BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Is the Music Industry Dying?

 
 
grant
13:18 / 14.06.02
This seems pertinent to the net radio threads (here and here and here), but also, in a more general way to the future of music itself.

http://www.newyorkmag.com/page.cfm?page_id=6099

A New York Magazine article on the business of rock and roll.

In other words, there'll still be big hits (Celine Dion is Stephen King), but even if you're fairly high up on the music-business ladder, most of your time, which you'd previously spent with megastars, will be spent with mid-list stuff. Where before you'd be happy only at gold and platinum levels, soon you'll be grateful if you have a release that sells 30,000 or 40,000 units -- that will be your bread and butter. You'll sweat every sale and dollar. Other aspects of the business will also contract -- most of the perks and largesse and extravagance will dry up completely. The glamour, the influence, the youth, the hipness, the hookers, the drugs -- gone. Instead, it will be a low-margin, consolidated, quaintly anachronistic business, catering to an aging clientele, without much impact on an otherwise thriving culture awash in music that only incidentally will come from the music industry.


The author blames the industry's reaction to Napster and netradio in part, but also the blandess of corporate radio.

And then there's the third factor:

And then there is the CD theory. This theory is widely accepted -- with great pride, in fact -- in the music industry. It represents the ultimate music-biz hustle. But its implications are seldom played out.

The CD theory holds that the music business actually died about twenty years ago. It was revived without anyone knowing it had actually died because compact-disc technology came along and everybody had to replace what they'd bought for the twenty years prior to the advent of the CD.

The music business, this theory acknowledges, is about selling technology as much as music. From mono to stereo to Walkman. It just happens that the next stage of technological development in the music business has largely excluded the music business itself.

The further implication, though, might be the more interesting and painful one: You can't depend on just the music.

Rock and roll is just an anomaly. While for a generation or two it created a go-go industry -- the youthquake -- it is unreasonable to expect that anything so transforming can remain a permanent condition. To a large degree, the music industry is, then, a fluke. A bubble. Finally the bubble burst.


Think the article is onto something here?
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
13:45 / 14.06.02
I can't argue with any of the economic observations made in that article. I find the 'celebrity author' fate of the 'rock star' to be really interesting, and honestly, very appealing. I hadn't thought about that before, and it's a very thoughtful and perceptive analogy, even if it is purely speculative at this point.

I think that the entire industry, as it is forced to evolve, is pushing everything and everyone in an ultimately positive and humble direction. Perhaps the best thing that could happen to the music industry is having the money sucked out of it, you know?
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
14:10 / 14.06.02
This only sort of tagently related, but website is very useful, it monitors the activities of Clear Channel, the company that controls an enormous chunk of radio stations and concert promotion in the United States.
 
 
Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo
16:20 / 14.06.02
I have been reading the same things...the music industry is saying that their problems come from pirating and the internet, when the truth is that they have a bloated system that was based on excess. Even a modest hit doesn't make much money you you pay for the million dollar video that doesn't get on MTV, the tour with enough riders to choke a small nation, and enough middlemen that it's next to impossible for the artist to make any money.

That's why the Music industry has tried to get people to buy into new formats over the last 15 years, DAT, mini-disks, etc...so that they can get us to buy our music all over again.

New music, and the former mainstay of the music industry Pop Music, just isn't pulling in people anymore. Here in Minneapolis, only 2 stations make an effort not to be oldies stations, and both are owned by Clear Channel. The rest just keep playing the same old stuff because they don't want to alienate their baby boomer audience which would be happy to hear Eric Clapton sing Cocaine, for the rest of their lives.

But I don't feel very sorry for the music "business." New bands show up in clubs all the time, and get audiences without airplay, promotion and the like. They don't make HUGE money because they don't have a record company ready to beat their ctachy song into the ground in commercials.

The bad thing is, as the median age in America gets higher, it will be harder and harder for new bands to get record deals while "5 disc compilations" of what was left over from Led Zepplin's final studio trashing will be on the main shelf at Best Buy.

Elvis Costello was right, the radio is in the hands of a lot of fools.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
13:21 / 15.06.02
Let's be clear here, when 'they' are saying "the music industry is dying" they really mean "the AMERICAN music industry is dying" don't they. I seem to remember something similar at the start of the 90s, either pre- or post- Nirvana. But then in Britain we had Britpop which did very nicely thankyewvermuch. At the moment from my cosy Radio 1/ 6 listening status the music scene isn't dying. But we may be seeing the switch back to a British based music scene.

And now Flyboy and Rizla will rip me to shreds for the pleasure of the crowd...
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
13:34 / 15.06.02
No, Lada - I don't think there's any saving the record industry at this point. It doesn't matter if something like Nirvana comes along or not - it wouldn't change the business side of things one bit. That's just corporate magazine/record company propaganda for people who are disenfranchised and were wondering where THEIR target marketed major label output was. So, now we have major labels going through with it, and we get The Strokes, The White Stripes, and The Hives. And it rings so hollow, doesn't it? I wonder why...

Also, since the American record industry is run by a small handful of massive multinational corporate conglomerates, it's not quite just the "American record industry" that we're talking about. Bertelsmann is a German company which owns a huge chunk of the recording and publishing industry, Sony is obviously a Japanese company, etc. The only thing that has kept EMI from merging with other international companies is British regulations which their lobbyists are weakening more and more all of the time.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
22:48 / 15.06.02
Here's another new article about the topic from Rolling Stone, this one focusing on cd pricing.

Here's an interesting excerpt:

Most label executives insist that, even at $17.99, CDs are a good entertainment value. They hope that the lowering of prices will simply stop some consumers from burning CDs and bring them back into the stores. "We wouldn't be having this discussion if it wasn't for CD burning," says one label source.

Obviously, it's very easy for corporate executives to claim that $18+ single disc domestic cds which are marked up nearly 100 times that of their production costs are a "good entertainment value". I can forgive that kind of lack of perspective - it's understandable, and after all, they have to hold on to those fallacies to keep their business afloat. It's when they say things like "if it weren't for cd burning" that gets me - they sound like fucking Scooby Doo villains! Their refusal to admit to their own mistakes and blame it all on the people they've been burning for years now is just shameful.
 
 
Yagg
06:12 / 16.06.02
The music biz (read: Big Giant Corporate Labels) in America DESPERATELY needs a "next big thing" to come along and revive them. But it can't happen, because they've closed all the doors. For ten years now, they've only signed rock bands that sound like Pearl Jam knockoffs, and more recently, pop groups built on the Backstreet chassis and Britney wannabes. Oh, yeah, of course there's Limp Bizkit and their clones. And that's IT. In the last 3 or 4 years, they've dropped any band that doesn't sell a zillion records on their debut album. There's no artist development. No one gets a chance to get established. The only new acts are acts that are engineered to capitalize on some other big selling sound. There's no variety, therefore there's nothing that can come along and be the "next big thing." The record biz is PISSED that the mostly bluegrass soundtrack to "O Brother Where Are Thou?" sold millions of copies. "WHAT?" they say, "WE DIDN'T AUTHORIZE PEOPLE TO LIKE THAT MUSIC!"

Fuckers have sealed themselves in a room and forgot to leave an airhole. I enjoy watching them gasp and thrash about as they suffocate.

As for Clear Channel, etc: Damn near EVERY radio station in the U.S. is owned by ONE big conglomerate or another. And they all have the same shitty business practices. CC is just the biggest, easiest target. Kinda the same way the record biz went after Napster, but the other file-sharing services never made it into the mainstream media. So the public learns to hate Clear Channel, but doesn't realize that Saga and Cumulus and Entercom all do the same shit...

"Legal payola" has gone on for years and if it's such a bad thing, how come the record companies have been a willing participant the whole time? Now their balls are in a vice and they can't afford it, THAT'S why suddenly it's radio's fault. "No, officer, don't arrest me for paying the hooker, just arrest her. She MADE me pay her!"

Radio's full of whores. We all admit it.

If I had known when I got into radio I'd become an indentured servant to some fucking billionaire halfway across the country who's only concern is the stock price, I'd have just become a fucking accountant and been done with it. Maybe I will yet. It's gotta pay better than THIS!
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
14:31 / 16.06.02
I've reread the article and I'm still not convinced, one of the most telling comments being the writer using the words 'our children, alright our grandchildren won't want to be rockstars' which suggests where he's coming from. If the industry itself is forced to crash down there will still be music, it'll be dicey for while but if necessary small independents will start up to distribute the music and they'll grown, after all it's happened once already (the starting up bit, not the crash).

I also agree with Yagg, the big companies are scared because they don't have a big band like Nirvana, though how does Eminem compare to them? I'm guessing that it's more hype than sales there.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
14:46 / 16.06.02
Um, actually Eminem at his commercial height outsells Nirvana at their commercial height. People have a very warped understanding of Nirvana's sales clout - Nevermind has sold about 7 million copies in the US, and In Utero sold about 4 million. There have been many rock bands at that time who sold more - Pearl Jam's Ten has sold about 10 million - and there have been many since who have matched or gone beyond Nirvana's sales figures (Kid Rock, for example).
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
16:40 / 16.06.02
Lada: it's also the case that the amounts of cash that teens have to spend has increased dramatically in the past ten/fifteen years, too. It's not only 17-year-olds who're buying stuff: it's the eight-to-fifteen market that's huge: they're the ones who buy more stuff because they think it's cool, because magazines like TV Hits tell them it is. I think that's a market that wasn't as targetted a decade ago as it is now. Some kids - a lot of kids - have more to spend on music than many Barb posters would, and are less choosy than we may be.

At their height - well, before Kurt offed himself, I guess - I think Nirvana were still perceived (in some quarters) as a little more adult than other bands. They weren't as cartoonish as nu-metal is, which is why I think the sales might've been, as Flux indicates, quite as high. Eminem, however, is Parentally-Offending, especially in the US, so bang, he's got the kiddie cash in his pocket. Ditto Kid Rock, ditto Korn, etc, etc. Then the t-shirts happen, and it's a branding rollercoaster, selling the idea of the one-with-the-band thing, rather than a CD, for example.

Of course, I could be talking out my arse here, but I think that the purchasing practice of and marketing towards kids has changed pretty drastically. That guarantees that there's more sales for inbetween artists than there would've been previously. Maybe there's not so many tearaway, 300-million selling artists, but there's a shitload more cash being spent on a range of artists now, say.

I think the dinosaurs of the music industry won't die, they'll just have to take hints from smaller labels about producing what's essentially bespoke music. Either that or strangle them out of existence, just like they're doing to internet radio.
 
 
Yagg
18:56 / 16.06.02
I wasn't using Nirvana as an example because of sales figures, really. It's that they, along with Pearl Jam, started a whole new movement in the minds of the mainstream record buying public in the States. When they showed up, it was all about the hair-metal bands, but suddenly there was this new thing called "grunge" that entered the picture. It was like striking gold. Labels could go mining for more of the same, and they found it. Then the mine got played out. Finally they were synthesizing things like Creed to take the place of Pearl Jam.

They can't do that with Eminem. Like him or hate him, there's only one Eminem. If they let a bunch of Emiclones into the arena, then the first Eminem isn't "shocking" anymore. In fact, none of them are "shocking," so they all fade away.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
09:04 / 17.06.02
I brought up Eminem because I was sure I'd heard somewhere that even though Eminem was 'hot' he was still in what was an 'alternative' market of rap so not making as much as 'rock' groups.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
12:03 / 17.06.02
The thing that everyone seems to forget about the early 90s was that the marketing wisdom was that people in their 20s was THE market to sell to, but as the 90s progressed, it became more obvious that young teenagers were a better market to sell to because they had more money to spend, and by starting young you have a better chance for creating a loyal consumer - sort of like the way cigarette companies market to kids. The other great thing about selling to teenagers is that there's a 'trickle-up' effect, or to put it more cynically, a lowest-common denominator factor.
 
 
grant
14:02 / 17.06.02
"Trickle up"? What's that mean?
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
14:39 / 17.06.02
Normally, if you aim a product at an adult demographic, it's less likely that its appeal will 'trickle down' to the younger markets, but lowering the age of entry will open up a product to potentially reaching cross-demographic success. That's the wisdom behind the 'boy band' thing - you're just as likely to hear an N'Sync song on adult contemporary radio as you are to see it on TRL.

Sorry to invoke Reaganomics...
 
 
Sleeperservice
18:04 / 17.06.02
I have to agree that the music industry is on it's last legs. And really I'm quite pleased. What we're actually talking about is the death of part of the capitalist system. You wanted a revolution? Here it is.

People will make music if there is money involved or not. This is something the music industry doesn't seem to realise (or does so only on a very subliminal level).

If they really wanted to survive you'd be able to stream any song you want off the internet *right now* and click 'buy' if you liked it. It's that simple. They just don't get it. Dinosaurs is the right word for them. FFS CDs still don't even list the tracks they contain! The music business is in the same mindset it had when vinyl was king. Pathetic.
 
 
Yagg
03:05 / 18.06.02
"The music business is in the same mindset it had when vinyl was king. Pathetic."

I'd go on about it being MUCH WORSE than it was then, but why debate when we both agree on the bottom line? You have summed it up as best anyone could: PATHETIC.

It's evolution, baby. (Cripes, did I just quote PJ?) It's either adapt or die. Fuck or walk. At this point, they look a whole lot more likely to die than adapt.

You won't see my crying about it, that's for sure.
 
 
trouble at bill
12:28 / 17.04.08
(FYI, try here if you want the original article, it's location's changed since the OP.)
 
 
yichihyon
01:40 / 18.04.08
I hope the Music Industry is not dying. I think there needs to be new and vital music to save the music industry and there just hasn't been that many new happenings in the music industry to stir up excitement or stir up excitement like in the older days. I think partially it is to be blamed on MTV. Or shall I call it RTV, Reality TV rather than Music Television. There's only so much Real Worlds I can take before I switch stations.

I rather hear music rather than being forced to listen to what is dubbed cool by Coroporate giants. I think listening to what the younger generation listens to gives us hope. They don't seem concerned as much as what is being played on MTV they just listen to what is cool regardless of what MTV tells us to listen to so that we'd be cool again. I hope the music industry lives on and play different type of music rather than what is programmed for us.

What do you think is the best way to save the music industry? Play cool music? Just play good music and hope people like it..... Start a band and make good music? I hope so....I think people are too concerned about trends and following past trends than take steps to start anew. I'm optimistic that the music industry will survive. Maybe it is the illegal downloading that killed the need to reprint or repress back logs of cds. I hope they make special editions and remastered editions with b sides and extra tracks to save the music industry. I kind of like the newer editions of the cds with dvds they are making now. I'm hoping for DVD singles with video singles and newer pressings of older videos and maybe new videos for the older songs....I don't like to think the music industry is dying rather I think it is mutating to something newer and bolder. Here's to the music for the 21st century and beyond.....
 
 
grant
15:09 / 18.04.08
Well, I think you're confusing "music" with "music industry" there - what this article is talking about is the industry that sells catchy songs at the price of making a homogeneous entertainment product.

Musicians will keep making music, and people will keep finding ways to discover music, and there are a few ways musicians are making money with music without things like labels or industry representation - look at the In Rainbows experiment or Jonathan Coulton for possible ways forward.
 
  
Add Your Reply