There was a minor collecting craze for them during the early and mid-nineties because they had been heavily sampled, but with the advent of the internet people a) realized that they were pretty common, and b) had their horizons generally broadened such that they recognized that there were better approaches to record collecting than tracking down samples.
Not that this didn't prevent newer generations from pursuing the same route.
Actually, I don't see this at all. There is absolutely no money in "originals" today, ten years ago you could get $40 for a hot sample.
What about the market for "potential samples"?
"Ill horn stabz!"
"Chunky synth breakz!"
Producers still buy records for sampling, and spend a lot of money.
Actually very interesting from my perspective - the recording industry being as bloated as it is, producers are getting tons of money for beats that sometimes never even get used. There's a pretty reasonable theory going around that, as the industry becomes more and more based around digital rather than physical media, the amount of money to throw around is going to be greatly reduced. That's going to affect everyone involved, including record dealers!
There was a minor collecting craze for them during the early and mid-nineties because they had been heavily sampled, but with the advent of the internet people a) realized that they were pretty common, and b) had their horizons generally broadened such that they recognized that there were better approaches to record collecting than tracking down samples.
Not that this didn't prevent newer generations from pursuing the same route.
Actually, I don't see this at all. There is absolutely no money in "originals" today, ten years ago you could get $40 for a hot sample.
What about the market for "potential samples"?
"Ill horn stabz!"
"Chunky synth breakz!"
Producers still buy records for sampling, and spend a lot of money.
No doubt--I was more referring to that "Chock full of samples and potential samples! Loads of grooves and breaks! This is the hit like cee-lo, kid! Don't sleep!" style that I used to see a lot of on eBay.
Not sure how effective that approach ever was--I would think that anybody that was interested in producing would want to make their own decisions based on the sounds that the record actually contained, rather than on assurances of a cornucopia of "ill horn stabz!"
i was going to let this thread die because i am tired of stirring up a shitstorm and having vitriol spewed at me. but i thought better of it after some counseling.
i am 30 years old--not as old as some but older than others--and grew up in a household where dad spoon-fed me a steady diet of jazz. for better or worse, jazz is my frame of reference for all music. so for me to get with a given genre its got to have some jazz spirit in it whether its psych, afrobeat, brazillian, disco, funk, or whatever.
for example, when i listen to the jb's "doing it to death," what i hear is a modal jazz song akin to miles davis' oeuvre. even though i know that james brown and the jb's are really descendents from a soul lineage--and your point about funk really being a sub-genre of soul is well taken-- i hear jazz "first."
so my basic subjective, internalized, and unconscious test for all music is this: does ryan hear jazz? when this test is applied to soul, i do not hear jazz. is this true for all soul? of course not. but *generally* speaking this seems to be the case for me. (as an aside, when i do find a soul song i like it tends to be some some 70s joint with funky overtones on KISQ; i find that i almost always dislike 60s soul of the otis redding, sam & dave, aretha franklin variety.)
in any event, taste in music is totally subjective and comes down to a matter of personal preferences which can't always be explained. maybe i haven't heard the right soul. or it could be that i am just inconsistent. i am totally fine either way because i like my records and i'm the only one who has to live with them!
that is all i have to say on the matter, enjoy your day on soulstrut.
Actually very interesting from my perspective - the recording industry being as bloated as it is, producers are getting tons of money for beats that sometimes never even get used. There's a pretty reasonable theory going around that, as the industry becomes more and more based around digital rather than physical media, the amount of money to throw around is going to be greatly reduced. That's going to affect everyone involved, including record dealers!
this is true for all genres - when I was working at Z**** publishing, they had vaults of songs by signed songwriters that they would pitch to other labels looking for tracks for whoever was recording at the time. But again, the money they get is still an 'advance' even if they are not signed to a recording contract.
I dunno if there'll be less money to throw around as per the theory above, but I think that it's just gonna shift. I mean, instead of sending a CD of potential tracks to a label, we'll just email the file. But that still doesn't help out record dealers, just makes things faster and more convenient for the big guys.
Actually very interesting from my perspective - the recording industry being as bloated as it is, producers are getting tons of money for beats that sometimes never even get used. There's a pretty reasonable theory going around that, as the industry becomes more and more based around digital rather than physical media, the amount of money to throw around is going to be greatly reduced. That's going to affect everyone involved, including record dealers!
this is true for all genres - when I was working at Z**** publishing, they had vaults of songs by signed songwriters that they would pitch to other labels looking for tracks for whoever was recording at the time. But again, the money they get is still an 'advance' even if they are not signed to a recording contract.
I dunno if there'll be less money to throw around as per the theory above, but I think that it's just gonna shift. I mean, instead of sending a CD of potential tracks to a label, we'll just email the file. But that still doesn't help out record dealers, just makes things faster and more convenient for the big guys.
I think you're missing the point of what I'm saying - when the label's revenue is based off the sale of digital media, there will be less money going around because the digital media is sold much cheaper than physical media. So there's less money coming in on the front end for the same amount of sales.
It'll mean that labels will have many times less money in the budget per release because sales will only yield a fraction of the gross they used to.
I think you're missing the point of what I'm saying - when the label's revenue is based off the sale of digital media, there will be less money going around because the digital media is sold much cheaper than physical media. So there's less money coming in on the front end for the same amount of sales.
It'll mean that labels will have many times less money in the budget per release because sales will only yield a fraction of the gross they used to.
ah..OK, I see where you're coming from now. But at $0.99 a pop on iTunes is digital media that much cheaper? I guess an album that is less than 12 songs or so would be...
yeah, on second thought you're probably right, I mean, CDs are what, 17 or so bucks nowadays? Hell, I haven't bought a CD in like 10 years so I wouldn't even know anymore.
I think you're missing the point of what I'm saying - when the label's revenue is based off the sale of digital media, there will be less money going around because the digital media is sold much cheaper than physical media. So there's less money coming in on the front end for the same amount of sales.
It'll mean that labels will have many times less money in the budget per release because sales will only yield a fraction of the gross they used to.
ah..OK, I see where you're coming from now. But at $0.99 a pop on iTunes is digital media that much cheaper? I guess an album that is less than 12 songs or so would be...
yeah, on second thought you're probably right, I mean, CDs are what, 17 or so bucks nowadays? Hell, I haven't bought a CD in like 10 years so I wouldn't even know anymore.
Right now major label releases are almost as expensive on download, but that's gonna change. The industry can't sustain itself at these prices.
i was going to let this thread die because i am tired of stirring up a shitstorm and having vitriol spewed at me. but i thought better of it after some counseling.
i am 30 years old--not as old as some but older than others--and grew up in a household where dad spoon-fed me a steady diet of jazz. for better or worse, jazz is my frame of reference for all music. so for me to get with a given genre its got to have some jazz spirit in it whether its psych, afrobeat, brazillian, disco, funk, or whatever.
for example, when i listen to the jb's "doing it to death," what i hear is a modal jazz song akin to miles davis' oeuvre. even though i know that james brown and the jb's are really descendents from a soul lineage--and your point about funk really being a sub-genre of soul is well taken-- i hear jazz "first."
so my basic subjective, internalized, and unconscious test for all music is this: does ryan hear jazz? when this test is applied to soul, i do not hear jazz. is this true for all soul? of course not. but *generally* speaking this seems to be the case for me. (as an aside, when i do find a soul song i like it tends to be some some 70s joint with funky overtones on KISQ; i find that i almost always dislike 60s soul of the otis redding, sam & dave, aretha franklin variety.)
in any event, taste in music is totally subjective and comes down to a matter of personal preferences which can't always be explained. maybe i haven't heard the right soul. or it could be that i am just inconsistent. i am totally fine either way because i like my records and i'm the only one who has to live with them!
that is all i have to say on the matter, enjoy your day on soulstrut.
Actually very interesting from my perspective - the recording industry being as bloated as it is, producers are getting tons of money for beats that sometimes never even get used. There's a pretty reasonable theory going around that, as the industry becomes more and more based around digital rather than physical media, the amount of money to throw around is going to be greatly reduced. That's going to affect everyone involved, including record dealers!
this is true for all genres - when I was working at Z**** publishing, they had vaults of songs by signed songwriters that they would pitch to other labels looking for tracks for whoever was recording at the time. But again, the money they get is still an 'advance' even if they are not signed to a recording contract.
I dunno if there'll be less money to throw around as per the theory above, but I think that it's just gonna shift. I mean, instead of sending a CD of potential tracks to a label, we'll just email the file. But that still doesn't help out record dealers, just makes things faster and more convenient for the big guys.
I think you're missing the point of what I'm saying - when the label's revenue is based off the sale of digital media, there will be less money going around because the digital media is sold much cheaper than physical media. So there's less money coming in on the front end for the same amount of sales.
It'll mean that labels will have many times less money in the budget per release because sales will only yield a fraction of the gross they used to.
That doesn't make any sense to me. It would seem that the industry has moved to digital medium because they are able to sell more through that medium. It's the basic business model of quality vs. quantity, and it's clear that the music industry will -- if it doesn't already -- sell more zeroes and ones than CDs.
Actually very interesting from my perspective - the recording industry being as bloated as it is, producers are getting tons of money for beats that sometimes never even get used. There's a pretty reasonable theory going around that, as the industry becomes more and more based around digital rather than physical media, the amount of money to throw around is going to be greatly reduced. That's going to affect everyone involved, including record dealers!
this is true for all genres - when I was working at Z**** publishing, they had vaults of songs by signed songwriters that they would pitch to other labels looking for tracks for whoever was recording at the time. But again, the money they get is still an 'advance' even if they are not signed to a recording contract.
I dunno if there'll be less money to throw around as per the theory above, but I think that it's just gonna shift. I mean, instead of sending a CD of potential tracks to a label, we'll just email the file. But that still doesn't help out record dealers, just makes things faster and more convenient for the big guys.
I think you're missing the point of what I'm saying - when the label's revenue is based off the sale of digital media, there will be less money going around because the digital media is sold much cheaper than physical media. So there's less money coming in on the front end for the same amount of sales.
It'll mean that labels will have many times less money in the budget per release because sales will only yield a fraction of the gross they used to.
That doesn't make any sense to me. It would seem that the industry has moved to digital medium because they are able to sell more through that medium. It's the basic business model of quality vs. quantity, and it's clear that the music industry will -- if it doesn't already -- sell more zeroes and ones than CDs.
I don't think they moved to digital distribution because they thought they could sell more. They moved because they had no choice. What this all comes down to is the distribution chain and being able to control it. With itunes, I can't remember the numbers, but of that .99 cents, .65 goes to the labels and the rest goes to apple. Once you break down costs from that, there isn't much left lying around. This is one of the main reasons ur seeing labels merge (Could one day there only be one major left?).
Just a side note, I was listening to a dude the other day and he was talking about the whole Sony root kit deal. Did people know there was stuff written into their licence agreement that if your OG CD was lost or it was stolen, that ur digital backup was no longer legal? Or that if you claimed bankruptcy, it's voided you being able to make a personal copy of the CD you owned before you filed? It's off topic, but damn.. Shit blows my mind!
i was going to let this thread die because i am tired of stirring up a shitstorm and having vitriol spewed at me. but i thought better of it after some counseling.
i am 30 years old--not as old as some but older than others--and grew up in a household where dad spoon-fed me a steady diet of jazz. for better or worse, jazz is my frame of reference for all music. so for me to get with a given genre its got to have some jazz spirit in it whether its psych, afrobeat, brazillian, disco, funk, or whatever.
for example, when i listen to the jb's "doing it to death," what i hear is a modal jazz song akin to miles davis' oeuvre. even though i know that james brown and the jb's are really descendents from a soul lineage--and your point about funk really being a sub-genre of soul is well taken-- i hear jazz "first."
so my basic subjective, internalized, and unconscious test for all music is this: does ryan hear jazz? when this test is applied to soul, i do not hear jazz. is this true for all soul? of course not. but *generally* speaking this seems to be the case for me. (as an aside, when i do find a soul song i like it tends to be some some 70s joint with funky overtones on KISQ; i find that i almost always dislike 60s soul of the otis redding, sam & dave, aretha franklin variety.)
in any event, taste in music is totally subjective and comes down to a matter of personal preferences which can't always be explained. maybe i haven't heard the right soul. or it could be that i am just inconsistent. i am totally fine either way because i like my records and i'm the only one who has to live with them!
that is all i have to say on the matter, enjoy your day on soulstrut.
that's cool, makes sense to me, but you gotta understand that calling Otis Redding records "crappy" on soulstrut is like walking into a church during the middle of Sunday Mass in South Boston and yelling "Jesus Christ was a jizz guzzling nigger loving queer!!!!!!!!"
i was going to let this thread die because i am tired of stirring up a shitstorm and having vitriol spewed at me. but i thought better of it after some counseling.
i am 30 years old--not as old as some but older than others--and grew up in a household where dad spoon-fed me a steady diet of jazz. for better or worse, jazz is my frame of reference for all music. so for me to get with a given genre its got to have some jazz spirit in it whether its psych, afrobeat, brazillian, disco, funk, or whatever.
for example, when i listen to the jb's "doing it to death," what i hear is a modal jazz song akin to miles davis' oeuvre. even though i know that james brown and the jb's are really descendents from a soul lineage--and your point about funk really being a sub-genre of soul is well taken-- i hear jazz "first."
so my basic subjective, internalized, and unconscious test for all music is this: does ryan hear jazz? when this test is applied to soul, i do not hear jazz. is this true for all soul? of course not. but *generally* speaking this seems to be the case for me. (as an aside, when i do find a soul song i like it tends to be some some 70s joint with funky overtones on KISQ; i find that i almost always dislike 60s soul of the otis redding, sam & dave, aretha franklin variety.)
in any event, taste in music is totally subjective and comes down to a matter of personal preferences which can't always be explained. maybe i haven't heard the right soul. or it could be that i am just inconsistent. i am totally fine either way because i like my records and i'm the only one who has to live with them!
that is all i have to say on the matter, enjoy your day on soulstrut.
that's cool, makes sense to me, but you gotta understand that calling Otis Redding records "crappy" on soulstrut is like walking into a church during the middle of Sunday Mass in South Boston and yelling "Jesus Christ was a jizz guzzling nigger loving queer!!!!!!!!"
Woah...why would you make an analogy like that? Zero tact.
that's cool, makes sense to me, but you gotta understand that calling Otis Redding records "crappy" on soulstrut is like walking into a church during the middle of Sunday Mass in South Boston and yelling "Jesus Christ was a jizz guzzling nigger loving queer!!!!!!!!"
Actually very interesting from my perspective - the recording industry being as bloated as it is, producers are getting tons of money for beats that sometimes never even get used. There's a pretty reasonable theory going around that, as the industry becomes more and more based around digital rather than physical media, the amount of money to throw around is going to be greatly reduced. That's going to affect everyone involved, including record dealers!
this is true for all genres - when I was working at Z**** publishing, they had vaults of songs by signed songwriters that they would pitch to other labels looking for tracks for whoever was recording at the time. But again, the money they get is still an 'advance' even if they are not signed to a recording contract.
I dunno if there'll be less money to throw around as per the theory above, but I think that it's just gonna shift. I mean, instead of sending a CD of potential tracks to a label, we'll just email the file. But that still doesn't help out record dealers, just makes things faster and more convenient for the big guys.
I think you're missing the point of what I'm saying - when the label's revenue is based off the sale of digital media, there will be less money going around because the digital media is sold much cheaper than physical media. So there's less money coming in on the front end for the same amount of sales.
It'll mean that labels will have many times less money in the budget per release because sales will only yield a fraction of the gross they used to.
That doesn't make any sense to me. It would seem that the industry has moved to digital medium because they are able to sell more through that medium. It's the basic business model of quality vs. quantity, and it's clear that the music industry will -- if it doesn't already -- sell more zeroes and ones than CDs.
I don't think they moved to digital distribution because they thought they could sell more. They moved because they had no choice. What this all comes down to is the distribution chain and being able to control it. With itunes, I can't remember the numbers, but of that .99 cents, .65 goes to the labels and the rest goes to apple. Once you break down costs from that, there isn't much left lying around. This is one of the main reasons ur seeing labels merge (Could one day there only be one major left?).
Just a side note, I was listening to a dude the other day and he was talking about the whole Sony root kit deal. Did people know there was stuff written into their licence agreement that if your OG CD was lost or it was stolen, that ur digital backup was no longer legal? Or that if you claimed bankruptcy, it's voided you being able to make a personal copy of the CD you owned before you filed? It's off topic, but damn.. Shit blows my mind!
This still isn't making any sense. Industry insiders will readily admit that the internets had no effect on the drop in music sales, so to say that the industry had to move in that direction is not true.
I follow music news everyday - especially on digital music - as part of my work and believe me: the internet has had a LOT to do with the drop in music sales. No one even disputes this point.
Does it explain EVERYTHING? No, definitely not. The slump has to do with a confluence of factors, file-sharing and downloading only being part of the larger puzzle but the idea that sales are down having NOTHING to do with the fact that people are putting up entire CDs (new material) for download, not just through P2P networks, but even blogs now, has to have some kind of impact.
I follow music news everyday - especially on digital music - as part of my work and believe me: the internet has had a LOT to do with the drop in music sales. No one even disputes this point.
Does it explain EVERYTHING? No, definitely not. The slump has to do with a confluence of factors, file-sharing and downloading only being part of the larger puzzle but the idea that sales are down having NOTHING to do with the fact that people are putting up entire CDs (new material) for download, not just through P2P networks, but even blogs now, has to have some kind of impact.
O, how much is Lindsey Lohan contributing to the drop in sales? I'm guessing 5%.
You're right, of course. I guess what I was trying to get across is that, of all the studies I've read, none of them suggest that internet piracy was so out of control that the music industry had to switch from CDs to internet swapping.
I came across one article that argues that the current business model -- selling CDs -- is being defended tooth and nail by music industry lawyers, which has virtually bled them dry. Another article (and this is the one I quoted earlier where one major label conducted a survey and found that internet file sharing had no statistical effect on sales) suggests that the lack of creative artists has led to lost CD sales. What are your thoughts on those two hypotheses?
You're right, of course. I guess what I was trying to get across is that, of all the studies I've read, none of them suggest that internet piracy was so out of control that the music industry had to switch from CDs to internet swapping.
I came across one article that argues that the current business model -- selling CDs -- is being defended tooth and nail by music industry lawyers, which has virtually bled them dry. Another article (and this is the one I quoted earlier where one major label conducted a survey and found that internet file sharing had no statistical effect on sales) suggests that the lack of creative artists has led to lost CD sales. What are your thoughts on those two hypotheses?
I don't think Paycheck was saying that piracy was so out of control that majors had to switch from CDs to combat it.
Rather that the digital swapping of music was an important avenue for music distribution and that record companies needed to jump in before it was too late and they lost their chance at having a handle on it. The record labels need to be a part of any important means of music distribution.
The effect of the record labels legitimizing and making music available on the net may well result in the depreciation of their value as the internet allows fans to purchase music cheaper.
You're right, of course. I guess what I was trying to get across is that, of all the studies I've read, none of them suggest that internet piracy was so out of control that the music industry had to switch from CDs to internet swapping.
I came across one article that argues that the current business model -- selling CDs -- is being defended tooth and nail by music industry lawyers, which has virtually bled them dry. Another article (and this is the one I quoted earlier where one major label conducted a survey and found that internet file sharing had no statistical effect on sales) suggests that the lack of creative artists has led to lost CD sales. What are your thoughts on those two hypotheses?
I don't think Paycheck was saying that piracy was so out of control that majors had to switch from CDs to combat it.
Rather that the digital swapping of music was an important avenue for music distribution and that record companies needed to jump in before it was too late and they lost their chance at having a handle on it. The record labels need to be a part of any important means of music distribution.
The effect of the record labels legitimizing and making music available on the net may well result in the depreciation of their value as the internet allows fans to purchase music cheaper.[/b]
bing bing bing bing! we have a winner
This is it. The record labels need to compete with p2p, which is not going away, in order to do that they need to package superior product at a competitive price. Just common sense.
You're right, of course. I guess what I was trying to get across is that, of all the studies I've read, none of them suggest that internet piracy was so out of control that the music industry had to switch from CDs to internet swapping.
I came across one article that argues that the current business model -- selling CDs -- is being defended tooth and nail by music industry lawyers, which has virtually bled them dry. Another article (and this is the one I quoted earlier where one major label conducted a survey and found that internet file sharing had no statistical effect on sales) suggests that the lack of creative artists has led to lost CD sales. What are your thoughts on those two hypotheses?
I don't think Paycheck was saying that piracy was so out of control that majors had to switch from CDs to combat it.
Rather that the digital swapping of music was an important avenue for music distribution and that record companies needed to jump in before it was too late and they lost their chance at having a handle on it. The record labels need to be a part of any important means of music distribution.
The effect of the record labels legitimizing and making music available on the net may well result in the depreciation of their value as the internet allows fans to purchase music cheaper.
So true. The game might have been a lil different if the labels would have jumped onto the technology right in the beginning. I can remember being a mod on opennap servers back in late 99. Those were great years.
But instead the labels fought it tooth and nail. Oh well... C'est La Vie
I came across one article that argues that the current business model -- selling CDs -- is being defended tooth and nail by music industry lawyers, which has virtually bled them dry. Another article (and this is the one I quoted earlier where one major label conducted a survey and found that internet file sharing had no statistical effect on sales) suggests that the lack of creative artists has led to lost CD sales. What are your thoughts on those two hypotheses?
There might be grains of truth in all of these but I don't really buy either as having that much of an effect either. The whole "there are no good artists, ergo, no good CDs" just sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me; it's the same, "why isn't music good any more?" whine that every generation resurrects when their nostalgia kicks in.
The other thing to keep in mind is that in today's market, there's a lot of other media competing for attention: if you have only a finite amount of money to spend, it might very well be that you'd rather buy a DVD or video game or whatever instead. I also think the proliferation of MP3 players tends to encourage more song buying rather than album buying. See the other post I'm about to put up about this.
Comments
Producers still buy records for sampling, and spend a lot of money.
Actually very interesting from my perspective - the recording industry being as bloated as it is, producers are getting tons of money for beats that sometimes never even get used. There's a pretty reasonable theory going around that, as the industry becomes more and more based around digital rather than physical media, the amount of money to throw around is going to be greatly reduced. That's going to affect everyone involved, including record dealers!
No doubt--I was more referring to that "Chock full of samples and potential samples! Loads of grooves and breaks! This is the hit like cee-lo, kid! Don't sleep!" style that I used to see a lot of on eBay.
Not sure how effective that approach ever was--I would think that anybody that was interested in producing would want to make their own decisions based on the sounds that the record actually contained, rather than on assurances of a cornucopia of "ill horn stabz!"
Check the sales forum...
i am 30 years old--not as old as some but older than others--and grew up in a household where dad spoon-fed me a steady diet of jazz. for better or worse, jazz is my frame of reference for all music. so for me to get with a given genre its got to have some jazz spirit in it whether its psych, afrobeat, brazillian, disco, funk, or whatever.
for example, when i listen to the jb's "doing it to death," what i hear is a modal jazz song akin to miles davis' oeuvre. even though i know that james brown and the jb's are really descendents from a soul lineage--and your point about funk really being a sub-genre of soul is well taken-- i hear jazz "first."
so my basic subjective, internalized, and unconscious test for all music is this: does ryan hear jazz? when this test is applied to soul, i do not hear jazz. is this true for all soul? of course not. but *generally* speaking this seems to be the case for me. (as an aside, when i do find a soul song i like it tends to be some some 70s joint with funky overtones on KISQ; i find that i almost always dislike 60s soul of the otis redding, sam & dave, aretha franklin variety.)
in any event, taste in music is totally subjective and comes down to a matter of personal preferences which can't always be explained. maybe i haven't heard the right soul. or it could be that i am just inconsistent. i am totally fine either way because i like my records and i'm the only one who has to live with them!
that is all i have to say on the matter, enjoy your day on soulstrut.
this is true for all genres - when I was working at Z**** publishing, they had vaults of songs by signed songwriters that they would pitch to other labels looking for tracks for whoever was recording at the time. But again, the money they get is still an 'advance' even if they are not signed to a recording contract.
I dunno if there'll be less money to throw around as per the theory above, but I think that it's just gonna shift. I mean, instead of sending a CD of potential tracks to a label, we'll just email the file. But that still doesn't help out record dealers, just makes things faster and more convenient for the big guys.
I think you're missing the point of what I'm saying - when the label's revenue is based off the sale of digital media, there will be less money going around because the digital media is sold much cheaper than physical media. So there's less money coming in on the front end for the same amount of sales.
It'll mean that labels will have many times less money in the budget per release because sales will only yield a fraction of the gross they used to.
ah..OK, I see where you're coming from now. But at $0.99 a pop on iTunes is digital media that much cheaper? I guess an album that is less than 12 songs or so would be...
yeah, on second thought you're probably right, I mean, CDs are what, 17 or so bucks nowadays? Hell, I haven't bought a CD in like 10 years so I wouldn't even know anymore.
Right now major label releases are almost as expensive on download, but that's gonna change. The industry can't sustain itself at these prices.
I like this guy.
That doesn't make any sense to me. It would seem that the industry has moved to digital medium because they are able to sell more through that medium. It's the basic business model of quality vs. quantity, and it's clear that the music industry will -- if it doesn't already -- sell more zeroes and ones than CDs.
I don't think they moved to digital distribution because they thought they could sell more. They moved because they had no choice. What this all comes down to is the distribution chain and being able to control it. With itunes, I can't remember the numbers, but of that .99 cents, .65 goes to the labels and the rest goes to apple. Once you break down costs from that, there isn't much left lying around. This is one of the main reasons ur seeing labels merge (Could one day there only be one major left?).
Just a side note, I was listening to a dude the other day and he was talking about the whole Sony root kit deal. Did people know there was stuff written into their licence agreement that if your OG CD was lost or it was stolen, that ur digital backup was no longer legal? Or that if you claimed bankruptcy, it's voided you being able to make a personal copy of the CD you owned before you filed? It's off topic, but damn.. Shit blows my mind!
that's cool, makes sense to me, but you gotta understand that calling Otis Redding records "crappy" on soulstrut is like walking into a church during the middle of Sunday Mass in South Boston and yelling "Jesus Christ was a jizz guzzling nigger loving queer!!!!!!!!"
Woah...why would you make an analogy like that? Zero tact.
What the Fuck?
This still isn't making any sense. Industry insiders will readily admit that the internets had no effect on the drop in music sales, so to say that the industry had to move in that direction is not true.
I follow music news everyday - especially on digital music - as part of my work and believe me: the internet has had a LOT to do with the drop in music sales. No one even disputes this point.
Does it explain EVERYTHING? No, definitely not. The slump has to do with a confluence of factors, file-sharing and downloading only being part of the larger puzzle but the idea that sales are down having NOTHING to do with the fact that people are putting up entire CDs (new material) for download, not just through P2P networks, but even blogs now, has to have some kind of impact.
O, how much is Lindsey Lohan contributing to the drop in sales? I'm guessing 5%.
You're right, of course. I guess what I was trying to get across is that, of all the studies I've read, none of them suggest that internet piracy was so out of control that the music industry had to switch from CDs to internet swapping.
I came across one article that argues that the current business model -- selling CDs -- is being defended tooth and nail by music industry lawyers, which has virtually bled them dry. Another article (and this is the one I quoted earlier where one major label conducted a survey and found that internet file sharing had no statistical effect on sales) suggests that the lack of creative artists has led to lost CD sales. What are your thoughts on those two hypotheses?
I don't think Paycheck was saying that piracy was so out of control that majors had to switch from CDs to combat it.
Rather that the digital swapping of music was an important avenue for music distribution and that record companies needed to jump in before it was too late and they lost their chance at having a handle on it. The record labels need to be a part of any important means of music distribution.
The effect of the record labels legitimizing and making music available on the net may well result in the depreciation of their value as the internet allows fans to purchase music cheaper.
bing bing bing bing! we have a winner
This is it. The record labels need to compete with p2p, which is not going away, in order to do that they need to package superior product at a competitive price. Just common sense.
So true. The game might have been a lil different if the labels would have jumped onto the technology right in the beginning. I can remember being a mod on opennap servers back in late 99. Those were great years.
But instead the labels fought it tooth and nail. Oh well... C'est La Vie
There might be grains of truth in all of these but I don't really buy either as having that much of an effect either. The whole "there are no good artists, ergo, no good CDs" just sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me; it's the same, "why isn't music good any more?" whine that every generation resurrects when their nostalgia kicks in.
The other thing to keep in mind is that in today's market, there's a lot of other media competing for attention: if you have only a finite amount of money to spend, it might very well be that you'd rather buy a DVD or video game or whatever instead. I also think the proliferation of MP3 players tends to encourage more song buying rather than album buying. See the other post I'm about to put up about this.