"The bottom just dropped out of the market for music catalog"

You are correct, sir!

 

First off, no way is this win/win for the record companies. No one--no label, no artist--is going to tell you things are good now. All you need to do is look at the sales certifications for the top 100 albums for the year and compare those to 10,20,30 years ago. The deflation is huge and real, and the revenues from reissue special editions or super deluxe boxes don't replace the lost revenues or even come close. All those event releases do is generate a modest amount of cash rather than none (good business sense, but not a return to the gravy days). And the nominal returns from streaming services barely make a dent, either. The one advantage to the labels--shipping limited copies up front to reduce returns--is also only a very modest one that doesn't come close to making up for the real losses in sales.

Any small company that was successful was not doing "huge marketing budgets" in the pre-internet days. Small companies were successful specifically because they knew how to control budget and (if they were in for the long haul) weren't into the big budget splatter and ship approach.

 

Yep...

And I know several adults (besides the kids), in person and from other music boards I frequent, that all they do for music listening IS YouTube ! Some do the download/extraction from there for their PMP's...other's just listen while they're on the computer. They couldn't give a rat's a** that the files have a crappy bit rate.

As you said....sad.

As far as supporting artists by buying their music...well sure ! If you like the music, and can find that without the trendy 'modern' masterings. If not, it's crazy to go out and buy stuff just to support them. I'm not a philanthropist. I've bought 2 or 3 new cd's each year lately, but other than that.....

 

This is why downloads make sense for the business and the burn-on-demand CDs unfortunately. They have less outlets to stock and most of them are online.

Sadly this is all part of an entitlement culture where people feel they don't need to pay for anything and the majors made it worse by discontinuing inexpensive options for buyers. This has become habit.

 

Mine too. It all makes me sad.

 

Stealing music online: What once were vices, now are habits. Who knew how prescient the Doobie Brothers would turn out to be?

 

We all know it's a different world but it is shocking sometimes to see just how different: I have a 16-year-old daughter and a 18-year-old son, and I can't tell you the last time either of them has purchased a CD. And that's living with a parent who still buys a lot of them! Neither one of them has a CD player in their rooms and I don't think they even know how to work our family stereo system. Yet they both listen to music avidly on their iPods or on the computer, and mostly download stuff legally from iTunes. My daughter buys singles almost entirely. She doesn't seem to have the patience to listen to an entire album (though I have managed to turn her into a Beatles fan, but that's the exception; her taste is mostly how you'd imagine for a 16-year-old girl). My son is into EDM and some indie music, and buys both albums and singles digitally -- never on a CD. A lot of the time, both of them are content to hear a song once or twice on YouTube and never again. Or they have friends over and instead of putting on a CD, they call up a playlist on YouTube or some streaming service and let that play. No money is changing hands for this music most of the time.

 

The randomization of "hits" via Spotify is not how I'll ever want to experience music.



Signed--an owner of all 8 cover versions of Arcade Fire's The Suburbs

 

I think you've pretty much mailed it. This is the music business for the next generation of consumers.

I like your line about bringing up a song once or twice on YouTube and calling it good...and the key part: "no money is changing hands".

Welcome to the new world order.

 

This is my experience too. CD Warehouse has a ton of new vinyl in stock. They've told me they sell tons of it. I've never seen anyone buy any vinyl except on RSD. And I'm in there all the time. No one even looks at the vinyl when I'm there. (they're about the only place in town that sells new vinyl)

Same thing when I went to IL this summer - I was in places that sold new vinyl, but the (few) customers I saw were only looking at the used selections.

I've got a music head friend - the only vinyl he buys is used. All of his other money towards music goes towards concert tickets/merchandise - not digital sales, not new vinyl.

 

Just to set the record straight again: listening/watching YouTube videos uploaded by the labels is not stealing music. If that's how people want to listen to music then make sure the artists and the labels are rewarded adeguately in that model and there is no issue. If music doesn't need CDs anymore, that doesn't make everyone a thief.
Same applies with Spotify and the other streaming services.

 

Wrong. Money is changing hands. Do you think Google bought YouTube to run it as a charity?

 

You quote me, but I wasn't saying that the current situation was win/win for the record companies. (You need two parties for win/win, btw.) My point was that the fact that initial pressing runs were based on hard preorder numbers meant that in the situation that an album actually unexpectedly snowballed in popularity, a revised reissue could be prepared which meant a benefit to the record company and to the consumer. Ergo win/win.

Sure, sales volumes are smaller these days and I'm sure that the record companies would like to turn back time, but we have a more diverse industry with more flexible manufacturing and better ordering processes. Some of these guys have it harder than others, but don't assume that the change in the market brings them no financial benefits.

There's never been a time in history when record companies haven't complained about their lot, and as far as I know there has never been a time when they weren't making a lot of money behind the scenes.

 

Yup, Spotify, Rdio, Rhapsody, YouTube (label uploads, watched on YouTube but not downloaded), etc. are not stealing.

In large part, however, the only reason the labels were willing to offer licenses to organizations like Spotify, Rdio, etc. was because they figured some money was better than none at all (via illegal downloads). So, while those services are legit, the reason they exist (and thus diminish demand for music) is the thievery.

None of which should hurt your conscience if you use them. But it contextualizes them.

 

I use adblock when I'm on YouTube. Would that mean that I'm stealing it effectively?

 

Nope. As long as the videos you are watching are there via legitimate license. (And even if they aren't, you aren't stealing, although YouTube is facilitating illegal dissemination).

 

The problem is that the labels provide the material that drives people to YouTube but Google rewards them with very little money. Perhaps they should negotiate better deals.

 

It's not just YouTube. Spotify, Rdio, etc. also provide very little money for the amount of content accessed. The aggregate values are reasonably large, but not when apportioned over the huge catalogs being licensed.

 

I agree (in bold). It's like arguing about moving manufacturing offshore, imo -- it's a change and we can certain have our opinions on the matter. But this is the way it is and you either work with what you have or you don't.

So I work within it - if I want to enjoy new music, I'm not going to blind buy like I used to in 1989, that's just throwing my money away. I sample.

As for young people, my own limited experience has been similar (singles only, YT, streaming etc). BUT, these are the same young people who, 30 years ago, either listened to the radio for the "hits" and then maybe bought a few singles. My wife was like that - she has exactly zero CD's. Zero LP's and zero cassettes. She bought singles only and still does that -- it used to be 45's, now it's lossy downloads.

I don't think she was the only one - I think maybe people were like that, and many people today are like that. Not everyone was buying albums.

 

Yep, and I believe there was a time when teenagers would listen to music on transistor radios. Hell, I can remember holding up a cassette recorder to the television to record the speaker sound from Help!

Of course, the result was that I don't buy music and never spend my time on these forums talking about all the overpriced boxed sets I order.

Oh, wait -

 

I wonder what proportion of the music on YouTube is there with the appropriate license. I'm sure that I've listened to plenty of stuff there that wasn't, so it doesn't seem like they're trying too hard to police it. I'm a little bit different in that I often use things like YouTube and Spotify to help me find out more about artists that I often end up purchasing, so it's not a replacement but rather an encouragement for buying new music, but I imagine that I'm in the minority in this regard.

 

Most is there under appropriate license, and it's getting close to all. YouTube has a screening filter that is able to analyze the audio in every video uploaded and then claim third-party content, so even if a fan makes their own music video in their bedroom for a, say, Green Day song, YouTube will put ads on that video and the revenue share will go to Green Day, not the video's creator.

 

I totally agree. I also think that new music should be rewarded better than old catalogue items, which is not the case with these services (and iTunes).

 

On the cover of the new Stereophile- Unleash Your Music, Marantz's breakthrough network audio player. With a picture of the player and Spotify selected on the front of the LCD display.

I will continue to play used vinyl and some new vinyl at my main stereo system in my house.

With streaming Spotify premium over ASIO to my DAC at my lake house. I don't even access my hard drives with all my ripped music all that much when I am relaxing there. Spotify is slowly starting to get everything save for some lesser known jazz.

My future of playing music is here now.

 

I am the same way. I have been getting into a lot of punk lately. I use my $9.99 spotify sub and youtube to sample albums, guided by allmusic, amazon reviews, and some other sites. I started with the classics, and I am now getting curious about the more obscure stuff and what's being made today. And I am interested to find on a punk store (interpunk.com) that the current bands are frequently issuing 7" and 10" albums as they get started.

The point, though, is that I am using these tools to sample, so I can decide what to buy next (my budget is limited, just like everyone's). Most people, I daresay, stop at the "sampling" level and don't go on to buy anything else.

ETA: I like vinyl and CD/lossless at home and a $10 sub to Spotify on my iphone for when out and about. It's a great model for me.