I just haven't seen how this so-called New Model is working out better for artists than the Old Model, which I admit was not a walk in the park for cats as is. I'm not sure what the solution or widdle ground is.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-percentage-of-music-online-that-goes-unpurchased-2013-10

The Vast Majority Of Music Online Goes Basically Unpurchased
Rob Wile Oct. 24, 2013,


Here's an insane stat: 98.9% of all digital music tracks in existence in 2011 sold fewer than 1,000 copies.

That's 7,931,408 out of 8,020,660 songs.

And 73.9% of all digital music tracks sold fewer than 10 copies in 2011.

The data is from a new book by Harvard Business School Professor Anita Elberse's new book, "Blockbusters: Hit-making, Risk-taking, and the Big Business of Entertainment" (and spotted by Bob Lefsetz).

The data is similar for albums: 58.4% of all albums in existence sold fewer than 100 copies in 2011 — 513,146 out of 878,369.

And 97.1% of all albums available sold fewer than 1,000 copies.

To turn the data around, just 400 separate albums released in 2011 accounted for 35% of all music sales.

For tracks, just 1,514 songs out of 8,020,660 available in 2011 accounted for 40% of all sales.

Elberse comments that the old 80-20 model of the music business, which dictated 80% sales come from just 20% percent of products, has been obliterated.

"For music albums, it is close to an 80/1 rule – if we can speak about a rule at all. Even if we take a conservative estimate of what would be on offer in a bricks-and-mortar store at any given point in time, that long-tail sales will rival those in the head are far off."

And all this is even before Spotify took off in the U.S.

And she discusses the implications of these data, for music and entertainment in general:

"what Warner Bros., NBC, and many other entertainment businesses have found out—often the hard way—is that a 'blockbuster strategy' works.

"The leading television networks, film studios, book publishers, music labels, video game publishers, and producers in other sectors of the entertainment industry thrive on making huge investments to acquire, develop, and market concepts with strong hit potential, and they bank on the sales of those to make up for the middling performance of their other content.

"...rather than spreading resources evenly across product lines (which might seem to be the most effective approach when no one knows for sure which products will catch on) and vigorously trying to save costs in an effort to increase profits, betting heavily on likely blockbusters and spending considerably less on the “also rans” is the surest way to lasting success in show business."

Helps explains why you keep hearing and seeing the same big, lumbering songs and movies.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-percentage-of-music-online-that-goes-unpurchased-2013-10#ixzz2jDHxKzCh

-------
http://adevotedappraisal.tumblr.com - Essays, reviews, short stories and free writes on music, film and life around us.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

or is there some ironic undercurrent here that I missed?

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

And my impression was that there was never a glory day for independant digital music, and that it is just a gradual takeover by the major record labels. There may be less 'viable' album makers now than during the CD or cassette era.

-------
http://adevotedappraisal.tumblr.com - Essays, reviews, short stories and free writes on music, film and life around us.

this is all pretty much what he's been railing about in his curmudgeonly rants all these years.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

>this is all pretty much what he's been railing about in his
>curmudgeonly rants all these years.

resents being so invested in music (hip-hop specifically) and it colors his perspective.

_________________________________________

Lately I've had the strangest feeling.... that you were GOOOONNNNEEEE

He makes good points (often, not always) but they usually feel like they're in service of his bitter-old-man agenda that it just turns me off of replying or discussing.

--

you try to contradict and argue with anyone who makes you feel inferior.

i think they call that a complex.
(not to be confused with the magazine.)

---
i just want to opine in peace.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

intelligent people respect others who offer some valid viewpoint they never considered even if they disagree with other things that person believes.

they don't harbor feelings of malice (for whatever motivation) and disagree with everything they feasibly can as a means draw the other person into a never-ending argumentative confrontation.

consider how many posters on here you have tireless, vengeful exchanges with over trivial matters in some attempt to get an upper hand.

i'm sure this is something that has likely reared itself in your real life as well.

it's never too late for self-improvement.

---
i just want to opine in peace.

EDIT: For the record, I was being facetious when I said I loathe to give you credit just because you have been vocal about your dislike of me. However, I actually have nothing against you… I find your board persona to be pretty unpleasant, but most people who post here are some kind of asshole anyway. When you have said things I agreed with, I have said so and have quoted and cited you several times in other posts.

So there's no need to get into a huff. It's actually kind of funny that instead of just accepting that in this case I *did* give you credit, you immediately home in on the fact that I suggested I was doing so reluctantly.

That probably says something about you too… but I really don't care enough to do the armchair analysis to determine what exactly.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

---
i just want to opine in peace.

in all honesty, i appreciate anyone who reads and considers what i have to say and i think you have probably done that more than most of the people on here.

take care.

---
i just want to opine in peace.

who put their shit on Bandcamp for 99 cents and hopes some of their Facebook friends and family gives them money?

So I would imagine, yes, it does include that stuff.

And I remember a similar survey about a year and a half ago which only did a study of the music on iTunes, but it was similar example: about 90% of the music had only been purchased a handful of times, if at all.


``i know you are fake. . . 'cause man, i'm the same.``
"unspecified psychosis." http://bit.ly/HgJRBl
"untitled 6." http://bit.ly/19QmVPu
"untitled 5." http://bit.ly/GWjmBl
"so whatever 2.0." http://bit.ly/18hYTfT
"1.5.2.0." http://bit.ly/18UMv7A

Id like for a focus on the majors/big indies to get a good comparison as opposed to Cousin Jo-Jo's 2 Live Crew cover band on bandcamp.

This shows that any and everybody has the ability to sell music now.

This shows that the majors lost market share. That is bad news only for the majors.

Here is a good read that is something of a counterpoint to this

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100124/1752357883.shtml


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

>This shows that any and everybody has the ability to sell
>music now.
>
>This shows that the majors lost market share. That is bad
>news only for the majors.

except there's no market for any music that isn't released and promoted by major labels.

enter: the falsehood of people optimistically pushing the internet is a breeding ground for anything but piracy, snark, ridicule and slapstick.

the internet is a black hole for the arts.

go ahead, throw your music down the pipeline, see if anyone downloads it (even for free) without some sort of corporate endorsement.

---
i just want to opine in peace.

There IS a data point missing. But that number is still really small. For instance...

Someone like Chance The Rapper.. IS currently successful w/o having a single barcode. Up until the last album Pretty Lights was the same way.

But there are VERY VERY few people who can give away the music totally free and still bank on other aspects of the business.

Double 0
DJ/Producer/Artist
Producer in Kidz In The Hall
-------------------------------------------
twitter: @godouble0
IG: @godouble0
www.thinklikearapper.com

Having music available digitally means that WAAAAAAAy more people get to make their music available. I would be more interested in finding out if acts are finding it easier or harder to be heard and get paying gigs.

www.anwarmorse.com
https://www.instagram.com/thereal_anwarmorse99/

easier to be heard... much harder for enough ppl to give a shit though

Double 0
DJ/Producer/Artist
Producer in Kidz In The Hall
-------------------------------------------
twitter: @godouble0
IG: @godouble0
www.thinklikearapper.com

less popular music, less sales, less overall revenue, less attention paid by anyone.

enter: acts praying they can license their songs for a cell phone or a car or something.

the fans lose + the acts lose.

the only person who doesn't lose out of these awful conditions is the small sliver of corporations, shareholders, executives who profiteer from the receding amounts of released music through the lack of viable alternatives.

less options, less sharing of money.

i won't be surprised if at some point in the next 10 years, the billboard hot 100 is reduced to 50.

---
i just want to opine in peace.

Nah son... All this means is the correction of the industry. They can pool around their blockbusters and still bank. The fat is trimmed though.

You figure back in the days a label could have a group like No doubt as a tent pole while BEP was still tryna figure it out. Even though BEP hadn't figured it out they were still given nice as hell advances. Still treated like major label artists. Because the label could afford the fluff.

Now a days you get Katy Perry. Budget is still big, opportunities are still big. Then you have let's say a colin monroe. While they are both on the same label who knows if Colin's budget is even open.

It was like that previous post about that producer airing MMG out on twitter. The idea that Meek Mill a successful upstart not being able to get his budget open because he can't make a hit is a very legitimate rumor. The label would much rather you spend you bread "figuring it out" then come to them with the hit.

so basically... the Button doesn't get pushed until you are much more of a "sure thing" or have a proven track record.

i.e. Blockbuster Syndrome
more links to lefsetz

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2013/10/01/the-blockbuster-syndrome/

Double 0
DJ/Producer/Artist
Producer in Kidz In The Hall
-------------------------------------------
twitter: @godouble0
IG: @godouble0
www.thinklikearapper.com

considering they manufacture hits to begin with by placing songs on youtube's mainpage, buying rotation, buying online views, buying units, buying publicity in publications, advertising, etc.

i really don't get how people "prove" anything.

you get a label behind you pushing you and you succeed.

the exposure element to the talent/style/exposure model trumps the other 2.

labels have scaled back the amount in which they release music.
indie music is not getting the same level of exposure, the internet certainly isn't levelling the playing field for any independent acts outside of a small handful with cult-followings.

it's recessive.
and the only people who win are the profiteers of music because they supply less options for the masses to consume.

---
i just want to opine in peace.

i'm stealing this from Robert Christgau, btw...




back in the day, not all the popular music was good.
BUT, most of the great music was popular.

if i want to find the great music from the 60s and 70s,
it's pretty easy to know where to start.

Beatles.
stones.
motown.

of course, there was more than that.
but i can be just fine as a music snob if i start with the top sellers and weed out the crap.
that's enough to keep me occupied for quite some time.





so what went wrong?
I've said this before... i blame "thriller."
"thriller" made companies like CBS start to care about their record division.
so the suits who used to let record companies be run by ppl that love music
started to want a say in what got released and how.

is that a bad thing? not really.
the tension between "do great art" and "we need a single" is responsible for most of the music i love.



the problem, though... is the suits started to feel that
they could make any artist as popular as MJ if they put enough money behind it.
what the suits forgot is that artists like MJ and prince and even Madonna were true artists did their own quality control. they were geniuses, and money alone ain't what made them popular.




so this "thriller" boom lasted up through the 90s...
and everyone from garth brooks to n'sync benefitted.


but then companies got greedy.
they wanted every artist to do thriller numbers on their first album...
lest they got dropped.

they stop developing talent.
blow up immediately, or you get dropped.






add in napster and the fact that they quit selling singles
and you have a generation of fans that never paid for music
and are not gonna pay 20 bucks for a CD with one song they kinda like.





here's bammer's point:
indie artists can't flourish just b/c the old model is gone.
the old model had benefits.

it's easy to find new, good music.
there is excitement. blockbuster albums.
if that model collapses (which it has) how will new artists find a voice?




but here's where bammer misses the entire point...


when the Beatles started out...
there was no way to get rich playing black music.
they did it because they liked it and accidentally made a career out of it.

same goes with the first rappers.
same goes with the first jazz musicians.


they did it b/c they loved it,
and that created some great music.

what bammer misses is that of ppl realize
that you can't get rich playing music...
ppl that don't give a fuck about music will quit making it,
and it can go back to the "innocent" place it came from.

2 turntables and a mic.










it almost doesn't matter if nobody hears it.
what matters is that somewhere there is a guy with an ipad
making music beause that's what in his heart.

that's the type of energy that, no bullshit, can change the world.
bammer is right, we've lost that.
but it's not a lost cause.


it's just starting all over again.
in a good way.

ps I'm drunk.
I'll regret this post in the morning I'm sure.