I saw a Gene Simmon's interview and he said the fans killed the industry. Do you buy that?

_________________
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Lack of product is the biggest thing.

Equating downloads to 45 singles records, I don't think being able to cherry pick did album sales any good, either.

Breaking the cycle of having radio DJs create product demand has to be factored in.

_________________
Middle Aged Crazy, like Uncle Terry

nice of him to blame the fans, his band is like 10% substance and 90% marketing...he should be thanking all the dopes that bought KISS luncboxes and KISS paper towel holders.

I blame Steve Jobs and Joe Satriani.

_________________
Don't take it personally.

wrong, JORR
the real correct answer is Obama

no

Burritos. First hippie love music, then disco, then new wave, then boy bands.

Bad Hairbands.

Correct answer: The Internet.

_________________

Exactly. Music is now free.

_________________
Don't take it personally.

There is a theory afoot that SHARK may have killed upwards of 7 nostalgic TV stars in the last year or so.

_________________
I don't remember half the time if I'm hiding or I'm lost

Hey look, it's this thread again...

_________________
"There is a high statistical probability of death by gunshot. A punch to the face is also likely."

Gene Simmons is the biggest whore in the history of rock. For him to blame fans shows his true pud colors. You were an average at best band, who relied on all of the special effects to overshadow the fact that you could barely sing and play your instruments. I grew up during all the KISS Army shit, and I bought into it. Then I realized they were 4 semi talented Jews who put on a good stage show. End of story. They even sold KISS coffins. Make an album worth listening to once in awhile Chaim.

_________________
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public." ~ H.L. Mencken

Add 9 to that and thats how I felt about Hay Suess and the Apostles.

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.

Swung on....and belted!!!

_________________
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public." ~ H.L. Mencken

The Killers?

_________________

Well, it's slightly different. I think before we were talking about morality. This is from a practical perspective. Whatever your feelings might be about what "should be", the fact is that music is now free. There's nothing to be done about that. In fact, had the record industry grasped that fact sooner, this thread might not exist.

_________________
Don't take it personally.

I think only two of them are Jewish.

_________________
Don't take it personally.

No, this was exactly how that thread started: you insisting that your opinion that "music is free" is an indisputable fact.

_________________
"There is a high statistical probability of death by gunshot. A punch to the face is also likely."

The fact that I can get any song I want for free right now means it is an indisputable fact. Some people haven't come to terms with that reality yet. Believe me, they will eventually.

_________________
Don't take it personally.

I hold to the theory that the industry failed to properly adapt its business model to the Internet. The Internet allows people to get the music for free, no question. But it also makes selling CDs obsolete and lets the end user select the songs for a minimum fee. Instead of dropping $15 for a one-hit wonder album, a listener only needs to pay $.99. There is no need for a record label to distribute actual physical product because anyone who wants to buy the music can get it on iTunes, Bandcamp, Amazon, etc.

The nice thing is that the cost of creating music has gone down dramatically. Established bands can record their stuff in home studios for minimal money. An independent band has no advance to pay back and their stuff can be distributed for sale digitally with no need for distro to thousands of stores across the country. Kickstarter has helped with raising money for existing bands to come out of retirement and put out new albums.

What I don't care for is bands that only release digital content that is not lossless. I don't want a MP4 file when I should have a FLAC or Wave file. I also find it somewhat ridiculous when an album on Amazon is more expensive to download from the site that it is to have the same album shipped from sellers on Amazon. I also think a vinyl record is more exciting than a digital download.

_________________
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Sort of - the music industry was probably preparing to adapt to internet sales, but nothing could've prepared them for not only piracy, but RAMPANT piracy. Easy, accessible, fast piracy.

But as others have said - within a few years music went from "Pay-To-Play" to "How-Can-I-Get-You-To-Pay-For-This?

The Oatmeal did a fine job breaking this down:

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/music_industry

_________________

The thing I remember about buying CDs in the 90s that it was somewhat rare to actually get to sample the album before you bought it. It was also nearly impossible to make a mix CD. I remember knowing a guy who had a CD burner that would allow you to make your own mix CDs. It was $300 for a machine like that at the time.

While Napster was most definitely the beginning of the end, the quality of those files snagged from dial-up were very low quality. Full CD rips and song downloads would not be available until the bandwidth expanded. The creation of portable music players also marked a change for the industry.

I do agree about the point about the industry going from "pay to play" to "how do we charge for this." The problem was they were stuck between a rock and a hard place. Either you stick to your original business model and suffer loss of sales or you attempt to recoup some of the losses from "the pirates" and eventually put all the music for sale online.

I think where the industry lost its way was trying to intimidate the pirates. That didn't work and neither did their failed attempts at DRM. The problem was that they did not succeed in getting everyone who bought albums in stores to buy them online. The business model does not work because it was created to work in retail stores and the online model is different.

_________________
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

And that's exactly why no one- and I mean no one- actually equates downloading a song with shoplifting regardless of their protestations to the contrary. That was part of my argument with Lipid. He kept insisting that he does see the two "thefts" the same way all while he was freely using an avatar which was owned by someone else and that I highly doubt he had licensed for usage on this message board. People simply don't respect digital content the same way they do something that can be held in their hands. But it's not incumbent upon the marketplace to value your product. It's incumbent upon you to create value in the marketplace. If you're interested in getting paid, that is.

_________________
Don't take it personally.

The value added by the record industry has been taken out by technology. They excelled at distribution and marketing but those aren't really needed any more. They would completely screw over any new artist and very few actual artists made a ton of money off of record sales. That's why the initial whining about illegal music downloads was from the richest of bands and singers and that is why no one cared that they were losing money. I feel bad for a local Chicago band that is struggling to make ends meet while trying to make it in the industry but those weren't the bands being downloaded. In fact, many of them gave away music in order to gain more fans, or sold at a very low price on an independent label and made money on concerts.

Right now, the music industry doesn't add any value to us or artists. They did when you wanted to have tapes or cds sent out to every record store in every mall around the country or when you wanted to get your name out there. Now, people can use itunes, youtube, and myspace and do the exact same thing.

It's just like Best Buy. They used to provide the value that you could get electronics easily and quickly and cheaper. Now, the only value they provide is the ability to try it before you buy, and even that has been mostly nullified by the huge amount of reviews of products available now.

The funny thing now is that the music industry currently just hurts consumers. Justin Bieber started as a youtube sensation and now the music industry has taken a monopoly on him and extracted money off of him. If record companies were made illegal tomorrow we'd still have music and artists would still be paid.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I think it's been proven that people will support artists they feel are worth supporting. It's not the divine right of every genius with a guitar and ProTools to be paid for what he creates.

_________________
Don't take it personally.

I don't even consider buying a cd to be supporting the artist. From a quick google search, it estimates that for every $1000 of record sales that a musician in a four person band makes $23.40.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Putting piracy aside, the "How do we get them to pay us?" issue exists for other industries as well. For example newspapers, magazines and books have seen a decline in people buying their product. Part of their problem is not exactly piracy, but the Internet making their products free. If a news website is free, why should anyone pay for a newspaper? In the case of newspapers, magazines and books, the only answer is a subscription service model, which is less successful for most. Although Consumer Reports does have some success with its subscription service.

The other industries also dealing with loss from the Internet are movie studios and television stations. It's true that some may have to do with piracy, but it's also true that it's much more convenient to watch movies at home with a rental or Netflix digitally. The television stations have also seen a loss in advertising revenue as they fail to be the same sort of ratings juggernaut they once were when people didn't have so many other options for news and network programming. The television stations have lost advertising revenue with most programs, except for the NFL and the NCAA Tournament.

With the rise of video games and other types of digital entertainment, you have to wonder if the place of music in the lives of teenagers has been taken over by other interests. The industry took the teenagers with disposable income for granted. Nowadays rock stars just aren't that interesting when you can play Guitar Hero or the Wii, PS3 or XBox. Even video game companies deal with piracy, yet they can still make money because it's much harder to pirate a video game that it is a CD. Not only that, but a video game is much more captivating than an album.

_________________
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

I believe magazines are actually doing fine. The thing is that the value provided by distribution is over or at least has been pushed to other providers that give quicker and more efficient ways. It's just like the postal service. They were successful because they were the best means of communication. Newspapers were a success because they were the best means to distribute news. Record companies were successful because they were the best means to distribute music. Technology always improves distribution methods because ultimately, that is what it is good at.

This is actually a great thing for consumers. That's why it's a good thing that newspapers are going away. We no longer have to pay for distribution and it saves us all money. Music, movies, news, and articles will always have a value to it and content producers will find a way to generate it and make money off of it. We just don't have to pay for a newspaper truck to drive around dropping off shipments of paper that are obsolete one day later.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I do think it's easier for consumers, but it also means that it's harder to make money as a journalist. For example, Steve Aschburner worked for the Star Tribune in Minneapolis for many years, but he had to take a early out / forced retirement because they were cutting staff. Granted he did land a gig with NBA.com, but not everyone who worked at a print publication is so fortunate. Writing is competitive enough with print publications, taking away newspapers means the loss of jobs and many opportunities. Of course colleges will continue to pump out journalism grads. The question is: "How do you generate money from your content if you don't have an advertising-based business?"

_________________
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”