Record Industry Collapse

By Jerry Del Colliano

Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke is saying that it is the end of the world as the record industry knows it. Yorke is predicting the total collapse of the music industry and is warning young musicians to hold off signing record deals as he anticipates some big labels going belly up in the next few months. Radiohead left their label, the troubled EMI, three years ago and went whole hog into digital distribution. You may remember In Rainbows was offered on the Internet and fans were allowed to set their own price from free to whatever – with mixed results. This comes as the record industry may have just survived its worst week ever in the last week of May. Worst for album sales – at least in twenty or thirty years. Absolutely the worst since Soundscan came around. According to Digital Music News physical and digital albums totaled just 4,978,000 units for the week ending May 31st. Compare that to 45 million plus for the highest weekly total in music history in late 2000. The CD continues to melt down. Touring is in trouble. Radio has lost its influence as a hitmaker. Even merch isn’t selling all that well. After a concert event, who needs a CD bundled in? Most concertgoers have all the music they need before security pats them down on the way into the venue. Meanwhile, the labels are trying to find a way to survive yet none have an original idea. Suing consumers hasn’t worked. The labels are two weeks away from shutting down LimeWire convinced that filesharing is their problem. Twelve years have passed since the CD first hit the skids and an entire generation of young people have been raised on bit torrent sites or, at best, legal downloads from a consumer electronics company – you know, Apple. Labels, in an effort to trim expenses, have cut back on what they need to do more of – find new acts and new genres. Not even rebels like Radiohead have found the answer to the music industry’s digital future. Here are the problems that are not being dealt with that adversely affect today’s major labels: 1. Steve Jobs is the Commissioner of Music – just as Bud Selig is the Commissioner of baseball except Jobs has even more power. He has relegated music as a byproduct for his electronic devices. Previously, music drove everything. Forced radio airplay. Commanded live touring dates. Fueled merch sales. Not so now. Music exists as an add-on to an Apple device. The labels let Jobs get away with it. 2. The radio industry has lost its influence over the 80 million strong next generation. They grew up without djs and stations telling them what was good and young consumers now look to each other bridged by social networks and filesharing to spread the word. 3. Growth by lawsuits has failed miserably. You can understand why the lawyers of the music industry played the only hand they know but filesharing is impossible to stop and what is worse is that time and focus has been diverted from innovating to litigating. As we write this, the labels still pursue punishing pirates instead of embracing them. 4. The labels inability to make deals with Steve Jobs that are accretive to them shows how they have missed the mobile digital revolution. After all, Jobs always gets what he needs, but the labels somehow wind up left at the altar in a marriage of convenience. 5. It is inadvisable to pursue all you can eat strategies such as Rhapsody and Spotify when Apple is about to make music available online to its 100 million credit card holders. Their iTunes store will someday stream music to mobile Apple devices everywhere and the labels need to get with the changes that are driving cloud computing because the cloud is coming. And, the labels will be supplying their music to Apple and getting kissed by their sister again. 6. Labels need to get out of the record business and into content creation using the artists that they own. In the past programming was outsourced to radio. Then Apple conned the labels out of their music but didn’t go to the expense of creating programming. The labels need to be tomorrow’s radio using their artists. Hire creative radio types. Make sure video is included. Add social networking. Why? Because the labels own the best assets and because they fail to see the new business model ahead, leave their music to others from which to profit. I am not sure the record industry is ready to implode. I think it already did. From inaction, reaction to filesharing and lack of traction for the digital future. There will be a lot of bad weeks ahead for the music industry, unless and until they get out of manufacturing and get into content creation. There. I’ve said it. Record labels that act more like Apple and less like widget makers. Thom Yorke is quoted as saying, "It will be only a matter of time - months rather than years - before the music business establishment completely folds. (It will be) no great loss to the world." But the music business folded when the labels let Steve Jobs take over pricing, delivery and now promotion. There is nothing left for a traditional record label to do except find and sign artists – and that is precisely what they are not doing enough of.

But Wait. Is Thom Yorke Totally Full of It?

Thom Yorke recently warned newer talent to avoid the music industry establishment, a "sinking ship" primed to collapse in a matter of months. But is that statement passing the sniff test?
Not quite. Already, the Yorke arguments are springing a few leaks.

Radiohead jumped ship on the troubled EMI, though one Digital Music News reader pointed to a subsequent distribution partnership with RED, owned by Sony Music Entertainment, for In Rainbows. That deal happened through ATO Records Group, part of a post name-your-price release strategy.

In fairness, this is hardly a conventional major label deal - far from it.

"They don't have a traditional major label relationship at all, they are just renting a distribution network," one executive close to the relationship relayed, on condition of anonymity. "There's no risk capital on the label part whatsoever, and [Radiohead] could easily replace this disitributor with another."

Valid counterargument, but what about publishing?

Here, Radiohead also has a partnership with Warner/Chappell Music, a unit of Warner Music Group. Perhaps missing from the torrent of In Rainbows coverage, Chappell was a heavily-involved partner in the project, helping to consolidate recording and publishing rights ahead of the name-your-price launch.
That was the focus of a presentation issued in late 2008 by Jane Dyball, Warner/Chappell Music senior vice president of International Legal Business Affairs, during the You Are In Control symposium in Reykjavik. The event was covered by Digital Music News, and also extensively by Music Ally. "We took the opportunity to ask the question, 'will people pay for something if they can get it for free?'," Dyball explained. "I found it incredibly reassuring, because I had doubts there was money to be made online."

Bulldog said:

But Wait. Is Thom Yorke Totally Full of It?

Thom Yorke recently warned newer talent to avoid the music industry establishment, a "sinking ship" primed to collapse in a matter of months. But is that statement passing the sniff test?
Not quite. Already, the Yorke arguments are springing a few leaks.

Radiohead jumped ship on the troubled EMI, though one Digital Music News reader pointed to a subsequent distribution partnership with RED, owned by Sony Music Entertainment, for In Rainbows. That deal happened through ATO Records Group, part of a post name-your-price release strategy.

In fairness, this is hardly a conventional major label deal - far from it.

"They don't have a traditional major label relationship at all, they are just renting a distribution network," one executive close to the relationship relayed, on condition of anonymity. "There's no risk capital on the label part whatsoever, and [Radiohead] could easily replace this disitributor with another."

Valid counterargument, but what about publishing?

Here, Radiohead also has a partnership with Warner/Chappell Music, a unit of Warner Music Group. Perhaps missing from the torrent of In Rainbows coverage, Chappell was a heavily-involved partner in the project, helping to consolidate recording and publishing rights ahead of the name-your-price launch.
That was the focus of a presentation issued in late 2008 by Jane Dyball, Warner/Chappell Music senior vice president of International Legal Business Affairs, during the You Are In Control symposium in Reykjavik. The event was covered by Digital Music News, and also extensively by Music Ally. "We took the opportunity to ask the question, 'will people pay for something if they can get it for free?'," Dyball explained. "I found it incredibly reassuring, because I had doubts there was money to be made online."

Well he has valid points and observations but he is about 5 years late on all of this, the industry died awhile ago, the business goes on, its just not done the way it was. You see Music is not in peoples lives like it was, its importance now is limited, its an afterthought. So if you seriously want to be a musician, dont sign a deal, is good advice, but that argument could have been said 50 years ago, musicians always get the shaft as we know. RadioHead's online experiment was only successful because of a label, you see, i understand his points, but you already had the success because of a label, and worked off of it, its like if i made a big budget film and used all the studios equipment and actors to get it seen by more people.

SO the decision is for the person coming up, the labels now are nothing more than media empires, they really dont care about your skills, its more of can u move units, videos and magazines, can your website get hits, and followers. If you wanna be a musician, dont sign and play clubs.

Well let's wait a few months and see if any labels have gone belly up.

Obviously the business model is in trouble. We have yet to find out if they'll figure out how to rearrange.

In the short term though, statements about the music industry "disappearing" are ridiculous. Of course there will still be record labels a year from now. We just don't know which ones, or what the surviviors will need to do in order to hang in there.

I think he's probably spot on. The recording industry has been flooding the market with substandard crap that no one wants 2 buy 4 years now and it starting 2 show in their profits.

What's their solution 2 this problem???

Erm... Flooding the market with substandared crap the no one wants 2 buy.

"We're in a hole... I know, let's dig our way out."

Labels, in an effort to trim expenses, have cut back on what they need to do more of – find new acts and new genres.

Okay so it wasn't just my imagination

comegetwild said:

I think he's probably spot on. The recording industry has been flooding the market with substandard crap that no one wants 2 buy 4 years now and it starting 2 show in their profits.

What's their solution 2 this problem???

Erm... Flooding the market with substandared crap the no one wants 2 buy.

"We're in a hole... I know, let's dig our way out."

Exactly.

Shitty Music = Shitty Sales

The sooner record labels stop signing the shitty artists, the better it will be for all of us.

Of course Thom Yorke can say that - he's in band that has a devoted fanbase. Much like NIN's, they'll support them.

They just give up on the Limewire issue. Taking it down won't do much anyway. That said, don't know what they can do. But putting it on "shitty" artists is a terrible excuse. No one - good or bad - is really selling as much as they use to.

[Edited 6/11/10 15:25pm]

PurpleColossus said:

The sooner record labels stop signing the shitty artists, the better it will be for all of us.

Well, it's not like independent labels are going anywhere. This might all be for the best

Its not so much about the quality of the music, its the quality of thinnking and the way they do the marketing. Just think of how you are bombarded by 1 artist before they even do shit? Labels dont operate the way they did before, and they are stuck in the same routine of thinking and marketing for the last almost 2 decades. Ever since soundscan and media took over, its all about your week one numbers, and flops and hits. And im not saying that artists havent always wanted to "sell" its not that its just now its what you HAVE to do. No more building a base, you either have it out of the gate with the HYPE we give you or we get another one just like U. Its a fucking assembly line. Its all the same way of thinking, look at Lady GaGa, its all according to the blueprint, shes underground, then mainstream, then everyone loves her, shes groundbreaking and then the backlash, and we get another one. Think about the title "best band ever" how many fucking bands with no album got that title, about one a month from Q magazine. Its all a HYPE game, a media blitz and nothing has to do with your music or talent.

lastdecember said:

Its not so much about the quality of the music, its the quality of thinnking and the way they do the marketing. Just think of how you are bombarded by 1 artist before they even do shit? Labels dont operate the way they did before, and they are stuck in the same routine of thinking and marketing for the last almost 2 decades. Ever since soundscan and media took over, its all about your week one numbers, and flops and hits. And im not saying that artists havent always wanted to "sell" its not that its just now its what you HAVE to do. No more building a base, you either have it out of the gate with the HYPE we give you or we get another one just like U. Its a fucking assembly line. Its all the same way of thinking, look at Lady GaGa, its all according to the blueprint, shes underground, then mainstream, then everyone loves her, shes groundbreaking and then the backlash, and we get another one. Think about the title "best band ever" how many fucking bands with no album got that title, about one a month from Q magazine. Its all a HYPE game, a media blitz and nothing has to do with your music or talent.

This reminds me of Drake. Someone told me recently they heard his album and I just said sarcastically... "best album ever?"

lastdecember said:

Its not so much about the quality of the music, its the quality of thinnking and the way they do the marketing. Just think of how you are bombarded by 1 artist before they even do shit? Labels dont operate the way they did before, and they are stuck in the same routine of thinking and marketing for the last almost 2 decades. Ever since soundscan and media took over, its all about your week one numbers, and flops and hits. And im not saying that artists havent always wanted to "sell" its not that its just now its what you HAVE to do. No more building a base, you either have it out of the gate with the HYPE we give you or we get another one just like U. Its a fucking assembly line. Its all the same way of thinking, look at Lady GaGa, its all according to the blueprint, shes underground, then mainstream, then everyone loves her, shes groundbreaking and then the backlash, and we get another one. Think about the title "best band ever" how many fucking bands with no album got that title, about one a month from Q magazine. Its all a HYPE game, a media blitz and nothing has to do with your music or talent.

WELL SAID!

Everything you said is 100% true.

Cinnie said:

lastdecember said:

Its not so much about the quality of the music, its the quality of thinnking and the way they do the marketing. Just think of how you are bombarded by 1 artist before they even do shit? Labels dont operate the way they did before, and they are stuck in the same routine of thinking and marketing for the last almost 2 decades. Ever since soundscan and media took over, its all about your week one numbers, and flops and hits. And im not saying that artists havent always wanted to "sell" its not that its just now its what you HAVE to do. No more building a base, you either have it out of the gate with the HYPE we give you or we get another one just like U. Its a fucking assembly line. Its all the same way of thinking, look at Lady GaGa, its all according to the blueprint, shes underground, then mainstream, then everyone loves her, shes groundbreaking and then the backlash, and we get another one. Think about the title "best band ever" how many fucking bands with no album got that title, about one a month from Q magazine. Its all a HYPE game, a media blitz and nothing has to do with your music or talent.

This reminds me of Drake. Someone told me recently they heard his album and I just said sarcastically... "best album ever?"

Nail on the head cinnie, thats what im talking. I mean i heard so much on this dude and no product to go along with it, im not saying dude aint good or talented, but i dont care, you beat me over the head with nonsense, you see back in the 80's you had tons of artists all doing things and trying to be different, now you have a mainstream that has about 10 artists overall, and they are in the same vein, labels dont want you to buy something other than what they push at you 24/7. THink of what was said a few days ago on this site aboout Eminem and Miley Cyrus being the "bailout" in June....why is limited to one "giant" release a month that gets the hype, how about tone down the hype and put out alot of solid releases, theres ROOM for everyone to have a voice, not just 10 artists

lastdecember said:

Its not so much about the quality of the music, its the quality of thinnking and the way they do the marketing. Just think of how you are bombarded by 1 artist before they even do shit? Labels dont operate the way they did before, and they are stuck in the same routine of thinking and marketing for the last almost 2 decades. Ever since soundscan and media took over, its all about your week one numbers, and flops and hits. And im not saying that artists havent always wanted to "sell" its not that its just now its what you HAVE to do. No more building a base, you either have it out of the gate with the HYPE we give you or we get another one just like U. Its a fucking assembly line. Its all the same way of thinking, look at Lady GaGa, its all according to the blueprint, shes underground, then mainstream, then everyone loves her, shes groundbreaking and then the backlash, and we get another one. Think about the title "best band ever" how many fucking bands with no album got that title, about one a month from Q magazine. Its all a HYPE game, a media blitz and nothing has to do with your music or talent.

I agree (it goes beyond the 90's really), however, numbers, hits, and flops are important because it's a business. Those things bring in the money to keep them afloat. An artist could be putting out good records, but if it results in lackluster sales to do the response from the audience why continue to keep them? It just gets out of hand when comes to the fanbase and the artists themselves.

If the industry is indeed collapsing, opposed to just someone saying it is, then fine. They got really greedy a few years ago, more than I had seen them . Companies like (locally based to my city) TransWorld Entertainment, which runs Record Town/FYE/Strawberries/etc, raised their prices to an average of $19.99 a few years ago. I could not believe they were doing that.

I also understand the hit they took with the birth of Napster, Limewire, etc, plus the plethora of other outlets. Part of that, on the "consumer's" part, was pure greediness. People found it, suddenly, quite easy to get the music they wanted, get it quickly, and no one knew any better. Except Metallica.

The other part is that it was a bit of rebellion toward the record companies and their outrageous pricing scams, which were a result of a near-conspiracy on the part of the big five labels to price fix CDs to gouge as much money from the consumer as possible. Anyone with a brian in their head knew that in 2000 and beyond, CDs had no reason being $18-21 a pop, for a single disk. CD prices never really changed in that regard if you think about it. When they first came out in the 80's, we were willing to pay $17.99 for a CD, but 20 years later? Hell no. We're not paying $500 for a DVD player, 20 years after it came out, why is the media still highly priced?

There's a good point in the article, stating that the labels thought they'd grow, eventually, through litigation and suing the booty pirates out there, but that hasn't worked at all. With such little sales, and such massive lawsuits, one wonders if the companies won't end up bankrupting themselves through that process alone. Just under five million records? Amazing. That's what some artists hope for in a six month period, or even over the course of a year. Long gone are the days of piling up platinum records (unless you're Bon Jovi).

I'm not sure how much Steve Jobs is to blame for this. However, I'd rather buy the music through the artist's site (ie directly from them). I've sent a $20 to artists to get their CD straight from them (and sometimes autographed). I'd rather give it to them than a fucking record company. They've just constantly ripped folks off, treated their artists like shit over the course of time, and dismissed them later as "crazy" or whatever.

One very disturbing statement in the article: "Labels need to get out of the record business and into content creation using the artists that they own". Therein, lies the problem.

Wait, In Rainbows release ended with mixed results? Didn't they pocket millions on that beast? Per this, yes: http://www.ultimate-guita...nbows.html

Or is this BS?

Aryll said:

lastdecember said:

Its not so much about the quality of the music, its the quality of thinnking and the way they do the marketing. Just think of how you are bombarded by 1 artist before they even do shit? Labels dont operate the way they did before, and they are stuck in the same routine of thinking and marketing for the last almost 2 decades. Ever since soundscan and media took over, its all about your week one numbers, and flops and hits. And im not saying that artists havent always wanted to "sell" its not that its just now its what you HAVE to do. No more building a base, you either have it out of the gate with the HYPE we give you or we get another one just like U. Its a fucking assembly line. Its all the same way of thinking, look at Lady GaGa, its all according to the blueprint, shes underground, then mainstream, then everyone loves her, shes groundbreaking and then the backlash, and we get another one. Think about the title "best band ever" how many fucking bands with no album got that title, about one a month from Q magazine. Its all a HYPE game, a media blitz and nothing has to do with your music or talent.

I agree (it goes beyond the 90's really), however, numbers, hits, and flops are important because it's a business. Those things bring in the money to keep them afloat. An artist could be putting out good records, but if it results in lackluster sales to do the response from the audience why continue to keep them? It just gets out of hand when comes to the fanbase and the artists themselves.

But thats all true but the thinking has to be more of "investment" base, u see it is about selling and yes its a business at the end of the day no matter what decade. But now how we get you to sell is a new animal, there are other ways that we have to push U. But "investment" is not in the thinking now, its all about now and not will you do 10 albums for us and develop, labels all use to invest and grow because that was the way it was done,it isnt that way. A label used to lose alot before it had to turn a profit, now it just needs profit, theres no room to lose. As we all said before, this thinking now would have every artist from u2 to Prince dropped album 1 or 2

lastdecember said:

Aryll said:

I agree (it goes beyond the 90's really), however, numbers, hits, and flops are important because it's a business. Those things bring in the money to keep them afloat. An artist could be putting out good records, but if it results in lackluster sales to do the response from the audience why continue to keep them? It just gets out of hand when comes to the fanbase and the artists themselves.

But thats all true but the thinking has to be more of "investment" base, u see it is about selling and yes its a business at the end of the day no matter what decade. But now how we get you to sell is a new animal, there are other ways that we have to push U. But "investment" is not in the thinking now, its all about now and not will you do 10 albums for us and develop, labels all use to invest and grow because that was the way it was done,it isnt that way. A label used to lose alot before it had to turn a profit, now it just needs profit, theres no room to lose. As we all said before, this thinking now would have every artist from u2 to Prince dropped album 1 or 2

Oh okay, I get it now.

ernestsewell said:

If the industry is indeed collapsing, opposed to just someone saying it is, then fine. They got really greedy a few years ago, more than I had seen them . Companies like (locally based to my city) TransWorld Entertainment, which runs Record Town/FYE/Strawberries/etc, raised their prices to an average of $19.99 a few years ago. I could not believe they were doing that.

I also understand the hit they took with the birth of Napster, Limewire, etc, plus the plethora of other outlets. Part of that, on the "consumer's" part, was pure greediness. People found it, suddenly, quite easy to get the music they wanted, get it quickly, and no one knew any better. Except Metallica.

The other part is that it was a bit of rebellion toward the record companies and their outrageous pricing scams, which were a result of a near-conspiracy on the part of the big five labels to price fix CDs to gouge as much money from the consumer as possible. Anyone with a brian in their head knew that in 2000 and beyond, CDs had no reason being $18-21 a pop, for a single disk. CD prices never really changed in that regard if you think about it. When they first came out in the 80's, we were willing to pay $17.99 for a CD, but 20 years later? Hell no. We're not paying $500 for a DVD player, 20 years after it came out, why is the media still highly priced?

There's a good point in the article, stating that the labels thought they'd grow, eventually, through litigation and suing the booty pirates out there, but that hasn't worked at all. With such little sales, and such massive lawsuits, one wonders if the companies won't end up bankrupting themselves through that process alone. Just under five million records? Amazing. That's what some artists hope for in a six month period, or even over the course of a year. Long gone are the days of piling up platinum records (unless you're Bon Jovi).

I'm not sure how much Steve Jobs is to blame for this. However, I'd rather buy the music through the artist's site (ie directly from them). I've sent a $20 to artists to get their CD straight from them (and sometimes autographed). I'd rather give it to them than a fucking record company. They've just constantly ripped folks off, treated their artists like shit over the course of time, and dismissed them later as "crazy" or whatever.

One very disturbing statement in the article: "Labels need to get out of the record business and into content creation using the artists that they own". Therein, lies the problem.

well i agree on many points but the whole "retail" raising prices is a miss, they have no control, labels raised the price which in turn they have to do to compensate or close down, its always been this way. Steve Jobs is involved with thhis as a player, he is making money off the music indirectly by being part of the changing business model, his hand is just another "hand held out" to the artist. The fact that they can break your album up into 99 cent ringtones is crap, and then the artist gets less than Steve in the cut? Hes a player, a major player, that gets off lightly too many times.

I saw this happening first hand of how labels squeezed retail out, i mean real music stores not best buy or walmart and target, thos are also players. Those players can take the 4$ loss per cd because they jack U on a tv or whatever else they sell. A music store in the past had nothing else to sell therefore losing $4 a cd was ok for a week but reality is that is no way to stay afloat, which they all dropped. And the "drop" of $2 in prices by labels was something forced on music stores but what no one knew was that they raised the wholesale prices and wanted that $2 drop in the stores, so u know where that lead.......that lead Music being sold in Walmart next to socks.

lastdecember said:

well i agree on many points but the whole "retail" raising prices is a miss, they have no control, labels raised the price which in turn they have to do to compensate or close down, its always been this way.

They do have control, because they got in bed with the big five labels (which had, at that point, consumed all the smaller labels, and consolidated them into a huge conglomerate) to conspire to keep prices higher all this time. Everyone profited, except the consumer, who took matters into their own hands.

ernestsewell said:

lastdecember said:

well i agree on many points but the whole "retail" raising prices is a miss, they have no control, labels raised the price which in turn they have to do to compensate or close down, its always been this way.

They do have control, because they got in bed with the big five labels (which had, at that point, consumed all the smaller labels, and consolidated them into a huge conglomerate) to conspire to keep prices higher all this time. Everyone profited, except the consumer, who took matters into their own hands.

they do now because they are owned by labels, just like radio stations are owned by the labels which are owned by gian media companies. Tower Records and others were on their own early on, didnt have the pull that a best buy had, the prices went up, costs went up, rents of the stores went up, but no one gave an inch, thats why retail doesnt exist anymore, nor does the choice of music.

if cds were $ 7,- i would still go out and buy them, even if i had already gotten

myself an illegal download. if the album were good, the quality of a real cd plus

booklet plus the thought of supporting an artist would make me.

if a lot of artists only make a buck seventy off a unit sold, or sometimes even

less, than why are the prices so high? with all manditory costs of shipping and

pressing etc, a cd would still not cost more than 4 dollars, not if they were still

selling units like they used to.

they've shot themselves in the foot with their greed. filesharing is only half of

the story.

lastdecember said:

ernestsewell said:

They do have control, because they got in bed with the big five labels (which had, at that point, consumed all the smaller labels, and consolidated them into a huge conglomerate) to conspire to keep prices higher all this time. Everyone profited, except the consumer, who took matters into their own hands.

they do now because they are owned by labels, just like radio stations are owned by the labels which are owned by gian media companies. Tower Records and others were on their own early on, didnt have the pull that a best buy had, the prices went up, costs went up, rents of the stores went up, but no one gave an inch, thats why retail doesnt exist anymore, nor does the choice of music.

Not necessarily true. TransWorld Entertainment isn't owned by anyone but themselves. They own and run Record Town, FYE (For Your Entertainment), Saturday Matinee, and bought up Strawberries a few years ago. They are based in my town here, and they're all over, and have always been over-priced.

ernestsewell said:

lastdecember said:

they do now because they are owned by labels, just like radio stations are owned by the labels which are owned by gian media companies. Tower Records and others were on their own early on, didnt have the pull that a best buy had, the prices went up, costs went up, rents of the stores went up, but no one gave an inch, thats why retail doesnt exist anymore, nor does the choice of music.

Not necessarily true. TransWorld Entertainment isn't owned by anyone but themselves. They own and run Record Town, FYE (For Your Entertainment), Saturday Matinee, and bought up Strawberries a few years ago. They are based in my town here, and they're all over, and have always been over-priced.

well thats thing, when the whole pricing thing was an issue earlier in the 90's none of these merged companies exist, transworld did nothing but buy up all the remains of retailers, transworld isnt a music retailer they just are a corporation that bought up property, so they are nothing more than landlords and bosses, the retailers from the day like Tower and Virgin and Sam Goody, were all music retailers.

But at the end of the day its like Prince said, do the math. If a label charges 12-14 wholesale for a new cd, and then you factor in The Rent, The electricity, the payrolls of a store that they pay, how can you expect a cd to be 7dollars when you walk in? Its like if you make 2000 a month, and half 3000 in expenses, how long till you collapse?

Labels killed music with computers and now computers are killing them. They are getting exactly what they deserve and I'm happy to see it.

I can't speak for all music, but rock music isn't coming back until the guitar solo does.

And don't tell me the shit that Pearl Jam and Fall Boy do constitutes a "solo".

Angus Young is laughing his ass off right now at that.