"Comprising 47 per cent of the total market."
Composing.
For the first time in seven years, Americans spent more on CDs and records than digital downloads. This according to the Recording Industry Ass. of America, who says in its 2017 music revenues report [PDF] that sales from vinyl and CD recordings accounted for 17 per cent of revenues last year, compared to a 15 per cent share …
I can still play a classic Tracy Chapman debut Album CD from 1988, but the downloads I bought using Microsoft Groove are already history.
You should always (ideally) own (your) music with no copyright protection, on physical media.
You'll thank yourself later on.
Who remembers 120Mb Zip drives? 44Mb Syquest Drives? The Domesday Book on Laserdisk?
http://www.obsoletemedia.org/obsolescence-decade/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Domesday_Project
Museums have a big problem in reviewing their archive material to ensure it gets safely migrated to newer media before the devices capable of reading it are extinct. Then there is the data structure that has been used in writing it. If encrypted, has the relevant key been archived too?
You should always (ideally) own (your) music with no copyright protection, on physical media.
Why the need for physical media? You can buy downloads in decent quality these days with no DRM and it's much more convenient than having hundreds of CDs taking up space.
Dunno why people disagree with buy-once-copy-forever downloads. I am happy with decent MP3s or MP4a files, of which we now have 103Gb on our server. About half were ripped during a fortnight's CD frenzy 15 years ago (which opened up a lot of space on our shelves). The remainder have accumulated insensibly from mostly Amazon or Google since then as paid downloads. The fact that we can copy them onto a chip/whatever for playing absolutely anywhere, connected or not, is a boon, as is the fact that about once a month the whole thing gets backed up.
Given that most music, especially the modern stuff, is 99.7% absolute shit, we have most of what we really like already. Perhaps if we listened indiscriminately a lot of the time, streaming would make sense?
Oh how I pity your aural sense. I think that your statement should really read: "is 99.7% not engaging for me". I don't subscribe to the idea that there is such a thing as "bad music". If there is, it would be something that not one person finds engaging, and if that's the case then I would suggest that it should not be categorised as music anyway.
At 62 I always have, and can still, certainly on a weekly if not daily basis, find music that I find engaging. After a short blip during the sixth form at school, when I decided that anything that was in the singles chart was sh*te, I came to my senses and realised that if any particular music brought pleasure to my aural sense, then it was good for me. My music discovery isn't hampered by 'genre' or location boundaries. Of course, that is a problem ... being able to afford the next biggest microSD to keep my ever growing music collection on (I buy in most formats). I also stream music (even if I 'own' it), as another way of supporting an artist.
" You can buy downloads in decent quality these days with no DRM"
Really? Where? And I don't mean *any* pieces but those pieces I want, of course. Also, 'decent' quality is very subjective: CD or near CD is good enough.
Almost anything with DRM is dead in ~10 years (even itunes has pieces 'disappearing') and that's pathetic compared to CD which lasts so long that those will be inherited by next generation.
I should know, I bought first ones in early 80s and those are still as good as new.
This post has been deleted by its author
Talking bout a revolution
She was the first support act to John Martyn when he played Sadlers Wells almost exactly thirty years ago to the day. Anyone still in the bar missed an absolute gem of a performance by her. Nobody appeared to know of her at that time and she wasn't even listed on the billing. IIRC our seats were near the front of the stalls. Pity that Tanita Takaram took the edge off the evening sandwiched between TC and JM singing about her hot pork ones.
I saw him at the Royal Festival Hall in '71 or '72. Blew my mind away with the sounds he could get from an acoustic guitar. Saw him several times after that as well.
RIP John, you were a one off and a true musician who knew how to play an instrument. Sadly far too many so called musicians today... well aren't and could not play an instrument or hold a tune to save their lives.
@AC; "downloads I bought using Microsoft Groove are already history."
That much should already have been easily predictable by the time Groove started in 2012.
Microsoft are notorious for repeatedly launching services to suit themselves (usually a "me too" when they see someone else enjoying success with something and want a slice of the pie) then abandonding them- and their users- as soon as it doesn't work out. Which it usually doesn't.
For example, tracks supporting their ironically-named "Plays for Sure" initiative didn't "play for sure" when they launched Zune equipment- and what happened to Zune when *that* didn't work out? Also consider the likes of Windows RT, and their repeated chopping and changing of Windows Phone/Mobile... etc, etc.
DRMed music services whose downloads ceased to be playable when the plugs had been pulled on the servers had already happened by then.
Add the two together, and what did you *expect* from Microsoft?!
>Composing.
com·prise
kəmˈprīz/
verb
gerund or present participle: comprising
consist of; be made up of.
"the country comprises twenty states"
synonyms: consist of, be made up of, be composed of, contain, encompass, incorporate; More
include;
formalcomprehend
"the country comprises twenty states"
make up; constitute.
"this single breed comprises 50 percent of the Swiss cattle population"
synonyms: make up, constitute, form, compose; account for
"this breed comprises half the herd"
Kinda pointless to correct folks' vocab when one's own is lacking, neh?
Really need 2 icons here: Pedant + Fail.
Your source must be different from mine. Garner's Modern English Usage:
Comprise.A. And compose.
Correct use of these words is simple, but increasingly rare. The parts compose the whole; the whole comprises the parts. The whole is composed of the parts, the parts are comprised in the whole. Comprise, the more troublesome word in this pair, means "to contain; to consist of"...
C. Comprise for make up or constitute. If the whole comprises the parts, the reverse can't be true - e.g.:
"Of the 50 stocks that comprise [read make up] the index, 40 had gains....
D. Comprise for are. This is an odd error based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of comprise. E.g.: "They comprise [read are] three of the top four names in the batting order of...
Maybe a BrE vs AmE issue, but its the Recording Ass. of America, so I'll take Garner's advice on this one.
Mildly interesting article, but what about money going to performers, song writers and composers?
When you consider that the "music industry" would not exist without the folks who write and perform music, not mentioning whether the move from downloads to disk purchase and streaming helps or harms them is a surprising omission.
hush now. This an article about the RIAA published statements. whatever makes you think they care about what the artists get paid, as opposed to how much the RIAA members make?
In fact, I suspect that any discussion about how little $ artists make when a record does get sold is not in the RIAA's best interest. In years of RIAA whining about piracy, the amount paid out per album to artists has never been a very popular subject with them - you will feel guiltier about downloading that $15 album illegally if you don't know that the artist only sees $1-2 of it anyway, but even that only after the album's promotional costs have been recouped by the music company.
Bigger artists with good bargaining power get better deals, but the little folk don't. Rest assured that Bono has plenty to $$$ to salt away in his Ireland-Netherland non-profit U2 company while lecturing us all about not sending out enough $ to poor countries.
At one time concerts/gigs used to be loss leaders for the album release and were affordable (the merchandise not so much!). As a teenager I regularly went to Hammersmith Odeon (remember that?) to see big bands.
Somewhere along the line the album release became secondary and now tickets are stupidly expensive. Coupled with the secondary sales racketeering, I don't think I could afford to see the same bands 30 years later...
That would be a meaningful statistic, if only the same content were offered on all channels. That is not the case. There are titles which are not on streaming services, others are not on downloads, and there's an awful lot that is ONLY available as physical media (some of those eventually find their way to pirate sites. But I doubt they counted those, and since they are not the big hit titles, they are often even hard to find as pirate downloads). One of the reasons I have not (yet) subscribed to a streaming service is the fact that they do not, and are unlikely to ever will, offer some of the obscure titles I have not yet in my personal collection.
There is an awful lot of really good music that never made it past Vinyl let alone Casette or CD and as for finding on streaming services? Are you mad?
Thankfully, my collection of 650+ Albums and 300+ 78's (mostly 1950's Jazz and Blues) are going nowhere.
Streaming? I don't need no stinking streaming services.
"There is an awful lot of really good music that never made it past Vinyl"
Luckily, lots of it is available on Demonoid in the form of needledrops for those of us who can't afford to pay the outrageous prices for old vinyl.
I wish there was a simple system for paying the artists directly. Mind you, most of the ones I like are dead.
@AC; "I wish there was a simple system for paying the artists directly. Mind you, most of the ones I like are dead."
Has anyone developed a protocol for transferring money to the dead via a ouija board? In fact, I'm sure that could be generalised to a data layer that existing protocols could run over (though they'd probably be restricted by that lower layer in terms of speed, which might be a problem).
Might even be able to transfer bitcoin over it.
Similar situation here. Scores of 'obscure' baroque music CD's along with jazz, and 80's UK independent vinyl singles, EP's and albums that never even made it to the CD world. Select chunks of this I've been able to digitize and re-route to iPod and other personal digital output, as I prefer to have total control over how my music gets digitized. Frankly, I still like buying CD's and vinyl, as I like to re-listen to music over and over. I have no interest in the streaming world other than as an occasional discovery resource. I also still listen to FM radio over the air too. CDs and vinyl taking ups space? Ha! Visitors LOVE to see what sort of music I listen to which is always a good conversation starter.
When civilization ends, I'll still have my solar panels, a vast assortment of media playing gadgets, and endless physical media disks. Y'all can come over to my cave to listen to some tunes, or watch a movie.
I hope that you like 'The Spice Girls', and the 'Paddington' bear movies. ;-)
with my vinyl - although I have to confess to having digitised it (for away comfort). It's a physical thing - getting up and turning over the album. I'm not going to claim any mystical audio excellence- I'm 53 and I suspect my hearing is not quite that of a younger human being, but the turntable is very comfortable.
Yours in history (and maybe senility - although my clients have not cottoned on to that yet)
True in theory. But vinyl does protect us to some extent from the terrible mastering jobs often put on CD. There are plenty of albums that sound better on vinyl than CD, not because vinyl is superior, just because it's harder to crush and brickwall a vinyl master and have a record that plays/.
CD is technically much better than vinyl. But vinyl is fun, and I do buy some records in that format knowing it's more about the experience than the sound quality.
I still buy plenty of music. Some CD. Some vinyl. Some downloads. Where possible I buy from the most direct route from the artist - such as Bandcamp or their own site. I still believe in paying artists for the work in the hope they can keep at it as a job.
>But vinyl does protect us to some extent from the terrible mastering jobs often put on CD.
That's because in the early days of CD, the idiots were still mastering thinking vinyl. By the way virtually all recording studios are now digital. Mastering for vinyl requires so much screwing around to account for the deficiencies of vinyl, e.g. RIAA equalisation.
>But vinyl is fun
No it isn't, it's big, very environmentally unfriendly, scratches, crackles, terrible SNR, wears out........I could go on for hours why I'm glad to see the back of it. I look forward to the return of vinyl as much as I do to the return of TB.
">But vinyl does protect us to some extent from the terrible mastering jobs often put on CD.
"That's because in the early days of CD, the idiots were still mastering thinking vinyl. By the way virtually all recording studios are now digital. Mastering for vinyl requires so much screwing around to account for the deficiencies of vinyl, e.g. RIAA equalisation."
And the commentard missed whole point, nice. Anything mastered thinking vinyl is _better_ than anything which uses CD to the fullest, i.e. maximum volume and dynamic compressed to 2 dB, with all the peaks clipped. Just because it's louder. To sell it better. Next step is all ones: Maximum volume to sell it more.
At that point CC (compact cassette) wouldn't be any worse.
"much screwing around to account for the deficiencies"
This is BS: Vinyl has limitations but those are not hard to compensate with RIAA correction. Those same limitations prevent loudness war and ridiculous compression we have in CD, basically rendering it much worse than any vinyl ever was. The amount of raping of music in modern CD:s is ridiculous and you can't have that in vinyl as the media doesn't allow it: Therefore it's better, no matter what you say.
At that point the media itself is totally irrelevant: Garbage in, garbage out.
As that has been continuing at least 20 years there's no change visible in the future either, so if you want quality music you either buy vinyl or don't buy: Some classical pieces exist which are not compressed to the maximum in CD. But not many.
" could go on for hours why I'm glad to see the back of it"
No you couldn't. I see you used up all of your arguments and most of them are already ridiculous: "environmentally unfriendly"? How low you can go?
You realize that CD is also plastic? With plastic covers unlike vinyl which uses cardboard?
"I look forward to the return of vinyl as much as I do to the return of TB."
I see you don't care about quality of the music at all, but are a media fanatic, who fails to see that media is totally irrelevant when it's used to spread garbage. Being good on paper doesn't mean anything at that point.
This post has been deleted by its author
>I see you don't care about quality of the music at all
All waffle and twaddle, I note you completely disregard the fact that virtually all music is recorded in the studio digitally and processed digitally and has been for some time. Some rather famous musician friends of mine demoed their latest works to me on DAT in 1990 straight from the studio master, I was impressed.
Do you flog tatty old vinyl on Discogs for outrageous prices by any chance ?