What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Don't save your Digg images to your Hardrive... view!
newegg.com - Add them to a Digital Photoframe from newegg
53 Comments
- BubblesTheChimp, on 09/30/2009, -1/+26How about releasing good music and getting rid of this auto-tune *****!
- lulll, on 09/30/2009, -1/+17obligatory ***** THE RIAA
- L0NER, on 09/30/2009, -0/+13Oh music industry, won't you ever grow up
- CK20XX, on 09/30/2009, -0/+10I feign that the reason the RIAA sues so many people is because it's the music industry's only source of income right now. In fact, this seems to be a rising trend in business and politics: if you can't get what you want legitimately, bully it out of people.
- Khast, on 09/30/2009, -0/+10Technology marches on....but for the RIAA time has stopped in the 60s...when there was no Cassette tapes, no MP3, and everyone who wanted to make music had to go through them.
Unfortunately, MP3 and Bittorrent and the price of computers have made it possible for anyone to produce their own music and have a method of distribution. The RIAA will have to compete with THAT. Nevermind the piracy problem, they are totally losing the control over what you listened to and who the next star is going to be.
Screw American Idol....the internet is where we go to listen to music and find new artists and musicians to listen to. (Radio...oh you mean the same 12 songs every hour that they think is "big" ) - inactive, on 09/30/2009, -5/+15Instead of blaming music pirates for everything, how about you release some music that doesn't suck.
- supman, on 09/30/2009, -0/+9my solution for the music industry - quit charging for mp3s - artists, expect to gain all income from live gigs - use the internet to build up hype (give your tracks away) - go gigging - make money. You can't pirate going to a concert. Imagine how massive gigging could be!
- swmbuk, on 09/30/2009, -0/+9Consumer friendly?! Nonsense, they need to sue all potential customers and act like little bitches!
- rezivor, on 09/30/2009, -0/+8Musicians are doing better than ever now
It's the record companies that need to thrive, not the music industry
IMO, the way it should be, power to the musicians. - gleongelpi, on 09/30/2009, -1/+9The quality of the music has been declining for years. None of the problems in the industry have anything to do with technology. They do have a lot to do with the ill-adviced decisions of music industry management everywhere.
- TheSkunkMonkey, on 09/30/2009, -0/+8Stop promoting a ***** product, robbing the artists, and cornholing your customers. That's at least a step in the right direction.
- donnikhan, on 09/30/2009, -0/+8The past 10 years have shown us that people don't want to pay money to listen to a song.
Downloading songs may be illegal, but the ease of committing the crime of downloading has taken away the stigma of illegality.
My prediction is that people may be less inclined to pirate a song if actually legitimately purchasing it enables them to do something more than just listen to recorded sound, and this article is just a teaser of things to come. - borez, on 09/30/2009, -0/+8Agreed, no autotune should be a pre-requisite to any artist gaining a place in the main charts.
***** that plastic *****, real singers only please. - Travelsonic, on 09/30/2009, -0/+8How much do you want to bet that if a RIAA exec was to read this his or her head would explode?
The clueless won't follow any advice that doesn't follow their misguided mantra - the RIAA included. - tbttfox, on 09/30/2009, -0/+6Let's file this one under "No *****" and move on.
- DDRSkata, on 09/30/2009, -0/+4In other news, water is still wet.
- v1c1ous, on 09/30/2009, -0/+4because paying $10 for a music CD is necessity in this kind of economy...
- VectorJ, on 09/30/2009, -0/+3Why does recorded music HAVE TO BE profitable?
Times change, technology changes, what is considered 'profitable' will change.
In the old days, there was no way of making the music available. (no technology). What did they do? They made brilliant music and performed it live.
In recent times, we have the technology and PHYSICAL things to purchase. (Tapes, CDs, Vinyl)
Now we are in the age where the supply of music is ENDLESS and is mostly all digital. Why does the music industry feel its a requirement for recorded music to remain as profitable as before? It's just another age with changes that will redefine what is profitable. Live performance should be the focus... not reviving the old model making recorded music priority.
I understand that alot of people use music as their bread winner, but come on. What makes you any more deserving of the paycheck than a band that makes next to nothing on their fantastic music... but still make a KILLING by performing music LIVE. That is what a TRUE musician is. Our culture has lost site of that thanks to 'profitability'. Now we have a giant trash pile of albums released that have no TRUE musical value what so ever. This model DESTROYS the need to give any real, true creative effort.
Don't get me wrong there are plenty of amazing artists out there....but with technology making music endlessly available combined with the pool being so diluted and littered with GARBAGE that makes us not want to invest in it as much as we all have before. - grnicon, on 09/30/2009, -0/+3The consumer knows best.
That mentality is killing the music industry, the movie business, the book industry, the food industry. And, in general, culture.
The masses do not know what they want, but are under the delusion they do. They will happily sit through Saw XIX, Transformers 5, and American Idol Season 312.
They think they want choice. So what happens? They kill radio. No longer will they accept DJs hand-picking music for them. They want to choose the music they want to listen to because *they* are the experts. They are *always* the experts at everything under the sun today.
But more choice does not equal better quality. It just leads to... more difficulty making choices. And that's the fundamental problem the music industry faces. They are an arbitrator of taste in a world in which every person believes they are an expert at music. - Yage2006, on 09/30/2009, -0/+3Well in a perfect world that would work but not all groups go on tour. That works fine probably for rock, country , hiphop and alternative perhaps. Groups who have a big following can afford it but that does not work well for the rest.
If you get into electronic "not crappy trance" but good electronic very few groups go on tour.
If you get into other genres like world music or ambient or lofi almost none of them go on tour.
I do agree though they do need to find a better model or even better simply accept that a certain portion of the population might pirate there music but to consider it just the cost of doing business. At least it helps to promote them. - w1cked1, on 09/30/2009, -0/+3Ooooooh.... Onion.... ya got me again.
Wow, somebody gets it? Almost. Don't forget we'd like some ***** quality too. Drop the pitch shift *****, neeeeeeeeeever let an album go public like metallica's last one that's digitally clipped at the time of recording because as it sheers off half of what I paid for... I ain't paying for!
We've the capability for insane dynamics with hardware now..... fix the damned loudness *****. Music should NEVER be recorded with the intent of playing it on crap like an Ipod as primary source or car stereos. Rather, record it so it sounds as good as possible and if people need "loudness", they can push a ***** button on their receivers, ipods, car stereos or computers and get it, and retain the control of having the ability to turn that ***** off again so it doesn't ruin it for everyone.
Basically get your ***** straightened out. And suck the public's balls for the next 100 years to make up the ***** you've been. Oh yeah, stop overcharging, downloads at a dollar a song are even more expensive than CDs, and they're not even DRM free nor full CD quality.
Drop the cookie cutter brainwash ***** bands too. ***** you very much. - sentinel106, on 09/30/2009, -0/+2obligatory digg and head nod of approval.
- upeneff, on 10/01/2009, -0/+2And movies that don't suck, and software that doesn't suck… because everyone pirates Photoshop because it sucks, even though Gimp is free (and sucks more).
Now, I in no way defend the music industry, I'm just saying that it doesn't all suck, it's just not worth the price. - bdbr, on 10/01/2009, -0/+2Coincidentally, the bands that aren't getting rich off touring work with labels that don't sue customers. Its just a matter of who you want to give your money to. Personally, I pay for music, and I get it from musicians/labels like that.
- lorddazzer, on 09/30/2009, -0/+2I heard this in a show before: "We can't compete with FREE".
That is true. When music became easily accessible without cost and need of physical media, the system was essentially obsolete.
"Pay"Music itself could not possibly compete with Free Music on it own.
But that only shows how unimaginative the music business is in adapting to new market situations.
The key here is the same for all kinds of services and businesses. When the value of your product is ZERO, you need to increase the value of your product by augmenting what it offers.
For CDs, it could be tackled in a number of ways.
- freely distribute the music via official sources. This benefits the label by providing itself exposure as a legitimate source of music, and the artist gets recognition as well. this will also increase the number of fans thanks to increased exposure.
- continue to sell physical media. However, this physical media must have some form of value to it that outweighs free music. One way I can think of is to insert an encrypted voucher code in every physical media that allows for a X% discount at any live venue performances. A favourite tactic of other industries as well is bundling physical "collector's edition" merchandising such as models, signed posters etc. You see this with Halo and Arkham Asylum and soon COD4 and ACII(Master Chief Helmet, Batarang, NVG, scale model of Ezio)
There could be a great number of ways to tackle the problem. However, the fat cats at the top have obviously grown old and complacent, and we also see how "manufactured celebrities" are also incapable of surviving when it comes to what it means to be a performer i.e. to perform. - Yage2006, on 09/30/2009, -0/+2As somebody who was a musician for many years I'd like to chime in here.
First off I hate and detest the RIAA and there practices I think the music business does not need a new model what they need to do is accept the fact that a portion of the population is going to pirate their stuff. They should simply consider that a cost of doing business at least its promoting them.
That said though I hate hearing groups make all there money off touring, That is only true for mainstream bands with decent followings and only for mainstream genre's.
If you are talking about Metal,Rock,Pop,HipHop,Country,Alternative and they have a good following then yes they can make allot by touring but as soon as you get out of those genres its totally the opposite.
Its very expensive to tour unless you are well known and can pack in a crowd. You also have to be well known in the first place to get those gigs.
If you get into genres like jazz,lofi,world music,ambient and for the most part electronic the majority of those groups do not tour for a number of reasons.
There are also many bands who just don't want to tour for personal reasons.
So to think groups make all there money off touring is wrong. If you do like a group and you dl there music you should show some support for them maybe buy merchandise or something it they do not tour. - grnicon, on 09/30/2009, -0/+2What do you consider good music?
99.9% of stuff you listen to, guaranteed, has a record label. - gleongelpi, on 09/30/2009, -0/+1I would pay to listen via the internet on sites like Pandora. But I want to be able to select what I want to play when I want to play it. I don't want to download any songs. I want it to be in cyberspace. Go to my page, select what I want to be in my playlist, then, pick to play as if I were selecting from CDs. And if I want it to go ramdon, so be it. And if I want it to introduce me to songs, so be it. but I want it to by my choice. Until I get this, I will spend no money on music.
- inactive, on 09/30/2009, -0/+1I've been saying this for years and I don't think I came up with this idea myself, I think I read it. In any case, it's a great idea.
- billraydrums, on 10/01/2009, -0/+1Please,have my drum performances for free. Write to them and use them freely. Just give me credit.
http://ccmixter.org/people/BillRayDrums
This is the future of music. Open-source. - thebreach, on 09/30/2009, -0/+1Everything going on is just the dying breath of an industry that has become all but irrelevant due to their own stupidity and lack of foresite, thinking CDs would last forever. They lost control of distribution to the Internet and most of us are going around them now.
And the real killer to me is instead of embracing the new technology, they are punishing us for it instead.
CDs are outdated. GET OVER IT. Artists make money from touring anyway, if anything they should give away all tracks for personal use to get the maximum exposure they can. Now there is really no reason a band cannot directly sell their MP3s if want to either from their own website. - borez, on 09/30/2009, -0/+1Excellent article. itunes LP is a great idea, but it needs to be a generic format and one not restricted to itunes alone, to me that's a format monopoly, and that's not good for the industry.
We need a format standard that can be used for all digital download shops and all players. Not just ***** soppy old Apple itunes. I mean they're hardly a rock-n-roll company even if they are selling the most .mp3's are they.
What they're doing is great and all, but kids want to discover new music from independent sellers, not some corporate media whore. - LordByr0n, on 09/30/2009, -0/+1And Gary Bettman. I hate that guy.
- riverstyx, on 09/30/2009, -0/+1They're running out of options, wouldn't be surprised to see them play that card one day..
- riverstyx, on 09/30/2009, -0/+1Like in Scanners when that dude's head blows up? What a mess..
- TheRealMisterd, on 10/01/2009, -0/+1Record companies, the music industry, what the difference.
Musicians don't need either.
Only fabricated artists and has-beens need arm twisting and payola to succeed.
The sooner the "music industry/Record companies" die out, the better. - muftak, on 09/30/2009, -0/+1I misread the title as "racial overhaul".
- bdbr, on 10/01/2009, -0/+1An industry as big as the major music labels doesn't die from just one thing. Piracy is just a small part of a long list of their problems. Some things are doing well - digital singles sales went up to 1.5 *billion* last year; independent labels have been growing; used CDs are cheaper and easier than ever to buy. All of this cuts into the sales of major label albums. Well, guess what happens when you focus on only two songs per album...yep, the sales of singles went up 2.6 songs for every reduction in albums sold.
I would say the first thing major labels should do is stop trying to sell albums, unless they have something good enough to stand alone as an album. Sell digital singles and CD EPs with enhanced content, at reasonably low costs. Mash-ups are not going to save that industry. - TheRealMisterd, on 10/01/2009, -0/+1The music industry assumes that *Anybody* that makes music must make a living at it.
What about the musicians that just do it for fun. - bdbr, on 10/01/2009, -0/+1Lawyers are very expensive. They don't make money off of the settlements, and they won't get the huge sums they won in the lawsuits. Its not a way to make money, its an attempt to scare people from piracy. It didn't work, and they're not initiating new lawsuits.
- maccagrabme, on 10/01/2009, -0/+1The technology available for creating is better than it's ever been, it's highly accessible and affordable. Kids have far better recording equipment on a cheap laptop than the Beatles, Hendrix and The Doors ever had and yet I hear nothing approaching the genius of those bands today. I can only assume that today's bands just don't have the musical creativity as those older bands or maybe the technology is making them lazy.
- bluesdealer, on 10/01/2009, -0/+1I keep seeing these stories about how the music industry needs to "adapt" and "embrace new technology," which I agree with. However, these assertions are never backed with a solid plan to monetize the product when piracy lets you steal it for free.
We accuse artists of "selling out" when they turn to fashion lines, perfumes, and other endorsements to make serious money, but then insist that music, unlike other products, should be given away for free? Even in the heyday of the music industry, most artists never achieved the point of being able to make ends meat by making music. Today, even established acts have to look to other economic channels because music just isn't paying.
For the music industry to become a heavyweight again, of course they need to change and embrace technology. But more importantly, they need a business model that lets artists make more money off music than T-shirt sales. - allisonaxe, on 10/01/2009, -0/+1everyone pirates photoshop because its priced outside the range of what people actually value it at. if they made a professional version which came with licenses that allowed for commercial use and was permitted to be installed on every desktop in an office, and also a "loser in his basement making goofy pictures to enter photoshop contests" version that was available as a download and was priced much more economically, perhaps somewhere in the range of 15 bucks, that would diminish how frequently it was pirated.
The kinds of people who pirate photoshop aren't the kinds who would actually purchase it. however, if they made a fully-featured version available for much cheaper, they could potentially receive revenues from a market that previously was not giving them any money at all. - Kirpus, on 10/13/2009, -0/+1This debate is getting old and sad.
I used to work in the music bizz and got nothing but trouble for speaking up and suggesting new bizz models.
The music bizz is run by a bunch of egos who are not loyal to the music, but the people in it - not the audience around it.
If only they were loyal to the music... - gkiltz, on 10/01/2009, -0/+1Bottom line:
They need to figure out this "Decoupling" issue, and learn to disassociate content from media.
They also need to get over the idea that they have to get paid another fee every time a song gets played anywhere.
I don't see a future in record companies at all.
The artists can now easily record and produce their own music. They can then distribute it on their own web site.
Record companies are now a complete waste of time, energy, money and sanity, a complete anachronism.
Once the business figures those things out, and also figures out that people hear a lot more music than they ever did before, and quality and innovation is more important than ever before, but also rarer than ever before, there is still hope, otherwise there is none. - BluZebra, on 10/01/2009, -0/+1If I want to support a band, I will go to a concert.
If I want to support a band I will buy a CD from them ONLY, and ONLY if they are not signed to a record label.
Until then, record labels aren't getting a cent from me, and I go see them in concert whenever they come to my city.
Music recording software is so cheap these days. I wouldn't be surprised to see bands making their own albums, and then offering them online from their website for say $5.00 or $10.00. I would buy those. - SaltilloPunk, on 10/01/2009, -0/+1I tend to like to have something physical in hand when I pay money. As it stands CDs are stuck at the price point of their introduction. The slow adoption rate by the public allowed the recording companies to maintain the price which is too high in my opinion. Look at other media (VCR and DVD) which experienced relatively rapid penetration into the homes and as a result, saw the software (discs and tapes) drop to reasonable price points. I can get a DVD in the $5 bin at Walmart and have 2 to 3 hours of entertainment (not including the extras/bonus features on the disc). Yet, if I don't pick a CD up on release week it costs between $13 to $15 for anything between 30 minutes to a little over and hour of music. And, I am SOL if I find I don't like the disc. If the record companies got smart they would put older titles out for $5 to $9 as is done for DVDs. I know I would be more inclined to pick up more CDs at those prices. I also contend that pricing for MP3s on the legitimate services is also over priced. It costs approximately the same as a CD in the store and yet I have nothing physical in my hands to show for it.
- bdbr, on 10/01/2009, -0/+1I'm happy to pay for music, from musicians who aren't rich and labels that aren't suing anyone.
But I'm not going to buy music I've never heard. 30-second samples or the best two songs on the album are not representative of the album. That's what downloads are for. - kingg2, on 10/01/2009, -0/+0How about not promote ***** music like Puddle of Mudd.
-
Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is