Horror Digital Forum  

Go Back   Horror Digital Forum > All Things Horror > General

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-08-2014, 11:36 PM   #796
Christy
Stalker
 
Christy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 200
Music sales are down cause today's music sucks!
Christy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2014, 11:49 PM   #797
Angelman
HackMaster
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by maybrick View Post
Just a reminder: this thread is called "unpopular opinions". Every unpopular opinion voiced doesn't necessarily need to go through several pages worth of debate, although I'm game if you are.
Ha. See the shitstorm I created when I claimed the Misfits were more influential than the the Beatles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt89 View Post
But honestly, who hasn't downloaded fucking music before?
I haven't. Old fashioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fistfuck View Post
Here's a fairly unpopular opinion:

I really loved coming of age in the 90s/00s and legitimately enjoyed high school. I'd go as far as saying I miss my high school days.
I grew up in the 80s and it ruled beyond belief.
Angelman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2014, 11:51 PM   #798
Matt89
HackMaster
 
Matt89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by maybrick View Post
Music sales are down, no doubt partly because of illegal downloading, but no doubt partly because the industry no longer takes the time to develop new artists, therefore most music that makes the airwaves is nothing but disposable BULLSHIT! So who the fuck would want to buy it? In the good old days bands would release a new album ever 10-15 months and develop a following. Today if your first album doesn't chart high enough your career is over. And if it DOES do well, then the music execs have a handy dandy equation that tells exactly the length of time between albums in order to optimize profits: usually 3-5 years. Who needs it? Fuck the industry. It dug it's own grave.
Yeah look at The Beatles. From 1963-1970 they put out fucking TWELVE albums. In seven years. ABBA put out 8 albums in 8 years. Van Morrison put out 2 albums in 1970 and 2 in 1974. From 1967-1977 he put out 9 albums. Now look at Coldplay. In 11 years they put out 5 albums. Only 2 of them were actually any good.

You want more money, make more damn music.

~Matt
__________________
"If a man can bridge the gap between life and death ... I mean, if he can live on after his death, then maybe he was a great man."
- James Dean
Matt89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2014, 11:56 PM   #799
Angelman
HackMaster
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt89 View Post
Yeah look at The Beatles. From 1963-1970 they put out fucking TWELVE albums. In seven years. ABBA put out 8 albums in 8 years. Van Morrison put out 2 albums in 1970 and 2 in 1974. From 1967-1977 he put out 9 albums. Now look at Coldplay. In 11 years they put out 5 albums. Only 2 of them were actually any good.

You want more money, make more damn music.

~Matt
Good point. And make that music good while you are at it.
Angelman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2014, 12:02 AM   #800
Matt89
HackMaster
 
Matt89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,607
Or do what Iron Maiden did. They looked at what cities torrented their music the most, went touring and ended up playing sold out shows. Unlike Metallica.....

~Matt
__________________
"If a man can bridge the gap between life and death ... I mean, if he can live on after his death, then maybe he was a great man."
- James Dean
Matt89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2014, 12:19 AM   #801
maybrick
HackMaster
 
maybrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Keene, NH
Posts: 9,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt89 View Post
Yeah look at The Beatles. From 1963-1970 they put out fucking TWELVE albums. In seven years. ABBA put out 8 albums in 8 years. Van Morrison put out 2 albums in 1970 and 2 in 1974. From 1967-1977 he put out 9 albums. Now look at Coldplay. In 11 years they put out 5 albums. Only 2 of them were actually any good.

You want more money, make more damn music.

~Matt
By today's standards, 5 albums in 11 years is pretty damned good. For the longest time, Nine Inch Nails was averaging 1 album every 5. If the band was more than just Trent Reznor then it would never have made it to their 2nd LP. The most productive time in any band's career is the first five years, so what the hell are all of these newer acts DOING? Touring, drinking, doing drugs, and dicking around in the studio? Well, the Alice Cooper Band was doing all of that 40 years ago and STILL managed to crank out 7 awesome albums in 5 years. The problem with the music industry today all boils down to

a) lazy, self absorbed musicians
b) too much recording company intervention
c) the Overproduction of albums.

If they come up with a solution to those three things, then the bulk of their problems would probably go away.

Actually, scratch that "self absorbed" part. That describes too many good musicians as well. I'll change that to... well.. I just get the impression that most musicians today have never really had to suffer for their art. It leads to blandness.

Last edited by maybrick; 01-09-2014 at 12:24 AM.
maybrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2014, 12:24 AM   #802
buck135
The Duke of New York
 
buck135's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In Bruges
Posts: 2,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt89 View Post
Or do what Iron Maiden did. They looked at what cities torrented their music the most, went touring and ended up playing sold out shows. Unlike Metallica.....

~Matt
I'm going to catch shit for this I'm sure, but I haven't been a big fan of Metallica's live performances since the Black album. Last time I saw them was in 97 at MSG and wasn't impressed (nor have I been watching them on TV live since). Now their live stuff during and before 91 was unreal. I saw Maiden in 2000 at MSG and they were equally amazing, and I'm not a huge Maiden fan. I try and see as many acts live to support the bands as I can, but like me, they're not getting any younger. My favorite, AC/DC, are probably done. Their lead singer is 65 years old.
__________________
"Do you read Sutter Cane?"
buck135 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2014, 12:27 AM   #803
buck135
The Duke of New York
 
buck135's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In Bruges
Posts: 2,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by maybrick View Post
I just get the impression that most musicians today have never really had to suffer for their art. It leads to blandness.
It's as though today's musicians(?) are "selected" due to the way they look. Marilyn Manson may not be everyone's cup of tea, but at least the guy can fucking sing!
__________________
"Do you read Sutter Cane?"
buck135 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2014, 12:28 AM   #804
Paff
Moderator
 
Paff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SoCal
Posts: 7,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christy View Post
Music sales are down cause today's music sucks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt89 View Post
You want more money, make more damn music.
I fully agree that crappy music has led to the poor sales. No argument there. But seriously, do you think if the quality of music went up, impoverished teens would suddenly start blowing their allowances on CDs? Hardly. The crappiness of today's music is just a crutch. The reality is that people are not going to pay money for something if they can get it for free, regardless of quality.

This is something I'll admit the recording industry has failed to adapt to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt89 View Post
Or do what Iron Maiden did. They looked at what cities torrented their music the most, went touring and ended up playing sold out shows. Unlike Metallica.....
This is more the way to go, but it's not an indication that more downloads = more fans. It just means you can't make money on recorded music anymore. Sad fact of life. The only way to make money on music is to play gigs.

If you see the movie "The Other F Word" (and you all should, it's great), they spell this out. Pennywise (who suck, but they're the main focus of the movie) say they just can't stay afloat with recordings, so they have to tour 200+ days of the year just to get some cash inflow.


While you all may say "so what?" and that Miley Cyrus seems to be doing just fine cash wise making her shit music, I say what about recording studios? If bands can't make money recording, they just won't do it as often (and they're not, as some of you have already said). So studios shut down. Same with record stores.

Declining record sales don't just put bands and overpaid executives out of work, it also puts hardworking honest and talented people in the business of recording and selling music out of work.

I'll also admit I don't have the solution to this. Clearly, the way the recording industry clamped down on file sharing with outrageous lawsuits on people who downloaded music totally backfired on them. They need to embrace change, something they're totally failing to do. The last disruption this big in the music biz had to be the introduction of MTV, where music suddenly became VISUAL. Ugly but talented musicians suddenly fell to the wayside. This shitstorm is much bigger though, and no one is handling it properly yet.
__________________
CINEMA PAFF - Your BB-Movie Showcase *

* - The extra B is for BYOBB

Paff's Laserdiscs
Paff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2014, 12:40 AM   #805
maybrick
HackMaster
 
maybrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Keene, NH
Posts: 9,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paff View Post
I fully agree that crappy music has led to the poor sales. No argument there. But seriously, do you think if the quality of music went up, impoverished teens would suddenly start blowing their allowances on CDs? Hardly. The crappiness of today's music is just a crutch. The reality is that people are not going to pay money for something if they can get it for free, regardless of quality.

This is something I'll admit the recording industry has failed to adapt to.



This is more the way to go, but it's not an indication that more downloads = more fans. It just means you can't make money on recorded music anymore. Sad fact of life. The only way to make money on music is to play gigs.

If you see the movie "The Other F Word" (and you all should, it's great), they spell this out. Pennywise (who suck, but they're the main focus of the movie) say they just can't stay afloat with recordings, so they have to tour 200+ days of the year just to get some cash inflow.


While you all may say "so what?" and that Miley Cyrus seems to be doing just fine cash wise making her shit music, I say what about recording studios? If bands can't make money recording, they just won't do it as often (and they're not, as some of you have already said). So studios shut down. Same with record stores.

Declining record sales don't just put bands and overpaid executives out of work, it also puts hardworking honest and talented people in the business of recording and selling music out of work.

I'll also admit I don't have the solution to this. Clearly, the way the recording industry clamped down on file sharing with outrageous lawsuits on people who downloaded music totally backfired on them. They need to embrace change, something they're totally failing to do. The last disruption this big in the music biz had to be the introduction of MTV, where music suddenly became VISUAL. Ugly but talented musicians suddenly fell to the wayside. This shitstorm is much bigger though, and no one is handling it properly yet.
I think the only solution is to figuratively burn the whole system to the ground and start from scratch. That's pretty much what's beginning to take shape anyways. Technology has progressed to the point where we don't NEED the industry anymore. We don't need industry money to professionally produce albums because most of us have computers good enough to record and mix our own to "near" professional quality if we want to. We don't need industry money to publish our music or press discs because it costs next to nothing for a band to create digital downloads. We don't need music industry money to promote our music when we have access to Facebook and Myspace and the like to make contact directly with our fanbase.

MTV? Who even watches that for music videos anymore? Everybody goes to Youtube now, and hey! You can shoot a quickie video just like as was seen back in the golden age of MTV and put one up there too!

The recording industry is on death row. They just haven't quite gotten the message yet.
maybrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2014, 12:42 AM   #806
zbinks
!OXOMOXO! ƎYƎ AM THE I
 
zbinks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Workshed View Post
I've never downloaded a film. But I admit in college I downloaded live shows by bands (that were not commercially available). This was in the days of Napster. Since then, however, I have not downloaded music. Not on a high horse. If you do it, you do it and I'm sure anyone can justify however he/she likes.
The RIAA really doesn't have any say-so when it comes to material that hasn't been commercially released. This would all depend on the artist in question and their policies (if they even have one) on peer-to-peer downloading unreleased materials.
zbinks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2014, 12:46 AM   #807
Paff
Moderator
 
Paff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SoCal
Posts: 7,293
Actually, MTV handled things quite well. Everyone bitches about how "they don't play videos", but really, who cares about music videos anymore? They ran their course. MTV saw that, and changed their programming accordingly. In other words, they adapted to the times.

While I do agree with Maybrick's suggestion that things have to change from the ground up, and that a lot of high-salaried people in the music industry are no longer needed, there is one important thing to consider: If people can't make money making music, they just won't do it. The Screaming Buttheads could get a billion downloads with the most amazing music ever recorded, and if that nets them exactly $0, The Screaming Buttheads are gonna sell their instruments and go get jobs at Walmart. I'm exaggerating of course, but there is some truth to that scenario...
__________________
CINEMA PAFF - Your BB-Movie Showcase *

* - The extra B is for BYOBB

Paff's Laserdiscs
Paff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2014, 12:58 AM   #808
Angelman
HackMaster
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by buck135 View Post
I'm going to catch shit for this I'm sure, but I haven't been a big fan of Metallica's live performances since the Black album. Last time I saw them was in 97 at MSG and wasn't impressed (nor have I been watching them on TV live since). Now their live stuff during and before 91 was unreal. I saw Maiden in 2000 at MSG and they were equally amazing, and I'm not a huge Maiden fan. I try and see as many acts live to support the bands as I can, but like me, they're not getting any younger. My favorite, AC/DC, are probably done. Their lead singer is 65 years old.
You are absolutely right, Metallica is UNLISTENABLE live anymore. They have let their skills deteriorate SO MUCH. It makes me appreciate Megadeth because while Mustaine is nuts they still are pretty sharp. Maiden puts on a fantastic show even now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paff View Post
If you see the movie "The Other F Word" (and you all should, it's great), they spell this out. Pennywise (who suck, but they're the main focus of the movie) say they just can't stay afloat with recordings, so they have to tour 200+ days of the year just to get some cash inflow
This.

I have friends in working bands. They make no money selling music (downloads/cds) they do make money touring and oddly clean up with vinyl and merch, especially in Europe.
Angelman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2014, 01:02 AM   #809
buck135
The Duke of New York
 
buck135's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In Bruges
Posts: 2,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angelman View Post
You are absolutely right, Metallica is UNLISTENABLE live anymore. They have let their skills deteriorate SO MUCH. It makes me appreciate Megadeth because while Mustaine is nuts they still are pretty sharp. Maiden puts on a fantastic show even now.
Did you watch them play Enter Sandman at Yankee Stadium for Mariano Rivera day or whatever that was? I wanted to crawl under my bed it was so bad.
__________________
"Do you read Sutter Cane?"
buck135 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2014, 01:14 AM   #810
maybrick
HackMaster
 
maybrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Keene, NH
Posts: 9,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paff View Post
Actually, MTV handled things quite well. Everyone bitches about how "they don't play videos", but really, who cares about music videos anymore? They ran their course. MTV saw that, and changed their programming accordingly. In other words, they adapted to the times.

While I do agree with Maybrick's suggestion that things have to change from the ground up, and that a lot of high-salaried people in the music industry are no longer needed, there is one important thing to consider: If people can't make money making music, they just won't do it. The Screaming Buttheads could get a billion downloads with the most amazing music ever recorded, and if that nets them exactly $0, The Screaming Buttheads are gonna sell their instruments and go get jobs at Walmart. I'm exaggerating of course, but there is some truth to that scenario...
Most artists weren't making money producing albums "professionally" anyways. Historically speaking new artists have always been fucked over because they're young and nave and without proper legal representation. The Rolling Stones? The Kinks? Just two examples of famous bands who were lucky to see even a nickel back during their 60s heyday, and neither one owns those songs anymore. A typical scheme was to sign an artist for, let's say, $1 million dollars for a two album contract. But what they don't tell them is that money is supposed to be used for production costs. The label books studio time with a famous producer, they spend months in the studio and at the end they're handed a bill in the hundreds of thousands. Not to mention all of the hidden costs. Whatever is left is then divided up between the individual musicians. But they're still obligated to put out that second album! To make matters worse, whatever percentage of the profits they were promised is usually non existent because they have creative bookkeepers that are able to claim losses in the face of record profits.

I believe that it was En Vogue about 20 years ago who sued their label over this. They had several hit singles, sold millions or albums and won awards, but each member of the group still only managed to make about $8,000 for the entire year. Or something like that.

So with that kind of thing going on in mind, musicians are really sacrificing very little by going DIY. They're in a far better position to make money without them than with them.

Last edited by maybrick; 01-09-2014 at 01:16 AM.
maybrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Copyright 1999-2014 Horrordvds.com

No text or images from this site may be reprinted or used elsewhere without express consent from Horrordvds.com