Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Russ Smith
18392 Followers
Alvin *Happy New Year*
4127 Followers
Ashish Jangid
871 Followers
Lt Gen Panda
17116 Followers
Naveed Javaid
8062 Followers
gorgeoussand
8413 Followers
Jake Rocheleau
2455 Followers
Carly Wilson
3024 Followers
genericdiggerJan 1, 2011
This is no surprise. Let's see who's the next giant post Lehman Brothers
eliotpearsonJan 1, 2011
Trent Reznor says, "One of the biggest wake-up calls of my career was when I saw a record contract. I said, “Wait—you sell it for $18.98 and I make 80 cents? And I have to pay you back the money you lent me to make it and then you own it? Who the f**k made that rule? Oh! The record labels made it because artists are dumb and they'll sign anything”..."
That's pretty much sums it up right there. That is the traditional record company contract. That has to change, or all the record companies will go under.
blinker1315Jan 1, 2011Submitter
I think it's too late. My kids are 16 and 18, both listen to music all day, and never buy CDs. They don't need to. It's sort of like newspapers: every day a person dies the industry loses another reader who isn't replaced by a person who's born. I still buy CDs, but mostly the old re-mastered stuff from the 1940s and 50s, as well as classic 60s-70s-80s records with "bonus" tracks. I'm a sucker who's used to buying music that way. I doubt many people under 35 are.
Closed AccountJan 1, 2011
Hey stupid f**k.....local newspapers are still doing VERY well. Far better than splice.com. Local newspapers are actually PROFITABLE...unlike splice who is existing only through handouts. (same with Digg.)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
innerspikeJan 2, 2011
Lol local newspapers aren't doing well. 2010 held a record number in local newspapers being shut down or merging. The year also had another decline in newspaper sales. Then there's the ever increase in layoffs.
Mind informing us where you're getting these ideas?
Closed AccountJan 1, 2011
And yet 99.999% of up and coming artists would still blow their own father in town square for a chance to sign with a major label because they know that 80 cents per unit sold is better than 50% per unit sold when you are selling hundreds of thousands rather than dozens.
And why don't people bitch over the fact that investors in EVERY field do the same. You front all the money. You take your investment out first, and then you have the same ownership stake in the company.
If the record/artist fails, they do NOT have to pay back the label. They only have to pay it back via earnings from that album. Ifthey suck and go get jobs at the Home Depot, their wages are NOT garnished by the record company.
I guess everyone on Digg wants all music to be cookie cutter, bubble gum pop. Because without being able to take a big cut of sales, no record label would EVER take a chance on an alternative band. Britney Spears makes it possible for more dive bar bands to be signed and given a chance.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
innerspikeJan 2, 2011
You might want to get your facts straight. Most bands/musicians aren't even affiliated with a label. In fact, it's more than possible to be a professional musician and never sign with a label.
Also it's not the same as investing...
hipmanJan 2, 2011
Can you name a successful one that isn't?.
warp25Jan 2, 2011
The Wiggles.
mdwstmusikJan 2, 2011
Is that your criteria for measuring a musician's success, if someone can name them on Digg? My criteria is a little different...Most SIGNED musicians (I think I read >95%) NEVER make a profit from their albums and spend years touring small clubs to pay off the advances they received from their label. So, if a musician never signs a record deal, yet makes living wage playing music, that may not make them famous enough to be named on Digg, but it does make them more successful than 95% of the musicians that have signed with a label.
innerspikeJan 2, 2011
Don't listen to many local bands do ya? I could list a good number of them, but they aren't famous and they only play in local places. Thus my point.
You don't need to make millions of dollars to be successful. To them, paying their bills, supporting their families, and making a decent living is success.
nerysJan 2, 2011
that is why the labels are gripping so tightly. they realize that EVENTUALLY (hipman is right) not today but eventually artists WILL NOT NEED labels and this is what scares them so much.
hipmanJan 1, 2011
Yeah, and I bet Trent really regrets all those millions he made all those years he worked for the oh-so-evil labels.I guess he's one of those "dumb artists", huh?.
barasawaJan 2, 2011
Just imagine how much money he would have if he found another way to finance it, and when he sold a record/cd for $18.98, he got to keep $18.18 of the price and he still owned the music. Sure would beat only getting 4% of the price and not owning your own work after having paid for it all if you ask me.
hipmanJan 2, 2011
Sure, if only "if".And if only "if" he achieved the same level of success.It's real easy to talk about this in hindsight.
nerysJan 2, 2011
and how many achieve ZERO success because the labels SACRIFICED them so trent could be that much more profitable to them. the problem is the artists and their work do NOT decide success the mass majority of the time. whether you are "chosen" by the label does and then THEY get almost all of it.
this is just one of many reasons why labels must die.
innerspikeJan 2, 2011
Couldn't say it better. Most musicians don't even make 10% on sales. It's why a trend is happening: More and more musicians/bands are going independent. Personally selling their own work and performing in small venues. They make about 4 times as much as signing with a traditional label.
These labels and the MPAA can accuse the decline in sales because of P4P downloading, but the fact remains that they aren't doing anything, what-so-ever, to help their clients.
addiktionJan 2, 2011
Well said sir. I also think its a culture change going on here. I won't get into much details because I don't have the time, but I expect failures for many record companies because many artists are going independent these days as Trent and others have. I've found a lot of new artists from friends and the likes that happen to be inline with my tastes. Rarely do I get my stuff force fed to me from television or radio anymore. It's the difference between forced discovery and self discovery. Bands that ring with the majority will be passed around and become popular all on their own without the need for labels.
artemzJan 2, 2011
robbery
eliotpearsonJan 1, 2011
You maybe right. Hopefully the remaining companies will come up with more sensible approaches to producing music. iTunes and Amazon MP3 were a breathe of fresh air when they came out. I would like to see more innovation like that.
bobosmitorJan 1, 2011
CD's are awfully expensive. Maybe if they had some sales and lowered prices people could buy more.
drmangrumJan 1, 2011
It depends on what you buy and where you buy. I've seen the price of CD's drop dramatically. When you can buy an album off of Amazon MP3's for 12 bucks, the CD has to be damn near that price. I've seen brand new albums sell at Target for $10, cheaper than the [legal] download alternative.
CD's will eventually fail because nobody really uses them anymore. If download services like Amazon start to offer the cover art and liner notes with an MP3 download, there will be no reason ever get the CD. After all, most people buy a CD for the purpose of ripping it and throwing it on their smart phone (pure media players are soon to be on the way out as well.)
bobosmitorJan 1, 2011
True-it is all MP's now.
Closed AccountJan 1, 2011
Wow are you delusional. Do you realize how small a percetange of people who own smartphones compared to regular phones are? And that most who don't have a smart phone don't WANT one? Because most people have LIVES and don't feel the need to be online 24/7.
You honestly go through life thinking that everyone is like you, which is pathetically delusional since no one on this planet would trade places with you for even two seconds. Most people would literally kill themselves the day they realized that they had your life, thinking you needed to be on the internet at all times.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
blinker1315Jan 2, 2011Submitter
Then why do you bother? Go live your life.
nerysJan 2, 2011
you realize even the basic dumb phone now adays have built in usable good mp3 players and headphone jacks and A2DP right?
I disagree however. battery live is just not their yet. I don't want to use my "phone" for non phone things unless I am jacked into a power source. I would rather drain the power on my mp3 player and still have power for my phone. when we have WEEK LONG battery life spans then convergence might be more feasible for the general public.
oltimegaJan 2, 2011
I doubt that most people without smart phones wouldn't accept and use one if it were free. Second, I'm sure people were pissed about the telephone the same way you are about smart phones. Some people probably got really angry and said "You want to make a phone call anywhere!!!!" or "Most people with a phone at home don't need a mobile phone"
Aside from that, you are the most angry, ignorant person I have ever had the displeasure of both reading and commenting to. Your life is so full of hate, I hope that you just kill yourself to better this world.
nerysJan 2, 2011
when we stop using CD's we lose. you folks need to remember that. CD is everything. not because of quality or packaging but because of what it is. PROPERTY.
DRM or not when you buy an mp3 you OWN NOTHING and have ZERO RIGHTS.
when you buy a CD regardless of what the labels CLAIM some unalienable RIGHTS and POWERS come with the physical ownership of that disk
No more CD's (replace CD with any non connected physical medium) means NO MORE PROPERTY RIGHTS.
I will never buy an MP3. mp3's should either be free or so damned cheap they might as well be free ie "disposable" because that IS what they are. disposable on the whim of the rights holder.
when you own a CD it can not be taken from you without public physical force.
to me CD's are like film negatives. you don't use them but you WANT THEM as your "core backup"
I always buy the CD then rip it to any format I want on any medium I want.
CD's (any physical non connected medium) means ACTUAL ownership ACTUAL property rights.
digital as your only source is VERY BAD. 100% of the "rights" are taken from you and you never have any legal "power"
I dread the day we can no longer buy CD's or whatever equivalent their is. Because that day will mark the END of consumer property rights over the content they purchase.
kolop1Jan 2, 2011
That's stupid. I have thousands of MP3s and they are backed up to 3 different hard drives. I own the hard drives that stores my music. I don't need to own the CD to have ownership of my music.
Now cloud computing on the other hand...
nerysJan 2, 2011
except when its rendered illegal? when your accused of having pirated them?
when they "revoke" your license?
what then?
kolop1Jan 2, 2011
How are you going to revoke my none drm Mp3s? Weather you own media on a cd or on a HDD it's yours. It does not matter what you use to store your music.
A HDD or a CD are just different ways to hold the same data.
nerysJan 2, 2011
legally its not the same thing. the CD is clearly legal property the download can be called into question. Can you prove you legally acquired it? with a CD its assumed its legal as long as its "real" (not a copy) and would be hard to prove otherwise.
with a download its illegal and YOU are left to prove it was legal.
Then add in TPM and crap and things get interesting fast. SURE right now your fine. what happens when 20 years from now the file format is "some encrypted protected file" that "phones home" everytime its run and "turning off" your files is a button push away?
try thinking more than the next 5 years into the future. the INEVITABLE end result of ZERO property rights is scary.
kolop1Jan 2, 2011
The same can be said of CDs. Who knows if 20 years from now in order to use then they won't have you lock it to an account with your name, that has to be verified over the internet every time you use it.
You do own your CD, but you don't own the music on them. It the exactly the same when you use an MP3 player or a hard drive to store MP3s.
My current MP3s do not need to be checked via the internet to be played and with the exception of a few albums I own the CDs and just converted them. The rest I purchased from iTunes or Amazon. I didn't steal any of my music.
Could the RIAA break into my house and go through my MP3 collection? Sure. The odds of that are highly unlikely. Unless you believe everything the media tells you, 99.9% of the people who use MP3s will never be caught. There are way too many people that now use MP3s and it would tie up the court system to go after everybody.
So, I'll go back to my first point. Whether the music is stored on a cd a HDD or an MP3 player, if I own that device, it's my music. It does not matter which media I use to hold that music, as long as I own it.
nerysJan 2, 2011
thats why I said I reject any "connected" media format. when we can no long buy a NON CONNECTED media format its game over.
TRY to think into the future a little.
kolop1Jan 2, 2011
How are my MP3s connected format? None of them require an internet connection.
At some point it's all going to be connected. I'm not saying it's right or I agree with it, but you won't ba able to avoid it.
Also, I don't care about 20 years from now. Look at 8 track and video cassette. Those formats are now dead. What about those people with large collections of those formats?
You might try to cling to old antiquated technology, but the rest of the world has moved on.
nerysJan 2, 2011
you miss the point. I am not talking about mp3 as you know it today. THINK THE FUTURE if we don't do something about it?
YES we can stop it very very simply. By not buying it. well thats not so simple since most people are flat out dumb in this regard and will buy anything shoved in front of them like good little lemmings.
I will not. if enough of us reject it options will remain open.
Antiquated technology? your completely 100% missed the point.
EVERYWHERE I said "CD" replace CD with any physically OWNED non connected format. whether that be LP 8Track Cassette CD Minidisc I don't care.
the point is we need to retain the power to OWN physically the media we purchase.
kolop1Jan 3, 2011
I own the MP3s I have. They are not Drmed and they work. They will not be copy written now or 20 years from now.
I understand your point, but I don't think it ever going to go the way you are talking. Look at Amazon. Their MP3s are all undrmed. Also, lots of itunes songs are undrmed now.
They could drm CDs someday too.
bdbrJan 1, 2011
I agree. As with any product, there is going to be a price where they get the best return. Price it higher, and people won't buy; price it lower, and the margins will be too small. The major labels seem to have just colluded on a price and stuck with that despite declining sales. Legal downloads cut out the retail and distribution costs, and should be less than they are.
drmangrumJan 1, 2011
I dunno, download prices aren't outrageous. I can't speak for anyone else, but I usually download songs piecemeal, not entire albums. I'm perfectly happy to purchase songs for a dollar.
nerysJan 2, 2011
99cents for a song is MORE EXPENSIVE than buying the CD. that seems pretty outrageous to me especially when you own NOTHING in purchasing that song as a download.
downloaded DRM free songs should be in the range of 4 to 12 cents a pop DRM'd song's are less than worthless to me I would not even take them for FREE.
mdwstmusikJan 2, 2011
You do realize that CDs contain digital audio files, and that you MAY own the MEDIA it's recorded on (Compact Disc), but you do not own the content (Audio Files). You license it. It's no different that owning a hard drive (Disc) of MP3s (Audio Files).
nerysJan 2, 2011
defactor ownership. I do not recognize "license" I OWN that specific copy on that specific CD and can and will do with it as I please.
they CLAIM you license it. I "claim" I own it.
in the eyes of the law I am "defacto" correct since there is nothing they can legally "do" about it.
drmangrumJan 3, 2011
If i bought every song, then yes, it would be.
That's why I said i buy songs piecemeal. I don't buy the whole album, I buy one or two songs.
Closed AccountJan 1, 2011
Porsches are awfully expensive. Maybe if they lowered prices, people would buy more. iPads are awfully expensive. Maybe if they lowered prices, people would buy more. Gulfstream jets are awfully expensive. Maybe if they lowered prices, people would buy more.
CDs are not a necessity. If you don't agree with the price, then you don'tbuy it. But you also don't get to own it either. Plain and simple.
It is children like you who are spoiled little brats who feel ENTITLED to everyhting you want, even though your life and career sucks and therefore you can't afford to pay for itComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chrisvazquez1Jan 2, 2011
It's called supply and demand. Take econ. Dumbass. Entitlement has nothing to do with it.
innerspikeJan 2, 2011
The truth is, people are buying less and less physical copies of digital products. Games, music, software, whatever. Not to mention, with a physical product you have to buy the entire album. People aren't going to buy those if they only want a few select songs. Insert iTunes, P4P, and other digital sales
bdbrJan 1, 2011
I've been watching the sales of albums and singles for the past few years. The decrease in album sales generally matches an increase in single sales by about 1:2.3. Downloads killed major-label albums, because so many of them focused on two or three songs; the rest was just filler. With downloads, people can skip the filler.
Albums are alive and well for independent labels, and they're not seeing this big sales decline. The author may have no interest in albums, but I buy them all the time.
michaelpintoJan 1, 2011
I think with the disruption in the space it's actually a great time to start a record label or book publishing company. Somewhere the next generation of publishers are being born...
glueJan 1, 2011
You can get all the recording gear you need for under $1000. You can also promote your music on social networking sites. Someone remind me why we need record labels.
Closed AccountJan 1, 2011
Maybe because you have been able to get all the recording gear you needed cheap and promoe on the internet for about a decade now and it is still EXTREMELY rare that anyone succeeds in doing so?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
glueJan 2, 2011
It's EXTREMELY rare anyway. If the record labels still have a business model where they can make money making musicians famous then that's what they should be doing. I'm not so sure, for the musicians, this is really a big deal.
vsaulJan 1, 2011
oh yea music industry don't have much quality singers anymore anyways!
mdwstmusikJan 2, 2011
Isn't that what auto-tune is for?
Closed AccountJan 1, 2011
blinker/splice spam.
Trying to get some ad revenue by posting something that they know Diggers will agree with, no matter how horribly written it may be.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
meedJan 1, 2011
Record companies are still making a killing selling the rights to use recordings on the radio, tv, movies, coffee shops and etc. And lets not forget the profit from digital sales.
They just aren't moving "Albums" like they use to, which probably was the most lucrative part of their business especially in before CD's that don't go wear out with proper use like other older formats like vinyl, 8-tracks, and cassette tapes. So 10 years later they can't count on the same people purchasing the same albums again after wearing them out nor can they count on a new physical format to repackage their existing library and sell it again to people who already own the music in another format.
Record companies will survive, musicians will survive, and music will live on. The leaches who siphon money out of the industry just aren't going to continue to put fuel into their gulf stream jets anymore.
mattbdJan 2, 2011
True. Singles are actually almost never profitable - CD singles are as expensive to duplicate as albums since it's the same physical media, but can only be sold for a much lower price, so most of the time they're at best a break-even prospect, and exist just to promote the album - a single has to sell a colossal amount to actually be profitable. Typically the cost of recording is covered by the album, not the single.
Which is why I think it would make a lot of sense for record labels to make all singles available as free downloads via online services such as iTunes, or even possibly via BitTorrent trackers. That would effectively eliminate the cost of distribution and duplication, thus removing the risk of making a loss on the single (albeit at the cost of removing any likelihood of profiting directly from it, although this is unlikely). It would also encourage people to check out music they wouldn't try otherwise, and if they like it hopefully they'll buy the album - thus fulfilling the promotional aspect of singles more effectively than they do now.
gakidouJan 1, 2011
Music industry needs to evolve or die =p
rattelerJan 1, 2011
Let's just go with die. Then we can replace it with something sensible.
mimlimJan 1, 2011
Indie record shops are still clinging to life though and most of their customers are 15-25 ish. Vinyl survives because it sounds great and the thrill of the hunt is compelling. The biggest downloaders are often the biggest buyers.
ninjabassonlineJan 2, 2011
Well it was going to happen eventually ...If the record companies had tried to move with trends rather than trying to fight them they might have been in a better position...
barasawaJan 2, 2011
Personally I don't like buying albums, and never have. Of course, there was almost no option to get singles in the past, and the price was such that if you wanted 2 or 3 songs on an album, you might as well buy the album.
In my opinion, almost all albums are a few good songs with a lot of garbage. There had been some albums in the past that were more than just a collection of songs, but things like that just don't seem to be done anymore. Might as well buy the songs you like and let the others rot in a bit bucket. Maybe the music industry will start making more good music. (Yeah, I know, fat chance those antiquated sessile scammers will be responsive enough to do that.)
kolop1Jan 2, 2011
Keep giving us GAGA, Ka$ah, Cyrus and Bieber and keep failing. Also, stop with the auto tune crap. It's awful.
mdwstmusikJan 2, 2011
...couldn't agree more.
garygussJan 2, 2011
Couldn't happen to nicer people
satori3000Jan 2, 2011
I'm just wondering about the 'Concept Album' there are quite a few concept albums, aren't these still viable? I realize that this can't save the industry, but surely as an artist the best way to ensure full sales of an album is to make better art, make a concept album.
razor512Jan 2, 2011
music is not a static industry. It is very dynamic where the quality changes from day to day. if music gets crappier, there will be less record sales no matter how much they hype an artist up.
Many artist now usually have 1 or 2 hit songs then the rest is crap that they made in order to make an album.
even worst many artist are now making 100% crappy music.
odkinJan 2, 2011
Until the late 60's (Sgt. Pepper-ish time) the music industry and artists survived by releasing singles constantly, with albums usually just like an annual compilation of successful singles.
When artists starting getting, well, "artistic", they insisted on making elaborate overpriced concept albums of new music, with only one or two popular songs and long gaps between new releases.
The industry and artists need to go to a digital "singles" mentality for moving product, A new artist can't afford a flop album with a year wait for the next one. By releasing songs monthly they can't stay on the charts cheaply and quickly get past their flops.
jeffdalonJan 2, 2011
I teach high school and I have classrooms full of young people who have decided that they deserve the content for free. We don't have to debate the morality here, but the fact is that there is a huge, young segment of our population that has determined that free media is a right and they somehow can't empathize with the artist's need to be paid for the content they have created.
I am in the habit of buying my music, but only in mp3 format from iTunes or Amazon. I live an iLife where my iPad, iPhone, iMac, Apple TV, etc. all provide me content that I have paid for or rented. I am, I'm afraid, becoming a rare breed of consumer.
kolop1Jan 2, 2011
An artist can give away their music and still make big money on concerts. The album being stolen does not really hurt the artist, it hurts the record industry. The artists make the bulk of their money on concerts.
jeffdalonJan 2, 2011
I understand that logic, Kolop1, but it does sound a bit like justification. I wonder if the artist would agree with you. If he or she doesn't, would it still be valid to "steal" music? How about films?
I have my issues with corporate laws and the current imbalance of power that favors large corporations today. I just don't think that labeling them as the bad guy justifies carte blanche downloading of free content without guilt.
artemzJan 2, 2011
I think the most important online sale is the cost of download track. The price of 0.99 $ for track is too high for digital single.
May be I conservative but I prefer to acquire CD album. Its real thing on my shelf that I can always hear.
kolop1Jan 3, 2011
I own the MP3s I have. They are not Drmed and they work. They will not be copy written now or 20 years from now.
I understand your point, but I don't think it ever going to go the way you are talking. Look at Amazon. Their MP3s are all undrmed. Also, lots of itunes songs are undrmed now.
They could drm CDs someday too.