quote:
Music exec: "Music 1.0 is dead."
By Nate Anderson | Published: February 26, 2008 - 11:59PM CT
Five hundred top members of the music business gathered today in New York to hear that "music 1.0 is dead." Ted Cohen, a former EMI exec who used the phrase, opened the Digital Music Forum East by pleading with the industry to be wildly creative with new business models but not to "be desperate" during this transitional period. But what is music transitioning to? No one seemed quite sure, except to say that it won't look much like the music business of the last several decades.
Consider the statements that were made today without controversy:
* DRM on purchased music is dead
* A utility pricing model or flat-rate fee for music might be the way to go
* Ad-supported streaming music sites like iMeem are legitimate players
* Indie music accounts for upwards of 30 percent of music sales
* Napster isn't losing $70 million per quarter (and is breaking even)
* The music business is a bastion of creativity and experimentation
Full Story:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080226-music-exec-music-1-0-is-dead.html
With DRM (copy protection and use limits) going away, I can imagine the RIAA will start fading away. I can't imagine they can live with the new methodology of "people can do what they want with their music."
Why do artists need a record label or RIAA?
quote:
Nine Inch Nails Free Download Experiment Nets Over $1.6 million
Band leader Trent Reznor now encourages user-generated videos for Ghosts I-IV album.
By K.C. Jones
InformationWeek
March 14, 2008 02:53 PM
Nine Inch Nails raked in over $1.6 million on their new album in the first week it was sold on the band's Web site, and now the band is trying another experiment.
Ghosts I-IV, released March 2, sold all 2,500 copies of its $300 Ultra-Deluxe Limited Edition on the first day. Sales of other packages, including partial album downloads, entire album downloads, hard copies of CDs, and a limited deluxe edition were also popular. In all, the band reported more than 780,000 downloads as of Wednesday. As part of an experiment in online music distribution, the band made the first nine tracks available for free and offered the entire 36-track album for $5.
"First of all, a sincere THANK YOU for the response to Ghosts," NIN front man Trent Reznor wrote in his blog Thursday. "We are all amazed at the reaction for what we assumed would be a quiet curiosity in the NIN catalogue. My faith in all of you has been restored"
Reznor encouraged fans to create videos to accompany tracks from the new album through YouTube. A panel of judges, including Reznor, will review the submissions and whittle them down to present those deemed the best during a virtual "film festival."
"This isn't a contest and you don't win elaborate prizes," Reznor explained. "It's meant to be an experiment in collaboration and a chance for us to interact beyond the typical one-way artist-to-fan relationship. We've discussed some interesting ways this could go, including multiple installments of the online 'film festivals,' to broadcast TV specials, to a one-time live performance of the entire Ghosts record with your visuals involved. It really depends on how this progresses and develops."
Fans interested in contributing can check out the official NIN YouTube channel and watch a video of Reznor explaining the plan. They can also watch the videos that have already been submitted (more than 30 in the first 24 hours) and view participation rules.
Amazon charged $38 to sell his album online, so Nine Inch Nails only made (NET) $15,999,962 in the first week.
Glad I grew up in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's when music was brought to us by the best capitalism had to offer in great producers and wonderful distribution through labels and radio.
The computer industry has just dumbified the magic.
1,700 Bands, Rocking as the CD Industry Reels
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/arts/music/15aust.html?th&emc=th
South by Southwest, Shot by Shot
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/arts/music/15south.html?th&emc=th
1700? There are no more superstars..........
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Glad I grew up in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's when music was brought to us by the best capitalism had to offer in great producers and wonderful distribution through labels and radio.
The computer industry has just dumbified the magic.
Computers didn't dumbify music, capitalism did. Prodcures quit caring about music and onyl care for money.
Guess who sells more:
(http://www.gameguru.in/images/grateful-dead-1.jpg)
(http://static.taume.com/image/Britney-Spears-attack.jpg)
You missed my point. Computers did not dumbify the music. There's no more magic. We can agree that greed took over. Once music was an art form. Now, a fart forum....
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
You missed my point. Computers did not dumbify the music. There's no more magic. We can agree that greed took over. Once music was an art form. Now, a fart forum....
Largely yes. You used to be album to buy "a good album" and now you're lucky if two tracks on an album are good, even for an artist you like.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
You missed my point. Computers did not dumbify the music. There's no more magic. We can agree that greed took over. Once music was an art form. Now, a fart forum....
Largely yes. You used to be album to buy "a good album" and now you're lucky if two tracks on an album are good, even for an artist you like.
I have to disagree with that last statement. If you are buying CDs with only 1 or 2 good songs, you are listening to crappy music.
I rarely buy an album by a band that I like with any bad songs. Most of the bands that play good music are not on the radio, so if you look to the radio for music, you are missing the real talented people out there.
Examples of bands I am talking about:
Wilco
My Morning Jacket
The Flaming Lips
The Black Keys
Radiohead (although some will disagree on their latest disc)
Ben Harper
Jack Johnson.
The list could go on...
Sheechya Wilco (//%22http://www.myspace.com/wilco%22).
And Sigur Ros (//%22http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okLCurB1lJw%22) from Iceland,
And Vampire Weekend's (//%22http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XC2mqcMMGQ%22) album is terrific.
From time to time I've worried that that iTunes would kill-off LP. But they keep coming. Ya see, great bands have great songs...and plenty of them. There's more out there than ever. If you aren't finding it, just start asking.
I listen to the radio, but not for innovative music. Note that many of the bands you listed are not major label groups, the kind that create these mostly crap albums.
quote:
I listen to the radio, but not for innovative music. Note that many of the bands you listed are not major label groups, the kind that create these mostly crap albums.
Perhaps that is the story here. "major" brands was a marketing plan to push titles and artists that was born from an era of gold albums and true rock stars. Perhaps this is just an evolution in the way people view music...not necessarily bad. Due to the accessibility of new artists and songs, major labels and their respective marketing won't work because it is not needed. I love a couple of the artists he listed but did not know a couple of them at all. I don't really care if they are major, I prefer artists whose music is easy to get(legally), for a reasonable price, and I enjoy.
I want to also add that I think the "album" mentality will go away more as more people search, pay for, and download there favorite songs. Artists will work harder to make better songs to compete with the other "hit singles".
Man, the radio is usually just crap. The Clear Channels of the world have worked hand in glove with the major labels to homogenize everything out there into the same old pop shiite. And to rotate the same five songs all day long ad infinitum. I'll be happy to see the internet bring the whole ossified, cynical enterprise down around their ears.
I've had great success lately using the web to discover new bands. These are the guys who can fill all (or at least most) of a CD with quality tunage vs. The Latest Pablum. I know I probably skew more electronic and more rock than the posters here, but lately I've been enjoying "Boxer" by The National, (//%22http://www.americanmary.com/%22) "Boys and Girls in America," by The Hold Steady, (//%22http://www.theholdsteady.com/%22) and a series of Prodigy remixes by a Russian DJ called The Second Division. (//%22http://www.prodigyremix.com/category/early-mixes/%22) Ooo, and I forgot. If you like smart hip-hop (and I know EVERYONE here does), one of my favorite Chicago rap-guys Rhymefest completely remixes a series of Michael Jackson tracks on The Man In The Mirror. (//%22http://rhymefeststore.com/mixtapes/Rhymefest_ManInTheMirror.zip%22)
I've been using Last.fm (//%22http://www.last.fm/%22) and Pandora (//%22http://www.pandora.com/%22) to suggest similar artists to the ones I already like. That's been a crucial tool for expanding my musical horizons.
And finally, if Itunes is too spendy for you, you should check out GoMusic (//%22http://www.gomusic.ru/%22), another site from our Russian friends. Prices are around $2-$3 for whole albums; it's legal according to Russian copyright law (or so they say), but dealing with your conscience is all you.
Sirius disorder in hear......
quote:
Originally posted by mrhaskellok
I want to also add that I think the "album" mentality will go away more as more people search, pay for, and download there favorite songs. Artists will work harder to make better songs to compete with the other "hit singles".
This is where I disagree, again. My point was that the bands making the good albums don't make hit singles. You'll never hear a new Pearl Jam song on the radio, but their albums sell millions, and they pack out arenas worldwide.
Even in the electronic age, albums will continue. Artists with true passion and talent will create bodies of work that music lovers will always buy.
The hit singles will continue to be spewed out through the radio waves for people who don't really enjoy music, but use it for background noise.
quote:
This is where I disagree, again. My point was that the bands making the good albums don't make hit singles. You'll never hear a new Pearl Jam song on the radio, but their albums sell millions, and they pack out arenas worldwide. Even in the electronic age, albums will continue. Artists with true passion and talent will create bodies of work that music lovers will always buy.
The hit singles will continue to be spewed out through the radio waves for people who don't really enjoy music, but use it for background noise.
I agree, and I didn't mean that albums would disappear altogether. I am actually just describing my personal experience. There are some groups and artists who has produced a couple good songs that I love to listen to but have not found others of theirs' to be as good. So I am enjoying the ability to download certain songs that I enjoy without having to purchase the whole album. For example, I enjoy Jeff Buckley's song Hallelujah (//%22http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AratTMGrHaQ%22), but don't know any of his other music. Anyway, just my two cents.
Sid
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Glad I grew up in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's when music was brought to us by the best capitalism had to offer in great producers and wonderful distribution through labels and radio.
The computer industry has just dumbified the magic.
I agree. In fact, I am not really sure exactly what the subject of this thread "Music 1.0 is dead" really means. I assume it is regarding some digital music format. I still listen to all my favorites via ancient vinyl LP or CD, and currently have no interest in any other format. I don't own an Ipod, in fact I have never had a cell phone, or subscribed to any form of pay television in the past 15 years. And think of all the $ I have saved.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
Man, the radio is usually just crap. The Clear Channels of the world have worked hand in glove with the major labels to homogenize everything out there into the same old pop shiite. And to rotate the same five songs all day long ad infinitum. I'll be happy to see the internet bring the whole ossified, cynical enterprise down around their ears.
Interesting topic here. Media market segmentation is at an all-time high, and will probably only continue. There is more accessibility to more bands via the internet than anyone could have dreamed 20 years ago. The so-called "mainstream" radio stations are competing for ratings with satellite radio and the internet radio you mentioned. Since satellite and internet radio are still considered to be somewhat edgy new products by a large segment of the population, it's no surprise that the musicians and genres considered to be edgy and hip are featured on this edgy, hip new radio medium. Theoretically, the late adopters on the product adoption curve still only listen to conventional "local" radio stations, and therefore often only are exposed to music that has already diffused through the adoption curve. Basically, these days, you need to use media that has a target marketed audience if you want to find hip new music. Conventional radio stations can't afford to distribute music that isn't proven to generate high ratings. They can't afford to be hip and edgy, which is unfortunately what many music listeners are actually wanting. The really seasoned music listeners are willing to spend a considerable amount of time searching for music. People that don't have such taste just listen to any old thing that's on the conventional radio. That's why many unoriginal bands are filling conventional radio waves these days. They're proven products- they've already peaked.
His point was that selling people a single for $10 or an album for $20 at a brick and mortar store and then not letting them share it with friends(who didn't get a copy of something on cassette or reel-to-reel?) is largely over. People would rather pay $20/mo to listen to everything that is out there or $5 to make their own CD.
Nine Inch Nails put out a 36-track album for $5 and made a ton more profit directly tot he artist. The record labels and the RIAA are literally keeping almost every dollar from the sale of CD's for themselves. There is very little motivation for good artists to put out a traditional CD anymore.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
His point was that selling people a single for $10 or an album for $20 at a brick and mortar store and then not letting them share it with friends(who didn't get a copy of something on cassette or reel-to-reel?) is largely over. People would rather pay $20/mo to listen to everything that is out there or $5 to make their own CD.
Nine Inch Nails put out a 36-track album for $5 and made a ton more profit directly tot he artist. The record labels and the RIAA are literally keeping almost every dollar from the sale of CD's for themselves. There is very little motivation for good artists to put out a traditional CD anymore.
Which is good, as far as it goes. I mean, we're talking about NIN here, who's been selling big since the late 80's and has an established (and cultish) fan base. Also, a pretty tech savvy fan base. I somehow can't see a major country artist trying that stunt. Point being that the NIN success is very specific to NIN, and not necessarily every artist.
That said, I completely support thhe models that NIN (and Radiohead, btw) have been experimenting with, because it DOES show that profit can be made without the middle men. It also shows that there are enough fans who buy digitally to support a major artist solely via the web.
And while steve never has (and maybe never will) own an mp3 player, cell phone, electric steak knife, or waffle iron, the vast majority of Americans do. When looking to buy a new car, 40% of americans factor in how it will connect to their mp3 player. 80% of americans have a cell phone and over 75% of those have used them for "non-phone" functions like internet access and messaging.
I used Nine Inch Nails as a reference because it is current and sold like mad. Probably half if my music purchases of recent (maybe more) have been from non-label groups. The only radio stations I listen to are independent (irok radio and z104.5) especially since kmod became clear channel sellouts.
While some groups might not sell millions today on the internet, with over 50% of teenagers owning an mp3 player, the shift is well on it's way. The speaker refenced in the original article pointed out how record labels have fought against digital music for ten years and with no real support from any label, it's here. iTunes is the #2 music retailer in the country, second only to wal-mart.
The web and open distribution have democratized music. In the wonderful days of yore AOX is hungry for 4 or 5 mega corps dictated what you could hear. On radio and in mega venues... it is the same today.
But on the web, at Cains, at SXSW and at any given pub tonight you can find the rest of the music. The difference is those bands actually have a shot to make it big WITHOUT super-mega-corp giving them their blessing.
This means a wider variety of music can make it, but we may have to sift through the crap ourselves to find it. Then again, even when super mega corp is packaging music for us there is plenty of crap (Brittany, Backstreet Boys, and most everything released after 2002).
When Buddy Holly died, they all thought the music had died. Then we got the 60's, the greatest period in American art.
Then we got commercialization as the dollars flowed to the music industry. I do not know what the democratization of music means. But the magic of the creators went down hill with the compression of time and space mostly brought on through digitazation.
Simultaneously, radio died and distribution went hay wire. The baby boomers went gray and there was no more beauty and magic in the vibe. The grunge, the heavy metal and the goth of the next groupies was no match for the creative genius of jazz, folk and rock and roll.
The beat generation had the benefit of being in the right place at the right time. The death of the superstar has brought us to this moment which lacks sensitivity and beauty. Of a different time and a different place, there are those amongst us who have witnessed and been party to the best of times. Long time gone....
"Broken lines, broken strings,
Broken threads, broken springs,
Broken idols, broken heads,
People sleeping in broken beds.
Ain't no use jiving
Ain't no use joking
Everything is broken.
Broken bottles, broken plates,
Broken switches, broken gates,
Broken dishes, broken parts,
Streets are filled with broken hearts.
Broken words never meant to be spoken,
Everything is broken.
Seem like every time you stop and turn around
Something else just hit the ground
Broken cutters, broken saws,
Broken buckles, broken laws,
Broken bodies, broken bones,
Broken voices on broken phones.
Take a deep breath, feel like you're chokin',
Everything is broken.
Every time you leave and go off someplace
Things fall to pieces in my face
Broken hands on broken ploughs,
Broken treaties, broken vows,
Broken pipes, broken tools,
People bending broken rules.
Hound dog howling, bull frog croaking,
Everything is broken."
B. Dylan
I'll say that there was a lot of good music in the 60s, however, I believe that some of the best songwriting has happened since 2000 (including jazz). The new digital era has pushed artists who want to get in the limelight to make good music. And if you can't get picked up for some meaningless hit single (the odds are stacked against most artist doing this), you have to prove yourself to the digital media buyer, and prove yourself in a live venue.
There's a lot of good stuff happening in music today, and the internet has made it more accessible and more competitive.
I think we may be getting off topic, but I love talking about music, and this is a good discussion.
And mrhaskell, Jeff Buckley was a great musician and songwriter, you should check out his whole body of work. You'll probably be pleased you did.
quote:
Originally posted by tulsascoot
I'll say that there was a lot of good music in the 60s, however, I believe that some of the best songwriting has happened since 2000 (including jazz). The new digital era has pushed artists who want to get in the limelight to make good music. And if you can't get picked up for some meaningless hit single (the odds are stacked against most artist doing this), you have to prove yourself to the digital media buyer, and prove yourself in a live venue.
There's a lot of good stuff happening in music today, and the internet has made it more accessible and more competitive.
I think we may be getting off topic, but I love talking about music, and this is a good discussion.
And mrhaskell, Jeff Buckley was a great musician and songwriter, you should check out his whole body of work. You'll probably be pleased you did.
more competitive? art? scoot along.....