Longshot
New Member
Joined: June 2005
Posts: 430
|
Post by Longshot on Apr 25, 2006 20:10:06 GMT -5
I'm sure this has been done before, so bare with me.
It seems since 2001 or 2002 that music sales have continually dropped to new lows. Quite the contrary to the late 90's/early millenium, where sales were booming. Do people just don't like buying CD's anymore and is there any hope that this downward trend won't continue?
|
|
Pulse
Diamond Member
I'm feelin' for a Pulse
Joined: November 2005
Posts: 12,890
|
Post by Pulse on Apr 25, 2006 20:27:37 GMT -5
No, there's no hope for the industry to recover. Once you get something for free, you never go back to paying for it ;)
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Apr 27, 2006 8:54:02 GMT -5
That's not true. Record companies need to stay a head of the technology. Music companies need to do things to manage their assets really quickly.
|
|
JCMF3
Diamond Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 18,677
|
Post by JCMF3 on Apr 27, 2006 11:26:28 GMT -5
Recover from what? I don't see major labels folding left and right...
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Apr 27, 2006 14:45:33 GMT -5
I think in order for things to start looking up, the major labels need to work on artists that they can develop from the beginning and continue to work with to make higher quality products. What they do now is focus on the next big thing, work that for 1 or 2 big hits, but not make money off the singles. Try to use those 1 or 2 hits to sell the entire album. They could be doing better if they worked off those songs as singles instead but nope, they're going for the bigger buck. Basically, they need to try to aim for higher quality in music and stick with those established artists. I'm not saying drop all rap acts, I'm saying work with the ones that are successful and GOOD, don't overdo them, keep them as long as they provide quality material. They need to try to sell to people that will actually BUY the music consistantly.
And the industry needs to work hand-in-hand with radio, which I'm sure is also seeing quite a downfall with the internet and satellite radio picking up constantly. Radio needs BETTER songs.
My big beef with the music industry is the lack of quality. I think for the first time ever, we can attribute the problems they are having with the quality of the music they are producing. #1 problem: lack of quality #2 problem: internet downloading
|
|
|
Post by Pink Champagne Ricochet on Apr 27, 2006 15:52:55 GMT -5
Recover from what? I don't see major labels folding left and right... well, two of them just merged like a year or 2 ago, and I doubt Sony and BMG would have willlingly gotten together if everything was going swimmingly and they didn't believe that lowered sales would force them to merge many of their business if they both believed they could survive seperately in this climate. I think there is a problem. Five or six years ago, a mega huge album was one that went diamond or better. Nowadays, 5x platinum is a big accomplishment, while it always was, now it's almost like the pinnicale, so sales expectations are slipping.
|
|
Pulse
Diamond Member
I'm feelin' for a Pulse
Joined: November 2005
Posts: 12,890
|
Post by Pulse on Apr 27, 2006 17:33:37 GMT -5
That's not true. Record companies need to stay a head of the technology. Music companies need to do things to manage their assets really quickly. Like what? What would they have to do to make people suddenly start paying for something they can get for free? The iTunes files may be compressed, but even if they offered full uncompressed files, files that sounded like masters even, I doubt people would really care if theres a free alternative thats sounds just as good to normal ears
|
|
Hook
6x Platinum Member
You take me higher and higher
Joined: October 2005
Posts: 6,694
|
Post by Hook on Apr 27, 2006 18:05:37 GMT -5
I think in order for things to start looking up, the major labels need to work on artists that they can develop from the beginning and continue to work with to make higher quality products. I agree with you. Look at the new Rascal Flatts album and how much its sold in a few weeks. Obviously people haven't given up on buying CD's yet. They're just waiting for a product that they're willing to spend their money on.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Apr 27, 2006 18:49:22 GMT -5
I don't know anything about Rascal Flatts but from what I understand, they came out a few years ago and were fairly successful with country. So they came out with a second (?) album and it's doing very well. But I don't really see them plastered everywhere. I also think the Dixie Chicks will do fairly well with their CD too. Already established artists that actually make good music who don't focus primarily on an image or to a very specific audience or even one genre of music.
|
|
Hook
6x Platinum Member
You take me higher and higher
Joined: October 2005
Posts: 6,694
|
Post by Hook on Apr 27, 2006 18:57:22 GMT -5
Rascal Flatts are on their fourth album. They've had radio success and everything, but their early numbers have never been blockbuster like this. They've slowly went from a small country group into superstars. Development like this needs to happen elsewhere in the industry.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Apr 27, 2006 20:57:57 GMT -5
That's not true. Record companies need to stay a head of the technology. Music companies need to do things to manage their assets really quickly. Like what? What would they have to do to make people suddenly start paying for something they can get for free? The iTunes files may be compressed, but even if they offered full uncompressed files, files that sounded like masters even, I doubt people would really care if theres a free alternative thats sounds just as good to normal ears I've bought songs that i've stolen. So logic tells me that there are probably others who have as well especially if there are remixes and what not. If you take away the ability to get the item for free with technology. As I stated before record companies need to get ahead of the technology. That's the answer to stolen music.
|
|
Pulse
Diamond Member
I'm feelin' for a Pulse
Joined: November 2005
Posts: 12,890
|
Post by Pulse on Apr 27, 2006 22:05:35 GMT -5
If you had the song, why did you rebuy it? There may be a few other people like you who felt guilty or something, but logically, you're in a minority here. Most people who have the free song will not rebuy it. I think the type of technology youre envisioning is too utopian and unrealistic. If it was feasible in the near future, software companies with better resources would have done something by now.
|
|
|
Post by A Thug Named Slickback on Apr 28, 2006 5:51:54 GMT -5
I think in order for things to start looking up, the major labels need to work on artists that they can develop from the beginning and continue to work with to make higher quality products. What they do now is focus on the next big thing, work that for 1 or 2 big hits, but not make money off the singles. Try to use those 1 or 2 hits to sell the entire album. They could be doing better if they worked off those songs as singles instead but nope, they're going for the bigger buck. I couldn't agree more. Their initial theory was that they could negotiate more favorable terms with unestablished artists than they could with, say, an Usher or a Sheryl Crow. But I think that strategy has come back to bite them for precisely the reasons you mentioned. And plus, now that people are able to buy individual songs, there's even less incentive to purchase the album of an artist of questionable talent. But I love how the industry immediately attributes all of its sales declines to illegal downloading. I agree that this is a component of the problem, but it does not account for everything. Also, music sales have ebbed and climbed historically. I mean, the late-1970s and early-1980s were also a lean period -- long before downloading was an issue.
|
|
banet2001
2x Platinum Member
Joined: December 2004
Posts: 2,060
|
Post by banet2001 on Apr 28, 2006 14:02:00 GMT -5
I doubt seriously you will ever see big sales of CD's like the late 1990's to early 2000's any time soon. Downloading has really cut into current sales totals. Even if you exclude illegal downloads, if you liked a series of singles back in 2000 or so, you had to buy the album for $12-15. Now, you can go to iTunes and buy the 2-3 songs you like for a few dollars. There is no way the industry can get around that, unless they make it mandatory to buy an album as opposed to singles on iTunes.
In the future, record companies are going to have to get creative if they want to sell more CD's. They need to package more exclusive materials on CD's that you cannot get online, such as limited edition merchandise, videos, live clips, exclusive tracks etc. if they want to expand CD sales.
|
|
Longshot
New Member
Joined: June 2005
Posts: 430
|
Post by Longshot on Apr 28, 2006 17:36:40 GMT -5
I don't think the problem has much to do with quality rather the booming of online services. A lot of the big selling albums of the past decade have sold due to massive singles, with the rest of the album being mediocre. Now you can just get the singles or tracks you like and don't have to pay for the full album.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Apr 28, 2006 20:35:53 GMT -5
If you had the song, why did you rebuy it? There may be a few other people like you who felt guilty or something, but logically, you're in a minority here. Most people who have the free song will not rebuy it. I think the type of technology youre envisioning is too utopian and unrealistic. If it was feasible in the near future, software companies with better resources would have done something by now. How is that utopian considering technology doubles every 18months? I forget what the name of the law is. There is a special name for it. I should be able to purchase singles and not a whole album. Record companies have to deal with this or else face people downloading for free. Free downloading isn't going to last forever especially if the single is available in a timely fashion. Record companies need to prepare for a singles based market.....
|
|
Pulse
Diamond Member
I'm feelin' for a Pulse
Joined: November 2005
Posts: 12,890
|
Post by Pulse on Apr 29, 2006 4:21:37 GMT -5
If you had the song, why did you rebuy it? There may be a few other people like you who felt guilty or something, but logically, you're in a minority here. Most people who have the free song will not rebuy it. I think the type of technology youre envisioning is too utopian and unrealistic. If it was feasible in the near future, software companies with better resources would have done something by now. How is that utopian considering technology doubles every 18months? I forget what the name of the law is. There is a special name for it. I should be able to purchase singles and not a whole album. Record companies have to deal with this or else face people downloading for free. Free downloading isn't going to last forever especially if the single is available in a timely fashion. Record companies need to prepare for a singles based market..... So what are you saying..in 18 months or 36 or 54 months, they'll find a way to completely get rid of file sharing? I doubt that. There are way too many sites and ways to get around that. What youre basically for is like total filterting of the internet which is impossible. If you want to, you can purchase singles and not albums right now, so Im confused what you mean there. How is free downloading not going to last forever? When do you see it ending? You keep talking about the single, do you mean commercial single? If you're referring to thats toast, and never coming back ever ;)
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Apr 30, 2006 21:14:22 GMT -5
In the future, record companies are going to have to get creative if they want to sell more CD's. They need to package more exclusive materials on CD's that you cannot get online, such as limited edition merchandise, videos, live clips, exclusive tracks etc. if they want to expand CD sales.
I think this has become another minor problem. Nothing big but still something. Labels are now relying on using extra bonus things to sell CDs. This works for the fans of the artist as they'll want to get anything extra they can (I've done it numerous times. Bought a CD with bonus CD/DVD/stuff over just regular CD). However, CDs that don't have the option of getting just the regular stuff versus the bonus stuff that have bonus things I think aren't necessary. Sometimes you'll see a CD with a bonus enhanced portion that includes interviews, pictures, links to secret websites and whatnot but for the most part, they don't interest me. I'd rather they just not have that stuff there and lower the cost of the CD by two or three dollars. So, imo, including bonus material with a CD is just something they do to justify keeping the prices high.
So that adds another problem. 1. crappy music 2. downloading 3. high prices
|
|
|
Post by Pink Champagne Ricochet on Apr 30, 2006 21:28:09 GMT -5
I personally think they should have both versions - the regular version that's a bit cheaper, and an "expanded" edition with bonus stuff for fans. That's what they do with most of the DualDiscs for the most part...I think Rob Thomas is the only artist that has an album released ONLY in that format. I tend to get the favorite artists I like on DualDisc formats, which is an incentive to me to buy an album as opposed to downloading it illegally. Same with iTunes bonus tracks that are often hard to find otherwise.
also a bonus for me: when the whole SonyBMG copyright protection/spyware BS went down, nothing happened to me although I owned several of the CDs listed, b/c the dual discs don't have that software on it. however, they're not the total answer, because they're not exactly real "CDs" that fit all specifications and therefore don't work on some players (though that's never been a problem for me). some albums used to have bonus DVDs attached, but they don't really do that anymore.
|
|
crash46
7x Platinum Member
Inspired Mediasource
Ones who does not have Triforce can't go in.
Joined: November 2005
Posts: 7,224
|
Post by crash46 on May 11, 2006 0:36:43 GMT -5
The music industry will need the lack of existance of record companies to make a full recovery. That could conceivably happen through the internet, if bands could learn to manage themselves. I mean, with no promotion or payola, would music just disappear?
But that won't happen anytime soon because I'm sure the labels would cut their ridiculous spending costs before going under. And none of the big labels will ever do that as anything but a last resort because they're all trying to outpromote each other in hopes of monopolizing the industry someday. Just typical American big business.
If it becomes unprofitable to run a record label though, who gives a crap if it's monopolized or not. That's where the internet comes in to provide hope.
|
|
crash46
7x Platinum Member
Inspired Mediasource
Ones who does not have Triforce can't go in.
Joined: November 2005
Posts: 7,224
|
Post by crash46 on May 11, 2006 0:51:47 GMT -5
Sometimes you'll see a CD with a bonus enhanced portion that includes interviews, pictures, links to secret websites and whatnot but for the most part, they don't interest me. I'd rather they just not have that stuff there and lower the cost of the CD by two or three dollars. So, imo, including bonus material with a CD is just something they do to justify keeping the prices high.Yeah, with that bonus material, all it requires is somebody to film it and compile it. Say they pay somebody a 1000 dollars to do that. If the CD sells 100,000 copies, that's a penny of cost added per CD by that bonus material, and even less with more copies sold. So eliminating that altogether won't lower the price of CD's because it barely costs anything to put it on there. If they want to add bonus material by default to swing people their way to buy the CD, fine. If they'd make it optional with a "limited edition" CD so they can make it $19 when the regular edition is $16, then f*** off.
|
|
polly
New Member
Joined: January 2013
Posts: 0
|
Post by polly on May 12, 2006 6:46:52 GMT -5
I don't think music quality has ANYTHING to do with it. NOTHING. Pink's I'm Not Dead is THE best rock/pop album of the year and yet it's not selling. Why? DL and her own issues with promo. But to me, last year was lacking. The two huge hits were SUBG and WBT. Chuck in more hits from those two plus a bit of 50 Cent, and a few otehr huge hits and you have 05 in a nut shell. Nothing HUGE. 06 is producing great music but albums aren't selling huge, and there hasn't been a huge single. BUT the music IMO isn't bad at all. Pink is the perfect example!
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on May 12, 2006 13:13:41 GMT -5
I don't think music quality has ANYTHING to do with it. NOTHING. Pink's I'm Not Dead is THE best rock/pop album of the year and yet it's not selling. Why? DL and her own issues with promo. But to me, last year was lacking. The two huge hits were SUBG and WBT. Chuck in more hits from those two plus a bit of 50 Cent, and a few otehr huge hits and you have 05 in a nut shell. Nothing HUGE. 06 is producing great music but albums aren't selling huge, and there hasn't been a huge single. BUT the music IMO isn't bad at all. Pink is the perfect example!
Since Pink is your only example then you don't have a case to back up your claim. Of course there's going to be one great current CD out at any given time. Even I have a few of those but that doesn't stop me from saying that most of the popular music isn't good. Even you said Pink's CD is great so therefore, shouldn't it be doing well based on the fact it's the best pop/rock CD of the year? But it's not. And the music that's doing better isn't as good.
|
|
polly
New Member
Joined: January 2013
Posts: 0
|
Post by polly on May 12, 2006 22:30:19 GMT -5
It is! There isn't a huge amount of competition butr it's one of the best releases this year. Just take a look at the board, and others. There are reasons for it not selling wel. I'm enjoying the music industry. Can you honestly say todays usic is worse thasn the teeny bopper ear? NOPE it's not! That ear was the highest selling ear! That doesn't mean to say it's better than the 70's/80's golden ear in music either? See you argument has no basssis. There is no way the backstreet boys and NSYNC are ebtter than say Queen, MJ and Madonna. Today's music is better but as some one said, if you get it for free, tehres no going back!
|
|
XandY
New Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 67
|
Post by XandY on May 13, 2006 11:17:00 GMT -5
I don't think the music industry is in decline. I think overall interest in music and it's artists, composers, producers, and musicians is higher than it has ever been in history. The internet is full of full time music junkies and music crops up in everyday conversations with all age demographics. Radio fucuses on artists and their careers MUCH MUCH MUCH more than they have ever done in the past. Music is part of the fabric of life and it's not going anywhere but up. The internet has complicated it's sales strategy but it also puts more of it much closer to the consumer on the internet. Once the label gurus figure out a commercial "cash in" strategy and an application the music buisness will reach it's peak in both mass exposure and industry revenue.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on May 15, 2006 20:59:42 GMT -5
I don't think the music industry is in decline. I think overall interest in music and it's artists, composers, producers, and musicians is higher than it has ever been in history. The internet is full of full time music junkies and music crops up in everyday conversations with all age demographics. Radio fucuses on artists and their careers MUCH MUCH MUCH more than they have ever done in the past. Music is part of the fabric of life and it's not going anywhere but up. The internet has complicated it's sales strategy but it also puts more of it much closer to the consumer on the internet. Once the label gurus figure out a commercial "cash in" strategy and an application the music buisness will reach it's peak in both mass exposure and industry revenue. What an excellent post!
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on May 15, 2006 21:08:08 GMT -5
How is that utopian considering technology doubles every 18months? I forget what the name of the law is. There is a special name for it. I should be able to purchase singles and not a whole album. Record companies have to deal with this or else face people downloading for free. Free downloading isn't going to last forever especially if the single is available in a timely fashion. Record companies need to prepare for a singles based market..... So what are you saying..in 18 months or 36 or 54 months, they'll find a way to completely get rid of file sharing? I doubt that. There are way too many sites and ways to get around that. What youre basically for is like total filterting of the internet which is impossible. If you want to, you can purchase singles and not albums right now, so Im confused what you mean there. How is free downloading not going to last forever? When do you see it ending? You keep talking about the single, do you mean commercial single? If you're referring to thats toast, and never coming back ever ;) 1st: Its silly to think that the record companies could never pay someone to keep CD quality music from being stolen. Secondly, song downloads are singles. The only thing that's probably not coming back at this point is the physical single. You assume the record company is going to continue to make music they can't make any money from. They are a business. That's the bottom line. If the project isn't creating value for their stakeholders then at some point it has to cease to continue or get taken over by someone else. Your argument is a short term argument and its just not a well thought out argument. You forget that things are ALWAYS subject to change in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on May 15, 2006 21:17:52 GMT -5
I don't think music quality has ANYTHING to do with it. NOTHING. Pink's I'm Not Dead is THE best rock/pop album of the year and yet it's not selling. Why? DL and her own issues with promo. But to me, last year was lacking. The two huge hits were SUBG and WBT. Chuck in more hits from those two plus a bit of 50 Cent, and a few otehr huge hits and you have 05 in a nut shell. Nothing HUGE. 06 is producing great music but albums aren't selling huge, and there hasn't been a huge single. BUT the music IMO isn't bad at all. Pink is the perfect example!
Since Pink is your only example then you don't have a case to back up your claim. Of course there's going to be one great current CD out at any given time. Even I have a few of those but that doesn't stop me from saying that most of the popular music isn't good. Even you said Pink's CD is great so therefore, shouldn't it be doing well based on the fact it's the best pop/rock CD of the year? But it's not. And the music that's doing better isn't as good. I guess if 'Thriller' were released today it would sell 50 million albums. Max you are assuming that 'Thriller' is going to sell the same thing in the 2000's as it actually did in the 1980's. I don't agree with this assumption. 50 Cents albums must be better than alot of peoples because his sales are higher.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on May 18, 2006 6:13:53 GMT -5
I guess if 'Thriller' were released today it would sell 50 million albums. Max you are assuming that 'Thriller' is going to sell the same thing in the 2000's as it actually did in the 1980's. I don't agree with this assumption. 50 Cents albums must be better than alot of peoples because his sales are higher.
What? I think you have me backwards. I don't think there's really a lot of correlation between what's good and what sells. My point was that even if Pink's CD was a good CD, it's not selling well so the fact (or opinion) that it's good doesn't really effect it. Today, what sells is pretty much what has better promotion. BUT it's come to a point now where I think maybe a lot of music buyers (such as myself) have realized that there's not a lot of great music to buy because there is so much promotion done for so few types of artists so their music purchasing has gone way down because they don't have faith that the music they are buying is going to be worth it. This is where quality of music is effecting sales. What we hear on the radio now isn't great, and if it is, we're afraid it's a fluke and that the rest of the album won't be good.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on May 18, 2006 9:38:45 GMT -5
Ohhhh ok!.....Personally, I just don't want to buy albums for the most part anyway. I'd rather pay for the 5 downloads that I like as it is cheaper for me to do that.
|
|