Talk:Music industry

message: If you want a list of people who produce good quality music using their own equipment but will probably never get a "record deal", look at MySpace.  The only one I can name off the top of my head is Midnight Hour. Happy01000101 (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: This table is not very informative. The last column "change" - change of what? And compared to what? The sales - in what units are they? It's hard to believe the total sales were just over $12,000. For what period is it? I'm guessing one year. Which one? What's the source of these data?
Independovirus (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems really something to be wrong witrh the numbers: http://www.riaj.or.jp/e/issue/pdf/RIAJ2012E.pdf --Christian140 (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Recorded Music Retail Sales' table 

message: FYI
On the "read" page, organization is spelled incorrectly.
On the "edit" page, it is spelled incorrectly. 
Is this a computer "glitch"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.195.169.78 (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Both spellings (organization, organisation) are correct. These are regional differences. People who contributed to the article just used what was right for them. Ideally they should all be made consistent in the article. See WP:ENGVAR for Wikipedia's policy on this. MOS:SPELLING and the more detailed American and British English spelling differences may be interesting reading for you. —mjb (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: We need a graphic for dropping revenues in the music industry. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like this? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

text: The ideal graphic, in my view, would be a layered graph, showing how consumer spending has changed. It would include layers for (a) Physical sales (b) Digital downloads (c) Streaming (d) Live music revenues (e) Music-related consumer electronics. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphics and illustrations needed 

message: Why is the content dated back to 2005? That was 7 years ago, time to get an update! --J (t) 03:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one is interested in maintaining the "statistics" section of the page, perhaps we should drop it. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm killing the statistics section in a few days unless someone objects. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - but let's keep the link to the Global music industry market share data page. David T Tokyo (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

text: I like seeing the historical info. We can always move it to sub-pages like was done for the Global music industry market share data. FWIW, here's some current Soundscan data: (click) (US only, I think), if someone wants to make a new pie chart. —mjb (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics section outdated 

message: What exactly is wrong with the lead? I'm happy to fix it, just don't know why it was tagged. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It seemed pretty messy overall to me, I reworked it quite a bit and removed the label. It's not an excellent lead, but it probably just needs some tweaking now, as opposed to a complete re-write.(a citation to a source's definition of music industry, less lists of occupations in the body, better flow in the last three sentences)Forbes72 (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we really need a citation for a definition of the "music industry"? I really doubt this is something which is likely to be challenged. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: Exactly which facts are disputed? There are no "disputed" tags on the page. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure. The tag should be removed if we can't find what's disputed.Forbes72 (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

text: And...I found it. The article previously stated that EMI is a division of Universal since 2011. After checking sources, regulatory approval has not yet been granted. Fixed and cited. I'm going to remove that tag- if anyone finds more inaccuracies, just leave a message on this talk page.Forbes72 (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts disputed 

message: The only possible section where "NPOV" is an issue would probably be the "21st century" section. All the facts in that section are well cited, and it tells the same story as the articles do. The citations are from main stream sources such as The New York Times and the Economist. The article takes great pains to report only the most certain and widely known facts about this issue. Every effort has been made to avoid bias towards either the technology industry or the music industry. 
If there are specific statements that are biased, let's discuss them, and let's compare sources (as we have been doing above). The tag at the top of the page is not helpful, because it's not clear exactly what you think is biased. In my opinion, the article isn't biased. Without additional information, I will remove the tag in a few days or weeks. 
 
We need to recognize that the music industry's difficulties in the 21st century is a an emotional issue, especially for some Wikipedians, who tend to side with the technology industry on this one. Let's just stick to what the mainstream sources say, and leave out the fringe analysis. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: How big do the sections have to be? There's nothing in the guideline about this. This is easy to fix, if you don't like it; just edit the article. Why tag it? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I combined a few, by giving history sections more descriptive names, and combining a couple under business model. Shouldn't be an issue anymore.Forbes72 (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: While the parent companies of Universal Music (Vivendi, France) and Sony Music (Sony, Japan) are based outside the United States, the actual music business is still based within the USA; the international arm of Universal Music is based in London, but I doubt it has significant control.
More information should also be given on the large Asian markets (Various Arabic/Indian, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Various SEA). Only Sony and Universal have any significant interests in Asia, and Sony's share is probably far larger in Asia. Weewaterasia (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  More information on global music industry needed 

message: I removed this section, because it simply isn't true:
There are several problems:
#You can't create professional level recordings in a bedroom with a USB mike -- you need to either (1) be a great engineer and producer, or (2) hire a great engineer and producer. E.g., to make a recording with a great "pocket", you need someone who knows how to tweak the kick drum until it makes the listener's head move. This is not something that GarageBand can do automatically (at least, not yet).  Top producer/engineers (think Dr. Dre or Steve Lillywhite) are highly paid because they can do things that no one else can do, and they are not available in the average bedroom. Recording isn't cheap, even with digital technology. Digital technology has replaced the 24 track Studor tape machine, but this was never the expensive part of recording. The expensive part is expertise.
#The average musician can't make a living selling recordings on your website. The only artists that I am aware of who can generate a comfortable income this way are artists who established themselves by other means, or semi-professional artists who rely on resources other than their music. You need real marketing, promotion and distribution if you expect to quit your day job. You need the iTunes store, a manager, a relationship with a people who know marketing, a relationship with radio promoters and pockets deep enough to pay all these people. You can do it without a record company, but in the real world, this is expensive. You still need someone to loan you the money.
#Recording artists (in the traditional system) needed to have a record deal before they went in the studio. Unless they're rich. The record company paid the (aforementioned) producer and engineer. 
#A composer used to send his score to a copyist to get parts, not a publishing company. And yes, "copyist" is no longer a profession, because composer can now create the parts on the office printer and bring them into the studio. (But again, "copying" was not the hard part of writing, performing and recording a symphony -- this is not where most of the time or money is going.) The publishing company makes sure the composer gets paid if they're composition is used by anyone else, and nothing has changed there.
This is an article about the music industry, that is, people who make a living from music. This paragraph is wishful thinking, about a "future of music" that hasn't happened and isn't likely to happen any time soon. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubtful 

message: Hi guys, the % change column of the total revenue by year table in the stats section makes absolutely no sense and is completely inaccurate from a year to year perspective. Going from $14.97 billion to $15 billion is not a 3.2% change, and decreasing from $18.8 billion to $18.4 billion is not an 8% decrease. I would change them immediately but I want to make sure that I haven't missed something completely. The odd part is that the sources agree with the stated percentages while also agreeing with the stated revenues. I'm very confused, but I think the hard revenue numbers hold more weight year to year, so I'll adjust the percentages to match later unless anyone has any objections. 73.186.191.139 (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Math 

message: Could somebody please find, transform (by discussing this with the original creator/s) or create a statistic on the progression of music revenue by medium?
Here's what I found so far:
* https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iDIl.TVVv3Ac/v2/-1x-1.jpg (mirror) (pretty detailed & up-to-date RIAA statistic)
* http://www.futuristgerd.com/2012/01/11/get-the-pdf-of-my-music-20-book-for-just-pay-with-a-tweet-or-facebook-post/
Also the pretty unrelated Sony Center right at the top should probably be removed in turn.
--Fixuture (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image needed for a statistic of revenue by medium 

message: Presido locality is music artist Presido localty (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Save 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Music industry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003004815/http://www.sony.com/SCA/press/081001.shtml to http://www.sony.com/SCA/press/081001.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070112051509/http://www.methodsreporter.com/2007/01/07/recording-industry-music-download-lawsuit/ to http://www.methodsreporter.com/2007/01/07/recording-industry-music-download-lawsuit/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090328163133/http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/1994/356recordedmusic.htm to http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/1994/356recordedmusic.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Music industry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060305165248/http://ag.state.nv.us/agpress/2002/02_0930b.pdf to http://ag.state.nv.us/agpress/2002/02_0930b.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Music industry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070521233108/http://www.riaa.com/News/marketingdata/default.asp to https://www.riaa.com/news/marketingdata/default.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021050119/http://www.riaa.com/blog.php?content_selector=riaa-news-blog&blog_selector=Midyear-Digital-Music-Milestones&news_month_filter=7&news_year_filter=2011&searchterms=Music%20sales&terminclude=&termexact= to https://www.riaa.com/blog.php?content_selector=riaa-news-blog&blog_selector=Midyear-Digital-Music-Milestones&news_month_filter=7&news_year_filter=2011&searchterms=Music%20sales&terminclude=&termexact=
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161006040945/http://artivate.hida.asu.edu/index.php/artivate/article/download/82/36 to http://www.artivate.hida.asu.edu/index.php/artivate/article/download/82/36
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: I notice the article has information from 2014.. Does anyone have access to newer information? That South Korean and Spanish music markets grew from 2013 to 2014 is not terribly relevant given that we're already 3+ months into 2018. 158.106.215.138 (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album sales and market value 

message: Records are said to outsell CD's in 2020 For the first time since 1987.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.230.115 (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Records vs CD's 

message: The redirect Business for the Creative Industries has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 00:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Business for the Creative Industries]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]