How has filesharing influenced YOUR music habits?

[Strypes]

This may be taboo or previously thrashed to death... but I'm new and ignorant, so there :P

I'm seriously considering another hard drive to hold all my MP3 files (when you find yourself uninstalling your email client to make more space on the disk, that's a problem). And while juggling the last few remnants of free space I've found myself reflecting on my collection, the RIAA's latest manoeuvres against filesharers, and what exactly this whole MP3 thing has done for me.

I wasn't one of those who could just go and buy random CDs. Until recently I had to calculate how many slices of bread I could afford to eat per day. Even in better times I could never make a collection (for a whole bunch of reasons which would make a great book, but are way too long to write about here. Just take it on faith). Buying a CD was a big, heavy, calculated deal.

Anyway.

I get conflicted over MP3 filesharing. On the one hand there's guilt because I'm freely reaping the fruits of other peoples' blood, sweat and tears. On the other hand, there's no way I would have been able to hear these artists if I hadn't been able to download their stuff in the first place.

Without filesharing, my musical life would have been incredibly bland. If I hadn't had the ability to educate myself musically on a whim and a click, I'd not be who I am now. Imagine an entire life spent with nothing but Top 40 radio hits...

These days it's time to think about owning a "real" music collection. There's something just so... well satisfying about sliding that cellophane off the jewel case or opening that vinyl cover. Plus, of course, I'm looking forward to knowing that I contributed to awesome bands like Interpol and the people like Matador that made them possible. (how's THAT for brown-nosing?)

But I still value the filesharers because they're introducing me to the bands I think are WORTH going out and spending a buck on. Ironically it's the free music that's making me want to buy it.

But that's just me. What about y'all?

[the Pawnbroker]

Filesharing has influenced MY music habits in almost no way.

I've downloaded a total of probably 30 songs in my lifetime. I don't have ready access to a T1 line at home. I don't even have cable TV, so I'm not about to get broadband, DSL, a cable modem or some such thing.

I want records, and lots of them. I want Sticky Fingers with the real zipper on the jacket, I want Led Zeppelin III with the spinning wheel, I want colored vinyl, and dammit, I want picture discs!

Of course, the filesharing controversy provides me with endless amusement by listening to people bitch that "the man" won't let the music "be free."

[Strypes]

Mmmm... Led Zeppelin on vinyl....

Actually, I can't wait til the day when I can raid my parents' collection of original Beatles vinyls. I think they've played them maybe three, four times since the 60s (they're a little too "hardcore" for my parents... 'nuf said).

There's actually a contingent that says they want the music to "be free"?! Wow. I guess they want everyone to do their yardwork for free, as well. No, there has to be give with the take IMHO... and if I can't afford actual money the least I can give out is appreciation, respect and recommendation.

Sharing music is like having a stash. Most people do it, most people enjoy it, but nobody's pretending they won't get in trouble if they're found with it.

(Interesting sidenote - in Canada I understand it's currently legal to download AND share unpurchased music, by dint of the extra copyright fees paid on recordable and entertainment media. I wonder how it's working out? Any feedback from the label's side of the fence?)

Of course, there are other ways to listen... that Matador at Fifteen 'comp feed did wonders to introduce me to some names I hadn't gotten around to trying out yet. For which I'm profoundly grateful - and assuming I can get to the record store over the weekend, probably at least 30 bucks poorer :)

[fivefourtwo]

Honestly for some bands that I like major bands (R.E.M,Pearl Jam)
These bands honestly dontneed anymore money,But with most of my bands of intrest file sharing is only taking away more money from them,which is terrible consdering the average band gets what a little over a dollar per album sales...I'd rather just go buy the album.

[tinobeat]

Though I don't disagree that filesharing hurts bands like Pearl Jam and REM less because they're pretty well off, is it really your place to decide who does or doesn't need more money?

Its a really difficult issue, but the sense of entitlement that some people have, especially if they're not musicians, to just say "music should be free! whee!" is totally idiotic. Musicians who say that, well, they can make *their* music free if they want to, but its not their place to decide who else's music should be free.

That said, I'm not one of these people who thinks P2P sharing is necessarily "stealing." The major music industry's financial problems stem from their working on a broken business model that's more like indentured servancy. But P2P is a reality, and one that's just not going away, no matter how many token lawsuits are thrown around. And musicians should know how the dynamic of that new paradigm works. Yes, there's the people who download assloads of music and don't contribute financially in any way. But millions of people still bought the Radiohead and Eminem albums after they had leaked. People used to tape music off the radio, too. Libraries have CDs for rent. All these things can also be abused.

But there *is* the satisfaction of buying music in a package. And I'm not even saying the near-fetishistic level that people on this board take it to. But even regular folks who get excited to buy a CD. Also the overpriced but legit Apples iTunes store, which is remarkably successful. So filesharing hasn't hurt anyone, so long as the artists and labels understand how it works and use its strengths as a promotional tool.

Anyway, I don't do filesharing because I'm too inept to get the crack for Soulseek working on my Mac. I do have a subscription to Emusic and I have been in the slooooow process of ripping all my LPs to my hard drive, so I did get a dedicated hard drive just for music. So far there's well over 60GB of music on that hard drive.

As a result, though, I've been buying a lot more vinyl (even more than normal), and ripping it to the computer. So at home I have the real nice listening experience of the needle on wax and my iPod is still well-stocked.

I don't necessarily trust filesharing, not for the illegality of it, but the quality control. back when I did more filesharing I got way too many incomplete records and crappy rips, and I'd rather just be in control of that. I don't need anyone else's dirty ol' mp3s.

[Patrick]

Interesting thread...

Re: Canada. I believe the revenues are for the losses due to CD burning, not filesharing, Strypes, but I could be wrong. That said, Matador has not seen a penny of this so-called revenue. Probably just another example of how the indies get screwed though.

Patrick

[bitterfruit]

I spend more money on music today than I ever have in the past but I know that I am part of the minority.

If I didn't have the preview networks available, I would still be listening to whatever was on the listening station at the record stores.

[fivefourtwo]

I guess my pearl jam R.E.M statement was a pit opinionated but these bands both recieved record contracts for over 90 million dollars,not to mention the fact are you aware how much it cost to go to these shows..

[tinobeat]

Originally posted by fivefourtwo
I guess my pearl jam R.E.M statement was a pit opinionated but these bands both recieved record contracts for over 90 million dollars,not to mention the fact are you aware how much it cost to go to these shows..

no no, I know how much money they make. I just think that doesn't make it more OK to get their music for free than it is to, say, get the new Dead Meadow for free.

[earl grey]

Originally posted by bitterfruit
I spend more money on music today than I ever have in the past but I know that I am part of the minority.

If I didn't have the preview networks available, I would still be listening to whatever was on the listening station at the record stores.

my thoughts exactly. i used to buy a lot of music, but i buy even more now. ditto with going to shows. and i think a big part of that is how much i do the "try and buy" with downloading - i'll give something a listen now after just one interesting review or recommendation, while before it'd take a bunch of good word before i plunked down the cash. and i've discovered so much new music as a result.

are there things i download and enjoy, but still don't buy? absolutely, and sometimes i feel guilty about that. but i'll go see that band live (and maybe buy the disc there), i'll tell other people about them, and that's how i rationalize it.

[Thor]

I went through a period years ago of file sharing on napster.. like a kid in a candy store. But when that died I just kinda stopped.

I have a few file sharing programs at the moment, but what I use them for (and what I generally used to use them for) is finding: rare tracks, outtakes, live tracks, etc from mostly prehistoric bands that are just impossible to find anywhere else. Why miss out on the zany splendour of 'scream thy last scream', one of the last tracks syd barrett recorded with pink floyd, especially when EMI haven't (in 38 years) decided to officially release it yet?

I also use it to download lectures from certain wacky philosophers, scientists, etc that I'm interested in. I then combine those files with, say, a fusion jazz track and then I listen to a lecture on black holes set to bitches brew while I'm packing boxes at a supermarket... a delightful way to overcome the horror of such a job. feeding your brain. But I'm getting off topic.

I went through a period a few years ago of downloading a few tracks from an album if I was interested in it, and if I liked it I'd track it down and buy it. I think this is basically a harmless thing (the problem being that the file sharing networks will be used for outright stealing), not to mention resourceful. I was turned onto SO much awesome music this way. I decided to stop doing it recently, I'm not really sure why. For one thing, if it's a modern band, you can generally find a sample mp3 or 2 on the band's website or failing that the label's website (I still can't find the prosaics EP down here, but thanks to this site I'm really digging "teeth").

If I were to speak idealogically, I'd say that anything that takes the business and money away from something as important and beautiful as art/music and helps to spread it around is a good thing. But, realistically, it's a much more difficult situation that results in a lot of financial problems for artists and smaller labels such as Matador I'd imagine.

In response to the actual question, file sharing has at times affected by musical habits simply by broadening my access to browse what I might like and dislike; but this is more something to be attributed to the internet in general.

[winterversion]

File sharing? A pretty sleazy thing to do, in my opinion. I used to do it a lot, especially when Audiogalaxy was around, but after a certain point, I just felt a little weird about it. It just didn't seem right. I can think of a couple main reasons, some already discussed earlier but I'll reiterate:

1: Ethics. The bottom line is that artists are trying to make a living by making music, i.e., their music is meant to be purchased. It's a marketed good just like fast food, stereos, books, etc. If you want to own it, you need to pay for it.

2: Quality. Listening to songs on mp3 just isn't the same experience as hearing it on vinyl. It's probably not the way the artists intended it to be listened to anyways.

3: Artifact. Music reflects culture. But it's more than just the actual sounds and lyrics you hear, it's also reflected in the image and art expressed through the entire package of the album, including artwork, liner notes, etc. I want the whole package, not just a digitized portion of it. I don't feel like I really know and *own* the music until I have the physical album, preferably in the vinyl format.

With that said, I should also say that I do frequently visit music weblogs that host mp3s and have discovered gigabytes worth of great tracks. However, I've always been pretty ignorant about the legality/iillegality of the whole weblog thing. Wouldn't this loosely fall under "file sharing" or is this a more legitimate form of acquiring music?

[tinobeat]

Originally posted by winterversion
I don't feel like I really know and *own* the music until I have the physical album, preferably in the vinyl format.

I definitely feel this. Even albums I bought via Emusic or iTunes, its not really something I "own."

[9000]

Originally posted by tinobeat
I definitely feel this. Even albums I bought via Emusic or iTunes, its not really something I "own."

emusic still offers unprotected mp3s, right? in that case, i guess you do own it, even if you don't have a physical copy. i hear you about not really owning it though.

as for itunes, the ownership issue comes with restrictions, which creates a whole new model of "ownership". a few years down the line, it's going to be interesting when people try transfering their itunes' purchased songs to new devices/mediums etc, and find that they cannot. you'll only own the songs on your old clunker ipod and and laptops.

[tinobeat]

Originally posted by 9000
emusic still offers unprotected mp3s, right? in that case, i guess you do own it, even if you don't have a physical copy. i hear you about not really owning it though.

oh yeah, Emusic files I download are unprotected, my property (in as much as data can be). But not in me heart... me heart...

[TheSadDebaser]

Downloading music isn't a major problem for most artists who really make their money off of touring/merchandise. Especially bands on a major label where more than 90% of profits go to the label (maybe I'm exaggerating). Most indies are clearly better than majors about sharing the wealth, but there isn't usually too much wealth to share. Indie CDs are usually cheaper, not nearly distributed as well, and the audience is generally college students and musicians who don't have enough money to spend on records anyway.

Sharing music hurts record labels. Which isn't better or worse than hurting the artists themselves, though, since labels continue to maintain an important role in the music industry. Promotion, distribution, and actually getting a record pressed and released, which bands often can't afford on their own.

[TheSadDebaser]

That said, file sharing has been a godsend to me. I can't even keep count how many bands I've been able to learn about despite not having any money, no good records stores (except in Manhattan, which I've only been frequenting in the past year), no hip friends, no fanzines, etc. I depend strongly on it.

[Patrick]

Originally posted by TheSadDebaser
Downloading music isn't a major problem for most artists who really make their money off of touring/merchandise.

Well, this is an assumption. It might be true of one set of artists - especially those whose recording careers are washed up but still have a touring audience (think: metal bands from the '80s)... but it certainly isn't true of all of them. Most of them? I don't know - you'd have to do some research, which is sorely lacking in this area.

Especially bands on a major label where more than 90% of profits go to the label (maybe I'm exaggerating). Most indies are clearly better than majors about sharing the wealth, but there isn't usually too much wealth to share.

Again, this is an assumption - where's the data to prove this? Just a lot of assertion out there based on anecdotal evidence. One thing that does seem likely is that many bands at the small-to-medium level on major labels see a greater portion of their money up-front - as an advance on royalties - than on royalties from sales. Even here, who knows what the proportions are? And for bands at the top levels, you can believe that they see plenty of revenue from record royalties.

Furthermore, remember that for artists who write their own songs, as much as 50% of royalties come from mechanicals (publishing royalties). This is another stream of revenue that is denied to them by filesharing - and in most deals, including major-label deals, it is a separate revenue stream from record (recorded performance) royalties! Artists see this money either as an advance or as a royalty flow or for the bigger artists both... and since this money does not need to be spent on recording an album, more of the advance goes directly into the artist's pocket.

So the short answer here is that filesharing cuts into most recording artists' money, and all songwriters' money. It's not just labels, major or indie, who suffer.

Patrick

[Funk]

Originally posted by Patrick
Re: Canada. I believe the revenues are for the losses due to CD burning, not filesharing, Strypes, but I could be wrong. That said, Matador has not seen a penny of this so-called revenue. Probably just another example of how the indies get screwed though.

I've been under the impression that the way the government/SOCAN worked this out was that Celine Dion, Bryan Adams, Alanis Morrisette, etc were the ones that got paid through the blank media levy because, hey, they're popular, thus they're more likely to be downloaded, so they're the ones losing money. Matador probably has a lot of unpaid downloads in Canada because your LPs/CDs are the most expensive of any North American label, though, so maybe you could play that card to get money.

Re: 'really owning the music'. This reminds me of something someone wrote on ILM, which was along the lines of "having tons of CD-Rs of music is like showing off yr movie library of films you taped off TBS."

[TheSadDebaser]

Originally posted by Patrick
Well, this is an assumption. It might be true of one set of artists - especially those whose recording careers are washed up but still have a touring audience (think: metal bands from the '80s)... but it certainly isn't true of all of them. Most of them? I don't know - you'd have to do some research, which is sorely lacking in this area.

Well, I guess contributing to my conviction is that I can't recall ever hearing an artist or musician speak out against file-sharing, aside from one or two people I had never heard of previously. There are probably more that I've just been oblivious to some how, but unless I'm subconsciously blocking out arguments that disagree with my own, I feel like at the least, artists supporting file-sharing or being indifferent to it are in the majority. I'm pretty sure I've one or two musicians refer to the situation I discussed to rationalize why they were in favor of file-sharing, which is to say I have read someone at some point say they didn't care about file sharing because they hardly make any money off of record sales anyway, and all their money comes from touring/merch. But I don't have any quotes.


Again, this is an assumption - where's the data to prove this? Just a lot of assertion out there based on anecdotal evidence. One thing that does seem likely is that many bands at the small-to-medium level on major labels see a greater portion of their money up-front - as an advance on royalties - than on royalties from sales. Even here, who knows what the proportions are? And for bands at the top levels, you can believe that they see plenty of revenue from record royalties.

Again, I don't have any specifics to reference, but I was always led to believe that major label deals often include 5% royalties on record deals? Or at least some sort of terrifyingly small amount. I have a book called "This Business of Music" or something which goes over typical recording contracts, etc. Maybe I should give that a look. How many bands have an opportunity at the top level? There are less than, what?, fifty really really popular bands on the radio selling "millions" of records?

Furthermore, remember that for artists who write their own songs, as much as 50% of royalties come from mechanicals (publishing royalties). This is another stream of revenue that is denied to them by filesharing - and in most deals, including major-label deals, it is a separate revenue stream from record (recorded performance) royalties! Artists see this money either as an advance or as a royalty flow or for the bigger artists both... and since this money does not need to be spent on recording an album, more of the advance goes directly into the artist's pocket.

I guess I always thought artists got screwed out of their publishing rights. Maybe I was confusing it with ownership of the recording or something. Publishing is something to consider.

So the short answer here is that filesharing cuts into most recording artists' money, and all songwriters' money. It's not just labels, major or indie, who suffer.

I never thought artists didn't lose any money, I just don't think they suffer as much as the labels and other individuals (studios, agents, whatever) involved in the production of a record.

And what all of this comes down to is whether or not a band or artist are selling many records anyway. File sharing can break down distribution barriers for some artists like nothing else.

At any rate, I don't think it's nearly as big a deal as a lot of people make it out to be. I don't think record labels are going away. I don't think vinyl's going anywhere. CD-Rs are shit, no one's going to care about them for long. I wish I had been around when cassette recorders hit the market so I would have some frame of reference, but I don't.

[Patrick]

I think royalties of 14-16% are standard at majors these days... going up to 18% for established artists (and beyond for superstars).

The whole 5% royalty and screwed out the publishing thing was the way things operated in the '60s, and there's always people getting screwed in any industry (especially in hip hop), but it's pretty much in the distant past.

I'd look at the Passman book if you want an updated picture ("Everything You Always Wanted To Know..."

In a typical advance/royalty deal, any artist worth their salt should be looking to take home at least $1.25-1.50 per unit in royalties after deductions, plus another $0.70 in mechanicals (and this goes up every two years, by law - unlike record royalties). In an indie style profit-split deal with a lower advance, the amount per unit might be more like $2.20-2.50.

I take your point about filesharing possibly contributing to record sales, of course - but that's a separate issue compared to whether or not any ACTUAL lost shares cost artists as much as they cost labels.

I suspect a lot of artists don't comment because (a) they're very removed from the business side of the business - that's one reason why they do deals with record labels, and (b) because they're scared of getting pilloried by the consumers, the way Lars Ulrich was.

Patrick

[Strypes]

Patrick: Hmm, I was wondering how exactly the profits were distributed from the Canadian blank media levy - couldn't think of any way in which it could be fairly done. I'm disappointed but not very surprised that indies like Matador haven't seen anything out of it.

It's interesting as yes, as you pointed out, the levy is on the media but the laws have been expanded to include downloading and sharing of digital audio files based on the idea that the music companies are (allegedly) already being compensated for all forms of piracy. It's all a big tangled mess and it'll be interesting to see how it pans out.



TheSadDebaser: Metallica was (and is) famously anti-filesharer and in fact sued both over 300,000 "fans" and Napster for downloading their music. Ironically, Metallica became popular in the early '80s largely on the basis of their "No Life 'till Leather" demo tape which they encouraged fans to freely copy and distribute...

[the Pawnbroker]

Originally posted by Patrick

Furthermore, remember that for artists who write their own songs, as much as 50% of royalties come from mechanicals (publishing royalties). This is another stream of revenue that is denied to them by filesharing - and in most deals, including major-label deals, it is a separate revenue stream from record (recorded performance) royalties! Artists see this money either as an advance or as a royalty flow or for the bigger artists both... and since this money does not need to be spent on recording an album, more of the advance goes directly into the artist's pocket.

So the short answer here is that filesharing cuts into most recording artists' money, and all songwriters' money. It's not just labels, major or indie, who suffer.

Patrick

Patrick, from what I have gathered, this has been a source of inter-band squables in some cases. The primary songwriter may continue to get songwriting royalties while the non-writer band members receive only the recording royalties. Thus, the songwriter may have less of a need to tour, record new material, and promote records.

I might be thinking of a group like The Who, where Townsend gets the lion-share of royalties, with some going to The Ox. Maybe thats why Daltrey has to do those horrible television shows.

[TheSadDebaser]

I had forgetten about Metallica entirely, but I can still think of more artists that have supported it. But I admit that I may just be oblivious to those opposed.

[Patrick]

there was a levy on blank tapes in the US, and later on "audio-only" CDRs (remember those?) that was supposed to go to labels. I don't know anyone who ever saw a penny of it. Probably went to pay back RIAA legal bills.

Stupid way to deal with the situation anyway.

PB: Yes I know of bands where this has been an issue - not causing conflict so much as creating two classes of wealth within the band. Don't really see how it could be avoided if there are one or two chief songwriters however - unless they are incredibly generous for some reason!

Don't forget that the songwriters get paid whenever anyone releases a cover of one of their songs, whenever the song is played on the radio (which does NOT generate a performance royalty for the band, in the US - though it does most everywhere else). Being a songwriter is a really, really good thing.

TSD: Yeah, I don't know of any other major artists who have spoken out against filesharing in public. And there were certainly quite a few who said it was good. I remember Janis Ian for one. Of course, she hasn't had a recording career for decades and was certainly screwed-over in the '60s (wasn't she 15 when she was signed?)

It's also an issue of education. A lot of artists (and labels) are psyched to get their music out to a wider public. And artists of course have other sources of revenue from music than labels do, as you pointed out, so getting the music out to filesharers can do them good on that front. Particularly if you're not selling enough records to get big recording advances or a steady flow of record or publishing royalties. (Or if you don't write your own songs!)

But if you believe that filesharing is cutting into sales, or some sales, then it may be an issue of how you phrase the question to the artist - e.g. do you ask, "Are you happy to get your music out to more people, even if you don't get paid?" or "How do you feel about being dropped?" WMG is supposed to be dropping 95 out of 190 bands in the next 12 months, due to declining CD sales.

Now you or I might attribute the decline in those artists' sales to the quality of the music on those CDs, but I can assure you that those artists don't think so!

Neither of us is probably a fan of most of those WMG bands... but that's not the point.

Patrick

[fivefourtwo]

Metallica became popular in the early '80s largely on the basis of their "No Life 'till Leather" demo tape which they encouraged fans to freely copy and distribute...

Why am I not surprised

[TheSadDebaser]

WMG was a more complex situation though. They were part of an enormous merger with, who was it? BMG or something? Anyway, their CDs are often priced at $15+ dollars, whereas Universal had, just prior to this I think, decided to price their CDs at the much more reasonable (and realistic) price of twelve (?) dollars (not that you'd notice the price difference much if you went to most chain record shops who continue to price select records at over fifteen).

So I think a variety of issues led to Warner Music Group downsizing their roster. They're having a difficult time competing and just merged and so they did what lots of cold-hearted, multi-headed hydra monster conglomerates do and fired their employees.

That's my take on that, anyway. This is all outsider information, though.

[tinobeat]

Originally posted by Patrick
TSD: Yeah, I don't know of any other major artists who have spoken out against filesharing in public.

The only one I cared about was Dr. Dre... Dre!

there's a site somewhere with Britney and Sheryl Crow and a pile of other also-rans begging you not to share music files. Sheryl Crow had a priceless comment:

"if I had to take a job in order to pay the bills, how would I have time to be creative [sic] in orderto make music for everyone"

good question, Sheryl...

[Strypes]

Yeah, Sheryl has a valid point and I agree with it. If I was in the music biz (one day, one day...) I'd be pissed off too if I felt all my hard work was being repaid with little or nothing.

The crux of the issue is - does filesharing actually cause a drop in CD sales? I don't think it's as clear-cut as the RIAA would have us believe. Consumers act in strange and often illogical ways. I suspect for those who normally buy CDs would often still do so even given access to unlimited free music.

Certainly I don't believe for a minute that any decline in actual CD sales is entirely the fault of filesharing. There's natural market factors; the shift to DVD content; online music sales, etc. etc. etc. Add to that the effects of extra publicity reaching untapped audiences, the shift to selling MP3s electronically (a la iTunes Store) and a whole bunch of other factors, and you've got a hellishly complicated cause-and-effect going on. The RIAAs current position is akin to saying that the VCR is destroying the movie industry (or, forty years back, that the TV is destroying the movie industry). It just ain't that simple.

As Patrick says though, there's a huge lack of data on this. It's an important issue - filesharing will continue despite ridiculous little RIAA lawsuits on individuals, and the music industry has to know how that's going to affect it.

So I hereby propose I set up an institute to study the issue. (Large) donations are accepted - please make all cheques to "bearer"... :)

[bitterfruit]

How much of the net loss in CD sales results from file sharing and how much is a result from services like iTunes where one can buy only a single track if they so choose? Kids want the hits, maing.

[9000]

i'd speculate that used cd sales have to fit promently into the declining sales equation. how much of your collection was purchased second (or third, forth, etc) hand? ebay, amazon and all the mom n pop shops offer cheaper secondhand alternatives that are just too good to pass up at times.

[Funk]

Originally posted by TheSadDebaser
WMG was a more complex situation though. They were part of an enormous merger with, who was it? BMG or something?

So I think a variety of issues led to Warner Music Group downsizing their roster. They're having a difficult time competing and just merged and so they did what lots of cold-hearted, multi-headed hydra monster conglomerates do and fired their employees.

That's my take on that, anyway. This is all outsider information, though.

And it's almost entirely wrong. WMG is the world's biggest indie, having been bought in 2003 from Time Warner by Edgar Bronfman Jr, and being an indie without shareholder money and with a major label mentality, it's probably killing them. They're trying to trim the label down to a size where they can look like they're really successful and make an IPO.

I'd be more worried if they decided to do something to their indie distribution company to save costs. You may not know this, but WMG is responsible for getting many of yr favourite artists into yr hands: http://www.ada-music.com/generic.asp?module_map_id=1169&view=labeltext

[bitterfruit]

Originally posted by Funk
You may not know this, but WMG is responsible for getting many of yr favourite artists into yr hands: http://www.ada-music.com/generic.asp?module_map_id=1169&view=labeltext


Funny that way, idn't it?

[Patrick]

Yes, Matador's distributor, ADA, is WMG-owned... it was set up back in '93 with a lot of us (then) WMG-affiliated labels on the board - Sub Pop, Matador, Beggars (when they were starting out in the US), Mute etc. At the time, some of the indies (but not us) had a stake in ADA.

I will say right now, publicly, that ADA is a great fucking distributor and we are proud to be affiliated with them.

TSD, for mergers you're probably thinking of either Polygram + MCA = Universal, from about seven years ago, or Sony + BMG = SbNyMg or whatever they decide to call it, from last year. (That merger is under challenge in Europe from an appeal to the European Court of First Instance by a consortium of indie labels, to which Matador belongs, called Impala.)

Funk and TSD, it's true that WMG has been cutting costs and downsizing - not as a result of a merger, as Funk points out, but because it was bought by a group of venture capitalists who want to turn it into a profitable machine. Edgar Bronfman by the way is involved in the purchase and runs the company, but I don't know how much of it he owns. Most of it is owned by Thomas Lee & Partners, a Boston VC firm.

That said, the whole concept of leaner and meaner majors with smaller rosters is being driven by the decline in CD sales, plain and simple. iTunes revenues are making up for a tiny portion of those lost sales and they and other digital sales might grow to make up more of that loss, but certainly not all of it.

Strypes, you are correct that more research is needed into whether filesharing is responsible for the global decline in CD sales. It seems intuitively correct that filesharing is responsible for some of the decline (and as bitterfruit points out, filesharing makes it easier for kids to get just "the hit" from a big pop record, and not waste money on the rest of the filler that the CD undoubtedly contains).

Mike Dreese, head of the Newbury Comics chain in New England and a famously trenchant industry observer, believes that CD burning is more responsible for lost CD sales than filesharing. This rings true to me too, though once again we need more data (and his view is skewed because he is a retailer selling pre-recorded CDs and blank CDRs, and has seen the incredible rise in the latter's sales over the former in the past 5 years).

Someone said (TSD?) that CDRs are valueless to people and will never replace physical CDs (or LPs) in their affections. I believe this is true for real music fans like everyone posting here, but much less true for the bulk of consumers who buy hit-related music and don't place an iconic value on the physical carriers of said music. Of course, I could be underestimating the general public, but that's because I don't want to go broke.

All interesting stuff, keep it coming.

Patrick

[Patrick]

9000: used CD sales. This is a fair comment, but I don't think this is anything that's that new in the past 5 years... there have been used CD sales as long as there have been CDs. Of course, there are more of them every passing year, it's true...

Patrick

[S M @]

Originally posted by Funk
[Bthe way the government/SOCAN worked this out was that .....were the ones that got paid through the blank media levy
.....
. Matador LPs/CDs are the most expensive of any North American label [/B]

File sharing is fully legal in Canada as of now. When the levy was put to law, it rewrote the intellectual property law here that also pertains to f/sh'ing. This happened before f/sh'ing became so prevelant. The major labels are currently rallying the troops to change the law. The last time they went to court (to try to get an injunction compelling ISPs to provide names to match IP addresses) was months ago, and the judge threw their case out. However, this appears to have been more a result of a very unprepared and disorganised case being made than a ruling on the matter itself, so I definitely wouldn't call it decisive at all. But the judge was quoted as saying f/sh'ing is no different than having books at a library, so it was something, I guess. Anyway, personally I can't see this holding up forever.

If I recall, the levy is supposed to be divided up amongst a number of parities with a stake (musicians, labels, retailers, and I'd guess that some of it funds those grants the government gives to some bands--ie. Metric). Can't imagine how they decide specifically who gets it, though. I'm going to try and find out some details. But I know labels are one of the parties that should receive some of it, so Matador may want to contact the Canadian government and check to see if they qualify.

Not sure where you live, but anywhere in Canada I've been Matador releases are at or below average in price. The only way I'd see them as pricey is if you shop at a mall chain store where any disc they don't have multiple copies of (current popular releases) tend to be $27.99 or so. I don't mean this to be harsh, just as a tip to shop around at good record stores if possible. Which it may not be.

The only way f/sh'ing affects me is that it allows me to hear something first in comfort to decide if I want to buy it, which helps quality control in the collection. If anything it probably makes me buy more music. But if lossless bit-torrent stuff counts as f/sh'ing, then I guess it makes me listen to live music a bit more due to the crazy amount of sick stuff that's only a click away. Any band I listen to bootlegs of, I'd almost always own all or most of their material, and I'd still buy a live album or whatever. So I can't look at it as a bad thing for me. Everyone has to judge their own circumstances, but unfortunately it seems undeniable that some people will steal just because they can. To be honest, I think it does hurt major label, 'hit' type artists most.

[bitterfruit]

My personal desire to buy the records that I like is not related to the emotion of owning the physical media these days. It's a matter of fiduciary responsibility. If I like the music, I buy the record. I not only spend more money on music these days, I get more satisfaction from what I've bought.

On another less related note, the only two labels that I'll really buy new shit from without the preview network are Merge and Matador. Having said that, I would like to just receive shit from both labels without even having to go through the pre-order process. Think of it as a club; you just send me stuff when a record gets released and automatically charge me in the process.

[bitterfruit]

Originally posted by S M @
File sharing is fully legal in Canada as of now. When the levy was put to law, it rewrote the intellectual property law here that also pertains to f/sh'ing.

There are some pretty interesting IP/patent issues between Canada and the US right now. One of the more recent issues is regarding Canada's darling tech company known as Research In Motion (RIM). The majority of their customers are US based, but their argument is that they are beyond the reach of US patent law. The dispute is with an American company called NTP. Anyway, read more here. (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1755431,00.asp)

[9000]

Originally posted by Patrick
9000: used CD sales. This is a fair comment, but I don't think this is anything that's that new in the past 5 years... there have been used CD sales as long as there have been CDs. Of course, there are more of them every passing year, it's true...


right, definitely. mom n pop used sales have been occuring since the advent of discs. i didn't articulate it well, but i was really thinking about the impact of used sales over the internet. sure people were selling used discs here and there 5 years ago, but online transactions have taken off exponentially since 1999/2000. the market is much more fluid and efficient now. everyone has become a buyer and seller.

[Patrick]

Originally posted by bitterfruit
Having said that, I would like to just receive shit from both labels without even having to go through the pre-order process. Think of it as a club; you just send me stuff when a record gets released and automatically charge me in the process.

Stay tuned. We have something like this in the planning stages.

Patrick

[TheSadDebaser]

Originally posted by Patrick
Sony + BMG = SbNyMg or whatever they decide to call it, from last year. (That merger is under challenge in Europe from an appeal to the European Court of First Instance by a consortium of indie labels, to which Matador belongs, called Impala.)

Yes, this is exactly what I was thinking of. Don't know how I got them mixed up. I was way off base.

Someone said (TSD?) that CDRs are valueless to people and will never replace physical CDs (or LPs) in their affections.

I think someone else said it first, but yeah. Also it should be taken into consideration that everyone will be buying CDs up once they realize their CD-Rs are unlistenable after a few years and they don't have any MP3s left, or whatever. CD-Rs aren't really as practical as conventional CDs.


I guess I have such a difficult time really taking this seriously because I don't know anyone in person who has completely stopped buying CDs, even here on Staten Island, where we don't even have any independent record stores that aren't exclusively used. But I do read college kids on the internet saying they haven't bought any CDs in such and such a period of time. But even on message boards where I read comments like that, there are still enormous "Today's Purchases" threads. So I don't know.

[9000]

Originally posted by TheSadDebaser
even here on Staten Island, where we don't even have any independent record stores that aren't exclusively used.

man, sorry things haven't progressed. back in the day, the only alternative was "cassette hut" over at the staten island mall. there was nothing like being able to pick up cheesey posters and super-security-fortified cassettes of metal classics for $17.98.

quickly discover the wonders of the SI ferry, my friend. and don't turn back once you graduate from high school.

[TheSadDebaser]

They're doing this massive cosmetic job on the ferry. It's still kind of clean, too, but by the time they finish, it'll be dirty again. Still, it's really nice.

You never discovered Our Music Center, then? WFMU's Terre T (don't know how to spell her las name, Telenco?) worked there at some point and it was the big music place for years for people in my brother's age group. I even bought CDs by Husker Du and Big Black there. The indie CDs were kept behind a small glass case in the back. Weird. But now it's mostly DJ 12"s.

[Strypes]

Throwing more fuel on the fire... I went searching to see what information IS out there on this whole thing (OK, I admit it, I like to see if I'm right ;)

First of all is an article (http://www.ifpi.org/site-content/statistics/worldsales.html) from the IFPI. They're an organisation devoted to fighting music piracy, and it's only one site, so take it with the standard grain of salt - but here's a couple of interesting text bites:

"The fourth consecutive year of falling music sales is attributed to the combined effects of digital and physical piracy and competition from other entertainment products... This report on world music sales does not include sales in digital formats..." (i.e. iTunes etc.)

"The music video sector, as a whole, rose by 46.6% and DVD sales were particularly strong, seeing a global 67% increase. Spurred by DVD’s popularity, the music video share of overall music sales has doubled over three years..."
Also interesting to note from the same report:

Enders report, ‘Piracy – Will it kill the music industry?’concluded that “digital piracy cost about 35-40% of the reduction in the size of the global music market last year”.
So what can we learn from this?

1. Nobody's really factored in digital music sales when proclaiming how much the industry's CD sales are decreasing (which is kinda a major thing to skip over). Of course, as Patrick says, the loss in "mechanicals" may affect the artist/label anyway (BTW Patrick, is there a system in place for calculating royalties from digital sales?)

2. Even the watchdogs are noticing that their own figures on piracy show it's only part (and a minority part, at that) of the picture as to why sales are decreasing. There's competition from "other entertainment sources" and - notably - the rise of the DVD.

3. I forsee alternate "hooks" becoming a larger part of future music sales. The DVD music-video market is a good proof of point... growing rapidly at the same time as plain-vanilla CD sales decrease. It's a changing culture and the consumers are, as usual, wanting MORE for their buck (in general, anyway - I dunno about the indies) than just the music.

And then we factor in the whole growing used-CD market, and everything else... boy, this picture is really getting complicated.

I really don't have an opinion either way on the filesharer thing. Bottom line, the most important thing is that the artists continue to make music, and the labels continue to get that music out there. I just doubt the conventional "wisdom" of saying filesharing is the one evil behind music sales declines. IMHO that sort of thinking will inevitably lead to disaster through failure to change with a changing world.

I'm STILL waiting for those donations... I accept PayPal too! :)

[9000]

Originally posted by TheSadDebaser

You never discovered Our Music Center, then? WFMU's Terre T (don't know how to spell her las name, Telenco?) worked there at some point and it was the big music place for years for people in my brother's age group. I even bought CDs by Husker Du and Big Black there. The indie CDs were kept behind a small glass case in the back. Weird. But now it's mostly DJ 12"s.


i've blocked out a lot. i would typically trek to bleeker bob's to search for the latest and greatest nugets. at the time, j&r also had a decent little selection of vinyl.

[TheSadDebaser]

I never even knew there was a J&R on SI. Huh.

I keep thinking SI would be a lot better if there were fewer strip malls, less traffic, and a subway/train system (that covers more than one side of the island). It'd be cool if someone re-opened the Paramount.

[tinobeat]

Re: label release subscriptions. I think Teenbeat has/had one of these going...

[bitterfruit]

Originally posted by Patrick
Yes, Matador's distributor, ADA, is WMG-owned... it was set up back in '93 with a lot of us (then) WMG-affiliated labels on the board - Sub Pop, Matador, Beggars (when they were starting out in the US), Mute etc. At the time, some of the indies (but not us) had a stake in ADA.

If I'm not mistaken, WMG still also owns 49% of Sub Pop, no?

[TheSadDebaser]

A SUBSCRIBER RECEIVES:

• THE NEXT 8 CDs/LPs WE RELEASE ON TEENBEAT
(that's EVERYTHING we release until you reach 8)
• ONE T-SHIRT OF YOUR CHOICE + TB STICKER
• ONE EXCLUSIVE SUBSCRIBERS' CD
(songs recorded just for subscribers by TB bands!)
• ONE HOLIDAY CARD and MEMBER CARD
• FREE ADMISSION TO SELECT CONCERTS
• ONE OLD CD/LP OF YOUR CHOICE (or TWO 7"s)
(anything in-print released 1985-2000)
• ALL POSTCARDS AND POSTERS
(released within your subscription period)

COST: $111.00 (USA)
(Europe $148) (Asia $155) (Canada $119)


EDIT: that's fucking awesome.

[9000]

Originally posted by TheSadDebaser
I never even knew there was a J&R on SI. Huh.


no, it was always in manhattan. that was the point.

[Patrick]

Originally posted by bitterfruit
If I'm not mistaken, WMG still also owns 49% of Sub Pop, no?

I believe they do own a percentage of Sub Pop - I don't know the exact amount.

Patrick

[Patrick]

Strypes, the statutory law on mechanical royalties applies to sales of digital music just like physical music.

On the record royalty ("artist royalty") side, there are all kinds of different deals being struck as attorneys, artists and labels adjust to the new (and constantly changing) realities of digital sales.

Patrick

[Patrick]

Strypes - the rule of thumb on digital sales at the moment is that they are about 5% of physical sales, I think. The lion's share of this - BY FAR - is iTunes. While substantial this does not replace 3 years of double digit declines in physical sales (the 3 years not including 2004).

2004 by the way saw a tiny increase in the number of CDs sold in the US. Worldwide it was still a decline - you got the number Strypes?

I agree with you that the sales declines are due to a number of different factors, not just filesharing.

Patrick

[Thor]

Originally posted by Patrick
Mike Dreese, head of the Newbury Comics chain in New England and a famously trenchant industry observer, believes that CD burning is more responsible for lost CD sales than filesharing.
Patrick

I think this is much closer to the truth. I only know a few file sharers but I quite literally don't know *anyone* who doesn't sometimes burn cd's.

And I'd say Ipod culture is playing a big part. Sure, one person buys the cd, but then all his friends get to upload it to their ipod, and so on. And of course it matters not whether you're uploading a real cd or a cdR.

In my recent experience, music purchasing, etc has become very much something that one tight group of friends does... when one person buys the disc, the others get to share the fruits via an ipod or a cdR, and I'd imagine this is quite widespread.

[bitterfruit]

Originally posted by TheSadDebaser
EDIT: that's fucking awesome.

That seems like a fair price to pay. The consumer gets a good deal and the label gets a accurate quantity of pre-sold units before even printing the first copy.

Only thing left to sweeten the pot would be a DVD.

[Patrick]

Originally posted by Thor
I think this is much closer to the truth. I only know a few file sharers but I quite literally don't know *anyone* who doesn't sometimes burn cd's.

And I'd say Ipod culture is playing a big part. Sure, one person buys the cd, but then all his friends get to upload it to their ipod, and so on. And of course it matters not whether you're uploading a real cd or a cdR.

In my recent experience, music purchasing, etc has become very much something that one tight group of friends does... when one person buys the disc, the others get to share the fruits via an ipod or a cdR, and I'd imagine this is quite widespread.

Yes, we've seen this happening everywhere - among people we know too. The combination of CD burning and iPod use seems like a very likely culprit in sales declines.

Patrick

[Funk]

Originally posted by S M @

anywhere in Canada I've been Matador releases are at or below average in price. The only way I'd see them as pricey is if you shop at a mall chain store where any disc they don't have multiple copies of (current popular releases) tend to be $27.99 or so. I don't mean this to be harsh, just as a tip to shop around at good record stores if possible. Which it may not be.


Montreal/Quebec City/Ottawa stores (the three cities I do the vast majority of my shopping in, the first two cities with stores owned/operated by Matador's Canadian distributor) generally have Matador CDs/vinyl at $2-6 more than Touch & Go/Merge/Drag City/ whatever contempory you care to name (roughly $17.99-19.99 CDs vs the 'Dor's $22.99 CDs; vinyl is kinda variable on those labels, usually topping out at $22, Matador's always $29). These are indie stores, not the chains owned by Select, btw.

Examples: Dizzee Rascal's first album as a Canadian release $15.99 CD/LP $22.99. After Matador picked it up for "North American" distribution, jumped to $22.99 CD/ $28.99 LP. Stores I shop at? Not so happy aboot that. Mid-price stuff? I'd see the Matador Boards of Canada "mid-line" at $21.99 at indies vs HMV (!!!!) pricing the second BoC at $16.99. (I've never seen a mid-line Matador CD for less than $19.99.) I haven't seen the first BoC album in stores since it reverted to Warp for N. America, but I bet it's not $22.

If yr really bored, look at the prices at Scratch Records' website for a comparison.

[Salman]

I've seen some Matador releases like Interpol and Mogwai on vinyl for $19.99 in Ottawa. All the CD's start at $22.99. Even the mid-priced classics ones.

[Strypes]

Alright, I've done some digging.

First of all, it's been surprisingly difficult to actually come up with any hard numbers. It's almost like a conspiracy to block anyone getting hold of real figures. After much searching between places like Nielsen, the Forrester Group, Informa and the IFPI, I've discovered they'll let you have their market reports - if, of course, you're willing to pay between US$400 to US$2500 for the privelege.

So what does a seeker of information do faced with such a situation? Ironically, he turns to filesharing. After much searching I was able to download a couple of precious pages of data.

Which didn't turn out to be that precious. The IFPI's "The Recording Industry In Numbers" report seems to be a misnomer. There's very few numbers - everything is still waffly and vague, though they did throw in some nifty graphs. It noted a slight decrease in music sales of 1.1-1.2% in 2004 over previous years, but failed to attribute it to anything specific. Further down the page they state that the drop was "due to a proliferation of free music sites on the Internet" but don't bother to explain how they know that, or list any other factors. I'm glad I didn't waste my money.

So back to generic searches, all of which gave conflicting and contradictory results.

I did come across this article (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/27/1043534002352.html?oneclick=true) which states how Forrester Research (previously employed by the RIAA for research) has actually gone against the RIAA's current findings. ARIA (the Australian Recording Industry Association) is claiming that their sales downturn cannot be attributed to filesharing and/or CD burning.

More irony - the best statistics I found came from an anti-RIAA guy. I don't agree with everything he sayshere (http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html), but it makes for interesting reading. He attributes the downslide in sales to a general increase in CD prices in a declining economy (actually, that syncs pretty well with ARIA's opinion). There's a few figures and statistics here, but I won't put my faith in them without seeing the sources (which they want me to pay for).

There's another article from the same anti-RIAA sourcehere (http://www.azoz.com/riaa/news/2003Numbers.html) which makes an interesting read, but I'm not sure what the point is. It reads more like an attack,though again there are some interesting figures.

Informa came up with some interesting stuff which is covered by sources here (http://www.billboard.com/bb/biz/newsroom/business_finance/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000760514), but again I was unable to verify it as Informa wants USD$2,228 (plus tax at 17.5%) for a look at the report itself. It points to a drop in total musicsales of just 1% in 2004. These findings were echoed by Nielsen Soundscan as summarised by Reuters here (http://www.kpmginsiders.com/display_reuters2.asp?cs_id=123140), and by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry here (http://www.musicbusinesscanada.com/mbccore.cfm?Page=News&NewsID=562&mark=Newsid&value=562) .

So, what do we make of all this? Pretty much the following:

1. There's been a huge drop in sales of CD/cassette singles (this may indeed be due to filesharing and online sales of single songs).
2. There's been a huge gain in sales of DVD music video, and this seems set to continue. Online music sales also seem set to increase.
3. Music sales as a whole seem to be recovering, despite increasing filesharing, with 2004 having the smallest drop in four years and overall growth in high single-digits projected for the future.
4. Nobody can agree on exact figures.

Hope this helps - I'm going for a walk, because all this text is blurring together.

[pabost]

Enjoying this discussion. Excellent stuff . . .

[Elijah]

My apologies if I'm being redundant here. I haven't read the whole thread up to this point, but here's my two cents.

I don't see much difference between file sharing and home taping. When I was 13, a friend's older brother taped R.E.M.'s Life's Rich Pageant LP for me. Before I heard that LP, R.E.M. were simply a band I had read about, but given my limited disposable income at the time, would not spend money on.

Within a year of "stealing" that LP, I had purchased every one of their albums up to that point, and I've been a loyal fan ever since. If anyone can explain to me how I've wronged R.E.M., their record companies, or anyone who makes money from the sale of their music/merchandise, I'm all ears.

Similarly, Interpol, Belle & Sebastian, Neko Case, Arcade Fire and countless other artists would not have my money if not for the anonymous souls who "shared" their music with me at one point.

I'm an American. I like to buy stuff. Congratulations to Matador, Merge, Anti/Epitaph, 4ad et al. for exploiting this fact in a way that doesn't insult my integrity or my intelligence.