Author Topic: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States  (Read 16979 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tortuga

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 317
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #150 on: May 15, 2018, 02:34:10 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't understand the clutter objections. People are talking about buying record players? Nice if you're an audiophile but for the rest of us, just put it on your preferred device. If you're listening for free, you can license it properly. Ok to check out a new artist or album imho (I tried SOE in YT before I bought it) but if you're listening more than a couple times, buy it - whether the whole album or just a song for a lousy buck.

So when I say ďstreamingĒ Iím talking about a paid subscription service ($15/month).  Not just streaming something on Youtube.   I can use it on my phone but I can also play through an Echo Dot plugged into my home stereo.  I can just say, ďAlexa, play Achtung BabyĒ and it immediately starts playing.    I have 500 CDís taking up a chunk of space and no desire to go dig out what I want to hear, load it up in a CD player,  and then watch that stack of CDs accumulate on the bookshelf until I finally go file them back away.  Iím not trying to cheat musicianís out of their money.  I just think physical media is an inferior way to own the right to listen to someoneís music, even if it did create a way for a small percentage of musicians to make huge amounts of money.  All this to say that you canít compare todayís sales of SOE to sales of past albums.  Thatís not the way that most people buy music these days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline laoghaire

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,179
  • IT MEEEEEEEANS SOMETHING!!!!!!
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #151 on: May 15, 2018, 02:47:39 PM »
Fair enough. I think they get credit for that too, and they choose to offer their songs for streaming.

Offline wons

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 802
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #152 on: May 15, 2018, 03:11:07 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Folks. I'm 34. I don't buy music. Its just a waste of money in general. I have an apple music account and listen to  the album there. If I had money to burn, I might have a record player and get a copy. But I don't like collecting stuff anymore. So...thats a bit pointless too.

So no point looking at sales. I presume most people are like me. Look at streams mind you.

Unfortunately, based on youtube, U2's streams for their new music are very low. U2's best performance vs other artist recorded music is still with album sales despite how small the figures are compared to albums released years and decades ago.


On a side issue:

I understand your reasoning for you personally for not purchasing music, plus given what has happened with technology and the internet. But I think artist deserve to be paid for their work. When I purchased Achtung Baby On Compact Disc back in November 1991, it was $15.99 + whatever tax. Adjusted for inflation into 2018 prices, that is $29.21, + whatever tax. The artist deserve to be paid for their work and they used to be paid for their work.

Imagine suddenly not being paid for the work that you do, or only being paid a fraction, maybe 10% of what you used to be paid. How would that effect you and the others like you?

Despite what is fair, technology and the internet seem to have permanently ruined the fair payment of artist for their recorded work. Its just too easy to obtain the music for free thanks to technology and none of the attempts to redress the problem have worked. Plus it is now culturally ingrained that there is nothing wrong with not paying for recorded music.

They may deserve to be paid but how much?  Your Achtung Baby example is not really relevant.  Before the advent of recorded music, there were relatively few ďprofessionalĒ musicians.  Most people who were entertained by music were entertained by music they made themselves or music that was made by their family and friends.  The 1930s to the present-ish may be a brief period of time when a significant number of people could get filthy rich by making and selling recorded music, much as U2 has.  Iím not sure that ever really made sense.  It was an artifact of a publishing business model that is now being disrupted by technology.  The era of dreaming of making it big in an all or nothing way is ending.  On the other hand, there is perhaps more opportunity for a passionate musician to make a small or moderate living off live performances, merchandise, and streaming revenue.  I realize the streaming model is not really doing much for any musicians right now but it may (hopefully) evolve to that point.  Iím in my 50s and I really donít like collecting cluttering objects either.  Its just so much paper and plastic waste.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know anyone that refers to their Compact Disc collection or record collection as paper and plastic waste. I certainly don't. I love my compact disc and continue to listen to them just like I did when I got my first CD's back in 1988.

As for history, well, we used to have Slave Labor that was paid NOTHING, that does not mean we should go back to that or that people don't deserve to be paid. The music business was great and without it you would not have all the bands you love. Its sad to see a business destroyed so rapidly and I doubt the people who are cheering that on would feel the same way if it was their business or job that was being eliminated.

The current model which is primarily streaming is terrible. Its why there has been a huge decline in the number of new bands and rock music in general. The amount of money coming in can't support a band of five people. A solo artist has a better shot and not as much risk. But most rock music is made by bands and it is being destroyed by technology and the ability of people to get anything they want for free. Its terrible and naturally any business can't last long when the product they sell is available for free everywhere you look.

This is not better for the little guy or anyone starting out. Its a far worse situation which is why less people are forming new bands. A band like U2 is safe thanks to their massive past earnings. But the new guy just starting out really does not have much of a chance. People don't flock to see you in concert until they have purchased your album usually. People now just look for songs to stream. The investment in individual artist is far less now. When people are not invested in an artist and maybe only listen to one song by them, they don't bother to go see them in concert.

              The industry is dying, especially rock music which is sad because a lot of talent out there is not being heard, or is opting for a different line of work because chances of making or so much slimmer now than they were before. Forming a band and playing on week nights and weekends in your town and posting things on the internet is not the same. That's not a career or a job, that's just a hobby that will likely not earn the artist much money. Few people will ever know who that artist is and during the day they will have to be working somewhere else in order to make ends meet.

Offline wons

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 802
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #153 on: May 15, 2018, 03:21:43 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't understand the clutter objections. People are talking about buying record players? Nice if you're an audiophile but for the rest of us, just put it on your preferred device. If you're listening for free, you can license it properly. Ok to check out a new artist or album imho (I tried SOE in YT before I bought it) but if you're listening more than a couple times, buy it - whether the whole album or just a song for a lousy buck.

  Iím not trying to cheat musicianís out of their money. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatal

           But that is essentially what your doing. Spotify is $10 dollars a month to listen to anything you want. It would be the same as putting a quarter into a juke box in 1985 and being able to listen to anything on the juke box for an entire day, just on that one quarter. A quarter in a juke box in 1985 would only get you one song played.

Quote
I just think physical media is an inferior way to own the right to listen to someoneís music, even if it did create a way for a small percentage of musicians to make huge amounts of money.  All this to say that you canít compare todayís sales of SOE to sales of past albums.  Thatís not the way that most people buy music these days.


          Its a way for the little guy to make money. Its the little guy that is being the most robbed in this process. As for U2, most of their fans do not stream or buy individual tracks. Most purchase the album whether it be physical or digital. By the way if you hate physical media you should at least be buying a digital copy of the album.

U2's streaming numbers and individual digital song download numbers are tiny. So to see how U2 is doing, its important to still look at the album sales numbers, because that is where they are still doing well relative to all the other artist in the industry.



Offline wons

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 802
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #154 on: May 15, 2018, 03:26:24 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't understand the clutter objections. People are talking about buying record players? Nice if you're an audiophile but for the rest of us, just put it on your preferred device. If you're listening for free, you can license it properly. Ok to check out a new artist or album imho (I tried SOE in YT before I bought it) but if you're listening more than a couple times, buy it - whether the whole album or just a song for a lousy buck.

   I can use it on my phone but I can also play through an Echo Dot plugged into my home stereo.  I can just say, ďAlexa, play Achtung BabyĒ and it immediately starts playing. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

         I've seen those commercials. I'm never going to talk to some electronic device to do everything for me. Not good for the body or the mind. 

Offline Tortuga

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 317
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #155 on: May 15, 2018, 08:11:49 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't understand the clutter objections. People are talking about buying record players? Nice if you're an audiophile but for the rest of us, just put it on your preferred device. If you're listening for free, you can license it properly. Ok to check out a new artist or album imho (I tried SOE in YT before I bought it) but if you're listening more than a couple times, buy it - whether the whole album or just a song for a lousy buck.

   I can use it on my phone but I can also play through an Echo Dot plugged into my home stereo.  I can just say, ďAlexa, play Achtung BabyĒ and it immediately starts playing. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

         I've seen those commercials. I'm never going to talk to some electronic device to do everything for me. Not good for the body or the mind.

Wow, really?  When I was in high school the only music I could be aware of was what got played on the radio.  Now there is all kinds of new music out there      to be discovered and its not screened by some radio programming service.  In the old world only a tiny fraction of artists had even a shot at being heard beyond their hometown.  In this era there is so much more variety and creative freedom.  Does an artist really need the chance for a $600 MM net worth to be motivated to create?  At least now you have the possibility of earning something.  Before it was much more all or nothing and being appreciated.  Only a tiny tiny fraction of artists ever got major label deals!  I hear more new bands now than ever.  The live music scene is vibrant with new young bands.  They get known from the internet and then sell out small venues all over the country.  CD sales is not how they make money now days.  You can keep buying them, thatís great.  But its not going to make a dent in the economics of a band.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline wons

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 802
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #156 on: May 16, 2018, 03:16:50 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't understand the clutter objections. People are talking about buying record players? Nice if you're an audiophile but for the rest of us, just put it on your preferred device. If you're listening for free, you can license it properly. Ok to check out a new artist or album imho (I tried SOE in YT before I bought it) but if you're listening more than a couple times, buy it - whether the whole album or just a song for a lousy buck.

   I can use it on my phone but I can also play through an Echo Dot plugged into my home stereo.  I can just say, ďAlexa, play Achtung BabyĒ and it immediately starts playing. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

         I've seen those commercials. I'm never going to talk to some electronic device to do everything for me. Not good for the body or the mind.

Wow, really?  When I was in high school the only music I could be aware of was what got played on the radio.  Now there is all kinds of new music out there      to be discovered and its not screened by some radio programming service.  In the old world only a tiny fraction of artists had even a shot at being heard beyond their hometown.  In this era there is so much more variety and creative freedom.  Does an artist really need the chance for a $600 MM net worth to be motivated to create?  At least now you have the possibility of earning something.  Before it was much more all or nothing and being appreciated.  Only a tiny tiny fraction of artists ever got major label deals!  I hear more new bands now than ever.  The live music scene is vibrant with new young bands.  They get known from the internet and then sell out small venues all over the country.  CD sales is not how they make money now days.  You can keep buying them, thatís great.  But its not going to make a dent in the economics of a band.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you think things are better now for rock bands, lets compare the years 1980 to 1989 with 2010 to 2018. Which time period has more rock bands you can actually name. Which time period has more rock bands actually making good money. Where is the U2 of 2010 to 2018? Meaning they released their first album no earlier than 2010.

      There are less rock bands out there today by almost any measure. Labels were able to support thousands of bands, most you had never heard of back when the music industry was healthy. Studies have been done looking at what artist make now compared to 20 years ago and it is mind boggeling how little the average artist makes compared to back then. Live music has gradually disappeared from many college campuses and towns. I've seen famous rock clubs shut down because talent and interest had dried up and it was hurting the business. Rock music now is at its lowest level of popularity ever in history. In another thread on here, another poster was discussing the fact that there are now teenagers who have NEVER heard the term Rock N' Roll. D J's spinning dance music are now overwhelmingly dominate on most college campuses and towns. In larger cities, you'll still may have a good live music scene, but its much smaller than it was 20 years ago.

       The little guy now does not earn more than they did 20 years ago. It may be easier to put something out there that people could possibly see, but that does not make it easier to actually get noticed, make money, and turn it into something that will make a career. If you get lucky on youtube and have something go viral, then maybe you might have a chance, but that's like winning the lottery.

I tell you what, name your top 10 favorite new bands, and lets see just how well their doing. How many people nationally or worldwide know who they are? How much have they sold in terms of albums, physical and digital? How many individual track downloads do they have? What do their streaming numbers look like? How about their concert boxoffice numbers? I have access to all that data, and I'll be able to see how each of these 10 bands are doing. The criteria for NEW is the earliest debut album cannot have been released prior to 2010. This should be interesting.

Offline Tortuga

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 317
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #157 on: May 17, 2018, 12:42:26 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't understand the clutter objections. People are talking about buying record players? Nice if you're an audiophile but for the rest of us, just put it on your preferred device. If you're listening for free, you can license it properly. Ok to check out a new artist or album imho (I tried SOE in YT before I bought it) but if you're listening more than a couple times, buy it - whether the whole album or just a song for a lousy buck.

   I can use it on my phone but I can also play through an Echo Dot plugged into my home stereo.  I can just say, ďAlexa, play Achtung BabyĒ and it immediately starts playing. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

         I've seen those commercials. I'm never going to talk to some electronic device to do everything for me. Not good for the body or the mind.

Wow, really?  When I was in high school the only music I could be aware of was what got played on the radio.  Now there is all kinds of new music out there      to be discovered and its not screened by some radio programming service.  In the old world only a tiny fraction of artists had even a shot at being heard beyond their hometown.  In this era there is so much more variety and creative freedom.  Does an artist really need the chance for a $600 MM net worth to be motivated to create?  At least now you have the possibility of earning something.  Before it was much more all or nothing and being appreciated.  Only a tiny tiny fraction of artists ever got major label deals!  I hear more new bands now than ever.  The live music scene is vibrant with new young bands.  They get known from the internet and then sell out small venues all over the country.  CD sales is not how they make money now days.  You can keep buying them, thatís great.  But its not going to make a dent in the economics of a band.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you think things are better now for rock bands, lets compare the years 1980 to 1989 with 2010 to 2018. Which time period has more rock bands you can actually name. Which time period has more rock bands actually making good money. Where is the U2 of 2010 to 2018? Meaning they released their first album no earlier than 2010.

      There are less rock bands out there today by almost any measure. Labels were able to support thousands of bands, most you had never heard of back when the music industry was healthy. Studies have been done looking at what artist make now compared to 20 years ago and it is mind boggeling how little the average artist makes compared to back then. Live music has gradually disappeared from many college campuses and towns. I've seen famous rock clubs shut down because talent and interest had dried up and it was hurting the business. Rock music now is at its lowest level of popularity ever in history. In another thread on here, another poster was discussing the fact that there are now teenagers who have NEVER heard the term Rock N' Roll. D J's spinning dance music are now overwhelmingly dominate on most college campuses and towns. In larger cities, you'll still may have a good live music scene, but its much smaller than it was 20 years ago.

       The little guy now does not earn more than they did 20 years ago. It may be easier to put something out there that people could possibly see, but that does not make it easier to actually get noticed, make money, and turn it into something that will make a career. If you get lucky on youtube and have something go viral, then maybe you might have a chance, but that's like winning the lottery.

I tell you what, name your top 10 favorite new bands, and lets see just how well their doing. How many people nationally or worldwide know who they are? How much have they sold in terms of albums, physical and digital? How many individual track downloads do they have? What do their streaming numbers look like? How about their concert boxoffice numbers? I have access to all that data, and I'll be able to see how each of these 10 bands are doing. The criteria for NEW is the earliest debut album cannot have been released prior to 2010. This should be interesting.


The decline of ďRockĒ is a different issue.  Enjoyment of music and the number of people engaged in it is not declining.  The music my dad loved is pretty much dead.  The music we grew up with is constantly evolving into something different.  It will likely cease to be known beyond historical interest and a relatively small group of fans at some point.  That happens to every generationís music.

On the business side, its always been a lottery.  Weíll just have to agree to disagree about whether its better or worse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline wons

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 802
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #158 on: May 18, 2018, 05:22:56 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't understand the clutter objections. People are talking about buying record players? Nice if you're an audiophile but for the rest of us, just put it on your preferred device. If you're listening for free, you can license it properly. Ok to check out a new artist or album imho (I tried SOE in YT before I bought it) but if you're listening more than a couple times, buy it - whether the whole album or just a song for a lousy buck.

   I can use it on my phone but I can also play through an Echo Dot plugged into my home stereo.  I can just say, ďAlexa, play Achtung BabyĒ and it immediately starts playing. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

         I've seen those commercials. I'm never going to talk to some electronic device to do everything for me. Not good for the body or the mind.

Wow, really?  When I was in high school the only music I could be aware of was what got played on the radio.  Now there is all kinds of new music out there      to be discovered and its not screened by some radio programming service.  In the old world only a tiny fraction of artists had even a shot at being heard beyond their hometown.  In this era there is so much more variety and creative freedom.  Does an artist really need the chance for a $600 MM net worth to be motivated to create?  At least now you have the possibility of earning something.  Before it was much more all or nothing and being appreciated.  Only a tiny tiny fraction of artists ever got major label deals!  I hear more new bands now than ever.  The live music scene is vibrant with new young bands.  They get known from the internet and then sell out small venues all over the country.  CD sales is not how they make money now days.  You can keep buying them, thatís great.  But its not going to make a dent in the economics of a band.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you think things are better now for rock bands, lets compare the years 1980 to 1989 with 2010 to 2018. Which time period has more rock bands you can actually name. Which time period has more rock bands actually making good money. Where is the U2 of 2010 to 2018? Meaning they released their first album no earlier than 2010.

      There are less rock bands out there today by almost any measure. Labels were able to support thousands of bands, most you had never heard of back when the music industry was healthy. Studies have been done looking at what artist make now compared to 20 years ago and it is mind boggeling how little the average artist makes compared to back then. Live music has gradually disappeared from many college campuses and towns. I've seen famous rock clubs shut down because talent and interest had dried up and it was hurting the business. Rock music now is at its lowest level of popularity ever in history. In another thread on here, another poster was discussing the fact that there are now teenagers who have NEVER heard the term Rock N' Roll. D J's spinning dance music are now overwhelmingly dominate on most college campuses and towns. In larger cities, you'll still may have a good live music scene, but its much smaller than it was 20 years ago.

       The little guy now does not earn more than they did 20 years ago. It may be easier to put something out there that people could possibly see, but that does not make it easier to actually get noticed, make money, and turn it into something that will make a career. If you get lucky on youtube and have something go viral, then maybe you might have a chance, but that's like winning the lottery.

I tell you what, name your top 10 favorite new bands, and lets see just how well their doing. How many people nationally or worldwide know who they are? How much have they sold in terms of albums, physical and digital? How many individual track downloads do they have? What do their streaming numbers look like? How about their concert boxoffice numbers? I have access to all that data, and I'll be able to see how each of these 10 bands are doing. The criteria for NEW is the earliest debut album cannot have been released prior to 2010. This should be interesting.


The decline of ďRockĒ is a different issue.  Enjoyment of music and the number of people engaged in it is not declining.  The music my dad loved is pretty much dead.  The music we grew up with is constantly evolving into something different.  It will likely cease to be known beyond historical interest and a relatively small group of fans at some point.  That happens to every generationís music.

On the business side, its always been a lottery.  Weíll just have to agree to disagree about whether its better or worse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People essentially get todays music for free. A subscription to Spotify is not what I consider paying for music. Artist can't make anything significant when the consumer only has to pay $10 dollars a month to listen to virtually anything they want when they want.

Its true that todays taste in music is essentially R&B, Rap, Hip-Hop, Dance, Dance-Pop, Pop, and Country. Rock, Soft Rock, Hard Rock, Pop Rock, Heavy Metal, Speed Metal is all pretty far from mainstream these days and rarely gets significant airplay or notice from the masses.

But the decline of the rock band, or more generally bands and groups of any genre is not just the change in the publics taste, its also has to do with the ability to make money when there are 4 or 5 individuals in a typical band/group. Any money made is split four or five ways and starting out, that appears to be a big deterrent to getting involved. So your seeing far more solo artist now across every genre.

I'd like to see that list of your top favorite new bands though. I'd be interested to see how their doing and whether they are actually making any money. If most of them are just local, as opposed to national and international groups that leave their town to tour, then that is no different really than a band at the local high school that plays as a hobby.

Offline Luzita

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 395
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #159 on: May 18, 2018, 08:02:08 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't understand the clutter objections. People are talking about buying record players? Nice if you're an audiophile but for the rest of us, just put it on your preferred device. If you're listening for free, you can license it properly. Ok to check out a new artist or album imho (I tried SOE in YT before I bought it) but if you're listening more than a couple times, buy it - whether the whole album or just a song for a lousy buck.

   I can use it on my phone but I can also play through an Echo Dot plugged into my home stereo.  I can just say, ďAlexa, play Achtung BabyĒ and it immediately starts playing. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

         I've seen those commercials. I'm never going to talk to some electronic device to do everything for me. Not good for the body or the mind.

Wow, really?  When I was in high school the only music I could be aware of was what got played on the radio.  Now there is all kinds of new music out there      to be discovered and its not screened by some radio programming service.  In the old world only a tiny fraction of artists had even a shot at being heard beyond their hometown.  In this era there is so much more variety and creative freedom.  Does an artist really need the chance for a $600 MM net worth to be motivated to create?  At least now you have the possibility of earning something.  Before it was much more all or nothing and being appreciated.  Only a tiny tiny fraction of artists ever got major label deals!  I hear more new bands now than ever.  The live music scene is vibrant with new young bands.  They get known from the internet and then sell out small venues all over the country.  CD sales is not how they make money now days.  You can keep buying them, thatís great.  But its not going to make a dent in the economics of a band.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I donít know anything about the music scene but I know a good bit about book publishing (novels) and I suspect the impact of the digital age has been parallel in many respects. Many of my friends are writers or aspiring writers and thereís a lot of discussion about the pros and cons.

Selling your novel to a major publisher has always been very difficult and unlikely, akin to musicians getting signed to a major label. But today, everyone can easily self-publish to the Internet. Some writers celebrate that ó no more gatekeepers! And the percentage of the price you get to keep is potentially greater.

But getting your novel noticed and bought by anyone when you self-publish is extremely difficult. Some self-published novels do make it, but the proportion is vanishing small. (To be sure, most self-published novels are crap, which is why many readers wonít even look at them.)

So on the one side, thereís all these people struggling to make it themselves, though digital distribution, and failing with overwhelming frequency. On the other side, traditional publishers are getting squeezed. They donít have as much money as they used to so they are more risk-averse. Getting picked up, and not being dropped, is harder than ever. U2 were almost dropped after October and they have said in the current environment they surely would have been.

Then thereís piracy. Once media goes digital, itís very easy to steal.
 
Musicians have a big advantage over writers ó they can charge for performance. Nobodyís going to pay to watch an author type.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Tortuga

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 317
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #160 on: May 18, 2018, 10:56:56 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't understand the clutter objections. People are talking about buying record players? Nice if you're an audiophile but for the rest of us, just put it on your preferred device. If you're listening for free, you can license it properly. Ok to check out a new artist or album imho (I tried SOE in YT before I bought it) but if you're listening more than a couple times, buy it - whether the whole album or just a song for a lousy buck.

   I can use it on my phone but I can also play through an Echo Dot plugged into my home stereo.  I can just say, ďAlexa, play Achtung BabyĒ and it immediately starts playing. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

         I've seen those commercials. I'm never going to talk to some electronic device to do everything for me. Not good for the body or the mind.

Wow, really?  When I was in high school the only music I could be aware of was what got played on the radio.  Now there is all kinds of new music out there      to be discovered and its not screened by some radio programming service.  In the old world only a tiny fraction of artists had even a shot at being heard beyond their hometown.  In this era there is so much more variety and creative freedom.  Does an artist really need the chance for a $600 MM net worth to be motivated to create?  At least now you have the possibility of earning something.  Before it was much more all or nothing and being appreciated.  Only a tiny tiny fraction of artists ever got major label deals!  I hear more new bands now than ever.  The live music scene is vibrant with new young bands.  They get known from the internet and then sell out small venues all over the country.  CD sales is not how they make money now days.  You can keep buying them, thatís great.  But its not going to make a dent in the economics of a band.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you think things are better now for rock bands, lets compare the years 1980 to 1989 with 2010 to 2018. Which time period has more rock bands you can actually name. Which time period has more rock bands actually making good money. Where is the U2 of 2010 to 2018? Meaning they released their first album no earlier than 2010.

      There are less rock bands out there today by almost any measure. Labels were able to support thousands of bands, most you had never heard of back when the music industry was healthy. Studies have been done looking at what artist make now compared to 20 years ago and it is mind boggeling how little the average artist makes compared to back then. Live music has gradually disappeared from many college campuses and towns. I've seen famous rock clubs shut down because talent and interest had dried up and it was hurting the business. Rock music now is at its lowest level of popularity ever in history. In another thread on here, another poster was discussing the fact that there are now teenagers who have NEVER heard the term Rock N' Roll. D J's spinning dance music are now overwhelmingly dominate on most college campuses and towns. In larger cities, you'll still may have a good live music scene, but its much smaller than it was 20 years ago.

       The little guy now does not earn more than they did 20 years ago. It may be easier to put something out there that people could possibly see, but that does not make it easier to actually get noticed, make money, and turn it into something that will make a career. If you get lucky on youtube and have something go viral, then maybe you might have a chance, but that's like winning the lottery.

I tell you what, name your top 10 favorite new bands, and lets see just how well their doing. How many people nationally or worldwide know who they are? How much have they sold in terms of albums, physical and digital? How many individual track downloads do they have? What do their streaming numbers look like? How about their concert boxoffice numbers? I have access to all that data, and I'll be able to see how each of these 10 bands are doing. The criteria for NEW is the earliest debut album cannot have been released prior to 2010. This should be interesting.


The decline of ďRockĒ is a different issue.  Enjoyment of music and the number of people engaged in it is not declining.  The music my dad loved is pretty much dead.  The music we grew up with is constantly evolving into something different.  It will likely cease to be known beyond historical interest and a relatively small group of fans at some point.  That happens to every generationís music.

On the business side, its always been a lottery.  Weíll just have to agree to disagree about whether its better or worse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People essentially get todays music for free. A subscription to Spotify is not what I consider paying for music. Artist can't make anything significant when the consumer only has to pay $10 dollars a month to listen to virtually anything they want when they want.

Its true that todays taste in music is essentially R&B, Rap, Hip-Hop, Dance, Dance-Pop, Pop, and Country. Rock, Soft Rock, Hard Rock, Pop Rock, Heavy Metal, Speed Metal is all pretty far from mainstream these days and rarely gets significant airplay or notice from the masses.

But the decline of the rock band, or more generally bands and groups of any genre is not just the change in the publics taste, its also has to do with the ability to make money when there are 4 or 5 individuals in a typical band/group. Any money made is split four or five ways and starting out, that appears to be a big deterrent to getting involved. So your seeing far more solo artist now across every genre.

I'd like to see that list of your top favorite new bands though. I'd be interested to see how their doing and whether they are actually making any money. If most of them are just local, as opposed to national and international groups that leave their town to tour, then that is no different really than a band at the local high school that plays as a hobby.

Wons,

I think youíre missing my point.  People were enjoying making and listening to music long before the tape recorder was invented.  Iím not really debating about how much my favorite bands are making.  What Iím saying is I donít think the change in the way people buy music is leading to a shortage of good music.  There are more bands that I like now than there were when I was in high school.  I would never have known about all this interesting great music without the internet.  Before the 1930s nobody viewed music as much of a way to make living, let alone become a millionaire.  In my experience, musicianís make music because they love making music and feel rewarded when other people appreciate it.  In many ways we are coming back part way to how it was before music became such a commercial racket.

You realize that even before the internet, the musicians who  could support themselves solely with their music income was a tiny tiny subset of all musicians.  If that number is sliced by a factor of 10, its still not really material if you went from 1% to 1/10 of 1%.  Before the internet most musicians did not make much money.  After the internet, most musicians donít make much money.  But they do have a way to get it out there to the public. If your universe of music is just the U2s of the world I guess you might not see the big picture that way.

As for the $10/month subscription, how many people do you think bought more than 1 CD per month anyway?  Record sales have never been the big money maker for the artist.  The artist would get what, a dollar or two per record?  Even if you sell a half million records, which very few bands did on s regular basis.  Thatís $500k to $1MM.  Split 4 or 5 ways for a band.   You release an album every 3 or 4 years.  Thatís about $40K a year.  And a band that had half a million selling album is a famous band that everyone thought was successful.  Yeah I know big bands can make $3 or $4 per CD.  Cry me a river that U2 canít sell as many CDs now.  Theyíre doing just fine.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline wons

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 802
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #161 on: May 19, 2018, 10:47:51 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't understand the clutter objections. People are talking about buying record players? Nice if you're an audiophile but for the rest of us, just put it on your preferred device. If you're listening for free, you can license it properly. Ok to check out a new artist or album imho (I tried SOE in YT before I bought it) but if you're listening more than a couple times, buy it - whether the whole album or just a song for a lousy buck.

   I can use it on my phone but I can also play through an Echo Dot plugged into my home stereo.  I can just say, ďAlexa, play Achtung BabyĒ and it immediately starts playing. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

         I've seen those commercials. I'm never going to talk to some electronic device to do everything for me. Not good for the body or the mind.

Wow, really?  When I was in high school the only music I could be aware of was what got played on the radio.  Now there is all kinds of new music out there      to be discovered and its not screened by some radio programming service.  In the old world only a tiny fraction of artists had even a shot at being heard beyond their hometown.  In this era there is so much more variety and creative freedom.  Does an artist really need the chance for a $600 MM net worth to be motivated to create?  At least now you have the possibility of earning something.  Before it was much more all or nothing and being appreciated.  Only a tiny tiny fraction of artists ever got major label deals!  I hear more new bands now than ever.  The live music scene is vibrant with new young bands.  They get known from the internet and then sell out small venues all over the country.  CD sales is not how they make money now days.  You can keep buying them, thatís great.  But its not going to make a dent in the economics of a band.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you think things are better now for rock bands, lets compare the years 1980 to 1989 with 2010 to 2018. Which time period has more rock bands you can actually name. Which time period has more rock bands actually making good money. Where is the U2 of 2010 to 2018? Meaning they released their first album no earlier than 2010.

      There are less rock bands out there today by almost any measure. Labels were able to support thousands of bands, most you had never heard of back when the music industry was healthy. Studies have been done looking at what artist make now compared to 20 years ago and it is mind boggeling how little the average artist makes compared to back then. Live music has gradually disappeared from many college campuses and towns. I've seen famous rock clubs shut down because talent and interest had dried up and it was hurting the business. Rock music now is at its lowest level of popularity ever in history. In another thread on here, another poster was discussing the fact that there are now teenagers who have NEVER heard the term Rock N' Roll. D J's spinning dance music are now overwhelmingly dominate on most college campuses and towns. In larger cities, you'll still may have a good live music scene, but its much smaller than it was 20 years ago.

       The little guy now does not earn more than they did 20 years ago. It may be easier to put something out there that people could possibly see, but that does not make it easier to actually get noticed, make money, and turn it into something that will make a career. If you get lucky on youtube and have something go viral, then maybe you might have a chance, but that's like winning the lottery.

I tell you what, name your top 10 favorite new bands, and lets see just how well their doing. How many people nationally or worldwide know who they are? How much have they sold in terms of albums, physical and digital? How many individual track downloads do they have? What do their streaming numbers look like? How about their concert boxoffice numbers? I have access to all that data, and I'll be able to see how each of these 10 bands are doing. The criteria for NEW is the earliest debut album cannot have been released prior to 2010. This should be interesting.


The decline of ďRockĒ is a different issue.  Enjoyment of music and the number of people engaged in it is not declining.  The music my dad loved is pretty much dead.  The music we grew up with is constantly evolving into something different.  It will likely cease to be known beyond historical interest and a relatively small group of fans at some point.  That happens to every generationís music.

On the business side, its always been a lottery.  Weíll just have to agree to disagree about whether its better or worse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People essentially get todays music for free. A subscription to Spotify is not what I consider paying for music. Artist can't make anything significant when the consumer only has to pay $10 dollars a month to listen to virtually anything they want when they want.

Its true that todays taste in music is essentially R&B, Rap, Hip-Hop, Dance, Dance-Pop, Pop, and Country. Rock, Soft Rock, Hard Rock, Pop Rock, Heavy Metal, Speed Metal is all pretty far from mainstream these days and rarely gets significant airplay or notice from the masses.

But the decline of the rock band, or more generally bands and groups of any genre is not just the change in the publics taste, its also has to do with the ability to make money when there are 4 or 5 individuals in a typical band/group. Any money made is split four or five ways and starting out, that appears to be a big deterrent to getting involved. So your seeing far more solo artist now across every genre.

I'd like to see that list of your top favorite new bands though. I'd be interested to see how their doing and whether they are actually making any money. If most of them are just local, as opposed to national and international groups that leave their town to tour, then that is no different really than a band at the local high school that plays as a hobby.

Wons,

I think youíre missing my point.  People were enjoying making and listening to music long before the tape recorder was invented.  Iím not really debating about how much my favorite bands are making.  What Iím saying is I donít think the change in the way people buy music is leading to a shortage of good music.  There are more bands that I like now than there were when I was in high school.  I would never have known about all this interesting great music without the internet.  Before the 1930s nobody viewed music as much of a way to make living, let alone become a millionaire.  In my experience, musicianís make music because they love making music and feel rewarded when other people appreciate it.  In many ways we are coming back part way to how it was before music became such a commercial racket.

You realize that even before the internet, the musicians who  could support themselves solely with their music income was a tiny tiny subset of all musicians.  If that number is sliced by a factor of 10, its still not really material if you went from 1% to 1/10 of 1%.  Before the internet most musicians did not make much money.  After the internet, most musicians donít make much money.  But they do have a way to get it out there to the public. If your universe of music is just the U2s of the world I guess you might not see the big picture that way.

As for the $10/month subscription, how many people do you think bought more than 1 CD per month anyway?  Record sales have never been the big money maker for the artist.  The artist would get what, a dollar or two per record?  Even if you sell a half million records, which very few bands did on s regular basis.  Thatís $500k to $1MM.  Split 4 or 5 ways for a band.   You release an album every 3 or 4 years.  Thatís about $40K a year.  And a band that had half a million selling album is a famous band that everyone thought was successful.  Yeah I know big bands can make $3 or $4 per CD.  Cry me a river that U2 canít sell as many CDs now.  Theyíre doing just fine.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again, name me 10 new bands from the current decade that are great and doing well thanks to music being essentially free to the masses! You still have yet to name a single one of these bands you talk about.

Most artist in the industry for the greatest portion of rock n roll history made their money from selling records and NOT concert tickets. U2 made more money from album and record sales from 1980 to 1995 than from ticket sales. Touring was a way to promote your albums and records and sell more of them. The cost of touring ate up the price of most tickets, which meant only the most popular artist were able to profit from touring and even back then the profits from ticket sales were very small.

The point your missing is that Album and record sales were the bedrock of the music industry in terms of how they made money, both for the artist and the record label. Its only been since 1994, that POPULAR artist started to making increasing profits from just ticket sales, which quickly started to outstrip their profits from albums and records. But that's ONLY if your mega popular and can charge ticket prices had high end prices. LITTLE GUY starting out playing a bar or a club can't charge high ticket prices or people won't come. What LITTLE GUY makes from ticket sales gets taken in a way to pay for the cost of travel, food, hotels. Imagine being on the road with 5 people for a year. Think about how much that cost per night in terms of food, lodging, travel. If you think your two week vacation cost a lot, imagine extending it for 52 weeks. The LITTLE GUY's first profits would come from album and record sales. It was only later, IF he became more popular, that LITTLE GUY might be able to play a larger venue and charge a more expensive ticket price.

Lots of Big name artist would even LOSE money from tours due to the enormous cost. They were able to stay in the industry though thanks to their profits from album and record sales. Money and popularity come FIRST from the artist music, album sales, record sales, radio airplay etc. Its only after that, SECOND, that an artist will start to see profits from touring from people going to see them. The public does not pay to listen to unknown artist or artist they have only heard one song from. The public only invest money in seeing an artist live when they have already purchased or become familiar with a substantial portion of the artist music. The LITTLE GUY can't survive on touring because not enough people know who he is yet in order to profit from touring.

In the year 2001 in the United States, there were 100 albums that each sold OVER 1,000,000 copies. Some of those albums sold over 10,000,000 copies, just in that year. The average retail price for these albums was $20 dollars. In 2017, there were only TWO albums that sold over 1,000,000 copies and the average retail price is closer to $10 dollars now. So you go from a time in 2001 where hundreds of artist are each selling over 1,000,000 copies of their albums and making millions of dollars from those sales, to a time when almost no one, with maybe four or five exceptions can do that. That ALONE shows you how much harder it is for anyone today to make a living in the music industry. The music industry as a whole has collapsed. When a business collapses, less people go into that business. The artist has to find another job and can't spend as much time on what has become a hobby now. Less time invested equals less great music. Now that its a hobby and not a business, few people ever get to hear the artist music even if the artist is able to make some great stuff.

This has seriously impacted the quality of music that is available to the public. The public invest for less money and time in new recorded music than they did 15 years ago. Technology has killed the music business. Technology kills any business when their product because widely available for FREE. Imagine whatever product you sell or service you provide in your job and then suddenly your consumers leave because they can easily get what they used to pay you for FREE. You'll be looking for a new job soon and its unlikely your kids will follow Mom and Dad into their once profitable careers. This is exactly what is happening in the music industry.

Its already been shown that artist only make a tiny fraction from streaming compared to what they once made from album sales. You look at the volume of sales back in a time like 2000 and 2001 in just the United States. The average person was spending a lot more than $10 dollars a month on music and a healthy percentage of that money would go to the artist. Billions of albums are being sold. The money was flowing. The music industry was at its height. Its economics. When a colapse or depression happens, artist get cut and those that survive are making less money. I can't think of any other business out there that has had 80% of their business wiped out in just a few years and survived. The music industry has survived, but it has been severely damaged. The industry that produced so many great legends to include U2 is not putting out music like that in the volumes once seen.

Anyways, I ask you once again to list these great new bands you are listening to that started out in this current decade. If you think new music now is as great as it was in the 1980s, lets hear your examples.

People are essentially stealing from artist today. But they will twist and contort themselves anyway they can in order to justify paying nothing or nearly nothing for the music they listen to today. So they will go back to the 19th century and talk about how music was free then and that some how it should be free today. Thats absolute rubish because you could say that about virtually anything. Hell, there was a time when money did not exist. People hunted and gathered. No one owned land. I don't see how any of that justifies stealing from people in the 21st century. Its like when people loot the local store during a crises and the police are not around. If people can get away stealing something, they will justify in their minds with things like, "everyone else is doing it", "I'm not rich", etc etc. The mass anonymous use of new technology has allowed the public to loot the music industry to the bone. I've not been a participant. I still purchase my music on Compact Disc just like I did back in 1988. Any artist I purchase music from to listen to gets fairly paid. Anyone using spotify is robbing the artist they listen to essentially.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2018, 11:14:45 AM by wons »

Offline Tortuga

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 317
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #162 on: May 19, 2018, 10:05:35 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't understand the clutter objections. People are talking about buying record players? Nice if you're an audiophile but for the rest of us, just put it on your preferred device. If you're listening for free, you can license it properly. Ok to check out a new artist or album imho (I tried SOE in YT before I bought it) but if you're listening more than a couple times, buy it - whether the whole album or just a song for a lousy buck.

   I can use it on my phone but I can also play through an Echo Dot plugged into my home stereo.  I can just say, ďAlexa, play Achtung BabyĒ and it immediately starts playing. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

         I've seen those commercials. I'm never going to talk to some electronic device to do everything for me. Not good for the body or the mind.

Wow, really?  When I was in high school the only music I could be aware of was what got played on the radio.  Now there is all kinds of new music out there      to be discovered and its not screened by some radio programming service.  In the old world only a tiny fraction of artists had even a shot at being heard beyond their hometown.  In this era there is so much more variety and creative freedom.  Does an artist really need the chance for a $600 MM net worth to be motivated to create?  At least now you have the possibility of earning something.  Before it was much more all or nothing and being appreciated.  Only a tiny tiny fraction of artists ever got major label deals!  I hear more new bands now than ever.  The live music scene is vibrant with new young bands.  They get known from the internet and then sell out small venues all over the country.  CD sales is not how they make money now days.  You can keep buying them, thatís great.  But its not going to make a dent in the economics of a band.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you think things are better now for rock bands, lets compare the years 1980 to 1989 with 2010 to 2018. Which time period has more rock bands you can actually name. Which time period has more rock bands actually making good money. Where is the U2 of 2010 to 2018? Meaning they released their first album no earlier than 2010.

      There are less rock bands out there today by almost any measure. Labels were able to support thousands of bands, most you had never heard of back when the music industry was healthy. Studies have been done looking at what artist make now compared to 20 years ago and it is mind boggeling how little the average artist makes compared to back then. Live music has gradually disappeared from many college campuses and towns. I've seen famous rock clubs shut down because talent and interest had dried up and it was hurting the business. Rock music now is at its lowest level of popularity ever in history. In another thread on here, another poster was discussing the fact that there are now teenagers who have NEVER heard the term Rock N' Roll. D J's spinning dance music are now overwhelmingly dominate on most college campuses and towns. In larger cities, you'll still may have a good live music scene, but its much smaller than it was 20 years ago.

       The little guy now does not earn more than they did 20 years ago. It may be easier to put something out there that people could possibly see, but that does not make it easier to actually get noticed, make money, and turn it into something that will make a career. If you get lucky on youtube and have something go viral, then maybe you might have a chance, but that's like winning the lottery.

I tell you what, name your top 10 favorite new bands, and lets see just how well their doing. How many people nationally or worldwide know who they are? How much have they sold in terms of albums, physical and digital? How many individual track downloads do they have? What do their streaming numbers look like? How about their concert boxoffice numbers? I have access to all that data, and I'll be able to see how each of these 10 bands are doing. The criteria for NEW is the earliest debut album cannot have been released prior to 2010. This should be interesting.


The decline of ďRockĒ is a different issue.  Enjoyment of music and the number of people engaged in it is not declining.  The music my dad loved is pretty much dead.  The music we grew up with is constantly evolving into something different.  It will likely cease to be known beyond historical interest and a relatively small group of fans at some point.  That happens to every generationís music.

On the business side, its always been a lottery.  Weíll just have to agree to disagree about whether its better or worse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People essentially get todays music for free. A subscription to Spotify is not what I consider paying for music. Artist can't make anything significant when the consumer only has to pay $10 dollars a month to listen to virtually anything they want when they want.

Its true that todays taste in music is essentially R&B, Rap, Hip-Hop, Dance, Dance-Pop, Pop, and Country. Rock, Soft Rock, Hard Rock, Pop Rock, Heavy Metal, Speed Metal is all pretty far from mainstream these days and rarely gets significant airplay or notice from the masses.

But the decline of the rock band, or more generally bands and groups of any genre is not just the change in the publics taste, its also has to do with the ability to make money when there are 4 or 5 individuals in a typical band/group. Any money made is split four or five ways and starting out, that appears to be a big deterrent to getting involved. So your seeing far more solo artist now across every genre.

I'd like to see that list of your top favorite new bands though. I'd be interested to see how their doing and whether they are actually making any money. If most of them are just local, as opposed to national and international groups that leave their town to tour, then that is no different really than a band at the local high school that plays as a hobby.

Wons,

I think youíre missing my point.  People were enjoying making and listening to music long before the tape recorder was invented.  Iím not really debating about how much my favorite bands are making.  What Iím saying is I donít think the change in the way people buy music is leading to a shortage of good music.  There are more bands that I like now than there were when I was in high school.  I would never have known about all this interesting great music without the internet.  Before the 1930s nobody viewed music as much of a way to make living, let alone become a millionaire.  In my experience, musicianís make music because they love making music and feel rewarded when other people appreciate it.  In many ways we are coming back part way to how it was before music became such a commercial racket.

You realize that even before the internet, the musicians who  could support themselves solely with their music income was a tiny tiny subset of all musicians.  If that number is sliced by a factor of 10, its still not really material if you went from 1% to 1/10 of 1%.  Before the internet most musicians did not make much money.  After the internet, most musicians donít make much money.  But they do have a way to get it out there to the public. If your universe of music is just the U2s of the world I guess you might not see the big picture that way.

As for the $10/month subscription, how many people do you think bought more than 1 CD per month anyway?  Record sales have never been the big money maker for the artist.  The artist would get what, a dollar or two per record?  Even if you sell a half million records, which very few bands did on s regular basis.  Thatís $500k to $1MM.  Split 4 or 5 ways for a band.   You release an album every 3 or 4 years.  Thatís about $40K a year.  And a band that had half a million selling album is a famous band that everyone thought was successful.  Yeah I know big bands can make $3 or $4 per CD.  Cry me a river that U2 canít sell as many CDs now.  Theyíre doing just fine.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again, name me 10 new bands from the current decade that are great and doing well thanks to music being essentially free to the masses! You still have yet to name a single one of these bands you talk about.

Most artist in the industry for the greatest portion of rock n roll history made their money from selling records and NOT concert tickets. U2 made more money from album and record sales from 1980 to 1995 than from ticket sales. Touring was a way to promote your albums and records and sell more of them. The cost of touring ate up the price of most tickets, which meant only the most popular artist were able to profit from touring and even back then the profits from ticket sales were very small.

The point your missing is that Album and record sales were the bedrock of the music industry in terms of how they made money, both for the artist and the record label. Its only been since 1994, that POPULAR artist started to making increasing profits from just ticket sales, which quickly started to outstrip their profits from albums and records. But that's ONLY if your mega popular and can charge ticket prices had high end prices. LITTLE GUY starting out playing a bar or a club can't charge high ticket prices or people won't come. What LITTLE GUY makes from ticket sales gets taken in a way to pay for the cost of travel, food, hotels. Imagine being on the road with 5 people for a year. Think about how much that cost per night in terms of food, lodging, travel. If you think your two week vacation cost a lot, imagine extending it for 52 weeks. The LITTLE GUY's first profits would come from album and record sales. It was only later, IF he became more popular, that LITTLE GUY might be able to play a larger venue and charge a more expensive ticket price.

Lots of Big name artist would even LOSE money from tours due to the enormous cost. They were able to stay in the industry though thanks to their profits from album and record sales. Money and popularity come FIRST from the artist music, album sales, record sales, radio airplay etc. Its only after that, SECOND, that an artist will start to see profits from touring from people going to see them. The public does not pay to listen to unknown artist or artist they have only heard one song from. The public only invest money in seeing an artist live when they have already purchased or become familiar with a substantial portion of the artist music. The LITTLE GUY can't survive on touring because not enough people know who he is yet in order to profit from touring.

In the year 2001 in the United States, there were 100 albums that each sold OVER 1,000,000 copies. Some of those albums sold over 10,000,000 copies, just in that year. The average retail price for these albums was $20 dollars. In 2017, there were only TWO albums that sold over 1,000,000 copies and the average retail price is closer to $10 dollars now. So you go from a time in 2001 where hundreds of artist are each selling over 1,000,000 copies of their albums and making millions of dollars from those sales, to a time when almost no one, with maybe four or five exceptions can do that. That ALONE shows you how much harder it is for anyone today to make a living in the music industry. The music industry as a whole has collapsed. When a business collapses, less people go into that business. The artist has to find another job and can't spend as much time on what has become a hobby now. Less time invested equals less great music. Now that its a hobby and not a business, few people ever get to hear the artist music even if the artist is able to make some great stuff.

This has seriously impacted the quality of music that is available to the public. The public invest for less money and time in new recorded music than they did 15 years ago. Technology has killed the music business. Technology kills any business when their product because widely available for FREE. Imagine whatever product you sell or service you provide in your job and then suddenly your consumers leave because they can easily get what they used to pay you for FREE. You'll be looking for a new job soon and its unlikely your kids will follow Mom and Dad into their once profitable careers. This is exactly what is happening in the music industry.

Its already been shown that artist only make a tiny fraction from streaming compared to what they once made from album sales. You look at the volume of sales back in a time like 2000 and 2001 in just the United States. The average person was spending a lot more than $10 dollars a month on music and a healthy percentage of that money would go to the artist. Billions of albums are being sold. The money was flowing. The music industry was at its height. Its economics. When a colapse or depression happens, artist get cut and those that survive are making less money. I can't think of any other business out there that has had 80% of their business wiped out in just a few years and survived. The music industry has survived, but it has been severely damaged. The industry that produced so many great legends to include U2 is not putting out music like that in the volumes once seen.

Anyways, I ask you once again to list these great new bands you are listening to that started out in this current decade. If you think new music now is as great as it was in the 1980s, lets hear your examples.

People are essentially stealing from artist today. But they will twist and contort themselves anyway they can in order to justify paying nothing or nearly nothing for the music they listen to today. So they will go back to the 19th century and talk about how music was free then and that some how it should be free today. Thats absolute rubish because you could say that about virtually anything. Hell, there was a time when money did not exist. People hunted and gathered. No one owned land. I don't see how any of that justifies stealing from people in the 21st century. Its like when people loot the local store during a crises and the police are not around. If people can get away stealing something, they will justify in their minds with things like, "everyone else is doing it", "I'm not rich", etc etc. The mass anonymous use of new technology has allowed the public to loot the music industry to the bone. I've not been a participant. I still purchase my music on Compact Disc just like I did back in 1988. Any artist I purchase music from to listen to gets fairly paid. Anyone using spotify is robbing the artist they listen to essentially.

Well I canít keep up with your word count.

As for your insinuation Iím ripping musicians off, I donít take anything from anyone except on terms they agree with.  If they donít want me to be able to listen they donít have to put their music on spotify.  I think you greatly overestimate how much 99% of artists ever made from CDs.

Over and out.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline hollywoodswag

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 162
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #163 on: May 20, 2018, 05:29:32 AM »
I gave in a bit and got Apple Music. I took a look at my wish list and calculated that it would take decades before actually buying the albums would end up being cheaper than having Apple Music itself. However, the way I use it is that I explore various albums and if I really like them, I add them to my wish list to actually buy them. At the end of the day, I like owning the music, so I basically wait until the various albums I want go on sale and then buy them at discounted prices. I think that once I acquire most of what I want, I'll cancel my subscription. At the end of the day, I do believe in buying the music I really like so I can support the artists who make it, but Apple Music allows me to soften the economic blow a bit in the interim.

Offline Tortuga

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 317
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #164 on: May 20, 2018, 08:20:21 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I gave in a bit and got Apple Music. I took a look at my wish list and calculated that it would take decades before actually buying the albums would end up being cheaper than having Apple Music itself. However, the way I use it is that I explore various albums and if I really like them, I add them to my wish list to actually buy them. At the end of the day, I like owning the music, so I basically wait until the various albums I want go on sale and then buy them at discounted prices. I think that once I acquire most of what I want, I'll cancel my subscription. At the end of the day, I do believe in buying the music I really like so I can support the artists who make it, but Apple Music allows me to soften the economic blow a bit in the interim.


I look at it this way.  I was not buying a CD every month.  I would buy about 3 or 4 per year.  That means I was putting $40/year for music recordings into the the industryís pockets.  Now Iím putting $120/year into the industry.  Iím paying an extra $80 year for the convenience of not having to dig out the CDís I already own .  Even before subscription services came along I was buying fewer CDs just because my lifestyle had changed.  But I find I go to more live music now because there are so many good bands that come through town that play at smaller venues.  These are bands I never would have known of without the internet.  They are selling out 3,000 seat venues at $50/seat without all the overhead and costs of a big band like U2.  The casino venues are booming right now because of this.  When I was in high school all there was to see was the well-known bands at the arenas or local bands in the clubs.  Now there is this whole new in-between of really good bands, not getting rich but at least making a full-time job out of it.  Which is what most of us have.

If all youíre doing is listening to CDs from the U2s and Coldplays and Imagine Dragons of the world and going to their arena shows I can see how you would miss this. 

Iím not spending more on music than I was in High School or College,  but Iím spending more than I was ten years ago by a wide margin.  So how exactly is this killing the industry if theyíre getting more from me now than they were ten years ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk