selling vinyl, selling out and selling internet radio
The Guardian reports that vinyl is making a comeback, in the UK at least.
The data, released by the UK’s industry group BPI, shows that 7in vinyl sales were up 13% in the first half, with the White Stripes’ Icky Thump the best seller.
Two-thirds of all singles in the UK now come out on in the 7in format, with sales topping 1m.
<snip>
For record stores, the resurgence has meant a move from racks of vintage Rolling Stones and Beatles releases to brand new singles and younger buyers. “The student population seem to be loving the 7in,” says Stuart Smith, who runs Seismic Records in Leamington Spa, Warwickshire. He sells 300-600 records a week and is preparing to launch an online store.
“I’m still not sure about the MP3 generation. You can have a full hard drive and nothing to show for it. Record collections are very personal. You can view into a person’s soul really,” he says.
I’m a little skeptical of the numbers. A 13% jump in the first half over 1 million annually translates to 57,000 more records sold in this half. The “Icky Thump” single mentioned, sold 10,000 in it’s first two days, so has possibly 25,000-35,000 in the four weeks it’s been out in the UK (a complete guess, I’ll admit). Discounting the one single, then, it’s more like a 5-7% jump in sales. That’s still something, but not as impressive.
The LA Times reports on selling music and even rewriting lyrics for commercials, using a band I’ve still never heard of (Future 86) as the example. The money quote is this:
Some bands are even rewriting their lyrics to sell products, prompting some observers to wonder whether the term “sellout” is any longer an insult.
“This is post-P. Diddy — selling out is a good thing,” said Aram Sinnreich, a partner at media consulting firm Radar Research.
I’m not sure I’d go that far, Aram.
Finally, there was quite a hubbub Friday with people declaring internet radio saved. “Call off the firing squad.” Tim Westergren, founder of Pandora going as far as saying that it was due to our lobbying:
He said everyone who called their Congress person about this should feel that they had an effect on the process: “This is a direct result of lobbying pressure, so if anyone thinks their call didn’t matter, it did.”
What really happened was that SoundExchange said they wouldn’t collect the new royalty rates (for now). That’s not really saved. Anyone skeptical? How about if I tell you that SoundExchange was started by the RIAA (but is now “independent”)?
So basically, the RIAA pushes for a new law and then people get pissed off and then their puppet saves the day? I was immediately skeptical and now some other people are as well, saying this “compromise” may lead to DRM on internet radio streams. I’m not much for being a rabble-rouser[1] but is it beyond imagination that the RIAA’s goal to begin with might have been DRM on internet streams and them saving the day may be a way for them to reach that goal without complaints from the normal characters in streaming radio, “copyfighting”, etc?
[1] Apparently I’m from the 1950s saying things like “rabble-rouser.” Well, I’ll have to resort to such terms if those rascallions at the RIAA keep this up!
July 16th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
That article in the LA Times was totally ridiculous. This ties in nicely with the Rogue Wave/ Friday Night Lights fan story - hehe
July 18th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
I would definitely go that far. Diddy’s entire aesthetic is based around the concept of bling, and of seizing the reins of corporate power. Both lyrically and musicologically (especially in his choice of samples), Diddy emphasizes the lessons learned from earlier hip-hop cross-media impresarios such as Russell Simmons. How else would you interpret his use of the Police in the Biggie tribute, and his use of Sting himself in live performances of that song? Incidentally, I’m not the only one who sees it this way; I’ve spent the last year interviewing sample-based music producers (including many fine SF residents, such as DJ Adrian and Mysterious D of Bootie — big ups!), and over and over again my interviewees spontaneously mention Diddy and the sell-out aesthetic. Anyway, I’m not normally in the habit of responding every time a blogger hates on a quote of mine, but in this case I just had to speak up to set the record straight!
July 18th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Aram, thanks for your reply.
Were you specifically talking about hip hop when you said that quote and the LA Times just took it out of context? What I mean is that the article is about selling music for commercials couched entirely in terms of small time (”indie”) bands–Future 86 is essentially the prime example that they give with a couple singer-songwriters and a house music group also being mentioned. Obviously you mention P Diddy so that’s talking about hip hop but the implication in the article is that this quote is applicable to all music, including the music that the article is about.
My point is this: hip hop isn’t rock and the hip hop aesthetic doesn’t apply necessarily to rock, especially to indie rock. Whereas P Diddy may be about bling and selling out, even “indie” bands that place songs in commercials and movies, and sell a lot of records (say Death Cab for Cutie) still put on the appearance of being, essentially the same struggling band they were 10 years ago, wearing thrift store clothing, and in general not talking about having or acting like they have a lot of money, etc. What jewelry or brand-name clothing does your favorite indie rocker wear? What car does (s)he drive? I’m betting you either don’t know or it’s shoes like Chuck Taylors (cheap) or a car like an old Civic.
I’m honestly not in the hip hop scene enough to know whether you’re correct on the prevalence of that aesthetic in that scene. If you were talking only about hip hop, then the LA Times essentially quoted you out of context, or, at the very least, you were quoted in a misleading way. If you were about more than just hip hop, I’d beg to differ. In a reasonable survey of indie fans and artists, I would think that most would disagree with the statement that “selling out is a good” thing, even if they don’t necessarily think it’s a bad thing.
July 18th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Adrian, the aesthetic logic of bling definitely extends way beyond hip-hop, to nearly every corner of the commercial music industry (look at any Gap ad); the indie-rock Chuck Taylor aesthetic you mention, I would argue, is the exception that proves the rule. And, for reasons I don’t have time to get into at present, I believe this has as much to do with white rockers’ latent antipathy toward African American culture as it does with any genuine (or disingenuous) representation of authenticity.
However, I would guess that even the indie-rocker holdouts are in the process of capitulating to the new economic logic. I’m essentially a functionalist, and I believe that aesthetic systems reflect the economic and organizational systems that enable their production and distribution. And the reality of the music industry today is that an increasing percentage of the revenues accruing to creators must necessarily come from business-to-business relationships (e.g. marketing, licensing, synchronization) rather than business-to-consumer relationships (e.g. retail, live performance). I’m not advocating this shift — it’s simply the way things are. And that means that the aesthetic of music genres that are monetized in this fashion will continue to shift, embracing the notion that coupling music with commercial goods is acceptable, and even ideal.
Hip-hop is simply the avant-garde in this respect, as African American culture has historically been the avant-garde for many such shifts (WEB DuBois’ notion of double consciousness, for instance, arguably presaged postmodernism by two generations).
Thanks for the lively debate!
Aram