let me add my 2 cents from both my personal view and also as someone who's been working the "evil music industry" side of things for some years now. i'll start w/ the inital post and work my way down, so plz bear w/ me if i repeat myself at some point.
[quote Keith Hypnopompia] The inherent value of music seems to have deteriorated. [/quote]
i don't think that's true. it is not the value of music itself that has deteroriated but perception of what music is worth. how that is different i will explain immediately. example: ever noticed how some bands play in front of say 2000 people and if you check how many cds they have sold you'll be amazed to have figures like 50 or 70 quoted. obviously, people still appreciate music and value it for what it is: an artform. but its worth (in material terms) has steadily decreased over the years and the majority just doesn't want to spring a certain amount of money to buy a cd anymore.
the main reason for that development is (imo), in this case, indeed the "evil music industry" but also the "evil non-specialist retailer". if you have a look at the mass media boom in the 80ies and the subsequent mass production tool cd and also have a look at how non-specialist retailers entered the music market more and more and how that shaped pricing, it will become painfully evident that price dumping, price bombing, mass stocking and rack spacing worked together with mass media to promote the picture of music as a one-way commodity. "buy it cheap. use it fast. throw it away." - in the long run it almost broke "our" (the "evil music industry") necks.
[quote toksik] your friend said That the music industry should and will go away within the decade, and i think he is wrong. it will mutate, certainly, but i doubt that the gangster motherfuckers that run the industry will let their interests disappear so easily or so quickly. it could happen, sure. i'd quiet like it to happen, if i'm honest. i feel that record labels and the industry are an evil force on music[al] creativity. they were necessary in the beginning, when studios were expensive and phil spector needed someone to pay his orchestras, sure. now all they do is make sure that artists can stay hella poor despite making the big sales and being on lunchboxes around the world. [/quote]
"gangster motherfuckers". i like that. as a matter of fact, the "gangster motherfuckers" (or "controllers" or "accountants", as i like to call them, which are all synonymous to "gansgter motherfucker") are about to leave the "sinking ship". and i damn well hope that they do it fast so we can salvage this ship and create an environment and become what the recording industry always was meant to be: a productive partner of any artist. and another thing: the notion of the record company as being the ensalver of the downtrodden artist was very true in the 90ies, but is long overhauled and not in touch w/ current developements and business affairs. but there's plenty room for improvement there, agreed.
[quote toksik] for every pound's worth of reggae i buy from a shop, how much do you think gets to the original artist? [/quote]
usually about a third of the pdp (which has nothing to do w/ sales pricing - retailers are allowed to sell the product at whatever price the deem fit). depending on how much they have to pay for (depending on what kind of contract they had) some keep more in their pockets, some less.
[quote John, the exploding boy] Any musicians will know that you do not have to make a living off your music to be playing it. Real bands and artists gig. This is their bread and butter. I know a number of touring bands, without major contracts. They make their money on the merch and ticket sales, dragging their arses around the extended area, playing their fingers off. [/quote]
what about the not so few artists that do not perform? that make cds on their own and rely on their fans buying them off of their website? don't they might want to tap into a bigger audience but can't, because they do not have the time / money / resources that is required investment in order for any expansion?
[quote John, the exploding boy] Perhaps some people are becoming disconnected from music though. [/quote]
i would definitely say so. if everyone tells you that music is no different than fast food and no one tells you that music takes real people, real ideas, real emotions and real effort to be made... well, how are you supposed to know that and care for it?
[quote Gypsy Lantern] I think this whole article is inane though. I think that there is arguably as much, if not more, interesting music being made at this point in time than at any other point in history - including spurious mythic "golden ages" such as the 60s and 70s. The difference is that you have to look harder for it. It is not so visible. You have to work harder to find it.
The increased accessibility provided by music downloads is one thing, but there is so much stuff out there that you have to make more effort in discerning signal from noise. There is more music available than you can possibly find the time to listen to, which is fantastic because my appetite for new music is insatiable. [/quote]
agreed. 'nuff said.
[quote Money $hot's Expansion Slots] Also, the business model that has been making a few chosen musicians extremely fucking wealthy for the past 40-50 years is exactly that old.
It was unheard of for muso's to be stinking rich prior to that emerging business, musicians were tradesmen like any other, and had to work incredibly schlepping hard to earn a crust, constantly. [/quote]
beg to pardon, sir, but that is not correct. superstars (rich ones) have been around all the time, but historically enrico caruso is being defined as the very first music superstar to be filthy rich. and there have been others. maybe not as many as today, but nevertheless a considerable number. and whoever said that "superstars" don't work "incredibly schlepping hard"?
[quote Keith Hypnopompia] Although, I was trying to go one step further down the line and say that the potential drop music appreciation could possibly lead to a drop in musical creativity and quality. [/quote]
since i do not believe that appreciation for music in any danger at all i don't think there will be any decline of quality within creativity. there will be (or it might be argued that it is happening now) a time when the majority of music might seem a little bland and repeptitive - this, i think, goes hand in hand w/ technological progress. new applications means that it takes time for people to get the hang of it. and while they learn how to fully exploit the new technologies potential there will be a steady stream of "heard before"s, not necessarily bad ones. after all, it always happened like that: new technology, peak in musical change (due to immediate use of new technology), a period of repetition, varied applications of new technology learned, broader musical variety w/ new technology incorporated. |
) want to survive they need to adapt to the obvious demand for a new style of distribution. Fair play to them that they aren't doing to bad with the likes of iTunes and Napster, but the prosecution of music fans and filesharers will just alienate people further.