Krid said:

From my personal experience - once you started the convenience of streaming, the varity of choice and the excellent sound (up to high res), there is hardly a way back. And this coming from a guy who has spent a considerable amount of his income on vinyl and CDs when he was younger...

Unfortunately, streaming is one of the many conveniences catering to (or causing?) a reduced attention span. Anyone seen a 16 year old listening intensely to 20 minutes 5 song seague by the same artist while admiring cover work and lyrics? Or even a 70 minute plus session?

100% agree. I was listening to commentary by Musician/teacher/ Producer Rick Beato and he was commenting on some questions he was getting, and that was one of the main things he spoke about which is attention span, it is true that music has to compete with so much more today than in other eras like gaming etc...BUT we had gaming before, the problem now is all your world is on their phone or tablet whatever, so you have reduced music to an app, an invisible library, and you factor that in with attention spans and facebook and instagram, tik tok videos etc... its not surprising that "NEW" music from artists doesnt sell physically and also why there is no real defining of the times now

SolaceAHA said:

BUT we had gaming before

In the past, people had to go somewhere to play video games like an arcade or a grocery/convenience store. Also you couldn't carry an Atari 2600 around with you and play. Today people pay games on their phones/tablets while riding the bus or sitting in a park. Gaming is much bigger today than back then. There's even talk of putting it in the Olympics. People rush out to buy the newest Playstation or X-Box, and even camp out overnight in front of stores for them. They aren't waiting for the newest CD player. You can play CDs in the game console though.

MickyDolenz said:

SolaceAHA said:

BUT we had gaming before

In the past, people had to go somewhere to play video games like an arcade or a grocery/convenience store. Also you couldn't carry an Atari 2600 around with you and play. Today people pay games on their phones/tablets while riding the bus or sitting in a park. Gaming is much bigger today than back then. There's even talk of putting it in the Olympics. People rush out to buy the newest Playstation or X-Box, and even camp out overnight in front of stores for them. They aren't waiting for the newest CD player. You can play CDs in the game console though.

youhave everything on one device not only, games, but all your social media, people are texting talking on Twitter or Instagram shooting a tik Tok video, this is why attention spans are shorter and shorter and people don't want an album from an artist they barely want a song, it's just what technology has done to music and then the cheapening of producing it has led to people caring less and less about artists anymore. Music has become the "do you want fries with your meal" type thing, it's an after thought, the fact that people quote streaming numbers is useless, meaningless.and people's dependency on a device to rule their world is troubling, I mean social media crashed for a few hours last year and you thought it was 9/11, imagine if a cyber attack knocked these things out for a month, I think we'd see how hooked and clueless people are without their devices.

SolaceAHA said:

youhave everything on one device not only, games, but all your social media, people are texting talking on Twitter or Instagram shooting a tik Tok video, this is why attention spans are shorter and shorter and people don't want an album from an artist they barely want a song, it's just what technology has done to music and then the cheapening of producing it has led to people caring less and less about artists anymore. Music has become the "do you want fries with your meal" type thing, it's an after thought, the fact that people quote streaming numbers is useless, meaningless.and people's dependency on a device to rule their world is troubling, I mean social media crashed for a few hours last year and you thought it was 9/11, imagine if a cyber attack knocked these things out for a month, I think we'd see how hooked and clueless people are without their devices.

What I wonder about is how do those audiophile stereo equipment companies stay in business. Like I can't see many people buying a $100,000 record player, a CD player that costs $10,000, or some RCA cables/speaker wire for $900, or a $5,000 cartridge/needle. Yet they still have high end audio conventions every year. There's also those Ultradisc One-Step vinyl pressings that cost at least $125. It's not a deluxe reissue with a bunch of extra tracks, it's just the plain original single album, made into a double album at 45 rpm instead of 33. Blu-Ray audio & SACD are also more expensive.

The physical sale is the only thing that will save the artist, or there is just going to be a free for all much more than it may seem is going on now in music. If Billboard started weighing streaming less than it does now, mainly because it is easily manipulated by labels themselves, you would see a push of some sort to physical sales again. The problem is you are or have created a generation that doesnt (most of them) want collections of any kind, its a convienance thing, plain and simple. Most don't care overall about the compression and these "walls of sound" most of recording now a days is done so poorly that is become typical and accepted. Recentl I saw an interview with Rick Beato and he often goes through current songs and he breaks them down, and he generally will have positive takes on things of today somewhat, but he also points out in a recent top 10 songs that almost every one had the same beat to it, and its intentional not "stealing", producers find a beat and if its what is out there now they all will use it, so the listener is so tuned into that beat, when something "different" comes along even if its a perfectly written commercially sung track, people wont jump on it, because they want that "beat" people rarely will stretch out their comfort zone with todays mainstream.

SolaceAHA said:

If Billboard started weighing streaming less than it does now, mainly because it is easily manipulated by labels themselves, you would see a push of some sort to physical sales again.

Unlikely, because like I mentioned earlier in the thread, most people don't own anything to play CDs. records, & tapes on. Before the internet, there were stereo stores, record stores, and department stores like Sears & Mongomery Wards sold records & tapes. Most of those are gone now. Walmart & Amazon put a lot of the mom and pop stores out of business. There's a entire generation that have grown up without physical music, so they don't know anything about it. It's like if all of the movie/TV show streaming services like Netflix & Disney+ all disappeared, the audience in general isn't going to just start buying DVDs or VHS again. Blockbuster Video is not going to be resurrected.

They still manufacture 8-track tapes, but no one makes anything to play them on. You have to buy an 8-track player on the used market. A high percentage of physical sales today are catalog albums, not new stuff. So Dark Side Of The Moon & Beatles albums keep getting reissued every few years. I guess mainly boomers rebuy them over and over, because I don't imagine that the average Megan Thee Stallion or Lizzo fan care about Beatle demos or remastered DLR era Van Halen albums on vinyl. Even with reaction videos to old music, they're watching the video on Youtube. Some will say "I like this song and I will add it to my playlist"

kitbradley said:

I was at a used record store today and asked the guy are they still buying used CD's? He said yes, it is still a big business. So, contrary to popular belief, the CD is not dead!

exactly here in nyc we have a few and also used vinyl etc...and they are opening more, always tons of people inside, they just opened a new Rough Trade store which is all vinyl. But used places are not tracked for sales obviously so people tend to hear cd sales are down or vinyl is down and they forget used is a huge market, even on Amazon, I always hear people say "I'll wait till the price drops or get it used" so the market is there

SolaceAHA said:

exactly here in nyc we have a few and also used vinyl etc...and they are opening more, always tons of people inside, they just opened a new Rough Trade store which is all vinyl. But used places are not tracked for sales obviously so people tend to hear cd sales are down or vinyl is down and they forget used is a huge market, even on Amazon, I always hear people say "I'll wait till the price drops or get it used" so the market is there

I don't think that a lot of people realize that large cities are a small percentage of the USA. There's way more small towns & rural areas, which are less likely to have such stores, a shopping mall, or a movie theater. Some still don't even have cell phone reception or internet. A lot of these small towns is one reason country music is really popular in the USA, like the Farm Aid/Americana audience. There's also the bible belt.

MickyDolenz said:

SolaceAHA said:

exactly here in nyc we have a few and also used vinyl etc...and they are opening more, always tons of people inside, they just opened a new Rough Trade store which is all vinyl. But used places are not tracked for sales obviously so people tend to hear cd sales are down or vinyl is down and they forget used is a huge market, even on Amazon, I always hear people say "I'll wait till the price drops or get it used" so the market is there

I don't think that a lot of people realize that large cities are a small percentage of the USA. There's way more small towns & rural areas, which are less likely to have such stores, a shopping mall, or a movie theater. Some still don't even have cell phone reception or internet. A lot of these small towns is one reason country music is really popular in the USA, like the Farm Aid/Americana audience. There's also the bible belt.

they may be a smaller percentage but it doesn't mean much. NYC is considered a big city because of its tourist attraction more than anything, even more now since many have left nyc during the pandemic and have not come back. A place like Nashville blows NYC away now in terms of being a music town for shows and clubs that was never a thing before, I have many indie music friends who get in the car drive there and book into music clubs for a few weeks and do the rounds because it's a more dedicated area. Here in nyc everyone is really on their own thing. A place like California is way bigger than NYC but there too it's a tourist place, and everyone is doing their own thing, when I see some of these record store day videos that stores do so many times they are smaller town markets with huge followings so even if they don't get tons of people in the store like maybe a nyc midtown Manhattan place might, they get tons of online sales and more. Also in terms of sales, RSD is a huge boost to the idea of owning physical product again, this is why I always look at the Album Sales chart I don't really care too much about the main album chart because that's based so much in streaming I want and care more about what people buy with money, and really own, this past week Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam has the number one selling album and you can't get the vinyl yet in a store, the vinyl is only for sale through his Pearl Jam site, so there are the artists some older and some younger especially in rock (which is not dead) that do their best to keep the physical aspect, Vedder's album sales were close to 95% physical product and 5% were digital sales and streaming .

SolaceAHA said:

Vedder's album sales were close to 95% physical product and 5% were digital sales and streaming .

Who is the primary audience for Pearl Jam/Vedder though? Probably not a very ethnic diverse one, likely mostly white middle aged people who were into grunge in the 1990s. People who were around when CDs/tapes were how you bought music instead of buying digital downloads. Hip hop appeals to many races/ethnicities. That's why it is the most popular genre now. It's all over the radio, fashion, and mainstream media. Look at the recent Superbowl Halftime Show. Where I live there's a large Latino population and Eddie Vedder is not a thing. For some reason Morrissey is popular in parts of Mexico though. It might be because his singing style is not that different from Ranchera vocalists. There's an entire separate Latin Grammys award show. There's no alternative rock Grammys.

MickyDolenz said:

SolaceAHA said:

Vedder's album sales were close to 95% physical product and 5% were digital sales and streaming .

Who is the primary audience for Pearl Jam/Vedder though? Probably not a very ethnic diverse one, likely mostly white middle aged people who were into grunge in the 1990s. People who were around when CDs/tapes were how you bought music instead of buying digital downloads. Hip hop appeals to many races/ethnicities. That's why it is the most popular genre now. It's all over the radio, fashion, and mainstream media. Look at the recent Superbowl Halftime Show. Where I live there's a large Latino population and Eddie Vedder is not a thing. For some reason Morrissey is popular in parts of Mexico though. It might be because his singing style is not that different from Ranchera vocalists. There's an entire separate Latin Grammys award show. There's no alternative rock Grammys.

The diversity of the audience he has or they had back then doesnt matter really, because like i said "physical" sales are what musicians have to have, live concert industry is a must. I know people think that live music is not a necessity well talk to artrists, not the ones that are big steamers and have fashion deals, I mean Drake or Meghan the Stallion never have to play a show because they have deals all over the place that takes the place of what they dont get selling music, Puff Daddy said in the 90's "If I had to live off my music revenue, id be broke" and this was at a time stremaing didnt even exist and music sold, he was talking like this. And yes look at the halftime show, something very interesting, you had old school artists with the exception of Kendrick no one on that stage is a new hip hop RB artist, Eminem is the only one that still kind of sells records, this was prime time playing it SO SAFE, snoop does commercials with Martha Stewart, 50 cent is a tv movie star and producer, Mary sings with everyone from elton to andrea boccelli and Dre was the leader for most of them bringing them to the stage, but this was OLD school, Eminem is going to be 50, Mary and Dre are older. So yes its very commercial and has been, but I look at sales, I see Taylor and Adele and that country guy and Olvia Rodrigo being the top selling artists last year for their albums, they are all far from hip hop, yes they have diverse audiences, but they mainly safe younger artists or younger artists aging that their base still love, and Adele is this eras Celine Dion. And though you dont have a seperate Rock grammys show, which would they at this point, look at the concert tours, and festivals on years prior and coming out of covid, they are primarily 90% rock bands touring because that is where the money is, there is a huge divide with getting streamed as opposed to going to see an artist play, streaming is a convienance going to a show is a choice. And for being big in markets and other countries, I think Eddie/Pearl Jam have a lot of fans in other countries since they tour and he is currently touring selling out venues in a time where people are still weary to go to a show, so it may seem as if a band couldnt sell in other countries there are tons of acts that sell out shows in other markets.

SolaceAHA said:

The diversity of the audience he has or they had back then doesnt matter really, because like i said "physical" sales are what musicians have to have, live concert industry is a must.

Is it though when artists like TLC sold multi-platinum, but were still in the hole to their record labels? During the entire history of the recording business, most acts had rip off contracts. That's how The Beatles and other songwriters lost their publishing that Michael Jackson could buy decades later in the ATV catalog. Billy Joel & Sting were ripped off by their managers, then there. Then there are people like Colonel Tom Parker, Suge Knight, and the mafia in the entertainment business. Even the artists who became millionaires made a small percentage compared to what the labels made from their records. Then the labels own the master recordings to exploit. You think Disney is going to let Mickey Mouse fall into public domain? They're going to fight it and that will likely apply to the record labels too, since Disney has a record label.

MickyDolenz said:

SolaceAHA said:

The diversity of the audience he has or they had back then doesnt matter really, because like i said "physical" sales are what musicians have to have, live concert industry is a must.

Is it though when artists like TLC sold multi-platinum, but were still in the hole to their record labels? During the entire history of the recording business, most acts had rip off contracts. That's how The Beatles and other songwriters lost their publishing that Michael Jackson could buy decades later in the ATV catalog. Billy Joel & Sting were ripped off by their managers, then there. Then there are people like Colonel Tom Parker, Suge Knight, and the mafia in the entertainment business. Even the artists who became millionaires made a small percentage compared to what the labels made from their records. Then the labels own the master recordings to exploit. You think Disney is going to let Mickey Mouse fall into public domain? They're going to fight it and that will likely apply to the record labels too, since Disney has a record label.

Its what you sign, TLC and Toni Braxtion (she did it twice), as did Billy Joel, but right now Joel has control over everything and the guy hasnt recorded a pop rock album in 30 years, and brings in more money than most of todays top acts. This is why artists sell off their catalog, some do it because they are older and want a company to handle, others who are younger like a John Legend or Jason aldean are in their 40's but they know at this point streaming is the way it goes and we cant make anything on that pretty much, so let a company own it and sell it and let people cover it and all that. The beatles and elton john both got to a point where they could go broke, as did QUEEN and these three artists have more control now than ever, people laugh when Elton in his 70's still records, like he cares what and where it charts he knows the business, others dont. New artists today are getting duped into this thinking that social media is their number one tool, artists now get signed not on talent but how many gram followers they have or tik tok clicks thats all they have. But others who still have a desire to learn an instrument and not be a part of that machine, have to still build it up. But streaming is a much bigger rip off because the industry, labels didnt embrace the shift to digital so everyone stole the music then itunes came about and the 99cent song and you had some returning to at least buying things. Then streaming came alive and "free" services which artists really get screwed by companies that offer FREE with ads service, the streamers are another hand in the money grab, so now its a label a company streaming and then if you dont write it and produce yourself, you might as well get a job at the post office because you are getting nothing at the end.

SolaceAHA said:

as did Billy Joel, but right now Joel has control over everything and the guy hasnt recorded a pop rock album in 30 years, and brings in more money than most of todays top acts.

Good for him. Billy Joel is a millionaire that can hire fancy lawyers to help him. But I doubt artists like Chubby Checker, The Supremes, Herman's Hermits, Exposé, Frankie Valli, etc. ever owned their stuff and never will. Nor will any of their descendants if passed away. Allen Klein's company still owns Sam Cooke's later music and the early Rolling Stones albums. Paul McCartney did not want to sign with Klein and that was one factor in The Beatles breaking up

MickyDolenz said:

SolaceAHA said:

as did Billy Joel, but right now Joel has control over everything and the guy hasnt recorded a pop rock album in 30 years, and brings in more money than most of todays top acts.

Good for him. Billy Joel is a millionaire that can hire fancy lawyers to help him. But I doubt artists like Chubby Checker, The Supremes, Herman's Hermits, Exposé, Frankie Valli, etc. ever owned their stuff and never will. Nor will any of their descendants if passed away. Allen Klein's company still owns Sam Cooke's later music and the early Rolling Stones albums. Paul McCartney did not want to sign with Klein and that was one factor in The Beatles breaking up

Well the big problem with some of the artists you mentioned are they primarily did not write anything for the most part, chubby checkers biggest hits were covers, so there is not much you can do with that. The Supremes and other Motown acts can thank Gordy for their troubles in their deals, also because he was always bringing in outside writers for all their hits. Expose like many FREESTYLE acts though they crossed over the most, were victims of producers and writers they used. EXPOSE actually fought to be able to perform now under that name, this was a little heard of court case back in 2007 where EXPOSE members were sued and actually won their name back because it couldnt not be proven it was a trademark and if it was since the three members almost always were the only members they were viewed as the owners of the name. For bands that constantly change members, this is a big problem for them because anyone can take the name and songs and just go. Also there is a big difference in deals from way back in the 50's and 60's and 70's to today. In Sam Cookes case had he lived things may have been different, maybe not, but him being a songwriter he could have enjoyed more profit of everyone covering his work if he hadnt been murdered. Though many dislike Yoko Ono she is the main reason Lennons works remain Lennons works, she preserved his legacy by being a very smart business woman though a few things she did do I still question, one being her dealings early on with Julian. There is a lot of details with different artists and it will always come down to, are they the sole composers of their works. I mean take the Monkees, big success, didnt write most of those hits at all, didnt play on most of the hits at all, even though they took their stand and got to do things their way, their success is almost all based on things they didnt create, though they sang it, and toured it, they didnt create it. Its like a Broadway show, if it has a legacy, its going to be $$$ for the producers and playwright, but an actor who was in a version of it one time isnt going to get paid everytime the play is performed by someone else because they didnt create it, even if they are the biggest star and known to that show, doesnt matter.

SolaceAHA said:

Well the big problem with some of the artists you mentioned are they primarily did not write anything for the most part, chubby checkers biggest hits were covers, so there is not much you can do with that. The Supremes and other Motown acts can thank Gordy for their troubles in their deals, also because he was always bringing in outside writers for all their hits.

I was talking about their recordings, not song publishing. I think Johnny Mathis owns his masters or some of them. He didn't write songs (or rarely did). His most popular albums are probably Christmas related and also Greatest Hits.

MickyDolenz said:

SolaceAHA said:

Well the big problem with some of the artists you mentioned are they primarily did not write anything for the most part, chubby checkers biggest hits were covers, so there is not much you can do with that. The Supremes and other Motown acts can thank Gordy for their troubles in their deals, also because he was always bringing in outside writers for all their hits.

I was talking about their recordings, not song publishing. I think Johnny Mathis owns his masters or some of them. He didn't write songs (or rarely did). His most popular albums are probably Christmas related and also Greatest Hits.

Well Johnny has a pretty good deal, but he always is singing someone elses stuff he is a like a Sinatra in that respect though Obviously because of the times obvioulsy Sinatra had a much greater deal but Mathis is pretty set, he loves his label and I never have heard an Ill word from him, a lot of Motown artists have a bad taste in their mouth about a lot things they went through.

SolaceAHA said:

Well Johnny has a pretty good deal, but he always is singing someone elses stuff he is a like a Sinatra in that respect though Obviously because of the times obvioulsy Sinatra had a much greater deal but Mathis is pretty set, he loves his label and I never have heard an Ill word from him, a lot of Motown artists have a bad taste in their mouth about a lot things they went through.

The majority of singers & bands recorded other peoples songs. A very small percentage of recording artists self-wrote. Even ones who did write their own songs would do remakes. Pre-Beatles, self-writing was even rarer. There were non-performing songwriters who wrote, which is where a lot of American songbook standards came from. Also just because somebody has writing credits doesn't mean they had anything to do with writing the song (ig. Elvis Presley). Some Lennon/McCartney songs were written separately. In jazz it was common for only the bandleader to get credit, even if sidemen helped. Anybody can have writing credits as long as they are registered at the copyright office. There's also people who helped with writing who declined credit for various reasons and writers who gave family members or friends credit to help them out financially. Ghostwriters don't get credit, usually just a flat fee, so don't get royalties.

MickyDolenz said:

SolaceAHA said:

Well Johnny has a pretty good deal, but he always is singing someone elses stuff he is a like a Sinatra in that respect though Obviously because of the times obvioulsy Sinatra had a much greater deal but Mathis is pretty set, he loves his label and I never have heard an Ill word from him, a lot of Motown artists have a bad taste in their mouth about a lot things they went through.

The majority of singers & bands recorded other peoples songs. A very small percentage of recording artists self-wrote. Even ones who did write their own songs would do remakes. Pre-Beatles, self-writing was even rarer. There were non-performing songwriters who wrote, which is where a lot of American songbook standards came from. Also just because somebody has writing credits doesn't mean they had anything to do with writing the song (ig. Elvis Presley). Some Lennon/McCartney songs were written separately. In jazz it was common for only the bandleader to get credit, even if sidemen helped. Anybody can have writing credits as long as they are registered at the copyright office. There's also people who helped with writing who declined credit for various reasons and writers who gave family members or friends credit to help them out financially. Ghostwriters don't get credit, usually just a flat fee, so don't get royalties.

But againg these are the differences in eras. There was no need for a Sinatra or Mathis, Nat King Cole to be singers and songwriters, this was coming out of the big band era so the arrangers did their thing and also tended to write the lyrics too, this is where standards came from. You then move into a decade where Rock is born but its still isnt about or even focus on WHO wrote the song, it was more about the presentation the look the style, the females where crazy for elvis and frankie avalon and guys like that, songwriting was not on their minds. As you drift into the 60s it begins, you have a decade that is rebeling against the previous one. Its starting out as a similar era but once the Beatles started writing and creating but also George Martion starting producing how he did and the more involved it got, then everyone became "artists". And that led to the 70's which was ALL about you play your own stuff and write your own stuff, singer songwriter era like no other, Bowie, Mccartney,Joel,Wonder etc...even Elton John to an extent, but people forget he only did the music Taupin was the lyrics always. But you still had some of the Sinatra like type singers Like a Barry Manilow BUT he was a writer, always doing the music and sometimes the lyrics, you had Nei Diamond who was a writer in the 60's and now was doing his own. James Taylor, Paul Simon, Queen and so many others. So decades and era evolve into what they are. Just like MUSIC has changed what people focus on primarily. recently Richard Marx was talking about how a fellow artist described music consumption of How its shrunk and shrunk, you went from a giant LP size thing, then you shrunk it down to CD size, smaller but still a product and now you have this little square on your device. So you also have SHRUNK what people are going to care about, you have no artwork to look at, you have no liner notes now, some apps and streaming services give you some stories on the artists, but with peoples attention spans its like trying to sell a book to someone who cant read. But I am sure tides will turn slowly back into a more broader "niche" way to sell physical product again, remember labels are businesses if something drops and they see something else working they will jump on it their way, its always how its been. So if streaming started to decline and cd sales and vinyl sales all of a sudden went further up, they would slowly find a way to embrace it again.

SolaceAHA said:

And that led to the 70's which was ALL about you play your own stuff and write your own stuff, singer songwriter era like no other, Bowie, Mccartney,Joel,Wonder etc...even Elton John to an extent, but people forget he only did the music Taupin was the lyrics always.

Disco was probably the most popular genre (in the USA) of the 1970s and it was not about writing or playing your own stuff at all. Disco also had Milli Vanilli style fake groups. Disco was the beginning of DJs & remixers becoming stars, which today there's like Skrillex & DJ Khaled. 12" maxi singles originated with disco. Popular R&B in general has always been more about producers and/or writers (Gamble & Huff, Thom Bell & Linda Creed, Mizell Brothers, Leon Sylvers, HDH, Jam & Lewis, Teddy Riley, Booker T & The MGs, Norman Whitfield, Kashif, Curtis Mayfield, etc). Linda Ronstadt was known for doing covers and she was really popular in the 1970s.

MickyDolenz said:

SolaceAHA said:

And that led to the 70's which was ALL about you play your own stuff and write your own stuff, singer songwriter era like no other, Bowie, Mccartney,Joel,Wonder etc...even Elton John to an extent, but people forget he only did the music Taupin was the lyrics always.

Disco was probably the most popular genre (in the USA) of the 1970s and it was not about writing or playing your own stuff at all. Disco also had Milli Vanilli style fake groups. Disco was the beginning of DJs & remixers becoming stars, which today there's like Skrillex & DJ Khaled. 12" maxi singles originated with disco. Popular R&B in general has always been more about producers and/or writers (Gamble & Huff, Thom Bell & Linda Creed, Mizell Brothers, Leon Sylvers, HDH, Jam & Lewis, Teddy Riley, Booker T & The MGs, Norman Whitfield, Kashif, Curtis Mayfield, etc). Linda Ronstadt was known for doing covers and she was really popular in the 1970s.

Disco had its few years of popularity, and it was driven by a group who always wrote their own stuff whether they thought they were disco or not, that being the Bee Gees which capitalized on it all like it or not but they were born out of a funk movement and let by Producer Arif Mardin. Also those few years of disco dont hold a candle to what was going on with the likes of Billy Joel, Paul Simon, Elton I mean the guys were doing an album a year (that sold alot not just putting out stuff to put it out) and then touring massively behind it all, it was a busy era and disco was not the popular genre for the decade, it had its time very quick and it ended just as quick with anyone even close to the disco era couldnt get a record played after that. the Bee Gees said this forced them to give songs to others because the name Bee Gees was like a curse. And I wouldnt be so quick to compare disco to todays production, you had live people playing then, they all had bands, KC and tons of others were bands, and no one was lypsnyching or putting anoter face forward while having the voice backstage, that was ALL the later 80s and the Producers like Clivilles and cole and others, I may have happened in other times, but it was a rule in the later 80s to do it like that. Voice in the back and the hot model in the front, this was ALL because the focus became your image, thank MTV for that one. But the primary sellers of the 70's were not the disco artists, they may have a bunch of hits in that span, but outside of the Bee Gees their records were not selling like a Billy Joel or Eagles did, and those artists also had tons of hits on the radio too.

MickyDolenz said:

SolaceAHA said:

And I wouldnt be so quick to compare disco to todays production, you had live people playing then, they all had bands, KC and tons of others were bands, and no one was lypsnyching or putting anoter face forward while having the voice backstage, that was ALL the later 80s and the Producers like Clivilles and cole and others, I may have happened in other times, but it was a rule in the later 80s to do it like that.

I guess you've never heard of Boney M. Shalamar was not a real group at first either. The first album was session singers. Uptown Festival became a hit. So the label hired 3 people to perform on TV and tour. One of them (Gary Mumford) was the only one who sang on the 1st album. The other 2 (Jeffrey Daniel, Jody Watley) were dancers on Soul Train. Jody & Jeffrey are on the album cover, but did not sing anything on the album. Some 1960s bands were fake too (mostly bubblegum groups), the most famous example being The Archies. Even with real rock bands, in some cases it wasn't the band members playing on the records, it was session musicians (ig. Wrecking Crew). Session guys were used because they could record faster than the band members and didn't have to waste a bunch of money on doing a bunch of takes. Or the producers didn't think the band members were good enough or they were too drunk or high for recording. On a few of The Beatles early songs, George Martin used a drummer named Andy White instead of Ringo. George Martin didn't think Pete Best was that good, which is why he got a session guy in the first place. Pete was still in the group when they got the record deal. Even on a few later Beatle songs, it was Paul McCartney drumming, not Ringo. Paul did the drumming because Ringo wasn't available when he wanted to record.

MickyDolenz said:

SolaceAHA said:

And I wouldnt be so quick to compare disco to todays production, you had live people playing then, they all had bands, KC and tons of others were bands, and no one was lypsnyching or putting anoter face forward while having the voice backstage, that was ALL the later 80s and the Producers like Clivilles and cole and others, I may have happened in other times, but it was a rule in the later 80s to do it like that.

I guess you've never heard of Boney M. Shalamar was not a real group at first either. The first album was session singers. Uptown Festival became a hit. So the label hired 3 people to perform on TV and tour. One of them (Gary Mumford) was the only one who sang on the 1st album. The other 2 (Jeffrey Daniel, Jody Watley) were dancers on Soul Train. Jody & Jeffrey are on the album cover, but did not sing anything on the album. Some 1960s bands were fake too (mostly bubblegum groups), the most famous example being The Archies. Even with real rock bands, in some cases it wasn't the band members playing on the records, it was session musicians (ig. Wrecking Crew). Session guys were used because they could record faster than the band members and didn't have to waste a bunch of money on doing a bunch of takes. Or the producers didn't think the band members were good enough or they were too drunk or high for recording. On a few of The Beatles early songs, George Martin used a drummer named Andy White instead of Ringo. George Martin didn't think Pete Best was that good, which is why he got a session guy in the first place. Pete was still in the group when they got the record deal. Even on a few later Beatle songs, it was Paul McCartney drumming, not Ringo. Paul did the drumming because Ringo wasn't available when he wanted to record.

Again I didnt say it didnt happen, I happened in other times, the monkees never played but always sang, Boney M was the Milli Vanilli guy and he brought it over, BUT this became a huge thing in the later 80's with tons of acts, and not ones not having hits or minor hits. C&C, Black Box, Seduction, all had top 10 singles and there were alot of others and that became the normal, for a top selling act to do that, Shalamar doing it for an album they were far from a top selling act even when they had success. Ringo not drumming on a track is not the same thing by any means, I mean Everything that was a lennon or mccarteny song was credited to both as writing them, but we all know it was rare in later years for them to be together, in fact the White Album seldom saw anyone working together, Ringo or George not on a track here and there was mostly due to them walking out which they all did in later years. As George Martin said they would occasionally bring in session players at times during their last album Abbey Road though they were in the studio together at the same time, they still had issues working together and had a guest pop in on tracks. Thats a far cry from Milli Vanilli. On their last album with original member Dennis Deyoung STYX recorded Brave New World in 1999,, now anyone whos heard that album agrees it sounds like two solo albums together, and thats just what it was, Dennis was already leaving or being kicked out, and Him and Tommy Shaw couldnt work together so Dennis sent his work in, tracking it in his own studio and Tommy did his, then the other members laid there instruments in, no one was ever even in the studio at the same time for that record that was billed under the group STYX. But all this is not the same as having another person sing while they were on stage.

Cinny said:

Truth hurts, but you're right. We are generations of stores away from a real resurge in physical sales.

Nothing really ever goes away, but it doesn't usually return to mainstream popularity. It becomes a niche thing like people collecting old 78 rpm records or going to a renaissance faire. 78s haven't been a mainstream thing since the early 1960s, but there's new turntables with a 78 speed on them. In the case of stores, people are more likely to buy something they see in front of them, such as an item they weren't planning to buy. That's why they put the sugary kiddie cereals at a position where children can reach them. They have cartoon characters (Trix Rabbit, Tony the Tiger, Count Chocula, etc).

SoulAlive said:

Old school people are a different kind of people ...l. No matter what comes next,I will always continue buying physical copies of music.

What I really miss though - we still have lots of record stores here in my city in Germany - but the fun of going in, listening to a couple of records (CD or vinyl), browsing the store, and then buying one or two items, and listening to them either on the way home in the car or later on my stereo - it somehow is killed by knowing - hey, I have all of this (save some obscure second hand items) availbale at my fingertips, in great quality, and I paid 20 Euro already (this being the Tidal high res lump sum here).

So I do buy physical items every once in a while, mainly to support the local record stores, but somehow back in my mind it says - waste of money...

Isn't this sad

CD sales just rose for th... The Verge

Joining a decade-long resurgence in vinyl

CD sales in the US for 2021 increased for the first time in almost two decades, according to data published by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). Shipments rose from 31.6 million in 2020 to 46.6 million in 2021, and revenue from the format rose from $483.2 million to $584.2 million. The RIAA’s numbers corroborate a similar report from MRC Data published earlier this year.

Although CD sales are still far from their 2000 peak — when almost a billion CD albums were shipped in the US — Axios notes that the increase is another key element of the resurgence in physical music. Vinyl sales have been steadily increasing for over a decade-and-a-half now, and hit 39.7 million units in the US in 2021, bringing in $1 billion in revenue.

CDs still offer something that purely digital services can only dream of: a nice physical object, complete with album art and a real sense of ownership. Plus there’s the sense that more of your money is going directly to an artist, rather than the pennies offered per play by streaming corporations.

[Edited 3/14/22 12:00pm]