Apple iTunes Sees Big Drop in Music Sales
wsj.com
wsj.com
As a Gen X member we grew up imitating Boomers by buying music in our youth (see side note below). But something to keep in mind is that unlike digital music, this was very much a tactile experience. This was because you were by the physical album as much as the music itself. And if you look at those albums you realize that the package acts as a mini-poster so it was really merchandise (as much as buying a t-shirt).
Also in a pre-digital age you'd get the lyrics included with the album as well. This doesn't sound like a big deal, but in a pre-Google era getting your hand on the lyrics was something that you'd have to work at if you didn't own the album (you might have to go to a sheet music shop, and those weren't in every town).
So streaming (or what we use to call radio) may in fact be the natural order of things. Part of this may also be that music as a medium isn't on the cutting edge of culture anymore. We tend to forget that from say the 60s until the late 80s music was leading the way as a voice for cultural change, but sadly as rock as a genre is now about 65 years old, and even rap is about 35 years old.
So I think the biggest challenge for the music industry isn't technology at this point, but focusing on how to be culturally relevant again. So it's not about a decline in digital sales, but a decline in connecting with their audience.
Side note: It should be noted that while Gen X did buy records we tend to forget that in the 80s the music industry was terrified by declining sales which were attributed to the youth market spending their money on new things like video games. Of course we loved music as much as previous generations did, but thanks to MTV we were experiencing it also as a streaming medium.
Of course it might have nothing to do with packaging. I routinely look for new music and I do find gems that move me the way the music of my youth did, but they seem really few and far between. So much of what I hear is so spineless and trite. Of course there is always a temporal selection effect in that only the best stuff of the past is remembered, but it does feel like I really have to dig hard for anything good these days.
At the worst I wonder if the golden age of music as a popular art form is behind us. How many people follow sculpture or painting? There's plenty of work being done, but only aficionados of those forms follow it. Is that where music is headed?
The music that spoke to me was what you would call "college radio" in the mid-80s and "alternative" in the late 80s and early 90s. But if you think about it that was a small niche market and not the mainstream until Nirvana broke through circa 1991. And even then that was a short lived revolution which gave way to the Spice Girls and Britney Spears.
But before you get too nostalgic the realty of that era is that most of the music that people listened to was light weight pop music. That was really the era of "adult easy listening" and hair metal bands, and yet we think of the music that holds up like say REM or something that pushed the limits.
> I guess I can't really be sure, but I don't get the feeling people care about music like that anymore.
People in high schools still define themselves around the bands they listen to, don't be so sure to write off the younger generation as apathetic towards music.
> At the worst I wonder if the golden age of music as a popular art form is behind us. How many people follow sculpture or painting? There's plenty of work being done, but only aficionados of those forms follow it.
Music has been around as long if not longer than sculpture and painting. Art and music are still very popular, even if they're constantly changing.
As for your other comments about music today being "spineless and trite," we're currently in a second golden age of hip-hop and I'm sure fans of other genres will also tell you their music is alive and well.
The internet has also fragmented the public, mega-artists are dead. One hit manufactured wonders rule the airwaves and musicians now cater to a small but loyal group of fans that follow them in the depths of internet and social media.
All hail the internet ;).
I'm all for competition but I feel it's going to end up ruining it for those that consume, and ultimately those who create - in both music and movies.
Spotify is as close to 'perfect' as I think we've seen a streaming service so far. Most, if not all of the people I know who'd prolifically or casually pirated music (but rarely, if ever bought it), now pay for Spotify. Most, if not all those who bought music now pay for Spotify instead. Because it's easier. And it's all there - and it doesn't cost you to experiment and change your mind.
But when artists (Taylor Swift, etc) start leaving because it doesn't pay as much as the heydays, and start moving to services that promise more cash, everything becomes more fractured. The reason people pay is because it's easier that pirating. Napster was easy. Everything was there so you consumed. But no one wants to pay for 5 services / install 5 apps / whatever. So they'll just end up not bothering, and by that point they won't be buying either. And everyone will lose.
Why does everyone forget Google Music? And you can't leave Google Music to boot -- not without leaving YouTube too!
> Why does everyone forget Google Music?
I believe you've answered your own question. Spotify doesn't have to be better, users just must enjoy the experience more.
“No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.” —CmdrTaco, Slashdot (regarding the ipod versus the Nomad)
If you think Google music is better, it would be interesting why you think it is.
Google Play can be murderous to a data plan, but they also allow you to upload your own music. I don't think Taylor Swift is on a Google Play subscription either, but you can upload your mp3 and then have it available to you.
The point about uploading your music is very valid one, it is just that I personally do not want Google to have it and manage it between devices myself.
I have $7/month to spend, and I want the best I can possibly get for that $7. Google Music is that product.
I mean, I'm not even going to switch to piracy. Local music is out and it's not coming back for me. If Mr or Miss Big Name don't want me to listen to their music, there are a thousand other bands I will switch to.
- radio stations only playing certain genres
- stores only carrying certain labels, hits
- releases only on vinyl or cassette, but not CD
- available on CD, but not digital download
- available for digital download, but not streaming
and so on...
Music flows through channels.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...
Maybe there is a place for paywalls in this world, I just don't think we should be posting links to them here.
If you don't like paywalled sites, just don't go there. What have you really missed? There are plenty other articles elsewhere.
(Big Music/WSJ) vs (streaming/any other article on any other subject on the internet). Same thing.
Its established that a low percentage of people are convinced into signing up by a paywall. There for, posting paywalled articles to a news aggregator detracts from the experience of everyone who chooses not to subscribe to that particular site because it robs us of front page real estate that could be held by other non paywalled but interesting stories.
Consider a news aggregator where every link went to a paywalled site, so many disparate sites that you couldn't afford to subscribe to all of them. Would you find the aggregator more or less valuable than one that had freely available information.
Based on the numbers I've seen from posts here, Spotify clearly isn't the answer, it's just another mechanism to drive the value of content to $0. Maybe we'll see Spotify start their own music label and give artists money more directly, the way that Netflix and Amazon Prime are essentially creating their own TV stations.
You will get a lifetimes career out of it and in the end you'll probably make more money than 90%+ of label signed artists. The key thing is the choice is now yours.
Before It didn't really matter. Yes artists were screwed on sales, but they were getting a lot of money before hand with juicy contracts. On a 10$ CD sale they used to win around 1$. The rest was made with touring ... So unlike today artists were getting a lot of money upfront. Anyway there were still getting 1/10 on each sale, compared to the pennies they get with Spotify...
A way to bypass labels hey? but running a label is a full time job. It's like saying, why don't artists do their own promo? why don't they do all their own design, videoclip, PR ,manage sells on digital plateforms, send DMCA takedown requests to thousands of websites, and design and sell tshirts/merchandize on their own ?... well you can't really make music, shows, be on the road,and manage all these things at once.
Sure,if you're JayZ,you can own your own label, your own plateform, and a whole team dedicated to all these stuff, but all artists aren't JayZ
Labels used to be "banks" for artists ,no more, no less. Try to bypass banking and see what happens.
Yet I'm optimistic.Things always evolve in an unexpected way. But to say "artists are better off without labels" is misunderstanding the role of labels.
I tend to do a number of these things, so having music "in my hand" is advantageous. I also like to listen to both the hits and non-hits for the artists I like and had a largish legacy CD collection. Most of the CD's I purchase now are mementos of concert trips, especially for the bands that sign what they sell. Ripping the CD's, I get the music that the bands laid down, without the compression artifacts and pitch changes I get from radio. Do the internet services do the same, or are their offerings pristine?
Different strokes and all that, but be careful to add up the cost of continued rental vs. purchase or other forms of acquisition.
Edit: I also prefer to support the artists I listen to rather than middlemen.
The music will then play even in airplane mode, the only gotcha is that you'll have to come online every 30 days or so for them to re-verify that you're still paying for the service.
Straight outta Compton,
crazy motherfucker named Ice Cube
From the gang called Niggas Wit Attitudes
But today? NO. Not for sale from iTunes at any price? Why not? Does it offend too many sensitivities?
Countless other examples like that. Do you want to buy the music video of the song that won the 1986 Grammy Award for Best Rock Performance? Can't buy that anymore either. Is it because of the words "See the little faggot with the earring and the makeup"?
Why can't I pay someone US dollars to legally "buy" non-DRMed music videos? Everyone in the business complains constantly, but they won't take my money???
Artists don't get a 10% cut each time a song is played on Spotify. The only people getting rich with Spotify is Spotify and the label that grants the content rights. The artists do get almost nothing.
- if artists demand too much payment from labels, labels won't sign them
- if labels demand too much from spotify, spotify won't sign them
- if spotify doesn't sign enough labels or pays too much to them, it will die either due to not enough music or not enough revenue to find growth.
Here's the Gen-Y version.
http://recode.net/2014/03/18/the-price-of-music/
I'm not sure if this is the right way of looking at it and I paid more during my peak music purchasing years but it's thought provoking.
I confess that owning my favorite music, at least digitally, is something I feel fairly strongly about. But I can't really unravel my feelings from just the fact that I always have.
Though I'm completely the opposite when it comes to movies, where I'm perfectly happy with streaming. So who knows.