Great Article on the Music Industry

[md655321]

http://www.houstonpress.com/Issues/2007-01.../feature_1.html

Alot have been covered before, but i think this article really nails most of the key points.

Thoughts?

[JSngry]

I really like this part:

But the record labels brought all this on themselves. Looking back over the past 45 years, it is now plain that the move from vinyl to CD was not the bold step forward we were told it would be. CDs were not scratch-proof (as the labels had us believe early on), nor was the sound an improvement on vinyl -- indeed, most audiophiles argue that their sound is inferior. Jewel cases were ridiculously brittle -- they were rendered useless by a drop of four feet or so -- and they were hard to open, as were the huge and idiotic long-boxes CDs were packaged in well into the 1990s. Their visual appeal was almost always minimal and yet they took up what now seems like a lot of shelf space.

In fact, CDs were really just another example of how the music business has been about profit, rather than music, for a long time. The move from vinyl to CD was a top-down decision imposed on music fans and retailers, who had to spend huge sums refitting their stores. The labels saw that they could both charge roughly double the money for new music and re-release their back catalog on the new format.

Yeah, I remember finally being forced to choose between cassette and CD if I wanted to keep up w/new releases. I thought it was bullshit then, and it was. Now it's karma time. Motherfuckers wanted an all-digital music world, well, they now got one.

Guess they should've been careful what they asked for, eh?

[Jim Alfredson]

With the continuous increasing glut of music on the market (99.9% of it crap), discussion forums like this one, that cater to a specific niche, will become ever more important. It is the only way to wade through the sludge with a chance at success, imo.

[Rooster_Ties]

FYI, in case anyone happens to miss it -- the article goes on for six pages.

I'm only through the first page, but it is an interesting read.

Entire article available here on one page

[Claude]

The move from vinyl to CD was a top-down decision imposed on music fans and retailers, who had to spend huge sums refitting their stores.

That's nonsense.

The CD was not imposed on the music buyer. The format came out in 1983, but most albums continued to be released on vinyl until the early 90's. Most people opted to convert to CD not because no LPs were available, but because they preferred the much more convenient CD.

And now they prefer MP3s, because they are even more convenient than CDs. Sound quality is only an issue for 10% of the music listeners. Both LP and CD can sound "audiophile", and high quality MP3s sound good enough for most listeners.

[Clunky]

Surely people opted out of vinyl because pressings had become so poor. Of all my LPs the worst are those pressed in the mid to late 80s when the heavier and better quality pressings of the 1960s seemed like a distant memory...

[JSngry]

I don't know how things were in your town, Claude, but in mine, stores stopped carrying vinyl as quickly as possible once the "fad" had begun. Some even refused to special order it, even though it was available.

Plenty of consumers expressed a desire to keep vinyl, but the response was never accomodating. But it was clear that the industry wanted to kill vinyl as quickly as possible. Hell, it wasn't long before you could find a cassette of a new side easier than you could an LP. "That's what people want!", they said. Yeah, sure. People wanted to buy what was in front of them at the moment, and if there were no LPs int he stores, then there would be no LP sales.

I for one would probably (well, ok, possibly) still be buying LPs of new releases if I hadn't have been forced to convert to CD. None of the first wave or three of CD reissues of back catalog that I foolishly bought early on held a candle to the old LPs soundwise. And quite a few people I knew who bit hard on CD at first were starting to have second thoughts around the time the rug got pulled.

CDs should have replaced cassettes, not LPs until the technology improved. It was a great portable medium, and usually sounded better than cassettes in a portable listening environment. But as a "main" medium? No way. The public got sold a bill of goods, simple as that.

[paul secor]

Bottom line:

90% - 95%? 98%? - of the American public (I won't make a judgement about the rest of the world) doesn't give a damn about music (music - not background noise, something to add to one's hipness quotient, or any other nonsense), let alone sound quality.

[Rooster_Ties]

Telling quote from the article...

"I'm only 36, but I feel this major generation gap," says Eef Barzelay, the frontman for the Nashville-based rock band Clem Snide. "When I was about 22, my roommate had a pretty good record collection. He was really into soul. We didn't have a TV, and after work, we'd come home and get high, smoke some cigarettes, drink a couple beers and just listen to Al Green vinyl. Just listen to it. The whole thing, like side A and then side B. And then we'd just talk, and it was one of the best times of my life. And now I don't even really listen to music. It's all on the computer, but I don't want to listen to it on the computer. I got an iPod and I just didn't like it. So now I just don't even listen to music anymore."

Compare that with a world where nearly every TV has 100 cable channels (give or take, with plenty of systems offering 200+ channels). And Internet access (including high-speed) is to be found literally in every corner --> with wireless at your local coffee-house, or even on your frickin' phone.

The world has changed, in dramatic ways -- even over just the last 10 years.

Edited January 8, 2007 by Rooster_Ties

[Tom Storer]

I was annoyed when the format changed to CD because I didn't want to have to spend money on a CD player. On the other hand, vinyl was getting worse and worse. I used to buy an LP, immediately tape it, and then listen to the tape, because the vinyl was so quickly damaged just by normal playing. So I was happy to be able to just buy the music and listen to it without further operations. And let's face it, digital music has many advantages we would be unhappy to do without now.

Which is not to say that the music industry's motives were not purely venal.

[md655321]

Basically it is easier to be a casual fan, because there isnt much that differentiates the two. Its easier to get pulled into music obsessiveness when owning a record meant something. Now, casual fans have a 1000 songs on their ipod. Hardcore fans have a 1000 songs on their ipod.

The whole vinyl album artwork tactilel experience thing was never about the music though. It only means something because of the music played afterwords and classical conditioning. I get the same rush out of listening to an ipod that you possibly could listening to vinyl. Because the rush comes from the music, or atleast 99% of the rush. The digital age is making things just about the music, something that many musicians have wanted for a long while. Why should we discuss album artwork? It really is completely irrelevant, as enjoyable as it may be.

The biggest problem is that people value what they earn way more than what they get for free, or cheaply. You had to earn being a music fan before, and it meant something to people. The casual fan was drawn in and became a bigger fan because of their emotional and monetary investment. That no longer happens and we are left with a much great proportion of casual fans, buying casual music, of low to no quality. Thats fine, let the major labels cater to that music, instead of forcing quality acts to compromise themselves to be on major labels. Because of the breakdown of standard distribution, artists no longer need to rely on major labels in any way. They can create the music they want, everytime. We just have to wade through alot more to get to it.

As always, I think we are lamenting the passing of old ways without realizing whats great about the new ways. How many of you would trade 12 inch album artwork for real time discussion of jazz with master musicians and record producers like we can do here? I know I would.

[JSngry]

I keep asking myself what kind of dumbasses would fight a near-totally bogus war against home taping and then introduce/push a format that allowed for the making of exact copies before figuring out some kind of copy protection/deterrence plan.

[Claude]

I don't know how things were in your town, Claude, but in mine, stores stopped carrying vinyl as quickly as possible once the "fad" had begun. Some even refused to special order it, even though it was available.

Plenty of consumers expressed a desire to keep vinyl, but the response was never accomodating. But it was clear that the industry wanted to kill vinyl as quickly as possible. Hell, it wasn't long before you could find a cassette of a new side easier than you could an LP. "That's what people want!", they said. Yeah, sure. People wanted to buy what was in front of them at the moment, and if there were no LPs int he stores, then there would be no LP sales.

Maybe it's a question of age, or of how large a person's music collection is. I was thinking of the average music buyer, who is in his teens or twenties, and who owns less than 200 albums.

In my experience, most young music buyers in the late 80's wanted CDs just like they later wanted DVDs (instead of VHS tapes), and MP3s now. There was no regret to leave the old format behind, except for the nice large LP covers. CDs could be listened to everywhere, and they could be copied to cassettes just like LPs. There was no disadvantage in abandonning vinyl. They opted for CD voluntarily as soon as the players and discs became more affordable. In no way was the format pushed onto them.

Many got rid of their existing LP collection, at dumping prices. Why would they do that if they preferred vinyl, but were forced by the labels to buy new albums on CD? They could still listen to their old LPs, but they didn't want to.

It was different for the older vinyl fans of course, who were forced in the early 90's to buy CDs against their preference, because vinyl stopped being released. But they were a small minority.

Edited January 8, 2007 by Claude

[.:.impossible]

I keep asking myself what kind of dumbasses would fight a near-totally bogus war against home taping and then introduce/push a format that allowed for the making of exact copies before figuring out some kind of copy protection/deterrence plan.

I keep asking myself the same questions I was hunting for in the 21st Century thread. I'm looking forward to further discussion on this topic via PM from a couple of members who expressed interest in taking the conversation in an alternate direction from the one it ended up taking.

Basically, I just don't see what kind of big business would further invest in the music industry. It has been said over and over, here on these boards, and elsewhere, that they just don't care about the music. To many of us, music is a passion. Mega-profits would not even come into play as a factor. I truly believe that the recording industry, at one point in time, thrived on passion. It was run by people who were truly passionate about music. Big business came along, saw the potential profits and made a pop culture out of it. These profits are disappearing. I hope that big businesses back out. Soon. Or at least back away.

I'm sorry, but anyone with intentions of getting rich by investing in the recording and marketing of other people's music is delusional. The fact that this was, at any time, a viable opportunity to make a shit-ton of money, is upsetting.

[7/4]

I keep asking myself what kind of dumbasses would fight a near-totally bogus war against home taping and then introduce/push a format that allowed for the making of exact copies before figuring out some kind of copy protection/deterrence plan.

I've been wondering about that for years.

[md655321]

Basically, I just don't see what kind of big business would further invest in the music industry. It has been said over and over, here on these boards, and elsewhere, that they just don't care about the music. To many of us, music is a passion. Mega-profits would not even come into play as a factor. I truly believe that the recording industry, at one point in time, thrived on passion. It was run by people who were truly passionate about music. Big business came along, saw the potential profits and made a pop culture out of it. These profits are disappearing. I hope that big businesses back out. Soon. Or at least back away.

I'm sorry, but anyone with intentions of getting rich by investing in the recording and marketing of other people's music is delusional. The fact that this was, at any time, a viable opportunity to make a shit-ton of money, is upsetting.

This is true at all levels of media. At one time, journalists decided what magazines investigated and reported. Entertainers decided what was on tv. Film makers decided what films to make (to a large extent). The focus should be on what is good, not on what will make money. Now, in every single aspect of society the decisionmaking process has been decided by businessmen. Pure businessmen, with no interest whatsoever in what they are doing, only in the money they will recieve. And we accept it at all levels and worse, we promote and encourage this type of thinking. We convince kids to learn only because they can make money out of it, we allow all aspects of society to be perverted because 'people have to make a buck.' To make a bigger jump than most are unwilling to make so far, it is the unrestrained pursuit of capitalism as both an economic system and as a basic morality that is continuing to destroy society.

As a result, we have also seen the complete death of criticism in America. With the democratization of media we have seen the democratization of opinion. There is no good or bad, you cant even DISCUSS what is good or bad. There is only personal taste. Any attempt to think about quality is considered a direct assault on the status quo, and is therefore relegated to 'elitism.'

[Neal Pomea]

The article suggests that the market may become more nuanced. As demographics change with the graying of the United States, there's no reason to assume that the preferences of teenagers will forever be the most significant driving force.

There is substantial interest in lps, and a large population who are not early adopters of ITunes and IPods and the like, who prefer cds with informative notes attached. There will probably be markets for a variety of formats.

I am eager to see what labels in genres with small audiences will be doing. In Cajun music, I know of a small label that will not release even a 500 copy cd print run of music by a major historical figure, primarily because the cost per unit of 500 cd sleeves is too great, making it necessary to plan for a run of 1000, which they don't think they can sell. The cost of a sleeve that is pitiful compared with the artwork on an lp is still enough to prevent release of the music. I hope this changes.

The remarks by Garrett Kamps about his service and e-music were interesting. Subscribe to the service as you presently subscribe to cable TV, then select what you want. "For $15 a month, you can have all the music in the world, at your fingertips, on the go." That is certainly not my experience. I can't find almost any of the music I want on e-music.

Labels might pick up the slack if they can afford to develop their own e-music like services. Subscribe to Swallow, for example, and their entire catalog could be available digitally. No need to mothball songs because you can't get a deal with a printer for professional looking cd sleeves. Users can learn to get their notes from a Web site in a printable format if they so choose -created and controlled for quality by the label. If you choose not to have the explanatory notes, you could still buy the music.

If they wait until e-music picks them up, they are going to wait a long time or may not get picked up at all.

A label could shift focus and costs from the mail order model to online delivery and promotion. Worldwide advertisement and delivery through the efficiency of the online environment could expand markets.

Edited January 8, 2007 by It Should be You

[AllenLowe]

hope its ok to do this - just read the article - and this is some of what I posted in another thread:

"well, so much of our confusion stems from the fact that there is too much "product" or, maybe, a different philosophy of creation. I see a CD as a real project, like a novel, or a theatrical production, or a piece of performance art - in the current scene it's a business card, and I don't mean just for rappers but for many excellent new jazz/improvising musicians who don't know or care about their limits as composers. So it is one thing to have the visceral experience of seeing the music in person - another to have to wade through the 10,000 new CDs issued every month. This is, to a great degree, the reason for that recent article about the new disposable music industry of downloads and MP3s - we all want to blame bad pop music, but read the review pages of Cadence and Signal to Noise - there's just too much stuff coming out, and it all lends itself to a pick-and-choose and download stlye of listening -"

[Dan Gould]

I keep asking myself what kind of dumbasses would fight a near-totally bogus war against home taping and then introduce/push a format that allowed for the making of exact copies before figuring out some kind of copy protection/deterrence plan.

I've been wondering about that for years.

Sorry but the fact of the matter is that the pushing of CDs far pre-dated the prevalence of CD burners. Whether the companies should have imagined that within 5-10 years people would be able to make digital copies of this new format (as opposed to the demonstrably worse sounding cassette copies) is something else altogether.

But at the time they were pushing CDs, no one had standalone CD burners, PCs had not yet invaded every single home, and those that had used floppy discs, not CD drives/burners.

[JSngry]

But at the time they were pushing CDs, no one had standalone CD burners, PCs had not yet invaded every single home, and those that had used floppy discs, not CD drives/burners.

Pretty sure that R&D was underway. But even if not, how much foresight does it take to see that if you, the owner, can crank out perfect copy after perfect copy ad infinitum, that it's just a matter of time before that same ability reaches consumers? Not much, I'd think. This is simply technology we're talking about, not some divinely endowed mystical power.

[Dan Gould]

Since when have record companies gazed beyond the end of their nose?

[Rooster_Ties]

One other aspect of the impact of technology and music is permanency, and the effect of the lack of permanency in future music “products”.

In the future, if most music is pretty much only available in some electronic (downloadable) form – then what will happen to that music (and access to that music) say 10, 20, 30, 50 years in the future? And far future access by future generations – and even access by the people who were interested in said music in the first place??

Many of us here have items in our music collections – physical objects – that are decades old, even half a century or more in age. What will become of “music” in an age where there are NO physical objects to posses?? When one is limited to only that which can be downloaded, stored, and successfully converted or ported to each new technological “doodad” that comes down the pike every 10 or 20 years.

And what of the need for reliable storage media, which doesn’t (but inevitably will) become technologically outdated (or worse yet, corrupt) over time?? Will the successful maintenance and upkeep of a good-sized music collection require an ever increasingly complex backup methodology? Or what if that isn’t even possible, with the potential further introduction of copy-protection schemes embedded in the product itself??

What will happen to music that can’t be ported, converted, backed-up, or kept from deteriorating??

Is it just me, or is the musical history of our future seriously at risk???

No answers – just questions.

Edited January 9, 2007 by Rooster_Ties

[Joe G]

Lots of music from the past has been lost, of course. Many of Bach's manuscripts were used to wrap fish in after he died, for instance.

[JSngry]

Since when have record companies gazed beyond the end of their nose?

My point exactly!

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Neither of those links to the original article is working. Can anyone help?

MG