Jump to content

Fix the record industry!


Recommended Posts

  • Members

IMHO, the problem with the record industry is that it already IS fixed... as in "fixed horse races" or "fixed boxing matches".

 

Payola is a continuing issue, as is the fact that virtually no new acts are getting airplay because of it. Radio advertisers are moving away from radio, and the one-time decent radio stations with real DJs are laying off their underpaid staff or are folding... they're being replaced by "canned" stations with 25 song playlists (and no feel for what's happening musically), which are owned by only a few very large corporations.

 

No wonder music sales are in the dumper. :freak:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

The music biz has tanked because around 1997 record labels stopped selling music. They started selling the fantasy of stardom. Why? Because real talent is hard to find, hard to cultivate, and expects to retain some form of control over their creative output.

 

We'll get five metrosexuals to pretend to by this year's version of the 'white temptations'. It worked. Great. repeat until every tweenage girl loses interest.

 

We'll get some Disney mousketeers to come out all sweet and innocent. Then they'll flash their shaved little boxes while getting out of cars, sing watered down Madonna derivative karaoke tracks, mock-fellate their mic stands onstage and act pathetically stupid in public. It worked. Great. Repeat until the National Enquirer loses interest.

 

We'll get every Justin, Brandon, Jason, and James-Michael who can play three chord downstrokes, and make them all stand-ins for Greenday. It worked. Repeat until the Frat boys lose interest.

 

We'll take some burned out hair farmer mega stars from the '80's and do a reality show about them getting their worthless drugged out/drunken asses off the couch, go to detox, plastic surgery, and reunite to be a shadow of their former glory. It worked. Great. Repeat until Motley Crue tickets stop selling.

 

We'll take country artists and remove and semblance of soul and groove using PT and autotune to the point that you'd swear their records are produced by Kraftwerk. Repeat until Mrs. Country Star divorces Mr. Country star and People magazine loses interest.

 

We'll take rap artists, and portray that all African Americans are thugs. It worked. Great. Repeat until Michel-Le, LaTonya, Shaniqua loses interest.

 

We'll take all of this 'output' master it within -0.9 DB's RMS and sell it on MP3 to mask the fact that none of these people have any depth or dimension worth listening to. We'll blame it on technical 'advancements' if the public notices.

 

We'll marginalize anyone who has real talent and potential staying power by undermarketing them so the public won't have a clearly defined comparison to obviate the fact that the acts receiving prime marketing dollars are totally unworthy.

 

ALL THIS SO 20 OR 30 EXECUTIVES, PRODUCERS, AND SHAREHOLDERS CAN MAKE AN EXTRA $ .99.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

id sign bands i thought were talented. talented live as well as in the studio. who were in for the "long haul" and dedicated to MAKING MUSIC instead of making money as teh first reason, well maybe getting laid above making music...

 

sadly, the industry promotes music like buying lottery tickets. looking for that one big payoff instead of the multitudes of smaller payoffs.

 

but a good bit of society are just mindless drones whether they realize they are or not. creativity has been taken out of the education system... so the future isnt looking so bright to begin with. things become more homogenized. maybe art only imitates life, but life needs to imitate art for it to be interesting, as long as the artist does something interesting. its almost as if 'artist' has become a dirty word.

 

however, what is it about the meme that is slowly getting lost as the industry has functioned on the short term for so long and now only has "oldies" to rely on for back catalogue?

 

as the redheaded stepchild of the entertainment industry, it has always been on the "outskirts", but it lost its rebelliousness that made people gravitate towards it despite its standing in the industry. you really cant run it like a film studio. yet speaking of films, notice how the film industry EMBRACES the independant spirit. i see so many great independant films and there are so many outlets for it. sure there is SXSW, but thats just the labels pony show now.

 

but i also think a more fair deal between the labels and bands can exist as well. shareholders wouldnt like that... but i really dont care about shareholders for art expecting short term money. maybe i would try to convince them the long term payoffs of good art is better than quick money, or they are investing in teh wrong things. of course, these are probably the same uncreative sheep who would pay $2000 for a bottle of "2 buck chuck" if they werent told thats what it was.

 

{censored}, i wouldnt wish heading up a major label right now on anyone really.... screw that. the industry really needs to die so it can be reborn again hopefully with better intentions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Awesome thread. I don't really have much to add, though. Sorry.

 

I will say that it would be wonderful if the primary focus became music again. I guess we'll find out what happens in the coming years.

 

By the way, have any of you guys made an effort to see what going on in your local music scenes? At least the numerous little towns across the country I've played at on tour, there are thousands upon thousands of people that are genuinely passionate about music. In my town, there are weekly shows at whatever venues we can find with 100-200 kids just having a great time listening to and playing music.

 

Where's the passion in the music industry? I do believe that emotion and truly passionate musicians will make the music industry change.

 

Maybe I'm wrong. I can tell you that I'd be able to have a lot more respect for major label acts who can at least play their music. They'd get a lot more points for writing a legitimately moving record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

as the redheaded stepchild of the entertainment industry, it has always been on the "outskirts", but it lost its rebelliousness that made people gravitate towards it despite its standing in the industry. you really cant run it like a film studio. yet speaking of films, notice how the film industry EMBRACES the independant spirit. i see so many great independant films and there are so many outlets for it. sure there is SXSW, but thats just the labels pony show now.


 

 

Actually, the only reason why the film industry embraces the independent spirit is because of two things (well, actually people):

 

(1) The indie mavericks of the 1970s: namely, Scorcese and his ilk for coming up with "{censored} you" kind of movies that were edgy, unique (at the time), uncompromising -- that not only appealed to niche audiences, but caught on with the mass public (in Hollywood, they paid attention to the $$$$).

 

(2) The indie mavericks of the 1990s: roughly 20 years later, Bob & Harvey Weinstein had a company called Miramax, which basically found a way to make {censored}loads of money on "art house" films by promoting the {censored} out of them. While Miramax didn't create the indie market, they certainly got big enough to bring the "indie spirit" into the mainstream -- to the point where the studios either bought out or created their own "indie" divisions which were basically run like independent companies separate from the parent studio. The Weinsteins are supposedly the biggest assholes in the world, but directors such as Quentin Tarantino were more than willing to work with them because they were able to find that Hollywood gold: $$$$, audience adoration + Oscar-worthy acclaim. It wasn't just a "{censored} you, I'll do what I want" (like indie music), but it's a "{censored} you, I'll do what I want, and make millions in the process."

 

The music industry hasn't had its Miramax (other than maybe Motown). In other words, there hasn't been one indie label (or two) who have managed to get big enough to make any of the majors quiver (big corporations express their fear of you by trying to buy you).

 

In other words, in the film industry, "indie" as a business practice and philosophy has become mainstream due to a few key players who redefined the industry, competing alongside Hollywood dreck. In the music industry, "indie" is still relatively speaking at the fringes in terms of economics.

 

You need a label head who can say, "I can make as much money selling Modest Mouse as {censored}face across the street can sell Justin Timberlake".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

You need a label head who can say, "I can make as much money selling Modest Mouse as {censored}face across the street can sell Justin Timberlake".

Well, there's one flaw in this idea. While I'm not a Timerlake fan, he can sing. Isaac Brock, not so much. I can see why people would enjoy Modest Mouse on disc, but live they don't cut it for me.

 

The difference between indie films and indie music is typically, well, skill. In film, quite often an indie film can be made with a high level of craftsmanship it's the story line and/or content which make it "indie".

 

However, for some reason in the music industry a lot of indie (rock) acts seem to lack (traditional) musicianship. OK, so you can modulate feedback loop for 3 minutes and present that as music. Generally people don't like art for the sake of art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Again,

 

Promote people who can play and write. If they look good too, all the better. If not, do what you can to make them look good. But it has to be about the playing and the writing and not about the image.

 

And I still maintain. If you cannot fill an album with good songs, you have no business releasing an album. This is a business for professionals. Put up or shut up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

You need a label head who can say, "I can make as much money selling Modest Mouse as {censored}face across the street can sell Justin Timberlake".

 

 

why not say "i have a stable of 20 bands who will make more than your one Timberlake for hte same money AND profit for years to come on the catalogue unlike your one-hit-wonder"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Actually, the only reason why the film industry embraces the independent spirit is because of two things (well, actually people):


(1) The indie mavericks of the 1970s: namely, Scorcese and his ilk for coming up with "{censored} you" kind of movies that were edgy, unique (at the time), uncompromising -- that not only appealed to niche audiences, but caught on with the mass public (in Hollywood, they paid attention to the $$$$).


(2) The indie mavericks of the 1990s: roughly 20 years later, Bob & Harvey Weinstein had a company called Miramax, which basically found a way to make {censored}loads of money on "art house" films by promoting the {censored} out of them. While Miramax didn't create the indie market, they certainly got big enough to bring the "indie spirit" into the mainstream -- to the point where the studios either bought out or created their own "indie" divisions which were basically run like independent companies separate from the parent studio. The Weinsteins are supposedly the biggest assholes in the world, but directors such as Quentin Tarantino were more than willing to work with them because they were able to find that Hollywood gold: $$$$, audience adoration + Oscar-worthy acclaim. It wasn't just a "{censored} you, I'll do what I want" (like indie music), but it's a "{censored} you, I'll do what I want, and make millions in the process."


The music industry hasn't had its Miramax (other than maybe Motown). In other words, there hasn't been one indie label (or two) who have managed to get big enough to make any of the majors quiver (big corporations express their fear of you by trying to buy you).


In other words, in the film industry, "indie" as a business practice and philosophy has become mainstream due to a few key players who redefined the industry, competing alongside Hollywood dreck. In the music industry, "indie" is still relatively speaking at the fringes in terms of economics.


You need a label head who can say, "I can make as much money selling Modest Mouse as {censored}face across the street can sell Justin Timberlake".

 

 

This gets my vote for post of the decade. You put this into a solid perspective. Music is small potatoes when compared to film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think, and many others have written about this topic, that we are currently in (or will be very very soon) a position that many bands can get by without needing to sign a label. Sure, they can have a manager to do the dirty work, but really, with the internet reaching more and more consumers each day, it is possible to launch purely online albums (and what the hell, sell them at your concerts as well) - but the point of the matter is that the record industry is antiquated. It is no longer necessary. Artists can achieve recognition and fame without having to sign away all their intellectual property rights. And I am 110% behind. 120% even.

 

Coming from my history as a visual artist, I wish that side of the coin would catch up. But, unfortunately, it is still rooted in the gallery system and who you know versus the quality of a person's work. It is a bad situation, but it will change, just as we can see the music industry changing in our time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think the problems lie both on the industry side and the consumer side.

 

Within the industry you have majors taking a huge chunk of all CD sales. Then they try to take a larger chunk of digital sales so they can "offset the cost of developing new media" while still charging the bands for "cost of media" (think blank cds), duplication, and "unsold expenses" (think cds that arrive at warehouse damaged and promotional copies) on the DIGITAL sales. I'm sure on some level some of these expenses appear legitimate, but for the most part it's just driven by greed on the part of the label. So the majors keep the cost of buying music high while still putting the least amount of time possible finding new and interesting acts and instead follow a formulaic pattern to make all their artists sound similar if not identical.

 

The only solution I see short of a complete overhaul of the business structure of every major is for the majors to die and make way for the indie labels. However, the indie labels also need to make some changes. For starters they need to work on actually promoting their artists to the point where the lazier consumers will consider checking it out.

 

While we're on lazy consumers.. I'll jump over to the other side of the problem for a second. Sure, in every city there are hundreds of kids hungry for new music and who take the time to find it. There's also hundreds more who don't have the time or enough interest to look, and always relied on radio, music television, and other people to show them new artists. They still bought CDs, they just didn't look for them on their own. There's no way to control the consumer in this case, so the only solution is to find a format of presenting the music to these people in a way that exposes them to new music while playing things they already enjoy. I always wonder why internet radio never was able to fill the void. The way I imagine it though, some sort of daily music podcast that has 2-4 hours of music both older favorites and newer trials. I don't see the "single" as being a bad thing like an earlier poster here, but I also remember the expectation that there used to be to have more than one single on an album. A single was always supposed to be representative of the artists' work on that album as a whole, not the one turd on the CD that was polished enough to be put on the radio. Also BRING BACK MUSIC TELEVISION!!!!!! Sure, maybe bands don't have the money in their budgets anymore to produce videos for a single, and so there isn't enough material or demand to drive an entire channel of music on tv all the time. However, MTV, VH1 and the like could still put together a program in half hour blocks, played at hours when people actually watch, that either highlight an artist and their video, or highlight a genre and a couple videos WHILE TELLING YOU ABOUT OTHER BANDS THAT YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE HEARD OF AND MIGHT ENJOY.

 

The one problem that I can't think of a solution to no matter how hard I try, is that fact that so many consumers listen to music simply as a background and not as entertainment. I think this is what allowed the majors to pump out bands that all sound the same, what allowed iPods with their low quality audio and lower quality earbuds to catch on, and what is generally keeping the majority of consumers from noticing or caring about what's going on in the record industry. I remember when I was younger noticing how bad a cassette sounded and how much better it was when CDs caught on. Now we've allowed ourselves to go in the opposite direction. Short of finding a way to change people's attitudes about music, I really don't see this problem going away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think the problems lie both on the industry side and the consumer side.


 

 

I agree. A lack of music education in schools plays a huge part in this. If people are buying crap it's their own damn fault.:rolleyes:

 

I have thought about this a lot lately, I am making a record for a major label. What I see wrong with the biz can be summed up by one song: London Bridge by Fergie.

 

This "song" was force-fed to record buyers. It was on every TV show, front page of i-tunes, amazon, all over the radio, in every aspect of all media. People (kids?) were almost literally brain-washed to buy it. Unrelenting, 24/7 constant exposure. When the smoked cleared, the only thing they forgot to do was to actually write a song.:rolleyes: I sat in utter disbelief, watching her mime this on every show, sometimes with 20 dancers, guys in guard costumes, massive production. Yet, it wasnt a song in any recognizable way: it wasnt rap, had no melody, had no arrangement, had no music in it. To say it was horrible would be inaccurate, it was so beyond horrible. It literally was nothing, there was no product. It would be like buying a box of cereal, opening it and there was no cereal inside, you bought the box.

 

I think a band like Devo could have done this sarcastically, or even Borat:D It was IMO VERY close to the Emperors new clothes: lets convince slow-witted, brain-washed society to buy this with an undprecedented PR campaign, but lets not even give them an actual product.:rolleyes: The PR was all that mattered, they could have had a chimp throwing darts at chord charts or even word charts.

 

And yet people bought it....:rolleyes: I wonder just how many people who bought that would listen to it now, what would be the point? They bought it because somebody told them to buy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3666546

 

this happened to internet radio about a month ago. people are freaking out over it. its going to totally {censored} things up. with the new rates imposed, by 2010 internet radio broadcasters will be paying $.0019 per stream which is nearly double what it is now. it might not seem like alot but use some large numbers and remember most internet radio providers have ALOT of channels as well. Say u had 1 stream and 1,000,000 people listening to it for ONE SONG. you'd owe $1900. yes its per song. its completely insane. NPR is even being forced to do it and it applies to companies streaming their over the air broadcasting as well. Theres lots of talk of legal battles but that could take years so who knows whats gonna happen.

 

as for music tv, if you guys havent seen it check out Fearless Music

they're here in nyc and started a couple years ago on public access on monday nights. it was great, some bars would screen it so you could watch if you had a different cable company. Now they've been picked up by FOX (which i guess is good) but they're on at like 1am on a sat. night now which totally blows. good show tho, usually about 5 bands each do a couple songs. Sometimes they'll get a well known band, but nobody huge.

 

If banks started giving loans to bands it would be a huge change in possibilities. it would also ruin alot of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am out of the loop for youth marketing. But, I don't hear much of a marketing push for high end audio formats. When you look at car ads, they feature plugs for ipods. Why not DVD audio. Even SACD. The business doesn't seem to be pushing high sound quality. I think if there were more ads comparing good ipod sound with great enhanced audio sound the kids would want the better sound. Radio stations should be giving away cd and dvd players and disk.

The other issue is cost. Back in the day when folks were buying all the records, they didn't have cable,ISP bills etc. Add to that gas prices and many folks don't have a lot of cash for music purchase. So the sound has to be great and the songs need to be great. If they can make kids want to hurt each other for the best shoes, I know they can make them want the best sound. Your Ipod is cool but my super DVD audio is (insert cool word).

With Xboxs and Car navigation systems and other DVD based stuff lets push the quality sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

With Xboxs and Car navigation systems and other DVD based stuff lets push the quality sound.

 

 

I disagree that this concept will save the record industry.

 

The actual sonic quality of music has been steadily rising, but it seems like the passion of the performance is on an inversely proportional curve.

 

Almost any idiot can make a technically feasible recording these days, but the real purpose of the music is taking a back seat. I'd start with the music and let the consumer choose whatever convenience format they like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I'd put the emphasis back on the song. Business choices are pretty bad lately. Have you heard Averil Lavinne's new single? It is very bad. Now say what you will, but when her first album came out, she was teamed with very talented songwriters and producers. But songwriters first. She's a teenybopper act of course. I know. But that will always be... so why not good songs.

 

Remember the Monkees? Good songs. Lately the idea of song first has been complete lip service. Where are the good, high quality,cleverly put together pop tunes? They aren't there.

 

So how do they expect to sell that? With tits and hairstyles. Used to be we could get tits, hairstyles... and a good song.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

i've gotta plug the "record label" of my good friend, Jeff Rosenstock. i toured with him for about 3 years. he went nuts and moved to athens, georgia and started a company called "QUOTE UNQUOTE RECORDS". he's got the right idea about the "record industry".

 

all of the music they release is available for free download. they accept donations online and all of the bands have 16/44.1 CDs available for $1-$5 donations at live shows. they're doing very well.

 

check it out at http://www.quoteunquoterecords.com/

 

to hear one of my favorite rock albums of all time, download The Livingbrooks, "Night Of The Livingbrooks". Donate a couple bucks afterwards. highlight tracks are "the sun is setting", "for the love of god, please", "suffocation", "renee", but really all of them are great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What is happening to the music industry at present is unavoidable. No business decision can fix it, now or 30 years ago.

 

Why?

 

Because music simply isn't an economically viable product. People don't need it to live. If your toilet leaks you call a plumber... but music? There is no reason or need to HAVE to buy it.

 

The music industry is also a house of cards that sits solely on the music. When the music is squeezed even tighter by economics like in recent years, every sub industry suffers as well... that includes recording studios, or record labels, or publishing houses, or music related marketing and promotions. They can not sell a product that decreases in value.

 

will improving recording quality fix the industry? No. People listen to music on Ipods. They don't care.

will writing better music fix the industry? No. Because great music exists everywhere. Music hasn't taken a backseat to anything... so much so that most of it has progressed past being economically viable that people are "focusing on the songs" so much that they don't even sell them... they perform them outside of there day job for the pure joy of it.

 

Everyday more and more people are trying to make a living off this industry. This industry can only physically support a certian amount of profit, and because the number of people trying to make a living off that profit increases everyday, that profit is shared between more and more people. Thats why recording studios are suffering, thats why you are all here suggesting that its a problem with current music and its lack of being "good". On the contrary, the problem is that you chose to make a living of something that simply wasn't economically viable in the beginning. Some people have already acknowledged it and they simply don't bother trying to sell their music... they make it for the joy of it and give it away. It is those people that really appreciate music as an artform, because music is an artform... not a business. The two don't mix and we are seeing the result unravel in front of us. People are giving away music, which reduces the value of what music can be sold for, which reduces the profit within the industry, which reduces the number of people that can make a living off it, which results in more people giving music away for free. It is going to collapse.

 

There aren't many options for improving the industry. What is happening to the value of music was inevitable. The only real way to save this industry is to make music economically viable... to make music something that people absolutely need. Either that, or make it exclusive, limit it to a certian number of individuals to produce it, to write it, to perform it, to record it...

 

But while every man and his dog are trying to make money off this industry it isn't going to improve in worth. It is me and you and every other person in this industry trying to make a dime that are the real problem. Reaching into the pockets of this industry and pulling out your share of profit collective reduces everyone elses profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

The music industry is also a house of cards that sits solely on the music. When the music is squeezed even tighter by economics like in recent years, every sub industry suffers as well... that includes recording studios, or record labels, or publishing houses, or music related marketing and promotions. They can not sell a product that decreases in value.

 

 

sort of. i get your point but there are lots of sub industries making a killing. Apple would be the perfect example. they made so much off of ipods that all the majors started listening to steve jobs more than their own people. which is good, cuz he's the only dude in this that even has a clue. But he couldnt have made money without their content.

 

while publishing houses are losing some money, they aint hurting that bad. its publishing and requires little work usually. unless you make a living off of getting into commercials and movies....but anyway

 

the perfect example for the music industry to follow is with water.

 

people pay for water for their houses, or its included in rent (usually). So someone who rents gets free water when they turn on the tap. These same people buy bottles of the stuff for a few bucks a piece.

 

yes water is necessary to live unlike music BUT you've still made people pay for a product they were use to getting for free their whole life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

majors will be fine. aren't they all owned by conglomerates? regardless, they're just stuck for now in the older way of creating revenue from music (physical music sales) instead of the future (downloads, merchandise, add revenue from online 'radio' stations, royalties from music service providers that will be similar to cable providers, cell phone downloads). in fact, you can tell which majors are less behind the curve by looking at the digital content and store on the website. kids don't buy cds. but kids do buy cell phones (and accessories and music for cell phones), video games (and I imagine downloadable tunes for video games), and merchandise.

 

digital sales are great for the industry---even if they cut down on physical sales. the profit margin is much higher and the middle man is completely cut out. and just think of how many landfills full of discarded cd's we've created. it'll take a big pile of 1st generation iPods to equal that waste...

 

good touring bands will continue to be OK as kids go to shows and buy shirts. keep the rights to your merch, suckers!

 

sadly record stores will close. this cannot be avoided.

 

bands will become more like brands---labels will become more like marketing organizations.

 

and naturally good songs will still get people excited and make putting up with the bull{censored} of the industry worth it (I think:))

 

meanwhile the majors are still signing artists. and they still have all the money. we indies just have all the smarts. for now.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

so all the cable and satellite companies are going out of business? airlines? anyone selling computers? cellphones?


There's a ton of {censored} we'd dont NEED to survive, but still buy. you just need to make people realize your unnecessary product is more necessary than the other guys.

 

 

What? Thats a terrible comparison. Do you really want to lump those things in with Music as far as economic viability goes? The vast majority of the economic world uses those products, relies on those products. Those products have in many ways redefined what is considered economically viable in this world. People aren't giving away cellphones or computers or airline tickets simply because they love them, those products serve a very distinct purpose in this world and increase productivity. Time is money as they say, and computers and cellphones and airlines save time... a ton of it.

 

People give music away all the time... its there for no other reason than personal pleasure, and given the opportunity as a consumer would you pay for something that you can get for free? Hell no.

 

 

 

sort of. i get your point but there are lots of sub industries making a killing. Apple would be the perfect example. they made so much off of ipods that all the majors started listening to steve jobs more than their own people. which is good, cuz he's the only dude in this that even has a clue. But he couldnt have made money without their content.

 

 

Thats not a sub industries though, Apple is just a company. A few studios are still doing very well, but not all of them. Where there is a company making a boatload there is another making diddley-sqwat... Like Microsoft, their equivilant of the Ipod sank like a rock. That is an industry exclusive of the creative side of the industry however... even if music becomes worthless, people will still need a way to reproduce it and listen to it.

 

 

while publishing houses are losing some money, they aint hurting that bad. its publishing and requires little work usually. unless you make a living off of getting into commercials and movies....but anyway



the perfect example for the music industry to follow is with water.


people pay for water for their houses, or its included in rent (usually). So someone who rents gets free water when they turn on the tap. These same people buy bottles of the stuff for a few bucks a piece.


yes water is necessary to live unlike music BUT you've still made people pay for a product they were use to getting for free their whole life.

 

 

But this world has changed in leaps and bounds in the last few years. CD sales have dropped like a rock... people are paying for less music today than ever before so its not a case of making people pay for something that they have been getting for free all their lives. Its a case that people now have an opportunity to get something for free that they would have had to pay for 5, 10, 30 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

jesus everyone is saying cds will be obslete god damn the internet. i refuse to accept that and no matter what i will not let someone buy some song of mine without having to download album notes and lyrics sheets and most importanly THE WHOLE ALBUM!

 

Well, good luck to you.:thu:

 

Personally I could care less. If people want to buy anything, I am happy to oblige. I have done pretty good with download sales, a sale is a sale and I make money. Sure, I would rather people buy the whole CD, but If people want only one song, I would rather sell 1 than zero CDs. :D I wrote the liner notes on my CD, if people dont read them I can live with it.

 

I felt differently before I had a CD. :D I hated i-tunes, now I love it! It is a nice addition to the hard copy CDs I am selling. Some buy the whole thing, some buy only one song. Makes no difference as long as they BUY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't understand the hatred of the single. This whole industry was originally built on the single. Artists like the Beatles and Elvis etc released songs that never appeared anywhere but on a single. I myself have bought 100's of singles off of Itunes from artists that I never would have downloaded the whole album from. Sometimes new artists sometimes old favorites. Often I find a new band I like from a single and go back and dowload the whole album. That never would have happened if I had to buy the whole CD. There are probably millions of consumers just like me, doing the same thing. That is why Itunes is so popular. The rebirth of the single can only help the industry, but the industry itself is going to have an adjusting period.

 

Now if I myself could do one thing to save music, it would be this and it is pretty outragous but hey no one said it had to be reasonable. I would limit the airwaves to the amount of times anyone could spin 1 song in a day. That way you would have more variety in music being exposed/played on the radio. It would be a low number as well.... No wonder people like the timberlakes and Brittanys of the world when its playing on the background at work once an hour every hour all day long its programmed into their brain.....after a week they have heard the song probably 40+ times and don't even know it, but when it fires up on a friday night at some club they know every lyric and have a great time and must own the cd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

note that I haven't read any replies in this thread yet.

 

in my opinion, I would silence radio/tv for about 1 month. No music on the radio or TV. in this time every record producer would be sent a letter from the RIAA stating to think with their heart and not their pocketbook. Once producers start thinking with their heart again, they will now have a say (just as powerful as a record label exec) whether a band is going to be signed and released or not. The labels and the producers must think on the fact that the material has actual feeling, not "oh so sorry me I'm just an emo kid" type crap. And also that it has real meaning and talent behind it. None of this "Yo I'm a rich rap star so I'm gonna smack booty and make big bills".

 

During this silence, iTunes will be shut down, youtube will be turned off, and everyone will be encouraged to pick up a book for a month.

 

 

After the silence, there will be nothing but good, inspiring, talented music playing. Hawthorne Heights will not exist; Fall Out Boy is no more, and 50 cent is worth less than a penny. All of these bands/artists will be dropped immediately.

 

The talent scouts will search the indie field and recruit only the best, poetic, artistic individuals to market.

 

That's just my opinion.

 

 

I {censored}ing miss the (early) 90s man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...