Nobody Buys CDs Anyway

[Gary Sisco]

I think this reasoning is the future of pop and rock. I don't think it will work for jazz, esp in the US, for obvious reasons, one being the lack of live venues. But it's clear that there is a generation coming up for whom downloading is the norm and buying music an alien concept. More, it's the people (young people) who do most of the music buying in previous times. (This is another difference with jazz, by the way). Anyway:

Charlatans to give away new album as free download
By Ian Burrell
Published: 01 October 2007
Alan McGee, the musical impresario behind Oasis, has hatched an audacious plan to make new singles and albums available to download free, a move that threatens to throw the music industry into confusion.

This month, the Charlatans, the Britpop band that McGee manages, will offer their forthcoming single "You Cross My Path" free to anyone who wishes to download it from the website of the indie music station Xfm. The Charlatans, who have had British number one albums with Some Friendly, The Charlatans and Tellin' Stories, will give away a second single and then their forthcoming album, as yet unnamed, in the same fashion. McGee and the band believe that the business model for selling music is moribund and that future income will largely come from ticket sales for live shows and merchandising.

Speaking from Los Angeles, McGee said he decided to give the Charlatans' music away after they were offered a deal he considered less than satisfactory by their record company, Sanctuary. "I thought, 'well nobody buys CDs anyway'. If you talk to a 19-year-old kid, they don't buy CDs. In eastern Europe, nobody buys a CD – everything is digitally downloaded from the internet for nothing. I came to the conclusion, 'Why don't we just give it away for nothing'."

But the development has rung alarm bells in the music retail industry. Kim Bayley, the director general of the Entertainment Retailers Association, which represents shops and online outlets that sell music, warned that the idea risked "narrowing the spectrum" of British music by denying new bands, who are unable to attract large live audiences, the chance to make money from selling their music. "Music will become regarded as a throwaway item," she said. "This model is fine if you are a band that has already made it but our worry as an association would be whether it takes away that ability of new bands to get their foot on the first rung of the ladder."

The radical approach of the Charlatans follows the decision by Prince to distribute an estimated three million copies of his latest album with The Mail on Sunday, driving ticket sales for his record-breaking series of concerts at London's O2 Arena. The Charlatans have opted for a more ground-breaking approach – to put it on a radio station website, where it can be downloaded for free at any time.

McGee said the band "could not lose" from the revolutionary approach. "We looked at the deal we were being offered by Sanctuary and said, 'Let's just do it ourselves'. We increase our fan base, we sell more merchandise, more fans talk about the band and we get more advertising and more films (soundtracks). More people will get into the the Charlatans and will probably pay the money to see the show. I presume it will double the gig traffic, maybe even treble it." He put the suggestion to the band's singer, Tim Burgess, who immediately agreed, and the rest of the band were subsequently persuaded to go along with the plan. Burgess said: "CD sales are on the decline and for any one copy sold there are nine copied from that. The future is in playing live." The Charlatans have a November tour lined up to coincide with the release.

Mike Walsh, the head of music at Xfm, said the download service, which starts on 22 October, would remain active "for as long as there's demand". He said: "We thought it was an irresistible opportunity to do something that had not been done before. We could provide listeners with exciting and unique music and embrace something that we feel will inevitably become more common in the future."

Walsh said he understood the logic of the band's stance. "For a certain type of artist, such as the Charlatans, who have an incredibly strong live following, it makes sense for them to ensure that their new music is distributed as widely as possible and hopefully feed interest in their live shows."

[CatBenson]

Here's another: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...cnradio101.xml

[Nim Chimpsky]

A similar idea here
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/articl...bum-aaaaaaahhh

[Gary Sisco]

These things might well end up a disaster for jazz sales -- indeed, virtually guaranteed -- both Ellery Eskelin and Jan Strom have been hit hard by the practice; I'm sure they're not alone -- but I can't deny it's very likely where the real future lies. No one's going to convince a generation of downloaders to go out and buy large numbers of CDs.

[Jon Abbey]

this is a hilarious jump:

"I thought, 'well nobody buys CDs anyway'. If you talk to a 19-year-old kid, they don't buy CDs. In eastern Europe, nobody buys a CD – everything is digitally downloaded from the internet for nothing.

while both of those things are mostly true (although I have some serious customers around 19-21), thankfully there are a lot of other people in the world.

[Gary Sisco]

There are but apparently they aren't buying enough CDs to make up the difference, Jon.

I don't think eai would be too radically effected a music, given its extremes in amplitude and frequency. I can't see a point in listening to it as a file (mp3, anyway -- I'm far from hip in these fields), so much would be lost. Indeed, I think of eai as being, finally, a music that's really made for CD listening.

Far's real au current pop music goes, kids buy the bulk of it, as they always have. Which apparently isn't much when compared to the past.

Another factor in there, however, is that it's mostly relatively young people who do most of the going out for shows, for obvious reasons. One time I was hanging out with my friend who co-owned and did the booking for my lamented club where I dj'd. Graham Parker (sp?)'s booking agent called while I was having a beer with him in the office. He verbally shrugged, saying he couldn't fill the club. More talk I couldn't hear. Then he says out loud, "I'll tell you what, the guy who comes out for shows by far the most in that demographic is sitting right here, let's ask him." So he asked me what I thought. I shrugged.

[Jon Abbey]

There are but apparently they aren't buying enough CDs to make up the difference, Jon.

it depends to who, I deal in small enough quantities on a worldwide basis that I'm still getting by. last week, I sent packages to customers in India, Chile and Turkey, among other places.

I don't think eai would be too radically effected a music, given its extremes in amplitude and frequency. I can't see a point in listening to it as a file (mp3, anyway -- I'm far from hip in these fields), so much would be lost. Indeed, I think of eai as being, finally, a music that's really made for CD listening.

this is all dead on, but of course it doesn't stop people from listening to MP3s of EAI, even if they're getting a decidedly different experience from the actual music.

[Jon Abbey]

FWIW, vinyl is also alive and kicking in small quantities. it's the major labels that are increasingly irrelevant.

[Gary Sisco]

Oh, yeah, I know that. And we can thank the dreaded hip hop for vinyl's survival, too, and I do.

It's business people like the majors who are going to be the most hurt because they have to deal in mad quantities to make any money (it now requires a gold record just to break even -- which is insane). I agree that the majors are just increasingly irrelevant every day and that trend will continue. They're dinosaurs and aren't going to survive unless they morph into birds, like some of the original dinosaurs did. They've lost too much of a generation of customers and they can't change fast enough to adjust to the new circumstances.

I won't miss them a bit.

When it comes to majors, Blue Note and the occasional ECM is all I deal with today, and only rarely with them. If Osby has really been let go by BN, that's a third of my BN buying right there, done.

[Squaredancecalling Steve]

FWIW, vinyl is also alive and kicking in small quantities.

More so than I'd thought -- my daughter and I saw a display of vinyl copies of the new White Stripes album at The Last Record Store in Santa Rosa.

[Nim Chimpsky]

Before this debate spreads wider than the original post and the death or not of compact disc sales, I think it's worth pointing out that Alan McGee has finally worked out the exact value of a Charlatans album.

[Gary Sisco]

That I don't doubt one bit.

[Jon Abbey]

More so than I'd thought -- my daughter and I saw a display of vinyl copies of the new White Stripes album at The Last Record Store in Santa Rosa.

the new Bruce Springsteen record came out on vinyl a week before it did on CD.

[Gary Sisco]

Michael Hurley's new record has, also. First on lp and later on CD.

I think the internet and accompanying technologies are going to pan out into a new music business that is much more "niche" oriented and much less mass market. The ones successful at finding their "niche" will make out. The others won't.

I would think Erstwhile will do fine in the new environment if you can hang on for a time that is getting shorter every day.

The corporations are doomed, in music, though. They have way too long a feed chain and one that expects to get fed way too much all along the way (except for the musicians, of course, almost all of them).

There's even some young neoluddites who will *only* buy vinyl. I don't buy it anymore because it just adds more stuff to move and store, but I listen to it.

[Dan G]

Here's an interesting take on this, from Radiohead

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/music/story/2...album-new.html

[Gary Sisco]

Ha! Beat me to the punch.

[Nim Chimpsky]

Ha! Beat me to the punch.

Perhaps I should signpost my links better

[bobetterblues]

Our band sold 200,000 copies of our last record, and I expect we'll sell more with the new one. People still buy music.

30 percent of our sales came from itunes.

I don't believe giving the music out for free is the answer, I mean, it could go that way, but I think the music, the fans, and the industry will all suffer from it. Without funds to make records, the quality goes down.

Not all bands like to record on Pro Tools. My band still uses analog equipment and records to tape. The studios, tape, and the people with skill to engineer those records cost money. Time costs money. Artists need to profit in some shape or form from selling music if the whole thing is going to remain a healthy organism. Touring, unless you're a big band isn't profitable. We didn't profit from touring until very recently and we're about to put out our 6th record. Also, bands would have to tour a hell of a lot to pay the bills and afford to make good records.

Radiohead is able to do what they're doing because they're Radiohead and they get upwards of 1 Million dollars to headline festivals all over the world. There are only a handful of bands on that monetary level.

Secondly, they're not giving there music away entirely. They're taking donations, and I for one, will give them 10 bucks if I download it. In my mind, that's more than fair compensation for music that gives me years of enjoyment.

What they're doing is very clever. Album leaks have been a serious problem for bands. All bands need 3 to 4 months set up time, with press, labels, etc. So, the promos go out to stir a buzz for the release, and usually a day after that the album leaks. But, people still buy the music often times. This is a way for Radiohead to leak it and profit from it. Then, set up the release of this box thing as they normally would and charge a shitload for it.

In the end, I see the same amount of people grabbing the music early, yet now, they are guilted into giving some money. Then those same people will buy the individual box thing too.

Radiohead wins.

I don't know if it would be a good thing for our band to do it this way, but it's certainly intriguing.

I do think its sad that we live in a world where we spend so much money on stupid shit, and throw it around like it means nothing, then we go and steal music of all things. Music. If anything shouldn't be stolen, it's art.

[Jon Abbey]

I do think its sad that we live in a world where we spend so much money on stupid shit, and throw it around like it means nothing, then we go and steal music of all things. Music. If anything shouldn't be stolen, it's art.

I agree with this a bit, but on the flip side, such a huge percentage of records really suck. I have no problem with people previewing via illegal DL if they're uncertain about whether they should buy or not, and then buying it if they have the money. I know that since I've started previewing purchases I'm uncertain about, my overall happiness with my purchases has gone way up (and the number of discs I've bought is probably about the same).

[bobetterblues]

I agree with this a bit, but on the flip side, such a huge percentage of records really suck. I have no problem with people previewing via illegal DL if they're uncertain about whether they should buy or not, and then buying it if they have the money. I know that since I've started previewing purchases I'm uncertain about, my overall happiness with my purchases has gone way up (and the number of discs I've bought is probably about the same).

Sure it's great for the consumers!

In your opinion a lot of it sucks (including my band probably), and I agree with you to a certain extent, but the point is, is that it's music. People pay 6 bucks for a value meal at McDonald's, but somehow that has more merit in people's eyes than a cd for ten bucks, whether it's good or not is besides my point. I just don't think ten bucks is much money for music. I know my analogy is lame, but you get the point.

Which kind of always brings me to the art world, where a painting of a 3 year old shitting on a canvas can go for millions. How is it that monetarily, music isn't worth much to people compared to other art forms, when it obviously has as much or more merit at times, than a lot of other art that goes for a lot more money. I guess the closest thing we have is a first edition LP or something, but still. (LP sales went up %70 in 2006 btw). DVD's still cost over 20 dollars....but I guess people won't be buying them anymore when our computers are powerful enough to steal and hold a shit load of them, too?

It's a moral issue in my mind. We don't take care of and or hold the arts in high regard in our society, and the way we price art in general is skewed in a very arbitrary way. And to whatever extent we used to care for the arts seems to be eroding away before our very eyes. Public schools are more apt to fund football stadiums and shop class than they are a music program at this point. Maybe if we cared more about it, and valued it more, there wouldn't be so much crap out there.....

[havlicek]

This is an interesting topic that's been floating around for a while in one form or another. I think it probably got it's start mostly as a simple reaction to the fact that a lot of people are not only stealing (DL) music...but actually feel entitled to do so. We can thank Napster and other P2P sites here. Some bands have actually been slammed by their own "fans" for trying to stop people from illegally DLing their music!?*&%#$!...how perverse is that?

I believe that whether or not this is the way things will go in the future (who knows?)...insofar as it's happening now, it devalues music and could do irreparable harm. I've encountered something that validates this in my own small experience. I've done OK selling my independant CD through various online and a couple of brick and mortar outlets. More than made my money back which (apparently) is doing fine compared to a lot of folks in a similar situation. When playing live, I figure hell...I'll give them away as a promo thing. Interestingly enough, they don't seem to go any faster than when we sell them even though the audiences seem to be enjoying the shows just fine. What I believe is happening here is that people percieve "free" as lower quality and if the industry as a whole goes in this direction, I think music and musicians are screwed. If you're giving it away...you may as well work at McDonalds and at least get free lunch.

-john

[Gary Sisco]

I agree with this a bit, but on the flip side, such a huge percentage of records really suck. I have no problem with people previewing via illegal DL if they're uncertain about whether they should buy or not, and then buying it if they have the money. I know that since I've started previewing purchases I'm uncertain about, my overall happiness with my purchases has gone way up (and the number of discs I've bought is probably about the same).

I don't download anything except from emusic, which is paid for, and one record from Ayler's site, which I paid for (9.99), and will do again, likely. It was well worth it and when I'm in a better financial position I'll buy it again so I can have the cover and so forth.

I do accept burns from friends and between the above and that, I, too, am able to hear music first and decide buy or not after. I don't always decide to buy but if I really like something, I do. And if I find this way that I really like an artist or band new to me, it's been the case that I buy his or her artifacts next time one comes out.

However, the idea of offering the downloads for a "donation" a la Radiohead -- admittedly an established name -- is the market at work, let's face it. They supply and the people who pay provide the demand. They will sell it for exactly what people are willing to pay for it. There's no difference between that and our having our house for sale, really, except that I won't give it away. A house is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay you for it and you're willing to accept and not a penny more (or less). Same with a car. Or anything else.

For bands that are touring bands, the gigs are what pays the rent, especially once the merch sales are included. In this case, the records promote the shows. The old way was shows promote the record. That's not working anymore to the extent it used to, so people are looking for other ways. I can't see anything wrong with it. No one is forced to do it. No one is forced not to do it.

I've already said that these kinds of ideas won't fly for most jazz artists, if only for lack of gig venues. Some have already been doing similar things for years, however. On the whole, though, for this reason or that, it won't be a working thing for jazz.

But we are talking about this in Other Music, after all.

[Gary Sisco]

Another thing that works, frankly, is drumming up some anticipation in advance. My buddy Michael Hurley, who, for most of his career (goes back to early 60s) was more obscure than obscure -- but once he's made a fan he's made one for life -- for example has been talking up his new record seems like forever (though it isn't) on his website. As I've said, it's out now, first on vinyl, later on CD. I want the vinyl but I've been waiting to buy one from him directly so he gets his full cut for sure, but the lp is for sale all over and he hasn't received his personal shipment yet, and it's now to the point where I'm worrying that if I wait much longer the lp's might be sold out before I buy one. They're moving, in short. It's not going to be one of those things we all dread, the million cellar. When you have a million records in boxes in your cellar.

It's a whole new world, saleswise, for music. For some of the obscure, like Michael, it's a boon. For others it won't be. But people are going to have to use some imagination to adapt. There's no point in thinking the genie will somehow go back in the bottle, and, as one who played with Michael on traditional record-company releases, I have no desire to see it back in the bottle.

At least it can be said now that musicians *can* take their affairs over for themselves if they want to. The resources are available now so that they are not dependent on record companies anymore.

To me, that can only be a good thing for musicians.

[Gary Sisco]

As for "art," well, I'm a bit too old to have received the punk attitude about it but my musician crowd used the word in much the same way. I have in fact been hungry, many times, for my "art."

I'll tell you what, when you're hungry, you're hungry, friends. The reason doesn't matter and there wasn't a damned thing romantic about it.

Trying to figure out if you can eat breakfast and still buy enough gas to make the next gig and so forth. Driving all the way from coast to coast nonstop for lack of money for a room. Fuck all of that. Really.

[walto]

a painting of a 3 year old shitting on a canvas can go for millions.

Well, it could be a very nice painting of a 3-year old shitting on a canvas.

is the market at work, let's face it. They supply and the people who pay provide the demand. They will sell it for exactly what people are willing to pay for it. There's no difference between that and our having our house for sale, really, except that I won't give it away.

That's a very big difference. With radiohead, the buyer gets to pay whatever he/she likes. That's not how markets generally work.

[Chris D]

I've bought about 50 LPs this year (most used, some new, like New Pornographers and Arcade Fire). I've bought maybe 6 CDs.

[Gary Sisco]

Thank goodness for you and those like you, Chris. I'd still be buying it if I knew I'd be staying put, but I'm not.

[Surfer]

Which kind of always brings me to the art world, where a painting of a 3 year old shitting on a canvas can go for millions. How is it that monetarily, music isn't worth much to people compared to other art forms, when it obviously has as much or more merit at times, than a lot of other art that goes for a lot more money. I guess the closest thing we have is a first edition LP or something, but still. (LP sales went up %70 in 2006 btw). DVD's still cost over 20 dollars....but I guess people won't be buying them anymore when our computers are powerful enough to steal and hold a shit load of them, too?

I think there's both something to this and nothing to this analogy between art (say, painting) and music sales in the 21st century.

First, there's nothing to this because a painting is an original and unique work of art that cannot be duplicated, while a CD is a mass produced approximation(often shoddily, with little regard for the artwork or physical nature of the CD case) of what live instruments sound like. A much more relevant comparison would be between a concert (a unique and original event) and ticket sales for those would be closer in line to what a work of art would sell for.

Which brings me to my next point, which is that there is something to this analogy, because I've said several times on this board that I think one answer (though obviously not a cure all, or THE answer) is to appeal to the consumer's materialistic and fetishistic side, with nicer packaging, like the Radiohead thingy, limited editions, etc. Make it more than just about the music, make it a whole objet d'art. I think there is still a market for that, and I think that is something even the younger generation is into, because aligning yourself with your favorite band is still a means of identity.

I still remember when I ordered the Money Will Ruin Everything book/CD from Rune Grammofon, I was waiting at the mailbox for a week. I think Rune, Touch Records, and others do a good job of packaging, so that I want for more than just the CD-R or the mp3 files.

[Vince Kargatis]

I have no problem with people previewing via illegal DL if they're uncertain about whether they should buy or not, and then buying it if they have the money.

Of course, it's perfectly appropriate to note here that many (like, a lot of) people will "preview", and not follow through with purchase, regardless of how much they like it or how much money they have. Pure human nature to take the bird in hand and forget ethical concerns about how that came to be or what to do then.

I address this personally by make it a personal rule to only download parts of albums I'm curious about, so that if I do like it, I force myself to buy it. I don't even trust myself to buy an album after downloading and having access to all of it, in general.

[Jon Abbey]

In your opinion a lot of it sucks (including my band probably)

I haven't heard your band yet, FWIW.

and I agree with you to a certain extent, but the point is, is that it's music. People pay 6 bucks for a value meal at McDonald's, but somehow that has more merit in people's eyes than a cd for ten bucks, whether it's good or not is besides my point. I just don't think ten bucks is much money for music. I know my analogy is lame, but you get the point.

it's apples and oranges, people need food to survive, or "food" in this case.

Which kind of always brings me to the art world, where a painting of a 3 year old shitting on a canvas can go for millions.

this is ludicrously simplistic. for one thing, when you buy a painting, you're almost always only buying the sole copy of that painting. if you guys decided to only make one copy of your next record available and put that on eBay, I'm sure it would go for quite a bit of money. and what painting exactly are you talking about above?