A question for older guys in cover bands:

[wades_keys]

Well except for Universal, WEA, and EMI of course. But yeah. Other than the other 3 big labels, Sony/BMG has a "monopoly".

Uh, you do realize that Sony controls ALL CD making.

What happened to Island records? Virgin Atlantic? RSO? Huh?

SO you can cite 3 other "big" labels. Wow, yeah: that proves that there is no monopolization. What is the market share and corporate ownership of those other 3 labels?

Do you think U2, Madonna, John Cougar, Van Halen or Devo would be signed to any of these labels today?

I don't.

[Vito Corleone]

Uh, you do realize that Sony controls ALL CD making.

 

 

They don't. Who told you that?

 

 

What happened to Island records? Virgin Atlantic? RSO? Huh?

Those labels were always under the control of the "Big 6". (Now the "Big 4"). Island was originally part of WEA, then later Polygram (who later merged with Universal.) Virgin was part of WEA (hence the "Atlantic") and RSO part of Polygram.

 

 

SO you can cite 3 other "big" labels. Wow, yeah: that proves that there is no monopolization. What is the market share and corporate ownership of those other 3 labels?

According to their wikipedia page:

Universal Music Group (UMG) is the largest business group and family of record labels in the recording industry. It is the largest of the "big four" record companies by its commanding market share and its multitude of global operations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Music_Group

 

 

Do you think U2, Madonna, John Cougar, Van Halen or Devo would be signed to any of these labels today?

 

 

Sounding NOW like they did THEN? No, probably not. Then again, they wouldn't have been signed in 1960 sounding like they did in 1980 (or even 2010) either. Who gets signed at any particular time is largely a reflection of current trends and fashion.

[Vito Corleone]

SO you can cite 3 other "big" labels. Wow, yeah: that proves that there is no monopolization. What is the market share and corporate ownership of those other 3 labels?

 

 

 

US music market shares, according to Nielsen SoundScan (2005)Nielsen SoundScan reported that the big four accounted for 81.87% of the US music market in 2005:[15]

 

Universal Music Group (USA based)

[pbaughman]

never mind.

[wades_keys]

They don't. Who told you that?

 

Yes they do.

 

All of the machines and the tech is licensed by Sony. Look it up yourself.

 

And look, I understand that there are 4 "major" labels. In the entire {censored}ing world.

 

How many major labels were there in the 60's, 70's, 80's? A lot more than 4, that's for sure.

 

You do understand that Sony holds all of the patents for CD techology, right (JVC has one or two: they did the engineering work.)

 

Every goddamn CD pressing plant in the world is controlled by Sony. That is fact.

[wades_keys]

Those labels were always under the control of the "Big 6". (Now the "Big 4"). Island was originally part of WEA, then later Polygram (who later merged with Universal.) Virgin was part of WEA (hence the "Atlantic") and RSO part of Polygram.

 

The fact is these companies had their own structure to begin with.

 

They started out as what we would call "indie" labels today, and were eventually bought out by the big dogs.

 

The key thing is that these companies did things a little differently than the big dogs, in particular they actually gave a {censored} about artist relations.

 

That's not happening so much today: you've got artists that have been there coming out against the major labels, precisely for this reason: that the labels won't let the artist be himself, like they used to do (at least to an extent).

 

Mellencamp is the latest in a long list of artists that have ditched the labels in favor of making the music that they want to make.

[jimiv]

[wades_keys]

Facism can be tough to spot, especially when we rely on media controlled by these same corporations to form our opinions.

Allegations of monopolism and other chicanery have dogged the media companies for a long time. Apparently, EMI was seen as a monopoly back the 1930's by a bunch of locally-owned companies that were getting squeezed out of business.

The bottom line is this: the revenue stream flowing into the record companies is dwindling rapidly from its all-time high reached in 1999. I love it. {censored} those guys: they have their heads up their asses churning out {censored} that no one really wants to buy, like NickelBack.

I think all of the years of Payola coupled with the dominance of ClearChannel and Cumulus over the broadcasting market have led to a complete disconnect from what people really want to hear. And it's really tough to ignore the steady stream of artists who are sick of being told what to play and how to play it by the majors; maybe if the companies just let their artists do what they do instead of trying to recreate the "Brill Building" era of the 1960's, we'd all be better off.

[Vito Corleone]

Yes they do. All of the machines and the tech is licensed by Sony. Look it up yourself.

 

 

Why am I the only one here who has to look stuff up? I don't know if Sony licenses the machines and tech. Provide something to support that claim, please. But so what if they did? What would that effectively mean? Even if they OWNED all the machines outright and did all the CD pressing for everyone in the world (which they don't) what would even THAT mean? The people who press the CDs just take orders and fill them. They don't control WHICH ONES get pressed. But, for the record, most of the labels stopped pressing their own CDs several years ago when it no longer became cost effective to do so and they farm it out to others. The biggest presser of CDs is a company called Cinram-- a Canadian company who handles the pressing for Universal, Warners and EMI. (Those three combine for 55% of the market). They not only are not owned by Sony but don't press Sony's CDs who, I believe, presses their own.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinram

 

 

 

And look, I understand that there are 4 "major" labels. In the entire {censored}ing world.

Well, you claimed there was ONE who had a "monopoly". That's not only not true, but Sony/BMG isn't even the biggest. How many major players exist in ANY industry? 4 may not be a ton, but it's certainly enough to prevent a monopoly. Especially when no one controls more than 30% of the market.

 

 

How many major labels were there in the 60's, 70's, 80's? A lot more than 4, that's for sure.

In the heyday of the 70s and 80s they were the Big 6. Since the Sony/BMG and Universal/Polygram mergers there are now 4. Considering how much smaller the industry is as a whole now than it was back then, it seems about right. In fact, I'm surprised there aren't less. There was talk for a while of Warners and EMI merging but that never happened.

 

 

You do understand that Sony holds all of the patents for CD techology, right (JVC has one or two: they did the engineering work.)

 

 

Supposing this is true (which I don't know that it is. I thought Phillips was had a big part in the invention of CDs.)--- so what? What would that mean? Has does holding the patents to the devices that make CDs give them control over the music that gets pressed onto them? Is some weird conspiracy theory thing I've never heard before? Beyond that---even if it WAS true that it made a difference---what does that mean in an era where music is no longer being distributed on CDs much? Who cares who manufactures CDs in a era of digital downloading?

 

 

Every goddamn CD pressing plant in the world is controlled by Sony. That is fact.

 

 

Not even CLOSE to true. But hey, my claims are backed up with sources. What are yours?

[Vito Corleone]

The fact is these companies had their own structure to begin with. They started out as what we would call "indie" labels today, and were eventually bought out by the big dogs. The key thing is that these companies did things a little differently than the big dogs, in particular they actually gave a {censored} about artist relations. That's not happening so much today: you've got artists that have been there coming out against the major labels, precisely for this reason: that the labels won't let the artist be himself, like they used to do (at least to an extent). Mellencamp is the latest in a long list of artists that have ditched the labels in favor of making the music that they want to make.

 

 

That's all been going on for decades. Nothing has changed except the industry, as a whole, is smaller. There's always been small boutique labels. Some grow bigger, some do not. The most successful ones get bought up quickly by the majors. That's been the case since at least the early 70s. And even back then you had artists rebelling and forming their own labels. Sinatra started Reprise in 1960. Which got bought up by Warners in 1963. Elton John started "Rocket Records" which always was under the MCA (Universal) banner.

[wades_keys]

Not even CLOSE to true. But hey, my claims are backed up with sources. What are yours?

 

Believe what you want to believe. Sony and Phillips hold all of the patents on CD technology. All CD duplicating and creating machines are built under license from Sony.

 

That is fact.

 

You do understand how tech patents work, right?

 

My source is the US patent office.

[wades_keys]

So you think it's okay for Vivendi, Universal and Sony: all major producers of other media such as film, to effectively dominate 2 markets at one fell swoop?

There was a time when record companies actually cared about making, you know: records.

Now you've got a situation where the record is a loss leader, and the film industry is reaping all of the profits.

So you say that things are "the same". Bull{censored}. They are not the same. Warner started the ball rolling in the 80's when it branched out and bought Atari Corp: that was the first sign that companies were looking to dominate all forms of media.

[pbaughman]

There has to be an unsubscribe button somewhere.

[Vito Corleone]

Believe what you want to believe.

 

 

Well let's see---my choices are:

 

1) data and information I researched and sourced here showing that Sony/BMG doesn't have a monopoly in the record label business and doesn't manufacture every CD in the world, or

2) the unsupported claims of some guy on an internet forum.

 

Is it even really a CHOICE?

 

 

 

Sony and Phillips hold all of the patents on CD technology. All CD duplicating and creating machines are built under license from Sony.

Again, so what?

 

1) What does the fact that they hold the patent to the pressing technology have anything to do with the music being pressed on them? Can you explain how you get from point A to point B in your little conspiracy theory here about media control? So yeah, maybe I don't understand "how tech patents work". You wanna explain that to me and show me how holding "tech patents" to CDs gives Sony (or anyone else) a monopoly over the music business?

 

2) In case you haven't noticed, CDs are going the way of the 8-track tape. Who cares who owns the patent to the CD pressing technology when music isn't being distributed on CD anymore?

 

3) There are all sorts of patents involved in the making of CDs. Sony and Phillips had a lot to do with the invention of the Compact Disc back in the early 80s, but I don't really know (or believe) that what they own the patents to, 30 years later, is enough to say they effectively "own" the Compact Disc as it exists today.

[Vito Corleone]

So you think it's okay for Vivendi, Universal and Sony: all major producers of other media such as film, to effectively dominate 2 markets at one fell swoop?

You're in way over your head here Wades. Stop embarrassing yourself further with wild conspiracy theory claims about industries you obviously don't understand. This game of you making a wild-ass claim with no supporting data and then me having to spend MY time looking up evidence to contradict you is getting old for me and embarrassing for you.

First of all, Universal and Vivendi are the same company. So you obviously don't even know what you are talking about. Second of all, Universal and Sony hardly control the media. Time/Warner is a huge player in music, film and TV. So is ABC/Disney in film and TV although they don't do much (if anything) directly with music. So are many others. NewsCorp. Viacom. Comcast. Clear Channel. Citadel.

So you say that things are "the same". Bull{censored}. They are not the same. Warner started the ball rolling in the 80's when it branched out and bought Atari Corp: that was the first sign that companies were looking to dominate all forms of media.

Well, I agree with you to a large degree about corporate domination of media. There is definately too much controlled by too few across the board. But that's a different discussion from this one about Sony/BMG holding a monopoly in the record business, owning every CD plant in the world and, by virtue of doing so, having a say in what CDs get made. Those are all patently (pun intended) false claims of yours that I've unequivocably disproven.

[Vito Corleone]

Mellencamp is the latest in a long list of artists that have ditched the labels in favor of making the music that they want to make.

 

 

MELLENCAMP? You think the fact that an artist with a 30+ year career is no longer served well by the record labels evidence that things have CHANGED??? Guess what, back in 1980, when Mellencamp first broke through I'm guessing that Perry Como (who I believe was the top selling artist of 1950) didn't feel so well-served by the big labels anymore either.

 

And again, the model of smaller labels still working under the umbrella of the majors hasn't changed all that much. Mellencamp's latest album was released by Rounder which is owned by Concord which has a distribution deal with Universal. Which isn't a lot different than his first album which was released by the UK label Riva Records and was distributed by Polygram in the US and WEA in the rest of the world.

 

And of course, Polygram (started by Phillips) merged with Universal in 1999. So essentially Mellencamp is getting his paycheck from the same people he always has.

 

So what really has changed all that much, again?

[wades_keys]

How many viable labels are run by musicians or fans of music these days?

You said it yourself: Elton John had a label. Hell, Herb Alpert started A&M. Rob't Stigwood arguably was a fan of music - he certainly had his own ideas of how to make it that went against the norm.

Where are those opportunities today Guido?

[wades_keys]

First of all, Universal and Vivendi are the same company. So you obviously don't even know what you are talking about.

Awesome how you point out that 2 of the supposedly "Big 4" companies are actually one and the same; you're just making my point for me.

And they all use technology and machinery produced by Sony; every CD pressed today puts money in Sony's pocket.

I was looking for an industry insider blog which has a lot of verified information on the CD mfg and distribution process; couldn't find it, but suffice it to say that the vast majority of the cd pressing and distribution is directly controlled by Sony.

The leading CD making machines are made by Sony, and even the ones that aren't, they pay hefty license fees to Sony.

So yeah, Sony has a monopoly: they control a sizable chunk of the production, manufacturing, AND distribution of recorded music.

That's okay: you keep on telling yourself that things are "the same". They're NOT the same. The public is not spending their money on music, and I don't blame them.

When bands like the Police and the Eagles can put together a tour with no new music, and basically dust all of the other new artists off the stage in terms of gross and popularity - well, you'd think that would be a wake up call.

I can't wait to see what these idiots are going to do when all of their aging cash cows like Aerosmith, The Eagles and other nostalgia acts can no longer perform for them.

You talked about Perry Como in the 80's? Well, if things were "the same", then Perry Como would have been a huge grossing nostalgia act, dwarfing the up and comers such as Motley Crue, because that's what happening today.

[Vito Corleone]

How many viable labels are run by musicians or fans of music these days? You said it yourself: Elton John had a label. Hell, Herb Alpert started A&M. Rob't Stigwood arguably was a fan of music - he certainly had his own ideas of how to make it that went against the norm. Where are those opportunities today Guido?

 

 

Marilyn Manson just started his own label. David Letterman just started a label and signed some punk-pop band. Toby Keith started his own label. Chris Walla (Death Cab For Cutie) just started his own label. Billy Corgan is starting his own label. Justin Timberlake started his own label. If anything, there are probably MORE artists doing that now than ever before.

 

Of course the music industry isn't exactly like it was 30 or 40 years ago. NOTHING is. And 30 years ago it wasn't like it was 30 years before that. Time moves on. EVERYTHING changes. Some for better; some for worse; sometimes it's just different. The biggest problem with the music industry isn't the control the 4 big labels have. The biggest problem is the entire shift occuring in the wake of the digital revolution. Which, is actually much more about what the big labels DON'T control rather than about what they DO control.

 

But yeah, they don't sign a lot of artists that sound like Mellencamp or U2 or Madonna or anybody else that was young and hip in 1980 just like they didn't sign anybody back then that sounded 30 years out of date. And the older artists didn't have much of a place in the new world. That really hasn't changed. What has changed is that WE'RE all older. I'm guessing that you, just like me, didn't really care that Perry Como and Patti Page could get a decent record deal in 1980. In fact, I'm sure we thought it was probably a GOOD thing at the time.

[Vito Corleone]

Awesome how you point out that 2 of the supposedly "Big 4" companies are actually one and the same; you're just making my point for me.

. Uh no. The big 4 are WEA, Sony/BMG, Universal and EMI. Vivendi is the parent company of Universal and I never said they were one of the big 4. So no, 2 of them aren't the same.

And they all use technology and machinery produced by Sony; every CD pressed today puts money in Sony's pocket.

While I don't know if whatever patents Sony still holds on the technology results in money in their pocket for every CD pressed, I won't even bother to argue that since it is irrelevant. It means nothing in terms of their control of the industry. It would be like saying that whoever holds the patent on the typeset machine controls the content of newspapers.

I was looking for an industry insider blog which has a lot of verified information on the CD mfg and distribution process; couldn't find it, but suffice it to say that the vast majority of the cd pressing and distribution is directly controlled by Sony.

I just GAVE you a link to the company who presses the CDs for the other 3 major labels. How in the world can you look at the fact that that company exists and tell me that the 'vast majority' of CD pressing and distribution is directly controlled by Sony. That's simply absurd. Here: read some more about them and tell me that Sony has anything to do with their business.

http://investors.cinram.com/Overview.aspx

Leading CD making machines are made by Sony, and even the ones that aren't, they pay hefty license fees to Sony. So yeah, Sony has a monopoly: they control a sizable chunk of the production, manufacturing, AND distribution of recorded music.

Baloney. Even if that were true that they own all the replication machines or everyone who makes them pays "hefty" fees to them (something you don't seem to be able to back up) how in the world does the parlay into them controlling the CONTENT? The CD is just something to hold the content. It's like claiming all the beer in the world is controlled by the people who make the bottles. That's just silly.

You talked about Perry Como in the 80's? Well, if things were "the same", then Perry Como would have been a huge grossing nostalgia act, dwarfing the up and comers such as Motley Crue, because that's what happening today.

There WERE huge grossing nostalgia acts in the 80s. Sinatra was huge. Elvis was huge until his death. Neil Diamond was huge.

But again, yeah--sure. The music industry has changed. EVERYTHING changes over decades. What industry HASN'T changed in 30 years? And there are a lot of problems with selling music. But that has to do with many reasons--almost NONE of which are the control the labels have on the industry. If kids don't want to go to concerts or pay for music like kids did 30 years ago---what does that have to do with the LABELS??? You make it sound as if everything would be like it was 30 years ago if only the labels would sign the right artists. That's nonsense. The issues have to do with the digital revolution and the fact that kids today have 1,000 times more entertainment options than they did 30 years ago. It has nothing to do with the artists being signed or not being signed.

[wades_keys]

Okay Guido.

Then why do we have so many musicians "jumping ship" from the majors, and doing so in a very vocal and critical way?

It's not just Mellencamp: there is a whole army of artists that are extremely critical of the direction that the recording industry is going. Yeah, I do think things would improve if they signed the right artists. Clearly, The Eagles, Aerosmith, and The Police are "the right artists" when it comes to touring, and they don't even make new music anymore.

This isn't just an industry "changing" - it's an industry hellbent on consuming itself. And it will do so.

The "digital revolution" is nonsense. The crackdown on piracy has done virtually nothing to spur declining record sales. If the kids have "1000 options", then ask yourself why can't or won't the record companies market their product more effectively?

{censored}, everything today has "1000 options": the plastic revolution saw to that.

And again: where are the artist-owned labels today?

Where is today's "Rocket Records", or "A&M", or "SwanSong", or "Apple Records"? Given the number of artists today, it would be reasonable to expect that at least a FEW of them would start their own record companies. But that's not really happening.

Are the artists lazy? What has changed - what market forces and contractual obligations are in play now that weren't in days of old?

I want people to THINK about this stuff and not be afraid to be "wrong".

[Vito Corleone]

Okay Guido.

You know what is exasperating about debating with you? Is how I answer all your questions directly, often with linked sources to back up my claims, and you NEVER answer any of the questions I pose to you. You only just reply with more questions. Could you please answer some of mine before I answer more of yours?

Then why do we have so many musicians "jumping ship" from the majors, and doing so in a very vocal and critical way?

Almost all of whom are, like Mellencamp, old guys who aren't what the majors are really interested in dealing with. Just like it's always been.

The "digital revolution" is nonsense. The crackdown on piracy has done virtually nothing to spur declining record sales. If the kids have "1000 options", then ask yourself why can't or won't the record companies market their product more effectively? {censored}, everything today has "1000 options": the plastic revolution saw to that.

When we were kids, music was pretty much all we had that was "ours". Very little of what was on TV or in movies was directed to us. And what else WAS there besides cruising in your car and listening to music? Or hanging out at the record store. Heck, just the CELL PHONE alone provides kids with a dozen things to do and ways to connect with each other rather than through music. Let alone everything else there is in the world. Music and rock stars and all of that just aren't as important to kids as they used to be.

And again: where are the artist-owned labels today?

Do you bother to read ANYTHING I post to you? I just gave you the names of half-a-dozen artists who have recently started their own labels. And that was just the result of 10-second Google search. I'm sure I could come up with a dozen more.

[wades_keys]

I get it.

You're happy with the status quo.

You don't recognize the warning signs of an industry in peril.

You think this is just how things have always been, that there is nothing to worry about.

You think that Mellencamp and others that have broken from the record companies, and quite vocally, is the same as it has always been.

You think that the recording industry is doing just fine, and that there isn't a crisis in the industry.

Well, all I can say is: enjoy it. I'm sure you and your band will have a steady supply of pop cheez to rely on for at least a little while longer.

[Vito Corleone]

I get it. You're happy with the status quo. You don't recognize the warning signs of an industry in peril. You think this is just how things have always been, that there is nothing to worry about. You think that Mellencamp and others that have broken from the record companies, and quite vocally, is the same as it has always been. You think that the recording industry is doing just fine, and that there isn't a crisis in the industry. Well, all I can say is: enjoy it. I'm sure you and your band will have a steady supply of pop cheez to rely on for at least a little while longer.

WHAT I SAID is that--yes, there are major problems with the record business. Everyone knows that. And probably no one knows that more so than the major record labels. There are many reasons for these problems. But one reason that DOESN'T exist is the idea the industry is having problems as a result of a monopoly held by Sony/BMG. They have no such monopoly. Nor do they wield any control over the industry due to the fact that they helped invent the Compact Disc 30 years ago. Any more than BASF had control over the industry because they invented magnetic tape. Your conspiracy theory is nonsense.

[Vito Corleone]

You think that Mellencamp and others that have broken from the record companies, and quite vocally, is the same as it has always been.

 

 

Yeah, that part is the same. Older artists feeling they are being pushed out and ignored by the labels at which they were once king has been going on for as long as I can remember and, I'm certain, long before.

 

 

Well, all I can say is: enjoy it. I'm sure you and your band will have a steady supply of pop cheez to rely on for at least a little while longer.

 

 

That hasn't changed either. Cover bands have been relying on the steady supply of pop cheez coming from the major labels since there has BEEN cover bands.