With you putting so many words in my mouth I won't even have to speak. It's sad that you have completely missed my point and instead chosen to portray a "keyboard warrior".

 

I said you seem like a **** who would debate bollock size, but that's from my ill informed judgement, and I stand by it. Who the hell tells someone theyre wrong and asks them if they seriously want to debate it? Just make your point, get on with it, it sounds intimidating, indeed like a 'keyboard warrior'. How the fuck did I miss your point when you never even made a point! All you did was ask me if I want a debate.

 

If you mean the post after that, that has nothing to do with the point, it doesn't prove anything. You may be right, the controversy of the music industry being fucked may be interesting to a lot of us, but that doesn't mean it's not fucked, so it's a moot point and not even worth mentioning.

 

I would love to see the evidence proving that there is a diminishing universal audience. The way that the industry has changed has resulted in a larger audience through file sharing and the accessibility of the Internet. The dilemma for labels is that larger fan bases doesn't turn into increased album sales because of the nature of file sharing. However these larger audiences are comprising a key growth area for the industry, of which is live touring and merchandise. The "pie" isn't getting any smaller, it's just being divided up into different segments of the industry. That is the reality.

 

Why would anyone love to see evidence that the music industry is fucked? What the hell?

 

I would love to see evidence of everything being fine and dandy, but there isn't any, because it isn't. Like coolsiggy just said, who buys albums anyway nowadays? Nobody does! I don't think I even know anyone who buys albums, and you're sitting there telling me that the music industry is growing! It makes no sense.

 

Now I understand that they are primarily making money off live shows and merchandise, but you're giving the impression that for no reason whatsoever this has improved in sales.

 

It's pretty simple, people used to buy albums from bands they didn't particularly care about, nowadays, people rarely buy albums and only do it if they have a deep fascination for a band. You cannot convince anyone that the industry is growing when it's a well known fact that it's in decline, are you saying that you've seen every band live that you have in your record collection? And you have every t-shirt and lunchbox with the bands emblem on it?

 

That's fucking ridiculous.

You seem to have the mindset of someone who is completely out of touch with what is going on in the industry today, and like you said this could just be because you are I'll informed. I am not debating your lengthy post on the ethics of forum promoting, I just wanted to respond, through debate, your opinion that the industry is fucked. Since you have given me little evidence, I still can't take your view seriously. I'm going to bed but I can easily post figures and evidence tomorrow that the industry isn't in the horiffic picture that you make it out to be. I just think you're stuck in the past for some reason which is clouding your judgement.

 

One of the endless images of charts and proof that the industry is getting royally fucked and in severe decline. Awaiting these magical stats that prove otherwise.

 

I meant I was ill-informed over assuming you are a ****, because I don't know you that well. In terms of the music industry, who doesn't know it's in decline?

 

Where did I even mention anything about the forum promoting post? I haven't- jesus christ! How the hell did you get that out of my last few posts? We haven't exchanged one word about that until now, we've been exclusively talking about the music industry being screwed. Fucking mind boggling.

 

People are not buying the product, so uh, deerrr maybe the producer doesn't make money? Does that even take common sense or is it completely nonsensical to think otherwise?

 

It is annoying that you asked me if I seriously want to debate this issue and now you're too sweepy and want to go to bed, awws. Great excuse, but when you wake up my points of argument will still be all over this page, and no doubt you'll ignore them all.

 

How long would it have taken to quickly search up these wonderland stats you're dreaming up of and post them?

 

Goodnight!

I buy CDs!

 

I'm off a dying breed though

referring back to a point made earlier in the thread i so believe there will be a tv show which solely plays live music in 5 years time.

underground acts need the publicity and wouldn't get seen otherwise.

i just think it will be pop acts that won't be played on them since they will be advertised absolutely everywhere else.

 

 

 

i have nothing to back this up but i just reckon that will probably be the case

i have nothing to back this up but i just reckon that will probably be the case

 

Luckily I read this first and realised I shouldn't waste my time on an ill-informed opinion. :nice:

 

I'm just joshin ya, but I don't really see how a music channel that plays solely underground music is an innovative solution, that's already basically happening. But most people don't want to discover new music because it's difficult, like I wrote before, most people hate most music, finding acts you like in this complexed world is rare. People watch music channels to find music they already like, I don't think the thought process of many people is to look through the music channels to find some new music. Inevitably they will, but like I said, rare.

 

I'm not sure if this is your attitude but I get the sense it is from reading your post. With a lot of suggestions for how to fix the industry people seem to assume that the average customer is this potential limitless vat of possible music, so if we throw everything at the customer then they will eventually like a lot of artists and that will fix something for no reason. Firstly, people can only listen to so much music, they can only physically have enough time in their day to be put aside for music. So if there's relentless live music with new artists on TV, they may get into a few acts but it's never going to be a solution. Secondly, even if they did get into a vast array of new artists, why would they then suddenly start buying their CDs? A lot of people only buy CDs for bands that are special to them, so regardless of how many acts they love, there will always only be a handful that they'd actually want to collect vinyl/CDs for.

 

Having shot down everyones solutions I should probably give one myself, if I had one. It's a fucking tough cookie, but I think by at least working at what won't work you get a little closer to something that will. I mean, people talk about how more enforced downloading penalties is this big infringement on privacy and the DPA, is it? It doesn't have to be. If there were rules put in place for any file sharing website or youtube, like you'd need to have an online profile to be able to download.

 

That's all I can think of, and though I love how music right now is just available to me, I don't need to go to a shop and spend money, I can just listen to anything I want, right now, that's brilliant. But not at the cost of what it's doing to the industry, and some people would say that makes you a hypocrite, not buying music and illegally downloading, but you'd have to be a freaking moron to start buying albums and thinking your one purchase is really going to make a difference. I am in favour of tougher penalties (Or ANY penalties because I've rarely seen any stories of someone being fined for illegal downloads) and if they were enforced tomorrow and I had to now pay for music in the fear of getting a hefty fine for downloading, I'd gladly accept it.

 

And tauiwi, I found this link:

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20080330/ai_n24978984/

 

That's 2 years old, the amazing thing is that now, not just the local record stores and independants are dinosaurs, huge chains like HMV and Virgin are closing down in smaller cities and towns. This was unthinkable 10 years ago.

 

I lost sight of what the point of our debate was somewhere along the lines (Out of pure anger and frustration) because when you said the market is getting bigger and bigger, I took that to mean that you're saying the industry's actually getting stronger. I think what you're trying to say is that the music industry won't get fucked, now I still disagree but if that's simply what you're saying then I can at least understand that.

 

I'd even argue that the industry is already fucked. Sales are now HALF of what they used to be, that's unbelievable, and if it happened to the film industry we simply wouldn't have big budget films because there would be such a loss. Luckily the cost of making an album is nowhere near the cost of a Big Budget Blockbuster Starring Tom Cruise (That's the greatest 6 words in the history of time by the way). But I guess just for kicks I'll carry on with my statement that in the next 10 or 15 years the industry will be a smoking wasteland of illegal downloads. I do think the curve of decline of sales will continue, and at some point it will seriously begin to affect the expensive recording costs of making a huge album, Christina Aguilera recently released her album and nobody cared except for America, who barely cared. Her single scraped the top 40 in most countries. Lily Allen had said she was quitting music because the return she's getting is so shit that she can't be assed anymore, she's one of the most popular new artists in the UK and around Europe, and she's being forced out? What the hell? Of course she was hiding her secret pregnancy at the time, so it may have just been an excuse to get time off.

 

Now that's a more difficult point to argue, how will it eventually actually affect artists who are still earning millions for their record label? So I can understand what you mean if you're saying it won't get any worse then what it is, but really, for such a wide market, earning half it's potential cash flow isn't even viable for a business, that definitely means it is indeed fucked.

Oh I forgot about this, I could be wrong, and like I said, I really don't care. I think the music industry is fucked, because year after year we see a diminishing universal audience, and individuals liking particular bands instead of a genre, there's no way of constraining an audience like that to buy your product.

 

Your post didn't convince me otherwise, but just because people said it in 2003 doesn't mean that it still won't happen. I'm thinking it will be fucked in 10-15 years from now (I think I even wrote that somewhere) so 7 years won't mean a drastic change, still, you're saying NOTHING has changed in the last 7 years? Fucking hell.

 

So yeah I don't care much to debate it, if anyone has a reason to change my mind them I'm always interested to hear it, but I'll always find music I like and I know that won't stop, but the artists and labels making money off it simply won't be making the amounts they have in the past, and I don't give a shit. I don't really understand why someone should be a multi-millionaire with 300 cars for writing Wonderwall in the first place.

 

whats wrong with people loving individual bands rather than being committed to genres. i will admit i am one of those people who dont commit to a single genre of music, i would say that a person who can enjoy hard rock just as much as they enjoy indie folk as someone who truly appreciates music for what it is rather than the genre or sound it depicts or how loud or soft it is.

 

i didnt say nothing has changed. i said 2 things had changed and the positive impact of one had canceled out the negative impact of the other. and musicians will always make shit loads of money because the generate that sort of money so they deserve it, it's called capitalism. you dont need to convince anyone that cd sales are plummeting and will continue to do so over the next few years to the point where they will become a novelty. but that does not mean that the industry as a whole is in trouble, only record labels are and screw them anyways. the live music scene is thriving and going through the roof in some parts of the world.

Uh, did I say there was anything wrong with a person liking bands from different genres? Where did you get that from? I simply stated that people are now liking different artists in different genres, it's different from the 90s when people were constrained generally to liking a particular genre, so you were either grunge, hip hop, brit pop, cock rock, heavy metal, or mainstream pop music, now fans of what would be 'pop music' in this decade, like everything from all ends. So the majority of people don't stay constricted to one genre like we used to naturally do, that makes it even harder for labels to know what we want. When you see an artist you like, do you ever go through the 'similar artists' link on their page? I don't, because if I like MIA and I see under similar artists Kanye West, I quickly get an idea that there's a slim chance I'll like another artist similar to her according to some random website.

 

I've read and written so much in this thread I literally cannot be arsed reading the rest of what you had to say, I just read that pure ignorance and thought "Fuck this, not again".

Apart from in America the bubble has burst, you hear tales of bands scraping entire tours, downsizing venues or even giving heavy discounts on tickets just to get bums on seats, they got greedy and now it's time to pay

 

yeah you are right venues are downsized and heavy discounts on tickets are also given. but they are so rare that its almost irrelevant. for every downsize that happens there are at least 5 upsizes. heck the show im going to tonight, Slash upsized from a 2500 capacity venue to 5500 and is sold out. and in regard to heavy discounts the only shows that are discounted are the shows by the old farts who are in their 60s and charge $350 (180 pounds) per ticket then realise nobody wants to pay that much to see someone who is 20yrs past their prime so they discount their tickets down to maybe $250. of course i am giving a sydney perspective so i cant speak for the UK or anywhere else, our economy stayed relatively strong through the GFC so people still spending heavily.

Ok, time for my right of reply. It was 3am here when I said I was going to bed in my past message.

Apart from in America the bubble has burst, you hear tales of bands scraping entire tours, downsizing venues or even giving heavy discounts on tickets just to get bums on seats, they got greedy and now it's time to pay

 

Not Lady Gaga. :disappointed: Nearly $200 for one seat. :sad:

Not Lady Gaga. :disappointed: Nearly $200 for one seat. :sad:

 

so do you slip the $200 into her g-string while she's dancing or something? how does it work at her shows?

Firstly Reilly, I am not disagreeing with you that SALES of albums are declining - the evidence is confounding, and hard to argue with. But the major flaw in your argument is that you seem to be persistently isolating the whole industry to just album sales. The music industry comprises a number of different revenue streams, not just the sale of physical CDs that you seem to make it out to be. Sure, stores are closing down, sales are down (in your graph) but the thing is that only represents one section of the market.

 

So, considering the true model where the music industry comprises of different revenue streams, let's break it down.

 

#1 - Physical CD sales - LOSING REVENUE

Falling dramatically. Manufacturers and stores losing money fast because of a fundamental consumer shift to alternate products. The evidence shows this.

 

#2 - Digital Music sales - INCREASING REVENUE

Increasing rapidly because of cheaper prices of digital downloads in some cases, increasing because of accessibility on the internet, and the high sales of complementary products such as ipods and iphones. Labels like digital downloads because of the low (almost no) costs of distribution associated with sales on, for example, itunes. It's not just itunes, there are a wide variety of online sellers and labels are even going direct to customers these days. This is a major growth area, and it is proposed that digital sales will surpass physical for sure in the future. This doesnt mean the industry is "fucked" - it's just a consumer shift towards a new product. Were people saying the industry was fucked when CDs came in to replace vinyl all those years ago?

 

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/gadgetreviews/good-riddance-digital-music-sales-to-surpass-cds-in-2010/6758

http://news.cnet.com/Digital-sales-help-Warner-Musics-profits-sing/2100-1027_3-6039289.html (and this is back in 2006. Think what it is now)

http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-research-digital-revenue-now-a-quarter-of-uk-music-business/

"Yankee Group predicts that within the U.S. digital music industry, online music will grow faster than mobile music downloads and online single downloads will outpace album downloads or subscriptions. Despite wireless carriers’ best efforts, online distribution will continue to dominate the category, accounting for 80% of the industry revenue."

http://industry.tekrati.com/research/9918/

 

#3 - Live Music (touring) - INCREASING REVENUE

This is where a major negative gets turned into a positive. The international fan base for music is ever growing as the internet becomes available to more people in the world. Whilst illegal downloading is hampering sales revenue of records, it is turning into increased exposure for bands because kids put the songs on their ipods, share them with their friends, and therefore the band's exposure spreads virally. Whilst I agree people don't see every single one of the bands they like live, they now are exposed to more acts than they would have been in the past and this means that they are more aware of live shows. Its simple economics too, the less people spend on albums (because of file sharing) the more money they have to see the band live. There's a fundamental shift towards this today evident through the heavy touring schedules of bands.

 

“Up until the iPod age, record companies maintained the business, releasing material by performers, and the live tour was about promoting the record, which would make the money. Now it is the complete reverse and the live side of the business has become stronger and totally dominates the global music market.”

Evidence: http://www.ilmc.com/about-the-music-industry.html

 

"Why live revenues have grown so stridently is beyond the scope of this article, but our data - compiled from a PRS for Music report and the BPI - make two things clear: one, that the growth in live revenue shows no signs of slowing and two, that live is by far and away the most lucrative section of industry revenue for artists themselves, because they retain such a big percentage of the money from ticket sales."

Evidence: http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2009/11/12/do-music-artists-do-better-in-a-world-with-illegal-file-sharing/

 

#4 - Merchandise sales - INCREASING REVENUE

Pretty much the same argument as the live revenue - because people are exposed to more music, this has increased the prominence of a music culture amongst teenagers in society, and revived a 'music culture' where its cool to buy the t-shirts and associated merchandise of your favourite bands. This is increasing the revenue from online sales and also at the live gigs where attendances are higher than ever before.

 

#5 - Licensing - INCREASING REVENUE

Many industry members identify licensing revenue as a key growth area in the industry. Bands are selling their music commercially to advertising revenue agencies, movies, etc. and enjoying the royalties of commercial exposure. The flow on effects from licensing result in more revenue in the above four areas also.

 

"Music revenue is poised to reverse a decade-long descent. Yes, you read that correctly. Despite all the dire news stories of the past several years, there are reasons for optimism in the music business. Slowly, inexorably, the economic picture is going to begin improving for artists, songwriters, publishers, distributors and record labels."

Evidence: http://musicindustrynewswire.com/2010/08/04/min3196_173012.php

 

I hope you can understand in the music industry business model today, physical CD sales only represent a proportion of sales revenue, of which is declining. Music labels would be foolish to remain reliant on traditional physical streams of distribution. These ones that do are the ones that are closing down. The labels that capitalise and adapt on these new sources of income (growth areas) will be the ones that survive, and hence why the industry is not doomed to be "fucked".

 

It's just too naive to solely consider falling physical record sales to base your argument on why the industry is "fucked". I love this quote that I have found from my study on the industry throughout the year: "a symptom of the rapidity of change is the fact that the industry is almost indistinguishable from what it was a year ago" (Letts, 2008). This is the case, and it is only forcing companies to respond and alter their strategies to meet the new needs of consumers to remain alive in the industry.

 

And for the final piece of evidence, comprising ALL areas of the industry:

 

 

If that wasn't a nail in the coffin, read this article.

http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2009/11/12/do-music-artists-do-better-in-a-world-with-illegal-file-sharing/

 

 

From the article above:

 

"This is the graph the record industry doesn’t want you to see.

 

It shows the fate of the three main pillars of music industry revenue - recorded music, live music, and PRS revenues (royalties collected on behalf of artists when their music is played in public) over the last 5 years.

 

We’ve broken each category into two sub-categories so that, for any chunk of revenue - recorded music sales, for instance - you can see the percentage that goes to the artist, and the percentage that goes elsewhere. (In the case of recorded music, the lion’s share of revenue goes to the record label; in the case of live, the promoter takes a cut etc.)

 

Hopefully, this analysis - and there’s more on the nuts and bolts of our method below - sheds some factual light on the claims and counter-claims that are paranoically sweeping across the music industry establishment, not least that put forward by the singer Lily Allen in this paper recently - and the BPI - that artists are losing out as a result of the fall in sales of recorded of music."

 

Hmm, fucked, you say? I don't think so. You're just a victim of a massive scare campaign led by greedy record companies.

Well its 2:17am and I'm about ready to go to bed, but I can ask for a few things.

 

That graph, is there a more broken down version to see the cuts that individual artists are getting? What I'm getting at is that the majority of income is going to established acts, and new ones are finding it increasingly hard to get to that stage. So while Iron Maiden and Slash can pack a gigantic venue even if the prices are ridiculous, the artists at the bottom don't get that revenue, and don't get enough revenue from record sales (Both hardcopy and digital). So while that figure appears to be going up, these acts that are trying to break through now, in 10 to 15 years time when the old guard is dying out (Probably literally) and these un-established acts who need to rely on huge ticket fees and merchandising aren't established enough for anyone to care, where do they pull in the money from?

 

My basic summary being that the rich are getting richer and the poorer can't get any more poor.

 

Do you see what I mean? There may be a massive increase for top acts (I know that ticket prices have gotten ridiculous over the past 5 years) but in the future there won't be 'top acts', huge new artists who break a million sales are a rare thing to come across.

Well its 2:17am and I'm about ready to go to bed, but I can ask for a few things.

 

That graph, is there a more broken down version to see the cuts that individual artists are getting? What I'm getting at is that the majority of income is going to established acts, and new ones are finding it increasingly hard to get to that stage. So while Iron Maiden and Slash can pack a gigantic venue even if the prices are ridiculous, the artists at the bottom don't get that revenue, and don't get enough revenue from record sales (Both hardcopy and digital). So while that figure appears to be going up, these acts that are trying to break through now, in 10 to 15 years time when the old guard is dying out (Probably literally) and these un-established acts who need to rely on huge ticket fees and merchandising aren't established enough for anyone to care, where do they pull in the money from?

 

My basic summary being that the rich are getting richer and the poorer can't get any more poor.

 

Do you see what I mean? There may be a massive increase for top acts (I know that ticket prices have gotten ridiculous over the past 5 years) but in the future there won't be 'top acts', huge new artists who break a million sales are a rare thing to come across.

 

Haha. You are such a hypocrite. You accuse me of going off topic, and now you are. We weren't at all talking about the cut that artists get, we were arguing the STATE OF THE INDUSTRY. Can you just accept that it isn't fucked?

 

What you are bringing up is a totally different argument. Yes, I see your point it may be harder for new bands with established acts dominating the industry, but "sales" aren't the be all and end all these days if you are in fact referring to records. Un-established acts may find it difficult but there is nothing to say that with the right publicity, they cam make revenue from live, digital, merch, and lisencing sales. It's all about adaptation. The new bands that adapt will survive and "not get poorer". It's like the ACDC case - they don't sell anything digitally. They don't have to because they have an established fan base. But newer bands utilise these alternate sources of revenue.

Well its 2:17am and I'm about ready to go to bed, but I can ask for a few things.

 

That graph, is there a more broken down version to see the cuts that individual artists are getting? What I'm getting at is that the majority of income is going to established acts, and new ones are finding it increasingly hard to get to that stage. So while Iron Maiden and Slash can pack a gigantic venue even if the prices are ridiculous, the artists at the bottom don't get that revenue, and don't get enough revenue from record sales (Both hardcopy and digital). So while that figure appears to be going up, these acts that are trying to break through now, in 10 to 15 years time when the old guard is dying out (Probably literally) and these un-established acts who need to rely on huge ticket fees and merchandising aren't established enough for anyone to care, where do they pull in the money from?

 

My basic summary being that the rich are getting richer and the poorer can't get any more poor.

 

Do you see what I mean? There may be a massive increase for top acts (I know that ticket prices have gotten ridiculous over the past 5 years) but in the future there won't be 'top acts', huge new artists who break a million sales are a rare thing to come across.

 

 

 

most sense you've made so far. yeah i do see what you mean and i do agree to some extent. i've always been of the opinion that U2 is the last of the "megabands" and that none of these current acts (coldplay, muse and the like) will ever reach those levels of success and universal popularity. but ive always been under the impression that for as long as "rock bands" have been around they have struggled to breakthrough and the lucky few that do are often ripped off by their labels and managers. it happened in the past and will continue in the future.

 

in regards to what you said of what might happen with these young bands in 10-15yrs time i agree that they will struggle to pull in the money but thats only if their music loses its quality. so if anything this change will force bands to work harder and maintain the quality of their music over a long period of time. no longer will you see bands riding on the coattails of one album or a couple of big hits for their entire careers, instead bands will need to work harder, tour harder and be more committed to their art if they intend on being successful in the long term.

in regards to what you said of what might happen with these young bands in 10-15yrs time i agree that they will struggle to pull in the money but thats only if their music loses its quality. so if anything this change will force bands to work harder and maintain the quality of their music over a long period of time. no longer will you see bands riding on the coattails of one album or a couple of big hits for their entire careers, instead bands will need to work harder, tour harder and be more committed to their art if they intend on being successful in the long term.

 

Exactly. And they'll have to do these things because new bands are forced to adapt to the changes in the industry and the growth in touring revenue because mainstream established acts will find it much easer to cope with changes.

Haha. You are such a hypocrite. You accuse me of going off topic, and now you are. We weren't at all talking about the cut that artists get, we were arguing the STATE OF THE INDUSTRY. Can you just accept that it isn't fucked?

 

What you are bringing up is a totally different argument. Yes, I see your point it may be harder for new bands with established acts dominating the industry, but "sales" aren't the be all and end all these days if you are in fact referring to records. Un-established acts may find it difficult but there is nothing to say that with the right publicity, they cam make revenue from live, digital, merch, and lisencing sales. It's all about adaptation. The new bands that adapt will survive and "not get poorer". It's like the ACDC case - they don't sell anything digitally. They don't have to because they have an established fan base. But newer bands utilise these alternate sources of revenue.

 

Did I accuse you of going off topic? Heh, don't recall that.

 

As for the state of the industry, yes I'll admit I am wrong, that I was merely looking at record sales, but I don't think my rebuttal was off-topic, I originally said that the industry will be fucked in 10-15 years, then I went on to say that I would argue it already is (Wrong). Surely a low percentage of artists getting a high percentage cut is never good for any industry, and Iron Maiden may be raking in $200,000 a show but that's another generation with a die-hard fanbase, how many die-hard fanbases exist now? What will happen with the next generation?

 

When it comes to how I wasn't talking about cuts, it didn't seem like the foremost argument as to why I felt the industry is fucked, but then discover that overall, the industry right now, isn't. So I was focussing purely on sales, and that argument was thrown out the window, this one still remains but wasn't quite as obvious as looking at graphs that show sales have died.

 

But even phrasing it the way I am about cuts doesn't quite get across how I've really thought about music in this century so far. With the internet and unlimited digital channels and radio stations, there's so much choice that people's interests are spread out over many different artists, basically it's not as straightforward as getting a hit record an then having 3 gold records, and you're made. There's so many artists you'd never have heard of from the 50s to the 90s that are living in mansions off songs that are ultimately irrelevant in music history, I can't imagine Vampire Weekend are loaded for life.

 

At least they have success though, there's plenty of touring bands below them trying to work their ass off to get any sort of records out, and from the pecking order of U2 to Coldplay, I don't really think about bands like Coldplay when it comes to this topic because they are one of the few artists from the past decade who are one of the top acts sucking in a huge cut of the money (Their record sales actually improved I think).

 

Like DeathsFriend said, it's bands trying to break into the industry that will really struggle to get popular and be taken seriously enough to have the funds to get promotion, tours, and decent recording budget.

referring back to a point made earlier in the thread i so believe there will be a tv show which solely plays live music in 5 years time.

underground acts need the publicity and wouldn't get seen otherwise.

i just think it will be pop acts that won't be played on them since they will be advertised absolutely everywhere else.

 

i have nothing to back this up but i just reckon that will probably be the case

 

So you think this man's lovely show won't be on the air in 5 years time?

 

 

Although saying that it doesn't 'solely' play live music as there is normally an interview with people plugging new albums/books/dvds etc

As for the death of the independent record store, I'm pretty sure I saw a documentary advertised about it...

 

 

*goes off searching*

 

It's called "I Need that Record" - http://www.ineedthatrecord.com/Site/I_Need_That_Record!.html

 

In the UK, even the big chains have gone (Ourprice, MVC, Music-Zone, Fopp, Zavvi/Virgin)(okay Fopp still exists but as a part of the HMV empire), where CD sales come a poor 3rd, maybe even 4th in the current HMV business plan (after Games, DVDs & Hardware), have you noticed the reduction in size of the CD sections of HMVs.

 

In Salisbury, we're lucky in a way the local independent record store is an all-genres one, which focuses mainly on classical music with a smaller section for rock stuff, and it gets lots of customers in for classical stuff so it makes some money

So you think this man's lovely show won't be on the air in 5 years time?

 

 

I would be fucking devastated.