Music's Lost Decade

[Bateluer]

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/new...aign=Feed:+rss/money_topstories+(Top+Stories)

When Plushgun released its album "Pins and Panzers," it was the most downloaded album on the popular peer-to-peer Web site What.cd with 100,000 illegal downloads.

"That's 100,000 CDs we would have sold," said Ingala. "At the same time, it's helping us create an audience. It's just a matter of adjusting."

The above quote is something I wanted to highlight, a crucial failing in the music and video industry. Because there were 100K illegal downloads does not mean that you would have gotten 100K in sales in the illegal medium didn't exist. There are so many other factors influencing this that the possible sales figures are impossible to predict. Just because someone stole a song does not mean they would have paid for the album.

Now just 44% of U.S. Internet users and 64% of Americans who buy digital music think that that music is worth paying for, according to Forrester.

This is also something that irritates me. Obviously, some people are just thieves, but don't you think it might have something to do with the quality of the music you're producing? There are bands that are selling music without a problem, mostly because they don't sound like everything else on the radio. So many labels have reduced each of the music genres into sounding almost exactly the same and people want something different.

 

[Red Dawn]

The above quote is something I wanted to highlight, a crucial failing in the music and video industry. Because there were 100K illegal downloads does not mean that you would have gotten 100K in sales in the illegal medium didn't exist. There are so many other factors influencing this that the possible sales figures are impossible to predict. Just because someone stole a song does not mean they would have paid for the album.

This is also something that irritates me. Obviously, some people are just thieves, but don't you think it might have something to do with the quality of the music you're producing? There are bands that are selling music without a problem, mostly because they don't sound like everything else on the radio. So many labels have reduced each of the music genres into sounding almost exactly the same and people want something different.

Yep, watch some of the Grammy's the other night, all the music was shit.

 

[ElFenix]

64% of Americans who buy digital music think that that music is worth paying for

what about the other 36% of americans who buy digital music? and do we really need the word digital there? i'd guess less than 1/100th of a % of americans who buy music buy analog.

 

[MrEgo]

30 years from now, nobody is going to consider any music from 2000-2010 a "classic" song.

There will always be The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, ACDC, Guns N' Roses, Michael Jackson, etc, for as long as I'm going to be around. But.. in 2040, nobody is going to give a damn about any of these clowns that are popular today.

 

[feralkid]

Yep...Music industry is sucking air, panicking, dumping bands, screwing their Reps and just making about any other clueless business move one can think of.

Investment, innovation...not a chance.

 

[Thump553]

Speaking as someone who has bought probably a thousand LPs and as many CDs, there is something unsatisfying about buying music via electronic downloads. I've done it, but I greatly prefer to buy physical CDs from the artists at a show, which is an extremely common practice in the folk music circuit. I pay more per album (probably average $15-20 each) but the money goes directly to the artist, instead of a penny or two.

Frankly I don't care a whole lot about the quality of pop music-except for the heyday of Motown it has almost always been consistently crap. Without a doubt mass merchandise music is hurting, but I view the enormous technological steps made in cheap recording and distribution technologies to greatly level the playing field. Think of it-for probably $2,000 or so anyone can have equipment that rivals the quality of the best recording studios in the Beatles time.

 

[seemingly random]

Yep, watch some of the Grammy's the other night, all the music was shit.

It seems that most of the focus was on the visual. Pink's circus act was quite unexpected.

 

[StageLeft]

I know a guy. Not me, but his name rhymes with mine and he says most of the stuff he downloads he wouldn't otherwise pay for. Often it's not even worth the energy expended to click the torrent link. Certainly he has far more music than he would have if it call came via $15 CD purchases, which lends credence to the fact. At the same time due to easy access he only buys about one CD a year. His thoughts are that music isn't worth even a dollar a song (itunes) but that if it was cheaper still he'd be quite happy to pay for it.

 

[Red Dawn]

It seems that most of the focus was on the visual. Pink's circus act was quite unexpected.

True and the fact that she wasn't lip syncing while spinning 20 ft up in the air.

 

[StageLeft]

I pay more per album (probably average $15-20 each) but the money goes directly to the artist, instead of a penny or two.

In fact, I think less than $2 goes to the artiest each time you pay that for the Cd.

 

[Mursilis]

My problem with music today is I just can't find any good new stuff. I'm not in my car much so I don't hear much radio, and radio isn't that great anymore anyway. I'm also not on the net enough to really benefit from streaming net radio. It's hard to get exposed to new bands this way. I'd certainly like to buy more music, but it's hard to wade through what's out there.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Does the band in the OP figure in how many people illegally downloaded the album so they could sample the music before purchasing the album? I don't know about you guys, But I'd rather sample and know what the hell I'm about to buy than buy something I know nothing about.

 

[nageov3t]

30 years from now, nobody is going to consider any music from 2000-2010 a "classic" song.

There will always be The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, ACDC, Guns N' Roses, Michael Jackson, etc, for as long as I'm going to be around. But.. in 2040, nobody is going to give a damn about any of these clowns that are popular today.

you're probably wrong.

 

[werepossum]

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/new...aign=Feed:+rss/money_topstories+(Top+Stories)



The above quote is something I wanted to highlight, a crucial failing in the music and video industry. Because there were 100K illegal downloads does not mean that you would have gotten 100K in sales in the illegal medium didn't exist. There are so many other factors influencing this that the possible sales figures are impossible to predict. Just because someone stole a song does not mean they would have paid for the album.



This is also something that irritates me. Obviously, some people are just thieves, but don't you think it might have something to do with the quality of the music you're producing? There are bands that are selling music without a problem, mostly because they don't sound like everything else on the radio. So many labels have reduced each of the music genres into sounding almost exactly the same and people want something different.

We have an entitlement mentality; we believe others should furnish us what we want at no cost to ourselves. A hundred thousand illegal downloads does not equal a hundred thousand CDs sold; kids who steal a hundred CDs don't otherwise magically have $1,500 in disposable income. But I do agree with the record companies that people should pay for what they listen to unless it's voluntarily made available for free.

 

[MrEgo]

you're probably wrong.

Thanks for the insight.

Who do you imagine will still be popular 30 years from now that released a majority of their songs from 2000-2010?

 

[nageov3t]

Thanks for the insight.

Who do you imagine will still be popular 30 years from now that released a majority of their songs from 2000-2010?

I'd imagine most major pop songs.

people tend to like whatever music they were listening to in high school for the rest of their lives... just like there are 80's and 90's radio stations today, I'm sure there will be 00's radio stations down the road.

 

[rudder]

When the Grateful Dead toured they were consistently listed as one of the top grossing bands each year. Despite rarely producing an album and letting people openly record their concerts.

Most musicians suck outside of a studio (well inside also but editing can fix that) so that is probably why they bitch when their cash cow is taken away.

 

[heyheybooboo]

The 1990s weren't all that great, either, for music.

The problem is no good alternative for any of the 'stakeholders' (I hate that word.).

The Pirates win. The consumer, artists, production, distribution, retail and even digital rights management suffers. You think DRM1 was fun? Wait for DRM2. SkyNet becomes self-aware.

The Grammys were LOL. Are Lady Gaga and Pink the same person? Could I have a 'cheek-to-cheek' line-up for comparison? Throw in some Beyonce cheek for good measure.

I thought it was pretty sucky the Les Paul tribute didn't lead off the whole show, and they didn't turn Jeff Beck loose like they did with Elton John and 'Your Song'.

That was rockin' [/sarcasm]




--

 

[StageLeft]

I'd imagine most major pop songs.

people tend to like whatever music they were listening to in high school for the rest of their lives... just like there are 80's and 90's radio stations today, I'm sure there will be 00's radio stations down the road.

I agree with this. I think no later than college most people just stop exposing themselves to new music. I find it frightfully awful on their part, but hey if a guy my age still has Pearl Jam's 10 and Nirvana CDs among the few in his car, so be it. I don't think music overall was better in the 60's 70's etc than it is now. There is quality music. You just have to tune out of the Lady GaGa fandom to find it.

 

[Craig234]

Piracy is theft, and it reduces good music being made. If it's worth a click to download, the people who made it and the industry who helped it get made are entitled to compensation.

If you don't like 'the system' enough to not pay, don't download. If you liek it enough to download, pay.

THere are a lot of bad excuses. Even people who spend a lot of time downloading pirated music and listening are likely replacing their need to buy some music. But here they complain there's no good music.

 

[heyheybooboo]

I agree with this. I think no later than college most people just stop exposing themselves to new music. I find it frightfully awful on their part, but hey if a guy my age still has Pearl Jam's 10 and Nirvana CDs among the few in his car, so be it. I don't think music overall was better in the 60's 70's etc than it is now. There is quality music. You just have to tune out of the Lady GaGa fandom to find it.

Yeah.

Dropkick Murphey is just like The Clash, only, you know, with a lot less talent.






--

 

[BigDH01]

I agree with this. I think no later than college most people just stop exposing themselves to new music. I find it frightfully awful on their part, but hey if a guy my age still has Pearl Jam's 10 and Nirvana CDs among the few in his car, so be it. I don't think music overall was better in the 60's 70's etc than it is now. There is quality music. You just have to tune out of the Lady GaGa fandom to find it.

I don't know. I know there is good music out there, but it is hard to find. I usually get exposed to new, good, and unpopular music by a friend who's much more involved in music. Most of the mainstream stuff I have a chance to listen to just isn't very good in my opinion. I grew up with Nirvana, Pearl Jam, RHCP, etc, and I still listen to them, but I also expose myself to new music, but it tends to be the popular music of a different era, easy to find. I have a new-found respect for The Doors and other major bands of the 60s/70s.

So I don't necessarily think it's nostalgia or lack of willingness. If most people are like me, it's just not so easy to seek out new music I like without ending up just finding bands that are pop/hip-hop (a genre I don't like). I'm lucky enough to have a friend to expose me, but a lot of people don't have this. I think if you approached the guy with Nirvana and Pearl Jam in his car and played some Pinback, he'd like it.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Yep, watch some of the Grammy's the other night, all the music was s**t.

I can't believe I agree with RD, but I totally agree. They haven't made "music" in about a decade or so, so "lost decade" is about right.

 

[nageov3t]

Yeah.

Dropkick Murphey is just like The Clash, only, you know, with a lot less talent.

I'd put a contemporary group like The Bellrays over The Clash.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

you're probably wrong.

No, he's probably right.

I agree with this. I think no later than college most people just stop exposing themselves to new music. I find it frightfully awful on their part, but hey if a guy my age still has Pearl Jam's 10 and Nirvana CDs among the few in his car, so be it. I don't think music overall was better in the 60's 70's etc than it is now. There is quality music. You just have to tune out of the Lady GaGa fandom to find it.

Also no. My taste in music has changed drastically over the last few years. Are you trying to say that the Beatles and the Black Eye Peas (just for one example) are on the same level? Come on...I don't even like the Beatles, and even I can realize that the quality of music has gone way downhill into the gutter the last decade or so.