|
|
| Mel Belli |
Actually, it's not clear if those are Tweedy's words or the writer's. ... Anyway, I wish I had a dime for every hack reproduction of Wilco's David v. Goliath narrative. I'll take the Stones' circus over Wilco's live laptop wankfest any day...
The Australian (Australia)
April 24, 2007
Never mind the disc count
By George Megalogenis
It's profits that are falling, not music sales, writes George Megalogenis
THE CD should be be dead by now, the innocent victim of bad public policy and new technology. This, at least, is the myth the music industry would have you believe.
The Howard Government was supposed to have dug the grave as long ago as 1998 when it deregulated copyright laws to allow local retailers to import CDs from cheap and nasty suppliers overseas. By the time Apple launched the iPod in 2001, the CD had its one-way ticket to rock'n'roll heaven.
This narrative is ingrained in the debate, but hopelessly at odds with reality. If the CD is in decline, why did sales boom last year to the second highest level on record?
The volume of CD albums shipped in by the Australian arm of the global music business jumped by 7.9 per cent to 49.8 million last year. Only 2003 was a better year, with 50.6million units moved here. Look again at the numbers: the two strongest years came after the iPod.
The local data doesn't account for CDs sourced from overseas, which have buttressed the $10 end of the retail market here.
The Australian Record Industry Association is so used to crying poor it didn't know how to trumpet its own good news this month. ''Strong results from digital music and increased sales of Australian repertoire are some of the key trends for the local recording industry's wholesale music statistics for 2006,'' ARIA said. It doesn't mention the rebound in CD sales until the second sentence: ''The year also saw a welcome increase in the volume of CDs sold.'' No other business would underplay success in this way.
What bugs the industry is that competition and technology, the two greatest friends of the music fan, are driving down prices. The dollars earned from CDs fell by 5.1 per cent, or almost $23 million, to $429.1 million last year. Six years ago the local industry was worth about $100 million more at $532 million.
CDs are not the only product pocketing less in the digital age. The story of rising volumes and falling revenues is the new millennium reality for technology generally. Blame China in part. But also blame the internet for hacking into the margins of all media formats, from newspapers to movies. In newspapers, for example, advertising revenues have been largely static, even though the total cake has grown as money has migrated to the internet.
The experience of the record labels is similar to that of the DVD manufacturers. But DVD manufacturers don't complain, they just get on with business. They understand the difference between delivery and content; DVD manufacturers don't pretend to direct motion pictures. The record labels, on the other hand, confuse the end of a corporate monopoly (theirs) with the end of recorded music. They make the emotional leap no other industry would dare by seeing themselves as the creators of the art rather than merely the means by which it is transmitted.
One of the most influential US performers of modern times, Jeff Tweedy, is frustrated by the CD debate. ''The thing that bothers me is that there is so much attention being paid to this topic ... as if the music industry is music,'' Tweedy tells The Australian. ''I'm not the music industry, I'm an artist. I have anxiety about whether I will be able to make records and make money [from] them. But I don't think that I should have that anxiety weigh in more than my desire to be heard.''
Tweedy is the frontman for Wilco, the group that proved there is a living to be made in the digital age. The band's tale is already part of rock'n'roll legend. They were dropped by their label, Reprise Records, in 2001 because the album they had just completed, Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, was deemed uncommercial. Reprise was the free-spirited imprint Frank Sinatra started in the 1960s for Warner Bros Records. The corporate ethos at Reprise changed at the turn of the millennium when its parent company, Time Warner, merged with America Online to become AOL Time Warner.
Remember AOL Time Warner? That mega transaction was worth up to $200 billion in Australian dollars and was supposed to herald the internet business revolution in 2000. The tech bubble burst a few months after the deal was approved in 2001, and by 2002 the pin-up conglomerate had lost about two-thirds of its value and AOL was dropped from its name.
Wilco, meanwhile, had given away their album on the internet and went on tour. Then came the moral, and commercial, victory for the niche player over the behemoth.
The band signed with a new label, Nonesuch Records, which happened to be in the Time Warner stable, and the album was slated for official release in 2002. The fans decided Yankee Hotel Foxtrot was good enough to have twice and the real thing sold more than 500,000 copies, reaching No.12 on the Billboard charts.
''There was a lot of goodwill there [from the fans],'' Tweedy says. ''The actual decision, that side of things, was fairly easy to make. At that point [in 2001] I had already been playing music for over a decade, I had already been making records for decent-sized record labels for a long time, and I'd never seen a penny from selling records.
''We always did fairly well on the road, whether we were playing clubs or small theatres, and so the thought was: 'Well, we have a tour booked that was going to support this album, what are we going to do, cancel our tour? No, Let's put the record out and they can hear it.' You can't cancel the part of what you do that's working, so it was no real struggle to make that decision.''
The Wilco business model, for want of a better term, is a reminder that music always outlasts the format. The living Wilco make from music comes from performance.
The point here is that the music industry confuses its shrinking bottom line with that of the artist, when the latter may be doing just fine. ''The fact is, because of the internet, a band like Wilco is being heard in ways that we could have never imagined,'' Tweedy says.
''We never got radio support, but with the proliferation of the internet and the popularity of the online communities growing, the band has grown. More people are hearing about it, and we're a band that can go out and provide something that you can't download: a live music experience. And that's music. It's not just a piece of plastic that you sell every three years or so.''
Tweedy notes that even a ''circus act'' such as the Rolling Stones operates on the same principle: the real money comes from the concerts and perhaps T-shirts and other merchandise. The CD sales are, by comparison, a sideline for the group.
The holy trinity for baby boomer music fans, Bob Dylan, Neil Young and Bruce Springsteen, seem more comfortable with the internet than record industry executives half their age. Dylan has fused the old world with the new by becoming an author and a satellite radio DJ. He published a critically acclaimed autobiography, Chronicles, in 2004 and began hosting the weekly Theme Time Radio Hour last year.
Young is rummaging through his archives to issue CD-DVD double packs. And Springsteen has updated his most recent album, The Seeger Sessions, with bonus tracks and video footage, much as a historian would issue a second edition of a book. Dylan, Young and Springsteen are still viewed as musicians. Their dabbling in other mediums does not imply the death of the CD because they are putting out new albums as well.
It is easy to ignore the real world and imagine instead what life would be like beyond the baby boomers, when all music is downloaded. But take a step back from doom-saying and consider the economics.
Until the internet came along, each new technology for hearing music, from the wind-up piano and the gramophone to the cassette and the CD, came with a mark-up. The music business made money each time because it was able to press the button on the cash register marked ''monopoly profit''. The internet intimidates the music industry because it cuts out the middle man.
The Australian market stands out for two reasons: it alone deregulated before the iPod and it is one of the few reporting a rebound in CD sales. Sales in the US have crashed by 34.8per cent since 2000; in Australia they have risen by 13.4 per cent during the same period. Perhaps deregulation wasn't such a bad thing after all. It forced the Australian industry to prepare for life beyond monopoly by cutting prices. The day the penny drops in the US, expect CD sales to follow the Australian lead and rise again.
The final word belongs to Tweedy. His fan base straddles the generations. What unites the factions is the craving for an old-fashioned CD. ''Most people still want to have the artefact,'' Tweedy says. ''People want to have something that's a little more sturdy than just a file on their computers.''
The real problem for the music industry is fans no longer have to pay $30, or even $20, for the privilege of owning music.
|
|
|
| EELPIE |
Tweedy speaks the truth
he is a wise and talented man. |
|
|
| Lord Homosex |
It looks like it's Tweedledy's words, since they are in quotation marks.
I love independent bands, original,corageous etc but for some reason can not get into Wilco. JT is one of those too serious guys. |
|
|
| Mel Belli |
quote:
Lord Homosex wrote:
It looks like it's Tweedledy's words, since they are in quotation marks.
I love independent bands, original,corageous etc but for some reason can not get into Wilco. JT is one of those too serious guys.
Tell me about it. I like Wilco, but Tweedy is entirely too self-serious for his own good. From what I understand, at his solo shows he wants the audience to be reverential church mice. Memo to Tweedy: You're not Christ, and your music is not the Sermon on the Mount. If you want silence, go to your loft and paint a picture.
[Edited by Mel Belli] |
|
|
| Saint Sway |
theres nothing wrong with what Tweedy said. You just dont like him.
Stones are no longer a rock band. They're an enormous Vegas-style circus act. Their shows are all bells & whistles. Its a travelling billion dollar circus with 200-something employees, 18 trucks, 57 security guards, personal trainers, 5 personal chefs for Sir Mick... etc etc
Yes, the Stones are a circus. Thats not even up for debate.
|
|
|
| Starbuck |
i've seen tweedy twice: once with one of the later incarnations of wilco and once for one of his solo acoustic shows. both were fabulous. for his solo show, he reached back and did deep cuts from old uncle tupelo stuff...i nearly wet my pants.
for the stones live shows these days a deep cut is ruby tuesday.
tweedy is very good. he doesn't rock, but he is a very talented artsy fartsy pop song writer. |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
I don't have a problem with what Tweedy said. Mainly because it's true.
Like St. Sway said...today's current incarnation of The Stones IS a circus. But not the GOOD kind of Rock n Roll Circus...those days are long gone. Nope, our boys are a big ol' multination corporation that puts on a global 3 ring circus act. Even down to the wigs, sparkle-ly top coats, and clown make-up.
The Stones have chosen this path of their own free will. We all need to remember...every action has a consequence. The sort of jibes that The Stones are getting from other artists are one of those consequences.
If the Stones were not wildly successful at their circus act, no one would be saying a word. This sort of thing goes hand in hand with what the Stones have morphed into.
This kind of stuff is a compliment...in an odd sort of way. |
|
|
| Gazza |
"Tweedy notes that even a ''circus act'' such as the Rolling Stones operates on the same principle: the real money comes from the concerts and perhaps T-shirts and other merchandise. The CD sales are, by comparison, a sideline for the group."
well..he's right. Look at the money the Stones generate and look at their album sales by comparison.
Of course theyre a circus act. Albeit a very entertaining one.
|
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Exactly Gaz...everyone likes the circus.
That's why they make more money than Jesus.
Albums(or even a greatest hits package) are nothing more than an excuse to get on the road and make some real money. |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
As PT Barnum would have said...."They're the Greatest Show on Earth".....Stones can pitch their tent in my town any night they want...Wilco?...Roger and out....
[Edited by gimmekeef] |
|
|
| Mel Belli |
quote:
Saint Sway wrote:
theres nothing wrong with what Tweedy said. You just dont like him.
Stones are no longer a rock band. They're an enormous Vegas-style circus act. Their shows are all bells & whistles. Its a travelling billion dollar circus with 200-something employees, 18 trucks, 57 security guards, personal trainers, 5 personal chefs for Sir Mick... etc etc
Yes, the Stones are a circus. Thats not even up for debate.
I do like him! I just generally have a distaste for that self-stroking kind of attitude -- What I Do Is Art and What They Do Is Entertainment.
I've got no problem with circuses -- as long as they're well-performed. |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
Tweedy was happy enough to hook up with the Rock 'n' Roll Circus in, what was it, '05? I don't remember - but they did schedule a minitour around opening for the Stones in Atlanta, including a snazzy show in Asheville.
Here's an old interview with him, that gains some added irony considering he disses Ryan Adams for going off on fans at solo acoustic shows.
http://www.whizzkid1.com/tweedy.html
Tweedy is a great and smart guy and I like the Wilco material I like a great deal.
I do agree with the notion that any band that uses laptops onstage is in serious danger of disappearing up their own ass.
Whenever I see someone whip out their Ibook at a show I always hope they'll just smash the fucker right there on stage.
That would be rock 'n' roll ca. 2007 for sure!
|
|
|
| twicks1 |
Tweedy is right to some extent...but at the heart of the Stones "circus" is still a sloppy, sometimes downright garagey, nasty-sounding four-piece rock band. Sure there are lights, video screens, etc., but Tweedy is being a little too flip here for my liking.
I saw Wilco live last year...and I'll take the "circus act" anytime. |
|
|
| Saint Sway |
quote:
twicks1 wrote:
Tweedy is right to some extent...but at the heart of the Stones "circus" is still a sloppy, sometimes downright garagey, nasty-sounding four-piece rock band.
actually more like an eighteen-piece rock band |
|
|
| PartyDoll MEG |
I love Wilco and Tweedy is a very talented musician. Circus Acts do make the money..and obviously I enjoy them or I wouldn't be travelling over the pond to see the Stones. But if truth be known, IMHO, a simple backdrop/stage like Dylan or Wilco use, is all that is neccesary when you get to hear a great concert and different musical selections from a vast catalogue. That is where the Stones have seriously failed!! |
|
|
| egon |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
Exactly Gaz...everyone likes the circus.
But the clowns! oh my god it's the clowns! the're coming!
 |
|
|
| glencar |
There are elements of the Stones that are a circus act but when Keith does the Nearness of You or even a crappy version of Little T&A, it's still a thrill. Dylan might be great at the small arena shows he does but when he did a large arena show that I saw, it was less than overwhelming. I did enjoy the Who's lil show quite a bit so don't go saying I'm all about the circus, y'all! |
|
|
| GotToRollMe |
quote:
egon wrote:
But the clowns! oh my god it's the clowns! the're coming!
Send in the clowns!
|
|
|
| mojoman |
send in the clowns.......... |
|
|
| 3DTeafoe |
Circus indeed. It's a rock 'n roll circus! |
|
|
| corgi37 |
Good article & very true.
I havent bought a cd since ABB, and i dont intend to. It's all for free as far as i am concerned. |
|
|
| Mahatma Kane Jeeves |
still The Greatest Show On Earth |
|
|
| LadyJane |
Who is Jeff Tweedy???
Wait...on second thought...who cares??? 
LJ.
[Edited by LadyJane] |
|
|
| oldkr |
i like wilco and he is right
OLDKR |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
LadyJane wrote:
Who is Jeff Tweedy???
Wait...on second thought...who cares???
LJ.
As a Stones fan I do, actually. More emphasis on creating quality music and preserving their legacy is a lot more important and honourable than outgrossing everyone else and selling a few thousand t-shirts, no? |
|
|
| LadyJane |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
As a Stones fan I do, actually. More emphasis on creating quality music and preserving their legacy is a lot more important and honourable than outgrossing everyone else and selling a few thousand t-shirts, no?
I honestly am not familiar with this person.
I don't have a lot of time for music and, quite frankly, I enjoy listening to the Stones most of the time.
Kudos to those of you with such diverse tastes.
I'm happy with my Stones and not much else.
Call me the female JB.
LJ. |
|
|
| PartyDoll MEG |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
As a Stones fan I do, actually. More emphasis on creating quality music and preserving their legacy is a lot more important and honourable than outgrossing everyone else and selling a few thousand t-shirts, no?
AMEN!!
As much as I love the Stones..They could take some lessons from these younger groups, who truly care about the music they produce and who actually play "for their fans" in concert rather than for the corporate "must be seen and entertained" types who grace all of these Circus Acts(and there are lots of them out there, besides the Stones)!!! |
|
|
| Mel Belli |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
As a Stones fan I do, actually. More emphasis on creating quality music and preserving their legacy is a lot more important and honourable than outgrossing everyone else and selling a few thousand t-shirts, no?
If it has to be called a "circus act," fine. But the Stones have been about showbiz from Day One - and have never had any pretenses to the contrary. |
|
|
| Saint Sway |
quote:
Mel Belli wrote:
If it has to be called a "circus act," fine. But the Stones have been about showbiz from Day One - and have never had any pretenses to the contrary.
actually, at the start they thumbed their noses at anything that was over the top show bizzy.
in the beginning Brian wrote angry letters to the magazines about how they were a purist blues band... they refused to stand on the revolving bandstand carousel (Top of Pops?) and wave with the other pop acts... they agreed to appear on a TV show only if they would put Howlin Wolf on the show with them.... of course this attitude would eventually begin to erode, but in the beginning they were very much anti-establishment and anti show biz.
back in the beginning they believed in the music over the glitter and were loyal to their roots |
|
|
| polytoxic |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
As a Stones fan I do, actually. More emphasis on creating quality music and preserving their legacy is a lot more important and honourable than outgrossing everyone else and selling a few thousand t-shirts, no?
If only they'd ask WWMWD? ---What would Muddy Waters do?
 |
|
