But the thing I DONT GET is, whats the big F'in deal? There are so many reasons why things dont sell now, and you can look at every single thing and blame it, and most of it is really why, everything from POOR marketing to competition of other forms of media to things like Spotify and Pandora and things like that to .99 cent songs sold instead of anyone caring to really record an album. Its all that, BUT WHY CARE?

Do you know who really doesnt care? ARTISTS dont care, and if they do they arent artists plain and simple. And what im saying there is that an Artist doesnt care how is music is received, but the first thing to an artist has always got to be the people that receive it and not how many do. Sure they wanna be heard but trust me alot of ARTISTS older ones who have laid the ground have also adapted to this age, they have other ways to connect to get things out. Do you really think that Elton John is freaking out cause his last album sold about 100,000 in the states? No, because he knows that music doesn't sell anymore basically and that 100,000 reached and bought is what say a GOLD album was then. People think because everyone has some music on their phone or iPod or mp3 player that PEOPLE ARE BUYING MUSIC like crazy, guess what 2% of digital music on people's players is actually BOUGHT.

Problem is that ALOT of people on this forum are from the days of soundscan reports which is nothing more than a HYPE media, and hearing all those first week numbers over and over and blah fucking blah. Whether it was Backstreet selling a million a week one or Nsync or Britney or 50 cent, whomever it was it was a time that is OVER. At the beginning of this thread it was stated that albums sold a million a week and were debuting with 500,000 sold, that was really just in that era, and it was a select few that were doing that. Back in the 80's albums where not selling numbers like that, yes there were tons of platnum certified albums and yes they all had hit singles, but even the biggest records were not moving a million a week, and when they were it was a peak. Bon Jovi's "slippery when wet" which sold over 10 million here never sold a million in a month. The thing was that ALBUMS had "SHELF LIFE" today you dont have that, and you arent getting that back ever again, so let it go, albums are not going to sell because the focus is not on selling an album. Trust me your fave artists KNOW THIS and hopefully soon ya'll accept it.

lol

and don't forget QUALITY guys

that's why Adele has a DIAMOND album

people ain't dumb, if an album sucks, they won't buy it

JoeTyler said:

lol

and don't forget QUALITY guys

that's why Adele has a DIAMOND album

people ain't dumb, if an album sucks, they won't buy it

most quality doesnt sell though, Adele was a fluke, just like Norah Jones was back in 2004 with "Come Away With Me" people just bought it cause they hooked into something and the media was on it like they discovered life on Mars or something like that.

lastdecember said:

JoeTyler said:

lol

and don't forget QUALITY guys

that's why Adele has a DIAMOND album

people ain't dumb, if an album sucks, they won't buy it

most quality doesnt sell though, Adele was a fluke, just like Norah Jones was back in 2004 with "Come Away With Me" people just bought it cause they hooked into something and the media was on it like they discovered life on Mars or something like that.

I think Adele and Norah sold albums was because they got the older audience interested in their music. Older people still tend to buy albums more than singles especially when the buzz is so positive.

lazycrockett said:

I think Adele and Norah sold albums was because they got the older audience interested in their music. Older people still tend to buy albums more than singles especially when the buzz is so positive.

True

Adele showed up exactly when people wanted a big phenomen,, she was selling everywhere in the world because she was the lady with a strong voice and a true soul... She wasn't Rihanna or Katy,, Lorde was so becoming the next phenomen but Pure Heroine isn't selling as big as 21.

As of Norah,, everyone in that generation sold VERY BIG from Eminem to 50 Cent, Linkin Park.., Britneys first album sold 12.000.000 copies in the states, her last album Britney Jean never crossed the 500K mark... see how times change?! Its very sad,, I know artists arent supposed, at one point, to care about their commercial performance but sometimes they have to care,, you cant keep making music if nobody listens to it.

[Edited 3/2/14 12:37pm]

Cause any African-American artist is not allowed to sell. Unless they turn to pop music.

Lorde JUST went platinum. WTF

Shawy89 said:

lazycrockett said:

I think Adele and Norah sold albums was because they got the older audience interested in their music. Older people still tend to buy albums more than singles especially when the buzz is so positive.

True

Adele showed up exactly when people wanted a big phenomen,, she was selling everywhere in the world because she was the lady with a strong voice and a true soul... She wasn't Rihanna or Katy,, Lorde was so becoming the next phenomen but Pure Heroine isn't selling as big as 21.

As of Norah,, everyone in that generation sold VERY BIG from Eminem to 50 Cent, Linkin Park.., Britneys first album sold 12.000.000 copies in the states, her last album Britney Jean never crossed the 500K mark... see how times change?! Its very sad,, I know artists arent supposed, at one point, to care about their commercial performance but sometimes they have to care,, you cant keep making music if nobody listens to it.

[Edited 3/2/14 12:37pm]

Norah did the time to get that, it was clearly all word of mouth, considering that album was so "quiet" sounding there was no mega-single, she was a "club aritst" trust me i saw her in NYC play a dozen times before she had a deal, including one gig where she opened for Joan Rivers at Joe's in NYC for about 100people, and selling her demos cd for five bucks. But as she has said manytimes that record was a total fluke, no one saw that, that album was beyond a slow chart burn, another thing you dont see now. Everything like that is "timing" she hit it, Adele hit it, Alanis Morisette hit it etc....nothing to do with quality finally getting through, it just happend.

I was watching THE Fishbone Documentary last night they made an excellent point. After all the wild drug fueled alternative bands people wanted some watered down good clean music for the masses. You haven't seen a true alternative in years. All music sounds basically the same in mainstream now. So why would you buy something you already have?

Do you know who really doesnt care? ARTISTS dont care, and if they do they arent artists plain and simple. And what im saying there is that an Artist doesnt care how is music is received, but the first thing to an artist has always got to be the people that receive it and not how many do. Sure they wanna be heard but trust me alot of ARTISTS older ones who have laid the ground have also adapted to this age, they have other ways to connect to get things out. Do you really think that Elton John is freaking out cause his last album sold about 100,000 in the states? No, because he knows that music doesn't sell anymore basically and that 100,000 reached and bought is what say a GOLD album was then. People think because everyone has some music on their phone or iPod or mp3 player that PEOPLE ARE BUYING MUSIC like crazy, guess what 2% of digital music on people's players is actually BOUGHT

I think you're right that rich artists like Elton John, who can live comfortably for the rest of his life without selling another record, and is now about 40 years past his creative prime, may be past the point of caring.

It's good to be Elton John.

bobzilla77 said:

Do you know who really doesnt care? ARTISTS dont care, and if they do they arent artists plain and simple. And what im saying there is that an Artist doesnt care how is music is received, but the first thing to an artist has always got to be the people that receive it and not how many do. Sure they wanna be heard but trust me alot of ARTISTS older ones who have laid the ground have also adapted to this age, they have other ways to connect to get things out. Do you really think that Elton John is freaking out cause his last album sold about 100,000 in the states? No, because he knows that music doesn't sell anymore basically and that 100,000 reached and bought is what say a GOLD album was then. People think because everyone has some music on their phone or iPod or mp3 player that PEOPLE ARE BUYING MUSIC like crazy, guess what 2% of digital music on people's players is actually BOUGHT

I think you're right that rich artists like Elton John, who can live comfortably for the rest of his life without selling another record, and is now about 40 years past his creative prime, may be past the point of caring.

It's good to be Elton John.

there are tons that arent rich artists that still put out a record and maybe it charts and maybe it doesnt, but again they dont care, they can tour, play it live, sell it to their fan base direct, WE are the one obsessed with sales now, not them.

Ace said:

Identity said:

Blame the sales erosion on P2P torrent sites and iTunes' individual-tracks model.

I know wealthy people who justify stealing music because...hey, why not? It's there and it's easy, and those rock stars have enough money!

NDRU said:

Ace said:

I know wealthy people who justify stealing music because...hey, why not? It's there and it's easy, and those rock stars have enough money!

The whole system is screwy as the "rich" image of alot of "artists" makes you wonder why you'd spend your money on them anyway. Justin Beiber and Rhianna don't need my 10 dollars for their CD when they are buying houses and Lambos. Fuck'm. I gotta eat.

.

I'd buy a kickstarter/indie album before I'd buy a major/iTunes anyday.

.

The "good old days" are a memory. Kids don't even know what a real record store is or how it feels to dig and find a discontinued gem. They get a boner when they see a brand new reprint of "The Chronic" on vinyl at Urban Outfitters.

[Edited 3/4/14 8:06am]

I feel the same way. I do check out the mainstream stuff via Youtube or whatever, but if I'm going to spend money on records I'm going to make sure it goes to alternative / indie bands that actually need the money to simply be able to continue making music. Likewise, buying the records of artists like Marvin Gaye or Curtis Mayfield doesn't really make much sense from that perspective either, as they're not here to collect that money themselves. I think it's very important that many of those classic albums from the past decades have been uploaded to services like Youtube, so younger generations can easily discover that stuff. If they want to buy the CDs / LPs themselves later on that's up to them.

jeidee said:

NDRU said:

I know wealthy people who justify stealing music because...hey, why not? It's there and it's easy, and those rock stars have enough money!

The whole system is screwy as the "rich" image of alot of "artists" makes you wonder why you'd spend your money on them anyway. Justin Beiber and Rhianna don't need my 10 dollars for their CD when they are buying houses and Lambos. Fuck'm. I gotta eat.

.

I'd buy a kickstarter/indie album before I'd buy a major/iTunes anyday.

.

The "good old days" are a memory. Kids don't even know what a real record store is or how it feels to dig and find a discontinued gem. They get a boner when they see a brand new reprint of "The Chronic" on vinyl at Urban Outfitters.

[Edited 3/4/14 8:06am]

OK but why would anyone want Justin Bieber's music whether it's free or not? If they are a good artist, then I want to support their work even if they are rich.

Plus, it just seems like the right thing to do. McDonalds is rich but I am not going to steal fries from them. I like their fries, I am going to buy some because stealing is wrong.

NDRU said:

OK but why would anyone want Justin Bieber's music whether it's free or not? If they are a good artist, then I want to support their work even if they are rich.

Plus, it just seems like the right thing to do. McDonalds is rich but I am not going to steal fries from them. I like their fries, I am going to buy some because stealing is wrong.

Good point Bieb's was just a hypothetical.

.

Maybe as we're almost ten years into the MP3/FLAC "decline" of the music industry, it may be time to re-evaluate "taking" and "stealing" regarding music. Especially considering novabrkr's comment regarding estate/deceased artists.

.

If I'm walking down the street and I turn the corner to a pile of vinyl on the curb, I'm gonna sort through it and take. I feel like Piratebay, et al. are virtual dumpsters. If I wanted a shiny, new, packaged product I'd buy it.

.

Also cost of living is RIDICULOUS these days in comparison to the "early/good ol" days. We didn't have 100 monthly cell phone bills, 80 monthly internet bills... often owned by the same companies that own our favorite pop artists. You gotta work a week to afford to "steal" the music.

NDRU said:

OK but why would anyone want Justin Bieber's music whether it's free or not? If they are a good artist, then I want to support their work even if they are rich.

Plus, it just seems like the right thing to do. McDonalds is rich but I am not going to steal fries from them. I like their fries, I am going to buy some because stealing is wrong.

That's only because food cannot be distributed digitally.

Maybe one day we'll have some sort of cheap "mass" that can be easily turned into different types of flavours by applying computer-controlled processes on it (think of 3D printers). I can see something like that becoming a threat to the food industry if that ever becomes possible.

Of course, eating out and going to see a live band has always had the social angle to it too. People are willing to spend quite a lot of money on such things, so that they can just spend some time with others with some sort of an "activity" in mind. The owners of restaurants and live venues know this.

jeidee said:

[...]

Also cost of living is RIDICULOUS these days in comparison to the "early/good ol" days. We didn't have 100 monthly cell phone bills, 80 monthly internet bills... often owned by the same companies that own our favorite pop artists. You gotta work a week to afford to "steal" the music.

Yes.

I pay twice as much rent now as I did 8-10 years ago, but it's not like I make twice as much money in general.

The truth is that when I stopped spending a lot of money on records the quality of my life otherwise has increased considerably. I just eat better, healthier and I can afford to have a more satisfying social life. Just a few hundred euros per month, or even less than that, makes a big difference in that regard.

NDRU said:

jeidee said:

The whole system is screwy as the "rich" image of alot of "artists" makes you wonder why you'd spend your money on them anyway. Justin Beiber and Rhianna don't need my 10 dollars for their CD when they are buying houses and Lambos. Fuck'm. I gotta eat.

.

I'd buy a kickstarter/indie album before I'd buy a major/iTunes anyday.

.

The "good old days" are a memory. Kids don't even know what a real record store is or how it feels to dig and find a discontinued gem. They get a boner when they see a brand new reprint of "The Chronic" on vinyl at Urban Outfitters.

[Edited 3/4/14 8:06am]

OK but why would anyone want Justin Bieber's music whether it's free or not? If they are a good artist, then I want to support their work even if they are rich.

Plus, it just seems like the right thing to do. McDonalds is rich but I am not going to steal fries from them. I like their fries, I am going to buy some because stealing is wrong.

I agree with you, but my brother's band is more worried about getting the music out to listeners then Cd sales. Besides the music label makes the money off the CD's.

(Like everyone has said) The trend of buying singles, illegal downloads, sites like Pandora all add to the downfall of albums sales. But less disposable income has contributed to weaker sales, but consumer choice is probably the biggest component. More disposable income now a days is spent on cell phones, internet, and most importantly, video games and video systems. Money that use to go into buying Movies and Music has shifted to those three areas.

there are tons that arent rich artists that still put out a record and maybe it charts and maybe it doesnt, but again they dont care, they can tour, play it live, sell it to their fan base direct, WE are the one obsessed with sales now, not them.

Again, if you're mainly listening to the music of famous stars who are already rich, they probably do not care that much.

If you are talking about artists who are not already independently wealthy, whose ability to make a next record depends on how their current record does, then you'd better believe those people are paying attention to their own sales.

If you got signed to WB in the 70s they might let you make four or five weak selling albums before they dropped you. Presuming you are even able to get a label to fund you today, you need to be profitable all the time or else SNIP!

You may not hear artists talkin about it in public because it's seen as tacky to be too into your own commerciality. But these peoples careers and livelihoods are literally on the line right now and to say "artists don't care about sales" is just not right. I guarantee you they ALL want to sell enough to be able to make another record.

bobzilla77 said:

there are tons that arent rich artists that still put out a record and maybe it charts and maybe it doesnt, but again they dont care, they can tour, play it live, sell it to their fan base direct, WE are the one obsessed with sales now, not them.

Again, if you're mainly listening to the music of famous stars who are already rich, they probably do not care that much.

If you are talking about artists who are not already independently wealthy, whose ability to make a next record depends on how their current record does, then you'd better believe those people are paying attention to their own sales.

If you got signed to WB in the 70s they might let you make four or five weak selling albums before they dropped you. Presuming you are even able to get a label to fund you today, you need to be profitable all the time or else SNIP!

You may not hear artists talkin about it in public because it's seen as tacky to be too into your own commerciality. But these peoples careers and livelihoods are literally on the line right now and to say "artists don't care about sales" is just not right. I guarantee you they ALL want to sell enough to be able to make another record.

There was good story about how Amanda Palmer used Kickstarter to get out of her record contract with a label. She asked for 100,000. She recieved 1.2 million donations.

kewlschool said:

NDRU said:

OK but why would anyone want Justin Bieber's music whether it's free or not? If they are a good artist, then I want to support their work even if they are rich.

Plus, it just seems like the right thing to do. McDonalds is rich but I am not going to steal fries from them. I like their fries, I am going to buy some because stealing is wrong.

I agree with you, but my brother's band is more worried about getting the music out to listeners then Cd sales. Besides the music label makes the money off the CD's.

Actually, I agree with your brother's POV. If a million people illegally downloaded my band's music, I would be thrilled because it would mean a million people liked the song. But eventually, you have to figure that it costs a lot of money to produce music. And in the end, I just can't get past the fact that stealing is stealing. Maybe the industry needs a shakeup and digital downloads should be cheaper, but there should be a cost of some kind IMO because it costs a lot to make it. Or there needs to be ads like on free TV. And I would rather not have ads in my music!

Steve Grand who just last summer released his first single "All American Boy" which went viral and hit over 1 million hits in a week, just released his 3rd single and kicked off his kickstarter campaign hoping to reach his goal of $81,000.00 in 29 days.

He's raised almost $170,000.00 with 25 days to go. He's doing all this himself without label. His debut album will be released in May.

[Edited 3/4/14 20:00pm]

IIAGY said:

I love how people keep saying Adele was a fluke. The anticipation for her next album is there and so is my eggs when she comes through and sells 1M copies first week with ease.

Because it was a fluke, sorry, but talent YES but no one saw it coming at all and anyone that says they saw her selling 10 million in the states is smoking that bob marley joint. Norah Jones was a fluke, and YES anticipation is there of course, after ANY gigantic seller there is anticipation ESPECIALLY when you take a long time off which adele is doing, some artists arent like that, Norah was on everyone's albums and never was a commercial artist to begin with, she knew that, but still she sold 5 million of her second album. Adele will most likely sell a million in a week, that shouldnt be a shock and wont be, but "lightning in a bottle" and the "stars aligning" like that again will not happen, and i hope that people dont go all ape shit if the next album only sells half of the previous, im sure if it does we will get threads like "she waited too long" "she is finished" "lackluster material" etc..

CDs are probably to blame too. Pre-CD, average store prices for an LP/cassette in the US was $6-$8. A 45 single was around $1.50 and a maxi single $3.99. At a mall store like Sam Goody, a CD cost $18-$20 and around $12 at a department store like Target. When CD burners became popular, it was fast and easy to copy an album vs. recording on a tape in which you had to actually play the songs, and blank CDs cost much less than blank tapes, even the cheap low quality tapes. As far as the record companies go, a CD is probably faster and cheaper to produce than records and tapes, but they were given a recommended price that was double of the previous formats, even for the same exact album with no extra music.