Many artists that experience high volumes of downloads on p2p networks also experience brisk sales. The days of mega-platinum albums are pretty much at an end, so I’m defining brisk sales as between 50,000 to 7 million units sold. This is abroad spectrum, as it includes middle tier artists as well. The future of music will most like include far more middle tier artists, making a decent living, and fewer multi million dollar pop sensations.

The actions of Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, and Saul Williams are not meant to devalue music to nothing. These artists want people to buy their music. They pay their mortgages, buy their gas, and feed their kids off music sales and gigs. The intention behind these artists’ actions are to move forward a major shift in the music business. The sooner major labels are out of the picture, the sooner our culture can have a conversation about the value of music. It;s great that people can choose how much they want to pay to support artists. At the same time, all of us in the middle or lower tiers of the industry cannot sustain a vibrant career without revenue. Digital music sales are expanding rapidly; obviously people are buying music.

Consider that people can get almost any music they want for free. With a small amount of effort, any album can be found, downloaded, and added to a collection as an MP3. So when people do buy music, what does it measure?

The Love of the Music

Album and track sales measure artist support, and appreciation of the music itself. When major albums are leaked well in advance of release dates and still sell well, it’s clear that the people buying it don’t have to. Why would people buy something they can get for free? It’s not consistent with a capitalist mentality.

Music is in a post capitalist environment, and totally uncharted territory for any commodity. There is no scarcity of music, and the supply outstrips the demand by miles. When people buy an album, they are saying “I like this music or artist enough to support them. I want them to continue to make great music, and I am moved and touched by what they create.”

Sales dynamics and trends for non-major label releases follow a completely different set of rules than mainstream music sales do. Mega-Artists that are joining the ranks of independent musicians aren’t breaking new ground as much as they are creating a public awareness of the way the music business works for most of the artists in it. For those of us in the trenches of our careers, they are putting a spotlight on how we do business.

Free downloads from major artists are simply a proving ground that in the post major label era of music, people will still buy music they support. The only difference between downloading an album for free on an artist site or off Bit Torrent is the amount of effort one has to put in (i.e. clicking a link instead of typing a name into a search prompt).

Although accurate sales totals for In Rainbows won’t be available till the end of the year, it’s clear people are willing to pay for music when they are not forced to. Now that big time acts are involved in the independent music world, there’s no denying that people buy music they love, even if it’s free. The only thing that has changed with In Rainbows is the kind of market analysis we are seeing in major media publications. Major labels can’t whitewash entertainment news about the reality of the business anymore.

When people have access to the music they want for free, and without being treated like criminals, supporting the artist is a natural action to take. it’s when we are treated like criminals, or asked to pay large sums of money for long dead artists, that the public begins to resent buying music.

The Bottom Line: Album sales no longer measure marketing ability or brand placement, they measure people’s love of the music.

What do you think?

What do album sales measure?

Are Radiohead/Saul Williams/NIN breaking new ground, are are they amplifying a message that most of us already hear?

Chris Anderson deserves a parade in his honor.

This brilliant post completely uncompresses the major label view of the music business with the actual music business.

“…it appears that every single part of the music industry except the sale of compact discs is up.

• Concerts and merchandise: UP (+4%)
• Digital tracks: UP (+46%)
• Ringtones: UP (+86% last year, but probably just single-digit percent this year)
• Licensing for commercials, TV shows, movies and videogames: UP (Warner Music saw licensing grow by about $20 million over the past year)
• Even vinyl singles (think DJs): UP (more than doubled in the UK)
• And, if you include the iPod in the music industry, as I’d argue a fair-minded analysis would: UP, UP, UP! (+31% this year)”

With statistical data to back up the claim, it’s clear that all the hoopla around the death of the music industry is a death cry form major labels. They could revamp their business models, and in fact they could have ten years ago when they knew this was coming. It’s as if these major companies have absolutely no relationship to reality.

The end of Chris’s article seems almost directed to this blog: “…for those who say that this avenue [giving away all music free] is only available to artists at the head of the curve…I’d point out that the other group poorly served by the labels are those at the bottom of the curve…”

As the major labels fail and become some new form of entertainment companies (most likely a clearinghouse for content or booking agencies), music will lose almost all of its value. Once we (the audience) are no longer pressured to buy, or told we are criminals for our actions, music will begin to regain its value.

While touring and swag are viable outlets for artists to generate revenue, the question becomes: where can smaller artists play, and is gigging still viable?

What is your take on the state of music sales, given this exciting and inspirational update on sales figures?

The future for musicians looks like more than just great recordings and live shows. The opportunities that the internet provides modern artists is available to everyone, and thus its potential is diluted. One powerful tool in creating buzz around your project or career is to get noticed. And one way to get noticed is to generate interest in who you are, and what you’re saying. in other words, creating and maintaining a conversation with your audience.

Pop culture can overwhelm us with the personal lives of famous people, and annoy us to no end with the antics of celebrities. Billboard has an excellent article on the effect of this kind of marketing on the careers of the ultra-famous. Keeping themselves in the public eye is a critical element to the careers of these top tier entertainers. Even bad press is good press for them.

For the independent artist, this same technique can yield different results. We can expand our scope and reach by generating attention for who we are, and what we have to say. Marketing a personality is nothing new. Here’s an article from Time Magazine in 1978, looking at the same methods and issues we are discussing today.

Once you have fulfilled your artistic vision, and you’re putting yourself out there, the make-or-break factor in success becomes notoriety. While having ten thousand friends on Myspace seems like a powerful promotional tool, does it really measure anything other than the number of people that landed on your page and clicked add me?

One of the most effective tools for creating a buzz for yourself, your project, and what you’re up to is blogging, and blogging often. If you are anything like me, you spend at least some of your week surfing the internet and consuming content. You have sites that you visit regularly. Consider that what keeps you coming back to a site is the steady stream of new and interesting content. Content that speaks to you.

A healthy career is grown through a fanbase. Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, Prince, and Madonna are able to free themselves from major labels and even give away their music because their fans are loyal, and people are tuning in.

While it may seem like the forward momentum is slow, steady and regular content on your project webpage, blog, or social networking page is critical to bring people back. And the more time people spend on your sites, the more interested they will be in supporting your cause.

I am guilty of not providing a steady stream of information on my blogs at times, and it impacts my return traffic, and the hype around my own projects and Polyvibe. I am preparing to condense this blog with my personal blog, providing the same great content with half the work. Like Uncle Scrooge says, work smarter, not harder.

For any artist who is committed to bringing viability to their career, having a powerful voice, and keeping the conversation going are critical elements to success.

I invite you to comment on this post with your opinions. If the waters ripple, we’ll talk more about creating a cult of personality, the results people are seeing from this kind of grassroots marketing, and methodology that can be implemented to increase your results.

CD sales are dropping, set to be a small fraction of overall sales – and sooner, rather than later. A recent survey of high school students showed that there is a downward trend in music downloading in that age group. This is the next generation of music buyers. Perhaps their actions are pointing to something.

The Freakonomics blog posted an editorial recently with analysis of the record industry by five people who ought to know. Koleman Strumpf, an economics professor at the University of Kansas, had this to say:

“If file sharing hurts record sales, then albums that are more heavily downloaded should experience lower sales than comparable albums that are less downloaded. But, after controlling for the role of popularity, we found that downloads had little effect on album sales.” He wrote a whole paper on the subject, if you want to find out more.

In other words, file sharing is not the source of the drop in album sales. A powerful insight like this is the last word on file sharing for me (although not for the RIAA).

Audioholics.com posted a great editorial on whether CDs are approaching the event horizon of obsolescence. They include a buffet of statistics showing that while physical sales are slumping, digital sales are growing with velocity.

As the digital music market overtakes physical sales, CDs will become less available (relegated to major chain stores like Wal-Mart). We can see this shift with the demise of? Tower Records. When people can get all the music they want without going to overpriced record stores, they will. This trend has yet to infect mom and pop record stores, like Orlando’s own Park Avenue CDs, and since most of these stores are seen as boutiques rather than purveyors of the lastest industry tripe, most of them will likely survive (don’t forget that most small record shops deal with smaller and indie labels, and used CDs and vinyl).

People are still buying tons of music, and if digital music sales are any indication, music will continue to be a commodity. Although most commentary is still focused on what major labels can do to revive sales, the real issue is becoming what can artists do to empower themselves in this new realm.

People are exposed to a larger variety of sounds than ever before. Demand for music has skyrocketed, while profits are shrinking. The idea that music has lost much of its monetary value in the current market is a two fold effect: the novelty of file sharing and mega hard drives, and the price difference between a digital single or download and a CD.

We live in an era of convenience, and audiences consistently choose the format which is most user friendly (think audio tapes in the 80′s). The shift toward digital libraries has been predicted for years, and even with DRM, digital is already the industry standard. I’m still surprised that such a well-known and predicted phenomenon can cause such panic among executives. It’s almost as if upper management in the record industry has been ignoring the experts.

The quality of the music is a major factor in sales when people have access to massive catalogs, too. Hip Hop is a great example of this trend. Collapsing under the weight of violence and misogyny, some hip hop artist still enjoy huge mainstream and underground success. And the cause of this slump seems to be the choices made my industry executives over the last ten years.

The reality is this: The fate of major record labels has nothing to do with whether or not musicians will be able to create fulfilling careers, absolutely nothing. With unlimited access, people aren’t compelled to buy any album unless they absolutely want it.

And in case you wanted to know the secret to success in the music business in any climate:
Make Great Music!

Our friends at The Seminal caught our attention with their take on the RIAA “victory”.? I put the word in quotes because the nature of a victory is that it advances your cause in some way.

I invite you to check this astute commentary. Here’s my favorite part:

“That’s right, the artists who slave for years to make records, pour out their souls into their CDs, and enrich our lives in a myriad of ways don’t actually get any of the money recovered through these ridiculous lawsuits. Not one red cent.”

The commentary on this case is already so powerful, there;s little left to add.

Over the next few weeks, we will begin to look at other ways artists and musicians can generate revenue besides signing their futures over to transnational behemoths, and the future of record labels.

Having seen this post a couple days ago, I feel compelled to put my two bits into the future of albums. It is true that Prince gave his album away in a newspaper, and that Radiohead is breaking new ground with their latest album (for those of you living in a cave, you can choose how much you want to pay for the album).

Animosity toward major record companies is growing faster than US citizens contempt for their government (I’ll refrain from linking out to anything here). The entertainment industry is entering what is known as a paradigm shift. It’s a blessing that international acts who have sold tens of millions of albums are bucking the existing system, and thus speeding up its downfall. Once the major labels are gone (or reduced to distribution entities), a new paradigm for the music industry will emerge.

I’m going to speculate on two different future paradigms for the entertainment industry.
In the bleak future, there are almost no major studios, and there are only one or two companies making high end studio gear. In this future, albums are considered such a small part of an artist’s career that the effort and attention paid to them diminishes. A professional musician becomes someone who tours and sells merch exclusively, while the number of live venues and outlets for performance shrink exponentially (Have you heard what is happening in orchestras?). As internet streams and access to media continues to increase, the value of going to a live show also drops. In this future, there is zero market for music as a commodity. Almost all musicians become hobbyists, and only artists with marketing budgets to swamp the internet garner popularity. Most musicians will no longer believe that they can live their dreams, and less and less of us will be willing to take the risks that it takes to generate rampant success. In this future, acts like Metallica and Radiohead will continue to make money – their touring and merch machines can support a massive infrastructure.

While this future is depressing, it is not the future we are living into culturally. Major acts are taking actions now that will ensure that the market for music opens up, and are creating an environment where any artist can create success with dedication and commitment. In fact, going back to Radiohead (check out the comments on this article), fans are embracing the opportunity to support an artist, and are buying the album.

Depending on how you look at things now, you can say that albums sales are bottoming out, or you can say that the imbalance of major label influence is being removed from the sales figures.

The future we are actually living into (in my humble opinion) is one where albums sell, and fans want to buy music they love. Most of the animosity toward buying music has to do with pricing structures and that major labels take most of the money. Even though people can download anything they want for free, albums are still selling. While the value of albums may drop, the percentage going to artists will increase, balancing out the pot for artists (the only party that fans care about anyways). A billion downloads is not a coincidence. A la carte downloads are novel now, but just like a six pack is far cheaper than buying one can of soda, the value of buying an album will follow the same path.
We can look at the actions of multi-platinum artists as a litmus test for the music industry, but they do not represent most artists. Gauging the future of album sales on artists who have sold millions of albums is no different that gauging the future of album sales on major label methodology. The typical mid level artist has neither the resources nor the clout to write off the value of albums.

There will be a shift in the perceived value of music by fans, too. Once DRM goes away, and people stop trying to litigate file sharing away, audiences will begin to give up their resentment of buying music. With software, file sharing is also rampant. Yet software companies are selling enough units to stay in business.

People value things more when they buy them. A hard drive filled with downloaded music
will never go away (and is there any of us who have no mix tapes or downloaded songs?

While the current environment of corporate pressure raises hackles, audiences want great albums to listen to. We just don’t want to be told we’re criminals.

The future of music lies in respecting the choice of the audience. If people don’t want to buy an artists music, but they want to listen to it, more power to them. As long as they enjoy it. If people love music, they will buy it.

On a final note, we of the Polyvibe are putting our music out on p2p networks. Feel free to enjoy it. If you like what you hear, support the artists.

*The opinions expressed above are my own, and are intended to provide a perspective outside of mainstream music industry types. We are committed to creating a conversation about what is possible for the future of music outside of mainstream perspectives.

In the news:
• http://www.wesh.com/news/8534393/detail.html
• http://www.diggz.org/index.cfm/2007/6/11/Diggz
• http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_local_orlandocrime/2006/04/senate_bill_loo.html

Please spread the word on your blogs, myspace, etc.

Here’s something from a couple months ago. It’s novel to occasionally look back at all of the information that never makes it to us, the media consuming public.

The FCC ordered all copies of a study on the localization of media ownership destroyed. This independent study examined the difference news coverage between locally owned and non-locally owned (i.e. transnational corporate) ownership of Television stations. Since there are no copies of the report right now, it’s hard to say what’s actually in it.

Thanks to some civic minded folks, here’s the clip of Senator Barbara Boxer ripping FCC Chairman Kevin Martin a new one, along with a description of the report. Apparently, Sen. Boxer was sent a copy of the report anonymously (Video courtesy of C-Span via YouTube).

Apparently, the study concludes that local ownership of TV stations increases the amount of local news coverage by about thirty three hours of news in a year about your area. Now, lots of local news may seem hokey and trite, but 33 hours more is plenty of room for real stories of value about our communities.

It would seem that the trend for the FCC is to only release information that is favorable to corporate consolidation of the broadcast medium, and all conflicting reports seem to be squelched. You can view two of these reports here and here, through the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting website. A few politicians demanded and investigation into this incident, but somehow nothing further has surfaced. It did take more than a few minutes of crawling through the interweb to find out that there was an inquiry made at all. That story never made it out as a press release. In fact, there doesn’t seem to be nay follow up on this story at all since then.
The Benton Foundation has a great list of link about the issue of media consolidation and local representation on the airwaves here. Of course, it’s not all bad news. The FCC started a new Review of Media Ownership Rules in June, so maybe this time they’ll give us back the airwaves. They’re even holding public hearings.

In the meantime, you can take stand to help free the airwaves by checking out the Prometheus Radio Project. With the corporate move to digital, they should consider turning the radio dial over to the people again. Unless they take FM and AM receivers out of cars…

Limewire was sued recently by the RIAA in yet another attempt to control the public’s consumption of media.? Once again, the RIAA has selected their own interpretation of MGM vs. Grokster.? Although that case defined the infrigement as having to be active by a group or service, the RIAA and MPAA continue to chase any group that offers p2p portal sfor file sharing. They contuinue to claim that organizations like Limewire bear the entire responsibility for how their users behave.? I always love this argument, becuase it;s the same as saying that if you sell a gun to someone, you are responsible if they use ti to rob a bank.? Of course, there’s no constitutional amendment protecting our right to bear file sharing software.
So now Limewire has filed a countersuit, accusing the RIAA of anti-trust violations.? This suit claims the RIAA is trying to “destroy any online music distribution service they did not own or control, or force such services to do business with them on exclusive and/or other anticompetitive terms so as to limit and ultimately control the distribution and pricing of digital music, all to the detriment of consumers.” (Counterclaim, paragraph 26, page 18)

It’s good to see that someone is finally standing up to the transnational conglomerates, although it remains to be seen what will come of it.? The good news about all this is it would appear the balance is finally tipping, and the death knell for the music ‘industry’ is ringing louder than ever.

The London Symphony Orchestra has been working with Baby IQ to retool their image, and apparently it’s been in the direction of making the image more valuable than the music. The LSO has openly admitted that the campaign is intended to make the LSO a brand name, rather than being about the power of classical music.

This cynical commentary is written by an insider, a member of the Classical community. The author goes on to lament the objectification of music, and especially the decline of classical music as an art form, as it is slowly consumed by all devouring beat of capitalism and money. I find it inspiring that some musicians still have the idealism to love music as an art, and not an object, and I hope you do too.