Switzerland .. are they mental or just have common sense?

i wouldn't be surprised if the music industry collapses and is replaced with a new hi-tech version of artistic patronage similar to the days of yore

  On 12/20/2011 at 4:18 PM, patternoverlap said:

From Nielsen Soundscan

 

top selling albums of the 00s:

 

1. The Beatles, 1 (11,499,000 copies sold)

2. *NSYNC, No Strings Attached (11,112,000)

3. Norah Jones, Come Away With Me (10,546,000)

4. Eminem, The Marshall Mathers LP (10,204,000)

5. Eminem, The Eminem Show (9,799,000)

6. Usher, Confessions (9,712,000)

7. Linkin Park, Hybrid Theory (9,663,000)

8. Creed, Human Clay (9,491,000)

9. Britney Spears, Oops! … I Did It Again (9,185,000)

10. Nelly, Country Grammar (8,461,000)

 

Total albums sold in the top 10: 99,672,000

 

Top selling albums of the 90s:

 

1. Shania Twain - Come on Over (22 Million)

2. Whitney Houston - The Bodyguard Soundtrack (19.1 Million)

3. Alanis Morissette - Jagged Little Pill (19 Million)

4. Hootie & the Blowfish - Cracked Rear View (16.1 Million)

5. Garth Brooks - No Fences (16 Million)

6. Garth Brooks - Double Live (15 Million)

7. Santana - Supernatural (14.6 Million)

8. Backstreet Boys- Backstreet Boys (14.1 Million)

9. Garth Brooks - Ropin' the Wind (14 Million Sales)

10. Britney Spears- Hit My Baby One More Time (13.9 Million)

 

Total albums sold in the top 10: 163.8 Million

 

 

So the top sellers of the 00s definitely didn't even come close in totals to the 90s. Top selling artist of the 90s: Garth Brooks. Top seller of the 00s: Eminem. Obviously there are many facets to this debate, but I thought I would start with some hard numbers. I think one thing that could help are some numbers for some of the labels this board follows: Warp, Rephlex, Mu, etc with 90s vs. 00s comparisons. I have no idea where to find that sort of info though.

I wouldn't blindly follow these numbers. Are these physical albums only? What about digital sales? Individual tracks? How many albums and tracks have been sold through the iTunes shop, for instance? And how do these show in these numbers?

Posting numbers like these is easy. But interpreting them is entirely different. What about production costs? What about average numbers? The average of the 00s might be higher. I don't expect it, but it's not impossible. There could be a lot of factors at play here.

How many more people are there in the world since that beatles release? The numbers don't correlate.

Also, a lot of those numbers are inflated, they may have manufactured that amount but you'll be surprised how much goes into storage/isn't sold.

  On 12/20/2011 at 7:10 PM, Kanakori said:

  On 12/18/2011 at 1:20 PM, psn said:

Ban churches while they're at it.

 

That was unecessary..... pure hate....

Churches dont spread eco prayers through the city, plus they're not contextualized nor they have something to do with the surrounding architecture, plus most of them are historical monuments.

Cities change, man. Deal with it.

  On 12/20/2011 at 9:25 PM, goDel said:

  On 12/20/2011 at 4:18 PM, patternoverlap said:

Obviously there are many facets to this debate, but I thought I would start with some hard numbers.

 

I wouldn't blindly follow these numbers. Are these physical albums only? What about digital sales? Individual tracks? How many albums and tracks have been sold through the iTunes shop, for instance? And how do these show in these numbers?

Posting numbers like these is easy. But interpreting them is entirely different. What about production costs? What about average numbers? The average of the 00s might be higher. I don't expect it, but it's not impossible. There could be a lot of factors at play here.

I didn't want it to be a discussion about the charts I posted. That is beside the point. I was looking at general trends based on some sort of official numbers. I would assume the 90s numbers are physical copies. I don't know about the 00s. I would imagine that the number of singles or albums purchased online would contribute quite a bit to the sales base if they aren't included in the posted numbers.

  On 12/20/2011 at 10:09 PM, rixxx said:

How many more people are there in the world since that beatles release? The numbers don't correlate.

 

 

Also, a lot of those numbers are inflated, they may have manufactured that amount but you'll be surprised how much goes into storage/isn't sold.

That Beatles release is a compilation that was released in 2000. I'm not sure what the world's population has to do with music sales in this instance.

The numbers could be inflated but we have no way of proving that. Are those sales based on retail outlet reports of actual customer sales or are they based on distributor reports?

You might as well use no numbers whatsoever, if you don't want to discuss the numbers. Whatever floats your boat, I guess. From my own experience, having the so-called "charts-discussion" is at least half of the entire discussion. If you want to skip it, be my guest. But don't expect anything more than a couple of good anecdotes.

Let's look to research

http://www.serci.org/2003/liebowitz.pdf has some interesting points.

Simon Reynolds has also written about it too.

The fact is, it's difficult for people like us (who are involved in quite a 'concentrated' environment, there is a closer relationship to the artist and the consumer) to see whats happening on a grander scale. Looking at sales figures of some record labels, things are really tough!

making video games now is the being-in-a-band of the 70s or 80s

(minus the blow jobs)

The money is now in getting music in ads/video games/ etc... so I think that has a big part in the future of music.

The future of music is in my bedroom, always has been....

The future of making money in the music business and maintaining originality/quality is dead...

Fire up them 8 tracks boys, we gots ears to shit in!

  On 12/20/2011 at 11:37 PM, rixxx said:

Let's look to research

 

http://www.serci.org...3/liebowitz.pdf has some interesting points.

 

 

I'm not going to read that, its 30 pages if you reference pages/passages I will look at it. How would you go about getting all albums that were sold in a particular year?

Plus it doesn't go beyond 2002. You could easily say that more people bought album in 80s or 90s because most of them had to go to a record store to by it. Music genres are spreading out and becoming so diverse I would say its a near impossible feat to record all albums sold in one year. Its easier to a have a less mainstream taste in music because of the internet, where as before you were pretty much confined to what was in a record store or local bands.

You should read it chassis - it's an easy read, and it's quite interesting. It would be nice to see some current analysis.

Basically according to this guy - by 2002, napster hadn't hurt the record labels. I disagree with his analogy of home taping and MP3 downloading though, MP3 downloading is incredibly more convenient, his argument was that it isn't because you had to burn the mp3s to CD to play them on the home stereo.

There's probably no doubt that sales of physical product have declined - but if you look at the RIAA's own numbers - digital sales increased tremendously:

http://76.74.24.142/548C3F4C-6B6D-F702-384C-D25E2AB93610.pdf

As the ease of purchase and variety of marketplaces to purchase digital increases, I would guess that these sales will make up for the decrease of physical product. Additionally as the current generation of young people grow up they will be much more capable of purchasing online. The net is a scary place for many old people, who don't know how to find what they want.

There's so much to consider when you're discussing this though - tastes change (rise of video games as a competitor for example), overall economic situation (people have less money to spend on luxury items), diversity of product (how many more musical acts are there selling goods), diversity of distribution methods (radiohead, NIN, rephlex and planet-mu's own download shops - these take away from RIAA numbers) etc. etc.

  On 12/21/2011 at 12:09 AM, Atop said:

The future of music is in my bedroom, always has been....

 

The future of making money in the music business and maintaining originality/quality is dead...

 

Fire up them 8 tracks boys, we gots ears to shit in!

screw them all money. ndc forever

  On 12/20/2011 at 11:38 PM, rixxx said:

The money is now in getting music in ads/video games/ etc... so I think that has a big part in the future of money.

The future of music is hopefully not ruled by money. I wouldn't worry about the music industry collapsing, that's a good thing. Human beings will still be musicians and artists, it's what we do. Only cunts do it for the money.

ceriously

  On 12/21/2011 at 8:08 AM, impakt said:

The future of music is hopefully not ruled by money. I wouldn't worry about the music industry collapsing, that's a good thing. Human beings will still be musicians and artists, it's what we do. Only cunts do it for the money.

this

plus, ffs, I have never met anyone who won't buy releases when they can afford to. downloading is to supplement what your income won't provide for, and for listening to music before you buy it, which is no different from what people do when deliberating a purchase in a record shop. making it legal to download is not going to stop people from wanting to support artists.

  On 12/21/2011 at 8:08 AM, impakt said:

The future of music is hopefully not ruled by money. I wouldn't worry about the music industry collapsing, that's a good thing. Human beings will still be musicians and artists, it's what we do. Only cunts do it for the money.

Why shouldn't artists be rewarded for their efforts? If they weren't paid then they'd have to have a full time job so less time/incentive to make music. It's strange how people feel that music should be free, yes its true 'only cunts do it for the money' but those people don't get signed (well, mostly....) because their music is often not genuine sounding.

I think you'd have to be very naive to go into the music industry now for the 'money'.

they dont get signed cuz their music isnt genuine sounding what the heck is that suppose to mean!?!?!?!

perosnally think that the ppl who dont make GENUINE sounding music are the people who DO get signed

to the labels that make an amount of money that they dont have to play live or something

cuz they make lots of money from it

  On 12/21/2011 at 6:50 AM, chenGOD said:

You should read it chassis - it's an easy read, and it's quite interesting. It would be nice to see some current analysis.

Basically according to this guy - by 2002, napster hadn't hurt the record labels. I disagree with his analogy of home taping and MP3 downloading though, MP3 downloading is incredibly more convenient, his argument was that it isn't because you had to burn the mp3s to CD to play them on the home stereo.

 

There's probably no doubt that sales of physical product have declined - but if you look at the RIAA's own numbers - digital sales increased tremendously:

http://76.74.24.142/...25E2AB93610.pdf

 

As the ease of purchase and variety of marketplaces to purchase digital increases, I would guess that these sales will make up for the decrease of physical product. Additionally as the current generation of young people grow up they will be much more capable of purchasing online. The net is a scary place for many old people, who don't know how to find what they want.

 

There's so much to consider when you're discussing this though - tastes change (rise of video games as a competitor for example), overall economic situation (people have less money to spend on luxury items), diversity of product (how many more musical acts are there selling goods), diversity of distribution methods (radiohead, NIN, rephlex and planet-mu's own download shops - these take away from RIAA numbers) etc. etc.

Ive got it bookmark man, I intend on doing so eventually. Final and shit are in the way.

But you made the point I was trying to make in your last paragraph there. Thats why I dont think any modern analysis of sales is very constructive. So many digital stores online too. And I don't think analysis of the amount of torrents share is any good either, because I always download digital copies of my vinyl/cd after purchase, and I think lots of people do the same. Im that lazy that I wont rip a CD.

Ah I feel your pain - had my last final of the term today.

CD? what's that?

i like cds a lot i just dont have a cd store in my village :( i would totaly buy cds if they actually CAME to me

  On 12/21/2011 at 11:04 AM, chenGOD said:

Ah I feel your pain - had my last final of the term today.

 

CD? what's that?

Ive my last one in about 4 and half hours. Then Im gonna get so fucked up.

I only buy CDs when its the only format theyre available, ie Anodyne, Machine and NHKyx(CD only so far)

  On 12/21/2011 at 9:30 AM, rixxx said:

  On 12/21/2011 at 8:08 AM, impakt said:

The future of music is hopefully not ruled by money. I wouldn't worry about the music industry collapsing, that's a good thing. Human beings will still be musicians and artists, it's what we do. Only cunts do it for the money.

 

 

Why shouldn't artists be rewarded for their efforts? If they weren't paid then they'd have to have a full time job so less time/incentive to make music. It's strange how people feel that music should be free, yes its true 'only cunts do it for the money' but those people don't get signed (well, mostly....) because their music is often not genuine sounding.

 

I think you'd have to be very naive to go into the music industry now for the 'money'.

I'm not saying artists shouldn't be rewarded, but the reward shouldn't be the aim. Real musicians will make music whether they make money off of it or not. If you are able to live off your music, then kudos - for most people it isn't a viable option if you want to live in any semblance of a normal life. Personally I would never want to live off touring and it is naive to expect giant income from record sales - unless you make pop hits.