Will the "Music Industry" ever recover

[Diablo Cody™]

some albums used to have bonus DVDs attached, but they don't really do that anymore.

Those were amazing.

[polly]

Pink did with IND. Great DVD. I urge yall to get it, it's hillarious!

[cking33]

This is kind of like the 50s and early 60s in terms of marketing. We are seeing the shift to a new singles market, like it was in the old days. No doubt, the music industry will adjust. There may be some initial downsizing and lay offs, but overall music isn't going anywhere. The music industry has tried to manipulate consumers the past decade by making them buy an entire album, but consumers react and the music industry is now realizing it has to cater to the consumer. If anything, the new singles market is good for diversity of music. It'll allow people the buying power to sample other artists. Just look at the success of James Blunt and Daniel Powter in their downloads. A few years ago, their singles would only have been available as album cuts, and people wouldn't be willing to spend $15 to buy an album from an unknown artists, even if they do like the first song. If internet sales were around back when "Torn" by Natalie Imbruglia was out, we would've heard a lot more from her. People will be willing to drop 99 cents for the song they hear on the radio and even download an album cut or two to see if they like more. Artistically, this is good for music, and good for new artists, and it'll force older, established artists to keep the music cooking, instead of hiding behind name recognition at radio and retail. (See Mariah Carey, Celine Dion, and every other major act from the late 90s)

[rydeordie]

computerfreak said:

some albums used to have bonus DVDs attached, but they don't really do that anymore.

Those were amazing.

I LOVE DVDs that chronical the making of an album. Even if they don't come with it or cost extra, if I like the artist I will always buy those. I'de like to see more of them, with full behind the scenes in the recording studio footage, shooting the album artwork and commentary on songs etc.

[beyoncefan]

I would like to say that the music industry will rebound, and I really hope so, but I don't know, it just seems so bad right now. All I know is that I'm doing my part, not being a hyprocrite, being a true fan and buying good music from the artists that I like (or at least if I like their album/songs enough). I have bought like 10 albums so far this year, I turned over a new leaf and stuck true to my New Year's Resolution to buy music again!

Artistically, this is good for music, and good for new artists, and it'll force older, established artists to keep the music cooking, instead of hiding behind name recognition at radio and retail. (See Mariah Carey, Celine Dion, and every other major act from the late 90s)

I never thought of that, good point.

[EmersonDrive13Rocks]

One problem that has been raised in many news articles I've read is people's entertainment dollar is being spread thin. The video game industry is experiencing huge growth, dvd sales, other forms of entertainment, increased cost of living, new electronics, etc.

I don't really think the music industry will rebound to the level where albums sell 10 million in the US.

[polly]

Music is music. It's not only a pass time but for so many people it's a lifestyle. Just becase people are buying fewer albums, I don't think it means music or the quality or people's love for it has gone down. There are new, free ways to access it. Free downlaosd. Maybe this will do the industry good! We've already seen alot more deveristy inthe US markets. Maybe now the focus will be more on music as apose to album sales. That will of corse always be important, but I just want those who create good muic to be recognised for it. Screw how their albums are charting. I think the labels need to promote good music. Good and bad music has always been around but if they are to get the album sales back, less focus on fads and style and more on the music itself is needed. I hope this is a blessing in disguise and I think andhope the industry can recover.

[witty7496]

i would buy making the album dvd's too if i'm really into the band or artist.

[cnelson575]

Lets face it. The quality of what top 40 radio is shoving down our throats is not being absorbed as well as the powers that be would like to assume. I think people just do
not like the music enough to warrant the entire album purchases. I just think most people
find a single they might like and that is about it.

[shandrim]

Lets face it. The quality of what top 40 radio is shoving down our throats is not being absorbed as well as the powers that be would like to assume. I think people just do not like the music enough to warrant the entire album purchases. I just think most people find a single they might like and that is about it.

So true. When most of the albums contain at most two or three good songs and the rest is filler, there's not much incentive to buy the whole album. If the music were better the sales would be too.

[Marv]

One HUGE problem is how narrow CHR/Pop stations are programmed these days; most of them are playing MUCH of the same music which their local Urban & CHR/Rhythmic competitors are playing, making it impossible for adults to listen to CHR/Pop, which was designed as a mass-appeal format, and essentially was such until KIIS-FM overreacted to Power 106's arrival in LA in 1987, and the vast majority of stations which copied KIIS's format shift either wound up bailing from the format or saw their ratings go over a cliff, as KIIS's ratings have done over the past 20 years.

Another problem is that CD sales are also down (except country CDs, which are up almost EIGHTEEN percent this year!!!) because the targeted audience of CHR/Pop, CHR/Rhythmic & Urban stations don't have NEARLY as enough disposable income as the nmedia would make you believe; when new CDs hit the local Best Buy on Tuesday, most of those format's listeners don't have the income to buy more than the one CD that they went into the store to buy in the first place, which retailers such as the now-liquididated Tower records and The Wherehouse DESPERATELY need to keep their doors open.

Consequently, none of the core artists at top 40 radio over the past decade have the clout to drive CD sales into the stratosphere as Bruce Springsteen, Garth Brooks, The Bee Gees, The Beatles, Michael Jackson and a handful of artists have been able to do over the past 25-35 years, and ESPECIALLY rap artists, who tend to have VERY short careers at radio to to the slashing of funds for artist development at virtually all of the major labels.

[Pulse]

LOL. Uh no. The audiences of Pop and Rhythmic arent short on income. They're just not buying something they can get for free ;)

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

People are downloading the songs they like and nothing more. Its as simple ast that. Singles market here we come!

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Do rap albums sell well anyway? I mean, besides the monsters like Eminem and 50 Cent and others, most R&B and rappers are singles artists. If they want to sell albums, they need to put more focus on album-based artists.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

I just like the singles anyway. I wouldn't buy a rap album during these times. The only album i've purchased this year was Janet's album and that's only because she's my favorite. I think the market is becoming more singles based for most genres.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

adonis said:

I think the market is becoming more singles based for most genres.

Pretty much only rap, urban and mainstream pop. The ones that are, for the most part, getting the major pop airplay.
Country, genres like jazz, acoustic based rock formats like triple A, and artists that do well tourwise, do well albums-wise. I'm not sure about rock and alternative genres tho.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

themaxonline said:

adonis said:

I think the market is becoming more singles based for most genres.

Pretty much only rap, urban and mainstream pop. The ones that are, for the most part, getting the major pop airplay.
Country, genres like jazz, acoustic based rock formats like triple A, and artists that do well tourwise, do well albums-wise. I'm not sure about rock and alternative genres tho.

That really only works if the tour is used to promote the album. I think a tour after the album has already been out for several months isn't going to help album sales as much. If Janet had released an album a month and a half to two months into her touring schedule then she probably would've sold more records.... I think that can be said of Justin T and possibly Christina also.

[Crushcrushchris]

The emphasis on singles more than anything has made music more disposable than ever before.

I think two major things would need to happen...

1. Perhaps, it's best to stop doing full-fledged albums and start releasing EPs. Don't get me wrong, I love albums, but 60 minute+ albums aren't cutting it for the industry as much as they used to. Listeners are probably more likely to listen to a 30 minute EP straight through.

EP's wouldn't cost as much as CD's because they have less tracks. I think EP's would also break the monotony of having to put out CD's with exclusive content.

That guy from EMI was right in that you almost have to release CD's with exclusive content and while it's nice to have, not every CD necessarily deserves to have exclusive stuff on it.

2. Radio needs to be more freeform and less afraid of playing non-singles on the radio. Perhaps then, more artists would be showcased and there wouldn't be so much worrying about downloading because these songs are now getting the play that they otherwise wouldn't have gotten.

Problem is, with the radio...I've heard a music director of a radio station say "not hearing a song equates to not liking a song".

Well, why don't you let the public decide?

Simple...ratings.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

The EP idea is interesting. I wouldn't really support it myself because it would probably mean more work for an artist. If they release three albums totaling 36 songs or so. That would mean (on average), three tours, three sets of promotion and all that stuff. Promoting 5 or 6 EPs for the same amount of sounds would mean nearly double the work.

With the popularity of iPods and other mp3 players now, it is becoming a single-song market, so thus a singles market. A lot of people rip their CDs to their iPods (myself included). ...umm, I don't know what my point is for this paragraph. lol

I don't much care for the extra content on CDs though. I say just release the regular CD and lower the price by a few dollars.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

I don't see the point of releasing songs that aren't strong enough to be singles on their own. I think artists should release the good stuff and keep the filler. I'm all for EP's over traditional albums any time any place.

[Pulse]

themaxonline said:

adonis said:

I think the market is becoming more singles based for most genres.

Pretty much only rap, urban and mainstream pop. The ones that are, for the most part, getting the major pop airplay.
Country, genres like jazz, acoustic based rock formats like triple A, and artists that do well tourwise, do well albums-wise. I'm not sure about rock and alternative genres tho.

I dont know about that. A lot of urban music doesnt do well. Especially R&B (not the rhythmic type). And in acoustic rock formats, are you including HAC? A lot of those songs seem to do well.

[jaxxalude]

One or two ideas here.

• Say what you will: record labels WON'T exist in a few years time. And though it may seem that only recently we've been aware of this, in truth as early as 1998 we could already be seeing the writing on the wall, what with Universal and Polygram uniting through the sheer efforts of a BEVERAGE company called Seagram. I mean, just look at it: a frickin' BEAVERAGE company! And recently you had Sony and BMG also pursuing the dreamy fusion. Sony which is one of the main providers for Ipods, right? Right! And BMG, which has a fair share of its income from book publishing, right? Right! All in all, we've got companies that are having their principal income from other things than music. And I mean music as in sound, record, whatever.
  But that's not all. File-sharing, like it or not, has been affecting the industry. This new reality, more than iTunes and friends ltd, has been greatly responsible for the return to the singles-market logic of the 50s and early 60s. People just aren't downloading (let's not even talk about buying, shall we? ;)) anymore because, let's face it, the younger generation NEVER had any patience for albums. And when I mean younger, it's ALWAYS been like this. The younger demographics in general were always about the "now", the "moment", the "what's hot", more than the "I can see some growth potential here" of adults. Maybe the late 60s and early 70s generation was different. After all, these were much more idealistic times. But when punk-rock exploded, all that was over, and it was back to square one. Things got a bit back to those other idealistic times by the early 90s with the Grunge explosion, but it wouldn't last too long. For a while, record labels were able to manipulate the market how much they wanted to, because even if home taping was a reality, it ceirtainly didn't spread as fast as file-sharing does. But that changed now, and for good, I might add.
• The way music spreads so fast nowadays, it's only inevitable that future generations will see it more and more as a given thing. The new ones are already thinking that way, and I agree when someone said that, from the moment you get something for free that looks as good as if it were paid, there's no turning back.
  But then I ask you: is it only because of gadgets or video games that sales numbers are down? No. Because there is an area where growth is a reality. And what's that? CONCERTS. That's right, concerts! The latest Pollstar numbers showed that tours were having quite a gain, not only on income, but ATTENDANCE. And you know how this is the area where artists pretty much gain their money to pay for mansion mortgage, big rides, drink-and-drug binges and facelifts. This is where record labels are losing the war, and maybe for ever and ever.
  Do I mean people aren't buying music as a ways to enjoy the concert (and the new gadget and video game)? Hell, yeah, bwwoooyyyy! ;)
• With this, radio, TV and all that stuff won't go away. Trust me, it's like waiting for newspapers to die! And yes, they will all continue to be as corrupted as they have ever been. The thing is the ones doing the dirty work won't be record labels. Instead, what you'll get will be companies which will act as managers, agents and promoters of the artists. This will be needed, insomuch as the flood of information of the Digital Age is simply too much for those other partners in crime - the media - to indulge too much in it. So they will get some "extra" help in the process, as they have been granted since the dawn of times.
  Oh, and where are music sales in all this? But you are still seriously thinking that something like that will still happen in the future??!! Trust me, recorded music will be available for all to enjoy in the near future. The only way artists can earn something from this is for ISP companies to develop a solution like this one here. Either way, record labels will be out of this picture not too late.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

adonis said:

I don't see the point of releasing songs that aren't strong enough to be singles on their own. I think artists should release the good stuff and keep the filler. I'm all for EP's over traditional albums any time any place.

Often times, songs aren't singles because they aren't as easily accessible. Sometimes artists make music for "art" and thus make stuff that's too dark to be made into a single for a variety of reasons. A single is pretty much meant to sell the artists' album or sell itself in single form so it has to be something that can have a wide appeal.

[Crushcrushchris]

themaxonline said:

The EP idea is interesting. I wouldn't really support it myself because it would probably mean more work for an artist. If they release three albums totaling 36 songs or so. That would mean (on average), three tours, three sets of promotion and all that stuff. Promoting 5 or 6 EPs for the same amount of sounds would mean nearly double the work.

Not necessarily. It all depends on how they promote things.

2 singles per EP (4-8 songs) will probably garner at the most 6-8 months of promotion per EP. An artist can still tour and promote an EP and even two (fans would want to hear something from an upcoming EP even if it's not on the radio yet). They can still probably record an album or two of material, but split songs into each EP.

It would definitely change things, but I think it will change for the better. I think EP's would cut down big time on filler and they'd be less expensive (probably half of what an album is now; no more than $7).

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

themaxonline said:

adonis said:

I don't see the point of releasing songs that aren't strong enough to be singles on their own. I think artists should release the good stuff and keep the filler. I'm all for EP's over traditional albums any time any place.

Often times, songs aren't singles because they aren't as easily accessible. Sometimes artists make music for "art" and thus make stuff that's too dark to be made into a single for a variety of reasons. A single is pretty much meant to sell the artists' album or sell itself in single form so it has to be something that can have a wide appeal.

Popular songs can also be artistic. That's like saying that popular paintings are not creative. Popular and artistic are not mutually exclusive as some on this board would have you to belive.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

adonis said:

Popular songs can also be artistic. That's like saying that popular paintings are not creative. Popular and artistic are not mutually exclusive as some on this board would have you to belive.

I didn't say they couldn't be.
I was just replying to your post when you said that songs that aren't single-material shouldn't be released (on an album, I assume you meant). So I replied saying that sometimes artists create albums that aren't full of single-material and even though they aren't, they can still be of high quality. I definately think that single-material CAN be of high quality as well just as much as non-single-material can be not of high quality.

Basically, your problem here is your jonny-come-lately singers that release an album with one or two singles and the rest fillers. Don't lump those in with others that release albums that actually have one or two hits because the rest of the album doesn't strike with the entire audience. Quite often they are catering toward a specific crowd and don't care about getting an albums worth of hits.

[drock89]

Amazingly, country music will be up over 15% this year!! That's staggering compared to the music industry as a whole.

[jaxxalude]

shaniagotchagood said:

Amazingly, country music will be up over 15% this year!! That's staggering compared to the music industry as a whole.

Keywords here:

• Country music.
• Older crowd (traditionally).
• Older crowd who still BUYS music.
• Not only buys music, it still associates it with a PHYSICAL thing.

I think it's pretty much it.

[lollipopheaven]

I think with the new releases in 2007 Britney primarily can make album sells percentages rise up. People are really looking forward to her new stuff.

[Crushcrushchris]

lollipopheaven said:

I think with the new releases in 2007 Britney primarily can make album sells percentages rise up. People are really looking forward to her new stuff.

The problem with that is that it really doesn't have much to do with the artists releasing albums. It has more to do with the economics of the business.

Britney, on her own, will not sell enough to cause the entire industry to rise in sales.