The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Billy Corgan - No Money In Music Now
Old 11th July 2012
  #1681
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2manyrocks View Post
I remember seeing this graph earlier in this thread.

Has anybody done a study measuring the degree of statistical association between broadband penetration and retail sales of music among various age groups? Or is there some publically data that would show the amount of increased website activity for piracy sites that could be measured against decling record sales?
there was one in particular that tracked reduced sales and increased P2P activity in markets with Broadband versus those with Dial Up. It pretty much resulted in what you'd expect... faster internet correlates to more P2P and less music sales...

and there's this...
Digital Music News - Broadband Penetration vs. Album Sales, 2000-2010...
Old 11th July 2012
  #1682
Deleted 0833250
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
no, you are confused. there was nothing about censorship. you are confusing the right to expression with WANTING to illegally exploit that expression for profit. those are two very different things...
Defend our freedom to share (or why SOPA is a bad idea) - YouTube
Old 11th July 2012
  #1683
Deleted 0833250
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
two people... TWO have been prosecuted for "sharing." and BOTH could have settled.



respectfully, I'd like to know what you base these opinions on... you don't lose 50% of an industry in a decade and have it not effecting everyone...
OK, fair enough...

I agree, that it effects everyone in the industry...but,

Sony Corporation Common Stock Stock Chart | SNE Interactive Chart - Yahoo! Finance

Eaton Vance Michigan Municipal Stock Chart | EMI Interactive Chart - Yahoo! Finance

etc.

Don't get me wrong, I'm of the opinion that a lot of tech companies have simply taken a huge part of the label's pie; and they put little or none of it back into the industry...
Old 11th July 2012
  #1684
Deleted 0833250
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
there was one in particular that tracked reduced sales and increased P2P activity in markets with Broadband versus those with Dial Up. It pretty much resulted in what you'd expect... faster internet correlates to more P2P and less music sales...

and there's this...
Digital Music News - Broadband Penetration vs. Album Sales, 2000-2010...
Cheers, I'm certainly not denying that album sales decreased massively because of illegal sharing...

I just think how/why it has affected artists overall earnings has been coloured to suit the big labels a bit...


Thanks for your replies, BTW. It is an interesting topic, and I'm interested in being proven wrong on my ill-formed conjectures.

I will say I bought more music between 90s-04 than I ever have since, and in fact most of that music I listen to more now than recent releases, but there's a plethora of other reasons for that...one of the main differences being in terms of how I experience "new-music", though, is that I'll listen to something once on Youtube, rather than going to the local record shop and needle-dropping through a bunch of records, or flicking through the radio/MTV; and I don't think that's actually a good thing (that said, now, radio/MTV is full of junk, and many of those record shops are gone)...
Old 11th July 2012
  #1685
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
two people... TWO have been prosecuted for "sharing." and BOTH could have settled.
The claim in the quote above is misleading enough to be outrightly false. Two lawsuits in the United States against individuals alleged to have shared copyrighted material have been executed through the courts to [near|final] conclusion, but many, many, many more targets were extorted for settlement fees, and the RIAA had dropped their prosecution in many other cases whose defendants were prepared to fight in court were dropped after it was clear the settlement extortion tactic would not work (three illustrative links).

From the EFF's five year report on the RIAA's campaign:
Quote:
The RIAA filed 5,460 lawsuits during 2004, ringing in the new school year with a wave of suits against university students and bringing the total number of lawsuits to 7,437. By the end of 2005, the total number of suits had swelled to 16,087. In February 2006, at which point 17,587 had been sued, the RIAA stopped making monthly announcements regarding the precise number of suits being filed. As a result, it is now impossible to get an exact count of the total number of lawsuits that have been filed. The lawsuits, however, have continued, with the RIAA admitting in April 2007 that more than 18,000 individuals had been sued by its member companies, and news reports showing the number as of October 2007 to be at least 30,000.
Citations for the numbers above are provided in the report itself.

There's no need to try to rewrite history by downplaying the extent of RIAA's litigative efforts against individuals accused of file sharing. It was a shameful period, yes, but it is more shameful to so transparently mislead and misdirect.
Old 11th July 2012
  #1686
Gear Maniac
 

What about sync? What about the prices being driven down by artists willing to take $200 for "exposure" as a background track on a show barely anybody watches? Writing and recording music is such an investment that there isn't enough pie to go around for the amount of people who want a piece.

Side note: I find it wrong that a track like this gets a massive chunk of money. That's some wasted pie.
Here's a direct link... looks like embedding is having issues.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoTfPv1i4og

There is much more DIY recording going on and everyone wants to get a ROI from their purchased gear and turn it into a career. There simply isn't room for everyone, IMO. Artist development is rare and less chances are being taken with less money being invested until they have proven to be marketable if not a quick turnaround. I don't think Billy Corgan has much knowledge of the music industry outside of his bubble (I'm a huge fan of his, btw) and I can't say I agree with him for the most part, but he has a point.
Old 11th July 2012
  #1687
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
there was one in particular that tracked reduced sales and increased P2P activity in markets with Broadband versus those with Dial Up. It pretty much resulted in what you'd expect... faster internet correlates to more P2P and less music sales...

and there's this...
Digital Music News - Broadband Penetration vs. Album Sales, 2000-2010...
The trend lines in that link appear to indicate that album sales decline with broadband penetration. Trendline analysis is a basic statistical tool, but it doesn't provide a measure of the degree of statistical association nor a statistical confidence factor (these terms used in the statistical measurement sense for those who never suffered through a course in statistics).

I was wondering if there's a link to any analysis that uses (a) regression analysis and (b) was written by someone who appears to be knowledgeable of the music industry.

For example, the author at the link below did some fairly substantial statistical analysis trying to sort out which demographic markets may have been affected by file sharing. I'm just not knowledgeable enough of the music industry to understand if the paper presents a realistic view of what actually goes on in the music industry. That's where I could use some help if anybody can critique the paper's understanding of the industry or direct me to a careful study by someone who appears to understand how music is actually marketed in the real world.

http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~felten/boorstin-thesis.pdf
Old 11th July 2012
  #1688
Lives for gear
 
Beat Poet's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sound_music View Post
for sure... unfortunately we'll never know. (but i'd hazard an educated guess the growth trend would have continued--population increase alone would have more or less guaranteed that...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted 0833250 View Post
Are you all just living in denial or are you basing your assumptions on another graph? The growth trend plateaus and begins to decline at 96...pre-Napster...
I think it would have probably declined like it did, maybe not as sharply though. Many of the mid-90s bands started to struggle in the late 90s, there was this whole feeling that the party was over. Whether that was a reaction to the rise of the internet or a shift in tastes away from guitar music I can't work out. In the UK in 1999 they were saying rock was dead, yet two years later the Strokes and White Stripes came along and indie garage rock revival was king.
Old 11th July 2012
  #1689
Lives for gear
 
sound_music's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted 0833250 View Post
Are you all just living in denial or are you basing your assumptions on another graph? The growth trend plateaus and begins to decline at 96...pre-Napster...
lol, the graph also shows that sales leveled off around 1979 and started dropping... so should they have stayed there according to your reasoning...!?

statistical analysis of any kind represented in graphic form will always show peaks, valleys, and plateaus along its trajectory. you can't base your whole argument on an arbitrary portion of that trajectory! there's over 30 years of data represented there: to accurately asses the trend you have to look at the entire trajectory. (this is pretty basic stuff man, come on!)

the point you're trying to make, unfortunately, is just another case of an individual trying to frame the discussion in absurd form to support their position.

it doesn't wash.
Attached Thumbnails
Billy Corgan - No Money In Music Now-untitled-1.jpg  
Old 11th July 2012
  #1690
Lives for gear
 
sound_music's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2manyrocks View Post
... the author at the link below did some fairly substantial statistical analysis trying to sort out which demographic markets may have been affected by file sharing. I'm just not knowledgeable enough of the music industry to understand if the paper presents a realistic view of what actually goes on in the music industry. That's where I could use some help if anybody can critique the paper's understanding of the industry or direct me to a careful study by someone who appears to understand how music is actually marketed in the real world.

http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~felten/boorstin-thesis.pdf
i've read this paper, the data seems fairly accurate, but as you rightly suspected the analysis and conclusion have little to do with reality. the author either neglects or is completely unaware of how music is marketed and sold, and to whom.

apart from a few specific genres (which have only ever represented niche markets at best), music marketing has never targeted the older demographic slices (40+) that the author seems to think will float future music sales; and it never will. the return has never been worth pursuing. but more importantly, the 40+ audience are by and large a strategic dead end for the industry over the long term. historically, older people buy infrequently compared to younger people, and are far less likely to purchase new music. young people have been the life blood of music sales since day one, and for good reason: they're more open-minded to new music and new forms of music, and their appetite for music that follows the latest trends is reliable (and profitable). young people enable the industry to sustain and renew itself: they create the demand for new product.

so to answer your question: even if the author's analysis was statistically accurate as of today (which i question), his conclusion is way off the mark--it's an unrealistic and unsustainable model.
Old 11th July 2012
  #1691
Lives for gear
Thanks. For any analysis to be accurate, it has to get the numbers right and it also has to make practical sense of those numbers.

Now the paper says for children aged 5-14, internet access had a negative, but statistically insignificant effect, but for children aged 15-24, internet access had a statistically significant negative effect.

As far as this part of his conclusions are concerned, does this seem to bear reality so far as the primary market for music sales?
Old 11th July 2012
  #1692
Lives for gear
 
sound_music's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2manyrocks View Post
Thanks.
no problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2manyrocks View Post
... the paper says for children aged 5-14, internet access had a negative, but statistically insignificant effect, but for children aged 15-24, internet access had a statistically significant negative effect.

As far as this part of his conclusions are concerned, does this seem to bear reality so far as the primary market for music sales?
that's why i said the numbers seem more or less accurate. they seem fine in the middle and upper parts, but the age sampling is oddly grouped at the bottom of the study, which makes it hard to interpret with any accuracy. in the 15-24 group the author's assertions are certainly the case, but 5-14 straddles too wide a gap in development, and therefore the amount and type of internet use and music consumption across the swath. (that particular slice is fairly meaningless as it's presented in the paper. 10/12 to 15 would have been a lot more meaningful to analyze within the context of the study.)

but that's no biggie. what's inaccurate IMO is the author's rather naive assertion that the older end of the demographic data somehow balances out the losses at the younger end. it's patently untrue in both historical and actual context.
Old 11th July 2012
  #1693
In Holland there is a tax on empty CD-R's. As was on cassette tapes. Wich could explain the dip we see around 1997. Since the '80's it was common to copy the record to a cassette wich would be played back in the car. An '80's car had around 10 to 40 cassettes in them...

The money wich is paid for empty CD-R's was alot. And it did not go to the little artist... .

Currently we see sales wich end up by the little guy... Wich does not end up in the big statistics. Because they cannot count them.. Let's say every household buys a cd from a teen band who printed between 20 to 500 cd's. Those sales do not end up in the big sales... Does soundclick provide statistics to these statistic makers about their sales and revenue? I think not...

This could tell us some big parties are loozing marketshare after all. And the total market is bigger...
Old 11th July 2012
  #1694
Forget the past, that's in my rear-view mirror. Look at what's coming up.

Many US cities are now declaring bankruptsy, San Bernadino, CA is the latest this morning. Scranton, PA is reduced to paying policemen $7.25 per hour, minimum wage. The entire state of California is functionally bankrupt, they are pining for a Federal bailout that probably won't come.

Any 'glory years' in music profits are over. We are in a long term era of decline, according to business forcasters. Smart folks will adapt.

Unfortunatly, some still think the music biz is the same place of excess profits, private jets and glamour that seems to linger in people's minds even though those days are long gone.

The reality is it's never been more difficult to break in, hold on and make a decent living in music.

That doesn't seem to stop the dreamers though.
Old 11th July 2012
  #1695
Here for the gear
 

Its ALL ABOUT YOU!

You determined the money you want to make by the rules your applying, Timing and grinding. We also have to understand everyone isn't meant for everything. There only a chosen few that will make it, You have to be dedicated and motivated and actually have some damn talent to make money.lol. AW YEA A MARKET YOUR BRAND!!

Last edited by toolskid; 15th August 2012 at 09:02 AM.. Reason: do not include advertising banners in your posts please
Old 11th July 2012
  #1696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
Unfortunatly, some still think the music biz is the same place of excess profits, private jets and glamour that seems to linger in people's minds even though those days are long gone.
No, no, no.
Only people who were never in the music industry believe that myth.

It's about being paid for your work, rather than having that option removed by someone else.
Musicians have always been aware of the fragile economics, and by and large most professionals made enough to survive.
Can we drop the childish mantra of 'private jets' and millions?
Old 11th July 2012
  #1697
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
from what I've read you're a studio drummer/session musician (or is that another Chris Whitten?), that's not exactly at the forefront of the music scene either, no offence...do you actually have many royalties on the projects you've worked on?
Yes, I do earn royalties from my compositions. I also have music software products that are pirated.
I've spent many years touring, and run my business by playing in bands. All things you were talking about in your posts.
I think I'm a typical case.
I started out at ground zero, and gradually worked my way up to stadium tours. I made records, I diversified into writing for film & tv, and create music software products and teach.
Old 12th July 2012
  #1698
Lives for gear
 
sound_music's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted 0833250 View Post
LOL, graphs don't jump around for no reason...
that's what i was trying to point out to you. growth trends have natural cycles of peaks and valleys along their trajectory: those "little squiggly lines" represent any number of external events or forces on the trend within the timeline. you can't just isolate a portion of it (as you're doing again) to frame your argument. ahem...

but i'll take you up on it anyway, for fun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted 0833250 View Post
The ninety's was the longest period of solid growth in history. The late ninety's particularly so, please explain the 4 year drop/plateau in a boom-time period? Absurd?
firstly: nineties. (that's how you spell "ninety's" mr. statistical wizard. here's a step by step guide to help you master the use of the apostrophe. it will go a long way towards people taking your expert analysis more seriously.)

to your show-stopping question: the tapering off in music sales at the end of the nineties is likely due to the widespread commercialization of the DVD at that time; technical leaps and bounds made in video gaming, (resulting in their exploding in popularity: the video gaming industry doubled their global revenue between 1990-99, with most of that growth happening in the second half of the decade); and the rising presence of the internet in peoples homes. those were all relatively new forms of entertainment in that exact period: all competing for the same pool of finite consumer dollars.

still with me? still unsure of how on earth it was possible that music sales experienced a slump right then?

we'll never know for sure if music sales would have rebounded and continued growing from that point on (although 30 years of data suggests it), but one thing is for certain: without the explosion of illegal file sharing that followed, music sales wouldn't have plummeted to the abominable levels we see today, and the industry would still be in fighting shape.

Last edited by sound_music; 12th July 2012 at 01:20 AM.. Reason: all in good fun ;-)
Old 12th July 2012
  #1699
I think it's clear that music is as popular, if not more popular than before. With people's smart phones, tablets and home computers absolutely crammed with commercially released songs.
Old 12th July 2012
  #1700
Gear Addict
 
Wolf LeProducer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
I think it's clear that music is as popular, if not more popular than before. With people's smart phones, tablets and home computers absolutely crammed with commercially released songs.
Good stuff... and I think the USA alone has $20 trillion debt outstanding; so couple that with the expected return on the global economy over the next 20 years, and assume $100 million dollars is more than enough money for anybody...

$100 million sure looks like a small number there. Not too much to ask for imo...
Old 12th July 2012
  #1701
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
No, no, no.
Only people who were never in the music industry believe that myth.

It's about being paid for your work, rather than having that option removed by someone else.
Musicians have always been aware of the fragile economics, and by and large most professionals made enough to survive.
Can we drop the childish mantra of 'private jets' and millions?
Old 12th July 2012
  #1702
Quote:
absolutely not true. sorry. just more disinformation and propaganda. I don't suppose YOU actually read the bill for yourself as opposed to watching youtube videos that told you how to think?
Old 12th July 2012
  #1703
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
OK, fair enough...

I agree, that it effects everyone in the industry...but,

Sony Corporation Common Stock Stock Chart | SNE Interactive Chart - Yahoo! Finance

Eaton Vance Michigan Municipal Stock Chart | EMI Interactive Chart - Yahoo! Finance

etc.

Don't get me wrong, I'm of the opinion that a lot of tech companies have simply taken a huge part of the label's pie; and they put little or none of it back into the industry...
which would be fine if it was done legally. that's how markets work. but when it's done illegally, that's the problem.

if money is being made from the exploitation of a creators work, the creator should 1) have consent over the use (except where legally exempted) and 2) be compensated in that value chain.

do you really think that creators should not be protected from the illegal exploitation of their work? why is this ok on the internet but not ok for film studios and tv shows? why is it "sharing and exposure" on the internet but not the same if used in a major motion picture, hit tv show or massive brand commercial? why the double standard? or, do you think that artists should never be paid for the exploitation of their work? In which case, why all the bashing on the RIAA? The paradox of pirate logic never ceases to amaze me.
Old 12th July 2012
  #1704
Lives for gear
 
sound_music's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
I think it's clear that music is as popular, if not more popular than before. With people's smart phones, tablets and home computers absolutely crammed with commercially released songs.
absolutely.

i wish someone would cook up some sort of tracking software that could survey the zillions of playback devices out there... i'd love to see data on music consumption today that's as accurate as when there were actually sales receipts and radio tracking to account for it!

the fact that the majority of music is consumed without payment today makes it impossible to get even a ballpark idea; legal purchasing, streaming, radio tracking, and youtube views etc only tell a portion of the story.
Old 12th July 2012
  #1705
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Yeah, but doctors don't have organized parasites stealing their earnings.
Yes they do... Insurance companies, and Medicare, and Medicaid...

It's similar, actually: send a bill for $1,000, get $180 back. Pretty cool.
Old 12th July 2012
  #1706
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted 0833250 View Post
Hey man, I'm with you on this...all I was saying is that they should go after the companies that are making money out of piracy/exploitation (directly and indirectly) rather than some end-users...for their own sake too..
Not to rehash this whole discussion again, but... if you had read it, you'd know that the bill did EXACTLY that and nothing more..
Old 12th July 2012
  #1707
Gear Maniac
 
Yann Leon's Avatar
 

I agree with Darwin's theory of evolution: one that has the ability to think outside the box to make money with his music will be the one who survives in this industry.

Adapt or die.

;-)
Old 12th July 2012
  #1708
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted 0833250 View Post
Thanks for that link -- I don't think I had previously read that Wikipedia retrospective. I was really struck by one passage in particular:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue Gardner, Wikipedia
That’s precisely why MPAA chair and former longtime senator Chris Dodd called the blackout an “abuse of power,” and characterized it as “technology business interests resorting to stunts that punish their users or turn them into corporate pawns.” He can only see the issue as a clash of moneyed interests, because that’s how things normally have worked.

That’s why NPR, the Associated Press, Fox News – all label this fight as Hollywood versus Silicon Valley. It’s why stories like this one from Bloomberg compare how much money television, movie and music companies are spending in Washington, versus what Google and Facebook are spending. People are imagining that post-blackout we are playing the same game, just with new participants.
I don't know if I had ever reflected on this perspective before, which is a shame because it's an intriguing one. My experience concurs with the author: I did very frequently the issue framed as a "Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley" battle, and I did very frequently see opponents of SOPA maligned as pawns of "Big Tech." But as this Wikipedia blog points out, this is a greatly demeaning characterization which is equally greatly useful as an attempt to discredit the opposition through the pretense that the debate is simply one of moneyed interests just doing what they do. It's a distortion of the truth, though: the "tech giants" and their lobbying arm -- the Business Software Alliance -- supported SOPA until public pressure forced them to withdraw that support. Attempts to frame opponents of the bill as uncritical pawns should then be so seen as the historical manipulation that it is; it was only public pressure that compelled the tech giants to adopt their eventual stance against SOPA.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh View Post
Not to rehash this whole discussion again, but... if you had read it, you'd know that the bill did EXACTLY that and nothing more..
This claim is quite false, and to borrow your own line: if you had read the bill with even a basic foundation of technical knowledge toward the systems that it would manipulate, you would readily know how falsely you speak. SOPA was anything but exact; the language was vague to the point of absurdity and could potentially be abused to an oppressive degree. I may be willing to discuss this further via private message, if you are so interested in a genuine (I wouldn't want to waste time with dogma) exchange.
Old 12th July 2012
  #1709
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sound_music View Post
absolutely.

i wish someone would cook up some sort of tracking software that could survey the zillions of playback devices out there... i'd love to see data on music consumption today that's as accurate as when there were actually sales receipts and radio tracking to account for it!

the fact that the majority of music is consumed without payment today makes it impossible to get even a ballpark idea; legal purchasing, streaming, radio tracking, and youtube views etc only tell a portion of the story.
Lastfm gives a great ballpark idea of the whole story. In case you don't know what that is, it's a service/software that imports users iTunes playcounts and then tracks iTunes and spotify plays. It reportedly has about 30 million active users, and iTunes supposedly has around 500 million active users. So maybe we can roughly, conservatively estimate that lastfm represents about 10% of music listeners. Of course the demographics of lastfm are probably pretty limited, and wouldn't cover older listeners or very young listeners, so you would have to factor that into your estimates.

Still you can look up an album on there, see how many listeners it has, and at least get a feeling for the minimum number of people who have bought, streamed, or illegally downloaded that album. Then you can probably make an educated guess as to how many multiples of that number would represent the total reality.

So for example, I read that Gotye's Making Mirrors has sold around 2 million copies globally. On lastfm the album has 476,761 listeners. So if lastfm represents 10% of music listeners, we might reasonably estimate that there are around 4 million people who have listened to the album through legal or illegal means. The single of "Somebody..." sold around 7 million copies worldwide and has 540k listeners on lastfm, implying that lastfm represents a much smaller slice of the public than 10%. 540k is about 8% of 7 mil. and accounting for some piracy, let's say it's more like 4%.

It seems like a reasonable estimate to me to think that lastfm numbers represent about 5 to 10% of reality. You could estimate a sliding scale based on demographics and other factors. An artist who is popular on the internet among the types of people who would use lastfm might lie more on the 10x multiplier end of the scale, while something with mass mainstream exposure like "Somebody T.I.U.T.K" might need a 20x multiplier to get an accurate estimate. I bet if you analyzed more artists you could come to some kind of more accurate average range.
Old 12th July 2012
  #1710
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
I think it's clear that music is as popular, if not more popular than before. With people's smart phones, tablets and home computers absolutely crammed with commercially released songs.
That no one wants to buy either. I disagree with your first line/premise.

Music has never been less important to a person's life than it is today. Just look around. Music defined your lifestyle, clothing and outlook 40 years ago.
The Beatles changed pop culture. That has not happened since.

As you mentioned, there are many more 'diversions' for folks these days. Some (mostly under 30) are addicted to smart phones. Who has time to listen to music when all your friends are yaking/texting?

I used to see people with earplugs listening to music. Now they are listening to their friends, playing games or surfing 'apps'.

When I was a kid I had a ball and a bat, a guitar and a record player, add the transistor radio. Music took up a lot of my spare time.

Look at today's kids, they are doing many more things and those things leave less time for music, unless it's included as background music while engaged in other activities. Sure, they have the music on, but are they really listening?
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump