The WHO lead vocalist says no money in music

[techristian]

http://teamrock.com/news/2016-06-01/roger-daltrey-there-s-no-music-industry-anymore-why-would-we-make-an-album

[1001gear]

I found Tommy in the $5.00 bin. Snapped it up and it's been aging on my shelf unopened since. So yeah. It's his music, he knows.

Him and Page both look like professors. They should go on a lecture tour. Take that Kaku guy and anybody else for credibility. Lecturepalooza 2016

[WRGKMC]

Anyone who had the slightest insight into the technology could have predicted this 20 years ago. They all been waiting around for the next great technological change to fix things but it hasn't happened. There has to be a market to sell goods.

 

In the past it was a brick and mortar market with record stores and radio supporting the entire structure of the industry. The cost of the Hardware, Technology and Talent needed to produce and market a physical album was too expensive and too advanced for independent musicians or listeners to fund. You could buy recorders and make duplications but commercial grade recorders which were affordable to most people couldn't match the quality of the original medium.

 

The industry was caught flat footed when the advances in computers and internet put the record stores out of business. If all the famous artists like Datary who had become successful through the older model had foreseen what was on the horizon its doubtful they could have capitalized on the changes. The older model they were a part of had major flaws that were not transferable to the cyber market so it failed.

 

There were things that could have been done to slow the fall and give it time to make the transition possible. There were some attempts made using encryption and hardware security but it all failed because the technology being used for digital music was simply an offshoot of the global computer industry. The music industry piggy backed on the computing industry and lagged well behind in technology advancement so it could not monopolize the new sales model. The walls were already gone before the conversion took place.

 

The stars who became famous using the old model may be gifted musicians capable of writing and performing music people loved but few knew enough about computer technology to predict what was going to happen and even if they did they were powerless in preventing the change.

 

They relied on a Brick and Mortar industry to earn themselves a living. That industry was simply selling a product. When sales dropped for that product, it simply switched from selling records and CD's to selling something else.

 

Marketing is a generic industry. One company may be better at selling a specific product, but when you have a company with thousands of employees, Accountants, Graphic designers, Sales people, warehouse workers etc, those people simply switch jobs to something that pays them better. It doesn't matter if that accountant is counting dollars and cents earned by record sales or pop tarts, the job he does is the same in both markets. He may be a die hard lover of the industry and loved working for that music company but it doesn't matter because a pink slip is a pink slip. When the major stock holders lay people off so they can stop the bleeding, that accountant has to move on.

 

All of this is not unique to the music industry either. I been in the electronics business for nearly 40 years now. I had a field service job most of that time. I'd visit countless companies during that time and was able to see how they all worked from the inside out. There are things going on even a blind man can see. Year after year and see how computers and automation have reduced the size of the workforces within them. I'd visit one large company set up on many acres of ground with dozens of streets and building full of people working in them. A few years later that same company is downsized to just a shell of its former glory.

 

So when I see an article like the one the OP posted I just have to laugh and say where the hell have you bee been for the last 25 years. The music industry hasn't existed in a long time and I also blame guys like him for sustaining the illusion that it still exists.

 

The best artists in history have always been the free thinkers in society who reflect the truth and reality. When they stop expressing those truths and simply start bitching about how their income source has dried up, All I can say is welcome to the real world. Your industry is not unique.

 

The question is, are you going to use your popularity to help fix the problem or are you simply going to pack up your toys and go home. Yes it may cost you money out of your own pocket to make an album, but many artists don't have a choice. Why do you think there has been an explosion of home studios?

 

I'd also ask them to take a look in the mirror and evaluate weather they might have been a contributing factor to the decline. If it is, maybe its time to retire and be thankful you were able to enjoy the spotlight that the vast majority of musicians will never get to experience.

[Notes_Norton]

For millennia, musicians made their money playing live in front of an audience.

 

For the shortest slice of time (approximately 1950 to 2000), less than 1% of the musicians could make a living recording music.

 

The musicians/singers who could make money recording were also the minority of the people who had hit records. The one-hit-wonders and one-CD-wonders paid recording fees, promotion fees, and distribution fees out of their royalties and ended up owing money to the record companies even though they had a hit record. BUT they could live on that by playing live performances for 10 years or so. So even though some were making fortunes on records, most of the musicians still played live music to make a living.

 

When Motown was courting us they wanted to own our name (so they could fire musicians or have 5 touring groups with the same name), they wanted to own the publishing rights and have a ghost songwriter get half the songwriting royalties PLUS out of our royalties they wanted to take exorbitant recording fees, exorbitant distribution fees and exorbitant promotional fees to get it on the radio. At the 2 cents per record Motown was offering, our manager figured we'd have to sell over a million copies of our first record to break even. In the late 60s that was not a probability.

 

Before that, even up to the Frank Sinatra and "Big Band" days, the records were considered promotion for the live performances, where the artist played/sang in front of an audience and got paid.

 

After that the record companies greed killed their own industry. They made the music too disposable in order to shorten the turnover rate, and when CDs came along much, much less expensive to produce, they actually raised the price. I don't feel sorry for the record companies.

 

------

 

Do you really want to know what hurts the vast majority of all musicians' income the most? DJs? Pirates? Streaming? Karaoke? Open Mic Nights?

 

NONE OF THE ABOVE.

 

It's TV.

 

What? TV? It's been around since the 1940s.

 

But

 

Until the 21st century, TV was either black & White and when color arrived, the picture grainy. Plus screen sizes were small and projection TVs just looked awful because the screen resolution still was about 1/500th of the screen no matter how big it was.

 

Plus, and more importantly, the sound was tinny. Even if you got big speakers, the audio bandwidth was not wide enough for hi-fi.

 

One more thing, 3 to 5 channels over the vast majority of the US.

 

In other words, you had to go out to hear live music if you want to hear and see good music.

 

Now we have +50" super Hi-Def TV screens, with 7.1 surround sound and hundreds of channels. Plus a cable TV bill that can easily run $300 per month (there goes the entertainment budget right there).

 

People don't go out to hear live music like they used to.

 

There used to be a live band of at least 4 pieces in every hotel from a Holiday Inn up, and every bar that wanted to attract more than a dozen people at a time. And the live music used to be 6 or 7 nights a week.

 

People are sitting home watching their $300/month TV subscriptions instead of going out to hear and dance to live music, so the lounges could no longer afford to hire bands anymore.

 

I don't know how to get people out of their living rooms and back in the bars where they belong, but that's what needs to be done if younger people are going to be able to make a living doing music and nothing but music.

 

Any ideas?

 

Insights and incites by Notes

[UstadKhanAli]

We've made most of our money from music from TV (some from film) or from playing live, mostly the former.

 

Otherwise, if it's been music-related, it's been recording people, doing transfers of their music, or doing commissioned music.

[Notes_Norton]

Since 1964 my primary source of income has been by playing music. Mostly live, although I did record a few records in bands and was a first call sax player in the best recording studio in our medium sized town.

 

I own a house (paid for) 250 feet from the east coast of the mainland of south Florida. I owned a sailboat and have traveled 49 US States, and from Canada to Costa Rica including the Caribbean. I've also vacationed in Europe, Africa and Asia.

 

Playing music for a live audience is the most fun I can have with my clothes on (and we've even played a few Nudist camps). I've done everything from small dive bars to being in the warm up band for major headliners in concert. I can't think of anything I'd rather do for a living.

 

We were courted by a major label, but that didn't work our (see previous post).

 

Making a living by recording is a fantasy but it has only been available to fewer than 1% of all pro musicians. So when people cry about the demise of the record industry, I feel bad for them, but like +99% of all full-time pro musicians, I keep playing for a live audience to make my living. And I love it.

 

Insights and incites by Notes.

 

[Ernest Buckley]

Anyone who had the slightest insight into the technology could have predicted this 20 years ago. They all been waiting around for the next great technological change to fix things but it hasn't happened. There has to be a market to sell goods.

 

In the past it was a brick and mortar market with record stores and radio supporting the entire structure of the industry. The cost of the Hardware, Technology and Talent needed to produce and market a physical album was too expensive and too advanced for independent musicians or listeners to fund. You could buy recorders and make duplications but commercial grade recorders which were affordable to most people couldn't match the quality of the original medium.

 

The industry was caught flat footed when the advances in computers and internet put the record stores out of business. If all the famous artists like Datary who had become successful through the older model had foreseen what was on the horizon its doubtful they could have capitalized on the changes. The older model they were a part of had major flaws that were not transferable to the cyber market so it failed.

 

There were things that could have been done to slow the fall and give it time to make the transition possible. There were some attempts made using encryption and hardware security but it all failed because the technology being used for digital music was simply an offshoot of the global computer industry. The music industry piggy backed on the computing industry and lagged well behind in technology advancement so it could not monopolize the new sales model. The walls were already gone before the conversion took place.

 

The stars who became famous using the old model may be gifted musicians capable of writing and performing music people loved but few knew enough about computer technology to predict what was going to happen and even if they did they were powerless in preventing the change.

 

They relied on a Brick and Mortar industry to earn themselves a living. That industry was simply selling a product. When sales dropped for that product, it simply switched from selling records and CD's to selling something else.

 

Marketing is a generic industry. One company may be better at selling a specific product, but when you have a company with thousands of employees, Accountants, Graphic designers, Sales people, warehouse workers etc, those people simply switch jobs to something that pays them better. It doesn't matter if that accountant is counting dollars and cents earned by record sales or pop tarts, the job he does is the same in both markets. He may be a die hard lover of the industry and loved working for that music company but it doesn't matter because a pink slip is a pink slip. When the major stock holders lay people off so they can stop the bleeding, that accountant has to move on.

 

All of this is not unique to the music industry either. I been in the electronics business for nearly 40 years now. I had a field service job most of that time. I'd visit countless companies during that time and was able to see how they all worked from the inside out. There are things going on even a blind man can see. Year after year and see how computers and automation have reduced the size of the workforces within them. I'd visit one large company set up on many acres of ground with dozens of streets and building full of people working in them. A few years later that same company is downsized to just a shell of its former glory.

 

So when I see an article like the one the OP posted I just have to laugh and say where the hell have you bee been for the last 25 years. The music industry hasn't existed in a long time and I also blame guys like him for sustaining the illusion that it still exists.

 

The best artists in history have always been the free thinkers in society who reflect the truth and reality. When they stop expressing those truths and simply start bitching about how their income source has dried up, All I can say is welcome to the real world. Your industry is not unique.

 

The question is, are you going to use your popularity to help fix the problem or are you simply going to pack up your toys and go home. Yes it may cost you money out of your own pocket to make an album, but many artists don't have a choice. Why do you think there has been an explosion of home studios?

 

I'd also ask them to take a look in the mirror and evaluate weather they might have been a contributing factor to the decline. If it is, maybe its time to retire and be thankful you were able to enjoy the spotlight that the vast majority of musicians will never get to experience.

 

 

Blaming the industry for not "seeing" what the Internet could and would do to the industry is an old and illegitimate excuse in my opinion. I do not believe anyone could have predicted the death of the record industry 20 years ago and even if they could, what could have been done about it?

 

Seriously, what technology could have combated illegal file sharing?

 

However, I do believe there is some truth to the TV argument. I have to be honest, I hate going out to hear live music anymore. Its too friggin` loud. Everything is distorted and its expensive. I rather stay at home like you mentioned where I`m paying a ridiculous TV bill but at least the image is crystal clear and the sound is far better than what I would experience live.

 

With that said, I can not blame a record label for that either.

 

We have reached a point where technology is not the answer but ethics is. Does the consumer want to continue to steal music and not support the artists they love? It appears they do but they have no idea what they`re doing. I`m not counting on the majority of consumers to suddenly acquire an ethical point of view.

 

I think we`ll continue to see music sales plummet. Artists will continue to make music but we`ll all have to figure out a way to get paid still. I think artists will go back to selling music out of their trunks or at live functions. The industry seems really fragmented now, much like society. The Internet has strangely connected everyone but no one is really talking to each other, we`re all doing our own thing but we`re divided and divided we fall.

[nice keetee]

 

 

 

. The industry seems really fragmented now, much like society. The Internet has strangely connected everyone but no one is really talking to each other, we`re all doing our own thing but we`re divided and divided we fall.

 

^ this

 

 

 

[no_quarter]

You want to see the record industry come back from the dead? Try making music people want to hear. Obviously the internet has changed the way we consume music and has affected the way musicians make a living, but that's the nature of the music BUSINESS. If you aren't willing to grow, change with the times and roll with the punches, then you ought to just move aside and make room for those who are willing to do so. There are still plenty of bands out there whose primary source of income comes from touring but they still record albums and put out wonderful music that I'm gladly willing to give my hard-earned money to hear. It's just one man's opinion and I greatly respect Daltrey and I cherish his and his band's contributions to the musical world but basically saying "we won't make millions if we put out another album because of the internet so what's the point" sounds to me like the angry, whiny, ramblings of a rich rock star who's frustrated he can't make a quick buck. After all, don't we produce music not just for the money but because we want to and, in a sense, feel like we have to?

[nat whilk II]

Well, if you ply some trade and are good and successful at it, and someone comes along and steals all your inventory, makes infinite copies of it and distributes it worldwide, cutting you out of the market you created - you have a legit gripe, I think. Hope you put some bucks back while the gettin was good.

 

But that's business, of course. The breaks come and the breaks go. The outrages of the suppliers are matched by the outrages of the consumers. Zero sum, ethically speaking.

 

The wheel will turn. The first big blow was that you could own music for free. "Own" in the sense that you store a digital file somewhere for your own use anytime you want. The next step I think will be the gradual disappearance of the personally stored digital file. Then you won't own anything - you can only pay for access.

 

At the height of the Napster era, "ownership" was mostly all free. Now, millions of people pay a pittance for access to large databases of someone else's "owned" digitally stored files. From a musician's point of view, that's progress, even if rather paltry to date. But the day comes that you have no cd or dvd port and no hard drive and music is not offered as a downloadable item even to the cloud, then the possibility of more scarcity will become a gradual reality, and I can only hope that revenue streams for musicians will improve.

 

I think Youtube will eventually get the big chop for it's violations. There will be desperate attempts to keep the old "free for all" tech culture going, but the little people and the techies will lose the battle I think. Eventually.

 

Tech culture has been given incredible amounts of freedom from regulation and control - not because I think the public in general "believes" in some innate freedom and rights the "internet" should have, but because the tech revolutions have been good for the economy. This is leveling out and maturing, and the marginal benefits of tech advances are getting slighter all the time. Leaving out the real cutting edge of tech advances in various industries and sciences. I'm talking about consumer markets and the everyday use of the internet by everyday people.

 

At some future point, there will be a big push back. It will happen when people start to think that controlling and regulating the internet will be good for the economy. Maybe even absolutely essential to the economy. At some point this case will be made. They might be partially right, even substantially right - I'm sure I have no idea what it will all look like in detail. What will matter will be who wants the case to be made - if both business and government get behind that case, the wheel won't just turn, it will spin.

 

nat whilk ii

[UstadKhanAli]

You want to see the record industry come back from the dead? Try making music people want to hear.

 

Exactly. But this little sniggly keeps getting overlooked. I've been writing this for years, and as soon as I gain command of all the stars and space and time, I will make this happen.

 

Music is largely worthless because it sucks.

 

[Phil O'Keefe]

So, how can we make it blo... I mean, not suck?

[Notes_Norton]

To bring music back to life I would think we need to bring music education to schools.

 

Teach the children how to listen to good music. But do it in a hip and happening way.

 

I am so thankful for my Junior High and High School Band Director. Along with teaching us how to play, he taught us how to listen to music. He pointed out themes, variations of those themes, and fragments of those themes in music that we were about to learn. He even taught us about groove playing several different versions of a Viennese Waltz and having us pay attention to how much or little different directors rushed the second beat of the measures. He brought in examples of pop music of the time and even taught us how the songwriter adapted ideas from the classics.

 

So I am lucky that I get to hear things in music that the average person will never notice. That means I get thrilled in a way the average person can not.

 

I played Dvorak's Ninth Symphony in school, and I've owned a few different recordings of it. One day I was traveling down the road with the symphony playing. I had heard this symphony hundreds of times before this day, but somewhere in the fourth movement, I noticed a passage that combined four themes (or fragments of those themes) into melody bass line, and counterpoint. Eargasm.

 

That wouldn't have happened without music education.

 

People who listen to one-chord songs with a simple boom boom rhythm don't know what they are missing.

 

Perhaps if the record companies didn't try to rush the life cycle of the records (to sell more), by watering down the music, it might still be important enough for people to own rather than listen and spit out like chewing gum.

 

Just thinking out loud here.

 

As a performing musician, piracy doesn't hurt me any. Television does. But the songwriter is hurt by the piracy. Perhaps a new way of paying the songwriter needs to be created.

 

Notes

[MrKnobs]

If you can listen to something on your computer you can steal it, period. Even if some terrible operating system patch was created to stop you from routing the stereo output of your computer to recording software, you'd still have music coming through wires going to your speakers to record the old fashioned way. The same is true of video, it's just a bit more complicated.

 

What killed musicians' livelihood was the invention of recording. Before recording, if you wanted music at your wedding or barn dance or party or funeral or whatever, you had to hire musicians to perform. The musicians can only be one place at a time (except for Giant Smiling Dog, ask if you're curious) so a lot of musicians worked various functions all over the planet on any given night and made their meager living that way. The good musicians made more money and the hack musicians made less or none, just as with any other job, but nearly no one got rich playing music. Now, thanks to recording, Beyonce can be singing at thousands of weddings at the same time and there's no need for live musicians at all, they're a luxury.

 

There's no putting the recording genii back in the bottle.

 

For a short time (as Notes describes), a few musicians made millions (mostly for the record companies) and most musicians played for a few bucks, a few beers and the love of it just as they do now. Those were further decimated (along with the bars) by tightening of alcohol limits, severe drunk driving penalties, high quality audio with digital TV, Internet availability instantly for any music ever recorded (free or for pennies), karaoke, etc. etc. The "stars," the "one percenters" of music got the big bucks and everyone else was impoverished; now they're complaining too.

 

It's not about today's music being "bad" (every generation thinks their kids / parents' music is awful), it's not about education (you don't have to teach kids to love music, it's innate), it's not about DJ's, it's about the widespread societal belief that music is free, because the reality is that IT IS FREE. Nearly everyone wants the instant gratification of hearing the exact song they they want precisely when they want to hear it for FREE or very close to FREE (Spotify, etc).

 

What digital did was add to the devastating stratification of recording, reducing the cost of reproduction to zero and putting that ability in the hands of the masses. There's no putting that genii back in the bottle either for ANY sort of intellectual property that can be reproduced for $0. It's simply not possible to prosecute or stop the illegal reproduction of music when such a large percentage of the public is doing it.

 

All the above is describing the water we're drowning in. So what do we DO about it?

 

The first response by many artists was to remember that music is entertainment. How can rendition of music be made more entertaining so that people will leave their comfortable houses, drive downtown, brave the cops and their 0.08 blood alcohol level, and pay through the nose for imperfect music and overpriced drinks they could stay home and get for free or nearly free? The answer was to borrow from theater and make the performance a show. Choreographed dancing, elaborate lighting, pyrotechnics, stagecraft, costumes, being part of a screaming crowd, dialog with the audience, all those loud, brash, unpredictable and excitement factors that carefully recorded music, even big screen TV doesn't provide - immersion in a visceral spectacle.

 

That works! And best of all (depending on your viewpoint) it requires a record label, sponsors, endorsements, large elaborate venues so that the man once again gets the biggest cut. We're back in business!

 

Or are we? Tours and concerts cost a lot of money to put on, often more money (even with sponsorship) than they make. Oh well, we'll make the real money selling albums, videos, downloads, recordings, etc. Oh wait - recorded music is FREE. You can't sell it, at least not for much or to many before anyone who wants it has stolen a copy of it. Still this this works for famous artists fairly well and that's why you see them still touring.

 

But what about the little guy who's playing for beer and girls at the local bars and music venues? They don't have a record label but then again, the cost of recording music and video and reproducing it is FREE to them too. YouTube picked up on this as a way to monetize their video storage by sticking adverts into them and paying the little guys a few cents or medium $$$ if their video goes viral.

 

The most successful bands I've worked for have put all this together and make a middle to upper middle class living from it. They maintain a standard of excellence, they play events that would not be appropriate for a DJ, they play for clients who can afford to pay them well, they dress and act and move and work the crowds in a way that create excitement, they monetize their music in all the various ways I've described above including selling downloads at shows and putting video up on YouTube. They're entertainers, artists, songwriters, recordists AND they're businessmen always looking for the next step up. They're selling a personal experience, not an impersonal one like listening to a recording.

 

There's no other way to succeed at music right now, there never has been. The only difference is the musicians do everything themselves now. Maybe someday neural science will reach the point where one person or group can simply THINK improvisational music and have it transfer directly into the audience's brains, sounds and colors and melodies and rhythms and harmonies and emotions. Even then, it will still be about creativity, emotion, excitement, and entertainment.

 

Terry D.

 

 

[1001gear]

Wait till your neighbors are cops looking for cover in the cover band industry.

[Notes_Norton]

If you can listen to something on your computer you can steal it' date=' period.[/i'] Even if some terrible operating system patch was created to stop you from routing the stereo output of your computer to recording software, you'd still have music coming through wires going to your speakers to record the old fashioned way. The same is true of video, it's just a bit more complicated.

<...snip...>

 

And you could do the same with the radio during the cassette days.

 

I remember the local radio station announcing, "Tonight at 11 we are going to play the entire _______ album without interruption," (Fill in the blank with whatever hit artist just released a new album).

 

So people would get out their cassette recorders (or reel-to-reel if they had one) and at 11 have everything cued up and ready to punch the REC button.

 

The station played the entire album, with a little station ID between side one and side two (they were vinyl back then) and the pirates had their own free copy of the newest hit album. The only price was between side 1 and 2 was the station ID "You're listening to WSHE in Miami"

 

I suppose there were hundreds of radio stations around the country that did this.

 

What killed musicians' livelihood was the invention of recording.

 

Very good point, especially high fidelity recording.

 

I recall the days when the Discotheque was something new. Big speakers with volume rivaling live music. The concept was supposedly imported from Europe (back in the days when anything from Europe was 'in style').

 

At first it was used when the bands took a break, then later replaced the bands.

 

While personally I don't think this was as devastating as Subscription HDTV, I think it is definitely a contributing factor.

 

And I downsized into a duo when the MADD mothers got the penalties increased for drunk driving. The taxes went up 50 cents per drink, and the clubs ate most of that increase. So a 5 piece band was getting paid about $100 more per week than a duo (do the math). The MADD mothers said they were rightly concerned about highway deaths, but I wonder if it was just another temperance movement. After all, my own insurance company says talking on the phone is as dangerous as drunk driving, and texting while driving is much worse. Where are the MADD mothers now? Driving while talking on the phones?

 

Tell me about the Giant Smiling Dog

 

Notes

[Phil O'Keefe]

 

And you could do the same with the radio during the cassette days.

 

I remember the local radio station announcing, "Tonight at 11 we are going to play the entire _______ album without interruption," (Fill in the blank with whatever hit artist just released a new album).

 

So people would get out their cassette recorders (or reel-to-reel if they had one) and at 11 have everything cued up and ready to punch the REC button.

 

The station played the entire album, with a little station ID between side one and side two (they were vinyl back then) and the pirates had their own free copy of the newest hit album. The only price was between side 1 and 2 was the station ID "You're listening to WSHE in Miami"

 

I suppose there were hundreds of radio stations around the country that did this.

 

I used to sit there with my finger on the pause button...

 

I did the same thing on the weekends with the Top 40 countdowns. I think that's where my fabulous (and now next to worthless) punch-in/out skills were first honed.

 

[Ernest Buckley]

You want to see the record industry come back from the dead? Try making music people want to hear.

 

Theres a lot of good music being made so I don`t think this argument stands up. You have to dig for it more but its there and theres a lot of it. I`m just curious, what do you consider good music?

 

I buy albums. If an artist that I like has a new record, I buy the entire thing on iTunes. Records today mostly sound like crap thanks to a butchered mastering job but I still find good music.

 

The problem is and I`ll say this again.... Music is free. Most people do not want to pay for something if they can get it for free.

 

Its an ethical issue.

 

Its not about music sucking.

 

Its not about formats.

 

Its not about higher resolution.

 

Its not about delivery.

 

Its not about album art.

 

Its not about sound quality.

 

Its about not paying for something.

 

Thats it.

[Ernest Buckley]

 

I remember the local radio station announcing, "Tonight at 11 we are going to play the entire _______ album without interruption," (Fill in the blank with whatever hit artist just released a new album).

 

So people would get out their cassette recorders (or reel-to-reel if they had one) and at 11 have everything cued up and ready to punch the REC button.

 

Notes

 

I did that on Sunday mornings listening to Casey Kasems Top 40. I always had a blank cassette ready to go. This is part of the magic that is missing today. You had to wait to hear a song. There was a lot of anticipation and excitement that built up to that special moment when the song started. That magic of anticipation is gone now because everything is a click away. I`m not longing for those "good ol` days" but there is still magic for me when I purchase an album and grab my cans, close my eyes and sit there and listen.

 

That time dedication to the artist and their work is no longer part of our culture. If the song doesn`t grab our attention in the first 3 seconds, we move on.

[Notes_Norton]

So if we had the finger on the tape button in the radio days, we have no ethical right to blame YouTube or any other digital service for killing the music industry. There really isn't much of a difference now, is there?

 

Agree or not?

 

Notes

[Ernest Buckley]

So if we had the finger on the tape button in the radio days, we have no ethical right to blame YouTube or any other digital service for killing the music industry. There really isn't much of a difference now, is there?

 

Agree or not?

 

Notes

 

The Internet allows everything to be copied and shared effortlessly.

 

Back in the day, if I had a copy of a tune, technically I could make a copy for a friend but it was much more difficult. Now that everything is available with 2-3 clicks, the file sharing has reached an epidemic. Its an ethical issue.

[Mandolin Picker]

This has been going on for a long time:

 

"Home Taping Is Killing Music" was the slogan of a 1980s anti-copyright infringement campaign by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), a British music industry trade group. With the rise in cassette recorder popularity, the BPI feared that the ability of private citizens to record music from the radio onto cassettes would cause a decline in record sales. The logo, consisting of a Jolly Roger formed from the silhouette of a Compact Cassette, also included the words And It's Illegal."

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Taping_Is_Killing_Music

[SpamBot]

Music is worthless, live entertainment is now largely worthless, bottom line, we are all screwed.

[Anderton]

 

 

Blaming the industry for not "seeing" what the Internet could and would do to the industry is an old and illegitimate excuse in my opinion. I do not believe anyone could have predicted the death of the record industry 20 years ago and even if they could, what could have been done about it?

 

Seriously, what technology could have combated illegal file sharing?

 

Well it wasn't 20 years ago, but does 17 years ago count? I met Shawn Fanning right after Napster had started, and it was clear to me the genie was out of the bottle. I talked to some people at record companies and said what they needed to do was put their entire catalog online at 8-bit/22 kHz - good enough to know if you'd like something enough to buy it, but not good enough to steal. I saw that as the way to cut off file-sharing at the knees by deluging the market with so files that peer-to-peer networks, with their more limited selections, could not compete.

 

Then if you liked what you heard, you could click on a "buy" button and have a CD sent to you (this was before downloading entire albums became feasible on a widespread basis). But I also proposed that labels take advantage of "360 deals" so if you bought a CD, some copies might have a code that would entitle you to attending a chat room with a limited number of people and the artist, as well as discounts on live performance tickets, a free cut from the artist's next CD, etc. In other words, I was asking record companies to take ownership of the internet by leveraging it in ways that P-to-P networks never could. I felt by offering a better product, they would cause the competition to dissipate.

 

The premise was also to continue promoting the idea that music had value. Sure, you could get an MP3 from a peer-to-peer network for free, but if buying a CD from a record company gave you goodies like those mentioned above as well as codes to download candid photos of the band, additional artwork, maybe some interviews, etc, then what the record companies were offering would (hopefully) be perceived as having greater value, and thus justify a purchase.

 

Obviously I wasn't persuasive enough Granted, I have no idea whether what I was proposing would have worked, and I'll never know. What I do know is the strategy of the record companies didn't work, so I doubt they would have been any worse off...

 

[Anderton]

But on another note, if the music industry no longer exists, how do you explain Taylor Swift? Or Adele?