[typoon]

AP
Download Growth Concerns Music Industry
Monday January 23, 1:05 pm ET
By Laurence Frost, AP Business Writer
Record Companies Struggle to Defend Value As Growth of Legitimate Downloads Comes at High Price

CANNES, France (AP) -- Apple uses it to sell iPods. Vodafone uses it to sell broadband airtime. Starbucks uses it to encourage customers to linger longer, and consider a second Frappuccino.

Digital music finally took off in 2005, according to data published ahead of this week's Midem music trade show in Cannes, while lawsuits kept illegal file-sharing in check.

But for record companies, the growth of legitimate downloads and the partial victory against piracy have come at a price. Many in the industry are concerned that the scramble for digital sales has done lasting damage to profitability.

"Music has become a disposable item," said Nicholas Firth, chairman and CEO of BMG Music Publishing, a division of Bertelsmann AG. "For many people it's a traffic builder."

Firth, addressing Midem delegates, said the digital consumer "is now willing to pay a higher price for a ringtone than they are for a record."

As music goes digital, more and more big companies want to sell it -- but mainly as a way of boosting profit on their other activities.

Starbucks Corp. is rolling out CD burning stations in thousands of its U.S. coffeehouses, after finding that customers stay longer than the average 10-12 minutes if they are also given the opportunity to download music at a dollar a track.

"That experience can go anywhere from 20 to 30 minutes as they continue to browse and listen and make their music selections," said Ken Lombard, who heads the coffeehouse giant's entertainment division.

But the largest share of last year's $1.1 billion (euro900 million) in digital music sales -- which increased threefold from 2004 as CD sales declined -- came from online stores in general, and iTunes in particular.

Once hailed as the industry's savior, Apple Computer Inc.'s market-leading download site is seen as part of the problem.

"I'm hearing that the artists aren't happy, the publishers aren't happy. Someone other than Apple needs to be happy for this industry to grow," said Amit Shafrir, president of AOL's premium services arm.

AOL, a unit of Time Warner Inc., is launching a music site allowing Internet users to download all the tracks they want for a monthly fee. But subscription-based services accounted for just 8 percent of digital music sales last year.

Apple's one-size-fits-all pricing -- 99 U.S. cents per song in the United States -- has set the industry benchmark far too low for the comfort of record companies, which have tried and failed to break the iTunes stranglehold.

Music majors are pushing for variable pricing on iTunes, allowing them to charge more for sought-after new hits than for older tracks. But Apple boss Steve Jobs has dismissed their pleas, saying in September that the record companies were "getting a little greedy."

Album sales have declined steadily as consumers "cherry-pick" the tracks they like online, said Phil Leigh of Inside Digital Media, a U.S. market research firm. "When you can buy just the songs you like in a digital format, you don't have to buy the album."

Senior music executives credit Apple for halting the growth in global piracy -- but often through gritted teeth.

"For the time being we all must work with Apple and make the most of iTunes," said Eric Nicoli, chairman of EMI Group PLC, the world's No. 3 record company.

"Single pricing is almost unique to the music industry," Nicoli added. "If you look at any other consumer category -- including things like iPods -- they sell at different prices."

EMI announced a deal Monday with collecting societies -- which distribute royalty payments to copyright holders -- allowing the record company to offer pan-European licensing deals to mobile and online music retailers for the first time.


GRRRRR The record industry is starting to really tick me off now. I would love to see a big name artist or band tell them to go stuff it because they are going to deal directly with Apple. You'd really see some whining then.

If they do variable pricing I can almost guarantee that Music piracy WILL increase to levels they have never seen before. They want to lessen piracy and make money hand over fist. Both are NOT going to happen. UGH Are they really that blind? These people are supposed to be smart. They Keep wanting to shoot themselves in the foot.

I'm glad Jobs for now is telling them to go stuff it. Unfortunately if push came to shove and it looked like they would pull their content off the iTunes store I think we'd see Apple capitulate. Either that or we'd see Jobs bring the case to the People and let the people tell the record execs what to do with their music. Right now it's nice to see Jobs sticking up for the consumer (even though it maybe only to further Apple's bottom line) but someone is doing it and in my eyes it's good to see.

[demibob]

the better the song the more people will buy it
selling more should mean you earn more
so whats the point in veriable pricing
people who use itunes buy more songs than normal anyway

[boots]

The big downside is that there is no longer any reason for a record company to commit to an artist anymore. Artists used to be able to do some really creative stuff...so long as there were one or two good songs on an album. People would still buy it and the artist could feel like they were actually doing creative things. Now, with only the pop hits making the cut, there is no real incentive to try anything new. And a diminished outlet should you choose to try.

It will simple make all music pander to the lowest common denominator. I haven't purchased any digital music. I used to buy albums and was often surprised as the "other" songs grew on me. I could see how the artist worked, how they experimented. It's harder to do that now. And that's part of why I just plain don't buy music anymore.

Is that all Apple's fault? No. ClearChannel and the like have pretty much dictated musical taste to the US. The industry as a whole is slowly imploding and "cherry-pick" purchase of songs is just reinforcing it.

I don't have a solution. I just see a bigger problem than "Record Companies Are Evil - Digital Music Downloads Are Evil."

[boots]

dp.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by boots

The big downside is that there is no longer any reason for a record company to commit to an artist anymore.

Turn that frown upside down!

The big upside is that there's no reason for an artist to commit to a big label any more. Independent distribution is coming into its own, and recording quality music is so much more affordable and accessible now, with the digital workstation revolution.

If the majors screwed up and forgot to figure out how to survive a major paradigm change, I sure won't shed any tears. Self-recorded and self-distributed music is becoming a viable alternative to signing your life away to some shark in a suit.

[boots]

Originally Posted by chris v

Turn that frown upside down!

The big upside is that there's no reason for an artist to commit to a big label any more. Independent distribution is coming into its own, and recording quality music is so much more affordable and accessible now, with the digital workstation revolution.

If the majors screwed up and forgot to figure out how to survive a major paradigm change, I sure won't shed any tears. Self-recorded and self-distributed music is becoming a viable alternative to signing your life away to some shark in a suit.

True. But the one thing that The Man had was the publicity machine. Kinda hard to do that on your own. Word-of-mouth is one thing, but it tends to only go so far.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by boots

True. But the one thing that The Man had was the publicity machine. Kinda hard to do that on your own. Word-of-mouth is one thing, but it tends to only go so far.

boots, meet Alex Tew.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by boots

True. But the one thing that The Man had was the publicity machine. Kinda hard to do that on your own. Word-of-mouth is one thing, but it tends to only go so far.

It doesn't need to go as far. do the math-- an independent who owns 100% of the rights/royalties to their music can make exactly as much selling 50,000 copies as some poor sap who signed away 90% in order to sell 500,000.

Also, there are some good mid-level indie labels stepping up to the plate, offering good distribution with better royalty rates. Then, there's outfits like CD Baby, by which you can get on to the ITMS for an amazingly nominal fee.

[demibob]

Originally Posted by boots

The big downside is that there is no longer any reason for a record company to commit to an artist anymore. Artists used to be able to do some really creative stuff...so long as there were one or two good songs on an album. People would still buy it and the artist could feel like they were actually doing creative things. Now, with only the pop hits making the cut, there is no real incentive to try anything new. And a diminished outlet should you choose to try.

It will simple make all music pander to the lowest common denominator. I haven't purchased any digital music. I used to buy albums and was often surprised as the "other" songs grew on me. I could see how the artist worked, how they experimented. It's harder to do that now. And that's part of why I just plain don't buy music anymore.

Is that all Apple's fault? No. ClearChannel and the like have pretty much dictated musical taste to the US. The industry as a whole is slowly imploding and "cherry-pick" purchase of songs is just reinforcing it.

I don't have a solution. I just see a bigger problem than "Record Companies Are Evil - Digital Music Downloads Are Evil."

i see it more like a change in the music industry than a problem

[Kerrigan]

I don't really like the iTMS or any online pay service in general, but here is my 79p:

The simple laws of supply and demand apply to everything, especially online music purchases. If more people want to buy a song, then the price should be raised to the point where profits are maximised. This reflects the higher "quality" or desirability of a song.

The music industry may seem greedy or out of touch to us, but recall that the entire industry is based on producers who are willing to go out, raise money, and take risks on funding artists. On top of that they have to pay for all of the promotional costs. These music execs may have flambouyant lifestyles but theirs is a business just like any other and they deserve to have adequat payment for their services, otherwise there will be less incentive for them to provide quality productions.

If you disagree with what I'm saying based on your attitude towards the commercialization of music, think of it this way. If a song is worth $2 and Apple is charging $1 for it, then they are shortchanging the musician just so that they can sell more iPods.

[euchomai]

It's hard to say how much a song is worth though. How do you attribute value to it? Based on production costs? What about historical significance? Does the value go up or down with popularity?

In reality it only comes down to what people will pay, that is the value of music. Right now, people are content paying .99 per song. I'd feel uncomfortable going much higher than that.

[demibob]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I don't really like the iTMS or any online pay service in general, but here is my 79p:

The simple laws of supply and demand apply to everything, especially online music purchases. If more people want to buy a song, then the price should be raised to the point where profits are maximised. This reflects the higher "quality" or desirability of a song.

The music industry may seem greedy or out of touch to us, but recall that the entire industry is based on producers who are willing to go out, raise money, and take risks on funding artists. On top of that they have to pay for all of the promotional costs. These music execs may have flambouyant lifestyles but theirs is a business just like any other and they deserve to have adequat payment for their services, otherwise there will be less incentive for them to provide quality productions.

If you disagree with what I'm saying based on your attitude towards the commercialization of music, think of it this way. If a song is worth $2 and Apple is charging $1 for it, then they are shortchanging the musician just so that they can sell more iPods.

if more people want to buy a song then the recordcompany make's more money than if only a few do. This is its own reword so why do record companys feel they need to increase the price on top of that.
If anything more songs would be bought based on quality instead of how well they have been marketed.

[Kerrigan]

No offence but that doesn't make sense. Take a popular song for example, such as any of the junk on the top 20. If you could double the price of the song and yet only lower your sales by, say, 20%, then you come out on top.

Price, of course, is what people are willing to pay for something. So if most people are willing to pay $2 for the song, then the song is worth $2. If most people want to pay $0.50 for a song, then it is worth $0.50.

[ambush]

The RIAA/MPAA is a joke. They were so frustrated with illegal downloads. Now Apple fixes the situation (and it's a better situation now than 4 years ago IMHO) and they're unhappy about it. Well **** them.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I don't really like the iTMS or any online pay service in general, but here is my 79p:

The simple laws of supply and demand apply to everything, especially online music purchases. If more people want to buy a song, then the price should be raised to the point where profits are maximised. This reflects the higher "quality" or desirability of a song.

The music industry may seem greedy or out of touch to us, but recall that the entire industry is based on producers who are willing to go out, raise money, and take risks on funding artists. On top of that they have to pay for all of the promotional costs. These music execs may have flambouyant lifestyles but theirs is a business just like any other and they deserve to have adequat payment for their services, otherwise there will be less incentive for them to provide quality productions.

If you disagree with what I'm saying based on your attitude towards the commercialization of music, think of it this way. If a song is worth $2 and Apple is charging $1 for it, then they are shortchanging the musician just so that they can sell more iPods.

Well, here's the problem I see with that. As an example, let's take an album that's been massively popular since like forever. I'll choose Abbey Road. Yes, I know it's not on iTunes, but bear with me for a second. Okay, so how much does the album cost on CD? 13 bucks. How many tracks does it have? 17. So the tracks altogether would be $17 on iTunes if they had it, which is already higher than the CD price. Yes, I know you would be able to get the album all together on iTunes at a discounted price, but that's not the point since "cherry-picking" is what's being complained about, and at $1 per track, the price of all the tracks together usually comes out to about the price of the CD. Sometimes, as in the example above, the price ends up being a little higher, meaning that there's already a little premium built into the track price.

Now, if you took and charged $2 for each track due to their popularity, what would it cost to get all those tracks now? $34! As opposed to the original CD for $13. And of course, the thing is that the tracks from the CD would be uncompressed, whereas the downloaded tracks will be compressed with a slight quality loss. So to my mind, the downloaded tracks should be cheaper, not more expensive. But Apple's got a pretty reasonable compromise here compared to what certain other members of the industry seem to want!

[Kerrigan]

I don't see that as much of a problem since it looks as though 99% of all albums have perhaps 2-3 singles that people want to buy, and then everything is filler and so in the price would have to be lowered to reflect the lack of demand.

In the past, record companies dealt with this difference between singles and filler by releasing, ahem, single albums. Obviously I don't need to explain that a single album is basically just one song remixed a couple of times on a short album. People in the past would pay about half the price of an album just to get that one song.

Now people can go and buy that song for around 1/10 of the album price, and this doesn't seem quite right.

As I said earlier, there are a lot of costs and risks that go into making an album. Record companies have to convince people to raise money to pay for all the costs that go into creating a hit band, and most of the time the artist will give them lacklustre sales. So when they find a hit, they should be allowed to tweak the pricing of the product in order to maximise their profits to make up for all the other money they spent.

What if Apple decided to sell their iPods at Wal Mart, and Wal Mart told them they had to sell each iPod for $250, whether it was a shuffle or an ipod video. This doesn't make any sense and Apple would be pissed off.

[CharlesS]

Nah, that's a bad analogy, because the 5G iPods have added value over the Nanos from an objective point of view. You get more with the 5G - more storage space, more screen size, etc. The 5Gs also cost Apple more money to make than the Nanos. You can't really say that that one popular track on an album somehow magically cost the record label more money than the other, less popular track. A better analogy would be Wal-Mart selling both the black and white iPod for the same price and Steve Jobs wanting to double the price of the black iPod simply because it's more popular than the white one (something I doubt any company would get away with when dealing with Wal-Mart). All in all, not so big a deal.

[demibob]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

No offence but that doesn't make sense. Take a popular song for example, such as any of the junk on the top 20. If you could double the price of the song and yet only lower your sales by, say, 20%, then you come out on top.

Price, of course, is what people are willing to pay for something. So if most people are willing to pay $2 for the song, then the song is worth $2. If most people want to pay $0.50 for a song, then it is worth $0.50.

how can you say what a song is worth
if profit is earned for every single sold then the bigger the demand the bigger the profit
let the consumers decide what a record is worth

[CharlesS]

The thing is, a track is indeed only worth what the consumers will pay for it, so unlike with your iPod analogy, there's no objective evidence that one track would be "worth" $2. In my experience, most of the people I've showed iTunes to have thought $0.99 was already a bit steep for one track, but palatable. If that were doubled, I wouldn't be surprised if most people just went and downloaded the thing on Kazaa. I really doubt that people would be willing to pay $2 per track, meaning that the tracks are probably not worth $2. You have to remember that you're competing with free here...

[tooki]

The problem with the digital download complaints from the record industry is that they haven't shown that the decline in album sales is in any way correlated to increased downloading, never mind shown a causal link.

In fact, album sales were already declining before downloading caught on. Something else is causing it -- my vote for the reason is maybe that they only produce crappy music for the most part any more...

tooki

[demibob]

Originally Posted by tooki

The problem with the digital download complaints from the record industry is that they haven't shown that the decline in album sales is in any way correlated to increased downloading, never mind shown a causal link.

In fact, album sales were already declining before downloading caught on. Something else is causing it -- my vote for the reason is maybe that they only produce crappy music for the most part any more...

tooki

[Kerrigan]

I agree CharlesS that there is a problem when it comes to determining the value of a song, because a song is not a physical object. Your argument, if I may paraphrase, is that albums do not have some magical or arbitrary value, and that their value depends on a person's preferences. Fair enough. But this is more of a philosophical issue than an economic issue.

Strictly from a business point of view, if a product (in this case a song) is in high demand, then you would be a fool not to raise the price. I know that this supply-and-demand business may not seem on the surface applicable to "art", but it is.

It doesn't matter what objective qualities a product has. On the one hand, like you said, the iPod has measurable qualities like storage etc. But what about DVDs? New, popular DVDs will usually have a higher cost than older or less popular DVDs. There is no difficulty in allowing the market to determine the cost of a movie, the cost is determined by how many people want the DVD and what they are willing to pay for it.

The fact that record companies want to raise prices shows that they know people will pay more music. If most people wouldn't mind paying $1.50 or $2 for a hit song, then that is the price that should be charged, because that is what it is worth.

[Kerrigan]

I don't see what declining sales has to do with this.

If variable pricing is introduced, and if sales decline, then the record companies will be forced to reduce their prices for songs. If they don't, then they are shooting themselves in the foot.

On the other hand, they are shooting themselves in the foot right now because they are comitted to sell their products for the artificial price of $.99.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

The fact that record companies want to raise prices shows that they know people will pay more music. If most people wouldn't mind paying $1.50 or $2 for a hit song, then that is the price that should be charged, because that is what it is worth.

And there's the big "if". How do you know consumers wouldn't mind paying $2 for a single track? My bet is that most of them would either go back to piracy or to a cheaper music store (Wal-Mart is already selling tracks for $0.88, 11 cents less than iTunes) if Apple started to do this. Again, the people I've talked to personally have thought that even $0.99 was a bit of a rip-off. The thing about movies is that while they can be obtained illegally over the Internet just like music, it's not nearly as easy to do.

The thing you're forgetting is that the laws of supply and demand apply to music stores as well as to music itself. Sure, iTunes is the most popular music store right now. Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps, just maybe, it's because their prices aren't outrageous? If the labels don't like Apple's rules, they're free to go to some other music store that will let them charge $2 or $3 for a track, but they'll probably find that that store won't sell much music, because $0.99 is, in fact, the price that the average consumer will pay for one track of music.

[SirCastor]

I didn't read everyone else's posts, but I don't think the exec has it quite right. Tiered marketing in other situations works because you're paying for more. If I want a bigger, badder iPod, I pay more. If I want a larger hot Chocolate, I pay more. If I want a car that's more powerful/economic, I pay more.

If I pay for a song, I'm getting a song. That's it. I'm not getting a better version of a song, I'm just getting the song. now if the industry wants to sell me a 256k encoded version for $2, I might just consider that, but why should I pay $2 for a song that has no quantitative, or qualitative difference from another, except that people like it more. Or maybe, that Neilson ratings like it more, or heck! Just that the company promoted more. Doesn't make sense to me.

[Cubeoid]

I say: SCREW THE MUSIC INDUSTRY!

[greenamp]

The music industry is "concerned by download growth" b/c the continuing evolution of digital music distribution is a direct threat to their business model. Nothing more.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by greenamp

The music industry is "concerned by download growth" b/c the continuing evolution of digital music distribution is a direct threat to their business model. Nothing more.

Agreed. Media industry is afraid to let go of their existing system. They've made so much money for so long that they can't stand to give it up. It's going to go whether they want it to or not. The early example of that was Napster. You can embrace it or fight it, but if you fight it, then you will lose. Lose a little money now, or a lot later.

Someone mentioned Independant labels.
The distribution system available online allows that kind of power. Cool, no?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by chris v

Independent distribution is coming into its own,

No. It presents the consumer with the problem of "looking for a needle in a haystack". While you geeks might have time to go listen to every track you find on the iTMS, regular users don't. The quality stuff will become harder to find as the marketplace is swamped with all sorts of crap that people are promoting themselves. Much like the 'net did for quality literature - beforehand every writer had to get past the quality controls of the editor and publisher. Not any more.

Originally Posted by chris v

and recording quality music is so much more affordable and accessible now, with the digital workstation revolution.

No. Do you think we go out and buy $2m desks for the fun of it? Current "hobbyist" stuff is nowhere near as good as "pro" stuff. The "revolution" is mostly an illusion.

[Kerrigan]

I read something rather interesting about how the Y generation, or iGeneration or whichever generation I'm a part of, has come to view music as a commodity and not an emotional experience. This is true I suppose because I can't really imagine myself getting very emotional about any of the music I listen to today.

However it also said that this accounted for the huge popularity of those Pop Idol shows, since there are still a good number of people who want to feel like they are involved in the emotional aspect of music.

[volcano]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No. It presents the consumer with the problem of "looking for a needle in a haystack". While you geeks might have time to go listen to every track you find on the iTMS, regular users don't. The quality stuff will become harder to find as the marketplace is swamped with all sorts of crap that people are promoting themselves. Much like the 'net did for quality literature - beforehand every writer had to get past the quality controls of the editor and publisher. Not any more.

Good point. Anyone with half (or let's be honest, one third) of a brain can make a song, create a MySpace profile, and "promote" themselves. Heck, MySpace even released their own compilation CD a few months ago! It's sickening.

It's a mixed bag. I don't believe that just because a song is "popular" that it gives the artist/record label the right to increase the price. Beyond that, think about it: if a song gains popularity and iTMS jacks up the price - due to the songs popularity, it will be easily and widely available on p2p software, unlike more obscure tracks. It would work against them in the end.

The model just wouldn't work. If, say, an artist releases an album, and every song on that particular album is available online for $0.99 - what would happen when/if the artist gains immense popularity and one of those particular songs becomes a hit single? Does that give them the right to increase that once unknown track twofold? I don't think so. This is where that movie analogy that was mentioned earlier falls apart: the promotion model for movies is completely and utterly different from music. The popularity of a movie is deteremined by its sales while it's in theaters. From there, the price is determined for when/if it's released on DVD - and most of the time, it's initially set at a higher price because people always flock towards newly-released movies. Granted, in a few years, the price will [more than likely] drop dramatically - but at that point, any extra profit for that movie is just icing on the cake. Heck, I found Drop Dead Fred at Target yesterday for $6.50! I remember buying the video for at least $15-20 when it first came out.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No. It presents the consumer with the problem of "looking for a needle in a haystack". While you geeks might have time to go listen to every track you find on the iTMS, regular users don't. The quality stuff will become harder to find as the marketplace is swamped with all sorts of crap that people are promoting themselves. Much like the 'net did for quality literature - beforehand every writer had to get past the quality controls of the editor and publisher. Not any more.



No. Do you think we go out and buy $2m desks for the fun of it? Current "hobbyist" stuff is nowhere near as good as "pro" stuff. The "revolution" is mostly an illusion.

You're insinuating that the majors somehow by their nature release only "quality" music, and that they filter out the chaff. I find the exact opposite to be true. The major's rosters are awash with Ashlee Simpsons, Backstreet boys, Ushers, Martikas, Whitney Houstons, and whatever flavor of the day their marketing departments think they can cram down the throats of the demographic dumb enough not to know better. Interesting, unusual bands often find themselves denied contracts simply because they fit no marketing mold.

Sure, I'll agree with you that a living room with a ProTools LE interface is no match for a good tracking room with a Neve, but you know what? Those places have gotten cheaper too, as they've had to compete. My modus is to record basics in a real tracking room, then drag the stuff home and mix it in Logic. Tracking is something that can and should be done in a few days, with a clock ticking. But mixing is impossible when the $$$ meter is going TICK, TICK, TICK!! and you find yourselves making compromises due to budget constraints.

Of course, you could get a $$$$million advance so that you can waste six months at Electric Ladyland to craft the world's most spectacular album, but don't expect to EVER recoup. Period. You'll be lucky to live off your 20% of merch sales for the next three years, while the engineer and producer dip their toes into the Caribbean from the edge of the yacht you bought them.

Edit: You know, what am I even saying?? 99.73% of everything released by the majors is recorded using samples and auto-tune, then mixed/sliced/diced in ProTools anyway. I bet an indie band is MORE likely to at least track organic instruments in a real studio than your average Disney/Warner Bros. girl-of-the-week.

[boots]

Alright, Chris, I'll concede the point about being able to get studio time and them mixing at home. But I disagree about the distribution. Doofy is right on that one. There are only a relative few music fans that have the time or desire to sift through all the stuff out there. Yes, the labels ARE producing a lot of crap. Like I said in the first post, though, I think this is because of companies like ClearChannel locking up the market. There was a day when listening to the radio was interesting. You could hear some stuff that the DJ thought was cool but that might not be on the charts (yet). With several DJs and several stations, the variety of different stuff was good. Now, there seems to be a committee who decides what is "good" and what will be played in each genre.

Fix that and you'll fix one of the big problems.

To put it another way, there is too much out there. And we only have a very blunt tool to filter it. We need a better filtering system. It might not have been the best, but the DJ model of the late AM and early FM days was good at this.

[ghporter]

The "suits" are unhappy that their profits from the obscene markups on CDs have declined. I am sad in my heart for them. OK, I'm over it now. Their problem is that it's no longer the 1950s with "personal service" contracts (that's how Sinatra got forced to do some of the horrible "novelty" songs he did early in his career: a legalized form of involuntary servitude), and it no longer costs hundreds of thousands to produce one single-you can do a pretty good job at home). So they no longer control either the artists or the production of music. Too bad...for them. Of course these are the same people who quietly push payola, who punish artists who explore music different from their "cash-cow" genre by noy releasing their records, and who want us to think that $25 is a reasonable price for a CD with 8 songs on it-2 of which are worth listening to.

It's sad for them. But the public needs to speak up and remind lawmakers that what the suits want is illegal control of a market outside of normal market forces, and that these same suits said that illegal downloading was a problem. Can't have it both ways, guys! Maybe they should get real jobs...

[Salty]

You know, I still buy whole albums. I don't have time to bother trying to figure out the exact good songs verses the bad songs. Generally I go to an artist's site, listen to the flash player, and then I decide that I'll take a chance on an album.

[tooki]

Again, I think the record industry is using digital downloads as the scapegoat to explain the decline in record sales that was caused by other factors.

tooki

[demibob]

i tend to buy whole albums on itunes not just individual songs.
Kerigan keeps saying that if people are willing to pay $3 for a song then it should be ok to charge $3 for it. IMO people started illegaly downloading music because they decided a single wasnt worth that much.
record companys should realize things have changed in the last 20 years

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by demibob

CharlesS keeps saying that if people are willing to pay $3 for a song then it should be ok to charge $3 for it.

I did?

[Salty]

As well, didn't Apple a while ago say that the biggest sales on iTunes were entire albums? If anything this is great for Musicians, this means they don't have to focus on just making one or two good songs, but entire good albums, like the Christian music industry has been doing for years, because we don't really have singles .

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by boots

Alright, Chris, I'll concede the point about being able to get studio time and them mixing at home. But I disagree about the distribution. Doofy is right on that one.

I'm right about the mixing too.

The vast majority of top 40 singles are mixed on SSL or Neve consoles. There's a reason for this: Acoustic transparency and superb channel facilities (EQ/dynamics). To assume that a home ProTools/Logic system running through yer Radio Shack monitoring system is going to come close to an SSL running through top-of-the-line monitors is, as previously stated, an illusion. The same kind of illusion that caused people to go "woot, we don't need to buy ProTools now we have Garageband" at the keynote a few years back.
To get the expected commercial quality, someone somewhere is going to have to stump up for that SSL (or Neve. I like Neve more because SSL is staffed by monkeys). And that's not cheap.

Plus, of course, the amount of musicians who can actually mix stuff is very, very low compared with the huge quantity of musicians who think they can mix. Which is why you get folks like me to do it if you want results.

[demibob]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

I did?

oops
wrong person
iv eddited my post

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by Salty

As well, didn't Apple a while ago say that the biggest sales on iTunes were entire albums? If anything this is great for Musicians, this means they don't have to focus on just making one or two good songs, but entire good albums, like the Christian music industry has been doing for years, because we don't really have singles .

I would disagree with your idea of the Christian Music industry being so different. IMO, there is a handful of truly good artists whose talent supersedes the genre (jars of clay, 3rd day, sixpence) and about 100,000 me-toos ( remember the "worship album" trend a few years back?).

Ever since people realized that Christian music was a multi-billion dollar a year industry, it has become just as processed and commercialized as the secular industry.

[boots]

oh, God yes. Most of the stuff is pretty much "Jesus is my boyfriend, isn't that great?" There really are only a few good groups out there.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by boots

oh, God yes. Most of the stuff is pretty much "Jesus is my boyfriend, isn't that great?" There really are only a few good groups out there.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I'm right about the mixing too.

The vast majority of top 40 singles are mixed on SSL or Neve consoles. There's a reason for this: Acoustic transparency and superb channel facilities (EQ/dynamics). To assume that a home ProTools/Logic system running through yer Radio Shack monitoring system is going to come close to an SSL running through top-of-the-line monitors is, as previously stated, an illusion. The same kind of illusion that caused people to go "woot, we don't need to buy ProTools now we have Garageband" at the keynote a few years back.
To get the expected commercial quality, someone somewhere is going to have to stump up for that SSL (or Neve. I like Neve more because SSL is staffed by monkeys). And that's not cheap.

Plus, of course, the amount of musicians who can actually mix stuff is very, very low compared with the huge quantity of musicians who think they can mix. Which is why you get folks like me to do it if you want results.

Then why do InSync and Good Charlotte albums sound so terrble?

Just because it's not done by Bob clearmountain doesn't mean it HAS to sound bad.

Here's a rough of some rythm tracks of mine: Recorded on a Neve, to 2-inch with Dolby SR in a nice studio, then trianferred to digital via Pro Tools. This is a quick 30-minute mix I did as a guide for keyboards and vocals, at home in Logic. ( the guitar is pretty much scratch, too)

http://www.chrisvreeland.com/FireRough2.mp3

[chris v]

Originally Posted by boots

Alright, Chris, I'll concede the point about being able to get studio time and them mixing at home. But I disagree about the distribution. Doofy is right on that one. There are only a relative few music fans that have the time or desire to sift through all the stuff out there. Yes, the labels ARE producing a lot of crap. Like I said in the first post, though, I think this is because of companies like ClearChannel locking up the market. There was a day when listening to the radio was interesting. You could hear some stuff that the DJ thought was cool but that might not be on the charts (yet). With several DJs and several stations, the variety of different stuff was good. Now, there seems to be a committee who decides what is "good" and what will be played in each genre.

Fix that and you'll fix one of the big problems.

To put it another way, there is too much out there. And we only have a very blunt tool to filter it. We need a better filtering system. It might not have been the best, but the DJ model of the late AM and early FM days was good at this.

distribution does count for something, yes. And radio is horribly broken, but that's a whole 'nuther thread.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by chris v

Then why do InSync and Good Charlotte albums sound so terrble?

Because you can't polish a turd.

Originally Posted by chris v

Here's a rough of some rythm tracks of mine: Recorded on a Neve, to 2-inch with Dolby SR in a nice studio, then trianferred to digital via Pro Tools. This is a quick 30-minute mix I did as a guide for keyboards and vocals, at home in Logic. ( the guitar is pretty much scratch, too)

http://www.chrisvreeland.com/FireRough2.mp3

Since that's just a quick guide mix, I don't feel embarrassed for you to say that it's somewhat lacking. It'd be more interesting to listen to a final mix, although it'd also be harder to tell you exactly what was wrong with it without offending you.

(don't get me wrong - I like the music a lot, it's good stuff.)

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Because you can't polish a turd.

True that.

Since that's just a quick guide mix, I don't feel embarrassed for you to say that it's somewhat lacking. It'd be more interesting to listen to a final mix, although it'd also be harder to tell you exactly what was wrong with it without offending you.

(don't get me wrong - I like the music a lot, it's good stuff.)

It's lacking a lot. I'm not offended. There's no hat in the intro bit because that's supposed to be a shaker, so the groove is all f'ed up until that gets added. The kik is too loud or maybe just too boomy, the EQ on the drum room reverb it off (too thin, & too much of it) & the echo on the guitar is probably too long and too prominent. The guitar needs to be two discrete tracks, one distorted and one clean -- you can hear him stepping on his foot pedal, and it obviously affects his playing. And since I'm a bass player, you can assume up front that the bass is too loud. I'm purposely trying to keep it simple -- there's only one verb on that mix, but I may need to change that so I can attenuate the snare verb a bit. It needs Hammond organ, and floaty synth bits, and a guitar lead. And singing.

But the fact that it's been run through Logic didn't magically make it sound worse.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by chris v

I'm purposely trying to keep it simple

That's why I didn't bother commenting. It's a guide track, what can I say? (other than that I actually would like to hear the final mix purely from a music perspective - it's a sweet tune).

Originally Posted by chris v

But the fact that it's been run through Logic didn't magically make it sound worse.

Missing the point. When it comes to the final mix, those channel facilities in your computer aren't a patch on the ones in a real desk. That's where it matters. That's the point. If you were to mix it down on Logic and mix it down on a Neve (Capricorn/Libra/whatever) with exactly the same settings, the Neve mix would sound better. Different EQ/dynamics algorithms, more R&D, whatever... It's just one of those things - like why a Lexicon 'verb sounds better than an SPX 'verb.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Missing the point. When it comes to the final mix, those channel facilities in your computer aren't a patch on the ones in a real desk. That's where it matters. That's the point. If you were to mix it down on Logic and mix it down on a Neve (Capricorn/Libra/whatever) with exactly the same settings, the Neve mix would sound better. Different EQ/dynamics algorithms, more R&D, whatever... It's just one of those things - like why a Lexicon 'verb sounds better than an SPX 'verb.

No, I'm not missing the point. you're right, it probably would sound better, but how much better? $100,000 better? If it's the difference between getting something pretty damn good vs. getting something utterly astounding, but you get to actually release, and retain 100% of the royalties to "pretty damn good," I think it'll suffice. Basically, we've come a long damn way from Fostex 4-track cassette machines.