Streaming music revenues up 40% globally in 2012

[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!