Streaming music revenues up 40% globally in 2012

[DamianJ]

Piracy never was a threat before the Internet. People copying tape to tape was never the threat to the music industry that the Internet is. And piracy to the downloader Just means free. Give it to them for free and most will not pay. Or is even that wrong?

I find this shocking, but you're wrong. Offline piracy is MUCH more of an influence than online.

In fact, according to the RIAA, 70% of all music piracy happens offline.

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/perm...120726swapping

It makes total sense. You can get your 'friend' to come round with his 2TB drive, and copy everything on it in 10 minutes.

Imagine that, you, Paul Markham, being horribly wrong about something!

[Paul Markham]

What ever form the supply is, the obvious lesson is simple access to customers, traffic, isn't worth what people think it is. Some sensible reasons why this is true.

Access can lead to less need to pay for the product. If the online price were able fixed to the offline price or similar. Revenues would of gone through the roof. 100 people buying at $0.99 cents = $9.90. 1 person buying at $10.99 =$10.99. What ever way you twist it to make it fit your methods, it's true. It's an example and the only way you can twist it, is by making up numbers that clearly never were true.

When 100 get it for free or pay a pirate for downloading. The revenue to the producers is $0.00.

Fundamentally when people can get a product for free which satisfies their needs, very few give a thought to the producers. Often making excuses to justify their not paying for the product. They make too much money, they don't pay the producers enough, I find that one ironic used here, sing customers, blackmail, etc.

Also extra access, means nothing if you don't have something worth buying. People are not as dumb as some would hope. They can spot a site with little to nothing to sell better than most professionals here. Evidence of that is this thread. http://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1077966 Many were willing to give it a try. Even though when the sites were shown they changed their minds. The content isn't good, the sites seem to be very little content and many seem to of nosed dive. http://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=19121431&postcount=52

You don't need to split test those sites to know they suck.

How many have to test a site to know if it sells or if they can sell it?

Traffic is one step in selling and not a very big one. Having a product that sells well is far more important and more difficult than driving traffic to it. Whether you're online or have a shop on a street. Traffic is a step to selling and making a profit.

I'm can't go head to head with you. If GFY has taught me anything in recent years, its that Paul Markham has for 4 years done no real work. His sites are still open and he's selling the $3,000.00 on top of everything. My only hope is that in a few more years he will have to close the sites as he can clearly afford to pay for them. Sucks that 8 years after I said he was going broke, he clearly hasn't

Where as I have nothing to show in my signature and won't tell anyone what I do.

Edited to the truth. Yes still selling a bit and paying for the servers and still not working. Could go back to work, could even finish my life story, selling it online is easy. Sucks to have 0 need and therefore no motivation to earn money.

[jimmycooper]

yes we did, the album art and notes/photos were a big part of the music buying experience when i was a kid. i hated moving on to cassettes and then CD's. lying on your bed listening to the music, holding the cover, looking at the cover art, reading the lyrics - big part of being a music fan/collector in the days of vinyl. very much like buying a hard cover book versus buying a digital version - the sense of touch, smell, actually bonding physically/emotionally with the product. makes me sad that that is disappearing.

Vinyl is actually in the midst of what I guess can best be described as a 'semi-renaissance'. lol

I bought this record player for my mom on her birthday in May. It's kind of cool looking and converts the vinyl to digital.

http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/urban...PARTMENT_MUSIC

She didn't want it though so she gave it to me with the understanding that at some point it would be my responsibility to convert all of her albums to digital. Sounds like it will be fun as shit but I'm still waiting for them to get the albums out of storage. lol

Anyway, I've picked up about a dozen new albums at Urban Outfitters in the meantime and I really do enjoy the process of flipping through them at the store and everything else like you said. What's great is that the albums, at least all the ones I've bought, have also come with a direct mp3 download which is good because the quality when converting it from vinyl to digital on the Crowley is a bit lacking. I think it's also a great example of not only how it's possible to combine and repackage what is good from the old and what is good from the new.

http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/urban...sp?id=20991485
http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/urban...sp?id=24674111 (I really like the album art on this one)
http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/urban...sp?id=24713844
http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/urban...sp?id=24714073
http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/urban...sp?id=25281072
http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/urban...sp?id=25151523

Also Kid A. One of the best albums of all time with some of the best album art of all time.

Here it is along with some of my other favorite covers.




Also all the beatles albums, the velvet underground warhol cover, the doors, appetite, 'Efil4zaggin'. Also the Lost Highway soundtrack which was in the late 90s.

And this was never a cover but is just so brilliantly awesome in it's simplicity and definitely one of the most iconic music related images of the 80s.

[DamianJ]

SNIP made up bollocks

So, Paul, let's assume you're right, and the internet has ruined the record industry, why do you think the record industry is now seeing year on year increases it couldn't have dreamed of, thanks solely to digital sales. That is, sales on the internet?

I don't understand how 'the internet' can both ruin an industry and save it. It seems a tad incongruous to your specious argument (and I use the word argument very loosely).

[kane]

Vinyl is actually in the midst of what I guess can best be described as a 'semi-renaissance'. lol

I bought this record player for my mom on her birthday in May. It's kind of cool looking and converts the vinyl to digital.

http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/urban...PARTMENT_MUSIC

She didn't want it though so she gave it to me with the understanding that at some point it would be my responsibility to convert all of her albums to digital. Sounds like it will be fun as shit but I'm still waiting for them to get the albums out of storage. lol

Anyway, I've picked up about a dozen new albums at Urban Outfitters in the meantime and I really do enjoy the process of flipping through them at the store and everything else like you said. What's great is that the albums, at least all the ones I've bought, have also come with a direct mp3 download which is good because the quality when converting it from vinyl to digital on the Crowley is a bit lacking. I think it's also a great example of not only how it's possible to combine and repackage what is good from the old and what is good from the new.

http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/urban...sp?id=20991485
http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/urban...sp?id=24674111 (I really like the album art on this one)
http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/urban...sp?id=24713844
http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/urban...sp?id=24714073
http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/urban...sp?id=25281072
http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/urban...sp?id=25151523

Also Kid A. One of the best albums of all time with some of the best album art of all time.

Here it is along with some of my other favorite covers.




Also all the beatles albums, the velvet underground warhol cover, the doors, appetite, 'Efil4zaggin'. Also the Lost Highway soundtrack which was in the late 90s.

And this was never a cover but is just so brilliantly awesome in it's simplicity and definitely one of the most iconic music related images of the 80s.

It seems like there has always been a small market for vinyl, but it is once again coming back into vogue and more and more artists are offering their albums on vinyl. A few years back I bought a storage unit that had about 1,000 albums in it. I spent days going through them and was pretty surprised to find out that some of them were worth a decent amount of money, but even those that were only worth a few bucks sold very quickly.

[Robbie]

Why don't musicians just accept that standards for a record label to sign someone has dropped and you hear so much terrible music nowadays? Just because you have an album out there doesn't mean 1,000,000+ are going to buy it..

I'm not saying piracy didn't hurt it, but it doesn't hurt sales as much as people say.
They should also add in new income sources to that data like Youtube PPC or anything similar with copyrighted music and videos that the record labels and/or artists are monetizing with now. If it isn't much, then that is killing the industry, too, and that isn't the fault of pirates.

There are barely any record labels left.

And yeah, piracy did hurt the sales of music. It's not fully responsible but it definitely devastated the financial rewards of being a "star" and took that dream away from most aspiring artists

Look at Paul's graph. Look at the years in which the record industry basically tanked. It was the EXACT years that Napster and Kazaa were running wild.

There is a reason that at The Grammys this year, the chairman of the Recording Academy actually pleaded with viewers to stop pirating music as it is destroying the entire industry.

And also keep this in mind that I saw with my own two eyes:
When I got old enough to play in bars with a fake ID in 1978...there were dozens of "rock clubs" in just a 50 mile radius of where I lived. And there were about a thousand gigs just in the state of Fla. alone to play LIVE music of every sort.

Bands and musicians were everywhere, writing songs, playing out, honing our craft.

That's all gone now. The drinking age rising up to 21 killed a lot of the club scene overnight back in 1980. But it was still very strong up until the mid 1990's, when people simply stopped going out to see live bands in the numbers they once did.

My theory is that with the drinking age being 21 for so long...18, 19, and 20 year old adults never got to go out to clubs and see live music. So they were conditioned to listening to recorded music only for the first 3 years of adulthood. So the clubs catered to them and suddenly no more live music. Just DJ's and flashing lights.

And with their being no dreams of being a millionaire "rock star" anymore (the record companies are a shell of what they once were), and no place for bands to learn their craft(there is NO replacement for playing live in front of an audience 7 nights a week)...it pretty much has been a devestating "one-two punch" that has led to what you are referring to as "terrible music"

When Rolling Stone magazine talks about DJ's being "artists" it makes me want to throw up. When rap stars talking over simple child like "beats" is called "music"...it's just a slap to the face of real musicians.

In other words...

[Colmike9]

In other words...

lol I know that piracy is killing profits, I was just trolling

"DJs" like Skrillex that get by with the same fucking sample on every song and think it's music are killing it, too..

What if bigger bands started doing things like say "Hey, we have a new album of songs out now, but we're only playing it at concerts for a year before releasing it and maybe a single or two on the radio."? Would that make more money for the artists from more people attending their shows with a possible increase of price if demand is high enough because of it and no piracy for a bit?

[Robbie]

What if bigger bands started doing things like say "Hey, we have a new album of songs out now, but we're only playing it at concerts for a year before releasing it and maybe a single or two on the radio."? Would that make more money for the artists from more people attending their shows with a possible increase of price if demand is high enough because of it and no piracy for a bit?

I don't know. That's an interesting idea.

Especially since album sales are such a small part of revenue for bigger bands.

Hell, Van Halen put out their latest record a few months back. "A Different Kind Of Truth".

The "single" that was released to the radio stations "Tattoo" was only an average sounding song that really takes a lot of listening to get you to like it. Not a good choice.
But the rest of that album is fucking HOT. I mean it sounds really, really good.

But the rock radio stations won't play it! Oh they'll play every old Van Halen song..but not the new one!

Same with the last Rolling Stones record "A Bigger Bang" back in 2005. Rock radio played it the first day it came out. And then...never again! And that album is one of the best Stones records in 30 years. Awesome playing, songwriting, engineering, everything about it.

I love classic rock. But why the hell doesn't the record companies PUSH these new albums more? Maybe because they don't have to? The Stones record sold 2.4 million copies with basically no radio support.
But how many more COULD it have sold if more fans were given a chance to hear it?

I played it in my car all the time of course. And my oldest daughter was 14 at the time the record came out. She was hearing it all the time when we drove somewhere. And for her birthday that year she had me buy her the CD too.

She didn't know that it was music by "old" guys. She just knew she liked the songs.

That's why rock is dying. They aren't getting the kids exposed to the music because they won't play any new songs by classic bands.

Though I will say...with "Guitar Hero", both my daughters and all their friends now know hundreds of classic rock songs. lol
I'm hearing a pack of 16 year olds all singing every word to "Mississippi Queen" by Mountain the other day! They know all those songs now thanks to Guitar Hero

[kane]

lol I know that piracy is killing profits, I was just trolling

"DJs" like Skrillex that get by with the same fucking sample on every song and think it's music are killing it, too..

What if bigger bands started doing things like say "Hey, we have a new album of songs out now, but we're only playing it at concerts for a year before releasing it and maybe a single or two on the radio."? Would that make more money for the artists from more people attending their shows with a possible increase of price if demand is high enough because of it and no piracy for a bit?

A big, established band might be able to do that, but here is the problem. After their first live show their songs will be everywhere for free because someone will record them then put them up online and once the cat is out of the bag it is hard to put it back in.

Most bands are not big enough to pull something like this off. Most bands need to release the singles in order to sell the records and get people out to their shows.

[papill0n]

paul markham = music marketing expert

[Paul Markham]

A big, established band might be able to do that, but here is the problem. After their first live show their songs will be everywhere for free because someone will record them then put them up online and once the cat is out of the bag it is hard to put it back in.

Most bands are not big enough to pull something like this off. Most bands need to release the singles in order to sell the records and get people out to their shows.

The days of great creative music are gone. Today it's no longer cost effective to produce new albums that might take 6-12 months to create. Tommy, The Wall, Beggars Banquet, Disraeli Gears, Sgt. Pepper's, Are you Experienced, Highway 61 Revisited, Dark Side of the Moon, London Calling, Who's Next, Electric Ladyland, Better still read em and weep. http://rateyourmusic.com/list/Mr_133...s_of_all_time/

Todays music is churned out fast, has to be easily disposed of and if possible can be reproduced on a stage.

Would it still be like that if the Internet didn't exist? Yes, not as great as those days. Still good. Because the Internet wouldn't be giving it away for free or so cut price it's simply a conveyor belt business.

Would it still be like that if the Internet piracy didn't exist? Yes, not as great as those days. Still good. Because the Internet wouldn't be giving it away for free or so cut price it's simply a conveyor belt business.

Separating piracy from free is a red herring for pornsters. We give our product away for free. And eliminating piracy will have little effect on 90% of sites. The music industry would see a huge boost in revenue.

[DamianJ]

Todays music is churned out fast, has to be easily disposed of and if possible can be reproduced on a stage.

There we are. I love how you keep giving reasons as to why your initial post was wrong.

If music were made well again, people would buy more of it. Truth is, most modern music is shit. You're right.

[kane]

The days of great creative music are gone. Today it's no longer cost effective to produce new albums that might take 6-12 months to create. Tommy, The Wall, Beggars Banquet, Disraeli Gears, Sgt. Pepper's, Are you Experienced, Highway 61 Revisited, Dark Side of the Moon, London Calling, Who's Next, Electric Ladyland, Better still read em and weep. http://rateyourmusic.com/list/Mr_133...s_of_all_time/

Todays music is churned out fast, has to be easily disposed of and if possible can be reproduced on a stage.

Would it still be like that if the Internet didn't exist? Yes, not as great as those days. Still good. Because the Internet wouldn't be giving it away for free or so cut price it's simply a conveyor belt business.

Would it still be like that if the Internet piracy didn't exist? Yes, not as great as those days. Still good. Because the Internet wouldn't be giving it away for free or so cut price it's simply a conveyor belt business.

Separating piracy from free is a red herring for pornsters. We give our product away for free. And eliminating piracy will have little effect on 90% of sites. The music industry would see a huge boost in revenue.

There are still bands that write and record good albums. The industry itself has changed and because of that the labels want success from bands right away. Gone are the days when they will develop acts. It used to be that they would let an artist record an album then put it out and tour to support it. The label expected that it might take a few albums for a good band to build up a fan base so they had patience with them. Now if the album doesn't hit right away they dump the artists.

Many of these bands that get dumped end up signing with smaller indie record labels. They are out there, they are just harder to find.

[2MuchMark]

I miss 78's

[Paul Markham]

There are still bands that write and record good albums. The industry itself has changed and because of that the labels want success from bands right away. Gone are the days when they will develop acts. It used to be that they would let an artist record an album then put it out and tour to support it. The label expected that it might take a few albums for a good band to build up a fan base so they had patience with them. Now if the album doesn't hit right away they dump the artists.

Many of these bands that get dumped end up signing with smaller indie record labels. They are out there, they are just harder to find.

Good albums yes. Great ones to the quantity of before?

The Beatles had been playing for years before they released a single. This was normal then. Today it's a much faster climb and with little honed skills a very faster decline. The Beatles had been together how long before they produced Sgt Peppers? Same as so many great albums. Today they don't last that long a lot of the time.

[Robbie]

The Beatles had been playing for years before they released a single. .

The Beatles only played together for less than 2 years before they released their first single "Love Me Do".

You're correct about bands not paying their dues these days...but you're exaggerating it a bit when you insinuate The Beatles were together a long time before they hit it big.

2 years is like the blink of an eye. But you're right when compared to today. Hell, look at Justin Bieber. lol

Back when I was touring around the country I used to play a bar in Flynt Michigan called "The Silver Dollar Saloon".
And on the wall were the contracts for all the bands throughout the years that played the club.

Aerosmith played there, ZZ Top, Rush, Kiss, etc.
And you'd see where they played all week long for $1,500 lol

That's back when bands used to pay their dues playing clubs all over the country for very little money and honing their craft in front of live audiences.

[kane]

Good albums yes. Great ones to the quantity of before?

The Beatles had been playing for years before they released a single. This was normal then. Today it's a much faster climb and with little honed skills a very faster decline. The Beatles had been together how long before they produced Sgt Peppers? Same as so many great albums. Today they don't last that long a lot of the time.

Greatness only comes along every so often. You can't expect every band to be the Beatles. How many bands were around at the same time the Beatles were that recorded albums, maybe had a hit or two and then disappeared? Hundreds. There were thousands of completely disposable records made by bands few ever heard of in the 50's, 60's and 70's. There are also bands out there that are great and are making great music and none of us has ever heard of them for some reason or another. The Beatles were a once in a generation, perhaps once in lifetime situation.

Yes, gone are the days when record labels developed talent and let them hone their skills, but even if those days still existed it doesn't mean there would be another Beatles.

Oh, and the Beatles formed in 1960. They released a single in 1962 "Love me Do" and their first full length album in 1963 which had iconic hits on it like the aforementioned "Love me Do," "Twist and Shout" and "I Saw Her Standing There". I wouldn't necessarily quantify 2-3 years of playing together as "playing for years." Genius is genius. All the practice in the world can't create that.

[Zeiss]

Gone are the days when they will develop acts

[bhutocracy]

So, Paul, let's assume you're right, and the internet has ruined the record industry, why do you think the record industry is now seeing year on year increases it couldn't have dreamed of, thanks solely to digital sales. That is, sales on the internet?

I don't understand how 'the internet' can both ruin an industry and save it. It seems a tad incongruous to your specious argument (and I use the word argument very loosely).

DamienJ. look I get it, Paul is a clueless douche and mostly wrong about most things, but seriously you're wrong here. Artists are fucked now.. It's so bad it's now ok to "sell out" and let a company use your song for advertising.. It's the only way you'll make enough money to justify being little more than a vagrant with musical ability unless you're super commercial or win the jackpot of a break-out hit. Did you know an artist gets paid about a THIRD OF A CENT from Spotify? It's so bad it makes iTunes look GOOD.

Yay every crappy highschool band can record at home and put shitty music up somewhere and then have to get real jobs because there is even less money today for them then there was before. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. There are favorable aspects of the new order and there are totally fucked aspects. It is what it is and it's just lucky there is a secondary currency of groupie blowjobs to make it at all enticing..

[DamianJ]

DamienJ. look I get it, Paul is a clueless douche and mostly wrong about most things, but seriously you're wrong here.

Which part of what I've said are you suggesting is wrong? That digital sales are saving the industry? That the internet has given all artists the ability to sell globally, instantly and build up their own fan base? That the decline in sales of physical media is going down because the Big Five fucked over fans for years forcing them to buy the same content on different formats over and over?

Pick a point I've made and make a counterpoint. Don't just say I'm wrong and then throw up some straw men.

Artists are fucked now..

Alternatively artists now have a free distribution medium that allows them to sell their product directly, to anyone, anywhere in the world.

Did you know an artist gets paid about a THIRD OF A CENT from Spotify? It's so bad it makes iTunes look GOOD.

What's your point? That streaming payouts are less than itunes? You're right. Who is suggesting otherwise? Do you know how much an artists gets from a sale of a CD? About 6%. What a fucking rip off!

Did you know an artist only has to sell 143 self pressed CDs at 9.99 to make monthly minimum wage in the US?

[Paul Markham]

The Beatles only played together for less than 2 years before they released their first single "Love Me Do".

You're correct about bands not paying their dues these days...but you're exaggerating it a bit when you insinuate The Beatles were together a long time before they hit it big.

2 years is like the blink of an eye. But you're right when compared to today. Hell, look at Justin Bieber. lol

Back when I was touring around the country I used to play a bar in Flynt Michigan called "The Silver Dollar Saloon".
And on the wall were the contracts for all the bands throughout the years that played the club.

Aerosmith played there, ZZ Top, Rush, Kiss, etc.
And you'd see where they played all week long for $1,500 lol

That's back when bands used to pay their dues playing clubs all over the country for very little money and honing their craft in front of live audiences.

In March 1957 John Lennon, then aged sixteen, formed a skiffle group with several friends from Quarry Bank school. They briefly called themselves the Blackjacks, before changing their name to the Quarrymen after discovering that a respected local group was already using the name.[3] Fifteen-year-old Paul McCartney joined as a rhythm guitarist shortly after he and Lennon met that July.[4] In February 1958 McCartney invited his friend George Harrison to watch the group. The fourteen-year-old auditioned for Lennon, who was impressed by his playing but initially thought him too young for the band. After a month of persistence, Harrison joined as lead guitarist.[5][6] By January 1959 Lennon's Quarry Bank friends had left the group, and he began studies at the Liverpool College of Art.[7] The three guitarists, billing themselves at least three times as Johnny and the Moondogs,[8] were playing rock and roll whenever they could find a drummer.[9] Lennon's art school friend Stu Sutcliffe, who had recently sold one of his paintings and purchased a bass guitar, joined in January 1960, and it was he who suggested changing the band's name to Beatals as a tribute to Buddy Holly and the Crickets.[10] They used the name through May, when they became the Silver Beetles, before undertaking a brief tour of Scotland as the backing group for pop singer and fellow Liverpudlian Johnny Gentle. By early July they changed their name to the Silver Beatles, and by the middle of August to The Beatles.[11]

Their lack of a full-time drummer posed a problem when the group's unofficial manager, Allan Williams, arranged a resident band booking for them in Hamburg, Germany, so in mid August they auditioned and hired Pete Best. The band, now a five-piece, left four days later, contracted to club owner Bruno Koschmider for what would be a 3½-month residency.[12] Beatles' historian Mark Lewisohn wrote, "They pulled into Hamburg at dusk on 17 August, the time when the red-light area comes to life ... flashing neon lights screamed out the various entertainment on offer, while scantily clad women sat unabashed in shop windows waiting for business opportunities".[13]

Bit longer than 2 years.

Still I see your point. They were experienced before thrown into the charts. we did have a few over night bands in the 60s and 70s, they came and went. Very fast.

[Paul Markham]

Greatness only comes along every so often. You can't expect every band to be the Beatles. How many bands were around at the same time the Beatles were that recorded albums, maybe had a hit or two and then disappeared? Hundreds. There were thousands of completely disposable records made by bands few ever heard of in the 50's, 60's and 70's. There are also bands out there that are great and are making great music and none of us has ever heard of them for some reason or another. The Beatles were a once in a generation, perhaps once in lifetime situation.

Yes, gone are the days when record labels developed talent and let them hone their skills, but even if those days still existed it doesn't mean there would be another Beatles.

Oh, and the Beatles formed in 1960. They released a single in 1962 "Love me Do" and their first full length album in 1963 which had iconic hits on it like the aforementioned "Love me Do," "Twist and Shout" and "I Saw Her Standing There". I wouldn't necessarily quantify 2-3 years of playing together as "playing for years." Genius is genius. All the practice in the world can't create that.

True we had the one hit wonders. We struggled by though with these others.

The Who
Kinks
James Brown
The Beach Boys
The Supremes
The Rolling Stones
Bob Dylan
Aretha Franklin
Elvis Presley
Sam Cooke
The Jimi Hendrix Experience
Ray Charles
Otis Redding
The Temptations
Smokey Robinson & The Miracles
The Byrds
Marvin Gaye
The Four Seasons
Wilson Pickett
Stevie Wonder
Roy Orbison
Doors
The Four Tops
Led Zeppelin
Martha & The Vandellas
Dion
Jefferson Airplane
The Mamas & The Papas
Sam & Dave
Solomon Burke
Cream
Jackie Wilson
Creedence Clearwater Revival
Booker T & The MG's
Sly & The Family Stone
The Monkees
The Yardbirds
Chubby Checker
Simon & Garfunkel
The Lovin' Spoonful
Janis Joplin
The Animals
Mary Wells
Ike & Tina Turner
The Band
Lee Dorsey
The Velvet Underground
Junior Walker & The All-Stars
The Jackson Five
The Righteous Brothers
Buffalo Springfield

Few more here. http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/page...rtists60s.html

Compare the lists http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/page...rtists00s.html

[kane]

True we had the one hit wonders. We struggled by though with these others.

The Who
Kinks
James Brown
The Beach Boys
The Supremes
The Rolling Stones
Bob Dylan
Aretha Franklin
Elvis Presley
Sam Cooke
The Jimi Hendrix Experience
Ray Charles
Otis Redding
The Temptations
Smokey Robinson & The Miracles
The Byrds
Marvin Gaye
The Four Seasons
Wilson Pickett
Stevie Wonder
Roy Orbison
Doors
The Four Tops
Led Zeppelin
Martha & The Vandellas
Dion
Jefferson Airplane
The Mamas & The Papas
Sam & Dave
Solomon Burke
Cream
Jackie Wilson
Creedence Clearwater Revival
Booker T & The MG's
Sly & The Family Stone
The Monkees
The Yardbirds
Chubby Checker
Simon & Garfunkel
The Lovin' Spoonful
Janis Joplin
The Animals
Mary Wells
Ike & Tina Turner
The Band
Lee Dorsey
The Velvet Underground
Junior Walker & The All-Stars
The Jackson Five
The Righteous Brothers
Buffalo Springfield

Few more here. http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/page...rtists60s.html

Compare the lists http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/page...rtists00s.html

When I look at the list of artists from the 00s I see some very good bands/artists. I don't know if they will still be known 50 years from now, but they are good.

Still, I'm not sure what the point of all this is in relation to streaming music revenue being up. If you are trying to prove that the 60's had better music than the 00's you might be right. There are a lot of artists I like on that list, but some I think are overrated as well. It is all subjective. Show me one person who thinks The Doors are the greatest band in the world and that Rap is total shit and I can likely find someone who thinks Eminem is the greatest artist ever and that the Doors were just a group of lucky drunks. It doesn't mean either party is wrong.

[Paul Markham]

When I look at the list of artists from the 00s I see some very good bands/artists. I don't know if they will still be known 50 years from now, but they are good.

Still, I'm not sure what the point of all this is in relation to streaming music revenue being up. If you are trying to prove that the 60's had better music than the 00's you might be right. There are a lot of artists I like on that list, but some I think are overrated as well. It is all subjective. Show me one person who thinks The Doors are the greatest band in the world and that Rap is total shit and I can likely find someone who thinks Eminem is the greatest artist ever and that the Doors were just a group of lucky drunks. It doesn't mean either party is wrong.

Compare the whole of the two lists. As you say some are still well know, some are still packing in audiences. It's the quantity of the quality that comes out on top.

Streaming revenues may be up. Online porn overtook offline. Then plunged. It's total income we're talking about and that's clear in both industries.

[papill0n]

no traffic and no sales in porn

but hey youre a fucking expert on the online music industry now paul!

[papill0n]

It's the quantity of the quality that comes out on top.

??????????????????????????????????????????????

[DamianJ]

Streaming revenues may be up.

Yup. The music industry spend decades fucking over its customers. Then the internet came along and saved them.

Still unsure of what your actual point is, aside from all the reasons you have been giving as to why the internet has saved the record industry???

[papill0n]

Yup. The music industry spend decades fucking over its customers. Then the internet came along and saved them.

Still unsure of what your actual point is, aside from all the reasons you have been giving as to why the internet has saved the record industry???

paul doesnt have a point. He just chooses a topic and starts talking.