|
Grex > Music > #29: The Twenty-Sixth "Napsterization" Item |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
krj
|
|
The Twenty-Sixth "Napsterization" Item
| 
Oct 6 21:38 UTC 2006 |
The usual canned introduction:
The original Napster corporation has been destroyed, its trademarks
now owned by an authorized music retailer which does not use
peer-to-peer technology. But the Napster paradigm, in which computers
and networks give ordinary people unprecedented control over content,
continues.
This is another quarterly installment in a series of weblog and
discussion about the deconstruction of the music industry and other
copyright industries, with side forays into "intellectual property,
freedom of expression, electronic media, corporate control, and
evolving technology," as polygon once phrased it.
Several years of back items are easily found in the music2 and music3
conferences, covering discussions all the way back to the initial
popularity of the MP3 format. These items are linked between
the current Agora conference and the Music conference.
|
| 87 responses total. |
krj
|
|
response 1 of 87:
|
Oct 6 21:46 UTC 2006 |
Tower Records, once the most prestigious national retailer of
recorded music, went to a bankruptcy auction sale yesterday.
Apparently the dickering is still ongoing, and is unclear whether
Tower will be sold to Trans World Entertainment Corporation,
which runs several chains of music retail stores which are
generally scoffed at by serious music fans, or if the Tower
chain will be completely liquidated.
Tower owed $210 million in its current bankruptcy, the second
bankruptcy filing in about three years, and the initial
round of bidding set a floor price of $90 million. So the
Tower owners -- who were the creditors in that last bankruptcy
round, and who took ownership in lieu of their debts -- are going
to be wiped out.
One culturally significant effect of the Tower bankruptcy is that
it likely marks the end of broad-scale classical music retailing,
in physical stores, in the US. Borders is the only other national
retailer stocking more than a shoebox-full of classical music,
and Borders has been cutting and cutting again on the classical
CD stocks.
|
krj
|
|
response 2 of 87:
|
Oct 7 04:49 UTC 2006 |
Tower was sold to a liquidator. The web site tower.com was sold
separately and will presumably continue to exist in some form.
But as for the physical stores, the going-out-of-business sales
are being arranged.
|
richard
|
|
response 3 of 87:
|
Oct 7 18:28 UTC 2006 |
The article I read said that Great American, the liquidator, won the
auction with a bid of $134 million, outbidding Transworld (owners of
FYE, Coconuts, Sam Goodys) by just $500,000. I find this to be
incredibly sad, because Transworld would have at least kept the
largest, most profitable stores operating and presumably under the
Tower name.
I will always fondly remember Tower Records for their huge record
stores in big cities, D.C., NYC, Philadelphia in the northeast,
particularly for the days when they sold nothing but vinyl. Nothing
but several floors of records (except for a small section of cassettes
and 8-tracks back in the day) I still remember when they started
selling compact discs, they were this novelty limited to a tiny display
in the classical section. Yet I knew back in the early 80's when cd's
first hit the market, that they were going to change everything. Which
they did. The digitalization of music, and move away from vinyl, is
part of the reason Tower Records will soon be no more.
Tower Records was a family owned operation until it went into
bankruptcy, one of the last big family owned chains, and was also one
of the last places committed to maintaining well stocked classical and
world music inventories. When the Towers close, it will truly be the
end of an era.
Going out of business signs are going up today. Tower RIP.
|
richard
|
|
response 4 of 87:
|
Oct 9 20:18 UTC 2006 |
This is going to have a negative impact on the recording industry.
Tower Records was for years the predominant music retailer in the
country. The article in the washington post today points out that
Tower was the main place selling a lot of smaller labels cd's, as most
smaller record stores don't have room, and that Tower might have
accounted for 40%-50% of some niche-genre labels' business. There are
some music labels that may go under no longer having those huge Tower
Record Stores available to display their merchandise.
|
easlern
|
|
response 5 of 87:
|
Oct 9 20:29 UTC 2006 |
I'm hoping that blogging, playlist sharing, and song sharing (a la Zune) will
help expose the smaller labels to their audience, since it's probably not
likely they'll be getting a lot of shelf space at Sam Goody, FYE, etc.
|
gull
|
|
response 6 of 87:
|
Oct 9 21:03 UTC 2006 |
I don't think I know anyone who shops at storefronts anymore. Most
people I know either mail-order their CDs from an online retailer, or
buy tracks from a download service like iTunes. I find this to be a
better way to browse for new music than in a store, because I can
listen to short samples of what the album sounds like before I buy it.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 7 of 87:
|
Oct 9 21:05 UTC 2006 |
A lot of stores were offering booths where you could listen to the CD before
buying it. I know Virgin MegaRecords did. I'm ambivalent about whether a store
or website's better. Let's just say I've bought nearly all my CDs from stores,
and many times bought something from a store I hadn't planned on buying. When
buying from a web-site, I've always stuck to what I needed exactly.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 8 of 87:
|
Oct 10 02:49 UTC 2006 |
Sure would be nice if you could return CDs because you were not satisfied.
|
richard
|
|
response 9 of 87:
|
Oct 10 16:23 UTC 2006 |
Tower has listening stations. The problem is younger people don't want
to buy whole albums anymore, nor do they want to pay for the
packaging. They want to pay by the song. Call it the McMusic effect,
minimalizing the music experience down to its bare minimum. It started
when cd's replaced vinyl, and suddenly album cover art-- once a major
part of pop culture-- ceased to mean as much. There used to be a time
when half the fun of getting an album was great cover art and great
liner notes. But CD's changed all that. CD boxes are too small to
waste much time on elaborate cover art, and many people don't keep
their discs in the boxes anyway, and the print on the liner notes has
to be too small.
I think it diminishes the experience and is part of why newly recorded
music is generally less relevant, or important, than in the past. How
can music be as relevant in the fast food era, when people want
everything fast, and as minimalized and devoid of content and substance
as possible.
|
mary
|
|
response 10 of 87:
|
Oct 10 16:59 UTC 2006 |
I think young people are going to go their way, not ours. As it should
be. That is true not just for the notes, words and artists, but for the
technology, packaging, sales and delivery. Those in the business of
selling music have been in denial over this reality for some time. But
the kids will teach 'em. I'm lovin the lesson, actually.
|
gull
|
|
response 11 of 87:
|
Oct 10 17:28 UTC 2006 |
Listening stations aren't really a solution because they're usually
only loaded with a handful of albums the store is currently promoting
-- usually new releases. You can't sample anything in the store the
way you can online. Also, I look at those headphones and all I can
think about is how many people's greasy heads they've been on.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 12 of 87:
|
Oct 10 17:40 UTC 2006 |
#9 pretty much completely ignores the fact that through much of the history
of 20th century popular music the best selling format for music was the
45 rpm single. The rise of album-oriented rock in the 70s and the decline
in the 45 single format were cemented by the introduction of the CD format
in the early 80s despite a brief industry experimentation with 3" and 5"
CD singles.
In short, for most of the time they've been major music consumers, young
people seem to have preferred to purchase single tracks. It has nothing
to do with being in an age of "McMusic", unless Richard wants to argue
that the early- and mid-60s, one of the most fertile periods of musical
experimentation in recent memory, were also part of his "McMusic" era.
|
easlern
|
|
response 13 of 87:
|
Oct 10 18:12 UTC 2006 |
Re 9: I'd have to agree with mcnally here. Many of the groups and producers
of the "golden age" of radio were mainly interested in releasing singles. To
quote legendary producer Phil Spector, LP's were "two hits and ten pieces of
junk". I don't think there's anything wrong with buying single songs at a
time. If an album is consistently good, people don't have any problem buying
the whole thing. The online retailers tend to sell the whole album cheaper
than the total of the songs, too, so there's still incentive to buy a whole
album. I do agree the album art has suffered though. It's not that impressive
in little CD cases.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 14 of 87:
|
Oct 10 18:19 UTC 2006 |
I disagree. Tool has some nice album art. :)
|
easlern
|
|
response 15 of 87:
|
Oct 10 18:20 UTC 2006 |
Oh, nharmon reminded me nowadays we have music videos instead of album art.
Tool has really cool music videos.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 16 of 87:
|
Oct 10 18:22 UTC 2006 |
Good point.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 17 of 87:
|
Oct 10 18:22 UTC 2006 |
McMusic? Give me a break.
|
edina
|
|
response 18 of 87:
|
Oct 10 19:06 UTC 2006 |
The art on the Wolfmother cd I thought was cool. Their videos? Eh...
|
cyklone
|
|
response 19 of 87:
|
Oct 10 19:42 UTC 2006 |
The record companies could easily revitalize interest in the album cover if
they wanted to. Put a code on each CD, let the consumer enter it online
somewhere along with a small PauPal payment and voila, those who want a nice
album poster can still have one. Having said all that, I agree with what
McNally said and the comments about videos being something of a substitute.
|
richard
|
|
response 20 of 87:
|
Oct 10 20:16 UTC 2006 |
videos are not a substitute for album cover art, that is absurd.
Album cover art enhances the experience of listening to the album
WHILE you are listening to it. Like listening to Sgt. Pepper while
staring at that famous album cover is part of the experience. Also
album cover art are like posters. You can display them in your room.
Can you display a music video?
I realize 45's came before albums, but that doesn't mean that era was
better. The music scene took off, exploded in the sixties, as a
result of the music album. It became much bigger, and totally
different, than it was before. Musicians started to take themselves
much more seriously as artists, write their own songs and cover notes,
and album cover art .etc What is happening now is that we are
regressing culturally, we are going back to earlier days, days when
artists HAD to put out singles because nobody did albums, and there
weren't places for greater expression of their art.
|
edina
|
|
response 21 of 87:
|
Oct 10 20:21 UTC 2006 |
But see that goes multiple ways, as I can point to a bunch of videos
that made the song, if not the band:
A-Ha - "Take On Me"
Peter Gabriel - "Sledgehammer" (Yes, Peter Gabriel is a great musician
in his own right, but that is a great video.)
Michael Jackson - "Billie Jean"
More recently, I can point to:
Ok Go - "Here It Goes Again"
Red Hot Chili Peppers - "Dani California"
|
richard
|
|
response 22 of 87:
|
Oct 10 20:25 UTC 2006 |
Videos are also a relic, how many videos do you see on MTV now?
Videos were an eighties thing. You mentioned the videos of a bunch of
eighties artists, which is when videos were hot.+
|
easlern
|
|
response 23 of 87:
|
Oct 10 20:39 UTC 2006 |
Things are better today because independents and amateurs are able to
distribute their music digitally with very little cost. The flipside of the
album art coin is the fact that people may have bought or not bought an album
based on the album art, which is silly, IMHO.
|
edina
|
|
response 24 of 87:
|
Oct 10 20:42 UTC 2006 |
I tend to only watch MTV, MTV2 and VH-1 in the morning, when they have
videos on, so that's when I see them.
And the video for OK Go is from this year, as is the RHCP song I
cited.
Are videos as big as they were? No. But some are still great to
watch.
|