Did the iPOD kill HiFi?

[JustinP1]

neilr said:

...As for the whole MP3/ipod issue. The record labels failed to see this coming in a way that is utterly unbelievable, they have failed in spectacular fashion at anticipating and moving with their market place, now they chase after 12 year olds illegally downloading tunes they would never have bought legally in the first place (not that it makes copyright infrigment OK, but you see my point) and don't spend the time or money changing their business model. EMI have lost a huge sum. Good, I hope the traditional recording industry collapses in on its own greedy self, it could be the best thing to happen for the music buying public.

I would be careful what you wish for...

I discussed this with a good friend of mine on my same Uni course. At the time he was a product manager at Universal. Ironically he has been made redundant with 70% of the label.

The initial reluctance to move into downloading was for two reasons:

Other formats such as MiniDisc, Digital Compact Cassette, SACD and DVDA had all recently shown huge promise and lost a load of money. So there was a natural reluctance to jump in.

At the start the internet was simply a catalyst for piracy and impossible to police. Secondly the infrastructure of physically how it would work was not there. Furthermore it was assumed that customers would want a high quality recording.

He told me of focus groups done with teenagers. They said who their favourite bands were and why and then they were asked the question of how much they paid for music and how much they *would* pay.

They were flabbergasted by the responses. Teenagers were prepared to pay Zero for music. They didn't have to, so why should they. Also 'music is free isn't it?'

It is clear that chasing a 13 year old for piracy is like p***ing in the wind, but the heavyhanded position at the time was simply to set out the stall on what is socially and legally acceptable otherwise, this whole generation of music buyers - and in fact the whole future of the music industry would be lost.

What was left was with the one completely vertically integrated monopoly - iTunes and iPod. They hold all the keys now.

So what does this free or very low cost economy mean? Last Christmas was a case in point. There was no longer a race to see which major artist would be Christmas number one, it simply was which Simon Cowell X-Factor connected artists will dominate the top ten. In fact, I think at one point 6 out of the top 10 were X-Factor contestants in the US or UK, songs that featured on X - Factor, or songs sung by X-Factor judges. Ironically the song that was Number 1 was solely based upon the publicity surrounding that.

That is what a 'free' (or very low cost) economy always ends up at. The big players die, and you are left with a controlling monopoly or a couple who are willing to co-operate. Think Google.

As vindictive as you can be about the music industry, they fact remains that in the 80's and 90's days by far the greatest loss was made on supporting new artists with anything up to £1,000,000 for a new artist's album. 1 in 5 would pay back for itself. People chose artists, and even if an artist's first album might not be great, they even often got a second album.

That ain't going to happen any more, and effectively the consumer will have less choice and less quality. I don't think that's good for anyone.

[neilr]

I wouldn't dsagree with any of that. Except perhaps fot what you said about the reluctance to go along with downloading due to the expensive (for labels etc) failure of previous formats. I don't doubt you as far as the reasons for it, but when you think about it, people already had the means to do it - their own computer, no extra investment required on the part of the consumer, something I think they missed.

As for kids not paying for music, when I was younger and getting into music as a young teenager, if you couldn't afford to buy the album you taped it from a friends copy, there's no difference between that and kids today illegally downloading, I remember some of my friends at the time questioning the percieved value of music in the same way. They were never potential customers though. Like you said, kids percieve music to be without monetary value, although to be fair, I don't take the economic viewpoint of teenagers seriously in any way. (not suggesting you did either).

I am fairly vindictive about the record business your right, (although I'm not an embittered musician, failed/pro or otherwise) simply the people in it I've had to encounter and deal with are , well lets just say utterly awful and leave it at that. I'm not talking about engineers etc (people like yourself) here though, and seeing what you do, I'm sure you know what/who I'm talking about. And don't get me started about the whole Cowell-esque destruction of whats left.

[JustinP1]

neilr said:

I wouldn't dsagree with any of that. Except perhaps fot what you said about the reluctance to go along with downloading due to the expensive (for labels etc) failure of previous formats. I don't doubt you as far as the reasons for it, but when you think about it, people already had the means to do it - their own computer, no extra investment required on the part of the consumer, something I think they missed.

That's totally agreed, and wasn't the issue. However, put your mind back to say 1996-2000 and the internet starting. I think if you would have explained in hindsight as a time traveller on the importance of the net in 2010 then not many people would have believed you.

At the time, the issue was there were 5 multinational corporations, each with hundreds of artists. In 99% of those artists had nothing in their contract which covers what is a fair rate for 'digital downloads'.

So on an instant, the industry was faced with potentially renegotiating hundreds of contracts - many of which with artists who disagreed. There was also the question of how piracy would be stopped from the downloads and even the fundamental stuff on how much they would cost. As well as internally the global music industry was expected to react together to agree a whole new industry that destroys the first - that takes years.

As it happened iTunes and iPod did it before any of them and they won out.

neilr said:

As for kids not paying for music, when I was younger and getting into music as a young teenager, if you couldn't afford to buy the album you taped it from a friends copy, there's no difference between that and kids today illegally downloading, I remember some of my friends at the time questioning the percieved value of music in the same way. They were never potential customers though. Like you said, kids percieve music to be without monetary value, although to be fair, I don't take the economic viewpoint of teenagers seriously in any way. (not suggesting you did either).

I am fairly vindictive about the record business your right, (although I'm not an embittered musician, failed/pro or otherwise) simply the people in it I've had to encounter and deal with are , well lets just say utterly awful and leave it at that. I'm not talking about engineers etc (people like yourself) here though, and seeing what you do, I'm sure you know what/who I'm talking about. And don't get me started about the whole Cowell-esque destruction of whats left.

My own personal view of the record labels I saw at the time was that it was not about 'fat cats with cigars' which is what is often made out. The people there from the bottom to top really loved music. The A&R and project managers would support their acts simply because they chose the group from the start and believed in them.

The problem with what teenagers think the value of music is due to psychology. Our view on how much something is 'worth' for our whole lives is based on the first purchases made of that item.

That is why gas and electricity seem expensive to us, and as I still remember when a PC is £2000, I find it astonishing that you can buy a laptop in Tesco for £300.

As for a way forward, I really don't know. All I can say is I have been lucky enough to work in some legendary studios with great artists. I honestly don't think that is a tradition that is going to continue.

As someone who enjoys music, unfortunately my inside experience at the cutting edge does not fill me with hope, in fact the opposite.

[toppstuff]

k-ink said:

The_Burg said:

Did the iPOD kill HiFi?

No. Next!

Not that simple. The ipod spread music content, but it dumbed down the quality.

I am amazed at how so many people think MP3s are how recorded music is meant to sound.

[Dave^]

After reading this thread, i'm ashamed to say i'm one of the "mp3 generation"... I'm 28 by the way...

I bought a lot of tapes while I was at school (stuff that's long been binned!) then a lot of cd's once I started working.

I bought a 32mb mp3 player back in 2000, cost a fair whack considering the size, and used 64kbs mp3 rippid from the cd's...just to get quantity, rather than quality...

Mp3s are a massive convenience, having being used to carting multiple tapes/cds and their players around, along with a massive mobile phone, now all i need is my phone...

I have mp3s on my pc, my iPod, my ps3, my phone, and 8hrs worth on a single cd for the car... while the original cds are tucked away in the loft (probably getting damp).

I can't remember the last time I actually sat down and did absolutely nothing but listen... although I do have the radio, random mp3s, last fm going on in the background most of the day...

I used to see myself as a music fan... I think I've been taught a lesson today...

[Shaw Tarse]

Yeah bet video killed...

[JustinP1]

Dave^ said:

After reading this thread, i'm ashamed to say i'm one of the "mp3 generation"... I'm 28 by the way...

...I used to see myself as a music fan... I think I've been taught a lesson today...

It's OK dude. Bear your soul.

Now as penance go back and re-rip your whole collection as WAV files on a £40 hard drive.

[The_Burg]

Not totally on topic, but 'Turn Me Up' the last bastions of true fidelity. FFS why don't you list the albums that are listenable? Great concept but ste site! Sorry.

[k-ink]

^
Absolutely.

Waste of bandwidth that site. The only purpose of it is to make a list. Which they didn't do

[Dibby]

I think the consumers have finally had enough of the endless format changing. Used to have vinyl as a kid, then as I grew up I had a load of tapes and a lot of them were spoied on my parents double tape deck. Bought most of them again on CD and now digital music is out and we're being told nothing sounds as good as vinyl. So why didn't we just stick with vinyl? The public are fed up of being pumped for money to buy all the same stuff they had - the same is true with VHS, DVD and now Blu Ray.

Sorry, but I'm part of the download generation who is fed up of being ripped off, more into music downloads and paying to watch live shows of people I really like. I'd rather buy direct off an artists website and cut the middle man as Sage Francis did with his last single, selling it in FLAC direct from his own website. I'm part of a music website where amateur DJs can make their own music and put it out there for free download, most of them are far better than what is being pumped into the charts, more imaginative and original.

I like nothing more than sitting down listening to music, the digital revolution now means I can take hundreds of albums with me in the car, the office, out and about walking and home. The MP3 has given me far more music listening time and choice. Can't stand the radio any more, why listen to someone else's playlist interspersed with people ringing up to share their 2-pence worth on a topic I couldn't care less about when I've got more music than I know what to do with?

The digital revolution has opened up a world of music I would never have found otherwise

[croyde]

I found the receipt for my Hi-Fi system the other day. I bought it from a shop in Elmers End, S.London for around £400 back in 1985.

It's still my main system. A Nad amp, a Nad tuner with Acoustic Research AR18s speakers. Since supplemented with a Sony multi disc CD player as the original Yamaha one was sold off. The Dual deck died a long time ago.

So still sounds great and not bad for a 25 year old relic.

[anonymous-user]

Dibby said:

. So why didn't we just stick with vinyl?

Some of us have, however, certain multinational companies would prefer it if you continually bought the latest device that they've just produced that will enable you to buy the same music that you first bought 40 years ago on vinyl in yet another marvellous format. If you buy into that sort of thing then fine, personally I prefer just to drop the needle into the groove of the original format.

[hairyben]

Most people have never cared about high-fidelity. When you had LP's, they had cassettes. When you had a coveted hifi seperates system, the masses had things with flashy lights and tinny sound from argos. When you copied CD's to play in the car and considered the merits of chrome or metal cassette tapes over boggo ones, they tuned into radio 1. Cassettes, CD's, DVD's, now mp3 were all sucessfull with the masses because they were more convenient than what went before, any increase in quality was nice but not the primary success factor, which is partly why the likes of betamax, DCC, SACD, DVD-A, blu-ray were all stunted or failed. Look at the number of people with a nice big HD TV who won't pay for HD programming, and in many cases are quite happy with it connected via a composite scart feed.

The qualities out there and always has been, I expect blu-ray will eventually become the high-end music medium that SACD/DVD-A was supposed to be, but mostly as a by-product of it's proliferation as a movie format.

As for what the "big" record labels do, it's kind of irrelevant to me, they only pick up many of the artists I listen to if/after they've had considerable success through smaller labels. They're not in any way shape or form "necessary", neither is the £1M+ they deem to spend "promoting" a new artist, if the little bubble they live in has been burst well boo-hoo hoo-hoo-hoo.

[JustinP1]

hairyben said:

...As for what the "big" record labels do, it's kind of irrelevant to me, they only pick up many of the artists I listen to if/after they've had considerable success through smaller labels. They're not in any way shape or form "necessary", neither is the £1M+ they deem to spend "promoting" a new artist, if the little bubble they live in has been burst well boo-hoo hoo-hoo-hoo.

That is natural to think that, and on the face of it makes sense - but that is not how it has rolled out.

Even a decade ago independent labels still got their artists distributed - printed and put into shops - by one of the 'big five' major labels. That was a perfect scenario. Creativity and individualism was still there, yet they could use economies of scale by comparing in sales with the big guys and they could shop around for the best deal for them from 5 players.

The immediate assumption is that by 'throwing out' the big guys everything will be open, free, and at a much lower cost. Wrong.

Although in a transition period that may be true, these 'free' or low cost economies *never* end up like that. They end up with one huge company being the 'gatekeeper' to the whole industry with a 95% share, with a secondary player having maybe 4% and everyone else 1%.

Remember how free and open things used to be when the net started, now consider:

How many search engines can you think of? (Apart from Google)

How many auction sites can you think of? (Apart from eBay)

How many bookshops can you think of? (Apart from Amazon)

How many social networking sites can you think of? (Apart from Facebook?)

You can go on and on. But it had happened with music too, with iTunes. That doesn't level the playing field at all, it just turns it on it's side for the companies who are willing to work with iTunes and those who are not.

Whereas an independent record label was able to still get space in HMV, the reality of the situation now is there is less independent investment in music, not more, because there is no money in it.

I don't think that is good for anyone.

[Dracoro]

JustinP1 said:

..... But it had happened with music too, with iTunes. That doesn't level the playing field at all, it just turns it on it's side for the companies who are willing to work with iTunes and those who are not.

Whereas an independent record label was able to still get space in HMV, the reality of the situation now is there is less independent investment in music, not more, because there is no money in it.

The indie labels still, presumably, had to let HMV etc. get a cut from their sales, had to work with them etc. There was plenty of stuff that HMV/OurPrice et. didn't stock as well. I'm not convinced the business model has changed much. iTunes is now what HMV was, only online.

[JustinP1]

Dracoro said:

JustinP1 said:

..... But it had happened with music too, with iTunes. That doesn't level the playing field at all, it just turns it on it's side for the companies who are willing to work with iTunes and those who are not.

Whereas an independent record label was able to still get space in HMV, the reality of the situation now is there is less independent investment in music, not more, because there is no money in it.

The indie labels still, presumably, had to let HMV etc. get a cut from their sales, had to work with them etc. There was plenty of stuff that HMV/OurPrice et. didn't stock as well. I'm not convinced the business model has changed much. iTunes is now what HMV was, only online.

To give you an idea:

Wholesale rate to HMV, Virgin Megastore etc for an album 1998-2001: £6.50

Current rate per single sold through iTunes in 2010: Approximately £0.30.


Whereby the old pattern was for a listener to buy an album, the current trend is to quickly and simply buy singles. It is easy to see that even if 4 singles may be downloaded, that is not even 20% of the previous revenue.

So what is the effect?

Ironically, instead of record companies using the 1 to 5 ratio of putting artists out there and investing in new music and accepting that the public may not like 4 out of 5 they simply have little hope other than signing one act and just plugging that to hell.

This weakened industry just leaves it open from another media monopoly to cash in from the 'outside'. This is exactly what is happening when the UK US X-Factor juggernaut rolls in. They get to choose which songs are in the top ten and who sings them by huge sideways publicity putting 6 songs in the top 10.

Such a publicity machine simply would not have worked ten years ago, and even 5 years ago the best Cowell could hope for was to get the winner in the top 5.

[Dave^]

Just to go off on a bit of a tangent... What "bitrate" (or equiv.) are/were cassettes? I know they were analogue as opposed to digital, but, amuse me...

[Blue Meanie]

toppstuff said:

k-ink said:

The_Burg said:

Did the iPOD kill HiFi?

No. Next!

Not that simple. The ipod spread music content, but it dumbed down the quality.

I am amazed at how so many people think MP3s are how recorded music is meant to sound.

Well, for one, apple don't give you the downloads in mp3 format, it is AAC. However, MP3 was the format of choice for many when simply ripping their cd's, so I don't think you can blame apple for that. Of course apple gives you the apple lossless format should you wish for the full quality, but again, that would be down to the consumer.

Regardless, it is what the consumer wants, not what is provided that drives it.

[Dracoro]

That is true for ripping CDs, however buying from the store is, albeit AAC, 256 which is more than good enough most the time but still not lossless.

[Blue Meanie]

Dracoro said:

That is true for ripping CDs, however buying from the store is, albeit AAC, 256 which is more than good enough most the time but still not lossless.

No, it isn't... However, if you are an audiophile, you buy the CD, and rip to lossless... The option is there for all users, quite frankly . The options for consumers nowadays is unbelievable. You have convenience, good size, and ability to have things exactly how you want them. It really is a non-issue.