The article includes some figures that hint at the possibility that people may not be listening to music as much as they once did, not just that sales and profits are lower because of changes in the way people acquire the music they like. If everyone who had bought albums in the past and played them over and over were switching to streaming, one would expect a huge increase in streams. For years the driver of the popular music monster was adolescent social networking in which actual physical contact with other kids, in which listening to and dancing to music played a significant role. The creepy little nerds who listened to stuff that didn't make the top 40, by themselves in their rooms were pretty much irrelevant to the major market. 
 
My impression is that solo listening is becoming more common, to the detriment of the social contagion that used to push pop hits to the top. Video games have their own sound track, and web based social networking does not require music to function. Of course the percentage of the population under twenty has been falling for years. And the limited playlist local radio stations that used to tell kids what was hot are having a worse time than the record industry. 
 
Much of the music that is selling seems to be going to an older audience. The big sellers in the article are pretty mature performers and songs. Adele is hardly likely to inspire the bubble gum set. As the children of the pop music juggernaut age out, we are seeing a lot of older performers making the larger sales as the sales as a whole are shrinking. That nostalgia market may be why people are buying boutique vinyl releases. 
 
If the demand for music as a whole is dropping, and the plays are being scattered across many more different releases than in the past due to the open door to distribution via the web, the value of any particular release will fall. The days of the mega-hit uberwealthy superstar may be over. Many of the most successful of recent performers are putting out theater as much as song, and, like sports figures, making as much from endorsements and branding as they do from music. 

Hi,
 
I sure wish these articles that kiss the arsenic of so many "corporations" that have ripped off more musicians and artists than people that have died under the name of a religion, would die off and fall off the face of the earth.
 
It's time all MUSICIANS take hold of their music and stop "selling" it and start collecting it themselves. Unless you want to do a big ego thing like some "stars" or what not, and then we all will be saying that you sold out anyway!
 
There is an ECONOMICS Theory that specifies that the healthy economy has to share and frame a sort of figure 8 in order for things to improve. That means that the money comes back to help you. These "big corporate" crappers break the figure and the money goes away from you, your town and the ability for it to come back and help you!
 
Of course VARIETY is going to say sales are down. NY can't suck up the money from other locations like it wants to and they are in dire need of a series adjustment of expectations and finances!
 
You gotta stop the bleeding that these big cities and corporations do to small towns! It's us locals that lose!

The simple fact is... they don't make music anymore. The sensation has worn off. Everyone has collected all the old music they want and are now waiting for good new stuff that hasn't arrived yet, and may never. I watched the music scene over the past 30 years or so and the cycle was like a rollercoaster, up and down but on a gradual declining slope. It was inevitable that eventually every form of music would be discovered and exploited to death until there's simply no more to be had. We are now entering that stage of the inevitable.

slartabartfast
The creepy little nerds who listened to stuff that didn't make the top 40, by themselves in their rooms were pretty much irrelevant to the major market. 

 
I resemble that remark...

Streams are now being used in compiling the figures for the UK singles chart.
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-27924176
 
I have never used a streaming service. I could see using one to find new music but I would want to buy it once I decided I liked it. The whole idea of streaming seems too transient.
 
edit
from the BBC article.

Each track will have to be played for 30 seconds before it counts as one stream.
To avoid fans "gaming" the system, only 10 plays will be counted per user, per day.

So listening to 30 seconds of a song is counted. Just 30 seconds, that's hardy long enough for the intro on much of the music I like.
 
At the very least only songs played in their entirety should count!

soens
The simple fact is... they don't make music anymore. The sensation has worn off.
...

Those "corporations" NEVER did make any music anymore, and when the rights expires, the families have first rights over them! This has helped the Zappa Trust a lot. Now, of we can get 200 Motels off Warner Brothers and the movie studios! That will be the next curse for the corporate world!

I sure wish these articles that kiss the arsenic of so many "corporations" that have ripped off more musicians and artists than people that have died under the name of a religion, would die off and fall off the face of the earth.
 
Those "corporations" NEVER did make any music anymore, and when the rights expires, the families have first rights over them! This has helped the Zappa Trust a lot. Now, of we can get 200 Motels off Warner Brothers and the movie studios! That will be the next curse for the corporate world!
 
 
 
　
　
So what do you think of drones?       :)

Glyn Barnes
Streams are now being used in compiling the figures for the UK singles chart.
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-27924176
 
I have never used a streaming service. I could see using one to find new music but I would want to buy it once I decided I liked it. The whole idea of streaming seems too transient.
 
edit
from the BBC article.

Each track will have to be played for 30 seconds before it counts as one stream.
To avoid fans "gaming" the system, only 10 plays will be counted per user, per day.

So listening to 30 seconds of a song is counted. Just 30 seconds, that's hardy long enough for the intro on much of the music I like.
 
At the very least only songs played in their entirety should count!

I agree 30 seconds is way too short - I wonder what counts as a play for the artist to get paid. I had presumed it was at least 50% of the track. 

No way has the number of so called "musicians" remained static over the last 50 years. When I were a lad there was one tiny music store in town whose main instrument business was supplying the school band programs. They had maybe five guitars and a couple of amps and such in stock. Zero pedals...because there weren't any. And zero PA equipment except what might be needed for a lectern at a school or church. There was almost no popular music infrastructure in Anytown USA. Zilch. No Guitar Center...no Sweetwater...no Musicians friend. And no seemingly endless different companies making and selling gear like today. There were the kids in the school band and a handful of us who played folk or rock n roll. I was one of about ten or twelve guys who populated the three or four bands that played at pool partys and "sock hops".

I've watched as I've aged the growth of the modern music industry over lo these many years. Nowadays...and here I'll confess to hyperbole...seems like every kid on planet earth owns some sort of "instrument" and claims to "make music" with it. I even saw an ad recently for some sort of cloud based instant track creation app that let's a kid just sing somethin into their cell phone...pop it up to the cloud...and within minutes get back a full blown track with their so called vocal on it. And that ad talked about these kids as artists and musicians.

If you mean to say that the number of classically and/or professionally trained and performing musicians has remained more or less static I'd be inclined to agree. But the number of folks who refer to themselves as musicians has grown exponentially. Whether that's good or bad is a whole nother thing:-)

yorolpal
No way has the number of so called "musicians" remained static over the last 50 years. When I were a lad there was one tiny music store in town whose main instrument business was supplying the school band programs. They had maybe five guitars and a couple of amps and such in stock. Zero pedals...because there weren't any. And zero PA equipment except what might be needed for a lectern at a school or church. There was almost no popular music infrastructure in Anytown USA. Zilch. No Guitar Center...no Sweetwater...no Musicians friend. And no seemingly endless different companies making and selling gear like today. There were the kids in the school band and a handful of us who played folk or rock n roll. I was one of about ten or twelve guys who populated the three or four bands that played at pool partys and "sock hops".

I've watched as I've aged the growth of the modern music industry over lo these many years. Nowadays...and here I'll confess to hyperbole...seems like every kid on planet earth owns some sort of "instrument" and claims to "make music" with it. I even saw an ad recently for some sort of cloud based instant track creation app that let's a kid just sing somethin into their cell phone...pop it up to the cloud...and within minutes get back a full blown track with their so called vocal on it. And that ad talked about these kids as artists and musicians.

If you mean to say that the number of classically and/or professionally trained and performing musicians has remained more or less static I'd be inclined to agree. But the number of folks who refer to themselves as musicians has grown exponentially. Whether that's good or bad is a whole nother thing:-)

The same thing could be said about "photographers."