Looking Ahead 20 Years - I Am Sad
Monday, October 4, 2010 at 12:01AM Will there be a "Bring Back Metalcore" or "Bring Back Emo" in 20 years?
Are people even passionate about music anymore? Or anything of substance really?
I'm amazed at how fast the world moves. I swear, when I started this site, it was Myspace or bust. Then Facebook. Now Twitter. So what's next? You and I both know that within four years, Twitter will be the "has been" of the social networking world and everyone will have moved on. Again.
All this "moving on" really concerns me when we're talking music. Myspace was (is?) good for musicians because the site allows bands to push out new music to new and old fans for free...and then maybe that fan would become a customer. As social media platforms move forward, so do bands. But do the fans?
Remember back when we were kids and Glam was hot? The only way you could really follow the bands was to watch MTV or buy Metal Edge. Then, you could get a Metal Edge pen pal and talk about those bands over snail mail. You had to wait...for a response! There was something so civilized about it all. Now, forget it. You can get into a fight with your favorite musician if you're on the right social media site at the right time. I've often theorized that the reason I kept my Glam bands with me for so long was because they were all I really had in terms of interests outside of school. My friends were all really into music, so all our conversations revolved around rock bands. After all, I used to buy a couple CDs a week and I always liked to show off my haul. With the rise of digital music, there's nothing to show or hold anymore. Now, I know very well that kids still like music. It's just the importance of music in life these days seems diminished.
And really, we need the escape of music now more than ever. Honestly, the world we live in these days terrifies me. Political parties fight about the wrong issues, everyone is broke and you're lucky if you have a job. So, it seems to me this is a great time for a great musical revolt, just like in the 1960s. Except that if it happened, we probably wouldn't even know because there's no unified platform in which we receive our music anyway. After all, commercial radio is just that - commercial. There's no more real MTV and the web can honestly only take you so far.
I feel sorry for kids today. I really do. Not only is the world a complete and utter mess, I can't imagine they'll have many special "music related" memories to look back on a couple decades from now. What a tragedy.
Reader Comments (37)
You are correct that the labels own the material, so they get to set the price for the digital downloads. I ask you, how's that working out for them? the high prices they have set are a big reason why people choose to download illegally rather than legally. I do believe that if the labels dropped the prices for digital downloads considerably, they'd find that many more people would download legally. Let's say I'm the average 13-year-old. there are 10 songs I really love, and I want all of them. I have two options: download them legally for $10, or download them illegally for free. As a 13-year-old, $10 is a lot of money, so I'll go the free route. How much did the label make off me? $0. Now, let's price those same ten songs at $0.10 a piece. Now, I only have to shell out a dollar to buy those ten songs. At that price, why wouldn't I buy them legally? In that scenario, how much did the label make off me? $1. Yes, $1 isn't a lot of money, but it's one more dollar than the label had when the price was $0.99 per track. think of all the customers the labels could get back with that pricing model. so, the labels can be stubborn and stick to a pricing model that clearly isn't returning dividends for them, or they can read the market, and price their product accordingly.
And remember, major labels take a financial loss on 98% of music they release. No, I didn't make that up. That's fact from the RIAA. They lose money on 98%.
To lower the cost below a profit is not wise business sense. Criminals should be prosectued. Those who steal intellectual property should be punished. Period.
Me and the boyz in the neighborhood loved all of the tracks that were not available on the U.S. versions. Though I wouldn't call the Aussie version of "High Voltage" AC/DC's best effort, I hardly think it's terrible, especially when you compare it to the dreck of the day that was out on the airwaves, at least in America, at the time.
Christian! You will love Zambelis! It's self titled and you are so lucky to be in Australia because I bet you'll have a better chance of finding it down there than how I got it.
I was fortunately made aware of Zambelis by a collector, which was very cool, just as you all have done on here so many times for me. Check 'em out, Christian, on heavyharmonies.com and take it from there! You won't be sorry...
Now as far as the great debate going on here regarding the current state of Pop Music, you all make valid points. File Sharing is stealing that bands now have to shrug over and, yes, ticket prices are inordinately high do to the monopoly of Live Nation. And the record companies screwed up when they insisted on sustaining 15 bux as the going price for a CD.
Personally, I pay for the CDs and I do buy some stuff on iTunes, though most of the stuff is just going into the hands of the sellers as most of it's long out of print and super rare.
The whole issue of singles vs. albums. Again, bringing up your new fave artist (hahaha!!!), Lady GaGa. She, like any real artist worth their salt, whatever your personal musical taste, you must admit, had a string of hits that make up a terrific album. Let's see what she does next and if she's going to push the boundaries or not.
I think Shadow and I were finding indy created alternate "Metal" mixes of her stuff on YouTube and it sounds awesome! Wow, man, I wish she would mix it up a little with some real Glam Rock or even our fave Glam Metal references.
Most kids today are so clicked out with their music and it will be interesting to see what happens next but right now it's insta-hit, "one ear and out the other" singles. Thank THE Metal Godz we have a faction of a great many kidz switched on to Glam Metal to hang our hopes on!
You guys have done a great job here of flagging all of the problems with the state of Pop Music and the Industries that provide it but what are some solutions.
Obviously, I don't have any. What should happen?
There are two sides to this debate but when I go into a C/D store (the ones that are left) and still see C/D's being sold for $15 to $18 each it's almost like they want it to fail. And the concert thing is just as insane, especially these non-artists in the top 20 of Billboard that only have a promotional train running the show, pushing the talentless one hit wonders to the top of the charts. You can blame downloading but really what has the record industry done to make you or I go out an purchase a C/D? with all the marketing money how come they can't even market the sales of music? It would be great to have an audit done of every major label complaining of lost revenue and find out what is really going on and what they are prepared to do about it. The world has changed and music has lost it's touch with consumers. I still buy C/D's but only from the artists I grew up with, the ones who have been around the block and actually play and sing without throwing it all through a computer. The record industry turned it's back on the consumer awhile ago and now they want to blame that same consumer for there own demises, I think not!
#1. They can fully embrace the digital future, and lower their prices to what the market will actually pay on a consistent basis. The profits will be there in volume sales.
#2. They can stick to the status quo and watch their business continue to crumble, and take down a lot of innocent bystanders with them.
Remember Blaine and Christian, that I was a professional musician for a number of years myself. I am amazingly passionate about music, and I hate what's going on in the industry now. I buy my music through the Amazon MP3 store, and am happy to do so.
My big problem is that, as I've said several times already, I firmly believe that the mess that the music industry is currently in is largely of its own making. I'm not talking about the artists, or the hard-working people who do the legwork for the artists. I"m talking about the people at the top. For any business to be successful, it must be able to read and understand its target market, then generate products that appeal to that market, and price its products comppppppetitively. When the music consumer market began to change, with the advent of illegal downloading, the labels, instead of adapting their business model to tap into these potential digital consumers, tried to turn back the hands of time by litigation. Look, you can call illegal downloaders thieves, and talk about prosecuting them all you want. That's perfectly fine, but at the end of the day, these people are still fans of music, and rather than loading them up into the wagon and hauling them off to jail, why not see if there is a viable business model that could turn those illegal downloaders back into legal ones? clearly the feeble attempts the labels have made so far haven't worked.
The first AC/DC album, to me, is a search for direction. It's 70s pop, with guitar. They recorded those three albums, or at least the first two, all at once. I think they have different sounds, those first three, b/c they were looking to see what direction would sell. Then Let there be rock was the first time they pursued the direction they had chosen out of the options.
I will look into/look for Zambelis.
FWIW, I agree with Bob in that I can't see how digital music piracy is any different to all those songs we used to dub off our friends' tapes or record straight off the radio. When I was a kid, I did that ALL THE TIME! Albums were expensive, and glam albums were particularly hard to find. I thank god for the Internet, because I can now buy songs that I once had to steal.
BUT, of course most people don't pay for music. I suspect that's been the case since the invention of the cassette tape. It's just that it's much more visible now than it used to be. Most people don't want to pay for books or paintings either - and those creative industries figured out centuries ago how to build libraries and museums to meet consumer demand. The music industry could have used radio and TV in a similar way, but instead tended to just treat it as an advertising platform. The expectation was that they should be able to use broadcast media to advertise and sell squillions of albums... rather than just work to a smaller marketing budget in the first place. I'd agree that the music industry burned a lot of bridges by treating its market with utter disdain. That's like a book publisher trying to prosecute anyone with a library card. Don't punish the people who LIKE your product.
And the reality fir the music industry then becomes: either revamp your product so that is relatively cheap to produce and market (like books or paintings), or focus back on the live performance experience as a means to make a living.
As a few people here have pointed out, a lot of bands have hiked up their ticket prices in recent years, and the perception is that this is solely due to falling revenue from album sales. I don't know whether that's true in the States, but I work in the live show industry in New Zealand, and I know that here it's really only part of the puzzle. Our venue hire prices have soared in the last decade or so, and the monopolies created by ticket agencies have also lead to pretty steep "inside charges" to promoters. Part of the venue hire spike has been caused by an increased awareness of health and safety legislation - which makes our venues a lot safer than they used to be (thank heavens!) but also means more staff, more equipment, and more paperwork. Working conditions are much better than they used to be, but that comes at a cost which the promoters have to pass on. Alongside that, there's been much more of a profit-drive from the owners of large venues (which around here are usually the local city councils), and less acceptance for making a loss on the small gigs. This profit motive is ironically usually coupled with a ticket agency monopoly as well... and most of the inside ticket charges just head off overseas, and have no real benefit to the promoters and performers on the ground here. There are real benefits to using a ticket agency (their mailing lists are worth GOLD), but they definitely exploit the market to their advantage.
When promoters set their ticket prices, they have to look at a lot of different factors (including what the market will stand), but I wouldn't be surprised if their outgoing costs in the States have also seen a similar spike to what they have here. Yes, albums are expensive to produce - but big tours are grindingly expensive to stage (with or without marketing, and regardless of how many people turn up). In many ways, they are a much, much more risky venture than just putting out an album and crossing your fingers.
Having said that, I agree with Christian that I'll happily pay $150-odd for a decent band (which is pretty much now the going rate here in New Zealand). I paid closer to $200 for a ticket to see Metallica next week. However, I balked at Bon Jovi's $300 for the worst possible seat. I saw Bon Jovi here (in a tent!), about 15 years ago, and I think I paid $50! There's no excuse for those kind of charges, especially since I know what it costs to hire the venue, etc. If they're now using the "we're losing money on our albums and so we have to charge more for tickets" excuse, then once more they're just alienating their market.
We have an entire generation to which music has been devalued. They expect music to be free. 3 out of four people under the age of 21 have not bought one single song download over the past year (99 cents worth of music). Think of when you were a teenager... Did 3/4 people you know not buy at least 1 album (single/EP/LP) within the last year?
If you lower prices that drastically, it's akin to a "blowout," which devalues music in the public's eye.
Looksthatkill- I vaguely remember talking with you about album prices before, and if I remember correctly, you live in a different country than the US. Once again, here in the US, new albums typically will sell for between $5-$10 at bigger retail stores such as Walmart, Bestbuy, Virgin, Sears, Fred Meyer, etc.
Kiki- Don't forget, only the extreme superstars are able to make a good living off of touring. Even major-indie signed bands (Charm City Devils, Last Vegas, and Airbourne come to mind) are unable to make a good living off of touring. Obviously it varies, but unless you're playing to 2,000 or more people a night (and you're the headliner), say hello day job.
And also: Only the musicians can make up for the money lost on piracy through live shows. The people behind the work on the album cannot. And at the truly indie or DIY level, bands cannot make any sort of living touring, especially in this live music atmosphere where people don't seek out live music.
I make a living off touring shows - and I don't get paid anything like what the bands do.
I paid $1000 to be in the inner circle for Bon Jovi. But, I would agree that their prices were insane. I just thought that, dollar for dollar, that was a far better deal for $300 outside the circle, and BJ is one of the last on my list of bands I really want to see at least once.
Historically, stores usually only sell new releases and greatest hits comps. The Universal pricing structure is currently $6-10 for new releases, but its EVEN LESS for reissues and older releases. Obviously, the price structure varies for older releases, but you can buy the albums that we talk about here (that are still in print) on Amazon, CDUniverse, or Bestbuy.com for even less than $6 new.
Now this obviously doesn't include imports, but that's because imports are expensive (and have always been expensive... shipping internationally costs a lot). For example, when I import albums from Sweden (Crashdiet, Hardcore Superstar, Reckless Love, etc) it'll cost me $25+. But that isn't the band's or the label's fault. It's where you live.
Indie labels can't compete with this. They don't have the mega-selling superstars to equalize the losses you may take on a more unknown band, and hence indie releases cost more, and in some cases a lot more.
I don't know of any label that has a 500% recoup on the artists costs. Whenever I've dealt with labels, or people I know who were signed to a major, I've never had these horror stories that Vince Neil and the like talks about. I think that there could be this anti-label attitude because it's cool to dislike labels or the establishment.
Is it possible that the pricing is different from the US? Since you don't believe me, here's one of the many stories available online: http://www.portfolio.com/business-news/2010/03/18/universal-music-price-structure-offers-cds-at-ten-dollars-or-less/
Of labels are working on the solution. Everyone wants a solution, cause pretty soon everyone will be out of work. Labels have stretched out and begun to do merch sales, concerts, promotions... And much of this has resulted in higher ticket and merch prices.
I own 8000 C/D's and enjoyed collecting them and still pick up the odd one now and then.
I am a fan of music, (good music) and feel that Glam & Hard Rock are alive and well in an underground type of way and hope that soon the industry will come to it's senses and release more of these type of bands as they still do in Europe and Asia, less narrow minded places like that. Anyway it was a great debate and lets hope someone from the industry is listening and things turn around soon.