MickyDolenz said:

jeidee said:

People you can watch a "video" of an entire album whenever at no cost.

Many of these are out of print and/or obscure albums that have never been on CD. If it is available, some cost hundreds of dollars on the used market, and the artist/label don't make anything from used records. Since you can't buy it, no one is losing any money.

You can find a lot this music if you look. Try a used cd/record shop. Try E-Bay and just goggling for goodness sake. I have always had success finding obsurce stuff and it did not cost hundreds of dollars. People are just cheap and do not want to pay for music anymore which is one of the reasons the quality will continue to go down hill.

laurarichardson said:

MickyDolenz said:

Many of these are out of print and/or obscure albums that have never been on CD. If it is available, some cost hundreds of dollars on the used market, and the artist/label don't make anything from used records. Since you can't buy it, no one is losing any money.

You can find a lot this music if you look. Try a used cd/record shop. Try E-Bay and just goggling for goodness sake. I have always had success finding obsurce stuff and it did not cost hundreds of dollars. People are just cheap and do not want to pay for music anymore which is one of the reasons the quality will continue to go down hill.

What's your point? I didn't say I was looking for anything. The artist does not make money from used record sales, whether or not it can be found. And how are people supposed to look for someone they never heard of? They might click on a youtube video from another they're watching. So the price being cheap or expensive is not relevant to any so called quality going down. Anyway, music "quality" is an opinion. You can't prove that any music is better than any other. Just because you do not like it does not mean it's bad. As for buying CD's online or buying downloads, you have to have a computer and a credit card. Most kids do not have credit, so of course they're likely to to download music for free. Many adults do not have credit cards either. Some people buy music/movies from people selling CDs/DVDs they burn themselves at jobs or in the neighborhood. People are paying for it, but it's bootleg.

[Edited 6/24/14 20:42pm]

MickyDolenz said:

laurarichardson said:

You can find a lot this music if you look. Try a used cd/record shop. Try E-Bay and just goggling for goodness sake. I have always had success finding obsurce stuff and it did not cost hundreds of dollars. People are just cheap and do not want to pay for music anymore which is one of the reasons the quality will continue to go down hill.

What's your point? I didn't say I was looking for anything. The artist does not make money from used record sales, whether or not it can be found. And how are people supposed to look for someone they never heard of? They might click on a youtube video from another they're watching. So the price being cheap or expensive is not relevant to any so called quality going down. Anyway, music "quality" is an opinion. You can't prove that any music is better than any other. Just because you do not like it does not mean it's bad. As for buying CD's online or buying downloads, you have to have a computer and a credit card. Most kids do not have credit, so of course they're likely to to download music for free. Many adults do not have credit cards either. Some people buy music/movies from people selling CDs/DVDs they burn themselves at jobs or in the neighborhood. People are paying for it, but it's bootleg.

[Edited 6/24/14 20:42pm]

Amen! I've been wondering when people would think outside of personal opinion about "quality" and get down to the logical core. Artists aren't really advertised these days outside of interviews that often have nothing to do with the music. It's very rare to actually see an advertisement for an album. Also, the music industry is leaving a lot of people out of the equation by being out of touch with how the majority of people really buy music, trying to fudge the numbers and force them to buy it differently. I mean, downloads still haven't completely eclipsed physical sales by now in the US, even though companies have spent millions getting blogs/magazines to write tons of propaganda in hopes that they would. They're really just about even after all this time, especially compared to the speed with which CDs eclipsed vinyl back in the day.

--

But back to the original topic, I think that YouTube deleting artists--and corporations trying to end net-neutrality--will slowly push people back into the real world for entertainment (see: music festivals and rising importance of Live Nation). The internet is successful right now because it allows people to make content and share it inexpensively (or it used to), but it won't be much longer if 1) Google monopolizes everything and 2) if it's just as expensive to get stuff out there as in the real world.

Album Sales Nosedive as Cruel Summer Rolls On (2013)

These are the only current numbers I could find in a quick Duck search. I doubt the sales numbesr for music sales for 2014 will be any different.

Once again the Music Industry is trying shove thier product down people throats... attempting to close most avenues on who and what you hear. Again, they are alienating a large % of music buyers / lovers and casua buyers / llisteners. They've yet to ge the memo, people are doing other things with their money besides purchasing musi. So, what are people purchasing with their discretionary income? This is one of the questions they need to figure out and come up with a plan how they are going to move folks to purchase their product... pulling stunts like this will not help them.

Case in point...

Still I don't understand why independent artist and labels can't get their act together and build their own shit. Hell there is enough free open source software to get the ball the rolling. They could possible build something like Subsonic (music streaming) site to stream music and charge a nominal fee. Form their streaming site artist and labels could sale their music as many artist already due via Paypal. bitcoin, or whomever. Most kids are using their parents or grandparents credit card for purchasing music. Granted most parents have a limit to what kids can buy... that's why many of them were downloading a lot more music for "free."

Psy's "Gangnam Style" has over 2,000,000,000 views and all he's made is $2,000,000? That's $.001 per view.

That's no way to make money as an artist.

Google owns YouTube now, and so I guess they can absorb the losses. Because my understanding is that YouTube does not and has never made any money.

RodeoSchro said:

Google owns YouTube now, and so I guess they can absorb the losses. Because my understanding is that YouTube does not and has never made any money.

That's true YouTube hasn't turned Google a profit, yet. If the artist haven't figured it out yet, the profit margins are going to have to be looked at differently. The more folks who have some say in how your music is sold, the more people you are going to have in your pockets. Own the store or be a partner in a digital store..... the more control you have over you cost and profit.

=============================== my typing is so crazy

[Edited 6/30/14 12:25pm]

RodeoSchro said:

Google owns YouTube now, and so I guess they can absorb the losses. Because my understanding is that YouTube does not and has never made any money.

They SHOULD for all those god damned random pet food, SUV, gardening, movie trailer advertisements that you're forced to watch before anything you request.

Cinny said:

RodeoSchro said:

Google owns YouTube now, and so I guess they can absorb the losses. Because my understanding is that YouTube does not and has never made any money.

They SHOULD for all those god damned random pet food, SUV, gardening, movie trailer advertisements that you're forced to watch before anything you request.

By the way.. I saw the One Night Alone box set on sale this weekend, and saw "COPYRIGHT 2002 NPG MUSIC CLUB" with the old website.

Am I crazy or was that club the perfect model for an artist releasing material (before YouTube)?

Cinny said:

By the way.. I saw the One Night Alone box set on sale this weekend, and saw "COPYRIGHT 2002 NPG MUSIC CLUB" with the old website.

Am I crazy or was that club the perfect model for an artist releasing material (before YouTube)?

It was for the fans, I don't know about it reaching new fans. And that is key thing to keep the money rolling in to pay for the site and any new adventures he would like to do. Perhaps if he had a free part of the site for his old official videos. But that's the past.

well, truth be told, I use Spotify, mostly

Youtube is fastly becoming just a $$$$$-obsessed corporation