Music Copyright (No Spam)

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 3:31 am

I have never been one to go through illegal channels to obtain my music, in fact nearly every single piece of music I own is from purchased CDs, some would call me a fool but I do love owning my music.

Anyway recently the music industry has been trying to smear the name of MP3's, saying they are the main cause for the decreased sales of production CDs. Apparently it hasn't occured to them that it might have something to do with the vapid music they are releasing. Who really cares about Will Young's new album, the most horrible of things, a cover album, no original material.

In SYM's opinion is there any connection between music sales floundering and the propensity of MP3's, or is it as I suggest due to the horrible wasteland that is contemporary music.

Here is an article from the onion that puts it in perspective...well for me at least

Ps, no mentions of kaazaa or file swapping etc, well unless you want to be banned that is

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 4:05 am

I've been reading about this for some time, and it appears to me that the record labels/songwriters want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. It was not so long ago that we listened to samples on the web to decide if we wanted to buy a particular album. The sites we used had direct links to the publishers - we could purchase with a click. I thought it was a great idea - it reminded me of the store I frequented, where we could listen to the albums before buying. Now, these sites are disappearing rapidly. I must say I review the music industry with a great deal of disgust. They have only themselves to blame for flagging sales in abysmal music. Now, they're hurting good artists, too. I haven't bought any music in over 6 months.

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 4:47 am

The music industry is killing itself.

Music is WAY to expensive. For me,this has become even more clear after the gulden has been replaced for the Euro.
(1 Gulden = 2,2 Euro.)
For a dubble cd, we used to pay about 40 gulden. Now this is 40 Euro!

Prices went up more then 100%!!
(and an r-cd cost like 0,€30, inclusive of a profit!)

The musicindustries makes an incredibly total money.
*Puff daddy drinks Cristal (champagne) that cost houndreds of dollars a bottle like it is water, buys every car he wants etc.
*Spears has 3 houses worth about 10 million dollars in total!

The list goes on.

Now that internet is more available for everyone, people show that they are fet up with these rip off prices.
We don't want to pay that much for a cd with about 5 good numbers on it, and the rest is just crap.
So, we download.

And instead of using this new medium, the music industy fights it on the most dumb ways ever!
The Celene Dion cd crashes you pc, with no hope of getting your cd out of the drive normally.

Internet does what we used to do with tapes. We copy music, big deal.
People don't buy less music because of this, though the music industy think this is so.

But I for one don't like to be ripped of, so I don't buy cd's. I hardly ever did BTW.
3/4 of my cd's are copies.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 5:01 am

I have ended up buying old classics, most recently Pearl by Janis Joplin, there is more quality in one song like Cry Baby than an entire album by some of the notable figures of recent years.

The problem of course is not just the price it is also the quality of what is on offer, personally I think the market is overly flooded with poor acts that do nothing but perpetuate their own name. Jennifer Lopez a perfect example. I would be happy to pay £15.99 for a good quality CD every few months, there are albums I purchased over 4 years ago that I still listen to now, they have been worth the money imo.

I find it interesting that american rappers have houses that cost about the same as a national dephicit and have released about 2 albums and haven't really been exposed to sales abroad either, I know money should filter through to the artist but why is it that talent seems to be chided and image is all important.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 5:11 am

Originally posted by Sojourner
I've been reading about this for some time, and it appears to me that the record labels/songwriters want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. It was not so long ago that we listened to samples on the web to decide if we wanted to buy a particular album. The sites we used had direct links to the publishers - we could purchase with a click. I thought it was a great idea - it reminded me of the store I frequented, where we could listen to the albums before buying. Now, these sites are disappearing rapidly. I must say I review the music industry with a great deal of disgust. They have only themselves to blame for flagging sales in abysmal music. Now, they're hurting good artists, too. I haven't bought any music in over 6 months.

Amazon still provide that facility to some degree, however not on most of the albums I end up buying. It is a great idea and the assumption that all people who want preview MP3's are priateers is vacuous.

I can't blame you at all for not buying music, it is about the only vice/addiction I have left but pretty soon I think I will go into a re-hab clinic.

I did find it quite interesting that the recent sales of Michael Jacksons album (Unbreakable I think) were only 2 million worldwide, when you compare that to Bad which sold 15 million it is quite indicting for an artist who used to be able to draw that kind of crowd. It is of course as much about image as the music for Jacko.

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 5:40 am

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
I did find it quite interesting that the recent sales of Michael Jacksons album (Unbreakable I think) were only 2 million worldwide, when you compare that to Bad which sold 15 million it is quite indicting for an artist who used to be able to draw that kind of crowd. It is of course as much about image as the music for Jacko.

Michael Jackson? Let me be blunt - gag me with a [insert favorite implement here]. MP3 didn't hurt his sales - his music did. Speaking of image-driven music, let's not forget about Britney Spears, whose career got launched as a result of the controversy over her apparel.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 5:55 am

Originally posted by Sojourner
Michael Jackson? Let me be blunt - gag me with a [insert favorite implement here]. MP3 didn't hurt his sales - his music did. Speaking of image-driven music, let's not forget about Britney Spears, whose career got launched as a result of the controversy over her apparel.

My thoughts exactly, if one produces sub standard music the reward should be poor sales, if only it was the case across the board.

I know that music is a very personal experience and is entirely opinion based but I think there are some absolutes, such as Bob Dylan is a better lyricist than Britney Spears or The Stones were more important to the evolution of music than Ace of Base. However production companies have no understanding of music (apparently) and seem to base their decisions on whom they can market to the best. I think one of the most important things that should happen in record production over the next few years is that people who have interest in music are at the top of these companies, not some faceless businessmen.

Spears is entirely a product, she is just the same as Coolaid or Coca Cola, she is made how they want to sell how they want. Has anyone else noticed how more sleazy she is getting, is there some connection do you think, is it supposed to show her maturing...personally I think it is just tasteless.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 6:06 am

I think the biggest thing that's hurting music sales is prices. When record companies began distributing CDs in the mid-80s, they cost $11-14 (USD) despite being cheaper to produce than cassette tapes, which typically cost $7-10 (USD). Their prices have only continued to increase while production costs have remained stable or even decreased. The large chain stores (Wal-Mart, Best Buy, etc.) that offer CDs at discounted prices help to keep prices down, but retail stores are charging $16-20 for CDs that as our friends say, that mostly contain bad music.

For all of the complaining about file sharing and CD-burners, two examples discredit the music industry's claims. First, people being able to mix their own CDs is hurting the record industry about as much as dual cassette decks hurt them in the 70s and 80s. File sharing has made mixing CDs a little easier, but it's not taking away from sales.

Second, the bread and butter of CD sales is from teenage kids. It always has been and always will be. What the critics of file sharing fail to understand is that for a teenager, having the actual CD is as much a part of being a Britney fan as going to concerts. Kids don't want a burned CD of their favourite artist's music that their parents downloaded off the internet; they want the actual CD, with the "personal" message from Britney, the custom artwork on the CD itself, and all of the other crap that is in with the packaging.

Having a burned CD is about as much fun as having a pair of denim jeans their parents sewed a Tommy Hilfiger label on; it's still not the real thing, and that's very important to most teenagers.

If the recording industry wants to keep costs down, they might try cutting back on they guaranteed money they're paying mediocre artists, instead of buying out people like Mariah Carey for $28 million because they become crackpot divas and eating the loss.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 6:23 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Second, the bread and butter of CD sales is from teenage kids. It always has been and always will be. What the critics of file sharing fail to understand is that for a teenager, having the actual CD is as much a part of being a Britney fan as going to concerts. Kids don't want a burned CD of their favourite artist's music that their parents downloaded off the internet; they want the actual CD, with the "personal" message from Britney, the custom artwork on the CD itself, and all of the other crap that is in with the packaging.

The music industry also changed tack to some degree, a great deal of pop artists used to be in the singles chart and all their sales were from that market. The industry then discovered that a great deal of people purchased whole albums so they decided to flood the album market with the same pop nonesense. That is part of what I alluded to earlier. Kids are more decadent now and can on average afford more music (afaik), so they have decided to abuse this. If it were up to me these kids would get a taste of real music but then I am not sure kids are interested in the likes of Coltrane or Hendrix.

Having a burned CD is about as much fun as having a pair of denim jeans their parents sewed a Tommy Hilfiger label on; it's still not the real thing, and that's very important to most teenagers.

I still love "owning" records, it is an experience and for my sins it's an expensive experience, I love CD shopping and it isn't due to needing to own the packaging, it is the whole process, plus I don't have a good bandwidth

I enjoy the music just the same, however buying the CD is more ethical (to me) since at least some of the money gets to the music maker, that is enough for me...I do send the occasional email saying how good it is too

Of course I do not buy the likes of Spears and Martin, their music is of no interest to me, I tend to buy underground or alternative music that is less sales orientated.

If the recording industry wants to keep costs down, they might try cutting back on they guaranteed money they're paying mediocre artists, instead of buying out people like Mariah Carey for $28 million because they become crackpot divas and eating the loss.

Good point, the whole Mariah Carey debacle was completely ridiculous, the same was said of Jacko (again) they paid over the top for an artist who could never make back the price they paid for him. An accountant would be amazed at the mess that is the music industry. I do wonder sometimes if perhaps it is due to art vs finance and the grounding of music itself.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 6:30 am

Another thing hurting the industry is the direction music has taken..the sheer offensiveness and shock value of much of the popular music has gone over the top (IMO).

I know of several instances in my family and friends, where kids have wanted a CD, the parents purchased it for them, then after hearing what was in the lyrics, didn't do a cool thing but make a 360 back to the store for a refund, there after banning that artist from their kids options... I am not an advocate of censorship, but I am a capitalist.. perhaps the labels should wake up and take notice of what their maket is trying to tell them. ie: if you want sales, offer what the public wants to buy

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 6:43 am

Originally posted by Scayde
I know of several instances in my family and friends, where kids have wanted a CD, the parents purchased it for them, then after hearing what was in the lyrics, didn't do a cool thing but make a 360 back to the store for a refund, there after banning that artist from their kids options...

This really doesn't have anything to do with the topic, but when I worked at Barnes & Noble several years ago, a mom came in with her kid and bought a CD from our music department. He had originally wanted to buy it himself, but because the CD had a parental advisory sticker on it, his mom had to pay for it. A couple of days later she came back and threw a fit that we had let her buy this CD for her kid.

The manager was real cool about it, because retail sales people have to be, but I wanted to slap her a few times and ask what part of "Antichrist Superstar" made her believe that there was any redeeming social value to what she was buying for her kid (plus, you'd think the advisory sticker would have tipped her off).

Anyway, the recording industry is a copy-cat industry. People will bank on "proven" artists or even one-hit wonders with no guarantee of future success. If they make money, they line their own pockets with it. If they lose money, they pass the loss on to consumers.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 6:50 am

Originally posted by Scayde
Another thing hurting the industry is the direction music has taken..the sheer offensiveness and shock value of much of the popular music has gone over the top (IMO).

I am afraid to say in this instance it is what the kids want, from my experience teenagers love nothing more than rebelling and in that musical form they find a music that meets that rebellious spirit, of course the ironic thing is that in this rebellion culture they are in fact conforming to be exactly the same as everyone else.

I'll ask you, what is the pervading clothes that kids where these days? As far as I see it is mostly Slipknot hoodys and baggy denim...you won't find a street corner in Britain that doesn't feature kids wearing that crap.

The music industry have cottoned onto this quite well and released many of these type of bands, Kerrang are a prime example, an alternative magazine/station they are backed by big business and they are told who to promote. So they suggest that all these new metal esque bands are the way to go even if they are as vacuous as Spears. Again actual music merit is questionable.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 6:58 am

Hey guys, don't missinterpret me on this, I am not saying kids don't like the stuff, and even good parents give in to what their kids want some times.. But if an artist is banned from a household because of what mommy or daddy heard comming from Jr.s room, that's where the buck stops.

@ HLD: I well understand the marketing stratigies of the music industry, My mother was a publisher, and my Dad a producer fo MGM, Motown, and Atlantic..They always push the edge in the pop/rock venues. I am just saying that the parents are the source for the kids funds, if they push so far, the buck gets cut off. It has happened before in the industy. It recoverd resoundingly though

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 7:08 am

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
The music industry have cottoned onto this quite well and released many of these type of bands, Kerrang are a prime example, an alternative magazine/station they are backed by big business and they are told who to promote. So they suggest that all these new metal esque bands are the way to go even if they are as vacuous as Spears. Again actual music merit is questionable.

Which is why the music industry should hardly be surprised that these "artists" have short-lived market vlaue, and stop blaming their losses on MP3's.

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 7:13 am

Strange....Well Ive been actually buying more CD's recently than not. I think it may be derived to the fact that CD's still cost $15 or less (Unless its a CD set). I havent noticed an incline in prices. Maybe it derives to the fact that I get compilation CD's or I get 80's CD's which are probably on sale, I dont even notice. The only new music that I buy is techno and I havent noticed a price change there, either. So it really hasnt effected me at all.

By that means, I basically think that mp3's are hurting the music industry cause people want free music and want to make their own compilations. Its as simple as that. Free music=customers interest and own compilations=attractive for consumers.

I like to own my own CD's aswell and so I have never gotten, nor have ever thought seriously of getting an mp3 player.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 7:16 am

I am reminded of what happened with Mr Jim "exposure" Morrison, the kids loved him for his antics on stage, they loved the sex symbol image, then he says "you really want to see it?"...no performer has really topped that since if you ask me.

The interesting thing about all that was how they didn't capitalise on it at all, in fact the whole thing kind of killed the Morrison sex symbol (the death of the sex symbol image being good for the music) I can see the record industry making a huge specticle of that now a days and frankly, anything to sell a few extra units.

In your instance Scayde the child will probably then go to listen to it in school with their friends, unfortunately it is difficult to keep a blanket ban on things like that. The parents have more of a responsibility to explain why there is a problem with it. My parents were/are into Country (God help them) and they were always very happy to let me buy the music I wanted, apart from the occasional CD, like Nirvana's album with the Baby on the front (I forget it's name) and that was due to one track being called Rape Me...I then went into school and listened to it there, so nothing much was acheived. There are a few examples like this. Of course eventually I realised what quality music was all about and I dispise some of the purchases I made.

You are however right about the funds and little Johnny can't afford anything without his parents.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 7:18 am

Let's not forget that it was only a couple of years ago that the record industry lost a bitterly fought lawsuit against retail stores that were being told in essence, "if you want our CDs, you can't advertise our competitors' CDs on your property." They were told by the courts that they couldn't attempt to control the advertising budget of retail outlets.

Personally, I buy all my CDs over the Web. I can get 'em cheaper, and I avoid the new goods which are always expensive in any case.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 7:23 am

Originally posted by Tybaltus
I havent noticed an incline in prices.

How long have you been buying music?

By that means, I basically think that mp3's are hurting the music industry cause people want free music and want to make their own compilations. Its as simple as that. Free music=customers interest and own compilations=attractive for consumers.

If I was given the option of the artist/producer getting the money for something I enjoyed that they created or d/l off the net and them getting nothing then I would pay every time, the problem comes from the lack of explanation of what happens to the money and how come are artists riding around in Humvee's etc, gone are the days of Son House and Blues artists plying their trade on the gig revenues and releasing the odd little (absolutely brilliant) album. It can also refer to ethics, I feel tawdey downloading hard crafted albums off the internet...I don't think it is as simple as you suggest.

I like to own my own CD's aswell and so I have never gotten, nor have ever thought seriously of getting an mp3 player.

Owning an MP3 player doesn't automatically mean one gets MP3s off the net, I have a really good MP3 player but all bar 2 of the albums on there are from my own personal collection.

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 7:38 am

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
How long have you been buying music?

Hmmm....probably 3 or 4 years now.

If I was given the option of the artist/producer getting the money for something I enjoyed that they created or d/l off the net and them getting nothing then I would pay every time, the problem comes from the lack of explanation of what happens to the money and how come are artists riding around in Humvee's etc, gone are the days of Son House and Blues artists plying their trade on the gig revenues and releasing the odd little (absolutely brilliant) album.

Yes, that is true...if I actually thought I was giving money to the original artist when I buy CD's I would probably feel even better about paying for my own CD's but when I buy them, I like having the CD case, cover etc. It all looks better, you know what Im talking about?

Yup....gone are the days of a lot of things, beyond music, when corporations step in, and modern industry....its ended a lot of things we looked upon with respect and wonder.

What happens to the money? Well what money? The money that you pay for CD's? It goes to the record company. And thats that. Or thats what I think....

Owning an MP3 player doesn't automatically mean one gets MP3s off the net, I have a really good MP3 player but all bar 2 of the albums on there are from my own personal collection.

Right...but what percentage of people who buy mp3's do download stuff off the net? By my knowledge, a heck of a lot of people.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 7:49 am

I was watching something on TV about a year ago and someone was saying that artists really don't make a lot of money off of CD sales. This person, I forget who it was but they were a minor recording artist at the time, said that of the $16 retail price for a CD, the artist might see between $1 and $1.50, and that was the entire act, so for a band like Aerosmith or Bon Jovi, that would be divied up four or five ways. It was only a handful of name-level acts that made a lot of money off album sales (ie-Aerosmith, Prince, Madonna, etc.) because they had guaranteed contracts.

This person was saying that albums were a great way to showcase their music but most of an artist's money is made through touring and merchandise sales.

If this is indeed the case, it's not artists who are losing tremendous amounts of money on .mp3 file sharing, but record companies.