An incredible 81.7% of new album sales come from just 1% of new release titles, according to details released by Nielsen Soundscan on Wednesday morning. "It's ridiculous," commented Nielsen executive David Bakula during the presentation at Canadian Music Week in Toronto.
But it's been that way for years, at least in the US. According to the same Nielsen dataset, the top 1% accounted for 83.3% of new album sales in 2009, and 82.8% in 2008. And, the figure was just shy of 80% in 2005, 2006, and 2007.
The story is much better in Canada, where stronger breadth and diversify exists - at least on frontline releases. In 2010, the top 1% accounted for 57.6% of overall sales last year, though previous years have also shown a lopsidedness. In 2009, the figure was 67.9%, and earlier years were mostly in the 60-percent range.
Following Comment By: wallow-T
As a culture, we are going to have to decide: do we want art, or do we just want cheap entertainment. Art requires subsidy. The Canadians understand this, as does most of Europe.
In the old days, label heads could use the profits from cheap entertainment to subsidize art music of more lasting value. Think of the Velvet Underground, of whom it was said: their album only sold 5000 copies, but everyone who bought a copy started a band.
Now, as America worships at the altar of the Free Market, any subsidies which were steered towards worthy artists have been squeezed out, because that money rightfully belongs to the stockholders. There is no reason, according to the god of the free market, for any music below that top 1% to even exist. Gaga, Bieber, Boyle and Beyonce should fulfill all consumer needs, and screw the rest, there's not enough money in it.
Coming next: the defunding of NPR, which will strike a huge blow to liberate us from art music. Isn't freedom glorious?
But it's been that way for years, at least in the US. According to the same Nielsen dataset, the top 1% accounted for 83.3% of new album sales in 2009, and 82.8% in 2008. And, the figure was just shy of 80% in 2005, 2006, and 2007.
The story is much better in Canada, where stronger breadth and diversify exists - at least on frontline releases. In 2010, the top 1% accounted for 57.6% of overall sales last year, though previous years have also shown a lopsidedness. In 2009, the figure was 67.9%, and earlier years were mostly in the 60-percent range.
Following Comment By: wallow-T
As a culture, we are going to have to decide: do we want art, or do we just want cheap entertainment. Art requires subsidy. The Canadians understand this, as does most of Europe.
In the old days, label heads could use the profits from cheap entertainment to subsidize art music of more lasting value. Think of the Velvet Underground, of whom it was said: their album only sold 5000 copies, but everyone who bought a copy started a band.
Now, as America worships at the altar of the Free Market, any subsidies which were steered towards worthy artists have been squeezed out, because that money rightfully belongs to the stockholders. There is no reason, according to the god of the free market, for any music below that top 1% to even exist. Gaga, Bieber, Boyle and Beyonce should fulfill all consumer needs, and screw the rest, there's not enough money in it.
Coming next: the defunding of NPR, which will strike a huge blow to liberate us from art music. Isn't freedom glorious?
No comments:
Post a Comment