 |
MemeStreams Discussion |
|
| This page contains all of the posts and discussion on MemeStreams referencing the following web page: Music sales dip; Net seen as culprit. You can find discussions on MemeStreams as you surf the web, even if you aren't a MemeStreams member, using the Threads Bookmarklet. |
| Music sales dip; Net seen as culprit by Jeremy at 6:24 am EDT, Apr 17, 2002 | |||
Global music sales declined for the second consecutive year, a dip the recording industry blamed on the proliferation of free music swapping on the Internet. In 2001, worldwide music sales dropped 5% to $33.7B, according to a record industry lobbying group. That figure is down again from the 5% drop in 2000 to $37B. The recording industry maintained that demand for music has not waned. Industry: "The industry's problems reflect no fall in the popularity of recorded music: Rather, they reflect the fact that the commercial value of music is being widely devalued by mass copying and piracy." Analyst: "I think it's a very convenient scapegoat, but in reality ... is more complex." Sales in France, up 10%; in the UK, up 5%, due to "strong demand for local artists." If the music industry were run by telecom executives, the report would keep quiet about revenues and proclaim, "minutes listened are up 30% year over year! The Internet music sector is the scene of substantial future growth potential." If necessary, the record companies would sell some music to each other. ("I'll buy 2 million Britney Spears albums and sell you a million Jay Z's, plus the option to purchase up to ten million of Britney's future albums at $10 each.") I think the industry should listen to Jaron Lanier and do a little soul searching ... maybe people aren't buying the latest crap because it sounds just like the crap they bought ten years ago. I'm also rather suspicious of that "rock star" theory of Internet music. To me, the decline/absence of dominant superstars in recent years indicates that no one has what it takes. Elvis and The Beatles were stars not only because they were good, but because their music was new and different. Today ... who is truly new and different, yet still widely relevant? | |||
| Link - Reply | |||
