Decline In Music Industry

[john]

The Music Industry is more than just sales. It is people. That fact isn't often highlighted, so I thought I would write a quick post

 

It probably comes as no great surprise that there's been a significant decline in professional recording studios, and employment in the music industry has decreased over 40% in the last decade. At the same time, innovations in technology have opened up massive possibilities for home music makers.

 

Songstuff, at one point, had 3 of the then staff who had their own record labels or were partners in a record label, and one was a music publisher. Every single one of them went to the wall because of changes in the industry. Mainly due to music piracy, as it happens. Yes there was the impact of declining sales, but in accommodating Napster, YouTube and digital download services, and then later Spotify and other streaming services, the money to be made declined massively. The music pirates defence of their activities was that artists only got a small percentage of the cost per CD, and their piracy was a justified action against big bad record labels. It is therefor ironic that their action only served to kill a few thousand small independent record labels, and removed the ability to be a music professional for many artists. It was mainly genres outside pop that were killed off. The knock on of course was that many session musicians, studios, producers also left the industry... all that expertise gone. One of the staff here was a Jazz lyricist. 18 artists on his label roster. He was working 3 jobs (one of which was as a taxi driver) in a bid to keep the doors open long enough to ride out what was hoped to be a blip. Of course it wasn't a blip. Another member of staff was a 1/4 partner in a dance label that had more than 12 electronica artists on their roster... all of them lost their income.

 

Much of this was due to an information war between the music industry and the download and streaming services sites. The interesting thing was that search listings (mainly Google as it was 90%+ of the search market at the time) were dominated by articles citing the cost to make a CD was 50 cents yet the price was $12-$15 per CD at the time. You really had to dig down past the first 10 pages of listing to find any Music Industry articles that highlight that the 50 cents was the cost of a blank disk getting pre-mastered music added to it when you order large volumes to be pressed. The price did not include the glass master, the on body printing, the printed booklet, the jewel case, the bar code, the cellophane wrap, the mastering the recording, the rehearsal, the gear, the distribution, the marketing and promotion, or the shop's profit.

 

The really interesting thing was that there was a huge difference in the ability to find the information about both sides of the equation. To this day there are even many musicians who feel it is wrong to sell music, it should be free (all very well if they have a nice cozy job in another industry and aren't worried about feeding their family!)… and all that traces back to the misinformation from that information war.

 

Probably of little significance... Google had bought YouTube and were faced with a massive bill for copyright violations. They were regularly in talks with the RIAA, BMI, ASCAP, PRS etc. As I say, it probably wasn't important at all. Just a coincidence.

 

All that behind us, after several years, innovation and tools along with a variety of possibilities has made being a home based pro musician very, very possible. Our industry lost a lot of expertise. Now perhaps we have the possibility of more pro musicians, yes, but also the possibility of a lot of pro-standard amateur musicians. Never has it been easier to create near pro-standard or pro-standard music. That is an awesome thing. Hell, even what a beginning amateur with a creative mind can do has massive potential.

 

What I think is massively untapped by musicians is... the market. There is a lot of ignorance on just what is possible. Even more ignorance on the lessons that can be learned from the existing music industry. In addressing that, there is so much promise and possibility, and that truly is exciting.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

PS Keep an eye out for a load of upcoming articles, kits etc on Songstuff to help you to make the most of your talents.

[MikeRobinson]

Well, John, before any of us indulge too deeply into notions of "piracy" or long too deeply for "the good old days," I think that we should all re-remind ourselves of how fundamentally the technology of this industry has changed, both for consumption and for production of the product.  I really don't think that anyone stole anything from anybody.  And, I think that it was utterly impossible (and nonsensical) to imagine that it would not change exactly as it did.

 

"In the good old days," there were monumental physical restrictions:  "AM Ra#%@%$#@%#@dio(whee!crackle!snap!)," "FM" that came much later, vinyl discs, cassettes, and (gawd help us all) 8-track ta(ka-chunk!)pes.  The compact disc was a blessing from heaven unless you scratched it.  (Which, of course, you did.)

 

On the production side, you had to spend hours in a studio wrestling with 24-track tape while chasing down 60-cycle hums. Eventually you had to create a master that would be used to produce millions of vinyl disks, cassettes, and 8-(ka-chunk!)tracks ... which would be trucked all over God's green earth and, when they didn't sell, probably thrown away.

 

The industry learned, in spite of all this, how to produce "hits," and how to promote the aura of "young musicians, just like you(!)" who lived the good life while producing magic.  It took million-dollar gambles to do this and, in (say) the case of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, years of time and miles of tape.  During which same time, thousands of other records went absolutely nowhere, taking their young artists' dreams away with them (and leaving many of them greatly in debt to their labels).

 

First, the computer began to transform music production.  We all bought our issues of Keyboard Magazine and lusted after Fairlights and Synclaviers which cost a king's ransom.  The 80's invented MIDI and primitive music sequencers.  We began to make music (or at least, MIDI) using our Amiga's and Original IBM PC's.

 

Then, the Heavens Opened . . . 

 

Today, virtually all of the technical barriers have been knocked down.  Music is a digital file, and we have a world-wide digital network.  Our computers are embarrassingly powerful, as is our software.  Anyone can produce great music, and publish it.  Anyone can also produce pure crap, and also publish it.  And, whether the music is phenomenal or crap, all of it can disappear into the gloom of millions of similar (and, similarly good-or-bad) recordings, never to be seen again.  Or, with proper marketing, it can make real money – turning a profit over a much smaller number of units-sold because virtually all of the production costs are now zero.

[Just1L]

20 hours ago, MikeRobinson said:

Well, John, before any of us indulge too deeply into notions of "piracy" or long too deeply for "the good old days," I think that we should all re-remind ourselves of how fundamentally the technology of this industry has changed, both for consumption and for production of the product.  I really don't think that anyone stole anything from anybody.

 

You make some good points aside from what I quoted above. I don't see how you can think nobody stole anything. The consumption and production methods are irrelevant. For example, due to technology, farming methods have changed also. And you can also get food brought to your door through an app. So does that mean people all food should be free, farmer be damned? That is basically what has happened with the internet and music, especially in the earliest days ... although it's still around. Go to youtube or napster and just download what you want for free. Do people think it's not stealing just because someone put it online and you can get it?

[MikeRobinson]

YouTube and other sites are by now very attentive to copyright concerns and remove materials every day.  But, you know, people have been making and passing-around copies to their friends ever since the cassette days.  (Savvy bands such as the Grateful Dead openly encouraged this, knowing that it was the very best form of marketing.)  Now that "a song" is "a moderately-sized digital file," you simply cannot prevent that file from being "shared."

 

However, I don't feel that this has caused people to suddenly forget the fundamental importance of buying copies of the things that they love.  I think that people still understand how the world of commerce works.  "That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it."  😀

 

One of the most incredible benefits of this new technology is that it has reduced the "cost of goods sold" to ... zero.  You can now sell your wares anywhere in the world, and the customer(!) receives the product instantly, and you get paid within 48 hours.  No one schlepped multi-pound boxes of LP's.  Mastering and production costs are drastically less.  Product feedback is instantaneous.  You can now hear music that you would never get to hear because it never would have been economically viable to furnish it to you.  And, I submit, you are happy to pay the artists in question.

[john]

22 hours ago, MikeRobinson said:

Well, John, before any of us indulge too deeply into notions of "piracy" or long too deeply for "the good old days," I think that we should all re-remind ourselves of how fundamentally the technology of this industry has changed, both for consumption and for production of the product.  I really don't think that anyone stole anything from anybody.  And, I think that it was utterly impossible (and nonsensical) to imagine that it would not change exactly as it did.

 

"In the good old days," there were monumental physical restrictions:  "AM Ra#%@%$#@%#@dio(whee!crackle!snap!)," "FM" that came much later, vinyl discs, cassettes, and (gawd help us all) 8-track ta(ka-chunk!)pes.  The compact disc was a blessing from heaven unless you scratched it.

 

On the production side, you had to spend hours in a studio wrestling with 24-track tape while chasing down 60-cycle hums. Eventually you had to create a master that would be used to produce millions of disks, cassettes, and 8-(ka-chunk!)tracks ... which would be trucked all over God's green earth and, when they didn't sell, probably thrown away.

 

The industry learned, in spite of all this, how to produce "hits," and how to promote the aura of "young musicians, just like you(!)" who lived the good life while producing magic.  It took million-dollar gambles to do this and, in (say) the case of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, years of time and miles of tape.  During which same time, thousands of other records went absolutely nowhere, taking their young artists' dreams away with them (and leaving many of them greatly in debt to their labels).

 

First, the computer began to transform music production.  We all bought our issues of Keyboard Magazine and lusted after Fairlights and Synclaviers which cost a king's ransom.  The 80's invented MIDI and primitive music sequencers.  We began to make music (or at least, MIDI) using our Amiga's and Original IBM PC's.

 

Then, the Heavens Opened . . . 

 

Today, virtually all of the technical barriers have been knocked down.  Music is a digital file, and we have a world-wide digital network.  Our computers are embarrassingly powerful, as is our software.  Anyone can produce great music, and publish it.  Anyone can also produce pure crap, and also publish it.  And, whether the music is phenomenal or crap, all of it can disappear into the gloom of millions of similar (and, similarly good-or-bad) recordings, never to be seen again.  Or, with proper marketing, it can make real money – turning a profit over a much smaller number of units-sold because virtually all of the production costs are now zero.

 

You place text in quotes in reply to me giving the impression to a casual reader that I said them, when I didn’t.  

 

At no point did I mention good old days, wanting to go back anywhere, or theft... and at several points I mention the positives of where we are and where we could go, including technological advancement.

 

I am not aware that anything I mentioned was factually incorrect.

 

My post was not about wanting to live in a neverland of fluffy kittens, holding back a tide of change. It was about the cost of change and the explanation of key influences on that change and the direction they pushed it.  Some of those costs were entirely unnecessary and only linked to the issue by the business needs of a few online companies. Like it or not the industry lost a lot of talented people and it was largely avoidable.

 

Nobody stole anything? Nobody accused anybody of stealing, though in many spheres piracy might be considered theft to take someone’s livelihood, but most countries left copyright infringement as a civil matter, there was no criminal aspect to it. Of course there are possible criminal elements out with copyright law. That said, any jurisdiction could make arts infringements into criminal acts very easily.

 

That said, pirates took and distributed what they wanted, when they wanted it, and they did not care about the consequences. The misinformation war legitimised their actions, and encouraged masses to do the same and feel no guilt for doing so.

 

Saying all that doesn’t suggest going back anywhere. There was a very personal cost to hard working musicians that hoped to recover their costs using the primary method of making money from music at the time. In the case of on ex-member of staff who financed an album release to a pro standard, he had invested in professional session players, Engineers, studios, producers, marketers, artists etc... to create a professional standard product. It was up to him to decide to charge or give away his album. That decision was taken away from him.

 

Yes, amateurs can now make much more professional sounding pieces, largely due to technical innovations. However, many experts are highly skilled. What they can do with the same tools is often better, precisely because they can afford to play/record their instruments etc all the time. They build an expertise, a skills base that far exceeds the skills base of most amateurs. You might disagree In the nature of music pros, but they are entitled to make a living from what they do, just as you are. We get to enjoy the fruits of their labour, the skills they have developed... until they leave the industry, To lose that set of skills, that level of skills is a tragedy.

 

That aside, it is up to artist whether to charge or give away their songs. That the tech exists to easily sidestep all that is immaterial.

 

 

 

42 minutes ago, MikeRobinson said:

YouTube and other sites are by now very attentive to copyright concerns and remove materials every day.  But, you know, people have been making and passing-around copies to their friends ever since the cassette days.  (Savvy bands such as the Grateful Dead openly encouraged this, knowing that it was the very best form of marketing.)  Now that "a song" is "a moderately-sized digital file," you simply cannot prevent that file from being "shared."

 

However, I don't feel that this has caused people to suddenly forget the fundamental importance of buying copies of the things that they love.  I think that people still understand how the world of commerce works.  "That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it."  😀

 

One of the most incredible benefits of this new technology is that it has reduced the "cost of goods sold" to ... zero.  You can now sell your wares anywhere in the world, and the customer(!) receives the product instantly, and you get paid within 48 hours.  No one schlepped multi-pound boxes of LP's.  Mastering and production costs are drastically less.  Product feedback is instantaneous.  You can now hear music that you would never get to hear because it never would have been economically viable to furnish it to you.  And, I submit, you are happy to pay the artists in question.

 

You combine the two things as if they were inevitable.  Low rates for YouTube Spotify etc are a completely different issue. They are businesses. They make a load of money from advertisers. They and others muddied the waters in several ways. As mentioned search engines prioritised info in a misinformation campaign. They used that to get public opinion on their side in their negotiation... and that most definitely was not set in stone. It also made it socially acceptable for large scale copying, also not set in stone. Prior to that, yes it happened, but it was by a small percentage.

 

So if I get a car, a house, software, clothes... if I don’t love it I don’t need to pay for it? Ethically you seem to think it acceptable to only pay for what we ultimately loved based upon our conscience. I don’t see many industries surviving that combination.

 

You might not “feel” people have fotgotten, direct music sales disagrees. Most have. Additionally many have migrated to streaming which pays a pittance. A negotiating strength for which was secured on the same misinformation.

 

The Grateful Dead? The world was a very, very different place. At that point physical medium acted as a brake. If not they wouldn’t have been pro musicians. They couldn’t.t have afforded it in an era when tours were not profitable and were written off as promotional costs. Merchandise too was much more limited.

 

My point originally was not that there are not benefits, or that change is not inevitable, but the way it happened was driven by the commercial needs of a few online companies. Your approach seems to be that the ends justify the means.... and I can’t disagree more.

 

 

 

 

[Just1L]

Interesting and topic-related.

 

https://www.engadget.com/2018/09/26/music-modernization-act-white-house/?yptr=yahoo

 

Of course it doesn't matter if they increase payments to the artists 100-fold ... if nobody is listening to your music.

 

Which I think relates nicely to John's statement "What I think is massively untapped by musicians is... the market. There is a lot of ignorance on just what is possible. Even more ignorance on the lessons that can be learned from the existing music industry. In addressing that, there is so much promise and possibility, and that truly is exciting.

[john]

2 hours ago, Just1L said:

Interesting and topic-related.

 

https://www.engadget.com/2018/09/26/music-modernization-act-white-house/?yptr=yahoo

 

Of course it doesn't matter if they increase payments to the artists 100-fold ... if nobody is listening to your music.

 

Which I think relates nicely to John's statement "What I think is massively untapped by musicians is... the market. There is a lot of ignorance on just what is possible. Even more ignorance on the lessons that can be learned from the existing music industry. In addressing that, there is so much promise and possibility, and that truly is exciting.

 

The bike has been on the cards a while now. Trump administration has instituted a mixed bacg of laws including compulsory registration of all songs with the library of congress... no matter where an artist lives. Of course it was wise if you wanted full protection and your songs were available in the USA, but compulsory is a big push. No registration, no protection.

 

changing days, but aren’t they all?

[Just1L]

15 hours ago, john said:

compulsory registration of all songs with the library of congress... No registration, no protection.

 

Interesting. Do you know if this idea was an alternative to registering with the copyright office, or is it in addition to? Like, would you need to do both? I only ask because there wouldn't be any protection if you didn't register with the copyright office either.

[john]

3 hours ago, Just1L said:

 

Interesting. Do you know if this idea was an alternative to registering with the copyright office, or is it in addition to? Like, would you need to do both? I only ask because there wouldn't be any protection if you didn't register with the copyright office either.

 

Dont fret Randy, the Copyright Office is part of the Library Of Congress:

 

https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/copyright-office-library-of-congress

[Just1L]

20 minutes ago, john said:

 

Dont fret Randy, the Copyright Office is part of the Library Of Congress:

 

https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/copyright-office-library-of-congress

 

Don't fret? Hell, I'm a guitarist, all I do is fret around!!!   I wasn't fretting, just trying to figure out what the difference would be and it sounds like if you want your stuff protected, you have to copyright it. So basically nothing changes?

[john]

8 hours ago, Just1L said:

 

Don't fret? Hell, I'm a guitarist, all I do is fret around!!!   I wasn't fretting, just trying to figure out what the difference would be and it sounds like if you want your stuff protected, you have to copyright it. So basically nothing changes?

 

Well, before you were afforded some protection. There were big limitations on how much and what kind of damages you could get. My understanding is that now you get zero protection, and if it isn’t done in a short time frame you can’t register it fullstop.

[Lynn Monk]

As a copyright holder in the UK, I have always been silently amused at the US government's way of extorting money from songwriters, as copyright is a right that is free to all and exists without having to do anything other than record or write down your songs.

 

However, I had a similar idea for reforming copyright laws back in 2004 and that was to make it so that a song was only given copyright if it was uploaded to a central database. (For free of course). Those who wanted to leave their music in the public domain would keep it off the database, and those who uploaded it would get it automatically checked for similarities to other songs so that infringement was no longer a problem. The database would also stream content to people for a membership fee which would be included in the price of an internet connection, with additional fees charged to commercial users. So the "perceived" value of the music would appear free, yet the membership fees would serve to pay all rights holders automatically. Anyone who wanted to evade the system would only be able to get hold of public domain songs, and piracy would no longer be a "viable business" to pursue .

 

Alas, my idea at the time, was shot down by the industry. So it is somewhat amusing to see that many of the copyright agencies; and now even goverments; are finally coming up with, or putting into practice, some of my ideas.

[snabbu]

Well hello Ms Monk

long time no see.

 

Cheers

 

Gary

[john]

7 hours ago, Lynn Monk said:

As a copyright holder in the UK, I have always been silently amused at the US government's way of extorting money from songwriters, as copyright is a right that is free to all and exists without having to do anything other than record or write down your songs.

 

However, I had a similar idea for reforming copyright laws back in 2004 and that was to make it so that a song was only given copyright if it was uploaded to a central database. (For free of course). Those who wanted to leave their music in the public domain would keep it off the database, and those who uploaded it would get it automatically checked for similarities to other songs so that infringement was no longer a problem. The database would also stream content to people for a membership fee which would be included in the price of an internet connection, with additional fees charged to commercial users. So the "perceived" value of the music would appear free, yet the membership fees would serve to pay all rights holders automatically. Anyone who wanted to evade the system would only be able to get hold of public domain songs, and piracy would no longer be a "viable business" to pursue .

 

Alas, my idea at the time, was shot down by the industry. So it is somewhat amusing to see that many of the copyright agencies; and now even goverments; are finally coming up with, or putting into practice, some of my ideas.

 

Hey Lynn

 

The trouble is, I believe... and please feel free to correct me is that all works whose owners want to defend their copyrights within the USA jurisdiction, have to be registered there. Okay it was always advisable for UK and other world copyright owners to do so if they were releasing works in the USA. The worldwide web means if your stuff is online, it is available in all jurisdictions unless on sites that specifically stop access from certain jurisdictions.

 

So if you don’t register your works within the USA, there is no deterrent for people using your work and not reimbursing you, or altering your work without permission.

 

As I say, I will be very happy if this is not the case.

 

Cheers

 

John

[Driftwood]

       Industry as a whole? Maybe it shifted into different sub categories. The need for cheaper options in recording demos as well as those capable of pulling off affordable master quality recordings was really the fault of the industry itself.

    Besides being too expensive, the big record companies were signing groups to 1-3 record album deals and then decided if it wanted to shelve or release the album. In most cases, the bands weren't getting paid anything until the recording costs were recouped through sales. Granted the writers were still getting paid up front through their publishing agreements if the song was released or getting airplay etc.

 

   In country music, this is still going on today where they sign a couple groups and decide which one they want to release and shelve the others. The case of being shelved is all about marketing because if they saturate the market with the same sounding bands, the sales seem to suffer.

    So now, the band that signed and got shelved are sitting there with an album that is under total control of the label. They'll say, "Well, we aren't going to release your cd, if you want out of your contract, you'll have to pay us for us to recoup the expenses of recording your cd." and if you signed a multi-album deal, your bound to the contract even if you record another album or not." So much for signing on the dotted line.😒

 

      Hence independent labels sprung up and continue to spring up with some degree of success. With it, the use of recording studios are still valid, but alot of them are more home studio based.

    If anything, the home recording boom has been and still is the norm these days. The degree of how well recorded or mixed the material is will always be a learning curve regardless of the technology. (especially with more novices like myself that record at home). 

 

    As far as the big record companies, they still make their money through the airwaves and licensing agreements.

   Granted, physical merchandise like LPs and Cds are considered old school now,although they still produce them because like anyone over 30, we still buy what we like and want something physical to hold and put on a shelf for our collection. Plus, downloaded songs seem to lack (at least to me) in sound quality. Plus, what happens if you're Ipod or computer breaks or is stolen? What then? 🙄

 

    If anything, the internet has broken in some bands that normally wouldnt get the sales or exposure that they do now. Even outlets like cdbaby and Amazon will market independent releases that used to be located in a small section at your mom and pop music store. Anyways...as I mentioned before, the industry screwed itself by it's own practices. It's in that spirit that people decided, screw the industry, and just like micro breweries, they have grown and taken some of the market away from the big boys. 😉

[MikeRobinson]

Strictly speaking, John, you can claim copyright in the US without having registered it – but it's frankly stupid not to, especially since you can register as many songs as you want, online, for a mere $35.00 total.

 

As I've said, US companies probably won't talk to you unless you can give them your US copyright registration number (and they will check it), because this greatly reduces their liability exposure.  You made a legally-binding claim that the material was yours, and, "at exactly such-and-such time we performed 'due diligence' to verify the claim."  If you lied, that's your prison-sentence not theirs.  To them, it's very much like checking the title on a car that you want to sell to them.

[john]

17 minutes ago, MikeRobinson said:

Strictly speaking, John, you can claim copyright in the US without having registered it – but it's frankly stupid not to, especially since you can register as many songs as you want, online, for a mere $35.00 total.

 

As I've said, US companies probably won't talk to you unless you can give them your US copyright registration number (and they will check it), because this greatly reduces their liability exposure.  You made a legally-binding claim that the material was yours, and, "at exactly such-and-such time we performed 'due diligence' to verify the claim."  If you lied, that's your prison-sentence not theirs.  To them, it's very much like checking the title on a car that you want to sell to them.

 

It used to be if not specifically registered there were pretty major limitations on protections and specifically the amount and type of compensation you could claim. I had thought Donald Trumps new bill about copyright had changed registration to a requirement if you wanted to be able to have any protection at all

[MikeRobinson]

On 12/18/2018 at 2:48 PM, john said:

 

It used to be if not specifically registered there were pretty major limitations on protections and specifically the amount and type of compensation you could claim. I had thought Donald Trumps new bill about copyright had changed registration to a requirement if you wanted to be able to have any protection at all

 

The US Copyright law has changed very substantially in recent months, and I have not kept up with it.  But – since the United States has copyright registration, and since it can be done on-line for a pittance and takes effect immediately, you would frankly be stupid not to register your works.  Take all of the songs on the latest EP that you've been working on, and register all of them "in one swell foop" for a one-time fee of $35.  Copyright protection instantaneously persists, severally, on every work in that so-called "collection," and it has become a matter of public record that anyone can verify (on-line).

 

As I've said, you have just made the legal assertion – on penalty of perjury – that, "these are mine."  Anyone that you then license them to can always use that registration-number to cover their legal ass.  If there's a countering claim, it will be settled by the courts.  There are just too many works out there, today, for anyone to be able to check it themselves, but your copyright claim is legally binding and objectively verifiable.  They can rightly claim "innocent infringement," having provably done their "due diligence," and put the blame squarely back on you.

[john]

30 minutes ago, MikeRobinson said:

 

The US Copyright law has changed very substantially in recent months, and I have not kept up with it.  But – since the United States has copyright registration, and since it can be done on-line for a pittance and takes effect immediately, you would frankly be stupid not to register your works.  Take all of the songs on the latest EP that you've been working on, and register all of them "in one swell foop" for a one-time fee of $35.  Copyright protection instantaneously persists, severally, on every work in that so-called "collection," and it has become a matter of public record that anyone can verify (on-line).

 

As I've said, you have just made the legal assertion – on penalty of perjury – that, "these are mine."  Anyone that you then license them to can always use that registration-number to cover their legal ass.  If there's a countering claim, it will be settled by the courts.  There are just too many works out there, today, for anyone to be able to check it themselves, but your copyright claim is legally binding and objectively verifiable.  They can rightly claim "innocent infringement," having provably done their "due diligence," and put the blame squarely back on you.

 

 

I couldn’t agree more