Jump to content
The Klipsch Audio Community
Sign in to follow this  
thebes

Record Sales Then and Now

Recommended Posts

Gleaned from an article on Record Store Day, of all places, the AARP magazine.

 

Record sales at their peak year in 1977: 344 million

 

Record sales at the bottom in 2006:  0.9 million

 

Records sales most recent figures 2015:  16.9 million

 

I would presume the used market is probably three or four times that last figure.

 

The 17 million in new sales, though, represents real royalties to the artists/musicians/writers etc. as opposed to the chump change dealt out by the streamers.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I have 452 albums sitting in my cabinets in a sensient state.

I couldn't fir them in that little hole in the new player.

JJK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to send them down the road then, to that nice fellow in the DC suburbs who will make sure they fit into the proper hole.

 

Course, you could always try to make them fit.  Might work, but would be fun even if it doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, thebes said:

Time to send them down the road then, to that nice fellow in the DC suburbs who will make sure they fit into the proper hole.

 

Course, you could always try to make them fit.  Might work, but would be fun even if it doesn't.

Your such a tease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Travis.

 

This factoid from the Billboard article says it all:

 

"the rate that Billboard uses to estimate the revenue generated by streaming ($0.0063 per song), which is clearly a central part of the revenue estimate, has been disputed as too high by some indie labels."

 

Silly me.  I thought the mil was the lowest possible monetary denomination.  I think that's .1 cent.  So what's this about 6300enth less than a mil? So the song has to be played 6300 times to generate a penny of royalties? My math skills fall off pretty dramatically when monetary rules are suspended so I could be wrong about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marty,

 

The business model for the music industry is in a constant state of flux.  I guess I'm naive, but aren't artists -- Taylor Swift comes to mind --  free to not contract with streaming services?  My own personal experience is that streaming of Pandora and Spotify has exposed me to new artists that I NEVER would have encountered in the old days when exposure was essentially solely via FM air-play or live touring. In other words, those discovered artists are now receiving revenue they would not have earned from me otherwise.

 

It seems to me that smaller independent artists now have more control over their music and it's direct distribution to their fans.  Niche fan bases can be targeted without the need to suck up to record company executives, sort of the audio equivalent of farm to table.

 

No matter what, we'll all get fluxed in the end.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2017 at 4:35 PM, thebes said:

The 17 million in new sales, though, represents real royalties to the artists/musicians/writers etc. as opposed to the chump change dealt out by the streamers.

Where streaming is concerned, I doubt that, based on the nature of its consumers which can be thought of analogous to radio listeners. Where in fact people that tune into FM have no involvement beyond the purchase, or benign use, of a radio receiver. Aside from a tuner, they pay nothing to listen, an the musicians receive nothing. The majority of that material was/is promotional. The whole thing is in reality a gravy train for advertising revenue.

 

People that stream at least have to, at a minimum, burden the cost of the network/technology they're tapping into....yet still have to endure ads.

 

Direct to market is where the real money is at for artist. Ronald Jenkees, Derek Smith (Pretty Lights), and Tipper among several others for example whose careers exploded due to likes of Sound Cloud and Band Camp which cut out almost everything in middle. Once again, so long as the technology is in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2017 at 9:48 AM, DizRotus said:

Marty,

 

The business model for the music industry is in a constant state of flux.  I guess I'm naive, but aren't artists -- Taylor Swift comes to mind --  free to not contract with streaming services?  My own personal experience is that streaming of Pandora and Spotify has exposed me to new artists that I NEVER would have encountered in the old days when exposure was essentially solely via FM air-play or live touring. In other words, those discovered artists are now receiving revenue they would not have earned from me otherwise.

 

It seems to me that smaller independent artists now have more control over their music and it's direct distribution to their fans.  Niche fan bases can be targeted without the need to suck up to record company executives, sort of the audio equivalent of farm to table.

 

No matter what, we'll all get fluxed in the end.

There is much in what you say that I agree with but, naturally, you are looking at it from the point of the consumer.  Hey it works for me so it must be OK.  Yes it is another way to let fans know about your music.

 

But no, there was more than just radio play and touring involved in the old days, there were also local record stores and they were also promoting artists.  If you wanted to stretch a little, you could leave commercial radio behind for college stations.  But the biggest, and still the biggest source of learning about new music for most, is usually through friends, not the net.

 

When it comes to music we are very selfish consumers.  Who here did not steal music when cd burners came along?

 

Also remember that opting out of streaming is only an option for a very few very successful artists like Taylor Swift.  The rest have to go along for basically for free because they have no choice if they are to be heard at all. With the exception of a few college stations radio stations are now terrible supporters of new groups or music, as opposed to how they were in the past.

 

Now I don't know what kind of work you do but I'm guessing you want to be paid for it. I'm guessing the artists do too, and that's why the way streaming companies treat the artists like serfs galls me.  An artists who can sell a million albums is driving a very nice car.  An artists who is streamed a million times is taking the bus.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2017 at 0:35 PM, Quiet_Hollow said:

Where in fact people that tune into FM have no involvement beyond the purchase, or benign use, of a radio receiver. Aside from a tuner, they pay nothing to listen, an the musicians receive nothing. The majority of that material was/is promotional. The whole thing is in reality a gravy train for advertising revenue.

Actually that's not true at all.  Yes the advertisers are making good money, but except (I think, not sure) for PBS and maybe college radio stations, everybody else pays royalties.  In urban markets that's about $6 a song, much less in smaller markets.  Compare that to 6.6 mils (a mil is one tenth of a cent) per song from the streamers. 

 

Tell me if you get something basically for free and sell it, just how rich would you be?

 

You seem to feel the streamer is actually paying something, and they are.  What's a subscription costs a month, about the price of a cd?  That's pure profit since the network, software and certainly royalties are chump change.compared to what they reap. Pandora literally earns billions while paying a scant one or two million in royalties.  Puleeeeze!

 

IMO the music consumer if the most selfish and self centered consumer in the world.

 

There was a line in an old song , "Dogs Run Free, Why Can't We".  Dogs got it tough compared to the music consumer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree in principle, if everyone spent on music what I have spent then there would be a lot of billionaire artists.  I stream too... if I like it I buy it.   I still stream stuff I've bought because it is easier sometimes.   If you stream an artist repeatedly you ought to buy their product.  It will be better anyway.

 

I think you are right about the music consumer... we are selfish... it's about me... my experience of the performance.  While at times I'm interested in the story of the artist and certainly appreciate their ability and willingness to bring us all to an improved state of the human experience; much of the time I could not care less about the artist, who they are, their politics, or persuasions... it is about my experience of their song... where I was, who I was with, what was happening in my life.  With each listen I can relive old or make new experiences.  We treasure the music.  The artist, while certainly crucial, is perhaps almost forgotten by many of us.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2017 at 0:41 AM, muel said:

  While at times I'm interested in the story of the artist and certainly appreciate their ability and willingness to bring us all to an improved state of the human experience; much of the time I could not care less about the artist, who they are, their politics, or persuasions... it is about my experience of their song... where I was, who I was with, what was happening in my life. 

A very thoughtful response and so true. One of my greatest problems in re-discovering old music, or hearing something I'd like, I have no idea who is actually singing it.  I don't believe at all in wanting to experience music, is selfless, on the contrary.

 

However,  what I am finding fault with is the business model of streaming which is totally exploitative, and our willingness to go along with it without even a moments consideration.

 

The modern music consumer has a sense of entitlement to  virtually free music, that is ultimately very selfish.  Ask any of them to take a 99 percent cut in their salary and see how they feel.  I don't know why even I bother to complain, because sometimes I feel as if the whole planet is looking at itself in a mirror and all they can is their selves.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They other problem with the modern music industry (ever before streaming) is CD sales. The artists get next to nothing on CD sales. I believe the record company gets close to 90% of the sales profit. The band's make their money with concert tickets sales and the merch that is sold. A lot of the bands that I have seen in concert say, we don't care how you get our latest album, just get it and listen to it. Buy it, steal it, download it, burn it from a friend, we don't care, just listen to it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

inoculations would cure that, those uber religious folks who are opposed to vaccines are to blame

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you were a million record seller, even in the heyday of vinyl, musicians didn't get much from album sales. The songwriters got very little as well. A good friend of mine works for ASCAP, is also a song writer. Every few months he gets a $12-20 check. He has a song on a Dan Peek greatest hits album (among other songs he has written). It did pretty well. Individual songsmiths and musicians don't.

 

They make more on ticket sales, or direct distribution of CD's, vinyl.

 

Bruce

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the Beatle haters’ ( aka the nice gentleman in the suburbs of DC) perspective. I believe that everyone should get paid fairly for what they produce and I don’t think that the streaming companies do that. I have a number of friends who are musicians many who have backed up on what one would consider successful records and it’s like a bad joke when they get a check for $1.69 . Yes in the heyday of vinyl they needed to sell a lot to make good dough but this new world is ridiculously unfair.

I certainly admit that It is hard  to maintain this ethical stance given the plethora of good music and curated play lists available on platforms such as Tidal. I still buy music and have for the most part resisted the allure of streaming. But I have to admit that buying a CD and then ripping it to my server and storing the CD feels way more cumbersome for me these days than it used to be!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No companies paid well...

 

However, with current technolgy, musicians/groups aren't as often burdened by large studio charges billed to them as they were in the past. There are, still, studios costing big bucks per hour, new artists don't necessarily need to use them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...