Is There Big Trouble Brewing?


It seems there is some trouble in the recorded music industry. Sales of recorded music has fallen 5% in 2001, 9% in 2002 and the global forecast is for a drop of 12-14% in the year 2003.

Regulators, especially in Europe have blocked mergers between companies including Universal, Sony, Warner, EMI and BMG, and seem to be holding firm on their positions. The music industry feels that consolidation may be the answer to many of their woes. I don't know if I can agree with this.

Do you remember when you purchased an album that contained 12 or so songs? Usually 70-80% of those songs were great recordings with quality content. Now if you find 10-20% of the recorded content to be of any quality you are doing well.

The recorded music industry likes to blame piracy and the world economy to be the culprit. Could it be the lack of quality in conjunction with out of proportion pricing? Many companies feel that format changes may provide the diversity for multiple income streams. Is that why they continue to introduce recycled music in the new formats?

I myself feel a great resentment towards the music industry. I am sick and tired of paying high prices for low quality and I'm sure many of you feel the same way. If the industry would like to see the new formats have a higher acceptance factor, don't you think they would do so by releasing new material on the newer formats?

I don't get it. Is there anyone out there willing to embrace the new formats so that they may listen to recordings that they have been listening to for the last 30 years? Will the industry ever wake up and realize that the consumer is disgusted with the bill of goods we are presently being sold?
128x128buscis2
the downturn in the music industry is an effect caused by a cultural change. the last three decades of youth have been conditioned into believing that music is no different than any disposable commodity you can name. classic rock is nothing but fodder for tv commercials...classical music is all generic backround noise that deseves its spot on the bargain rack at walmart next to the candybars... new music that has any link to r&b or gospel is corny..and c&w is a fashion show of funny talking,flag waiving yahoos with hats that don't ever come off ,even in the wind. there is more talk radio today than ever and all their commercials tell you you're an idiot for listening to a music station....this isn't about bad business(the music guys have been through that many times)...this is about music being a more fringe entertainment now and in the future."its the end of the world as we know it,and i feel fine".
I'm with T_bone and jrd...
Brittney? Ace of Base? They're all just small-duration events in the whole industry like a flash from the camera that for some short period of time leaves a trace in the eyes. Pop always needs to be re-charged to flash again but how? It's already got nowhere to go and the further the less interesting it becomes even for teenagers.
For me the music ends in the end-80's I'd say as probably the one younger than T_bone where still there were lots of new-era electronic and progressive pearls still produced and in the 90's all these folks Brian Eno, David Byrne, Laurie Anderson, Jethro Tull, Yes become older and older...
Just visualize the MTV all throughout its existance to partially find answers that every day added today subtracts more and more music from recording industry that were realy tended to sell it.
Count me out! I care less and use for myself what's already been done so-far. I even did not rich 90's in my collection surfing through the rare and original albums of my favourite artists.
Grandma's and Grandpops are probably right that it was all begun after '60-s i.e. I mean Beatles(truly hate them for that!).
One can argue that the economics of the music industry drives what we are allowed to hear. To a certain extent it would be correct that in Europe during feudalism the wealthy aristocrats controlled through patronage what composers were able to write, and today the tyranny continues via the free market. But the truth is that real artists compromise little. When Baron von Kayserling, the Russian ambassador to the Dresden court, commissioned Bach to write a harpsicord piece that might help him with his insomnia, Bach did not have to create anything nearly so profound as the Goldberg Variations (named after the Baron's harpsicordist). But he had a certain standard of excellence and he wasn't going to compromise.
Likewise, when a superb musician such as Wes Montgomery or Nat King Cole abandoned the small-group, strictly-jazz format to make pop-oriented, little-room-for-improvisation records, you still had world class artists making good music. The formats may have limited their range of expression, but these recordings left no doubt that Montgomery and Cole brought their prodigious talent and big-hearted interpretive style to the studio. The audience got their money's worth.
Where are the artists of this caliber today? How often does even a Nora Jones come along? For that matter, why did the evolution of jazz stop with Coltrane?
It is impossible to have any discussion of this matter without considering how pop culture has changed since the Motown-Classic Rock days. Leonard Pitt, Jr. describes the culture of his teen-age sons as "materialistic, misogynistic, pornagraphic and violent. A culture that proclaims itself authentically black when the truth is, it could not be more anti-black if it were made by the Ku Klux Klan." In its 22 year history, rap has yet to produce a memorable song. The format does not honor musicianship with the modest exception of the syncopated percussive effects supplied by the DJ. This genre is like reality TV: all hype, hustle, but no heart. There is more taking place of musical value in the obscure world of modern piano rag composition than in the rap and grunge cultures combined.
I, like many others who have contributed to this thread, am always on the lookout for new artists. While focusing on jazz and classical, my journey also has taken me to the music of Senegal, Brazil, Cuba, Cape Verde Islands and so on. I might not always understand the lyrics, but it's soulful, musical and doesn't get boring after repeated listenings.
The point I have been leading to is that despite the no-talent invasion of popular culture, even in this country there is opportunity for new artists. Indeed, because of the sorry state of affairs we are hungry for new artists.
Wow. I like it here. There is some great stuff. Maybe I will come back and read it again when i am more sober. Music is very iconoclastic. I really like my Rock, yet as I sit here I am listening to Classical Waltz Cd that I have not palyer in years. I put it on even before arriving at this page. Right now it is the Blue Danube--an old stand-by, but oh, so perfect.

Here's a question: Lets take a great rock recording of the 70's. How about the first Crosby Stills and Nash--the one with Suite Judy Blue Eyes. Excellent. Now what are the production costs? To re-re-re-re-lease it (okay, yes it was 'remixed') for Cd, there are no promotion costs, probably no artist costs other that the pennies that go to the original musicians/producer Well, I suspect you get my point.

It is still an expensive Cd. A damn good Cd and one I obviously was willing to pay good money for. The simple matter is that the so-called victumized big-time music label companies are not exactly going broke. An obvious example is Motown. They, for the most part, don't pay the artists of the 70's anything for a re-re-re-re-lease.

So, am I worried or despondant? hell, no. there are lots of basement, high quality recording studios out there and many really neat artists are just going to vanity labels. Skrew the big guys. the only problem, well one of many problems, is that so few radio stations still play the fantastic underground stuff late at night like some did in the 60's/70's. How many of us discovered The Moody Blues on the so-called album FM stations of so long ago?
That's why live music is so profound; it can defy the recording industry by definition.