Album sales are up , but 9.2 million in 2014 is not quite making up for the diminished CD sales. http://www.statista.com/statistics/188822/lp-album-sales-in-the-united-states-since-2009/I wonder what the sales percentages are for newer music vs. older ?
Oddly- if good sales rate figures on old fashioned LP's are available I bet they are the inverse of the CD rates.
* I stopped counting my CD collection when I went over a thousand, surpassing my LP collection around the year 2004.
No but musicians aren't making money like they used to - outside of the big names. Pandora, Sirius, etc. are certainly not paying much to the musicians and though people are listening to music much more than they used to - they are spending far less.I doubt there is a reduction in music listening. I think it simply represents a change in preference with regard to distribution channels. It has certainly hurt the old music stores, few of which exist any longer but it hasn't really affected the consumer all that much. CD's are certainly available on line.
Then the double-whammy as CD writers became affordable and mainstream on PCs about the same time.And if you're wondering why industry revenues peaked in 1999, Napster went live in June 1999. It was all downhill from there.
I don't want to defend theft, but it's not quite as bad as that. Most artists have never made much money on recordings. For them, the real money, such as it is, is in performing.I've also spoken to many younger music fans (work and elsewhere) and very few pay for anything they listen to. It's sad because this makes it very difficult for artists, especially new artists, to continue to make music.
That's pretty close to nailing it down. I found the reciept for my first computer burner the other day. A Memorex 4X for $99 on sale at Staples, June 1999.Then the double-whammy as CD writers became affordable and mainstream on PCs about the same time.
I tried to pin it down, wasn't successful.
By 1992, the cost of typical recorders was down to $10–12,000, and in September 1995, Hewlett-Packard introduced its model 4020i manufactured by Philips, which, at $995, was the first recorder to cost less than $1000.
What are the figures on the flip side? I'm sure it varies, but I have zero clue how much it cost to record, manufacture or market an album.
I guess I should have been more specific. I'm quite aware that record sales aren't how most musicians make their money if they have signed a deal with a major label. They make their money from ticket sales and merchandise sales. Many artists today can make music on their own and raise the funds to make the CDs (host for digital music) so that removes the record companies from the equation in many cases.I don't want to defend theft, but it's not quite as bad as that. Most artists have never made much money on recordings. For them, the real money, such as it is, is in performing.
And let's not forget that there has never been more recorded music (legally) available to consumers—many multiples of what your local record shop used to carry, and you can call it up and listen to it in a matter of seconds.
No, that's not what I was trying to say. Stealing music is wrong, because stealing is wrong. It doesn't matter how much or how little money it takes out of artists' pockets.From your response it sounds like you're saying that since they never really made that much money on record sales then who cares.