3 ms·

I love how this story weaves the changes of an industry around a single life who anticipated, benefited, and eventually fell behind the trends of how we get mus

I love how this story weaves the changes of an industry around a single life who anticipated, benefited, and eventually fell behind the trends of how we get music, movies, and media. I still remember buying bootleg "VCDs" in Hong Kong back in 2001. When it comes to how the music industry's changed as a whole, I think two charts tell the story: 1. RIAA-tracked (North American) music sales have fallen from a high of $14 billion in 1999 to only about $6 billion today, even with downloads included. [1] 2. At the same time, concert ticket sales have gone up from $1.5 to $7.5 billion, offsetting three-quarters of the drop in music sales. [2] It's an incredible shift in how the industry works, and explains the rise of Live Nation/Ticketmaster, Spotify (why are music publishers and others are more willing to give away music?). The winners and losers have changed, but the music keeps playing. [1] https://blog.thecurrent.org/2014/02/40-years-of-album-sales-data-in-one-handy-chart/ https://blog.thecurrent.org/2014/02/40-years-of-album-sales-... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/306065/concert-ticket-sales-revenue-in-north-america/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/306065/concert-ticket-sa...

CaptSpify 9y ago
That makes sense to me. Our digital music distribution system is stupid to begin with. We shouldn't be paying for digital goods per item. We should be using alternate payment methods. Unfortunately, this is bad news for the RIAA, as they lose out on a large pool of profits because we've automated the distribution problem away.
- mikepurvis 9y ago
  The patreon/kickstarter model is much better, but the issue with that from the industry's perspective is that it pays artists more or less directly from their fanatical core of devoted fans. You see this model at work on Twitch as well, where a small group of "subscribers" can support a stream that is viewed by the much larger group of followers. The reason the industry doesn't like it is it requires fanatical fans. It doesn't fit with a model of bland, mass-appeal content; the kind of stuff that everyone likes but nobody loves.
  - pythonaut_16 9y ago
    And more importantly, it doesn't require the industry. In that model at most the band it going to need professional recording and producing services, and maybe some help from song writers. But they don't need a middle man in the recording company to front the money and control them.
    - mikepurvis 9y ago
      You still need to build up that fanbase somehow. So many _pieces_ of the industry infrastructure may yet have a place (agents, financing, mentorship, hustling, whatever), but yeah definitely the sun is setting on the old-school business of "getting signed" as being the big goal for an artist looking to go big.
Meekro 9y ago
I remember how people on Slashdot loved to argue about this around 2003, when the RIAA started suing everyone. The nerds claimed that music would eventually become free, but artists would still make a living from concert tickets and merchandise. That viewpoint was often mocked, but turned out to be right!
- roel_v 9y ago
  No, the nerds argued that music "should" be free and that musicians "should just" switch to a concert/merch business model. Which they ended up having to do. I think thats a very different view of it. I'm not a musician or otherwise profit from strong copyrights, but I still think creators were/are being robbed.
  - loopbit 9y ago
    > [...]but I still think creators were/are being robbed. Sure, they are. By the recording companies. The argument we, nerds, made at the time is that with that model of content creation and distribution artists were still getting most of their income from concerts, so ideally they could move to a self-publishing model or even give their music for free and still retain most of their income. I don't know how familiar you are with the music industry, but the amount of money a musician gets (or used to get, I've been decades away from that business) is usually cents per album sold. You get 100K sales? Congratulations, that's a massive achievement, here's your $5K. To share among all the band members. Off you go. Don't take my word for it, either, read a few interviews with Trent Reznor in the early 00's, for example, when he left the music label he was with and moved to self-publishing (which he was almost doing anyway), here's one where he talks about this head on: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/q-a-with-trent-reznor-of-nine-inch-nails/news-story/9140b0c8f8ab5486166b2a073ccafc15 http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/q-a-with-trent-rez... It turns out that the internet is a great tool for new musicians to advertise themselves, you have plenty of places that allow you to upload your stuff for free and selling your music is easier now than ever. Of course it requires a set of new skills (a bit of marketing, sales, technical know-how) but on the whole, you have more control and less strings attached than with a record label. Very few people buy physical media any more, so most of the advantages of signing with a company (production, sales, distribution, logistics...) are gone anyway. And that's the beauty of this: Recording labels are still a viable businesses, they can still offer services the musicians and fans need, all we said is that the balance of power had to shift from the power ties in the offices earning millions to the musicians actually making the stuff.
swang 9y ago
this was already happening in asia back in the 90s. artists were shifting from selling cds (which were heavily pirated) to touring, which also garnered them more money. obviously hindsight is 20/20 but there were tons of articles pointing out what was happening in asia was going to happen here whether the record companies in the west liked it or not.
cyberpunk0 9y ago
I wonder how much of the ticket market increase comes not from increased volume but from outlandishly increased prices and "convenience" fees tacked on.
NicoJuicy 9y ago
The time of Twilight CD's and DVD warez in the Netherlands and Belgium
jacquesm 9y ago
All that caused is a big shift in income from record labels to venues and concert promoters, the artists did not end up any better off than they were before.
- yobrien 9y ago
  I've always heard (no proof) that artists make little off album and song sales but received a larger benefit from concerts/merch. -- If that's true, the shift to increased concert revenue benefits them.
- GFischer 9y ago
  There's almost as big a racket around venues and concert promoters as there was with RIAA and it's ilk (it's basically a Ticketmaster/LiveNation monopoly in the U.S.), but artists do get a larger cut (harder to scam them when they see the full stadium I guess). I've seen quotes about 60% of gross for artists with the rest being split between the ticket processor, promoter, taxes, etc. That 60% has to cover the artists' costs (not the venue but roadies, sound engineers, lighting crew, catering, tour manager, backing singers, extra musicians, dancers and so on https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/jan/30/where-does-concert-ticket-money-go https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/jan/30/where-does-con... http://www.wisebread.com/how-much-a-breakdown-of-concert-ticket-prices http://www.wisebread.com/how-much-a-breakdown-of-concert-tic...

CaptSpify 9y ago

That makes sense to me. Our digital music distribution system is stupid to begin with. We shouldn't be paying for digital goods per item. We should be using alternate payment methods. Unfortunately, this is bad news for the RIAA, as they lose out on a large pool of profits because we've automated the distribution problem away.

mikepurvis 9y ago
The patreon/kickstarter model is much better, but the issue with that from the industry's perspective is that it pays artists more or less directly from their fanatical core of devoted fans. You see this model at work on Twitch as well, where a small group of "subscribers" can support a stream that is viewed by the much larger group of followers. The reason the industry doesn't like it is it requires fanatical fans. It doesn't fit with a model of bland, mass-appeal content; the kind of stuff that everyone likes but nobody loves.
- pythonaut_16 9y ago
  And more importantly, it doesn't require the industry. In that model at most the band it going to need professional recording and producing services, and maybe some help from song writers. But they don't need a middle man in the recording company to front the money and control them.
  - mikepurvis 9y ago
    You still need to build up that fanbase somehow. So many _pieces_ of the industry infrastructure may yet have a place (agents, financing, mentorship, hustling, whatever), but yeah definitely the sun is setting on the old-school business of "getting signed" as being the big goal for an artist looking to go big.

Meekro 9y ago

I remember how people on Slashdot loved to argue about this around 2003, when the RIAA started suing everyone. The nerds claimed that music would eventually become free, but artists would still make a living from concert tickets and merchandise. That viewpoint was often mocked, but turned out to be right!

roel_v 9y ago
No, the nerds argued that music "should" be free and that musicians "should just" switch to a concert/merch business model. Which they ended up having to do. I think thats a very different view of it. I'm not a musician or otherwise profit from strong copyrights, but I still think creators were/are being robbed.
- loopbit 9y ago
  > [...]but I still think creators were/are being robbed. Sure, they are. By the recording companies. The argument we, nerds, made at the time is that with that model of content creation and distribution artists were still getting most of their income from concerts, so ideally they could move to a self-publishing model or even give their music for free and still retain most of their income. I don't know how familiar you are with the music industry, but the amount of money a musician gets (or used to get, I've been decades away from that business) is usually cents per album sold. You get 100K sales? Congratulations, that's a massive achievement, here's your $5K. To share among all the band members. Off you go. Don't take my word for it, either, read a few interviews with Trent Reznor in the early 00's, for example, when he left the music label he was with and moved to self-publishing (which he was almost doing anyway), here's one where he talks about this head on: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/q-a-with-trent-reznor-of-nine-inch-nails/news-story/9140b0c8f8ab5486166b2a073ccafc15 http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/q-a-with-trent-rez... It turns out that the internet is a great tool for new musicians to advertise themselves, you have plenty of places that allow you to upload your stuff for free and selling your music is easier now than ever. Of course it requires a set of new skills (a bit of marketing, sales, technical know-how) but on the whole, you have more control and less strings attached than with a record label. Very few people buy physical media any more, so most of the advantages of signing with a company (production, sales, distribution, logistics...) are gone anyway. And that's the beauty of this: Recording labels are still a viable businesses, they can still offer services the musicians and fans need, all we said is that the balance of power had to shift from the power ties in the offices earning millions to the musicians actually making the stuff.

swang 9y ago

this was already happening in asia back in the 90s. artists were shifting from selling cds (which were heavily pirated) to touring, which also garnered them more money. obviously hindsight is 20/20 but there were tons of articles pointing out what was happening in asia was going to happen here whether the record companies in the west liked it or not.

cyberpunk0 9y ago

I wonder how much of the ticket market increase comes not from increased volume but from outlandishly increased prices and "convenience" fees tacked on.

NicoJuicy 9y ago

The time of Twilight CD's and DVD warez in the Netherlands and Belgium

jacquesm 9y ago

All that caused is a big shift in income from record labels to venues and concert promoters, the artists did not end up any better off than they were before.

yobrien 9y ago
I've always heard (no proof) that artists make little off album and song sales but received a larger benefit from concerts/merch. -- If that's true, the shift to increased concert revenue benefits them.
GFischer 9y ago
There's almost as big a racket around venues and concert promoters as there was with RIAA and it's ilk (it's basically a Ticketmaster/LiveNation monopoly in the U.S.), but artists do get a larger cut (harder to scam them when they see the full stadium I guess). I've seen quotes about 60% of gross for artists with the rest being split between the ticket processor, promoter, taxes, etc. That 60% has to cover the artists' costs (not the venue but roadies, sound engineers, lighting crew, catering, tour manager, backing singers, extra musicians, dancers and so on https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/jan/30/where-does-concert-ticket-money-go https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/jan/30/where-does-con... http://www.wisebread.com/how-much-a-breakdown-of-concert-ticket-prices http://www.wisebread.com/how-much-a-breakdown-of-concert-tic...