The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
I think the reason music sales are in massive decline is:
Old 7th September 2012
  #361
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by relaxo View Post
Yes, I am very opinionated as well, and I like when people disagree with me...it's much more fun and interesting. That's when you're dealing with subjective issues and I won't call people clueless or irrational.

But when people are even getting black and white given facts wrong or completely misunderstanding a very very simplistic line of thought, that is either 1) cluelessness or 2) irrationality.

Again, case in point:
Chrisso says:


A truly simple and straightforward concept. But then Sqye directly responds to that with:



It appears clear to me that Sqye, like many others, is simply not following the plot, lost in a completely different line of thought. Or am I crazy? Please, show me if I am and I will disappear.
.

You're simply responding to new model issues with old-style thinking.

IOW, legally and hypothetically, although you may FEEL entitled to revenues from IP (and other P) usage,
in reality, if consumers don't value music in monetary terms, they don't pay.

At a certain point, it's necessary to differentiate between ideology and practice.

When consumerist practice is largely criminal (i.e. illegal DLs and copying), and the owners - most of whom have extremely limited resources need to put up their own funds and resources to prosecute illegal use, most musicians may as well hang it up, because chances are, legal processing is simply unaffordable.

Add to this the fact that most musicians are WILLING to work for free, and it's game over.

The problem is, since music has very little monetary value to consumers, the only other industries you can compare it to are other industries in the arts.

And traditionally, in order for industries in the arts to be sustained, they need subsidization. Without this, artists often don't survive, because again, you can't compete with free, and most artists are willing to work for free. They HAVE to be, because it's VERY difficult to find paying gigs. And it ALWAYS HAS BEEN.

Chrisso's point is simple - he wants to get paid for his material. And of course, I don't blame him for a second. I'm always happy when I'm paid for use of my material.

But my point is also simple. You can't compete with free, so why would you expect to get paid? Why do you feel entitled to be paid, when consumers feel entitled to get your material for free, and so many other artists are willing to work for free? Who do you think wins THIS battle? Hint: it's the consumers.

I'm not saying this is right or fair or whatever. I'm just saying it's REAL.

Just because some folks here got used to surviving by getting paid in the industry for a few decades, does not mean this model is currently being seriously perpetuated.

Just sayin'.

Again, there are always a few exceptions, and if you happen to be one of them, kudos!

Cheers.


.
Old 7th September 2012
  #362
We're busy. Too busy paying our taxes to have time for music. Music is not important anymore. We have other things we rather do.

Who's got time for music when there are so many texts and t w a ts to send?
Old 7th September 2012
  #363
Quote:
Originally Posted by relaxo View Post
Sqye, this concept is not registering with you and many others in the slightest. Now try to follow. I am not a lawyer, so don't pick apart my terms, etc. My concepts are correct however.

••••••••••

In no way, shape or form is Chrisso saying artists are entitled to success.

Again, it's soooo simple. We agree. The public does not have to give any artist ANY MONEY AT ALL...nada...never ever ever. ZERO...EVER. All artists are owed no money from anyone. EVER EVER EVER EVER. And artists are A-OK with this.

Unless, of course, the public CHOOSES to possess and/or use the artist's "for pay only" work. Then that person or company owes the artist WHATEVER PRICE he has put on it. If you have a song on your device that the artist CHOOSES to put a price tag of $2000 for one song, you are breaking the law if you possess that song without paying the full $2000.

In long established modern, western law, the maker of a product has the right to determine the price of ownership, transferability permissions, usage, etc and has the right to seek a legal remedy if his rights get violated.

So yes, you're 100% correct. The public has the right not to have to spend any money on anything...if they don't touch it. If you don't want to give an artist any money, you don't have to at all, just don't touch his work, that's all that is REQUIRED by law.
.

Again, my point is simple. It's generally financially impossible for most artists to prosecute IP infringement. Because they simply don't have the money. Why don't they have the money? Because most artists don't MAKE any money.

So once again, your hypotheticals are great.

Wake me up when they apply to the real world of the music industry.

Again, there are ALWAYS exceptions. If you create the next Gaga track, and it gets used as the title track in the next Spielberg film which nets 100 million dollars, and you don't get paid anything, and you can PROVE you own some IP there, you're going to have a very happy lawyer pulling out his guns for you. And you'll pay that lawyer VERY well - generally a third of your recouped unpaid earnings.

But most musicians are far removed from this reality. Good luck finding a lawyer to go after a label, publisher, agency, lawyer, promoter, manager, etc. who hasn't paid you your $200 in sync royalties for a TV show - because it ain't gonna happen.

.
Old 7th September 2012
  #364
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
We're busy. Too busy paying our taxes to have time for music. Music is not important anymore. We have other things we rather do.

Who's got time for music when there are so many texts and t w a ts to send?
.

Indeed - yet another great point I neglected to mention. heh

They hate us for our freedoms, Jim!

Freedom to be slaves to the IRS. ...[/political humor-commiseration].

.
Old 7th September 2012
  #365
Here for the gear
 
joeycutless's Avatar
 

Has anyone else noticed that the government has taken swift action on behalf of hollywood to shut down known bootleg movie hubs etc, but not had the same approach to the music industry? Interesting
Old 7th September 2012
  #366
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeycutless View Post
Has anyone else noticed that the government has taken swift action on behalf of hollywood to shut down known bootleg movie hubs etc, but not had the same approach to the music industry? Interesting
They only go after those that actually make money. You need to show damages with a lawsuit. Saying you didn't make any money is not a defense.

Also, Hollywood is tied to the hip of the Democratic party, the one that happens to be in power at this moment. Did you see all of them on TV last night?

Now, if George Clooney ever decides to make a record, you may see some action.
Old 7th September 2012
  #367
Quote:
Originally Posted by grawk View Post
Or they'd listen to the radio and continue to spend at the level they spend. Music sales aren't at zero, they're just more in line with the 80s than late 90s. In the middle of a recession.
36 years of data says the economy has nothing to do with it. and 99 cent songs are the last thing that would take a hit. the economy effects big ticket items, cars, washing machines, etc.

the only reason sales are down is simply because payment has been optional for a decade (which is when the decline started).

oh, and BTW if you are going to use the bad economy as an excuse, you should note that doing the boon of the housing bubble, sales were also dropping...
Old 7th September 2012
  #368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sqye View Post
.


But most musicians are far removed from this reality. Good luck finding a lawyer to go after a label, publisher, agency, lawyer, promoter, manager, etc. who hasn't paid you your $200 in sync royalties for a TV show - because it ain't gonna happen.

.
That's fine.
Those of us still working in the industry are well aware of the reality.
We are getting on with it actually.
Buy in spare time it's worthy of debate on a music forum such as this.
Nothing you've recently posted has anything to do with musicians being wrongly 'entitled'.
This lazy entitled line is utter nonsense actually.
No one expects to be successful, we just hope. But you have NO chance when all your business decisions are taken away from you (most of the time illegally).
Old 7th September 2012
  #369
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
36 years of data says the economy has nothing to do with it. and 99 cent songs are the last thing that would take a hit. the economy effects big ticket items, cars, washing machines, etc.

the only reason sales are down is simply because payment has been optional for a decade (which is when the decline started).

oh, and BTW if you are going to use the bad economy as an excuse, you should note that doing the boon of the housing bubble, sales were also dropping...
But .99 songs are part of the problem. No one will buy a $15 cd when $2 gets them every good song from it. So profits drop.
Old 7th September 2012
  #370
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grawk View Post
But .99 songs are part of the problem. No one will buy a $15 cd when $2 gets them every good song from it. So profits drop.
If all of the songs on the CD were deemed "good" by the buyers, they would pay $15 for it. Back when there was no alternative, people would grit their teeth and grudgingly part with the $15 to buy the one or two tracks they liked. Now they don't have to. What many musicians have failed to appreciate is that they no longer need to create the tracks that aren't popular. (Cue the "yes, but..." arguments...)
Old 8th September 2012
  #371
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
That's fine.
Those of us still working in the industry are well aware of the reality.
We are getting on with it actually.
Buy in spare time it's worthy of debate on a music forum such as this.
Nothing you've recently posted has anything to do with musicians being wrongly 'entitled'.
This lazy entitled line is utter nonsense actually.
No one expects to be successful, we just hope. But you have NO chance when all your business decisions are taken away from you (most of the time illegally).
.

I haven't said "lazy" entitled in this particular thread, IIRC.

Only entitled.

As far as you're concerned, I don't think the lazy could apply, AFAIK.

Many of us are not particularly lazy as we are deluded, and mis-entrepreneurial.

But yes, as regards any business, no one is entitled to succeed.

We do our research, provide or procure investment, and proceed.

Some of us try the build it and they will come model, which often does not work, but sometimes does.

Some of us have money and resources from the get go, which is all good.

Some of us bust our asses for years and end up in deep debt, regardless.

Most of us do it because we can't help ourselves. We just have to. Whatever the consequences.

There are so many variations, it's dizzying.

But the fact is - most of us will not make very much money in the music "industry".

Because the thing is, it's very difficult to compete in a world where your product
is perceived as having little to no monetary value, because it's being copied for free.

It's kind of like pot being illegal. Everyone knows it's illegal, but very few suffer consequences
for buying it, using it, and even producing and growing it - although these penalties are stuffer.
And I would argue that pot is a bad example, because consumers perceive it to have monetary value.

That's all.

Cheers!


.
Old 8th September 2012
  #372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sqye View Post
But yes, as regards any business, no one is entitled to succeed.
you keep confusing payment with success. they're different.

people are entitled to be paid for their work, they are not entitled to success.

i think most people expect to be paid for their work, especially if that work comes with an asking price. you don't have to pay that price, but you don't get to steal it either

Success in any given field is another thing completely.
Old 8th September 2012
  #373
Quote:
Originally Posted by grawk View Post
But .99 songs are part of the problem. No one will buy a $15 cd when $2 gets them every good song from it. So profits drop.
simply not true and the numbers don't support this. record sales started dropping FOUR YEARS prior to the introduction of ala carte song sales, and once ala carte song sales were available the decline did not accelerate - so that basically kills that argument right there.

people have buying power. people that love music budget X amount per week/month for music. the $20 that used to buy One CD, can no buy 20 songs across a more diverse range of artists. in actuality this is what we are seeing, except for one major problem effecting revenue...

payment has been optional for a decade, which is when the decline started...
Old 8th September 2012
  #374
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeycutless View Post
Has anyone else noticed that the government has taken swift action on behalf of hollywood to shut down known bootleg movie hubs etc, but not had the same approach to the music industry? Interesting
I think if you look at the ICE take downs this is not true. And also... Megaupload which was both...
Old 8th September 2012
  #375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sqye View Post

You're simply responding to new model issues with old-style thinking.
there are no new models.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sqye View Post
IOW, legally and hypothetically, although you may FEEL entitled to revenues from IP (and other P) usage,
in reality, if consumers don't value music in monetary terms, they don't pay.
no. they don't pay because they can and there are no consequences. it's that simple. every time we see consequences, we see behaviors change. a ton of sites went off line following the megaupload bust - guess they didn't want black vans on their doorstep!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sqye View Post
But my point is also simple. You can't compete with free, so why would you expect to get paid? Why do you feel entitled to be paid, when consumers feel entitled to get your material for free, and so many other artists are willing to work for free? Who do you think wins THIS battle? Hint: it's the consumers.
People are entitled to be paid if they put a price on their work. You don't have to pay, but you don't get to steal it either. Oh and BTW... show me people who steal what they don't value?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sqye View Post
I'm not saying this is right or fair or whatever. I'm just saying it's REAL.
no one is arguing reality. no one is saying the situation that exists doesn't. we're saying it's wrong and needs to be changed. some of us are working on making that change happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sqye View Post
Just because some folks here got used to surviving by getting paid in the industry for a few decades, does not mean this model is currently being seriously perpetuated.
So your solution is to go back 100 years in artists and personal rights? Sorry, I can't do that... people like you like to talk about the 90s... you'd like to see musicians go back to the 1890s...
1
Share
Old 8th September 2012
  #376
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
We're busy. Too busy paying our taxes to have time for music. Music is not important anymore. We have other things we rather do.

Who's got time for music when there are so many texts and t w a ts to send?
Well, too busy paying our mortgage and doing homework with the kids...

Don't buy a house and have kids if you want to spend all day doing music.

All my old friends have dropped out of music because of this.
Old 8th September 2012
  #377
Lives for gear
 
petermichael's Avatar
 

the teeter totter swingeth, and it's going to be fun looking back in a couple years at all this "it's a dead industry, a losing battle" bs. logically, the hardest part is the start, the easiest is the finish. right now a few takedowns occur and there are many other sites and avenues, but as the field grows smaller and more forced back into the underground and out of the mainstream, there will be less "evildoers." with this there will be more of a spotlight on each of them than ever. this is coming faster than it looks. so make your rationalizations and download your songs whilst you still can. what the idiot web anarchy crowd failed to see coming was that in this new arrangement there will be FAR less freedom than before and they earned every bit of it.

as for the legit rest of you, dig in. the drought is coming to a close.

i say 2 years.
no videos to be found on google for any (non cover)music outside of authorized source
no functional free torrent site to be found
no mainstream public upload and share mechanism to be found

sales suddently... up.
1
Share
Old 8th September 2012
  #378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sqye View Post
.

I haven't said "lazy" entitled in this particular thread, IIRC.

Only entitled.

As far as you're concerned, I don't think the lazy could apply, AFAIK.

Many of us are not particularly lazy as we are deluded, and mis-entrepreneurial.

But yes, as regards any business, no one is entitled to succeed.


.
You misunderstood my point.
The use of 'entitled' in this debate about the music business is lazy. It has little meaning, has been hypoed up by the anti-industry, anti-copyright lobby, and people repeat it lazily.
Your last point above is correct. No one is entitled to be successful and no one expects to be successful.
When people put a price on their work, in the capitalist society just about all of us live in, they are entitled to be paid that price when people consume the work. The public are not entitled to consume without paying the price.
This is the irony for me. The actual 'entitled' group in this debate are the people who happily spend $60 a month on a broadband connection, and $4 on a soy latte, but think they are entitled to consume my product without legally obtaining it (and thereby paying me).
Old 8th September 2012
  #379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
What many musicians have failed to appreciate is that they no longer need to create the tracks that aren't popular. (Cue the "yes, but..." arguments...)
Yes but......
When a musician spends months on their album, and makes at the most one album a year, and then has to stand behind that music in hundreds of interviews, and play the songs live hundreds of times over the course of at least two years..... you honestly think they include songs that are by design 'unpopular' or second rate?

Around here right now, just about the most popular music is One Direction and X-Factor.
Thank heavens for the musicians who aren't focussing all their energy on what is popular.... that's all I can say.
1
Share
Old 8th September 2012
  #380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghosted View Post
Well, too busy paying our mortgage and doing homework with the kids...

Don't buy a house and have kids if you want to spend all day doing music.

All my old friends have dropped out of music because of this.
time was, more people could pay the mortgage from record sales and associated revenue streams than presently can... and that's the point.

If the Internet is working for Musicians, Why aren’t more Musicians Working Professionally? | The Trichordist

Meet The New Boss, Worse Than The Old Boss? -Full Post | The Trichordist
1
Share
Old 8th September 2012
  #381
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
simply not true and the numbers don't support this. record sales started dropping FOUR YEARS prior to the introduction of ala carte song sales, and once ala carte song sales were available the decline did not accelerate - so that basically kills that argument right there.
I can prove it's true in my own spending habbits. back in the 90s I had a cd collection of 200+ cds I haven't bought but a handfull of full albums in the last 20 years and Maybe I've bought maybe 50 or so mp3s. and I know several of my friends who are the exact same way
Old 8th September 2012
  #382
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
... you honestly think they include songs that are by design 'unpopular' or second rate? ...
Not by design, no. And there is a difference between 'unpopular' and second rate ("filler"). My point was that the ability to sell singles online frees musicians from having to fill a quota. It should, overall, result in better music being available. (Better as in appeals to a wider audience - all right, more popular, there, I said it.)
Old 8th September 2012
  #383
You're still labouring under more than one misconception.
Single song downloads are very much about instant gratification.
Have you never bought an album, hated several songs the first week, but by the second or third week those songs have become your favourites?
Secondly, I can't remember an artist 'filling a quota'.
Most artists have a lot of songs they want to record. It's a major exercise to force them to edit themselves.
Again, no one wants to spend the next two years talking about, promoting and playing live several songs that were filler.... to 'fill a quota'.
Old 8th September 2012
  #384
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by relaxo View Post
As to how to buy music outside of large metropolitan art centers? The internet, one click.
The problem with that is DRM that punishes the people who buy it, and if you don't have a credit card you can't buy anything.
Old 8th September 2012
  #385
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
You're still labouring under more than one misconception.
Sorry Chris, it all depends on which side you're looking from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Single song downloads are very much about instant gratification.
Have you never bought an album, hated several songs the first week, but by the second or third week those songs have become your favourites?
Rarely. I've just been looking through my collection (gathering data for another point I intend to make) and I can count such occurrences on one hand. That's 5 out of the 400 odd discs I've looked at so far. And my collection has been well culled - I sell discs where I end up hating / bored with the tracks I bought them for and fail to connect with other tracks. Albums are simply too expensive for me to be too speculative about purchasing on the chance that I'll like more than the single. I have bought too many albums where the one or two tracks I like bear little or no relationship to the rest of the album.

I've also resisted purchasing downloads up to now, being a longtime CD man, but I'm going to have to bite the bullet eventually. The ability to audition all the tracks on an album and only purchase the ones I want is just too attractive. The audio quality is almost up to a level I can live with, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Secondly, I can't remember an artist 'filling a quota'.
Most artists have a lot of songs they want to record. It's a major exercise to force them to edit themselves.
Again, no one wants to spend the next two years talking about, promoting and playing live several songs that were filler.... to 'fill a quota'.
... and yet, that is how they end up. Unappreciated and unbought as singles, used as a toilet break in the pub / club, called 'filler' on an album.

Digital download sales have their advantages for the artist, too. Each track stands on its own merits. The artist gets feedback on exactly what works (sells) and what doesn't. They don't have to spend two years making music that won't sell (unless they want to). In this respect, making music is no different than making anything else to sell.
Old 8th September 2012
  #386
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
... Thank heavens for the musicians who aren't focussing all their energy on what is popular.... that's all I can say.
What's the audience size for the sort of music that you like? Large enough to generate enough sales for the artists to live on? It's a lot harder to be both popular and different, but it's the way to lasting success.
Old 8th September 2012
  #387
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deathromantik View Post
The problem with that is DRM that punishes the people who buy it, and if you don't have a credit card you can't buy anything.
Can you still buy DRMed music?

Anyone can have a credit card now. All you need is cash. For example, google search "prepaid VISA". It's a better idea than using your normal credit card online - if it is compromised, the perps can't run up a big bill.
Old 8th September 2012
  #388
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
That's fine.
Those of us still working in the industry are well aware of the reality.
We are getting on with it actually.
Buy in spare time it's worthy of debate on a music forum such as this.
Nothing you've recently posted has anything to do with musicians being wrongly 'entitled'.
This lazy entitled line is utter nonsense actually.
No one expects to be successful, we just hope. But you have NO chance when all your business decisions are taken away from you (most of the time illegally).
What musicians could teach Tim O’Reilly and Seth Godin

https://thetrichordist.wordpress.com...nd-filmmakers/
Old 8th September 2012
  #389
Quote:
Originally Posted by doulos30 View Post
I can prove it's true in my own spending habbits. back in the 90s I had a cd collection of 200+ cds I haven't bought but a handfull of full albums in the last 20 years and Maybe I've bought maybe 50 or so mp3s. and I know several of my friends who are the exact same way


so you as one individual trumps four years of data PRIOR to ala carte songs even being available for purchase... uh... ok... and, again... the rate of decline does not accelerate with ala carte downloads.

good for you and your friends, but the facts and the data says otherwise, sorry. also, you're getting old...
Old 8th September 2012
  #390
Quote:
Originally Posted by grawk View Post
But .99 songs are part of the problem. No one will buy a $15 cd when $2 gets them every good song from it. So profits drop.
simply not true as pointed out. this is easily proven by the fact that sales dropped steadily and consistently for FOUR YEARS prior to ala carte songs being available for sale, and once they were introduced the rate of decline did not accelerate. now, those are facts.

and why are you talking about $15 CDs? Albums on Itunes are 9.99...

add to this that even barring illegally free... music has never been legally cheaper to access or own in the history of recorded music. there's just no justification for stealing, sorry.

Digital Music News - Worse Than Worst Ever? Tommy Boy Starts Number-Crunching Again...
Quote:
"The first Beatles album in America came out in 1964 at $4.98 list," Tommy Boy continued. "In today's dollars that would be $35 for a 28 minute, monophonic 8-song album."
In other words, using today's pricing of $9.99 for an Itunes album would have only cost $1.35 in 1964... Even if you wanted to entertain a $20 CD (are there any $20 CDs these days?), the same would have only cost $2.70 in 1964.

So in the very worst case scenario, music is STILL 45% less expensive today than it was in 1964! And that's calculated on a $20 CD!

If you calculate the difference for an Itunes download, and full album today costs 86% LESS than it did in 1964...


Inflation Calculator: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Today's $8.00 hr Min Wage equates into only $1.08 in 1964. But, the Federal minimum wage in 1964 was actually $1.25... so today's minimum wage, adjusted for inflation actually has MORE buying power than it did in the 60s.

this is the WEAKEST argument ever for the decline in music sales... the WEAKEST... And, low ticket items (like 99 cent songs) or the most resilient in a bad economy. It's durable goods like cars and washing machines that take the big hit.

here's 1973 - 2008...



the years correspond to excel row numbers, the graph represents 36 years of data 1973 - 2008.

Excel graphed the years as follows:

1973 is plot point "1"

1979 is plot point "7"

1999 is plot point "27"

2008 is plot point "36"



data source: http://musicbusinessresearch.files.w...obal-sales.jpg

so it looks like the economy and consumer competition really isn't that big of a factor after all, again, looking at 36 years of data... the 90's may have been the peak, but that's only because of the illegal exploitation of content without compensation that began at the turn of the century.

remember that each decade saw it's own added consumer competition...

the 70s saw the initial release of VCRs and Video Cassettes as well as video game consoles and cartridges,

the 80s
saw home video boom as VHS matured, cable tv boomed, new types of youth sports took hold,

the 90s saw the introduction of DVDs, home computers became household items, people started paying for internet service, and cell phones began to be common place...

and yet through each one of those decades (without rampant online piracy) sales grew steadily until broadband reaches ubiquity at the turn of the century...

then, the sales plummet.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump