State of Mind of The Art

Spotted on: Digital Music News

It’s nothing new that the music industry is experiencing a steady downward trend in album sales. A few years ago, chart toppers were moving millions of albums a week. This trend isn’t just continuing, it’s advancing. For the first quarter of 2008, albums sales were down 10.7% from the same period last year, according to SoundScan figures.

As if that isn’t enough, last week’s sales showed an almost 25% drop from last year, and the number one album sold 166,000 copies. This is a very impressive figure for a mid level label, and indie labels would breaking out the champagne, but for transnational companies whose yearly sales are in the billions, these figures point a major crisis. The boat isn’t just taking on water anymore, it’s halfway under the waves.

It’s important to note that this measures only physical sales, and beyond that, only albums registered with SoundScan. While physical sales are traditionally the most lucrative part of the music business, digital sales are where the action - and the money - is at now.

People are still buying music, and billions of dollars worth of it. What’s shifted is the variety that is being bought is expanding at an exponential rate - an alarming development for the companies who invest millions into a single artist. The market isn’t so much evolving anymore, it’s already evolved. The focus around 360 deals is a perfect example of the shift the flow of money around music.

With the the combination of iTunes, Amazon, eMusic, and the army of other digital music sites that now dominate the market, the entry of Wal-Mart, Target and other major retailers into full scale album sales, and the diversity of music offered to people through social networking and file sharing, the business of selling music isn’t the same business it was five years ago; in many ways it isn’t the same business it was two years ago.

The issue at hand isn’t so much the collapse of physical sales as it is the diversifying of people’s tastes. Music is so easy to create and distribute now that the choices are nearly limitless. Anyone with a few ideas and a computer can have an album out on the web for sale, and even produce physical copies cheaply.

So how low can album sales go?

In my opinion, we’re nearing the bottom of the spiral. Physical sales may shrink a bit more, it seems that at this point the only people buying physcail albums are the ones who want the album, and fans can always be counted on to support artists.

I’m not a soothsayer, but I predict that 2008 is the year we see a major shift in the way major labels conduct business, adopting more elements of the DIY and underground communities in signing, developing and marketing artist.

Bottom Line: Sales figures measure something in reality. In reality, the music business is a brand new entity. Welcome to the Age of Variety.

Spotted on: TorrentFreak

An interview with the Flashbulb about his recent calamity with iTunes, and putting his album up on BitTorrent. It turns out iTunes is selling his albums without permission, and not paying royalties.

The Flashbulb (Benn Jordan) has been releasing albums for 14 years, the last 5 have included various commercial endeavors. The label deal he has is a 50/50 split, but he hasn’t been seeing the money. Benn says he has no agreement with iTunes to sell his music, and many of his fans have told him they bought his music there. When he investigated the issue further, his label asked him to drop it, and his calls went unreturned.

Here’s a great quote from Benn: “Who’s the pirate I should go after? A kid who downloads my album because it isn’t available in non-DRM format and costs $30 on Amazon? Or a huge multi-billion dollar corporation that has been selling thousands of dollars worth of my music and not even acknowledging it?”

Benn is being labeled in the press as pro-piracy, but his true stand is that people buy what they like. “What I’m promoting is the artist’s freedom to choose what can and can’t be done with his/her music, and more importantly, the listener’s freedom to do what he/she wants with their own computer, MP3 player, or internet connection.”

Benn makes a poignant case that the RIAA has spent so long dictating people’s taste and choices that they are now threatened by the opportunity for people to choose the music they want. He suggests that “music will be judged by it’s content again and will be subjected to it’s own Darwinism.”

Bottom Line: Where are all those billions in album sales really going?

Syndicated from: Digital Music News - by Paul Resnikoff

Ghosts is a variation on a theme created by Radiohead. The latest NIN album is part free, part paid, part digital, and part traditional. And a broad range of consumer preferences and budgets are accommodated by the initiative.

Reznor and Radiohead are important market-movers and fearless risk-takers. But are these experiments really relevant to the broader music industry?

The problem is that only part of the consumer population is going to play along. Radiohead found that a disproportionate number of fans downloaded In Rainbows for free, an offered option. But an even larger number of fans downloaded the album for free outside of the Radiohead page, on BitTorrent, P2P, and other sharing protocols.

These fans wanted the album on their turf, not Radiohead’s. And that has been the bigger story for the recording industry for the past ten years. Sure, the iTunes Store has sold 4 billion downloads, but that is just a tiny fraction of the free downloads obtained from other channels.

Outlets like Limewire offer instant, on-demand bulk downloads and comprehensive recording catalogs for free. The iTunes Store offers a cleaner copy, but for a price that makes collection volume difficult to achieve.

Now, Trent Reznor is about to learn a similar lesson. Most likely, fans will grab the first, free volume of the album in heavy numbers, and a smaller percentage will pay for the expanded collection.

But that is only part of the story. Outside of that sandbox, volumes II-IV will quickly creep onto Gnutella, BitTorrent, and IM. Sure, Reznor seeded the first volume onto BitTorrent. But who are we kidding? Fans are in charge of this channel, not Reznor.

That means far lower volumes for NIN, or any other established artist, compared to the 90s. Other factors are also sapping energy, including an increasingly-fragmented media market, and the lowered attention spans that come with it.

Then again, who needs 90s volumes when the major label is suddenly optional? After all, Reznor can now keep the revenues (almost) all to himself, and achieve robust revenues on far smaller volumes.

The math is alluring, and a major disincentive for signing with a label. Marketing specialist Seth Godin urges artists to cultivate targeted, niche audiences, and any business school graduate will lecture you on the value of consumer targeting. Why not translate those principles and percentages into a healthy, more controllable career?

The question is becoming less and less academic, and artists like Trent Reznor are putting the possibilities into motion. But it remains unclear if artists can healthily sustain themselves using this philosophy, at least in scalable numbers.

And smaller artists will have difficulty applying the Radiohead model, at least until their recognition grows. Why? The reason is that most lesser-known artists have trouble getting people to download their content for free, much less pay for it. Why pay for something blind? That is a game for pre-2000 consumers.

In contrast, Reznor and Radiohead have established names, thanks to a massive, major label publicity machine. That tailwind is a critical component of the current models - and a major reason why media outlets are focusing heavily on their initiatives.

In the middle are artists like Saul Williams, a poet and rapper that exists outside of the mainstream. Reznor actually helped Williams create a Radiohead-like model with the help of Musicane, and the results were mixed. Less than 20 percent opted to pay $5 for the album - a total of nearly 28,000. Then again, that translates into roughly $142,000, a revenue total that easily pays the bills.

And any starving artist knows that six-figures is a goldmine for a life in the arts. A major would drop Williams in a heartbeat after a performance like that. But sailing solo, Williams could command a decent and consistent payout.

So is the Radiohead model relevant? For more established, post-label artists, the concept probably maximizes recording profits, and creates momentum for other revenue generators. And the results are boosted if the recordings are dispersed across a broad number of sales outlets, including the artist page, iTunes, Amazon MP3, and even traditional brick-n-mortar.

Sure, the result is smaller than 90s recording sales potentials, but it is something nonetheless. And if the consumer elects to pay, they have the opportunity to do so.
What about everyone else? For mid-size artists, the concept can translate into meaningful revenues, and for smaller artists, the idea is probably premature ahead of broader audience awareness. But more than ever, artists have the potential to reach super-targeted audiences, and that greatly increases the chances of a paid transaction.

Spotted on: The Campus Word

This article looks at the impact that huge MP3 collections has on our perception and enjoyment of music, and really got me thinking.

Music has value because it moves us.  That special album that takes us back to some magic moment, or the songs we love to dance to.  What has people by albums us the love of the music.

MP3 collecting is similar to collecting baseball cards.  Grab an artist’s entire discography, and trade among your peers.   Our music collections expand almost as fast as the national debt, and often music sits on our hard drives unlistened, unappreciated, and unacknowledged.  We become overwhelmed with the amount of music we have to listen to, and start to lose our love for the music that touches us.

When music is downloaded and listened to only once or twice, it becomes a single serving item, like a hamburger.  The joy of music is in the artistic expression, and the way we are moved when we hear something we love.

Could the current frenzy of MP3 downloading (both legal and  illegal) be eliminating our love for music?  There’s a phenomenon known as information overload.  One way to look at the current consumption of MP3s is that music is in an information overload stage.

With so much music to choose from, both free and bought, and huge MP3 collections, the line between having music we love and having music because its there is getting blurred.

Most of the time, we relate to this in terms of album sales, and the music industry.  What if we looked it as a shift in the perception of music?  While music is always special, it’s apparent that  we are now starting to view it as a thing to have. What effect this will have on our appreciation of music is anybody’s guess.  Based on the habits of the general public, music is losing it’s intrinsic value as art, and becoming more like a piece of furniture.

Bottom line: We used to buy CDs because we loved the music.  It is starting to appear that we now collect MP3s because they’re accessible.

Spotted on: Hollywood Reporter

“Music publishers, the record labels and digital music distribution outlets began a three-way legal wrestling match Monday over just how much songwriters and the publishing houses should get paid for digitally delivered music.”

At stake in this debate is mechanical royalties for internet streams. Major labels, Apple, and Yahoo want the royalty rate for artists to be lowered. The big publishing houses are currently promised nine cents a song, a figure that often gets negotiated lower, and the consortium against them wants that rate moved to 8%. Apparently, publishing revenues are up, while major label revenues are down. The Digital Media Association is upping the ante, pushing for the royalty rate to be dropped to 4%.

On the other side of the fence, the National Music Publishers Association wants the rates raised to 12.5%.

The driving concern here is the financial ‘burden’ that paying these royalties puts on the large companies that offer music. The claim is that streaming media should be treated like terrestrial radio.

Bottom Line: Without content, there is nothing to stream.