Page 1 of 3

Music's Worst Year

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:32 pm
by Tom4
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/9147118?rnd=1137551334079&has-player=false

The Indie Scene

As the majors stumbled, independent labels gained market share, accounting for eighteen percent of CD sales in '05. Indie labels proved especially adept at Internet marketing via outlets like MySpace; the emo label Victory Records sold 558,000 copies of Hawthorne Heights' album The Silence in Black and White without radio play. And several hip indie acts -- the Arcade Fire, Interpol and Bright Eyes -- sold more than 250,000 copies each. The indie model of earning profits on a broad range of small-scale releases, rather than focusing on blockbusters, may offer a new direction for the majors. "The major labels want to say the glass is half full," says Gwen Stefani's manager Jim Guerinot. "I think everybody's getting the message: You better get a fucking smaller glass.

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:54 am
by vitas
so, shouldn't it be "major label's worst year" and the start of something good again for music?

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:25 pm
by grounded5am
but wouldn't an influx of indie lables and indie bands just eventually implode like most trends? cause it seems that's it more of a trend rather than what it was back 14 years ago or more.

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:33 pm
by Dawg
But as sales shift toward digital distribution, battles are brewing over how much downloads should cost, and who should get the money. Apple CEO Steve Jobs called the labels "greedy" for suggesting iTunes should charge more than ninety-nine cents for hits; Warner Music Group CEO Edgar Bronfman Jr. shot back, "We want, and will insist upon having, variable pricing." Artists, meanwhile, complain that their royalties from digital tracks -- fourteen cents is the typical rate -- don't make up for the loss of income from CD sales. "This is where the sales are going," says Josh Grier, a music lawyer for Wilco. "But being part of the transition might be a bad thing."


Wow - record labels may NEVER get it, even when the reality of digital purchasing is staring them right in the face

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:02 pm
by trainwreck2
only 14 cents...that seems like robbery for the bands...

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:59 pm
by Mixmaster Shecky
Come to think of it, it wasn't really that hot a year for indie stuff, either. Certainly 1000% better than the mainstream, but that ain't saying much.

Still, not a banner indy year.

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:28 pm
by n8
Mixmaster Shecky wrote:Come to think of it, it wasn't really that hot a year for indie stuff, either. Certainly 1000% better than the mainstream, but that ain't saying much.

Still, not a banner indy year.


I'd agree, but I do think it was a great year for UK bands in the US. Some interesting, captivating stuff coming out of there in 05. My fav was Maximo Park.

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:12 am
by grounded5am
itunes, to me, is killing the soul of music. it's becoming disposible than ever. since when did music become a file? or a series of numbers (if that's the case)?

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:22 pm
by vitas
grounded5am wrote:itunes, to me, is killing the soul of music. it's becoming disposible than ever. since when did music become a file? or a series of numbers (if that's the case)?


since the first time it was recorded and placed on the market as a commodity to be bought and sold.

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:22 pm
by grounded5am
before itunes and the advent of mp3's muisc wasn't a commodity. when exactly did it change into one? was it in the 90's? or has it really always been this way?