Cuneiform Records - straight from the source

[battema]

I am afraid that this is very true. None of the younger people I know (below 30) buy ANY music. The completely rely on streaming services. I recently talked to my nephew. His statement was: if it is not on spotify or apple music it does not exist.

I makes me sad. Younger wild and exiting acts like Schnellertollermeier and Poil should appeal to a younger audience. Unfortunately none of them are going to buy their music.

It isn't just younger people.

[Steve F.]

THIS:

I recently talked to my nephew. His statement was: if it is not on spotify or apple music it does not exist.

AND THIS:

It isn't just younger people.

[thedunno]

It isn't just younger people.

Agreed, but I think the vast majority of people that still buys music is over 40.

[rcarlberg]

Well then it isn't so much a matter of Spotify killing the market. It's a shifting marketplace where bands like Schnellertollermeier and Poil no longer have a fanbase.

Us old farts, who rely on physical media, apparently cannot buy enough to support the industry. Schnellertollermeier and Poil don't really compete with Lady Gaga for audience. The audience for Schnellertollermeier and Poil just dried up.

[battema]

Agreed, but I think the vast majority of people that still buys music is over 40.

Yeah.

For younger folks, collecting physical media is almost akin to collecting stamps; if you're into that sort of thing then great. But, it isn't a necessity anymore if one wants to collect music.

I personally have a harder time with the older crowd who made the choice to stop paying. Folks who go online and talk about how liberating it was to scrap their whole collection in favor of Spotify, things like that. I'm not judging or attacking them, just acknowledging their impact on me.

[Poisoned Youth]

Thanks for sharing, Steve, you arrogant prick.

I really liked your story about how your "journey" just to obtain one record when you were 15 gave the music value in contrast to how things are today. I think the obvious tone of this story is bleak and sobering, however I prefer to celebrate your 35 years of commitment to music and your accomplishments. This may be of little comfort, but there is a legacy element that transcends the financial element that can't be taken away.

I think you should give more interviews. There's a lot of insight there and a story to be told.

I think Steve and Joyce are being polite blaming Spotify for the decline in revenue in the music business.

Streaming is not killing their business model.

Piracy is. Generous pirates.

I don't agree. Spotify and YouTube were immense factors because both of them legitimized "free" (or essentially free) is okay. They both created access at levels that were previously unseen.


Here are some general thoughts:

- eBay, Amazon and others created a robust used CD trading market in the early 2000s, which made it easier to buy something for half the price instead of new.
- Fast forward a few years, the success and acceptance of the MP3 format proved that convenience was a factor in spite of loss of quality
- The iPod revolutionized how MP3s were stored and played
- Internet speeds, CD rippers, and increased storage space helped legitimize the MP3 further as a preferred format
- iTunes and other legit MP3 download sites changed the shifted the purchase dynamic from album to singles. 99 cents is easy to spend and now cheaper than buying a used CD.
- Additionally file sharing sites also grew in popularity and replaced "CD-R trading" as an accelerated form of P2P file sharing.


And in 2010, it was easy to pinpoint a decline of sales on file sharing because it AMPED up the speed and volume at which people could attain something they might have previously purchased.

However, the dynamic has changed significantly since that time.

- Streaming is a way of life, not an option. For the younger crowd, even MP3s seem antiquated by comparison.
- Don't want to pay Spotify? No problem. YouTube legitimized free streaming once Google took it over. Free songs, free albums 24/7. The guilt associated with listening to something without paying for it went away when this happened.
- Streaming service providers like Amazon, Netflix, and Hulu use a subscription model
- Content volume and accessibility from music to tv to movies grows exponentially each year

And where are we in 2018?

- We live in an attention based society. Content providers fight for it. Music is now not only fighting for its own relevance, but fighting everyone else fighting for your attention - TV, streaming services, social media, etc.
- Worse yet, the amount of content out there gets lost in plain sight. Heck, even on PE if some person starts a thread about his new band, it largely gets ignored.
- There is a paralysis effect that occurs when exposed to this much content, studies show people actually go back to what they are familiar with instead of trying something new. The choice is overwhelming.
- Our particular demographic is aging, has already bought a ton of stuff, is less interested in discovering new music, has other financial priorities.


So how does a small indie record label survive/adapt? It's difficult, maybe impossible. I won't presume to give Steve advice. I do think there are ways a label with 35 years of history can leverage that base and possibly find a model that works. But then again, perhaps not.

[Poisoned Youth]

Yeah.

For younger folks, collecting physical media is almost akin to collecting stamps; if you're into that sort of thing then great. But, it isn't a necessity anymore if one wants to collect music.

I personally have a harder time with the older crowd who made the choice to stop paying. Folks who go online and talk about how liberating it was to scrap their whole collection in favor of Spotify, things like that. I'm not judging or attacking them, just acknowledging their impact on me.

I got a shipment of obscure Belgian/French jazz CDs at my workplace last week. My co-worker (23) asked me what I got from Belgium. I told him and he gave me a blank stare. He then asked me why I didn't download it or go to YouTube. My frank answer was actually that these albums are so obscure that there is no download option to buy...or otherwise. I told him these will all get one play on CD and I'll rip them to MP3 and the discs will sit on a shelf.

And at this particular label, you can listen to everything on Spotify, but I don't have an account. But for most people in Belgium, why would they buy the discs if they can just access on their Spotify account?

[Poisoned Youth]

Agreed, but I think the vast majority of people that still buys music is over 40.

Those who buy physical product are quickly becoming dinosaurs. I think websites like PE, PA etc. can give the illusion that there's a lot more "like minded folks" like you, John, Ian, and others than there actually are.

I bought a lot of CDs at music festivals and figured a lot of others did as well. I was a bit sobered up to learn from the source how many of those people at NF and PD bought very little music and it was always just a small percentage of us that were actually collectors - even within that subset.

[battema]

Those who buy physical product are quickly becoming dinosaurs. I think websites like PE, PA etc. can give the illusion that there's a lot more "like minded folks" like you, John, Ian, and others than there actually are.

Yyyyyep. Pretty sure they can just stuff me and put me in the Smithsonian when I go. "Early 21st Century Hoarder and Audio Cave"

[Steve F.]

Thanks for sharing, Steve, you arrogant prick.

You are quite welcome.

I think you should give more interviews. There's a lot of insight there and a story to be told.

Isn't it interesting that no one ever thought of doing that until I folded my company and suddenly my work became news. Yes. So surprising.

I do think there are ways a label with 35 years of history can leverage that base and possibly find a model that works. But then again, perhaps not.

Assuming I want to release the same 'sort' of music [whatever sort that it is - hopefully it has changed with time and it was always hard to pigeonhole anyway] it can work if I want to do my work as a volunteer. Otherwise, it don't work. There aren't enough paying customers any more. That's my entire thesis in a nutshell, really.

thanks for your attention, Sean.

[Steve F.]

however I prefer to celebrate your 35 years of commitment to music and your accomplishments. This may be of little comfort, but there is a legacy element that transcends the financial element that can't be taken away.

Well, sure. I agree and thank you. It's my legacy, so yes. I would like to celebrate the commitment to music and my accomplishments as well. Absolutely.

I'm exceedingly proud of it. I accomplished a lot. A LOT.

Thank you again.

[rcarlberg]

I do think there are ways a label with 35 years of history can leverage that base and possibly find a model that works.

Hmmm, a 435-disc boxed set?

[JKL2000]

I don't really think it's fair to blame Spotify's customers. After all, lots of people pay for Spotify. And there's ad-supported Spotify too. How did creators make money from "free" TV? Ad revenue more fairly shared, right? Somehow Spotify (and I guess a few other culprits) are being allowed to skip that step of sharing the profits with the creators. My son pays for Spotify, I know because I pay his Spotify bill, mine, and my wife's monthly. That money's going somewhere, the same as the money for movie rentals and purchases is. There's a Spotify-shaped hole in the system.

Does anyone know how Spotify is able to get away with this? If it's been explained how it's done legally, I haven't read the explanation.

I mean, I've read things like this: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/201...tists-payment/

But it doesn't really explain why things like monopoly laws don't come into effect. Or why it just isn't illegal in some way, or punishable.

[progeezer]

When they stop manufacturing physical product, I'm certain that I'll never spend another penny on recorded music. At my age, I won't listen to most of what I have already again, and a fair amount of new music I do buy is to support friends who release physical media, and fortunately I like their music; but I'd buy it regardless.

Superb interview, SF!

[moecurlythanu]

Hmmm, a 435-disc boxed set?

You had Jed at "boxed."

[Steve F.]

Does anyone know how Spotify is able to get away with this? If it's been explained how it's done legally, I haven't read the explanation.

Jed

in a nutshell: They get away with it because 97% of the labels have signed on and said 'yes'.

Why did 97% of the labels sign on? There are a lot of answers to that and this isn't the place.

[JKL2000]

Jed

in a nutshell: They get away with it because 97% of the labels have signed on and said 'yes'.

Why did 97% of the labels sign on? There are a lot of answers to that and this isn't the place.

My question isn't really why the labels have said Yes, it's why there's no regulation that keeps the streamers in check. I guess the labels are happy because they're gaming the system, and organizations like ASCAP and BMI can't take on the RIAA, who will do what the labels want.

Oh, well there's this! Good to hear:

https://www.billboard.com/articles/b...ss-endorsement

[Steve F.]

^ ^ ^

Jed

somewhere else please. This isn't the place.

[JKL2000]

No problem, enjoyed the interview.

[bondegezou]

Henry

[SteveSly]

Really enjoyed the interview, thanks for posting. I have said his before here, but most of the 20-somethings that I work with have absolutely no concept of paying for music. They have grown up in a world where everything can be found one way or another for free, and that is completely normal for them. We were out at our work holiday party back in December and my wife made a comment about me having CD's constantly arriving in our mailbox. One of the younger ones asked why would I buy CD's? This ended up in a discussion about better sound quality, album art, lyric sheets, liner notes, etc. These things had no value to the younger ones at all. If they wanted lyrics they looked them up on google. If they wanted information about a band they looked that up. Sound quality didn't seem to make much of a difference as everything the listen to is through ear buds for the most part. Some of them like album art, but not enough to actually pay for it. The bottom line was that it was still alien for the younger ones to pay for music. For the older people I work with, most of them seem content to listen to whatever collection they have accumulated back in their younger days, or just listen to XM Radio or Pandora.

Time marches on I guess..........anyway, I really enjoyed the interview and found it insightful.

[Dave (in MA)]

Hmmm, a 435-disc boxed set?

The booklet would have to be 3" thick.

[alanterrill]

There is another factor here and that is the rising cost of postage. For those, like me, who live outside the US, then a single CD from Wayside costs around $15 for an album, then $14 postage. So its no longer viable for me to buy physical CDs from abroad. Some European countries are not too bad, others cost as much as the US. Now I tend to download most things and copy them to CDR. I'll buy a CD if there is one, and particularly if the artist makes an effort with the sleeve (step forward, Emmett Elvin. Moetar and Uz Jsme Doma), but if it's the choice between one CD in a printed sleeve or three downloads for the same price, and make my own sleeves, then its usually the latter I'll go for. But I'm old (64) and have been buying records by obscure artists all my life, so I'll always buy, not steal, as I value these people's work.

[Skullhead]

When they stop manufacturing physical product, I'm certain that I'll never spend another penny on recorded music. At my age, I won't listen to most of what I have already again, and a fair amount of new music I do buy is to support friends who release physical media, and fortunately I like their music; but I'd buy it regardless.

Superb interview, SF!

People download music for free because ultimately they KNOW that once the music is downloaded, it becomes totally worthless. In other words, unlike anything else, it can't be turned around and sold. So people don't feel guilty about it because they download it for free, and what they just downloaded has no monetary value beyond that.

The kids are smart to do this. Times are tough, rents are up, everything is getting so expensive, people have to watch every dollar. If they can get it for free, they are going to do it.

This will only change when there is a massive grass roots rebellion. It's not on the horizon any time soon.

As far as music, live music is the only chance for the musician. They can sell a ticket, and that ticket does hold some value. It CAN be turned around and sold because that experience or expectation of that experience HAS VALUE. Tangible value... such as a good seat, people will be there, some kind of a scene etc. A memory or experience.

Not the case with a download.

[battema]

People download music for free because ultimately they KNOW that once the music is downloaded, it becomes totally worthless. In other words, unlike anything else, it can't be turned around and sold. So people don't feel guilty about it because they download it for free, and what they just downloaded has no monetary value beyond that.

The kids are smart to do this. Times are tough, rents are up, everything is getting so expensive, people have to watch every dollar. If they can get it for free, they are going to do it.

This will only change when there is a massive grass roots rebellion. It's not on the horizon any time soon.

As far as music, live music is the only chance for the musician. They can sell a ticket, and that ticket does hold some value. It CAN be turned around and sold because that experience or expectation of that experience HAS VALUE. Tangible value... such as a good seat, people will be there, some kind of a scene etc. A memory or experience.

Not the case with a download.

Will you be at ROSfest this year?