Record stores closing. The end of the compact disc. Filesharing rendering the music industry unprofitable. The end of the album.

I'm sick of all these spirit crushing articles and doom-laden predictions. Isn't music supposed to be fun??

It's worse than that....the music today SUCKS MONKEY BALLS as well!

Let's start with a decent amount of product and bring back artist development...then we can talk. This flash in the pan shit is what killed it.

You can't get tired of something you don't pay attention to.

Rock and roll used to be about partying and getting chicks.

The Nirvana came along, and ever since then rock has been about how much your life sucks.

Nirvana killed rock and roll.

I'm glad to see the low sales and illegal downloading these days. If folks can't make good music, then I'd rather see the whole industry that makes new music go down the tubes. At least that way, I wouldn't have to hear the bullshit from the TV and passing cars.

Meh, change happens. Welcome the rise of the digital era.

U.S. physical CD sales fell six per cent in 2011, but the 20 per cent increase in digital album downloads, to a record 103.1 million, more than made up for the losses, according to figures from Nielsen SoundScan.

Digital song sales grew 8.5 per cent in 2011, to a record 1.27 billion downloads, compared with 1.17 billion in 2010.

Vinyl album sales soared to 3.9 million copies, vs. 2.8 million in 2010.

RodeoSchro said:

Rock and roll used to be about partying and getting chicks.

The Nirvana came along, and ever since then rock has been about how much your life sucks.

Nirvana killed rock and roll.

Wow, it's 2012 now to be frank quit whinning about it

I like hair metal to, it was fun. But heavy metal was getting huge, Metallica had a number 1 album in 91 so did Skid Row same year Nirvana went to number 1. Funk metal was coming, alternative, shit was changing. This it was alll Nirvana bullshit is old, it was a lot of factors. You sound just like the hair meal guys who think Nirvana is the reason there music game fizzled

No, it was many factors & besides did you expect Poison to have hits for another decade? smh

Artists are actually making MORE money from digital downloads than they did from CD sales. Its better for artists. They may sell less, but they get a bigger cut. If they don't, their lawyers suck.

BlaqueKnight said:

BlaqueKnight said:

Artists are actually making MORE money from digital downloads than they did from CD sales. Its better for artists. They may sell less, but they get a bigger cut. If they don't, their lawyers suck.

Not true. And people tend to only buy individual tracks rather than albums these days. But at least I can make a point without having everything in a bold font.

[Edited 1/9/12 16:48pm]

Mong said:

BlaqueKnight said:

Artists are actually making MORE money from digital downloads than they did from CD sales. Its better for artists. They may sell less, but they get a bigger cut. If they don't, their lawyers suck.

Not true. And people tend to only buy individual tracks rather than albums these days. But at least I can make a point without having everything in a blue bold font.

Mong said:

BlaqueKnight said:

Artists are actually making MORE money from digital downloads than they did from CD sales. Its better for artists. They may sell less, but they get a bigger cut. If they don't, their lawyers suck.

Not true. And people tend to only buy individual tracks rather than albums these days. But at least I can make a point without having everything in a blue bold font.

Terrib3Towel said:

BlaqueKnight said:

Artists are actually making MORE money from digital downloads than they did from CD sales. Its better for artists. They may sell less, but they get a bigger cut. If they don't, their lawyers suck.

Wait, since when does selling one million PHYSICAL singles pay less than one million downloads? Singles are still in print, they cost about $4.00, and an iTunes single costs $1.29. The artist only gets about 30 cent per download. I'm pretty sure they get more from a physical single. But those are pretty much obsolete now.

It really depends on the artist, not many get 30cents, most average 10cents to 15 at most. Thing is with Digital there is another hand in the pocket taking a cut, whatever the outlet, be it, Amazon, iTunes, Emusic etc...they are getting a cut to hold the music just like a record store, and also the label still takes its usual cut, and factor in the cheaper cost of digital albums, so artists arent getting more, the ones that get more are the ones that have been around and are working indie, and allowing distribution through these outlets. Lets face it, if you are an artist like say, John Mellencamp, you dont need a label, you have a studio you have a band, you can basically deliver the product to iTunes or whatever and let them be the source and really keep alot of the money, MYA just did this before xmas with "KISS" her album that was only issued overseas, her fights with labels here she just couldnt deal with them, so she started a label of her own (planet 9) used her studio and her team, paid nothing and got the music to her fanbase, so big deal it doesnt chart, though iTunes ranked it highly in the rb sales, in this day and age charts are obsolete.

vainandy said:

I'm glad to see the low sales and illegal downloading these days. If folks can't make good music, then I'd rather see the whole industry that makes new music go down the tubes. At least that way, I wouldn't have to hear the bullshit from the TV and passing cars.

I knew you were gonna say something like that

There is only gloom and doom if you wallow in it. Support the artists you love and the music industry can still be a beautiful thing! Go local!

I wouldn't say Artists are making more $ off album or digital sales. The established and/or the crap pop artists touring are still making good $ - which if they didn't tour, many would most certainly starve. It's promoters like Live Nation - the Bullies - and boy do they bully - and TicketM that are evil IMHO. The restrictions and red tape they make you go thru to get a lousy ticket is preposterous. Right now, they are actually pissing concert goers off just enough to make them think twice and maybe take a pass on the concert.

Yes, pay for the acts' music.

I guess one has to also bear in mind that the era of recorded music is a short one, a mere blip in the history of music in the world since day 1. I actually think that the future is going to be in unique live acts. Not great for someone who has bad stage fright, but the recorded side of things will be secondary (they are, already).

im right here with ya!

i always hear stories about how people would skip school and wait for a music video to premire or go to the record store and just spend hours looking.

i wish music production was still like that today, but agreeing with what some one previously said, music just isnt the same as a hole.. i feel that todays music has no real emotion behind it.. you dont have any artist now adays who are really trying to experiment and do something new with music.. i could go on for hours about this subject.. its upseting...

dm3857 said:

i feel that todays music has no real emotion behind it.. you dont have any artist now adays who are really trying to experiment and do something new with music.. i could go on for hours about this subject.. its upseting...

I have to disagree. There are Artists out there making music with real emotion - they're just harder to FIND because the star/development/distribution system has been thrown into the great fragmented WWW. Amazon, itunes etal don't showcase on talent, but rather numbers and $ thrown at them for advertising the top 20 Top 40 and Urban. Classic Rock stations whether they be internet based or terrestrial are spinning the same songs they did 40 years ago and rarely showcase new bands. Classic Rock numbers are still strong but only because boomers are lazy, struggle with the new interfaced gadgets and complacently stick with what they know. The Top 40 stations are funded by a select few and payola still exists in many different forms. The Katy Perry, Riahanna, Jay-Z, Rihanna, Minaj etc. crew pay big bucks to stay on those programmed playlist charts. Believe it. They are on heavy rotation being played every hour on the hour - 20 times a day for a REASON. Think of all that time that could be showcasing OTHER music/new artists. Radio's always been about that, but it also used to have DJ's with personalities that weren't forced to strict playlists and loved showcasing and breaking new bands. This is what most artists are faced with. It's dayum disheartening. Sure they can set up web pages, Facebook and tweet their beaks off with self promotion, make mixed tapes and youtube videos, create and publicize interviews everywhere, get product on Amazon and itunes, get commercial with film/tv/video games, print up a little merchandise and product to sell at the gigs that their tiny tours take them to - if they can afford it. If they're real lucky maybe they can open for someone with numbers. This is basically the same recipe used in the old days, albeit now there is MORE - BUT without the financial and managerial support of REAL promotional dollars and A&R reps who care, it's mighty hard to cut thru the noise. U almost have to do something controversial to get noticed. NO - it's not like the old days - but we HAVE moved on and if you're an Artist and you just can't stop - you deal with it, keep on keepin on and hope that someone picks up on it and believes in you enough to give you a good shove. My thought is that the old record label model WILL evolve into a new kind of label with people that will take it back to basics again and begin developing the talent that IS out there.

Red said:

U.S. physical CD sales fell six per cent in 2011, but the 20 per cent increase in digital album downloads, to a record 103.1 million, more than made up for the losses, according to figures from Nielsen SoundScan.

Digital song sales grew 8.5 per cent in 2011, to a record 1.27 billion downloads, compared with 1.17 billion in 2010.

Vinyl album sales soared to 3.9 million copies, vs. 2.8 million in 2010.

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/entertainment/Music+album+sales+first+time+since+2004/5950366/story.html#ixzz1j0KWECZa

Quite interesting about the vinyl albums.

Mong said:

BlaqueKnight said:

Artists are actually making MORE money from digital downloads than they did from CD sales. Its better for artists. They may sell less, but they get a bigger cut. If they don't, their lawyers suck.

Not true. And people tend to only buy individual tracks rather than albums these days. But at least I can make a point without having everything in a bold font.

[Edited 1/9/12 16:48pm]

Too bad you fail to make an accurate one. Download sales are GROWING and CD sales are falling off. Its obvious you don't know much about how CD sales are divided.

Here's an article to help you attain a better understanding of how the pie is divided:

http://www.techdirt.com/a...0186.shtml

CDs have never really been profitable for the artist In this day and age, an artist can sell a single and make almost what they would have made by selling whole CDs. Download sales are the reason for the invention of the 360 deal (look it up because I'm not explaining it). Record labels used to hide behind the overhead of CD manufacturing and transporting but without that hysical necessity to contend with these days, they have no excuse to bleed artists dry, so they had to come up with a new way.

[Edited 1/10/12 0:00am]

I think the point of any argument about "no good music around" is not that good music doesn't exist, but that it's frustrating to have to weed through all the crap to find it. Why should I, a paying consumer, have to search through loads of bad music just to find one solid artist? I'm not a talent scout and shouldn't have to act like one. There used to be a wide variety of great music that was actually promoted by labels, but somehow, that concept just disappeared around 2003-2004 or so.

And to answer the main question, I'm tired of the doom and gloom of the modern world period. Music is just a reflection of our culture. As a whole, we need to stop feeling sorry for ourselves, stop being lazy (artist development totally needs to come back), and get back to sincere effort. Record companies are so lazy now...it's pathetic. They want to get paid for us consumers (and artists) doing their job. They'll start seeing substantial sales when they start releasing quality music again and that's a fact.

RKJCNE said:

There is only gloom and doom if you wallow in it. Support the artists you love and the music industry can still be a beautiful thing! Go local!

BlaqueKnight said:

Mong said:

Not true. And people tend to only buy individual tracks rather than albums these days. But at least I can make a point without having everything in a bold font.

[Edited 1/9/12 16:48pm]

Too bad you fail to make an accurate one. Download sales are GROWING and CD sales are falling off. Its obvious you don't know much about how CD sales are divided.

Here's an article to help you attain a better understanding of how the pie is divided:

http://www.techdirt.com/a...0186.shtml

CDs have never really been profitable for the artist In this day and age, an artist can sell a single and make almost what they would have made by selling whole CDs. Download sales are the reason for the invention of the 360 deal (look it up because I'm not explaining it). Record labels used to hide behind the overhead of CD manufacturing and transporting but without that hysical necessity to contend with these days, they have no excuse to bleed artists dry, so they had to come up with a new way.

[Edited 1/10/12 0:00am]

It's pretty obvious that you don't even know about things like packaging deductions in downloads which labels impose. Again, get this into your head. There is less money in download sales than CD sales. I know what a 360 deal is. Your condescending ways are tiresome.

[Edited 1/10/12 5:49am]

I live in my own music world bubble and control my shopping...I can care less.

I never been the one to rely on somebody else to give me good music in the first place. Since the file sharing came out I have been welcomed to hundreds of new music I would have never heard of before in my life..I actually appreciate the 'hidden' artists more than the mainstream ones and actually purchase their work. I'll pay for Francis And The Lights new release before I go run and buy a Rihanna or Beyonce album any given Tuesday.

It also makes me feel good that I supported someone whose artistry is more suited for an audience like us.

Brothers and Sisters, there has NEVER been a time in history where the majority of music did not suck. It is only in hind sight that we remember the hits, because they were just that...HITS. By sheer mathematics and averages, all the crap gets lost in the shuffle and forgotten in time.

More artist CAN make more money today than they used to be able to under the old system. But not more than the ones at the top of the order. One big myth that has continued up until the present day is that all these folks in show biz are rich. That has never been the case, and it never will be. Grab a chart from any time period and pick an artist name at random and do a search to find out "where they are now."

The industry itself can go away, it does not matter, because the music will remain. I think I have acquired the same number of songs in 2011 as I did back in 1997. I like what I like. If it is on the radio or not does not matter. Of course I want my favorites to make money so they keep making music, but that is not a factor in my musical choices.

leonche64 said:

Brothers and Sisters, there has NEVER been a time in history where the majority of music did not suck. It is only in hind sight that we remember the hits, because they were just that...HITS. By sheer mathematics and averages, all the crap gets lost in the shuffle and forgotten in time.

More artist CAN make more money today than they used to be able to under the old system. But not more than the ones at the top of the order. One big myth that has continued up until the present day is that all these folks in show biz are rich. That has never been the case, and it never will be. Grab a chart from any time period and pick an artist name at random and do a search to find out "where they are now."

The industry itself can go away, it does not matter, because the music will remain. I think I have acquired the same number of songs in 2011 as I did back in 1997. I like what I like. If it is on the radio or not does not matter. Of course I want my favorites to make money so they keep making music, but that is not a factor in my musical choices.

Not in the 1980s. The majority of stuff was good and the stuff that didn't make to the radio at the time, usually was something dull that didn't deserve to be on it. As for the hits being the only thing remembered these days, that's because the radio these days has been taken over by major corporations who only play the biggest hits. I have lots of jams I play for people and they recognize them immediately and love them but have forgotten them over the years because the radio hasn't played them for decades.

My favorites have never been the extremely huge selling hits, not even back in the 1980s either. When something is usually a huge hit, the reason it became so huge in the first place is because it was something watered down to appeal to as many people as possible, including people who have dull tastes. R&B radio didn't used to be like this back in the early 1980s and played all the jams on a daily basis until they went out of style. When they would play an old jam back then, they would pull something out of the stacks of wax that went really well with the mood of the two recent jams it was played sandwiched between. Whether it was a huge hit or not, had nothing to do with it. A huge hit by someone like Dionne Warwick would have sounded rediculous and out of place inbetween two artists like Lakeside or Con Funk Shun who had current hits at the time and it would have disrupted the whole vibe of the DJs set. There's no DJ input these days, it's all huge hit after huge hit after huge hit when it comes to oldies radio with no rhyme or reason as the order and sequence of the songs other than the fact that they were huge hits. Radio was about entertaining people back then. It's not about entertaining people anymore and hasn't been for decades.

As for the same amount of good music in 2011 as there was in 1997, hell music had already been fucked up for years before 1997 even arrived. The exact same stuff that dominated radio in 1997 is still the same stuff that dominates today....adult contemporary, shit hop, and neo stool.....at least on R&B radio anyway. You got to go way back further that 1997 to see the drastic change, like back to around 1991 or 1992. Actually, it started going downhill in 1985 when Shitney Houston came on the scene and totally died once the 1990s got kicked in real good.

vainandy said:

leonche64 said:

Brothers and Sisters, there has NEVER been a time in history where the majority of music did not suck. It is only in hind sight that we remember the hits, because they were just that...HITS. By sheer mathematics and averages, all the crap gets lost in the shuffle and forgotten in time.

More artist CAN make more money today than they used to be able to under the old system. But not more than the ones at the top of the order. One big myth that has continued up until the present day is that all these folks in show biz are rich. That has never been the case, and it never will be. Grab a chart from any time period and pick an artist name at random and do a search to find out "where they are now."

The industry itself can go away, it does not matter, because the music will remain. I think I have acquired the same number of songs in 2011 as I did back in 1997. I like what I like. If it is on the radio or not does not matter. Of course I want my favorites to make money so they keep making music, but that is not a factor in my musical choices.

Not in the 1980s. The majority of stuff was good and the stuff that didn't make to the radio at the time, usually was something dull that didn't deserve to be on it. As for the hits being the only thing remembered these days, that's because the radio these days has been taken over by major corporations who only play the biggest hits. I have lots of jams I play for people and they recognize them immediately and love them but have forgotten them over the years because the radio hasn't played them for decades.

My favorites have never been the extremely huge selling hits, not even back in the 1980s either. When something is usually a huge hit, the reason it became so huge in the first place is because it was something watered down to appeal to as many people as possible, including people who have dull tastes. R&B radio didn't used to be like this back in the early 1980s and played all the jams on a daily basis until they went out of style. When they would play an old jam back then, they would pull something out of the stacks of wax that went really well with the mood of the two recent jams it was played sandwiched between. Whether it was a huge hit or not, had nothing to do with it. A huge hit by someone like Dionne Warwick would have sounded rediculous and out of place inbetween two artists like Lakeside or Con Funk Shun who had current hits at the time and it would have disrupted the whole vibe of the DJs set. There's no DJ input these days, it's all huge hit after huge hit after huge hit when it comes to oldies radio with no rhyme or reason as the order and sequence of the songs other than the fact that they were huge hits. Radio was about entertaining people back then. It's not about entertaining people anymore and hasn't been for decades.

As for the same amount of good music in 2011 as there was in 1997, hell music had already been fucked up for years before 1997 even arrived. The exact same stuff that dominated radio in 1997 is still the same stuff that dominates today....adult contemporary, shit hop, and neo stool.....at least on R&B radio anyway. You got to go way back further that 1997 to see the drastic change, like back to around 1991 or 1992. Actually, it started going downhill in 1985 when Shitney Houston came on the scene and totally died once the 1990s got kicked in real good.

Especially in the 80's. The synthesizer made making music cheap and easy. This is the beginning of disposable music. No longer did you need a band of trained musicians. For all the guff that disco gets, (a lot of it deserved), they at least had orchestral arrangements. The bass guitar was almost extinct in all forms of music except metal.

Back in the day there was separation by genera, so there was more choices and more variety in music. The social progress has caused a musical wasteland where everything has met in the middle...of Sucksville. So there is less room in the public conscience for the fringe acts.

I said I have acquired the same number of songs in 20011 as I did in 1997. Made no reference to there being the same amount of good music. And 1997 was an arbitrary number. As a professional musician, I am drawn more to bands than solo singers. I like what I like. The big album for me that year was Fishbone's "Chim Chim's Badass revenge." No idea where it was on the charts, doubt it got much airplay...and I don't care. It got played on my cassette deck, and I bought a second copy in London or Denmark when the first wore out.

The radio does not belong to me. I have little interest in it. But I do love live music. And I have had the pleasure to play with and hear some great musicians that will never be widely known outside of Hong Kong, the Philippines, Japan etc. But they are doing it, making a living at it.

Seems every generations comes along and complains about the music of the next one. I remember my dad telling me how Prince was not as good a singer as Marvin Gaye, and how the 80's Bar-Kays were not as good as the 60's Bar-Kays. (He did like The Time's suits though). It is all subjective.

Turn off the radio, go check out a band in your area.

vainandy said:

leonche64 said:

Brothers and Sisters, there has NEVER been a time in history where the majority of music did not suck. It is only in hind sight that we remember the hits, because they were just that...HITS. By sheer mathematics and averages, all the crap gets lost in the shuffle and forgotten in time.

More artist CAN make more money today than they used to be able to under the old system. But not more than the ones at the top of the order. One big myth that has continued up until the present day is that all these folks in show biz are rich. That has never been the case, and it never will be. Grab a chart from any time period and pick an artist name at random and do a search to find out "where they are now."

The industry itself can go away, it does not matter, because the music will remain. I think I have acquired the same number of songs in 2011 as I did back in 1997. I like what I like. If it is on the radio or not does not matter. Of course I want my favorites to make money so they keep making music, but that is not a factor in my musical choices.

Not in the 1980s. The majority of stuff was good and the stuff that didn't make to the radio at the time, usually was something dull that didn't deserve to be on it. As for the hits being the only thing remembered these days, that's because the radio these days has been taken over by major corporations who only play the biggest hits. I have lots of jams I play for people and they recognize them immediately and love them but have forgotten them over the years because the radio hasn't played them for decades.

My favorites have never been the extremely huge selling hits, not even back in the 1980s either. When something is usually a huge hit, the reason it became so huge in the first place is because it was something watered down to appeal to as many people as possible, including people who have dull tastes. R&B radio didn't used to be like this back in the early 1980s and played all the jams on a daily basis until they went out of style. When they would play an old jam back then, they would pull something out of the stacks of wax that went really well with the mood of the two recent jams it was played sandwiched between. Whether it was a huge hit or not, had nothing to do with it. A huge hit by someone like Dionne Warwick would have sounded rediculous and out of place inbetween two artists like Lakeside or Con Funk Shun who had current hits at the time and it would have disrupted the whole vibe of the DJs set. There's no DJ input these days, it's all huge hit after huge hit after huge hit when it comes to oldies radio with no rhyme or reason as the order and sequence of the songs other than the fact that they were huge hits. Radio was about entertaining people back then. It's not about entertaining people anymore and hasn't been for decades.

As for the same amount of good music in 2011 as there was in 1997, hell music had already been fucked up for years before 1997 even arrived. The exact same stuff that dominated radio in 1997 is still the same stuff that dominates today....adult contemporary, shit hop, and neo stool.....at least on R&B radio anyway. You got to go way back further that 1997 to see the drastic change, like back to around 1991 or 1992. Actually, it started going downhill in 1985 when Shitney Houston came on the scene and totally died once the 1990s got kicked in real good.

You crack me up whenever you say that name!