SOTA
Solder Splash Goalie
I know that, it's where I work...and it pays my bills but yeah, still BS.
Five Lessons the Faltering Music Industry Could Learn From TV
- Thread starter Buttercup
- Start date
I know that, it's where I work...and it pays my bills but yeah, still BS.
Pio1980
AK Member
Worst I saw visiting my SO in the hospital was Moonshiners. A silly live action cartoon that was completely unbelievable.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
JURB
Super Member
The basic problem is how commerce works. First of all, the idea of work once get paid often creates a problem. I read somewhere the Peter Frampton did it in reverse. I forget, though I am kinda close to the industry I don't know exactly how they run it. I know certain things though. Frampton I guess played concerts to promote the album while most groups made albums to promote the concerts. Or was it the other way around ?
Anyway, the trends of humanity are upon us and the fact is that music will never be the big business it once was. First of all, when we were making $8 an hour and thart was considerd doing well, and walked into a record store and bought an LP that was price code "L" which was over three hours pay, that was one thing.
Back then there was serious music enjoyment. We bought stereos that cost a half a year's pay. We COULD do that because of the economy. Now people have to put groceries on a credit card.
The market has ben destroyed because no matter how much you may "love" audio, sound and music, they as well as movies etc. are still not necessities. The market is evaporating and it is going to get nothing but worse as we decline to third world status. And we are. Proof ? OK, when you pay two grand for sometning do you pay cash ? If you do today you probably make damn good money and/or exceptionally low overhead.
People used to pay two grand csash for a new car, making like $30 a week ! What's more, a considerably larger portion of their pay went for food. Those prices got depressed by modern farming techniques, which have diluted the nutrients oin the food causing all kinds of diseases. I HAVE PROOF. And they know it but the money game goes on.
I fis electronics for a music store right now and I can tell you that only a very few ake any money. And the bigwigs, the likes of Springsteen and that, had better get used to the idea there will not be another Graceland. Period.
And the fact is that the execs made more than the artists. Very few exceptions, like Presley, a few others. But that era is gone. What's more, the execs are manipulating the market. They pick and choose who to promote and support. They make a business decision, not a music decision.
Fact is, they no longer have a quality product. the market used to work. you used to send a demop tape to a local radio station and hope they like it enough to play it on the air. then it goes to the recording companies and see what happens. Buddy Holly would be a millionaire if he lived, ;but he did not even know that one of the companies he threw a demo tape to had sent it to a radio station. Once played, he was a big hit. By the time his phone rand they already owed him $70,000 in royalties, and folks this guy died before I was born. Seventy grand !
The radio station was supposed to just listen, not play the tape on air. they all figured, because of the genre, that thae group was Black and they duidn't need to worry about legal issues. In fact they got booked at the Apollo. Interesting little story.
But see they totally frigged up the industry. you know back in the 1980s, we had good cassette decks. We had Dolby C and HX. all we had to do was make a cassette which would also play in the car, andf if we wantd to we could connect like ten cassette decks up all at once and duplicate the record. No problem. And with Dolby HX, and even just B noise reduction on a properly calibrated deck, it sounded damn good. Usually.
So we still bought the albums. "I want to have my own". I want the cover, the picture, the insert with the words, the ROLLING PAPER (LOL). I had the White Album with all the posters n ****. The MP3 just doesn't cut it at any bitrate. Even a FLAC does nothing like having the real thing.
Know what ? I think the guy in the article is not quite right. He is not stupid but I htinik he is gong in the worng direction. What we need, really, is a resurgence of vinyl. Well, what THEY need.
That's my opinion. If you look it up, vinyl is making a comeback. there are technologies now oin analog that can rival digital. Bias frequencies so high that no filter is needed. Up to 16, 24 or 32 tracks on a 2" tape at 60 IPS.
Then you put that on vinyl with the best cutting lathes available. Then you press the most pure, best formulated, vinyl imaginable. then people will come and spend $50 for a record.
Then they will pay $150 for a cartridge, I did. and I was not making $29 per hour then either. That was a sizable chunk of money. And turntables ? Well y'all know what happened there. Some of them sell for more than their original MSRP.
Business school teches to always pitch the new. Newer is always better. new and improved. Well alot of us over forty do remember quite a few things that reall were not improved. The company improved their bottom line, not the product. Been through to much of that. Of course some things are improved. They got phopnes you can dump in a bucket of water and they are fine.
When wew were partying at my house and someone's phone went off I got out a bucket of water and told them to put it in. Normally they learned to just leave it in their car when partying at my place.
this is the last aparagraph of this because it is turning into a rant, but I take my media seriously. I do NOT have background music. It is in the foreground and properly cranked up. And no talking. I don't have a 100 dB S/N ratio so I can hear you talk to your olady on the phone. Know what I mean ? And then when the song is over, talk. Bullshit your ass off. Have another beer. But when I PLAY something, I want to hear it, not every other thiong in the world about Aunt Martha and this new TV show.
Other people have media in the background. The TV always running, the radio playing. Not for me. I am either into it or out of it.
Most of what they put out today is suited for background. The stress seems to be on quantity, not quality. Ever seen a record company contract ?
that's why so many bands' first album was the best. Black Sabbath, Boston, Foreigner, all of their first albums had a certain character to them, because it took them all their lives to produce. Now that they signed up and cashed that check they have to produce an album like every two years, maybe less.
Why do they work it that way ? Business is exploiting the "Brand" or the "Name". They'll burn you up and them look for the next one.
But now, the next one has to conform to the exec's wishes. Maximum profits.
Anyway, the trends of humanity are upon us and the fact is that music will never be the big business it once was. First of all, when we were making $8 an hour and thart was considerd doing well, and walked into a record store and bought an LP that was price code "L" which was over three hours pay, that was one thing.
Back then there was serious music enjoyment. We bought stereos that cost a half a year's pay. We COULD do that because of the economy. Now people have to put groceries on a credit card.
The market has ben destroyed because no matter how much you may "love" audio, sound and music, they as well as movies etc. are still not necessities. The market is evaporating and it is going to get nothing but worse as we decline to third world status. And we are. Proof ? OK, when you pay two grand for sometning do you pay cash ? If you do today you probably make damn good money and/or exceptionally low overhead.
People used to pay two grand csash for a new car, making like $30 a week ! What's more, a considerably larger portion of their pay went for food. Those prices got depressed by modern farming techniques, which have diluted the nutrients oin the food causing all kinds of diseases. I HAVE PROOF. And they know it but the money game goes on.
I fis electronics for a music store right now and I can tell you that only a very few ake any money. And the bigwigs, the likes of Springsteen and that, had better get used to the idea there will not be another Graceland. Period.
And the fact is that the execs made more than the artists. Very few exceptions, like Presley, a few others. But that era is gone. What's more, the execs are manipulating the market. They pick and choose who to promote and support. They make a business decision, not a music decision.
Fact is, they no longer have a quality product. the market used to work. you used to send a demop tape to a local radio station and hope they like it enough to play it on the air. then it goes to the recording companies and see what happens. Buddy Holly would be a millionaire if he lived, ;but he did not even know that one of the companies he threw a demo tape to had sent it to a radio station. Once played, he was a big hit. By the time his phone rand they already owed him $70,000 in royalties, and folks this guy died before I was born. Seventy grand !
The radio station was supposed to just listen, not play the tape on air. they all figured, because of the genre, that thae group was Black and they duidn't need to worry about legal issues. In fact they got booked at the Apollo. Interesting little story.
But see they totally frigged up the industry. you know back in the 1980s, we had good cassette decks. We had Dolby C and HX. all we had to do was make a cassette which would also play in the car, andf if we wantd to we could connect like ten cassette decks up all at once and duplicate the record. No problem. And with Dolby HX, and even just B noise reduction on a properly calibrated deck, it sounded damn good. Usually.
So we still bought the albums. "I want to have my own". I want the cover, the picture, the insert with the words, the ROLLING PAPER (LOL). I had the White Album with all the posters n ****. The MP3 just doesn't cut it at any bitrate. Even a FLAC does nothing like having the real thing.
Know what ? I think the guy in the article is not quite right. He is not stupid but I htinik he is gong in the worng direction. What we need, really, is a resurgence of vinyl. Well, what THEY need.
That's my opinion. If you look it up, vinyl is making a comeback. there are technologies now oin analog that can rival digital. Bias frequencies so high that no filter is needed. Up to 16, 24 or 32 tracks on a 2" tape at 60 IPS.
Then you put that on vinyl with the best cutting lathes available. Then you press the most pure, best formulated, vinyl imaginable. then people will come and spend $50 for a record.
Then they will pay $150 for a cartridge, I did. and I was not making $29 per hour then either. That was a sizable chunk of money. And turntables ? Well y'all know what happened there. Some of them sell for more than their original MSRP.
Business school teches to always pitch the new. Newer is always better. new and improved. Well alot of us over forty do remember quite a few things that reall were not improved. The company improved their bottom line, not the product. Been through to much of that. Of course some things are improved. They got phopnes you can dump in a bucket of water and they are fine.
When wew were partying at my house and someone's phone went off I got out a bucket of water and told them to put it in. Normally they learned to just leave it in their car when partying at my place.
this is the last aparagraph of this because it is turning into a rant, but I take my media seriously. I do NOT have background music. It is in the foreground and properly cranked up. And no talking. I don't have a 100 dB S/N ratio so I can hear you talk to your olady on the phone. Know what I mean ? And then when the song is over, talk. Bullshit your ass off. Have another beer. But when I PLAY something, I want to hear it, not every other thiong in the world about Aunt Martha and this new TV show.
Other people have media in the background. The TV always running, the radio playing. Not for me. I am either into it or out of it.
Most of what they put out today is suited for background. The stress seems to be on quantity, not quality. Ever seen a record company contract ?
that's why so many bands' first album was the best. Black Sabbath, Boston, Foreigner, all of their first albums had a certain character to them, because it took them all their lives to produce. Now that they signed up and cashed that check they have to produce an album like every two years, maybe less.
Why do they work it that way ? Business is exploiting the "Brand" or the "Name". They'll burn you up and them look for the next one.
But now, the next one has to conform to the exec's wishes. Maximum profits.
WaynerN
Addicted Member
Many bands best albums was the first because that is all they had. Ever hear of one hit wonders?
Also, everyone hates big corporations "they're evil", unless they have their stock in their 401K or IRA. Then they are pissed off because they didn't make the individual enough money.
So, it depends on which side of the fence your on........
'ner
Also, everyone hates big corporations "they're evil", unless they have their stock in their 401K or IRA. Then they are pissed off because they didn't make the individual enough money.
So, it depends on which side of the fence your on........
'ner
Last edited:
shelly_d
Not An Audiophool
There are some very real problems with the music industry, some of which have been correctly identified in the article. Whether or not they contribute to the poor financial state of the industry I will leave to the economists out there. Speaking for myself, I will not pay $15 to $20 for a CD when the artists are over compressed, Auto Tuned, and playing to some automated drum sets.
Additionally, the over compartmentalization into genres really does leave listeners bored by the end of an album. For example, I have 1 and only 1 album by Madonna in my collection, True Blue. I would invite you to compare 2 major hits she had from that one album with each other. Those would be "Papa Don't Preach" and "La Isla Bonita". To my mind, these two songs would not end up in the same genre and share only the same album and performer. As good as "Papa Don't Preach" was (is) and the reason i got the album, "La Isla Bonita" just completely blew me away when I heard it. (I purchased the album before the second one hit it big.)
The point here that if I am trying (and maybe failing) to make is that if I am bored by an album or a CD on the first listen, why would I want to buy the thing, just to be more bored over time? I would ask those who would want me to spend my income on their entertainment ventures to make the effort of providing enjoyable, varied and lively entertainment, professionally done, targeted toward a mature listen, even if I am in reality immature in the extreme.
Don't ask me to spend list price on a CD with 10 songs that all sound the same.
Shelly_D
Additionally, the over compartmentalization into genres really does leave listeners bored by the end of an album. For example, I have 1 and only 1 album by Madonna in my collection, True Blue. I would invite you to compare 2 major hits she had from that one album with each other. Those would be "Papa Don't Preach" and "La Isla Bonita". To my mind, these two songs would not end up in the same genre and share only the same album and performer. As good as "Papa Don't Preach" was (is) and the reason i got the album, "La Isla Bonita" just completely blew me away when I heard it. (I purchased the album before the second one hit it big.)
The point here that if I am trying (and maybe failing) to make is that if I am bored by an album or a CD on the first listen, why would I want to buy the thing, just to be more bored over time? I would ask those who would want me to spend my income on their entertainment ventures to make the effort of providing enjoyable, varied and lively entertainment, professionally done, targeted toward a mature listen, even if I am in reality immature in the extreme.
Don't ask me to spend list price on a CD with 10 songs that all sound the same.
Shelly_D
Last edited:
DonQuixote99
just give me some truth
Wayner, the basic premise is that lots of folks feel like you do about all the 'BS TV.' And they have voted with their $ for better TV even if they have to pay for it. Your view that TV is 'complete BS' leaves out all the cable and Netflix blockbusters, starting with the Sopranos. Premium TV has proved that there is big money in quality.
Your complaint about stolen music echos the music industry line--'look at all they money we lost because people download for free.' That assumes that folks would have paid $18.00 a CD if they couldn't get if for free. They would not have. Once VCR tapes on demand were available, that was it. Given the chouice of putting on music, or putting on a video, they went for the video.
But no stones thrown, Sir. There is no rule that says I'm right and you're wrong. We're just talking.....
DonQuixote99
just give me some truth
There will be media and services for audio music. But as the OP points out, the music industry nonetheless keeps shrinking. Streaming services aren't going to bring in the big $ to reverse that.
When people sit down on their couch, they want to watch something. High quality music video, marketed to subscribing adults, might be a player in that. That could be where the money is.
DonQuixote99
just give me some truth
Would you pay $15.00 a month to get not the teeny commercial crap you describe above, but good music like Clapton's Crossroads, on your TV, all you want when you want it?
JURB
Super Member
Actually people are missing a point ahout how all this developed. Like CDs are the size they are to fit in a stereo in a car, LPs were designed to sell more music. Remember the music clubs ? They give you ten free albums if you agree to buy one a month for the next year or whatever.
They used to have 78s. You got one song per side. Hell it has two sides so take two songs. The idea behind the LP was to sell you more songs that you didn't really want. Of course it helped with long orchestra performances but their impetus was always to make more money. Just like cable TV. I hear tell up to Canada you can get true pay per view. You want to watch someting on HBO you can pay for HBO for a couple of hours and be done with it. Hre you hacv to "subscribe". I remember paying good money for an album just to get one song. Kinda like a forced marketing.
Then there were 45s. If you even could buy all of them that were on an LP it wold cost at least twice as much. but they only took the trouble to stamp the ones that they thought would sell specifically because people did not want all the other songs, they just wantd that hit. hat's more they really tried to make the flipside useless, and put "the other" hit from the album on a different 45, with the flipside being something you also didn't want.
What would you do ? I can't really bitch because business is business. But this whole way of business has caused an undesirable shift in just whom gets the worm.
that's my pinion and I be stikin toit.
They used to have 78s. You got one song per side. Hell it has two sides so take two songs. The idea behind the LP was to sell you more songs that you didn't really want. Of course it helped with long orchestra performances but their impetus was always to make more money. Just like cable TV. I hear tell up to Canada you can get true pay per view. You want to watch someting on HBO you can pay for HBO for a couple of hours and be done with it. Hre you hacv to "subscribe". I remember paying good money for an album just to get one song. Kinda like a forced marketing.
Then there were 45s. If you even could buy all of them that were on an LP it wold cost at least twice as much. but they only took the trouble to stamp the ones that they thought would sell specifically because people did not want all the other songs, they just wantd that hit. hat's more they really tried to make the flipside useless, and put "the other" hit from the album on a different 45, with the flipside being something you also didn't want.
What would you do ? I can't really bitch because business is business. But this whole way of business has caused an undesirable shift in just whom gets the worm.
that's my pinion and I be stikin toit.
shelly_d
Not An Audiophool
Perhaps, we currently subscribe to Netflix Streaming and Acorn TV. We are very choosy about subscriptions and their cost. The music industry would have to get all their stuff together before I would subscribe however, and by that I am talking about all the production values and post production mixing, eq, compression, etc decisions that can take a lively song and make it sound dead.
Also I would need it streamed across the internet, as we do with Netflix and Acorn. That way, the digital sound quality of the original file is maintained to my computer and on to my sound system.
Shelly_D
robgmn
Super Member
No stones hurled Wayne, but I think the industry killed itself by refusing to adapt and change to survive.
I'm sure downloading doesn't help the industry, but if you want to stop it, you give people a reason NOT to download (as opposed to just filing constant lawsuits to try and stop it. 'Cuz we know THAT'S so effective. Oh, and also make sure we sweep the whole music-industry-price-fixing issue under the rug as quickly as possible so we can be the "injured innocents" when people share music).
When CD's first hit the shelves in (?)1984, they were in the range of $18 a piece (one "reason" being the dearth of pressing facilities. As in "one").
Fifteen years later, they were still the same price.
Funny, the payers started out at $1500 and fifteen years later they were $40.
There was a time when the movie industry was convinced that home video would sound their death knell.
Boy did THAT tune change.
Remember when a movie on VHS was $80?
Now, new releases are $15, on a format that is higher quality than the theaters had when VHS was $80 AND HOLLYWOOD IS STILL MAKING MONEY HAND OVER FIST.
Adapt and change, or die.
Let's hope they figure it out soon
johnebravo
I should be practicing
I suspect it's too late. I know that they'll never be able to get me back as a regular customer. I bought my brand new stuff in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s; for years I bought at least couple of LPs almost every week. Now I buy second hand LPs and CDs and almost never buy anything brand new. The only contemporary music I'm interested in is jazz, and I can find enough recent stuff to keep me happy second hand.
The market they desperately need is people in their 20s and 30s, and those people (as a general rule, of course) aren't interested in owning physical media collections. The few that I know have no interest whatsoever in CDs or even home stereos; they like music (one is a pretty good musician), but they have their music on portable players and computers and listen through earphones and the computer's speakers. It's incomprehensible to me, but I'm an old fart now and I'm sure they think owning a huge music collection is preposterous. They grew up with Ipods, cell phones and portable computers. They would never consider spending money on CDs; I really doubt they would even pay to download files. I'm sure they share files with friends, and probably download whatever they want via bit torrent (or something else that is totally beyond me).
The only possibility might be subscription services, but the musicians themselves have no chance of making any money that way with the royalties being what they are. But maybe people would consider paying a small monthly fee to have instant access to practically everything they could ever want.
The market they desperately need is people in their 20s and 30s, and those people (as a general rule, of course) aren't interested in owning physical media collections. The few that I know have no interest whatsoever in CDs or even home stereos; they like music (one is a pretty good musician), but they have their music on portable players and computers and listen through earphones and the computer's speakers. It's incomprehensible to me, but I'm an old fart now and I'm sure they think owning a huge music collection is preposterous. They grew up with Ipods, cell phones and portable computers. They would never consider spending money on CDs; I really doubt they would even pay to download files. I'm sure they share files with friends, and probably download whatever they want via bit torrent (or something else that is totally beyond me).
The only possibility might be subscription services, but the musicians themselves have no chance of making any money that way with the royalties being what they are. But maybe people would consider paying a small monthly fee to have instant access to practically everything they could ever want.
KentTeffeteller
Gimpus Stereophilus!
Compact Discs were a major mistake. Too expensive and prices didn't drop when they were cheaper to press. $12.99 by around 1990 should have been list price. There was also the lack of a universal single format for youth. Two major issues. The concept of dropping the price, and gaining profits by volume would have helped major.
BilboBaggins
Addicted Member
Something just occurred to me as I read this. Back in the late 2000s, just before I left on a business trip to San Francisco, my favourite Alternative Radio Station went off the air. And that was the last Alternative station in my area.I would have just thought itr was normal attrition except that there were a lot of people in my area upset by the change.
Then I flew out to San Francisco.
I knew about some great Alternative Stations there from previous trips. However, I couldn't find any! Not one Alternative Station! What happened to them?
Speaking to colleagues, the same had happened right across North America. Clearly, this was not the consumer speaking. This was Corporate America making changes for their own purposes.
My listening habits have changed since then. I still really miss Alternative. There was so much great music coming out! Now?
Not so much.
Then I flew out to San Francisco.
I knew about some great Alternative Stations there from previous trips. However, I couldn't find any! Not one Alternative Station! What happened to them?
Speaking to colleagues, the same had happened right across North America. Clearly, this was not the consumer speaking. This was Corporate America making changes for their own purposes.
My listening habits have changed since then. I still really miss Alternative. There was so much great music coming out! Now?
Not so much.
BilboBaggins
Addicted Member
I believe it is the industries own fault again.
I didn't listen to a lot of music for a period of time. I thought I had outgrown my old classic Rock, and I was listening to Alternative, but not to the extent I am now. I had stopped because it didn't sound good.
Then I got into Vintage Gear, and it all changed. Music sounded great again, and I was listening to Zeppelin, Billy Idol, Floyd, and more.
I believe kids listening tastes are because the modern recordings are such crap. Why else are so many kids getting into vinyl? And trust me, they are! I sell equipment to help pay for restoring my keepers and kids are buying at least half the turntables I sell. And systems usually follow that. I try to set up for the best sound at a certain price point, and there are some pretty impressive sounding systems that can be set up for fairly little.
DonQuixote99
just give me some truth
Public radio has taken over the alternative, jazz, and classical formats. Two alternative, a jazz, and a classical station are available on 'user-supported' radio here--plus in the low power category there's another jazz (daytime only) and one doing oldies top 40.
JoeESP9
ESL's & tubes since 83
The channels that you're using as examples are not broadcast TV channels. They are exclusively cable/satellite. I suppose that makes them even worse because you have to pay to watch them.
I thought this was one of the more interesting comments in the article:
"Think about this: music is the only branch of the entertainment world to embrace progressively inferior technologies."
"Think about this: music is the only branch of the entertainment world to embrace progressively inferior technologies."
johnebravo
I should be practicing
It seems to me that it was the public that insisted on embracing inferior technologies. The industry tried to offer improved formats (e.g., SACD, DVD-Audio, etc.), but many, many people who listen to popular music -- and that's well over 90% of the public -- weren't willing to pay premiums for them when they could download and share MP3s for free, and those were satisfactory for the Ipods they were played on.
While some of the early CDs were poorly mastered, and the mastering of popular music CDs is poor, some CDs, especially classical and jazz, can be very good. The jazz CDs that I have that were made in the last 10-15 years are almost always at least very good, and some of them are excellent. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with CDs; it has everything to do with the mastering process and the choices that are made there.
JURB
Super Member
I agree n ot to pay fo the crap. $20 and you get two good songs.
So the quality is an issue but the other issue really is price. Think about the 1970s - sure there were peole with really good gar but there were also people buying Capeharts and Lloyds and even worse. Never even heard of a magnetic cartridge.
That is the same type of peoole who will be perfecty happy with the compressed junk of today. Really, those MP3 players and earbuds are still better than the elcheapos of the past.
So the quality is an issue but the other issue really is price. Think about the 1970s - sure there were peole with really good gar but there were also people buying Capeharts and Lloyds and even worse. Never even heard of a magnetic cartridge.
That is the same type of peoole who will be perfecty happy with the compressed junk of today. Really, those MP3 players and earbuds are still better than the elcheapos of the past.
