Drowned in Sound

Search



illegal downloads and the dying music business

46 votes
?
by jackaizlewood

is it a good thing that because of illegal downloads etc. the music business is dying....the fat-cats at record labels are fucked but what about the musicians???

jackaizlewood | 29 Feb '08, 18:41 | Send note | Report this | Reply

Pretty sure than majors and big indies

will find ways to continue to make money with music.
But I'm fearing it'll become even more difficult for small label to survive.


tbh

small labels are more likely to survive as they have minimal overheads (staff, premises) and tend to release less shit.


I'm fearing many small labels

will get progressively upset at seeing their bands being talk about, having people to their gigs and still selling nothing.
Because sadly people are also downloading small labels releases without buying the albums afterwards ( even when they say otherwise... )


i don't really think it's a massive issue

for instance, our mail order business is doing really well, and the first pressing of the fighting with wire album sold out on on online sales / live sales alone. those have been happening since december, and the album isn't even out yet, and i'm sure it's online somewhere yet and has been for nearly four months now, but that hasn't been screwing up our sales.

i'm a bit drunk and that probably doesn't make as much sense as it should. whatever.

my point is: small labels that control their spending and put out records that are aimed at people who buy music won't have any problems. we're certainly not.


yes

but you're not counting too much on shop distribution and your label/bands have an established fans base.


According to the LA Times

half the kids in America NEVER buy albums from record stores, anymore. Saving grace is that iTunes sales are up.

oR's amazing tips on saving the music industry: Fuck U2 and Britney Spears. But for indie artists methinks you should buy the whole album (or download) not just the one song you like. I think DiSers do that mostly, but most kids are into the singles bit. One look at the most downloaded stuff on iTunes confirms this.


well

i don't really think it's verr kidz which are buying things on iTunes (since you need a credit card), but the 20-60 brigade. Verr kidz are illegal downloaders and always will be


what's a verr kid?


it's how i pronounce it

racist


I'd buy a lot more music if it was cheaper.

I'd never pay more than a tenner for an album, or more than £3 for a 7". People will always download, and no doubt it's massively exploited, but if it was more affordable more people would buy it.


music IS cheap

i've not paid more than a tenner for an album in a long time. i think the most i've paid recently was £8.99 for the Cub Scout album, and i'm sure i could've got that cheaper if i'd looked around or waited a bit.

it's a massive lie that music is "expensive". most albums i get are £5-8.


for records?


CDs

buying vinyl and then complaining about high prices is proper silly.


in a way yeah

but surely you can just say vinyl is too expensive...but i still wanna buy it


Small artists aren't

getting punished IMHO. There are bands that would never be known outside of their locality, but now they can pretty much tour the world, and have some fans already there waiting to see them. These people will bring their friends, who will buy a ticket, maybe a t-shirt, maybe a CD, and the next time around those friends will tell their friends... <repeat>

I think the labels are the ones that are suffering, but a lot of artists I listen to are bringing their own stuff out, or are a group of artists who come together to put out their own records.

That being said, the small labels are still getting people buying their stuff, and in some cases I would imagine that they are getting more sales nowadays than they were in the past. I can't imagine a few labels selling to more than people in their area, but now they are having to set up paypal accounts to meet the interest overseas.

I think it's the mid size and large record companies that are feeling the pinch more than the little ones.

Just my opinion though!


the music industry isn't dying

the shit practises of the big labels are. hooray!


i think it`s a reflection

on the over hyped music industry people like simon cowel have bleed the industry dry
on the plus side i think people who are not on a major don`t get ilegely downloaded as much unless they are selling loads anyway because for 1 they people download ilegal stuff have never heard of them and there know the label doesn`t have bags of cash to baill themseves out


it's just shifting

from a hit based industry to one based on a smaller number of sales for each artist/release based over a longer time period and across a larger spectrum as people have immediate access to a much wider choice these days. There's a really interesting book on it called The Long Tail by Chris Anderson.

I think it's a good thing. It's levelled the playing the field somewhat but this certainly isn't the death of the majors, which are morphing into 'Entertainment' empires instead - notice they all have ties with movie studios, etc. There's always gonna be music and there's always going to be a music industry from which money can and will be made.

As for people who get all their music for free illegally - fair play, they can listen to it, but you don't 'own' anything. There'll always be a large number of music fans who actually want to build a tangible collection so physical releases aren't going to die completely anytime soon. These people that download for free might go to a gig and/or buy a t-shirt if they like it and as a consequence the live scene's healthier than ever - look at the enormous amount of festivals around, for example.


plus

my impression has always been that it's mostly teenagers downloading albums. how many teenagers ACTUALLY used to buy albums anyway? i'd say not so many. i certainly didn't.


I used to save my lunch money

to buy records.

*puts Daniel on my knee*

Did you know ice cream cones used to cost a nickel....


I bought way more

records as a teenager than I do now. And I dont think I was much of a music aficionado then...


i only got a home computer last year

so i spent pretty much all my teenage years buying cds.


Hey wisdom

I just looked up that article by Chris Anderson online. Really interesting stuff, thanks for bringing it to my attention!

It's here for anyone else interested.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html?pg=1&topic=tail&topic_set=


Its not dying

more money has been spent on singles in the last year than ever before and the digital music business accounts for more trade than traditional stores.
Its a revolution not a death.
Just give it a change to work all the niggles of piracy out and we'll be laughing in 5 years time.


"work all the niggles of piracy out"

I can't imagine how that will ever happen.


Radiohead

had a damn good go at it.
Its about providing incentives to get music legally, DRM free etc.
Providing the listener with a chance to ehar before they commit to purchase.
Its not a silly as I made it sound.


Well yeah

but how many people in the music buying world know it exists....... not that many at all.
We need a revolution of the same kind from stores to digital in this space too to make people aware of whats on offer.


well

ive always though buisnesses had to adapt to changes in the world


I pretty much wrote my dissertation about this

we need to change copyright law, and that's that. Apart from the obvious problems of people claiming "I sung that!", a musician genearlly can only benefit from people hearing their music, whereas a record label is destined to lose out on currently unlawful downloads (not illegal unless you start selling them on your dodgy little market stall etc) because their business is all about a specific product, i.e a record/cd- a hard copy. Digital formats have changed everything because all of a sudden, you don't need that middle man to provide the music. Record labels are still stuck on their original concept of selling a thing however, and as such we have iTunes et al using the old out-dated tactics of the record industry to sell downloads.


I was going to write more

but i can't be bothered. My eyes hurt. And I need to make tea.


"you don't need that middle man to provide the music."

maybe not, but you need it to get that music heard.


Indeed

that's a fair point and I think that is the way record labesl sshould be going - as promotion machines (which effectively is all they ever have been). The difference would be that instead of them doing the promotion AND making a large and relatively easy amount of money by forcing an artist to sign over certain copy rights (namely the right to mass produce sound recordings of the artist's work), they would just provide the promotional service to the artist without magically owning their soul.

Again, I've got so bored with this I can't be bothered writing coherently. I still can't make my mind up exactly how the law should be changed, and to be honest it is unlikely to ever change against the music industry as they have such very strong lobbying groups.


I'm imagining a dystopian future where...

Music will become even more polarised between:

a) huge acts (robbie Williams) who will be on such record labels as survive because merchandising, tickets for huge venues etc etc will still make them fincially viable even if absolutely no-one 'buys' their albums.

and

b) the indie community who will make music as amateurs (or most as semi-professionals who live of (normally tiny) gig receipts.

I think the days of bands who occupy the middle ground could be over. DiScuss.


sadly

more or less what I'm fearing...
Which big label at the moment will help bands make long career without selling shitloads of albums...


interesting...

... i remember a South Bank show which said true original artists would have to do their work in their spare time- there's a huge history of many artists across all art forms receiving no financial benefit from what they did- Oscar Wilde for instance and even Lou Reed said in a recent interview he made no money from the Velvets!

I also wonder if music could follow the traditional art model, where original work- ie limited edition releases were prized possessions of collectors or people could invest in promising limited edition releases which subsequently esculate in value.

I guess a rough example of this could be that I recently saw Life Without Buildings and Berg Sans Nipple releases which were going on amazon for over £70 a pop!

Anyway, there's a theory!


remember kids....

home taping is killing music!

its not.... it never did and it never will. it does however impede a small handful of suits from generating that extra car in the garage.

shame.... :o(


It's utterly different.

With the hometaping thing ultimately people had to buy albums in order to copy them and most people would have preferred to have the albums or records with the artwork and the better quality (home tapes were pretty piss-poor quality even compared to 'proper' tapes let alone CDs or vinyl). So home-taping was never that big a thing.

Illegal downloading is much much bigger and much much widespread to the point where it's not that uncommon for someone to just not buy music at all. This is clearly a much bigger thing and it's frankly denial to claim that all it is doing is impeding "a small handful of suits from getting an extra car in their garage".

Ultimately many small labels are really, really struggling because they only generate cash from record sales and, even if their artists get better known, they still make no money themselves if no-one buys the albums. And small record labels often work damn fucking hard to get bands better known so it's just plain wrong they get no reward for this.

The basic fact of the matter is, of course, that illegal downloading is here to stay and lots of people will take stuff for free because they can get it for free. And you can't change human nature so bands and labels have to deal with that. But it's very naive to pretend that it's not having any effect on musicians or small labels.

What concerns me much more, incidentally, is the effect it's gonna have on the whole music industry as a business model. By not paying musicians money for record sales what you're essentially doing is forcing any musician who wants to make any money from what they do to make it through other means.

Over the next few years I can guarantee you gig tickets will get more expensive, more and more bands will develop wider and wider merchandising lines, accepot more and more corporate sponsorship deals and probably sell more and more music to adverts. Because they need money do what they want to do. And no doubt a fair chunk of the people who get their music for free online will condemn these musicians as sell-outs without even asking questions as to why they had to sell out in the first place.


congratulations

post of the month


That last paragraph

hits the nail squarely on the head. Live agencies are now taking over the role previously filled by labels (marketing, artist development) with the like of Madonna and Bloc Party signing management deals going way beyond what they previously offered.

You can avoid paying for recorded music fairly easily, but it's much harder to get into a gig without paying. The secondary market in tickets proves that people are willing to pay far more than what is currently charged for the face price.


nail - head

direct hit


Go on

here - http://newmusicstrategies.com/

The guy is a music lecturer and the aim of his 'blog' site is to help people get their heads round what's going on in the industry, good stuff.


i dont understand why..

...they dont just lower the price of cds to a price that isnt fucking ridiculous.

thats why people dont buy music - it costs waaay too much!


the good old excuse...

there was a time when people always complained about the price of video games and piracy was flourishing.

Games have now doubled in price and the video games industry is more powerful than ever...


games are much, much cheaper nowadays

when i was a kid, Mario 3 cost £40.
now most games are about £30/£40 when they come out, and that's after inflation


slightly more than that for the new consoles right?

it fluctuates a lot I think


This would be true if it wasn't false.

CDs have got much cheaper. I've not bought an album for over £10 in ages. And £10 - £12 as most CDs are (except sales when they're cheaper) isn't really "fucking ridiculous".

The bottom line is people don't download music 'cos CDs are expensive. They download CDs because they can get something for free so they'd rather not pay for it. I'm not judging or condemning this attitude - it's quite natural to not want to pay for something when you can not pay for it.

But to blame CD prices in the record industry is deceiving yourself.


yeah

when Radiohead gave their fans the chance to decide what a fair price for their album was, the fans weighed up all the costs involved and decided to pay fuck all.


You can buy so much music for

about £5 which isn't much at all.


if Mercedes Benz made their cars a bit cheaper

I wouldn't have to steal them.


Not Dying but changing!

How can you say £10 is expensive for a CD when you will happily pay £15 to see a band live. Gig: lasts 2 hours, CD: yours for life. Is that really unreasonable is it?


mid-level indieish bands

get pirated a hell of a lot and still sell extremely well. the last shins album, the last tv on the radio album, the last two modest mouse albums and sufjan's illnois all got leaked months in advance and still sold very well (the shins and modest mouse especially). and, at the risk of stereotyping, the people who buy these records are generally the kind of people who are the most likely to be downloading entire albums (smart, "hip" 16-35 year olds)

(this is really in response to the earlier post suggesting a polarized huge band/tiny band future, im just posting it at the bottom because it's more likely to get read that way)


also

the industry could very easily compensate by just simply spending less. the amount of money that is decadently wasted by the industry in pretty much every area (especially recording costs) is absolutely enormous


depends of what you consider

selling extremely well I suppose...


the shins' last album

sold 100000 in its first week in the states, and has since sold half a million. and they're on sub pop. modest mouse's last album has sold half a million so far and the album before that went platinum (though they're on sony). sufjan's illinois sold about 100000 in its first year (on asthmatic kitty)

looks good to me


This may be the case

but these are all (especially in the first two cases) acts that made their reputation in the age before illegal downloading became as widespread as it is now and I suspect a significant proportion of their audience are a bit older and hence more likely to buy CDs.

I'm not convinced this proves that new bands will find it so easy to become decent-selling mid-level indie bands in the future.


maybe slightly applicable to the shins

especially considering natalie portman, but the differences in sales between moon & antarctica and good news for people who love bad news, and between michigan or seven swans and illnois were enormous. and although sufjan's been around for ages he only really became successful after michigan, which was released well into the era of downloading (i should know, my first introduction to his music was illegally downloading michigan after a recommendation from an online friend). sufjan and modest mouse both comprehensively blew up, it wasnt just a continuation of a steady increase in their following.

spoon and of montreal are two other indie bands who are selling comfortable amounts despite being heavily downloaded. i should also point out that the massive rise in popularity of indie music in the states (which all of these bands are a part of) is very, very heavily indebted to the existence of illegal downloading.

and there have been plenty other new mid-level bands who have forged out a decent career post-downloading. arcade fire would be the most obvious example


I used to care

ALOT about buying music when I first got to uni. I remember falling out with some people because they used to download illegally. I would argue with them about why its wrong but no one gave a shit.

Then, as I've gone through uni, inevitably I've found myself with only just enough money for food and drink. In second year, because of my morals, I ended up hearing very few new albums.

This started to piss me off, and so here I am in third year. Fewer morals but more albums and more passion for music.

Pretty standard student excuse me thinks. I deffo will buy albums/vinyls etc when I have a job.

The End.


there is always gigs

that's where bands have always made more money anyway. Isn't Madonna's new "label" more of a touring company than a record label? She has the right idea.


this /\

if we are talking about independent bands that will be put on by independent promoters. let me use a very loose example from one of our gigs where four bands played:

Venue Capacity=105 (going on a sell-out, which is/was/tiswas the norm)
Ticket Price=£4adv/£6door (lets say £5)
Revenue=£505

less:
1 guestlist place per band member, a couple for 'VIP's-£5x20=£100
venue hire=£60
posters/flyers=£40
drinks&food for bands=£50
money taken for a couple drinks=£15
Costs=£265

Revenue Less Costs=240
split between 4 bands =£60 each (roughly)

so each band makes £60. take away average travel costs of £10-15 (although some have been much higher, rolo tomassi's was horrific and was quite depressing we could only just meet it) will leave:
£10-£12.50 per band member.

due to yr statement i dont think merch should count. so on a GOOD day, an independent band member could look forward to:
£15 + a meal and 4/5 cans of lager/beer/whatever


What terrifies me

is the sheer fanaticism of a large proportion of 'music fans' about downloading the latest leak. Some of the threads on here are a pretty good example of that - it becomes less about the music and more about the sheer greedy thrill of collecting leaked albums regardless of who it's by. I'd be suprised if many of these translated into sales or tickets sold at all.


i dont think

that people download leaked albums just for the 'thrill' of heraing it regardless of whether they are genuinly interested. if i do so it's because i really want to hear it. i will admit to downloading most of my music but i dont download as much as i can get just because it's free. plus ill go to as many shows as i can to support the artists that i like. i think the rise in ticket prices are more than justified when free downloading and torrents are taken into account.


so people who buy records

will have to pay more for tickets so that people can continue having music for free...


did i say that?

no.