4 ms·
To the RIAA, the Music Industry really is collapsing. They are used to the Music Industry being one entity that they have control over. But the music industry
by joejohnson 15y ago
To the RIAA, the Music Industry really is collapsing. They are used to the Music Industry being one entity that they have control over. But the music industry is just changing, and now many indie artists and producers are able to release music to a huge audience without using the distribution channels that the RIAA sought to protect. So, the Music Industry as it was known 10+ years ago is collapsing. However, in it's place is a new music industry with a vastly different business model. And the RIAA will either realize the world has changed and try to grab some market share before it's all gone, or they will cease to exist.
- warfangle 15y agoIt's interesting how these dyed-in-the-wool capitalists are getting so butthurt over getting their asses kicked by more able competitors.
- incongruity 15y agoMonopolists (oligopoly I guess, technically), particularly those who've been in a monopoly position for a long time are only the dried up husks of capitalists. It comes as no surprise that competition is a completely foreign concept to them, IMHO.
- philwelch 15y agoIt's a new music industry that very well may have less revenue and less profitability. There isn't much elasticity for concert ticket prices to go up much more, but there's a lot of room for record sales to fall, which means turning them into a loss leader just means losing money.
- monsterix 15y agoI quite frankly, disagree. The artist, who embraced and grew up on the new fora, earns more than what he/she could have ever done via label-sponsor-plastic route. In fact some of the well known artists of today are artists only because of the new fora. It's no more like Joe needs to know the big-daddy before he/she could even release some good music.
- philwelch 15y agoThe artist may earn more, but I'm talking about the overall size of the industry.
- farinasa 15y agoI believe this is how it should be. Most popular music today is mass produced by rather untalented people. I wouldn't even call them artists. They assemble components into something that works. Much like a programmer. But are programmers labelled as artists? Music from an artist is generally produced from an internal artistic drive. These mass produced tracks are simply made to make money. They cause the industry to be inflated because they probably wouldn't have become successful or even have been made without huge amounts of backing capital. In other words, if the value of the industry was based on artistic merits, how much do you think it would be valued at?
- philwelch 15y agoI don't think cultural elitism or musical hipsterdom is a useful response. There's major label music that easily matches the artistic merit of anything you could name, and while it largely would have existed with or without major label support, it would not have reached as many people or received the same production values.
- farinasa 15y ago>cultural elitism or musical hipsterdom is a useful response I think you've misinterpreted me. Unless you're telling me that people who can't even sing a live concert should be paid millions to sing. These are people that are generally considered musicians but often can't play an instrument, write their own songs, or even sing without software assistance. If we pared down the people who get paid to be musicians to the ones that do one of the above, how many would be left?
- philwelch 15y ago