Jag vet inte om samma (kortare) intervju har publicerats nån annanstans, men här är den iaf:
http://www.nt.se/noje/artikel.aspx?articleid=1582910
NT (TT Spektra) - "Kents telefon splittrar fansen"
Jag vet inte om samma (kortare) intervju har publicerats nån annanstans, men här är den iaf:
http://www.nt.se/noje/artikel.aspx?articleid=1582910
"It is impossible to achieve the aim without suffering"
---John G. Bennett
"vi kommer ju inte att stå med en Sony Ericsson-logga i arslet och spela"
Extremt roande kommentar.
Alla har vi fastnat hos nån någonstans
Intressant. Jag tror inte att de som tankar hem skivan köper mobilen.
/---/Vi gör det ju för att kunna fortsätta med det här. Den där mobilen säkrar en Kent-skiva till./.../
Menar han TTS eller att den säkrar en framtida skiva?
Hur illa är det med intäkterna egentligen? Jag bara undrar; de får det hela att låta som om de snart försvinner pga kapitalbrist. Kent är väl en av de mest pengagenerande banden i Sverige. Folk köper plattor, i alla fall fansen. Resten laddar ner ett par låtar och är nöjda, inte kommer de att köpa mobilen. Har jag fel?
Har skivförsäljningen stagnerat, eller tjänar de mindre per skiva, eller har de för höga produktionskostnader eller är de bara oeffektiva? Det kan finnas många anledningar...
Inget fel i sponsring, sånt behövs, men hur stort är behovet?
En framtida tolkar jag det som. Men inte som garanti, utan mer allmänt "OM vi ska kunna göra den typen av plattor vi vill måste vi får in lite pengar".Ursprungligen postat av nollfem4
"It is impossible to achieve the aim without suffering"
---John G. Bennett
Jag tror inte det alls är så illa som det låter.
"It is impossible to achieve the aim without suffering"
---John G. Bennett
Music sales
"Since 2003 the sale of music has fallen 60%" (Billboard)
Det är precis så illa som det låter.
Frågan var om det gäller kent.
Statistik, tack!
Ja precis, vi snackar kent här. De har det inte så knackigt kan jag meddela.
Dessutom har musikbranschen dalat en tid. Enskilda nya artister säljer inte (mycket) sämre.
Alltså, ungefär hälften av vad musikbranschen fick in under 90-talet var gamla släpp från 60-, 70- och 80-talen som släpptes igen på cd. Ofta till folk som redan hade köpt dem på LP/kassett en gång i tiden. Nu med cdn's uttåg har alltså denna "dubbelförsäljning" gått ned. Dvs att skivbolagen/branschen hade ett uppsving genom att lura ur folk nya pengar för samma plattor. Nu har de snarare fallit tillbaka där de var innan.
"It is impossible to achieve the aim without suffering"
---John G. Bennett
Håller med. Det är kul när de som arbetar i musikbranschen är de som kan minst.
Tro mig, på de "stora" skivbolagen är det alldeles för ofta dottern till chefen eller någon liknande som får ganska betydelsefulla poster som ska styra och ansvara för utgivningar. Man förstår ju om kunskaper om musik och vad det går ut på inte är den högsta.
Givetvis finns folk som kan sin sak också, men alldeles för sällan.
"It is impossible to achieve the aim without suffering"
---John G. Bennett
The Old Argument.
Sorry for doing this in English, my Swedish only really works for speaking... Please feel free to reply in Swedish!
As someone who makes a living making and creating music I cannot stress how wrong you are when you (The Plague) state that the regression in the music-business is mainly because of a drop in Catalogue sales. It is true that catalogue is/was a huge profit for the major labels and it is true that you have seen a sharp decline in the sales of the "cheaper" compilations because of downloads and piracy, but you fail to see the devastating effect that the fall in revenue has had on the recording industry and the artists. (BTW - The HIT compilations STILL outsell everyone so much that in f.ex. Denmark they don't even feature on the hitlist, because REAL albums would never reach the Top 10! One major label has their profits 63% from catalogue only!) Piracy only takes away resources from recording NEW music.
About 70% of all the professional recording studios have gone. In Denmark they have been turned into Netto supermarkets and fitness-studios. Sweden's own legendary Polar-studio, home of ABBA, is now a gym! In L.A. and New York only 10% of the venues that recorded every hit album you remember are still in business and that is usually only because some rich guy decided to donate a bunch of money to keep is as a museum.
The artists that you seem to forget are the artists of tomorrow: The Radiohead's and the Massive Attack's, the National's and the Kent's. Noone is going to give the music the time it needs to develop, 'cause noone can afford it unless they are called Starbucks or Coca-Cola. If you want your music to be a commercial commodity or you like The Pussycat Dolls, then by all means, keep downloading your music for free!
Anecdote: Radiohead was going to get dropped by their label Parlophone after Pablo Honey, but their A&R-rep convinced the label heads that "Creep" had made them enough money to invest a bit in a second album - Result: The Bends.
Fact: Radiohead as you know it would not exist if it was not for the cash and ambition of EMI/Parlophone back in the 90's! So yeah, it is good of them to be gracious enough to "give" away their latest album, but that is only possible because of their previous MASSIVE commercial success. Charity is for the rich.
None of the bands that I like could ever afford to give their music away! The average small success for a Swedish band would probably earn them around 400.000 SEK for their first album. Not bad, but consider that this is usually the work of 4 people for more than a year and now I ask you: Would you work 6 days a week for 7.500.- a month (before taxes) ? That is a poor salary for anyone.
Bands and artists work with this because they live in the hope that they can someday make enough to actually be comfortable. For 99.9% of them, it never happens. The ones that succeed should get what they deserve.
... And the whole "Evil Empire"-argument ?! - I leave it to Geoff from Portishead to answer:
"so then.......music for free is it? well fuking great. so if you get our album for nothing or very little, does that mean i can get my boiler fixed for free ? --------i could tell the plumber that its all for the love of sharing and its to combat the evil money grabbing corporation that is Zanussi. ...............I'm sure he will understand."
My own reality producing albums is that I can't afford to make music for nothing. I would love to be able to do that! I could record every great small band that comes my way. I try, but that is a luxury and luxuries are expensive.
The impact on piracy in the music industry is felt most badly in the lower ranks. The odd debut-albums will never get made. The quirky and different artists will not be heard. Even if their MySpace gets 10.000 hits a week, they can never afford to tour, least of all internationally! The global music market is suddenly not so easy to be a part of... Ironically, the biggest loser is the glorious world of Indie. Indie cannot by definition sell out to corporations, that would ruin their reputiation and therefore they are forced to either tour low budget or to throw themselves at the mercy of you, the record-buying audience. And, hand on your heart, anyone here over 25 (if there are any?!): You don't spend as much on music now as you did 5 years ago, do you ? - I know I don't. So I guess you don't listen to music as much as you did before ? - I know that is not true for me...
Music is even more in demand now than ever before and piracy is booming, but it is not the Kelly Clarkson's, Robbie Williams' and the Blackeyed Peas of the world that suffer! Like any other celebrity they can just sell their ugly faces and horrible music to Pepsi ads and make 50 million $ on that. We, the audience, have made up this lie that we are doing the artist a favor by giving copies to our friends, thereby making them more popular and well-liked - but if you are serious about music and credible about your image, popularity is useless because you can not/will not sell it. So you have 2 options if you want to make music your life - Make some big hits or put your faith in your audience to pay a bit of money for your work... Not an unreasonable request.
You can't base your arguments on "The record companies had it coming" - In the end the victim is never a company
- it is always someone with a face and a name.
If the great, legendary albums never get made, that victim is you.
I hope that your life remains filled with great music,
Joshua.
BTW - Yes, some record companies and the people who work there are no-good, talentless assholes, but then again some europeans are nazis - should you rate us all the same ?
Senast redigerat av joshua den 2007-10-15 klockan 21:23.
joshua: Håller med dig. Vi lever ju i en värld där inget får ta tid utan det ska vara trallvänliga hitsinglar och resultat direkt. Business. Kent sa väl själva det i någon interjvu att skulle dom kommit fram idag skulle dom aldrig fått chansen som dom fick för 12 år sedan. Nu vill dom ha tracksettor och snabba resultat. Visste inte att musikstudiorna minskat så kraftigt.
Jag är 25 år och ja, jag spenderar mindre pengar på musik idag än för 5 år sedan. Alla ligger väl sig själv närmast på något sätt. Man tänker på sig själv i första hand, gratis är gott som det heter. Köper fortfarande album men inte i lika stor mängd som förut. Favoritartisterna man vill stödja och gamla grymma plattor som man vill ha köper man.
Men självklart ska artisterna ha betalt för sitt verk, det är lika självklart som konstnärer inte ge bort sina tavlor gratis. Men jag tycker att musikbranschen har varit alldeles för sega och inte alls hängt med i utvecklingen sista åren.
Ett exempel på att jag laddat ner nya kentlåtar otillåtet är att när t.ex. första singeln max 500 från du & jag döden släpptes digitalt så gick inte den att föra in på min mp3-spelare för att den var kopieringsskyddad. Fysiska singeln släpptes några dar senare har jag för mig. Ville man ha in den i sin mp3-spelare så vart man tvungen att ladda ner den otillåtet. Då är det något som är fel tycker jag även om jag kan förstå kopieringsskyddet. Men liksom, folk har spelat av cdskivor på tomma kassettband tidigare och på så sätt kopierat så det är ju inget nytt.
Senast redigerat av Is den 2007-10-15 klockan 22:59.
Joshua:
I agree and have never said people should not pay for music. The opposite actually, mainly I encourage friends and people I meet to buy the records or pay for the music they really like. And my main argument is all the GREAT albums and songs!
But, I can see other sides of this as well:
Take young people for instance, who have never been able to pay for a lot of music, due to poor economy. Still they have always been great consumers of music. And getting this through dubbing their friends tapes back in the 80's, recording from radioshows or just copying cd's from one to another. Pretty harmless I think, and understandable.
Since all that technology has developed and almost all kids have access to a computer connected to internet. With all this follows knowledge how to use it to access "free" music. This has given the downloads have risen to the extent we can't even compare to before. Instead of copying one cd a month they download 20 or more.
This takes it to myself(and probably a lot of others), who easily bought 10-20 albums(sometimes alot more but see it as 'at least') a month when I got into music for real in the late eighties. This proceeded some 10-15 years. And something started to happen in the end of the 90's - I felt not as much music that was that good was released anymore. And this was before the downloading era. As I see it music sold really good still and no-one ever complained over decreasing sales, but the quality lowered. There wasn't as much great music to pay for. The new Massive Attacks, Radioheads, Kents etc didn't come anymore, especially not the GREAT albums. In times the record companies really could have invested in this.
Maybe music had sold/worked too good the last 15 years, and now the companies wanted to release as much as possible a cash in even more. They put out more and more poor releases. Worse produced releases. Etc.
I just remember the earlier reliable tips from NME, Melody Maker, Q, Pop etc etc wasn't as reliable anymore and alot that I bought was even just crap.
Soon came the opportunity to download(I was probably one of the first in this country to really use this new possibility) the stuff I was intrested in to check what it really was. Then buying it.
Unfortunately the quality of releases didn't increase and here we are. I download plenty and buy quite alot of it. Still not as much as before. Why should I, when it doesn't hold the standards.
From this I can read that it's not from decreasing sales we won't have as many great records, it's the mentality of the record companies. Even when they had economy to put into recordings and sign new artists they could really build a future with they didn't. At least not as much as they could have.
The combination of worthless records companies and the enterance of downloading possibilities has of course been devestating.
Honestly I hope we can get more people to buy more music, but if the companies that run this business will continue putting their efoort in all these soulless artists and day-to-day productions people will keep have the same low respect and understanding for the music industries' intrests.
And I know it will make us some kind of victim, and will gladly help preventing from this.
I want the great music.
But who should start and where? The record companies to shape up or me to buy music that aren't really that good?
Also, if you read my last messege properly you'd see I do not rate all people in the music business the same, I write: "Givetvis finns folk som kan sin sak också".
Senast redigerat av The Plague den 2007-10-16 klockan 08:06.
"It is impossible to achieve the aim without suffering"
---John G. Bennett
Behörigheter för att posta
Svara med citat