2. misc-audio
  3. 1052947284

Is There Big Trouble Brewing?

It seems there is some trouble in the recorded music industry. Sales of recorded music has fallen 5% in 2001, 9% in 2002 and the global forecast is for a drop of 12-14% in the year 2003.

Regulators, especially in Europe have blocked mergers between companies including Universal, Sony, Warner, EMI and BMG, and seem to be holding firm on their positions. The music industry feels that consolidation may be the answer to many of their woes. I don't know if I can agree with this.

Do you remember when you purchased an album that contained 12 or so songs? Usually 70-80% of those songs were great recordings with quality content. Now if you find 10-20% of the recorded content to be of any quality you are doing well.

The recorded music industry likes to blame piracy and the world economy to be the culprit. Could it be the lack of quality in conjunction with out of proportion pricing? Many companies feel that format changes may provide the diversity for multiple income streams. Is that why they continue to introduce recycled music in the new formats?

I myself feel a great resentment towards the music industry. I am sick and tired of paying high prices for low quality and I'm sure many of you feel the same way. If the industry would like to see the new formats have a higher acceptance factor, don't you think they would do so by releasing new material on the newer formats?

I don't get it. Is there anyone out there willing to embrace the new formats so that they may listen to recordings that they have been listening to for the last 30 years? Will the industry ever wake up and realize that the consumer is disgusted with the bill of goods we are presently being sold?
128x128buscis2
buscis2's avatar
buscis2 OP
468 posts
 
But Sean, are you considering the quality and quantity of music then vs. today? I find that many albums from that era contained much higher quality material for the majority of the album. I find that today, its' the exact opposite.

For example, back in that period, musicians had a longevity. Bands were around for 10,15,20 years. It's seems today we have many more "one hit wonders", "overnight sensations" that last literally, overnight.

Sit and listen to Beatles/Abbey Road, Yes/Fragile, Elton John/Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, etc. One song after another, great music. That is what motivated me to buy more from that particular musician. I find today that the albums today consist of a lot of "filler" from musicians that never even make a second album.

I'm I that far off?
seandtaylor99
1,262 posts
 
Buscis ... you are preaching to the choir! I was born in 1969, so my prime music buying years (assuming we start at age 14) were 1983 onwards. Looking in my collection you'll find tons of 1960s and early 1970s material, maybe 1 or 2 1980s albums, and then a slew of 1990s albums. I actually think that things are better now than they were during the 1980s, but I blame the synthesizer for that, more than the record companies.

Also I'm not sure if there's less talent now, just that record companies (like the rest of US and UK industry) is hooked on the quick buck, and so it's easier to fabricate bands for pimply teenagers than it is to nurture the next Beatles, Queen, Led Zep, Elton John etc etc. Unfortunately they are discovering that pimply teenagers like to get their music for free ... hah !

You might like to try some of Paul Weller's solo albums ... self titled, Wildwood, and Stanley road are all classic albums from the mid 90s, and will stand up to ANY Elton John or Beatles album. But does anyone promote Paul Weller in the US ? I'm certain good stuff is out there, but I'm also certain it will not be nurtured by the big record companies, nor the increasingly corporate radio airwaves.
buscis2's avatar
buscis2 OP
468 posts
 
Sean, the synthesizer AND disco were the culprits back in the 80s.:-)

And by the way, you have good taste in music. I was born in 59. And I consider myself fortunate to have lived in a great era of music. It might just be my age catching up to me but, I feel that music was a much better value back in those days. As you said, I can pull albums out of my collection from the 60s-70s era and enjoy those albums from start to finish. I find it increasingly difficult to do the same with newer recordings.

I also remember buying new release albums for $3.00-$4.00 then, versus $15.00-$18.00 today. Boy, now I'm REALLY sounding old.

Let's see; then, $4.00/ 12 good songs, now, $18.00/ 3 good songs. And should I buy regular LP or 180 gram LP, redbook CD, HDCD or SACD, DVD-A or SADVD. I don't know. Now I'm so confused, I think I'll just illegally download it from the web.

It's not really that important anyway, they are all the same album I've been listening to for the last 20 years. In fact, if I look hard enough, I might even be able to find it on 8 track.
sean
6,231 posts
 
Much of the difference in "quality" back in the day has to do with the fact that most performers used to have to fill up an LP, not a CD. As such, 30 - 40 minutes of "quality" music was easier to come by than 60 - 80 minutes worth. Nowadays, if an artist put out a CD with 30 minutes worth of music on it, even if it was "top notch", they would get blasted for "cheating the public". Either way, you can't win for losing.... Sean
>
bomarc
501 posts
 
Buscis, no offense, butI think you're suffering from selective memory. The classic albums that you still listen to had lots of great cuts, but the album with one hit and a lot of dregs was not invented in the 1990s. I suspect your taste, like mine, doesn't run to current pop, so neither of us is in a position to judge the classics of the 90s.

As for Sean's "lending library," in the old days you could make a pretty good copy with a little work. Today, making a perfect copy is a snap. So, while I think the industry is guilty of a lot of things, I do agree that copying is a real problem for them.
More to discover