“Sales of recorded music in the United States are on the rise for the first time in four years. The recording industry registered sales of about 667 million albums, an increase of about 1.6 percent, according to year-end data expected to be released today by the market research firm Nielsen SoundScan,” The New York Times reports.
“The data, covering a 52-week period, also show that the industry is beginning to tap the power of the Internet to generate sales, though free music still flows through online file-sharing networks. Sales of digital tracks through services like iTunes from Apple Computer exceeded 140 million, Nielsen SoundScan was expected to announce,” The New York Times reports. “While the data appear to diminish industry concerns that sales of individual songs online would cannibalize sales of CD’s, it is far from clear whether the industry will be able to develop profitable online business models. The data show that consumers buy individual tracks for about 99 cents much more often than they download full-length albums, which carry a higher price tag.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: All of those new iPods out there hunger for music on their tiny hard drives, it would seem. The more iPods out there, the better music sales will be, since iPod allows you to take music more places and listen in more personal ways. It ain’t Wave Radios or wonderful new artists doing this, folks. If you think Apple’s iPod isn’t behind the sales rise, please tell us what is driving up music sales for the first time in four years.
As for the mourning over album versus singles sales, perhaps if the music industry put out full-length albums full of good songs, they’d sell better than individual hits? Of course, this hardly ever happens, since by definition a hit is a rarer gem and contains something extraordinary that the other songs do not. Not every song on an album can be a hit (especially if your average artist is putting out an album every 18 months).
Perhaps the flawed “album” model is an artificial construct that was designed to grab more money by prepackaging the average (or worse) with a hit or two (at best)? We think that the health of the “album” shouldn’t be worried about by anyone other than those who profited from it. The industry can be “concerned” all they like and for as long as they wish, but at some point they should probably wake up and realize that the rip-off “album” paradigm they invented and nursed along for all these years has long since died. Have the funeral already and let’s get on with it.
Will the new flash iPod be called an iPee?
Not every song on an album can be a hit (especially if your average artist is putting out an album every 18 months).
Not a Beatles fan are you?
The pay-per-song will succeed albums. If I recall correctly, the Beatles would come out with an old 45 with 3 songs on it more than once a year. That 3 song 45 used to be the model for success and much more similar to pay-per-song now.
Disclaimer for Tommy Boy: “Greatest Hits packages and certain Beatles albums excepted. We’d be even bigger Beatles fans if they’d stop frivolously suing Apple Computer every time they smell a buck.”
Sometimes I buy Albums on iTunes. If I like more than 4 or 5 of the songs at all then it feels like a better deal if there are more than 12 or so tracks on the album. Sure the other songs aren’t stellar but a lot of times they are pretty good and I can get 7 or 8 or more for less than 5 dollars.
Um… why do you have a “full story here” link on the main macdailynews.com page, yet it doesn’t take you there? You have to click again on the next mdn.com page to go the actual story source. Just curious. Awesome site, it’s my home page on all my macs.
Oh, the story… right… It’s still a rip that an iTunes album is $10, with no profit going to Apple (Steve Jobs, Macworld 2003) and no hardware to manufacture by the record distributors (no CD’s, artwork, case, distribution, shipping, etc…) and NO money going now to the artists. Reasonable well known now that the bands make their $ on tour, NOT by music sales. I’d pay $10, or more, knowing that at least 10% would go to the musicians. Ridiculous.
MacDailyNews Webmaster
I think you’ll find it’s that leech McCartney that keeps sueing Apple. I am good friends with one of his Neice’s, who lives in Wallasey, one of the most deprived areas of England. He doesn’t even give good Christmas presents!!!
Come on Macca, give us all a break.
Hey Tommy Boy,
How about this revision: “With the current crop of so-called ‘artists’ being shoved into the public’s face by money-grubbing labels, it is difficult for every song to be a hit (especially if your average [moderately-talented] ‘artist’ is putting out an album every 18 months).” Better?
I agree with MDN’s take on this. In most cases, label reps look for the latest “Boy-band wannabe”, or the next “Soon-to-be-bullet-riddled Tu-Pac/Notorious B.I.G./[insert name here] hip-hop, no-education, inner-city, ‘keepin-it-real’, coke-sniffin’, hoe-banging, Gangsta wannabe”.
Perhaps labels should get back to looking for musicians. You know, like they used to. Instead, what happens is that they just look for what’s currently ‘hot’ and then they try to find another ‘artist’ to copy it. There is very little risk-taking or long-term artist development anymore, but that’s another story.
Let me just say that there are very few singer/songwriters anymore, that write original material and play it for a living, that are receiving support/financial backing from labels. As a result, we get a lot of ‘music’, but hardly anything of long-term, substantive value. A lot of ‘one-hit wonders’ or crap. Nothing like when the Beatles (and I could name several other artists or bands) would write a bunch of music, sometimes play it live to see what the audiences liked, and then select the best cuts to put on an album.
I’m afraid that those days are gone. At least until the label execs get their collective heads out of their posteriors and realize that the reason people aren’t buying as many CD’s/albums as they once did is because they are peddling sh!t. The laws of supply and demand are at work. That’s part of the reason a lot of (real) artists are promoting their work online now through outlets like CDbaby.
I must say though, since getting my iPod, my CD purchases have increased significantly, yet I haven’t purchased anything from the ITMS. My wife’s song purchases have been about 60% ITMS with about 40% CD tracks.
But besides that, the reality is that hardly anyone under 35 years old even gives a crap about the Beatles anymore, much less know who they are. Sorry.
End of rant.
Seems the music industry needs to give a nice thank you to Apple and the legions of iPod buyers. Maybe a better deal for Apple on these music downloads.
“But besides that, the reality is that hardly anyone under 35 years old even gives a crap about the Beatles anymore, much less know who they are. Sorry.”
Clearly, you are not under 35 years, and don’t know what you’re talking about.
young beatles fan:
You stated: “Clearly, you are not under 35 years, and don’t know what you’re talking about.”
First, I am over 35 and second, I stand corrected. You, apparently, are a Beatle’s fan under 35. Good for you.
Please bear in mind that I did qualify my statement with the words *hardly anyone*.
To answer the question posed by MDN, yes, I have purchased more music since I bought my iPod. I’ve spent over $500 dollars on songs and gift cards from The Music Store since it opened and I’ve bought a lot more albums at record stores. My iPod is what reignited my love for music. The four years before consisted of me downloading the latest top 40 garbage off of the web once in a great while. iTunes has helped me discover a whole world of music that I was not aware of. I can’t thank Apple enough for helping me to find new music that I really enjoy. The iPod truely is one of the greatest inventions in music hstory.
Just read the last comment. I’m also under 35 and a huge Beatles fan. So are a TON of other under 35 year olds that I know. The Beatles are HUGE! Our parents raised us on them and I know very few people who don’t own at least one Beatles album. Just look at the sucess of The Grey Album to see their continuing influence on music.
I don’t agree with their suit against Apple or their stand on digital music, but if Apple could sign them it would be a very big deal.
If you like the Beatles, and also enjoy Monty Python, then you should check out the Rutles!
http://www.rutles.org/
Are there any stats showing the difference between popularity of music online vs brick and mortar? Otherwise, are the same types/artists as popular online? My guess is that indie music and smaller genres are doing better online than in brick and mortar.
IHerodotus,
Wouldn’t Apple have to ask that glove wearing kiddy fiddler a.k.a. Michael Jackson if they wanted to sell The Beatles? If they did, it could do more harm than good, being associated with that freak.
BTW I’m 26 and LOVE The Beatles, so do a lot of friends my age and under.
Fandango is correct-
The Beatles are history. I like a few of their songs, but I don’t understand how folks can still WORSHIP them.
U2 and Madonna are getting pretty crusty as well. My Grandpa still likes the Stones.
Give me Alice n Chains and I’m I happy dude.
By the way, where are all those self righteous so called Artists (Pearl Jam, etc.) at? Too busy to spare some time to help out Tsunami victims? I’m not interested in how much the they give, but they should be speaking up and lending their voices in support of the red cross, care, etc. Pricks.
I can’t believe nobody has commented on this: Think back (I
know, I date myself) to vinyl albums – they were 4.99
– 7.99 once the initial appeal waned, maybe 9.99 initially
(all prices Canadian but the point
is not the actual price but the relative difference).
Vinyl records were, apparently, relatively expensive
to make.
Along came CD’s which, while initially expensive to
make are now so cheap that they are given away for free
with breakfast cereal boxes. Anybody notice what is
going on with the price of CD’s? Given cost of
manufacture, CD’s should be considerably less than
vinyl records (guessing here, ignoring inflation), say
2.99. Instead
they’re something like 17.99 – 22.95. How can this
be? Lets not forget that record companies are simply
the marketing department for the artists (well, and
artist development for some record company created
artists). Why are they driving? Why is the price so
high? Why do they keep the rights to music (and other
copyrighted material), now, for 75 years after the
artist’s death? (but that is another issue).
Now lets switch to the iTunes music store: why, given
that there are no manufacturing, physical distribution
(trucks delivering, physical brick and mortar stores,
sales clerks in the stores etec.), aren’t iTunes
albums singles, about $1.99 or thereabouts? With
singles for $0.25?
We, the music consuming public are being massively
ripped off, for the second time – this is the second
major technological innovation that the record
companies have exploited to massively boost their
profit margins. I suppose we can be thankful that
the record companies didn’t boost the price this
time, along with the profit margin, but I can’t
understand why more people aren’t
outraged over this.
This is a pure exercise in charging what the market will
bear – the record companies have a monopoly, and no
incentive to lower prices, maintain historical profit
margins. As long as the buying public will pay, they
will charge. In other words, pay no attention to record
industry sales – its completely articifal, since the
prices are artifical. Obviously the urge to raise
prices over time for record companies can’t be resisted.
I even noticed that some DVDs are cheaper than CDs.
Am I the only person who finds this ridiculious?
Even drug companies lose monopoly rights (their patents)
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />). Of course, drugs are a life saving product,
expire), but not record companies, so far. And, in
all major industrialized countries except one drug
prices are regulated to avoid abuse (and, boy, is there
abuse in the one remaining country – you know who you
are
unlike music, so the argument for price controls is
much stronger. Still, the record companies are,
in my view, a much bigger monopoly abuser.
I’m 26 and know very little about the beatles, I occasionally see shots of them on TV and know a few songs my dad played but that’s it.
Norwegian Woods, Saw her standing there.
Usually I confuse them with the Monkees anyways.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Someone’s gotta back up poor Fandango. Not everyone’s parents were 60’s obsessed Beatles maniacs when we grew up. But hey my parents were never hippies so what can I say? Dad played Kenny Rogers more!
Steev,
Pearl Jam et al., lost their shirts going on the road for free to support Vote For Change, or whatever it was called to get apathetic 18-25 year olds to register to vote.
Too bad; imagine how much money would be pouring in to tsunami relief if Pearl Jam and the Dresden Dolls came out and asked all of those newly registered voters they signed up to give money for disaster relief?!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smirk” style=”border:0;” />
it is far from clear whether the industry will be able to develop profitable online business models
Duh, they let Crapster and Real Nutworks sell subscriptions, where the heck is the profit in that?
Them clever kids record the line out into another PC in MP3 format as they listen to it, chop it up into indivdual songs and now they get anything they want for free.
They make friends in the forums and trade like baseball cards.
Where the heck is the profit in that?
Why The Beatles matter is that they helped bring musicians and artists back to the people. This is why the ’60s music catalogue is so rich, and to be honest, still beats the hell out of much of the stuff released today (sure it’s dated tech wise, but the tunes are great.)
Being in my 30s, I wasn’t there, but from best I can tell, back in the ’50s, things are as they are today – the record companies had “artists” they found in malt shops or at school dances. These people were attractive, perhaps could sing and dance a bit, but were made big stars. Now, some artists were obviously talented (<insert your favorite talented person here>), but others deserved to be truck drivers, if only to compensate for the one who changed career and later went to Vegas.
The Beatles came along and helped fuel a surgence in singer songwriters who actually had talent. The companies probably had no option but to release real talent b/c it showed how mediocre many of their other so called artists were. At least that’s my guess. As I said I wasn’t there. It’s probably like many things – you can’t get funding for a great idea until someone “makes it big”, then all of a sudden 100’s of me-too products spring up. In this case, artists were the product.
But the companies were always scum. The Beatles were screwed so much it’s no wonder McCartney and co are fighting for everything, even if it doesn’t make us Apple fans happy (and I’m a Beatles fan as well.)
And evidently the companies slowly reverted to so called manufactured pop-stars and teen idols for their talent again. This really hit big again in the ’80s and ’90s. How the general public can think that American Idol stars are as talented as say John Lennon or Paul McCartney were I don’t know. Perhaps the public just don’t care anymore?? (but you should)
Or perhaps like everything else, corporates are dictating to consumers what we can and can’t have. Non-artificially coloured food anyone? Or a singer who actually releases 10 good songs on an album? Yea, right.
ps the guy who said LP’s were cheaper than CD’s is on the money. I have seen cassette tapes less than half the price of the same music on CD… and this was within the past 5 years. These record companies are scum and deserve P2P as much as Microsoft deserves viruses.
If you are stagnant, you are still moving backwards.
pps ironically, my mdn magic word is “corps”. Funny that.
If you’re looking at acts like Brittany Spears or the myriad of boy bands that may have actually FINALLY disappeared, then no, albums are not important. But actual artists don’t worry about hits. They write songs that mean something to them, and let the labels decide how to market them. One Sheryl Crow’s biggest hits was “All I Wanna Do”, but she didn’t even want it on the album.
notatotalsucker-
The Beatles brought musicians & artists back to the people???
C’mon-
You make that statement like there were no other bands around at the time.
What about Elvis? What about Motown?
There’s no question the Beatles were popular for that period but they didn’t do anything for the industry except strengthen the recording companies hold on the market and encourage other labels to find bands that sounded the same.
Anyway, music is very personal to people. And there’s usually no logic behind what makes a person like a certain song, band or sound. So no point in my getting huffy about it (sorry).
S
Steve:
I agree. There were other talented artists around, besides The Beatles. Sorry, I must not have been clear – I was referring to Elvis when I mentioned the truck driver & Vegas. And I also wrote that The Beatles”helped fuel a surgence” and “helped bring …” implying that they weren’t the only ones, which they weren’t.
But they were one of the dominant forces behind singer/songwriters performing their own songs again, as distinct from lollipop singers, singing other people’s songs.