The Record Industry's Decline

If people lose respect for the music industry, where will people get their fashion ideas from? If there is no mega or counterculture star sporting your look, who's to say it's not just as good as a hefty bag jumpsuit?

I just wanted to repost this from the ancient Usenet posts thread:

 hao!woods            Feb 20, 1983 4:59 am

 The problem with a "tape tax" is simply that there are a lot of other

uses for blank recording tape besides copying copyrighted material. Musicians

use it to record themselves, people actually even record things besides music

(God forbid!). It isn't really fair to ask everyone to pay for those who

use the tapes to copy records.

  The best solution to sagging record sales is to make the price reasonable.

I stopped buying albums when the price passed $7 apiece. I think it's

outrageous. Concert tickets average around $15 these days as well. Maybe all

the superstars will have to switch from Rolls Royces to Cadillacs for a while

(breaks my heart :-)  ). I realize that the non-superstar artists suffer more

than the superstars. I think what we are seeing here is more people want to

be musicians than the market will support, which accounts for the troubles

of the "non-mainstream" artists a lot more than taping records, and the

superstars are WAY overpaid. I love the Stones, but $20 to see Mick Jagger

prance around for maybe 90 minutes is a blatant rip-off. Those of you who have

sent me mail asking why I like the Dead so much, here's one reason. They usually

play for 3 1/2 to 4 hours. Most bands, however, don't even give you 2 hours for

your twenty bucks. Cut down on the number of artists and lower the price of

records. I'd much rather have the album with cover and associated artistry

than a blank cassette with my hadwriting on the outside any day, but my

principles take over when the price is up around $8.50 to $12 a record,

I'll buy a blank tape for $2.50 (or even $3 if they imposed a tape tax!) over

paying a ridiculous price for a record.
                        GREG

                        ucbvax!hplabs!hao!woods

                        menlo70!hao!woods

                        harpo!seismo!hao!woods

                        decvax!brl-bmd!hao!woods 

"I think what we are seeing here is more people want to

be musicians than the market will support, which accounts for the troubles

of the "non-mainstream" artists a lot more than taping records"

This is probably an OTM constant in the changing music industry

Those of you who have sent me mail asking why I like the Dead so much, here's one reason. They usually play for 3 1/2 to 4 hours.

we would have also accepted 'average weight' and 'parking accommodations'.

We have the blank media tax here in Canada. It basically doubles the price of blank discs/tapes with the upside being that using such discs for copying copyrighted material is not illegal. The other upside is that if you get your discs from a flea market they're half price.

The guy's tax argument doesn't hold much water though. All taxes spread some of the burden to people who don't fit the purpose of the tax.

How are the proceeds from the Canadian blank media tax distributed?

Dished out to Canadian Artists/publishers etc based on sales if memory serves.

one question that hasn't really come up in this thread is...okay, so things have changed and the genie's never going back in the bottle...major labels and lots of indie labels are likely fucked in the long term, CDs we hardly knew ye, etc etc...

I'm wondering how people think this new environment effects the thing that likely everyone cares about on ILM - the creation of good music

do you think this new environment in more or less conducive to people creating/wanting to create great music, as compared to 10 years ago...or even, say, back in the 40s,50s,60s...

on the pro side:

1) musicians i guess will be more and more "free agents", figuring out how to reach their audience and getting them interested in the music and buying t-shirts or CDs or vinyl or ringtones, etc etc...This definitely is going to mean a lot less people are bound to A&R, and bad deals, and the old "We don't here a single" thing - Which is good for a lot of artists and being able to create - not all that different from, say, Fugazi and Dischord in a way, but in a "post material music" sort of way...

2) Obv. digital distribution (as well as really cheap and increasingly good home digital recording) makes it a lot cheaper to make music...more people have more access to making and distributing music over the net..hopefully, more people = more good ideas, more good music...

CONS:

1) more people making more music=more shit...harder and harder to sift thru it for the audience, esp. after the labels all die and you can't even hitch your boat to a label aesthetic

2) DIY is great and all, but at least one thing that the old bloated label situation did provide the really great (and frequently sort of addled, crazy, lazy, - but extremely talented artists) was sort of shielding them from the day-to-day realities of life - people pick you up in a limo, take you to the studio, fetch you things...which yeah they are pampered assholes but they were/are still allowed to concentrate on nothing but the music....thinking about examples like Brian Wilson or Ol' Dirty Bastard...I mean, shit neither one of those guys was going to exactly come up on their own self-releasing stuff and organizing stuff, right?

3) A lot of people I've seen make comments (esp. on more punkish boards I go to) that say things like "Who cares if people don't make money at music"...and there's great examples of pre-20th Century models for you know traveling bards or people that just created music for their little communities...obv. nothing wrong with that - I play in a band and devote a considerable amount of my time to a band that has never and will never even break even....That said, the idea or rock (or rap or country) stardom as a "way out" has been a powerful motivator for a lot of great artist...esp. in hip hop obv. I mean, do you think Jay-Z would have been a rapper if there was no promise of industry-funded stardom - like you know if you hustle really hard on myspace you might be able to be self-sufficient doing small club tours and selling cool t-shirts?? Same with, I don't know, a million examples...

anyway...sometimes I worry that - with all the good that's come of the internet music boom - that as music become devalued monetarily, it will inevitably devalued artistically....obv. in the US money is how we show what's important....if it's not worth anything dollarwise, won't it suffer on some end?

Well, trying to get yourself noticed solely via downloads isn't that much different from pressing up a small run of records and trying to sell them (apart from the lower overheads). It's all about promotion, and the big labels tend to outsource the promotion anyway don't they? As has been discussed already, it may mean that management companies will take over the financing role from labels (if they haven't already, I dunno).

Seems like there will always be Jay-Zs. People love stars and celebrity pays even if record sales aren't the main source of income.

wait really? I think the point about the time it takes, about the necessarily higher level of involvement, is a decent one - sort of a manual-transmission-vs.-automatic-transmission divide

-- J0hn D., Tuesday, June 26, 2007 6:12 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

haha but digital music is much more "manual" - at least in the sense that's being talked about here, as single downloadable tracks - you "shift gears" more often that way, while albums shift their own gears - "haha" because you'd think ye olde rockists would be in favor - morally, somehow - of both stickshifts and and physical albums

note awesomely useful rockist strawman err

ii. very little of this thread has anything to do with dance music, which has built an economy for itself that doesn't depend on major labels or albums, and it's been developing this economy for decades.

iii. this is the third time i've read that interview with peter jenner - sorry for missing out an "A:" or two in my pasting of it by the way - and i don't understand a good third of what he's talking about! i can't tell if it's because he's been edited strangely or what.

the dance music economy is fucked in the US. The dance market is probably the most turbulent market outside of hiphop. Every time it almost stabilizes the scene dies out and something new and fly by night arises in its wake.

Europe and Germany in particular are the only markets where dance music has been allowed to stabilize and build. They have had record production, manufacturing, distribution, touring, corporate sponsorship and promotion locked into a stable business model since at least 94-5. Japan also is a close second, but the small size of the market doesn't provide as many touring opportunities. The Japanese are fanatic record collectors and it is easier to get Detroit techno records in Tokyo than it is in Detroit.

The thing that fucked up dance music in the US is that the major labels threw their weight into rap and the liquor companies only sponsor rock and hip hop. Scion will sponsor all kinds of bullshit hip hop and disco punk in Austin, but they have never once supported underground electronic dance music. If the big companies would throw as little as 25k a month into underground dance events it would revolutionize the US scene. As it is, it just isn't economically viable to do multiple region tours in the US as a dance artist. You could do a lot with a few grand on a DIY scale if you just had a small subsidy.

If you think you are going to make any money as a recording artist in dance music, think again. Those days are over. Even the stars are only a little more than hobby musicians. The money is in touring.

We need to come up with a replacement term for "discography."

Which again, points to the editing/filter problem.

Also, I can't think of the last time I heard of something discussion-provoking in Rolling Stone. About music at least. Even though most of this information has been out there, there's something oddly authoritative about this article.

Someone from "Illumina Records" made me some sort of offer the other day on MySpace. It's funny, they might even be some semi-big label, I don't know, but I didn't bother to read the whole offer. It might've been a great opportunity for somebody or some band, but I have zero interest. Being a public buffoon for a dying industry is in no way appealing to me. I make music for fun, not to prance around on stage and con dollars out of people.

If you're looking for evidence of music's devaluation, there it is.

There's a lot of great stuff out there already, much of it free (tons of free classical music online). I haven't heard many records worth keeping for the past 20-something years. I have hundreds I have kept, but I"m pretty sure I've only kept them because I like the packaging.

I think the avid music-geekiness of the past that people above are claiming seems to be missing from the iPod youth of today was sort of a self-induced, self-perpetuated fantasy of ours. We know it's all one big illusion, but pretending makes life more interesting, I guess. But, I think the fantasy was perpetuated by self-doubt and self-loathing and leads to a sort of music dependency, so I'm absolutely fine with the idea that kids currently growing up don't seem to identify with music nearly as much as we did.

Remember how musicians used to admit that they just picked up a guitar because they wanted to get laid? And the ugliest wimp could look sexy as long as he's up on a stage and straps a guitar? Creepy-looking ugly junkies became a "hot look." The Rolling Stones were always ugly and creepy. Wasn't Malcolm McLaren's whole vision based on the fact that people wanted a look they could buy into in order to fit in? That's some sad shit. Maybe it seems like some basic human need, but I have a feeling it is only a basic need in a society that is fucked up and dishonest (and, yes, maybe all societies are fucked up and dishonest).

Maybe this is all a good thing. Maybe more people will go back to making music that is actually good rather than empty posturing and envelope-pushing for the sake of it or because it's expected. There will always be Jay-Z's, as someone said above... but why??? "Jay-Z's back. Expect everything." Oh boy, does this mean I can look forward to Jay-Z enriching my life in every way possible? Or maybe he's just another cocky dickhead pretending he is the sun and the moon.

And I kind of like Jay-Z, too. I kind of like a lot of these dickheads who've made all this dickhead music piled up all around my house, but the older I get I realize it's mostly just dumb shit with a beat. Most of it isn't worth much of anything, to me, anyway. If classical masterpieces are given away for free, what is the value of a few chords or beats and some mostly jerky lyrical ideas?

Given the option, it seems most people agree with me. They'd rather get it absolutely free or pay hardly anything as eMusic's success proves. The more I download, the more I realize how impersonal, in a way, music should be. It's just about whether you like a song or not. If the artist is able to speak to you solely through the song, it's a keeper. And you no longer have to keep a whole album just because you like a couple songs. And kids don't have to risk their allowance on some crapshoot and then force themselves to like a disappointing album they spent all their money on to make themselves feel better, as I'm sure we all did at one time. And people don't have the same likelihood of getting unhealthily attached to 4 dudes in a band who'll be in rehab in a few years.

But, don't get me wrong! I LOVE music!

And kids don't have to risk their allowance on some crapshoot and then force themselves to like a disappointing album they spent all their money on to make themselves feel better, as I'm sure we all did at one time.

I would never have gotten into Joy Division or Low by David Bowie if I had not been one of those kids...

That's true. There is definitely something about iPods vs. patience / absorbing subtlety , both of which are good qualities.

I haven't heard many records worth keeping for the past 20-something years. I have hundreds I have kept, but I"m pretty sure I've only kept them because I like the packaging...But, don't get me wrong! I LOVE music!

You sure about that?

Not really.

wait really? I think the point about the time it takes, about the necessarily higher level of involvement, is a decent one - sort of a manual-transmission-vs.-automatic-transmission divide

-- J0hn D., Tuesday, June 26, 2007 6:12 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

haha but digital music is much more "manual" - at least in the sense that's being talked about here, as single downloadable tracks - you "shift gears" more often that way, while albums shift their own gears - "haha" because you'd think ye olde rockists would be in favor - morally, somehow - of both stickshifts and and physical albums

-- Tracer Hand, Thursday, 28 June 2007 00:20 (16 hours ago) Bookmark Link

I think what Jenner is getting at is that the process of picking a CD or a vinyl album, taking it out of it's case/sleeve, putting it on the deck/player is a process which by it's nature is more time consuming. It makes the choice more important, rather than just scrolling through a playlist or even just putting it on random play.

we spend more time selecting music now. but once the selection is made, there's no further effort required (but this has been the case since CD's superceded tapes tho I guess). it's that amount of time spent searching for, obtaining, selecting and EDITING (tags etc. - I spend time making sure I have the correct year of first release for ALL my mp3s - it's sick and unnatural) that's really grown altho all that effort is not physical like it once was (travelling to stores, literally sifting through records etc.).

Prince to distribute new album via Sunday Newspaper

This reminds me of ten years ago, seeing the World Book Encyclopedia given away on CD-ROM, stuck to a block of American Cheese slices.

Someone from "Illumina Records" made me some sort of offer the other day on MySpace. It's funny, they might even be some semi-big label, I don't know, but I didn't bother to read the whole offer. It might've been a great opportunity for somebody or some band, but I have zero interest. Being a public buffoon for a dying industry is in no way appealing to me. I make music for fun, not to prance around on stage and con dollars out of people.

But this post kind of makes you sound like a buffoon. No legit label would make you an "offer" over myspace.

you'd be surprised

I spend time making sure I have the correct year of first release for ALL my mp3s

I keep my tags immaculate - but not the year or genre, the only other two which might be somewhat useful. I started to go back and do this but the thought of having to check 20,000+ tags quickly made me bail. Some programs like Musicbrainz or something needs to be able to automatically do this for you on a selective basis (i.e. only update the year, leave the rest alone).

musicmatch 7-8 made it so easy, you could pick only certain fields to update, forgot which server they used(i'm on vista with no musicmatch support, too lazy to figure out the dual boot but I want to load XP just to use musicmatch). You can do it in mediamonkey too but maybe just with the Amazon.com server which is rather poor. I hate having to use separate tagging progs just to do simple stuff and most of them are shit anyway.

But this post kind of makes you sound like a buffoon. No legit label would make you an "offer" over myspace.

Try not to read too much into such a vague sentence. I think if a legit label really liked your music and had no idea of how to contact you, they would definitely contact you through MySpace. That doesn't mean I thought it was a great offer from a great company. It just means I didn't care what the offer was or who they were enough to even finish reading the proposal. If it was from Warner Bros. it would've been the same reaction.

But, here's their site. Looks like I missed an awesome opportunity. Not.
http://www.illuminarecords.com/

No, unironically negating a statement using a single sentence "Not." in 2007 makes you look like a buffoon.

That sentence makes you look like a buffoon.

http://www.backstreetmerch.com/images/products/bands/clothing/anth/anth21906_thumb.gif

xpost

SYKE SYKE SUPER SYKE!! is the preferred 2007 nomenclature.

Scott Ian looks like a buffoon.

i'll let that pass, but i swear to god if you talk shit about charlie benate i will kill you.

Chuck does not have an egyptian beard dyed bright red and a pentagram tattoo.

Some interesting information here (with graphs!):

http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?id=1005348&src=article2_newsltr

As a music fan, I think it is quite exciting that there are more music consumers than ever. The fact that the current state of music buying means that they are spending less per capita seems like a reasonable refinement that wasn't necessarily possible under the previously imposed model of The Industry.

I've bought more albums this year than any year I can remember, in addition to still sucking on that promo teat. In the last two months, I've filled out a lot of the things that I'd downloaded, but I've only been able to do this by a) buying things that I've already heard, and b) buying 'em used. I've found a spot where I can fill out my Kid Creole collection for a buck a piece, which makes me more willing to try new things. But these are albums, not downloads, and artists/labels/etc. aren't seening a dime off of these purchases.

http://www.futureofmusic.org/events/summit07/index.cfm

one of the panels

The New Deal: major label contracts revisited

Now that the majors are experiencing a dramatic shift in their business models, what do contracts look like? What clauses have been phased out and what is now standard? What are major labels asking from artists and what are they offering in return?

Bryan Calhoun Owner and Founder, Label Management Systems

Wayne Halper Attorney, Law Office of Wayne Halper

John P. Kellogg, Esq. Assistant Chair Music Business/Management, Berklee College of Music

Marcy Rauer Wagman CEO, MAD Dragon UNLTD, Drexel University

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7974727.stm

http://library.duke.edu/digitalcollections/images/adaccess/R/R02/R0206/R0206-med.jpeg

Didn't Vvm Test Records finish off the music industry?

Aborigines, lowest in the scale of savagery on earth imo

Mike Batt, songwriter and owner of the Dramatico record label, which has signed Katie Melua and Marianne Faithfull, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he supported the industry stance.

"I run a small record label and I'm an artist, so I can speak for both," he said. "If a record company invests hundreds of thousands of pounds in selling my records, doesn't it earn a right to stand alongside me in the sharing of income?"

Bragg responded that Batt's argument "defending the right of record companies to enjoy a further 45 years of income made my blood boil".

Batt makes a helluva lot more money through his record label than his 70s hits.

I'm excited about this small label! Who's this Marianne Faithfull girl does she have a myspace?

If aborigines are lowest in the scale of savagery, doesn't that make them less savage than everyone else? No matter - just show me where I can get one of these sharkskin drums.

BOSTON (AP) -- A Boston University student has been ordered to pay $675,000 to four record labels for illegally downloading and sharing music.

Joel Tenenbaum, of Providence, R.I., admitted he downloaded and distributed 30 songs. The only issue for the jury to decide was how much in damages to award the record labels.

Under federal law, the recording companies were entitled to $750 to $30,000 per infringement. But the law allows as much as $150,000 per track if the jury finds the infringements were willful. The maximum jurors could have awarded in Tenenbaum's case was $4.5 million.

The case is only the nation's second music downloading case against an individual to go to trial.

Last month, a federal jury in Minneapolis ruled a Minnesota woman must pay nearly $2 million for copyright infringement.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/07/31/business/AP-US-TEC-MusicDownload.html

should we start guessing what those 30 songs were

$675,000 for 30 songs is $22,500 per song. I just figured out how to eliminate the deficit. If the record industry successfully sues everyone for the amount of illegal downloading over the past decade, that will add up to roughly....419 trillion dollars. If they can just donate 1% of that to the federal government we should be sitting pretty.