State Of The Record Industry: Survey [Archive]

Jupiter Jones

03-13-2003, 06:28 AM

I met with a friend of mine on Tuesday night who happens to be a semi-famous frontman from an 80's British New Wave rock band. He had just been to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony (as a guest, not an inductee), and he had spent the day meeting with his old friends from the record industry. The picture he painted of the current state of the industry was pretty bleak (but also totally in-line with what insiders have been saying for the past couple years):

-Mass layoffs at major labels either started or coming
-Retrenchment of radio back to "one hit wonders" with airplay paid for through independent promoter money-laundering
-Record companies milking catalogue sales of aging albums instead of developing and nutruring new artists.
-CDs rising costs

This aritist has had his own web site for almost 10 years now, and without any major label affiliation, has been selling his own CDs on his own label to a growing number of core fans. He might only sell 5000-10000 copies of a record, but he keeps nearly all of it. He is happy, has enough money to live and tour confomfortably, and says he has never been happier creatively in his life. He told me that all the record industry people that he had met with, who used to think of his operation as quite "quaint", now told him they thought it was the wave of the future...

As a side note, I visited a couple major chains yesterday and noticed that CD prices were now $18.99 on the average for a 10-track, 40 minute album.

Ok, so having said all this, here are some questions I's like to throw-out to this audience, who is roughly the same age and socio-economic level as myself:

1. Do you think that "CD burning" is the real culprit in the destructive of the record industry, or is it the industry that is killing itself?

2. Do you buy CDs for $18.99? Do you think raising the price so high will net companies (and retailers) enough incrmental income to overcome a downturn in sales, or should they instead start pricing CDs at $7.99 (or so) to sell at volume? What price would ge tyou to buy? Any price? Is quality a concern when you fork-over $18.99?

3. Are there any artists that you guys/gals still follow from the 70's, 80's or even 90's that have a D.I.Y. attitude and are successful despite the record industry?

Thanks,

Jupe

balut

03-13-2003, 08:36 AM

1. The record industry itself is the culprit.

2. I don't buy CDs at $18.99, that's just incredibly overpriced for maybe 1 or 2 good songs. At $7.99, I'd be much more inclined to not only buy CDs I know I'll like, but I'd be more willing to "take a chance" and buy a CD I'm not too familiar with.

3. Not really.

graller

03-13-2003, 09:28 AM

3) Aimee Mann - She went indie, setup a web site, produced her own CD. Her latest was back in the record shops on an indie label - United Musicians/SuperEgo?

And no I won't buy 20 dollars pieces of crap. DVD's cost less then that and at least I know what ones suck there.

zabuni

03-13-2003, 09:44 AM

1) The music industry is dying because their advertising hasn't given me anything that I wanted to listen to in 5 years. I'm in a target demographic (18-24) and I can't think of a single song I've heard on radio or my channel surfing through MTV that would make me want to buy the CD. I spend money though, buy plenty of computer and video games, for much more than the price of a CD. It's simple cost/benefit analysis, really.

2) No. I only buy CD's if they hit around $12, and that's only if I like more than 2 songs.

chet

03-13-2003, 09:46 AM

Jupiter Jones

03-13-2003, 09:51 AM

Layoffs at companies!?!? OH MY GOD!!! How can this be! I have never heard of such a thing! Our economy is doing so well, the record industry must be unique to actually be hit by Layoffs!!!Correction, I
Chet

Oh Chet, I was hoping to draw your ire. I guess I should have clarified. The layoffs are among people who used to think they are, or were once considered "untouchable" in the record industry, and they are now all running scared. It's not like I feel sorry for them or anything, but its interesting that their castle walls have now been breached just like everyone elses.

Tyjenks

03-13-2003, 10:01 AM

CD prices are insane. I will pay full price for maybe 2 or 3 titles a year of artists I love. The rest of the time I purchase at sale prices or used.

Target, I have found, has great prices on many new artists. A lot are in the $6.99 to $9.99 range. I realize unknowns often start at a lower price point, but $7.99 seems nuts. How can they do that and the majority of other new releases go for $15.99 and up? The wild pricing differences confuse the hell out of me.

DennyA

03-13-2003, 10:27 AM

1) My CD purchases are down, but it has nothing to do with burning/MP3. It has to do with the dearth of interesting artists today doing music that I enjoy. (Could be age -- I'm 37 -- but I doubt it. In my early 30s I like a lot of "new music;" I've just heard little recently that interested me.)

2) I'd never spend $18.99 on a CD unless there were two discs in there. When I do buy CDs, I watch for sales or use online sellers that sell discs in the $12 range.

IMHO they should just offer 192K VBR MP3s (darned close to CD quality) for a buck a download, piracy protection be damned. The anti-piracy stuff just makes songs too hard to deal with.

Hell, if I could download guaranteed-quality, no-file-sharing-hassle copies of my favorite songs in "universal" MP3 format for a $1 a pop, the record companies would probably make more off me TONIGHT than they've made in the past 4 or 5 years.

chet

03-13-2003, 11:17 AM

The layoffs are among people who used to think they are, or were once considered "untouchable" in the record industry, and they are now all running scared.

And how does this differ from any other industry?

My ire? You requested feedback, I provided feedback, sorry it did not agree your predrawn conclusion.

Chet[/code]

Jason McCullough

03-13-2003, 11:55 AM

You also trolled.

Edit: I meant Chet, actually. :D

Jupiter Jones

03-13-2003, 12:17 PM

You also trolled.
In a way, I guess you are right. I wasn't necessarily trying to "troll", but I did expect that I would get some flack, and I got it. However, I wasn't necessarily think if Chet. I did have my own pre-drawn conclusions (like most people) , but I hoped for an interesting conversation anyway. Really, I was just shocked at $18.99 list price for new CDs, and was wondering who, if anyone, is willing to pay that.

There is no difference between the record industry and any others in an economic downturn. That's the point. We are in an economic downturn, they are struggling, demand is low but they put a premium price on their product. I'm not sure why that industry thinks that the economic pinciples of elastic demand (in this case, inelastic) don't apply.

Anonymous

03-13-2003, 02:36 PM

I'm a little bitter about having to pay $13.50 for a new CD on Amazon, much less $18.99. WTF? I agree, new CDs should be ten bucks, not just the "Super Saver" series.

-wumpus

Chris

03-13-2003, 03:25 PM

I won't pay 20 bucks for a CD, but I do try to own the music I like. I generally will buy CDs at Best Buy where they sell them for 12-14 dollars upon release. However, I won't buy a CD for one song and would like to get at least an hours worth of music. I was pissed when I bought Weezer's green album only to find out it had 30 minutes worth of music on it. Along with that, I appreciated Guns n' Roses Illusion albums running in at just over 70 minutes each.
Out of the 4gb of mp3s I have, I'd say about 98% are from my own CDs. The rest are a mix of a few singles I like or live versions of some of my favorite songs.

I think the problem with the music industry is that it's too pre-packaged, everyone tends to sound the same these days. Radio is extremely crappy, the same songs get played over and over. If they had more diversity in what the public was exposed to and had a price point between 10-12 dollars for a CD I think they would be better off. Unfortunately the music industry is facing the same thing as every other entertainment business is facing: the breadth of things to do keeps growing everyday. There are hundreds of television stations to watch, the internet has come into it's own, video games keep expanding their user base, etc.

Mark Asher

03-13-2003, 06:58 PM

I'm sure piracy has had something to do with the declining revenue in the music industry, but it also seems like there's nothing new to get people energized about the music scene. Hell, rap's nearly 25 years old if you can believe it.

If the music industry wanted to get my money, they'd let me download and burn individual songs at a reasonable cost. I'd pay $0.50 a track, maybe a bit more, and agree to buy, say, 10 tracks at a time. I'm not spending more than $10 on a music CD at Target, though, much less $18.99. They're insane if they really are pricing new CDs at that price.

Jupiter Jones

03-13-2003, 08:22 PM

Brad Grenz

03-13-2003, 11:26 PM

I think the record industry's (when people say that I assume we're talking about the mega-huge, pissy, RIAA type companies) problem is that they stopped selling good music a while back. Some where along the line they decided it would be better to sell lame music and make up for the difference with marketing. The saddest thing is they probably think it really is MP3s that's killing them. They are soooooo stupid this way.

There is still good new music and stuff, it just all comes from outside of "the system".

Mark Asher

03-14-2003, 12:06 AM

. I'd pay $0.50 a track, maybe a bit more

I'm starting to think that this $1.00 a track thing that DennyA
suggested might be a good idea. It would have to be high quality .mp3 files or .wav files, with no security or DRM. Maybe $1.00, but you'd get 1 free track for every 5 purchased or something like that. I'd use it right now...

Something like it's either in place already or will be in place. It might be at Napster when it relaunches. The $1 a track figure is what I read.

steve

03-14-2003, 08:58 AM

1. Do you think that "CD burning" is the real culprit in the destructive of the record industry, or is it the industry that is killing itself?
Sure, burning has an effect. People would rather spend $0 versus $12-$18. And the industry has always been in trouble; it's often said it died in the 80s, but CDs came around and suddenly everyone needed to buy "Led Zeppelin IV" again.

Everyone can throw out that "music sucks" argument until the cows come home, but it's always been like that. Pop music is disposable, and every decade is full of crap one-hit wonder bands. There's just as much compelling, interesting music today as there was 20 years ago, it's just different when you're 15 versus 35. I buy fewer CDs today not because "music sucks!" or "CDs are too expensive," it's because my tastes have narrowed. I don't have as much desire to seek out every new band as I did when I was in college, or I buy the new CDs of bands I've always liked.

2. Do you buy CDs for $18.99? Do you think raising the price so high will net companies (and retailers) enough incrmental income to overcome a downturn in sales, or should they instead start pricing CDs at $7.99 (or so) to sell at volume? What price would ge tyou to buy? Any price? Is quality a concern when you fork-over $18.99?
If I want a CD, I pay whatever it's on sale for. $18 versus $12? (I rarely, if ever, pay that much because I typically buy CDs right when they come out.) But really, a $6 difference? That's a dinner at McDonalds.

I buy duds, and I get over it. I don't actually expect to absolutely adore any creative work I purchase. I've purchased bad books, bad CDs, bad movies, blah blah blah. When did all of these purchases become absolutes, that there has to be no chance we won't like what we buy? Nowadays, people use this to justify downloading music and movies and games. "Gotta sample them first." How did we survive before this was even possible? Why did anyone ever buy and records or tapes in the 60s-90s? I used to just read a review, and if they said, "Hey, they sound like Big Star meets KISS," I'd run out and buy the tape or CD.

3. Are there any artists that you guys/gals still follow from the 70's, 80's or even 90's that have a D.I.Y. attitude and are successful despite the record industry?
I could really care less about the music business; I just dig the tunes. I don't care if you're on Universal or Kill Rock Stars or your own label.

Anonymous

03-14-2003, 10:02 AM

I'm starting to think that this $1.00 a track thing that DennyA
suggested might be a good idea. It would have to be high quality .mp3 files or .wav files, with no security or DRM. Maybe $1.00, but you'd get 1 free track for every 5 purchased or something like that. I'd use it right now...
I agree, but I've NEVER seen any download service offer what I consider 'high quality', eg, 160kbps (average) variable bit rate MP3 or equivalent. And the chances of them offering that without any security, digital rights management, or in some insane format they can control? Practically nil.

But I would like to see that for $1 a track, however comically unlikely it actually is.

-wumpus

Anonymous

03-14-2003, 10:08 AM

Everyone can throw out that "music sucks" argument until the cows come home, but it's always been like that. Pop music is disposable, and every decade is full of crap one-hit wonder bands. There's just as much compelling, interesting music today as there was 20 years ago, it's just different when you're 15 versus 35. I buy fewer CDs today not because "music sucks!" or "CDs are too expensive," it's because my tastes have narrowed. I don't have as much desire to seek out every new band as I did when I was in college, or I buy the new CDs of bands I've always liked.
Steve (or should I say steve) is right about this. I don't know why people, as they get older, begin complaining about how "everything sucks now" and how "everything was better in the good old days". It's like nostalgia uber alles. I mean, come on. People were probably saying the same damn thing in the 1800s. The ratio of crap to good stuff has always been 10 to 1, whether you're talking about 1938, 1988, or today.

I'm sure some crotchety old man will be complaining about this ten or twenty years from now, because you know-- back in 2003, those were the good old days when everything ROCKED. Now it's all shit!

-wumpus

Jason McCullough

03-14-2003, 11:45 AM

Because everything really does suck now? The industry people are talking like they've never seen it this bad.....

steve

03-14-2003, 07:27 PM

Because everything really does suck now? The industry people are talking like they've never seen it this bad.....
That's because it was never as good as it was in the 80s-90s.

Toddy

03-14-2003, 09:01 PM

Everyone can throw out that "music sucks" argument until the cows come home, but it's always been like that. Pop music is disposable, and every decade is full of crap one-hit wonder bands. There's just as much compelling, interesting music today as there was 20 years ago, it's just different when you're 15 versus 35. I buy fewer CDs today not because "music sucks!" or "CDs are too expensive," it's because my tastes have narrowed. I don't have as much desire to seek out every new band as I did when I was in college, or I buy the new CDs of bands I've always liked.

It's never been as bad for music as it is right now. Music is sold like porn today, and that's something that wasn't the case 20 years ago. Artists are signed for looks and sex appeal, which isn't exactly anything new, but they're being packaged like porn stars in a way that we've never seen before. It's only getting worse as the industry gets more desperate to prop up sales. Arguably, the biggest thing is pop right now is Tatu, solely because of the lesbo schoolgirl angle. Say what you want about disposable teen pop in the past, but we didn't see the likes of Bananrama making out in the rain.

All of this is having a huge trickle-down effect. Sure, there will always be some good acts coming up, but how many potential musicians are being turned off by the vapid, sleazy, moronic crap that's smothering everything else in the public eye? How many have turned their creative energies to something else, seeing just how fucked up and disgusting the music business has become?

Jason McCullough

03-14-2003, 09:51 PM

Good point, Steve.

"Say what you want about disposable teen pop in the past, but we didn't see the likes of Bananrama making out in the rain."

Not that I would have complained.....

steve

03-14-2003, 10:25 PM

Say what you want about disposable teen pop in the past, but we didn't see the likes of Bananrama making out in the rain.
No, but we did have Anabella Lwin of Bow Wow Wow naked at 15 on an album cover.

How many have turned their creative energies to something else, seeing just how fucked up and disgusting the music business has become?
Yeah, they'll long for the days of Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, Phil Spector and "Hammer of the Gods" era Zeppelin, when everything was pure and virginal.

steve

03-14-2003, 10:29 PM

Music is sold like porn today, and that's something that wasn't the case 20 years ago.
Oh, and you're talking about a societal change that goes way beyond music. Teenagers are considerably more sexualized than they were 20 years ago.

Toddy

03-16-2003, 02:22 PM

Yeah, and why do you think that is? Could it maybe have something to do with the way that pop culture is flooded with sleaze? Pop music drives pop culture. All this sexualized kid stuff comes directly from marketing, which comes directly from music. And there's a huge difference between Annabella Lwin bouncing around on the beach in the "I Want Candy" video and a gang of greaseballs dry-humping Christina Aguilera in "Dirrty." I'm not saying the music industry was ever virginal, but it used to be a hell of a lot more subtle than it is today, and there was always some importance placed on the music. Now it's all about packaging sex appeal. Music is barely an afterthought.

wumpus

03-16-2003, 02:48 PM

Like sTEVE said, this is a function of changing sexual mores in the US. It's not hard to see. Compare sex as it appears in the media of the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and now. Clearly the trend is towards more and more openness.

Heck, just look at television-- how many of George Carlin's "Seven words you can't say on television" are actually broadcasting now? I know 'shit' and 'piss' have been done. It's only a matter of time before we hear the rest in appropriately adult-rated (read: late night) TV fare. Is this the fault of TV? No, it's TV reflecting changes in society.

steve

03-16-2003, 04:14 PM

Yeah, and why do you think that is? Could it maybe have something to do with the way that pop culture is flooded with sleaze? Pop music drives pop culture.
Or society drives pop culture. It's a chicken-egg thing. Of course if you'd rather the world return to the repressed sexuality of the 50s, where Elvis' carnal hips were too much for TV, knock yourself out. I don't really remember an innocent era, though I do remember one where you had to keep your feelings about sexuality kind of hidden.

And there's a huge difference between Annabella Lwin bouncing around on the beach in the "I Want Candy" video and a gang of greaseballs dry-humping Christina Aguilera in "Dirrty."
Yeah, Lwin was underage. Aguilera is not. Lwin appeared nekkid at 15, Aguilera... well, she's skanky at 18 or 19.

I'm not saying the music industry was ever virginal, but it used to be a hell of a lot more subtle than it is today, and there was always some importance placed on the music. Now it's all about packaging sex appeal. Music is barely an afterthought.
Um, you're joking, right? You're saying the Rolling Stones were subtle about their sexuality? That Sticky Fingers album cover was really subtle. Remember the nude covers for Roxy Music records? Ziggy Stardust and the sexual ambiguity of glam? The Velvet Underground heroin chic? The Doors, where Jim Morrison liked to hump the ground and sing about fucking his mother? Hell, Carly Simon appeared naked, for crying out loud, and she was a "serious" artist.

Pop music was just as pre-packaged in the 60s, 70s, and 80s as it is today. There's just more media covering it, so you hear about it more. You had the Monkees, you had girl groups assembled by their looks, not their talent in Motown, in the 70s there was this thing called disco with its various sexually charged divas... christ, the music and sex biz has been one-and-the-same since the dawn of man. Or at least man after he discovered rock-and-roll was sorta drrty.

steve

03-16-2003, 04:17 PM

Could it maybe have something to do with the way that pop culture is flooded with sleaze?
Oh, and if you really want to go down that path, how about a violent world is the result of violent videogames. I mean, if pop culture has such an enormous influence on society, can we expect waves of psychopathic mass murdering teens any day now?

Toddy

03-16-2003, 07:57 PM

Jason McCullough

03-16-2003, 08:16 PM

steve

03-16-2003, 09:21 PM

Uh, murder's a little different than sex. See someone having a lot of sex, most people get intrigued, maybe sort of jealous. See someone attacking folks with a butcher knife, most people get sort of nauseous or outraged. Are you actually saying that the culture isn't influenced by styles and trends from music and music videos?
Okay, instead of murder, how about little Timmy plays Grand Theft Auto and hits his friend with a baseball bat? Or maybe kids get more curious about guns after playing Rainbow Six and look for daddy's hunting rifles.

Culture goes in all directions. Yes, it influences people, but the people that send pop culture all across the country often get it from others. Musicians merely take culture they usually assimilated to the masses.

I think you're being naive if you don't think Bowie has been an absolutely calculated marketer for his entire career. I'm not entirely sure if Ziggy or Aladdin Sane or David Jones or the Let's Dance guy is the real Bowie, or maybe it's that corpse today. Musicians have always been incredibly image conscious, blatent, stupid, hypocritcal and fake. It's just that in the "good old days," there was less press, hence more mystique. So I think your beef is with the press, not the artists or the industry. (Or maybe it's just you need to stop wading in the cesspool of pop-culture writing, for it is taking the magic away. For example, I didn't know Avril Lawhatever was a devout Christian. I could assume she was some skater punk kid who just happens to look like a supermodel. That doesn't make the two singles she's known for any less catchy as far as pop confections go.)

At least the old stuff had something real behind it all.
You know what? There was probably an identical percentage of "real" musicians today as there was in 1968, 1978, 1988, and 1998. If you say, "Jim Morrison was real," we have no idea who the Jim Morrison of today is because we have no perspective. Maybe it's Beck. Maybe it's Elliott Smith, who really is seriously fucked up and I'm fairly certain it's not because his handlers at DreamWorks records are saying, "Hey, dude, you need to get back on the smack so we can market you better." Maybe it's some garage band somewhere.

But there were the manufactured equivalents of Britney Spears throughout music's history, and somehow music survived. There's still good stuff out there.

Though I will say that your Bow Wow Wow example is actually a pretty good place to consider that this is where the vapid sexuality really got going. Anabella Lwin was maybe the first pop tart, all thanks to Malcom McLaren.
And he completely manufactured the Sex Pistols to help sell bondage clothes at his London store. In that sense, they were Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera and Avril Lavigne and The Backstreet Boys. Does that dull their impact? I'm not saying that Britney = Sid Vicious, but it just shows that this ain't new; the music biz was just as cynical 25 years ago as it is today.

Met_K

03-16-2003, 09:40 PM

Everytime Steve speaks, I keep getting this insane picture of a new Hasbro special edition Steve Bauman jack-in-the-box toy. For some reason, it always pops out and says either "I'm Steve Bauman!" or "PC Gamer 4 ever" before the Wumpus jack-in-the-box (by Mattel) comes over and ritualistically beats it to death with a Foreigner album.

Or maybe that's just a recurring dream I keep having.

Toddy

03-16-2003, 10:46 PM

The key difference for me is that in the 1970s and early 1980s, guys like McLaren were the aberration, and what he was doing was controversial. Now, that's just how it's done. No talent, no problem. If you've got the look, we can sell you. And I don't see how you can say that all of this is because of the press. Did the press write "Jenny on the Block" and convince J-Lo to dance around half-naked in the video? The press is just giving us more coverage of what people want to see, which right now is vapid, dumb sex, and that's popular largely because we've got a whole generation growing up that expects nothing but this stuff in their "music." I am all for vapid, dumb sex, don't get me wrong, but I want it in the proper context. Porn as porn I've got no problems with. Music disguised and sold as porn really bothers me because it is so blatantly manipulative.

As I said before, I'm fully aware that Bowie, Morrison, and others calculated things to a certain extent. But there's still an authenticity in the roles they portrayed because they came up with them. Bowie was certainly trying to get some attention with the glam, the bisexuality, the Nazi uniform, but I respect that stuff more because at least he came up with it. I dunno, maybe it's hypocritical of me, but I respect the guys who come up with images on their own (let's face it, we all create our own images for public consumption, even PC game magazine editors from Vermont) and don't get it from handlers with one eye on our crotches and the other eye on our wallets. It's all show biz and fake when you get right down to it, but I'd rather buy into the illusion promoted by the actual artist than something that was cooked up around a boardroom table.

I don't "wade in the cesspool" of pop culture writing at all. But it's hard to miss the Avril Lavigne stuff here, because she's from a little town just down the highway from me and the Canadian press has been collectively wanking over her since the Grammy nominations. CBC devoted the magazine half of The National (our, uh, national news show on each night at 10pm) on Grammy night to the party held in the auditorium where Avril went to school, for crissakes. Other than stuff like this, and the occasional ten minutes or so spent with MuchMoreMusic (our VH1), I barely have a clue what's going on in pop culture and couldn't care less.

wumpus

03-16-2003, 10:51 PM

It's all show biz and fake when you get right down to it, but I'd rather buy into the illusion promoted by the actual artist than something that was cooked up around a boardroom table.
You can't honestly believe that deception and manipulation haven't always been a part of show business since time immemorial. What difference does it make whether the artist comes up with it or not?

I'm just not seeing today's grand conspiracy, or in fact anything at all that makes this any different than 20 or 30 years ago. Same stuff, new decade.

Toddy

03-16-2003, 11:02 PM

Did I not just write that? And to me, it makes a huge difference whether or not the artist comes up with it. It's the difference between a singer-songwriter or a real band that loves playing music and a Vegas lounge act. What really bothers me is that the whole fucking industry is turning into Vegas lounge acts. There's always been a portion of the music biz that's been corporate and crafted by marketers, but now it seems like those acts are the only ones to get record deals. We shouldn't have to dig through piles of shit to get to something good. Talented artists shouldn't have to hit the net to get their music out there. Wilco had an awful time getting Yankee Hotel Foxtrot into stores because some half-witted suits decided that it wasn't commercial enough, and that was only the best album released in the last couple of years (IMHO). You can't tell me that there isn't a problem today. I don't think there was ever a golden era, but things are worse now than they've ever been.

Toddy

03-16-2003, 11:03 PM

Now how about we all just stop the fighting and move on to something more important, like burning Dixie Chicks albums?

Brad Grenz

03-17-2003, 02:27 AM

Yeah, I have to take issue with Steve's mention of Elliott Smith and Beck, for example. He can't invoke their names to make his point about corperate music because both are established acts. Elliott Smith put out 4 CDs on independant labels, and got an Oscar nomination before he got a record deal from Dreamworks. Beck came up during the alternative revolution during the breif period when there were no rules. And you'll notice that Sea Change gets no air play on the radio or MTV or even VH1 from what I've notice, because it's too weird for the label to market. I wouldn't have even known it was good except for the discussion here about the CD and his live appearances on SNL, Conan, etc.

The point is, yes, record companies have always packaged and marketed acts to a great degree. The difference was that was mostly contained within the "pop music" genre where we knew the score. But the suits are always looking to expand that control (mostly cause they can maximize profits that way). You can sort of see that in the rock scene that existed in the late 80s before the alternative revolution dominated by lame-ass hair bands who were all neon spandex, and hair spray with no substance. All bets were off for much of the 90s after Nirvana broke through and started making huge money. Everyone was just scrambling to sign good bands and there wasn't a lot of time to worry about manufacturing image. At that time independent radio stations had too much influence and would have seen through the phonies anyway.

But all that's faded away. Thanks in large part to corporate consolidation in the radio industry the record companies have got mainstream music pretty much locked down. Songs make it on the plalist these days because the band has either been around for a while and has a big following, or because their record company is going to bat for them. It's just easier to find good-looking nobies, create an image for them, write or help write their songs for them and then let their marketing department do the heavy lifting then to gamble on acts you think are talented. As an added bonus you can lean on the radio industry and freeze out the independent competition. Don't want the good bands making yours look bad. They've got most genres sewn up this way, Pop, of course, rock, hard rock, country. About the only thing out of control is hip-hop and that's mostly because every obscenely rich rapper has their own record label.

I think that's one of the reasons the RIAA is so terrified of mp3s and internet radio, because it takes them out of the distribution loop. It would be like the early 90s again with lots of people listening to independent, "alternative" music sources, and that's just too unpredictable for them.

Phil_Stein

03-17-2003, 01:58 PM

I think cars should be $1000. And why are those home builders ripping us off charing $150K - my parents bought a nice house 30 years ago for $40K.

Seriously - prices rise - it's called inflation.

When I first started buying albums, in 1980-1982, the 'default price' was $7.99, and the sale price for a new release was $5.99 to $6.99.

Now, the default price seems to be $16.99-$18.99, and the sale price about $12.99.

According to this cool link
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
a price of $7.99 in 1980 translates into $17.62 today. So CD prices today are about the same, inflation adjusted, as album prices back then, but of course CDs are a superior technology. Moreover - I'd venture the average 'premium' new release today is longer than the average album release back then (most albums were ~40 minutes, most CDs seem to be ~50-60 minutes).

Phil Steinmeyer

Tyjenks

03-17-2003, 02:08 PM

Seriously - prices rise - it's called inflation.

Phil Steinmeyer

Already softening us up for the blow of a $59.99 Tropico II pricetag, huh? :wink:

Met_K

03-17-2003, 02:50 PM

God damn you brain dead bubbagalloops, of course it matters whether the artist writes their own material or not. Here's a perfect example: Aerosmith pre-80's, and Aerosmith post-80's, WHICH WOULD YOU SAY IS BETTER?

Thanks, now fuck off, wumpus.

Anonymous

03-17-2003, 06:15 PM

Trop 2 will be $39.99. For that matter, new release games generally are much cheaper now, inflation adjusted (and often even in absolute terms) than they've ever been.

Again, in 1980-81 - the height of the Atari 2600 era, I think a new game was ~ $30, which would translate to $66 according to the CPI. In the early 90's computer games (Ultima series, Wing Commander) and vid games (especially those with memory in the cartridges, like Final Fantasy and Metroid) routinely launched at $60 on up to as high as $80 - that's absolute dollars - much more adjusted to today's prices for CPI.

Phil Steinmeyer

Tyjenks

03-17-2003, 07:30 PM

I was just yankin' yer chain Phil. :)

I remember Nintendo cartridges. Both the NES and SNES games came out at $49.99 up to, IIRC, $64.99. and they never, ever went down. They simply dissapeared from shelves. It was either pay through the nose or go without. No internet or E-bat to save you baack then. I do remember scraping nickels together for Atari games, too. The prices are more of a blur to me. Maybe it's the age difference, Phil. :wink:

Anything under $50.00 is cool with me. I do think I went ahead and shelled out the $54.99 for NWN, but then what self-respecting PnP D&D fan didn't?

Good luck on the release, BTW. I am looking forward to it.

Tyjenks

03-17-2003, 07:32 PM

Back on topic. How does everyone have such strong feelings on the de-evolution of music and seems to be rather passionate, but no one wants to chat about what they actually listen to?

JFeil

03-17-2003, 11:28 PM

I would have to say that the record industry's biggest problem getting dollars out of my pocket is Clear Channel entertainment. You would think that, out of over 1200 radio stations, they would have one that plays songs that are both 1) new and 2) don't deal with how depressing it is to be a teenage girl.

Honestly, I think the music industry should get a clue and realize that guys over 30 years of age are a viable demographic and are looking for new music.

In fact, lets look at the average 30+ year old guy. We generally have to work for a living, so we have to commute. What is the music industry giving us to listen to during this commute? DJs who talk about embarrassing sexual issues to get cheap laughs. Not music. Want to sell music, you have to get people to listen to it first.

The average 30+ year old guy, because of this job has A) More cash in his pocket and B) less time to dawdle in a record store than your average teenager or college age kid. We want to make informed purchases. How do we make informed purchases? We try out the product first. We get recommendations from friends. If there's no place we can hear new music without having to wade through bad sound quality and garage-level bands, then there's no vector into our wallets.

Currently, I have found that Mitsubishi has better music taste than the radio stations available to me. I bought a Basement Jaxx album because I liked the Intel commercial. I'm desperate here! Help!

Oh, and a personal question to Jupiter Jones. Do you really look like Alfred Hitchcock now that you've grown up? Or did you grow out of it.

I think I read every 3 Investigators book available when I was a kid. Good stuff.

Supertanker

03-17-2003, 11:54 PM

Yeah, radio is a wasteland these days. I remember when KROQ played lots of great stuff, but there are no radio stations worth dick in LA anymore. It is always sad when I go to another city, and their playlist is better than KROQs.

One of the main ways I find new music now is to listen to various MP3 streams at MP3.com. Pick some genres and start clicking away. If you like the Mitsubishi commercial music, start with the down tempo techno section. The song you probably want is Breathe, by Telepopmusik. Link (http://genres.mp3.com/music/electronic/down_tempo/).

Jupiter Jones

03-18-2003, 06:29 AM

Back on topic. How does everyone have such strong feelings on the de-evolution of music and seems to be rather passionate, but no one wants to chat about what they actually listen to?

Actually, I don't think the music is all that bad these days, but the industry *is* changing, and that is what I find interesting. I went to buy some CDs last Friday, and this is what I got:

1. The Vandals: "The Vandals Play Really Bad Country Tunes": Re-release of "Slipperly When Ill". Still fantatsic, but "Shite Punk" has been replaced replaced with "Play That Country Tuba Cowboy".

2. AFI: "Sing The Sarrow". Never heard these guys before, but apparently the new album is their "sellout". Yes, it's true, their old "Misfits Cover Band" days are over. Sucks to be an old AFI fan I guess, but album is great. It's kind of like early U2 meet early ("Public Enemy #1") Motley Crue. I know that sounds horrifying, but it's really good (to me)

3. The Donnas: "Spend The Night". 13 tracks, roughly the same. The Donnas play one song but its a great song.

4. Dixie Chicks: "Whatever Their New Album Is Called". I'm not a huge fan, this was for my wife. They play pretty good bluegrass, and they do play some of their own instruments. To be honest, its like old Dolly Parton. I know that's not comforting to people who hate them, but it was not all that bad. Kind of like spending an hour at "Spiliken Corner" at Magic Mountain. (Does that even exist any more?)

5. A Simple Plan: "No Pads, No Helmet Just Balls". Good emo-core style power-pop. Certainly not punk. I think I like the Donnas' version of playing the same song for 13 tracks better than these guys though.

6. Johnny Cash: "When The Man Comes Around". Yeah, the "Hurt" cover is pretty good, but Cash's own songs and the other covers are quite good too. He does sound like a grampa singing here, but if you can get beyond that, it's a great album.

7. The Alarm: "In The Poppy Fields Bond": Actually, this was bought over the past 5 months, but I thought I'd mention it. 5 albums written and released in 5 month period for $50, sold only online via their website. About 90% treasure/trash rate.

I paid between $9.99 and $18.99 for these albums (except #7). My work "rewards" people with American Express Rewards Points. They are not much of an "award" though. Not many places accept them and using them is akin to shopping on the old "Wheel Of Fortune". Borders does except them, so I went on a little shopping spree...

steve

03-18-2003, 07:22 AM

Honestly, I think the music industry should get a clue and realize that guys over 30 years of age are a viable demographic and are looking for new music.
Actually, I suspect that they have a lot of research that says you're wrong, that most people over 30 are set in their musical tastes. You may be the exception, not the rule.

But yes, Clear Channel is evil and has done much to hurt the music biz, at least for breaking new acts. But I rarely relied on radio; believe it or not, I trusted music magazines. I read reviews, if the bands sounded cool, I bought their CDs. I still do. That's how I "discovered" everything from The White Stripes to Sleater-Kinney to, I don't know, The Minus 5. I buy fewer CDs because I read fewer music magazines. I used to get Rolling Stone, Spin, Alternative Press, CMJ, I'd pour over the reviews in the Village Voice and LA Weekly, etc. Now, I pretty much read about new releases in Entertainment Weekly. I changed, not so much the music biz. (It may have changed too, but I didn't notice and didn't really care.)

Anonymous

03-18-2003, 07:30 AM

Pore over the reviews.

Mark Asher

03-18-2003, 01:11 PM

Troy S Goodfellow

03-18-2003, 01:34 PM

"Actually, I suspect that they have a lot of research that says you're wrong, that most people over 30 are set in their musical tastes. You may be the exception, not the rule."

Yep. We're grouchy. I think the over 30's are just harder to sell to, period. I guess it's the over 34s, really, since I'm always hearing about the 18-34 demographic.

Yeah. The thinking is that once you hit a "certain age" brand loyalties have developed and it becomes nearly impossible to convince someone to switch brands based on an ad or marketing approach.

It's not that older demographics aren't interested in new things or new experiences but that these older consumers need a lot of pushing to be convinced that the new product (musical or dental) is worth shelling out hard cash for when they think that things are fine as they are.

Troy

antlers

03-19-2003, 09:20 AM

I think the RIAA is shooting itself in the foot by killing Internet radio. I had pretty much stopped buying CDs until I started listening to Internet radio, which introduced me to a bunch of artists that I never would've heard of otherwise--and I bought (and continue to buy) their records. I try to buy direct from the artist/indie-label when possible, of course.

One group from the 80's that has gone more to the direct sale route is Tom Tom Club, and my wife still follows them and buys their stuff.

steve

03-19-2003, 12:16 PM

Yep. We're grouchy. I think the over 30's are just harder to sell to, period. I guess it's the over 34s, really, since I'm always hearing about the 18-34 demographic.
I just saw a story in Newsweek about a music magazine that's launching that's targeting itself at the 30+ year old music fan. So it'll cover "established" artists, or new ones that are like old ones... something like that.

It's so doomed. Not that I'd know anything about targeting older demographics, mind you.

Tyjenks

03-19-2003, 03:44 PM

Maybe they can get even more narrow for me. I am 33 and still listen to loud crap (Coal Chamber, Dope, Godsmack, Korn). I am a bookkeeper by day, so I do not need the acne ads or pull-out posters of Lita Ford....wait she is not contemporary is she. Maybe they could have the rock/metal band articles and in between some PC harware ads and Quickbooks Pro ads.

JFeil

03-20-2003, 09:49 PM

But I rarely relied on radio; believe it or not, I trusted music magazines. I read reviews, if the bands sounded cool, I bought their CDs. I still do. That's how I "discovered" everything from The White Stripes to Sleater-Kinney to, I don't know, The Minus 5. I buy fewer CDs because I read fewer music magazines. I used to get Rolling Stone, Spin, Alternative Press, CMJ, I'd pour over the reviews in the Village Voice and LA Weekly, etc. Now, I pretty much read about new releases in Entertainment Weekly. I changed, not so much the music biz. (It may have changed too, but I didn't notice and didn't really care.)

The last time I took a magazine's advice, I bought an album from a band called "The Bears", with Adrian Belew.

http://www.artist-shop.com/adrian/bears.jpg

It was at that time that I realized that no printed word could accurately convey how much I would or would not like a band. I just had to hear it for myself.

I learned of the White Stripes from a flash animation, believe it or not.

http://www.rathergood.com/punk_kittens/

I still feel that the music industry should stop whining and consider going after something beside the low-hanging fruit. Or maybe I should stop whining and buy a satellite radio for my car.

Jupiter Jones

03-21-2003, 06:56 AM

The last time I took a magazine's advice, I bought an album from a band called "The Bears", with Adrian Belew.
http://www.artist-shop.com/adrian/bears.jpg

I learned of the White Stripes from a flash animation, believe it or not.

http://www.rathergood.com/punk_kittens/

The last album I bought from the advice of a review was "The Johnneys", an australian cow-punk band, in 1988. I bought it because the reviewer was in great "cow-wave" band from LA named "The Long Ryders" so I knew I could trust his judgement, and I was right.

Since then, I've noticed that most printed reviews cannot be trusted (by me) when it comes to music. Game reviews are good, because the reviewers can at least tell you the mechanics of the game. I have often bought a game after I read a bad review, simply because of the way the reviewer described the games play mechanics. Movie reviews seems to work as well, at least if you find someone who likes movies similar to your tastes. I've never found that with music reviews. I fin that the exact same thoughts can be used to say an album sucks or that it is great: (i.e. An "homage" to Neil Young from a band, is a "rip-off" when another does the same thing). Listening, either snippets or whole songs is basically the only way I can judge music.