The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Piracy growing as fewer fans buy downloads
Old 19th May 2008 | Show parent
  #61
Moderator
 
Reptil's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by djwayne View Post
You can keep your $5.00 for a cd. It's not worth it to me. For $ 4.99, you can buy my music in 128 kbps mp3 download form at SoundClick, but you ain't getting a cd from me at that price. It's just not worth the aggravation.
ok, how about your music in uncompressed format, as a paid download?
and a low quality mp3 as a freebie?
Old 19th May 2008 | Show parent
  #62
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
ok, how about your music in uncompressed format, as a paid download?
and a low quality mp3 as a freebie?
My music is not available in an uncompressed format at this time. Today, it's available at SoundClick 128 kbps MP3 format or a lower quality mp3 stream as well.

In the next couple of weeks it'll be available on Amazon in 256kbps MP3 format, and iTunes at 256 kbps aac files.

I have to look at my costs for storage and downloading capabilities. The best sounding deal out there is iTunes at 256 kbps aac. When iTunes goes with a .wav file option , I will too, as they already have my music in .wav file form, but I don't expect them to do that anytime soon.
Old 19th May 2008 | Show parent
  #63
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
Here's what young people do:
they sign up with a download service, and pay a monthly fee.
then they download as much as they can, most of it is low quality lossy format. they listen to half of it, and nothing really sticks.

What is wrong here IMHO:
"The industry" (big boys) is treating customers and music as disposable products. The less inherent content it has, the more it will be readily accepted by those kids, who they see as consumers - i.o.w. they need a rapid turnover of crap.
This has proven to be a failing business model.
Instead of looking at it in a different way, the emphasis is still on disposable products, and not on finding and publishing music that is daring and different. Amy Whinehouse is IMHO a perfect example: She's a great singer, and nothing wrong with her album. But it wouldn't have raised much eyebrows in the fifties, or sixties, musicwise.
So... still sales are falling.
So, what is the answer of "the industry" - the big boys?
Instead of looking at the business model, they try to bash other business models, and make music worth even less, by connecting it to advertisement.

There is plenty of good, excellent, brilliant music out there. The problem is that there is no "step up" from indie low volume release to big time major release anymore. The majors are concentrating on a few artists only, and neglecting the plethora of fine stuff out there. They are unwilling to invest in risky projects, outside of their intended customer base, because they think in business models only, and have no antenna for picking up quality, allbeit different.
Just look at what knowledgable guys like Marshall Jefferson (see subforum) are saying: Make a deal with the majors, otherwise you won't be able to sustain a living from it. Many people don't want to, because they and their music will then be chopped up into bite size consumer packages.

It will change, and young people will buy music again when they think it is worth buying. They grew up being consumers (only) and they developed filters for the barrage of ****e, that came their way. Accepting it as ****e, nothing more. Give them something good and they will recognise the value.

dfegadmtv

Major labels don't invest in new/diverse talent at the moment because they no longer have the money to take the risk. Thats a fact. The reason they don't have money is because piracy hit them hard. Nothing else.

They don't invest in grown up music like they do in kids **** because even at the best of times it doesn't sell like the kids **** and at a time like this they're gonna be selling what they know sells. Music shaped, by labels, for kids has been around since the 60s and has proved profitable time and time again. Whether its **** is neither here nor there, because as you say; they think in business models. Why? because its a business and thats good business sense. I'm not saying I like it either but thats the way it is and it will never change.

Kids go to school and hang about with friends and are generally told what is good by their piers. Thats what the majors rely on. Thats why so much emphasis is put on creating a hype around an artist because kids will beleive it.

Adults on the other hand are much more opinionated and have more diverse tastes so they buy different things. They can't be sold things on mass like the kids can. Some will like pop, some rock, some house etc...
So to cover this market they would need to be developing so many different acts [which is a risk they can't be taking at the moment], that the profits would not be as attractive as it may first appear.
Thats why this diverse eclectic mainstream is just an idealistic dream and will never happen. Sorry to piss on your bonfire
Old 19th May 2008 | Show parent
  #64
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by djwayne View Post
My music is not available in an uncompressed format at this time. Today, it's available at SoundClick 128 kbps MP3 format or a lower quality mp3 stream as well.

In the next couple of weeks it'll be available on Amazon in 256kbps MP3 format, and iTunes at 256 kbps aac files.

I have to look at my costs for storage and downloading capabilities. The best sounding deal out there is iTunes at 256 kbps aac. When iTunes goes with a .wav file option , I will too, as they already have my music in .wav file form, but I don't expect them to do that anytime soon.
On second thought, why should I make .wav files available ?? So pirates can make better quality counterfeits ??

Naaaa I think I'll keep my .wav files, and just sell aac and mp3 files.
Old 19th May 2008 | Show parent
  #65
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
there is a new platform coming called qtrax. they are supposedly working to get all the labels singed on to have all their music downloadable legally or free. advertising will foot the bill. stay tuned
Old 19th May 2008 | Show parent
  #66
Lives for gear
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
I suggest some of you read this report, before commenting -

Apple, Tesco 'most to blame' for music biz crisis | The Register
Old 19th May 2008 | Show parent
  #67
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
The unbundling of songs into individual downloads is something that many customers wanted, they want the option to buy one song at a time, in some cases. They feel being forced into buying a whole cd for one song was a rip off. So to appease this mindset, making songs available individually was the best answer. Some artists don't like this as they may only get a $.99 sale vrs a $ 9.99 whole cd sale.....but that's what the market is demanding.
Old 19th May 2008 | Show parent
  #68
Lives for gear
 
noiseflaw's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Byre View Post
I suggest some of you read this report, before commenting -

Apple, Tesco 'most to blame' for music biz crisis | The Register
Thanks for that link The Byre I will post it at the thread starter.
Old 19th May 2008 | Show parent
  #69
Lives for gear
 
Al Rogers's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Too bad the record companies won't consider going back to vinyl. Vinyl is alive and well.

Turntables, cartridges, and preamps are better sounding than ever before. Vinyl sounds great. A good 180 gram vinyl pressing on a $1,000 turntable will blow away a CD on a $1,000 CD player. And if you copy vinyl there is a penalty in the loss of sound because you have gone down a generation.

If you doubt that vinyl is alive and well go to eBay and check out the prices that sellers are getting for early pressing of classic vinyl.

-Al
Old 19th May 2008 | Show parent
  #70
Lives for gear
 
noiseflaw's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
The Register:

The growth of MP3 has seen large hardware manufacturers such as Apple and media companies such as News Corp's MySpace prosper from music, but returning little or nothing to composers, songwriters, and sound recordings owners.
It's what economist Will Page, of the MCPS-PRS Alliance, calls a "broken supply chain". Revenues from telecoms companies and service providers dwarf the revenues from the beleaguered music business.
Old 19th May 2008 | Show parent
  #71
Moderator
 
Reptil's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by phizix View Post
Major labels don't invest in new/diverse talent at the moment because they no longer have the money to take the risk. Thats a fact. The reason they don't have money is because piracy hit them hard. Nothing else.

They don't invest in grown up music like they do in kids **** because even at the best of times it doesn't sell like the kids **** and at a time like this they're gonna be selling what they know sells. Music shaped, by labels, for kids has been around since the 60s and has proved profitable time and time again. Whether its **** is neither here nor there, because as you say; they think in business models. Why? because its a business and thats good business sense. I'm not saying I like it either but thats the way it is and it will never change.

Kids go to school and hang about with friends and are generally told what is good by their piers. Thats what the majors rely on. Thats why so much emphasis is put on creating a hype around an artist because kids will beleive it.

Adults on the other hand are much more opinionated and have more diverse tastes so they buy different things. They can't be sold things on mass like the kids can. Some will like pop, some rock, some house etc...
So to cover this market they would need to be developing so many different acts [which is a risk they can't be taking at the moment], that the profits would not be as attractive as it may first appear.
Thats why this diverse eclectic mainstream is just an idealistic dream and will never happen. Sorry to piss on your bonfire
No worries mate, was more like a drizzle.. LOL
I think the majors can and should (for their own sake) invest in (risky) new talent. Why can small labels do that and the big ones not? they still have way way more power behind their choices.
Instead they've opted to try to limit the download wave.
Well, they'll fail, because of one simple reason: they don't take risks (anymore), it's the risky stuff that got them where they were at their peak. In short.. they lost it, because they're not able to differentiate the good music from bad, A&R sucks, everyone can tell you that.

Also witnessing the dance music development here in the nineties, I'd say it is arrogant to assume a target audience of young people can't choose their OWN favorites. They can and they will, if this (a wider choice of QUALITY) is offered to them. What I'm trying to say is IT DID HAPPEN, but the majors decided to fukk it, because the market was too fragmented for their taste, they want complete control, after all.

To offer kids something that is dumbed down, because it is expected of kids to be dumb, is a dog chasing it's tail. Bit like djs playing only what they expect people like, instead of some soul searching. Relying on "hero worship" and repetitious music placement is what made the kids turn away from the crap. Kids may be poorly educated nowadays (note: generalistation) but they sure are aware when they're fed ****e. And they are, right now. ringtones? HUGE market. Is it music? eehm? There is so much potential in modern technology it isn't funny anymore. Key problem is the lack of uplifting spirtitual music targeted at these kids. Simple as that. Part of a consumer culture falling apart and reducing itself to inedible bitesize chunks. Fukk that. If anyone believes in this failed business model, they're buying into the hype.

I just found out the "5 days off" festival (dance music) is now MTV owned. Meaning exit new unknown exciting acts, enter proven money machines bought and paid for by MTV. MTV is "if you can't beat them, buy them, and strangle their product" I've seen enough examples of this, in the late nineties to recognise the pattern.

Bottom line: It's not the kids that dropped the ball (first), it's the majors.
Instead of looking inward and start making radical changes, they're still hawking "their" industry.


dfegadmtv

Last edited by Reptil; 19th May 2008 at 06:28 PM.. Reason: sorry for the longwinded reply ;-)
Old 19th May 2008 | Show parent
  #72
Moderator
 
Reptil's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Rogers View Post
Too bad the record companies won't consider going back to vinyl. Vinyl is alive and well.

Turntables, cartridges, and preamps are better sounding than ever before. Vinyl sounds great. A good 180 gram vinyl pressing on a $1,000 turntable will blow away a CD on a $1,000 CD player. And if you copy vinyl there is a penalty in the loss of sound because you have gone down a generation.

If you doubt that vinyl is alive and well go to eBay and check out the prices that sellers are getting for early pressing of classic vinyl.

-Al
It's very much alive, but the market is not the same.
Demanding customers, thinner spread out.
They won't do that, because it doesn't fit in their consumer model.
Old 19th May 2008 | Show parent
  #73
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Rogers View Post
Too bad the record companies won't consider going back to vinyl. Vinyl is alive and well.

Turntables, cartridges, and preamps are better sounding than ever before. Vinyl sounds great. A good 180 gram vinyl pressing on a $1,000 turntable will blow away a CD on a $1,000 CD player. And if you copy vinyl there is a penalty in the loss of sound because you have gone down a generation.

If you doubt that vinyl is alive and well go to eBay and check out the prices that sellers are getting for early pressing of classic vinyl.

-Al
Well, speaking from the artist's standpoint...vinyl is not something I can produce in my home studio and the cost of it for low run production is prohibitive. People squawk about the price of cd's, they are going to squawk even more at the cost of vinyl albums. Vinyl is not portable like downloaded music files are, you can't play vinyl in your car or on your iPod. Vinyl has really become a novelty item, no longer a mass produced item. Plus, they wear out over time. They get scratched, they warp, they are noisy if they get dust on them.....is it any wonder why the major record companies don't go with vinyl anymore ??
Old 19th May 2008 | Show parent
  #74
Here for the gear
 
🎧 15 years
I have a good friend that owns a major blues label. He doesn't record music for kids, ever. Logic would say that his market is somewhat protected because very little of his material is available for rip-off downloads. The truth is that he is loosing money big time, and although he blames downloading, I don't think that's the major problem.

I personally feel that because of the media bombardment that we experience these days, people (even older adults) spend more time watching cable TV and blasting around the internet with their spare time. I know that although I am a musician and deeply care about music and the artists, I buy very little these days. I used to buy 10+ CD's a month. I don't think I have bought 10 CD's in the last 2 years.

Any thoughts?
Old 19th May 2008 | Show parent
  #75
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
The Blues is a tough genre. There's a lot of top notch players competing for business. I think that's the problem. There are soooo many blues artists out there, and they're good, damn good.

Old 19th May 2008 | Show parent
  #76
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
Kids may be poorly educated nowadays (note: generalistation) but they sure are aware when they're fed ****e.
Are they? Then why do artists like soulja boy sell so well? How many people over 18 do you know who bought that?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
Key problem is the lack of uplifting spirtitual music targeted at these kids. Simple as that.
There is a lack of it because they don't want to hear it. They're kids! Try playing a kid some "Uplifting spiritual music" and some simple hype music and see which one they go for.

I'm not saying I want to hear this shyte either but we're not the target market for mainstream music. Majors will continue to sell to kids, they always have done and its always worked so why would they change that now when sales are low?


Imagine you own a fruit stall and you sell loads of apples and not many pears. When times get bad and you can't afford much new stock, what would you sell?
Old 20th May 2008 | Show parent
  #77
Deleted 99dc753
Guest
I would even buy the good old vinyl.
But I think audio geeks are short handed.

Consumer dictates what he likes.
And in this case with the advent of MP3 he is not willed to pay for music even if a CD is having the much better quality in sound.

I guess in 10 years we have no major labels any more.
The future will be that most musicians will sell their music over the internet.
Even there are a lot of labels working under creative common license here in europe and they be in the black with their CASH.

Didnt anyone is wondering why Home Producing is growing market?
Because Musicians recognized that they can produce good sound out of the home Studio and sell their music ONLINE.....

And if you ask me maybe it is hard to learn how to produce good music at home.
And yes the equipment and acoustic treatment will cost a big bunch of money.
But when the penny drooped once.....

So music business is in a big whirligig
Wondering that some people do not get it yet 2008 ???
Making big bugs with CD selling is OVER!!!
Old 20th May 2008 | Show parent
  #78
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Byre View Post
I suggest some of you read this report, before commenting -

Apple, Tesco 'most to blame' for music biz crisis | The Register
i've been saying that about Asda, Tesco and Woolworths for years. All of those stores have never made any contribution to initially charting an act - they ONLY stock chart items and so purely milk the success of acts already selling - and do it with discount bulk. they have very seriously impacted on the income streams for labels and artists. woolworths started in twenty years ago - they've never made ANY contribution to establishing new music. HMV, Virgin megastores (oh dear) and the independant shops charted the records - then the vultures came in and made the money.
Old 20th May 2008 | Show parent
  #79
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Rogers View Post
Too bad the record companies won't consider going back to vinyl. Vinyl is alive and well.

Turntables, cartridges, and preamps are better sounding than ever before. Vinyl sounds great. A good 180 gram vinyl pressing on a $1,000 turntable will blow away a CD on a $1,000 CD player. And if you copy vinyl there is a penalty in the loss of sound because you have gone down a generation.

If you doubt that vinyl is alive and well go to eBay and check out the prices that sellers are getting for early pressing of classic vinyl.

-Al
I love vinyl - but blow away isn't quite right. Some music works better on vinyl, some better on CD. My '67 stereo SGT peppers does indeed sound ace, better than CD. But my John Spencer CDs sound better than the vinyl - and it's good vinyl. the frequencies that are on the CD just aren't on the records.
Old 20th May 2008 | Show parent
  #80
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Most of us only have time for a limited number of music stars in our life. As we get older, the openings for new artists tends to decline. This is why labels look to a young audience for new artists. They are simply a lot more open to new artists.

Unfortunately American commercial broadcasting has become more hung up on serving demographic statistics up to advertisers than actually entertaining anybody with something that doesn't sound like an imitation '80s record.
Old 20th May 2008
  #81
11413
Guest
make something worth buying instead of making "product"...

everything sounds so ****ing generic nowadays... dfegad
Old 20th May 2008 | Show parent
  #82
Lives for gear
 
TheRealRoach's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
I had an experience this weekend that this thread reminded me of.

I was helping someone fix their virus/spyware ridden computer. The thing was hardly working, so many popups and glitches that the whole thing ended up needing a reformatting and full re-install. Before I actually wiped everything though, I did a full diagnostic on the system that showed that nearly 100% of infected files (there were hundreds) were in fact, music downloads. For the record they were using "Limewire Pro" which apparently is marketed as being resistant to viruses. So much for that.

Anyway I told them they couldn't illegally download music and the first reaction was: "Well how are we going to get music then!?" The problem is deeply ingrained. Not only is a system required to replace the old one, but an additional system is actually needed to reverse this new entitlement to free music.
Old 20th May 2008 | Show parent
  #83
Moderator
 
Reptil's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by phizix View Post
Are they? Then why do artists like soulja boy sell so well? How many people over 18 do you know who bought that?
heh a lot. I just saw it happen that young kids were into deeper kinds of music. not just a few, but many, and as a community thing. uplifting spiritual music doesn't have to be "serious" music. It can also be simple, lighthearted music. as long as it's honest, and there's something "real"to it.
I'm thinking of seventies stuff. But then modern. there is so much good stuff out there.
Do we get to hear it? No. the entrance to the public is blocked.
BTW the amount of retro parties, releases etc. the last decade and now still is staggering here: eightties revival back to the nineties etc.
my main point is the music industry is stuck because their development is stuck. And now finally after years of milking the cashcow, it's run dry.
Why didn't they develop some new format. Why didn't they invest in something fresh, and daring?
I don't care about them BTW, couldn't care if their business dies.
That would be the natural order of things.
The space they leave, will be filled with other things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phizix View Post
There is a lack of it because they don't want to hear it. They're kids! Try playing a kid some "Uplifting spiritual music" and some simple hype music and see which one they go for.

I'm not saying I want to hear this shyte either but we're not the target market for mainstream music. Majors will continue to sell to kids, they always have done and its always worked so why would they change that now when sales are low?


Imagine you own a fruit stall and you sell loads of apples and not many pears. When times get bad and you can't afford much new stock, what would you sell?
mmm I see it more like the apples don't sell anymore.
it's not a very good comparison, cause nobody else is selling apples. everybody else is selling pears. not many, but still. They taste better, but are harder to peel.

we'll see.
Old 20th May 2008 | Show parent
  #84
Moderator
 
Reptil's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRealRoach View Post
....snip........Not only is a system required to replace the old one, but an additional system is actually needed to reverse this new entitlement to free music.
Exactly.
and the majors have been against it, because they were hawking their market. for instance itunes took them by surprise.
there is many other possibillities.

instead they're stuck with ringtones.
Old 20th May 2008 | Show parent
  #85
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
...itunes took them by surprise.
Actually the majors were talking about selling downloads in the 1970s and streaming in the 1920s.

The delay in selling downloads was caused by the labels not having the rights from the artists to sell downloads. For example the Beatles have only just given permission.

I'm totally into indi labels and artists but repeating misinformation about the majors serves nobody.
Old 22nd May 2008 | Show parent
  #86
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Adults on the other hand are much more opinionated and have more diverse tastes so they buy different things. They can't be sold things on mass like the kids can.
i don't know that i agree with that

adults are forcefed **** just as much, and as easily, as kids are

especially women. that's right, i said it...
Old 22nd May 2008 | Show parent
  #87
Gear Head
 
MyBeautifulStar's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I didn't take time to read this whole thread, so I apologize if I restate anything...

But here's the fact of the matter. Sure, maybe the "older" generation would buy more CDs. So yea, duh.

But record companies are in the business to make money. It's pretty annoying to say that Reason and digital technology, etc., is the reason why "talented musicians" aren't pushed.

Oh... God, there's too much to say to that.

I attend classes at Lee University. They push classical music; and many professors would never put in a CD with anything but classical music on it. Why? They don't LIKE anything but classical.

Yet a billion other things exist in which there is "talent."

Art is entirely based on perception. Your most prized piece of art may be your child's depiction of your house scribbled on a piece of paper. To anyone else, that piece of paper is scribbles. To you, it's priceless.

So I digress.

Just because your cup of tea is not modern, digitally-enhanced musicianship doesn't mean it isn't someone else's favorite song. What are we here for? Who defines what is "good music?"

Record companies, therefore, are selling much more than a piece of plastic and foil and a little booklet. This generation has found out that that can be copied a billion times over. It's simple economy. And thank God for the digital advancements.

Record companies are trying to make money. Sell a face, sell a ticket. Sell something that ISN'T copyable. What, you're gonna trust a kid with a computer to NOT be economical? You're gonna spend money on advertisements trying to stop piracy? That's a waste of time, energy, money, etc.

Instead, use the dissolvable advertisements. Give them something that is tangible and not copyable. Don't try to sell music; the music industry as we knew it at one point is gone. You have to adapt or die.

Or live like an old person lives... entirely out of the loop. (haha... reason joke not intended).

Embrace what is the future of music. The dissolvable advertisements would provide fast, free access to music, and perfectly free targeted advertisements for the record company to sell spots to. So for the younger generation, advertise a product that a teen girl would use at the beginning of David Cook's new CD. Guess who's gonna pay out the arse to these record companies? That way, album sales are a bonus.

Forget piracy being a problem... the target money is made.

Anyway... please don't shoot me. Ignore me if you don't like what I said. Haha
Old 24th May 2008 | Show parent
  #88
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
ok, how about your music in uncompressed format, as a paid download?
and a low quality mp3 as a freebie?
Okay, how about.... 256kbps mp3's at Amazon all nine songs for $5.99. ??

Next week they should be up at iTunes as 256kbps aac files. But this week end they are up at Amazon.....
Old 25th May 2008 | Show parent
  #89
Lives for gear
 
NoVi's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12345 View Post
Yeah right, and the producer who sits in the studio being creative working his ass off gets nothing! That's bull****, you have to make a serious price for a product that you've created.
The producer (as any other cost in the creation stage) are initial investments before attempting to cash in on your product. I think that revenue will be generated from live shows, air play but also licensing to games, movies and product branding.
I agree that ultimately most music will be available for free.

For young kids music is just one of their sources of entertainment, with the most obvious rival being the gaming industry. So this situation is quite different from the era before 1990 when the only rivalry for music were movies and books.

For older generations I find that most of them are not really into exploring new artists. On the contrary, they stick to the music they liked when they were in their 10's/20's. Hence the success of the radio stations dedicated to classic rock music. So for that reason I hardly think it makes sense to age-specific marketing.
Old 25th May 2008 | Show parent
  #90
Lives for gear
 
dan p's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
My babysitter,she's 16 and i am 50 tells me she downloads all her movies & music for free from various sites.I'm lucky i have a job sort of in this biz,but then mine is starting to go away too since i have ghostwritten for someone else and i am now gettin sqeezed out.
Very few of us musicians will be ale to make any kinda livin unless you have lots of luck!

Dan P
πŸ–¨οΈ Show Printable Version
βœ‰οΈ Email this Page
πŸ” Search thread
πŸŽ™οΈ View mentioned gear
Forum Jump
Forum Jump