soundboards etc. will increase meaning that many of us will have access to better audio.
Of course, we're talking early adopter stuff, but those are the guys that power change. And these are pretty easy ways for the labels to make money. Billions? No. But unlike releasing a new 'physical format' like SA-CD, the cost to the label per release if it is done online is pretty small - so the amount of sales per release required to make it a worthwhile process are less. It's the kind of product that can make money over time - rather than a big cash injection up front that trails off. As more people begin having access to the technology, and as more people want access to better quality, the more they will sell.
Certainly if they could make the pricing comparable to traditional MP3's (although they would obviously have to be slightly more just because of bandwidth costs although those are pretty inexpensive really), i can't see why they wouldn't sell.
1. I don't believe in a mass new audio format. Most people don't give a shit about quality -- they think CD is more than enough. Hell, they think 160kbps mp3 is more than enough.
2. 1 TB drives will be the average hard drive size in new computers in less than a year.
3. I agree with Branson -- money is now in live shows -- and as for artists who make music that isn't easily presentable live (how many people attend ambient music "gigs"?), well, they need a day job.
2. 1 TB drives will be the average hard drive size in new computers in less than a year.
3. I agree with Branson -- money is now in live shows -- and as for artists who make music that isn't easily presentable live (how many people attend ambient music "gigs"?), well, they need a day job.
I agree in general with Danneeboy. Some points from me personally:
Remember not every music fan is a 'pop' music fan. If they do downloads that are of higher quality (>=CDs), I can see them tapping into different demographics, for people who do care about sound quality, but for whatever reason, would not resist switching from physical products.
I certainly do care about sound quality, & I have resisted from buying from iTunes so far, for that reason. However seeing as they have upgraded to iTunes plus recently, I am considering to compromise a bit and buy those album tracks that I really want, but whose entire albums I don't want.
Edit: Also, for various reasons, a lot of people don't have easy access to live shows. If they fail to cater to those who don't go to gigs that would be a sad state of affairs.
Remember not every music fan is a 'pop' music fan. If they do downloads that are of higher quality (>=CDs), I can see them tapping into different demographics, for people who do care about sound quality, but for whatever reason, would not resist switching from physical products.
I certainly do care about sound quality, & I have resisted from buying from iTunes so far, for that reason. However seeing as they have upgraded to iTunes plus recently, I am considering to compromise a bit and buy those album tracks that I really want, but whose entire albums I don't want.
Edit: Also, for various reasons, a lot of people don't have easy access to live shows. If they fail to cater to those who don't go to gigs that would be a sad state of affairs.
I disagree with the main money being in live shows. The touring acts doing well are the "dinosaurs" who've been going for years and don't necessarily have a new album to plug. More and more these days, it's about licensing. I know that the TIng Tings have earned more from licensing than sales of albums and singles.
Adding to the "format quality" argument, I'd say it's all relative anyway - CDs do sound better than MP3, but you get used to MP3 quality and it's not that bad - and it's better quality than an audio tape!
It's the same with HD - as marvellous as HD looks, standard TV looks equally crisp when it's all that's available - and of course, people today are more than happy to watch programmes on iPlayer - and even in very poor quality on Youtube.
It's the same with HD - as marvellous as HD looks, standard TV looks equally crisp when it's all that's available - and of course, people today are more than happy to watch programmes on iPlayer - and even in very poor quality on Youtube.
I don't buy into the "live music is the future" bullshit. There is something about a carefully crafted piece of work that's made in a studio (or similar) which is made for posterity and repeated listens. But then I don't care for live music beyond an occaisonal *being there* experience which is a bit overrated in most instances. Gigs are not a part of my life, and certianly not my musical enjoyment. For the entire music industry (or whatever it ends up being) to place its energies in live performance may work on a fiscal level (inflated ticket prices, people's strange obsession with going to zillions of gigs, or standing in a muddy field for days) but I can't see an end to recorded works. It's just a fad, the fashionable thing to say, and probably borne from the same snobbishness that deemed any kind of miming on TV a heinous crime. You've only got to see Lily Allen's performance of The Fear on Later.. last week to realise that, quite often, a recorded studio version of something is much more satisfying.
Then again, I've never been one for all this DIY, indie crap that filled the 7" shelves in HMV up until recently, badly-made music with no quality control, housed in frankly shit hand-drawn/written sleeves. No thanks.
EG.
Then again, I've never been one for all this DIY, indie crap that filled the 7" shelves in HMV up until recently, badly-made music with no quality control, housed in frankly shit hand-drawn/written sleeves. No thanks.
EG.
There's two things you miss in your statement:Eric Generic said:
1. Generation More doesn't really *do* repeated listens;
2. Torrents.
Same here, but as I never bore of saying, I am that rare animal -- a person that downloads lots of music for free, then buys more CDs because of that. My collection expanded by at least 100 albums last year, most of them by artists I never heard of, then downloaded their stuff, then (this is the bit record label execs don't believe) bought it on CD because I sort of don't feel like I own a record unless I have a Physical Copy.Eric Generic said:
As for gigs? I've seen about 5 last year and the most obscure one was probably Ravage! Ravage!. *wink*
Remember that what record industry actually is, is a parasite living off the bodies of artists. Their goal isn't to make the consumers happy. Their goal is to find a way to make money. And there is no money in records anymore -- I bought the latest Morrissey record of CDWOW for 5 UKP and I don't think CDWOW lost money from that. But when you want to see Madonna live, and the tickets go for 120 UKP? You have a choice -- either you pay 120 UKP, or you miss Madonna live. There is no cheaper mid-price tour to follow shortly. There is no "almost Madonna" you could see instead. You can't download the experience. (As for what you get for the money spent, check out the 400 pages of the Sticky & Sweet tour thread where people bitch about not seeing much, not hearing much and being beaten up with a dildo on their way back to the bus. I don't think Madonna or Warner's have sleepless nights because of that. Those same people might not buy GHV3, but they will pay 150 UKP to attend the GHV3 tour.)Eric Generic said:
I can't believe you just bashed early Badly Drawn Boy!!!!Eric Generic said:
Well, it's too easy to bash latterday Badly Drawn Boy....haha.
I know I am missing much of the point about the type of music culture which is evolving. Mostly because I honestly cannot fucking understand it. It's alien to me. Gigs, festivals, twitter, crap mp3s, mobile phones, ringtones, all this "stuff" which has filled everyone's lives. Music, recorded music, has totally lost its value, and I'm still getting my head around that because once this little honeymoon period of getting everything for next to nothing (if you still buy CDs) or for literally nothing (if you download illegally) - or a mixture of both which is the most likely scenario - things will be very different to how we knew, and I don't know if everyone will particularly like what we're left with.
I agree about the way record companies have basically been since the dawn of time, but I'm yet to be convinced that any alternative, homespun, alternatives are the answer. I can't deny I liked it the way it was. You got a generally superior product, at a manageable rate of productivity, with some kind of quality control. Of course there was rubbish in amongst all that, the shit cash-ins, the clueless bandwagon-jumping, the rip-offs. But that behaviour is not solely the domain of evil huge corporations. Any half-wit with Paintshop and a bit of recording software can churn out unimaginative dross that's just following whatever's in fashion.
Maybe this obsession with "being there" at shows, especially the bigger names, and the way people are prepared to pay ludicrous prices for the *pleasure* will fizzle out and we can get back to normality. But I'm beginning to feel like I'm a man already out of time, clinging on to something that's extinct. Still, I can at least continue to listen and buy my music in the way I know. For now. While the used stores and amazon marketplace continue to sell it.
EG.
I know I am missing much of the point about the type of music culture which is evolving. Mostly because I honestly cannot fucking understand it. It's alien to me. Gigs, festivals, twitter, crap mp3s, mobile phones, ringtones, all this "stuff" which has filled everyone's lives. Music, recorded music, has totally lost its value, and I'm still getting my head around that because once this little honeymoon period of getting everything for next to nothing (if you still buy CDs) or for literally nothing (if you download illegally) - or a mixture of both which is the most likely scenario - things will be very different to how we knew, and I don't know if everyone will particularly like what we're left with.
I agree about the way record companies have basically been since the dawn of time, but I'm yet to be convinced that any alternative, homespun, alternatives are the answer. I can't deny I liked it the way it was. You got a generally superior product, at a manageable rate of productivity, with some kind of quality control. Of course there was rubbish in amongst all that, the shit cash-ins, the clueless bandwagon-jumping, the rip-offs. But that behaviour is not solely the domain of evil huge corporations. Any half-wit with Paintshop and a bit of recording software can churn out unimaginative dross that's just following whatever's in fashion.
Maybe this obsession with "being there" at shows, especially the bigger names, and the way people are prepared to pay ludicrous prices for the *pleasure* will fizzle out and we can get back to normality. But I'm beginning to feel like I'm a man already out of time, clinging on to something that's extinct. Still, I can at least continue to listen and buy my music in the way I know. For now. While the used stores and amazon marketplace continue to sell it.
EG.
I think people are jumping the gun somewhat when they say that "recorded music has lost its value". What's lost value is the format. People will always pay for music based products, but perhaps not the standard issue CDs you see in HMV.
Eric, you may bash the DIY product, and in some cases I can see your point, but in others I see possibility. Take, for example, Frankmusik. Many of us have heard, and loved, the original versions of his tracks that he released as early as 2007. In terms of quality, I don't find them to be particularly lacking - but they're very heavily stylised. It's a bit like listening to the Back To The Future Soundtrack. But he's now a part of the major machine, and an album release carries many many risks for them. They have to fight for radio play - which means the expensive reworking of the tracks into something a bit more radio friendly and mainstream by Mr Big Name Producer. Then there's the question of guaranteeing shop floor space against all the other releases, which means a big and expensive marketing campaign. The more money that is spent, the more units that need to be shifted to justify its release. And so a great deal of time goes into the whole process, meaning that those tracks that Vince released 2 years ago, are only getting used now. And god forbid they don't sell shitloads.
I know it's not the case in every artist and every release, but I sometimes think "quality control" dilutes the raw product, which is the music and not the shiny case it comes in. To be honest, if things had played out differently, FrankMusik could be looking at releasing his second album this summer, and not his first, working with the big producers paid for by his earlier work.
Lily Allen too has complained about delays in releasing her music. "Fuck You" was delayed to the point where it lost relevance (well, almost). The 6 month gap between the submission of the album and it's released was caused by record label politics - sometimes required, but not always.
The "industry" hasn't always been this way. The 60's weren't like it, and neither were the 70's. It was capitalism that bought about "the way things are done" and not art.
Furthermore, a quick glance at any Girls Aloud thread will tell you that not only are 'the kids' listening to albums more than once, they're going out and spending money on the product! And whilst PopJustice may not be the best litmus test for general music consumption trends, I think it's the true fans of music who are going to empower its future, provided they are given an appealing product.
The death of the record labels is going to bring about major losses in terms of the culture, but I don't expect the people to dissapear, or the ideas, or the creativity, or the skills - just the huge corporations. I genuinely think new companies will be formed around creating a compelling product that in some cases will be better than what we put up with today. I don't see Xenomania retiring, I see them signing the next Girls Aloud themselves. Their physical product may not be as mass produced or as 'standard fit' as Girls Aloud's, but I can damn well guarantee it'll be out there.
As for the live debate - i think music is something that is best when shared. Going to a great gig can be a genuinely unforgettable experience. I don't see them as being particularly fadish - and the same for festivals. They've been commercialized much more in recent decades, of course, but The Beatles and The Stones toured. Infact, long before the vinyl was invented, people consumed music 'live', so I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Edit: I'm sorry for waffling and posting too much on this subject. I'll cut back. I just get a bit passionate about it.
Eric, you may bash the DIY product, and in some cases I can see your point, but in others I see possibility. Take, for example, Frankmusik. Many of us have heard, and loved, the original versions of his tracks that he released as early as 2007. In terms of quality, I don't find them to be particularly lacking - but they're very heavily stylised. It's a bit like listening to the Back To The Future Soundtrack. But he's now a part of the major machine, and an album release carries many many risks for them. They have to fight for radio play - which means the expensive reworking of the tracks into something a bit more radio friendly and mainstream by Mr Big Name Producer. Then there's the question of guaranteeing shop floor space against all the other releases, which means a big and expensive marketing campaign. The more money that is spent, the more units that need to be shifted to justify its release. And so a great deal of time goes into the whole process, meaning that those tracks that Vince released 2 years ago, are only getting used now. And god forbid they don't sell shitloads.
I know it's not the case in every artist and every release, but I sometimes think "quality control" dilutes the raw product, which is the music and not the shiny case it comes in. To be honest, if things had played out differently, FrankMusik could be looking at releasing his second album this summer, and not his first, working with the big producers paid for by his earlier work.
Lily Allen too has complained about delays in releasing her music. "Fuck You" was delayed to the point where it lost relevance (well, almost). The 6 month gap between the submission of the album and it's released was caused by record label politics - sometimes required, but not always.
The "industry" hasn't always been this way. The 60's weren't like it, and neither were the 70's. It was capitalism that bought about "the way things are done" and not art.
Furthermore, a quick glance at any Girls Aloud thread will tell you that not only are 'the kids' listening to albums more than once, they're going out and spending money on the product! And whilst PopJustice may not be the best litmus test for general music consumption trends, I think it's the true fans of music who are going to empower its future, provided they are given an appealing product.
The death of the record labels is going to bring about major losses in terms of the culture, but I don't expect the people to dissapear, or the ideas, or the creativity, or the skills - just the huge corporations. I genuinely think new companies will be formed around creating a compelling product that in some cases will be better than what we put up with today. I don't see Xenomania retiring, I see them signing the next Girls Aloud themselves. Their physical product may not be as mass produced or as 'standard fit' as Girls Aloud's, but I can damn well guarantee it'll be out there.
As for the live debate - i think music is something that is best when shared. Going to a great gig can be a genuinely unforgettable experience. I don't see them as being particularly fadish - and the same for festivals. They've been commercialized much more in recent decades, of course, but The Beatles and The Stones toured. Infact, long before the vinyl was invented, people consumed music 'live', so I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Edit: I'm sorry for waffling and posting too much on this subject. I'll cut back. I just get a bit passionate about it.
Well I for one appreciate your thoughts, so don't hold back.
On the DIY issue, another very good example is Little Boots, one of the few emerging artists to be close to my heart. A similar thing is happening with her, the original style of her early tracks is being diluted and she's been carefully marketed as a mainstream (generic) pop act. Plus I think it's still about another 5 weeks before the damn album comes out.
It's a bit of a shame that independent-style music has gone from an anything-goes ethos in the late 70s and early 80s, to the childish crap made by bandwagon-jumping guitar bands and deluded Tori wannabes. I don't see why the lack of a major label should mean everything has to look and sound like it was done on a 10p budget, but maybe it's that dreaded "authenticity" bullshit rearing its head again. "Being real" has done more to harm and stagnate pop(ular) music than anything over the past 15 years. I wish that whole stupid mindset were dying out, and not the actual retail/label industry.
As for gig mania, all I can say is that 20 years ago, when I was about 16, NOBODY that I knew was even bothering with festivals or really going to much in the way of concerts. A few here and there, but it wasn't the phenomenon it is now. I think I read somewhere that the number of festivals per year in the UK has gone up by several hundred percent in the past decade. It's incredible. Now you get 16 year olds camping outside HMVs for hours just to get tickets for Reading. I personally think it's all just part of wanting to be part of the scene, it's the done thing. Like a gap year or having a massive party when your parents are away. Not much seems to get beyond the surface level of "here I am, doing this or that" anymore. This being a generalisation, of course.
EG.
On the DIY issue, another very good example is Little Boots, one of the few emerging artists to be close to my heart. A similar thing is happening with her, the original style of her early tracks is being diluted and she's been carefully marketed as a mainstream (generic) pop act. Plus I think it's still about another 5 weeks before the damn album comes out.
It's a bit of a shame that independent-style music has gone from an anything-goes ethos in the late 70s and early 80s, to the childish crap made by bandwagon-jumping guitar bands and deluded Tori wannabes. I don't see why the lack of a major label should mean everything has to look and sound like it was done on a 10p budget, but maybe it's that dreaded "authenticity" bullshit rearing its head again. "Being real" has done more to harm and stagnate pop(ular) music than anything over the past 15 years. I wish that whole stupid mindset were dying out, and not the actual retail/label industry.
As for gig mania, all I can say is that 20 years ago, when I was about 16, NOBODY that I knew was even bothering with festivals or really going to much in the way of concerts. A few here and there, but it wasn't the phenomenon it is now. I think I read somewhere that the number of festivals per year in the UK has gone up by several hundred percent in the past decade. It's incredible. Now you get 16 year olds camping outside HMVs for hours just to get tickets for Reading. I personally think it's all just part of wanting to be part of the scene, it's the done thing. Like a gap year or having a massive party when your parents are away. Not much seems to get beyond the surface level of "here I am, doing this or that" anymore. This being a generalisation, of course.
EG.
The music industry’s deathwatch kicked off about a decade ago, but it seems the vigil could soon be over.
According to data from the Recording Industry Association of America, 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.
The speed at which this industry is coming undone is utterly breathtaking.
First, piracy punched a big hole in it. Now music streaming — music available on demand over the Internet, free and legal — is poised to seal the deal.
The problem is that if people can get the music they want for free, why would they ever buy it, or even steal it? They won’t. According to a March study by the NPD Group, a market research group for the entertainment industry, 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.
And a survey of British music fans, conducted by the Leading Question/Music Ally and released last month, found that the 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.
This is part of a much broader shift in media consumption by young people. They’re moving from an acquisition model to an access model.
Even if they choose to buy the music, the industry has handicapped its ability to capitalize on that purchase by allowing all songs to be bought individually, apart from their albums. This once seemed like a blessing. Now it looks more like a curse.
In previous forms, you had to take the bad with the good. You may have only wanted two or three songs, but you had to buy the whole 8-track, cassette or CD to get them. So in a sense, these bad songs help finance the good ones. The resulting revenue provided a cushion for the artists and record companies to take chances and make mistakes. Single song downloads helped to kill that.
A study last year conducted by members of PRS for Music, a nonprofit royalty collection agency, found that of the 13 million songs for sale online last year, 10 million never got a single buyer and 80 percent of all revenue came from about 52,000 songs. That’s less than one percent of the songs.
So it was no surprise that The Financial Times reported on Monday that Apple is working with the four largest labels to seduce people into buying more digital albums. It’s too little too late.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/opinion/01blow.html
According to data from the Recording Industry Association of America, 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.
The speed at which this industry is coming undone is utterly breathtaking.
First, piracy punched a big hole in it. Now music streaming — music available on demand over the Internet, free and legal — is poised to seal the deal.
The problem is that if people can get the music they want for free, why would they ever buy it, or even steal it? They won’t. According to a March study by the NPD Group, a market research group for the entertainment industry, 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.
And a survey of British music fans, conducted by the Leading Question/Music Ally and released last month, found that the 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.
This is part of a much broader shift in media consumption by young people. They’re moving from an acquisition model to an access model.
Even if they choose to buy the music, the industry has handicapped its ability to capitalize on that purchase by allowing all songs to be bought individually, apart from their albums. This once seemed like a blessing. Now it looks more like a curse.
In previous forms, you had to take the bad with the good. You may have only wanted two or three songs, but you had to buy the whole 8-track, cassette or CD to get them. So in a sense, these bad songs help finance the good ones. The resulting revenue provided a cushion for the artists and record companies to take chances and make mistakes. Single song downloads helped to kill that.
A study last year conducted by members of PRS for Music, a nonprofit royalty collection agency, found that of the 13 million songs for sale online last year, 10 million never got a single buyer and 80 percent of all revenue came from about 52,000 songs. That’s less than one percent of the songs.
So it was no surprise that The Financial Times reported on Monday that Apple is working with the four largest labels to seduce people into buying more digital albums. It’s too little too late.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/opinion/01blow.html
The times and changes are interesting, that's for sure. Whatever happens,music won't suddenly disappear, so even though you feel sorry for millions of jobs and good people involved, it's hard to feel too sad that big dinosaurs fall.
There's an interesting piece on this subject in the new WORD magzine by its co-founder David Hepworth. Now that this upcoming generation have only known getting music for nothing, what happens next? Likewise, a new book called Free, which covers the same sort of ground, but from the viewpoint of thinking it's a good thing rather than a bit of a mess which we "older people" created and now have to live with.
I'm from a generation who built physical music collections, and still cannot feel any connection to stuff that's been downloaded...even stuff I've paid for. Until I have the CD, or vinyl, I don't get that sense of attachment. Something which, quite obviously and understandably, a lot of people younger than me just don't have anyway because they didn't grow up with it.
EG.
I'm from a generation who built physical music collections, and still cannot feel any connection to stuff that's been downloaded...even stuff I've paid for. Until I have the CD, or vinyl, I don't get that sense of attachment. Something which, quite obviously and understandably, a lot of people younger than me just don't have anyway because they didn't grow up with it.
EG.
Eric Generic said:
I'm with you on this one. There's nothing like reading through the booklet of a new CD whilst listening to it. I know they do the deluxe versions of albums in iTunes where you can see the artwork as a PDF but it's just not the same. I'd rather look at a shelving unit to see my music collection than look at my iMac, and I'm currently replacing everything I bought through iTunes with CDs.
Pen Expers said:
Only, and this is the really sad part in this, it is not the "big dinosaurs" that are falling. In fact they will probably be the last ones standing. The big recordcompanies will in these times do what all other types of companies (and people like you and me as well) do when times get rough and the risks go up to much - reallocate their resources to areas with more acceptable risks. In other words they will bet their money on "sure things", rather than something new and risky (however groundbreaking it may be). The ones drawing the shortest straw in all this is off course all the new artists trying to establish themselves who will not get a break in times like these, simply because there is not enough "risk money" in the system. And ultimately the big losers will be all of us who enjoy music. Because when the recordlabels move their stakes to the huge names (Madonna, U2, Beyonce and so forth) and deals that can be expected to generate big sales regardless of quality (like the latest X-factor/Idol/reality-TV-talent show-winners first album) the consumers will miss out on all that talent, uniqueness and innovation that goes on in other places.
So are the "big dinosaurs" or the established artists to blame for this? Well, would you keep going to work if there was no paycheck at the end of the month (I for one is not enjoying my dreary administrative burden that much!)? If every other person suddenly decided to steal their dairyproducts instead of buying them, would your local farmer be to blame if he closed up business and moved on to something else?
I do not think that music will disappear either. After all the Neanderthals were probably banging away on their drums making some kind of music without any "music industry", right. But I am absolutely certain that we will not see the same diversity and quality in widespread music as we have previously if this goes on. And that is our loss. Yours and mine.