Here, list reasons that you believe contribute to the overall decline of the music industry from the finances to the distribution methods to the labels to the artists to the music itself.

This is not meant to a "Today's music sucks" thread but to act as though there is absolutely nothing wrong with the business today and everything within it would be factually wrong. This is just supposed to be the place where all these ideas are kept together.

Starting off:

-Globalization

-Twitter

-All "faces" no "heels"

-Artists not carving out their own niche

-Genre blending

-YouTube

I got work soon so I'll expand upon these later but feel free to add whatever you think is hurting the music industry.

This actually started in the 80's and has gotten progressively worse with each decade but the main thing I think is wrong with the industry is most of it all about what we see instead of what we hear. And I think that's a strange criteria being that, many moons ago, music used to be an art form that was judged based on audio. Now, it's mostly visual.

(to add to your list)

- Radio Stations

- File Sharing

I do think that the internet can be used to fuel the music industry just as much as people claim it has "destroyed it"

The industry as a whole (artists,labels, etc..) i feel like just havent learned how to use it properly yet.

I mean... It's the internet for crying out loud, the possiblities are virtually endless to the creative things you can do, from the art itself, to the visuals, to the marketing and selling of the music. Which can by brought back to the record labels being run by big shot business men/women, rather than creative people, and artists not willing to think outside of the box or take chances.

[Edited 6/26/14 10:20am]

People who say the the internet is useful for music forget that there are many people who don't have a computer. There's also lots of people who don't have credit cards and there's other people who don't trust online shopping. A lot of online retailers don't accept money orders or checks either. Who's serving this audience in places where they've closed down record stores? There's maybe a Wal-Mart, but they have a limited selection (mostly whatever is in the Top 10 and hit compilations) and they sell edited CDs.

MickyDolenz said:

People who say the the internet is useful for music forget that there are many people who don't have a computer. There's also lots of people who don't have credit cards and there's other people who don't trust online shopping. A lot of online retailers don't accept money orders or checks either. Who's serving this audience in places where they've closed down record stores? There's maybe a Wal-Mart, but they have a limited selection (mostly whatever is in the Top 10 and hit compilations) and they sell edited CDs.

I don't think that the market should be solely internet, what I think is that using the internet in more creative ways would help the industry (for users who have access/use the internet) Kind of like MTV in the 1980's ... Not everyone had access to a television, or MTV, but its impact on the industry was huge once an artist started using it in a creative way (Michael Jackson "Billie Jean" , "Beat It", "Thriller") (using this as an example, plz don't lock the entire thread bc i use MJ in a fitting example) So while I think that the internet can be a great tool for artists, the same thing goes for retail stores that sell music and record stores. An artist has to make people want to go out and by the album, it has to be something special, something you can't get from online. Of coarse, that only works if the artists fuels it, meaning the public/music buyers have to be interested totally, they have to believe in you, you have to prove something to them.

Greedy record execs and file sharing. AND the artists themselves.

1. Record execs think they should make more money than the artists should.

2. People downloading and the record industry not getting ahead of the technology of file sharing. Surely someone can come up with the technology to make file sharing harder?

3. Artists (all of them) making a shitty product and asking fans to shell out 17 bucks for three good songs. This is the reason I stop buying CDs years ago.

Stymie said:

1. Record execs think they should make more money than the artists should.

But that has happened ever since the recording industry began in the late 1800's. The performer has always made less, it isn't a new thing. This also happened in clubs & bars the singers/bands played in and with managers/agents. James Brown would not perform unless he got paid first. Colonel Parker got 50% from Elvis Presley.

I don't see why genre blending is a wrong thing, in fact, genre blending & mixing is a sign of greatness, it just should be coherent enough for the listener..

Shawy89 said:

I don't see why genre blending is a wrong thing, in fact, genre blending & mixing is a sign of greatness, it just should be coherent enough for the listener..

There's nothing wrong with the act in and of itself and can still be great when done right but it's been done to death at this point and is little more than a crutch for most artists now. It's part of the reason why most music sounds the same.

kitbradley said:

This actually started in the 80's and has gotten progressively worse with each decade but the main thing I think is wrong with the industry is most of it all about what we see instead of what we hear. And I think that's a strange criteria being that, many moons ago, music used to be an art form that was judged based on audio. Now, it's mostly visual.

I agree with this. It's a doggone shame because originally it was the visual part that only helped to enhance the music, now it's the image that completely overshadows the music.

MotownSubdivision said:

most music sounds the same.

So you're saying death metal sounds like Bollywood, bossa nova, bluegrass, Arabian folk music, psychobilly, polka, opera, tropical, blues, new age, etc.?

MickyDolenz said:

Stymie said:

1. Record execs think they should make more money than the artists should.

But that has happened ever since the recording industry began in the late 1800's. The performer has always made less, it isn't a new thing. This also happened in clubs & bars the singers/bands played in and with managers/agents. James Brown would not perform unless he got paid first. Colonel Parker got 50% from Elvis Presley.

The question is what's wrong with the music industry and this is a huge part for me. I don't understand why they can't band together, form a cortisortium and take control of their own shit.

MickyDolenz said:

MotownSubdivision said:

most music sounds the same.

So you're saying death metal sounds like Bollywood, bossa nova, bluegrass, Arabian folk music, psychobilly, polka, opera, tropical, blues, new age, etc.?

Obviously not. I was talking about mainstream music.

Stymie said:

The question is what's wrong with the music industry and this is a huge part for me. I don't understand why they can't band together, form a cortisortium and take control of their own shit.

But many performers don't know anything about business, and that takes a lot of time and work that would be difficult if not impossible. They need a middleman that specializes in promoting their product. An act can sell their music themselves, but they do not have the reach, nor the money & clout that the major label does. They do not have the money to get their songs played on the radio or to get themselves on TV. If the act wants to be a local group or they play music that doesn't get radio play or much TV broadcast, that is fine, but if they want to reach the mainstream, the major label is still necessary. Maybe in the 1950's and 60's an independent label could get acts on the radio regularly, but many of them eventually got bought out by a major or the major took their bigger acts away. Some of the "indie" labels today are under a major or distributed by one.

.

As far as working together, a lot of groups don't really get along, so how would they all work together? Could a Ted Nugent work with a Don Henley or a U2? How do you know that just because a person is a performer that they would be any more fair and honest than a suit at a label?

MickyDolenz said:

MotownSubdivision said:

most music sounds the same.

So you're saying death metal sounds like Bollywood, bossa nova, bluegrass, Arabian folk music, psychobilly, polka, opera, tropical, blues, new age, etc.?

This is an interesting topic. I agree that a huge part of the problem is that people are now used to absorbing music as a visual. There are folks who are "famous" that can't sing their way out of a paper bag but they are on the top of the charts. The best/worst example of this is Rhianna.

Genre blending has destroyed hip-hop and R&B. When you have a collaboration between Katy Perry and Juicy J, something's gone amiss. An example of a rapper who has lost his luster a bit is Pitbull. His music in the mid-200s was HOT. Now that he's doing these stupid collaborations HIS sound has been watered down but the pop acts that he works with don't sound like they have changed their schtick one bit. How does Pitbull go from selling mixtapes, wearing 305 area code hats to singing Timber with Kesha? I still like him but his output lately has sucked.

There are a lot of artists who are resorting to putting out singles instead of albums. A song will be hot for a week or so then it fades away.

In reality, we need to blame the folks in the music industry that are behind the scenes such as the publicists, managers, accountants, lawyers and record company executives. It's all about the bottom line and they will sacrifice anyone to get it, no doubt about that.

[Edited 6/26/14 22:51pm]

1. Radio stations deciding on what's "popular" and "classic", airtime is limited so there are only so much tracks that can be played, I'm talking about old and forgotten songs that used to be hits that never get notable airplay anymore.

2. Bloated albums wih filler, sold on the back of 1-3 big singles, a record label tactic used in the second half of the 1990s and the first half of the 2000s, one of the reasons why file sharing exploded, they made people pay for full CDs instead of just the songs they wanted. This is also the reason why the album as a format is no longer respected outside hardcore fans and critics. Also, older acts cannot think out of the box and still force themselves to record music in the album concept, with diminishing returns.

LiveToTell86 said:

Also, older acts cannot think out of the box and still force themselves to record music in the album concept, with diminishing returns.

Most music is not and has never been singles oriented. It wouldn't make much sense for a jazz act, a blues singer, a heavy metal band, or a symphony orchestra to make songs only for singles, since they're not going to get Top 40 radio airplay to become a hit. The audiences for these most likely buy the albums.

LiveToTell86 said:

2. Bloated albums wih filler, sold on the back of 1-3 big singles, a record label tactic used in the second half of the 1990s and the first half of the 2000s, one of the reasons why file sharing exploded, they made people pay for full CDs instead of just the songs they wanted.

I really don't think artists switch gears for "the single". I think they make a bunch of songs, select the top 16 tracks that will make the album, and then choose a single to focus on.