Music's lost decade: Sales cut in half

[gold sounds]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

And why do a lot of people know who Radiohead are? Because they were on a major label who marketed them heavily. Same with NIN and others who got their visibility on the label's marketing dime and now are able to go out on their own, because people already know who they are.

So who out there is as big as Radiohead (who isn't THAT big either) without ever having been with a label?

I think it'll be hard to see many bands get that big again, sure. But cmon, you made a point about no one making significant profit without a major label, but please feel free to take a look at the jam band circuit. And while we're at it, check out bands' long-term profits... Pavement are about to make a killing with their reunion, and they were on Matador their whole career. Take a look at Arcade Fire, Spoon, Animal Collective... these guys are pulling off great licensing deals, huge tours, extensive promo, all without the assistance of a major label. I tend to only listen to over-reaching universal statements when they are in fact true, so sorry.

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by gold sounds

I think it'll be hard to see many bands get that big again, sure. But cmon, you made a point about no one making significant profit without a major label, but please feel free to take a look at the jam band circuit. And while we're at it, check out bands' long-term profits... Pavement are about to make a killing with their reunion, and they were on Matador their whole career. Take a look at Arcade Fire, Spoon, Animal Collective... these guys are pulling off great licensing deals, huge tours, extensive promo, all without the assistance of a major label. I tend to only listen to over-reaching universal statements when they are in fact true, so sorry.

They can do that because they got big under the label system.

[gold sounds]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

As to production and distribution costs decreasing exponentially, I don't think that's the case. Yeh, I can make something in my apartment for expoentially less than what it took to make Chinese Democracy. But it's still not cheap to do it really well.

I have to disagree. With great musicians and a great engineer, you can make an excellent sounding radio-ready album for maybe $10-15k. If you do electronic music (LCD Soundsystem, Girl Talk, and other very successful indie artists), then it costs even less. This is significantly different from the costs for an equivalent quality level during the 80s and 90s.

[gold sounds]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

They can do that because they got big under the label system.

So now you've conspicuously left out the term "major label". Does this mean I've changed your opinion or were you just not voicing your thoughts accurately earlier?

And please, take a look at Clap Your Hands Say Yeah. They got indie-big without ANY HELP AT ALL FROM ANY LABEL, INDIE OR MAJOR. Sure, indie labels will continue to be important for marketing and brand association, but the major label marketing machine is no longer vital as long as the music is truly great, accessible, and interesting.

[PeeWeeGee]

Originally Posted by GearBit

I'm not sure anyone is presenting this as a "tale of woe" for the major labels or suggesting any kind of conspiracy and putting those words in our mouths is not really making your argument appear honest.

When the tone of the posts (mostly by Dean) is that:
- $6B is nothing RELATIVE to other industries, totally omitting the fact that the recording industry is based on disposable income - unlike the utilities that were cited.
- sales are down because [insert reason here] is up
- it's killing our industry
I'd call that a "tale of woe". What is dishonest is to not reflect the WHOLE truth behind where those major label dollars might be going or what might be driving that change.
Example: CD Baby sales figures for 08! The indies are strong!!! - CD Baby's MySpace Blog |

Originally Posted by GearBit

Fact of the matter is there was a fairly lucrative middle class that existed within the music industry and within major labels. Major labels had developing artists with moderate budgets that paid producers, studios and engineers. Those mid level budgets got their money from the super huge artists. Yep. All of the super popular crap that most here hate was where the money came from for the development and exposure of all of the more interesting sub-popular music. It really shouldn't require a masters in logic to understand that when that money starts drying up the labels will be focusing their resources on whatever can make the most money possible.

All true. And I don't dispute the fact that the reason for ANY business to exist is to be PROFITABLE. However, you didn't address the COST decreases for production, recording, mixing, et cetera. DAWs have practically eliminated 70% of the boutique-like draw of recording studios. Tracks/songs are turned out of bedroom/project studios with quality comparable to some label releases. That is reflected in the label payment to those songwriter/producers; however, that savings is NOT passed on to the consumer.

Are you seriously contending that sell prices should remain status quo when production prices are bottoming out?! If it cheap to make, it should be cheap(er) to sell. THAT shouldn't require a Master's in logic, either.

Originally Posted by GearBit

Maybe you don't live in america? Maybe you don't remember the hugely popular show "lifestyles of the rich and famous"? Maybe you haven't seen "cribs"? Maybe you have never seen a rap video or heard of a word called "bling".
I assume that you haven't because if you had you would have not typed that statement.

Expat now, but I bleed red, white and blue. Maybe you should re-read my statement. I contend that blue collar folks don't want to SUPPORT those lifestyles with THEIR money. I think EVERYONE is fascinated with wealth and opulence. But not when they are funding dumb sh!t like platinum/diamond teeth and $30K dog collars. I hate to break the news, but many people are coming out of the fog. That holds true for ALL sectors of business; not just the music industry.

Originally Posted by GearBit

Fvck that repetitive ill informed note.
If an artist held onto their publishing they could make a fvckload of money (note I used the past tense as 360 deals are now the norm). It's precisely how I turned a profit with a major label deal and they ended up hundreds of thousands of dollars in the hole.

OK. I call bullsh!t here. Please explain RIDICULOUS practices like:

• 3/4-rate artists: "New to the job? We steal 25% of your pay because......well, we can."
• Charging a mark-up on the costs associated with label meetings: "Well, Mr. Artist, having the attorney here cost us $75/hr, so we're charging you $100. "
• Lucrative publishing deals are increasingly harder to come by. Why? Because many of the majors want to keep more for themselves. How many times has a "label" producer been 'assigned' to an newcomer's (producer or artist) project and did little more than add a "hi-hat right there at the bridge" and get 50% of the publishing. It's bullsh!t and you're lying to us and yourself if you say it doesn't happen. (Don't confuse that with LEGITIMATE co-production work; which can also be the case.

I could go on and on with ways that the labels require the ARTISTS to accomplish marketing, production and A&R objectives from their "budget"and profit from that work BEYOND the recoupables (+ moderate profit; which is understandable.) I am fresh off of such a deal. And if we introduce payola money into that, man.... damn!

360 deals go a long way in proving my point. Realizing that they've missed the boat on RECORD SALES AND DISTRIBUTION (which is their job), labels now want a piece of an artist's performance, merchandising, and image licensing with minimal investment. WTF?! The proposal: We want a cut of EVERYTHING, or no deal. (It's yet another short-sighted business practice.)

Being profitable as an individual doesn't prove anything about the OVERALL nature of an INDUSTRY or business sector. I'm modestly profitable, but that's mostly due to the fact that I understand how to work the machine. MOST folks don't.

[PeeWeeGee]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

CDs have not gone up in actual dollar amount since they came out. Inflation has gone up 2.5 times in that period, plus the actual dollar amount is now considerably lower for most CDs. So the real money cost of a CD is probably 4x or more lower now than when they cam eout.

As to production and distribution costs decreasing exponentially, I don't think that's the case. Yeh, I can make something in my apartment for expoentially less than what it took to make Chinese Democracy. But it's still not cheap to do it really well.

So maybe the consumer doesn't have a clue about economics and missed the fact that a CD costs generally like $12 or so now and cost maybe $15'ish on average back when they came out (which would be $40'ish after inflation is factored in today), while a car in 1985 averaged $6000 and now averages $16,000?

Sorry, Dean, but you're just not comparing apples to apples here.

You conveniently leave out key facts like the COST of manufacturing that $16K automobile relative to the sell price and what the perceived VALUE of that car might be to the consumer. From a business perspective, these are critical elements of a sales and marketing strategy.

Also, you've summarily eliminated things like fair market pricing. Just because a CD used to cost $15 doesn't mean that it should have cost that much. In fact, by stating that CDs were that expensive during that period relative to the per capita income only supports my position that the RIAA was bilking the customer. If we follow your line of reasoning, one of today's PCs should cost ~$80K! However, refined production techniques have decimated the costs associated with the end product. Likewise, if 100 blank CDs can be sold at Best Buy for $10 retail these days; it's safe to say that dupe houses sell them for considerably less to labels. In other words, market pressures apply to EVERYONE, not just the artists.

Let's use the popular $10 pricing for CDs as an example. What is the cost associated with manufacturing that product IF the label hits it's revenue objectives? (Let's be conservative and use 100,000 discs sold as the target).

Total Revenue after wholesale: $700K
Cost Breakdown (using VERY generous numbers):

Album art/photography: $1500-3500
Duplication with lithography and inlays: $100K
Distribution to outlet warehouses: $65-75K
Songwriter(s) @ full rate: $90K - minus any advance
Producer(s) @ full rate: $90K - minus any advance

Total: $358,500
Label Profits: $341,500

I intentionally calculated it that way because MANY labels use their leverage to purchase songs/tracks as "work for hire" or at reduced publishing percentages. Meaning that most of those songwriting/producer dollars go into THEIR pockets. When platinum-level artists are involved, the numbers get skewed greatly because the labels have leverage with the outlets to negotiate better wholesale prices. And I would have factored in things like Marketing, A&R, and promotion costs into that number. However, with most new artists, that is factored into THEIR budgets - street teams, web presence, et cetera at a one shot (low) number.

If the rebuttal is that "all records don't have strong sales", so the big name artist have to offset the losing artists costs. Then my question is: WHAT THE FVCK IS THE LABEL DOING BY WAY OF A&R AND MARKET RESEARCH?! ISN'T THAT THE 'VALUE PROPOSITION' THEY OFFER?!
Please name another 'luxury' industry where a 5% win rate is acceptable. Those weak players will be eliminated by attrition.

I mean... Don't get me wrong. I am a strong advocate of capitalism and the entrepreneurial spirit. But the downfall of the recording industry has primarily been due to the fact that they've been:

1. Too slow to adapt to change
2. Willing to sell a "degrading" product at a premium
3. Quick to cannibalize their own
4. Too unwilling to equitably distribute the earnings and, thus, revitalize the industry

They simply don't have their sh!t together and want to blame EVERYONE and EVERYTHING except themselves. They appoint rappers, singers and producers to executive positions and wonder why they continue to make bad BUSINESS decisions. Apple and Wal-Mart, BUSINESS-MINDED TEAMS, have the RIAA in a strangle-hold; and it didn't take much to put them there.

Yeah, it's hurts our bottom line. But let's not pretend that the recording industry has not been it's OWN worst enemy in the last 10 years.

[Timsplace]

I'd like to see the comparative graph of how much music people are actually LISTENING to. If the number of ear buds on people's heads are any indication there is a LOT more music being CONSUMED, sadly just not PAID FOR. The record industry doesn't need saving the content creators need support so they can continue to do what they do.

[amp]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

The usual folks will be in later to tell us that sales are actually up, the music industry is lying about all of this, that free downloading is good for the industry, etc...

the reason music sales are down is because we have instant access to all the music ever made, being made, and currently in the process of being made. you can pull up stats in favor of or against pirating all you want. music dont really mean nothin' once you have access to all the music. this is where we're at. now, have you given much thought as to how you will successfully sell albums in a declining market? gearslutz is interested. please share.

[haymedic]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

And why do a lot of people know who Radiohead are? Because they were on a major label who marketed them heavily. Same with NIN and others who got their visibility on the label's marketing dime and now are able to go out on their own, because people already know who they are.

So who out there is as big as Radiohead (who isn't THAT big either) without ever having been with a label?

ummm... those bands are successful because they wrote good music. they didn't rely on crappy, trendy sounds and ego centric, slutty, flashy images to get peoples attention to only later be disappointed by the cheap, bubblegum underneath. i still get inspired by radiohead and trent reznor, along with a lot of other great bands. (signed or not) i don't, however, get inspired by the grammy's or any other pat yourself on the back crap like cribs and lifestyles of the rich and famous.

that's the problem... the industry just TELLS us what we want to hear. they don't LISTEN to the public... and now they're suffering for it and trying to throw out the 'you're all immoral thieves!' card... when really... the business side has as much morality as any other company who is only looking out for a way to earn more money, period. did digidesign have all the studios in mind when they sold us pro tools and told us we can all be 'engineers' at home? did wal mart have ma and pa in mind when they decided to undercut EVERYONE elses business for every 100 mile radius in north america? did the music industry have the 19 year old hottie's soul in mind when they made a butt load of money parading her around like a porn star?

'no hard feelings, it's all just business, right?'

well... i, for one, am very happy to have an alternative like myspace and torrent sites to hear people who actually want to play music for the love of music. i will pay those people if i want (and if i don't want to pay them, i know they will continue to play music because they LOVE doing it) **i also don't care if they aren't the smoothest, fully tuned, sonically perfected recordings i've ever heard.** i want to hear the songs and i want to be inspired by the creativity. not flash, cash, and the portrayal of themselves as pop star demigods--which is what i see a lot of the music industry selling.

music will continue either way.

s

[Dean Roddey]

Oh, whatever. This is a complete waste of time and is just getting worse as time goes by. I'm sick of having to spend huge amounts of time battling the same stupid arguments over and over. Go ahead and do whatever you want and believe whatever you want. Ten years from now, don't blame me for what's going to happen. And don't blame me when the internet get's seriously clamped down on because people can't seem to manage to act remotely morally.

I don't work in this industry, so it's not me who is going to be on the losing end of all of this. I'm not arguing for my own self interest, I'm trying to argue for the rights of the people here who make their living making music.

[chrisso]

+1 Dean.
You were doing a great job giving people a reality check.
I do work in the industry.
The descriptions of the industry prior to the last decade are so wildly off (and universally negative in the extreme) it makes me wonder how many of the contributors here have any experience of working in music.

The biggest argument often given pro free music is that it frees up the little musician, living on the edge, to have their voice heard.
maybe...... but they could do that inside the previous business model anyway (like the punks 1975-1980).

The biggest point on my side of the argument is the taking of my work without my permission, without paying me.
So...... if the utopian dream of the anti-music business lobby here was played out in reality - people like me would be going bust, while new, young artists who gave away their music freely would be prospering.
In fact we would be talking about these new (free sharing) artists and not Beyonce, Lady GaGa or Nickelback.
So I say this.......
If you are so passionate in your belief that past musicians and music industry employees were greedy and ripped off the public, go out and make your own music, then give it away free.

I highly suspect people will still steal Beyonce and lady GaGa tracks - and i've yet to see any evangelical anti-industry forum members put their money where their mouth is and make their own music to give away free (thus blowing apart the previous business model). No, it's always people taking without permission the music that was created under the previous business model.
Stop blaming us (the previous generation), be my guest and bypass my preferred model.
Make your own music.
I'm still waiting.........

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by haymedic

to hear people who actually want to play music for the love of music. i will pay those people if i want (and if i don't want to pay them, i know they will continue to play music because they LOVE doing it)

So do you work only for the love of it. Or do you expect to get a wage cheque every now and then.
If we all decided you didn't deserve to be paid for your work, would you still do your job?

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by amp

music dont really mean nothin' once you have access to all the music.

Why did you join a music related forum?

[PeeWeeGee]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

Oh, whatever. This is a complete waste of time and is just getting worse as time goes by. I'm sick of having to spend huge amounts of time battling the same stupid arguments over and over. Go ahead and do whatever you want and believe whatever you want. Ten years from now, don't blame me for what's going to happen. And don't blame me when the internet get's seriously clamped down on because people can't seem to manage to act remotely morally.

I don't work in this industry, so it's not me who is going to be on the losing end of all of this. I'm not arguing for my own self interest, I'm trying to argue for the rights of the people here who make their living making music.

Wow, Dean. I'd given you too much credit.

I can't speak for defending comments that reflect "discretionary purchasing" of music. I stand by my sentiment that stealing is stealing - period.

But you call a counter-argument "stupid" because you and others fail to give full disclosure of the root cause along with the symptoms. Why is there no pie-chart breakdown of how the revenue is divided? Where is the bar graph of the increase in Indie sales that are also a major factor in sinking sales via the majors. Where are the poll numbers that show that kids prefer to "watch" their music on YouTube for FREE instead of buying today's fad hit. I hear your message loud and clear. I just don't believe that it is COMPLETE.

I don't "make my living" in music either. (Actually, I am a Business Development Manager for a global company; so these points are near and dear to my occupation.) However the "rights" that you claim to argue for are limited to the following:

• The right to NOT have your intellectual property stolen. We agree there.
• The right to NOT be subject to unfair business practices (ie - monopolistic tactics and anti-trust structuring)
• The right to compete in a free-market environment
• The right to maximize PERSONAL profits from YOUR products

For the sake of the artists behind the music, I think these rights should remain sacred. But 3 out of 4 are usurped BY many of the labels.

If you're spending huge amounts of time to champion the cause of a(nother) corrupt industry, then I'd agree that its better spent elsewhere. But you'd be far more effective if you had quantified and qualified your "position" versus giving anecdotal conjecture.

BTW - That ten year crystal ball of yours might better serve the RIAA. Seems like THEY don't have an eye on the future.

[PeeWeeGee]

Originally Posted by haymedic

well... i, for one, am very happy to have an alternative like myspace and torrent sites to hear people who actually want to play music for the love of music. i will pay those people if i want (and if i don't want to pay them, i know they will continue to play music because they LOVE doing it) **i also don't care if they aren't the smoothest, fully tuned, sonically perfected recordings i've ever heard.** i want to hear the songs and i want to be inspired by the creativity. not flash, cash, and the portrayal of themselves as pop star demigods--which is what i see a lot of the music industry selling.

music will continue either way.

s

Wrong! If the product is for SALE and you take it without paying for it, you are a thief. Period.

Donation-based projects or free offerings are totally different. But jacking an artist from being paid for his/her creativity and talent is BULLSH!T - plain and simple.

[haymedic]

Originally Posted by chrisso

So do you work only for the love of it. Or do you expect to get a wage cheque every now and then.
If we all decided you didn't deserve to be paid for your work, would you still do your job?

i didn't make a cent off music; yet still earned a living doing something else. why do so many people act like they just deserve all these accolades and rewards? there are writers, cellists, conductors, pianists, singers, composers, painters, dancers, actors, song writers, etc. who are SO talented and have been waiting tables for years so they can enjoy their passion from time to time. but suddenly when wolf blitzer talks about the superstar music industry only making 6.3 billion dollars in a year, there is this big crime against humanity occurring?

[GearBit]

i still get inspired by radiohead and trent reznor, along with a lot of other great bands. (signed or not) i don't, however, get inspired by the grammy's or any other pat yourself on the back crap like cribs and lifestyles of the rich and famous.

That's fine and I'd say I am in your camp on those sentiments however I think the fundamental difference between us is that I am able to accept the reality that my/our world views are not like most and as such don't carry as much power.
Just because you don't understand or like something doesn't mean it just magically goes away.

Originally Posted by haymedic

that's the problem... the industry just TELLS us what we want to hear. they don't LISTEN to the public...

Look around. Look at the public. Look at popular culture. Look at the people screaming "get the governments hands off my medicare". If you think the masses are connoisseurs of fine music just waiting for the next musical brain teaser then I'd say you grossly overestimate the publics intellect..
Actually, I think the reason the crap is being pushed harder is precisely because the labels are trying to give the people what they want.

and now they're suffering for it and trying to throw out the 'you're all immoral thieves!' card...

The music industry has always put out what musos think is crap and the general public loves. Trust me. I have lived through 4 decades of it and the only thing that is different now is that the "alternative" acts have to find their way on their own without having to rely on madonnas or milli vanillis profits to fund their twisted time signature masterpiece.
If you think the majors are the only ones suffering then you have never had someone come up to you after a show to tell you that they downloaded your album.
Once that happens to you then you have earned the right to throw as many "immoral thieves" cards as you like.

[haymedic]

Originally Posted by GearBit

That's fine and I'd say I am in your camp on those sentiments however I think the fundamental difference between us is that I am able to accept the reality that my/our world views are not like most and as such don't carry as much power.
Just because you don't understand or like something doesn't mean it just magically goes away.


Look around. Look at the public. Look at popular culture. Look at the people screaming "get the governments hands off my medicare". If you think the masses are connoisseurs of fine music just waiting for the next musical brain teaser then I'd say you grossly overestimate the publics intellect..
Actually, I think the reason the crap is being pushed harder is precisely because the labels are trying to give the people what they want.


The music industry has always put out what musos think is crap and the general public loves. Trust me. I have lived through 4 decades of it and the only thing that is different now is that the "alternative" acts have to find their way on their own without having to rely on madonnas or milli vanillis profits to fund their twisted time signature masterpiece.
If you think the majors are the only ones suffering then you have never had someone come up to you after a show to tell you that they downloaded your album.
Once that happens to you then you have earned the right to throw as many "immoral thieves" cards as you like.

those are great points. serious... thanks.

s

[haymedic]

Originally Posted by PeeWeeGee

Wrong! If the product is for SALE and you take it without paying for it, you are a thief. Period.

Donation-based projects or free offerings are totally different. But jacking an artist from being paid for his/her creativity and talent is BULLSH!T - plain and simple.

i meant the donation sites and radio stations. that wasn't clear. sorry.

s

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by PeeWeeGee

If you're spending huge amounts of time to champion the cause of a(nother) corrupt industry, then I'd agree that its better spent elsewhere. But you'd be far more effective if you had quantified and qualified your "position" versus giving anecdotal conjecture.

That's the point. I HAVE done that. I've written probably hundreds of thousands of words on the subject. But, the next week, the exact same arguments come up again in another thread and it starts all over, and a new person puts forward the exactly same arguments as though they were fact and argues to the death over them. I can't keep doing it over and over again.

[Lrmusic]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

I can't keep doing it over and over again.

Sounds like you need some drones.

[DontLetMeDrown]

Originally Posted by CuminGingerSpice

Yeah. What's your point? That's not a lot of money for a major industry. Not at all...

...So, our industry is itty itty bitty. Don't kid yourself.

That last sentence is my point.

I popped in this thread to crack a joke which bought me 2 personal attacks-- completely unwarranted considering that I buy all of my music and even run my own business. These guys get so fired up regurgitating the same bile that they'll slash anyone's throat who isn't on the exact same page as them.

What our GS anti-piracy preachers don't seem to realize is that even though we disagree on some points, THEY'RE PREACHING TO THE CHOIR. If you really want to have an impact on piracy FOR REAL, realize: GEARSLUTZ are NOT YOUR TARGET AUDIENCE! The people who are going to steal will LOL at a graph that shows us still making BILLIONS. They have no concept of how big the industry really is and they obviously don't care. They see the BILLIONS and their actions are justified.

If piracy is really important to you, you can have a bigger impact with your words elsewhere. Take your big balls out on the streets where you have a better chance to make a difference and educate people. FYI, I'm pretty sure EVERY GEARSLUT knows where Dean Roddey stands on the issue of piracy. If it makes you feel better, go ahead and keep telling us.

[Dean Roddey]

If you think that, you haven't been paying attention. A LOT of people here are young or younger folks who have grown up in the 'everything should be free on the internet' way of thinking and they completely buy into it, while simultaneously thinking that they want to be in the same business. If this weren't the case, then these threads wouldn't go on for pages and pages because we'd have nothing to argue about.

If even people who in the industry somehow believe that they are gonig to do better with everyone freely stealing music, then what hope do we have outside the industry.

But, I DO go 'out on the streets' and argue these issues in other fora, and it's even far worse there. You can't even usually have a semi-coherent debate on it in most general audience fora, because people are often just utterly ignorant of the music business or economics and utterly believe that they have the right to anything they want, and anyone who tries to stop them is evil. That's like going to a KKK rally and arguing for inter-racial gay marriage.

I was having these arguments back in the late 90s on home theater related fora and you wouldn't believe how bad it was already. People would actually accuse me of being some kind of fascist because I wanted to get paid for the software I create. The level of self-entitlement that has grown up by now is just mind boggling.

[DontLetMeDrown]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

If you think that, you haven't been paying attention. A LOT of people here are young or younger folks who have grown up in the 'everything should be free on the internet' way of thinking and they completely buy into it, while simultaneously thinking that they want to be in the same business. If this weren't the case, then these threads wouldn't go on for pages and pages because we'd have nothing to argue about.

If even people who in the industry somehow believe that they are gonig to do better with everyone freely stealing music, then what hope do we have outside the industry.

But, I DO go 'out on the streets' and argue these issues in other fora, and it's even far worse there. You can't even usually have a semi-coherent debate on it in most general audience fora, because people are often just utterly ignorant of the music business or economics and utterly believe that they have the right to anything they want, and anyone who tries to stop them is evil. That's like going to a KKK rally and arguing for inter-racial gay marriage.

I was having these arguments back in the late 90s on home theater related fora and you wouldn't believe how bad it was already. People would actually accuse me of being some kind of fascist because I wanted to get paid for the software I create. The level of self-entitlement that has grown up by now is just mind boggling.

I gotcha. All I'm saying is, you are going to be fighting that battle forever here. You're not going to change their minds just like they're not going to change yours. You don't have to respond to every GS piracy-related post. We know how you feel.

[Neenja]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

When you have no actual facts to put forward, just throwing out a bunch of random cynical incoherence and innuendo is usually the next best thing.

Where are your "facts"? You can show that sales are down, but you can't show why. Give us a complete picture of the CD era through 2009 and then we can discuss it. All you have is speculation and that isn't going to put money in anyone's pocket.

[Neenja]

Let's look at Metallica's sales:

Kill em All (1983) - 3,000,000
Ride the Lightening (1984) - 5,000,000
Master of Puppets (1986) - 6,000,000
Garage Days (1987) - 1,000,000
Justice for All (1998) - 8,000,000
Metallica (1991) - 14,000,000
Load (1996) - 5,000,000
Reload (1997) - 3,000,000
Garage Inc (1998) - 2,500,000
S&M (1999) - 2,500,000
St. Anger (2003) - 2,000,000
Death Magnetic (2008) - 2,000,000

Feel free to argue that Metallica's sales would have been significantly different since 1996 or so, but I argue that this is just what a 30 year old band's sales look like. You wipe out piracy and these guys aren't going to sell 3 million CDs.

For the sake of fairness I will also include the Wikipedia page. I normally avoid it, but it has interesting numbers. It shows that in many countries Metallica sells as many CDs as they ever did regardless of piracy. All this kills the "people won't buy what they can get for free" theory.

Let's for once have a discussion of this instead of knee jerk reactions.

[Neenja]

Here's the U2 Wiki page. Pretty even sales over their career, piracy or not.

U2 discography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[GearBit]

Originally Posted by Neenja

Where are your "facts"? You can show that sales are down, but you can't show why. Give us a complete picture of the CD era through 2009 and then we can discuss it. All you have is speculation and that isn't going to put money in anyone's pocket.

Sorry, but if you are going to call the graph in the OP, the decline of book sales, the rise in sales coinciding with the crackdown on downloads in sweden and the simple fact that a downloaded album is an album that has not generated any revenue "speculation" then I suggest you go and join the creationists because your stretch of logic will be right at home there.

[Neenja]

Originally Posted by GearBit

Sorry, but if you are going to call the graph in the OP, the decline of book sales, the rise in sales coinciding with the crackdown on downloads in sweden and the simple fact that a downloaded album is an album that has not generated any revenue "speculation" then I suggest you go and join the creationists because your stretch of logic will be right at home there.

Well, there goes the "no knee jerk reactions" thing. I don't doubt that the music industry is making less. What I doubt is that piracy is the primary cause of that that decline. It is a piece, but there is no way to know how big of a piece.

Let me add Kings of Leon.

Kings of Leon discography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You think they would have sold more CDs than they have? Show your work.

[GearBit]

Originally Posted by Neenja

Feel free to argue that Metallica's sales would have been significantly different since 1996 or so, but I argue that this is just what a 30 year old band's sales look like.

Here's the U2 Wiki page. Pretty even sales over their career, piracy or not.

Both are 30 year old acts give or take. Which argument do you want to go with now?

You seem to be contradicting yourself which always happens when someone is being dishonest in their assessment of statistics.