With the money from CDs and digital downloads disappearing, the music industry has pinned its hope for the future on online song streaming, which now accounts for the majority of the $7.7 billion U.S. music market.

But the biggest player in this future isn’t one of the names most associated with streaming — Spotify, Amazon, Pandora or Apple. It’s YouTube, the site best known for viral videos, which accounts for 25 percent of all music streamed worldwide, far more than any other site.

Now, YouTube is locked in an increasingly bitter battle with music labels over how much it pays to stream their songs — and at stake is not just the finances of the music industry but also the way that millions of people around the world have grown accustomed to listening to music: free of cost.

Music labels accuse YouTube of using a legal loophole to pay less for songs than traditional music-streaming sites, calling YouTube the biggest threat since song piracy crippled the industry in the early 2000s. The industry has pressed its case to regulators around the world in hopes of forcing a change.

“I do think YouTube is starting to panic a little bit,” said Mitch Glazier, president of the Recording Industry Association of America.

But YouTube is not backing down, stressing the benefits to musicians of promotion on one of the Web’s most popular sites — which allows ordinary users to integrate music into their uploads. YouTube also warns against attacks that could reduce competition among streaming services.

“The industry should be really, really careful because they could close their eyes and wake up with their revenue really concentrated in two, three sources,” said Lyor Cohen, YouTube’s global head of music, referring to Spotify, Apple Music and Amazon Prime Music. (Amazon founder Jeffrey P. Bezos owns The Washington Post.)

The music industry counters they are backed into a corner when negotiating with YouTube — a unit of Google-parent Alphabet — which is mostly shielded by federal law from being responsible for what users post on the site.

“It isn’t a level playing field,” said one executive at a major music label who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to talk, “because ultimately you’re negotiating with a party who is going to have your content no matter what.”

Now, the battle is heating up as the European Union is expected to release new rules later this year for how services such as YouTube handle music, potentially upending some of the copyright protections that undergird the Internet.

Online streaming works like a digital jukebox, with fractions of a penny paid each time a song is played. The money comes from ads and subscriptions.

The E.U. has formally recognized that there is a “value gap” between song royalties and what user-upload services such as YouTube earn from selling ads while playing music. YouTube is by far the largest user-upload site.

How such a law would address the gap is still being decided, but the E.U. has indicated it plans to focus on ensuring copyright holders are “properly remunerated.”

Even the value gap’s existence is disputed.

A recent economic study commissioned by YouTube found no value gap — in fact, the report said YouTube promotes the music industry, and if YouTube stopped playing music, 85 percent of users would flock to services that offered lower or no royalties.

A different study by an independent consulting group pegged the YouTube value gap at more than $650 million in the United States alone.

“YouTube is viewed as a giant obstacle in the path to success for the streaming marketplace,” Glazier said.

The dispute boils down to what YouTube pays for songs.

Musicians from Arcade Fire to Garth Brooks to Pharrell Williams say they earn significantly less when their songs are played on YouTube than on a site such as Spotify — even though many listeners use these services in the same way. Both YouTube and Spotify allow users to search for music and find song recommendations. On YouTube, users can find music alongside cat videos and toy reviews in what is generally a free-for-all of content, while people go to Spotify and the like for a more refined experience. Some audiophiles argue the sound quality on music streaming sites is superior.

YouTube pays an estimated $1 per 1,000 plays on average, while Spotify and Apple music pay a rate closer to $7.

Irving Azoff, the legendary manager for acts such as the Eagles and Christina Aguilera, said he has one artist — whom he declined to name — who gets 33 percent of her online streams from YouTube but only 10 percent of her streaming revenue.

Smaller acts see it, too. Zoe Keating, an instrumental cello player, showed The Washington Post a statement from YouTube showing that she earned $261 from 1.42 million views on YouTube. In comparison, she earned $940 from 230,000 streams on Spotify.

“YouTube revenue is so negligible that I stopped paying attention to it,” Keating said.

YouTube admits that it pays less for songs.

But the reason for this disparity is where the two sides split.

The music industry claims YouTube has avoided paying a fair-market rate by hiding behind broad legal protections. In the United States, that’s the “safe harbor” provision, which essentially says YouTube is not to blame if someone uploads a copy-protected song —unless the copyright holder complains.

This, the music industry argues, leads to a costly game of “Whac-A-Mole”: hunting for illicit song uploads and filing notices with YouTube.

“You can’t prevent something from going up on YouTube. All you can do is ask them to take it down,” said Stephen Carlisle, who runs the copyright office at Nova Southeastern University. “At some point, it’s not worth it to do this.”

YouTube says it has the solution: Its Content ID system automatically checks for violations by comparing songs detected in new uploads against a database of claimed songs, capturing 99.5 percent of complaints. The company says it averages fewer than 1,500 traditional copyright claims from the music industry a week.

YouTube also pointed out that it has licensing deals with music labels large and small.

Earlier this year, Warner Music Group — one of the “big three” music labels — signed a new licensing deal with YouTube, and a memo from Warner chief executive Steve Cooper leaked out, saying the deal was signed “under very difficult circumstances.”

“There’s no getting around the fact that, even if YouTube doesn’t have licenses, our music will still be available but not monetized at all,” the memo continued.

Warner confirmed the memo’s authenticity, but, like the other major labels, declined to comment for this article.

Cooper’s complaints surprised Cohen, who worked at Warner until leaving for YouTube last year.

“I never heard that from his mouth during the entire negotiation,” Cohen said.

Cohen’s move to YouTube created waves in the industry. After all, Cohen was famous for taking one of the hardest stands against YouTube when, in 2008, he pulled Warner’s entire song catalogue from the video service to protest low song royalties. It was the nuclear option.

And it failed. After nine months and spending $2 million trying to keep its music off YouTube, Warner capitulated.

Cohen said he was sympathetic to his former colleague’s complaints. But YouTube pays $1 billion in song royalties worldwide each year. Cohen said his company has been hindered by its global reach — ad rates are lower outside the United States — and its slower rollout of a subscription option, YouTube Red. Song royalties are higher with monthly subscriptions than ads.

“What I’m trying to do with YouTube is be a cheerleader to build a subscription business that the industry can be proud of,” Cohen said.

Nabila Hisham, 22, is a music fan on YouTube. Recently, the college student in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, has been playing one song repeatedly: “Despacito,” a chart-topping Latin pop remix featuring Justin Bieber. The YouTube video — which has a total of 412 million plays — is a photo of Bieber’s tattooed neck. The video is beside the point. For, Hisham, it’s about the music.

“I’m glad that YouTube exists,” she said.

Correction: A previous version of this story stated YouTube’s ContentID system automatically handles 98 percent of copyright management for songs. The system handles 99.5 percent.

Thanks for posting.

Adele got not one but TWO DIAMOND albums in this digital era. Garth Brooks just got a diamond album. Record labels need to stop blaming these streaming services and really look further into the REAL root of why people aren't buying albums. The problem is todays music is shit and they rely on controversy and drama to sell records instead of quality music, those are the facts. If Adele can get TWO Diamond albums back to back that tells me people are willing to buy music if they feel its worth buying.

Fact: Music Streaming will never replace CD / Digital / Wax sales / profits. Its like an artist / songwriter/ publisher thinking they can and will earn hundred of thousands of dollars if not millions of dollars via radio play alone. :-?Has that every happened, hell no!

This is nothing short of a power play to eliminate all independent music video content creators. The music labels (musicians) would like to only have their accounts up, playing, and paying. Then they'd be in a better position ( they think) to play hardball about price. I suspect artist / musicians/ labels want to be monetarily compensated when their copyright work has have been infringed upon. In some instances this is MTV all over again... the music industry didn't win that fight either. Dumb-asses.

Stephen Carlisle who runs the copyright office in Nova Southeastern University. I take issue with this notion finding an artist or bands music on YouTube is a needle in a hay stack affair. Search for any singer or bands name within seconds... you'll see pages upon pages of interviews and performances. Elton John could pay someone to search the Tube to find every song, video, or album being played without his consent/permission. Once John alerts Google... all of John's music would be taken down and blocked from uploading. Any artist, band, singer, or music label could do this.

Safe Harbor / DMCA can and has been abused by company's, industry, and individuals alike. In the near future, YouTube will be able to survive whether they have music videos or not. I wouldn't depend on Donald Trump to do a damn thing to help the entertainment industry. Pay back is a bitch.

=======================================

[Edited 7/24/17 6:28am]

are people still complaining about Youtube? Smart artists know how to use Youtube to their advantage,to promote themselves and their music.The rest? They just complain and bitch.

mjscarousal said:

Adele got not one but TWO DIAMOND albums in this digital era. Garth Brooks just got a diamond album. Record labels need to stop blaming these streaming services and really look further into the REAL root of why people aren't buying albums. The problem is todays music is shit and they rely on controversy and drama to sell records instead of quality music, those are the facts. If Adele can get TWO Diamond albums back to back that tells me people are willing to buy music if they feel its worth buying.

no, that's not it at all. I consider both Adele albums and the Garth Brooks albums to be mostly bland rubbish with the odd bit of spark in there. Same kind of stuff that always sold millions and millions of copies. They are far from the best albums released in the past 10 years.

there's several connected problems :

1. there's too much product and the bar is very low to start making music; you no longer need expensive studios that require big budgets that used to work as a form of quality control (which admittedly also had the problem of locking out some genuinely talented people who didn't have the right look or whatever).

2. All the music for all time is more or less instantly accessible, this works as competition for new stuff (kind of the point you were making)

3. The middle has been carved out, there's no independent gatekeepers anymore. No one knows who to trust. There used to be healthy independent music scenes where people could make a half decent living from their music, or from writing about music, without being famous; now it's all or nothing. And for 99.99% of people thats nothing.

Fact is, the streaming services are all tied up with major labels who purchase the most popular playlists, it's impossible to get heard if you don't play their game. Meanwhile there's no one independent around to try and raise an act's profile because the arts budget for most newspapers have been slashed. Just like people making good music, good music writers are out there but they're increasingly marginalised into unpaid writing. And you're fooling yourself if you think the likes of Conde Nast-owned Pitchfork are independent.

Ultimately, I don't think anyone wants artists to not earn a living but the fact is it's increasingly hard to do so.

You want to find a new Beatles/Michael Jackson/Prince/whoever? Find a way to fund the arts. There's clearly no way of going back to the old cd/vinyl paradigm but i dunno, get some of those companies sitting on billions of cash to do something with it....

[Edited 7/24/17 2:36am]

jaawwnn said:

no, that's not it at all. I consider both Adele albums and the Garth Brooks albums to be mostly bland rubbish with the odd bit of spark in there. Same kind of stuff that always sold millions and millions of copies. They are far from the best albums released in the past 10 years.

there's several connected problems :

1. there's too much product and the bar is very low to start making music; you no longer need expensive studios that require big budgets that used to work as a form of quality control (which admittedly also had the problem of locking out some genuinely talented people who didn't have the right look or whatever).

2. All the music for all time is more or less instantly accessible, this works as competition for new stuff (kind of the point you were making)

3. The middle has been carved out, there's no independent gatekeepers anymore. No one knows who to trust. There used to be healthy independent music scenes where people could make a half decent living from their music, or from writing about music, without being famous; now it's all or nothing. And for 99.99% of people thats nothing.

Fact is, the streaming services are all tied up with major labels who purchase the most popular playlists, it's impossible to get heard if you don't play their game. Meanwhile there's no one independent around to try and raise an act's profile because the arts budget for most newspapers have been slashed. Just like people making good music, good music writers are out there but they're increasingly marginalised into unpaid writing. And you're fooling yourself if you think the likes of Conde Nast-owned Pitchfork are independent.

Ultimately, I don't think anyone wants artists to not earn a living but the fact is it's increasingly hard to do so.

What I said is the real root of the problem. You make good points but this is not the root of the problem. LETS BE REAL, TODAYs pop music is crap. It JUST is. Lets stop making excuses for it. Its not good at all. The point still stands, if people feel a record is worth buying it will sell. I never said that Adele made genius music.... BUT her music is a lot better than what has been mostly playing on the radio for the past decade and consumers obviously recognize that, that is why her music sells. You don't have to like her music but she is a much better option over her wack peers who make garbage music and I actually believe 21 will be a classic album. It still charts on Billboard and continues to sell. Garth Brooks has a couple diamond albums so he has an audience and dedicated fanbase that will buy his music. I just hate these artists and labels boo whoing about record sells when neither put effort into making quality music, thats the ROOT of the problem from what I see. Cause we have proof that people will buy music if THEY feel its worth buying (whether you think its good or not). The problem is that the industry is not about music anymore and its more about image, branding and making quick bucks. They are not about the arts, as you mentioned.

You want to find a new Beatles/Michael Jackson/Prince/whoever? Find a way to fund the arts. There's clearly no way of going back to the old cd/vinyl paradigm but i dunno, get some of those companies sitting on billions of cash to do something with it....

We are not going to find no MJ, Beatles, or Prince ever again. Those were once in a life time artists that cannot be replicated or duplicated. We have seen the last of the true icons and legends and that era has passed.

Today's industry has their "darlings" that they shove down our faces and push to the masses BUT the problem is that these acts are not uniquely gifted, talented, original, etc. The industry needs another Renaissance and an act to bring the industry back to life. Although she is not original and not bringing anything innovative, Adele was this act for this era. She is different from all the pop acts out today and She has gotten people to buy records (her's). Having two Diamond albums in the streaming era is damn impressive. I think the reason why people support her is because unlike her peers, she is about her music (not about the PR and gimmicks and extra crap), she writes her music, makes relatable songs, not overexposed, not on social media, keeps her clothes on and disappears when she doesn't have any music out. She markets her albums the old school way and I respect that. She deserves her success.

mjscarousal said:

Adele got not one but TWO DIAMOND albums in this digital era. Garth Brooks just got a diamond album. Record labels need to stop blaming these streaming services and really look further into the REAL root of why people aren't buying albums. The problem is todays music is shit and they rely on controversy and drama to sell records instead of quality music, those are the facts. If Adele can get TWO Diamond albums back to back that tells me people are willing to buy music if they feel its worth buying.

Not true.

Back in the late 90s, and early aughts, bands like N*Sync and the Backstreet Boys would sell
a million albums in one week; are you suggesting that people purchased those albums simply
because they were "quality music"? No, you wouldn't. N*Sync was just like everybody else
in pop music: they released an album with one to three really good tunes while the remaining
were simply decent or godawful. Michael Jackson did it; Prince did it; the Beatles did it; Madon-
na did it; Stevie did it; Bowie did it; Earth, Wind, & Fire did it; Sly did it. All of them released
albums, most of the time, that had one to three awesome songs and the rest were just okay.

Instead of looking the paradigm shift in the recording industry as a "problem" with "today's music,"
you would be better off by looking at it as simply a paradigm shift with the acknowledgment that
you are biased: you prefer the music you grew up with during your youth. Nobody in this forum,
you or even yours truly, has the ability or wherewithal to articulate cogently and coherently, why
today's music is "shit" without appealing entirely to preference.

Dasein said:

mjscarousal said:

Adele got not one but TWO DIAMOND albums in this digital era. Garth Brooks just got a diamond album. Record labels need to stop blaming these streaming services and really look further into the REAL root of why people aren't buying albums. The problem is todays music is shit and they rely on controversy and drama to sell records instead of quality music, those are the facts. If Adele can get TWO Diamond albums back to back that tells me people are willing to buy music if they feel its worth buying.

Not true.

Back in the late 90s, and early aughts, bands like N*Sync and the Backstreet Boys would sell
a million albums in one week; are you suggesting that people purchased those albums simply
because they were "quality music"? No, you wouldn't. N*Sync was just like everybody else
in pop music: they released an album with one to three really good tunes while the remaining
were simply decent or godawful. Michael Jackson did it; Prince did it; the Beatles did it; Madon-
na did it; Stevie did it; Bowie did it; Earth, Wind, & Fire did it; Sly did it. All of them released
albums, most of the time, that had one to three awesome songs and the rest were just okay.

Instead of looking the paradigm shift in the recording industry as a "problem" with "today's music,"
you would be better off by looking at it as simply a paradigm shift with the acknowledgment that
you are biased: you prefer the music you grew up with during your youth. Nobody in this forum,
you or even yours truly, has the ability or wherewithal to articulate cogently and coherently, why
today's music is "shit" without appealing entirely to preference.

That's a matter of opinion... just took a road trip and played everything Stevie and Earth, Wind and Fire made. Never clicked the next button on any of their music.

=============================================

[Edited 7/24/17 6:31am]

TD3 said:

Dasein said:

Not true.

Back in the late 90s, and early aughts, bands like N*Sync and the Backstreet Boys would sell
a million albums in one week; are you suggesting that people purchased those albums simply
because they were "quality music"? No, you wouldn't. N*Sync was just like everybody else
in pop music: they released an album with one to three really good tunes while the remaining
were simply decent or godawful. Michael Jackson did it; Prince did it; the Beatles did it; Madon-
na did it; Stevie did it; Bowie did it; Earth, Wind, & Fire did it; Sly did it. All of them released
albums, most of the time, that had one to three awesome songs and the rest were just okay.

Instead of looking the paradigm shift in the recording industry as a "problem" with "today's music,"
you would be better off by looking at it as simply a paradigm shift with the acknowledgment that
you are biased: you prefer the music you grew up with during your youth. Nobody in this forum,
you or even yours truly, has the ability or wherewithal to articulate cogently and coherently, why
today's music is "shit" without appealing entirely to preference.

That's a matter of opinion... just took a road trip and played everything Stevie and Earth, Wind and Fire made. Never clicked the next button on any of their music.

=============================================

[Edited 7/24/17 6:31am]

In the context of a road trip, one is best served by not skipping tunes. And, if you look at most
albums by those artists I mentioned, you rarely find those that had every single song released
as a single and charting with great success.

For every major record label artist who is chafing at streaming, there are probably ten DIY recording
artists who are finally able to make a living with today's business model that includes streaming. Ne-
ver before has the marketplace been this inundated with niche artists who can make a career without
the backing of a major company. So, if you're a recording artis who is pissed off with today's model,
then you're either A) a by-product of the old guard or B) need to step your business game up.

Dasein said:

TD3 said:

That's a matter of opinion... just took a road trip and played everything Stevie and Earth, Wind and Fire made. Never clicked the next button on any of their music.

=============================================

[Edited 7/24/17 6:31am]

In the context of a road trip, one is best served by not skipping tunes. And, if you look at most
albums by those artists I mentioned, you rarely find those that had every single song released
as a single and charting with great success.

For every major record label artist who is chafing at streaming, there are probably ten DIY recording
artists who are finally able to make a living with today's business model that includes streaming. Ne-
ver before has the marketplace been this inundated with niche artists who can make a career without
the backing of a major company. So, if you're a recording artis who is pissed off with today's model,
then you're either A) a by-product of the old guard or B) need to step your business game up.

If you are already in a recording contract the lable is handling the negotiations not you the artist or band. Nothing you can do until the contract is up and you can become independent.

So it is not as easy as you think. The tech companies do not give a rat's ass about music or musicians and they are not going to give up anymore money and even if they did the lables do not have to past it all down to the artist.

Dasein said:

mjscarousal said:

Adele got not one but TWO DIAMOND albums in this digital era. Garth Brooks just got a diamond album. Record labels need to stop blaming these streaming services and really look further into the REAL root of why people aren't buying albums. The problem is todays music is shit and they rely on controversy and drama to sell records instead of quality music, those are the facts. If Adele can get TWO Diamond albums back to back that tells me people are willing to buy music if they feel its worth buying.

Not true.

Back in the late 90s, and early aughts, bands like N*Sync and the Backstreet Boys would sell
a million albums in one week; are you suggesting that people purchased those albums simply
because they were "quality music"? No, you wouldn't. N*Sync was just like everybody else
in pop music: they released an album with one to three really good tunes while the remaining
were simply decent or godawful. Michael Jackson did it; Prince did it; the Beatles did it; Madon-
na did it; Stevie did it; Bowie did it; Earth, Wind, & Fire did it; Sly did it. All of them released
albums, most of the time, that had one to three awesome songs and the rest were just okay.

Instead of looking the paradigm shift in the recording industry as a "problem" with "today's music,"
you would be better off by looking at it as simply a paradigm shift with the acknowledgment that
you are biased: you prefer the music you grew up with during your youth. Nobody in this forum,
you or even yours truly, has the ability or wherewithal to articulate cogently and coherently, why
today's music is "shit" without appealing entirely to preference.

No the music today is shit becauset it is shit. I know young people who listen to oldies instead of the music their generation

mjscarousal said:

Adele got not one but TWO DIAMOND albums in this digital era. Garth Brooks just got a diamond album. Record labels need to stop blaming these streaming services and really look further into the REAL root of why people aren't buying albums. The problem is todays music is shit and they rely on controversy and drama to sell records instead of quality music, those are the facts. If Adele can get TWO Diamond albums back to back that tells me people are willing to buy music if they feel its worth buying.

Truth. The music industry killed itself. Nothing has really changed since 2000. Same formulas, same music. Autotuned to death.

laurarichardson said:

Dasein said:

In the context of a road trip, one is best served by not skipping tunes. And, if you look at most
albums by those artists I mentioned, you rarely find those that had every single song released
as a single and charting with great success.

For every major record label artist who is chafing at streaming, there are probably ten DIY recording
artists who are finally able to make a living with today's business model that includes streaming. Ne-
ver before has the marketplace been this inundated with niche artists who can make a career without
the backing of a major company. So, if you're a recording artis who is pissed off with today's model,
then you're either A) a by-product of the old guard or B) need to step your business game up.

If you are already in a recording contract the lable is handling the negotiations not you the artist or band. Nothing you can do until the contract is up and you can become independent.

So it is not as easy as you think. The tech companies do not give a rat's ass about music or musicians and they are not going to give up anymore money and even if they did the lables do not have to past it all down to the artist.

What? Nothing in this post is in a direct response to anything I said.

laurarichardson said:

Dasein said:

Not true.

Back in the late 90s, and early aughts, bands like N*Sync and the Backstreet Boys would sell
a million albums in one week; are you suggesting that people purchased those albums simply
because they were "quality music"? No, you wouldn't. N*Sync was just like everybody else
in pop music: they released an album with one to three really good tunes while the remaining
were simply decent or godawful. Michael Jackson did it; Prince did it; the Beatles did it; Madon-
na did it; Stevie did it; Bowie did it; Earth, Wind, & Fire did it; Sly did it. All of them released
albums, most of the time, that had one to three awesome songs and the rest were just okay.

Instead of looking the paradigm shift in the recording industry as a "problem" with "today's music,"
you would be better off by looking at it as simply a paradigm shift with the acknowledgment that
you are biased: you prefer the music you grew up with during your youth. Nobody in this forum,
you or even yours truly, has the ability or wherewithal to articulate cogently and coherently, why
today's music is "shit" without appealing entirely to preference.

No the music today is shit becauset it is shit.

Prove it.

Show us objective evidence apart from your own bias that "music today is shit becauset it is shit" . . .

Dasein said:

laurarichardson said:

No the music today is shit becauset it is shit.

Prove it.

Show us objective evidence apart from your own bias that "music today is shit becauset it is shit" . . .

The org is an echo chamber full of people of refuse to engage with anything that doesn't directly confirm their preconceived notions. You're doing great work but it never ends.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

mjscarousal said:

Adele got not one but TWO DIAMOND albums in this digital era. Garth Brooks just got a diamond album. Record labels need to stop blaming these streaming services and really look further into the REAL root of why people aren't buying albums. The problem is todays music is shit and they rely on controversy and drama to sell records instead of quality music, those are the facts. If Adele can get TWO Diamond albums back to back that tells me people are willing to buy music if they feel its worth buying.

Truth. The music industry killed itself. Nothing has really changed since 2000. Same formulas, same music. Autotuned to death.

In a sense, your post is true. In a sense, because you agree with Carousal's biased and unfounded
opinion, your post is not true. The music industry did kill itself: it whined and complained about
MTV. Then it whine and complained about mp3s. And then it whined and complained and then had
the nerve to start suing its own damn customers over peer-to-peer file sharing. In all three instances,
the recording arts industry lost a foothold within the marketplace.

I'm not going to cry for broke musicians, since I am one. This is the nature of the beast when it
comes to conducting business in a free market: you either monetize however you can or shut the fuck
up. And, just like I said: there are tons of recording artists able to eke out a living today because of
Youtube, streaming, live shows/touring, publishing, etc. simply because the internet has gotten rid of
the middle man (record companies) who are now licking their wounds like big crybabies; so, I ain't

gonna cry for suits either. Meanwhile, you have old farts, like some of our own Orgers, who are
pissed off because they are simply getting old.

Pop music is not for old people. It is for young people. My grandpa hated Jimi Hendrix and the Beat-
les, but my mom and dad loved them. My mom and dad hated Jodeci and 2Pac, but I love them. I do
not like Frank Ocean or Beyonce, but my nieces and nephews love them.

Dasein said:

laurarichardson said:

No the music today is shit becauset it is shit.

Prove it.

Show us objective evidence apart from your own bias that "music today is shit becauset it is shit" . . .

today's music is shit plain and simple. Same formula since 2000. Autotune to cover for the fact that the majority of today's music stars simply cannot sing. In the past you had megastars and megabands that were megastars because they were talented and were creating innovative and creative sounds. today you have the same producers making mostly the same sounding music for the Pop princesses and even rap is autotuned to death. In the past there were sound effects on people's voices but it was used in a creative way and not used because the person had no vocal abilities.

I disagree with LauraRichardson 98% of the time, this time I agree with her 1000000%

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Dasein said:

Prove it.

Show us objective evidence apart from your own bias that "music today is shit becauset it is shit" . . .

today's music is shit plain and simple. Same formula since 2000. Autotune to cover for the fact that the majority of today's music stars simply cannot sing. In the past you had megastars and megabands that were megastars because they were talented and were creating innovative and creative sounds. today you have the same producers making mostly the same sounding music for the Pop princesses and even rap is autotuned to death. In the past there were sound effects on people's voices but it was used in a creative way and not used because the person had no vocal abilities.

I disagree with LauraRichardson 98% of the time, this time I agree with her 1000000%

Supa, you can't prove with any objective facts based upon anything other than your own preference
that today's music is "shit plain and simple." All you're really saying is "I prefer A over B" as there is
no evidence rendered that makes it universally and empirically factual that today's music is worse or
better than any other time in history. In order for you to do that, you would have to listen to every
single song ever released, compare and contrast different eras, and then be able to explain why one
era was better than another compositionally and lyrically and otherwise. But, you simply do not have
the ability or the time to do that. I'm willing to wager that you are just like most fans of music: you
like what you like and you cannot explain why you like what you like beyond stating: "Because, I just
do." I am a musician and I like ninths, so I really appreciate Billy Joel's "Allentown." But, just be-
cause I know that that particular song features ninths doesn't mean that those songs that don't
feature the same tones are not as good. It's simply a preference!

We had megabands and megastars because the business model allowed for megabands and mega-
stars to exist. The marketplace is simply too big for that to be the case today. And, your argument
about "autotune" is simply further proof that you are arguing taste (i.e., preference) more than any-
thing else.

Dasein said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

today's music is shit plain and simple. Same formula since 2000. Autotune to cover for the fact that the majority of today's music stars simply cannot sing. In the past you had megastars and megabands that were megastars because they were talented and were creating innovative and creative sounds. today you have the same producers making mostly the same sounding music for the Pop princesses and even rap is autotuned to death. In the past there were sound effects on people's voices but it was used in a creative way and not used because the person had no vocal abilities.

I disagree with LauraRichardson 98% of the time, this time I agree with her 1000000%

Supa, you can't prove with any objective facts based upon anything other than your own preference
that today's music is "shit plain and simple." All you're really saying is "I prefer A over B" as there is
no evidence rendered that makes it universally and empirically factual that today's music is worse or
better than any other time in history. In order for you to do that, you would have to listen to every
single song ever released, compare and contrast different eras, and then be able to explain why one
era was better than another compositionally and lyrically and otherwise. But, you simply do not have
the ability or the time to do that. I'm willing to wager that you are just like most fans of music: you
like what you like and you cannot explain why you like what you like beyond stating: "Because, I just
do." I am a musician and I like ninths, so I really appreciate Billy Joel's "Allentown." But, just be-
cause I know that that particular song features ninths doesn't mean that those songs that don't
feature the same tones are not as good. It's simply a preference!

We had megabands and megastars because the business model allowed for megabands and mega-
stars to exist. The marketplace is simply too big for that to be the case today. And, your argument
about "autotune" is simply further proof that you are arguing taste (i.e., preference) more than any-
thing else.

Likewise, you cannot prove that today's music isn't shit. and I might not know technical terms because I do not play music, I love music for so much more that just because I like it. One of the things I love the most about Led Zeppelin's music is the timing. There is math and equations in their music. the average music lover wouldn't even think about music in that way so I am in no way a lazy listener.

[Edited 7/24/17 10:37am]

[Edited 7/24/17 10:37am]

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Dasein said:

Supa, you can't prove with any objective facts based upon anything other than your own preference
that today's music is "shit plain and simple." All you're really saying is "I prefer A over B" as there is
no evidence rendered that makes it universally and empirically factual that today's music is worse or
better than any other time in history. In order for you to do that, you would have to listen to every
single song ever released, compare and contrast different eras, and then be able to explain why one
era was better than another compositionally and lyrically and otherwise. But, you simply do not have
the ability or the time to do that. I'm willing to wager that you are just like most fans of music: you
like what you like and you cannot explain why you like what you like beyond stating: "Because, I just
do." I am a musician and I like ninths, so I really appreciate Billy Joel's "Allentown." But, just be-
cause I know that that particular song features ninths doesn't mean that those songs that don't
feature the same tones are not as good. It's simply a preference!

We had megabands and megastars because the business model allowed for megabands and mega-
stars to exist. The marketplace is simply too big for that to be the case today. And, your argument
about "autotune" is simply further proof that you are arguing taste (i.e., preference) more than any-
thing else.

Likewise, you cannot prove that today's music isn't shit. and I might know technical terms because I do no play music, I love music for so much more that just because I like it. One of the things I love the most about Led Zeppelin's music is the timing. There is math and equations in their music. the average music lover wouldn't even think about music in that way.

. . . but I would never claim that today's music is or isn't shit. I know what I like and what I prefer
without saying that which I do not like or do not prefer is constituted of inherently inferior qualities.
You appreciating the timing of Led Zeppelin increases the valence you attach to the music, but the
timing of Led Zeppelin songs do not inherently possess any beauty or ugliness for you to attribute
those qualities to the songs in and of themselves. In other words: math is inherently not beautiful
or ugly. It just is.

Today's music is not shit. Today's music is not not shit. It's just music that you either prefer or you
do not. But you do not have the ability to tell us why Led Zeppelin's compositions are superior to
anything released by {fill in the blanks with any contemporary recording artist} for example. Even
the sophisticated compositions of Stevie Wonder, where he slips and slides in and out of different key
signatures due to his chromaticism is not inherently superior to Desiigner's "Panda" which doesn't
feature the same harmonic inventiveness.

I defy you to point out a modern composition and tell us how it is "shitty." What standard of music
composition are you appealing to in doing so? Most of you guys do not understand how to appreciate
and/or apprehend art outside of saying "yeah, it sucks" or "yeah, it's okay" or "yeah, it's good."

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Dasein said:

Prove it.

Show us objective evidence apart from your own bias that "music today is shit becauset it is shit" . . .

today's music is shit plain and simple. Same formula since 2000. Autotune to cover for the fact that the majority of today's music stars simply cannot sing. In the past you had megastars and megabands that were megastars because they were talented and were creating innovative and creative sounds. today you have the same producers making mostly the same sounding music for the Pop princesses and even rap is autotuned to death. In the past there were sound effects on people's voices but it was used in a creative way and not used because the person had no vocal abilities.

I disagree with LauraRichardson 98% of the time, this time I agree with her 1000000%

Excellent post.

I would also add, pop stars today are mostly famous for WHO they are on social media and branding versus their actual music. That is why you can't replicate the super stars of the past because they are were super stars because of their MUSIC.

laurarichardson said:

Dasein said:

Not true.

Back in the late 90s, and early aughts, bands like N*Sync and the Backstreet Boys would sell
a million albums in one week; are you suggesting that people purchased those albums simply
because they were "quality music"? No, you wouldn't. N*Sync was just like everybody else
in pop music: they released an album with one to three really good tunes while the remaining
were simply decent or godawful. Michael Jackson did it; Prince did it; the Beatles did it; Madon-
na did it; Stevie did it; Bowie did it; Earth, Wind, & Fire did it; Sly did it. All of them released
albums, most of the time, that had one to three awesome songs and the rest were just okay.

Instead of looking the paradigm shift in the recording industry as a "problem" with "today's music,"
you would be better off by looking at it as simply a paradigm shift with the acknowledgment that
you are biased: you prefer the music you grew up with during your youth. Nobody in this forum,
you or even yours truly, has the ability or wherewithal to articulate cogently and coherently, why
today's music is "shit" without appealing entirely to preference.

No the music today is shit becauset it is shit. I know young people who listen to oldies instead of the music their generation

So do I, I know plenty who don't care for today's music and that is probably why they don't buy it and instead stream.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

mjscarousal said:

Adele got not one but TWO DIAMOND albums in this digital era. Garth Brooks just got a diamond album. Record labels need to stop blaming these streaming services and really look further into the REAL root of why people aren't buying albums. The problem is todays music is shit and they rely on controversy and drama to sell records instead of quality music, those are the facts. If Adele can get TWO Diamond albums back to back that tells me people are willing to buy music if they feel its worth buying.

Truth. The music industry killed itself. Nothing has really changed since 2000. Same formulas, same music. Autotuned to death.

I agree 100%

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Likewise, you cannot prove that today's music isn't shit. and I might not know technical terms because I do not play music, I love music for so much more that just because I like it. One of the things I love the most about Led Zeppelin's music is the timing. There is math and equations in their music. the average music lover wouldn't even think about music in that way so I am in no way a lazy listener.

[Edited 7/24/17 10:37am]

[Edited 7/24/17 10:37am]

The org has changed over the last decade. A lot of the orgers that frequent this site have shit taste and are hyprocrites. Its not the music elite site it use to be. There are a lot people here who like mediocrity, mediocre music, entertainment etc. Just look at the people that they stan for on this site, Beyonce, Kanye West, Jay Z, Weekend BUT then they turn around and are overly critical of Michael Jackson, Madonna, Janet and other great artists. So its not shocking to me that they don't think trashy pop music is not the root of the dying industry's problem. They even trash Prince on his OWN site (this shocked me ), just keep that in mind when you go back in forth with these people.

laurarichardson said:

No the music today is shit becauset it is shit. I know young people who listen to oldies instead of the music their generation

Chile stop. I saw a old youtube commenter talking about the Jackson 5 and the Motown sound was shitty and not as good as music in the 50's. Its generation to generation.

mjscarousal said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Likewise, you cannot prove that today's music isn't shit. and I might not know technical terms because I do not play music, I love music for so much more that just because I like it. One of the things I love the most about Led Zeppelin's music is the timing. There is math and equations in their music. the average music lover wouldn't even think about music in that way so I am in no way a lazy listener.

[Edited 7/24/17 10:37am]

[Edited 7/24/17 10:37am]

The org has changed over the last decade. A lot of the orgers that frequent this site have shit taste and are hyprocrites. Its not the music elite site it use to be. There are a lot people here who like mediocrity, mediocre music, entertainment etc. Just look at the people that they stan for on this site, Beyonce, Kanye West, Jay Z, Weekend BUT then they turn around and are overly critical of Michael Jackson, Madonna, Janet and other great artists. So its not shocking to me that they don't think trashy pop music is not the root of the dying industry's problem. They even trash Prince on his OWN site (this shocked me ), just keep that in mind when you go back in forth with these people.

OMG, the Beyonce threads. Pure comedy!

paisleypark4 said:

laurarichardson said:

No the music today is shit becauset it is shit. I know young people who listen to oldies instead of the music their generation

Chile stop. I saw a old youtube commenter talking about the Jackson 5 and the Motown sound was shitty and not as good as music in the 50's. Its generation to generation.

[Snip - luv4u]

Dasein said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Truth. The music industry killed itself. Nothing has really changed since 2000. Same formulas, same music. Autotuned to death.

In a sense, your post is true. In a sense, because you agree with Carousal's biased and unfounded
opinion, your post is not true. The music industry did kill itself: it whined and complained about
MTV. Then it whine and complained about mp3s. And then it whined and complained and then had
the nerve to start suing its own damn customers over peer-to-peer file sharing. In all three instances,
the recording arts industry lost a foothold within the marketplace.

I'm not going to cry for broke musicians, since I am one. This is the nature of the beast when it
comes to conducting business in a free market: you either monetize however you can or shut the fuck
up. And, just like I said: there are tons of recording artists able to eke out a living today because of
Youtube, streaming, live shows/touring, publishing, etc. simply because the internet has gotten rid of
the middle man (record companies) who are now licking their wounds like big crybabies; so, I ain't

gonna cry for suits either. Meanwhile, you have old farts, like some of our own Orgers, who are
pissed off because they are simply getting old.

Pop music is not for old people. It is for young people. My grandpa hated Jimi Hendrix and the Beat-
les, but my mom and dad loved them. My mom and dad hated Jodeci and 2Pac, but I love them. I do
not like Frank Ocean or Beyonce, but my nieces and nephews love them.