backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 189 comment(s) - last by FaceMaster.. on Jan 15 at 4:18 PM
Poor music sales blamed on pirates and video games

Music fans have gone digital in a big way. It used to be that a music collection spanned numerous CD cases. Today, even the largest music collections can be stored on a single MP3 player. With the massive growth in digital music sales, the music industry is seeing profits drop significantly.

Reuters reports that statistics released this week by Nielsen SoundScan show that 2008 was the worst year for music sales since 1991 when the firm began monitoring the category. The numbers show that total album sales fell 14% over the year with 428.4 million units sold during the 52 weeks ending on December 28.

According to the figures, sales have dropped 45% from the highest point seen by the industry in 2000 when 785.1 million albums were sold. According to Reuters, the biggest reasons for such a precipitous drop are music pirates and other forms of entertainment like video games. The global recession also accounted for some of the loss in sales.

Digital track sales though retailers like iTunes grew 27% to 10.7 billion units sold. The growth rate is less than the 45% increase seen in 2007 so growth in digital track sales is slowing. Ringtones were important this year and sales of the top 100 mastertone ringers dropped 33% to 43.8 million units. Only one of the mastertone's broke the 2 million sold mark -- Lil Wayne's "Lollipop".

The rapper also took the award for year's best selling album with 2.9 million units of his "The Carter III" sold. Taylor Swift sold the most albums total this year with 4 million copies of her album "Fearless" and her debut album sold over the year.

Despite the slowing, but continued growth in digital music sales, the lower margin digital tracks are unable to make up the money lost to declining physical medium sales. Some of the biggest record labels have bet on the new slotMusic format to help resurrect physical medium music sales.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By Rockjock51 on 1/2/2009 1:08:39 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Poor music sales blamed on pirates and video games


Funny. I tend to think it should be blamed on bad music.




By mmntech on 1/2/2009 1:10:29 PM , Rating: 5
Not everyone likes rap and R&B. Who would've thunk it?


By axeman1957 on 1/2/2009 1:26:42 PM , Rating: 5
I think the recording industry expects you to re-buy your favorite CDs every year, or buy a separate copy for your home, your car, MP3 player, and computer.


By quiksilvr on 1/3/2009 2:27:07 PM , Rating: 2
This is what record labels need to do:
1) Go 100% Digital
2) Set the maximum price of songs to $0.10 each, with a partial contribution of that money for charity.
3) Set the quality to 320 kbps in mp3 format
4) DRM Free

Until then, expect piracy to be an issue.


By chaos386 on 1/3/2009 2:59:03 PM , Rating: 5
Oh, and a free unicorn with each album purchase!


By inighthawki on 1/3/2009 7:33:41 PM , Rating: 5
What's wrong with that? First of all, it's FREE from an inexperienced (who even SAYS he's inexperienced) person. Secondly, some people like that kind of music. Personally i think it's quite enjoyable for something just to sit to.


By 3kliksphilip on 1/3/2009 7:56:43 PM , Rating: 5
Thanks!


By Cypherdude1 on 1/5/2009 4:57:24 AM , Rating: 2
You (occasionally) hear the RIAA and its mega-company clients talk about how copying "hurts the artists." Actually, the producers pay their signed artists virtually NOTHING! If you saw the royalty checks many artists receive from their producers, you'd be shocked. In addition, CD producers often understate their sales so they can rip their artists off. Artists often must sue CD producers to receive what's owed them.


By Cypherdude1 on 1/5/2009 5:17:27 AM , Rating: 1
I forgot to mention: The techonology now exists to completely cut out the CD-producers and distributors. I'm sure some of you out there must realize by now, they have become nothing more than expensive middlemen!

Sooner or later, unless someone hasn't already done this, a central website will be created where talented new artists will upload and sell their MP3's and burned CD's without any RIAA and their mega-client involvement. In fact, I'm sure you could probably already do this at Amazon simply by contacting them with multiple artist clients behind you.

How much does it cost to burn a CD and print it with some simple artwork, 20¢, maybe 40¢? How much are the mega-companies charging us so they can keep their CEO's in their beachhouses, $15?


By rudolphna on 1/5/2009 1:11:04 PM , Rating: 3
its too bad there isnt anything below -1.... If there was this would definetely be -9. Shut up as5 hole.


By FaceMaster on 1/15/2009 4:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
its too bad there isnt anything below -1.... If there was this would definetely be -9.


Yes I thought that too when I heard his music. Seriously, some people should be executed for making music that bad.


By trisct on 1/5/2009 4:40:50 PM , Rating: 2
A perfect example of why music is in the dumps.

This guy thinks there IS no other kind of music except for gangsta crap. I bet his pants fall off too.


By inighthawki on 1/3/2009 8:16:02 PM , Rating: 4
hey lol, you're actually posting here :P. I've actually been listening to some of that since i read that post, it's pretty good. Do you have any links to download some of them?


By 3kliksphilip on 1/3/2009 9:16:51 PM , Rating: 5
Thanks again!

http://uk.youtube.com/user/alwaysintheface

You click on the song you want to listen to and the link will be in the description.


By inighthawki on 1/3/2009 10:44:25 PM , Rating: 3
Thanks a bunch, I've been looking for something new to listen to and i think this will be good. I appreciate it, good work keep it up!


By inighthawki on 1/3/2009 10:50:17 PM , Rating: 3
Also if you don't mind, may i ask what program you use to make this? I've kinda always wanted to try to mix up my own tunes...


By 3kliksphilip on 1/4/2009 8:51:12 AM , Rating: 2
I've just been messing about on FL Studio for 6 months, doing everything with my mouse. I don't have a musical keyboard (And wouldn't know how to play it any way)


By William Gaatjes on 1/4/2009 8:59:19 AM , Rating: 2
You should get one. If you can make this with a mouse you sure must have some feeling for music. On a blue monday i bought a cs1x cause some buddies where making music too. I gave it up cause i didn't had the time nor did i have any musical qualities. But as i see it you should really think about getting a keyboard or something...

It's ancient but works great.
http://www.vintagesynth.com/yamaha/cs1x.shtml


By William Gaatjes on 1/4/2009 7:16:59 AM , Rating: 2
Very much enjoyable.

Keep it up.


By William Gaatjes on 1/4/2009 7:31:52 AM , Rating: 2
Did you make this at home or in a rented studio or something ? With every song i like it more.


By 3kliksphilip on 1/4/2009 8:51:53 AM , Rating: 2
I made it in my bedroom. Thanks for your support.


By MrPoletski on 1/5/2009 3:37:38 AM , Rating: 2
what are u using?

Might I reccomend image lines fruityloops, its a good easy package to use with a lot f advanced features. A great bit of software to start from. They have a demo on their website, forget the address, google it;)


By michaelheath on 1/3/2009 3:48:28 PM , Rating: 1
1.) Where's the bandwidth to do so coming from in North America? What would keep hackers from breaking into a music company's server and stealing everything? How does that stop people from copying the music and giving it to someone who didn't pay a dime for it?
2.) $0.10 per song might pay enough to keep the electricity powering the distribution servers on. $0.60 might be enough to break even, with nobody profiting off of the switch to digital (and what company do you know of that wouldn't want to make a profit?).
3.) Way to kill sound quality and make all of the audiophiles mad.
4.) I don't see DRM going away in an all digital distribution world, as there would be no way for a company to track what was purchased legally and what might have been stolen.


By mcnabney on 1/4/2009 2:17:51 AM , Rating: 4
#4 - I didn't think that was something that needed to be done. I am pretty sure that there is not and should not be a requirement for a person to be able to prove valid ownership of anything.


By rudolphna on 1/5/2009 1:14:00 PM , Rating: 2
3.Actually 128kbps AAC doesnt sound that bad. 256kbps AAC sounds pretty damn good too.


By Drexial on 1/5/2009 2:52:09 PM , Rating: 3
1.) What do you think is being used to DL Pirated music right now... clearly the bandwidth is there otherwise Pirates wouldn't be able to use it. Hackers could do that now if they wanted and just batch strip the DRM off.

2.) At a $.99 a song you are paying the distributor, the label (a very bloated fee), producers, and artists. I'm pretty sure at $.20 a song you could cover everything you needed with direct sales. There is no physical media involved.

3.) 320 KBs is what a standard CD is. It would take what 5 seconds of extra effort to release a lossless version for like $.10-.15 more. that would be better quality then any limited capacity media offers. That's the joy of digital distribution. A codec download is all it would take to change standards. Think of going from Vinyl->8 track->Cassette->CD->? All with hardware upgrades and cost of physical media.

4.) DRM has only made the cost of digital downloads more expensive. To have to run servers on top of the distribution servers. want to talk about a waste of money. DRM is usually broken even before its released.


By ggordonliddy on 1/4/2009 10:59:38 PM , Rating: 1
What kind of complete dumbass would buy digital music that is not in a 100% lossless form (such as FLAC)?


By inighthawki on 1/5/2009 1:08:17 AM , Rating: 3
Someone who's isnt extremely picky and NEEDS 100% super lossless quality to be happy?

Or maybe just someone without any codecs who knows and is happy with mp3's...

I'm sure there are plenty of reasons.


By UNHchabo on 1/5/2009 12:25:30 PM , Rating: 5
I used to not be picky about audio quality, and I ripped all of my CDs to 160kbps MP3s. My CDs got stolen, and then a couple years later I got good sound equipment. Suddenly I could hear the difference, and I wished I'd ripped all of those CDs at a higher quality setting.

Nowadays I rip all of my CDs to FLAC, so that I can recreate the CD audio perfectly if I ever lose my CDs again. Then for my MP3 player (which is running Rockbox), I compress them to Oggs to save space.

I wrote a program to do this automatically: http://sourceforge.net/projects/flacsquisher

FlacSquisher can also output to MP3s, but one big thing that irks me about MP3s is that they don't handle gapless playback well, and I listen to a ton of bands that have seamless transitions between tracks, like Dream Theater and Pink Floyd.

Encoders get updated, mainly due to improvements in the psychoacoustic model. LAME just had an update to their model a couple months ago. Now I can take my FLACs, make new Oggs or MP3s, and have all of the benefits of the new encoder.


By AstroCreep on 1/3/2009 6:25:48 PM , Rating: 5
Well, if you listen to the music industry, they want you to do just that.
I remember a year or two ago when one of the industry execs (or lawyers, I don't remember, as it happened in relation to one of the RIAA lawsuits) said that it is ILLEGAL to buy a CD then rip it to your computer/digital media player; you are expected to purchase a separate 'copy' of the song(s) for your PC/media player as ripping doesn't constitute "Fair Use".

A-holes...


By LRonaldHubbs on 1/3/2009 10:29:44 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
...or buy a separate copy for your home, your car, MP3 player, and computer.

That's exactly what they expect. RIAA lawyers have explicity stated under oath that copying CDs you own onto your computer for personal use is stealing.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-sony...
Ironically, it was one of Sony's lawyers that said it, and Sony includes ripping software with their MP3 players.


By TwistyKat on 1/2/2009 1:28:06 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Not everyone likes rap and R&B.


Or manufactured pop stars.

quote:
Today, even the largest music collections can be stored on a single MP3 player.


Sure, if you are creating or pirating highly lossy files. I burn music from my CDs to near-lossless Ogg/Vorbis files which sound great but take up gigs upon gigs of space.

My trusty little Cowon only holds 2GB, but I may upgrade to the 8GB model soon.


By spread on 1/2/2009 1:33:48 PM , Rating: 2
Consider something else. I've got the D2,very nice player with great sound and a terrible interface.


By Omega215D on 1/2/2009 5:23:25 PM , Rating: 2
The Cowon S9 has a much improved interface or the Samsung P2 is just as good. Sony has great sound quality but comes with a high cost.


By inighthawki on 1/2/2009 2:05:24 PM , Rating: 4
True, however, many people have the 30+GB ipod models and sometimes only several gigs of music. Even in a lossless format i bet many would struggle to fill 30GB of music. (Not to say nobody could though, lol)


By BigPeen on 1/2/2009 5:02:26 PM , Rating: 3
I've got 27 gigs of music at low bitrate on my ipod. Plus another 8 gigs of photos and 5 gigs of videos, and I'm just starting. It's not that hard.


By inighthawki on 1/2/2009 11:10:07 PM , Rating: 2
Like I said, some people CAN, some people CAN'T. I've seen people struggle to get even 3GB of music at average quality, let alone 30. It depends on the person, I was not speaking for everyone.


By icanhascpu on 1/4/2009 9:09:15 PM , Rating: 2
What do you mean you "bet"? Are you unable to do simple math?

Thats around 42 CDs.

Lets not even get inti hifi audio thats on DVDs.


By blppt on 1/2/2009 2:07:45 PM , Rating: 5
"Or manufactured pop stars."

+1.

And yet, here we are, about to be beseiged by another season of American Idol, where another talentless singer/songwriter will saturate our airwaves with mediocrity. Nice to know Simon and Paula (who hasnt been relevant to songwriting since the early 90s) will have the final word on what we should all be listening to.


By BladeVenom on 1/2/2009 3:08:05 PM , Rating: 5
I would say something about American Idol, but I'm too busy playing video games to ever watch that show.


By mmntech on 1/2/2009 3:53:40 PM , Rating: 5
But you can play the American idol game now!


By HighWing on 1/3/2009 12:57:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
but it's obviously very popular


I think music sales of Idol winners proves that TV popularity does not always equate to Music Popularity. I know "some" have made it big, but most have not.


By just4U on 1/4/2009 3:45:03 AM , Rating: 1
True enough, and I really don't expect that to be a given.


By William Gaatjes on 1/4/2009 7:28:12 AM , Rating: 1
Leone Lewis is great, i do hope she keeps singing from the heart and NOT from the pocketbook or wallet as many singers like for example Screamtina and Britney do or that once promising singer turned pornstar Mariah Carey. Paul Potts is another great example. I stumbled into Leona and Paul through the use of youtube.

I saw such a show idols once in my country when in the first show some tonedeaf boy won while a young woman who could actually sing and perform lost. That's the last time i ever looked at these shows again.


By just4U on 1/4/2009 8:10:46 PM , Rating: 1
it's really a problem of "who" votes and how often. Theory is you get a bunch of teen aged (or middle aged) female fans that vote more on their hormones then accual talent so women don't typically do as well as the men. AI has been different in that tho as in general results are not typical each year. (unlike other idol type competitions in other countries)


By Whedonic on 1/3/2009 2:27:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Today, even the largest music collections can be stored on a single MP3 player.

Heheh, maybe most people, but I just bought my girlfriend a 500gb harddrive for her collection...and I'm not sure even that is enough.


By mikefarinha on 1/2/2009 6:05:07 PM , Rating: 4
I think the music industry needs a bail-out!

I mean think of all these poor artists that could be out of a job....


By Dark Legion on 1/3/2009 3:43:23 AM , Rating: 3
What?!?! You mean they might have to downgrade their private jets?! They can't buy that private island in Hawaii anymore, they will just have to buy a new house?! What a horrible world they are living in.


By Oregonian2 on 1/2/2009 7:58:26 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Not everyone likes rap and R&B. Who would've thunk it?


Rap counts toward music sales?


By Hiawa23 on 1/5/2009 6:00:00 PM , Rating: 2
Not everyone likes rap and R&B. Who would've thunk it?

All I listen to is hip hop & R & B but not sure I get what point you are trying to make. Was music sales only down in these two types of music or music as a whole?


By johnbuk on 1/2/2009 1:22:40 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Reuters reports that statistics released this week by Nielsen SoundScan show that 2008 was the worst year for music sales since 1991...


I read that without the sales part the first time through...without the sales part, I tend to agree...worst year for music since 1991...which may explain the bad sales...


By Soundgardener on 1/5/2009 4:30:37 AM , Rating: 1
I thought 1991 was a brilliant year for music:

Badmotorfinger - Soundgarden
Temple of the Dog (eponymous)
Ten - Pearl Jam
Nevermind - Nirvana
Gish - Smashing Pumpkins
Black (or whatever) - Metallica
Use Your Illusion I&II - Guns N Roses
Blue Lines - Massive Attack

Not to mention Dinosaur Jr, Fugazi, Urge Overkill etc etc...


By AlexWade on 1/2/2009 1:26:08 PM , Rating: 5
You have to remember who you are dealing with. Their reasoning starts with something not true, and they go from there. Here is their reasoning and logic:

"We, the record labels, are not to blame for any woes. Therefore, who is to blame? Since sales are down and we are not to blame, then one thing must be piracy. Plus some other things can be blamed, like video games and a bad economy. That is the only logical conclusion since we, the record labels, are blameless."

The record labels put out bad music that sounds eerily similar to all the other songs already on the radio. Artists creative freedoms are squashed. The record labels also treat customers like dirt. The net result is many, like myself, go to indie labels. But they can't see that, because that would require to admit they are wrong. They aren't humble enough to admit mistakes.


By Aloonatic on 1/2/2009 3:39:44 PM , Rating: 5
If only there was some way to pirate music before the internets and MP3s.

That tape cassette recorder that my stereo had never ever had the record button pressed, not once. It was in mint condition when i sent it off to be recycled.

The same was true with computer games. Before the internet, when games were on cassette tape or floppies there was no way to copy games then either.

The good old days, when you couldn't copy at home and share with friends.

Oh wait... there was and whilst the industry moaned and bitched they still managed to survive. Music (Games and Software for that matter) have been pirated for a long long time.

As pointed out in many other comments above, the main problem that the music industry has is that they have poisoned their own well with mediocrity and a commitment to stifle any truly creative artist as there is no/less money in them for the suits upstairs.

Sadly, it is not in the industries interests nurture artists like (just an example, not saying that they were the greatest and that everyone should love them or whatever) The Beatles. If they were around today they wouldn't get too much support, or would be leaned on to create several albums that all sounded the same that people would get sick off pretty quickly.

The industry wants clones who they can flog to death and then dump with their underwear inside out the the verge of the musical highway before starting over again with another artist who (amazingly) sounds just as average as the last.

The sooner large music corps die the better for true music lovers. There is no real need for them any more. Computers and the net have freed up bands to record, produce and distribute pretty much everything themselves, without the assistance of some sleaze ball who happens to have a few DJs in their back pocket and all that other promotional shenanigans.

Democratic music is what the people want and they are slowly getting it.

Viva la revolution.


By Oregonian2 on 1/2/2009 8:00:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That tape cassette recorder that my stereo had never ever had the record button pressed, not once. It was in mint condition when i sent it off to be recycled.


Mine too. My reel-to-reel had a mint condition record button too!


By gerf on 1/2/2009 9:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
Also, for some reason I doubt that the "Music Industry" had a good year in 2008 B.C.E. either.


By kmmatney on 1/7/2009 2:43:44 PM , Rating: 2
Of course you could copy tapes, but the sound quality wasn't good enough to prevent you from buying CDs. Also, the sound quality degraded with every copy of the copy. Now, every copy is perfect - big difference. And you can fit all of your music on an MP3 player that is as large as one cassette tape.

I'm not a big fan of the music industry, but it's no coincidence that music sales have been dropping since MP3s came available and could be so easily copied. Personally, about half of my music is downloaded, and the other half is from by 150 CD collection I had before I knew about MP3s. Since 2000, I've pretty much downloaded all my music, and a lot of people I know are doing the same.

Also, the excuse that music is bad nowadays is lame. When I used to purchase CDs, most of the music I bought was older music (Beatles, The Who, Led Zeppelin, etc...). The music industry has always pushed lame music, even back in the CD days. Nothing has changed in that regard.

Games have always been pirated, but I think the difference is that the cost of production is now so high that piracy hurts more than it used to. That's why the computer gaming industry is dying - much better to write games for the console, and port to computer as an afterthought.


By foolsgambit11 on 1/2/2009 6:19:54 PM , Rating: 4
Album sales are obviously being cannibalized by legitimate online music retailers like iTunes, where you only buy the 1 or 2 songs you like from an album. As more and more people switch to this purchasing model, album sales have been steadily declining. I really don't think piracy is much more common now than it was 5 or 8 years ago. I think that's just a reflexive comment by the industry - "oh, it's pirates". At least this year they also acknowledged that people are looking to different kinds of entertainment than music (although they don't say it's because so much music sucks).

Additionally, it's possible that satellite radio may have some impact on album sales. A lot of people's "music listening time" is in the car, but if they can get a variety of music they want to listen to on the radio, they buy less recorded music. Possibly.

By the numbers, album sales were off by 14%. Of course luxury purchases like music are going to drop in a worsening economy. On the stock market, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was off 35%. I think the recording industry should be thanking their lucky stars.


By inighthawki on 1/2/2009 11:39:40 PM , Rating: 2
I agree completely. Album sales are of course going to be a lot lower especially when itunes allows you to buy individual songs. From my experience, I would say that most albums that come out now have 2-3 good songs and the rest aren't worth listening to, and its sometimes that way to gear songs towards multiple groups of listeners at once, which is a good reason to only spend $2-3 on 2-3 songs than $10-$15 on the whole album, only to listen to 2-3 of the songs.


By just4U on 1/3/2009 11:26:37 AM , Rating: 2
I think what we will see is albums eventually become a nitch market. Probably dvd's with multimedia content, videos and their tracks along with some other special features. Basically packed full with a crap load of content to offer value for those that like to buy Artist's goods (Tshirts, Posters ect) Shoot maybe even a grab bag type thing where it includes a digital copy to. (who knows)

Atleast that's where I see albums heading. It's interesting.. Im sure that 10X the manpower goes into creating many solid games and yet most can be had for roughly 2x the cost of a major CD and the people behind it generally don't bring down the salaries we see with Music Moguls.


By inighthawki on 1/3/2009 12:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
I do believe some artists already feature DVDs with videos and extra content on it, usually in some kind of "live" content pack. They also tend to cost more money, so unless they want to lose even more customers it would be in their best interest to keep the cheapest option available.


By BZDTemp on 1/2/2009 9:18:54 PM , Rating: 1
Not so - sure piracy is some of it but lets look at what the industry always "forgets" to mention when they lobby for stricter laws.

- A Large part of the CD sale was people re-buying albums the had on other media (mainly LP's).
- A lot of the main customers for new music has taken to gaming. And while some games work fine with music lots of them come with their own music. The result is less hours to listen to music.
- The easy access to buy single tracks. Many people buy single tracks instead of albums. That is a 10 fold decrease in sales right there for many artist.
- On-line radio and DAB radio. Many more music channels to chose from.

Plus finally there is the problems with few really new super stars in music. Taste is always open for discussion but lets face there are limits to how much music one can listen to and with few mega bands like Stones, Beatles, Queen, ABBA (sorry, but they were big) and the like for many it's why buy more music when I prefer what I have.


By MrDiSante on 1/3/2009 11:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
I think
quote:
We must blame them and cause a fuss
before someone thinks of blaming us.

is a pretty good summary of the recording industry's logic (thank you South Park).

As you said, thank god there are independent labels, and thank Radiohead for showing indie artists (such as www.dissidentsaint.com) how to properly release their music, although I can't really say that I like Radiohead's music, they did start something.


By drebo on 1/2/2009 1:33:51 PM , Rating: 2
I'd have to agree with this.

But, also, with the ability to just buy the good songs off the album for a fraction of what the album costs, who's going to buy the entire thing? I mean, seriously, when was the last time an album was released that had all good songs on it? I can't recall one this decade.

The music industry has begun catering to the tween crowd the same way television has. It's no wonder sales are falling off. Smart people aim their products at the people who have disposable income. I.e. those in their early 20s and those after their late 30s. Early 20s don't want to listen to Miley Cyrus or Lil Wayne. Those after their late 30s are probably still listening to the classic rock of the 70s and 80s. Figure out what the people in their early 20s want to listen to and stop trying to manufacture "recording artists" and go back to signing garage bands.

If the music industry would stop wasting money on no-talent acts, their profits wouldn't be so bad. I'm not opposed to purchasing an album, but I can't remember the last time one came out that I felt inclined to buy. I already have all the classic rock albums I need, and it's not like any more are going to come out any time soon. What incentive is there for me to buy albums?


By Sunrise089 on 1/2/2009 2:13:01 PM , Rating: 2
Well singles have always been available, but I agree digital distribution and a cheap 99cent price makes them more compelling than ever.

The main answer I can give to "when was the last time an album was released that had all good songs on it?" is to offer up Green Day's "American Idiot" and My Chemical Romance's "The Black Parade." Certainly most people wouldn't find all of the songs on the album (or any of the songs) good, BUT as concept albums the sub-par songs can at least be heard in the context of the overall story. While of course not every artist wants to make exclusively concept albums, I think they make a compelling case for how albums can still be relevant even if only a few songs are single-worthy.


By 9nails on 1/2/2009 2:47:14 PM , Rating: 2
That's a few artists. So it sounds like not many out of the total of album releases since 2000 were worth buying. I'd throw in Evanescence - The Fallen (2003) and The Killers - Hut Fuss (2004), but even still we're counting on one hand. I can name far more video games that I enjoyed than music albums. I totally agree with you that digital singles is the predominate distribution method. Albums are no longer capturing interests due to a lack of production value or worthwhile message.

I've also found that lots of Pop music, which is typically a one hit wonder factory, was released in this time. And lots of R&B music, with the theme of; Hey, you have a nice ass, lets f**k here in this club - was released. Just like the rest of the out of touch music industry, this stuff is out dated and no longer capturing public interest.


By tdawg on 1/2/2009 4:59:37 PM , Rating: 2
If I may add a few to this list (not sure about the Evanescence album myself, but that's the beauty of music taste), here are a few that come to mind immediately:

Interpol - Turn on the Bright Lights
Clap Your Hands Say Yeah - Clap Your Hands Say Yeah
Vampire Weekend - Vampire Weekend
Band of Horses - Everything All The Time

You can tell where my taste lies, but these are definitely quality albums that deserve your (the royal "you", not 9nails, specifically) attention.


By foolsgambit11 on 1/2/2009 6:33:42 PM , Rating: 2
Interpol and CYHSY would definitely make my list. I haven't heard the full Vampire Weekend album, and I've never heard of Band of Horses. So thanks for the tip-offs to some potentially good music.

I'd add The Shins - Chutes Too Narrow (and 90% of Oh Inverted World). The Strokes 'Is This It' isn't exactly deep, but it's total fun from start to finish. 'The Creek Drank the Cradle' by Iron & Wine will mellow things out a bit. I could go on, I'm sure. But mostly, I'd just say 'look to non-RIAA labels', like Matador, Sub-Pop, Kill Rock Stars, etc. Without the automatic sales figures of big-named bands, they're forced to put out a quality product from start to finish if they want recognition and sales.


By therealnickdanger on 1/2/2009 10:19:33 PM , Rating: 2
Small Towns Burn a Little Slower - So Begins the Test of a Man. 2008 marked their best album and their breakup. :(


By Omega215D on 1/3/2009 12:35:32 AM , Rating: 2
You guys should check out The Faint - Agenda Suicide, especially the video on Youtube with those people jumping in front of a train.


By JediJeb on 1/5/2009 3:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
Guess I can see why the sales are down, I haven't even heard of any of the groups listed in the above posts. Of course with my collection of CDs( all 10 of them) the record companies never made any money off me. No I didn't pirate any( unless you count what I picked up to replace what I had on 8tracks I could no longer play), I just don't listen to much music. Actually most of the people I know hardly listen to music. From what I see, music seems to be fading on the list of things people want to spend time doing, or even have the time to do.

Back when you had 3 TV stations to choose from there was always music to fill the times when you didn't have anything to watch. Now with 100+ stations to choose from, console games, computer games, cellphones to call people from anywhere not just when you were sitting at home, texting, ect. music has just become one of many things to take up time. Life is now run on sensory overload, and many like me just want to get home and sit in some peace and quiet. Not to mention if the quality of the music is so bad it makes it much easier to choose one of the other things to spend our time on.

Also the music industry seems to be the only one that wants to raise their price when sales fall. Supply of new performers is up, demand is down, and yet they raise prices. I have a feeling the greed of the music industry ( not the performers but the corporations) will bring it crashing down very soon.


By drebo on 1/3/2009 1:16:58 AM , Rating: 2
I whole-heartedly disagree.

If you take any of the bands listed in this thread and compare them to the Rolling Stones, Lynyrd Skynyrd, the Kinks, the Sex Pistols, and even 80s bands like early Metallica and Red Hot Chili Peppers or early 90s like Sublime, there's just no contest. Music in the last 15 years is just plain not good.

The best songs out today aren't as good as the worst songs from the 60s, 70s, or 80s.


By Dark Legion on 1/3/2009 4:03:21 AM , Rating: 2
Keep in mind that people have different music tastes. People growing up this generation may prefer this generation's music. That is not to say I disagree, but keep that in mind.


By foolsgambit11 on 1/4/2009 3:46:59 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, there was great music in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's. There's also great music this millennium. I disagree with your list of the best bands of those decades - I'm more Beatles than Stones. Big Star or Bowie over Skynyrd. The Kinks are good. So are the Who. I'd do The Smiths or The Talking Heads over the Sex Pistols. And Nirvana could take the Chili Peppers or Sublime easy. With your 'harder hitting' list of great bands, why not go for the White Stripes for this millennium? Too raw?

As for the best songs of today not living up to the worst of the 60's-80's. That's obviously hyperbole. Are you really going to defend Wang Chung? Wham!? Eric Carmen? The Captain and Tennille? "Knock Three Times (on the Ceiling If You Want Me)"? "We Are The World"? (And the list could go on and on and on and on.....) Time helps separate the wheat from the chaff, and many songs that were just awful have, thankfully, almost disappeared from history. But even the dreck that remains can still be horrible - "Judy in Disguise (With Glasses)"? Come on. There's no way that song is better than every song of 2008, even in your estimation.


By inighthawki on 1/4/2009 7:12:23 PM , Rating: 2
That's a very subjective opinion. Personally I hate the music from the 60s-80s, I think it's all pretty awful. I'd take some of the music from this generation over the Beatles, Rolling Stones, etc any day.


By AlexWade on 1/3/2009 8:32:21 AM , Rating: 2
One of my favorite labels is Nettwerk. I really like a lot of artists with them. Many of their albums you can get on emusic.com. I also like Matador.


By Cypherdude1 on 1/4/2009 8:01:30 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The main answer I can give to "when was the last time an album was released that had all good songs on it?" is to offer up Green Day's "American Idiot"


Sorry, no. Actually, all of Green Day's "American Idiot" songs sound the same. There are only 2 good songs on that CD: Holiday and Boulevard Of Broken Dreams .


By Jellodyne on 1/5/2009 3:20:26 PM , Rating: 2
I would question the reason to buy singles. Singles you can hear on the radio all day long. If you're listening to commercial radio, you probably get to hear singles repeated until you just can't take them anymore.

Must of the bands I follow put out solid albums. The reason to buy the album is to hear what else is on it other than the singles. In fact a lot of time when I listen to an album the single is the song that grates, because its been overplayed.


By ThePooBurner on 1/2/2009 1:36:30 PM , Rating: 3
My sentiments exactly. It seems that piracy is instantly blamed for anything that doesn't sell well these days. How can it be that the companies are so blind to the fact that they are not producing products that anyone wants to have? It seems totally unreasonable that piracy has grown so much over the last few years as to suddenly be such a huge and damaging problem that it has power to suddenly bring the market to a grinding halt. I would agree that perhaps casual piracy has seen an increase, but not to the extent that it is being claimed to. And by casual piracy i mean getting copies of songs from friends to try out before buying. Most people that i know who copy stuff from others libraries either listen to it for a week and then never again or delete it from their library to make room for something else. Anything i ever let my friends copy in the past has been lost to them. Reformats, new HDDs or computers. Those who aren't like us (computer enthusiasts) are the casual pirates, and their lack of knowledge keeps them from doing what we do: making a good backup of EVERYTHING before they make a big change in their hardware.

Anyway, the point is a problem that has been very consistent in the past history of it's existence doesn't suddenly become epidemic in as short of a time span as it is being claimed.

Note: This isn't an avocation of piracy, it's a complaint about scapegoating and refusal of responsibility for problems created by incompetence.


By Mitch101 on 1/2/2009 1:41:01 PM , Rating: 5
I cant name but one new artist this year and only a handful of decent songs this past year. If any of the typical big artists released anything new I haven't heard it or heard about it. Lame year in Music.

Kind of feel that radio stations are playing less music this year also or more classics. Come to think I haven't seen may commercials about new Music releases either. Cant recall the last time I saw a Target commercial where they promote a group.

Of course I got a bad cup of coffee this morning and I'm sure pirates and video games are to blame but Its probably the Bush Administration that is responsible for the lack of sales. Yup Im going with Bush Administration. That's my Final Answer.


By Screwballl on 1/2/2009 1:54:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Funny. I tend to think it should be blamed on bad music.


Give this person a +6

With the economy slowing, people are slowing down a bit and listening to more music while they kick back... and they are realizing that the music is crap which is causing lower sales.

Media "pirates" have only caused a tiny percentage of the market loss, not nearly as much as "they" would have you believe. Think about it, if there were no illegal music downloading, a large majority of the pirates would not be buying the music anyways. They were mostly people that borrowed 8tracks/tapes/records/CDs from friends or just listened to the radio, almost never buying their own physical music media. Now they have a way to get the music illegally, but that does not mean they would have ever bought them to begin with.

Many of the "pirates" associate music downloading with the radio, or movie downloads with TV. You have a radio, you listen to it for free. You have a TV, you watch movies for free. You have a computer, you download it for free. Granted some of them have a monthly fee to access (high speed internet access, cable tv, XM/Sirius radio) but the content beyond that point is seen as free.

Get ready for a media revolution. Another decade or two and RIAA/MPAA will be shut down and all artistic expression will be sold online for a fraction of what it is now and the content will become what the people want instead of this corporate crap produced today.


By Chadder007 on 1/2/2009 2:13:00 PM , Rating: 4
Can we get a bump to a 6 up in here.
Nail on the head. The worst music I have ever heard came out of this past year.


By someguy123 on 1/2/2009 7:58:37 PM , Rating: 4
you guys are nuts. i love listening to the same beat and melody with instruments slightly adjusted in the computer to sound different.

I love watching the grammies and seeing people who don't write their own lyrics nor produce their own music win multiple awards.

I love listening to how last week you and your buddies were in the club and some hot woman was totally flirting with you all night and you totally paid for all the drinks.

love hearing people compare themselves to the Beatles and then listening to their music which reminds me of Björk.


By foolsgambit11 on 1/2/2009 6:55:31 PM , Rating: 2
You can't just add 27 to -14 to get total sales. It depends on what portion of total sales albums were versus digital sales. They sold 428.4 million albums and had 10.7 billion digital track sales this year. Let's go with 1 album = 12 tracks (in reality, for the record company, the correlation would be based on profit margins of each type of sales, not typical number of tracks per album). So that would be equivalent of 891.6 million digital 'albums' sold. Total album sales for 2008 would be 1.32 billion. The 2007 numbers (extrapolated from percent change given) would have been 498.1 million albums and 702 million digital 'albums' - a total of 1.2 billion albums. So their overall growth in sales would be 10%.

Still, something to crow about in a shaky economy. Especially since (I assume) their margins on digital sales should be greater than on their physical sales. This would make profits increase faster than sales numbers, thanks to the growth being in their high-profit sector.


By just4U on 1/3/2009 11:48:19 AM , Rating: 2
You think they'd consider that.. and toast in a pretty good year overall. BUT, NO! The fat cats in the music industry cry about a half empty cup of yellow well water rather then one that's half full of the most expensive wine on Earth.


By cigar3tte on 1/2/2009 3:35:33 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, that line seriously made me sick. If "The Carter III" is the best selling album of the year, the problem is with the music available, not piracy.

This is coming from someone who loves hip hop music.


By Azzr34l on 1/2/2009 5:00:02 PM , Rating: 3
Seems pretty clear to me.

- CD sales down
- Digital sales up

Consumers are no longer willing to spend $12-$16 on a CD when they only want a couple songs from the CD. This is seemingly occurring more and more frequently.

I buy very few CDs now, only the ones where I like the majority of the songs, everything else is Amazon mp3. I'll trade off the slightly lower quality for saving a huge amount of money and it would appear the majority of music buyers in 2008 agree with me.


By eye smite on 1/2/2009 6:17:52 PM , Rating: 2
I would have to agree with you assesment. I don't buy or download music cause none of it appeals to me. Using the word garbage might be a bit too strong, but certainly none of the music out there has motivated me to part with my money for it. :-)


By plonk420 on 1/2/2009 8:04:09 PM , Rating: 5
hey! garbage was a good band! (first two albums, at least)


By semo on 1/3/2009 10:09:26 AM , Rating: 2
yeah garbage are good. how did they know their name would be ironic?


By plonk420 on 1/2/2009 8:02:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Funny. I tend to think it should be blamed on bad music.


seconded.

after compiling a short list, i think ALL of the music i bought in 2008 was .. from 2007 (and mostly not RIAA-controlled labels) or older...

not that anyone would care to read a list, but: Otep (.jp release), Nightwish (.fi release as well as DVD-A, now that DVD-As are rippable), Handsome Boy Modeling School, Deadmau5.

Blu-rays, video/computer games, videogame hardware (GH3 crap, G25 racing wheel), and computer hardware (phenom, first c2d system, lots of DDR2) are consuming MY money... oh, and booze :O


By Belard on 1/3/2009 8:57:06 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed... very very crappy music.

Okay, there are some good tunes out there, but for the most part, its gangtsa-street no-talent-cant tell one from the other "music".

Meanwhile, the classics are still high sellers, wonder why?


By alpensiedler on 1/3/2009 12:35:15 PM , Rating: 2
i'm sorry i can't resist... one look at the picture attached to this article, and i can see why music sales are down. fake pop songs and rap songs about money... seriously, who cares about that garbage. i wouldn't support this music either.


By wordsworm on 1/3/2009 3:05:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Funny. I tend to think it should be blamed on bad music.


Based on your logic, if the best music is reflected by the best sales record, then 2000 must have had the best music. I'm sorry, I don't buy that argument. There were a lot of good albums that came out - there always are. Mostly, though, they don't get put on fm airwaves. Not being a fan of canned pop/country/etc music, I can't say as I care. Access to more interesting musicians has grown leaps and bounds over the last 10 years. Nothing to complain about there.


By AlexWade on 1/4/2009 9:31:17 AM , Rating: 2
Take a look at this article with an interview with Price:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2008/12...

According to Prince, "The gatekeepers have to change". So true. In fact, Prince is releasing 3 new albums sans label. If Prince's new stuff is anything like his old stuff, I will love it. I always loved Prince's guitar playing. I will at least give it a try because I want the artists to be free of the labels influence.


By Wellsoul2 on 1/6/2009 12:09:30 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. It seems the music industry in the US would rather
keep up with the same lame strategy than admit they are wrong.

There is plenty of rock, pop and other genres in Europe that
never get heard in the US. Instead we get American Idol and
Britney Spears.

Because of the consolidation of radio and tv you have big
corporations that want to sell only their artists or the
artists of other big outlets.
In the past you had many more new artists and more outlets
with more variety. Now you have canned music on radio.


All you can eat
By thejez on 1/2/2009 1:29:05 PM , Rating: 3
The drop may also be due to the growing popularity of "all-you-can-eat" subscriptions that people are using. I know several people who have opted to pay a monthly fee and just listen to everything they want rather than buying specific songs.




RE: All you can eat
By Gastrian on 1/2/2009 1:37:37 PM , Rating: 2
Are there any decent ones for that? I've stopped pirating movies since I got onto a subscription DVD rental site and would likely do the same for music as long as the range is good and covers artist back catalogues and rare songs.


RE: All you can eat
By thejez on 1/2/2009 1:49:51 PM , Rating: 2
rhapsody is 12.99 a month unlimited and MS has Zune Pass which is 14.99 unlimited a month and they also let you download and keep 10 DRM-free mp3's a month as part of the deal. I also heard rumors of AAPL considering an all you can eat option...


RE: All you can eat
By Aquila76 on 1/2/2009 10:46:27 PM , Rating: 2
I have had a Rhapsody account for just over 2 years, and have not bought a single CD since (in-store or on-line). The wife has one of the Rhapsody-branded Sansa 280s and I'm using my LG Chocolate 3 w/an 8GB microSD card. I had 'legit' Napster before that, but the software kept messing up with my then PMP, a 1GB Creative Zen Nano.

That Zune option (10 free tracks a month) looks awfully tempting, though - even if the players will brick every leap year. ;)


RE: All you can eat
By Mitch101 on 1/2/2009 2:02:03 PM , Rating: 3
Thats another one that is going to screaming Piracy and Video games. Since getting Direct TV HD with the PVR and an HBO subscription I haven't bought a single movie since.

No sense in buying the DVD since the Direct TV HD version is better quality.

As for buying the BLU-RAY version well I still feel its overpriced.

I know someone will comment on the audio and while the audio is supposed to be better on BLU-RAY I would have to replace my existing receiver which originally cost me $630.00 and has a THD of something like .001 THD at 500 watts just for the improved audio of the BLU-RAY over Direct TV HD version. I think I can live without DTS-HD. I can also wait for it to be on HBO or when the prices are much lower.


RE: All you can eat
By Gzus666 on 1/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: All you can eat
By Gzus666 on 1/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: All you can eat
By sgw2n5 on 1/2/2009 3:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
Krell?? Pffft.

I'm guessing you also use Monster cable.


RE: All you can eat
By Gzus666 on 1/2/2009 3:13:46 PM , Rating: 2
I have a cheap Denon cause I have ridiculously efficient speakers. Granted they aren't Revels or anything, but they hold their own in their class. Paradigm makes a good speaker. As for the cable, Monster makes cheesy cables. But you can't deny that analog=cable makes the difference, digital=negligible at best.

But seriously, I have never seen someone discount Krell to Monster cable status. What next, shoot down McIntosh, Marantz and Parasound?

http://cgi.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/auc.pl?homeproc&12...

Prefer a nice cheap NAD? The point of it was to not use price to decipher quality. Krell is expensive, but to say they are equal to Monster is audio blasphemy at its finest. All comes down to what you are having to push.


RE: All you can eat
By rbuszka on 1/2/2009 5:45:21 PM , Rating: 1
What an ignorant comment - You obviously don't know who Krell is. Krell Audio is probably one of the most celebrated hi-end audio brands of our decade, just like McIntosh used to be. I personally consider it an affront against my hearing that you've lumped Krell into the same category as Monster Cable.

You know that home theater receiver you most likely use to power your speakers? Its RMS power is probably rated at 1kHz, into 0.1% total harmonic distortion, with only one of its seven channels driven. Krell amplifiers, as with many other true 'high-end' amplifiers that you'd never expect to find in a Best Buy, Circuit City, Fry's, or even Crutchfield, are power-rated across their full bandwidth, into a 1kHz total harmonic distortion figure of less than 0.02%.

Your home theater receiver is probably great for the sort of speakers you'll find at Best Buy, but when you get into the realm of Thiel, Wilson, and MartinLogan products, you wouldn't dream of using your home theater receiver to power them. Unlike cables, whose benefits are dubious, a high-end amplifier and speakers will walk all over a home theater receiver and Best Buy speakers. In fact, the difference is so plainly audible that audiophiles have a term for what you bought at Best Buy: "Mid-fi" -- you're not getting the full high-fidelity audio experience, though you may have bought the best experience you could afford within your budget. (This is, of course, assuming that you haven't destroyed your ears with things like loud rock concerts, firearms, or power tools.)

(A final note: Some more responsible manufacturers like Harman/Kardon used to rate their receivers with all channels driven, but they've had to change their rating scheme in order to compete with other brands marketed to a generally ignorant consumer population who do not realize that not all Watts are the same. Under HK's old rating scheme, their low-end receiver was rated at 35 watts per channel, but it is now rated at 70 watts per channel under the new rating scheme. The amplifier design didn't change.)

(Disclaimer: If you were being somehow sarcastic, I didn't catch it. If that's the case, try harder next time.)


RE: All you can eat
By straycat74 on 1/2/2009 7:10:46 PM , Rating: 3
I bet you could really empty out a room.


RE: All you can eat
By TheSpaniard on 1/3/2009 8:44:21 AM , Rating: 2
his name really is buzz killington


RE: All you can eat
By ice456789 on 1/2/2009 11:33:26 PM , Rating: 2
While I'm sure your post was extremely informative, I have to admit that I fell asleep twice while reading it. I did however get far enough to pick up on your snobish feeling of superiority so thank you for that. You want to hear about my system? It's Hi-Fi... high fidelity. What that means is that it's the highest quality fidelity. (name that movie).


RE: All you can eat
By michaelheath on 1/3/2009 3:25:24 PM , Rating: 2
I've worked as a theater professional (and I don't mean "home-theater", I mean "live theater"), and I hate to 'affront your hearing' by saying: I had no idea who Krell was up until now, and my memory barely registers McIntosh though for the life of me I can't remember in what context.

Maybe some salesman was able to convince you on specs alone that they were awesome. As with power supplies, graphics cards, and displays, all the specs in the world mean jack unless a set of speakers or an amp can deliver on it's claims. It also helps if the human brain and sensory systems can actually perceive those differences. Just like the idiots who go out and spend $500 on a graphics card because it can get 158 FPS in a game when the human brain can't perceive anything past 60 FPS, a set of speakers is only as good as how well your ears and brain receive and process audio frequency information. If the difference is indistinguishable, you just wasted a bunch of money just to have the best specs, nothing more.

It also helps if you have an appropriate enough space to even hear those differences as they could be washed out by environmental noise, improper placement, the shape of a room, the material make-up of a room (e.g.: floors, walls, ceiling, windows), lack of knowledge of the basics of audio physics (this is really important in large spaces, such as a theater or a large house), lack of knowledge of electricity (watts, amps, ohms, and how it all relates to how speakers work)... Many audiophiles think they know about this and convince themselves they can tell the difference, few really do, and most people never would notice or care.

I'll also have you know that, ten years ago, I did buy my 'mid-fi' home audio equipment at Best Buy. "Why?" you might ask, oh Mighty Audiophile with Thunderous Knowledge of Specifications. See, ten years ago, I knew of a huge bottleneck in DVD and CD audio known as 'compression', a problem which still exists today. Compression can kill any difference in harmonic distortion at the amp. It could be 1%, 0.1% or 0.01%, it doesn't matter if your audio is compressed and faulted to begin with and your CD/DVD players have limited audio DACs. Having low harmonics means it just doesn't add to the problem. Blu-Ray audio is better, but it's still limited by the capability of the best DAC. You can pound your chest about specs of your audio equipment all you like, but it means nothing if you don't have any other equipment capable of delivering quality audio to the amp and the speakers.

Knowing the limitations of digital audio, I shopped around other stores where I could listen to my own music and movies. I then went to Best Buy and bought a 600 watt amp, two floor standing front speakers, two bookshelf surround speakers, and a center speaker. The floors produce wonderful front sound for audio and video and produce balanced but deep bass so I don't have to use a sub-woofer (again, with good placement and knowledge of how audio physics work, and you'll never have to buy one), the center is loud and accurate enough for speech (98% of what gets channeled through the center speaker, rarely anything else), and the bookshelf speakers proved their worth as DVD/Blu-Ray discs took further advantage of surround audio. I spent $650 on that set-up, and I haven't regretted it since.

Thiel, Wilson, & MartinLogan make impressive looking speakers, but I see nothing about their design that enhances the audio quality. I know for a fact that no self-respecting professional audio technician would be caught using them, though (most audio professionals stick with studio monitors, which may look bland, but they produce the most 'pure' sound). I looked at Krell's website, and, again, their amps look nice, but I see nothing worth wetting my pants over. Most of the technical language on their website says nothing special. If you bought any of these components, I'm telling you straight-up that you got jacked. Big time.


RE: All you can eat
By gersson on 1/3/2009 4:16:59 PM , Rating: 2
Wow


RE: All you can eat
By ice456789 on 1/3/2009 9:15:01 PM , Rating: 2
Level Up!!!

After reading that, I've gained enough experience to be a level 12 nerd.
New Ability Gained: Intergoogle Chatroom Toughguy

I'm going to put all my points in endurance so that guys that watch football actually break a sweat when kicking my arse.


RE: All you can eat
By Mitch101 on 1/2/2009 3:24:40 PM , Rating: 1
That's ok after seeing a reference to an $8500 receiver I was going to make an e-penis joke but decided to pass and say I bet you recommend Monster cables or some other sort of ridiculous priced cables even in short runs.

$630.00 I would bet is much more than the average Joe spends on a receiver and you cant simply buy any amp and expect its better just because it supports DTS-HD and its expensive. I've compared mine to $1200 receivers and couldn't hear a difference. It was very close to a $2200 receiver and while I think I could hear a difference my money told me to go with the $630 unit.

Ive done this test before with the Matrix movie in AC3 and DTS and funny enough people prefer the AC3 version. Just because its newer doesn't mean its better because audio is probably the most personal preference there is when it comes to a home theater.

I certainly feel a lot of people get hung up on specs and price and somehow get lost in that it must be better. I highly recommend listening to the setup and judging instead of buying into some fancy magazine that tells you what is the best. Audio is an individual preference. What I hear might not be the same as what you hear. After all some people like the sound of Celine Dion.


RE: All you can eat
By Gzus666 on 1/2/2009 3:45:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
That's ok after seeing a reference to an $8500 receiver I was going to make an e-penis joke but decided to pass and say I bet you recommend Monster cables or some other sort of ridiculous priced cables even in short runs.


I will assume you don't know Krell.

http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?spkrplan&12...
http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?spkrfull&12...

Do you think speakers like those run on magic? Or do you think it requires a powerful amp with high quality internals?

To sit and say you can't hear the difference between an amp based on price is retarded. The reason Krell is nice isn't because it costs a lot, don't equate them. It isn't something you are going to hear through regular junk speakers. The point is you want to keep spikes and drops to a minimum, have a nice processor and be able to deliver on the amperage it advertises without distortion. This is a simplification of course, but I'm not going to sit and point out every aspect. In fact the point of sound is to not sound better, but to reproduce the sound as perfectly as possible. Most amps that advertise "500W" that cost little to nothing comparatively are just playing with numbers.

Now, my 75 watt Denon that was $350 new actually puts out 75 watts without issue. It drives my Paradigms without issue. Granted Denon is not top of the line or anything, but for their class they make a nice amp. If something sounds too good to be true, like a 500 watt amp for $630, then it most likely is.

http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?intatran&12...

That amp is 200 watts per channel. The difference between it and your amp is it really produces that(yes I know it is a stereo amp, don't point it out).

The whole point, which you missed, was that you can't just say you have a $630 amp and have everyone assume it is good. You threw that out there to try to impress people and to act like you have a great system cause the amp was expensive. I will venture a guess and assume you have some sort of Bose or Sony type setup, which are jokes.


RE: All you can eat
By Mitch101 on 1/2/2009 4:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
Gzus666 I can appreciate you talking about a $350 Denon over a fantasy amp like the Krell. I wouldn't even call your Denon junk even in the presence of an $8500 receiver. If it sounds good to you then its great. I'm sure you need very expensive speakers to utilize a $8500 receiver also.

I generally don't talk about a receiver brand only because its my audio choice. Same with the speakers I chose. Some people may find a $200 receiver that sounds just or better to them. Heck I hope to find a $200 receiver that blows mine away. I found one priced at $630 that made me turn my head and answer the door and phone when no one was there.

What I was conveying is that in comparison to Direct TV's HD I don't find BLU-RAY worth the investment just to have the convenience. With Video were comparing Direct TV's 1080P MP4 vs BLU-RAY 1080P X264 = very insignificant difference to me.

Since Blu-Ray comes with a claimed improved Audio. With the Audio It will be the same with DTS-HD most probably an incremental upgrade to what I already have that I may not even notice and even If I did find it to be much better it would cost me a good portion of money to replace my receiver. I find items like DTS-HD to be more marketing hype to get me to upgrade than what it would actually deliver. Much like the whole 1080i vs 1080P fight. I bet most people couldnt tell the difference but if they bought a TV with the 1080P they felt somehow that 1080i was somehow like looking at 480i images. More mental than actual.

So just like DTS was somehow magically so much better than AC3 when most people couldn't tell the difference and preferred AC3 over DTS its a marketing effect of somehow a high priced or new item must somehow be superior.


RE: All you can eat
By Gzus666 on 1/2/2009 5:07:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Since Blu-Ray comes with a claimed improved Audio.


It isn't just a claim, it is a fact and even if you don't hear it, it is still there. That is like saying that FLAC has a claimed better audio quality than MP3. It is a fact, but some people don't hear it since MP3s are rarely put through quality hardware. Granted the only true representation of sound is analog and it would take an infinite sample rate to reproduce it properly with digital, you can definitely hear a difference in quality from a low to a high sample rate.

quote:
So just like DTS was somehow magically so much better than AC3 when most people couldn't tell the difference and preferred AC3 over DTS its a marketing effect of somehow a high priced or new item must somehow be superior.


This is where equipment comes in play and is not reproducing the sound for your ears properly. Or it is a lie to try to discount Bluray, exactly which I don't know for sure as I don't know your intentions.

quote:
Gzus666 I can appreciate you talking about a $350 Denon over a fantasy amp like the Krell. I wouldn't even call your Denon junk even in the presence of an $8500 receiver. If it sounds good to you then its great. I'm sure you need very expensive speakers to utilize a $8500 receiver also.


On this, my Denon couldn't hold a candle to that Krell, especially when you get even higher end speakers to push. Would I hear a fantastic difference between the Krell and my Denon on my speakers? Probably not, but that doesn't mean the Krell is overpriced junk, it just means my speakers are not up for the task. They don't have to be horribly expensive, the Paradigm Signature series is impressive as hell and would surely benefit from that Krell. As would a nice set of B&W or you could move up the ladder to some Revel or Dynaudio stuff.

It is a matter of fitting a need. If your speakers have poor or only decent sound reproduction in the first place, you won't suddenly be stunned with a new amp as the problem isn't the sound from the amp it is the sound from the speakers. It is like putting FLAC to iPod headphones and expecting amazing sound. The problem becomes a terrible DAC and a junk set of headphones, so no matter how good the source is it won't sound jaw dropping. Anytime you are converting digital to analog you are going to have a chance to lose quality. That's why a quality DAC is lauded, cause it is a major hurdle in great sound.

It's like adding a supercharger to a flat head Ford. Did it make more power than before? Yea. Was it worth it? No, cause the design is junk. Just like internal combustion, sound is a full system and if anything is lacking, it will sound poor. For anyone who is auto illiterate, it would be like having an i7 Extreme, 8 gig of RAM, 64 bit Vista and have a 7600GT. It would just choke. Treat it like a formula and interchange most anything in that formula with junk and it will suffer.


RE: All you can eat
By jevans64 on 1/2/2009 6:55:14 PM , Rating: 2
I believe DirecTV broadcasts at 1440 x 1080i ( HD-lite ) and crams at least SIX HD channels on a SINGLE 40mbit/s transponder. Can you say bit-starved? LOL I have Dish, so I'm not really sure about DTV unless I visit Satellite Guys and pour over the forums, but Dish is 1440 x 1080i and puts SEVEN HD channels on 42mbit/s transponders.

Both HD DVD and Blu-ray look and sound better than the satellite provider's feeds. FiOS is the only service that even comes close to HDD and BD.

Anyway. I haven't needed to buy, download, or rip any music since my Dish subscription comes with Sirius. DTV comes with XM, I believe. I did buy the Metallica CD this year, but that was the only one I have bought in several years. My last CD purchase was Coldplay's Parachutes. LOL

I've been too busy buying video games and Blu-ray discs. That is where my music money is going.

The only thing I know about Home Theater is the constant need to upgrade to the newest gear go get new technology or new audio / video formats. I do have top-of-the-line gear from Denon and Definitive Technology.


RE: All you can eat
By Mitch101 on 1/3/2009 9:09:23 AM , Rating: 2
DIRECTV adds 30 HD channels, full 1080p

14 August 2008
DIRECTV adds 30 HD channels, full 1080p Beginning today, DIRECTV, the US' largest satellite television provider, will add 30 additional HD channels to its service, bringing the total to 130.

More notably, the provider says it will begin to transmit all of its HD programming in superior MPEG-4 Advanced Video Coding (AVC), the first company in the industry to do so. By the end of the month all HD programming will have Dolby Digital 5.1 audio and by the end of the year DIRECTV promises to begin offering movies in full 1080p resolution.

The new channels include "Showtime Extreme HD, Showtime Showcase HD, Planet Green HD, ABC Family HD, additional DIRECTV HD pay per view channels and an additional 23 Regional Sports Networks (RSNs) in HD 24 hours a day."

"Despite all the sound and fury of confusing HD claims from our competitors, our customers understand that DIRECTV is the destination for the most compelling and complete lineup of HD content," said Derek Chang, executive vice president, Content Strategy and Development, DIRECTV, Inc. "Our message is clear - DIRECTV is the content leader, and our delivery of the best quality HD via the most advanced technology is one way we continue to dominate this category and offer our more than 17 million customers nationwide an unparalleled entertainment experience."

The company also adds that it now has a new satellite in its fleet which will help expand HD capacity to 200 HD channels by next year.


RE: All you can eat
By Reclaimer77 on 1/3/2009 5:45:47 AM , Rating: 2
Gzus strikes again. Our favorite little electronic Nazi forum troll.

Ok so let me understand this. Basically someone dared to not suck Blu-Ray's dick, and has wrought the wrath of Gzus. Nothing new to see here.

But whats with the linking of 6+ grand receivers to prove the guy knows nothing about audio ? Are you serious ? This is like saying the guy happy with his Honda is an idiot, and linking the Ferrari website to proove your point. Come on, are you joking ? ZOMG NOOB WELCOME TO KRELL AUDIO I WIN ZOMGWTFBBQ !!111!!!

Further proving himself to be an idiot, Gzus admits to dropping $350 on a Denon. Which everyone knows is an average overhyped brand. If you're so f'ing "in the know" about audio equipment, you would have known you could drop $250 on a Yamaha receiver that would mop the floor with a low end Denon any day. And run a hell of a lot cooler doing it.

So you have a cheap ass Denon, mismatched speakers, and Blu-Ray. WOW !!! Can I be your friend ? It obvious makes you the foremost audiophile expert on the PLANET. Because every single time someone gives an opinion, you show up like a rabid dog.

You are just a troll who knows how to use Goggle. /golf claps.


RE: All you can eat
By Reclaimer77 on 1/3/2009 5:59:29 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
What I was conveying is that in comparison to Direct TV's HD I don't find BLU-RAY worth the investment just to have the convenience. With Video were comparing Direct TV's 1080P MP4 vs BLU-RAY 1080P X264 = very insignificant difference to me.


And that was your mistake. If you do not drop to your KNEES and open your mouth to give Sony a Blu job, Gzuss will find you, and flame you...

by posting links to gillion dollar Krell's.

I know, makes perfect sense right ?

quote:
I wouldn't even call your Denon junk


You should. Low end Denon's are garbage, and people who buy them are simply not informed. Why are you taking his crap ? Hes simply assuming, like always, that he's right and you are wrong because you have a different opinion. He's assuming that you're an idiot who can't make informed decisions. You paid 600+ for a receiver, who is he to judge you and claim you made a bad purchase ? His argument is so ironic its idiotic. It's true that more money doesn't always equal better quality, but he lost all ability to judge you when he admitted he's driving the Honda Civic of home audio receivers.

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that if you dropped $600+ on something, you did your homework and made a sound purchase. And the MOST important aspect, is that YOU are HAPPY with it. Why are you backing down and taking his crap ?

Audiophile kiddies like him are almost as annoying as Mac users. Don't feed their inner troll or fuel their nerd rage and just hope they go away.


RE: All you can eat
By Mitch101 on 1/3/2009 9:49:49 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks Reclaimer77
I'm trying to take a benefit of the doubt maybe Denon makes some good receivers. I thought they were ok when I bought mine but the Yamaha was just so warm sounding.

My Homework and I recommend doing this.
I sat for a long time in the demo room listening to every combination of receiver and speaker combo they had. Brought in my own CD/DVD's to test out stuff I watch and listen to. Its what the top experts recommend doing. This is how I came to my Yamaha and JBL combo. Although I believe Boston Acoustics speakers might really make the Yamaha receiver better they weren't in my budget. JBL requires the sub woofer in my opinion.

I am very happy with the sound quality of my combo and the opening to Saving Private Ryan in my living room justified my purchase.


RE: All you can eat
By Reclaimer77 on 1/3/2009 12:09:39 PM , Rating: 2
Ok I did not read you bought a Yamaha, my bad.

Yamaha is the only receiver I buy. Period. This argument between you and Gzuss is OVER. Yamaha, at all trim and price levels, is one of the most solid brands on the market. And if you dropped $600 on one, you owe Gzuss NO explanations. Your Yamaha not only destroys his cheap Denon, but destroys some receivers twice its cost.

And JBL is an equally solid speaker brand. That's putting it mildly. In point of fact, JBL is awesome.

So I don't get it. It sounds to me like you know your stuff, why feed Gzuss's superiority complex ? The man obviously walked into Circuit City and grabbed a Denon on sale, sight un-seen. Posting Google'd links to Krell doesn't mean hes better than you or knows more about audio.

quote:
I'm trying to take a benefit of the doubt maybe Denon makes some good receivers.


They do. But not for 300'ish bucks.


RE: All you can eat
By Mitch101 on 1/3/2009 1:32:23 PM , Rating: 2
I can certainly see why people give praise to Yamaha and Im sure you know why I seem reluctant to upgrade just to get DTS-HD.

I didnt feel the need to take him out he found what works for him within his budget. I dont think anyone can take his argument seriously because his argument almost supports the idea that it would take an $8000 receiver to hear the full spectrum of BLU-RAY audio output. Which supports my theory that it wouldnt sound much better than my $600 receiver in DTS unless I am willing to spend a large amount of money on a new receiver.

If we want to get technical the idea he is using a $300 Denon tells me he is using inexpesive DAC for multiple channels. Where Yamaha tends to use the highest quality DAC's with the lowest SNR out there in a mono configuration. This minimises linearity and gain issues. But technical side apart it all comes down to what sounds best to the person buying it.


RE: All you can eat
By William Gaatjes on 1/4/2009 7:37:45 AM , Rating: 2
Those speakers are so huge i though for a moment it where electrostatics :)


RE: All you can eat
By walk2k on 1/2/2009 2:58:26 PM , Rating: 2
That may have been true before the switch to MPEG-4 satellites but I can tell you I just got DirecTV last month and the HD picture quality is outstanding. Yes Blu-ray still looks (and sounds) better, but DTV is very very good, and better than the cable TV service here now they they started re-compressing (*cough Comcast).


RE: All you can eat
By Gzus666 on 1/2/2009 3:00:49 PM , Rating: 2
Recent change then, I will give them the video as being better. As you stated though, not as good as Bluray. Sound still has to suffer, you know that is where they cut corners.


Physical medium for music is dying
By Bateluer on 1/2/2009 1:22:25 PM , Rating: 4
Stop trying to delay it and get with the times. Slotmusic is doomed to fail.




RE: Physical medium for music is dying
By 9nails on 1/2/2009 3:15:36 PM , Rating: 5
No kidding!

Slotmusic? Listen Music Executives, the majority of my listening to music is in the car or at the office. And in neither location do I have a media slot to insert this format for listening. It's DOA, don't bank on it.

I think that these same Music Exec's are failing to realize that music has become a commodity. They're not going to get that premium price that they used to get.

Music distributor's need to step up the offerings if they want to attract more sales. They now need to include DRM free MP3's with the CD, include the music video's, give us the ring tones, use CD-Text for labeling, provide the lyrics, and could we get some points towards the Rockband or Guitar Hero versions?


By TomZ on 1/2/2009 3:37:05 PM , Rating: 2
I agree - I will never buy music on slotmedia, period. Physical media is dead.


By TheDoc9 on 1/2/2009 3:41:37 PM , Rating: 2
agreed on all.

A physical media standard is already well established (CD), it's ironic that the industry's greed has been blinding it from trying new things with what they have.

The first group to do this, include these things that should be free anyway; ring tones, HQ music videos, ect. They will reap big points with the fans and will improve their financial situation as well. Too bad they can't see this.

If the industry middle men stepped aside and personal corruption was laid to rest, maybe some of these things could happen.


People are Smarter
By Ratinator on 1/2/2009 1:38:16 PM , Rating: 5
What a brutal statement of statistics. They blame piracy, video games and economy when sales of "albums" are down year over year yet downloadable digital media is up. Basically what has happened is for years, people were forced into buying an entire "album" to get the one or two songs they liked. Now they are only purchasing a single song or two off the entire album and they blame piracy. To quote Homer Simpeson: “Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.”




RE: People are Smarter
By DASQ on 1/5/2009 1:06:23 PM , Rating: 2
Don't worry, they'll just have to start suing video game players who aren't meeting their imaginary CD purchase quota that implies sales failure.


Call Me a Jerk
By ebakke on 1/2/2009 3:25:12 PM , Rating: 5
Call me a jerk, but I couldn't care less about the music industry's woes. I hope its sales continue to plummet forcing them to change. Or maybe the major labels will all go bankrupt and we can start over with a system that doesn't suck.




RE: Call Me a Jerk
By mherlund on 1/5/2009 12:31:39 PM , Rating: 2
Jerk

just kidding :)


By Esquire on 1/2/2009 2:09:18 PM , Rating: 2
I manager an artist buddy of mine... he has 4 CD's he has produced. we have opted to give his stuff away for free downloads on last.fm.

http://www.last.fm/music/Brian+Dunn

We believe that last.fm is the key to music success in todays world since it is a music recommendation service. getting your music into their database is key.

why do you need a "label" all they do is take a cut & push you around...

iTunes genius also is in line with last.fm, but cracking into that is harder.

Labels are gonna be more & more bummin

my 2¢




By DarkElfa on 1/2/2009 5:15:23 PM , Rating: 4
This is what happens when you try and create artists instead of artists creating themselves.


Math
By Chernobyl68 on 1/2/2009 5:29:52 PM , Rating: 4
10.7 billion units this year, a 27% increase.
That means that last year, (10.7/1.27) = About 8.43 Billion were sold, a difference of 2.27 billion.
The previous increase was 45%, so about (8.43/1.45) = 5.81 Billion units were sold, a difference of 2.62 Billion.

So, the actual rate of sales increase only dropped (2.62-2.27)/2.62 or about 13%. Not too bad.




RE: Math
By mmntech on 1/4/2009 11:50:13 AM , Rating: 2
Assuming most CD albums have on average 12 songs, that means the equivalent 891.7 million albums were downloaded from legitimate services in 2008. The 428 million figure (assuming that's just CD sales) doesn't tell the whole story. They've actually sold more "albums" than their 2000 record of 700 million. The problem is not decreasing sales but decreasing revenues. Sales have gone up but revenues are declining since people demand singles be cheaper. Given average CD prices (here anyway) is $14.99, they're getting $1.25 per track compared to $0.99 from most download services.

I'm calling shenanigans on the RIAA.


Complaining about the price of music
By Josh7289 on 1/4/2009 12:55:10 AM , Rating: 2
You people who buy North American music releases have no idea how good you have it. I would LOVE to be able to pay only $15 for full-length albums, but that's just not the way it works with Japanese releases.

Though really, there's nothing to complain about. I pay $60 for video games that last 20 hours, so what's wrong with paying $30 for an album that I will listen to for the rest of my life? In that sense it's actually a really a good deal.

Sorry to say it, but all of you people complaining about the price of music are just being greedy. =/




RE: Complaining about the price of music
By LumbergTech on 1/4/2009 6:16:31 AM , Rating: 2
There are very few albums that are worth 30 dollars to me...
I honestly think the industry would collapse if they valued every album at that price.

Also, did it ever occur to you that North Americans do not have it good, but that you in Japan are getting royally screwed?

Greedy? The worth of an album is in the eye of the beholder. Its very subjective.

I would not pay 60 dollars for a game that would only last me 20 hours. I don't rate games on length alone, but I am completely unwilling to fork over 60 dollars for a 20 hour experience (barring some amazing circumstance where the best game of all time was created)


By Josh7289 on 1/6/2009 12:08:59 AM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah, I'm aware of that. But I'm just saying that it's pretty ridiculous and shameful for a person to want to own something (music in this case) without paying for it unless it costs them only pocket change.

The payment ones uses to buy music goes towards the salaries of everyone who worked on it. To deprive them of that is to deprive them of their livelihood -- that's simply a complete lack of regard for a fellow human being.


By Demon-Xanth on 1/2/2009 2:30:09 PM , Rating: 5
When the economy takes a hit, entertainment and luxury items are the first to get dropped from the shopping list. Music is a luxury/entertainment item. Not a staple. The last time the music industry took at hit was the dot com bust; when, as you guessed, the economy took a dip.

Compound that to the fact that in 2008 I didn't hear a single CD that I wanted to listen to much less buy. I'd say that they're looking for someone to point a finger at rather than looking at the real reasons and preparing/changing/shifting their buisness to handle the current state of the market.




Piracy...
By kmmatney on 1/2/2009 2:51:20 PM , Rating: 3
The best year for music sales was in 2000 - just before Napster came out, and everyone has easy access to pirated music. I downloaded several gigs myself back in 2001. I have hardly bought any CDs since. Piracy IS the main reason for declining sales, and other sources of entertainment are the other big reason. I'm sure there are lots of others like me. Not only did I download lots of music when Napster came out, but I Ebayed many of my CDs for cheap. Double whammy for the music industry from me.




RE: Piracy...
By foolsgambit11 on 1/2/2009 7:18:40 PM , Rating: 2
Napster came out in mid-1999. It was over by mid-2001. Granted, there were other services to replace it. But by mid-2003, we had the iTunes Store, too. Digital sales have taken off so much that, if you assume 12 songs per album, digital 'album' sales this year amounted to 891.6 million albums - added to physical sales, that's 1.32 billion (with a 'b') albums. 2000's total album sales were 785.1 million. There were no digital sales at that time, as far as I know. So, as we can now see, total album sales for the recording industry have increased by 68% since 2000.

What the recording industry should be concerned about is that growth of digital online sales slowed this year. Is that due to approaching digital market saturation, approaching total music market saturation, a move away from music to other entertainment media, or piracy?

Considering digital sales still grew - by 27% - I doubt piracy is the reason.


cds are dead
By SPOOOK on 1/2/2009 1:49:50 PM , Rating: 1
i can tell you in 5 years ther will no longer be cds i have a ipod and cell phone that i can store 5000 thousand songs
on i stopped buying cds 10 years ago because of the outrages
cost 19.99 for a cd with 2 good songs on it no way if the music people thought that by seuing people they were going to stop pirates pirates have become king of music i am willing to buy drm free music only the music people have to do mp3s by download or the music people will be selling used
underwere music should be free the music people have to have web site to download free music the money they make comes from advertizing or you pay 9.99 a mounth to join the web site to download all the music you want




RE: cds are dead
By Motoman on 1/2/2009 2:00:22 PM , Rating: 3
...no more CDs in 5 years huh?

I stopped buying music for a couple basic reasons...one, they started putting DRM on them, and I will not purchase something that has DRM on it as all DRM infringes on my rights as a consumer (ergo, DRM *should* be illegal). Second, not much music coming out lately is all that appealing to me.


Imagine that
By nismotigerwvu on 1/2/2009 1:53:02 PM , Rating: 2
Albums worth buying (on major labels) this year off the top of my head:

The bedlam in goliath by the mars volta

ummm......perhaps the lack of quality music combined with a large recession might have something to do with it.




RE: Imagine that
By Rhl on 1/2/2009 2:06:12 PM , Rating: 2
What a great album.

I'm also going to suggest Thrice's "The Alchemy Indexes III-IV" as one of the best albums of 2008.


How are the artists faring?
By chmilz on 1/2/2009 2:07:18 PM , Rating: 2
So the RIAA is tanking big-time. Whatever.

What matters is know how the artists are making out? Digital distribution, Guitar Hero/Rock Band, record numbers of reunion tours, etc, and I get the feeling the folks actually making the music are doing alright.




RE: How are the artists faring?
By kmmatney on 1/2/2009 2:58:58 PM , Rating: 2
I think the bands making the most money are older bands, with large fan bases, making their money from concerts. Concert prices have been going way up - making up for lost album sales.


Stupid Title
By Pudro on 1/2/2009 2:38:06 PM , Rating: 4
The title of "2008: The Worst Year for Music Industry Yet" is an outright lie. The music industry grew shockingly well in 2008 despite the sagging economy. The recording industry, however, is stuck in the dark ages and fails to evolve with the market, so of course they aren't doing as well.




Deal with the new reality
By DefFox on 1/2/2009 3:35:42 PM , Rating: 4
So in their best year they sold 785.1 million albums. Now in their so-called worst year they sold 428.4 million archaic CDs, plus 10.7 billion digital tracks. Sounds like their volume of sales is way up.

I stopped buying CDs years ago after one $23 disc had only one song I could stand listening to. Now DRM-free MP3s are the only thing I will collect.

I predict CDs will be gone within ten years. Perhaps sooner if car radios start having SDHC slots standard.




By joex444 on 1/2/2009 3:44:20 PM , Rating: 2
What I mean is album sales fell 14%, but digital sales rose 27%.

And this was in a market where the DOW fell 40%. Judging by that, I think the RIAA had one hell of a strong year. Why bring up the stocks? Well, you see, the major labels are public companies. I would have expected their performance to drop in line with the market unless they outperform, which apparently they did.

Typical RIAA tactics, focus on one bad number and blame piracy. Album sales down 14%... pirates! And what about the 27% increase in digital sales, over 10 billion tracks? BTW, that 10 billion track number is about 830 million albums (12 tracks per album), double the physical CD sales. Why are they complaining? They get about 80c on a track, which is about the same as they get from a physical CD sale -- without the cost to produce artwork, a case, a CD or ship it to a physical store.




By joex444 on 1/2/2009 3:46:42 PM , Rating: 2
Just to clarify: Piracy would be expected to impact DIGITAL sales first. I mean, if you're already at a PC, why buy what you can just steal in a few clicks? It's the physical sales that would not be so easily affected by piracy. Remember piracy is not like walking into a store and putting the disc under your jacket and walking out.

Oh, and 2008 was the first year in a decade I actually bought a physical CD. And not just one, but 5. But I only did this beacuse a) they were non-RIAA labels and b) they were used copies so the labels make no more money from the sale.


Their data sucks...
By Jeff7181 on 1/3/2009 1:20:40 AM , Rating: 1
Figures don't lie, but liars will figure. They paint a pretty bleak picture, don't they? Music sales have slowed... it has to be because everyone is stealing it rather than buying it.

Yes, digital music sales have slowed. Ya know why? Because in the last 5-10 years, we've been playing catch up with all music ever created up 'till this point. One doesn't have to purchase the same song twice (although due to DRM I'm sure many have).

I for one have purchased more music than I would have if physical copies were my only option. I would not have bought an entire Trans-Siberian Orchestra album, but I did purchase one track. Had I not had that option, they would have seen zero money from me. That's the down side for the record industry... they have less ability to force you to pay for shit you don't want now that you can pick and choose what you're willing to pay for.

Consider it a wake-up call to all the artists (and I use the term loosely with people like Ashley Simpson and Katy Perry producing records)... produce quality music and people will buy it. Produce a turd and nobody will buy it.




RE: Their data sucks...
By Regs on 1/3/2009 2:38:41 AM , Rating: 1
BTW, you get rated down for saying words like: shit cunt mother fucker cock sucker twat. So don't take it fucking personally.

And I agree with you Jeff. Who can remember the first cassette player and how easy it was to copy songs off the radio and make duplicates of your friends? It hasn't changed much.

People buy music of bands and groups that they "love"; a cult as you will or a following. I don't even bother downloading anything illegally because it's not worth it. ITunes and others give me a chance to sample music and introduced me to so many bands, orchestras, groups, and alike that I would of never heard from the radio or TV. I'm finding myself buying more songs from movie soundtracks than the crap I hear on TV or satellite radio.

God bless the musicians who still write and sing music from their own artistically minds (hearts), and piss off you media made marketed singers who don't know how to write you're own lyrics.


RE: Their data sucks...
By Phlemboy on 1/3/2009 7:10:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote>BTW, you get rated down for saying words like: s*** c*** mother f**** c*** sucker t**. So don't take it f*** personally.

Is that necessary?


Time to trim the fat
By jRaskell on 1/2/2009 1:36:54 PM , Rating: 3
The Music Industry is easily one of the most bloated and top-heavy industries in the world. I have no sympathy at all for the industry as a whole. It simply needs to utterly collapse in epic style and then rebuild itself to fully support and cooperate with the digital age that it has fought tooth and nail against for the last couple decades.




ha
By meepstone on 1/2/2009 1:45:04 PM , Rating: 3
I want to know what happened to the 70s and 80s when a band could make an album in 1-2 years instead of 3-5 for an album. not only do albums take longer to come out nowadays but their are always worse. add all the hip hop and rap trying to snag teens into something catchy to try and get them to buy a whole album with 1 catchy song. wonder why they lose money, they spend it on retards with no musical talent trying to make fast cash.




Blame everyone else...
By stmok on 1/2/2009 9:10:01 PM , Rating: 3
...But themselves.

The Internet has changed the way we distribute content. As a result, it has also changed the way people do business.

Unfortunately, some businesses simply refuse to change and adapt to take advantage of this new landscape. Instead, they complain how things are going down hill.

Its analogous to shooting yourself in the foot, but blaming everyone else for your injury. (The gun makers, the paramedics, the doctors, etc).

Interestingly, this is the same attitude they took with the advent of the recording function on audio cassettes. (People recording from the radio station will supposedly destroy the music industry).

Frankly, I've grown tired of their nonsense. As a result, I no longer buy any modern day music. (No CD or digital download)...Let them be forced to innovate and create music, maybe even get real jobs that actually help humanity.




Another couple good '08 albums
By Shan Holo on 1/3/2009 12:58:05 AM , Rating: 2
Watershed by Opeth
History, Mystery by Bill Frisell




By Jellodyne on 1/5/2009 3:45:12 PM , Rating: 1
Here's a list of great alternative albums for the year:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/radio/services/th...

Really pretty much all great, but I'll vouch for the following from the list:
Atmosphere - When Life Gives You Lemons, Paint that Shit Gold
Cloud Cult - Feel Good Ghosts (Tea - Partying Through Tornadoes)
Fleet Foxes - Fleet Foxes
The Hold Steady - Stay Positive
The Ting Tings - We Started Nothing
DeVotchka - A Mad And Faithful Telling
The Black Keys - Attack and Release
Blitzen Trapper - Furr
Tapes 'n Tapes - Walk It Off
Weezer - Weezer (Red Album)
Doomtree - Doomtree
Nick Cave and The Bad Seeds - Dig, Lazarus, Dig!!!
Black Kids - Black Kids
Bloc Party - Intimacy
Tokyo Police Club - Elephant Shell
The Mountain Goats - Heretic Pride
Elvis Costello - Momofuku
The Kooks - Konk
The Roots - Rising Down
Nada Surf - Lucky


Before Napster
By toyotabedzrock on 1/3/2009 6:46:01 PM , Rating: 3
So let me get this right, we are back to sales levels equal to what they where selling before the Internet became an easy way to pirate music?

And they want to spend money on developing a new physical medium, which is actually a way to make customers pay more for what they don't want, i.e. the 10 bad songs that come along with one or 2 you want? And since an sd card costs more to make, and its small size gives less of that ownership feeling that keeps people buying cds it will only cost them more than what they make.




Strange
By 3kliksphilip on 1/4/2009 9:12:01 AM , Rating: 3
That extra second on the end of 2008 should have had a positive impact.




By Enlightenment777 on 1/4/2009 1:27:39 PM , Rating: 2
Duh...2008 was worst year for lots of industries...wake up and quit whinning!




By jimbojimbo on 1/7/2009 10:07:25 AM , Rating: 1
No kidding. They'll blame piracy for the low sales this year even with every other company taking major losses. Too bad the auto industry didn't have an easy scapegoat too. The way I see it, if they're not losing money they should quit their bitching.


Clueless as usual
By overlandpark4me on 1/6/2009 4:01:01 PM , Rating: 3
When you run a crappy business, it's natural to blame others, sue them, and then collect revenues, right? (<;

Does anyone remember these idiots threatening Best Buy and others who sold CD's at the 11.99 price point if they didn't raise prices. Their point of purchase materials (art,displays, etc) would not be sent to the stores anymore, which would make it so you didn't see anything except the actual CD for promotional purposes. When other companies "got together" and set prices, people were arrested and companies were fined large sums of money because it is illegal to PRICE FIX. Did you also know that when you buy a CD-R for music, you pay these retards a fee? Add to the mix that the talent level is at an all time low, it's laughable to blame pirates. The only thing that has kept these people in business is the "new issues" of greatest hits from bands that actually had/have talent.




Blame ripping
By androticus on 1/2/2009 4:38:24 PM , Rating: 2
Although I personally continue to buy the music I listen to, almost all my friends trade CDs licentiously. There is probably only ever 1 or 2 copies of a hit CD purchased in our circle of 10-20 people or so. I used to think that the sales lost by "sharing" would be made up in volume (i.e. that each person would still spend as much on music) but I now realize that is probably just not true -- I could even imagine that people now spend less $/person on music than before.

It is more of a hassle to try to copy DRM music, because then you have to burn an audio CD, then the recipient gets a lossier version of it. Maybe original (record-industry released) CDs will have to be killed for the industry to be able to recover.

p.s. I really don't buy arguments like, "modern music sucks so people have stopped buying it" -- that strikes me as extremely unlikely.




Wtf mate?
By Rodney McNaggerton on 1/2/2009 6:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Music sales up 10% in 2008, thanks to downloads (and vinyl)

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20090102-musi...
I don't know exactly what's going on here but arstechnica has an article poster that completely contradicts what you have wrote on dailytech........




What the... ?
By piranhaa on 1/2/2009 7:28:12 PM , Rating: 2
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20090102-musi...

Up 10%, yet the worst? hmm .... where are they getting their numbers from?




"Music industry"
By user69 on 1/3/2009 9:11:31 AM , Rating: 2
The death of "music industry" is the best thing that could happen to music. Industry and music don't tend to mix very well.




Worst Cr*p in 20 years
By sbmeirow on 1/3/2009 4:11:18 PM , Rating: 2
The answer:
- The worst songs in 20 years.
- American Idol makes every one like sh*t songs.




More Reasons:
By sbmeirow on 1/3/2009 4:17:35 PM , Rating: 2
- Pop Rap.
- Clonned Rap songs and videos. They all sound alike.
- Annoying Disney Tween Losers.
- A$$holes like Kayne West.




Decimal Error in Article
By limitedaccess on 1/3/2009 8:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Digital track sales though retailers like iTunes grew 27% to 10.7 billion units sold.


1.07 billion is the number given in the Reuters article.




By JWMiddleton on 1/4/2009 11:33:53 AM , Rating: 2
This is my first time to post, but have been a member for years. First off I LOVE music! Can't create it, but have eclectic tastes.

1. I've noticed a lot of complaints about new music. Try checking out some old stuff. Find some genres you like and do some reaseach for stuff you might have missed out on.

2. Last year I received a USB turntable for my birthday. I've been using it on two boxes of albums I've had packed away for 30 years. I took great care of my records and and am very please with the quality of resulting .mp3 files. I use Audacity and the Ion iTTUSB turntable.

3. I don't understand this statement "the lower margin digital tracks are unable to make up the money lost to declining physical medium sales." How can a song for 99 cents that doesn't require a manufacting plant and physical distribution have less margins?

4. Check out the new(ish) movie "Cadillac Records" for a new direction for your listening pleasure. Then find out how many have covered that music like Eric Clapton and Allman Bros.

Rock on!




By jabber on 1/5/2009 9:02:49 AM , Rating: 2
....most of the recorded output for the past 5 years has been drek! The sound quality is absymal.

I listened to a CD a few days ago of the lastest up and coming tracks for 2009 on my headphones and most of them were so poorly recorded it was full of distortion and clipping and all squashed together. Not worth listening too.

*Most recording artist have no understanding of sound or the technology that enables their business.

*Most so called 'Producers' also havent a clue about the technology or the history of real record production. They put together a CD on a cheap PC home studio once and they think they are George Martin or Phil Spector. Gold chains, teeth and a basketball top do dont maketh a Producer.

*Engineers and Mixers not having the balls to stand up to dumb artists/Producers/Marketing pricks by advisng them to lower the levels a bit to make it listenable.

*Joe Public for buying this crap.

Its not going to get better is it. Too many fakers/hacks involved.

Step away from the home recording studio please!




Record sales losses
By wallijonn on 1/5/2009 11:13:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The global recession also accounted for some of the loss in sales.


Some? I'm surprised they didn't blame higher gas prices as a main contributor for families not wanting to squander their hard earned cash on frivolous music.

There was a time when there was too much product on the shelves and people would no longer buy blindly. There was a time when CDs were going for $18 each. Now that the Internet allows people to sample music, it again is a matter of too much product. Now that songs cost $1.00 apiece, each dollar not spent can be used to buy necessities, not luxuries like music.

Personally I'm surprised that the music industry hasn't been decimated due to the global recession.




combination of things
By stlrenegade on 1/5/2009 1:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
I think the decline in CD sales is a combination of several things, the two main ones being:

1) Digital downloads - being able to pick and choose what you want from each album.

2) Music sucks these days - most acts seem to be created, and not found. A lot of pop acts don't even create their own music and lyrics. And when they do, it sucks.

Case in point. I bought Guitar Hero: World Tour over the Christmas holiday, and while I have no musical talent with real instruments, you can kinda get a feel for the songs by their structure in Guitar Hero. I played "Band on the Run" and had a blast. I played "Misery Business" by Paramore (I had to look on wikipedia for that) and was bored to death. The song sucks, and on Guitar Hero, you basically strum the same two-button chord the whole song. I think that says a lot about music now and then.




Music Sales
By spoon2k3 on 1/8/2009 1:01:16 PM , Rating: 2
CD music sales are down because the vast majority of commercial music sucks. Where we were forced into buying CDs in the past, now we can purchase the one or two songs we want from the same CD. We are still buying the music we want, we're just paying less for it by not buying the extraneous crap. Piracy? Sure some happens, but their "losses" are due mainly to the fact that the music industry has the same forward looking capabilities as the auto industry; hence their problems. Once they change their business model to something along the line of what Trent Reznor and others are doing, then, oh, wait, what am I thinking...




Album Sales
By Uncle on 1/2/2009 8:57:35 PM , Rating: 1
No wonder album sales are down, didn't the industry quit making them years ago? Albums mean vinyl to me and to anyone else who collects them. I wish people who write these articles would refer to albums and Cd's in the proper vernacular. Please and thank you.




Very poor cd marketing
By andrinoaa on 1/2/09, Rating: 0
"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki