|
A Sad Week For The Music Industry-a note by Nick Warren (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| montana |
| yes, let's be steve dahl and let's all go to comiskey park and destroy records again. |
|
|
| Floorfiller |
| quote: | Originally posted by montana
yes, let's be steve dahl and let's all go to comiskey park and destroy records again. |
*puts on disco sucks t-shirt*
:wtf:
:p |
|
|
| montana |
| if the second disco demolition night would happen the main problem would be that most of the people have sold their records already. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by flavdave
The music industry isn't dying. The CD/vinyl industry is dying. |
exactly. To this day the music industry is still fighting against consumers trying to force them into purchasing a product they don't want rather than embracing and promoting the sale of things they do want. Most people don't want CDs anymore, they just want the music, yet the industry still tries to force you to buy them by offering digital downloads of a full album but pricing them at nearly the same cost as a physical CD. How the do they expect to get away with this when their product is so easily pirated? what if I went to the electronics store and tried to buy a blu-ray player and the guy said "Sony requires you to purchase a VCR for $75 in order to be eligible to purchase the blu-ray player"? The idea is completely ridiculous and yet the music industry still tries to pull this , hanging on to their dying phyical formats and profit models to this day.
I realize there are always going to be people who want to have an actual CD or vinyl, but the vast majority of music buyers have no need for that stuff. I can't tell you the last time I've listened to an actual CD. Even if I purchase an actual CD the first thing I do is rip it to mp3 and put it on my ipod. Then the CD goes into a box with all the other CDs I never touch again.
The music industry is digging their own grave here. They have an entire generation of buyers coming up who have been downloading things on computers their entire life and who have never listened to music on anything but a mp3 player. If they think these kids are going to go to the store and pay $18 bucks for a CD rather than jump on a torrent site and download it for free in less than 5 minutes they are idiots and deserve what is coming their way. |
|
|
| elFreak |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancedanne
since when did a cd or vinyl cost 2 bucks? |
i was talking about digital files here...often enough though whole vinyl
releases are relative in price to complete digital releases. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
Oh no, it's becoming harder and harder to profit off of art, whatever shall we do?
I know plenty of people who produce all sorts of ranges of music completely for free and I happen to think they're exceedingly good at it. Would they like to be signed and make millions doing what they love? Of course they would. We all would. Is it going to happen? Probably not. And they are ok with this because they don't make music to make money - they do it because it interests them and enriches them to share something of themselves in the work they create themselves.
And this is all that art needs to perpetuate itself.
So long as they have synths and instruments, the music will not die. Their will to create or manipulate sound is not something reliant on the record industry at all, as much as we all enjoy listening to various forms of music available to us through international mediums at the touch of a button - but even that is not endangered by this at all, as torrent sites are [rightfully so] becoming more and more popular. Before you can me as some "all music should be free, etc" person, because I ing know you're about to do so - yes, you, really think to yourself what music labels do for artists. Sure, they handle large expenses for things like advertising, distribution, general promoting - that sort of thing, but is all of that truly necessary to creativity? Does having your face on a billboard suddenly make your music technically better? No doubt there are people who believe that, but are those people's opinions truly based on anything even remotely logical?
No, music will be fine. Businesses who refuse to evolve in their model will suffer, sure, but music will not die because profits are hurt. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
^ Nice post, Halcyon.
On the quality issue, I think it's always been hard to find good records.
Originally it was because of distribution issues, limited numbers of records getting sent out to a limited number of stores, trouble IDing the tracks you heard on a night out or on the radio, and so on. Now it's just an issue of sorting through all the uninspired crap to find the gems.
Although I guess there was a brief period in the late '90s when most EDM labels were still vinyl-only but were also putting themselves out on the net to market and sell their records. So you had the "quality control" of vinyl combined with the easy search capability of the net.
Anyway, the net may not be the best thing for the quality / crap ratio in dance music, but there is still nice stuff out there, and I think the net has been great in other ways. EDM has always had a sort of DIY ethic, avoiding traditional ideas of musicianship, marketing, and expertise. The net enhances possibilities in this direction. kitphillips wrote about this in another thread:
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
I don't personally understand the point of view which says that more poducers on the market (due to cheaper equipment) makes for more boring/low quality/unorignal releases.
...This is just my opinion mind you, but I really think that people who complain about the fact that more people can now produce more easily are missing the point of electronic music generally. The whole idea behind electronic (and even behind rap, house and hip hop styles earlier) was that everyone could make the music - even if they couldn't read music or play an instrument.
It was a freeform method of expression in which even people with no actual musical talent could enjoy the act of creation. This basically lead to a more pure and democratic form of music, where people weren't judged on the basis of whether they played, what they played or how they played it, they were judged on the basis of their actual art. The artist's identity basically was subsumed by the music, and they were made irrelevant except to the extent that their name could be used to find more similar tracks. Of course, all this has changed these days, which is why I think that everyone has it backwards. We should be glad that there are more producers and easier/cheaper equipment, because it helps brings things back to that original freedom. |
|
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles |
I completely agree. There have been mounds and mounds of crap in every genre and in every time period - and not just in music, in all forms of art and non-art alike.
If anything, I believe that online outlets give greater opportunity for higher quality music, it is just a matter of these same businesses not adequately streamlining their systems. Beatport could be far more discerning in what "products" it offers and if they don't, they will most certainly face competition with upcoming online sources that offer even more refined catering in their offers - brand and product quality have always been a factor in marketing and people's selection in whom they give their money to. At this point, it's simply a matter of the market adapting to what people obviously want and, once more, businesses who refuse to follow market trends will fall. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Oh no, it's becoming harder and harder to profit off of art, whatever shall we do?
I know plenty of people who produce all sorts of ranges of music completely for free and I happen to think they're exceedingly good at it. Would they like to be signed and make millions doing what they love? Of course they would. We all would. Is it going to happen? Probably not. And they are ok with this because they don't make music to make money - they do it because it interests them and enriches them to share something of themselves in the work they create themselves.
|
exactly my point. When did it become someone's right to become a millionaire just because they can sing, play a guitar, or make music in some other manner? And I love the record companies argument of "if we didn't charge $18 for a CD we wouldn't be able to fund the albums created by low volume artists that don't make much money or take a chance on new artists." Too ing bad for you, don't fund a CD for unproven or low selling artists. Distribute their tracks online for free or low cost, if they are an artist that can sell albums you will see a large number of downloads and then you can charge more for their next release. For years the music industry had you by the nads because if you wanted their music you either had to pay their price for it or hope you had a friend who did and you could copy their tape or CD. Now you can pretty much get any CD with torrents for free in less than the time it takes to drive to a record store. But yet they continue to operate as though nothing has changed and expect that they can continue to use the same profit model they did 50 years ago. Sound like anyone else you know(Big 3 automakers?) |
|
|
| MichaelBoogerd! |
I agree with the post aboves, perhaps the digital scene is currently looking rather ty because save for a few stores, beatport has monopolised the game, by offering advertising space & exclusive releases in partnership with its flagship big labels.
One thing that stands out from today and 5 years ago... back then I'd walk into a record store for a few hours and come home with 1 or 2 records. Now i can go to beatport, i have every labels back catalog, every artists back catalog, all the new releases, everything I could possibly ever want is just a few frustrating navigation bars away. Since beatport I've definitely spent more money on music, simply because more of it was available to me.
Apart from the disproportionate balance between what beatport pockets vs. what artists receive in compensation of sales generated, surely there are more examples of consumers like me, where digital sites have improved the money coming into the industry rather than ting on it.
What i didn't like about vinyl (i don't see it mentioned either) is that unless you kept on top of the game, search wise, records on your pull list would come & go from the store as hot commodity before you may have had chance to pre-order or buy that record. I love digital stores back catalog sections and label search functions, that allow me to purchase tracks from the past without the threat of it not being there a week later in case i don't have the $$$$ at that time. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
Precisely - there is so much potential for online distributors to make a great deal of money in so many different ways, it's really quite sad the transition has taken as long as it has.
Reznor's sort of a tired argument in this topic, and perhaps not the best example, but once he emancipated himself from his label and began working furiously on albums - far more, far faster than he'd ever done before - he advertised them on his own site and posted them on torrent sites for free, offered free digital downloads through NIN.com, but also offered CD versions of his albums for about $12, as well as deluxe and collector's editions for significantly more than that, all to the people who were devout enough fans to enjoy all of the attached shwag. If I recall correctly, he sold out on deluxe versions very, very fast and made quite a killing off the regular CD versions, but also set himself up for massive distribution of his product by offering it for free as well. There are enough people out there who want to support the artists they love, it's just that record companies almost never offer consumers an agreeable method of supporting the people who have done all the work and deserve the money the most - they are playing the unnecessary middle-men all the while reaping the majority of the profits. This isn't right, and the sooner we can get rid of these money-grubbing middlemen, the sooner an artist's work can speak for itself.
Ideally, that is. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
There are enough people out there who want to support the artists they love, it's just that record companies almost never offer consumers an agreeable method of supporting the people who have done all the work and deserve the money the most - they are playing the unnecessary middle-men all the while reaping the majority of the profits. This isn't right, and the sooner we can get rid of these money-grubbing middlemen, the sooner an artist's work can speak for itself.
|
Right, when you know damn well an artist is getting less than $1 of the $18 you just paid for their CD it is hard to look at that purchase as supporting your favorite artist. You are supporting the A&R guy with his fancy car and trendy clothes who probably ed your favorite artist into a contract along with the rest of the leeches at the record label, you are supporting the distribution company for sure, and also the retail store selling the CD. The artist would be better off if you downloaded a torrent of their album and paypaled them $3 for it. |
|
|
|
|
