why are record sales so low?

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Jul 29, 2008
3,400
1
0
75
#41
I dont think i can be 1 good reason.. I think is a combination of EVERYTHING mentioned.

The downloading, the execs wanting mainstream radio friendly songs, copy cat artists...ect...

We can also blame the recession as well, that $12 bucks can go to your gas money instead of buying a cd, so people DL the cd.

Its a combination of all that is mentioned above. Of Kourse everyone is gonna have a varied opinion, even the artists give reasons why.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#42
hmmmm, you might be right....

cause outkast's "Speakerboxxx/The Love Below" sold about half a mill the first week(which can be compared to today's first week sales by some artists),

then as time passed it sold 11 times platinum

you are right on that one
he's not

that was 2003, now is 2008

The percentage of people who listen to music and who download it instead of buying it has only increased since then (and it's been a significant increase)

One major reason for that is that back then downloading happened through P2P, IRC and other methods, too obscure or complicated for a significant portion of internet users

Now file hosting services and blogs and message boards on which links are posted are the major way new music is bootlegged, and these are a lot easier to reach a maximum number of users

Still, it is the lethal combination of too much shit out, too big portion of which is garbage, plus the widespread downloading rather than downloading alone that's responsible
 

GHP

Sicc OG
Jul 21, 2002
16,280
853
113
46
#43
if the record labels were smart they would twerk some kind of deal with the major ISPs and just accept that people are gonna DL shit and there ain't no real way to stop it. I mean sales declined when people were able to dub tapes and burn CDs but now you can easily get an album off the net before it even drops in stores. I was a holdout but I probably bought less than 10 CDs in the last 2 years but probably burned at least 50 albums.

Thats why nowadays an independant artist better have one hell of a stage show and fanbase or they are fucked if music is the only way they are eating. The majors are gonna get their money from soundtracks, the radio, merchandise etc even if sales dip and major recording artists will fill large stadiums so they can make up the difference by taxing the consumer in other avenues and they are selling a large number of albums to the big retailers even if record stores are failing big time.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#44
This can't work because it will mean that the ISPs will raise the prices significantly. But not everybody who uses internet is downloading 20GB is movies and music a day, while this way everybody will pay the same price
 
Apr 25, 2002
4,444
495
83
#45
We can also blame the recession as well, that $12 bucks can go to your gas money instead of buying a cd, so people DL the cd.

Let's not forget of course, $12 is a REASONABLE price for a CD.

For years the record company and major CD shops artificially inflated the price of CDs. I can remember in the early 2000s paying $18.99 for a new record (bulshit). They were convicted in a class action a while back for driving up the prices of CDs.
 
Apr 20, 2005
2,938
290
0
#46
if u dont think downloading is part of the blame then u are wrizzong. TI and Lil Wayne would be doing 2Pac/Biggie numbers if it werent for downloading.
 
Jul 29, 2008
3,400
1
0
75
#47
Let's not forget of course, $12 is a REASONABLE price for a CD.

For years the record company and major CD shops artificially inflated the price of CDs. I can remember in the early 2000s paying $18.99 for a new record (bulshit). They were convicted in a class action a while back for driving up the prices of CDs.
Dont get me wrong man, $12 is a GREAT PRICE.. Not to expensive. I bought a few cds in the 90's but the prices were 16.99 so I usually bought tapes.

I'm just saying for a dude that might have NO job or minimal paying job, LIVING ON HIS OWN, buying a few cds could cost him more. Or getting laid off like a bunch of people out there, the money the would use to eat out, buy muzik, or see a movie, those things get put aside when money is tight.
 
Mar 21, 2007
5,310
8
0
www.com
#48
if u dont think downloading is part of the blame then u are wrizzong. TI and Lil Wayne would be doing 2Pac/Biggie numbers if it werent for downloading.
yeah but 2pac's Me against the world sold 240,000 the first week


T.I. Sold about half a million the first week

and Lil wayne sold a million the first week

lil wayne has currently now gone up to selling over 2 and a half million
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#49
yeah but 2pac's Me against the world sold 240,000 the first week


T.I. Sold about half a million the first week

and Lil wayne sold a million the first week

lil wayne has currently now gone up to selling over 2 and a half million
The early and mid-90s are not a good basis for comparison, because rap albums sold less back then than they did in the late 90s/early 2000s. There were a lot more good albums at that time so sales got spread over them, and hip-hop was not as visible as it was later.

The peak in sales occurred when the amount of hip-hop on TV and radio peaked, while in the same time there were fewer good/well promoted albums and still few people who had abandoned all media and relied only on the internet for discovering new music. That time was centered around 2000.
 
Apr 20, 2005
2,938
290
0
#50
yeah but 2pac's Me against the world sold 240,000 the first week


T.I. Sold about half a million the first week

and Lil wayne sold a million the first week

lil wayne has currently now gone up to selling over 2 and a half million
i was talkin about All Eyes On Me and Life After Death numbers. 1st week sales are whatever. I bet Lil Wayne/TI wont reach 6x plat together.
 
Apr 27, 2005
1,405
0
0
#51
OK, so what was the idea I was talking about:

First, we all agree that ultimately piracy isn't a good thing. And we also agree that the big label model that has been dictating the rules isn't a good thing either. Fortunately, it will be a history at some point in the not so distant future, because of piracy and music being easiliy available all over the net long before it's released.

Now imagine the following situation - I download an album, I listen quickly through it, and I never open the files again. Even more drastic example - I download something and I never even listen to it once. Am I guilty in piracy? Technically yes, but in reality no, because I would have never bought that album and I haven't done any harm to the artist by downloading his album. I have also not shared it, of course, but you don't do these things through P2P anymore anyway, there are file hosting services for that.

This gives me the following idea - if downloading is here to stay, and we have a problem with too much bullshit music being released, and we also have high bandwidth internet now (I listen to a lot of music on youtube, simply because I'm too lazy to look for the CD), we can do the following:

We stop releasing any music on portable drives or downloadable files (and we forget about DRM too). Then everybody who wants to listen to music gets a device that allows him to listen to whatever music he wishes from an archive that contains everything new being recorded. He can't record it, but he can listen to everything he wants, however many times he wants.

The artists will get paid on the basis of how many times each song thye made has been played, the first play per listener, however, will be free for each song. In the end of the year everybody gets charged some sane amount of money as a "music tax" on the basis of how much music he listened to. (and "music" will be quantified as the total time, not the number of tracks one has listened to to prevent artists from consciously making short tracks to make more money)

This way any crappy music that you listen to only once just to find out it sucks will be filtered out and the artists will not get paid for it. Which in turn will lead to the so much dreamed for separation of the real from the fake and the talented artists from the not so talented ones. It will also hopefully bring the creativity back into the music, for obvious reasons.

Of course, this can not be applied to already released music, but for everything after the system starts, it will work pretty well. And of course, it will never happen in the world we live in but I think it is still an interesting idea

What? Even if this idea was implemented it still wouldn't change anything!

you know why?

Anything that can be seen or heard can be recorded and uploaded onto the internet.

People could just record the output of that device and put the songs up online.

Things will never change.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#52
What? Even if this idea was implemented it still wouldn't change anything!

you know why?

Anything that can be seen or heard can be recorded and uploaded onto the internet.

People could just record the output of that device and put the songs up online.

Things will never change.
that's preventable with some technology
 
May 20, 2006
2,240
10
0
63
#57
I'll never buy another CD if I don't have too. Point Blank. I don't believe in helping the rich get richer. I'll rather spend that money on my kids....

Would you rather invest money in T-Pain or Soulja Boy or Yourself???