Why the music industry is killing the music..

[bondegezou]

Poisoned Youth, that's an excellent point about it starting with Cable TV, which started in, what, the mid 70s? You can even say as far as literature goes, that libraries are the same thing. The county I live in has a large file-sharing system, basically. So a huge number of people can share the same digital publications, and we all pay for it via our tax dollars.

Maybe we need publicly-funded Spotifys?

We've seen this massive switch in TV viewing from ad-supported free TV to subscription models. What has this done for the quality of TV? Many would say it's massively improved it. Netflix and the like are investing in great shows.

Subscription models in music haven't produced any boon in the quality of music. Spotify don't commission albums. So, what's the difference? How do you get the revenue flowing into digital music platforms and get it spent on funding a next generation of musicians?

Henry

[Skullhead]

We've seen this massive switch in TV viewing from ad-supported free TV to subscription models. What has this done for the quality of TV? Many would say it's massively improved it. Netflix and the like are investing in great shows.

Subscription models in music haven't produced any boon in the quality of music. Spotify don't commission albums. So, what's the difference? How do you get the revenue flowing into digital music platforms and get it spent on funding a next generation of musicians?

Henry

TV and Movies offer both sound and visual. Music lacks the visual for the dumbed down masses. It's getting worse and worse. Yes, there are some good shows, but if you look closely, most of it is still following the usual formula. Sex, violence, special effects, car chases, teen drama, zombies.

Today's youth in general is not learning the nuance in music. Most couldn't tell a drum machine from Joe Morello. They know singers and a beat... that is about it. There is no motivation to learn music because there are few careers in it. Television and film, you have many careers that can pay decent to well to millions for even B grade actors and directors.

When people go out for music today, it's more likely they will be at a Karaoke bar or a techno show rather than a jazz club, classical music hall or even a dive bar with a tribute rock band.

[bondegezou]

TV and Movies offer both sound and visual. Music lacks the visual for the dumbed down masses. It's getting worse and worse. Yes, there are some good shows, but if you look closely, most of it is still following the usual formula. Sex, violence, special effects, car chases, teen drama, zombies.

I don't think someone called "Skullhead" can complain about zombies in TV shows.

Today's youth in general is not learning the nuance in music. Most couldn't tell a drum machine from Joe Morello. They know singers and a beat... that is about it. There is no motivation to learn music because there are few careers in it. Television and film, you have many careers that can pay decent to well to millions for even B grade actors and directors.

When people go out for music today, it's more likely they will be at a Karaoke bar or a techno show rather than a jazz club, classical music hall or even a dive bar with a tribute rock band.

You're not coming across as someone who has met any youths.

Henry

[Steve F.]

You're not coming across as someone who has met any youths.

[moecurlythanu]

I don't think someone called "Skullhead" can complain about zombies in TV shows.


Henry

We have a picture:

[JKL2000]

We have a picture:

I've met Skeletor, and he is no Skeletor.

Seriously though, and I know I've said this before, but my teenage son has excellent taste in music. He mostly likes music from the 60s and 70s (Beach Boys, Stones, Lou Reed, The Doors, Donovan, Bowie, Eno, John Cale
and a lot of other artists I've never listened to (some 80s "alternative" stuff as well) - he really does use Spotify to explore music, and is always surprising me with the stuff he (and his friends) have gotten into. But on Halloween this year he went to see a rather interesting, sort of "lo-fi" indie artist named Alex G performing in a bookstore in Rochester. I can understand that he's not "typical," but as most parents will tell you, there's not really a "typical" with kids or teens. There are commonalities, but like us, they are all individuals.

[IncogNeato]

I've met Skeletor, and he is no Skeletor.

Seriously though, and I know I've said this before, but my teenage son has excellent taste in music. He mostly likes music from the 60s and 70s (Beach Boys, Stones, Lou Reed, The Doors, Donovan, Bowie, Eno, John Cale
and a lot of other artists I've never listened to (some 80s "alternative" stuff as well) - he really does use Spotify to explore music, and is always surprising me with the stuff he (and his friends) have gotten into. But on Halloween this year he went to see a rather interesting, sort of "lo-fi" indie artist named Alex G performing in a bookstore in Rochester. I can understand that he's not "typical," but as most parents will tell you, there's not really a "typical" with kids or teens. There are commonalities, but like us, they are all individuals.

My son is 25 and I feel he has largely good taste as well...of course, music is something very important to me so I tried to teach and guide him along the way. But now he has a blossoming 400+ CD collection of his own. He's a fan of a variety of different music from Tom Waits to Genesis to Coheed & Cambria to Iced Earth. He buys what he loves and adheres to my advice "If there's a special edition, buy it."

[JKL2000]

My son is 25 and I feel he has largely good taste as well...of course, music is something very important to me so I tried to teach and guide him along the way. But now he has a blossoming 400+ CD collection of his own. He's a fan of a variety of different music from Tom Waits to Genesis to Coheed & Cambria to Iced Earth. He buys what he loves and adheres to my advice "If there's a special edition, buy it."

Nice. What does he listen to his CDs on? For me, that's the biggest question for my son. Thinking back, my parents did buy me record players, from the close 'n' play to my first actual component system, and then I took it from there. But that all seems sort of unlikely now. I guess I need to have a conversation with him about it at some point, since I have a lot of CDs I can pass on to him. I suppose the vinyl resurgence will be my friend here, as it's helping keep component systems alive.

[jkelman]

Yup, I'm one of them. For the price of one album, I can pay Spotify and listen to as much music in one day as I could afford to buy in a year. So I happily pay for Spotify because it fits within my entertainment budget. I could go to a gourmet supermarket and pay $5.99/lb for grapes, but I go to another place and pay $1.99/lb. That's called smart shopping.

Well, if that's what you call "smart," then ok. But I'll bet your Spotify stream sounds nothing like the high res downloads, Blu Ray pure audio, SACD or, frankly, many CD remasters/remixes that you've not got access to. Yes, you saved $4/pound on those grapes. But if (I can't say) those $5.99 grapes taste away better (they might), then you've sacrificed quality for quantity....which is precisely the problem with Spotify.

Also, those folks who supply the $1.99/lb grapes still make money from the sale of their grapes' I suspect. Those musicians (Well, most of them) who are forced to participate in Spotify, either by their label or due to fan pressure, do not.

It may be "smart shopping" for you, but it contributes to the problems musicians are facing today, already discussed at great length. If all that matters to you is the deal, and not the consequences of it, well, there's little for us to discuss further.

If your entertainment budget is a mere $10/month (which I doubt), then in the old days you'd save up and buy an album that would likely become a very important part of your life..because you didn't have access to everything for cheap, but because you actually had to save and wait to get it. Delayed gratification has become a lost virtue in today's time, when people either find free or very cheap alternatives to accessing music, rather than having to wait until they could afford to buy it.

Listen, I'm by no means ignorant of the fact that things change, and that yesterday's business models aren't today's. But when today's models generate lots of money that go to everyone but the people who actually make the model possible in the first place, then something's wrong.

And I'm actually not anti-streaming. I'm anti the idea of musicians making far less from it than they used to in other methods...while others are still raking it in. As Esoteric's Vicky has said on iccaaaion, the problem with streaming is offering an "all you can eat" buffet of music for such a low price tha that most musicians won't make much (if any) money for their work. F streaming was set up to offer programs that eithe limited the number of tsreams available to you per month in a scaled fashion, or -not unlike cable tv today, which offers specific channels for very reasonable monthly fees but if you want them all, you pay a lot more (albeit still discounted...the idea of the mire you buy the better the price makes a lot of sense to me) - offer genre-based subscriptions or some other smaller subset of all (and if you pat a premium price, then you get access to everything)? I'd find that a lot easier to accept, and it would still be working with contemporary models.

The reason this doesn't happen, amongst many, and the reason it won't happen, however, is because people have become so used to music for free, that a streaming service has to offer you a LOT for very little.

And here we are, with labels like Cuneiform a greatly reduced (albeit still great) shadow of its former self, Qbstract Logix pretty much gone entirely, artists like Metheny sitting with five albums in the can and no clear idea what to do with them, online stores like ReR USA shutting its virtual doors and many musicians releasing music far less frequently, while DIY recording gear has, paradoxically, resulted in so much music being released (because it's cheaper to record) that it's a challenge to sift through it all and actually find the gold - not to mention so much competition making it imposssible for most everyone to actually think about making a living at music when, not that long ago, you might be a musician most people would never hear of, but you worked regularly enough to consider it a decent, middle claaa living.

So, shop smart all you want, and good on ya, if that's all that counts. In some cases it makes sense.

But count me as someone who, when it comes to the arts - which significantly improve my quality of life with something that is often less than tangible and should not be treated as a commodity (but now, sadly, is) - as a person of conscience and obligation, someone who feels duty-bound to support those people who help make my life better by giving them a reasonable wage that will, if others also do it, translate into something substantial enough for them to maybe actually live on their work.

After all, if the people who also make my life better by providing things like food, shelter, education, health care, etc, were to have to deal with the business model most musicians do (and, sadly, in some countries there are some who do), then we'd be struggling to eat, put a roof over our heads and more.

Not that I'm really comparing them. Yes, I could live without art, and cannot live without food or shelter. But my life is so much richer - assuming I am fortunate enough to be able to afford those things required to exist and still have some money to spare - because of the arts, that it seems perfectly reasonable to me that I should support it with some of that extra money....and support it in a way where I only get what I can afford, may actually have to save (and wait) for it, and not be offered just about everything for the cost of a couple cups of coffee, or one drink.

That's the other thing that rankles me. Add up what most folks spend weekly on disposables like coffee, beer, wine, cigarettes...and then watch those same folks balk when told a CD (or however music can be acquired that suits you, but at a reasonable fee for the musicians/labels) will cost them somewhere between $8-20, and look at the outrage.

I'm rambl8ng, but how is the cost of a couple cups of coffee anywhere comparable to something that will last you and bring happiness to you your whole life?

So, if we accept that today's technologies are here (no problem with that), how about a pricing model that offers still good value, but not, at just $10/month, the keys to the entire freakin' kingdom?

If streaming were more like cable tv subscriptions (or digital radio, for that matter), I'd have less issue. It's that folks can look at $10/month as their entire music budget and things that's ok. And truly, I'm not actually criticizing you Splicer (though I suppose it did for most of this long winded post)...if that kind of deal is in offer, why wouldn't most people take it?

But there ARE consequences for doing so. And we've already begun to see them. Beyond those I've already mentioned, I know a great many artists who used to release an album every year or two, and now do it every four or five. And then get criticized because it's been so long since they last released something. If you're ok with the consequences of supporting a model that is contributing to the current landscape, I really can't fault you...other than to say I hope never to hear you complain about a favourite artist who hasn't released anything in some time .

So I'm not really being critical of you...you just gave me a good jumping off point for a lot of ramblings...
Cheers,
John

[Steve F.]

^^^^^

John,

Save your breath for people for whom music has value.

IMO.

[Jerjo]

^^^^^

John,

Save your breath for people for whom music has value.

IMO.

Speaking of value, thanks for the live Happy the Man special this weekend.

[Steve F.]

Speaking of value, thanks for the live Happy the Man special this weekend.

You’re welcome.

[Nashorn]

Well, if that's what you call "smart," then ok. But I'll bet your Spotify stream sounds nothing like the high res downloads, Blu Ray pure audio, SACD or, frankly, many CD remasters/remixes that you've not got access to. Yes, you saved $4/pound on those grapes. But if (I can't say) those $5.99 grapes taste away better (they might), then you've sacrificed quality for quantity....which is precisely the problem with Spotify.

(...)

But there ARE consequences for doing so. And we've already begun to see them. Beyond those I've already mentioned, I know a great many artists who used to release an album every year or two, and now do it every four or five. And then get criticized because it's been so long since they last released something. If you're ok with the consequences of supporting a model that is contributing to the current landscape, I really can't fault you...other than to say I hope never to hear you complain about a favourite artist who hasn't released anything in some time .

So I'm not really being critical of you...you just gave me a good jumping off point for a lot of ramblings...
Cheers,
John

John, thank you for expressing it better than I could have done. I completely agree.

[Rarebird]

John, thank you for expressing it better than I could have done. I completely agree.

I completely agree as well.

And I think there are enough examples of young people who take interest in music and not only stuff one hears on the radio.

[infandous]

^^^^^

John,

Save your breath for people for whom music has value.

IMO.

One of the reasons I don't stream stuff (well, occasionally if someone suggests I check something out I will) and buy CD's, is because I find that streaming for me cheapens the experience. I don't get absorbed in the music like I did in my teens and 20's. I don't obsess over a great album or band like I did back then. So if I just buy a few CD's, and give them my full attention while looking through the booklet, I personally get a much better experience than a streaming service that just feeds me endless music with little or no context. I don't know, that's just me.

My 17 year old son, on the other hand, only listens to music on YouTube, completely for free (he likes music in video games, which is also more or less free aside from the cost of the game.....and many games nowadays are free to play as well). He will likely never spend money on music, despite my attempts to make him understand why actually paying for stuff he likes is important. I get the sense that all his friends are the same.

Anyway, I don't think music will ever "die" because people will always make it. I do feel sad for my son and future generations who will never experience the pure joy of sitting and listening to an album while flipping through the booklet (or sleeve or whatever), after having saved their money anticipating the purchase and being rewarded by the intimate listening experience. I realize others feel differently.

To me at least, music will never be free of charge. I will always pay for it however I can (live shows, by CD's, Bandcamp, sending unsolicited donations to acts I love, etc.).

[Splicer]

Dear John Kelman:

I just saw your lengthy post based upon my brief comment - a comment that seems to have triggered people.

I suppose I wrestle with the dichotomy of whether I should think of the big picture, simply think of myself or what I do, a combination of both. I used to buy a lot of albums back when it was vinyl and then CDs. Thousands upon thousands of dollars worth. Back in the day, I would hear music on the radio (for free with ads) and then buy the music of an artist I liked because I already knew what I was getting. Then after some dormant years when I had no money, I jumped in feet first around 1994 with a Prog world I had known nothing about. Kid in a candy store type of buying. These were the piss my money away years since I was pretty much buying music based upon reviews or tiny blurbs or maybe an inkling of what something might sound like. I bought a lot of stuff I listened to once and set aside because it didn't work for me. I still spent the money on it, but there it sat collecting dust - money not well spent.

I just reached a point in my life where I was done wasting my money. I don't have that kind of money to spend since I'm thinking about my eventual forced retirement. I still like music and need it in my life. I must hear music and hear things I've never heard before. The Spotify model works for me even if the quality of the sound doesn't allow me to hear the guitarists foot scraping against something. However, it fits in my budget. Either I get some grapes this week or sit staring at an empty bowl. I'll take the ones that fit in my budget even if they aren't "Greatest Grapes In The World".

[Poisoned Youth]

Anyway, I don't think music will ever "die" because people will always make it. I do feel sad for my son and future generations who will never experience the pure joy of sitting and listening to an album while flipping through the booklet (or sleeve or whatever), after having saved their money anticipating the purchase and being rewarded by the intimate listening experience. I realize others feel differently.

Indeed. But I'm not sure I'd feel sad for your son's generation. Younger generations feel sad for previous ones who didn't have the conveniences they do. So in the case of your son, the idea of "access" on demand and portability of media may far outweigh the experience of being in your basement on your beanbag chair, staring at a 12" image for 45 minutes.

To put it another way, when one drives a car, they lose the intimate experience with nature and animal that previous had riding horseback, to which I'm sure most of us are okay with that trade off.

For me, I embrace most technology. Sure, there's an intimate experience that is lost but lots of new benefits as well. For me, the music IS the experience (though I do miss collection fondling a bit), so it was easy for me to adapt.

[Buddhabreath]

The main point for me, as John has already eloquently pointed out, is that the streaming model (along with the unlicensed proliferation of digital files) creates a situation where an artist can no longer make a decent living and the $ goes to the few owners of the technology & distribution, and perhaps a handful of mega-commercial content-providers (I won’t call them artists).

For example, from what I glean, Peter Hammill has been able to make a good middle-class living as a cult artist. In today’s world I fear that is no longer possible and the next Peter Hammill be will writing code at IBM, and the loss will be profound and shared, whether knowingly or not, by all of us who care.

This is part of a larger pattern IMO: the mass-commoditization of goods and the concentration of control and content in the hands of the few. This is part of the inevitable disastrous end-game of unbridled capitalism and it is unsustainable.

Welcome to the oligarchy. On the bright side, I think we will get along very well with Putin and Xi Jinping and we will probably have cheaper and cheaper flat screens and content to keep us passive.

If I were Steve I’d probably be even angrier and less polite...

[Poisoned Youth]

This is part of a larger pattern IMO: the mass-commoditization of goods and the concentration of control and content in the hands of the few. This is part of the inevitable disastrous end-game of unbridled capitalism and it is unsustainable.

Welcome to the oligarchy. On the bright side, I think we will get along very well with Putin and Xi Jinping and we will probably have cheaper and cheaper flat screens and content to keep us passive.

If I were Steve I’d probably be even angrier and less polite...

Just imagine how video rental store owners feel. Damn Netflix!


Anyway, while I might be inclined to go along with your line of thinking, ironically technology changed both the access to content and how it is experienced/delivered. Your audience is no longer restricted to "the content they are fed". Everyone has the freedom to seek out music, TV/movies, books, news, and other information and customize their life experience.

The catch? That most people aren't prepared for this kind of independence and willingly succumb to "being fed", which is why we are we are today.

[bondegezou]

The main point for me, as John has already eloquently pointed out, is that the streaming model (along with the unlicensed proliferation of digital files) creates a situation where an artist can no longer make a decent living and the $ goes to the few owners of the technology & distribution

But I take hope that this is a very recent phenomenon and the situation has been changing rapidly, so it may change again. This is not some unavoidable fate: consumer behaviour, stakeholder action and legislation can shift things.

Henry

[Buddhabreath]

Just imagine how video rental store owners feel. Damn Netflix!


Anyway, while I might be inclined to go along with your line of thinking, ironically technology changed both the access to content and how it is experienced/delivered. Your audience is no longer restricted to "the content they are fed". Everyone has the freedom to seek out music, TV/movies, books, news, and other information and customize their life experience.

The catch? That most people aren't prepared for this kind of independence and willingly succumb to "being fed", which is why we are we are today.

It is more and more challenging to obtain independence in information when huge corporations own more and more of our news media, are focused on profits and cutting journalists and gutting newsrooms nationwide. As you imply, I agree that people have always been feed at the trough whether it is music, art or information and it is the minority that "seeks". [snip]

There is an analogous situation in the popular arts.

A good fiend (and possibly the world's greatest collector/expert on Quebec Prog) for years had a movie store in Toronto specializing in hard-to-find, imports, art films etc. etc. He tried in-store movie nights and all kinds of promotions but in the end could not compete with Nexflix, Amazon, torrents/free/pirated distribution and finally had to close down shop and get a corporate job.

This is gray world being created in part by all this wonderful technology. But let's not condemn the tools - of course there is a good side with self-publishing and independent media but that is an ongoing struggle and the powers that be are aligned against it: witness the recent demise of "Net Neutrality".

[winkersnufs]

And on a Saturday...

This is a VERY interesting thread. Please allow me to ramble in somewhat proximity to the thread topic. Just did an unofficial count of my music (all cd's) and it is approximately 500. I probably had half as many vinyls circa early 90's when my 'downsizing' and move to Vermont had me selling of those then precious vinyls and 'committing' to the era of the cd. Recently I had a bit of a eye opening experience. I looked at my list of music(s) to purchase and went to Amazon (my most often go to these days) to seek availability of an artists releases and the one I wanted was only available as MP3/digital?? purchase. No other choice! I pushed back my chair and just said WOW! I have been NOW really presented with a decision to make. At this time I am still rather opposed to doing my music purchasing business that way but I feel a certain amount of inevitability at hand. In retrospect, I remember having similar thoughts when the original vinyl era was coming to a close. I adapted... and the 'fondling' experience of the cd, as much as it wasn't the same experience as vinyls, still presented that same experience although harder to read (and now my eyes are another 30 years older)!


I'll be 58 in a couple of months. Barking at the neighborhood kids to stay off my lawn... I've downshifted even further, don't particularly like too much change, and my thirst for new listens is as strong as ever. Will I adapt to the change certainly in modern times I am not so sure. I just find it interesting. I really don't NEED more music. It already saddens me that there are many in my collection that just might not get the plays they deserve. I don't want too many choices like in the cereal aisle at the grocery! Without question... I want the artists to be compensated fairly for their art. Perhaps I am afraid that by making yet another 'medium' change that I will only be contributing to the demise of something that has given me so much in this life.


Anyway...

Carry On

Chris Buckley

[Poisoned Youth]

Everyone, I have made a few edits to this thread.

FYI, you can make a point about the state of the industry and the state of technology without getting political or personal. Let’s keep it that way. Thanks.

[BravadoNJ]

.....it's not about the music anymore.

[Splicer]

Everyone, I have made a few edits to this thread.

FYI, you can make a point about the state of the industry and the state of technology without getting political or personal. Let’s keep it that way. Thanks.

By "everyone", you clearly meant me. To be honest, having someone (even a Proglebrity) declare that I don't think music has value doesn't sit well with me. So their snarky remark is met with one of my own. However, I understand. All members are equal but some are more equal than others.