Talk:Music industry/Archive 1

Imhorst article

Why is this linked from the article?

• Christian Imhorst, The ‘Lost Generation’ of the Music Industry

Seems to me like nothing more than a somewhat unfocused, poorly proofread, one-man's-opinion piece on the music buying habits of present-day teenagers. - Jmabel | Talk 04:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I second that. Imhorst's article is not well-referenced at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.117.129 (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

Cut from article:

There is much inter-industry talk with record labels about the decision to phase out the creation and sale of CDs. The goal of the entire industry is to go all digital. Stores such as Best Buy and Circuit City for years have suffered from square footage loss to musical CDs, of which could be used for products with better profit margins. As a result record labels have been forced to indirectly pay physical retailers in order to shelf CDs. For these financial and legal-payola reasons, the music industry is expected to be totally digital by 2008.

Uncited material is always a bit of a problem. Uncited predictions of the future are definitely non-starters. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Got it extremely wrong, too. ;D TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 05:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Usage of the word "controlled"

I would like to object to using "controlled".... I am going to change this into "dominated", simply because they can't force the consumers into actually buying the product they produce and distribute. Our common pop history is filled with artists who never became a success, or that became "one-hit-wonders" at best, even though one of the "big four" tried their best.

Bronfman=Canada, Bronfman=Warner, Warner=Canada

Warner is now Canadian.

I don't think so. Charles Bronfman just led the group- he wasn't the only one. Furthermore, unless the company's registered in Canada as a Canadian corporation, it's not Canadian. If you can show me proof otherwise, be my guest. -RomeW 20:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

A company can incorporate somewhere as a foreign entity. Depending on the laws governing commerce in a particular region (both the one where they want to do business, and their home country), it often is more practical for a company to just open office space there and incorporate as a domestic entity. So it's not uncommon to see a company incorporated in many territories, under many different names or under very similar ones. So even if you saw that there exists a Warner Music Group Inc/Ltd/LLC/SA/SARL/GmbH/whatever in country X, that basically tells you nothing about the relationship between the companies or who is calling the shots.—mjb 03:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Marked for cleanup

Needs to use period (.) for decimal point, as well as label magnitude of charts (I assume those are millions of units sold). Mactenchi 08:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Sources are IFPI World Sales Report 2005-1994 IFPI's statistics yearbooks

The basic data is taken from: MBI, 8. 1998, 3 (London : Miller Freeman) MBI, 9. 1999, 3 (London : Miller Freeman) The BPI Statistical Handbook 1996 (London : BPI, 1996) Phonographische Wirtschaft Jahrbuch 1995. Starnberg: Josef Keller, 1996 NVPI statistics. Eindhoven, 1996 Financial Times Music & Copyright, no. 89, London, 1996

The BPI Statistical Handbook 1995 (London : BPI, 1995) PMHH 19:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Erroneous Data

In 2003, the world market was 2.2billion, and has been falling ever since, so it cannot be 3 billion now.

In 2003, the US sold 660M albums about 30% of the world sales. The US market is estimated at 600M a year now, about 27% of world sales. On the other hand, the EU market has expanded following the expansion of the EU itself, though it has been hit by piracy, and should now be larger than the uS market (though official data are not yet in, the total sales of the EU markets in 2003, before the EU expanded already toped US sales).

Last year, the UK sold 240M albums, not 60 something as reported here.

I'll be posting links to teh IFPI pages reporting this very soon.

Actually, the world market is estimated to be $33 Billion [1]. I also don't see reference to 3 billion in the article - I presume that's been removed.--Jeandjinni 18:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The sales statistics for the Big Four in 2004 add up to 109.9%, most notably a significant change in Independent label share.

UMG market share

UMG itself states to have 25.5% market share. I also doubt that they could improve by 8% in just one year and take away market share from the independent labels. How? This should have been THE BIG BIG news this year. I think the numbers are wrong. I'm sorry I can't provide any better ones, but we should keep an eye on this.

Yeah, that's a misrepresentation. Note the different data sources. Nielsen underreports indie market share every year due to the fact that they use a different methodology than that used by IFPI. However, IFPI hasn't released data on the distribution of sales among the Big Four and the indies for any year more recent than 2004. So we're stuck with it. But the article as it is is still very misleading because of the way the data are presented. Someone ought to delete or qualify the Nielsen data (or toss out the IFPI data altogether, but I don't advise that option).--Jeandjinni 18:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Germany sales figures

Do you know where I can obtain sales figures for individual albums in Germany ? Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xornet (talk • contribs) 08:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Where is Korea for the digital sales?

I know iTunes is the company which had success for selling mp3 files, but cyworld of korea is not that far behind. The table seems to be wrong. Anyone agree?

Market or industry

Why is this article not called music industry, when that is the term used in the article? – Ilse@ 23:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Cosprings undertook a merge of the two articles on 19 June 2007 due to overlapping content. I thought there was discussion of it somewhere but now I can't find it. Perhaps he/she can shed some light on the issue. —mjb 19:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Duja► 13:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Music market → Music industry — more common term —Ewlyahoocom 04:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support Clearly the most common term. 205.157.110.11 02:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support - the obvious name for the page -81.178.253.169 21:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support Most common term. A.Z. 19:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

iTunes Subscription

"Both Napster and iTunes, with the support of the majors, are promoting a digital music subscription service." Yeah, iTunes doesn't have a subscription service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.42.129 (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What about the inclusion of Live Music as part of the industry?

I would love to see research about the original commercial concerts, trends in the concert industry, historical correlation between album sales and concert going, highest grossing concerts ever, promoters, great managers, the relationship between venues and the industry, ticketing, etc. ILoveConcerts (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Aspiring artist

I think this section could be removed as it is not relevant to the article as such, not to mention it is written as a how-to guide rather an an encyclopedic article so at the very least it needs a major rewrite. --144.36.234.233 (talk) 06:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC) I agree, I think this would take a lot of rewriting, straight up removal would probably be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.216.6 (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

External links

Much of the external links section here looks dubious to me. At best, a number of miscellaneous directories (one or two good ones would be better than a mishmash) and some things that are even more tangential (What does the link labeled "The Best Music" have to do with an article on the industry?) - Jmabel | Talk 21:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

interesting archived discussion/debate

http://ajawam3.home.comcast.net/~ajawam3/threadonCL-080201.htm Wamnet (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than recorded music

The article states, "When the term music industry is used in a narrow sense, it refers only to the businesses and organizations that record, produce, publish, distribute, and market recorded music." This is uncited, and I don't think it is accurate. As the article goes on to say, accurately, there was a music industry for at least 50 years before there were recordings. The industry centered on sheet music. Recordings only became dominant after World War I. - Jmabel | Talk 21:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Vs. Recording Industry and What about live music?

This article claims that the music industry is dominated by the recorded music. I believe (from personal experience) that this is no longer strictly true. Live Nation and CAA are gaining ground, and the recording industry is unquestionably dying.

I think this article needs some restructuring. Here are my questions:

1. Should there be separate sections describing various sectors of the music business, including live music, film and television music, etc.?
2. Either the article Recording industry should be merged into this one, or material from this article should be moved into Recording industry leaving behind a summary (as in WP:Summary style). One or the other. Which is it?

I'll check in here in a few days, and see if anybody is interested. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Subscription Services

I removed the paragraph about subscription services because I didn't think they were really that relevant. Subscription services like Rhapsody are out there but they haven't, nor does it appear that they ever will catch on despite the fact that they've been in existence for 5 years plus. I agree that the article needs more content, especially in regards to live music and artists such as Madonna, Jay Z and U2 ditching their record labels in favor of signing deals with Live Nation, a touring company. The Radiohead experiment should also be mentioned as that was a pivotal moment since an act as big as Radiohead released their record for free, an act that highlighted the decreased control of the clearly dying record labels. I think the article should be merged with the original "Record Industry" article, since having seperate "Record Industry" and "Music Industry" articles is pretty redudent. Perhaps the idea of recorded music in the future such as CDs and MP3's being distributed for free as a promotional tool, instead of a commercial product, should be touched upon. -Rumble74

Merge

With Rumbles support, I'm going ahead with merge. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone like this

Does anyone like this paragraph? I don't believe the first sentence is accurate. (Is there a source for it?) And (forgive me) the writing is fairly dull.

When the term music industry is used in a narrow sense, it refers only to the businesses and organizations that record, produce, publish, distribute, and market recorded music (e.g., music publishers, recording industry, record production companies). This corresponds to the International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC) that includes sound recording and music publishing activities (J-59). When the term is used more broadly, it refers to a range of sub-industries that come from a number of different industrial classifications, including Information and Communication (which includes sound recording and music publishing activities), programming and broadcasting activities (e.g., radio stations), education (e.g., music training schools), Arts, entertainment and recreation, and manufacturing and retail sales (e.g., of musical instruments). In this broader sense, the term usually also encompasses not-for-profit organizations such as Musicians' Unions and writers' copyright collectives and performance rights organizations.

I'm going to drop it for now. Reinstate it if you like. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)