Another thing about back catalogs is that in some ways it is basically all the big labels have left other than the disposable and malletable kiddie acts.
Its getting harder and harder for labels to push the kind of contracts their "bread and butter" acts accepted years ago.

Artists like Eminem are in court as we speak seeking "licensing" fees as opposed to "royalties" for digital downloads from his label.
The reason being is that there is no manufacturing, packaging, warehousing or shipping involved in the digital form, so his cut would be far bigger. The labels of course likes their cut just fine as it is.
If Eminem wins it will be precedent setting and further cut into any labels diminishing income, and maybe the final nail in their coffin.

So yes older bigger labels with rich back catalogs do receive a nice chunk of change from their catalog, but either way its a moot point as artists new and old are not playing the old game anymore anyway.

Established working artists with the biggest catalog appeal (NIN, Radiohead, Madonna, Prince) are walking away from the labels because the labels cannot pay them what they know they can get on their own without sacrificing a thing.

Like someone else mentioned, the labels are going to turn to promotion only.
Artists don't need labels for recording or "nurturing" any more, anyone can record rather cheaply at a home studio.

I think we all agree this is an end of an era, and whatever you think the labels and such are doing wrong now, will not matter anyway.
[Edited 3/8/09 14:14pm]

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

Well said but it should matter to artist/musicians/songwriters/singers. Ultimately I hope and pray artist/musicians start taking home 90% of 10% or 85 of 15% of their earnings/money/profits instead of the other way around. As we speak, record company's are now including a cut in concert and merchandise profits for newly sign artist/musicians, something that has not happen in the past.

I hope it's artist/musicians who figure it out. It's time for musicians to step-up -become more business minded in order to control/secure their intellectual property and profits. If they don't, another master will come along to screw them and like the others and they won't bother to ask them to bend over. I had hoped maybe just maybe Rap music could have become such a model. The establishment was very slow to embrace the genre but still many of those artist took upon themselves to press their own records/tapes, market, and sale their music in clubs, by word of mouth, on the street corner, or out the truck of a car. Perhaps this was wishful thinking.

If it could be reversed, I'd be liking today's music. I'm the one with the masculine taste around here....hard, strong, fast, and funky. It's people of today who have the sissified taste....soft, slow, and dull. They've got the taste of Barbara Streisand or Judy Garland type music but they dress it up in a thug package so they can feel masculine.

A lot of stuff on that list is actually good. But regardless as to whether someone thinks those songs are horrible, they are original songs with their own made-up groove and melodies and they have instruments on them....not a sample of someone's song as the groove or melody over a weak "barely tapping" shit hop drum machine.

As much as I can't stand little miss goodie two shoes, at least she had people recording original songs behind her singing, even if they were weak. And as horrible as "How Will I Know" is, it sounds as funky as Rick James compared to this slow ass dull shit that's everywhere these days.

Those are supposed to be the great artists these days? I haven't heard of a lot of them, but the ones that I have heard on that list are too slow to even jack off to let alone shake ass. This is supposed to be 2009 but it's a damn shame that everyone is as slow as 1609. Instead of going forwards, they are going backwards.

Once again.....

The industry deserves to die.

See this thread. and the mic feed video.

http://prince.org/msg/8/300207?pg=1

or should i say
[Edited 3/9/09 9:41am]

I think I just found it's killer! Check this out while you can, it is fucking awesome!

http://www.huffingtonpost...73072.html

www.muziic.com

And the kid that made it is only 15!
[Edited 3/9/09 9:48am]

Mong said:

In the words of the infamous derrick coleman "whoop de dam doo." I've worked
in the banking industry for 17 years that doesn't mean i know everything
there is to know about banking because it changes from one minute to the next.
It's no different in the music industry. And for someone who claims to have worked in the industry, you sure act like you have shit for brains on this topic. I'm actually tired of responding to this shit because it's become derivitive. You think one way when it comes to this topic and i think another way so that's the end all. It's not my goal in life to try and prove a point to you.

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

Hell, you can't trust someone who works in the industry these days to admit that today's music is worse than any other music of the past because if they did, they would be admitting that they themselves were personally contributing to the problem of this bullshit music today. And then there are those in the industry who actually have bad enough taste to think that today's music is good.

Getting someone who works in the industry today to admit that today's music is the worst ever is like getting George Bush to admit that he was the worst president ever.

vainandy said:

and also they would be biting the hand that feeds them.
[Edited 3/9/09 10:30am]

vainandy said:

Exactly.

There are some good artists on the mainstream music scene, but really the music since 2000 has sucked big time.

Its repetitive, monotonous, not creative... enough- obviously reffering mainstream music.

The wrong artists are getting more play time. It should be music first, artist second, not artist first, music second.
[Edited 3/9/09 13:16pm]

The Wicked One has owned "The Music Industry" form its inception.

It's falling..(much like The Daughter of Babylon)


Remember this line from NPG's "Count The Days"?

"If keep ur secrets will U keep mine?"

It just feels like there are too many "Hidden Hands" in the industry.


The people on top of the indusrty do not seem as talented, or hard-working as before.

Plus, the industry promoted wickedness.

"Being good was such a bore..."

"The envelope has been pushed" to the point of boredom.


It ain't coming-back.

The peak of this modern culture's creativity ended in the early 1990's.

Everything else is just derivitive and re-hash of what has already been done. This time it's more stupid, more vulgar, weaker, and packaged with prettier beings.

Note: The Music Industry seeks to raise mp3 downloads to $3.99 per track.

If that happens, you can "kiss the music industry good-bye".

YHWH is Elohim, and Yahoshua is King!

suga10 said:

So you've obviously listened to every single mainstream album released since 2000? And then you compared every single one of those records to every single mainstream album released prior to 2000? - (and that's alot of records) - And then according to your established and well thought out standards of music (which would have to be explained), you finally came to the conclusion that mainstream music since 2000 has sucked big time? You did all of this, right? Because only a person who has done the work described above is qualified to make statements about the musical merits of contemporary recording artists not being as good as mainstream music before 2000.

I'm just about done with this thread (hallelujah, no doubt) but nobody seems to understand that NOBODY is qualifed to make grand sweeping generalizations about the current state of music unless they have done the work above. Maybe what's on the radio/tv isn't any good but the lack of quality on tv/radio doesn't mean EVERYTHING released this today is of the same quality. Why is that so hard to understand? Take Mong's advice and remove the rose coloured glasses, guys.

Linn4days said:

Thoughtless and reactionary; groundless and inane.



"They" have been saying that very same thing for every damn decade since. So even that argument is derivitive and a rehash of what my momma and grand momma have already said.



I'd like to see what label is crazy enough to charge four duckets for a single. If that is the case, the labels only have themselves to blame (which is the case anyways). But the music industry as a whole will never die. Go back and check one of my pithy posts!



I sense this esoteric Judeo-Christian mysticism is a put on, but this is the only thing you've said that I could agree with.


Selah.

EDIT: grammar check
[Edited 3/9/09 15:00pm]

And another thing!:

I have yet to read anybody's thoughts or requirements as to what really makes good music "good." BK hinted towards his qualifiers in an earlier post (real music, real instruments, changes, solos, bridges, and time length) and he suggested that to know or appreciate good music, you only need the use of your ears. But "Starfish & Coffee" by Prince does not feature 100% real instruments, it doesn't have a bridge, there isn't an instrumental solo, there's an elementary chord progression and it's not even three minutes long in length - does that make it "bad music"? If you say it does, I will seriously fight you.


j/k


Alot of you say "music today sucks" and then go on about what's heard on the radio or tv. But most of you seem only capable of actually expressing your dislike for music heard on the radio and see on tv. It seems like you cannot voice or explain what makes music "bad" or "good" but only what you "like" or dislike." And I trust most of you have not heard every piece of music released today to make an overall statement about the overall case of contemporary music - which is why I doubt the veracity of any person saying "music today sucks". I'm willing to bet that most of you have heard a majority of today's radio/tv playlist which is only a fraction of all the music created today - and therefore, only qualified to defend that opinion.

Thirdly, I believe that most of youse got on rose coloured glasses. I would assume people in the 90s complained about 90s radio - based on what they liked in the 80s. People in the 80s complained about 80s radio - based on what they liked came from the 70s. Catch my drift? It's probably the same for you guys. Mong and I are saying "What are you crying for? Radio and TV always played goofy shit!"

Finally, this is the best time ever to be a musician. Because of technological advances, anybody can be heard. Yeah, the schmuck down the street making beats and using samples can probably score a number one hit easier than before. But this universe is definitely on some yin/yang vibe. For every bad artist, there 's a good one. You just have to weed through the muck. There has never before been so much variety for music lovers. Y'all need to stop trippin'.

chuckaducci said:

I'm talking about Top 40 mainstream radio music in particular

Do you believe the top 40 songs of the year 2009 currently, are as good as the songs in the top 40 of 1994? I still listen to the songs from 1994 quite often. If you can listen to those songs still after 15 years over and over again and never get bored of them, then I think those are what you call great songs.

What's your view?

1994- You had Mariah Carey, Celine Dion, Elton John, Madonna, Boyz II Men, All 4 One, Babyface, Janet Jackson, 10000 Maniacs, etc. turning out amazing quality songs.

http://www.tunecaster.com...p1994.html

And what do you have today? Soulja boy, TI, Florida, Katy Perry ruling the charts. Yeah that's what ya call quality music. (sarcasm).

http://www.at40.com/rest_...ormat=chr&
[Edited 3/9/09 16:29pm]
[Edited 3/9/09 16:38pm]
[Edited 3/9/09 16:39pm]

chuckaducci said:

I hear you on your points CHUCK and i agree on many, i do feel WE ALL (myself included) fall back on this shit sucks etc... but i think the thing that is differing in opinions here is that a list was posted with some 40 legit artists that can play, had the talent etc... during these days, and alot of the replies were "never heard of them" well there in lies the issue. People are confusing what is thrown at them 24/7 as to what is out there, and YES just as much good stuff is with labels as is on the web. We are confusing todays mainstream with that of the 70's and 80's, the world is different now, its now the MEDIA industry and not the music industry, labels are run from a totally new mindset now then they were then, NOW its run from a CANT LOSE place and CANT INVEST, though there are some labels, Lost Highway being one, that really doesnt care and invests time in artists and releases, but thats not what is pushed, there is the difference, people are confusing what is pushed, with what is hidden in the labels, buried on some obscure label thats a sub division and when the cd comes out a store gets 2-3 copies, that is what people are getting mixed up

chuckaducci said:

I believe that a true artist eat, sleep, feel, and breathe music. It's in his/her heart and soul. With that, he/she is able to convey that artistry to people and inspire them. A true artist also doesn't have to depend on gimmicks to sell records because they have talent to begin with. It doesn't matter what century or decade it is, I believe that's what constitutes real music. Some of that artistry make it to the forefront and some never do. You've got to admit, music in the last 10-15 years has become more bland and watered down with no heart and soul to it, than ever before. Not to say there has never been garbage being put out there. I see that it's much more pressure from the record companies to cut a record for a certain amount of time. It's all business and as a result, you end up with crappy music because the artist didn't have enough time to put their all into their artistry.

Its just history repeating. In the 30's, the rise of radio killed 78's (in America only). Took about 10 years to get 78's back in demand, and then of course came 45's and LP's, and along with rock n roll and BOOM, music you could actually buy came back. Not quite that simple, but point is, its a ciycle and nothing to get pent up over.

You could draw comparisons that the internet basically did what radio did to 78's. Its the main cause of this industry collapse no question. Whats sad to me is that albums are dying thanks to the MP3 generation. maybe albums will die for good? Who knows?

Great news is that thanks to the internet and internet radio, choice has never been better!

lastdecember said:

I was responsible for posting that list. It contained contemporary artists who are currently releasing or have released music this decade. And it was short list - there are thousands of credible artists today - more than ever.



I don't think that's the issue at all, LD. People aren't complaining about not being able to hear new, great music. And people aren't saying that they can't find new, great music. People are saying there is no new, great music.



You make good points, especially about indie labels actually investing in trustworthy artists. But I still think that because of the internet, because of all the technology available, people who want good music - people who absolutely feen for it - are not complaining about what the mainstream radio/tv playlist contains. Our hunger for a music that can get us through the night has been satiated. Teens, radio, tv, magazines, newspapers - they can have their Rihannas, Britney Spears et al. There is an antidote!

angel345 said:

NO! Sigh, you're one of those folks who probably has not heard every piece of music released in the last 10-15 years, took that information, and then compared it to every piece of music released prior. You are probably one of those people who just does not like what you have heard on the radio and on tv the last 15 years. I know that I have not listened to every single piece of music released in the past 10-15 years. So no, I cannot admit that music in the last 10-15 years has become more bland and watered down with no heart and soul to it. I can say that I'm not surprised that what's on the radio and on tv is beneath my standards - cos the history of radio and tv (check the post I made that contains all the top hits) shows that radio and tv (mass media) do not care about maintaining, creating, establishing and securing high standards of music.

Last thing I have to say about this, guys - I don't believe in the infinite monkey theory; that if I keep typing and saying the same thing over and over again, sooner or later, someone will actually make sense of what I've been saying. But dig if you will:

If you are looking for high standards of musical quality consistently throughout mass media; if you expect to find or hear high standards of musical quality from the mass media on a consistent basis; if you are judging today's mass media's musical output to yesterday's mass media output; if you are complaining about the lack of quality music in the mass media, YOU ARE FUCKEN CRAZY!

thesexofit said:

IAWTP.

EDIT:
spellz chek
[Edited 3/9/09 19:00pm]

chuckaducci said:

I still think overall its a mainstream issue complaint that most people are going back to. Now if you look at your "mainstream" 70's-80's, now this was for the most part David Bowie,Elton John,Sly,Stevie,Queen,Mj,Prince,Madonna,Bruce,George Michael,Billy Joel,The Police etc... you had this enormous wealth of "mainstream" focus on artists, and everyone was different and unique. Now the "mainstream" because of its new way thinking, is not competitive, i mean think of how similar a Ciara,Keri Hilson,Keyshia Cole,Jonas Bothers,Fall Out Boy, really are? they are all in the same vein within their genres, NEVER competing, Never forced to grow and being challenged by their audiences or labels. Now that is your mainstream vs mainstream argument.

However i look on some of my favorite artists in this decade, Wilco,Ryan Adams,Norah Jones etc...and they stack up and are even better than the best of other decades, though none of them are "mainstream" by any means.

As chuckaducci said, always in mainstream music there has been crap. Always has, always will. Declining music quality may be a small factor to the industry collapse, but, along with the other factors stated, the internet itself, is the main culprit, and if you cant beat them, join 'em, and the clever record companies, and indies are doing that already.

Formats change and thats the bottom line. Make way for the internet, as thats gonna probably be the sole way to listen to music in the future. Give it 10 years or so, but its going to be the internet for new music and thats it! Things change, and whilst the album itself is gonna be pretty much dead sales wise in 5-10 years time (and thus business wise), the single will definately stay, but obviously MP3/ipod/download only.

Internet is the future. Thats it. Nothing deep to really discuss. It may be sad (as i said, I hate to see the physical album format go, but its probably gonna go, in 5-10 years), but people will buy and sell, and probably even distribute alot more over the internet.

Not quite as simple as a format change, but the main factor is the internet, and you gotta work with it to stay in this game. And if that means creating singles only, then so be it!

chuckaducci said:

Let me be clear to say that music that has been out there in the forefront via mass media has changed. That was my focus, honestly. I can hear quality music by going to a jazz, gospel or other musical concerts or travelling around the world, or anywhere where the unknowns are. All quality music doesn't go noticed. Also, I have already stressed in my comment that today's record companies are more business and less quality. I'm not delusional when it comes to that. Therefore, I am very selective when it comes to music.

P.S. and lighten up. Everyone has an opinion, you know.
[Edited 3/9/09 19:37pm]

thesexofit said:

I dont think the "net" will become the only way to get music, this has been widely discussed and even insiders say that it may become the majority, but they know that they cant eliminate other sources. Its not like a switch from tape to cd, its a switch that will lose a bigger % of the audience than anyone can afford. So you will see more of the "old time" artists, signing exclusives, cutting different deals, selling limited edtions, working tickets into cd sales, etc.. all little things like this to somehow squeeze profit for themselves, the artists, and to also somehow save music.

lastdecember said:

Well, as I said, total internet dominance is not here yet, but a decade or so from now, a vast majority of the new stuff will probably be internet only. it makes sense to. No idea how to make alot of money from it album sales wise, but as I said, I really think the album as we know it, is dying and will be dead. Thats by far the saddest thing about this.

BlaqueKnight said:

i like that comment

Wrong. Just look at the disco era of the 1970s. Do you think those people that were in those discos every night were teenagers and youngsters? No, because teenagers and youngsters were too young to get into discos. Most of those people were grown and had been teenagers during the late 60s and disco music was totally different sounding than the music they had grown up.

The same thing in the 1980s after disco's death. Do you think the people in the nightclubs were teenagers or youngsters from the 1980s. No, because they would have been too young to get into clubs. Those people had been teenagers in the 1970s and the music of their youth had sounded different than what they were partying to as adults also. Even a lot of folks that grew up in the 1960s loved 1980s music.

I never heard people bitching about music to the point of saying that it actually "wasn't music" until the shit hop era of the 1990s. Why? Because shit hop isn't music. It's just a bunch of stripped down "nothing". Styles have always changed and people don't mind change. But when the change is worse and becomes a cheap stripped down "nothing", yes, people do mind. And as for style changes, we haven't had one since the early 1990s which is the longest period ever. Shit hop dominated then and it still dominates. Why? Because it's cheap. Styles used to change around every five years. Why won't they change now? Because they have manipulative labels and radio stations keeping the style the same....cheap, cheap, cheap.
.
.
.
[Edited 3/11/09 6:43am]