Live music now more profitable than recorded music sales.

Interestingly, the Performing Rights Society (PRS - which is a non-profit managing copyright fees on behalf of its 60K members for UK-created music) is currently in a dispute with YouTube over licensing fees, YouTube has stated they will be removing all UK music clips until they've reached agreement... I wonder if the PRS projections that apparently exclude broadcasting&online revenues (according to the NME article linked here) were promoted for other reasons.

On looking into this further, while there are definitely trends in increased performance revenue, the PRS FY08 financials from their own site show that while revenues from physical recorded products are continuing to decrease, revenues from broadcast & online sales are continuing to increase - so while printed media sales are dropping, they're still making up for it with online/broadcast revenues -
http://tinyurl.com/cyamdw

Anyway, it looks like we might have an interesting new model for purchasing music online legitimately from iTunes - they've announced iTunes Pass, trialling it with a Depeche Mode iTunes Pass where for $18.99 a month subscribing fans will get exclusive singles, videos etc (instead of 'renting' the content they'll own it permanently if they obtain it during their time subscribing) - http://tinyurl.com/dkkaja

In this, iTunes has used the model they use for fans subscribed to download TV shows through iTunes ... it's just uncertain as to whether bands (except for bands such as NIN, which really already do this) will be able to provide enough constant content to warrant our spending US$18.99 each month for albums we haven't heard - perhaps iTunes+bands/labels will arrange to charge less for subscriptions new bands until they've built up a following, because it's really only the committed fan who will 'subscribe' for material they haven't heard.

If it's any consolation, we have it easier than they did in 1949 - Mechanix Illustrated perfectly *illustrates* this in the following article - http://tinyurl.com/cc6lbs

"BUYING phonograph records used to be a simple and painless operation. You could walk into any music shop and say, “I want a few of the latest dance tunes for a party.” You’d depart in a few minutes with a neat bundle under your arm. But not any more!

“Phonograph records? Yes, sir,” the clerk now says. “Would you like 10- or 12-inch records for a 78-r.p.m. turntable, or 7-, 10-, or 12-inch records for a 33-1/3 r.p.m. machine, or 7-inch records for a 45-r.p.m. player? The prices range from 60 cents to $4.85.”

I predict summer of '09 will be like the summer of love but on a global scale musically!

So that's why my band is getting so many gigs lately. Perhaps I should use this article as evidence of why we should be getting paid...

not surprising, people like me are the reason for declining music sales although to steer clear of legal issues i won't say why

And with live music the artist actually sees more of the money. No wonder record companies are becoming more and more aggressive in their pursuit of downloaders.

Thanks to festies!!!!!!!! if you've never been to a music festival I highly recommend it!

Ironically as music gigs get more popular (and profitable) illegal music downloads and free distribution actually HELPS - by spreading the word fast about all kinds of music, not just the big names.

Those who control the distribution channels generally get to make the rules -- with the traditional physical CD purchasing channel replaced by online streams, I think we're now benefitting from greater access to interesting artists who might have previously been sidelined/blocked by labels and yet now are savvy enough to do everything themselves or partner with those whose online skills complement their own.. I don't see many negatives for the public here, nor for the creators of content (save for those who don't adapt to these changes in having to take responsibility for their own promotion etc), it's mainly a negative for the labels whose contribution has been debatable (save for discerning labels like Sub-Pop, Factory, Creation etc).

I wonder if this relatively low-cost access to music is a brief window of freedom for consumers until music distribution is again controlled by online 'library' entities that will either distribute 'cloud'-stored content to us on a contract (this would be their preferred model as it would lock people in) or else provide online tools to store your own content on their servers and allocate sharing permission to those friends you've given permission to access your 'library' and share your notes/comments on that media - Google Book Search may have such a model as part of their End Game...

In any case, with the experience of listening to new music now made easier through online channels, the choice by music fans to spend their money on gigs seems to match findings from research reported in an article in the Journal of Personality & Social Psychology article in 2003 (http://psych.colorado.edu/~vanboven/VanBoven/Publications_files/vb_gilo_2003.pdf) where they found that 'experiences' make most people happier than material purchases, article brief below -

"Do experiences make people happier than material possessions? In two surveys, respondents from various demographic groups indicated that experiential purchases—those made with the primary intention of acquiring a life experience—made them happier than material purchases. In a follow-up laboratory experiment, participants experienced more positive feelings after pondering an experiential purchase than after pondering a material purchase. In another experiment, participants were more likely to anticipate that experiences would make them happier than material possessions after adopting a temporally distant, versus a temporally proximate, perspective. The discussion focuses on evidence that experiences make people happier because they are more open to positive reinterpretations, are a more meaningful part of one’s identity, and contribute more to successful social relationships."

We live in interesting times...

Bands get more revenue from concerts than album sales anyway. Now if only Ticketmaster and LiveNation would stop adding so many ridiculous fees...

With concert tickets running anywhere from $30.00 to about $80.00 or so I can't imagine CD's at $10.00 to $18.00 or so even competing...

I must be one of the few people that abandoned downloading all of my music and just listen to streaming audio and if I really like something I buy the CD.

Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily think that downloading is stealing... I just choose not to do it anymore.

ahem, DUH?! People stopped paying for music 10 years ago, so of course the gig/festival scene is more profitable, the only problem is, this means the event organisers are going to continue hiking up the ticket prices until it costs 100 just to go to the local and watch a 'battle of the bands' set...

There is nothing quite like hearing the authenticity of a guitar, a bass, some drums a gravelly voice to make you feel warm and tingly inside.

Technology hasn't yet developed to not pay for concert tickets.

The music business was slow to catch up to the revolution of MP3 compression technology. This failure to move with the times was at great cost to the industry.

Self-publishing performers who can produce, distribute and publicize without assistance will contribute to the rise of the independent artist.

Bands no longer need a record deal to get their music heard by a wide appreciative audience. They do, however, need to be good at getting their name out there.

Live performance revenue might be the only thing left that people who aren't in the band can help with / profit from.

Gigs are a massive rip off - but you also need to take into account merchandising profits. Take Madonna's Live Nation contract for example - it does not just take into account ticket sales and album sales but also the cost of collateral merchandising. She's gonna reap the rewards, simply because she has thought like a business and diversified - album/ticket sales alone aren't going to create the profits the record companies (and the artists) seek. It's the only way it's going to survive - music is readily available, there has to be other ways of making money.

Incidentally is anyone here using hearwhere.com? What do you think?

J

The record company is dying. It's true. Bands aren't really being signed anymore, the record companies budgets have been shot and they can't afford to give artists development money (or an 'advance') to produce a record. This is difficult for up and coming bands to even get out there at all.

Although this aspect is rather sad, I would argue that on the whole it's probably a better thing really. As an artist you have to be able to 'cut it' live these days to make any money, which means you have to be pretty good, and not just have a hot shot producer pimp your record. Bands like Muse only became huge when they played live and blew away most other live acts. Bands like The Klaxons are gonna struggle. A great debut album, but it was mostly production and their record company have told them to re-write their second album since it wasn't good enough. That topped was a poor live show could see them fall.

It seems some bands are taking on the DIY approach and releasing music themselves through their own label. This is easily done if you can find a distributor willing to do it. If you're a successful live act they usually do. This could be the way forward i think. It frees up more cash for the actual artist, and less for record company execs. It also means we can some really decent live bands coming through. All good. My shelves were getting full anyway!

It doesn't seem that long ago that my first student loan arrived in my bank account and I remember the joy of blowing £200 on CDs in one go! It wasn't too much fun later when I realised that was my rent money. It's somewhat sad, but I think that was one of the last times I went out and bought a load of music. I downloaded stuff for a while, but recently I have swapped music with friends via their Itunes, listened to stuff directly on Myspace/Pitchfork and most recently have been been enjoying Spotify (though I'm still awaiting more Band of Horses to be put on there).

£200 (or thereabouts) in one go is now the equivalent of Glastonbury Festival, though I'm not going to that this year, as I found it to be way too pricey for quite a dull setlist of music. I much prefer picking and choosing some of the smaller gigs, but still happy to blow money on one off gigs such as Blur (or equally smile sweetly as my boyfriend hands over his debit card)!

This is hardly surprising. Live music companies are able to charge exorbitant amounts of money for the top gigs, whereas people who buy music, the few that are left, aren't going to be paying more than what a CD or digital album costs; it doesn't work the same way, you can't decide an album is going to cost £40, just because the artist is popular.

Realistically, are gigs a massive rip off or is everyone illegally downloading?

The live music really has very little to do with the labels though. Major artists own their own live music rights. The labels make no money from it but they want to.
They call it 'moving towards a 360 degree relationship', which essentially means they want to own not only distribution of material, but ticket sales, mechandising, ringtones, the lot. The prediction is that within the next 5 years, bought music will account for only 30% of their total revenues, the bulk of the rest coming from merchandise.

In terms of Spotify, it really is a great solution, but only an interim one. Eventually you'll be charged for access, but in the long run I think it'll come down to becoming like TV; effectively users, ISPs, radio, TV and device manfacturers will pay a subsidy or collective license to access content from all the majors and ownership will be a thing of the past. This is the only realistic way for it to go as far as I can see. Ultimately it'll offer us more freedom and generates steady income for the artists and labels.

Totally Ben_Traffic_UK - I'm trying to get Spiritualised tickets for October and they're £40... they are playing with a live orchestra though. I guess that's the other thing - for live gigs to compete they're going to have to have more and more unique elements like this - the days when a couple of disco lights and a glitter ball made up a stage show are long gone.

prices are totally rocketing. i was considering going to see Devo recently.... £30!!!??? at Kentish Town Forum!!??? i decided against it even though I rather like Devo.

The music industry did need a good kick in its teeth but it seems all they've done is shifted the focus from record sales to ticket sales.

The price of concerts and festivals these days is way overpriced, why on earth should anyone have to pay 80 or 90 quid to see AC/DC or Brittney Spears? (unless she gets her muff out again)

Definately live shows are the way to go i feel like i appreciate an artist more when i see them live!

I think this is the way it should be. Live shows are how bands make their profits, not record sales. I haven't purchased music in ages, but I happily spend more money on live shows than I ever would on records these days.

i don't really buy albums anymore, which i sometimes feel sad about as i used to love collecting records, but i do still go to a lot of gigs. I probably go to at least 2 a month. I wonder if this shift could change the age old 'bands make money from touring not from records' thing as promoters try to rake in the cash by upping their cut. i hope not. and if it does i wonder if it could lead to a load of reactionary and free (and probably illegal) gigs in squats and the like.... hmmm.... interesting.

UK's booking agents such as LiveNation have been bringing out the champagne since illegal downloads have gone from strength to strength, whilst label executives have been weeping into their drinks.

The only daunting news about this is that big booking agencies seem to be buying up all the most sought after venues. Not nice.

"Keep music live" this is one of the best things that's come from the internet as well as Current of course.

When i was a kid i listen to my woeful musician parents lambasting the record labels. Its nice to see it turn around.

Whether its better for all musicians is debatable, but its better for your soul to hear live music as you can see from the picture above only on a handful of occasions have i looked like this in my living room with the iPod on.

Truth be told, I'm spending far more on gigs now than actually buying music. I can't remember the last CD I bought and buying an album over iTunes isn't much fun at all. Spotify's definitely reduced the chances of me bothering to buy music in a hurry, unless it's amazing and I want it on my iPod.

Problem is, it's getting harder to see the bigger bands without paying stupid money and standing in ridiculously large arenas where the sound and view aren't the best.