figured this would happen sooner or later

Doesn't affect me too much...

But I can see the concern. However, I don't think that there's much of a future of artists earning money directly from their work anyways, so it feels a bit futile. It seems that they would prefer this to illegal downloading of their bands' music, but to each their own.

Not sure if it's bullshit behind false wisdom, but I like the idea. Glad to see some musician support like that.

Never used spotify but the statement was pretty well written.

Understandable even though bands and labels need to realize that the money is no longer in selling records.

"Artists are depending on their income from selling music and it is our job to support them to do so."

Time to wake up in my opinion, this is no longer true... I mean, for artists with dumb fans it might be, but I think this whole "music industry falling apart" thing is great news. Things are going back to the way they should be, where hard work and playing gigs 20 days a month is how you roll.

don't really understand how spoify was different from any other music library program but alright.

Why do they need to realize that the money is in no longer selling their works? It's a bullshit statement mainly made by people that steal all (or most) of the music they own. What they need to do, is re-evaluate how to make money on the music itself again. There are ways but the label heads are still stuck in the 90s, and continue to push against anything other than physical media.

Spotify definitely isn't the answer though... the artists make $0.00029 per a streamed song. There's not a single independent artist that could come close to surviving on that or even make enough to record a second album.

Check this link:

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/comment-page-3/

i can dig it

@Willie - I love that article.

I have mixed feeling regarding this.

It is true the number of downloads it's increasing every year, as opposed to album sales, and I fear that this democratization of music can be detrimental to music itself.

Although, record companies (especially majors) are no saints here. Most of the times, they get the biggest slice of the profits pie. Bands usually earn much more with gigs than with album sales.

As a musician myself any work i might do i would offer free on the internet and would encourage reblogging and downloading. I would also offer physical versions of my music (very complete physical versions) for people who truly want to support the work i did, hoping that they would come see shows as well. The money would then fund new music and only new music.

A musician should make music because of his/her love of music and not for profit, and should be able to do so without the music draining on whatever else they do in life.

/rant

"the artists make $0.00029 per a streamed song. There's not a single independent artist that could come close to surviving on that or even make enough to record a second album."

No, but that's really not their main in-come is it? Shows and merch are. In a couple years, people won't buy music. Period. Imo Spotify and similar services is a very good way to get the word out, let people know what you sound like, etc, then maybe you go to a show, buy a shirt or a vinyl or something.

If you suck, they won't. Sucks for the band. I think the future will just be a matter of "survival of the fittest", where the true hard workers will shine.

It's not their main income anymore because people are stealing their work, which is the only reason that artists/labels are even agreeing to the terrible price of $0.00029 for the artist and $0.0016 for the label per song stream. Something has to change for sure, but encouraging theft and then trying to make bullshit excuses for it isn't the answer.

I'm sorry that I don't have the money to buy every album that I listen to.

I agree that what's happening with illegal downloading now isn't right, but its the reality. Like many artists these days say, you can't look at the Internet as something evil and something that will ruin you as an artist, you need to find a way to work WITH it.

Downloading isn't going to stop, and many bands have realized that and respond by giving their music out for free, but giving the consumer an option to buy limited edition packages with shirts, vinyls, etc. I think this is good and the future is bright for music. It will all be in the hands of the artists and they reap what they sow.

If people were buying as much music as they used to and only stealing the 'extra' stuff that they can't afford then there wouldn't be a problem at all. No one would probably even notice. The problem is that people are stealing instead of buying... it's not too complicated.

Those people aren't the real music lovers anyway. It used to be that if you heard a single on the radio then you would go out and buy the album. However now people can just download the single alone and they don't even mess with entire albums anymore. That's why the mainstream and big labels are having problems while independent artists have largely taken advantage of the internet because it allows them more exposure. It evens out the playing field in a way.

"Physical sales are dropping drastically in all countries where Spotify is active."

Something has to change also in what concerns the physical product (packaging) too. Jewel Cases hardly changed anything over the years. It's true that there are lots of special editions nowdays, digipacks, digibooks and so on but I don't think it's enough. Special editions should be the regular editions.

I can't understand how in the XXI century there are still records sold quite expansive in a regular jewel case, and sometimes the booklet it's so weak, that not even the lyrics are printed on it.

Sometimes all it takes it's a little inspiration really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9Q3gAR7Jj8

The first post was in response to eternium.

@Thane: I agree that illegal downloading will never stop completely, but they could curb a lot of it. They're trying to right now with the new deals with the internet providers. Once that goes into effect, the average person will stop downloading so much or possibly altogether.

I also agree, that the internet is an excellent tool to reach more people, but the bands and labels are still taking baby-steps towards that goal. Things will get better for the artists/labels as lessons are learned. My main issue is people that try to justify their personal theft with lame excuses.

I see downloading albums as a better way of previewing them before I buy. If I like em, I'll buy them. The reason I don't find programmes such as spotify helpful as much is because I enjoy certain types of music in certain situations, and spotify's hard to preview music in your car or when walking. (I don't own an iphone, so the mobile version's not an option either)

"If people were buying as much music as they used to and only stealing the 'extra' stuff that they can't afford then there wouldn't be a problem at all. No one would probably even notice. The problem is that people are stealing instead of buying... it's not too complicated."

Willie is so smart.

I steal music and it is wrong I just don't care enough not to

i can justify stealing music online much more easily than i can spending $16 for a plastic disc.

@wonarabbit: Ignoring your sarcasm... I actually have more respect for your response than the people that try to justify what they're doing with excuses.

@Sanders: I see your point. The problem is that I think it's hard for a lot of people to spend money on a product (music, in this case) once they technically already have it free and clear; even if they initially only meant to 'preview' before buying. If apple just handed out iPhones for people to preview and had no way of knowing who took what, how many people do you think would love it and come back to pay and how many people would just keep it even if they initially planned on just previewing before buying? It's just human nature.

it wasn't sarcastic. You nailed it. Lets say I used to buy 5 albums a month. Now I get 30 a month. I don't download 25 and buy 5 I download all 30. The problem isn't with the 25 it's with the 5.


And I mean I'll go to shows/ buy merch/ buy vinyl and all the other bullshit that people say to justify it...but "PEOPLE DID THAT BEFORE DOWNLOADING!!!"


...I did pay $20 for Radiohead's- In Rainbows but I think the "pay what you want" model only works with bands that are popular to begin with.

Ah, my misunderstanding then. Also, that entire post sums it up perfectly.

@Willie: Yeah, I totally get that, I wish more people were driven by their conscience rather than greed.

If people were buying as much music as they used to and only stealing the 'extra' stuff that they can't afford then there wouldn't be a problem at all. No one would probably even notice. The problem is that people are stealing instead of buying... it's not too complicated.






this

However... If the prices of new CD's were between 8-12 euros then illegal downloading would inherently suffer a great kick at the balls.

People are downloading because they feel that if they pay 18-20 euros (or 18-20 dollars) for a new record, the get robbed.

So their answer is "a robbery to prevent a robbery".

I understand that answer up to a point.

The key to solve this thing is for all parties to lower their profit margins.

The cost of new CD's is approximately equal to 5-6 euros per unit product, so i would say that a retail price of 8-12 euros leaves the appropriate amount of profit for every one involved in it, making the customer feel not robbed.

The shipping costs/profit margins must be lowered as well...

as for old CD's their price must be 5-7 euros (max), whereas in reality the labels and the stores often charge old titles for like 13-15 euros.

I bought 5 The Cure records for the price of 7.90 euros each (the unit price is still expensive with regard to the price margin i mentioned previously - total 39.5 euros). If the cost per record was 14 euros, i would have bought just one (total 14 euros). Who loses income in this case? The question is rhetorical...

If the labels/go-betweens don't realize that they have to lower their profit margins in favor of the artists and the fans, getting in return bigger sales in the long run and the same (marginally lower or bigger) magnitude of profits, they will fall.

They are falling already.

I just buy albums from Amazon or something, I'm okay with paying $5 for a physical copy.

nah Voivod is wrong. The price of the cd isn't obstacle. I just have no desire or need to buy a cd.

The price of the cd isn't obstacle.

I'm solely referring those who do want to buy CD's and get hindered by the economic policies of the labels and the go-between people.

Some people nowadays wouldn't except a CD even if it was being handed out to them for free.

They would download it from the net.


I just have no desire or need to buy a cd.

Imagine how it would be if you were an employee somewhere and your boss had no desire or need to pay you for your hard day's/week's/month's labor.

Would it be fine for you? ;)

Voivod is right from the 'old school' perspective. When tapes were the big thing they averaged roughly $9.99 for a full album. When CDs came out they were closer to $15, but record labels assured the public that the price was higher because the CD was new technology and as it became more common place the price would return to the 'normal' $9.99 selling point -- it never happened. Instead, they actually started raising prices even more. The problem was that there were no alternatives except to suck it up and buy the album anyway... this was further complicated by the fact that most mainstream albums were a couple of singles and a bunch of filler. So people were paying close to $20 for a handful of songs. That's why Napster's impact was so instant. If people had been getting a quality product at a fair price, Napster's hit-or-miss sound quality, slow D/L speeds (remember this was late 90s) etc would have put a lot of people off.

The new problem is that CDs haven't been necessary for over a decade and that's why people like wonarabbit don't feel the need for them... because they were never really conditioned to. So, now the labels have to convince a generation that is used to free music and couldn't give a shit about physical albums that there really is still a dollar value attached to a digital file even though it can be replicated indefinitely without any 'real harm' to anyone because nothing was physically taken.

whoa that was long... sorry.

So, now the labels have to convince a generation that is used to free music and couldn't give a shit about physical albums that there really is still a dollar value attached to a digital file even though it can be replicated indefinitely without any 'real harm' to anyone because nothing was physically taken.

Spot on post Willie.

well said Willie.


And even in the most fundamental sense I don't like cd's. Cassettes are easy to put in your pocket and take somewhere and give to someone. Records are nice big pieces "artwork" which has value to me outside of the music. Cd's are this awkward middle-ground.

"So, now the labels have to convince a generation that is used to free music and couldn't give a shit about physical albums that there really is still a dollar value attached to a digital file even though it can be replicated indefinitely without any 'real harm' to anyone because nothing was physically taken."

I hadn't even thought about that to be honest, that we're getting to the point now where kids who are buying music have never had to only own physical copies. It'll be a nigh on impossible task for the labels though.

like for someone who hates clutter and things around a cd is worse than just having the download

Hehe, just downloaded this.

"'Artists are depending on their income from selling music and it is our job to support them to do so.'

Time to wake up in my opinion, this is no longer true... I mean, for artists with dumb fans it might be, but I think this whole "music industry falling apart" thing is great news. Things are going back to the way they should be, where hard work and playing gigs 20 days a month is how you roll."
---

Stupidest post I've ever seen on sputnik - and that's saying a lot. (Though, admittedly, I didn't have the courage to read through all of the other posts in this topic after this.)

So you can't be a musician / recording artist unless you perform at live shows? Not all music is even conducive to be played in a live environment. Unless you think certain artists should tour the world, walk onstage, queue up their recorded songs, press 'play' and call it a "live" show.

You should have probably read more posts.

^agreed. Like sure Frank Turner, Bob dylan and Neil Young can float around the world playing gigs, writing songs on the go, coming back to record new material and getting back on the road but like Boards of Canada can't

Ultimately, in some cases, it will completely kill a lot of smaller bands that are already struggling to make ends meet.

So this means Century Media can make ends meet?

And AsoTamaki, you obviously haven't been hear too long, you should realize that retarded statements like that are a dime-a-dozen, no need to rip into the user. Also, that Fates Warning album rules.

@Wizard Didn't really rip into anyone. Just said the post was stupid and explained why. I certainly could've have been harsher. Yeah, every sputnik news item has tons idiotic comments and troll posts (which is why I rarely bother posting). But usually those are obvious haters or people trying to make jokes. This one actually seemed serious and took place within a serious discussion which is why it stood out to me.

But yeah, FW. m/

spotify blows anyway no big loss

This all reminds me that I'm probably going to get my CD shipment from Amazon tomorrow ^_^

I'm more one of the "I buy what I can, when I can," people; as a student with limited income I download a lot but eventually buy physical copies of what I really like. It's hard not to download today, especially with so many good obscure/underground groups whose physical media is so hard to come by.

Why would I buy CDs? They are absolutly worthless if I do get one it is only of my absolute favourite albums but I shove them on my shelf and never touch them again. Not only that but how damn rich are you all? I am a student and I can barley squeeze by without blowing all my money on CDs.

my conscience has been slapping me the last year or two, I've been buying a CD or two on payday if the band I think could use an extra buck and is also awesome

If music wasn't "free" my favorite band would still be Smash Mouth

Like I said, there are definitely positives to the internet and everything it can potentially do for music and musicians... they just have to figure out how to effectively monetize it.

"Why would I buy CDs? They are absolutly worthless if I do get one it is only of my absolute favourite albums but I shove them on my shelf and never touch them again. Not only that but how damn rich are you all? I am a student and I can barley squeeze by without blowing all my money on CDs. "

buy them on itunes or amazon then if the space is such a damn issue

I am a student and I can barley

Like what's in beer? Or beef and barley soup?

he cans barley.

I'm not arguing with anybody I just want attention

If it weren't for free music I wouldn't have found out and bought merch/ attended concerts of the majority of bands I know.

CDs aren't worthless if you care about the art that comes along with them.

Cd's arent worthless when you have FBI at your doorstep and a search warrant against you

i still prefer to buy the albums physically than to buy them on itunes. comes with the artwork, sometimes a fold out poster and i like it in my cd collection.

"So you can't be a musician / recording artist unless you perform at live shows? Not all music is even conducive to be played in a live environment. Unless you think certain artists should tour the world, walk onstage, queue up their recorded songs, press 'play' and call it a "live" show."

Sure, you can, but you've gotta find a way to make it work without selling records, because that's not going to happen.

How can some artists not perform live anyways? If Kashiwa Daisuke and GY!BE can play live I don't see how many others cant.

Its like going "I want to paint houses but I'm afraid of heights so I can only paint half of the house", yes you may call this a dumb comparison but I really don't care, but then being a painter really isn't for you. Its 2011 and playing shows is the main income for pretty much every artists who isn't on a major label.

I download all my music off the internet.

may i remind people that alot of bands don't have a problem with downloading to begin with, they even say in during live... as for those who do have a problem, i for one download to see if its worth buying as i use to get burnt by thinking what i was getting was something really good all because of the single.

The last album i bought without thought was KSE's self titled album (2009) because i own the rest of their discography, i thought what could go wrong... and voila... my first words were: "What the fuck am I hearing?"
I'm ok with bands deciding to go elsewhere with their sound but I'm not gonna be taken for a ride with my own money.

I do buy albums but i filter who deserves my money, not all the bands in my ipod deserves it that's for sure but i wish they did because that would be awesome, at the end of the day, i'm not just a consumer that will swallow every shit that's put on my table, i will pick it up, analyse the shit out of it then decide whether to buy or not to buy... the last album i bought recently was Sepultura's Kairos, that was a no brainer, i do wish i could go buy albums like that but quality is sooo rare these days.

I don't buy this "download to see if it's worth buying". Most of the albums nowdays can be heard on youtube man.

It's true the listening experience it's limited on youtube and sites like Spotify, but still you can see if an album is good or bad.

The industry just all band together and boycott spotify until they raise the prices of subscription and advertising in order to pay the artists and labels more.

so there is a difference between downloading it and hearing it on youtube? either way the objective is achieved.

"I don't buy this "download to see if it's worth buying". Most of the albums nowdays can be heard on youtube man.

It's true the listening experience it's limited on youtube and sites like Spotify, but still you can see if an album is good or bad."
no where near as much. it limits you to individual songs stuck on your computer

I'd say that MAYBE, it doesn't work with more complex albums where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. But surely for most of the music out there, that would be more than enough, I think.


"so there is a difference between downloading it and hearing it on youtube? either way the objective is achieved."

ofc there is. Let me put you things this way, you download the album, you hear it, love it, and while you decide if it's worth buying, you probably won't stop playing that album, because you want to decipher the whole thing, right? now, after you've heard the album so many times, would you still have the same will to buy it, when you already know the whole thing?

I'm talking about the "surprise effect" here. You listen to 6 ou 7 songs on youtube, you like them, you buy the album, and then you would get more 4 ou 5 songs for you to discover, and imo, the listening experience would be more satisfying this way.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

"ofc there is. Let me put you things this way, you download the album, you hear it, love it, and while you decide if it's worth buying, you probably won't stop playing that album, because you want to decipher the whole thing, right? now, after you've heard the album so many times, would you still have the same will to buy it, when you already know the whole thing?"


The other reason for buying the CD, even though like you said i already know the whole thing by then, is that i would want to enjoy the whole thing in CD quality too, i can't speak for others but once i download something and its awesome, i have to get the CD to appreciate it fully, i get what you mean in terms of whats the point of buying it now that i have it, an album download is a massive sample until i get the CD and as for the not-so-good downloads, they simply get deleted... it really all comes down to choices.

Fair enough dude. ;)

may i remind people that alot of bands don't have a problem with downloading to begin with, they even say in during live... as for those who do have a problem, i for one download to see if its worth buying as i use to get burnt by thinking what i was getting was something really good all because of the single.






thisthisthisthisthis

I download then go see the band live an by their merch an sometimes vinyls. What some people don't realize is some record companies do not even pay some bands by their record sales which sucks ass.

nobody steals anything

we own everyone's tunes

For anyone who has the time, I suggest checking out this interview with Ben Weinman about the music industry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84ckqXg3-6g&feature=mh_lolz&list=WL8B4C8968EF76E05E