Music Industry Decline

Post Reply New Topic

I have been reading a few articles stating that the music industry will not recover and could be soon gone. It seems digital sales are not increasing at a rate to balance the deficit through the decline of physical sales.

I would say this can only be blamed on the lack of talent and the boyband/girlband manufactured rubbish that has been produced for over ten years. The X factor blandness has made music buyers reluctant and skeptical.

The only big increase has been single download sales but because they cost so little it will not help the industry.

What do people think?

In a day when people fill stadiums to listen to their favorite group, it's in decline? Not hardly.

Perhaps the record labels are being hit, but that is only one small facet of the music industry. Considering some of their practices, I wouldn't be at all sorry to see them disappear once and for all.

In todays world, there is nothing keeping groups from doing their own music albums and selling them over the Internet or at their own concerts.

Technology changes things. It is inevitable that some businesses may see catastrophic declines, but it would be absurd to try to stop that. For example, how many people want to get rid of all modern transportation and go back to horse and buggies so that buggy whip manufacturers can prosper?

By the way, about 20 years ago there was an article in one of the business magazines about some of the old businesses who's products have become completely outmoded. It was surprising how many of those businesses managed to switch to other product lines and are prospering even though very few people, if any, remember what they once sold.

I'd like to see a resurgence in rock again. The top-selling draw in 2013 was Bon Jovi so band music is alive and well. Metal has devolved into growls. Hopefully that's just a trend and won't last too long. Electronic music artists and rap artists are bringing 'em in now. Macklemore just did three sold out dates at Key Arena. Whenever Jay-Z, Eminem, Beyoncé, Lady Gaga, Rihanna or Bruno Mars play, electronica's right up front. The times and music have changed.

It's good to know that it never all goes away, though. I'm sure Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Tchaikovsky would be astonished that their music is still being played and recorded worldwide. There seems to be room for everything - jazz, punk, waltzes, indie, folk, bluegrass, country, etc. I'd say music is pretty healthy right now.

I don't know what the specific articles mentioned state, but I can well believe that the recorded music industry, as traditionally built around large record companies, is in decline. This is as expected in times of great technological change that directly impacts both production and marketing. The days when a few record companies could exercise virtual control of an entire industry are gone.

I think they need to look at the product they are trying to sell, music has been around for forever and will continue to be around as long as people can hear noise. The strong sales of singles combined with the declining sales of full albums quite clearly illustrates that most albums only have one or two songs of any decent quality in the opinion of the consumer. I see no issue with rock as a genre, the issue is the rock/pop that most radio and TV outlets tend to play and promote.

I can live without major record labels releasing and forever perpetuating their trash just fine, where I see cause is how the local indie scene(around here anyway), coffee houses, concert halls, bars has really fallen on hard times and finding paying gigs is nearly impossible for what I can see. This is actually very troubling as the talent pool we need to be drawing from will become more shallow as talented players, song writers and singers will be more likely give up and look for other work.

I don't think pointing out how well a band did in 2013 is indicative of the strength of a particular genre, or savior of the industry. I think the industry is dying because technology is allowing more artists to take control of their own means of production. Bands like Metallica and Bon Jovi might sell big, but they're selling to an aging market from an era where that was the standard. Now musical genres are broader, and thanks to the internet, artists can reach many more people and appeal to particular demographics.
Not as many people may go out to see Band A as they do to see Green Day, but the band is better able to become a working class group, if not superstars with the no-label method.

Like television that used to be three channels, and is now thousands worth of special interests, the music industry is kind of just decentralizing. They were important in their time, and their time was between the 1950's and 1990's. I don't think there's a lack of interest in music, but rather a more varied one.

I think the "music industry" will die, and that it and the whole show-business will later be seen only as a 20th century economic oddity.

The existence of a "music industry" is the consequence of a situation consisting of two element:
- Existence of a technology allowing to accurately record, duplicate and play music
- High cost of such technology (recording/duplicating/broadcasting is expensive and/or difficult)

This situation initially started with the invention and diffusion of the vinyl record in the beginning of the 20th century. Before that time, recorded music was very limited. Since radio didn't exist either, music was mostly limited to live performance. You hadn't the music industry, and you hadn't show-biz. You had bad musicians, good musicians, some of them could become quite famous in their area, but not in the same way as current superstars. (Unlike music itself, scores could be printed, sold and carried easily, so you had great composers instead.)

When vinyl records (and radio) became available, it became possible to record music and play it at home and on the radio. But doing this required expensive special equipment (vinyl press for records, big transmitters for radio), so naturally some companies went into the business of recording music and distributing it (selling records for record companies, broadcasting music + ads for radios). I want to point out that the very existence of those companies depend on the fact that distributing music is difficult and there are important barriers to entry. If somehow any musician had been able to manufacture and sell his own records, there would have been no need for record companies.

In order to make money, record companies have to sell records. The more records they sell, the more money go in. Which records don't matter. The price of each record is more or less constant, so you make about as much money by editing 200 artists and selling 1000 records of each than by selling 200000 record of only one artist.

The same can't be said for costs, however. Due to the industrial processes involved, it is cheaper to manufacture 200000 copies of the same disc than 1000 copies of 200 different discs. And more importantly, it is much cheaper to produce and record one disc with one artist than 200 discs with 200 artists. This phenomenom is also amplified by the limited space available in the end distribution channels. You can only put so many records in a shop, or so many songs a day on a radio. (If, as a records store owner, you have to make a choice between having the 200000 copies disc or the 1000 copies one in store, you will probably go for the first one because you have more chances to sell it.) Because of that situation, it became vastly more profitable for record companies to produce a few artists and to insanely promote them and engineer their social success (with advertising, etc.) so they achieve cult figure status and sell a lot of records (and radio space, and 150$ concert tickets, etc.) than to have any other economic model. This is the "star" phenomenon.

What I want to say is that all the internationally famous musicians (even genuinely talented ones) only have the status they currently enjoy because of a temporary combination of technological and economic factors that have nothing to do with their skill, or even with music itself in general.

Now, many things are changing. Internet, MP3s, I won't draw you a detailed picture. Basically, the second element (high cost of recoding/copying technology) of my two-elements situation is crumbling, and the whole industry it generated is crumbling too. A few mechanisms can be pointed out:
- The duplication and propagation of recorded music has become easy and almost free, because of digital formats and the Internet. This leads to "piracy" and is the most widely pointed out cause of the wane of the music industry, but not the only one.
- Recording music has never been easier than today. The hardware is increasingly cheaper and easy to use, and the technical knowledge is more accessible. You don't need a producer any more ; more and more bands and artists are self-produced.
- Digital distribution channels have an almost unlimited space. You don't have to make a choice between artists, you can sell (or otherwise publish) everyone's music without taking risks. Those who are bad or unpopular won't be chosen but that's all, it won't induce a significant loss of resources or earnings.

Will we go back to the pre-20th century situation? No, because recording and broadcasting music are here to stay. Basically, it is now possible to record and broadcast music for almost nothing. That means that instead of just listening to local artists (pre-20th century) or to superstars selected by a techno-economic process (20th century), we will be able to listen to anything.

Here are my predictions: (As usual when you play this game many of them are bound to prove wrong )
- Record companies will die. (Or maybe some of them can undergo some radical transformation instead, this is not unheard of ; after all Nokia used to sell rubber boots). I just don't see how they could survive. Merely "adapting to the modern world" could only delay the inevitable.
- There won't be any international superstars, 20000 seats concerts with overpriced tickets and platinum discs any more. Some artists will be able to achieve prominence and fame through other communication channels and mechanisms (and will make a good amount of money from it), but they won't be as "universal" as some current superstars and their rise and fall will be much more sudden.
- Most artists will give away recorded music for free (or at least don't care if it is copied) and collect money with live performance and through donations
- Many artists will earn a little money. Most of them won't be able to make a living of it and will remain amateurs or semi-professionals. (This is in no way a bad thing, this is the exact situation of most writers currently and this has not killed literature.) In total musicians will probably make more money than in the 20th century, but it will be divided between much more people.
- I expect a slight rise in attendance to small and medium scale concerts and live performances
- I think overall this evolution will be positive for music, musicians and music lovers

ouroborrosUK - That was a very good post and I see what you mean about the pressing/distribution factors being the cause of the music industry and star phenomenon.

I hope to see less of the manufactured crap that the music industry throws at us and more of the older style artists from the 60's- 90's.

I can see more musicians making youtube and facebook etc part of their reach to their audience and perhaps they will make money from donations, and advertising.

Perhaps even the ISP's will get in on the act and somehow charge subscribers depending on which sites they use. So if you log online to view music then you pay accordingly and some of that money goes back to the artists.

technology is changing the business however and as always some will be left behind over time however the major labels still and will continue to have the means to promote and ultimately sell their product over all else with the exception of the odd viral type release. I think the industry is going through something similar to what happened in the 1980's where they are using their influence to push what they want to sell and its sort of falling flat, really if you look at many of most of the top sellers they are famous more for their bodies, fashion or antics then their music catalog, Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber quickly come to mind.

Music works in cycles starting with something organic and independent and over 10-20 years the majors take over and begin to steer and promote then attempt to build on what they have got until at the end they end up with an awful mess. I think we at the end of the cycle and are in a period of transition that will eventually end up much like what happened in the early 1990's where the once localized and organically grown alternative genre of grunge got a chance and quickly took over and killed off a lot of mediocre bands that were long past their best before date.

As for the ISPs and billing for usage like that is a lot of governmental issues to that idea that will require unanimous agreement with multiple governments and the simple fact is getting any of those laws will be almost impossible.