Interesting Admissions From Record Industry 286
way2trivial writes "Many in the Slashdot community say the reason music sales are off is the content. It appears the industry and some music producers agree. In todays NYTimes magazine there is an article that says the quality of todays music is the problem. I have an issue with one part however, it reads "...and the once lucrative album market has been overshadowed by downloaded singles, which mainly benefits Apple" and here I thought Apple made most of their money with their hardware sales and a pittance on each track, giving the majority to the producer."
Go back to the beginning... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course the risk for many of the media companies who fashion themselves as middlemen rather than true content producers is that Apple will simply cut them out of the deal and function as the clearinghouse for media, allowing even more of the profits to go to the artists. How do these media companies defend themselves against this? Its simple really... go back to the model that first got record companies, television studios and movie studios in business. *Create* and produce new, high quality entertainment, music, movies that are driven not principally by profits, but by the desire to tell a story, engage a listener, make a difference. At that point, the profits will come and Apple can even help them to make this happen by producing enabling technologies at ever lower price points, which results in increased profits.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems obvious that since Apple makes the hardware they should profit from it, and since the artist
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Profit margins, while still high particularly for data are comparatively speaking starting to thin just a bit as more carriers step into markets once dominated by a single carrier. This is principally because of market saturat
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But this isn't true for all customers. For example, if my carrier started offered iPhones I might be getting one. Should apple get any money from my bills? My carrier wouldn't be getting a new customer. However if my carrier decided to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
With respect to current customers, there is
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Go back to the beginning... (Score:5, Interesting)
I pose the question why do shops like Universal think they should get a cut of the sales of the Zune [engadget.com] (which was paid by MS) and the iPod (which was not paid by apple). Perhaps we should that Universal has also implied that Apple should pay them for (by Universal's estimation) "the typical iPod contains a significant amount of illegally downloaded material" [ilounge.com]
Not to mention that Universal-NBC wants consumer to pay significantly for downloads of shows that they could buy on dvd for less.
This all boils down to a the last throes [youtube.com] of a failing business model.
Re: (Score:2)
I do notice a wee bit of hypocrisy here in that Apple refused to pay universal, but expects for AT&T to pay a similar fine.
It seems a bit odd that Apple is being rewarded for being cocksure of new businesses when it doesn't seem to understand the model that it is trying to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah I can see how it does seem to be similar, and I'm going to analyze is in this post as we go... thing is some of things just don't compare:
iPhone
AT&T (service provider) is having business driven to it in the form of thousands of new cellular contracts by the iPhone. In fact I am confident in saying that the customers want the iPhone *not* AT&T. So the device is the cause
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Go back to the beginning... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is already enough stuff out there to do that. There is also enough television that you could start watching now and never come to the end of it. There are certainly enough books that even attempting to read just the good ones would be a fairly impossible goal for one human lifetime.
So when will copyright no longer be needed? Will it always really be necessary to keep offering such strong protections to creators at a cost to society? At what point could we look to patronage and ego to supply enough new works to keep things fresh, without needing copyright law at all?
Re: (Score:2)
Today
'Will it always really be necessary to keep offering such strong protections to creators at a cost to society?'
It was NEVER necessary.
'At what point could we look to patronage and ego to supply enough new works to keep things fresh, without needing copyright law at all?'
We are there. In fact, I would contend that patronage and ego would produce better quality materials than the commercialized crap we get now. Even movies, the greatest expense these days is p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I don't see any reason why they really care how big the iPods are they are selling....they MAY make more money off the larger ones, but if they want they can price them so they make the most profit off the smaller ones. Your analysis strikes me as exceptionally simplistic, and ignores the fact that if a larger iPod is required to keep customers happy, and that means it costs more, that means that few
Re: (Score:2)
There is a reason that businesses give out coupons etc. You can maximize profits by selling more of something at a lower price instead of less at a bigger price.
You are absolutely correct that the music industry wants to maximize dollars rather than units. But that is true of Apple as well.
Re:Go back to the beginning... (Score:5, Interesting)
Bingo. Translation for the recordingeese-impaired:
I think that about sums it up.
Re:Go back to the beginning... (Score:5, Insightful)
But now they've become so refined in what they think people want and so limited in competition (there are only, what, three major labels now?) that they are just regurgitating and eating their own crap. They're actually cloning their clones. After Creed worked so well, they dug up Nickelback. That worked too, so how about this Three Days Grace thing
In the past it has taken about 12 years to go from innovative revolution to played-out commercialized copying clones -- 1955, 1967, 1979, 1991
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who the hell are you to claim you know better than music industry experts as to what people want to listen to? Next, you'll be telling us people want more than Old Country Buffet for dining experiences and prefer cars in colors other than black. Just imagine the chaos this causes producers!
If you go back and read the article, you'll learn that perfectly qualified EXPERTS like Rick Rubin are pre-screening music for you. Experts like th
Re: (Score:2)
"To my knowledge (accumulated from the popular press and talking to some folks at Apple in addition to being a shareholder) is that Apple makes almost nothing on the sale of the music itself, believing that the majority of the profits gained from media should go to the artists and producers themselves."
I don't mean to offend all the Apple fanboys (well, I sort of do), but they use the music they sell through iTunes to drive iPod sales. It is not some sort of altruistic mission to give the money back to
Re: (Score:2)
Reality (Score:2, Insightful)
But that was my only choice. Now that I have the ability to buy only the tracks I like, I do that. There are some albums
I love and buy the whole CD. Evanescence Fallen, for example. That whole CD rocks.
So if they put out a quality product, they'll get the sales. Deep in their heart they know this. But
they just want people to keep buying their crap because they always
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Singles make some money yes, but not that often, after all, one number one single might sell millions, but the next number one might only be a few thousand, the singles market is very strictly managed. The record companies withdraw singles from sale or reduce availability once they dip in the charts to keep a decent flow of groups, and of course, to make people move to the albums.
Re: (Score:2)
there isn't a decent margin selling hard copies of singles.
How much are they charging nowadays? Circa 1995 or 1996, the regular price of a CD single in the UK was £4.(*)
In today's money that's over £5!!! (Or US $10 at the current conversion rate (**))
FIVE POUNDS for a single song bloated out with some B-sides or remixes that you probably didn't want. And all wrapped up in a generic, soulless slimline jewel case. Horribly overpriced rubbish, they must have been making *plenty* of money from them until Napster came along.
It's not even like CD singl
Re:Reality (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah...that is sad really. I mean, sure, I did that too with a few songs I really like back in the 70's and early 80's. But I gotta say, the majority of the albums I bought back then...I liked EVERY song on.
I bought the album for 2-3 songs, but, it turned out...the WHOLE album was great. What happened to that? Boston's first 2 albums...all good. Dark Side of the Moon, Animals, The Wall, the entire Zeppelin collection (with the exception to Hat's off to Roy Harper on Zep III), A Night at the Opera, Get Yer Ya Ya's Out (possibly one of the greatest live albums ever), Some Girls, Tattoo You, Paranoid, Abbey Road, Klaatu, Hope, Aqualung, Back in Black....etc...etc.
Sure...I bought singles on some songs...a few clunkers, but, large part...most every album I bought, the whole or 99% of it turned out to be quality music. What has happened to that? Why are there largely not bands that put out full quality work?
The music industry...plain and simple. They are only interested in a quick buck, one hit and out the door. Bands today don't get the luxury of developing...that takes time and work. I personally don't feel that there are as many good venues for new bands to play and hone their skills before 'breaking'. With licensing the way it is...hard to let a band play cover tunes, and guess what....that is how many of the old bands started!!!
Sad....I see young kids even today..wearing AC/DC and Zeppelin shirts....I mean, I'm very happy to see the music I grew up with has lasted...but, really, these bands should have been replace with quality groups today.
I can barely find a band today that has a guitarist of the caliber of Page, Claptop, Vaughn or the like. Seems today they are more interested in sampling the playing of the past, rather than learn to play, sing and excel at original content that is fun to listen to.
Re:Reality (Score:5, Funny)
Zepplin I can understand but AC/DC? My god they made a career of playing the same song for 40 years.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.myspace.com/hungrocks [myspace.com] for example.
The missing decade (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The missing decade (Score:5, Insightful)
The music companies are no different, and are still thinking in terms of eliminating the competition (or, in Apple's case, a middleman they never really wanted in the first place.) They have no vision, no real awareness of the possibilities, no ability to take measured risks. I believe that if there were a magic button that, when pushed, would make the Internet, data compression technology and all audio/video recordable media instantly vanish from the face of the Earth
Dangerous parasites, all of them.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that they are not intelligent - quite the opposite. They are very intelligent, but they cannot see the tremendous profits beyond their greed. They are into immediate gratification. Do you think there is ever going to be another dinosaur of a band like Pink Floyd or U2 or the
Wait... (Score:5, Informative)
This is why when I want new music I try to get them directly from the artist, or through a website like cdbaby.com [cdbaby.com] which seems to have better service than big labels and hopefully gives more money to artists. It also seems to promote a lot of the little guys which is a nice bonus.
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Informative)
Buy from amiestreet.com, artist gets 70% (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Better deal? That depends on what you're comparing it against and on how popular the tracks become. Better than record companies, yes, but it provably cannot ever reach the amount of income that you would have gotten if you had set anywhere close to an ideal price to begin with, as it would be approaching that price asymptotically.
CDBaby provides almost that high a percentage and lets you set the price initially, which is likely a much better deal. In fact, the only way the scheme you describe would be
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Every business has overhead that isn't just paying the people who make the product. I have now problem with the labels taking a share, although usually they take far too much. I'm glad the big labels are realizing that their music sucks, and I'm glad they are putting someone inplace who is interested in making albums, not just hit singles. But I still don't want to give my money to Sony. The music is a problem, but so is the way the big labels have been acting. Don
Re: (Score:2)
The Big Problem With Sound Exchange. (Score:2)
Sure, all of us would like the market to more effectively reward the people actually creating music. Because recording and distribution are now dirt cheap, a free market would do just that.
The problem is that SoundExchange is extending the dead hand of their government granted Radio Empire into the future with bad laws. If existing agreements are not honored, the whole system collapses into a RIAA farce, which will reward artist just as well as the old farce did. That's what they are talking about her
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I do really like CDBaby. I've sold a few CDs through them. But I feel like I have to charge a lot more for my CDs than they are worth in order to sell through them. When I did the math after producing my album I calculated that I have to charge around $3 / CD to recoup my investment. So with CDBaby I have to charge a bare minimum of $7 / CD in order to not lose money an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does it surprise you when artistic and production credits for a movie are shared among four hundred people? That a product - any product - needs experts in finance, marketing, and so on?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lucrative Albums (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course it was lucrative, one or two songs would be played that people enjoyed and represented the album. But when the album was actually played it turned out those singles weren't representative of what the consumer thought they were buying. they were paying $15.00 to get a couple songs and a bunch of filler.
Make 12 songs worth buying and you'd be surprised, people might actually buy them. But don't complain when people stop buying the filler.
Another lesson learned in the aftermath of ripping people off? Or is it "the consumers are stealing" line as usual?
Not just quality (Score:5, Insightful)
They summed it up well on page 4 (Score:5, Insightful)
--- Essentially, the music industry has been operating as a monopolistic cartel for so long, and now they are (relatively suddenly) forced to survice in an environment with real, healthy competition. Columbia is on the right track by using Rick Rubin the way they are, but they (and the other major labels) need to do a whole lot more to save themselves.
Yep.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't know about you, but if a CD is any good, I'll get more than 100 hours of play-time out of it (maybe spread over a few years, though). While I agree that "other things to spend money on" is part of the problem, you can't make simplistic value comparisons like that. E.g. DVD movies are lousy value on the play time front (there's, like, 5 movies that you'd want to watch more than once a year...) but are a bargain c.f. going to the multiplex
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Value of background noise (Score:2)
I'd wager competition plays a part too. A while ago music was competing mostly against other albums. Now there's DVD box sets, video games, ect. Say, for example, a $15 CD gets about an hour's worth of music. Now say a $20 golden hit game gets 100 hours of playtime.
Musical recordings have more replay value than a single-player video game. Musical recordings do not require the entire concentration; they can be enjoyed by somebody who is busy with housework.
And, of course, there's the fact that not all songs on the disk are necessarily of the same quality (maybe only one or two are worth listening to, in some cases) so it stands to reason that some people just opt to download the ones they want.
That or they buy a band's greatest hits album or compilations like "Jock Jams" or "Now That's What I Call Music", which feature a larger concentration of songs that are familiar from commercial FM radio.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Rubbish? (Score:4, Insightful)
Certainly the perception of value for a large section of the market may not be high enough to justify paying for it at the current price, but that's not the same as saying that no one would buy it if they couldn't get it for free. The real answer is probably somewhere between 0 sales lost per download and 1 sale lost per download. I doubt we will ever really know for sure.
In any event not liking something is about the most stupid reason imaginable for justifying piracy. If you think it's bad then use your time to consume or create something else instead - there are certainly an enormous number of people giving things away who would be delighted if you took the time to look at their work. A lot of it is really high quality too - I have heard some excellent indie stuff, especially some experimental classical/rock stuff, that could never survive in the commercial world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Rubbish? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's ScrewMaster's Plan for Resurrecting the Music Industry. If the studios really want to substantially reduce illicit downloading and make money hand-over-fist, here's what they do. Create a download service comparable to iTunes but with every track ever published available, and I mean all of them. If they can't find an album in their archives, offer a reward to anyone who has a copy they can "borrow" to put online. NO DRM, but support every compression format known to Man (MP3, Ogg, you name it.) Maybe make the customer pay an extra nickel a track for archival quality. Most people won't care, but those that want the extra quality and can afford the storage can obtain it. Hell, make 16-bit PCM (raw CD format) available as well, in case we want to burn original-quality CDs.
Develop client platforms for Windows, Linux and the Mac that seamlessly handle purchase and transfer of music to portable devices, and not just the iPod. Design your desktop application with a plugin-based interface architecture, and release the specs to the hardware vendors. Let them support their product lines for you
Keep prices at no more than a buck a track for new stuff (seems like a good impulse-buy price point) and maybe half a buck for older songs. Put the ancient recordings that aren't even copyrighted up for free: it will bring in people and they might buy other stuff. Offer quantity discounts to individuals who purchase lots of your music. Offer monthly plans like Netflix and Blockbuster (100 songs for $25/month!) Oh, and fire your lawyers
People want music, and I believe the majority of us are more than willing to pay for it. We just want the studios to do what every other competitive business has to do: listen to us, their customers. That means giving us what we want (lower prices, better quality, and more variety) and in the process finding a way to turn a profit. Oh, and pay your suppliers: we'll respect you more (this "protecting the artists" thing is wearing a bit thin.) With the extra money you'll be making you can afford to. This is not rocket science folks, it's just a matter of good business. Something they know very little about, unfortunately.
Look, with their resources, this is something they could do very easily (hell, Apple already did it, so there's no innovation or vision required! They just need to improve upon Apple's model.) We have a bunch of old-guard corporate types unable to grasp that they are completely out of touch and not in the driver's seat anymore anyway. They could get it back. But they'll have to accommodate us to a much greater degree than they're willing to now.
Period.
Seems to me... (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems to me that downloading singles mainly benefits the ~CONSUMER~.. I'm far from being a big Apple fan, but I gotta say that the reason that iTunes is succeeding is that Apple's actually giving the customer what they want. How many times have you heard a song that you liked enough to actually go out and buy the CD, only to be disappointed by all of the other tracks?
I'm no conspiracy monger, but I've had the sneaking suspicion for some time that the music industry wants the artists to have one single song drive the sale of the entire CD, and may even go so far as to have the artists hold back on other potential singles for the next album.
If ALL songs were judged (in a commercial sense) on their individual merit, the music industry probably worries that their sales would go down (cuz nobody'd by the 'filler' crap). However, if the industry was less concerned with protecting their old business model, they'd notice that they'd make up on volume what they lost on bundling, and in the process would have a much more enthusiastic customer base. Apple has kind of figured that out, no?
Wow, I do sound like a conspiracy nut... hmm, maybe the tinfoil hats really will stop the black helicopters from transmitting signals to my brain. :)
Blaming Apple as a form of theatrics? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure how the iPod makes it easy to share music, since you can't move music from one computer to another with an iPod. The only way I can see an iPod sharing music is with a Y-adapter on the headphone jack.
Furthermore, what business did Apple take from "the business"? Apple doesn't record music, it is a distributer.
I get the feeling that there is a bit of "blame Apple's success for our failure" theatrics going on here.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you can. See here [engadget.com] for one method.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems a bit involved; since the files are on the iPod, they must have come from somewhere; I would think simple file copying using USB or other portable drives would be easier instead of taking them off an iPod.
More options is still better.
Re: (Score:2)
(I'd really like to know how many copies are created that way; the record companies are always afraid of downloads, what about plain copying of DVDs full of music? )
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Turn that shit off! (Score:5, Insightful)
We're only in our mid-20s and we already "feel like old people" when it comes to music sometimes. But then, we realize something. Most of us who were teenagers in the mid-to-late 90s remember when rock and metal were more than emo and frat boy headbanging crap.
Um, hate to break it to you, but being 42 and seeing music come and go, music has sucked since the early 80s. The mid-to-late 90s is *exactly* the same as today. Grunge wasn't emo and frat boy headbanging crap? And this isn't one of those "my generation was better", I even recognize that my generation's early 80s music sucked. Where are the Led Zeppelins? Where are the Pink Floyds? Hell, where are the Beatles? I recently listened to most the Beatles discography, and it's still unbelievable how different they were from anything before and anything since.
Where is the innovation?
Innovation is on the small labels (Score:3, Interesting)
Albums vs singles (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the alleged deterioration in music quality - what utter nonsense. As a music lover, you have access to more and better music than ever before, largely thanks to the Internet. No one is forcing you to listen to that mainstream crap, you know.
Actually, I think that there's a connection to be made here: as more and better music becomes available, people become more captious about the audio they listen to, because their time and money is obviously too limited. Instead of buying a couple of pretty good albums from a few artists, people buy a couple of great tracks from many more artists.
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow I doubt this has much to do with apple
Re: (Score:2)
So it's Apples's fault that people prefer singles instead of albums? It can't be that Apple is just responding to consumer demand, could it?
Yes. Apple are a bunch of dirty, smelly, subversive hippy-communists. I mean they sell "pretty" computers and don't even ship them with Windows installed. How more un-American can you get?
I wouldn't be surprised but they are in league with Putin and quite possible bin Laden and the Democrats.
The force starts soon. (Score:2)
As a music lover, you have access to more and better music than ever before, largely thanks to the Internet. No one is forcing you to listen to that mainstream crap, you know.
If the RIAA gets their way with SoundExchange, you will no longer have net radio that's not "mainstream" in the US. You will still be able to download things yourself and make random playlists, but the magic of just tuning in and being offered interesting new music will go down the tubes. This is the only way the RIAA will be abl
The article (Score:5, Informative)
From http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/magazine/02rubin
September 2, 2007
The Music Man
By LYNN HIRSCHBERG
Rick Rubin is listening. A song by a new band called the Gossip is playing, and he is concentrating. He appears to be in a trance. His eyes are tightly closed and he is swaying back and forth to the beat, trying at once to hear what is right and wrong about the music. Rubin, who resembles a medium-size bear with a long, gray beard, is curled into the corner of a tufted velvet couch in the library of a house he owns but where he no longer lives. This three-story 1923 Spanish villa steeped in music history -- Johnny Cash recorded in the basement studio; Jakob Dylan is recording a solo album there now -- is used by Rubin for meetings. And ever since May, when he officially became co-head of Columbia Records, Rubin has been having nearly constant meetings. Beginning in 1984, when he started Def Jam Recordings, until his more recent occupation as a career-transforming, chart-topping, Grammy Award-winning producer for dozens of artists, as diverse as the Dixie Chicks, Slayer, Red Hot Chili Peppers and Neil Diamond, Rubin, who is 44, has never gone to an office of any kind. One of his conditions for taking the job at Sony, which owns Columbia, was that he wouldn't be required to have a desk or a phone in any of the corporate outposts. That wasn't a problem: Columbia didn't want Rubin to punch a clock. It wanted him to save the company. And just maybe the record business.
What that means, most of all, is that the company wants him to listen. It is Columbia's belief that Rubin will hear the answers in the music -- that he will find the solution to its ever-increasing woes. The mighty music business is in free fall -- it has lost control of radio; retail outlets like Tower Records have shut down; MTV rarely broadcasts music videos; and the once lucrative album market has been overshadowed by downloaded singles, which mainly benefits Apple. "The music business, as a whole, has lost its faith in content," David Geffen, the legendary music mogul, told me recently. "Only 10 years ago, companies wanted to make records, presumably good records, and see if they sold. But panic has set in, and now it's no longer about making music, it's all about how to sell music. And there's no clear answer about how to fix that problem. But I still believe that the top priority at any record company has to be coming up with great music. And for that reason, Sony was very smart to hire Rick."
Though Rubin maintains that his intention is simply to hear music with the fresh ears of a true fan, he has built his reputation on the simultaneously mystical and entirely decisive way he listens to a song. As the Gossip, which is fronted by a large, raucous woman named Beth Ditto, shouts to a stop, Rubin opens his eyes and nods yes. This is the first new band signed to Columbia that he has been enthralled by, but he is not yet sure how to organize the Gossip's future. "Let's hear something else," Rubin says to Kevin Kusatsu, who would, at any other record company, be called an A & R executive. (Traditionally, A & R executives spot, woo, recruit and oversee the talent of a record company.) "We don't have any titles at the new Columbia," Rubin explains, as Kusatsu, the first person Rubin hired, slips a disc out of its sleeve. "I don't want to create a new hierarchy to replace the old hierarchy."
Rubin, wearing his usual uniform of loose khaki pants and billowing white T-shirt, his sunglasses in his pocket, his feet bare, fingers a string of lapis lazuli Buddhist prayer beads, believed to bring wisdom to the wearer. Since Rubin's beard and hair nearly cover his face, his
Substance and talent over fluff? (tho I doubt it) (Score:4, Insightful)
Are they now suffering from the cruelties of the market? No. They are finally paying for their sins.
Musical Pr0n (Score:2)
They have known for years that they can take the most untalented act, wrap it up in a pretty package and saturation-market it, and the mongrel public will stupidly buy it. Ask yourself: "what instruments do they play?" and "do they write their own music?" Then go to your CD shelf and start throwing out the embarrassing evidence before anyone sees it. Look for anything that is eyecandy + microphone.
So here's the elephant in the room.
Why hasn't anyone invented Musical Pr0n yet? Cast aside all pretentions o
while I can respect his work... (Score:2)
Some have said it: albums vs. singles (that most prefer singles over albums) This is not true.
We all prefer albums. It's just that so few modern albums are worth buying in their entirety.
The only 2 albums I have purchased in the past 10 years have both been Paul McCartney.
My favorite albums of the 21st century so far is "Chaos And Creation In The Backyard".
That's not
Not worse, just less relevent (Score:3)
I recall the time when startup network and cable channels came on the air. The old network channels were decimated because the new channels could do more innovative programming as they were not aiming for huge shares. So Fox had Married with Children and 21 Jump Street, and NBC responded with the throw back conservative Seinfied, which kept the innovators at bay for a while, but now NBC is a the bottom of the heap. And they will stay that way because while they are willing to sell shows, they are not willing to do so at decent terms. Networks now choose programming to minimize cost rather than really compete.
So there is quite a bit of good music, and my music budget is still respectable. The only issue I see is that the major labels are increasingly concentrating their marketing on a few big acts, therefore making it seem like there is little music available for the audiences with uncommon tastes. Cheaper CD packaging, online sales, and the like should let them market even greater number of acts, but instead they are retreating behind obsolete models, i.e. old guys listening to music and deciding what the young people want. Of course perhaps it is also unrealistic expectations in which even the most boring acts expect million dollar deals, and the studios still milk that money for all it is worth, rather than update the deals for modern needs.
This does not even account for the truly sad cases, like the owners of the Beatles catalog, who still believe it has some long term private sales value in the current market. U@ was brilliant to sell his songs on an iPod, and the more has bin the group the more sense such a move makes, especially when the back catalog is large. There is still money to be made for licensing for public performance, and of course they are pissing that money away by killing net radio, but very few people are going to buy the same song 5 times, as was the case in the past.
Wow. This. Writeup. Stinks. (Score:2, Informative)
The reason for lack of content (Score:5, Interesting)
Popular music is informed by youth culture, and thus reflects the hopes and fears of the youth of any particular era. The 60s was about Vietnam (not because of any real concern about the war, but because teenagers faced the possibility of being drafted). The 80s was about overt avarice and consumerism.
But what about the 90s and the 2000s? What were they about? I, and most people I've talked to about this, draw a blank. Some people think modern emo bands were influenced by the Columbine massacre and its aftermath, but that is at best a minor facet of popular music.
The thing that characterised our societies after 1989 was a sense of triumphalism. The cold war was over, the world had unanimously chosen the best way of running things (sic), and it was the end of history. Essentially, we were told all the battles had been won and there were no more challenges left for our generation to take up. People say 9/11 'changed everything' but in reality it changed very little, for the most part western society still smugly grinds away as it did before. The daily life of young people is largely unaffected.
So the prevailing feeling is apathy. You go to school, go to college, have kids and die. There's nothing else to do. The music reflects this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For my particular slice of the demographic the prevailing feeling is bitterness that the generation that grew up in the 60's is refusing to make room for us so we have to make due with less. Graduating at the end of the tech boom and seeing exactly 0 entry level positions definitely inspired that. Right now every generation is living with the gradual decline of our liv
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plundering of pension funds, lack of affordable housing, broken public transport, unfair tax system, broken eduacation system, student debt, personal debt, general lack of direction. Oh, and pandering to America's Imperialist agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
In summary: this is a slightly bad deal which is about to get a whole lot worse.
Re: (Score:2)
<immature flame>
I had to laugh when I read this article.
Here is a 60's generation music mogul (and he's spiritual, too!) who thinks all the world needs is another Bob Dylan or Beatles, and that with enough tweaking, the latest Metallica album can be just that and win over the entire youth market.
Here's a message to the 60's generation: your music and cultural heroes are not as great as you think they are, and nobody today is buying it. The media fawns over them and you because they ARE you. But
"...which mainly benefits Apple" (Score:2)
From the producer's point of view then it does benefit Apple. If Apple take a cut of profits, no matter how small, then that's money that the producers/publishers aren't seeing. Add to that the fact that peop
New Music? (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess what? Gossip [wikipedia.org] has been around since 1999, that isn't exactly new. Somehow people have gotten an attitude that good music will find them and don't bother trying to find it themselves, so when they turn on their radio and nothing but crap comes out they start blaming the music industry for not making anything good anymore. If you think all music sucks today its your own damn fault for limiting your definition of music to crap played on the radio, go do some leg work and see what else is out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Next, you're going to tell me I will have to visit multiple stores, and not having everything in stock I will be awaiting the arrival of a plastic disk containing the information I am looking for? How quaint.
"the quality of todays music is the problem" (Score:4, Insightful)
Heavy metal has lost any sort of melodic element and is now just a brutal assault with guitar-like sounds which for all we know might have been entirely generated by sampler (as Marylin Manson did with his Beautiful People song) and with not guitar virtuosity in sight (please somebody give me a challenging guitar solo - PLEASE!!).
Add to all of this the current propensity of the record companies to compress the music to the point of unlistenability and you have a recipe for disaster. Heart came out with a really good album a couple of years ago which was a real return to their awesome roots but was torpedoed by the Ultramaximiser applied to the final product. I couldn't listen for more than a few seconds before my ears started bleeding. You know, it's interesting that when I mention that I come on here and mention the superiority of analog sound on vinyl records the first thing people point out is the supposed greater dynamic range of digital. Yet if that is indeed the case, you'd be hard pressed to prove that with most modern pop recordings.
Cheers
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Majors are Finished (Score:2)
Who needs major distribution companies?
What effect do the majors think youtube and its many future imitators - some devoted EXCLUSIVELY to the creation and d
the simple fact is: (Score:5, Interesting)
I asked my students - 153 in a lecture class - "How many of you bought a new CD in the past 6 months? Raise you hands." About 20 raised their hands. I then asked "How many of you have downloaded a new song either through legitimate means with iTunes and other companies, or illegitimately, via P2P? Raise you hands." Almost everyone raised their hand.
The fact is: the CD is dead. It's dying because CDs are long format and inherited the interest in long playing music from the LP and 78rpm "Albums". People today have the attention span of gnats, and are too distracted by the gazillion different toys to just sit and listen to music. When I was young, we'd roll a fatty or three and put on some Yes or Genesis or Tangerine Dream and space for hours while we glotzed the gatefold cover art. We didn't have Xbox, playstations, etc, or cellphones or IM or texting or internet porn or whatever. Our options were comparatively limited - TV, records, radio. And these media have their own requirements as passive "sit back" media. Now, with active "sit forward" media of Xbox etc. and the jump up and down of Wii, and the focus of IM and texting, there is really no "pay off" to sitting around listening to music. Actually listening to music seems almost like a meditation practice to contemporary cultural "intake".
The CD's duration was determined by Beethoven's Ninth Symphony - one can sit through the entire symphony uninterrupted. With LPs you had to get up every 18 - 20 minutes to flip the record. CDs removed that hassle, and a CD became a musical journey. Constructing such a journey and doing it convincingly is hard work, which is why so many CDs had "filler". Sustaining interest in a listener for 1.3 hours is tough work.
The advent of the MP3 removed the need for the "extended hypnosis" and brought back the spirit of the 78RPM and the 45RPM record - "singles". If you're a talentless hack, and so many musicians are - talentless hacks give a ground to judge how we know someone isn't a talentless hack - then you probably don't have the chops or the depth of a song list to fill a CD. So, it only makes sense to put what you've got going on an MP3 network, and when you hve enough of your crap for a CD, do that too. But the pressure to cook up a CD's worth of tunage FIRST is gone.
This doesn't help matters for the gangsters in the RIAA.
They had a chance to put a meter on P2P with the original Napster. We (at Napster) had developed a billing client, and suggested a very very low price for P2P'd songs - where a DL would be dinged off a client's account value. We tested it - and IT WORKED. It was kind of clunky at first, and we needed to work on optimisations, but it really worked, and it was pretty damn slick. The RIAA et al told us "No". And now those idiots are reaping the whirlwind for their greed and stupidity, and we are all the worse for it.
RS
This article is just more BS.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Want proof? Listen to what this guy's BOSS has to say!
Steve Barnett is nervous about the subscription model. "Smart people have told me if the subscription model is not done correctly," he said, "it will be the final nail in our coffin. I've heard both sides of the argument, and I'm not convinced it's the solution to our problems. Rick wants to be a hero immediately. In his mind, you flick a switch and it's done. It doesn't work like that."Uhm..HELLO???!!! You've had TEN YEARS to come up with a subscription model! That sure doesn't sound like "flicking a switch" to me!
Barnett has other ideas, which he is discussing with Rubin. For instance, asking Columbia artists to give the record company up to 50 percent of their touring, merchandising and online revenue. This is unprecedented -- even successful artists like the Dixie Chicks make a large percentage of their income from concerts and T-shirts. "Artists should never give that money up," Natalie Maines told me. "The companies are all scrambling because of the Internet, and they will screw the artist to meet their bottom line. I can't imagine Rick will go along with that."YEAH! THAT'S IT! Screw the artists even more! That's a GREAT business model!!
This is just more of the same one crap thay've been doing all along...30 second previews = industry nightmare (Score:2)
The first 20 minutes of a movie.. (Score:2)
Shocking how everyone missed this (Score:3, Interesting)
I know, no one at slashdot RTFA. Yet, by not reading it, everyone skipped this little gem, which is the tell tale of what is in the mind of the recording industry execs and how they perceive the music business:
Rick Rubin, the "outsider", thinks like this:
Missing the point of the Apple profits comment... (Score:3, Interesting)
The death of the music industry is, then, good for Apple so long as it doesn't go too far and kill off all the content.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And by "reward", I didn't just mean give them more money. Finding an audience that enjoys your music is rewarding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In my post above, though, I probably should have used the word "promote" rather than "reward". I didn't mean the artists should get more money....I meant that what money there is, should be better directed at promoting the more talented people rather than the less talented.
Re: (Score:2)
paid to play in bars and nightclubs. Then the owners of these venues realized how much money the band members were going to earn once they became professional and started demand that they, the venue operators should be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
half-heartedly concur (Score:2)
I think you're mostly right on. However, good musicians ARE making music. It's just that the big distribution channels won't play nice with artists, so people who are good and who value their integrity won't play the Come-Record-Label-Please-Fuck-My-Ass-And-Take-My-M oney game.
Excellent article by Steve Albini:
http:// [mercenary.com]