True or False? In the future, the music business will be dead?

[kjetillunde]

True or False? In the future, the music business will be dead?

[dominic hoenig]

false i think.

[u b k]

The business as we know it and have known it for roughly 60 years?

True.

The business as it will become?

False.


Gregory Scott - ubk
.

[gramps]

+1

g

[RyanMusic]

I cant see how it can continue frankly I have songs and productions on top ten albums this year (one a no.1) and unless you have a single with loads of radio airplay nothing else pays.

This is the first year Ive known in it where Debut artists who are regarded as Succesful and a Hit! are not making money

[author]

Originally Posted by kjetillunde

True or False? In the future, the music business will be dead?

Only if the dfegadISP's continue to sell stolen Intellectual Property.

That would be the end of music, software and movies.

[Ol' Betsey]

Originally Posted by u b k

the business as we know it and have known it for roughly 60 years?

True.

The business as it will become?

False.


Gregory scott - ubk
.

+ 2

r.

[pia]

Sooo, we have a right answer here. This thread can close now

Originally Posted by u b k

The business as we know it and have known it for roughly 60 years?

True.

The business as it will become?

False.


Gregory Scott - ubk
.

[soundseller]

The Future Of The Music Industry

[monomer]

Originally Posted by RyanMusic

This is the first year Ive known in it where Debut artists who are regarded as Succesful and a Hit! are not making money

Well, that only means that they should cut on expenses, doesn't it...

[DamnYankee]

Originally Posted by kjetillunde

True or False? In the future, the music business will be dead?

FALSE.

With the expansion/watered down-ness of everything from sports teams, hundreds of cable TV channels, grocery stores turning into mega-marts, etc etc etc, what it means is there'll continue to be more crap to sift through to find good music.

And to think all this mediocre-ness in today's Society is coming at a higher price tag too!

[kats]

Originally Posted by RyanMusic

I cant see how it can continue frankly I have songs and productions on top ten albums this year (one a no.1) and unless you have a single with loads of radio airplay nothing else pays.

This is the first year Ive known in it where Debut artists who are regarded as Succesful and a Hit! are not making money

Ya gotto get into cell phone commercials man! hahaha

Originally Posted by monomer

Well, that only means that they should cut on expenses, doesn't it...

Oh yes, that's the secret to quality and success - starve the artists!!!

[u b k]

Originally Posted by kats

Oh yes, that's the secret to quality and success - starve the artists!!!

It might actually be.


Gregory Scott - ubk
.

[Revmen]

In the future, most of todays musicians will be dead.

[Harry Hughes]

What, 1 day from now, 1 month from now, 1 year from now, 10 years from now?
Heh, even in 40 years I think it'll still be around easily.

[monomer]

Originally Posted by kats

Oh yes, that's the secret to quality and success - starve the artists!!!

Nooooo,.... i was thinking more of having record companies taking less money from sales.

As it is now, distribution costs are reduced significantly with digital distribution, but in the end the customer roughly pays the same as 5 years ago.

So where is all that money going to? Surely not the artists?

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by monomer

Nooooo,.... i was thinking more of having record companies taking less money from sales.

As it is now, distribution costs are reduced significantly with digital distribution, but in the end the customer roughly pays the same as 5 years ago.

So where is all that money going to? Surely not the artists?

But you are missing the point that, in that semi-cost free distribution system, the customer can cherry pick songs, and probably often are only buying one or two songs from an album (when they buy at all as apposed to just stealing it.) So the effective revenues from that would be one tenth to maybe one fifth as much as before. Add in the fact that fewer people are buying in any form because they can get it for free, and that's not so great a situation.

And of course you are missing the even bigger point that the label has to finance the nine losers to get the one seller (and that doesn't mean big seller necessarily, that may mean just enough to not lose money.) So of course they are going to get a bigger cut of the pie. They are taking the financial risk.

[AllAboutTone]

Originally Posted by kjetillunde

True or False? In the future, the music business will be dead?

Damn I thought it was dead now, it can only get better, right now its at the threshold pf hell.

[toneguru]

Frue... no Talse... DOH!

[MikeyMike]

Originally Posted by AllAboutTone

Damn I thought it was dead now, it can only get better, right now its at the threshold pf hell.

Exactly. Time to go to college, even if you're 50 years old.

[lagavulin16]

Originally Posted by RyanMusic

I cant see how it can continue frankly I have songs and productions on top ten albums this year (one a no.1) and unless you have a single with loads of radio airplay nothing else pays.

This is the first year Ive known in it where Debut artists who are regarded as Succesful and a Hit! are not making money

When you say "are not making money" do you mean "not making as much as they would have made 10 years ago" or are they actually making zero money for their #1 hit?

There is definitely going to be less money to go around and lower salaries across the board.

Originally Posted by author

Only if the dfegadISP's continue to sell stolen Intellectual Property.

That would be the end of music, software and movies.

Who is selling stolen intellectual property? Are you referring to the fact that when you subscribe to an ISP, you can download data that violates copyright?

I also completely disagree with the idea that people will stop making movies, stop making music, and stop making software. There may be less money to be made, but so long as there is ANY money to be made, these products will be created.

Software companies and the movie industry have it much better than music. Although software is cracked pretty easily, they can take an approach like UAD and require hardware for software to function. They also have the ability to have the application phone home over the internet and generally be more resistant to copying than a simple video/audio signal.

Movies have something else: The theater. Lots of people just love going to see movies in the theater. Also, while no one is arguing that music sales have dropped off a cliff, the movie industry has been making more money every year:



Again, if money can be made, even if it's less than you used to be able to make, people will make movies. Same with software, lots of people make software for free as it is.

The most important reason software, music and movies will continue to be made is this: Some people love and need to create. They will create for free, they will lose money to create. Some artists may say "screw it" and get a cubicle job and sell all their guitars, but plenty of others won't.

It just means less money to go around than there used to be.

[Dean Roddey]

Graphs, like statistics, can be deceiving. If that's is showing 'box office', then it has nothing to do with profits. That would be showing how much was made, not how much was left over in the end. The general consensus among the movie type people (I also converse with some of those people on other fora) is that most movies don't even break even at the theater. If they are lucky they'll cover the expenses of making the movie and the marketing. If they are really lucky they'll make money at the theater. But it's the downstream revenue sources that really make the actual profit mostly, as I've been told, from DVD, PPV, cable/sat, hotels, etc...

Of those, DVD I think has been the biggest chunk of revenues as I understand it, and because the size of the data has made it a far less casually stealable thing (so far), they've not suffered as badly. But they also have the same problem as the music industry. The winners have to make up for all of the losers. So, since theft hits the winners far away the hardest, it's a double whammy for them as well.

[mobius.media]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

Graphs, like statistics, can be deceiving. If that's is showing 'box office', then it has nothing to do with profits. That would be showing how much was made, not how much was left over in the end. The general consensus among the movie type people (I also converse with some of those people on other fora) is that most movies don't even break even at the theater. If they are lucky they'll cover the expenses of making the movie and the marketing. If they are really lucky they'll make money at the theater.

Already there are fewer and fewer major movies released each year. I've certainly noticed, and the stats I've seen match as well.

Fewer movies released | EW.com

The same thing happened with the music industry beginning 5-10 years ago. As profits fall, the first response is to cut high risk projects, because they can't afford to take so many risks when times start get tight. Then they pour everything they've got left into a few big "sure things" each year in the hopes that if they make a big enough show of it, people will still be enticed to show up and pay.

But unless the underlying problem is fixed, it's a losing battle in the long run. And that goes for the studios, the people who make their living off the work, and the consumers who are left with fewer and fewer choices as time goes by.

[diogo_c]

Originally Posted by mobius.media

Already there are fewer and fewer major movies released each year.

That's good news!

[u b k]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

If that's is showing 'box office', then it has nothing to do with profits. That would be showing how much was made, not how much was left over in the end.

It strikes me as an exaggeration to assert that gross revenue has "nothing to do with profits." If your inflow is consistent or growing, and your profits are down, then either your expenses are ballooning or your costs are increasing, or both.

Companies that show steady sales growth and receipts but declining profits have a management problem, pure and simple.

IOW, it ain't piracy, it ain't the market; it's the people spending the company's money.


Gregory Scott - ubk
.

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by u b k

It strikes me as an exaggeration to assert that gross revenue has "nothing to do with profits." If your inflow is consistent or growing, and your profits are down, then either your expenses are ballooning or your costs are increasing, or both.

Companies that show steady sales growth and receipts but declining profits have a management problem, pure and simple.

IOW, it ain't piracy, it ain't the market; it's the people spending the company's money.


Gregory Scott - ubk
.

It might seem that way, but then how do multi-billion dollar companies go broke? Detroit has many good examples. They have huge gross revenues but they can't survive.

Making movies is a complicated business, and it costs a lot and they have the same sort of failure rates as the music business generally.

Anyway, I didn't say they weren't making any profit. They seem to be doing better than the music industry, for now. I was pointing out that theater grosses aren't indicative of the health of the industry becasue that's not generally where they make their profits. They make a big chunk of their profits off of something that's just as stealable as music is, once the average level of bandwidth out there's sufficient enough.

Blu-ray isn't going to change anything. One guy rips it, re-scales it and re-encodes it at streamable levels, and that's all it takes.

[Jam]

The other thought that doesn't seemed to get acknowledged in these threads is, a lot of the money that goes into making records and movies is not from music or film fans.

Most of the big labels and movie studios are publicly listed companies. So their investors are diverse, from individuals to large financial institutions like pension funds.

If income and profits continue to drop, whatever the cause, these investors, who are more engaged with the return rather than the product, will simply invest elsewhere.

James

[u b k]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

It might seem that way, but then how do multi-billion dollar companies go broke?

Exactly the way I said: they spend more than they earn. If what you earn stays relatively stable but your profits begin to fall thru the floor, you are the victim of spiraling costs (atypical) or the perpetrator of fiscally irresponsible spending (typical).

None of this negates the direct relationship between gross receipts and profits. The former is not, in and of itself, an indicator of profit, but it is undoubtedly 1/2 of the most basic equation. Income - expenses = profits.


Gregory Scott - ubk
.

[author]

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

Who is selling stolen intellectual property?

The dfegadISP's. Piracy is one of their main sources of income.

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

The most important reason software, music and movies will continue to be made is this: Some people love and need to create. They will create for free, they will lose money to create.

You simply don't know how art is made.

[lagavulin16]

Originally Posted by author

The dfegadISP's. Piracy is one of their main sources of income.



You simply don't know how art is made.

did van gogh know how art is made?