Record sales plunge further...

Erm - the article title lists Timberlake, U2, and Swift.

Thank goodness they're not selling. That's made my day!

 

Putting that in context Ed Sheeren sold 2 x 60,000 tickets in Perth (120,000 tickets) compared to Iron Maiden, Deep Purple, Neil Young & Black Sabbath who all sold @ 15,000 tickets for standalone concerts at a different venue. Bruce Springsteen sold out 3 concerts (3 x 15,000 tickets) at this venue.

120,000 kids with no disposable income at $160 + a ticket. Thats why they don't buy music.

 

Not quite right. Their parents pay for them to go see Ed Sheeran!! I know I am for my daughter to see Ed next week

 

That’s how it was for hundreds of years when suddenly vinyl record appeared and sales exploded for a brief period of time (40 years?) before declining. And musicians returned to live performance to make a living.

Maybe that’s how history will regard this period - the Physical Product Era. Or something like that.

 

live performance and merchandise is where the dollars are.

 

why would you buy music when you can get apple music or Spotify for £10 a month. and everything is on youtube, and you can download the whole history of music for free off the internet?
i buy it, but I'm old

 

The hipsters needles are gummed up, and the records they bought don't sound so good anymore, so they are back to streaming music from their phones... on to the next "cool thing"...

 

True. Call it the McDonalds generation. Living through a phone. Stores close because people are too lazy to get off their ***es, no more visiting each other or neighbouring or going out to stores because you actually 'like' going out for a bit, etc.
The internet kills general atmosphere, physical contact, fun and strangles artists.

 

I’ll have his chips, then.

 

Today's artists can charge insane ticket prices, though. The Rolling Stones certainly make more money now than their LP-selling heyday.

 

My 13-year-old son basically "discovers" and listens to all his music via YouTube and Soundcloud. I think that's how a lot of the kids are consuming their tunes these days. He doesn't care about actually buying or owning songs as he has unlimited data on his phone and can basically just access whatever song he likes, whenever and where ever. Definitely different times. He has turned me on to a number of things I wasn't aware of, which led me to plunk down the cash for it since I'm ancient and still enjoy buying music.

 

I don't think being lazy is anything to do with stores closing. If you can order something of the internet for $5, why would you pay $10 at a store.

 

Yeah noted above how much Ed Sheeren makes from ticket sales. But thirty years ago he'd also be making zillions from album and singles sales. Regardless he's not doing too badly

Also were the Stones albums ever huge sellers? They topped the charts but don't think they ever had a mega selling album like Dark Side

 

I think it was Mick Jagger who said he was thankful to be of the generation who could make money from recorded music.

 

MBV hardrock?

 

‘Convenience’ will always win over quality. Chef Boyardee didn’t die a pauper and spaghetti isn’t exactly the most labor-intensive dinner to begin with.

 

I have four kids aged 15, 18, 19 and 22. They all love and listen to music. Three out of four play an instrument. Only one of my kids ever buys physical copies of music. My 22 year will buy vinyl and cassette copies of bands he is into. Usually indie punk bands.

All my kids listen to music primarily on Apple Music and Bandcamp.

 

I think the Stones are reputed to have sold over 200 million albums. Most of their sales were at a time when sales weren't certified. The Beatles biggest seller was 1. The Stones make more money now from touring due to inflation.

 

It’s very possible that physical media may one day become obsolete. Then again, maybe not. Enjoy what you have because the times are changing whether it’s for better or worse.

 

Same thing with my stepkids who are 12 and 17. They think I "waste money" on buying vinyl and CD's. They have no problem renting (streaming) music and have no concept of sound quality so that model works for them. FWIW, one of the reasons I buy physical media - or even music downloads for that matter - is that it is a key part of my music hobby and I very much enjoy "hunting" for my music.

 

I'm in my 50s, and pretty much the only music I buy any longer is the stuff that isn't on streaming or that I can't find, er, "otherwise" as a download. Which means that pretty much the only music I buy any longer is relatively obscure artists (or at least relatively obscure albums) and stuff from genres that are relatively unpopular. When I buy something, I always buy a download if a download is available.

The upshot of this given people like me is that it means that the more popular you are, the less money you're going to make from selling recordings per capita. "Physical" media would pretty much completely die out given more people like me.

Personally, I don't see this as a bad situation. Part of the reason why is that I don't feel that there's any correlation--or at least not any necessary correlation--between the quality of music and its popularity. I don't even feel that there's any necessary correlation between the quality of music and whether someone is able to make a living with music. In my opinion, at this point, in a hypothetical world where no one could make a living from music, there would still be tons of great music available. As it is, there's lots of great music available now from people who do music as a hobby, and it's easier than ever to find it.

Selling recordings isn't the only way to make a living with music, though. And really, historically, a large percentage of professional munsicians have never made much money from selling recordings. Record companies quickly figured out ways to keep money from most artists. There's no shortage of stories about artists who put out 5-6 albums, say, that were relatively popular where they never really saw a dime from those albums. The decreased revenue hurts record companies more than anyone else. And I certainly don't think that's a bad thing. There's really little practical need for record companies at this point. Record companies made sense when there was a need for them to manufacture and distribute a delivery device for music. There's no need for that any longer.

 

Don't worry you are not alone. My two kids, 17 and 19, look at my collection (a modest one of 1300 CD's) then look at me and just shake their heads. They think their dad is starting to go a little looney........ ;-)

 

So is Bluebird.

 

This is exactly the case with my wife and kids. My two oldest daughters are 11 and 13 and they only listen to music on Spotify, Sirius/XM radio in the car, or streaming on the TV. When I was their age I was buying records and cassettes (and later on, CDs)...and I still do. My wife stopped buying CDs around the time we got married ~16 years ago. Just a few weeks ago when I bought a bunch of new CDs, my kids were like "why are you still buying CDs?"

We're a dying breed...

 

What? How familiar are you with either of these bands? I don't think either one ever traded much on "teen themes" and they certainly weren't leaning on them when writing songs like "Street Fighting Man," "Sister Morphine," "Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo (Heartbreaker)," "Won't Get Fooled Again," or "However Much I Booze."

I'd argue Jagger and Townshend are two of the best lyricists of the rock era. Not to derail the thread.