UNDERNEWS

Undernews is the online report of the Progressive Review, edited by Sam Smith, who covered Washington during all or part of one quarter of America's presidencies and edited alternative journals since 1964. The Review has been on the web since 1995. See main page for full contents

August 4, 2009

WHERE THE MUSIC WENT

Sam Smith, Progressive Review - A striking chart accompanying Charles Blow's NY Times recent column on music sales raises questions about how important unpaid downloads actually are. For example, in 2008 paid downloads of singles brought in about one billion dollars. The best year for CDs was 1999 when there were roughly $15 billion of sales. Since then CD sales have collapsed.

But let's imagine that everyone who had downloaded a single in 2008 had bought a CD instead; the gross sales would be greater than the record year for CDs a decade ago.

NPD has estimated that there were 5 billion songs downloaded for free in 2006, suggesting a loss of one third of the value brought in by CDs in their peak year.

But is this accurate? Even if the estimate is correct, it ignores the fact that people do things for free that they would never pay for. Imagine you are at a party, and the host suddenly announces that there will be a charge for the drinks and the snacks. What effect would this have on your thirst and desire for tortilla chips?

In 2006, NPD estimated that there were only 15 million free downloaders. For them to have driven gross sales to what they were back in 1999, each free downloader would have to had spent about $150. This is the dream world in which the RIAA lives.

The recording industry - whether because it has been badly misled by its lawyers or because of innate incompetence - has been trying to justify its collapse on free downloads. The evidence suggests that the shift from CDs to singles has been immensely more important, but it's more comforting to blame it all on others. Interestingly, as America's newspapers go in a similar collapse, their publishers are doing much the same thing: blaming web aggregators, even though for many years reporters at the NY Times, Washington Post and elsewhere were tipping off Matt Drudge about their forthcoming scoops because - unlike their bosses - they knew it would drive readers to them.

Further, I suspect technology explains only a portion of the story. Culture changes as well as does technology, yet because it is not as easy to quantify, it doesn't get anywhere near the attention.

Still, people's willingness to buy music is based on a number of non-technological considerations such as;

What role does music play in our culture? Do we sing as much as we used to? Is music - outside of concerts and other performances - a community matter or is it highly atomized like other aspects of our culture?

Much of music traditionally came out of communities - work songs, gospel music and expressions of nationalism, regionalism and other values. This side of music has faded, replaced by sounds imposed on society by wealthy corporations. What does this do to sales?

What if these sounds - once the effect of intensive marketing has worn itself out - don't have much lasting intrinsic appeal? What if they leave an aura that actually drains music of some of its excitement and cultural importance? What if RIAA is killing music?

Some years back, I wrote about jazz this way:

"The essence of jazz is the same as that of democracy: the greatest amount of individual freedom consistent with a healthy community. Each musician is allowed extraordinary liberty during a solo and then is expected to conscientiously back up the other musicians in turn. The two most exciting moments in jazz are during flights of individual virtuosity and when the entire musical group seems to become one. The genius of jazz (and democracy) is that the same people are willing and able to do both. Here's how Wynton Marsalis describes it: 'Jazz is a music of conversation, and that's what you need in a democracy. You have to be willing to hear another person's point of view.'"

What current popular musical genre is similarly integrated into the culture?

Here's another interesting question: could recording industry lawyers be killing music?

When I started as a musician the most illegal thing you could do was to make a fake book under the counter at a music store for $25. The fake book contained the melody lines and chords of hundreds of tunes and the music publishers didn't like it. But once you had the music you could pretty well do with it what you wished. Worries about licensing, copyrights and royalties were at a low level. Short of making a record - not a common opportunity - the music was out there in a kind of de facto public domain.

The current emphasis on individually composed music as opposed to cover versions - i.e. playing a tune someone else made popular - may in some way reflect the change that has occurred. When I hear people talking about cover versions, it still seems odd since I come from a time when 99% of the music played by ordinary musicians were cover versions of one sort or another.

It's hard to get a handle on all this because of the way the marketers and media have manipulated music. In 2002, I wrestled with this in an essay:

|||||

Michael Jackson sold 47 million copies of "Thriller," which sounds like a lot until one realizes that Dunkin' Donuts sells more cups of coffee than that in one month. In fact, more people have a cup of Dunkin' Donuts coffee than watch Bill O'Reilly on the same day. But note where Dunkin' Donuts stands in the media cultural hierarchy compared to Jackson and O'Reilly.
It's actually far worse than that. An ABC News poll last year found that 38% of Americans considered Elvis Presley the greatest rock star ever. Jimi Hendrix came in second at four percent and Michael Jackson tied Lennon, Jagger, Springsteen, McCartney, and Clapton at 2%. In all, pollees list 128 different names. Even among 18-34 year olds, Presley beat Hendrix 2 to 1, albeit getting only 19% of the votes.

The matter is further complicated by the fact that we do not know how the over 200 million Americans who did not buy a copy of 'Thriller' felt about Jackson. Some were married to a purchaser, some have downloaded it, some picked it up second hand or from a sibling. But is it not possible that among this vast pool we might not actually find a many people who disliked Jackson's music as liked it?

Yes it is. And although I have not been able to find an American study that deals with this issue, a fascinating examination of Japanese adolescent tastes in western music suggests what we might discover.

Here are the percentages of Japanese adolescents who liked very much a genre of music followed by the percentages of those that didn't like it at all:

Rock: 45, 28
Rap: 26, 43
Top Forty: 25, 43
Classical: 23, 48
Jazz: 23, 45
Techno: 22, 47
Soul: 17, 53
Country: 15, 53
Heavy Metal: 12, 48
Punk: 11, 66
Easy Listening: 10, 60


Note that rock is the only category in which the percentage of those not liking it at all does not near 50%. Note also that one of the most disliked genres is something the media has labeled "easy listening."

So if you can't stand Jackson or his music, don't feel bad. You are just part of the silenced majority. Go down to Dunkin' Donuts have a cup of coffee like a real American.

|||||

Music has become the property of a small number of corporations, advised by some extremely bad lawyers, producing material that is often of marginal virtue and promoted by a media that doesn't care what it sounds like as long as the visuals and the story line are good You will know this has changed when a song about the second great depression hits the charts.

Charles S. Blow, NY Times
- According to data from the Recording Industry Association of America, since music sales peaked in 1999, the value of those sales, after adjusting for inflation, has dropped by more than half. At that rate, the industry could be decimated before Madonna's 60th birthday. The speed at which this industry is coming undone is utterly breathtaking.

First, piracy punched a big hole in it. Now music streaming - music available on demand over the Internet, free and legal - is poised to seal the deal.

The problem is that if people can get the music they want for free, why would they ever buy it, or even steal it? They won't. According to a March study by the NPD Group, a market research group for the entertainment industry, 13- to 17-year-olds "acquired 19 percent less music in 2008 than they did in 2007." CD sales among these teenagers were down 26 percent and digital purchases were down 13 percent.

And a survey of British music fans, conducted by the Leading Question - Music Ally and released last month, found that the percentage of 14- to 18-year-olds who regularly share files dropped by nearly a third from December 2007 to January 2009. On the other hand, two-thirds of those teens now listen to streaming music "regularly" and nearly a third listen to it every day.

Even if they choose to buy the music, the industry has handicapped its ability to capitalize on that purchase by allowing all songs to be bought individually, apart from their albums. This once seemed like a blessing. Now it looks more like a curse.

In previous forms, you had to take the bad with the good. You may have only wanted two or three songs, but you had to buy the whole 8-track, cassette or CD to get them. So in a sense, these bad songs help finance the good ones. The resulting revenue provided a cushion for the artists and record companies to take chances and make mistakes. Single song downloads helped to kill that.

A study last year conducted by members of PRS for Music, a nonprofit royalty collection agency, found that of the 13 million songs for sale online last year, 10 million never got a single buyer and 80 percent of all revenue came from about 52,000 songs. That's less than one percent of the songs.

NPD –According to The NPD Group, a leader in market research for the entertainment industry, teens (age 13 to 17) acquired 19 percent less music in 2008 than they did in 2007. CD purchasing declined 26 percent and paid digital downloads fell 13 percent compared with the prior year. In the case of paid digital downloads, 32 percent of teens purchasing less digital music expressed discontent with the music that was available for purchase, while 23 percent claimed to already have a suitable collection of digital music. Twenty-four percent of teens also cited cutbacks in overall entertainment spending as a reason for buying fewer downloads.

The downturn in paid music acquisition was matched by a downturn in the quantity of tracks downloaded from peer-to-peer networks, which fell 6 percent in 2008. The number of teens borrowing music, either to rip to a computer or burn to a CD, fell by 28 percent.

"While we expected to see the continued decline in CD purchasing among teens in NPD's music tracking surveys, it was surprising to see that fewer teens downloaded music from P2P sites or borrowed them from friends," said Russ Crupnick, entertainment industry analyst for The NPD Group. "These declines could be happening due to a lack of excitement among teens about the music available, but it could also reflect a larger shift in the ways teens interact with music, given that so much music is now available whenever and wherever they want it."

NPD's music tracking surveys noted sharp jumps in teen's usage of online listening sources and satellite radio in 2008. More than half of teens (52 percent) listened to online radio in 2008, compared to just 34 percent in 2007. Downloading or listening to music on social networks also saw a large increase – from 26 percent in 2007 to 46 percent in 2008; satellite radio listening among teens increased from 19 percent in 2007 to 31 percent in 2008. . .

According to NPD's Digital Music Monitor, 70 percent of Web-using teens actively used a portable music player in the fourth quarter of 2008, which is virtually unchanged from the same quarter the year prior.

"The music industry still hasn't recovered from declining CD sales, and now they are being challenged anew by slowing digital sales among teens," Crupnick continued.

Guardian, UK - According to a new study, of the 13m songs available for sale on the internet last year, more than 10m failed to find a single buyer. The research, conducted by the MCPS-PRS's Will Page and Andrew Bud, brings us that much closer to proving Sturgeon's Law - that 90% of everything is crap. It also provides evidence for the famous old rock critic adage - your favorite band sucks. . .

Page is the chief economist at the MCPS-PRS Alliance, a not-for-profit royalty collection agency. According to his and Bud's research, 80% of all revenue came from about 52,000 tracks – the "hits" that powered the music industry. Broken down by album, only 173,000 of the 1.23m available albums were ever purchased – leaving 85% without a single copy sold.

6 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The intersting thing is that in today's environment Woody Guthrie's or Bob Dylan's success would not be possible since much of their music particularly melody was taken from what used to be called public domain. Guthrie generally didn't claim the anonymously written music as his own, but Dylan had a habit of ascribing the pd melodys as his own. It doesn't take much of an ear to recognize "Ramblin' 'round as an adaptation of Huddy Ledbetter's "Goodnight Irene". Thank god ascap is a relative latecomer, but no telling how much damage it's currently doing.

August 4, 2009 9:56 PM  
Anonymous enough is enough said...

I thought it obvious, but by extrapolation let me say that art, history, music, indeed much of human experience is cumulative collaborative and communal and for some stupid-ass corporation to be claiming it exclusively points to the reason we have to abolish corporations. It's either us or them!

August 4, 2009 10:47 PM  
Blogger pmatthews said...

Great post!!
Thanks for sharing.

Stay connected with friends at global personal
networking
.

August 5, 2009 5:11 AM  
Blogger m said...

Entertainment industry associations screw not only the customer, the culture, but also the artists.

The Tolkien family has had to sue over their royalties, unpaid on the three "Lord of the Rings" movies.

One major folk singer, still selling well today in a 40+ year career, claims she has never gotten a dime from recording royalties. Other artists make the same claims.

The entertainment industry has the ability to crush its customers and artists through its corrupt capacity to buy law at the levels of the Legislature, the Courts and the Executive.

August 5, 2009 8:39 AM  
Anonymous hawkwind said...

"The recording industry - whether because it has been badly misled by its lawyers or because of innate incompetence - has been trying to justify its collapse on free downloads." You are far too kind with these two options; the actual answer is "deliberate malfeasance". These people have high-paid jobs and (understandably) are loath to see said jobs disappear due to changes in the business... so if they yell loud enough they can forestall the inevitable long enough to buy that extra Mercedes...

In 1981 I did a paper in high-school (college credit) Economics on the "record industry slump" which the usual suspects were blaming on "home taping" (why does everyone forget this? It was a big story at the time). The issues of economics and law were virtually the same in that issue as in "file-sharing". The RIAA was able to bully Congress into imposing a tax on recording tapes that went directly into their pockets (which is probably still on the books) meaning that when I or you record my or your own original music I or you get the privilege of subsidizing some industry a-hole's swimming pool. (By a few cents, but it's the principal of the thing that galls). One thing I learned is that this issue has played out in this same industry for almost a century... sheet music publishers fought against records, the record industry fought radio, etc; all assuming that the new technology would "doom" music but of course the music went on... what was "doomed" was the jobs and high salaries of executives who weren't able to adapt. Right now some (small, of course) music companies who have embraced youtube and filesharing are seeing profits; eventually a new business model will arise.

August 5, 2009 9:42 AM  
Anonymous hawkwind said...

"The recording industry - whether because it has been badly misled by its lawyers or because of innate incompetence - has been trying to justify its collapse on free downloads." You are far too kind with these two options; the actual answer is "deliberate malfeasance". These people have high-paid jobs and (understandably) are loath to see said jobs disappear due to changes in the business... so if they yell loud enough they can forestall the inevitable long enough to buy that extra Mercedes...

In 1981 I did a paper in high-school (college credit) Economics on the "record industry slump" which the usual suspects were blaming on "home taping" (why does everyone forget this? It was a big story at the time). The issues of economics and law were virtually the same in that issue as in "file-sharing". The RIAA was able to bully Congress into imposing a tax on recording tapes that went directly into their pockets (which is probably still on the books) meaning that when I or you record my or your own original music I or you get the privilege of subsidizing some industry a-hole's swimming pool. (By a few cents, but it's the principal of the thing that galls). One thing I learned is that this issue has played out in this same industry for almost a century... sheet music publishers fought against records, the record industry fought radio, etc; all assuming that the new technology would "doom" music but of course the music went on... what was "doomed" was the jobs and high salaries of executives who weren't able to adapt. Right now some (small, of course) music companies who have embraced youtube and filesharing are seeing profits; eventually a new business model will arise.

August 5, 2009 9:42 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home