Music's value gap?

Revelation · Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:16 am

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/09/20 ... value_gap/ says:

The research confirms YouTube's pre-eminence as the world's de facto jukebox. 46 per cent of on-demand music streaming is from Google's video website.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/1 ... c_analogy/ says:

In 2015, according to IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) figures, YouTube generated an average of $0.72 in music royalties per user. In 2014, Spotify generated $20.16 per user: 28 times as much.

The latest figures from IFPI are $18 to $1.

The gap between $18 and $1 is called the “value gap.” It doesn’t mean every YouTube view would be worth 18 times as much overnight, of course, if the legal loophole disappeared. But it shows how effectively an illegal supply chain can depress prices across the entire wholesale market – and drive suppliers to strike desperate deals they wouldn’t otherwise contemplate.

The second article is a bit more on point, the first just updates some of the numbers.

The reality is that the DCMA's "user-generated content" exception is a hole you can drive a truck through, whether it was intended to or not, and Google's policies of using this "user generated content" to drive traffic and thus advertising revenue is really undermining the media world.

I'm also finding more than half my TV viewing is YouTube content. Go figure.

zckls04 · Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:09 am

Does anybody remember when music was made just because musicians loved playing, and because the music just poured out of them?

In the old days you started a band because it was fun. You toured the world, picked up a drug habit, got ripped off by a dodgy accountant, and then waited until you were a has-been before you started suing for your stolen royalties.

I wonder what Hendrix would have to say about the "value gap".

seb146 · Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:34 am

I am still convinced that much of a musician's wealth comes form personal appearances rather than air play. Things have probably changed since my day as a radio host. Back in the 1990s, four times a year, we used to have to write down every song we played and our station manager would send that list to both ASCAP and BMI, I believe, so the artists could receive royalties. With digital media and downloads, who knows.

I would rather see a live performance at a small venue. But, that is for another thread.

Also for another thread is zckls04 point about when music was about music. Before autotune and digitizing and making everything perfect. People used to be forced to sing on pitch and in tune. Nowdays, who knows.

Now get off my lawn *shakes fist*

Braybuddy · Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:08 am

seb146 wrote:
Also for another thread is zckls04 point about when music was about music. Before autotune and digitizing and making everything perfect. People used to be forced to sing on pitch and in tune. Nowdays, who knows.

The thing that puzzles me is how generic the music charts have become. If you pick radio shows carefully you can be introduced to a variety of new music, yet when you look at the charts, all that seems to be downloaded is a melange of hip-hop, dance and pop. You rarely get anything original -- maybe the odd ballad, but that's it.

BobPatterson · Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:44 am

Braybuddy wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Also for another thread is zckls04 point about when music was about music. Before autotune and digitizing and making everything perfect. People used to be forced to sing on pitch and in tune. Nowdays, who knows.

The thing that puzzles me is how generic the music charts have become. If you pick radio shows carefully you can be introduced to a variety of new music, yet when you look at the charts, all that seems to be downloaded is a melange of hip-hop, dance and pop. You rarely get anything original -- maybe the odd ballad, but that's it.

I wonder whether there is a "music gap" as well as a value group. I saw no mention in the cited articles about the kinds of music.

Is "rap" considered to be music? Is it a big deal elsewhere in the world other than the USA?

Dutchy · Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:14 am

Braybuddy / BobPatterson you are becoming like Statler and waldorf:

Braybuddy · Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:08 am

BobPatterson wrote:
Is "rap" considered to be music? Is it a big deal elsewhere in the world other than the USA?

There is No Escaping It. Unless you want to go to North Korea or Iran. . . :banghead:

Dutchy wrote:
Braybuddy / BobPatterson you are becoming like Statler and waldorf:

LOL! You know I've been following popular music for over 50 years and always found it a source of great enjoyment. I've loved stuff from the Rolling Stones, Dusty Springfield, The Kinks, The Monkees, The Doors, The Who, Kraftwerk, Creedence Clearwater Revival, David Bowie, (the early) Roxy Music, Donna Summer, Queen, The Eurythmics, Squeeze, Elvis Costello, Joe Jackson, Boomtown Rats, U2, Pet Shop Boys, Simple Minds, Sinead O'Connor, The Smiths, Robbie Williams, REM, Coldplay, Amy Winehouse, Rihanna, Scissor Sisters, (the early) Lady Gaga, Adele, The Killers, Mika, Paloma Faith, etc, etc etc etc (for miles), and am always looking out for new sounds and artists, and occasionally come across some new gems. I never wanted to be that guy who moaned about modern music and hankered back to the past, but we really seem to have reached, or passed, Peak Pop, I rarelly play old stuff, just catch it on the radio, but recently a late night programme devoted its two hours to 1967. I was completly bowled over, even though I knew all the stuff, and stayed awake for the whole show. Hearing them together gave me a new perspective: they all sounded so wonderfully fresh and diverse, compared to the overproduced stuff churned out now.

You still come across the odd future classic, but they are thin on the ground for sure. Downloading seems to have played its part in homogenising the charts, so I suppose there's no way of going back, but it's a pity there isn't a way of compiling them to capture the range of music available. Some recent tracks I've loved have been "The System Only Dreams In Darkness", by The National, "Feel It Still" (Portugal the Man) and Michael Kiwanuka's last album was an absolute gem, but will any of them hit the chars? Probably not, unfortunately.

petertenthije · Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:40 am

Braybuddy wrote:
recently a late night programme devoted its two hours to 1967. I was completly bowled over

Every day, dozens, if not 100s, of new songs are released. A lot of crap, a lot more generic stuff, some OK songs and from time to time a true gem. Fifty years from now someone will cherry pick the best of 2017 to fill 2 hours worth... and people will bemoan how poor 2067 music is compared to 2017.

Revelation · Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:38 am

zckls04 wrote:
Does anybody remember when music was made just because musicians loved playing, and because the music just poured out of them?

In the old days you started a band because it was fun. You toured the world, picked up a drug habit, got ripped off by a dodgy accountant, and then waited until you were a has-been before you started suing for your stolen royalties.

I wonder what Hendrix would have to say about the "value gap".

One of the documentaries I watched about Hendrix said he was being chased by lawyers because he had in essence signed away the rights to his music to multiple different entities. It was a right awful mess to sort out after his death.

Thing is, in Hendrix's day, while he was out picking up his drug habit, his music was being monetized by stamping his music into vinyl for pennies a disc and selling them for many dollars each and selling many millions of them. That doesn't happen any more.

It's clear that the record industry really screwed things up by fighting against new technology instead of working with it, but in reality, the technology to digitally share music was mature long before the technology to monetize it, so the horse was out of the barn before the gate was closed. In the end it was Apple who shaped the path that digital music took far more than any record industry entity.

vikkyvik · Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:40 pm

zckls04 wrote:
Does anybody remember when music was made just because musicians loved playing, and because the music just poured out of them?

In the old days you started a band because it was fun. You toured the world, picked up a drug habit, got ripped off by a dodgy accountant, and then waited until you were a has-been before you started suing for your stolen royalties.

I wonder what Hendrix would have to say about the "value gap".

That's quite a rose-tinted view of the past. Fact is, many musicians today make music just for the love of it. There's a gigantic indie music scene, which is aided by Youtube and such, lessening the need for major labels.

Fact is, many musicians in the past made music to make money. That's nothing new. Remember when the Rolling Stones were a purist blues band? That didn't last long.

And finally, the fact is, you can make music both because you love it and because it makes you money.

I will never understand why people are so insistent that music (and the arts in general) should not be a business.

seb146 · Thu Sep 21, 2017 4:03 pm

vikkyvik wrote:
I will never understand why people are so insistent that music (and the arts in general) should not be a business.

Because you end up with Bieber and Taylor Swift if music is to be a business.

Listen to one of our local stations, Mix 104.9, and tell me why. Last week, I liked Charlie Puth's new song "Attention" but people at work insisted on listening to Mix 104.9 and, after only one shift, I now hate that song.

seb146 · Thu Sep 21, 2017 4:09 pm

BobPatterson wrote:
Braybuddy wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Also for another thread is zckls04 point about when music was about music. Before autotune and digitizing and making everything perfect. People used to be forced to sing on pitch and in tune. Nowdays, who knows.

The thing that puzzles me is how generic the music charts have become. If you pick radio shows carefully you can be introduced to a variety of new music, yet when you look at the charts, all that seems to be downloaded is a melange of hip-hop, dance and pop. You rarely get anything original -- maybe the odd ballad, but that's it.

I wonder whether there is a "music gap" as well as a value group. I saw no mention in the cited articles about the kinds of music.

Is "rap" considered to be music? Is it a big deal elsewhere in the world other than the USA?

There is a music gap as well as a value group. I think this is across all music genres. Both country and rap get airplay on "top 40" stations all the time. And, yes, there is rap in other parts of the world. One of my favorite stations to stream is from Tallinn, Estonia. They play Russian rap sometimes. I have heard French and Spanish and Portuguese as well. I would like to hear German rap. I just saw a YouTube video where a rapper from England tries to rap with Dame Judi Dench. So, yes, it is all over the world.

vikkyvik · Thu Sep 21, 2017 4:57 pm

seb146 wrote:
vikkyvik wrote:I will never understand why people are so insistent that music (and the arts in general) should not be a business.Because you end up with Bieber and Taylor Swift if music is to be a business.

Why is that a problem?

BobPatterson · Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:44 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Braybuddy / BobPatterson you are becoming like Statler and waldorf:

Ummm.........which one is Braybuddy? (left or right)

Revelation · Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:54 pm

vikkyvik wrote:
seb146 wrote:
vikkyvik wrote:I will never understand why people are so insistent that music (and the arts in general) should not be a business.
Because you end up with Bieber and Taylor Swift if music is to be a business.

Why is that a problem?

I agree. It's a market. People choose what they want. Some go for McDonald's, others go for haute cuisine.

Sorry for Seb146 if there's a common radio station playing at work, because, yes, that leads to a "lowest common denominator" being chosen. Time for earbuds/headphones?

To be honest, as a person who grew up on 60s/70s classic rock, I'm surprised how many stores I go in to that still use that as their background muzak. Not that I'm complaining but I'd think by now they'd move on to something more modern.

Aesma · Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:17 pm

I'm 33 and I've bought maybe 10 discs in my life, mostly when I was a kid. I've not bought even one music file. I've been to 6 concerts so far this year, and a 3 days festival. The value gap is between recorded music and live music, for me.

Revelation · Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:37 pm

Aesma wrote:
I'm 33 and I've bought maybe 10 discs in my life, mostly when I was a kid. I've not bought even one music file. I've been to 6 concerts so far this year, and a 3 days festival. The value gap is between recorded music and live music, for me.

Care to estimate how many music files you've "obtained" in your life, via YouTube and/or other sources?

That'd be data to address what the articles are talking about.

Revelation · Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:38 pm

Revelation wrote:
Aesma wrote:
I'm 33 and I've bought maybe 10 discs in my life, mostly when I was a kid. I've not bought even one music file. I've been to 6 concerts so far this year, and a 3 days festival. The value gap is between recorded music and live music, for me.

Care to estimate how many music files you've "obtained" in your life, via YouTube and/or other sources?

That'd be the kind of data to address what the articles are talking about.

casinterest · Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:54 pm

Revelation wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Aesma wrote:
I'm 33 and I've bought maybe 10 discs in my life, mostly when I was a kid. I've not bought even one music file. I've been to 6 concerts so far this year, and a 3 days festival. The value gap is between recorded music and live music, for me.

Care to estimate how many music files you've "obtained" in your life, via YouTube and/or other sources?

That'd be the kind of data to address what the articles are talking about.

It is my estimation that the amount of money people spend on live concerts far outweighs the money spent on records or CD's.

I went through my heyday of purchasing back in the 80's and 90's and early 2000's. Since then , I have mostly purchased music as a gift or an individual song.
With items such as Pandora, Sirius, XM and Youtube, no one has to be without their favorite song longer than an ad or a close listen to a secondary song. The model from radio has collapsed under intense competition. Spotify, Apple and others are trying the 15 dollar a month revenue signup, but in these cases, it still remains to be seen if someone wants to pay 180 a year continuously for music that can be had under Ad supported content elsewhere. I had an Apple subscription and canceled it as I just wasn't listening that much outside of my old playlists.

At home and at work it is easier to listen on youtube than elsewhere.

I am also curious about the youtube royalty mapping as Youtube has a lot of content outside of the traditional song itself, and that is what youtube is all about. People sharing their collaborations of a song, as an homage. To say that the royalties should be owed for someone performing a song, vs the actual band is a slippery slope of royalty pay.

Revelation · Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:32 pm

casinterest wrote:
It is my estimation that the amount of money people spend on live concerts far outweighs the money spent on records or CD's.

I went through my heyday of purchasing back in the 80's and 90's and early 2000's. Since then , I have mostly purchased music as a gift or an individual song.
With items such as Pandora, Sirius, XM and Youtube, no one has to be without their favorite song longer than an ad or a close listen to a secondary song. The model from radio has collapsed under intense competition. Spotify, Apple and others are trying the 15 dollar a month revenue signup, but in these cases, it still remains to be seen if someone wants to pay 180 a year continuously for music that can be had under Ad supported content elsewhere. I had an Apple subscription and canceled it as I just wasn't listening that much outside of my old playlists.

At home and at work it is easier to listen on youtube than elsewhere.

I am also curious about the youtube royalty mapping as Youtube has a lot of content outside of the traditional song itself, and that is what youtube is all about. People sharing their collaborations of a song, as an homage. To say that the royalties should be owed for someone performing a song, vs the actual band is a slippery slope of royalty pay.

Very interesting comments.

My record/8-track/cassette/cd buying goes back to the 70s, the bulk of it CDs.

I still buy CDs because the genre I favor (prog rock) is still album oriented. I find myself buying music BluRays too (google "steven wilson remaster" for the main reason why!).

But the spending has indeed shifted from recorded media to live shows, because (a) recorded media is cheap or free and (b) live concerts have increased their prices tremendously over time.

It's perhaps disgraceful to admit it, but I have extended my album collection by maybe 10-20 albums via some downloads. I have used that to fill in a few holes in my collection that I didn't value enough to pay for, and in one case, to gain some familiarity with an artist I was considering seeing live, and indeed did go see live (show was a bust because the music was SO loud I had to wear earplugs all night, so it wasn't worth it).

Royalty mapping indeed is a slippery slope. The bottom line is YouTube feasts on the "user generated content" exemption in DCMA. Lord knows how they'd adapt if a different system was put into place. Till that happens, download the stuff you like (?!?!?).

I've never gotten hooked to a music service because (a) I've already bought all the music I like and (b) I guess I'm a control freak and I want to play what I want to hear and so the added catalogue doesn't do too much for me.

As an Amazon Prime customer there's tons of valuable stuff I can listen to for free, but that too hasn't grabbed ahold of me. I explore occasionally but then go back to my "comfort food" personal music collection.

seahawk · Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:14 am

Revelation wrote:
Aesma wrote:
I'm 33 and I've bought maybe 10 discs in my life, mostly when I was a kid. I've not bought even one music file. I've been to 6 concerts so far this year, and a 3 days festival. The value gap is between recorded music and live music, for me.

Care to estimate how many music files you've "obtained" in your life, via YouTube and/or other sources?

That'd be data to address what the articles are talking about.

What they forget is that people were also not buying music in the past. As a teenager most music was recorded from the radio to cassette or later copied to cassette from rented CDs.

seb146 · Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:17 am

Revelation wrote:
vikkyvik wrote:
seb146 wrote:
vikkyvik wrote:I will never understand why people are so insistent that music (and the arts in general) should not be a business.
Because you end up with Bieber and Taylor Swift if music is to be a business.

Why is that a problem?

I agree. It's a market. People choose what they want. Some go for McDonald's, others go for haute cuisine.

But that's just it: People "choose" these things because there is nothing else. It is less hassle to turn on the station that plays the same 10 songs ad nauseum than to find something unique. It is less hassle to drive through McDonalds than find something nutritious. The crap is easier to get than what people actually like.

Revelation · Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:35 am

seahawk wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Aesma wrote:
I'm 33 and I've bought maybe 10 discs in my life, mostly when I was a kid. I've not bought even one music file. I've been to 6 concerts so far this year, and a 3 days festival. The value gap is between recorded music and live music, for me.

Care to estimate how many music files you've "obtained" in your life, via YouTube and/or other sources?

That'd be data to address what the articles are talking about.

What they forget is that people were also not buying music in the past. As a teenager most music was recorded from the radio to cassette or later copied to cassette from rented CDs.

I think the scale of copying has changed massivly since the cassette era. Yes, cassettes were easy to copy (many two-deck cassette players out there back then) but each copy lost quality. Digital copies are perfect, they take seconds, are often wireless, and most of us have a pre-paid, near unlimited source of "blank tapes" in our pockets.

In the US at least, the record companies got Congress to pass laws that put an import tax on blank tapes that was paid to record companies and in turn some went to artists. Interestingly enough, the system that was set up back then for the record companies to pay the artists is what is now being used to pay the artists those fractions of pennies they get from Spotify and other streaming media services.

Revelation · Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:48 am

seb146 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
vikkyvik wrote:
Why is that a problem?

I agree. It's a market. People choose what they want. Some go for McDonald's, others go for haute cuisine.

But that's just it: People "choose" these things because there is nothing else. It is less hassle to turn on the station that plays the same 10 songs ad nauseum than to find something unique. It is less hassle to drive through McDonalds than find something nutritious. The crap is easier to get than what people actually like.

I don't buy it.

There is almost certainly something more "unique" on your FM dial and it takes next to no hassle to change a station.

It does make life a lot easier and thus more profitable for the record companies if there's a small number of artists with mass appeal, so that's what they aim for, and after decades of doing this, they're quite effective at finding and developing them.

Face it, people do like McDonalds and other fast foods. It's overly fatty, but fattening things taste good. People do like auto-tuned music that isn't too complicated that triggers some emotions and comes from celebrity artists that are visually appealing. All the record company's gotta do is tick the boxes and they have an audience, just like McDonalds.

seahawk · Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:52 am

Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Care to estimate how many music files you've "obtained" in your life, via YouTube and/or other sources?

That'd be data to address what the articles are talking about.

What they forget is that people were also not buying music in the past. As a teenager most music was recorded from the radio to cassette or later copied to cassette from rented CDs.

I think the scale of copying has changed massivly since the cassette era. Yes, cassettes were easy to copy (many two-deck cassette players out there back then) but each copy lost quality. Digital copies are perfect, they take seconds, are often wireless, and most of us have a pre-paid, near unlimited source of "blank tapes" in our pockets.

In the US at least, the record companies got Congress to pass laws that put an import tax on blank tapes that was paid to record companies and in turn some went to artists. Interestingly enough, the system that was set up back then for the record companies to pay the artists is what is now being used to pay the artists those fractions of pennies they get from Spotify and other streaming media services.

If you convert a youtube video you also have quality loss compared to a CD of higher quality file. And imho just because people copy more, it would not mean they would buy more if they could not get the music for free.

vikkyvik · Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:54 am

seb146 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
vikkyvik wrote:
Why is that a problem?

I agree. It's a market. People choose what they want. Some go for McDonald's, others go for haute cuisine.

But that's just it: People "choose" these things because there is nothing else. It is less hassle to turn on the station that plays the same 10 songs ad nauseum than to find something unique. It is less hassle to drive through McDonalds than find something nutritious. The crap is easier to get than what people actually like.

Taylor Swift isn't selling out shows at $100+/ticket because people can't find anything else.

I'm not sure what people you are referring to, but I know very few - if any - people who regularly listen to terrestrial radio.

And saying there is nothing else is utterly ridiculous. It's never been easier to find and listen to random relatively-unknown artists.

But you still didn't answer why Taylor Swift and Justin Bieber are a problem.

Aesma · Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:35 am

I've just heard on the radio that the new French "Youtube tax" is now in effect. It's a 2% tax on publicity's earnings by Youtube and all similar websites (including the French Dailymotion). The money pays for French creation. This tax is decades old and applied to VHS, DVDs, premium TV channels, streaming services (Netflix) and now free websites like Youtube.

Revelation wrote:
Aesma wrote:
I'm 33 and I've bought maybe 10 discs in my life, mostly when I was a kid. I've not bought even one music file. I've been to 6 concerts so far this year, and a 3 days festival. The value gap is between recorded music and live music, for me.

Care to estimate how many music files you've "obtained" in your life, via YouTube and/or other sources?

That'd be data to address what the articles are talking about.

I use a software to download every Youtube video I watch. So that's 13 916 video files with all kinds of content.

Music files, about 157 474 (not from Youtube).

seb146 · Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:10 pm

vikkyvik wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I agree. It's a market. People choose what they want. Some go for McDonald's, others go for haute cuisine.

But that's just it: People "choose" these things because there is nothing else. It is less hassle to turn on the station that plays the same 10 songs ad nauseum than to find something unique. It is less hassle to drive through McDonalds than find something nutritious. The crap is easier to get than what people actually like.

Taylor Swift isn't selling out shows at $100+/ticket because people can't find anything else.

I'm not sure what people you are referring to, but I know very few - if any - people who regularly listen to terrestrial radio.

And saying there is nothing else is utterly ridiculous. It's never been easier to find and listen to random relatively-unknown artists.

But you still didn't answer why Taylor Swift and Justin Bieber are a problem.

They were pushed on the internet as being talented and the best.

I think it is great that people go to concerts. I prefer watching a live performance. I still can not stand Bieber or Taylor Swift, but I think it is better to go to a live performance than listen to crap over and over again.

There are plenty of people who still listen to terrestrial radio because they can not afford (or do not want to pay for) alternate sources. Just because you don't know anyone who listens to terrestrial radio does not mean no one does. I can find low power, terrestrial radio stations that play unknown and talented artists. The problem with that is: a person has to be close to the transmitter to hear the station.

We have an NPR affiliate that plays obscure and talented artists at various times during the week. And they stream. But, no one would know that if I don't say anything. KRCB and look through their program schedule. I listen on Sunday night from 9 to 11 because they play electronic music and that is what I prefer.

Revelation · Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:54 pm

Aesma wrote:
I've just heard on the radio that the new French "Youtube tax" is now in effect. It's a 2% tax on publicity's earnings by Youtube and all similar websites (including the French Dailymotion). The money pays for French creation. This tax is decades old and applied to VHS, DVDs, premium TV channels, streaming services (Netflix) and now free websites like Youtube.
I use a software to download every Youtube video I watch. So that's 13 916 video files with all kinds of content.

Music files, about 157 474 (not from Youtube).

So if one goes with the definition of "music gap" as quoted in the thread starter, you are contributing to that gap.

But, one wonders if "music gap" is a workable concept (and thus this thread...).

It presumes that somehow everyone getting media from YouTube was getting it from Spotify instead, or that YouTube was forced to identify licensed content and pay Spotify rates for it.

I think that train has already left the station.

Worse comes to worse, if YouTube has to change its terms, Aesma can stream his stuff to us! :biggrin:

treetreeseven · Sat Sep 23, 2017 7:11 am

vikkyvik wrote:
zckls04 wrote:
Does anybody remember when music was made just because musicians loved playing, and because the music just poured out of them?

In the old days you started a band because it was fun. You toured the world, picked up a drug habit, got ripped off by a dodgy accountant, and then waited until you were a has-been before you started suing for your stolen royalties.

I wonder what Hendrix would have to say about the "value gap".

That's quite a rose-tinted view of the past. Fact is, many musicians today make music just for the love of it. There's a gigantic indie music scene, which is aided by Youtube and such, lessening the need for major labels.

Fact is, many musicians in the past made music to make money. That's nothing new. Remember when the Rolling Stones were a purist blues band? That didn't last long.

And finally, the fact is, you can make music both because you love it and because it makes you money.

I will never understand why people are so insistent that music (and the arts in general) should not be a business.

I think these days that we're back to - assuming you're not a major label manufactured group - at least having to be in it for the reward of playing to grind through some pretty brutal touring for essentially no money, before you get big enough even to play venues for a few hundred people and license for TV. So there's that.

What's upsetting to me as a music lover is the effect that's been mentioned elsewhere in the thread - I know there are other people out there who *would* be deeply into music, but they live someplace with a hot AC station, a rock station, and a country station, all clear channel, sinclair, whatever, and that's it. And as big as Pandora (as an example) is, they are not at 100% market penetration, so there are a lot of people who just aren't getting exposed to 99% of what's out there. That to me is worse than the fact that 85% of what's on the completely jam-packed dial in my metro area is either crap, or in a foreign language.

Braybuddy · Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:08 am

petertenthije wrote:
Braybuddy wrote:
recently a late night programme devoted its two hours to 1967. I was completly bowled over

Every day, dozens, if not 100s, of new songs are released. A lot of crap, a lot more generic stuff, some OK songs and from time to time a true gem. Fifty years from now someone will cherry pick the best of 2017 to fill 2 hours worth... and people will bemoan how poor 2067 music is compared to 2017.

Probably, but if the deterioration in quality between the charts of 1967 and 2017 is anything to go by, I fear for the future of popular music . . .

treetreeseven · Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:07 am

Braybuddy wrote:
Probably, but if the deterioration in quality between the charts of 1967 and 2017 is anything to go by, I fear for the future of popular music . . .

Most of the good stuff (most of the music, period) is not on the charts any more.

Braybuddy · Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:41 am

treetreeseven wrote:
Braybuddy wrote:
Probably, but if the deterioration in quality between the charts of 1967 and 2017 is anything to go by, I fear for the future of popular music . . .

Most of the good stuff (most of the music, period) is not on the charts any more.

Oh I know only too well (that is exactly the point I was making in an earlier post). But what other references people in 2067 have for the music of today?

ltbewr · Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:10 pm

It used to be that bands/music performers would go on a tour to promote recordings to make money from the records. Now due to free or low cost downloads and streaming, touring is the only real way to make any money in music.
Many places that used to have live music have gone out of business due to narrowing margins so lower pay for performers, shifting to cheaper DJ's, crime or noise issues from people around those venues. That makes it difficult for a performer or a band to get started.
Commercial radio is too riddled with ads to make it enjoyable to listen too, or you are bouncing from station to station to get away from the ads.
Flat or declining incomes while daily costs of living increase, shifts to spending on smartphones and related service plans for many teens and adults means less money to spend on recorded music.

bombayduck · Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:23 pm

I would not call any of the music in the charts(U.K) music. Gone are the days in the U.K at least, when you had to do (for rock bands) the pub circuit to get some sort of attention before you could get any sort of record deal. And even then going on the circuit you had to have someone who could drive and owned a clapped out old van, to get you from gig to gig sleeping in the van to make ends meet, as you could not afford to pay for hotels. You might be on the road for weeks at a time, or if you were lucky you knew someone who knew someone that was in the record industry.

Mortyman · Sun Sep 24, 2017 1:38 pm

Interesting video about the musicindustry today:

Why Is Modern Pop Music So Terrible?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVME_l4IwII

Braybuddy · Sun Sep 24, 2017 3:48 pm

Mortyman wrote:
Interesting video about the musicindustry today

Wow. Explains it all really.

An interesting exchange reported on the radio here last week: an older DJ was asked by a younger colleague if he'd ever heard John Lennon's record: "Hashtag 9 Dream"! :lol:

Kiwirob · Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:18 pm

[threeid][/threeid]

treetreeseven wrote:
Braybuddy wrote:
Probably, but if the deterioration in quality between the charts of 1967 and 2017 is anything to go by, I fear for the future of popular music . . .

Most of the good stuff (most of the music, period) is not on the charts any more.

Most of the good stuff stopped being made at least a decade ago (Foo Fighters are exempt from this statement).

Most people don't even know what songs actually sound like since they listen to poor quality MP3's through shitty earbuds.

treetreeseven · Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:01 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Most of the good stuff stopped being made at least a decade ago (Foo Fighters are exempt from this statement).

Most people don't even know what songs actually sound like since they listen to poor quality MP3's through shitty earbuds.

I keep hearing this and thinking that it's a failure of marketing. There is plenty of excellent music coming out, but listeners have to encounter it somehow, and that landscape is fragmented.

I would recommend Pandora, and the "similar artists" feature on last.fm (and presumably many other platforms). One also has to invest some time. Those who care enough and are aware of the venues in which they can discover music, will do so.

Braybuddy · Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:30 pm

treetreeseven wrote:
Those who care enough and are aware of the venues in which they can discover music, will do so.

I agree. There are some radio programmes which I call "intelligent music radio", in which the DJ will play quality music, both old and new, and also give you this history, background information and totally useless nuggets of information on the tracks played. A completely different experience to streaming . . .

Channex757 · Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:59 pm

The pop charts here were wrecked eternally (in a good way) when downloads and streams started counting.

New artists on YouTube and Spotify have a chance for that top forty listing, and the record pluggers have been neutered.

It's all up in the air now. My car came with digital radio so my available content is massive and free. Previously it was Radio 1, a local station, and once I turned thirty Radio 2.

There is a conversation that needs to be had how artists can monetise their products, but the old order is fast dying out and to be honest whether you like or loathe him Bieber helped smash some glass ceilings. VEVO is another new product I think is excellent. There's so many new pathways to music that the whole industry needs to go in to a debate with open minds or record companies will become increasingly irrelevant.

Will the Next Big Thing sign an exclusive deal with Google or Apple...?

Revelation · Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:39 pm

Mortyman wrote:
Interesting video about the musicindustry today:

Why Is Modern Pop Music So Terrible?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVME_l4IwII

The video shows why modern media is so terrible -- the dude wants us to spend 20 minutes watching his video when I could have scanned over the written text and found out what I wanted to know in less than 2 minutes... One of his points was that modern attention spans are short, so why does he even bother with a 20 minute video???

Now, get off my lawn!

seahawk · Tue Sep 26, 2017 5:57 am

I am certain that the same was said about music in the 1960ies by people of the same age who had grown up with music from the 30ies and 40ies.

Channex757 · Tue Sep 26, 2017 12:24 pm

One thing I love about today's way of consuming music is recommendations. Someone on (say) YouTube can be presented with other musical options, whereas in Ye Olden Days artists would just be passed over in the record shop. A lot of older music is getting to be played by new fans, and that's a good thing. Similarly older fans get exposed to new music that's not as headline-grabbing.

Sharing playlists is another great innovation.

Anyway that's enough modernity from me for now. I feel a Smiths and Joy Division marathon coming on.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net