Music biz back to playing the blues

Since the days of Napster (version 1.0), the music industry has been mired in a funk. But then legitimate digital music services came along to help salvage sales, and the industry rejoiced.

Now comes a return of bad news. Last year saw a 21% drop in the number of people in the U.S. buying music -- both digital and physical -- compared with 2007, according to figures released Thursday by NPD Group, a market research firm.

The NPD numbers echo similarly dour news released last month from the IFPI, a London-based consortium of 1,400 record companies. A 12% uptick in digital music sales in 2009 was not enough to reverse an overall 10% slide in global sales of recorded music in all formats, according to the IFPI.

The NPD figures shed some light on possible reasons sales have declined. Here are some highlights:

The good: Those who bought digital music spent an average of $50 in 2009, up from $33 in 2006. NPD also found the number of songs posted on peer-to-peer networks such as ThePirateBay dropped significantly as consumers cited their fear of malware on these unregulated sites. And Internet radio services, such as Pandora, increases the likelihood of purchasing songs.

The bad: Listeners of free, ad-supported on-demand music services such as LaLa or MySpace Music end up spending 13% less on music downloads. Why buy when you can listen to any song, anytime you wish, for free?

The ugly: The number of people in the U.S. who bought music fell by one-fifth, to 93 million, in 2009 from 116 million in 2007. In other words, the market seems to be shrinking, even as digital music revenue is poised to eclipse physical music sales this year.

The upshot: Russ Crupnick, NPD's music analyst, said, "In the short term, the numbers are outright scary. But the good news is that there are a lot of dedicated digital music buyers out there. We just need more of them. It doesn't have to be a death spiral."

-- Alex Pham

Photo credit: timsnell via Flickr

Comments

[terry]

I bought the records, I bought the tapes, I bought the CD's, now the format is peer to peer file sharing, and I'm "buying' that too.

[Wat]

why buy music when less then 5 percent goes to the actual artist themselves. I'll buy a CD when all the proceeds are guaranteed to go to the artist themselves. But these phony executives and labels take way more than is entitled to them.

[NaturesWonders]

Too much bad music out there, and too much good music shut out of places where people can find it. Broadcast radio has been on the way out for years now, and not everyone can afford or wants to pay for satellite radio. What is out there in the mass market of what's left of radio and what's left on TV (since MTV stopped playing music videos long ago) is not inspiring many people to go out and get it, regardless of genre. You now have to be a really dedicated music person to find music, and how many people have the time or inclination for that?

[John Arnold]

Well....here's the problem.

In bygone days, the record companies produced songs based upon the music...NOT THE VISUALS.

Today, too often, the music video drives the idea of the music. And the music videos don't even support the artists. It's all about effects and styling. So many music videos look like fashion catalogues.

Yes, film/visuals can bring us music, I admit. But it's how it's delivered that is important. Be pure. Remember the movie "The Rose"? And the opening with Bette Midler performing whatever the song was - standing at the microphone, all homely and hairy arm pits, and POWER! Take a look at that piece of film. No styling, per se, and...3-plus minutes with...one edit. Yes, there is only one cut. A couple zoom-ins and zoom-outs but the visual is pretty simple: it just brings Bette to us. And she ain't a dolled-up. Bette was just Bette. Today? Would she make it with her looks? Would Ella Fitzgerald? The decisions on music making (or should I say music DISTRIBUTING) are driven by a whole different set of rules today. "Ya' gotta look gorgeous and there's gotta be lots of visuals".

The quality of music suffers when decisions are made upon the attractiveness and excitement of visuals. Putting good icing on a bad tasting cake doesn't make it.

Music videos also strip the listener of the ability to "make the song personal". It's a different experience to be exposed to music via a visual medium. Think about it...

For those that can remember, when we heard a new record, we attached it to some experience - a boy/girlfriend, a day at the beach, a time in our lives. That's because when we heard it, the song sparked our imagination. The mind works differently when hearing music-along versus a music video.

So today's pop/music culture has spiraled away from what music really is: an aural experience. And winds up producing...bad music. With the resultant bad sales.

The other aspect of digital downloads versus CD (or for those old folks, LP) sales: we lost the experience of DISCOVERING a song that we like. How many of you out there bought a CD in the past for the hit, and then found a song somewhere in the selection that you really liked - and had never heard before? I bet plenty of you. That experience bolstered the concept of being a fan of the recording artist and not just the "hit". Buying a hit song alone reduces the attraction to the artist - because that attraction is built based on the belief that the artist makes good music - not just a single hit.

For the music industry to get healthy - and I mean really healthy - they have to put into power record executives that have "ears" - that can feel the music in the gut. Like those old guys from the past - Clive Davis, Mitch Miller, etc. etc. Those people gave us great music - the standards that we can hum today even if we haven't heard a song in years.

Music is all about...the music.

That is something the music industry should remember.

[Aldo]

Stop complaining and sign better artists to your "labels", retool your marketing efforts and start working for a living! This is such a tired story from the "music bigwigs" who forgot everything they learned back in the sixies ...

[musicbuff.]

I just don't get lousy digital online streaming. Don't kids care about sound quality anymore?

LaLa restricts the number of full songs you can listen to. After that you have to pretty much register and pay for some of the songs to get the full benefits. Pandora is good too but their database is limited.

There is this company call Cyloop.com who used to offer any song any time before MySpace Music did. But the former changed direction to stream songs through radio format instead. To date, MySpace Music remains to be the only provider for any song any time.

However, I am not if MySpace Music will last that long. It costs the company more to stream on-demand songs. The whole 'listen to any song anytime' means more $$$ for the provider and a sub-par biz model to cover with banner advertising etc.

But in my opinion, to keep this music biz alive, the labels have to relax their rein on the providers. The consumers/users ultimately sets the trend on how we listen to music. Cos if on-demand services is not available, consumers will find other ways to listen to any song any time for free.

[ucrsue]

Maybe if they produced better music, we'd buy it.

[jad]

Death spiral of the music industry? The industry whose economic model is suing its best customers? It can't come too soon.

[Alex Frankiln]

If there were ever a case to be made for the effects of arrogance and ignorance in corporate America this is it.

[rich]

I am a huge music fan and even use sites like the pirate bay to preview music. If I like it. I DO go purchase it. The challenge is that there is a huge lack in the talent of the artists that major label now deem as contract worthy. There seems to be no quality control anymore. Just because you can buy a computer, a synthesizer and recording software doesn't mean you are a musician any more than the fact that you can reproduce makes you a good parent. It takes practice, patience and a bit of gifting. Until the labels bring back the lost art of A&R, there is a strong chance that they will continue to see their profits decline. There simply is no value offering to the artists being pushed on us now days. Let's review, but first let me state that I am not fans of these artist but will use them to illustrate my point. Where is rapper Mike Jones? He had 2 back to back hits and seemed to be everywhere roughly 5 years ago. Where is RnB singer Mya? Her career seems to be in the trash can now. Her albums don't sell and she had to resort to "Dancing with the Stars" (which should really be called "Dancing with less than A-listers"). What about Pretty Ricky, Missy Elliot or about 20 rock bands from the late 90's? They all have fizzled because they lacked the substance to remain relevant. There is nothing engaging about them as people or artists that magnetizes them. Hell, at least KISS had a good gimmick. They can still sell out a 20 thousand seat venue. The labels need to rediscover the art of developing career artists. Until they can scratch that itch, the overall buying public will keep turning their backs on most of the trash being released.

[DONALD McCREA]

the music business is dead....thankfully.....hopefully, all those greasers in gold chains that ran the record labels (and were shaking down the kiddies for their lunch money) are now selling Toyotas....

[Gavin Dossier]

Everything's going digital. Analog no more. File sharing will be the future and many people will no longer purchase music. On the other hand, people will support artists that they like by going to live performances such as festivals and purchasing the artists merch. There's no right or wrong answer at this point - just prediction (such as the one I mentioned). Record companies will either have to quit or adapt to the new music era that's unfolding.

[Elaine Fine]

Perhaps people will have to get their musical experiences the natural way: by going to performances and making music themselves. The morphing of music into a music-playing object was relatively short lived when you look at the grand scheme of things. I believe that means far more when you experience it in real time and real acoustic space, and, like a good meal in a good restaurant, good music well played makes you want to come back for more--and pay for it.

[Jage]

There must be more Louis Armstrongs, Billie Holidays, Miles Davis', Muddy Waters', Howlin' Wolfs, Arthur Alexanders, Buddy Hollys, Chuck Berrys, Elvis', Lennon/McCartneys, Brian Wilsons, Smokey Robinsons, Stevie Wonders, Dylans, Townshends, Jagger/Richards, Elvis Costellos, Kurt Cobains, etc. out there. But the record company keeps foisting Green Day recycling punks, Disney auto tuned vocal formulaic cloned by the numbers acts, bombastic but bland nth generation R&B, American Idol bots and of course rap.

I'll turn on a radio and it sounds like it did a year ago, heck like it did 15 years ago.

I know of MANY artists (stress artist)out there doing great things, but on a DIY basis. Oh well, Rock (and music in general) is no longer based on artists with something to say, but merely a career decision. School of Rock indeed.

Radio, big record companies obviously are not getting it. But as long as they can still manage a profit churning out McMusic, why should they care? Anyone want to be the next Clive Davis or Barry Gordy? Didn't think so. That would take a long term commitment, some b@lls, and a lot of imagination.

[Music Guy]

Wow, you "music listeners" are full of pathetic excuses for not paying for a product you consume. Its absolutely sad.

What a bunch of garbage from people who have no love for real art. You people don't deserve a culture.

[Bob]

Illegal downloads are declining but so are sales. Perhaps this is because nobody wants to download or buy the crap music that is being produced, even if it is free?

[JAKE]

Blu Ray Audio could be the savior for the industry.
But like DVD Audio, they'll ignore it.
They are FORCING folks to download instead of buy physical media.
I love owning CD's, LP's, etc.
I'm a pack rat (as I think many music lovers may be). I love liner notes, the photos, being taken into an audio fantasy that someone has spent a great deal of time and effort to create.
But the labels refuse to INCREASE THE QUALITY of their product.
The Beatles re-issues are a great example of this: Why would I re-buy remastered CD's that can't possibly sound as good as the old LP's from forty years ago instead of issuing Blu Ray's that could conceivably sound BETTER than the old LP's? What are they waiting for?
The problem is no one in the music "business" is a music "lover".
They're all bean counters who treat the "product" and "customer" like SKU's.
Which makes this SKU very sad.

[MarkyMark]

The blog post doesn't mention what I think is going to be the biggest killer of industry sales going forward: the simple fact that the ongoing economic malaise (to put it mildly) is going to result in more and more Americans either choosing or being forced by circumstance to slash all discretionary spending.

Budget decisions don't come more simple than whether to pay cash for music when you can get something more or less the same for free.

[Uncle Goat]

the thing for musicians to do -- and aren't we all musicians? -- is to consider ever single tune they play to be a parody, even if it is original. That way, the lawyers who have decided what can and what can't be played have no way to stop actual innovation. And once that is back, music will rebound from this corporate, legal prison.