Nice article at the BBC. Best bit:
"Nearly a third of [people] who had albums by the Red Hot Chili Peppers said it grew more valuable to them as time went on.
But over 80% of Britney Spears album owners said they had grown tired of her records."
This "phenomenon" was well described by Dance DJs in the 90s who knew full well just about every single they ever saw was probably a one-hit wonder, but more importantly had a very short shelf life, becomming unplayable just weeks after release.
Once again, we see that crap music = low sales. If you get to try before you buy, then you don't buy crap. Decent music still has (and always will have) intrinsic value, and so will make sales. This report veils this by simplistically suggesting that downloading alone affects sales. If every record store had every album on the "listening post" (as indeed they should) you'd end up buying a lot less albums that you got home and didn't think much of. Cut out the dross, and everyone's CD collection would be smaller, but of significantly higher quality.
<--break-->
Comments
Maybe you need a new type of service where you can rent music on the net? Rent a Britney Spears album long enough to get bored of it for a fraction of the price of buying it. Once the expiry date arrives, you can't play it anymore but you don't care.
In practice, any CD collection is like that: some albums you will listen to time and time again, years after you bought them; others you will listen to them for some time then grow bored of them and they will just end up collecting dust on the shelves. At that point, you wonder why you spent money on the ones you don't listen to anymore.
Now bring music download into the mix. You can download for free the music you think you will get bored of and buy the CD when it is something you want to keep. At the end of the day, downloading music you haven't paid for can be a loss for the music producers. But asking people to pay ?20 for a CD they will grow bored of in 2 months is taking the piss. Surely, there must be a halfway solution. Maybe it means that there are several types of music: real good stuff that will not age and "fashion" music that is obsolete in a few months. The former we should really pay for and own a copy. The latter, we should be able to just rent it while it's fashionable, at a fraction of the price of buying a permanent copy.
i've started to get into iTunes and while i'm a tad frustrated with the selection of music available to me, i completely agree that the notion of having a listen before i buy will improve the quality of my audio collection...
it's a double-edge sword though, i used to shop in this little place called the "rock box" and i'd buy all their 50pence CD's - most of them were a load of crap but from time to time i'd get a real gem.also, i always listen to a CD all the way through the first time i stick it in the player...this isn't as odd as it sounds, i've talked to many people who only listen to the tracks on the album they've heard on the radio!personally, i'd be completely lost without music and my collectionis as eclectic as anyone's but i love it!
i'm not sure renting music will work.after all, the number one in any given week generally goes straight in to the slot and falls very quickly.the record industry must rely on these sales more than the less popular choices to keep things going.i can't see them dropping the price because we will fall out of love with a particular track after half a dozen listens.i guess that's what the radio's for.