Music 'industry' is in deep s...t.

[Dmitry]

I still maintain that the downloads did most of the dirty work.

Downloads could have been made a salable item early on, if "the industry" would have had even a fraction of a clue about what was going on. Instead of stuffing CDs down our throats at the earliest possible minute (if we knew then what we know now, would we have settled for all that early digital crap?) until the very last possible minute and going all hyper-paranoiac about The Evils Of Copying, they could have realized that digital media by nature meant the decentralization of the supply chain and been proactive instead of reactive. All they were interested in was harvesting the profits, not nurturing the technology. They could probably be making a lot more money now than they are.

Oh well!

You lost me, dude. What do you mean by stuffing CDs down our throats? I'm not big on hyperbole, I guess.

[JSngry]

You lost me, dude. What do you mean by stuffing CDs down our throats?

They - CDs - were introduced on a major scale long before the quality was where it should have been because there were big bucks to be made right now (all the "perfect sound forever" hype has pretty much been revealed as the BS that it was, as anybody with honest ears could - and was -saying at the time), and they insisted on focusing on the media long after consumer interest was clearly trending otherwise, just because that was all they knew.

They feared downloads from jump, big time, precisely because of the implicit/inevitable decentralization involved. But rather than innovate (or at least co-opt, something they've been really good at over the years...), they hunkered down. Lotta good that's done them, and really, it serves them right.

Edited February 24, 2011 by JSngry

[Shawn]

Yep, I agree 100%. If they had tackled this problem head on (a decade ago) and come up with another alternative that captured the public's attention, they could be making profits instead of bemoaning a decade of inactivity.

Now...the ship sailed a long time ago. I can't see a physical item all of a sudden capturing the imagination of the current teenage generation..and that's the only age group the industry cares about anyway.

[Quincy]

Now...the ship sailed a long time ago. I can't see a physical item all of a sudden capturing the imagination of the current teenage generation..and that's the only age group the industry cares about anyway.

Matador and some of the other indie labels keep pumping out vinyl releases. I know a couple of people in their early 20s who passed on the download and are eagerly awaiting to get Radiohead's latest in that format. It worked the same way with The Decemberists last one.

For the older folks packaging is where it's at. These things are harder to copy.

Stones singles box.

Another Columbia jacket collection - this time Aretha.

[JSngry]

Just offering "on-demand", custom CDs in stores - replete with artwork (also customizable) would have been a great transitional idea if it would have happened before Napster caught on...instead of about 3-4 years after it did.

The ship has indeed sailed. In fact, it's pretty much off the horizon now for all but the specialists.

But here's the deal - you can get really, REALLY good sound from a lossless format like FLAC. Specialists (like us here) would have been a good target for legal, reasonably priced FLAC downloads, especially if bonus material and/or "artwork" could have been involved. You can burn a FLAC to a CD if you like, and unlike even the best MP3, there's no loss of quality (if the conversion is done right). But too late for that now - instead of "specialty music" being a leading indicator of which way the technology's going (which it once was), it's now a lagging one.

Again, oh well!

I know a couple of people in their early 20s who passed on the download and are eagerly awaiting to get Radiohead's latest in that format. It worked the same way with The Decemberists last one.

Are these items being recorded in analog, or is there an analog link anywhere in the chain?

If not, it's "cool" that vinyl refuses to die, but on the turntable is a totally useless place for the first analog link to appear...

[A Lark Ascending]

The repackaging thing drives me nuts - pretty boxes, re-assembling material into different presentations. Seems to be as much an evasion of the realities of the potential of new technology as all the other errors the record companies made in the last 15 years.

I also think it's a misnomer that young people buy downloads (or 'share' them) whilst older people need hard copies. I'm nor sure how you could compute this? I fall into 'older' (55) and only buy a CD if a download is unavailable. I doubt if I'm alone.

I'm sure the record companies are also aware of the ageing population with free time, accumulated wealth, kids fled and overheads reduced, a desire to fill that time. It's a pretty big market!

[Dmitry]

You lost me, dude. What do you mean by stuffing CDs down our throats?

They - CDs - were introduced on a major scale long before the quality was where it should have been because there were big bucks to be made right now (all the "perfect sound forever" hype has pretty much been revealed as the BS that it was, as anybody with honest ears could - and was -saying at the time), and they insisted on focusing on the media long after consumer interest was clearly trending otherwise, just because that was all they knew.

They feared downloads from jump, big time, precisely because of the implicit/inevitable decentralization involved. But rather than innovate (or at least co-opt, something they've been really good at over the years...), they hunkered down. Lotta good that's done them, and really, it serves them right.

Actually, Jim, the quality was there, just like the LP quality was there when it first came out in 1950.

If anything, in case of the LP, the playback equipment was quite inferior to the software, the styli poor, the loading weights high, the distortion immense. Today we play records from the 1950s on a much much better playback equipment, and they sound amazing.

The same goes for cds; discs pressed in the 1980s sound quite good on today's playback equipment, which is a lot more advanced than it was 25 years ago.

[JSngry]

I fall into 'older' (55) and only buy a CD if a download is unavailable. I doubt if I'm alone.

Dude - I bought the two most recent Ursula Rucker CDs a few weeks ago (one of them out for only a few weeks) & they were only available as downloads.

Didn't bother me at all, hell, when was the last time you could buy a new CD for only $7.98, but I would gladly have paid a dollar more for some kind of data file to have been included with production and performer credits (especially for the brand-new one, which utilizes a lot of live players). That stuff does still matter to me.

Tell you what, though - if I get a sudden hankerin' for a song, and it's a song by somebody I have no interest whatsover in having more than that song or just a very few more, I'm downloading it from Amazon without thinking twice. For 98 cents, it's like buying a 45 (even if there's no b-side involved...and what a great idea THAT would be - offering true download singles, with A-sides & B-sides..."er..."sides", that is...even include a picture sleeve!)

[Rooster_Ties]

I fall into 'older' (55) and only buy a CD if a download is unavailable. I doubt if I'm alone.

Whereas I'm barely over 40, and I'll only download something if it's NOT available on CD (and I practically never download).

I do settle for burns from time to time, to "tide me over" until I can find a legit copy (used, if OOP). I'm no absolute purist as far as wanting to adhere to copyrights (though I'll admit that's part of it). I just trust physical media WAY more than downloads -- since I presume I'll want to hear much of this same stuff 20 years from now and beyond. Yeah, physical media has it shortfalls too -- still, I'll take it over managing a huge collection on a hard-drive, with the worry of data becoming corrupt, lost, and/or not playing back 10+ years from now (and the associated hassles of converting files to keep up with format changes).

[JSngry]

Actually, Jim, the quality was there...The same goes for cds; discs pressed in the 1980s sound quite good on today's playback equipment, which is a lot more advanced than it was 25 years ago.

Uh...maybe. Sometimes. Hardy ever. Almost never.

Most of that stuff sounded like crap compared to the analog then, and no matter how much better the playback equipment is today, it still sounds like crap compared to the analog. Maybe a nicer grade of crap, but still...

Thus the need (as in true need) for new remasterings that can sound better than the analog, which is what we were supposed to have been buying 30 years ago!

[JSngry]

I fall into 'older' (55) and only buy a CD if a download is unavailable. I doubt if I'm alone.

Whereas I'm barely over 40, and I'll only download something if it's NOT available on CD (and I practically never download).

I do settle for burns from time to time, to "tide me over" until I can find a legit copy (used, if OOP). I'm no absolute purist as far as wanting to adhere to copyrights (though I'll admit that's part of it). I just trust physical media WAY more than downloads -- since I presume I'll want to hear much of this same stuff 20 years from now and beyond. Yeah, physical media has it shortfalls too -- still, I'll take it over managing a huge collection on a hard-drive, with the worry of data becoming corrupt, lost, and/or not playing back 10+ years from now (and the associated hassles of converting files to keep up with format changes).

You know that you can back up your downloads to a DVD-R data disc (from which you can burn hard copies of all the CDs you'd ever want), right? Beaucoup CDs on one disc.

I don't do this, because I have enough already-hard copies to last me forever should my digital files disappear, but I'm just saying...a drive of any type is not the only available storage medium for digital files.

[Dmitry]

Actually, Jim, the quality was there...The same goes for cds; discs pressed in the 1980s sound quite good on today's playback equipment, which is a lot more advanced than it was 25 years ago.

Uh...maybe. Sometimes. Hardy ever. Almost never.

Most of that stuff sounded like crap compared to the analog then, and no matter how much better the playback equipment is today, it still sounds like crap compared to the analog. Maybe a nicer grade of crap, but still...

Thus the need (as in true need) for new remasterings that can sound better than the analog, which is what we were supposed to have been buying 30 years ago!

Wrong on all counts.

Early cd pressings have become quite collectible. Many times they are the most un-compressed, the least messed with by the remastering engineers. Like I said, in the 1980s-early 1990s the quality of the playback equipment was not up to par with the software; 14-bit d/a converters, etc.

But no matter how lacking the early cd playback was, it was infinitely better than the pre mid-1970s turntables with 7-10 gram tracking weights, heavy arms, console stereos, etc.

[JSngry]

We will agree to differ on the quality of most early CDs, then, even if the crap to goodness ration is 99,000,000-to-0.0000001

I mean, seriously...any early CD that sounds better than its comparable analog counterpart (assuming that there is one, and if we're talking about those horrid early all-digital recordings, then the very best sound is no sound at all...) deserves to be highly collectible, because it is truly a rarity.

I know there were some, but overall....it was a bill of goods which we were sold. Inferior product rushed out to save an already declining industry. We bought the product, they bought some time, but the jig (or is it gig?) is finally up.

[JSngry]

Also, just to clarify - a new remastering in no way guarantees a better remastering.

All I mean is that in an A-B comparison of an early CD and its analog LP counterpart (again, if a true one exists), the LP is going to sound better far more often than not.

I'm talking reissued product here, mind you. People their out their vinyl waaaaaaaay too hastily.

[Noj]

I'm surprised there's never any blame placed on MTV for failing to be the music promoting entity it used to be. New artists with new music in a variety of genres were promoted on a free television channel practically 24 hours a day. The biggest hits ALWAYS had a video too. When a popular band had a new album coming out, there was an update about it on the TV. It was entirely about music. They'd even have live shows and experimental music on late night. Look at the peak of music sales on that chart! Right when MTV was at its creative best, and I don't believe that is a coincidence.

[porcy62]

There are so many more options for entertainment now days, most of which started coming into fruition in the 2000s, and all of which compete for people's time and money. Yes, there are mp3s. There's also video games, DVR, smart phones, home theaters, Blu-Ray, YouTube, Netflix, etc. etc.

Words.

Look at "hi-fi" stuff. For nearly three decades it was among the coolest things in any middle class family, whatever they listen to music or not, and records were a cool present. For a very short period of human history, music industry was THE "home" entertainment.

Edited February 24, 2011 by porcy62

[Shawn]

Regarding the vinyl resurgence, I think it's cool, I've bought some myself. There are many studios boasting "all analog" again, it has become cool to use all vintage gear.

However, don't count out digital recording to vinyl as necessarily a bad thing. Audio is recorded at really high sample rates now, there's loads more data than can actually fit in the 16bit word length of a CD. So you dither that stuff down to 16bit/44.1khz to squeeze as much possible into an outdated format (CD). Or...you can leave it at it's full sample rate and run off a copy onto an analog master tape and have vinyl pressed from that...analog has no word length issues to deal with. I have an Opeth LP, recorded all digital, that sounds better on the vinyl than the counterpart CD release.

[JSngry]

However, don't count out digital recording to vinyl as necessarily a bad thing. Audio is recorded at really high sample rates now, there's loads more data than can actually fit in the 16bit word length of a CD. So you dither that stuff down to 16bit/44.1khz to squeeze as much possible into an outdated format (CD). Or...you can leave it at it's full sample rate and run off a copy onto an analog master tape and have vinyl pressed from that...analog has no word length issues to deal with.

Never thought of that...pretty cool way to go about it!

I've had conversations/bullshitting sessions with friends where we speculate that vinyl will finally resurge as the "format of quality", mp3s or other DL-centric format will stay as the "convenience" format of choice, and everything else will go away.

Works for me, unless the vinyls go outrageous in price on new releases. Anything over $20.00 & I'm stepping back to reconsider my options...

[mjzee]

The music industry was never moved by jazz music...well, not since the '40's, anyway. Popular music creates the huge sales. IMHO, rap started the downward sales trend - not because rap didn't sell (it obviously does, and it's especially attractive to the industry because it costs so little to produce), but because it lent a seedy, violent, thuggish tone to the industry. Then came groups like Nirvana... people who had obvious psychological problems. Pop songs became whines about how shitty life is... and more and more, pop performers seemed a singularly unattractive bunch. That's one of the main reasons the industry is in a hole - people aren't interested in bringing this stuff into their lives. I actually think music sales would be even worse if it weren't for labels targeting releases to baby boomers, who still have an emotional attachment to the music that meant so much to them.

There are no places to buy music (independent stores have dried up, and giants like Wal-Mart and Costco devote fewer square footage to music). There's no place to listen to new music, as radio seems to be on a downturn. And consumers have other interests, such as video games, as has been noted.

One more thing: the price. When a consumer walks into a store, I don't think they're seeing the price proposition for music as compared to other entertainment. Example: In Costco last week, I saw a Verve Ella Fitzgerald compilation. I saw that it was one disc, 17 songs or so, obviously music recorded in the '50's, and the price was $8.99. The next aisle had DVDs. They had a DVD box set of the first season of Rocky and Bullwinkle (never before on DVD, from the original studio), 4 discs. Price? $8.99 for the box. Even if the shopper doesn't want to buy the Rocky box, they intuitively know that the Ella CD is overpriced.

What's the answer? I'm not an expert, but here are a few thoughts:

1. The industry must embrace the new technologies: make internet radio stations easier to find, and start advertising them. Perhaps sponsor some of those sub-channels on digital FM.

2. Aggressively market .mp3's as the new experience. Make it as interesting as when we used to buy fold-out LP covers with the inserts in the sleeves. Have computer graphics, little stories.

3. Price. Honestly, at this point, a '50's jazz album should be no more than $3 or $4. That's the way to make the product alluring.

[Dmitry]

We will agree to differ on the quality of most early CDs, then, even if the crap to goodness ration is 99,000,000-to-0.0000001

I mean, seriously...any early CD that sounds better than its comparable analog counterpart (assuming that there is one, and if we're talking about those horrid early all-digital recordings, then the very best sound is no sound at all...) deserves to be highly collectible, because it is truly a rarity.

I know there were some, but overall....it was a bill of goods which we were sold. Inferior product rushed out to save an already declining industry. We bought the product, they bought some time, but the jig (or is it gig?) is finally up.

That is simply not the case. :bwallace2: I have many cds pressed in the 1980s that sound very good. Blue Note Works series first appeared in the early 1990s. Many 1980s BN cds sound better than RVG remasters. 1980s OJC cds are quite listenable. Same goes for a bunch of rock cds I've had for 20 years. They sound just fine.

Also, if you look at the chart, tapes surpassed LPs in sales way before the cds came up.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Dmitry

[JSngry]

You hear through your ears, I hear through mine. Viva la differential.

[A Lark Ascending]

The newly recorded classical CDs I bought in 1985 sound as good as those issued today, to my ears. It was the rush to get out the pre-existing catalogue that produced the poor sounding CDs.

Though the record companies managed an Indian summer out of that by releasing them all again ten years later in remastered form. It's almost as if the companies are still dazzled by that golden goose moment and are still focussing on trying to repeat it. To me the current special-anniversary-edition-boxed-set fad is part of that. It won't save them.

[Jim Alfredson]

Another thing about that graph that hurts the "downloading killed music" argument, is the blue line that represents video sales. You'll notice it follows the CD sales to a T. How can that be, since ripping off videos is a relatively new phenomenon due to the masses finally having access to high-speed internet? You certainly could never download a full movie on a dial-up connection in the early 2000's.

I believe that the peak in CD sales was an anomaly. And as I said before, the rise of alternate forms of entertainment competing for one's time and money contributed to the sharp decline of CD sales. I also believe that more music is being consumed today than ever before; the difference is that it is coming from sources that the RIAA has no control over, doesn't pay attention to, and certainly doesn't have data on. Namely, local shows, blogs, indie websites, SoundCloud, YouTube, etc. I recently read that the much maligned Justin Bieber has never had a song in the Billboard Top 10, and yet he's got millions upon millions of views on YouTube and is certainly making a lot of money.

The fact of the matter is, the old guard of the music biz is just that... old and antiquated. The RIAA had the chance to seize the idea of digital delivery but instead chose to sue grandmas and college students. I hold no sympathy for them. Musicians will find ways to make their art and survive in spite of all the technological changes. And people will still pay for good music. Right now, it's about finding and exploiting a niche.

[A Lark Ascending]

And it is worth rememembering that it has never been easier to find the music you want, even if you do confine yourself to legal sources. You might not find it necessarily in your preferred format, but it's very easy to build up a representative collection of most players. The past is available in zillions; and I doubt if it's ever been easier for performers to get music recorded and available to the public* (wade through the daily new downloads on e-music and see how many you've actually heard of!). Getting them aware of it, interested, still as hard as ever, I suspect.

The unknowns on e-music interest me. I get the impression that many of these are the equivalent of bar-room bands with a local audience. People who have had a good night out and want a memento no longer have to buy it at the door.

One of the challenges for the online stores is going to be how to help the customer navigate all this stuff. At present the filtering methods are pretty crude.

* I think of people like Stan Tracey, Bobby Wellins, John Taylor, Kenny Wheeler. Players I've followed since the mid-70s. Until about 2000 recordings were few and far between - their profile was mainly limited to the UK and mainland Europe (Wheeler was a bit wider). Wheeler and Taylor had releases on ECM but there were long gaps between them. Tracey was quite prolific on his own cottage label but that didn't sustain itself.

In the last ten years recordings have tumbled out on small labels like Trio, Re-steamed, Camjazz, Edition etc.

Edited February 25, 2011 by A Lark Ascending

[Dmitry]

There are more mp3 players out there than ever before [i don't have the numbers, but it seems obvious], yet the profits from the digital downloads are in a free fall. To me this means that the music is being pilfered, and not purchased.