Is the recorded music industry still viable?

[Allan F]

The wide piracy of digital music years ago had a major impact on the music industry. The labels were reduced to skeletons of what they once were as the industry failed to adapt to the changing landscape. Today, sales of physical media are way down and record stores have closed everywhere. There are, of course, a number of companies targeting the niche audiophile market. Dunno what the financial impact of streaming has been on the record labels. It has greatly reduced the income of recording artists, most of whom cannot survive on sales of recordings and have to tour in order to make money. 

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, loop7 said:

Do we know if piracy of music specifically is on a steady decline? Has it "stabilized" at a certain percentage?

 

Well, sites like Napster which were the major source of digital piracy were shut down years ago. Then Steve Jobs opened iTunes and others followed, allowing people to buy individual songs rather than complete albums. I am sure that piracy has declined significantly from its peak, but I have no data to offer regarding the degree to which it has has declined or to what extent it has "stabilized". And, of course, today we have streaming.

[Allan F]

4 hours ago, Rexp said:

Lets face it alot of digital recordings ain't worth buying, labels need to fix their product first. And even if a good recording is released most folks don't have a capable playback system. 

 

Maybe so. But these are hardly justifications for stealing them. 🙂

[Allan F]

4 hours ago, John Dyson said:

I wonder if there is a business case at all for truly high quality reworked recordings.  There is a lot of 'lip-service' about quality, but I have seldom found it.

 

If there is such a case, John, I suspect that it is limited to the audiophile community. You have to remember that, both historically and currently, the largest group of purchasers of music is composed of young people. Today, for the vast majority, their prime vehicle for listening to music is via their phones. While differences in the sound quality of recordings are important to you and members of this community, that is sadly not the case for those young people who have been weaned on MP3. There are exceptions of course but, IMO, not likely in sufficient numbers to generally justify reworking catalogues.

[Allan F]

41 minutes ago, DuckToller said:

Unfortunately, your assessment of today's teen generation's way to enjoy music is spot on.
I would tend to disagree on the younger generation as generators of value apart of paid streaming services.
I may see the generations 35+ as the major contributors to the sales of individual units of music (DL/CD+/Vinyl) in terms of value.
The 2020 IFPI report for 2019 will come End of March, the 2019 reports contains the following information, though it is not adjusted to the spendings.

https://www.ifpi.org/downloads/Music-Listening-2019.pdf

 

Perhaps I should have used the term "consumers" of music rather than "purchasers", because young people comprise the largest group of offenders when it comes to piracy. They are also the largest group likely to share or exchange music. What is particularly noteworthy from this survey is the small percentage of people who listen to music via "Hi-Fi or Turntable" as this is the group that would be most willing to pay a premium for improved recordings.

[Allan F]

9 hours ago, Rexp said:

I don't think the percentage of folks, young or old, interested in good SQ has changed much. When I was at college in the 80's I was the only kid with a decent hifi system in my group. Blaming young kids today for the sins of the labels is just wrong. 

 

With respect, IMO your personal experience in the 1980's is far too narrow a reference. When you were at college, Napster and other peer-to-peer sharing services didn't exist and the record industry was flourishing. There was no widespread piracy. Nor did listening to music in lossy formats such as MP3 exist at that time. The "loudness wars", i.e. the scourge of severely compressed pop-rock recordings, came about to cater to young people listening to music primarily on their mobile devices.

[Allan F]

4 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Well, the issue of quality has been real since CDs came out.  Remember, when they came out -- those who had ears at all -- I mean, cared about sound quality either complained about that 'digital sound' or stood silent.  I was one of the silent ones, because the usual explanation about 'digital' being naturally inferior or immature technology was mostly wrong-headed about defects that I was hearing.  Being a moderately competent EE at the time, I knew that the problems with the 'digital sound' had little to do with 'digital technology' itself...

 

...Sorry about this rant, but I really do believe that there is a market for proper quality material -- woody, sometimes almost nasal, vocals will never be sufficient for me  until I go deaf, then I won't care anyway.

 

John, I don't question for a second the sincerity of your passion and beliefs. Perhaps your ears are very sensitive. However, IMO you exaggerate the situation considerably when you suggest that virtually all CD's today sound terrible. When you write that "...the vast majority, including HI-RES downloads are NOT good enough for a system that costs more than $500", IMO you lose your credibility. Of note, in your "rants" you rarely talk about the performance of an artist or musician.

 

I agree that the first CDs sounded terrible; the mastering was terrible. At the same time, most of the initial CD players on the market were incapable of producing good sound with ANY recording. Digital technology has advanced and the quality of CD playback equipment has improved tremendously over the years. To take just one example, the negative effect of jitter was virtually an unknown quantity for years. With better playback capability, many producers have created recordings that are mastered to provide vastly superior sound quality to those initially foisted on the public.

 

Every serious listener knows that the sound of live music cannot be reproduced in a home stereo system. But there are many recordings that get satisfyingly close. And there are many more that provide true musical enjoyment because they capture the essence of both the musical performance and the unique talent of the artist. One must nevertheless be selective, especially with remastered "hi res" releases.

 

I don't doubt that recordings can be improved and I admire your efforts regarding Dolby A compression. However, the "loudness wars" aside, IMO things are not nearly as bad as you proclaim. I sincerely doubt that this site would attract so many members if they shared your gloomy outlook. I also doubt that there is more than a niche market for recreating the catalogues of the major labels.

 

[Allan F]

21 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

So, as an audiophile, I have intolerance for garbage.  Anyone who spends more than a few $1k should be looking as much at the source material as the equipment quality.

 

Is it possible that perhaps you have become so obsessed with one aspect of CD sound that you are unable to "hear" the forest for the trees?

[Allan F]

5 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I wonder if they can process the material?  I do know that I was very disappointed a long time ago when I last bought something from them -- then I asked the 'guy behind the curtain.'   He said the same thing to me -- that they just sell what they are given.  That is ashamed.

 

It's not complicated, John. HDtracks is a distributor, not a producer. 🙂