[Dmon4u]

http://www.stereophile.com/content/11-years-us-cd-sales

A simple chart of the fast grind downward.

651 million to 141 million

 

[Djoel]

Sad indeed, I try to buy a few CDs a week as I like my physical disc at arms reach, or rather the newer music. I stop buying Itunes unless I get an itune card for my birthday, but have all together stop purchasing down music.

Djoel

 

[Dmon4u]

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.

 

[PooperScooper]

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.

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/

Also, it would be nice to see the number of CD titles offered over the years to get a better handle on the trend(s).

larry

 

[FMW]

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.

 

[CharlesJ]

Wonder if that includes used CD sales.

 

[JA Fant]

Thanks! for sharing.

 

[charmerci]

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.

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.

Take a personal poll of average/young people and see how they are obtaining music - by far, you'll find they download stuff for free or just listen to youtube or pandora. One 24 year old dude that I met last year posted that he just downloaded over 9000 songs - doubt that he paid a penny for it.

 

[FMW]

Then the musicians should refuse to record unless changes are made to the distribution system. People will use what is available.

 

[Dmon4u]

Streaming just beat CD sales $ for the first time:

http://www.cnet.com/news/streaming-music-drowns-out-us-cd-sales-for-the-first-time/

joan.solsman

highlight

according to data from the RIAA. Streaming sales hit $1.87 billion last year, a 29 percent jump from 2013, while CD revenues fell 12.7 percent reaching $1.85 billion. Naturally, digital downloads still rule the music realm -- accounting for 37 percent of the total market and $2.57 billion in sales -

 

[mcnarus]

For comparison, share of industry revenues:

Downloads: 37%
Physical: 32%
Streaming: 27%

Physical is about 90% CD, 10% LP by revenue. By units, it's closer to 95% CD.

Overall industry revenue was just under $7 billion. That's less than half the 1999 peak. (And if you're wondering why industry revenues peaked in 1999, Napster went live in June 1999. It was all downhill from there.)

 

[RayDunzl]

And if you're wondering why industry revenues peaked in 1999, Napster went live in June 1999. It was all downhill from there.

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.

wiki:

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.

 

[NODES]

Thank you apple?

 

[postrokfan]

I also prefer physical media but I still enjoy the many streaming services now available. 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.

 

[mcnarus]

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.

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.

 

[WilliamZX11]

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.

wiki:

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.

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.

I remember buying a 2X burner for my employer just 1 year before for $400.

 

[Superman07]

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.

 

[FMW]

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 don't either but I don't think there is any doubt that the manufacture and distribution of physical media is more expensive that internet downloads.


I did read somewhere that an average music CD cost about 25 cents per copy including all the costs except for distribution and royalties. Obviously volume would have a meaningful effect on that. I don't know if it is true or not and I've forgotten when or where I read it.

 

[postrokfan]

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.

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.

From your response it sounds like you're saying that since they never really made that much money on record sales then who cares. I never said I didn't like streaming services. The convenience is great. I get it.

 

[mcnarus]

From your response it sounds like you're saying that since they never really made that much money on record sales then who cares.

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.

But while it's bad, it may not have unduly dire effects on many artists' bottom lines, because many don't depend heavily on sales of recordings for their livelihood.