Vinyl sales up, downloads down for 2013

[Rudy]

Per a recent Billboard article, vinyl's resurgence has continued in a big way. 2013 was yet another peak year as new vinyl releases grew in number. Also telling: downloads have dropped slightly in sales.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

For the sixth straight year, more vinyl albums were sold than in any other year since SoundScan launched in 1991. In 2013, 6.1 million vinyl LPs were sold -- up 33% compared to 2012's haul of 4.55 million. 64% of all vinyl albums sold in 2012 were purchased at an independent music store (3% less than compared to indie stores' share in 2012). Notably -- and not surprisingly -- 75% of all vinyl albums sold in 2013 were rock albums.

The top selling vinyl album of 2013 was Daft Punk's "Random Access Memories," having sold 49,000 last year. Vampire Weekend's "Modern Vampires of the City" was in second place with 34,000. (A year ago, the top selling vinyl album was Jack White's "Blunderbuss" with 34,000 LPs sold.)

As for digital songs, 2013 was the first year that download sales declined. 1.26 billion songs were sold last year -- down 6% compared to the record of 1.34 billion sold in 2012. SoundScan began tracking song download sales in the summer of 2003, shortly after Apple's iTunes Music Store launched in April of that year.​

Source: http://www.billboard.com/articles/n...13s-best-selling-album-blurred-lines-top-song

It is nice to see the swing toward quality, musical analog reproduction. Maybe there is hope yet that lossy formats will fade away like the outdated technology that they are. Of the music I bought this year, I primarily purchased it on vinyl, with some HDTracks purchases and only a very few scattered CD releases here and there. It is not uncommon for popular artists these days to release their latest albums on vinyl in a limited run; there is a market out there for it.

It is also nice to see that the bulk of vinyl sales came through independent retailers. Very important! Again, a nice shift in buying practices, as it gives money to the "little guys" out there.

 

[Mike Blakesley]

It's great, but these type of articles always fail to note that vinyl is still a miniscule part of the business overall. CD sales are still something like 150 million units a year, compared with LPs' about 6 million.

As for the drop in downloads....I think it's just the younger generation who were convinced early on that you needed to pay for music on sites like iTunes gradually being clued in by their friends and older siblings that you don't actually have to pay for music...you can illegally download it, or just listen for free on something Pandora or YouTube or whatever. And there's always the argument that most of the music sucks these days, which I give little credence to but we definitely are in a "singles" era now, vs an album era a generation ago --- so the "number of songs" being purchased these days is probably at a historic low.

 

[Rudy]

I think it was more about the surprising trend of vinyl seeing such growth as other formats stagnated or dropped. I know as far as used CDs, there is no market for them--many local stores here refuse to buy them. Some titles you can list for $1 on Amazon and sit on it for two or three years. Outside of the niche collector/audiophile market, I still fail to see who is actively buying CDs these days.

But the number is still significant--it shows that yes, downloads are falling out of favor, and that more people are switching back to vinyl for a number of reasons. As for those downloads, I don't feel it's free downloads, but when you have a service like Spotify that charges $9.99/month to play almost any album you could imagine on any device you own, why pay that same $9.99 for a single CD? Sure it sounds like ass, but the average music buyers listening on their smartphones through $3 earbuds can't tell the difference as the MP3s they bought also sound like ass. Music is just a disposable product and yes, it has become a cherry-picked singles market, which is sad.

I can only guess that CDs must be selling online, because even "big box" retailers have drastically chopped back floor space for CDs. A couple of friends who go to Best Buy have commented on how few CDs they carry now. Some labels don't even want to make CDs anymore--look at how Rumer's first album only graced our shores as an on-demand CD-R via Amazon, whereas in Europe it had a proper CD release. Even the labels don't want them anymore unless they sell in the millions.

 

[jfiedler17]

I think it was more about the surprising trend of vinyl seeing such growth as other formats stagnated or dropped. I know as far as used CDs, there is no market for them--many local stores here refuse to buy them. Some titles you can list for $1 on Amazon and sit on it for two or three years. Outside of the niche collector/audiophile market, I still fail to see who is actively buying CDs these days.

I did pick up several new CD titles over the holidays while they were on sale (between $5-7), i.e. Sara Bareilles, Vampire Weekend, Paul McCartney, etc., but that was the first time I'd picked up new CDs in two years or so. I've become almost exclusively a used-CD buyer, if only because I went through a long string of purchases where the CDs inside turned out to be in less than ideal shape in some way, i.e. having some sort of scratch on the playing surface, and I just decided that quality control on the pressing lines had taken a real dive, and I liked the comfort of buying a used CD and actually being able to inspect the disc to make sure all was okay.

 

[jfiedler17]

I don't know that I'd call myself an "audiophile" - I've got a traditional home stereo unit (a Technics, in case you're curious) and listen to plenty of vinyl and CDs, but I also listen to music in MP3 form just as frequently - so I don't necessarily shy away from MP3s for audio-quality reasons. I just prefer CDs to MP3s in large part just because ... well, there's something there. MP3s are ultimately just digital files, and digital files can be lost - and much too easily, i.e. a computer crash. If you've actually bought and own that music in physical form and have burned it to your computer (versus just buying it in MP3 form Online), then you have the security of knowing you still have that music and it's not so devastating when something is lost. You can always just rip it again.

I also like having something in physical form that I can actually visually admire and appreciate. Seeing a shelf or cabinet (or several ) full of CDs or LPs is far more satisfying as a music lover than seeing a digital folder full of titles. I like having the ability to pull a title from the shelf and sift through its liner notes or study the credits.

So, no matter how out of vogue they may become, I'll continue to buy and collect used CDs. I love - love - looking through and hunting for used CDs at record stores, flea markets, thrift shops, book sales, rummage sales, etc.. (Book sales are an especially fun place to look for them since they're often fill-a-bag affairs, which is an extremely cheap way to try a lot of new artists or titles you might ordinarily pass over. I've discovered a lot of new favorites that way.)

The one upside about CDs rapidly going out of style, of course, is that I've inherited CDs from friends who have become full-blown iTunes converts and decided to get rid of their collections, so ... I certainly don't mind that part of it. So, um, that being said ... go, iTunes!!! I'm rooting for you!

 

[Rudy]

I've never run into damaged CDs purchased new, but certainly have encountered a few over the years that would not play. The one thing I am watching for lately are used SACDs--some of those released a decade ago are impossible to find, but there are others that are still in decent supply. The problem with buying those is that some sellers (often, larger retailers) have no clue as to what they're selling and it is easy to end up with a regular CD as opposed to the SACD.

It shows you, though, how the CD market has collapsed when they have to blow out titles for such cheap prices. I bet I could bargain my way down in price if I came to the counter with about a dozen or more used CDs at any of the local shops (provided the owner or a manager works the counter). It costs a company 1-1/2% of the product's cost per month to carry it in inventory--you can bet that unless it's a stone rarity, they'll take the money now, as opposed to waiting several more months.

 

[Rudy]

I just prefer CDs to MP3s in large part just because ... well, there's something there. MP3s are ultimately just digital files, and digital files can be lost - and much too easily, i.e. a computer crash.

I don't buy MP3s personally, but that's my own situation I have to deal with. I do have a crap ton of downloads though, and especially with the HDTracks files, I have them backed up in at least one additional place (one of my network drives).

But that touches on a hot topic here. Certain "reissues", if you will, are being released only as MP3. The market for that type of music isn't an MP3 buyer, sorry. I can't imagine my parents would have poked at a computer on an artist's website to try and purchase something that ended up "wherever" on their drive. And like a lot of us here, if we're paying $10 or more, then we expect physical product in hand. We've grown up that way; that's what we've come to accept. In these days of digital delivery, the younger generations "get it"...and they are not the ones who buy music by some of these artists we listen to.

I suppose "industry experts" had a hand in deciding about MP3s being "the" way to distribute music. Just remember these same "industry experts" are the ones who destroyed the major labels, destroyed A&M, destroyed radio so that it is nothing more than a few huge conglomerates broadcasting the same tripe from either coast. Seeing downloads drop off slightly, that pretty much shows the "experts" they'll need another one-trick pony to ride in the very near future.

Then again, if we really were hipsters, we'd be demanding cassettes.

 

[jfiedler17]

No, no ... I can do without cassettes. Not a format I particularly miss.

Well, one positive thing I can say about releasing music digitally in MP3 form ... it's great from the perspective of a recording artist. I dabble in music myself (I'd provide a link to something of mine, but I don't want to risk violating any forum rules), but I really don't have the following where I feel like it's a great investment just yet to get a bunch of CDs or vinyl EPs pressed up (awesome though it would be to do that, especially the vinyl part) and there's websites out there where you can post and release music at absolutely no cost, so there's no overhead involved, so that's a great tool to have. I can get an awful lot of my own music out there to the public without ever having to spend a cent. So I can totally understand why artists would want to go that route, especially if they're doing everything DIY-style and acting as their own distributors. It's very cost-effective. If it weren't for that, I'd probably have never gone public with anything I've made - I just couldn't rationalize spending the money, not in the least since I just do all this for charity and consequently don't require anybody to pay anything in exchange for my music. So it does have its upsides ...

As a consumer, though, it's just not my cup of tea. I definitely prefer buying music in some kind of physical form. Even a cassette.

 

[Rudy]

I have a whole bag of cassettes you can have.

There are so many good independent sites out there for music these days--Bandcamp, etc. I like how they can let you give the music away, or offer a minimum payment (sort of an honor system where you can pay more than the price given), and they let you download MP3 or FLAC (and other formats?). At least we have the choice. And I know it takes almost no time at all to generate MP3 (or M4A, or any other format) from FLAC files.

It's sort of come full circle if you think about it. Many, many small independent labels existed in the 40s, 50s, 60s, etc. They started to join forces or get bought out in the 70s and 80s. As decades have passed, we now have, what, three or four giant labels? The little guy can't stand a chance anymore. Many of the artists booted from their major label contracts have ended up at smaller "boutique" labels. (We have one locally--Mack Avenue Records, home to a lot of well-known contemporary jazz artists. Having met a couple of their people, they are true jazz enthusiasts...how long has it been since we've seen that at a record label??)

A buddy of mine in Columbus runs a very small record label and releases small-volume 45 RPM singles. He's told us the costs of having a single mastered, pressed, having the coverstock printed, etc., and it adds up. He's used Kickstarter to fund a couple of them. Funny thing is, the way cassettes have had a resurgence as a cult format, he's taken to releasing a few things on cassette and has had good luck with them.