FYI: 37 million people downloading from the net

[Anderton]

Check this out:

 

http://www.pewinternet.org/releases/release.asp?id=20

 

The most interesting part to me is the statistic that over 50% of teenagers have downloaded music from the net.

 

We now have a culture that thinks that music is something you get for free, and doesn't have a problem with data compression. Where's the incentive to do things like 24/96 if 1) fidelity isn't considered that important by many listeners, and 2) you're not going to get paid anyway?

 

And can you believe that record companies still have not figured out how to get a handle on this?!?

[miroslav]

Ditto, ditto , ditto....

 

I've said it a few times already...soooooo much music...soooooo little time. What are they doing with it all anyway?

 

Kind of reminds me of all the freeware/shareware that is out there...man I've downloaded so much of that stuff...but I've hardly ever used any of it, or maybe I just tried it and then forgot about it.

 

Diluted...that is what is happening...the internet is diluting a lot of things...not just music. I really don't feel that it is bringing sooooo much GREAT new music to the masses that otherwise WOULDN'T be heard. A lot of it is just noise...filler...artistic/egotistic masturbation. But...I still like having the Internet.

 

Maybe the music industry (that includes all of us) will eventually figure it out.

[Throatsinger]

Craig, good one about the record companies figuring things out. Ostriches and dinosaurs are just slow learners http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

 

Here's an interesting link: http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/04/25/music.hackers.reut/index.html

 

Steve Sklar

[Lee Flier]

I think the biggest mistake the record labels (and maybe a lot more people) make is in thinking of MP3 downloads as an end (a replacement for CD's) instead of a means to an end (like radio).

 

I mean, lots of kids listened to AM radio (low fidelity) and later made cassettes of albums (ditto) but that didn't stop lots of people from buying the album. And just like most people who listen to the radio only end up buying a small percentage of what they hear, most people who download music only listen to each song enough to decide whether they like it and only a small percentage of them "stick". That doesn't "dilute" anything, it just gives more options to listen to than radio, and it's NEVER as if the downloaders were going to buy 90% of what they hear, if they'd heard it on radio instead of Napster.

 

I've personally heard, enjoyed and subsequently bought a LOT of music as a result of downloading stuff from Napster and other online providers, that I otherwise never would have. I've also downloaded a lot of stuff and deleted it, just like I might hear a song on the radio and change the station next time it comes on if I don't like it.

 

As for getting paid, hmmm, what artist ever gets paid for record sales anyway? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif I think if online providers were subject to similar "rules" as radio, where a SMALL royalty is paid to the artist and label for each download, that would solve that problem just fine. If users could pay a modest flat subscription fee (or a stepped fee depending on how much bandwidth you used) for services like Napster to cover those royalties, I think they'd go for it. I know I would.

 

--Lee

 

This message has been edited by Lee Flier on 04-25-2001 at 12:09 PM

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by Anderton:

The most interesting part to me is the statistic that over 50% of teenagers have downloaded music from the net.

 

That's an idiotic stat. It can't be defined as an empirical value, and the use the kids got from the download is variable. Makes it useless....

 

What would be more important would be "50% of regular CD purchasing teenagers are now substituting downloading MP3s" or some such.

 

From *my* non-uniform perspective, I think I can offer a more useful, albeit even less empirical bit of info:

 

out of 30 students that I teach - all 30 have brought in a CD burned from MP3's.

 

All of them. All backgrounds: poor kids, rich kids, a doctor, a school teacher, all tastes in music - rock, country, you name it.

 

I have probably... 10 students that now exclusively work from MP3 cd's. I predict that by the end of the year it will be a rarity for a kid to bring a brand new CD to a lesson. Most kids are now bringing bootlegged copies...

 

We now have a culture that thinks that music is something you get for free, and doesn't have a problem with data compression. Where's the incentive to do things like 24/96 if 1) fidelity isn't considered that important by many listeners, and 2) you're not going to get paid anyway?

 

I'm going to say it again: they have to change the public's perception of the morality of it, it's the only way.

 

The funny thing is - since this has come up there hasn't been a lot of new music coming out that I want anyhow. They need to revamp their shotgun approach to it and try to get back to signing/releasing truly talented artists that the public will feel embarassed by stealing their work. People now don't feel embarrassed about stealing Generic Hit Song #87667 knowing they'll be tired of it in a few weeks and the group will have faded away in a year. Fix that and they'll partially fix the problem.

 

 

http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[miroslav]

Well...not saying that everything on radio is good...and not saying that everything on the Internet is bad...

 

We can't just call up any radio station and say "here play my latest drivel"...but you CAN post it (anything) on the Internet.

 

Now I don't say that having to deal with A&R/record co./programmed radio/ "music filters" is a good thing...but it also isn't easy/fun wading through tons of musical gibberish on the Internet,...that is how the "music" IS diluted.

 

OK...so what is the solution...time will tell. I do believe that the "Napster" dust will settle, and I pray that HI FI/HI Q becomes sought after again...soon.

[artnoiser]

Originally posted by Chip McDonald:

People now don't feel embarrassed about stealing Generic Hit Song #87667 knowing they'll be tired of it in a few weeks and the group will have faded away in a year. Fix that and they'll partially fix the problem.

 

 

http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

 

That is pretty interesting. I have been tempted to start downloading mp3's of bands whom I am not sure about whether I ever want to buy their stuff or not. You know, to use mp3's to get to know new bands I don't know about (a lot of indie type stuff). Along those lines, further temptation started coming up to "just download the whole album," (!!!), some of which is really really great material that I actually do want to buy.

 

The funny thing is, there are some bands of which I refuse to search for mp3's, because I know that once I do that, I might not buy the album in the end. And these are bands whom I very highly regard, and who have stuff I'll be listening to for years to come. Somewhere in all this comes mp3 quality too, which is always really sketchy...

 

And I wouldn't get the artwork, which is just an intrinsic part of the package...

 

art

PS: By the way, I am not advocating downloading of people's materials if you are not commited to buying their stuff after listening to part of it. I was just being honest.

[masternfool]

A friend of mine just downloaded a complete album of a new artist(mp3)and was playing it for me and saying how much he enjoyed her voice and her style. He got pissed when I told him to enjoy the shitty quality and don't expect to hear from her on a second album, Because she won't be able to afford it due to lack of record sales and being dumped from the record company. So what do we do as spoiled Americans?, We move on to another artist who chooses to "share" their music for a taste, and begin to make their careers extinct! .......HB

[x factor music]

i would think if the guy downloaded her whole CD, he must have heard of her somewhere, and if she's good enough for the average joe to spend the time downloading the whole CD, she's probably selling some records! now if that same guy really likes the artist and he doesn't buy her CD or go see her concert, he's just being a jackass.

 

i'm a real skeptic of the "not selling CDs because of napster" arguement. for example, how many millions more CDs would Creed have sold if there hadn't been a napster? probably doesn't matter.

[Lee Flier]

Yeah I'm skeptical about CD sales being down, too. In fact I think part of the "problem" from the RIAA's perspective is that Napster levels the playing field to the point where a lot of CD sales are going to independent artists that are not going to be counted in the RIAA's sales figures. DJ's sell their mixes in dance clubs, bands sell their CD's at gigs and online and there is no way to track those sales collectively.

 

Sometimes I wish Napster didn't exist ONLY so that we could gain some real understanding of the impact the DIY revolution was having on major label CD sales, without MP3's being in the picture, because the industry is ALWAYS going to blame MP3's for lagging sales now, when in fact they may actually just be getting some legitimate competition.

 

--Lee

[Marvster]

<>

 

You're right to be skeptical, because most agree CD sales in general are NOT down -- CD *single* sales are down. Who knows, Napster may have played a part, but I'd imagine general consumer habits were a much bigger factor. When's the last time you bought a CD single?

 

As someone on a listserve I'm on pointed out, another contributing factor for the 2000 stats was that many of last year's most popular songs weren't even released as singles, including (his list):

 

Backstreet Boys: "I Want It That Way" and "Shape of My Heart"

'N Sync: "Bye, Bye, Bye" and "This I Promise You"

Aaliyah: "Try Again" (the first song to ever hit No. 1 without a commercial single release; I think a limited-release single was issued eventually, though)

Creed: "Higher"

Britney Spears: "Oops ... I Did It Again"

3 Doors Down: "Kryptonite"

 

I'm certainly not a fan of anything that's going to take money out of artists' pockets, but if everybody -- both Napster *and* the RIAA -- would stop spin doctoring their numbers, it would be easier to get to the bottom of which distribution models are viable.

 

Take all the numbers you see in the press with a grain of salt, folks. A post I saw recently correctly (IMO) cited our era's sad tendency toward "agenda journalism" -- the truth not as it is, but as someone hopes it is.

 

Marv

[Anderton]

>>I'm certainly not a fan of anything that's going to take money out of artists' pockets, but if everybody -- both Napster *and* the RIAA -- would stop spin doctoring their numbers, it would be easier to get to the bottom of which distribution models are viable.<<

 

Good to see you here again, Marvin.

 

I think a major problem is that the answer is not black and white. CD sales have been lost because of Napster - no doubt about that. But CDs have been sold that would not have sold otherwise because of Napster. No one knows which side is ahead.

 

Any company that doesn't meet projections is going to blame something. I've yet to hear a company say "Our revenues will not meet projections because, well, we have a pretty stupid marketing department, and our products essentially suck."

[F7sound -]

Craig,

 

Getting back to your original post, I too think that most people (non audio engineer types) don't hear any difference in CD quality and mp3 quality. In fact, I had a customer that insisted that mp3 quality was better than CD quality. Now I'm talking 16 bit 44.1 CD versus 128 kbps mp3. I did explain it to that person, but did it make a difference.?!

 

Now, manufacturers are touting 24/96. I think that the 96 part is a bit overhyped (and I'm a manufacturer as well as an engineer), but what do I know? Still, my gut tells me that an mp3 created from a 24/96 file will sound better than an mp3 from a 16/44.1 file. But will all those teens really care? I don't think so.

 

What does all of this really mean and how will it affect the future of the music business and the recording industry? I dunno. Does anyone?

 

 

Michael Oster

F7 Sound and Vision

http://www.f7sound.com

[Marvster]

<>

 

So THAT's why I get kicked out of marketing meetings! ;-)

 

Marv

[jnorman]

hey - we get paid when people download our music. in fact, i have earned more clear profit from mp3.com on our last CD than i have from CD sales (just barely covered expenses so far from sales for the CD). maybe this is the real future of the music industry - just like TV is "free" to the consumer because advertisers pay for it - maybe getting music from the internet at sites where adversisers pay the performers each time someone DLs their music. i realize this isnt quite yet realistic, but very soon technology will find a way to stream and DL high-quality audio. yesterday at mp3.com, i had a new song go from #81 on the charts to #1, and we're making $7 or $8 each day for about 3 months now - it adds up.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Marvster:

You're right to be skeptical, because most agree CD sales in general are NOT down -- CD *single* sales are down. Who knows, Napster may have played a part, but I'd imagine general consumer habits were a much bigger factor. When's the last time you bought a CD single?

 

Yeah, that's another argument I've put forth to some people. I just don't see CD singles being worth much, Napster or not. I don't think I even own one.

 

--Lee

[Guest]

Originally posted by Anderton:

We now have a culture that thinks that music is something you get for free, and doesn't have a problem with data compression. Where's the incentive to do things like 24/96 if 1) fidelity isn't considered that important by many listeners, and 2) you're not going to get paid anyway?

 

And can you believe that record companies still have not figured out how to get a handle on this?!?

 

I wonder if there aren't a few fundamental truths lurking behind the data:

The record business has always been cyclical, but that doesn't look very good in a larger corporation with quarters to make. 1977-78 and the birth of the huge record was followed by the layoffs of 1979-1980. The late 80's were pretty stupid too until Seattle started happening.

 

So in those bad times the business has a history of looking under the rocks (so to speak). Home taping (70's), videogames (80's), the internet (90's). you got to blame somebody. But I think that the level of understanding that "we suck" used to be greater at many of the labels. Usually they would be able to do something about it, because the corporate boneheads didn't run things at all of the labels, they did.

 

The record business has always had a hard time adjusting to changes in format. Retailers used to overorder LP's in the early 80's because they couldn't quite grasp that their sales volumes were shifting to those tiny eminently pilferable cassettes that somehow people wanted for their Walkman. go figure. This is a format change being expressed.

 

now, in the same way that I have imagined doing workshops at schools where I would play the records of Aretha or maybe Marion Williams and then Christina Aguilera (...ok class let's compare and contrast...which one actually finds the note they were looking for? and which one actually sounds like they could have if they meant to? um-hmm good!). I have to admit that I have thought that we should remind those youngsters what sound really sounds like.

[Guest]

Originally posted by spokenWard@netscape.net:

now, in the same way that I have imagined doing workshops at schools where I would play the records of Aretha or maybe Marion Williams and then Christina Aguilera (...ok class let's compare and contrast...which one actually finds the note they were looking for? and which one actually sounds like they could have if they meant to? um-hmm good!). I have to admit that I have thought that we should remind those youngsters what sound really sounds like.

 

 

I'd have to advise against that course of action. Some punk might ask if the class might compare the Monkees with Boyz II Men, or Bob Dylan with Mariah Carey. Some other wiseass might bust out with his Chaliapin recordings, half a century older than Aretha's, and say to you, listen, youngster, THIS is what sound really sounds like! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif Just as long as you're not one of those characters who praises technical ability in singing, then just gets kind of a sour look when they hear it in music they don't like.

 

Good points about the cyclical nature of the music industry- I think there is always great music going on, but it doesn't always coincide with what's going on in the commercial world. Great music breeds great music, too, so a good period, where the commercial and artistic worlds are in alignment, tends to get great for a brief while before things move on. That's just my opinion- '69-'72 was one of those periods, according to my tastes. 2003-2005 will be one too, according to my tea leaves.

 

I suspect jnorman has correctly predicted the next phase, or something along those lines.

 

The gap between the highest hi-fi and the lowest lo-fi must at an all-time width- DVD and RealAudio? I imagine it will evolve artistically into two worlds, as far apart as TV sit-coms and motion pictures, if it hasn't already, with background music in lo-fi and listening music on DVD, with the same kinds of attitudes people take in relation to those things- take TV for granted, going to the movies is a special and expensive thing.

 

 

- Cameron Bobro

[alphajerk]

anyone checked out echo.com?

 

and what about the other 250 million people [or whatever # it is] in the US? there are billions of people in the world.