independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Four Mistakes That Killed the Record Indstry Before File Sharing
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 07/28/08 6:10pm

728huey

avatar

Four Mistakes That Killed the Record Indstry Before File Sharing

Here's another interesting article about how the recording industry sowed the seed of its own demise, except in this case it had to do with actions that came far before Napster, iTunes, file sharing, and digital downloading.

http://blogs.chron.com/br...d_the.html

Four Mistakes That Killed the Record Indstry Before File Sharing
by Jeff Balke

Most everyone who follows the record industry knows that it is slowly imploding and most don't care seeing as how its leaders have basically ignored technology and tried to sue people to push their profit margins back in line. But, the demise of the record industry actually began long before technology gave it the final push over the edge. It started in the 80's with the birth of the CD and the swallowing of independent record labels by major corporations to the point that now there are only four majors left.

In each critical moment, record labels had the opportunity to think ahead and look beyond their immediate revenue streams. Like many large corporations, they were unable to do so. As a result, they forgot that music is about people and they continue to ignore that fact at their own peril.

For myself, I believe the record industry - and this includes radio - made four mistakes that preceded their ignorance of technology and lawsuit happy antics of present day.

1. CD sales are not the same as record sales.

At first, this may seem like semantics, but my distinction is between the actual compact disc - the physical item - and the concept of a record - the music an artist records to put on a CD. When the CD was invented, profit margins for what were once moderate sized labels shot through the roof. If you had a back catalog of good music, you were about to become a millionaire if you weren't already because everyone was replacing their vinyl with CD's.

Record profits resulted and multi-national corporations took notice. In much the same way "dot com" start ups managed to convince venture capitalists to back questionable opportunities, independent labels began to entertain offers to sell themselves to the highest bidder. Corporations saw this as a long-term money making venture that would be great for their portfolio and their shareholders.

What they failed to realize is that the CD gravy train would soon come to an end as people finally replenished their collections and went back to their normal buying routines. The years of off the chart sales came to an abrupt end and corporations were stuck with bloated record divisions and they had no clue what to do - the end result when you replace creative minds seeking talent with bean counters seeking profit.

2. Longevity trumps the flavor of the week.

Because labels were feeling the pinch and because they were now subject to corporate budget constraints, annual reports and shareholders, they began to look for ways to cut costs. One of the first places they looked was artist development and promotion. I remember reading about how A&R departments were slashed to the bone and promotions departments saw their budgets cut dramatically.

Labels, in a desperate need to justify their existences, cut off their noses to spite their faces. Instead of trimming corporate expense accounts and the bloated salaries of their higher ups, they decided to rely on things like cross promotion, radio, television and other forms of media to do the legwork their promoters had done previously.

Worse yet, they focused on one-hit wonders and bubblegum pop to push profits ignoring their own rich history and tradition.

It's expensive to develop an artist. It is common knowledge that for every 12 artists signed to a label, 10 lose money, 1 breaks even and 1 makes enough to pay for the development of all the others put together. It's a really risky business. But, the small independent labels didn't care because they wanted to discover the next Bob Dylan or Bruce Springsteen. They knew that one major success could make up for a string of costly failures.

Unfortunately, that equation doesn't work in the corporate environment. You have to justify your budget every year, every quarter. If the only way to do that was to release lowest common denominator music that would sell fast but fade just as quickly, you did it.

They even managed to forget how they got to this point in the first place somehow missing that what are now termed "heritage" artists like Springsteen, Tom Petty and others were what sustained them over the long haul, not The Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears. Those were bands and musicians developed over years and they didn't come cheap, but they made up for it in the long run.

3. Destroying the chain of distribution is death.

For years, the way music got from artist to fan was the same. One department (A&R) would discover and develop artists helping them with everything from day-to-day expenses to making records. Another department (Promotions) would take the finished product and promote it using teams of college interns, radio promotions staff and others. They would pass the actual product on to distributors who would send their representatives to record stores to convince stores to buy records. The promotions interns would put up displays in the store and hold promotional events designed to help artist, distributor and record store. The employees at the store would talk to their customers and play the music in the store.

That system worked really well for a very long time. But, once again, the big corporations saw an opportunity to cut costs by making independent deals with big box retailers like Wal-Mart, Target and Best Buy. The result was the death of distribution companies and independent music stores (as seen today with the legendary Morninglory Music going under after 38 years in business) and even chain music stores. This may have seemed like a smart financial decision, but they got it wrong again.

What the suits failed to realize was that the chain of people working on selling music for them was key to making sales. Even now in the age of blogs, people still listen to what others suggest when it comes to buying music. Prior to the internet, those people included DJ's (we'll get to them in a second) and record store employees. After your friends, these were the people you trusted to know music.

Even worse, retailers like Target only put about 300 titles per year on shelves out of 3000 or more possible releases, honing it down to ONLY the most salable (according to them) artists and records. A good record store could not only steer you towards a great alt rock record, but also to a blues record that influenced that alt rock band you like so much.

I'm not naive. I realize that with iTunes and other forms of downloading, the days of the music store were rapidly coming to a close, but the labels, instead of acting as partners with stores as they always had, turned their backs on them prematurely before anyone had ever heard of an MP3 or Napster. It not only cost thousands of people their jobs, it placed limited stock on the shelves narrowing the choices for people even further. Like cutting development, they were forgetting that it takes more than just a pretty face and a catchy hook to sell records and the more options you put out there for people, the better your chances of developing artists who will sell for you for more than just a few years.

4. Killing the DJ

I think there is real truth to the idea that video killed the radio star, but the radio industry helped it along by killing off the primary link between listeners and stations: the dj.

Much like the chain of distribution, there was a long history of record label staffs sending music to radio stations where program directors and DJ's would play what they thought their audience wanted to hear. DJ's took chances and, as a result, broke artists for labels and made them an awful lot of money. There was always corruption and undue influence exerted on DJ's, but a large percentage were in it for the music.

When the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was signed into law, large corporate radio empires like Clear Channel destroyed the listener-DJ relationship by flooding markets with stations owned by a signle entity with programming decisions made at a regional level, far removed from the DJ and his/her show. DJ's were replaced with "on-air personalities" more about selling ad revenue than "spinning hot wax" as they used to say.

While the record industry may not have been directly involved, they sat by and did nothing and even encouraged the centralization of power because it made it cheaper for them to peddle music. They didn't have to call or visit hundreds of DJ's anymore. Now, they just went to a central nexus.

Just like destroying distribution removed variety from the shelves of retailers, centralizing programming ended variety as we once knew it on terrestrial radio. In the Steely Dan song "FM" they talk about how FM stations in the 70's would play pretty much anything from reggae to blues to rock and everything in between. It was all about the relationship between DJ and listener, between people. Once that relationship was destroyed and stations began playing the same narrow play list, people began to abandon radio in droves.

---

Long before the record industry was, in their estimation, attacked by downloaders and people believing music should be free, the record industry itself compromised its own business through questionable decisions, corruption and the corporatization of music. Art and commerce always have and always will have a tenuous relationship. But, when the pendulum swings so far to one side, it is no shock when it eventually comes flying back the other direction. So, record execs, the next time you look into a camera or into a room full of onlookers and try to tell us that file sharing and video games killed your business, don't waste your breath. Instead, take a look in the mirror and you'll probably find the culprit.


typing
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 07/28/08 7:07pm

Dance

The industry of today is in the business of creating props, nonmusic for them, and ghost careers that they can use to sell various products. That model couldn't have been created without MTV or shit hop.

They really could care less about sales(they've never cared about sales). The only reason DLs are an issue is records are part of creating a public identity for an artist. DLs strip the packaging and these acts become some random bit of noise(out of billions of random bits)that certainly won't sell phones, liquor, or t-shirts OR flood everything associated with the industry with that product money.

If MTV and shit hop never existed, I doubt the industry would have connected the dots. MTV is a damn commercial. Shit hop is a damn commercial with cheap, uninspired nonmusic. Without MTV and shit hop the public would have continued to expect and support the same things they did up until the mid/late 80s and the industry would have continued to operate much in the same way it did up until that point.
[Edited 7/28/08 19:10pm]
[Edited 7/31/08 15:51pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 07/28/08 8:54pm

meow85

avatar

Getting rid of the DJ's broke my heart, and I'm just barely old enough to remember properly it happening at the local stations. But one day I tuned into the local rock station, and George was gone; replaced by some...guy that spoke too fast. Not much later I noticed they were playing the same music over and over and over and over.....I still remember, every morning at 8:15 like clockwork, Clapton's "My Father's Eyes" would play in the spot where I used to be able to hear whateverthefuck George felt like playing that morning.
"A Watcher scoffs at gravity!"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 07/28/08 9:03pm

krayzie

avatar

Here we go again...

Another dumb ass thread to convince folks that the sharing issue and illegal downloading has nothing to do with the quick imploding of the music indsutry...

Yeah right you gonna see a lot of stupid ass folks in this thread ... And I see them coming already...

I don't have time now to respond, but I'll be there tomorrow..
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 07/28/08 9:09pm

meow85

avatar

krayzie said:

Here we go again...

Another dumb ass thread to convince folks that the sharing issue and illegal downloading has nothing to do with the quick imploding of the music indsutry...

Yeah right you gonna see a lot of stupid ass folks in this thread ... And I see them coming already...

I don't have time now to respond, but I'll be there tomorrow..

I think the point of the article is that it wasn't just one issue, but a cumulative effect from several fuckups that sounded the death knell.
"A Watcher scoffs at gravity!"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 07/28/08 9:22pm

guitarslinger4
4

avatar

krayzie said:

Here we go again...

Another dumb ass thread to convince folks that the sharing issue and illegal downloading has nothing to do with the quick imploding of the music indsutry...

Yeah right you gonna see a lot of stupid ass folks in this thread ... And I see them coming already...

I don't have time now to respond, but I'll be there tomorrow..


The body was already in the casket and the lid was closed. File sharing was just the nail that sealed it.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 07/28/08 9:41pm

Dance

guitarslinger44 said:

krayzie said:

Here we go again...

Another dumb ass thread to convince folks that the sharing issue and illegal downloading has nothing to do with the quick imploding of the music indsutry...

Yeah right you gonna see a lot of stupid ass folks in this thread ... And I see them coming already...

I don't have time now to respond, but I'll be there tomorrow..


The body was already in the casket and the lid was closed. File sharing was just the nail that sealed it.


The nail was there long before file sharing.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 07/28/08 10:53pm

purplesweat

How many goddamn threads do we need on this subject?

The music industry will be dead when no music is being made anymore - I believe it still is so just shut the hell up, listen to whatever you want to listen to and GET OVER IT for crying out loud.

There's plenty of good music out today, if you don't like the MTV aspect of it, DONT WATCH IT AND DONT KEEP TALKING ABOUT IT. All you do is KEEP it relevant!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 07/29/08 12:27am

SoulAlive

interesting article
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 07/29/08 2:53am

shorttrini

avatar

I also believe that the industry "Bigwigs, could have used the concept of "File Sharing to their advantage much, much sooner. Why didn't they see the concept of file sharing before it came to pass, is beyond me.
"Love is like peeing in your pants, everyone sees it but only you feel its warmth"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 07/29/08 3:38am

eaglebear4839

basically it boils down to one word: ego. The corporate world and record execs never like to see anything go over that they themselves didn't "create" (translation: found and claimed like it was their own). Like in those old sitcom episodes, where the theme is Johnny Q. Main Character comes up with an idea, his boss doesn't like the sound of it, but then a few seconds later, comes up with the exact same idea, only worded differently, and everyone rushes to kiss his ass. These fools are now paying a hefty price in the digital age, and they will never recover.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 07/29/08 6:47am

chewwsey

I can kind of see, after reading this article where the dj comes up, how that could mess up the music industry. a lot of times the "on air" personality isn't even into that kind of music played at that station, and neither is the program director. so Yeah, there is something to think about there.

I hope that the record industry do a better job of selecting CEO's or whomever is supposed to make sure artists get their due.
nipsy
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 07/31/08 2:04pm

krayzie

avatar

728huey said:

Here's another interesting article about how the recording industry sowed the seed of its own demise, except in this case it had to do with actions that came far before Napster, iTunes, file sharing, and digital downloading.


This article is a pathetic and shameful attempt to put the blame of the decline music industry on record labels...

Of course stupid people would be with the idea that they had nothing to do with the decline of record slaes...

Give a me break...


728huey said:


Most everyone who follows the record industry knows that it is slowly imploding and most don't care seeing as how its leaders have basically ignored technology and tried to sue people to push their profit margins back in line.


First of all, the record industry has always ignored technology simply because record labels are only supposed to sell music... Record labels are not manufacturers of electronic products like Sony or Panasonic...

And I don't see how record labels could "control" technology...

Blaming record labels for ignoring technology is like blaming motion picture and home video companies for ignoring the emergence of videocassette recorders...

728huey said:

But, the demise of the record industry actually began long before technology gave it the final push over the edge. It started in the 80's with the birth of the CD and the swallowing of independent record labels by major corporations to the point that now there are only four majors left.


Complete bullshit, the birth of CD has nothing to do with the demise of the music industry. And as a fact, the birth of the CD gave opportunity to independent labels to challenge major labels...

And the guy writting this garbage article talks like if record labels created CD, record labels had nothing with the birth of the CD...

The CD was created and supported by the big electronic corporation to push electronic products...

And please it was in the early 1990s that we saw a resurgence of indie groups well after the CD became the common music format...


728huey said:

In each critical moment, record labels had the opportunity to think ahead and look beyond their immediate revenue streams. Like many large corporations, they were unable to do so. As a result, they forgot that music is about people and they continue to ignore that fact at their own peril.


Music is not about the people but about artists... And the people continue to ignore that fact ...


728huey said:

For myself, I believe the record industry - and this includes radio - made four mistakes that preceded their ignorance of technology and lawsuit happy antics of present day.

1. CD sales are not the same as record sales.

At first, this may seem like semantics, but my distinction is between the actual compact disc - the physical item - and the concept of a record - the music an artist records to put on a CD. When the CD was invented, profit margins for what were once moderate sized labels shot through the roof. If you had a back catalog of good music, you were about to become a millionaire if you weren't already because everyone was replacing their vinyl with CD's.


Wrong, again, first of all, LABELS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COMPACT DISC... It was electronic manufacturers that pushed for this new CD format, electronic companies were searching for a new format to boost the sales of hi fi home systems...

Remember that the Vynil format lasted over a CENTURY...


728huey said:



Record profits resulted and multi-national corporations took notice. In much the same way "dot com" start ups managed to convince venture capitalists to back questionable opportunities, independent labels began to entertain offers to sell themselves to the highest bidder. Corporations saw this as a long-term money making venture that would be great for their portfolio and their shareholders.


The guy who wrote this article is showing his ignorance. Pure ignorance ...
Multi national corporations have always tried to diversify their investments by owning record labels


If I can remember the first big corpororation to purchase a major record company was CBS way before the 80's...

And it has nothing to do with "dot com" start ups (what the fuck this guy is talking about ???)... Major labels were already established and profitable companies unlike "start ups"...

728huey said:

What they failed to realize is that the CD gravy train would soon come to an end as people finally replenished their collections and went back to their normal buying routines. The years of off the chart sales came to an abrupt end and corporations were stuck with bloated record divisions and they had no clue what to do - the end result when you replace creative minds seeking talent with bean counters seeking profit.



What the fuck this guy is talking, this guy is even inventing stuff... LOL
Again wrong, The highest peak of CD sales was the year 2000, pretty much over a decade after the first CD players were commercialzed...

The matter of fact, the sales of CDs never stop growing until the digital technology appeared in the late 90's...


What an idiot... And I'm sure a lot of idiots will buy that piece of crap...

728huey said:

2. Longevity trumps the flavor of the week.

Because labels were feeling the pinch and because they were now subject to corporate budget constraints, annual reports and shareholders, they began to look for ways to cut costs. One of the first places they looked was artist development and promotion. I remember reading about how A&R departments were slashed to the bone and promotions departments saw their budgets cut dramatically.


This guy knows nothing, the matter of fact the biggest music contracts were signed in the 90's, when almost all the biggest labels were owned by big corporations

Remember Madonna? Janet Jackson ? Michael jackson ? prince ?

The matter of fact the 90's was the decade where artists made the biggest amount of money from contracts and it was the decade when record labels would spend themost to promote artists...

Remember History the most expensive album ever ? Remember The music video Scream ? At that time albums were over-produced, and over-budgeted...

So when did they begin to look for ways to cut costs ???

This guy is a joke...


728huey said:

Labels, in a desperate need to justify their existences, cut off their noses to spite their faces. Instead of trimming corporate expense accounts and the bloated salaries of their higher ups, they decided to rely on things like cross promotion, radio, television and other forms of media to do the legwork their promoters had done previously.

Worse yet, they focused on one-hit wonders and bubblegum pop to push profits ignoring their own rich history and tradition.


One-hit wonders and bubble gum acts have always existed for ages... Since maybe the heavy developpment of music labels , major labels have always tried to

And of course they had to rely on things like cross promotion and other forms of media


728huey said:


It's expensive to develop an artist. It is common knowledge that for every 12 artists signed to a label, 10 lose money, 1 breaks even and 1 makes enough to pay for the development of all the others put together. It's a really risky business. But, the small independent labels didn't care because they wanted to discover the next Bob Dylan or Bruce Springsteen. They knew that one major success could make up for a string of costly failures.


Pfff, pathetic and completely caricatural....

First of all indie labels care about money , they just don't have ENOUGH money to promote heavily their own artists like big labels, so they prefer to target a very short and tiny market... This the job of indie labels, targeting specific music genre for a specific and small audience... It has nothing to do with discovering the next Bob Dylan or Bruce Springsteen... lol

And please Brue Springteen and Bob Dylan are major label artists who sold millions of records...

What an ass...

728huey said:

Unfortunately, that equation doesn't work in the corporate environment. You have to justify your budget every year, every quarter. If the only way to do that was to release lowest common denominator music that would sell fast but fade just as quickly, you did it.


Now I agree...
You have to justify your budget every year



728huey said:

They even managed to forget how they got to this point in the first place somehow missing that what are now termed "heritage" artists like Springsteen, Tom Petty and others were what sustained them over the long haul, not The Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears. Those were bands and musicians developed over years and they didn't come cheap, but they made up for it in the long run.


Utterly wrong, The job of record labels is to sell records... The problem is the music is changing constantly ...

And record labels have to adapt to these changes...


Decades ago what people want was artists like Bruce and Tom Petty, but like I said before, music has changed since then and now they want something else...

Labels are not responsible for that...

Make no mistake, labels would love to push talents like Bruce, but they know that it's not gonna sell anymore...

728huey said:

3. Destroying the chain of distribution is death.

For years, the way music got from artist to fan was the same. One department (A&R) would discover and develop artists helping them with everything from day-to-day expenses to making records. Another department (Promotions) would take the finished product and promote it using teams of college interns, radio promotions staff and others. They would pass the actual product on to distributors who would send their representatives to record stores to convince stores to buy records. The promotions interns would put up displays in the store and hold promotional events designed to help artist, distributor and record store. The employees at the store would talk to their customers and play the music in the store.

That system worked really well for a very long time. But, once again, the big corporations saw an opportunity to cut costs by making independent deals with big box retailers like Wal-Mart, Target and Best Buy. The result was the death of distribution companies and independent music stores (as seen today with the legendary Morninglory Music going under after 38 years in business) and even chain music stores. This may have seemed like a smart financial decision, but they got it wrong again.


First of all, the big corporations never cut costs by making independent deals with

But the writer shows how hypocrite and dishonest he is

The article that he is mentionning clearly explains that Morninglory Music went under because after 38 years in business is not because of big box retailers but ILLEGAL downloads, young kids don't buy music anymore... It has nothing to do WalMArt

The matter of fact small retailers could still survive because just like you said righfully big retailers like Target only put the most salable names, while small retailers could be specialized on local/indie artists and wider catalog...


728huey said:


What the suits failed to realize was that the chain of people working on selling music for them was key to making sales. Even now in the age of blogs, people still listen to what others suggest when it comes to buying music. Prior to the internet, those people included DJ's (we'll get to them in a second) and record store employees. After your friends, these were the people you trusted to know music.

Even worse, retailers like Target only put about 300 titles per year on shelves out of 3000 or more possible releases, honing it down to ONLY the most salable (according to them) artists and records. A good record store could not only steer you towards a great alt rock record, but also to a blues record that influenced that alt rock band you like so much.

I'm not naive. I realize that with iTunes and other forms of downloading, the days of the music store were rapidly coming to a close, but the labels, instead of acting as partners with stores as they always had, turned their backs on them prematurely before anyone had ever heard of an MP3 or Napster. It not only cost thousands of people their jobs, it placed limited stock on the shelves narrowing the choices for people even further. Like cutting development, they were forgetting that it takes more than just a pretty face and a catchy hook to sell records and the more options you put out there for people, the better your chances of developing artists who will sell for you for more than just a few years.


The guy is naive and stupid, why blaming companies if the guy knew that that with iTunes and other forms of downloading, the days of the music store were rapidly coming to a close ????

Dumb ass



728huey said:

4. Killing the DJ

I think there is real truth to the idea that video killed the radio star, but the radio industry helped it along by killing off the primary link between listeners and stations: the dj.

Much like the chain of distribution, there was a long history of record label staffs sending music to radio stations where program directors and DJ's would play what they thought their audience wanted to hear. DJ's took chances and, as a result, broke artists for labels and made them an awful lot of money. There was always corruption and undue influence exerted on DJ's, but a large percentage were in it for the music.

When the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was signed into law, large corporate radio empires like Clear Channel destroyed the listener-DJ relationship by flooding markets with stations owned by a signle entity with programming decisions made at a regional level, far removed from the DJ and his/her show. DJ's were replaced with "on-air personalities" more about selling ad revenue than "spinning hot wax" as they used to say.

While the record industry may not have been directly involved, they sat by and did nothing and even encouraged the centralization of power because it made it cheaper for them to peddle music. They didn't have to call or visit hundreds of DJ's anymore. Now, they just went to a central nexus.

Just like destroying distribution removed variety from the shelves of retailers, centralizing programming ended variety as we once knew it on terrestrial radio. In the Steely Dan song "FM" they talk about how FM stations in the 70's would play pretty much anything from reggae to blues to rock and everything in between. It was all about the relationship between DJ and listener, between people. Once that relationship was destroyed and stations began playing the same narrow play list, people began to abandon radio in droves.


Now I agree with you on that but you argument goes short since Labels had nothing to do with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and since then internet gave opportunity to endless choices online...

So this point is irrelevant,just like the rest...

728huey said:

---

Long before the record industry was, in their estimation, attacked by downloaders and people believing music should be free, the record industry itself compromised its own business through questionable decisions, corruption and the corporatization of music. Art and commerce always have and always will have a tenuous relationship. But, when the pendulum swings so far to one side, it is no shock when it eventually comes flying back the other direction. So, record execs, the next time you look into a camera or into a room full of onlookers and try to tell us that file sharing and video games killed your business, don't waste your breath. Instead, take a look in the mirror and you'll probably find the culprit.
[/color]

typing


Garbage... Long before the record industry was, in RIGHT estimation, attacked by downloaders , the music was healthy and artists were selling millions of records and making tons of cash... Period

The matter of fact what specifically killed the music is

1 The emergence of digital audio format
2 The quick development of Internet
3 The quick development of PCs
4 The infinite possibility of sharing music for free online (napster/emule/rapidshareetc)
5 The emergence affordable digital players (Ipods)

And it happened all at the same moment...

This is the combination of all these elements that killed so fast the music indsutry...

So even if the music industry would have followed the (stupid) ideas of this guy who wrote that article, it would have ended the same...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 07/31/08 2:12pm

Graycap23

The article makes some valid points but if left quite a bit out. That said, I don't believe I've heard very many cd's WORTH my money. Or let me put it 2 u this way, when I hear something really GOOD, I go out and BUY the cd.
Prince, Mint Condition, Ledisi, Meshell and others still command me actually buying their product.

It's pretty simple 2 me. Free does NOT awlays mean good.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 07/31/08 2:17pm

vainandy

avatar

1. Shitney Houston
2. Shit Hop
3. Radio Monopolies
4. Record Label Merges and Monopolies
Andy is a four letter word.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 07/31/08 2:52pm

krayzie

avatar

Dance said:

The industry of today is in the business of creating props, nonmusic for them, and ghost careers that they can use to sell various products. That model couldn't have been created without MTV or shit hop.


You see, I told yall there would a lot of stupid ass folks in this thread

Dance said:


They really could care less about sales(they've never cared about sales).


Of course they care about sales, this is their most important source of revenue


If they don't care about selling records, tell me what do they care ? lol

Dance said:

The only reason DLs are an issue is records are part of creating a public identity for an artist.



The only reason ???
Wait, there are tons of artists with a strong identity who are also suffering from illegal DLs... Or maybe you're stupid enough to believe that if ALL artists had strong identity, people would stop downloading music for illegally ??? Are you stupid enough to believe that ?


Dance said:

DLs strip the packaging and these acts become some random bit of noise(out of THOUSANDS of random bits)that certainly won't sell phones, liquor, or t-shirts OR flood everything associated with the industry with that product money.


That's true DLs strip the packaging but major labels have nothing to do with that...

Dance said:[quote]If MTV and shit hop never existed, I doubt the industry would have connected the dots. MTV is a damn commercial. Shit hop is a damn commercial with cheap, uninspired nonmusic. Without MTV and shit hop the public would have continued to expect and support the same things they did up until the mid/late 80s and the industry would have continued to operate much in the same way it did up until that point.

What a fuck you talk about ? What your shit hop and MTV have to do with the fact that records sales have declined the past 8 years ???


lol
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 07/31/08 3:07pm

krayzie

avatar

Graycap23 said:

The article makes some valid points but if left quite a bit out. That said, I don't believe I've heard very many cd's WORTH my money. Or let me put it 2 u this way, when I hear something really GOOD, I go out and BUY the cd.
Prince, Mint Condition, Ledisi, Meshell and others still command me actually buying their product.

It's pretty simple 2 me. Free does NOT awlays mean good.


LOL

Oh not that weak ass argument again... There's nothing more hypocrital than blaming poor music quality to explain the sudden decline of CD sales...

Are you assuming that if music was extraordinary good, artists would sell records by millions like in the good old days ???? And everybody would prefer to spend 15 dollars over downloading music for free ?... Give me a break.... Who's stupid enough to buy that ???

The highest peak of CD sales was year 2000, and who were the top selling acts : Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, Christina Aguilera and N Sync


That argument is the dumbest ever made... lol

Good or Bad music, artists will never sell anymore...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 07/31/08 3:15pm

Bishop31

avatar

krayzie said:


Are you assuming that if music was extraordinary good, artists would sell records by millions like in the good old days ???? And everybody would prefer to spend 15 dollars over downloading music for free ?... Give me a break.... Who's stupid enough to buy that ???

The highest peak of CD sales was year 2000, and who were the top selling acts : Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, Christina Aguilera and N Sync


That argument is the dumbest ever made... lol

Good or Bad music, artists will never sell anymore...


Sad. But oh so true.
mad
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 07/31/08 4:14pm

Dance

Bishop31 said:

Sad. But oh so true. mad


Why is that sad?

shorttrini said:

I also believe that the industry "Bigwigs, could have used the concept of "File Sharing to their advantage much, much sooner. Why didn't they see the concept of file sharing before it came to pass, is beyond me.


People say this, but do you really believe that?

I mean file sharing was a response to the gouging.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 07/31/08 4:32pm

guitarslinger4
4

avatar

krayzie said:

A bunch of naive stuff


So which label do you work for? lol

Fact of the matter is, corporations (of which some are record labels) do a lot of lobbying and I wouldn't be surprised if they DID have something to do with the Telecommunications Act Of 1996. Either way, it made their job easier.

As for the birth of the CD, labels sold the idea of CDs. If there hadn't been any CDs out to buy, the CD format would have died an early death like the Minidisc did. But labels capitalized on this new technology that had better sound quality, was smaller, and more resilient than vinyl or tapes. And might I remind you that Sony is one of the "Big 4" labels and was also a major player in pushing CD based technology.

Downloading is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. Greed is the big problem. Record companies were used to the excess of the 70's and 80's and as such, spent money with reckless abandon. The 90's rolled around and they had to make up for what they spent, and started signing anyone they thought might have a big single in them (notice I said big single and not "long career"). As a result, overpriced CDs were coming out with one or two good songs on them and people were pissed. The internet and computer technology put the power in the people's hands.

Anyway, you need to re-read the article because you obviously didn't get it.
confused
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 07/31/08 4:46pm

Bishop31

avatar

Dance said:

Bishop31 said:

Sad. But oh so true. mad


Why is that sad?

shorttrini said:

I also believe that the industry "Bigwigs, could have used the concept of "File Sharing to their advantage much, much sooner. Why didn't they see the concept of file sharing before it came to pass, is beyond me.


People say this, but do you really believe that?

I mean file sharing was a response to the gouging.


It's sad for the Artists who create good music & yet can't feed they're family, because it's not "Commercial" enough.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 07/31/08 4:49pm

laurarichardso
n

purplesweat said:

How many goddamn threads do we need on this subject?

The music industry will be dead when no music is being made anymore - I believe it still is so just shut the hell up, listen to whatever you want to listen to and GET OVER IT for crying out loud.

There's plenty of good music out today, if you don't like the MTV aspect of it, DONT WATCH IT AND DONT KEEP TALKING ABOUT IT. All you do is KEEP it relevant!

-----
So we should all put our heads in the sand and pretend certain things are not going on. eek
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 07/31/08 4:51pm

TonyVanDam

avatar

vainandy said:

1. Shitney Houston
2. Shit Hop
3. Radio Monopolies
4. Record Label Merges and Monopolies


Thanks VA. That's the short version of the article 728huey was showing. nod
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 07/31/08 4:51pm

Dance

Bishop31 said:

It's sad for the Artists who create good music & yet can't feed they're family, because it's not "Commercial" enough.


falloff

Kid...

nevermind lol
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 07/31/08 5:25pm

lastdecember

avatar

Downloading is only hurting the "mainstream" that is out there today. Nobody is downloading and ripping off the new Tony Bennet or Barry Manilow for the most part, the longevity of artists and the older crowd are all that can save things.

Things this article missed is

The elimination of artists building catalog, also Target being called a music retailer is why you are where you are at. Go into Best Buy now and see how the crunch of label prices is effected what they carry and how long they can sale price a cd and how many they can sale price. I said this almost 10 years ago when people were crying over cd prices saying that stores like Tower and Goody were ripping the "consumer" off, when it was the label destroying the retailer. Basicall labels killed their own children, and sorry to say, music will die off in this generation, though people say it will never die, well stick around and see how.

"We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 07/31/08 7:38pm

shorttrini

avatar

Dance said:

Bishop31 said:

Sad. But oh so true. mad


Why is that sad?

shorttrini said:

I also believe that the industry "Bigwigs, could have used the concept of "File Sharing to their advantage much, much sooner. Why didn't they see the concept of file sharing before it came to pass, is beyond me.


People say this, but do you really believe that?

I mean file sharing was a response to the gouging.



I do believe it. People nowadays, like the concept of connivance. What better way to take advantage of this than to place your artist's work on the web and charge a fee. Had they had done this ten years ago, the industry would not be in the shape that it is currently in.
"Love is like peeing in your pants, everyone sees it but only you feel its warmth"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 07/31/08 7:50pm

Bishop31

avatar

Dance said:

Bishop31 said:

It's sad for the Artists who create good music & yet can't feed they're family, because it's not "Commercial" enough.


falloff

Kid...

nevermind lol


Let me know the joke so I can laugh also.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 07/31/08 7:50pm

Dance

shorttrini said:

I do believe it. People nowadays, like the concept of connivance. What better way to take advantage of this than to place your artist's work on the web and charge a fee. Had they had done this ten years ago, the industry would not be in the shape that it is currently in.


But like I said, the sharing came out of ridiculous CD prices and total crap music and by the time that door was opened

how could they possibly reel it in or get people to pay a fee?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 08/01/08 3:41am

shorttrini

avatar

Dance said:

shorttrini said:

I do believe it. People nowadays, like the concept of connivance. What better way to take advantage of this than to place your artist's work on the web and charge a fee. Had they had done this ten years ago, the industry would not be in the shape that it is currently in.


But like I said, the sharing came out of ridiculous CD prices and total crap music and by the time that door was opened

how could they possibly reel it in or get people to pay a fee?



People will pay for something that they want. They will not, however, pay for what they don't want. I have the perfect example. There was a song done a few years ago called, "I don't ever wanna see you again", by a artist who called himself, Uncle Sam. Now, I like that song. I like it some much in fact, I purchased the CD. That song was not only the best song on the CD, but it was the LAST song on the CD. This meant that I had to wade through 9 tracks to hear the song that I liked. I had spend $12 bucks on that CD, this does not include bus fare. This was certainly a case of clever marketing by the record company. This has stopped with the concept of file sharing and Itunes. Those who file share, now have a choice. Also, I have found that people who file, are those people who are looking for things that the are "out of print" or things that Itunes don't carry. As a D.J., I find most of my house music on different file sharing services. Why, because they are out of print everywhere else.
"Love is like peeing in your pants, everyone sees it but only you feel its warmth"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 08/01/08 5:39am

Graycap23

krayzie said:

Graycap23 said:

The article makes some valid points but if left quite a bit out. That said, I don't believe I've heard very many cd's WORTH my money. Or let me put it 2 u this way, when I hear something really GOOD, I go out and BUY the cd.
Prince, Mint Condition, Ledisi, Meshell and others still command me actually buying their product.

It's pretty simple 2 me. Free does NOT awlays mean good.


LOL

Oh not that weak ass argument again... There's nothing more hypocrital than blaming poor music quality to explain the sudden decline of CD sales...

Are you assuming that if music was extraordinary good, artists would sell records by millions like in the good old days ???? And everybody would prefer to spend 15 dollars over downloading music for free ?... Give me a break.... Who's stupid enough to buy that ???

The highest peak of CD sales was year 2000, and who were the top selling acts : Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, Christina Aguilera and N Sync


That argument is the dumbest ever made... lol

Good or Bad music, artists will never sell anymore...

Again, I'm ONLY speaking 4 me. I will and do BUY the cd's.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Four Mistakes That Killed the Record Indstry Before File Sharing