Mainstream Press Waking Up To The News That Musicians Are Making More Money

from the took-'em-long-enough dept

I believe that we were the first publication to report on the study released by PRS in the UK, way back in July, indicating that overall music revenue was up, even as the sale of recorded music was dropping. It showed how live revenue was making up a good part of the difference, and other aspects of the business were making up more than the rest. While we've pointed to that study numerous times in the meantime, we've been quite surprised that no mainstream press picked up on this seemingly remarkable news -- as it went against the prevailing favored narrative (as pushed by the RIAA) that the music industry was in trouble. Especially when combined with the recent Harvard study by Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf, that also showed that revenue in the overall music ecosystem was significantly higher today than in the past, it really was quite amazing that the press (and politicians) continued to spread the lie that the music industry was in some sort of trouble. It's not. It's only the business of selling plastic discs that's in trouble.

The good news is that the mainstream press seems to finally be waking up to this. As a bunch of you sent in, the Times Online in the UK has published a nice study highlighting the PRS numbers, complete with some very nice charts, showing that musicians themselves are making more than ever. The other interesting part: for all the talk about how recorded music sales losses are hurting artists, the chart proves the point we've made over and over again: musicians see such a tiny part of recorded music sales that this has had almost no impact on their revenue at all. The amount of money musicians make from recorded revenue has remained just about constant.

Source: Times Online Labs blog

It's great that the press is finally starting to dig into this -- and the Times Online even admits that perhaps it should not have let Lily Allen claim in its own pages how much "harm" was being done to artists due to file sharing, because the numbers simply don't support it (of course, we pointed this out when the whole Allen mess was going on...).

Now, some people have raised some concerns over the numbers -- specifically, there have been some claims that the "live" numbers are distorted due to so-called "heritage" acts and legacy acts, who have been around forever and still pack large stadiums with increasingly higher ticket prices. And, indeed, that almost certainly has some impact on the numbers. It would be nice to see a similar report that starts to break out some of the details -- and we've been talking to a few people who are trying to dig deeper into the amount of "live" and "alternative" revenue streams to better understand where the money is going. Hopefully we'll have more complete data soon, but the initial things I've seen suggest that the original point remains true. Artists across the entire spectrum of the industry are making more in live revenues than they have in the past -- and, in part, the increase in live revenue is due to file sharing. In talking to different musicians, we've been hearing plenty of stories about how they're strategically pushing free versions of their songs on local audiences before embarking on tours or even individual shows -- and they're seeing larger turnouts than in the past because of it.

Hopefully, with more mainstream publications finally picking up on this, both the press and politicians will begin to recognize that the only real "crisis" in the music industry is for those who have stupidly relied on selling plastic discs for way too long. There are plenty of revenue opportunities for musicians, and because of that (in combination with better and cheaper tools for music creation), the actual music industry is thriving at levels never seen before.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 16th, 2009 @ 11:29am

    Again, as explained last time, the only area that is seeing growth net is licensing, the EVIL PRS. Remove them, and 25% of the UK income disappears overnight.

    Live & recorded together only show marginal gains. The big gains are in licensing. Aren't these licensing schemes exactly what you want to get rid of Mike?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 16th, 2009 @ 11:47am

    Re:

    "25% of the UK income disappears overnight."

    Wow. It just disappears? I wonder where it goes? It was probably stolen by those internet stealers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    KevinJ (profile), Nov 16th, 2009 @ 11:52am

    Re:

    I think you should click through to look at the actual numbers used to create that chart. Total live music revenue went from £531 million in 2004 to £904 million in 2008. Where as PRS numbers show a rise from £421 million in 2004 to £535 million in 2008. That's a 70% gain in total live music revenue over 4 years versus a 27% gain in PRS revenue over 4 years. Now without any numbers to the contrary, perhaps we should examine how you define 'marginal' and 'big' gains.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 16th, 2009 @ 11:53am

    Re:

    Live & recorded together only show marginal gains.

    Why are you combining them? Live shows massive gains -- much more than PRS licensing. I could just as easily say that licensing and recorded together show no gain, while live shows massive gain.

    The big gains are in licensing. Aren't these licensing schemes exactly what you want to get rid of Mike?


    No, the big gain is in live. Licensing shows some gain, but not as big as licensing.

    But, as the other commenter noted that if you took out licensing it's not like that money disappears. Instead it could still go into the market in a much more efficient means.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    KevinJ (profile), Nov 16th, 2009 @ 11:56am

    Re: Re:

    And even with a drop in recorded music revenue. The industry is still growing. So wouldn't that also show that the music industry isn't in as such bad shape as so many want to portray? Just that there is a shift in where people choose to spend their money?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 16th, 2009 @ 12:10pm

    My boycott of the labels continues until that red line is on 0!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Nov 16th, 2009 @ 12:18pm

    Re:

    No! No! Some labels get it. Unfortunately not any of the majors. But I would still like to see some of the inventive labels making money when this all pans out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 16th, 2009 @ 12:20pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    They're choosing to spend their money on the wrong things! If the public doesn't buy shiny plastic discs then music will die!

    Remember how music didn't exist before Compact Discs, Vinyl Records and Wax Cylinders?

    If that's the kind of world you want to live in then I feel sorry for you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    yogi, Nov 16th, 2009 @ 12:25pm

    Newspaper behind again?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 16th, 2009 @ 12:52pm

    Those are some awesome color choices. Beige, light blue, slightly lighter blue, slightly lighter light blue.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 16th, 2009 @ 1:00pm

    Re:

    I completely agree. I was sad (blue) to see their chart legend. I bet it looks great in gray scale!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 16th, 2009 @ 1:10pm

    Re:

    The only important color is red.

    I don't mean on the chart. Red is the most impostant color of all the colors. It's way more imporatant than yellow.

    Blechh. Yellow.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Dementia (profile), Nov 16th, 2009 @ 1:11pm

    Re: Re:

    Licensing shows some big gains, but not as big as licensing.

    Should that be not as much as live?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 16th, 2009 @ 1:20pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Oops. Yes. That line should read "licensing shows some big gains, but not as big as live."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    bob, Nov 16th, 2009 @ 1:23pm

    I wonder

    Will we see this information on MTV?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Nov 16th, 2009 @ 1:26pm

    Re: I wonder

    "Will we see this information on MTV?"

    Why would you see anything having to do with music on MTV?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 16th, 2009 @ 1:57pm

    Re: Re:

    Live is only there making up for the losses in record sales. Remember the report you posted Mike? Total of the two together (which is how they reported them) showed only about a 3% gain total. Licencing over the same time period was showing 10% gains and more.

    Licensing is a huge part of the income stream. remove it, and guess what: it doesn't turn into music sales or tickets, because licensing doesn't come directly from consumers. So it disappears off into the economy somewhere else. Another net loss for music.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 16th, 2009 @ 2:33pm

    So if you want to write music, but don't have time to tour, you're screwed. Does this study suggest that people prefer the visual entertainment and social atmosphere over the music itself? Perhaps more precisely, the music is only PART of what people want from an artist anymore.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    DocMenach (profile), Nov 16th, 2009 @ 2:51pm

    Re:

    So if you want to write music, but don't have time to tour, you're screwed.

    Guess what? Even long before the days of the internet if you wanted to just write music without touring or promoting your music in some way you were screwed anyway.

    Live is only there making up for the losses in record sales. Remember the report you posted Mike? Total of the two together (which is how they reported them) showed only about a 3% gain total. Licencing over the same time period was showing 10% gains and more.

    Good job missing the point again. The point is that while record sales have been going down, nearly every other aspect of music has shown increased revenue.

    Also, live revenue is up by around £370 million, for a 70% gain, while licensing revenue is up only £114 million for a 27% gain. Whether you look at dollar amount increase or proportional increase, Live revenue is up substantially more than licensing.

    The only thing going down is record sales, you don't get to mysteriously combine live and record revenue when the whole point of this discussion is to show the contrast between those two.

    Nice try, shill.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    inner voices (profile), Nov 16th, 2009 @ 2:57pm

    the 'OLD' music industry is thriving at levels never seen before

    ‘There are plenty of revenue opportunities for musicians, and because of that (in combination with better and cheaper tools for music creation), the actual music industry is thriving at levels never seen before.’

    Guess who is making the money in live music….. yes all the old 80’s & 90’s acts who have benefitted from 'large greedy record labels' spending large amounts of cash on PR advertising and creating their brand names. If you take a look at the ‘real’ situation for small unknown bands they are often expected to play for nothing - this was not the case 10-15 years ago.

    The reality is that live music revenue is booming on the back of old bands reinventing themselves and charging extortionate ticket prices. Is this your idea of a thriving music industry? I hope you enjoy the Take that concert in December!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 16th, 2009 @ 3:10pm

    Re: Re:

    I didn't "mysteriously combine" the two, actually the agency that made the report did. It's called "Business to Consumer".

    Licensing and other things are "business to business"

    Check the pdf: http://www.prsformusic.com/creators/news/research/Documents/Will%20Page%20and%20Chris%20Carey%20%282 009%29%20Adding%20Up%20The%20Music%20Industry%20for%202008.pdf

    All I am doing is reporting the same thing in their report - record sales down, live sales up, combined only a 3% increase, where licensing and other items in business to business are up 10%!

    So no, sorry, not a shill. Just stating facts that Mike tends to want to ignore. Basically, in the UK, the retail music industry grew 3%. That's all. Licensing grew 10%, and importantly represents 25% of the business. If this trend continues, licensing will be a bigger and bigger part of the business.

    So the real growth isn't in retail, it's in B2B.

    Sorry to shoot down your "shill tagging".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 16th, 2009 @ 3:26pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Oh no! Music would be completely destroyed! We must stop this!

    We have to make sure copyright lasts for centuries!

    No. A millenia.

    It's the only way for music to survive in the 31st century.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 16th, 2009 @ 3:33pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    And then copyright will last for centuries for sure.

    It's a good thing Some Dumb Corporation can sell licenses for Some Dumb Artist.

    Just so long as the stealers are kicked offline.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 16th, 2009 @ 3:42pm

    Re: the 'OLD' music industry is thriving at levels never seen before

    No, my idea of a thriving music industry is the one where the industry part is forever abolished from the music part.

    Small music business. I like the sounds of that. Which is what most music is. Only a few (in the aggregate sense) musicians have a multi-national corporate presence.]

    All the rest? Not an industry. I mean, not really. It's fucking music. It's one of them, what do they call it?

    An oxymoron.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 16th, 2009 @ 4:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I think your mommy is calling.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 16th, 2009 @ 4:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Oh look, it's Some Poor Shill whose only function is to troll the techdirt comments.

    Good luck with your future endeavours. I can't imagine you'll be collecting a paycheck much longer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    DocMenach (profile), Nov 16th, 2009 @ 4:40pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Basically, in the UK, the retail music industry grew 3%. That's all. Licensing grew 10%, and importantly represents 25% of the business. If this trend continues, licensing will be a bigger and bigger part of the business.

    "whooosh". That's the sound of the point going right over your head.

    The whole point of this is the comparison between Record sales and Live revenue. The numbers are presented separately as well as combined, and the point at issue here is to show that Live sales have actually grown quite significantly.

    In fact, if we take your idea of "if the trend continues" with record sales dropping by about 25% over 4 years and Revenue from live sales increasing by 70% over the same period, then record sales will become 0 and live sales will far outpace licensing income.

    I don't really need to "tag" you as a shill. As my dad used to say: "If it looks like crap and smells like crap, you don't need to taste it to know it's crap".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 16th, 2009 @ 4:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Basically, record sales and live sales traded cash. But here's the kicker: ticket prices have shot through the roof in the UK (one report had Bon Jovi tickets something like 20 times more expensive than the last tour). Even with insane ticket price increases, they only managed to find 3% more total between the two.

    In fact, if we take your idea of "if the trend continues" with record sales dropping by about 25% over 4 years and Revenue from live sales increasing by 70% over the same period, then record sales will become 0 and live sales will far outpace licensing income.

    Sorry, FAIL. A bunch of things limit this, which is best explained why total consumer sales are only up 3% (rate of inflation for the period): people don't magically have more money. It is very likely that live sales and music sales will continue to trade one for the other for a short while. However, at some point, the maximum reasonable number of concert dates, events, and venues will limit that as well. Ticket price won't be able to continue to rise (Madonna was apparently about $600 us per ticket retail). So at some point, they will reach "maximum live", and things will start to fall off.

    So sorry, I think you are wrong, and time will tell.

    as for "If it looks like crap and smells like crap, you don't need to taste it to know it's crap"., all I can say is that I can disagree with you without calling you names. Perhaps your parents didn't bring you up to be polite, but mine did. I respect your right to be wrong, please do the same for me (and no, I don't work in music)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 16th, 2009 @ 5:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I can't wait until big music acts are a thing of the past and they are replaced with hyperlocal musicians.

    Kind of like how large newspapers are failing but local newspapers are thriving.

    Thanks for nothing, internet!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Nov 16th, 2009 @ 6:04pm

    Here's some discussion from working musicians

    To assume that as the big acts make money on live shows, musicians at all levels make money is kind of like the trickle down theory of economics. It's also possible that as people spend more of their money to see the superstars, they are spending less of their money to see anyone else.

    http://seaninsound.blogspot.com/2009/11/live-is-not-that-alive-few-gut.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Nov 16th, 2009 @ 7:08pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Good heavens! You mean artists have to make up their lack of profit from sitting on their asses and watching plastic discs being sold with actually going out there and WORKING FOR IT? Preposterous! Where are the Industry Suits when we need them?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 16th, 2009 @ 8:54pm

    Re: Here's some discussion from working musicians

    I would have to say that you are onto something here. I have a feeling that the acts aren't making any more money this way than they were the other way.

    There are other interesting issues here: If you take the consumer stuff (live & record sales) and look at the 2004 and 2008 numbers, the totals are virtually identical. In real economic terms, this would actually be a downturn, as the econmy has grown and there has been inflation during that same period. So the music industry as a whole has only held steady, with live only just managing to make up what was lost on sales of recordings.

    That means in the period from from 2004 to 2008, the only growth is in the B2B side of things. So it would suggest that the only additional payout artists are getting is because of increased licensing, not actually anything else. The rest has balanced itself out. Apparently, the public isn't willing to spend any more than a certain amount of money on musical entertainment.

    This would fly in the face of the concept often pushed here that free music would suddenly increase the size of the music business tremendously. Gee, if you removed rights controls, the music industry as a whole would crash overnight.

    Hmmm!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 16th, 2009 @ 10:10pm

    Re: Re: Here's some discussion from working musicians


    This would fly in the face of the concept often pushed here that free music would suddenly increase the size of the music business tremendously


    Hmm. Not sure where you got that from, but no one here has ever said that. What we said, fairly clearly (I thought) was that free music *combined with a smart business model* would increase the size of the music business.

    But, you have a way with ignoring what I actually said and pretending I said something else all in order to keep posting attacks on us on every single post. I wonder why... Who could possibly have the incentive to regularly distort and lie about what we say? Who could possibly have the time to do that on every post? Gee...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 16th, 2009 @ 10:46pm

    Re: Re: Here's some discussion from working musicians

    "Gee, if you removed rights controls, the music industry as a whole would crash overnight."

    Techdirt and Mike don't want that. They want reform. They are copyright reformists.

    I'm the abolishionist. I want to see the music industry crash overnight. It won't happen but an artist can dream?

    I love creation. And destruction. That's what art is. The act of creative destruction and destructive creation.

    Because I beleive, with a historical perspective to back that belief up, that if copyright were abolished overnight, while the industrial part would fall, or be destroyed, the creative part would flourish.

    Art 101.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 16th, 2009 @ 10:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Here's some discussion from working musicians

    And the best part? Copyright maximalists can only work with each other. It's not like you would even bother to think about working towards reform.

    But an abolishionist like me? Well, I would be happy to work with the reformers. Do they find my position to be a little eccentric? Not a problem, as I would be happy, in the spirit of cooperation, to work with the reformers.

    My position isn't written in stone. I would be more than happy to move it in the reformist's direction if it will enact any meaningful change.

    See you t'morrow, my sweet and silly shill.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    DocMenach (profile), Nov 17th, 2009 @ 6:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "If it looks like crap and smells like crap, you don't need to taste it to know it's crap"., all I can say is that I can disagree with you without calling you names. Perhaps your parents didn't bring you up to be polite, but mine did. I respect your right to be wrong, please do the same for me (and no, I don't work in music)

    I wasn't calling you any names(unless you mean when I called you a shill, which isn't name calling, just an accurate description). I was referring to your argument, and your odd habit of combining Record sales revenue and Live sales revenue, when those are the things we are contrasting. I could just as easily combine Record sales and Licensing and point to the fact that when you combine those two things revenue has gone down significantly, while live sales has skyrocketed.

    And I already know you don't work in music, you work in the Movie industry (a lawyer, if I am not mistaken).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 17th, 2009 @ 7:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    your odd habit of combining Record sales revenue and Live sales revenue, when those are the things we are contrasting.

    Yes, but in the report it came from, they are put together - rightfully so, as they are BOTH consumer spending.

    Effectively, all that has happened is that we traded $x of music and live for $x of live and music. The net numbers are so close, it's almost funny to watch.

    So you can contract them if you like, but the reality on that level is a zero sum trading of A for B. It's even more important at that point to realize that concert ticket prices have gone up, so they net number of consumer served has likely gone down.

    Don't get tricked by numbers, think past the graphic.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 17th, 2009 @ 7:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Here's some discussion from working musicians

    Mike, I don't distort what you say, I just make your opinions a little more clear. Your obvious dislike for the PRS and licensing fees in general is well documented (see posts for PRS on this site).

    The rest is just your usual wiggle room answer. Congrats. Perhaps in the future you should take more definite positions on things?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    TonsoTunez, Nov 17th, 2009 @ 7:26am

    The Old Apples and Oranges Game Again

    PRS is about songwriters and music publishers not about recording artists and record companies... two separate rights, two separate issues ...

    PRS's income is rising because they have started to aggressively license businesses (including bars, grills and restaurants and general business users) that play music to enhance their profits. The money goes to songwriters and music publisher 70% of whom are not performers.

    If you look closely at the chart you will see a tiny increase in live income for artists offset by a drop in their income from recorded revenue.

    For those artists assuming all the back end costs of bringing their product to market, it would appear they are losing ground ... not gaining it ... something the mainstream press really ought to take a look at.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    DocMenach (profile), Nov 17th, 2009 @ 7:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Effectively, all that has happened is that we traded $x of music and live for $x of live and music. The net numbers are so close, it's almost funny to watch.

    That's the way you look at it, but I would have to say your interpretation is incorrect and shortsighted. Sure, the numbers are very close when you combine THE TWO ITEMS WE ARE CONTRASTING.

    The way see it, these numbers show that the amount of money people are willing to spend on pieces of plastic and 1s and 0s is dropping significantly, while people are willing to use that money for the experience of a live show.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    DocMenach (profile), Nov 17th, 2009 @ 7:36am

    Re: The Old Apples and Oranges Game Again

    If you look closely at the chart you will see a tiny increase in live income for artists offset by a drop in their income from recorded revenue.

    Tiny? Really? From £440 million in Live Revenue to nearly £700 million in in Live revenue in four years does not seem like a tiny increase to me. I would call that increase quite large.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 17th, 2009 @ 8:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Doc, I agree with you, if you only contrast those two numbers, recorded music sales are down and live is up.

    But combined and net, comsumer spending hasn't moved since 2004.

    I think that all it proves is that piracy has knocked the crap out of retail music sales, and with the money left in their pockets, people are paying higher ticket priced for the same shows.

    Remember, without "units" to measure what is going on, you have now way to tell if there are more people seeing concerts, or just the same people paying more money for the same product as before.

    All I know is that consumer spending on music in the UK hasn't moved an inch from 2004 to 2008. That is clear.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 17th, 2009 @ 8:10am

    Re: Re: The Old Apples and Oranges Game Again

    net, it's a trade off. Add up live and recorded 2004, add up live and recorded 2008, and shock, it's just about the same number (rounding error level). The only thing moving is licensing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Sniper, Nov 17th, 2009 @ 8:30am

    Think about the whole thingy

    Don't get tricked by numbers, think past the graphic.

    indeed. the main idea of the charts revealed that MUSICIANS are starting to get more living for their art.

    can't you just get it? it is whatever combined/contrasted are regarded.

    it's pretty obvious that the INDUSTRY is losing profits here, but hell, it's the MUSICIAN who creates stuff, not the other way.

    Don't you think it's pretty fair that overall niche revenue has recombined, with the shift towards creators?

    and please, leave alone all the moanings about internet pirates/filesharers. just take a look and the charts. and think again.

    p.s. sorry for my language

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    DocMenach (profile), Nov 17th, 2009 @ 9:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I think that all it proves is that piracy has knocked the crap out of retail music sales.

    And there is the leap of logic you always make to blame it on piracy. There are numerous reasons why recorded music sales are down and it's not just piracy. You could just as easily say that the decline is due to the industry's inability to adapt to a changing marketplace. Or the music industry's constant attacks on it's biggest fans have turned those fans off of purchasing recorded music.

    Also, regarding your statements about how the total revenues have remained flat, so the industry is therefore down by the rate of inflation: Have you even looked at consumer spending reports (put out by Bureau of Labor Statistics)? Consumer spending for non-necessities has remained flat for the last 10 years. So the industry's lack of revenue growth simply reflects this overall lack of consumer spending growth. (nice try, though)

    I would also have to assume by your lack of response that I got your profession and affiliation correct.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 17th, 2009 @ 9:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's some discussion from working musicians

    I know I won't. That's not how art functions. But then again, you know all about art and what is and isn't art?

    Because you're an artist?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 17th, 2009 @ 9:32am

    Re: Re: Re: The Old Apples and Oranges Game Again

    And the chart leaves out some statistics that are unchartable. If you were a musician you would see that. But you're not so who cares what you have to say.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    DocMenach (profile), Nov 17th, 2009 @ 9:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: The Old Apples and Oranges Game Again

    If you were a musician you would see that. But you're not so who cares what you have to say.

    Really? Only musicians can have anything meaningful to say here? Its a good thing I play multiple instruments (drums, flute, clarinet, guitar). Does that somehow make my opinions more meaningful?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    TonsoTunez, Nov 17th, 2009 @ 9:45am

    Re: Re: Re: The Old Apples and Oranges Game Again

    From a non performing songwriter's point of view it's not a trade off ... it's a disaster. Songwriters get paid per unit sold .. they aren't on salary and generally don't get paid big advances ... Therefore, tanking CD sales that aren't being replaced by increasing digital sales have a dramatic negative effects on the bottom line of their royalty statements.

    Most songwriters aren't performing artists ... most performing artists aren't songwriters.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 17th, 2009 @ 10:06am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Old Apples and Oranges Game Again

    No. You're right. My last anonymous post here was snarky. I'll try not to let it happen again.

    Everyone's opinion on here is valid. Even the shills.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    icon
    DocMenach (profile), Nov 17th, 2009 @ 10:06am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: The Old Apples and Oranges Game Again

    Well then, it's really a shame that the industry dropped the ball so badly. Your know, 15 years ago when this amazing new distribution method called the internet started getting really big, and the music industry thought they could just continue along selling plastic discs at over-inflated prices. Then when they finally decided that they could sell music over the internet, they decide to stick with the same over-inflated prices.

    If I was a songwriter I would be pretty pissed at the Music Industry for not keeping up with the changing marketplace.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 17th, 2009 @ 1:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's some discussion from working musicians

    Mike, I don't distort what you say, I just make your opinions a little more clear.

    You claimed I said if people gave stuff away for free the market would grow. I did not. That is a distortion.

    Your obvious dislike for the PRS and licensing fees in general is well documented (see posts for PRS on this site).

    I have no "dislike" for PRS. I have a vast dislike for their policy of trying to collect where they have no right to collect, but that does not stretch to PRS. The folks I know at PRS are all quite likable.

    The rest is just your usual wiggle room answer. Congrats. Perhaps in the future you should take more definite positions on things?

    Alex, your inability to comprehend nuanced answers is not "wiggling." It's explaining details, something you seem to have trouble comprehending.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 17th, 2009 @ 2:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Old Apples and Oranges Game Again

    The day I found out how much it cost to manufacture a shiny plastic disc was the day my boycott of the music industry began.

    Of course, after the Napster debacle, I noticed that the price of a CD barely went down.

    The Kazaa debacle? Didn't really move that much. And how come every CD is priced at the same price point? Is no one competing? Isn't that what corporations do? Compete?

    I mean, I could go to a local gig and the musician there would be selling his CDs for a significantly lower price. But he has no volume! He'll sell, what, 10 CDs but the recording industry can sell 1,000,000 CDs? For 10 times the price?

    Sure they can. Nice scam. They don't compete, they collude.

    The recording industry can metaphorically die in a fire. I stopped listening to music because of their actions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 17th, 2009 @ 2:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Old Apples and Oranges Game Again

    And just to add one last note:

    I walk into a big box retailer and I can find a movie in a bargain bin for $1.99 and this movie has roughly 40 hours worth of entertainment. Including a soundtrack, sure you have to watch the movie to listen to it but it's there.

    Walk over to the CD section and look for the actual soundtrack to the movie.

    $14.99, all for, what, 38 minutes worth of entertainment?

    "But you listen to it hundreds of times! There's your value."

    As a consumer I feel greatly disconnected from the things that I consume.

    Soryy, I purchase a license. I'm not a consumer of entertainment. That shiny plastic disc isn't actually mine. That .mp3 is not actually mine.

    Licenses rule.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    anonymous random, Nov 18th, 2009 @ 2:17am

    finally some common sense.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Ocult face, Nov 18th, 2009 @ 6:42am

    Re:

    Yes...my heart hurts thinking about the thousands of musicians that couldn't record simply because it wasn't possible.
    Poor Mozart...LOL

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Nov 30th, 2009 @ 9:52pm

    Some numbers about live music and the top acts

    From Billboard Biz:

    http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i7a35e791d5c3a260e0dadb8a3b6168fc

    _____________

    ... according to the academic paper "Rockonomics: The Economics of Popular Music" by Princeton's Marie Connolly and Alan B. Krueger.

    "In 1982, the top 1% of artists took in 26% of concert revenue; in 2003 that figure was 56%. ... The top 5% of revenue generators took in 62% of concert revenue in 1982 and 84% in 2003."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 8th, 2009 @ 10:19pm

    Re "red line", any idea what it represents? CDs only? CDs and on-line digital sales? Other?

    Re "Live Revenue (to artists)" line, I have to wonder how much of this is associated with groups having contracts with the labels?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This