U2 Has usherd in a new dark age.

El Borrachito

Premier Staff
With the free iTunes giveaway of U2's new album, one of the biggest recording acts of the last 35 years has very publicly rejected the idea of selling recordings to the public as a way for an artist to generate revenue. Instead 500 million people today have access to Songs Of Innocence. In many cases the album downloaded into
iTunes users accounts all by itself.

If this album sold 2.5 million copies - just 0.5% of the number of people who just got it for free - in a traditional release, it would certainly be the best selling album of 2014. To put that sad number in perspective, Usher's Confessions was the top selling album in 2004 with 20 million copies sold to date. On 2.5 million in sales, the band could gross perhaps 10-15 million dollars. If it sold no better than 2009's No Line On The Horizon (1.1 million copies), 5-6 million. On the other hand, the 2009 tour grossed upwards of 700 million dollars. Maybe Apple gave U2 10 million bucks, maybe they didn't. If they did, it was a good hedge against sales that are quickly dwindling to zero. If they didn't, it's a write off on the tour promotion budget. If I were them, I would have done it too.

The problem is, they just sank the business for everyone else. If a new fucking U2 album is worth $0, what is Joe Nobody's worth? Have fun driving around the country in your van guys. That's as good as it's ever going to get. Recorded music is officially worthless. If you can put butts in seats, you can make money. If you can't fill up an 800 seat theater, go do something else. It's 1890 again - except you still have to record stuff to put on the radio! ...and airports.

How will artists adapt to the new model? Expect the established artists to auction their albums off to the highest corporate bidder as a premium product tie-in. The Jay-Z/Samsung Galaxy deal has established this precedent. If you're edgier than MacLemore, you're shit out of luck. Anyone who wants to tour and make records will be beholden to their corporate sponsors. The music business will become NASCAR. As for Joe Nobody, get back in the van.
 
It seems to me that the whole concept of the music "business" is a newer phenomena and has changed often with time and technology. If you go back to the classical composers, they had, basically, sponsors who supported them to allow them to create. As the printing press made sheet music more affordable, composers (and songwriters, if you want to differentiate between the two) made their money through sheet music sales. The rise of the recording technology again changed the business of music. Things will continue to change, and musicians will continue to adapt. While Popes and kings used to be sponsors, now it is businesses.
 
Twas the night before stardom
When across from the stage
A man in dark shadows
Made you the rage

And people all crowded
To pay for your time
They danced to your music
And lip-synched your rhyme

Then came the new minstrels
Straight out of a can
Cooked up in the studio
By Mick MIDI, the man

Don't know about music
Don't know about art
But I've made better noise
Most know as a fart

Needs a bridge, instrumental break and maybe a chorus of warbling girlies chanting "Tell It" and "Uh-huh, Uh Huh".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tig
It amazes me that studios can still make a living today.

I'm talking big and small...


"Needs a bridge, instrumental break and maybe a chorus of warbling girlies chanting "Tell It" and "Uh-huh, Uh Huh".

Except for the formula...Love has no formula........



You know what....I believe it always has been,(LOL),and always will be when it comes right down to it...


That is,if you want people listening.......And we are listening.....................
 
It seems to me that the whole concept of the music "business" is a newer phenomena and has changed often with time and technology. If you go back to the classical composers, they had, basically, sponsors who supported them to allow them to create. As the printing press made sheet music more affordable, composers (and songwriters, if you want to differentiate between the two) made their money through sheet music sales. The rise of the recording technology again changed the business of music. Things will continue to change, and musicians will continue to adapt. While Popes and kings used to be sponsors, now it is businesses.
Very cool..
 
I don't think they're ushering it in at all. They're just reacting to changes that have already happened. I'm unhappy about the changes in the industry, too, but it seems silly to blame it on them.

I got some of my favorite albums for free, but I still pay a lot for some other ones.

Plus, maybe the album sucks.
 
With the free iTunes giveaway of U2's new album, one of the biggest recording acts of the last 35 years has very publicly rejected the idea of selling recordings to the public as a way for an artist to generate revenue. Instead 500 million people today have access to Songs Of Innocence. In many cases the album downloaded into
iTunes users accounts all by itself.

If this album sold 2.5 million copies - just 0.5% of the number of people who just got it for free - in a traditional release, it would certainly be the best selling album of 2014. To put that sad number in perspective, Usher's Confessions was the top selling album in 2004 with 20 million copies sold to date. On 2.5 million in sales, the band could gross perhaps 10-15 million dollars. If it sold no better than 2009's No Line On The Horizon (1.1 million copies), 5-6 million. On the other hand, the 2009 tour grossed upwards of 700 million dollars. Maybe Apple gave U2 10 million bucks, maybe they didn't. If they did, it was a good hedge against sales that are quickly dwindling to zero. If they didn't, it's a write off on the tour promotion budget. If I were them, I would have done it too.

The problem is, they just sank the business for everyone else. If a new fucking U2 album is worth $0, what is Joe Nobody's worth? Have fun driving around the country in your van guys. That's as good as it's ever going to get. Recorded music is officially worthless. If you can put butts in seats, you can make money. If you can't fill up an 800 seat theater, go do something else. It's 1890 again - except you still have to record stuff to put on the radio! ...and airports.

How will artists adapt to the new model? Expect the established artists to auction their albums off to the highest corporate bidder as a premium product tie-in. The Jay-Z/Samsung Galaxy deal has established this precedent. If you're edgier than MacLemore, you're shit out of luck. Anyone who wants to tour and make records will be beholden to their corporate sponsors. The music business will become NASCAR. As for Joe Nobody, get back in the van.

This isn't completely new. In 2007, Radiohead released the album In Rainbows for free and only asked for people to pay what they thought was fair for the music (the "pay what you want" model). Did you feel similarly then?
 
I suppose @Gary Blanchard has a point. We may be in one of those times. Probably are I guess. Not sure I like the effect on the fringe type of music I like though. As I live out in the boonies, it is harder to go find those bands in clubs, etc., and it is nice when something other than pop is on the radio. But as someone said, there are always college radio stations, most of which I can stream. KEXP is one example. Also, I am not sure it can be "blamed" on U2. More probable that they are the canary in the coal mine.


free associational thought product follows.
 
Don't know about the big guys but my experience over the last 50 years has been that for me making music has always been just slightly less profitable than delivering pizza and with a lot less perks. But then I never quit my day job so at least I'm not like Bobby Sherman and driving an ambulance.
 
This isn't completely new. In 2007, Radiohead released the album In Rainbows for free and only asked for people to pay what they thought was fair for the music (the "pay what you want" model). Did you feel similarly then?

The climate has changed quite a bit (gone to hell?) since 2007. Radiohead at least gave their fans an option to assign a value to the album, not a giant corporation - playing for tips on a global scale. It had an altruistic feel to it. It was a pretty good record, too.

U2 just issued their album to half a billion people whether they want it or not like the fucking Ikea catalog. It's not the Joshua Tree, but it's probably better than the last one. That being said, the reviews I've see have been pretty negative. Perhaps the cynical corporate feel of the whole thing is tainting the way it's being received. The inevitable tour will rake in $1,000,000,000 so whatever.
 
This is U2. They may feel that they're at the cutting edge of all that is new but I really don't think that anyone cares that much.

I assume they think people will listen to it and think its amazing and then start to buy the bands back catalogue.
 
From U2's point of view,
Plus, maybe the album sucks.

That may have a lot to do with it. From U2's perspective, if they know the album sucks and sales would be disappointing, why not release it for free and set records with downloads. Instead of headlines reading "U2 Record Sales Hit All Time Low", they get headlines like "U2's New Album Sets Record For iTunes Download".

But then I never quit my day job so at least I'm not like Bobby Sherman and driving an ambulance.

Is he really driving an ambulance? I remember when my older sister stacks of Tiger Beat magazines with him and David Cassidy on every cover back in the day. :facepalm:
 
Back
Top