Author Topic: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States  (Read 12656 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wons

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 632
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #165 on: May 20, 2018, 10:49:01 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
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

What artist made from selling albums and singles was where the majority of their money came from. The cost of touring for most of rock n' roll history (1955-1995) usually ate up most of the ticket price. The tour was to promote the album because the album was not only the artist latest music, but where they would make the most of their money. It was only starting in 1994, that big name artist in the industry started charging more for tickets and started seeing profits above what they would make from releasing albums. Were talking about artist like Pink Floyd and The Eagles. U2 made more money from album sales of Achtung Baby and Zooropa than they did on ZOO TV tickets. U2 did not start to consistently make more from ticket sales than album sales until 2001, about 20 years into one of the most successful careers in rock history. Big, popular, veteran artist make huge profits from touring. The Little Guy pays for his dinner and his hotel room and to get to the next gig.

Artist are forced into streaming services today like Spotify because if they don't, they risk not making any money. File Sharing and other means of downloading music for free through the internet have forced artist into these streaming services. The artist is still being robbed though and saying the artist agreed to the deal, is no excuse. The Little Guy on Spotify does not make any money until their songs reach a certain streaming level. So when you pay that $10 dollar monthly fee, most of it goes to artist you probably don't even listen to. It goes to some rap or R&B artist that is getting millions of streams per day. Spotify takes your money, takes some for itself, and then distributes the rest primarily to artist with the most streams. Those new rock bands you claim to listen to probably don't see any of the $10 dollars you paid to Spotify on a monthly basis. They might see a few cents from time to time.

If your really respect artist who make music, BUY THEIR ALBUM! The artist will make more money from the album purchase than they will from you just listening to them on Spotify.


Number of artist selling 1 million copies or more of an album(all formats), in the U.S., in 2001: 100
Number of artist selling 1 million copies or more of an album(all formats), in the U.S., in 2017: 2

Being able to download individual tracks for just a $1 dollar without buying the album also cut into artist income from their recorded music. But now even that is rapidly declining as streaming takes over. Streaming is even worse for the artist than individual track downloads. Artist are now making a fraction of what they once did on their recorded music. As much as it hurts the popular veteran artist, it kills the new guy.


Offline wons

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 632
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #166 on: May 20, 2018, 11:01:12 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.

In 1991 when I purchased Achtung Baby on CD, it was $16.99. Adjust for inflation that is nearly $30 dollars today. But that is what everyone paid back then and there was no bitching or wining about it being too expensive. If you liked music, then you spent part of your entertainment budget on music. The music industry was healthy and growing. New artist and great new music was coming out every month. Over the years, I purchased hundreds of CD's. Everyone I know did. I still have all my CD's. I purchase far less music today because the quality of music had dramatically declined. A consequence of the music industry being destroyed by people getting music for free or almost for free.

Offline Tortuga

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 146
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #167 on: May 20, 2018, 11:07:08 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
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

What artist made from selling albums and singles was where the majority of their money came from. The cost of touring for most of rock n' roll history (1955-1995) usually ate up most of the ticket price. The tour was to promote the album because the album was not only the artist latest music, but where they would make the most of their money. It was only starting in 1994, that big name artist in the industry started charging more for tickets and started seeing profits above what they would make from releasing albums. Were talking about artist like Pink Floyd and The Eagles. U2 made more money from album sales of Achtung Baby and Zooropa than they did on ZOO TV tickets. U2 did not start to consistently make more from ticket sales than album sales until 2001, about 20 years into one of the most successful careers in rock history. Big, popular, veteran artist make huge profits from touring. The Little Guy pays for his dinner and his hotel room and to get to the next gig.

Artist are forced into streaming services today like Spotify because if they don't, they risk not making any money. File Sharing and other means of downloading music for free through the internet have forced artist into these streaming services. The artist is still being robbed though and saying the artist agreed to the deal, is no excuse. The Little Guy on Spotify does not make any money until their songs reach a certain streaming level. So when you pay that $10 dollar monthly fee, most of it goes to artist you probably don't even listen to. It goes to some rap or R&B artist that is getting millions of streams per day. Spotify takes your money, takes some for itself, and then distributes the rest primarily to artist with the most streams. Those new rock bands you claim to listen to probably don't see any of the $10 dollars you paid to Spotify on a monthly basis. They might see a few cents from time to time.

If your really respect artist who make music, BUY THEIR ALBUM! The artist will make more money from the album purchase than they will from you just listening to them on Spotify.


Number of artist selling 1 million copies or more of an album(all formats), in the U.S., in 2001: 100
Number of artist selling 1 million copies or more of an album(all formats), in the U.S., in 2017: 2

Being able to download individual tracks for just a $1 dollar without buying the album also cut into artist income from their recorded music. But now even that is rapidly declining as streaming takes over. Streaming is even worse for the artist than individual track downloads. Artist are now making a fraction of what they once did on their recorded music. As much as it hurts the popular veteran artist, it kills the new guy.

You are going to have to figure out another way to respect artists.  We are transitioning to a world without physical media.  CDs, DVDs, Blu-rays are all declining because they are less desirable for most people.  All your complaints existed in the old world too.  How many CDs did an artist have to sell to get back their first dime after the label recovered its cost?  CDs are going away.  Music is not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline laoghaire

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 805
  • IT MEEEEEEEANS SOMETHING!!!!!!
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #168 on: May 20, 2018, 11:17:43 AM »
Once again I don't get the conflation of physical media with proper purchase. I downloaded SOE from iTunes. I don't have the CD (yet - I've decided I do want to buy it now) and that did not prevent me in any way from buying the album properly.

Offline wons

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 632
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #169 on: May 20, 2018, 11:26:19 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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

Who knows if your really being honest about what you spent before on music vs now with a streaming service. Either way, it does not matter because whether or not the music industry is successful or not is not dependent on you as an individual.

The Peak of the recording music industry, when it was GROSSING the largest amount of money in its history, adjusted for inflation, was in the years 2000 and 2001.
There were 100 albums that each sold over 1 million copies during 2001 in just the United States at an average of $20 dollars an album. In 2017 there was only 2 and the average price was only about $10 dollars.

I've got some news for you. Theaters, 3,000 seat venues, have always been out there. Where do you think U2 played most of its shows on the WAR TOUR? There has not been any surge in new rock bands playing 3,000 seat venues. That market has been there for over 50 years and its doing worse now than it was 20 years ago. I'm not talking about whatever little town your from, I'm talking about across the United States and worldwide. I know because I've been reading the weekly Billboard Boxscore numbers that record this and is released every week since the late 1980s!

What artist make from recorded music has been declining since 2001. File Sharing, CD burning and other methods of getting music for free were the first culprits. Then the industry tried to get people away from that with individual track downloads for just a dollar. The decline continued though, although perhaps this slowed it for a few years. Then in this decade streaming has taken over which is even worse for the artist than individual track downloads.

The numbers don't lie. Artist would be making far more money if everyone went out and purchased their albums instead of streaming it or as they once did download one or two songs individually from the album.

The fact is, consumers love this new environment because they get to listen to all the music they want now for free or almost free. The vast majority don't care about how much damage its doing to the industry and how it robs and hurts the artist out there. Its technically legal, everyone does it, so who cares if its really fair to the artist. Naturally, there will be some who will attempt to explain this behavior as good for everyone and the artist. They will never be honest with what is really going on, because they can't see themselves as thieves. But there is no doubt about it, the recording artist is being robbed!

Offline wons

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 632
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #170 on: May 20, 2018, 11:28:24 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Once again I don't get the conflation of physical media with proper purchase. I downloaded SOE from iTunes. I don't have the CD (yet - I've decided I do want to buy it now) and that did not prevent me in any way from buying the album properly.

When I say the word ALBUM, I mean Physical and digital! A digital purchase of an album is the SAME as a physical purchase of the album when it comes to money for the artist!

Offline wons

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 632
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #171 on: May 20, 2018, 11:47:11 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
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.




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.



Over and out.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What artist made from selling albums and singles was where the majority of their money came from. The cost of touring for most of rock n' roll history (1955-1995) usually ate up most of the ticket price. The tour was to promote the album because the album was not only the artist latest music, but where they would make the most of their money. It was only starting in 1994, that big name artist in the industry started charging more for tickets and started seeing profits above what they would make from releasing albums. Were talking about artist like Pink Floyd and The Eagles. U2 made more money from album sales of Achtung Baby and Zooropa than they did on ZOO TV tickets. U2 did not start to consistently make more from ticket sales than album sales until 2001, about 20 years into one of the most successful careers in rock history. Big, popular, veteran artist make huge profits from touring. The Little Guy pays for his dinner and his hotel room and to get to the next gig.



If your really respect artist who make music, BUY THEIR ALBUM! The artist will make more money from the album purchase than they will from you just listening to them on Spotify.


Number of artist selling 1 million copies or more of an album(all formats), in the U.S., in 2001: 100
Number of artist selling 1 million copies or more of an album(all formats), in the U.S., in 2017: 2

Being able to download individual tracks for just a $1 dollar without buying the album also cut into artist income from their recorded music. But now even that is rapidly declining as streaming takes over. Streaming is even worse for the artist than individual track downloads. Artist are now making a fraction of what they once did on their recorded music. As much as it hurts the popular veteran artist, it kills the new guy.

You are going to have to figure out another way to respect artists.  We are transitioning to a world without physical media.  CDs, DVDs, Blu-rays are all declining because they are less desirable for most people.  All your complaints existed in the old world too.  How many CDs did an artist have to sell to get back their first dime after the label recovered its cost?  CDs are going away.  Music is not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



This is NOT about physical media! This about paying the artist for their recorded work. Did you know that you can BUY THE ALBUM DIGITALLY? Did you know those sales of digital albums are included in artist totals? The album sales I list for SONGS OF EXPERIENCE are physical and digital sales COMBINED!

BUT people are not buying digital albums even though they are widely available. Why? Because its the same expense as buying the physical album. Why buy music when you can get it for free through the internet or other methods?

Yet despite the fact that you can buy any album in a NON-PHYSICAL digital format, the result has happened:

number of albums selling 1 million or more copies in 2001 in the U.S.: 100
number of albums selling 1 million or more copies in 2017 in the U.S.: 2

This is not an issue of physical media as the above facts show. Digital albums are available for all artists. But are people buying them? No. Why, because they can get it for free from other sources. As a result, the artist gets robbed. Those are the facts. For some reason, you want to be a cheerleader for this. Just because its great listening to music for free or almost free does not make it right. But naturally the consumer will do ANYTHING to defend something thats in their interest regardless of whether its really right, wrong, or fair to the artist.

Offline laoghaire

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 805
  • IT MEEEEEEEANS SOMETHING!!!!!!
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #172 on: May 20, 2018, 12:56:00 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Once again I don't get the conflation of physical media with proper purchase. I downloaded SOE from iTunes. I don't have the CD (yet - I've decided I do want to buy it now) and that did not prevent me in any way from buying the album properly.

When I say the word ALBUM, I mean Physical and digital! A digital purchase of an album is the SAME as a physical purchase of the album when it comes to money for the artist!

I didn't want to quote a 3 mile thread but that was in response to Tortuga, right above my post.

EDITED TO ADD: Whoops, I messed up with the use of "conflation." I think I was going to say something else, got distracted while typing, and then finished in a confusing way. So YES we are talking about BOTH physical and digital AS WE SHOULD.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 07:21:17 AM by laoghaire »

Offline Luzita

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 325
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #173 on: May 20, 2018, 04:29:00 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Number of artist selling 1 million copies or more of an album(all formats), in the U.S., in 2001: 100
Number of artist selling 1 million copies or more of an album(all formats), in the U.S., in 2017: 2

Thanks for sharing all this data, wons. Just to be clear, does the 2017 number include streaming equivalent album sales?  Because, as I understand it, 1500 streams = 1 album sales.

Offline Tortuga

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 146
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #174 on: May 20, 2018, 05:15:08 PM »
Well, I guess if you donít believe that the example of my own payment for music is true then this discussion has ceased to have what little meaning it ever had.  Thanks for the discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline hollywoodswag

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 152
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #175 on: May 21, 2018, 03:05:57 AM »
Speaking at least for myself, buying those one or two songs from an album has generally led to artists getting money from me that wouldn't otherwise. I've started expanding a bit and completing some of those old albums in a quest to broaden my horizons, but take the countless one-hit wonders out there and consider that if it came down to having to buy the whole album to get the song, they'd have gotten nothing from me. I know $1.29 isn't exactly big bucks, but it's money that I would not have otherwise spent.

I do think that one benefit to the current industry is that it makes discovery so much easier than ever before. I'm able to use Apple Music to scout out stuff and see if I end up liking it. That led me to buy two Maroon 5 albums. I'll play them first and if I like them, awesome. If not, hey, money saved. At least I know, but I'd venture that more people will end up getting my money than would have prior to the introduction of this method.

Don't get me wrong: for the most part, I still think that streaming will be used to rob some artists blind that likely would have received money otherwise. I like to purchase the actual music to ensure that the right people get the money they've earned. I'm just saying that the streaming concept is not without merit.

Offline wons

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 632
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #176 on: May 21, 2018, 07:11:31 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
Once again I don't get the conflation of physical media with proper purchase. I downloaded SOE from iTunes. I don't have the CD (yet - I've decided I do want to buy it now) and that did not prevent me in any way from buying the album properly.

When I say the word ALBUM, I mean Physical and digital! A digital purchase of an album is the SAME as a physical purchase of the album when it comes to money for the artist!

I didn't want to quote a 3 mile thread but that was in response to Tortuga, right above my post.

I realize that now. Sorry about that!

Offline wons

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 632
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #177 on: May 21, 2018, 07:20:57 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Number of artist selling 1 million copies or more of an album(all formats), in the U.S., in 2001: 100
Number of artist selling 1 million copies or more of an album(all formats), in the U.S., in 2017: 2

Thanks for sharing all this data, wons. Just to be clear, does the 2017 number include streaming equivalent album sales?  Because, as I understand it, 1500 streams = 1 album sales.

No its just album sales in all formats, physical and digital. No streaming at all.

The problem with streaming, having a system of 1,500 streams = 1 album, is often those streams are only 1 or 2 songs from the album. Same with individual digital track downloads. Probably only 1 or 2 songs from the album. In both cases what is essentially representative of just interest in one or two songs, single performance is being added to album performance when none of these people have even listened to the album.

U2's Songs Of Experience is at 300,001 copies sold in the U.S. right now. Their streaming and individual track downloads would only add about 20,000 to that total.

Offline wons

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 632
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #178 on: May 21, 2018, 07:35:28 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, I guess if you donít believe that the example of my own payment for music is true then this discussion has ceased to have what little meaning it ever had.  Thanks for the discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I apologize for doubting your example or claiming it was gimmick simply to make your point. There are certainly people out there who are in this situation now, spending more money per year on music because of Spotify. But, they are the minority. The numbers show that the overwhelming majority of people are spending less on music today than they did 20 years ago, simply based on what the recording music industry is grossing per year now compared to what it grossed back in the year 2000.

I want to also point out that when you pay $10 dollars to Spotify to listen to anything you want every month that the $10 dollars you play does not go directly to the artist you actually listen to. It goes into a collection, first used to pay Spotify for providing the service, then to pay artist who are getting the most streams. Very little, if any of it, goes to new rock bands, because their streams are small and only earn them very little money. So you may listen to a bunch of bands on Spotify, but your money won't go to them. It will go to Spotify, Drake, Ed Shareen, Adele, Beyoncť, Taylor Swift and others who have the highest streams.

That's why you should be the new rock bands album. They will actually get paid that way, where as they may not see any of your money that you pay to Spotify. These new artist have to reach a minimum number of streams in order to earn just once cent.

Offline wons

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 632
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #179 on: May 21, 2018, 08:01:28 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Speaking at least for myself, buying those one or two songs from an album has generally led to artists getting money from me that wouldn't otherwise. I've started expanding a bit and completing some of those old albums in a quest to broaden my horizons, but take the countless one-hit wonders out there and consider that if it came down to having to buy the whole album to get the song, they'd have gotten nothing from me. I know $1.29 isn't exactly big bucks, but it's money that I would not have otherwise spent.

I do think that one benefit to the current industry is that it makes discovery so much easier than ever before. I'm able to use Apple Music to scout out stuff and see if I end up liking it. That led me to buy two Maroon 5 albums. I'll play them first and if I like them, awesome. If not, hey, money saved. At least I know, but I'd venture that more people will end up getting my money than would have prior to the introduction of this method.

Don't get me wrong: for the most part, I still think that streaming will be used to rob some artists blind that likely would have received money otherwise. I like to purchase the actual music to ensure that the right people get the money they've earned. I'm just saying that the streaming concept is not without merit.

Streaming is hurting the digital download method where you paid $1 dollar, sometimes $1.29 for the song. Those numbers are rapidly declining now thanks to streaming.

The artist made the most money when you had to buy the album. The majority of people would not sit on their hands in protest. They would get the whole album, if not after the first or second single, definitely by the third single.

In 1985, it cost about $10 dollars to by the album on vinyl or cassette. You could buy a vinyl single for $3.00. Three vinyl singles equaled the cost of the album. Take Michael Jacksons Thriller. If you purchased each of the 7 singles from that album. You would have spent $21 dollars, more than twice the cost of the album.

Adjusted for inflation, the $3 dollar vinyl single in 1985 would cost $7 dollars today in 2018. But individual track downloads are at best $1.29. Another way artist are being robbed.

To the artist, they will make the most money from you in the following order: 1. Buy their album. 2. Buy individual tracks from the album. 3. Streaming.


Most of my own family members and friends engage in streaming when it comes to music. Prior to streaming, many of my friends just engaged in file sharing. Some of my friends have not purchased a U2 CD since 2001. They won't pay for music and celebrate the fact that they found it and obtained it through the internet for free. I've explained to them why that's wrong, but they don't care. Its just too easy and U2 are rich they will often say. The only determining factor for them in obtaining music is how they can get it for free or at an extreme discount. So the fact that they have been drawn into streaming is perhaps a good thing since for many years before, they were paying nothing. But the artist is still getting robbed in this process.