I recently caught a "ultimate albums" show, and it was on ACDC Back in Black, they were discussing that at its peak it was selling 10,000 copies a day. So it was basically selling about 70,000 units a week, which placed it in the Top 10, which is exactly where it would land today. To further this theory, i caught a special on Bon Jovi's Slippery When Wet and at its peak it was selling about 100,000 a week placing it at number 1, which is where it would land today or at least Top 5. So really the days of Sales arent down, its the fact that "Consistent" sellers and artists are down. Nowadays there is so much hype over a record and so many other factors brought in that there is this INSTANT big first week and then its pretty much over. The problem, mainly its the "flava" of the week mentality, that didnt exist back in the days of the two records i mentioned. So the theory that sales are down is a Lie, labels lose money because of the amount of people involved in a Record, the lawyers, the videos, the media push, the ads, etc.. For a major artist that gets all this "type" of push, like a Beyonce or Janet, they pretty much have to sell about 10-20 million worldwide to break even. But like i have said before if U took away all "the middle men" Cd's could sell for about 5-7 dollars, like a record used too and depend on the artists ability as ARTISTS to push their own records, internet, PLAYING shows.

stop offering crazy millon dollar contracts and all is solved. there is nothing so important about music that anybody involved (biz assoc or musicians) needs to make millions of dollars.

i bet if we paid teachers a fraction of that money we'd have a much smarter society.

.
[Edited 6/14/06 11:21am]

sallysassalot said:

Very true. But i think with the advent of things like "pimp my ride" "cribs" "american Idol" and all those type shows, everyone thinks they can be a quick millionaire. And then there are these EXECS that are searching for it. Talent and actually STRUGGLING dont play a part anymore. That on top of the fact Music is more business now than it ever was, a person is given a contract if a label think it can sell a 100,000 in its first week, but i think people are SLOWLY catching on to this.

Don't new artists get advance money or something like that?

I read that Kate Bush refused advance money during the time (coof...decade) she has recordid Aerial!

miguelbulcao said:

you mean don't they allow themselves to be bought? yes. people will do anything for an instant dollar. "normal" people do it with credit cards all the time.

Well every deal is different. I think if labels want to survive they really have to start looking for talent, Instead of just giving contracts to American Idol winners because they know they will sell a quick million. The point is that a consistent artist is better than a quick sell. I know that ALOT of people feel Longevity is a thing of the past, basically the artists from my generation, the 80's that still play and make new music (whether its a big "seller" or not) still are consistent regardless of what a chart says. But what will happen when those artists just stop recording, I mean when Madonna, Prince, Janet, Jovi, Duran, a-ha, Elton, and the countless others that still record are gone what will there be.....a 40 year old Rihanna??? how will the label market that?

sallysassalot said:

Everyday people are so clueless of operating costs. Putting on a multi-city tour, getting a music video made, airing it (without payola), CD manufactering and distribution on a large scale, so on and so forth. A million dollars ain't ssshhh***tttt!

If teachers were paid according to the measure of quality and effectiveness then yes, we'd have much smarter kids but that has absolutely NOTHING to do with artists' contracts since that money comes from peoples' disposable income as opposed to teachers' salaries, which come from tax dollars.

BlaqueKnight said:

Well i think "payola" has to be factored in since if its a major artist, labels do BUY their radio and Video time, that is a fact. Everyone from Green Day to Mariah in the last few years were among the biggest $$$ that labels bought time for.

lastdecember said:

My point was that you can easily get into the millions without including payola. Of course, realistically you'd HAVE to include it.

BlaqueKnight said:

Exactly that is the "real" MTV Generation "Pimp what U got". On the Christina point i think she could have moved that same number on her popularity selling it herself, but now when people see a Label DROPS u they associate Platnum and Gold with "talent".

Music sales arent down, the fact that Downloading is up and ITUNES is such a big deal, all that $$$ is going to the label, the labels are still getting paid and download sales count, its just the accounting of it is just not in synch. I have never bought into Labels and how they suffer, its the way they do business that is the problem, there is so much waste and thats why they go under. The Fact is according to Sounscan an album that is number 1 today is selling more than it was selling 10-20 years ago is proof that sales arent down the way of doing business is down. Where is say in the 80's , you would have the artist, a cheap video, a manager, and that was really it, all of this Extra media attention that has come about is all new, now theres about a hundred people that have to get paid where as back then maybe 10, and this is why U pay so much for a cd. And alot of these artists back in the day, basically put up their own $$ when they toured.

Well, you also have to take into account that spending is much higher than 10-20 years ago. Artists are making music videos that use the same technology as movies and that mess ain't cheap. You're 100% right about where the money goes. Its all of the greedy middlemen that claim they are "needed" and are on staff at the label and valued more than the artist when they generate 0 capital themselves. Did you know that record companies don't profit? Nope. Not at all. Ask any accountant. Record companies are ALWAYS in the black at tax time. They do this deliberately. They must move major units, execs must be paid high saleries, a big production must be done and if there's anything left over, an artist may get a little - but not likely. At tax time, all the dough spent gets written off as a loss. The amount of units moving is disproportionate to the amount of spending so I guess you could say overall sales are down and spending is up. Mainstream sales are good, though.
[Edited 6/14/06 12:48pm]

Is there any hope for the money making sharks/executives to get bent and the industry get rid of them? Or is there no relief in sight..?

I'm so tired of hearing about the next big IT person!!!!!

I think where sales are down are at the Store Level, something i did for 17+ years, manage a record store. The fact that people download and buy from internet sites such as amazon, cd now etc. obviously hurt the stores, because what can they offer. I would say about 80-90% of people dont wanna deal with going to the store to get something, when they can download it, not have to travel to a store and maybe not find it, so I would suggest if u are thinking of going into any form of Music/Movie Retail DONT! All in all i dont feel sorry for the labels, because most of the artists that i listen to, pretty much manage their own careers, some of them are on labels but they have been at it for so long that they have their base that they sell to.

Another interesting thing is this singer i have talked to called "Miss Issa" now she is mainly an RB dance artist, which there are many of. But she isnt signed to a label she put together her own company from the ground up, she did smoe other stuff early on, modeling etc, to make money and get her face out there somewhat, and then she started a Myspace site which cost her nothing, she shot a music video which i think she said cost her about 5-10,000 and now she just started selling her cd through her site and in 2-3 weeks has sold about 40,000,. She has a following on her site of about 150,000, so in this day on a label 40,000 would get you dropped, but on her own, its worked very well.

But wans't the peak of sales during the teen pop/latin invasion period?

I don't remember albums selling one million on the first week (in the US) since that time!

What I can be sure is that the single format (physical cd-single) is dying in all markets, including Japan and the UK, where it was the most sucessful,

All I know is that CDs are sooooo `90s.

CinisterCee said:

precisely why prince's cd dropped off the face of the earth, even after his AI appearance. people want digital, they don't want a physical cd.

cassettes are sooooo 80s
8 tracks are sooooo 70s

sallysassalot said:

I don't think that's why. Prince's album needs hit singles constantly being played on radio. Then the CD would be a consistent seller.

CinisterCee said:

What about vinyl?

sextonseven said:

timeless

CinisterCee said:

sextonseven said:

my music collection is sooooo 90s

sextonseven said:

true, the cd would have performed much better on the charts if prince promoted it. even still, many of the kids watching AI use programs like itunes as their main source (if not only source) for new music. i'm sure he lost many sales when those kids went looking for the digital record online and couldn't find it.

when you're at risk of being seen as a fossil by the new audience the last thing you want to do is reinforce that image by refusing to "get with" the times.

sallysassalot said:

Is the demographic for AI really that young? Do kids make up the majority of Clay Aiken fans? I always got the impression that older people supported the winners. I don't know.

sextonseven said:

well i don't have statistics on AI's demographic but i don't know anyone over the age of 17 that owns anything by an AI star.