Biggest Album sales ever going to be topped

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

I was working on the assumption that if 10 is good, 5 is better. Got to get them into pre-teen starlet training camp.

sadly, unfortunately, and truly... this actually happens... let's talk misspent youth...

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by gainreduction

If a label would be patient enough to properly develop the right talent over 10-15 years or so... maybe. The labels´ short term thinking is a big problem.

or is it consumers short attention span?

...chicken or the egg, when consumers stop supporting artists, labels stop developing them...

[Blewgrass]

Maybe the new electronic media age will allow good music to shine, and create a larger market for good, local live music and bands. The more the greedy execs squeeze for control, the more the profits fall between their fingers like sand onto the free public beach that we all can play on.

I have not paid for one download in my life. (Ok I'm 43) I find it lame to buy electronic media when the cd costs the same and I can rip it an unlimited number of times. I like the pictures, liner notes, etc. There are still some folks that will purchase a good cd at a concert or at a record store.

My biggest hope for the age of information is independently produced projects and artists can bypass the corporates to get their product out there. Same with the motion picture/video business. Let the music speak for itself... not the million dollar hype campaigns.

[lagavulin16]

Originally Posted by redvelvetstudios

or is it consumers short attention span?

...chicken or the egg, when consumers stop supporting artists, labels stop developing them...

I don't necessarily disagree with the labels here, at least when I put myself in their shoes. They spend a fortune on dozens of acts and hope one hits big to pay for all the ones that don't, and then some. This enables them to go out and sign dozens more, rinse/wash/repeat, etc.

How many artists achieve what the major labels view as "success" and are still successful 10-15 years down the road?

I know you like to blame consumers for everything, but what do labels do to "develop artists", anyway? Great art doesn't require a businessman pushing things along. Sure, it's great when someone hooks a young and hungry rock band with a great producer, but it isn't like we need to be grateful to the painting industry for Van Gogh's contributions.

[zboy2854]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

I was working on the assumption that if 10 is good, 5 is better. Got to get them into pre-teen starlet training camp.

You're thinking too old still. I say get 'em under contract when they're still a fetus.

[Raider]

You're all correct.

Music is now free of charge.
There's less talent now than ever...
...because music is free of charge.

A band might NET a nickel an album.
Now it's a penny a download (?)

An act with a few hits and a platinum record could make a decent midde-class living. Now it's almost poverty level.

Alanis, Hootie, Ace of Base, even Mariah...those numbers will never be seen again. The CD is dead. Long live mp3.

[DamnYankee]

Originally Posted by Raider

You're all correct.

Music is now free of charge.
There's less talent now than ever...
...because music is free of charge.

A band might NET a nickel an album.
Now it's a penny a download (?)

An act with a few hits and a platinum record could make a decent midde-class living. Now it's almost poverty level.

Alanis, Hootie, Ace of Base, even Mariah...those numbers will never be seen again. The CD is dead. Long live mp3.

There's the very real possibility that bands will be making the bulk of their incomes off copyrights and live shows - which will probably bring back some of the long lost musicianship.

Downloads or other digital medium will most likely be given away at cost to generate interest.

DY

[Raider]

Originally Posted by DamnYankee

There's the very real possibility that bands will be making the bulk of their incomes off copyrights and live shows - which will probably bring back some of the long lost musicianship.

Downloads or other digital medium will most likely be given away at cost to generate interest.

DY

That's right now, today.

[gainreduction]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

Then you would have to sign them when they are 10 years old.

Like Michael Jackson...

No, seriously... around 15-20. Just look at Beyonce. 12 years since the Destiny´s Child debut and look at her now. "Halo" must be one of the most played songs on the radio worldwide this year and that´s just one of the hits she´s had recently.

Sure, occasionally artists pop out of nowhere and make it big, like Alanis, but reaching the level of stardom of Madonna or MJ takes time.

[PinnacleProdUK]

Originally Posted by zboy2854

Not really, I can cite plenty of acts that I'd have considered better at the time. The reason those albums sold was because in most cases they had several big hits, and the album CD was still the only format in which music could be consumed, and music as an entertainment medium was still at the forefront of consumers' spending habits.

Today, music has lost so much intrinsic value, primarily because A. there is so much of it out there everywhere, and B. it can be consumed for free. Yes, quality is part of it, but not a primary consideration, given that the biggest sellers today are your Nickelbacks and Miley Cyruses.

the future is all about consuming music via bundled subscription and streaming, not purchasing individual albums, or even an ownership paradigm at all. Which means that in the future, how we gauge artists' success will be much more like radio airplay charts than they are album sales charts. The future beckons...

I couldn't agree more, this is exactly the reason and I can't see any artist hitting the levels of say AC/DC or Thriller for eg in CD sales in the future.

Also with it being so widely accessible now days, I mean there are sites and forums which discuss weather a track "is worth a download" FOR FREE!!!!

Some great and true posts about this subject btw!

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by zboy2854

...It's pretty clear that subscription or bundled services model is the future for music consumption...

Funny, this was precisely what people were saying about radio, records and motion pictures in 1948.

they were wrong, very very wrong

[zboy2854]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Funny, this was precisely what people were saying about radio, records and motion pictures in 1948.

they were wrong, very very wrong

Just because they were wrong then does not mean it is therefore wrong now. And to boot, there was not a delivery mechanism in any way shape or form back then that remotely resembled the power that the internet offers, which is much more similar to wireless phone and cable TV services, both of which people gladly pay subscription for.

And furthermore, the subscription/streaming model for music is already starting to take off, just ask most of the users who have had the opportunity to use Spotify.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by zboy2854

Just because they were wrong then does not mean it is therefore wrong now.

No but it does mean they didn't have very much imagination.

[zboy2854]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

No but it does mean they didn't have very much imagination.

And the ironic part is, now it's all the people desperately clinging to the old ownership paradigm and fighting the future who are bereft of imagination. Go figure.

[Bob Olhsson]

Afraid I don't hear any creative imagination being demonstrated in these "new ownership paradigms." Just more boring '80s musical wallpaper and endless hustles by investment bankers to slide out of paying anybody.

I have no idea what the next big thing in music is going to be but I'm certain it won't sound like the '80s or another stupid reaction to the '80s and it won't be marketed by tech hustlers.

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by zboy2854

And the ironic part is, now it's all the people desperately clinging to the old ownership paradigm and fighting the future who are bereft of imagination. Go figure.

Well, to be fair, owning what you create is NOT an out of date idea. It's completely modern and it's still the basis of our entire economy. It's just that we've run a big Lord of the Flies test on society and they passed in flying colors and proven that they all too often have no morals unless those morals are forced onto them.

[zboy2854]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Afraid I don't hear any creative imagination being demonstrated in these "new ownership paradigms." Just more boring '80s musical wallpaper and endless hustles by investment bankers to slide out of paying anybody.

I have no idea what the next big thing in music is going to be but I'm certain it won't sound like the '80s or another stupid reaction to the '80s and it won't be marketed by tech hustlers.

Huh? Who said anything about the '80s? I think you've misunderstood. Check into Spotify to understand what I'm talking about. Ownership by the consumer is not involved, at least not in the traditional sense. But then again, why do you you need to own a physical copy of music, when you can have all of recorded music at your fingertips on demand any time you want?

[zboy2854]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

Well, to be fair, owning what you create is NOT an out of date idea. It's completely modern and it's still the basis of our entire economy. It's just that we've run a big Lord of the Flies test on society and they passed in flying colors and proven that they all too often have no morals unless those morals are forced onto them.

You've missed the plot with respect to what I'm talking about here. I'm not talking about copyright holders' rights, or whether they should still be entitled to be paid for their creative works, of course they should.

What I'm talking about is ownership in the sense of how the consumer consumes music. Instead of the consumer owning physical CD's or even acquiring digital download files as owned commodities, they'll simply pay for an ongoing subscription for the ability to stream and hear on demand anything they want to hear at anytime, just as you pay a monthly subscription for cellular phone service or TV and movie content. And let's face it, when you have access on demand to listen to whatever you want, whenever you want, why do you need to own a physical CD, or even digital files?

This is why people who have been using a streaming service such as Spotify have been raving about it.

[Dean Roddey]

Oh, nevermind then... Nothing to argue about here. Damn, I thought I had one there...