via the Times UK:

This is the graph the record industry doesn’t want you to see.

It shows the fate of the three main pillars of music industry revenue – recorded music, live music, and PRS revenues (royalties collected on behalf of artists when their music is played in public) over the last 5 years.

We’ve broken each category into two sub-categories so that, for any chunk of revenue – recorded music sales, for instance – you can see the percentage that goes to the artist, and the percentage that goes elsewhere. (In the case of recorded music, the lion’s share of revenue goes to the record label; in the case of live, the promoter takes a cut etc.)

Hopefully, this analysis – and there’s more on the nuts and bolts of our method below – sheds some factual light on the claims and counter-claims that are paranoically sweeping across the music industry establishment, not least that put forward by the singer Lily Allen in this paper recently – and the BPI – that artists are losing out as a result of the fall in sales of recorded of music.

The most immediate revelation, of course, is that at some point next year revenues from gigs payable to artists will for the first time overtake revenues accrued by labels from sales of recorded music.

Why live revenues have grown so stridently is beyond the scope of this article, but our data – compiled from a PRS for Music report and the BPI – make two things clear: one, that the growth in live revenue shows no signs of slowing and two, that live is by far and away the most lucrative section of industry revenue for artists themselves, because they retain such a big percentage of the money from ticket sales.

The long and short of it – the music industry’s “decline” isn’t as simple as record labels would like us to believe, and that musicians are getting a bigger slice of the music industry pie than they have in the past.

Berlin, July 7th, 2009 – Native Instruments today announced that it will no longer maintain a booth presence at industry tradeshows like the NAMM Show, Musikmesse or AES in the future. The company has decided to instead prioritize online communication channels to engage with customers directly even stronger, and to allocate budgets accordingly.

This shift in priorities is exemplified by the new sophisticated rich-media website that Native Instruments launched recently, and will be continued through the establishment of further innovative online channels and other means of direct communication in the future.

“Times are changing and we have seen tradeshows become increasingly less relevant for our industry,” says Pablo La Rosa, International Marketing Director at Native Instruments. “By focusing our efforts in online communication and direct-to-customer events, we reach out to today’s musicians and producers in a way that we believe is more efficient for us and more engaging for them.”

This is bad news for music trade shows, because if Native pulls out, others are likely to follow. This may make sense for individual companies, but may be a loss for the music industry as a whole.

The announcement is a sign of the decline of the music trade show as an event to get excited about. It’s always been fun to see the smorgasbord of announcements that come out of an event like NAMM, and also to get the perspective of seeing and hearing a huge variety of gear in one location. It remains to be seen whether something new will emerge that can match the excitement of huge trade events.

It’s puzzling, though, that Native Instruments cites its new website as one of the reasons for the move.

Native calls Native-Instruments.com a “new sophisticated rich-media website”.  Synthtopia readers, though, call the new site “rubbish” and “a post-apocalyptic view of Flash hell”.

Native Instruments new site seems amateurish, as if the company paid no attention to usability, accessibility or findability in creating it. They’ll need to fix the site quickly if they expect it to be able to take the place of their presence at trade shows.

What do you think about the announcement? Are music trade shows dead? Or do you think this is just a cost-cutting measure for Native Instruments?

Leave a comment with your thoughts!

According to Billboard, the late 1960s were the peak of musical diversity in popular music, with 743 different songs appearing on the 1966 Billboard Top 100 chart. It’s fallen consistently since, hitting an all-time low in 2002 with only 295 songs.

Since 2002, it’s improved only slightly, with 351 unique songs appearing on last year’s Top 100.

Is it any wonder that people are listening to less radio, buying less music and, instead, turning to blogs and podcasts to find new music?

It touches on some very timely subjects, including the role of the Internet in music:

The Internet isn’t the only answer

I think that the Internet might become the ultimate marketing machine, but I also think that in maybe five years’ time, what will be cool will be not be on the Internet. I’m pretty sure that the next generation, or the next punk attitude will be not being some kind of Internet freak, but instead finding something else. I think we’re in a very ambiguous situation. When you have fantastic tools such as web TV, digital radio, YouTube and iTunes type of systems – they are not THE answer, but they do enable you to stay in contact with your fans. In my opinion what Radiohead did with the download of their album for whatever price you chose wasn’t that positive for music. I think it’s something very dangerous, it wasn’t necessarily fair on young artists. When you’re a band the size of Radiohead you can afford to do that, but for new artists these days it’s very, very difficult.

Recognise that record companies are absolutely necessary

I think it’s a cynical attitude to think that musicians can survive as artists without them. Within the labels and record companies there are some really good guys who work 15-16 hour days to try to make things happen. It would be naïve to think you can just launch your album on the Internet in London and someone in Auckland would immediately know what your music is about if you don’t have the necessary distribution network. Although it’s very difficult to accept that the people that invented pirate radio in the ’60s are now the people who want to put today’s pirates in jail!

“It’s just an awkward time right now to be a musician,” says Reznor. “The reality is that people think it’s okay to steal music. There’s a whole generation of people, that’s all they’ve known.”

“I used to buy vinyl,” adds Reznor. “Today, if you do put out a record on a label, traditionally, most people are going to hear it via a leak that happens two weeks — if not two months — before it comes out. There’s no real way around that. I’m truly saddened because I think music has been devalued, so that it’s just a file on your computer, and it’s usually free. But we can’t change that. What we can do is try to offer people the best experience that we can provide them. Will it work? I don’t know. But I think it’s a great way to get music out to people who are interested.”

“At the end of the day, all I care about is the integrity of the music, and that the feeling of those who experience it is as untainted as possible. I’d rather it not be on an iPod commercial. I’d rather it not be a ringtone that you have to get with a free cell phone or any of that bullshit.”

“How long before [record companies] are irrelevant? Who knows? They seem to be doing everything they can to make sure that happens as quickly as possible.”

I’ve waited a LONG time to be able to make the following announcement: as of right now Nine Inch Nails is a totally free agent, free of any recording contract with any label. I have been under recording contracts for 18 years and have watched the business radically mutate from one thing to something inherently very different and it gives me great pleasure to be able to finally have a direct relationship with the audience as I see fit and appropriate. Look for some announcements in the near future regarding 2008.

With no major-label contract, Nine Inch Nails is more likely to experiment with free downloads, using MP3s as promotions and other tactics that the mainstream industry has been avoiding. NIN’s move follows a similar announcement from Radiohead.

While the announcement is likely to generate a lot of this is the end of mainstream music industry posts, the labels don’t make their money from aging singer-songwriters – they make their money from young bands that make a splash before they have the clout to get decent contracts.

The new report, from the Pew Internet and American Life Project, suggests that musicians are divided about the impact of file-sharing on the music business. While many felt that file-sharing gained them additional exposure, others were concerned about losing control over their work. Most agreed, though, that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and its lawsuits against file-sharers would not benefit musicians.

Between March 15 and April 15 of this year, 2,755 musicians and songwriters responded to a Web-based survey about the way they use the Internet and their views on a host of public policy questions related to copyright and music file-sharing on the Internet.

Highlights of the report:

• The Internet appears to be benefiting more musicians than it hurts. 35% of the musicians interviewed agreed that file-sharing services are not bad for artists, compared to 23% that felt that they hurt artists.
• 7 times as many musicians feel that the Internet has helped them as feel it has hurt them. When asked what impact free downloading on the Internet has had on their careers as musicians, 37% say free downloading has not really made a difference, 35% say it has helped and 8% say it has both helped and hurt their career. Only 5% say free downloading has exclusively hurt their career and 15% of the respondents say they don’t know.
• Most musicians think file-sharing has had a small or no effect on the piracy of their music. Asked whether online music file-sharing has made it harder to protect their music from piracy, 16% say the Internet has had a big effect in allowing piracy of their music, 21% say it has had a small effect, and 41% say it has had no effect.
• Most musicians think current laws adequately protecting musicians. 67% say artists should have complete control over material they copyright and they say copyright laws do a good job of protecting artists. Fully 61% of those in this sample believe that current copyright laws do a good job of protecting artists’ rights, but 59% also say that copyright laws do more to protect those who sell art than to protect the artists themselves.

While many musicians seem to see benefits from the Internet, and even file-sharing, they also have concerns about these technologies:

• Most musicians and songwriters think file-sharing on the Internet poses some threat to creative industries that make music and movies. One-third say file-sharing poses a “major threat” to these industries while one-third say it poses a “minor threat.” Another third say file-sharing poses “no threat at all” and 7% say they don’t know.
• Most of the musicians and songwriters sampled do not believe current copyright laws “unfairly limit public access to art.” Some 46% disagree with this statement and 21% strongly disagree. However, 15% do agree that current laws unfairly limit public access to art, 8% strongly agree and 10% say they don’t know.
• Half of the musicians and songwriters surveyed say they would be bothered if someone put a digital copy of their music on the Internet without permission (compared to 37% who say they would not be bothered and 12% who say they don’t know). Some 28% said they had experienced this situation firsthand.

While the views that Pew captured in their research are complex and sometimes conflicting, there seems to be general consensus among musicians that the Internet is a powerful tool for reaching new audiences. 83% have provided free samples of their work online and significant numbers say free downloading has helped them sell CDs and increase the crowds at concerts

As for their own careers, more of these artists say free music downloading online has helped them than hurt them. Fully 83% of those in the survey say they provide free samples or previews of their music online. And strong pluralities say free downloading has a payoff for them. For instance, 35% of them say free downloading has helped their careers and only 5% say it has hurt. Some 30% say free downloading has helped increase attendance at their concerts, 21% say it has helped them sell CDs or other merchandise; and 19% say it has helped them gain radio playing time for their music. Only fractions of them cite any negative impact of downloading on those aspects of their work.

Many musicians and songwriters do not think the RIAA campaign against free file sharing on the Internet will benefit them

The survey shows that many musicians do not think the recording industry efforts to halt the free sharing of music on the Internet will benefit those who create and perform music.

Some 60% of those in the sample say they do not think the Recording Industry Association of America’s suits against online music swappers will benefit musicians and songwriters. Those who earn the majority of their income from music are more inclined than “starving musicians” to back the RIAA, but even those very committed musicians do not believe the RIAA campaign will help them. Some 42% of those who earn most of their income from their music do not think the RIAA legal efforts will help them, while 35% think those legal challenges will ultimately benefit them.

Details and methodology on Pew’s survey are available at their site.

Claire Chanel and Scary Sherman have been keeping busy. First they put together the Jay-Z Construction Set, a complete, downloadable kit for making your own remixes of the latest tripe from Jay-Z. Now they’ve put together a hot collection of noise-filled hits from today’s hottest stars.

Have Sherman & Chanel finally cracked the code and figured out the RIAA’s angle? You be the judge. They’ve collected 10, count ‘em 10 tracks from artists like Aerosmith, Alicia Keys, and the newly single Britney Spears. Oh yeah!

But wait! There’s more!

If you download these RIAA-approved remixes now, you’ll get eleven (11!) more web-only bonus tracks. Each track is the official RIAA Mix! Download them all at RIAAMix.com!

It’s hip, funny, and effective in the way it explains how the major labels work, how artists get screwed, and how there is an alternative.

The site has a great photo essay about printing & distributing major label warning stickers. It documents distributing 2,000 anti-RIAA stickers…at Wal-Mart. It’s funny and effective.

The site also provides news on RIAA suing grandmas and kids, artists that have spoken out against the RIAA, and commercial and non-commercial alternatives.

They’ve made a list of 6 reasons to tell the RIAA where to go:

• Music diversity will grow.
• Pay-for-play radio will end.
• Independent music won’t be marginalized.
• The lawsuits will stop.
• Artistic freedom will expand.
• Musicians will make a better living.

The list is supported with explanations of how the major labels are using newspeak to support their monopolies, and offers alternatives.