Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Music industry
View on Wikipedia


The music industry are individuals and organizations that earn money by writing songs and musical compositions, creating and selling recorded music and sheet music, presenting concerts, as well as the organizations that aid, train, represent and supply music creators. Among the many individuals and organizations that operate in the industry are: the songwriters and composers who write songs and musical compositions; the singers, musicians, conductors, and bandleaders who perform the music; the record labels, music publishers, recording studios, music producers, audio engineers, retail and digital music stores, and performance rights organizations who create and sell recorded music and sheet music; and the booking agents, promoters, music venues, road crew, and audio engineers who help organize and sell concerts.
The industry also includes a range of professionals who assist singers and musicians with their music careers. These include talent managers, artists and repertoire managers, business managers, entertainment lawyers; those who broadcast audio or video music content (satellite, Internet radio stations, broadcast radio and TV stations); music journalists and music critics; DJs; music educators and teachers; manufacturers of musical instruments and music equipment; as well as many others. In addition to the businesses and artists there are organizations that also play an important role, including musician's unions (e.g. American Federation of Musicians), not-for-profit performance-rights organizations (e.g. American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) and other associations (e.g. International Alliance for Women in Music, a non-profit organization that advocates for women composers and musicians).
The modern Western music industry emerged between the 1930s and 1950s, when records replaced sheet music as the most important product in the music business. In the commercial world, "the recording industry"—a reference to recording performances of songs and pieces and selling the recordings–began to be used as a loose synonym for "the music industry". In the 2000s, a majority of the music market is controlled by three major corporate labels: the French-owned Universal Music Group, the Japanese-owned Sony Music Entertainment,[1] and the American-owned Warner Music Group. Labels outside of these three major labels are referred to as independent labels (or "indies"). The largest portion of the live music market for concerts and tours is controlled by Live Nation, the largest promoter and music venue owner. Live Nation is a former subsidiary of iHeartMedia Inc, which is the largest owner of radio stations in the United States.
In the first decades of the 2000s, the music industry underwent drastic changes with the advent of widespread digital distribution of music via the Internet (which includes both illegal file sharing of songs and legal music purchases in online music stores). A conspicuous indicator of these changes is total music sales: since the year 2000, sales of recorded music have dropped off substantially,[2][3] while, in contrast, live music has increased in importance.[4] In 2011, the largest recorded music retailer in the world was now a digital, Internet-based platform operated by a computer company: Apple Inc.'s online iTunes Store.[5] Since 2011, the music industry has seen consistent sales growth with streaming now generating more revenue per year than digital downloads. Spotify, Apple Music, and Amazon Music are the largest streaming services by subscriber count.[6]
Business structure
[edit]The main branches of the music industry are the live music industry, the recording industry, and all the companies that train, support, supply and represent musicians.
The recording industry produces three separate products: compositions (songs, pieces, lyrics), recordings (audio and video) and media (such as CDs or MP3s, and DVDs). These are each a type of property: typically, compositions are owned by composers, recordings by record companies, and media by consumers. There may be many recordings of a single composition and a single recording will typically be distributed via many media. For example, the song "My Way" is owned by its composers, Paul Anka and Claude François, Frank Sinatra's recording of "My Way" is owned by Capitol Records, Sid Vicious's recording of "My Way" is owned by Virgin Records, and the millions of CDs and vinyl records that can play these recordings are owned by millions of individual consumers.
Compositions
[edit]Songs, instrumental pieces and other musical compositions are created by songwriters or composers and are originally owned by the composer, although they may be sold or the rights may be otherwise assigned. For example, in the case of work for hire, the composition is owned immediately by another party. Traditionally, the copyright owner licenses or "assigns" some of their rights to publishing companies, by means of a publishing contract. The publishing company (or a collection society operating on behalf of many such publishers, songwriters and composers) collects fees (known as "publishing royalties") when the composition is used. A portion of the royalties are paid by the publishing company to the copyright owner, depending on the terms of the contract. Sheet music provides an income stream that is paid exclusively to the composers and their publishing company. Typically (although not universally), the publishing company will provide the owner with an advance against future earnings when the publishing contract is signed. A publishing company will also promote the compositions, such as by acquiring song "placements" on television or in films.
Recordings
[edit]
Recordings are created by recording artists, which includes singers, musicians (including session musicians) and musical ensembles (e.g. backing bands, rhythm sections, orchestras, etc.) usually with the assistance and guidance from record producers and audio engineers. They were traditionally made in recording studios (which are rented for a daily or hourly rate) in a recording session. In the 21st century, advances in digital recording technology have allowed many producers and artists to create "home studios" using high-end computers and digital recording programs like Pro Tools, bypassing the traditional role of the commercial recording studio. The record producer oversees all aspects of the recording, making many of the logistic, financial and artistic decisions in cooperation with the artists. The record producer has a range of different responsibilities including choosing material and/or working with the composers, hiring session musicians, helping to arrange the songs, overseeing the musician performances, and directing the audio engineer during recording and mixing to get the best sound. Audio engineers (including recording, mixing and mastering engineers) are responsible for ensuring good audio quality during the recording. They select and set up microphones and use effects units and mixing consoles to adjust the sound and level of the music. A recording session may also require the services of an arranger, orchestrator, studio musicians, session musicians, vocal coaches, or even a discreetly hired ghostwriter to help with the lyrics or songwriting.

Recordings are (traditionally) owned by record companies. Some artists own their own record companies (e.g. Ani DiFranco). A recording contract specifies the business relationship between a recording artist and the record company. In a traditional contract, the company provides an advance to the artist who agrees to make a recording that will be owned by the company. The A&R department of a record company is responsible for finding new talent and overseeing the recording process. The company pays for the recording costs and the cost of promoting and marketing the record. For physical media (such as CDs), the company also pays to manufacture and distribute the physical recordings. Smaller record companies (known as "indies") will form business relationships with other companies to handle many of these tasks. The record company pays the recording artist a portion of the income from the sale of the recordings, also known as a "royalty", but this is distinct from the publishing royalties described above. This portion is similar to a percentage, but may be limited or expanded by a number of factors (such as free goods, recoupable expenses, bonuses, etc.) that are specified by the record contract. Session musicians and orchestra members (as well as a few recording artists in special markets) are under contract to provide work for hire; they are typically only paid one-time fees or regular wages for their services, rather than ongoing royalties.
Media
[edit]Physical media (such as CDs or vinyl records) are sold by music retailers and are owned by the consumers after they buy them. Buyers do not typically have the right to make digital copies from CDs or other media they buy, or rent or lease the CDs, because they do not own the recording on the CD, they only own the individual physical CD. A music distributor delivers crates of the packaged physical media from the manufacturer to the retailer and maintains commercial relationships with retailers and record companies. The music retailer pays the distributor, who in turn pays the record company for the recordings. The record company pays mechanical royalties to the publisher and composer via a collection society. The record company then pays royalties, if contractually obligated, to the recording artist.
When music is digitally downloaded or streamed, there is no physical media other than the consumer's computer memory on his or her portable media player or laptop. For this reason, artists such as Taylor Swift, Paul McCartney, Kings of Leon, and others have called for legal changes that would deny social media the right to stream their music without paying them royalties.[7] In the digital and online music market of the 2000s, the distributor becomes optional. Large online shops may pay the labels directly, but digital distributors do exist to provide distribution services for vendors large and small. When purchasing digital downloads or listening to music streaming, the consumer may be required to agree to record company and vendor licensing terms beyond those which are inherent in copyright; for example, some services may allow consumers to freely share the recording, but others may restrict the user to storing the music on a specific number of hard drives or devices.
Broadcast, soundtrack and streaming
[edit]When a recording is broadcast (either on radio or by a background music service such as Muzak), performance rights organisations (such as the ASCAP and BMI in the US, SOCAN in Canada, or MCPS and PRS in the UK), collect a third type of royalty known as a performance royalty, which is paid to songwriters, composers and recording artists. This royalty is typically much smaller than publishing or mechanical royalties. Within the past decade, more than "15 to 30 percent" of tracks on streaming services are unidentified with a specific artist. Jeff Price says "Audiam, an online music streaming service, has made over several hundred thousand dollars in the past year from collecting royalties from online streaming.[8] According to Ken Levitan, manager from Kings of Leon, Cheap Trick and others, "Youtube has become radio for kids". Because of the overuse of YouTube and offline streaming, album sales have fallen by 60 percent in the past few years.[7] When recordings are used in television and film, the composer and their publishing company are typically paid through a synchronization license. In the 2000s, online subscription services (such as Rhapsody) also provide an income stream directly to record companies, and through them, to artists, contracts permitting.
Live music
[edit]A promoter brings together a performing artist and a venue owner and arranges contracts. A booking agency represents the artist to promoters, makes deals and books performances. Consumers usually buy tickets either from the venue or from a ticket distribution service such as Ticketmaster. In the US, Live Nation is the dominant company in all of these roles: they own most of the large venues in the US, they are the largest promoter, and they own Ticketmaster. Choices about where and when to tour are decided by the artist's management and the artist, sometimes in consultation with the record company. Record companies may finance a tour in the hopes that it will help promote the sale of recordings. However, in the 21st century, it has become more common to release recordings to promote ticket sales for live shows, rather than book tours to promote the sales of recordings.
Major, successful artists will usually employ a road crew: a semi-permanent touring organization that travels with the artist during concert series. The road crew is headed by a tour manager. Crew members provides stage lighting, live sound reinforcement, musical instrument maintenance and transportation. On large tours, the road crew may also include an accountant, stage manager, bodyguard, hairdressers, makeup artists and catering staff. Local crews are typically hired to help move equipment on and off stage. On a small tour with less financial backing, all of these jobs may be handled by just a few roadies or by the musicians themselves. Bands signed with small "indie" labels and bands in genres such as hardcore punk are more likely to do tours without a road crew, or with minimal support.
Artist management, representation and staff
[edit]Artists such as singers and musicians may hire several people from other fields to assist them with their career. The artist manager oversees all aspects of an artist's career in exchange for a percentage of the artist's income. An entertainment lawyer assists them with the details of their contracts with record companies and other deals. A business manager handles financial transactions, taxes, and bookkeeping. Unions, such as AFTRA and the American Federation of Musicians in the U.S. provide health insurance and instrument insurance for musicians. A successful artist functions in the market as a brand and, as such, they may derive income from many other streams, such as merchandise, personal endorsements, appearances (without performing) at events or Internet-based services.[9] These are typically overseen by the artist's manager and take the form of relationships between the artist and companies that specialize in these products. Singers may also hire a vocal coach, dance instructor, acting coach, personal trainer or life coach to help them.
Emerging business models
[edit]In the 2000s, traditional lines that once divided singers, instrumentalists, publishers, record companies, distributors, retail and consumer electronics have become blurred or erased. Artists may record in a home studio using a high-end laptop and a digital recording program such as Pro Tools or use Kickstarter to raise money for an expensive studio recording session without involving a record company. Artists may choose to exclusively promote and market themselves using only free online video sharing services such as YouTube or using social media websites, bypassing traditional promotion and marketing by a record company. In the 2000s, consumer electronics and computer companies such as Apple Computer have become digital music retailers. New digital music distribution technologies and the trends towards using sampling of older songs in new songs or blending different songs to create "mashup" recordings have also forced both governments and the music industry to re-examine the definitions of intellectual property and the rights of all the parties involved. Also compounding the issue of defining copyright boundaries is the fact that the definition of "royalty" and "copyright" varies from country to country and region to region, which changes the terms of some of these business relationships.
After 15 or so years of the Internet economy, the digital music industry platforms like iTunes, Spotify, and Google Play are major improvements over the early illegal file sharing days. However, the multitude of service offerings and revenue models make it difficult to understand the true value of each and what they can deliver for musicians and music companies. As well, there are major transparency problems throughout the music industry caused by outdated technology. With the emerging of new business models as streaming platforms, and online music services, a large amount of data is processed.[10] Access to big data may increase transparency in the industry.[11]
History of printed music and recorded music
[edit]Early history: Printed music in Europe
[edit]
Music publishing using machine-printed sheet music developed during the Renaissance music era in the mid-15th century. The development of music publication followed the evolution of printing technologies that were first developed for printing regular books. After the mid-15th century, mechanical techniques for printing sheet music were first developed. The earliest example, a set of liturgical chants, dates from about 1465, shortly after the Gutenberg Bible was printed. Prior to this time, music had to be copied out by hand. To copy music notation by hand was a very costly, labor-intensive, and time-consuming process, so it was usually undertaken only by monks and priests seeking to preserve sacred music for the church. The few collections of secular (non-religious) music that are extant were commissioned and owned by wealthy aristocrats. Examples include the Squarcialupi Codex of Italian Trecento music and the Chantilly Codex of French Ars subtilior music.
The use of printing enabled sheet music to be reproduced much more quickly and at a much lower cost than hand-copying music notation. This helped musical styles to spread to other cities and countries more quickly, and it also enabled music to be spread to more distant areas. Before the invention of music printing, a composer's music might only be known in the city she lived in and its surrounding towns, because only wealthy aristocrats would be able to afford to have hand copies made of her music. With music printing, though, a composer's music could be printed and sold at a relatively low cost to purchasers from a wide geographic area. As sheet music of major composer's pieces and songs began to be printed and distributed in a wider area, this enabled composers and listeners to hear new styles and forms of music. A German composer could buy songs written by an Italian or English composer, and an Italian composer could buy pieces written by Dutch composers and learn how they wrote music. This led to more blending of musical styles from different countries and regions.
The pioneer of modern music printing was Ottaviano Petrucci (born in Fossombrone in 1466 – died in 1539 in Venice), a printer and publisher who was able to secure a twenty-year monopoly on printed music in Venice during the 16th century. Venice was one of the major business and music centers during this period. His Harmonice Musices Odhecaton, a collection of chansons printed in 1501, is commonly misidentified as the first book of sheet music printed from movable type. That distinction belongs to the Roman printer Ulrich Han's Missale Romanum of 1476. Nevertheless, Petrucci's later work was extraordinary for the complexity of his white mensural notation and the smallness of his font. He printed the first book of polyphony (music with two or more independent melodic lines) using movable type. He also published numerous works by the most highly regarded composers of the Renaissance, including Josquin des Prez and Antoine Brumel. He flourished by focusing on Flemish works, rather than Italian, as they were very popular throughout Europe during the Renaissance music era. His printing shop used the triple-impression method, in which a sheet of paper was pressed three times. The first impression was the staff lines, the second the words, and the third the notes. This method produced very clean and readable results, although it was time-consuming and expensive.
Until the 18th century, the processes of formal composition and of the printing of music took place for the most part with the support of patronage from aristocracies and churches. In the mid-to-late 18th century, performers and composers such as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart began to seek more commercial opportunities to market their music and performances to the general public. After Mozart's death, his wife (Constanze Weber) continued the process of commercialization of his music through an unprecedented series of memorial concerts, selling his manuscripts, and collaborating with her second husband, Georg Nissen, on a biography of Mozart.[12]

In the 19th century, sheet-music publishers dominated the music industry. Before the invention of sound recording technologies, the main way for music lovers to hear new symphonies and opera arias (songs) was to buy the sheet music (often arranged for piano or for a small chamber music group) and perform the music in a living room, using friends who were amateur musicians and singers. In the United States, the music industry arose in tandem with the rise of "black face" minstrelsy. Blackface is a form of theatrical makeup used predominantly by non-black performers to represent a black person. The practice gained popularity during the 19th century and contributed to the spread of negative racial stereotypes of African-American people.[13]
In the late part of the century the group of music publishers and songwriters which dominated popular music in the United States became known as Tin Pan Alley. The name originally referred to a specific place: West 28th Street between Fifth and Sixth Avenue in Manhattan, and a plaque (see below) on the sidewalk on 28th Street between Broadway and Sixth commemorates it. The start of Tin Pan Alley is usually dated to about 1885, when several music publishers set up shop in the same district of Manhattan. The end of Tin Pan Alley is less clear-cut. Some date it to the start of the Great Depression in the 1930s when the phonograph and radio supplanted sheet music as the driving force of American popular music, while others consider Tin Pan Alley to have continued into the 1950s when earlier styles of American popular music were upstaged by the rise of rock & roll.
Advent of recorded music and radio broadcasting
[edit]

At the dawn of the early 20th century, the development of sound recording began to function as a disruptive technology to the commercial interests which published sheet music. During the sheet music era, if a regular person wanted to hear popular new songs, he or she would buy the sheet music and play it at home on a piano, or learn the song at home while playing the accompaniment part on piano or guitar. Commercially released phonograph records of musical performances, which became available starting in the late 1880s, and later the onset of widespread radio broadcasting, starting in the 1920s, forever changed the way music was heard and listened to. Opera houses, concert halls, and clubs continued to produce music and musicians and singers continued to perform live, but the power of radio allowed bands, ensembles and singers who had previously performed only in one region to become popular on a nationwide and sometimes even a worldwide scale. Moreover, whereas attendance at the top symphony and opera concerts was formerly restricted to high-income people in a pre-radio world, with broadcast radio, a much larger wider range of people, including lower and middle-income people could hear the best orchestras, big bands, popular singers and opera shows.
The "record industry" eventually replaced the sheet music publishers as the music industry's largest force. A multitude of record labels came and went. Some noteworthy labels of the earlier decades include the Columbia Records, Crystalate, Decca Records, Edison Bell, The Gramophone Company, Invicta, Kalliope, Pathé, Victor Talking Machine Company and many others.[14] Many record companies died out as quickly as they had formed, and by the end of the 1980s, the "Big six" — EMI, CBS, BMG, PolyGram, WEA and MCA — dominated the industry. Sony bought CBS Records in 1987 and changed its name to Sony Music in 1991. In mid-1998, PolyGram Music Group merged with MCA Music Entertainment creating what we now know as Universal Music Group. Since then, Sony and BMG merged in 2004,[15] and Universal took over the majority of EMI's recorded music interests in 2012.[16] EMI Music Publishing, also once part of the now defunct British conglomerate, is now co-owned by Sony as a subsidiary of Sony/ATV Music Publishing.[17] As in other industries, the record industry is characterised by many mergers and/or acquisitions, for the major companies as well as for middle sized business (recent example is given by the Belgium group PIAS and French group Harmonia Mundi).[18]
Genre-wise, music entrepreneurs expanded their industry models into areas like folk music, in which composition and performance had continued for centuries on an ad hoc self-supporting basis. Forming an independent record label, or "indie" label, or signing to such a label continues to be a popular choice for up-and-coming musicians, especially in genres like hardcore punk and extreme metal, even though indies cannot offer the same financial backing of major labels. Some bands prefer to sign with an indie label, because these labels typically give performers more artistic freedom.
Rise of digital online distribution
[edit]| External images | |
|---|---|
| RIAA U.S. Recorded Music Sales Charts (Interactive); Revenue and Volumes by Format. (1973 – ) | |

In the first decade of the 2000s, digitally downloaded and streamed music became more popular than buying physical recordings (e.g. CDs, records and tapes). This gave consumers almost "friction-less" access to a wider variety of music than ever before, across multiple devices. At the same time, consumers spent less money on recorded music (both physically and digitally distributed) than they had in the 1990s.[19] Total "music-business" revenues in the U.S. dropped by half, from a high of $14.6 billion in 1999 to $6.3 billion in 2009, according to Forrester Research.[20] Worldwide revenues for CDs, vinyl, cassettes and digital downloads fell from $36.9 billion in 2000[21] to $15.9 billion in 2010[22] according to IFPI. The Economist and The New York Times reported that the downward trend was expected to continue for the foreseeable future.[23][24] This dramatic decline in revenue has caused large-scale layoffs inside the industry, driven some more venerable retailers (such as Tower Records) out of business and forced record companies, record producers, studios, recording engineers and musicians to seek new business models.[7]
In response to the rise of widespread illegal file sharing of digital music-recordings, the record industry took aggressive legal action. In 2001 it succeeded in shutting down the popular music-website Napster, and threatened legal action against thousands of individuals who participated in sharing music-song sound-files.[7] However, this failed to slow the decline in music-recording revenue and proved a public-relations disaster for the music industry.[7] Some academic studies have even suggested that downloads did not cause the decline in sales of recordings.[25] The 2008 British Music Rights survey[26] showed that 80% of people in Britain wanted a legal peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing service, however only half of the respondents thought that the music's creators should be paid. The survey was consistent with the results of earlier research conducted in the United States, upon which the Open Music Model was based.[27]
Legal digital downloads became widely available with the debut of the Apple iTunes Store in 2003.[28] The popularity of music distribution over the Internet has increased,[29] and by 2011 digital music sales topped physical sales of music.[30] In 2008, Atlantic Records reports that digital sales have surpassed physical sales.[23] However, as The Economist reported, "paid digital downloads grew rapidly, but did not begin to make up for the loss of revenue from CDs".[24]
After 2010, Internet-based services such as Deezer, Pandora, Spotify, and Apple's iTunes Radio began to offer subscription-based "pay to stream" services over the Internet. With streaming services, the user pays a subscription to a company for the right to listen to songs and other media from a library. Whereas with legal digital download services, the purchaser owns a digital copy of the song (which they can keep on their computer or on a digital media player), with streaming services, the user never downloads the song file or owns the song file. The subscriber can only listen to the song for as long as they continue to pay the streaming subscription. Once the user stops paying the subscription, they cannot listen to audio from the company's repositories anymore. Streaming services began to have a serious impact on the industry in 2014.
Spotify, together with the music-streaming industry in general, faces some criticism from artists claiming they are not being fairly compensated for their work as downloaded-music sales decline and music-streaming increases. Unlike physical or download sales, which pay a fixed price per song or album, Spotify pays artists based on their "market share" (the number of streams for their songs as a proportion of total songs streamed on the service).[31] Spotify distributes approximately 70% to rights-holders, who will then pay artists based on their agreements. The variable, and (some say) inadequate nature of this compensation,[32] has led to criticism. Spotify reports paying on average US$0.006 to US$0.008 per stream. In response to concerns, Spotify claims that they are benefiting the music business by migrating "them away from piracy and less monetized platforms and allowing them to generate far greater royalties than before" by encouraging users to use their paid service.[33][34]
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) revealed in its 2015 earnings report that streaming services were responsible for 34.3 percent of the year's U.S. recorded-music-industry revenue, growing 29 percent from the previous year and becoming the largest source of income, pulling in around $2.4 billion.[35][36] US streaming revenue grew 57 percent to $1.6 billion in the first half of 2016 and accounted for almost half of industry sales.[37] This contrasts with the $14.6 billion in revenue that was received in 1999 by the U.S. music industry from the sale of CDs.
The turmoil in the recorded-music industry in the 2000s altered the twentieth-century balance between artists, record companies, promoters, retail music-stores and consumers. As of 2010[update], big-box stores such as Wal-Mart and Best Buy sell more records than music-only CD stores, which have ceased to function as a major player in the music industry. Music-performing artists now rely on live performance and merchandise sales (T-shirts, sweatshirts, etc.) for the majority of their income, which in turn has made them more dependent – like pre-20th-century musicians – on patrons, now exemplified by music promoters such as Live Nation (which dominates tour promotion and owns or manages a large number of music venues).[4] In order to benefit from all of an artist's income streams, record companies increasingly rely on the "360 deal", a new business-relationship pioneered by Robbie Williams and EMI in 2007.[38] At the other extreme, record companies can offer a simple manufacturing- and distribution-deal, which gives a higher percentage to the artist, but does not cover the expenses of marketing and promotion.
Companies like Kickstarter help independent musicians produce their albums through fans funding bands they want to listen to.[39] Many newer artists no longer see a record deal as an integral part of their business plan at all. Inexpensive recording-hardware and -software make it possible to record reasonable-quality music on a laptop in a bedroom and to distribute it over the Internet to a worldwide audience.[40] This, in turn, has caused problems for recording studios, record producers and audio engineers: the Los Angeles Times reports that as many as half of the recording facilities in that city have failed.[41] Changes in the music industry have given consumers access to a wider variety of music than ever before, at a price that gradually approaches zero.[7] However, consumer spending on music-related software and hardware increased dramatically over the last decade,[clarification needed] providing a valuable new income-stream for technology companies such as Apple Inc. and Pandora Radio.
Sales statistics
[edit]Digital album volume sales growth in 2014
[edit]According to IFPI,[42] the global digital album sales grew by 6.9% in 2014.
| Country | Percentage |
|---|---|
| US | +2.1% |
| UK | −2.8% |
| France | −3.4% |
| Global (est.) | +6.9% |
Source: Nielsen SoundScan, Official Charts Company/BPI, GfK and IFPI estimate.
Consolidation
[edit]- EMI (13.4%)
- WMG (11.3%)
- Sony BMG (21.5%)
- UMG (25.5%)
- Independent (28.4%)
Prior to December 1998, the industry was dominated by the "Big Six": Sony Music and BMG had not yet merged, and PolyGram had not yet been absorbed into Universal Music Group. After the PolyGram-Universal merger, the 1998 market shares reflected a "Big Five", commanding 77.4% of the market, as follows, according to MEI World Report 2000:
- Universal Music Group — 21.1%
- Sony Music Entertainment — 17.4%
- EMI — 14.1%
- Warner Music Group — 13.4%
- BMG — 11.4%
- Independent labels combined — 22.6%
In 2004, the joint venture of Sony and BMG created the 'Big Four' at a time the global market was estimated at $30–40 billion.[43] Total annual unit sales (CDs, music videos, MP3s) in 2004 were 3 billion. Additionally, according to an IFPI report published in August 2005,[44] the big four accounted for 71.7% of retail music sales:
- Universal Music Group—25.5%
- Sony BMG Music Entertainment—21.5%
- EMI Group—13.4%
- Warner Music Group—11.3%
- Independent labels combined—28.3%
- EMI (9.62%)
- WMG (19.1%)
- SME (29.3%)
- UMG (29.9%)
- Independent (12.1%)
Nielsen SoundScan in their 2011 report noted that the "big four" controlled about 88% of the market:[45]
- Universal Music Group (American based) — 29.85%
- Sony Music Entertainment (American based) — 29.29%
- Warner Music Group (American based) — 19.13%
- EMI Group — 9.62%
- Independent labels — 12.11%
After the absorption of EMI by Sony Music Entertainment and Universal Music Group in December 2011 the "big three" were created and on January 8, 2013, after the merger there were layoffs of forty workers from EMI. European regulators forced Universal Music to spin off EMI assets which became the Parlophone Label Group which was acquired by Warner Music Group.[46] Nielsen SoundScan issued a report in 2012, noting that these labels controlled 88.5% of the market, and further noted:[47]
- Universal Music Group (American based) which owns EMI Music — 32.41% + 6.78% of EMI Group
- Sony Music Entertainment (American based) which owns publishing arm of EMI Group — 30.25%
- Warner Music Group— 19.15%
- Independent labels— 11.42%
Note: the IFPI and Nielsen Soundscan use different methodologies, which makes their figures difficult to compare casually, and impossible to compare scientifically.[48]
Market shares as of September 2018 are as follows:[49]
- Warner Music Group — 25.1%
- Universal Music Group — 24.3%
- Sony Corporation — 22.1%
- Other — 28.5%
The largest players in this industry own more than 100 subsidiary record labels or sublabels, each specializing in a certain market niche. Only the industry's most popular artists are signed directly to the major label. These companies account for more than half of US market share. However, this has fallen somewhat in recent years, as the new digital environment allows smaller labels to compete more effectively.[49]
Albums sales and market value
[edit]Total album sales have declined in the early decades of the 21st century, leading some music critics to declare the death of the album. (For instance, the only albums that went platinum in the US in 2014 were the soundtrack to the Disney animated film Frozen and Taylor Swift's 1989, whereas several artists did in 2013.)[50][51] The following table shows album sales and market value in the world in 2014.
| Ranking | Market | Retail value US $ (millions) |
% Change | Physical | Digital | Performance rights | Synchronization |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States | 4,898.3 | 2.1% | 26% | 71% | 0% | 4% |
| 2 | Japan | 2,627.9 | −5.5% | 78% | 17% | 3% | 1% |
| 3 | Germany | 1,404.8 | 1.9% | 70% | 22% | 7% | 1% |
| 4 | United Kingdom | 1,334.6 | −2.8% | 41% | 45% | 12% | 2% |
| 5 | France | 842.8 | −3.4% | 57% | 27% | 13% | 3% |
| 6 | Australia | 376.1 | −6.8% | 32% | 56% | 9% | 2% |
| 7 | Canada | 342.5 | −11.3% | 38% | 53% | 6% | 2% |
| 8 | South Korea | 265.8 | 19.2% | 38% | 58% | 3% | 1% |
| 9 | Brazil | 246.5 | 2.0% | 41% | 37% | 21% | 1% |
| 10 | Italy | 235.2 | 4.1% | 51% | 33% | 13% | 3% |
| 11 | Netherlands | 204.8 | 2.1% | 45% | 38% | 16 | 1% |
| 12 | Sweden | 189.4 | 1.3% | 15% | 73% | 10% | 2% |
| 13 | Spain | 181.1 | 15.2% | 47% | 35% | 17% | 1% |
| 14 | Mexico | 130.3 | −1.4% | 41% | 53% | 4% | 2% |
| 15 | Norway | 119.9 | 0.1% | 14% | 72% | 12% | 2% |
| 16 | Austria | 114.9 | −2.7% | 65% | 22% | 13% | 1% |
| 17 | Belgium | 111.2 | −5.8% | 49% | 28% | 22% | 0% |
| 18 | Switzerland | 108.2 | −8.1% | 52% | 38% | 9% | 0% |
| 19 | China | 105.2 | 5.6% | 12% | 87% | 0% | 1% |
| 20 | India | 100.2 | −10.1% | 31% | 58% | 8% | 3% |
Source: IFPI 2014 annual report.[52]
Recorded music retail sales
[edit]2000
[edit]In its June 30, 2000 annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Seagram reported that Universal Music Group made 40% of the worldwide classical music sales over the preceding year.[53]
2005
[edit]Interim physical retail sales in 2005. All figures in millions.
| Country info | Units | Value | Change (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ranking | Country name | Singles | CD | DVD | Total Units | $ (in USD) | Local Currency | Units | Value |
| 1 | US | 14.7 | 300.5 | 11.6 | 326.8 | 4783.2 | 4783.2 | −5.70% | −5.30% |
| 2 | Japan | 28.5 | 93.7 | 8.5 | 113.5 | 2258.2 | 239759 | −6.90% | −9.20% |
| 3 | UK | 24.3 | 66.8 | 2.9 | 74.8 | 1248.5 | 666.7 | −1.70% | −4.00% |
| 4 | Germany | 8.5 | 58.7 | 4.4 | 71 | 887.7 | 689.7 | −7.70% | −5.80% |
| 5 | France | 11.5 | 47.3 | 4.5 | 56.9 | 861.1 | 669.1 | 7.50% | −2.50% |
| 6 | Italy | 0.5 | 14.7 | 0.7 | 17 | 278 | 216 | −8.40% | −12.30% |
| 7 | Canada | 0.1 | 20.8 | 1.5 | 22.3 | 262.9 | 325 | 0.70% | −4.60% |
| 8 | Australia | 3.6 | 14.5 | 1.5 | 17.2 | 259.6 | 335.9 | −22.90% | −11.80% |
| 9 | India | – | 10.9 | – | 55.3 | 239.6 | 11500 | −19.20% | −2.40% |
| 10 | Spain | 1 | 17.5 | 1.1 | 19.1 | 231.6 | 180 | −13.40% | −15.70% |
| 11 | Netherlands | 1.2 | 8.7 | 1.9 | 11.1 | 190.3 | 147.9 | −31.30% | −19.80% |
| 12 | Russia | – | 25.5 | 0.1 | 42.7 | 187.9 | 5234.7 | −9.40% | 21.20% |
| 13 | Mexico | 0.1 | 33.4 | 0.8 | 34.6 | 187.9 | 2082.3 | 44.00% | 21.50% |
| 14 | Brazil | 0.01 | 17.6 | 2.4 | 24 | 151.7 | 390.3 | −20.40% | −16.50% |
| 15 | Austria | 0.6 | 4.5 | 0.2 | 5 | 120.5 | 93.6 | −1.50% | −9.60% |
| 16 | Switzerland ** | 0.8 | 7.1 | 0.2 | 7.8 | 115.8 | 139.2 | n/a | n/a |
| 17 | Belgium | 1.4 | 6.7 | 0.5 | 7.7 | 115.4 | 89.7 | −13.80% | −8.90% |
| 18 | Norway | 0.3 | 4.5 | 0.1 | 4.8 | 103.4 | 655.6 | −19.70% | −10.40% |
| 19 | Sweden | 0.6 | 6.6 | 0.2 | 7.2 | 98.5 | 701.1 | −29.00% | −20.30% |
| 20 | Denmark | 0.1 | 4 | 0.1 | 4.2 | 73.1 | 423.5 | 3.70% | −4.20% |
| Top 20 | 74.5 | 757.1 | 42.8 | 915.2 | 12378.7 | −6.60% | −6.30% | ||
2003–2007
[edit]Approximately 21% of the gross CD revenue numbers in 2003 can be attributed to used CD sales.[citation needed] This number grew to approximately 27% in 2007.[citation needed] The growth is attributed to increasing on-line sales of used product by outlets such as Amazon.com, the growth of used music media is expected to continue to grow as the cost of digital downloads continues to rise.[citation needed] The sale of used goods financially benefits the vendors and online marketplaces, but in the United States, the first-sale doctrine prevents copyright owners (record labels and publishers, generally) from "double dipping" through a levy on the sale of used music.
2011
[edit]In mid-2011, the RIAA trumpeted a sales increase of 5% over 2010, stating that "there's probably no one single reason" for the bump.[54]
2012
[edit]The Nielsen Company & Billboard's 2012 Industry Report shows overall music sales increased 3.1% over 2011. Digital sales caused this increase, with a Digital Album sales growth of 14.1% and Digital Track sales growth of 5.1%, whereas Physical Music sales decreased by 12.8% versus 2011. Despite the decrease, physical albums were still the dominant album format. Vinyl Record sales increased by 17.7% and Holiday Season Album sales decreased by 7.1%.[47]
Total revenue by year
[edit]Global trade revenue according to the IFPI.
| Year | Revenue | Change | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | $20.7 billion | −3% | [55][56] |
| 2006 | $19.6 billion | −5% | [55] |
| 2007 | $18.8 billion | −4% | [57] |
| 2008 | $18.4 billion | −2% | [58] |
| 2009 | $17.4 billion | −5% | [59] |
| 2010 | $16.8 billion | −3.4% | [8] |
| 2011 | $16.2 billion | −4% | [8][60] (Includes sync revenues) |
| 2012 | $16.5 billion | +2% | [60] |
| 2013 | $15 billion | −9% | [61] |
| 2014 | $14.97 billion | −0.2% | [62] |
| 2015 | $15 billion | +3.2% | [63][64] |
| 2016 | $15.7 billion | +5% | [65] |
| 2017 | $17.4 billion | +10.8% | [65] |
| 2018 | $19.1 billion | +9.7% | [65] |
| 2019 | $20.2 billion | +8.2% | [66] |
| 2020 | $21.6 billion | +7.4% | [67] |
| 2021 | $25.9 billion | +18.5% | [68] |
| 2022 | $26.2 billion | +9% | [69] |
By region
[edit]Associations and organizations
[edit]The List of music associations and organizations covers examples from around the world, ranging from huge international bodies to smaller national-level bodies.
See also
[edit]- DIY ethic
- History of music publishing
- Lists of record labels and Category:Record labels
- List of best-selling music artists
- Midem-World's largest music trade fair
- Music community
- White label record
References
[edit]Citations
[edit]- ^ Sony Corporation announced October 1, 2008, that it had completed the acquisition of Bertelsmann's 50% stake in Sony BMG, which was originally announced on August 5, 2008. Ref: "Sony's acquisition of Bertelsmann's 50% Stake in Sony BMG complete" (Press release). Sony Corporation of America. Archived from the original on October 3, 2008.
- ^ "The Music Industry". The Economist. October 15, 2008. Archived from the original on June 29, 2011. Retrieved December 2, 2008.
- ^ Goldman, David (February 3, 2010). "Music's lost decade: Sales cut in half". CNN Money. Archived from the original on June 27, 2020.
- ^ a b Seabrook, John (August 10, 2009). "The Price of the Ticket". The New Yorker. Annals of Entertainment. p. 34. Archived from the original on October 21, 2013. Retrieved February 20, 2020.
- ^ "Mobile World Congress 2011". dailywireless.org. February 14, 2011. Archived from the original on October 21, 2013. Retrieved February 28, 2011.
Amazon is now the world's biggest book retailer. Apple, the world's largest music retailer.
- ^ Lee, Tyler; PDT, on 4 May 2020 15:51. "Spotify Was The Largest Music Streaming Service For 2019". Ubergizmo. Archived from the original on February 5, 2021. Retrieved March 3, 2021.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ a b c d e f Knopper, Steve (2009). Appetite for Self-Destruction: the Spectacular Crash of the Record Industry in the Digital Age. Free Press. ISBN 978-1-4165-5215-4.
- ^ a b c "IFPI 2012 Report: Global Music Revenue Down 3%; Sync, PRO, Digital Income Up". Billboard. March 26, 2012. Archived from the original on September 23, 2018. Retrieved November 21, 2016.
- ^ "Why Branding is Important for DJS and Producers". Archived from the original on September 9, 2017. Retrieved September 9, 2017.
- ^ "What a Mess: New Report From Berklee College of Music Looks to Fix an Aging, Fractured Business". Billboard. July 14, 2015. Archived from the original on December 21, 2016. Retrieved November 21, 2016.
- ^ "Creating Transparency In The Music Industry". Hypebot.com. August 4, 2015. Archived from the original on September 1, 2016. Retrieved November 21, 2016.
- ^ Glover, Jane. "Dear Constanze | Music". The Guardian. Archived from the original on February 16, 2021. Retrieved November 21, 2016.
- ^ For the "darky"/"coon" distinction see, for example, note 34 on p. 167 of Edward Marx and Laura E. Franey's annotated edition of Yone Noguchi, The American Diary of a Japanese Girl, Temple University Press, 2007, ISBN 1-59213-555-2. See also Lewis A. Erenberg (1984), Steppin' Out: New York Nightlife and the Transformation of American Culture, 1890–1930, University of Chicago Press, p. 73, ISBN 0-226-21515-6. For more on the "darky" stereotype, see J. Ronald Green (2000), Straight Lick: The Cinema of Oscar Micheaux, Indiana University Press, pp. 134, 206, ISBN 0-253-33753-4; p. 151 of the same work also alludes to the specific "coon" archetype.
- ^ "Early Record Label History". Angelfire.com. Archived from the original on February 18, 2013. Retrieved February 4, 2013.
- ^ "Sony and BMG merger backed by EU" , BBC News, July 19, 2004
- ^ Mark Sweney "Universal's £1.2bn EMI takeover approved – with conditions" Archived September 27, 2013, at the Wayback Machine, The Guardian (London),
- ^ Halperin, Shirley (June 30, 2012). "Sold! EMI Music Publishing to Consortium Led by Sony/ATV, Michael Jackson Estate for $2.2 Billio". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on November 24, 2020.
- ^ Mario d'Angelo: "Does globalisation mean ineluctable concentration?" in Roche F., Marcq B., Colomé D. (eds)The Music Industry in the New Economy, Report of the Asia-Europe Seminar (Lyon 2001) IEP de Lyon/Asia-Europe Foundation/Eurical, 2002, pp.53–60.
- ^ McCardle, Megan (May 2010). "The Freeloaders". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on December 21, 2010. Retrieved December 10, 2010.
industry revenues have been declining for the past 10 years
- ^ Goldman, David (February 3, 2010). "Music's lost decade: Sales cut in half". Archived from the original on December 3, 2018. Retrieved December 1, 2018.
[...] it would appear all is well in the recording industry. But at the end of last year, the music business was worth half of what it was ten years ago and the decline doesn't look like it will be slowing anytime soon. [...] Total revenue from U.S. music sales and licensing plunged to $6.3 billion in 2009, according to Forrester Research. In 1999, that revenue figure topped $14.6 billion.
- ^ "2000 Industry World Sales" (PDF). IFPI annual report. April 9, 2001. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 15, 2011. Retrieved July 18, 2011.
- ^ Smirke, Richard (March 30, 2011). "IFPI 2011 Report: Global Recorded Music Sales Fall 8.4%; Eminem, Lady Gaga Top Int'l Sellers". Billboard Magazine. Archived from the original on September 27, 2011. Retrieved July 18, 2012.
- ^ a b Arango, Tim (November 25, 2008). "Digital Sales Surpass CDs at Atlantic". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 13, 2019. Retrieved July 6, 2009.
- ^ a b "The music industry". The Economist. January 10, 2008. Archived from the original on October 27, 2009. Retrieved July 10, 2009.
- ^ Borland, John (March 29, 2004). "Music sharing doesn't kill CD sales, study says". C Net. Archived from the original on December 1, 2010. Retrieved July 6, 2009.
- ^ Andrew Orlowski. 80% want legal P2P – survey Archived August 10, 2017, at the Wayback Machine. The Register, 2008.
- ^ Shuman Ghosemajumder. Advanced Peer-Based Technology Business Models Archived October 13, 2012, at the Wayback Machine. MIT Sloan School of Management, 2002.
- ^ X. Chen, Brian (April 28, 2010). "April 28, 2003: Apple Opens iTunes Store". Wired. Archived from the original on November 29, 2020. Retrieved November 19, 2019.
- ^ Griggs, Brandon (April 26, 2013). "How iTunes changed music, and the world". CNN. Archived from the original on April 18, 2019. Retrieved November 19, 2019.
- ^ Segall, Laurie (January 5, 2012). "Digital music sales top physical sales". CNN. Archived from the original on January 5, 2020. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
According to a Nielsen and Billboard report, digital music purchases accounted for 50.3% of music sales in 2011.
- ^ Marshall, Lee (July 3, 2015). "'Let's keep music special. F—Spotify': on-demand streaming and the controversy over artist royalties". Creative Industries Journal. 8 (2): 177–189. doi:10.1080/17510694.2015.1096618. hdl:1983/e268a666-8395-4160-9d07-4754052dff5d. ISSN 1751-0694. S2CID 143176746. Archived from the original on January 21, 2023. Retrieved December 11, 2019.
- ^ Dredge, Stuart (April 3, 2015). "How much do musicians really make from Spotify, iTunes and YouTube?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on November 2, 2018. Retrieved March 26, 2016.
- ^ Willman, Chris (November 6, 2014). "Exclusive: Taylor Swift on Being Pop's Instantly Platinum Wonder... And Why She's Paddling Against the Streams". Yahoo. Archived from the original on August 23, 2016. Retrieved August 16, 2016.
- ^ Grow, Kory (November 6, 2014). "Taylor Swift Shuns 'Grand Experiment' of Streaming Music". Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on August 27, 2017. Retrieved September 5, 2017.
- ^ Compare: Friedlander, Joshua P. "News and Notes on 2015 RIAA Shipment and Revenue Statistics" (PDF). RIAA. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 6, 2019. Retrieved December 1, 2018.
Combining all categories of streaming music (subscription, ad-supported on-demand, and SoundExchange distributions), revenues grew 29% to $2.4 billion.
- ^ Blake, Andrew (March 23, 2016). "Streaming made more revenue for music industry in 2015 than digital downloads, physical sales". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on January 5, 2017. Retrieved January 5, 2017.
- ^ Shaw, Lucas (September 20, 2016). "The Music Industry Is Finally Making Money on Streaming". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on May 22, 2019. Retrieved January 5, 2017.
- ^ Rosso, Wayne (January 16, 2009). "Perspective: Recording industry should brace for more bad news". CNET. Archived from the original on September 29, 2011. Retrieved January 17, 2009.
- ^ "Startups, Not Apple, Lead Music Industry's Rebirth". Thestreet.com. November 5, 2013. Archived from the original on September 17, 2016. Retrieved November 21, 2016.
- ^ Graham, Jefferson (October 14, 2009). "Musicians ditch studios for tech such as GiO for Macs". U.S.A. Today. Archived from the original on June 28, 2011. Retrieved September 5, 2017.
- ^ Nathan Olivarez-Giles (October 13, 2009). "Recording studios are being left out of the mix". The Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on October 18, 2009. Retrieved February 20, 2020.
- ^ "Digital Music Report 2014" (PDF). p. 9. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 26, 2014. Retrieved June 7, 2015.
- ^ According to the RIAA Archived May 21, 2007, at the Wayback Machine the world music market is estimated at $40 billion, but according to IFPI Archived November 7, 2008, at the Wayback Machine (2004) it is estimated at $32 billion.
- ^ "IFPI releases definitive statistics on global market for recorded music". Ifpi.org. August 2, 2005. Archived from the original on November 9, 2013. Retrieved September 17, 2013.
- ^ "The Nielsen Company & Billboard's 2011 Music Industry Report," Archived October 22, 2021, at the Wayback Machine Business Wire (January 5, 2012)
- ^ Tom Pakinkis, "EMI lay-offs reported in the US," Archived February 11, 2013, at the Wayback Machine Music Week (January 8, 2013)
- ^ a b "The Nielsen Company & Billboard's 2012 Music Industry Report," Archived January 12, 2013, at archive.today Business Wire (January 4, 2013)
- ^ "Digital Music Futures and the Independent Music Industry", Clicknoise.net, February 1, 2007.
- ^ a b IBISWorld report 51221
- ^ McIntyre, Hugh (October 16, 2014). "Not One Artist's Album Has Gone Platinum In 2014". Forbes. Archived from the original on October 18, 2014. Retrieved September 5, 2017.
- ^ Sanders, Sam. "Taylor Swift, Platinum Party of One". NPR.org. Archived from the original on November 5, 2014. Retrieved April 5, 2018.
- ^ "RIAJ Yearbook 2015: IFPI 2013, 2014. Global Sales of Recorded Music" (PDF). Recording Industry Association of Japan. p. 24. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 16, 2015. Retrieved June 7, 2015.
- ^ "Seagram Co Ltd – '10-K405' for 6/30/00". SEC Info. Archived from the original on October 14, 2016. Retrieved November 21, 2016.
- ^ "Midyear Digital Music Milestones". Recording Industry Association of America. July 11, 2011. Archived from the original on October 21, 2013. Retrieved October 18, 2012.
There's probably no one single reason, but we'd like to think that enhanced marketing efforts – like the sale of music at nontraditional outlets – and anti-piracy successes like the closure of LimeWire have helped.
- ^ a b Downloads fail to stem fall in global music sales Archived July 9, 2017, at the Wayback Machine The Guardian
- ^ Press Release: "Digital Formats continue to drive the Global Music Market," Archived October 27, 2012, at the Wayback Machine IFPI (London, March 31, 2006).
- ^ "IFPI reveals 2007 recorded music revenues decline". Music Ally. May 15, 2008. Archived from the original on October 14, 2016. Retrieved November 21, 2016.
- ^ "Global music sales down 8 percent in 2008: IFPI". Reuters. April 21, 2009. Archived from the original on October 18, 2016. Retrieved November 21, 2016.
- ^ "IFPI 2011 Report: Global Recorded Music Sales Fall 8.4%; Eminem, Lady Gaga Top Int'l Sellers". Billboard. March 30, 2011. Archived from the original on January 5, 2019. Retrieved November 21, 2016.
- ^ a b IFPI Digital Music Report 2013: Global Recorded Music Revenues Climb for First Time Since 1999 Archived May 16, 2019, at the Wayback Machine Billboard
- ^ IFPI Digital Music Report 2014: Global Recorded Music Revenues Down 4% Archived October 22, 2017, at the Wayback Machine Billboard
- ^ Smirke, Richard (April 14, 2015). "Global Record Business Dips Slightly, U.S. Ticks Upwards In IFPI's 2015 Report". billboard.com. Archived from the original on April 19, 2015. Retrieved April 20, 2015.
- ^ "IFPI Global Report: Digital Revenues Surpass Physical for the First Time as Streaming Explodes". Billboard. April 12, 2016. Archived from the original on July 9, 2016. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
- ^ "IFPI Global Music Report 2016: State of the Industry" (PDF). Ifpi.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 22, 2020. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
- ^ a b c "Streaming accounted for nearly half of music revenues worldwide in 2018". TechCrunch. April 2, 2019. Archived from the original on January 21, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
- ^ "GLOBAL MUSIC REPORT". IFPI. Archived from the original on August 4, 2020. Retrieved August 21, 2020.
- ^ "GLOBAL MUSIC REPORT". IFPI. March 23, 2021. Archived from the original on March 25, 2021. Retrieved April 17, 2022.
- ^ "GLOBAL MUSIC REPORT". IFPI. March 22, 2022. Archived from the original on March 22, 2022. Retrieved April 17, 2022.
- ^ Hatton, Carl (March 21, 2023). "IFPI Global Music Report: Global Recorded Music Revenues Grew 9% In 2022". IFPI. Archived from the original on September 27, 2023. Retrieved September 21, 2023.
General and cited sources
[edit]- Krasilovsky, M. William; Shemel, Sidney; Gross, John M.; Feinstein, Jonathan (2007), This Business of Music (10th ed.), Billboard Books, ISBN 0-8230-7729-2
Further reading
[edit]- Beeching, Angela. Beyond Talent: Creating a Successful Career in Music, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press, 2020
- Cutler, David. The Savvy Musician. Helius Press, 2009
- Gerd Leonhard: Music Like Water – the inevitable music ecosystem
- Klickstein, Gerald. The Musician's Way: a Guide to Practice, Performance, and Wellness. Oxford University Press, 2009
- Lebrecht, Norman: When the Music Stops: Managers, Maestros and the Corporate Murder of Classical Music, Simon & Schuster 1996
- Imhorst, Christian: The 'Lost Generation' of the Music Industry, published under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License 2004
- The Methods Reporter: Music Industry Misses Mark with Wrongful Suits
- Music CD Industry Archived June 26, 2007, at the Wayback Machine – a mid-2000 overview put together by Duke University undergraduate students
- Mario d'Angelo: Perspectives de gestion des institutions musicales en Europe (Management Perspectives for Musical Institutions in Europe), OMF Series, Paris-Sorbonne University, Ed. Musicales Aug. Zurfluh, Bourg-la-Reine, 2006 ISBN 2-84591-130-0
- Hill, Dave: Designer Boys and Material Girls: Manufacturing the [19]80s Pop Dream. Poole, Eng.: Blandford Press, 1986. ISBN 0-7137-1857-9
- Rachlin, Harvey. The Encyclopedia of the Music Business. First ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1981. xix, 524 p. ISBN 0-06-014913-2
- The supply of recorded music: A report on the supply in the UK of prerecorded compact discs, vinyl discs and tapes containing music. Competition Commission, 1994.
- Gillett, A. G., & Smith, G. (2015). "Creativities, innovation, and networks in garage punk rock: A case study of the Eruptörs". Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts. 4 (1): 9–24. doi:10.1353/artv.2015.0000. ISSN 2164-7747. S2CID 54907273.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Knopper, S., 2011. The New Economics of the Music Industry. Rolling Stone, 25.
- Tschmuck, Peter: Creativity and Innovation in the Music Industry, Springer 2006.
External links
[edit]- Salon article on Courtney Love's criticism of record industry business practices
- Federal Trade Commission press release regarding price fixing
- Antitrust settlement in Nevada price-fixing case
- The British Library – Music Industry Guide (sources of information) Archived October 25, 2017, at the Wayback Machine
- Academic articles about the music industry The Music Business Journal
Music industry
View on GrokipediaOverview and Scope
Definition and Core Elements
The music industry encompasses the commercial activities and organizations involved in the creation, production, distribution, promotion, and consumption of music, spanning recorded audio, live performances, and associated intellectual property rights. It includes entities such as record labels, publishers, distributors, promoters, and digital platforms that facilitate the monetization of musical works through sales, licensing, and performances. This structure has evolved with technological advancements, but fundamentally relies on the value chain from composition to listener engagement.[10][11] Core elements of the music industry include the recorded music sector, music publishing, live events, and synchronization licensing. The recorded music sector involves artists collaborating with producers and labels to create and distribute sound recordings, historically via physical media like vinyl and CDs, and now predominantly through digital streaming and downloads; in 2023, streaming revenues comprised 67% of global recorded music income, totaling $19.3 billion out of $28.6 billion.[12] Music publishing administers copyrights for underlying compositions and lyrics, generating royalties from public performances, mechanical reproductions, and sync deals for use in media such as films and advertisements.[10] Live performances represent a vital pillar, encompassing concerts, tours, and festivals where artists perform for audiences, often yielding higher per-event revenues than recordings due to ticket sales, merchandising, and sponsorships; this sector contributed significantly to industry resilience post-digital disruptions. Synchronization licensing integrates music into visual media, providing additional income streams by placing tracks in commercials, TV shows, and movies, with performance rights organizations collecting and distributing fees from broadcasters and venues. These elements interconnect, with publishing and recorded rights often split between master recordings (owned by labels) and composition rights (held by publishers), enabling diversified revenue amid shifting consumer behaviors.[12][11]Economic and Cultural Impact
In 2024, the global recorded music industry generated US$29.6 billion in revenues, marking a 4.8% increase from the previous year and the tenth consecutive year of growth.[2] This expansion was primarily driven by subscription streaming, which accounted for over two-thirds of revenues and grew by 9.5%, while paid streaming users reached 752 million worldwide.[3] Physical formats and performance rights also contributed, though their shares declined relative to digital streams, reflecting a shift toward accessible, on-demand consumption models.[13] In the United States, the broader music industries—including recording, publishing, live events, and related sectors—supported 2.5 million jobs as of 2020 data extended into recent analyses, with direct employment rising from 1.127 million in 2017 to 1.318 million by 2020.[14] These activities contributed $212 billion annually to U.S. GDP through 2020, equating to a 5.7% compound annual growth rate in economic output from 2017 onward, outpacing overall economic expansion in some metrics.[15] The sector's multiplier effects amplified this, generating indirect and induced employment in areas like manufacturing and tourism, though disruptions such as the COVID-19 pandemic temporarily strained live music segments before recovery via digital alternatives.[16] Culturally, the music industry has accelerated the globalization of musical forms, enabling cross-cultural exchange through digital dissemination, as seen in the integration of diverse genres like K-pop into Western markets and vice versa.[17] Empirical studies indicate that increased access via streaming correlates with enhanced population well-being, potentially through relational framing and shared symbolic systems that foster social cohesion, though causal links remain mediated by individual consumption patterns rather than industry intent.[18] This influence extends to shaping youth cultural identities, with collaborations and algorithmic promotion homogenizing tastes while occasionally preserving niche traditions, but outcomes vary by region and resist oversimplification as uniformly positive or negative without accounting for commercial incentives prioritizing profitability over diversity.[19]Historical Evolution
Origins in Printed and Sheet Music
The adaptation of printing technology to music notation laid the foundation for the music industry's origins by enabling the mass reproduction and commercialization of musical scores. Although Johannes Gutenberg's movable type press emerged around 1450, initial efforts to print music involved woodblocks or hybrid methods, with the first fully printed musical notation appearing in the Constance Gradual in Germany around 1473.[20] This early innovation primarily served liturgical needs but demonstrated the feasibility of disseminating composed music beyond manuscript copying, which had previously limited access to elites and institutions.[21] A pivotal advancement occurred in 1501 when Venetian printer Ottaviano Petrucci published Harmonice Musices Odhecaton A, the first collection of polyphonic secular songs (chansons) printed entirely with movable type using a three-pass impression process for staves, notes, and text.[22] This 96-piece anthology, featuring works by composers like Josquin des Prez, revolutionized production efficiency and quality, allowing for broader distribution across Europe.[23] Venice quickly dominated the nascent industry, with firms integrating printing, publishing, and bookselling roles; by the early 16th century, Venetian output exceeded that of the rest of Europe combined, driven by state-granted monopolies and technical expertise that lowered costs and standardized formats.[24] By the 18th century, music publishing expanded into a structured enterprise, particularly in Germany, where firms began specializing in opera scores, chamber music, and instructional materials amid growing amateur performance.[25] The 19th century marked sheet music's economic ascendancy, fueled by the piano's popularity in middle-class households and urbanization, which increased demand for affordable home entertainment; publishers like those in the United States adopted engraving techniques for lithographic printing, reducing prices and enabling weekly song releases.[26] Prior to phonograph recordings, sheet music sales constituted the primary revenue stream, with hits generating profits through royalties and bulk distribution to piano teachers, salons, and theaters, though composers often received limited shares due to publisher dominance.[27] This era's output, peaking in Europe and North America, preserved repertoires and incentivized composition for marketable genres, establishing publishing as the industry's core until technological shifts in the late 19th century.[28]Emergence of Recording and Broadcasting
Thomas Edison invented the phonograph in 1877, a device capable of recording and reproducing sound using tinfoil-wrapped cylinders.[29] On December 6, 1877, Edison's assistant John Kruesi constructed the first working model, which successfully recorded and played back the nursery rhyme "Mary Had a Little Lamb."[30] The Edison Phonograph Company formed on October 8, 1887, to commercialize the technology, introducing improved models with wax cylinders by 1888 that enabled better audio fidelity and durability.[30] Emile Berliner patented the gramophone in 1887, introducing flat shellac discs that rotated at 78 rpm, offering advantages in mass production and easier playback over cylinders.[31] Berliner's system facilitated the first commercially viable disc records, with manufacturing beginning around 1889, shifting the industry toward reproducible media that could be stamped in large quantities.[32] By 1900, U.S. phonograph record sales reached approximately 4 million units annually, surging to nearly 30 million by 1910 as recording technology democratized access to music beyond live performances and sheet music.[33] Radio broadcasting emerged in the early 20th century, with Reginald Fessenden achieving the first transmission of voice and music on December 24, 1906, from Brant Rock, Massachusetts, including a violin solo and excerpts from Handel's "Largo."[34] Commercial regular broadcasts began in the 1920s; KDKA in Pittsburgh aired the first scheduled U.S. radio program on November 2, 1920, featuring election results, followed by music programming.[35] By January 1921, stations like WHA initiated routinely scheduled voice and music broadcasts, expanding music's reach to mass audiences without physical media. The advent of recording and broadcasting transformed the music industry by decoupling consumption from live events and printed scores; record sales overtook sheet music revenues by the mid-1920s, as consumers preferred hearing performances directly rather than playing instruments themselves.[36] This shift fostered professional recording studios and artist contracts focused on royalties, though early artists often received flat fees, with industry consolidation around labels like Victor Talking Machine Company driving standardization of 78 rpm discs.[37] Broadcasting, in turn, boosted record sales through airplay promotion while introducing advertising revenue models, though it initially competed with live ticket sales by offering free access.[38]Digital Disruption and Napster Era
The proliferation of broadband internet and digital audio formats such as MP3 in the late 1990s facilitated unauthorized file sharing, challenging the music industry's reliance on physical sales. Napster, a peer-to-peer service developed by Shawn Fanning and Sean Parker, launched on June 1, 1999, allowing users to search and download compressed music files from others' computers via a centralized index server.[39] This model enabled free access to copyrighted recordings, bypassing traditional distribution and royalty systems.[40] Napster's user base expanded rapidly, reaching an estimated 26.4 million unique users worldwide by February 2001, with simultaneous sharing peaking at around 1.5 million.[40][41] The service's appeal stemmed from its simplicity and the abundance of music available, including major label releases, which users shared without compensation to artists or labels.[42] High-profile artists, including Metallica and Dr. Dre, publicly criticized the platform; Metallica filed suit on April 13, 2000, alleging copyright infringement after discovering unreleased tracks circulating, while Dr. Dre followed with similar claims targeting universities facilitating access.[43][44] The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) initiated litigation against Napster on December 6, 1999, seeking an injunction for contributory and vicarious infringement, arguing the service enabled massive unauthorized copying.[45] Federal courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, mandating filters for copyrighted material, but compliance proved infeasible; Napster ceased operations on July 11, 2001, following a court order.[46] The shutdown prompted Napster's bankruptcy in 2002, though the brand later relaunched as a paid service.[47] This period marked the onset of sustained revenue erosion for the recorded music sector, with U.S. shipments peaking at $14.3 billion in 1999 before declining sharply; physical formats fell over 50% by the end of the decade as piracy proliferated via successors like LimeWire and BitTorrent.[48][49] Empirical analyses attribute 20% of the 1999–2001 sales drop to file sharing, with broader studies estimating up to 39% of the 2000 decline directly linked to Napster's influence on consumer behavior.[50][51] The industry's initial resistance to digital licensing, prioritizing CD protections amid a post-peak format bubble, exacerbated losses, as unauthorized sharing normalized expectations of free access and delayed viable legal alternatives.[52][53]Streaming Era and Recovery
The decline in recorded music revenues following the Napster-era piracy surge bottomed out globally at $14.97 billion in 2014, as physical sales and digital downloads failed to offset unauthorized file-sharing losses.[54] The advent of licensed on-demand streaming services initiated a reversal, with Spotify launching in Sweden and other European countries in October 2008 as a dual freemium model—ad-supported free access alongside paid subscriptions—to provide legal, user-friendly alternatives to illegal downloads.[55] This approach, negotiated with major labels amid ongoing piracy threats, prioritized catalog breadth and algorithmic recommendations to retain users who previously relied on torrent sites or peer-to-peer networks. Subsequent entrants accelerated adoption, including Apple Music's debut in June 2015, which integrated streaming with device ecosystems and exclusive content deals to capture iOS users transitioning from iTunes downloads.[56] By 2016, streaming revenues surpassed digital downloads in the United States, the world's largest market, accounting for over half of total industry income there as on-demand platforms like Spotify and Tidal gained traction.[57] Globally, streaming overtook physical formats as the primary revenue source around 2017-2018, reflecting a broader pivot from ownership to subscription-based access enabled by ubiquitous mobile broadband.[58] This shift fueled sustained recovery, with global recorded music revenues climbing from $15.0 billion in 2015 to $28.6 billion in 2023—a 10% year-over-year increase—and reaching $29.6 billion in 2024, the tenth consecutive annual gain and a figure exceeding the late-1990s peak of approximately $27 billion in nominal terms.[59] [13] Streaming dominated this growth, comprising 69% of 2024 revenues at $20.4 billion, driven primarily by paid subscriptions which alone accounted for over 50% of totals and benefited from rising user bases—reaching 752 million paid subscribers worldwide by 2024.[3] [13] While ad-supported tiers contributed marginally less due to lower per-user payouts, the model's scalability—fueled by data-driven personalization and playlist curation—expanded overall consumption volumes, with global audio streams hitting 4.8 trillion in 2024, a 14% rise from prior years.[60] The recovery's causal drivers include reduced piracy rates post-streaming legalization, as platforms undercut illegal alternatives through convenience and legality, alongside label investments in front-end deals that recouped via backend streaming royalties from evergreen catalogs.[61] However, per-stream economics remain contentious, with average payouts often cited at $0.003 to $0.005 per play, disproportionately benefiting high-volume hits and legacy artists over independents, though aggregate label earnings have stabilized major operations and enabled broader artist signings.[62] By 2024, physical formats like vinyl contributed niche growth (up slightly after prior declines), but digital streaming's dominance underscores a structural realignment toward recurring, volume-dependent income streams.[63]Business Structure and Models
Key Revenue Streams
The music industry's key revenue streams include recorded music (encompassing streaming, physical sales, and digital downloads), music publishing (from performance rights, mechanical royalties, and synchronization licensing), live performances, and merchandising. Recorded music revenues reached $29.6 billion globally in 2024, marking a 4.8% increase from the prior year and the tenth consecutive year of growth.[2] Streaming dominated this segment, generating $20.4 billion or 69% of total recorded revenues, with paid subscription services accounting for the majority and user bases expanding to 752 million.[3] Physical formats, including vinyl and CDs, experienced a slight decline after years of vinyl-led resurgence, while digital downloads continued their long-term contraction to negligible levels.[63] Music publishing, which compensates songwriters and composers for usage rights, provided another core stream, with U.S. revenues rising 13.4% to $7 billion in 2024, outpacing recorded music growth due to expanded streaming mechanicals and performance royalties. Globally, synchronization licensing—fees for using music in films, ads, and video games—totaled $650 million in 2024, reflecting four years of consecutive increases amid demand from visual media.[13] Performance rights organizations distributed $2.9 billion in 2024, up 5.9%, primarily from public performances and broadcasts.[3] Live performances emerged as a vital stream post-pandemic recovery, with global music tour revenues hitting a record $9.5 billion in 2024, driven by high-demand stadium shows from major artists.[64] Broader live music market estimates, including festivals and venues, exceeded $30 billion, fueled by ticket sales and ancillary fan spending, though exact figures vary by inclusion of secondary markets.[65] Merchandising, often bundled with live events, grew significantly for labels like Universal Music Group, contributing €842 million in 2024 revenue, up 19.3%, through artist-branded apparel, vinyl exclusives, and digital collectibles.[66] These streams collectively underpin industry economics, with streaming's scale offsetting declines in legacy formats while live and publishing provide diversified artist income amid platform negotiations.[67]Major Industry Players
The music industry's major players are dominated by three multinational record label conglomerates—Universal Music Group (UMG), Sony Music Entertainment (SME), and Warner Music Group (WMG)—collectively known as the "Big Three," which control over 70% of the global recorded music market as of 2024.[68] UMG, the largest, held approximately 32% market share and generated $10.5 billion in revenue in 2024, benefiting from subsidiaries like Interscope Geffen A&M and Republic Records, which led U.S. market share in Q3 2025 with hits from artists such as Taylor Swift and Drake.[69][70][71] SME follows with key imprints including Columbia and RCA, while WMG operates Atlantic and Elektra, together enabling these firms to leverage vast catalogs, artist development resources, and distribution networks amid streaming's rise.[5] In digital distribution and streaming, Spotify commands the largest share at around 31.7% of global music streaming users as of 2025, with over 180 million premium subscribers driving algorithmic personalization and playlist curation that shape consumer discovery.[72] Apple Music holds about 12.6% share, integrated with iOS ecosystems for seamless access, while Amazon Music captures 11.1%, bundling with Prime memberships to boost retention.[73] These platforms, which accounted for the bulk of the $29.6 billion in global recorded music revenues in 2024 (up 4.8% year-over-year), negotiate licensing deals with the Big Three, often facing tensions over royalty rates and algorithmic biases favoring major-label content.[13] Music publishing, handling songwriting copyrights separate from recordings, is led by affiliated arms of the Big Three: Sony Music Publishing, Universal Music Publishing Group, and Warner Chappell Music, which dominate collections from streaming and sync licenses.[74] Live events, a growing revenue stream exceeding $30 billion globally in recent years, are controlled by Live Nation Entertainment, which promotes tours for top artists and owns venues, Ticketmaster, and festivals, enabling vertical integration but drawing antitrust scrutiny for market concentration.[75]| Major Player | Segment | Key Metrics (2024/2025) |
|---|---|---|
| Universal Music Group | Recorded Music | ~32% global share, $10.5B revenue[69][70] |
| Sony Music Entertainment | Recorded Music | Significant U.S. imprints like Columbia[5] |
| Warner Music Group | Recorded Music | Atlantic-led growth in Q1 2024[76] |
| Spotify | Streaming | 31.7% market share[72] |
| Live Nation | Live Events | Dominant promoter with Ticketmaster integration[77] |
Distribution Channels and Platforms
Streaming platforms have become the primary distribution channel for recorded music, accounting for 69% of global revenues in 2024, up from negligible shares in the early 2000s. This shift followed the decline of physical formats and digital downloads, driven by widespread adoption of broadband internet and mobile devices, which enabled on-demand access over ownership. In 2024, total recorded music revenues reached $29.6 billion, with paid streaming subscriptions numbering over 752 million users worldwide.[2][3] Physical distribution, once dominant through retailers like Tower Records and independent stores, peaked in the late 1990s with CD sales exceeding $15 billion annually in the U.S. alone before collapsing due to file-sharing piracy and digital alternatives. By 2024, physical formats (vinyl, CDs) represented under 10% of revenues, sustained mainly by niche collectors and limited-edition releases, with vinyl sales reaching about 43 million units in the U.S. but failing to offset overall declines in other physical media.[12][78] Digital download platforms, exemplified by Apple's iTunes Store launched on January 29, 2003, briefly revived revenues in the mid-2000s by offering legal per-track purchases at $0.99, peaking U.S. sales at over 1.2 billion tracks in 2009. However, downloads dwindled to less than 2% of global revenues by 2024 as consumers favored subscription models, with platforms like iTunes transitioning to streaming via Apple Music in 2015.[56][79] Among streaming platforms, Spotify commands the largest market share at approximately 31.7% of global subscribers as of 2024, followed by Apple Music (around 15%), Amazon Music (13%), Tencent Music (13%), and YouTube Music (8%). These services operate on freemium models, where ad-supported tiers drive user acquisition while premium subscriptions—averaging $10.99 monthly in the U.S.—generate the bulk of royalties, calculated via pro-rata or user-centric pools based on streams. In the U.S., Spotify, Apple Music, and Amazon Music collectively hold over 90% of paid streaming market share, consolidating power among a few tech giants and major labels.[72][80][81] Independent distribution services such as DistroKid, TuneCore, and CD Baby facilitate uploads to these platforms for non-signed artists, retaining 0-15% commissions while enabling global reach without traditional label intermediaries; DistroKid, for instance, reported distributing over 2 million artists by 2024. Emerging short-form video platforms like TikTok increasingly serve as de facto distribution channels by amplifying discovery, with viral clips driving 20-30% of streams for breakout hits, though they contribute minimally to direct royalties due to licensing disputes.[82][12] Physical and download channels persist in hybrid models, such as direct-to-consumer sales via Bandcamp (launched 2008), which emphasizes artist payouts averaging 85% of revenue, contrasting streaming's fractional per-stream rates often below $0.004. Overall, platform algorithms prioritize high-engagement content, favoring established acts and exacerbating long-tail obscurity for independents, as evidenced by the top 1% of tracks capturing over 90% of streams on services like Spotify.[83][84]Economic Analysis
Global Revenue Trends
Global recorded music revenues declined sharply from a peak of approximately $38 billion in 1999 to a low of $14.8 billion in 2014, largely due to the rise of unauthorized file-sharing platforms like Napster, which facilitated widespread digital piracy and eroded physical sales such as CDs.[85][86] This period saw annual global revenues contract by over 60%, as consumers shifted to free, illegal downloads, undermining traditional distribution models without adequate legal alternatives initially emerging.[87] The industry began recovering in 2015, driven by the expansion of licensed streaming services, marking ten consecutive years of growth by 2024.[1] Revenues doubled from the 2014 nadir to $29.6 billion in 2024, reflecting a transition to digital consumption models that monetized access through subscriptions and ad-supported platforms.[88][2] In 2023, global revenues reached $28.6 billion, up 10.2% year-over-year, before moderating to a 4.8% increase in 2024 amid market saturation and economic pressures.[12][2] Streaming accounted for 69% of 2024 revenues, with subscription streaming growing 9.5% and paid subscribers reaching 752 million globally.[89][3] Growth occurred across all regions, though at varying rates, with North America (40.3% market share) expanding by 2.1%.[3] This sustained upward trajectory contrasts with the piracy-induced stagnation, as legal digital platforms have recaptured consumer spending through convenience and scale.[90]Format and Sales Shifts
The music industry's format landscape has undergone multiple transformations, initially dominated by physical media before shifting toward digital distribution. In the late 20th century, compact discs (CDs) became the primary format following their introduction in 1982, peaking in global sales at over 1 billion units annually by the late 1990s, driven by superior sound quality and durability compared to vinyl and cassettes. Physical formats accounted for nearly all recorded music revenue until the early 2000s, with U.S. CD sales alone generating $13.2 billion in 2000.[91] However, illegal file-sharing services like Napster, launched in 1999, precipitated a sharp decline, reducing physical sales by more than 60% between 2001 and 2010 and erasing $14 billion in annual U.S. revenue.[92] The advent of legal digital downloads marked the next phase, with Apple's iTunes Store opening in 2003 and enabling single-track purchases, which grew to comprise 50% of U.S. revenue by 2012.[93] Download sales peaked globally around 2012 at approximately 20% of revenue before declining as consumers favored access over ownership, dropping to under 3% by 2023 due to the inconvenience of managing files and lower per-unit economics compared to streaming.[12] This shift reflected causal drivers like broadband proliferation and piracy's normalization of free access, undermining paid downloads' viability.[94] Streaming emerged as the dominant format from the mid-2010s, with platforms like Spotify (launched 2008) and Apple Music (2015) prioritizing subscription and ad-supported models. By 2024, streaming accounted for 69% of global recorded music revenues, totaling about $20.4 billion out of $29.6 billion, up from less than 10% in 2010, as paid subscriptions reached 752 million users worldwide.[2] [3] In the U.S., streaming generated $11.7 billion in 2024, representing 84% of the $17.7 billion total, with physical formats relegated to 11% despite vinyl's niche resurgence—U.S. vinyl revenues hit $1.4 billion in 2023, comprising 71% of physical sales but still a fraction of overall market share.[95] [96] This dominance stems from streaming's scalability, enabling infinite inventory at low marginal cost, though it has compressed per-stream payouts to fractions of a cent, altering artist economics.[1] Physical formats persist in collector markets, with global physical revenues falling 3.1% in 2024 to around 10% of total, as CDs continue to erode while vinyl grows modestly among audiophiles and nostalgia-driven buyers.[97] Overall, these shifts have restored industry revenues to pre-piracy levels—global totals doubled from $14.8 billion in 2014 to $29.6 billion in 2024—primarily through streaming's volume, though format fragmentation challenges uniform monetization.[88]| Year | Global Revenue ($B) | Streaming Share (%) | Physical Share (%) | Download Share (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | 14.8 | ~20 | ~40 | ~30 |
| 2020 | 21.6 | 62 | 11 | 6 |
| 2023 | 28.6 | 67 | 11 | 3 |
| 2024 | 29.6 | 69 | 10 | <3 |
Market Consolidation and Competition
The recorded music sector of the music industry has experienced extensive consolidation over decades, culminating in the dominance of three multinational corporations—Universal Music Group (UMG), Sony Music Entertainment (SME), and Warner Music Group (WMG)—referred to as the "Big Three." This structure solidified after UMG acquired the recorded music assets of EMI from Citigroup for $1.9 billion in 2012, following EMI's financial distress, which reduced the prior "Big Four" configuration and concentrated control over artist signings, distribution, and publishing.[98] By leveraging vast catalogs amassed through serial acquisitions, the Big Three exert influence across global markets, with UMG alone reporting €10.5 billion in revenue for 2023, driven by streaming and catalog ownership. Their combined market power stems from economies of scale in A&R, marketing, and data analytics, enabling preferential access to streaming algorithms and radio airplay. As of 2024, the Big Three control over 70% of global recorded music revenues, with independents accounting for the remainder but often relying on major-affiliated distributors for reach.[98] Independent sector revenue grew robustly, reaching a market share of 46.7% in creator earnings by 2024 per MIDiA Research, up from 34.2% in prior years, fueled by direct-to-fan platforms and lower entry barriers in digital distribution.[99] However, majors distribute $3.8 billion of non-major revenue annually, blurring lines and allowing them to capture fees while indies handle upfront risks.[100] Recent acquisitions, such as Sony's $300 million purchase of AWAL in 2021 and ongoing private equity-driven catalog buys, signal continued consolidation amid streaming slowdowns at majors, with UMG proposing a $775 million bid for Downtown Music Holdings in late 2023 to expand into independent services.[77] This dynamic sustains high barriers, as majors' advance funding—often recouped against royalties—deters smaller competitors lacking similar capital. Competition faces structural constraints from the oligopolistic control of master recordings and mechanical rights, limiting bargaining for artists and raising antitrust concerns over reduced innovation and pricing power.[101] While digital tools enable self-releasing artists to bypass traditional gates, majors' 70-80% hold on top-streamed catalogs ensures playlist dominance on platforms like Spotify, where algorithmic favoritism correlates with label affiliation.[100] U.S. Department of Justice scrutiny has targeted live events monopolies like Live Nation-Ticketmaster since 2024, but recorded music enforcement remains sparse, with critics arguing the Big Three's mergers evade robust review under horizontal merger guidelines, potentially inflating royalty rates and stifling diverse output.[102] Empirical data from IFPI indicates global recorded music revenues hit $28.6 billion in 2023, with majors capturing the bulk via streaming (67% of total), underscoring how consolidation correlates with revenue recovery post-piracy but at the cost of competitive pluralism.[12]Technological Advancements
Production and Recording Innovations
Multitrack recording emerged as a foundational innovation in the mid-20th century, pioneered by guitarist Les Paul through sound-on-sound overdubbing techniques starting in 1945 using modified disk recorders and later Ampex tape machines in 1949, enabling artists to layer multiple performances independently.[103] This method expanded creative possibilities by allowing separate tracks for vocals, instruments, and effects, fundamentally altering production workflows from live ensemble captures to iterative overdubs. By the 1950s, commercial multitrack tape recorders, such as those from Ampex, supported 3- to 8-track configurations, facilitating complex arrangements in professional studios.[104] The transition to digital technologies accelerated in the 1980s with the introduction of the Musical Instrument Digital Interface (MIDI) standard in 1983, which standardized communication between synthesizers, computers, and sequencers, enabling precise control over virtual instruments and automation without physical rewiring.[105] This interoperability democratized composition and sequencing, allowing producers to program intricate MIDI data for playback through hardware or software synthesizers. Concurrently, digital audio workstations (DAWs) like Pro Tools—initially released as Sound Tools in 1989 by Digidesign—introduced non-linear editing of digital audio on computers, replacing linear tape with random-access storage for efficient cutting, looping, and effects application.[106] Pitch correction software marked a significant software-driven innovation, with Auto-Tune debuting on September 19, 1997, from Antares Audio Technologies, using algorithmic phase vocoding to automatically adjust vocal intonation in real-time or post-production.[107] Initially designed for subtle corrections, its stylized application on tracks like Cher's "Believe" in 1998 popularized the "hard-tune" effect, influencing genres from pop to hip-hop by enabling vocal enhancements that bypassed traditional training limitations.[108] Plugin ecosystems within DAWs proliferated in the 2000s, offering modular effects like compression, reverb, and equalization modeled after analog hardware, reducing reliance on expensive outboard gear. In the 2020s, advancements in immersive audio formats, such as Dolby Atmos for music introduced commercially around 2012 but widely adopted post-2020 via streaming platforms, enable object-based mixing where sounds are positioned in 3D space relative to the listener, requiring compatible recording chains with height channels and binaural rendering.[109] Cloud-based collaboration tools, integrated into DAWs like those supporting real-time remote session sharing, have further evolved production by allowing distributed teams to record and mix synchronously, mitigating geographical barriers while leveraging high-speed internet for low-latency audio transfer. These developments, grounded in computational efficiency gains, continue to lower barriers for independent producers through accessible, scalable digital infrastructures.[110]Digital Tools and Accessibility
Digital Audio Workstations (DAWs) have fundamentally lowered the barriers to music production by enabling high-quality recording and editing in home environments, replacing expensive analog studios with affordable software running on personal computers. Pioneered in the 1990s with tools like Pro Tools, DAWs such as Ableton Live (first released in 1999) and FL Studio (originally FruityLoops in 1997) allow users to compose, mix, and master tracks using virtual instruments, effects plugins, and MIDI sequencing without specialized hardware beyond a standard computer.[111] The global DAW market reached USD 3.46 billion in 2024, reflecting widespread adoption driven by software accessibility and declining hardware costs, with projections to USD 7 billion by 2033.[112] This shift has empowered "bedroom producers," with FL Studio capturing 57-65% of the home production market share as of 2024, as amateurs leverage free or low-cost versions to create professional-grade output.[113] Apple's GarageBand, introduced in 2004 as a free component of macOS and later iOS, exemplifies this democratization by providing intuitive loops, virtual instruments, and recording features tailored for beginners, influencing modern music sounds from hip-hop beats to indie tracks.[114] Its simplicity has accelerated the learning curve for non-professionals, contributing to a surge in user-generated content; interest in DAWs spiked significantly in early 2020 amid pandemic lockdowns, boosting home recording by an estimated 30% year-over-year in cloud-integrated tools.[115] Mobile DAW apps and cloud platforms like Soundtrap further extend accessibility, allowing collaborative editing via web browsers on smartphones, which comprise over 50% of new music production setups by 2023.[116] These tools reduce entry costs from tens of thousands in traditional studios to under $500 for software and basic interfaces, enabling global participation but also flooding markets with low-quality submissions that challenge discovery algorithms on platforms.[117] Digital distribution services have similarly enhanced accessibility for independent artists by bypassing label gatekeepers, with platforms like TuneCore (launched 2006) and DistroKid (2013) enabling uploads to Spotify, Apple Music, and over 150 stores for annual fees as low as $20, retaining 100% royalties for creators.[118] By 2025, such aggregators serve millions of users, facilitating direct-to-consumer release and analytics, though payout thresholds (e.g., $0.003-$0.005 per stream) underscore economic pressures on emerging talent.[119] Social media integration, via TikTok and Instagram Reels, amplifies reach, where viral clips drive 70% of Billboard Hot 100 entries from independents in recent years, causal to the industry's shift toward data-driven virality over traditional promotion.[120] This ecosystem, while empowering self-reliance, exposes artists to algorithmic biases favoring established acts, as evidenced by independent revenue comprising only 40% of global recorded music despite tool proliferation.[121]AI Integration and Future Tech
Artificial intelligence has increasingly integrated into music production and distribution processes, enabling automated composition, enhancement of audio quality, and personalized listener experiences. Tools such as generative AI platforms like Suno and Udio allow users to create full tracks from text prompts, with adoption accelerating since their launches in 2023.[122] By 2024, the global AI music market reached $2.9 billion, driven primarily by cloud-based solutions holding 71.4% market share, facilitating scalable access for independent creators.[123] Surveys indicate substantial uptake among professionals: approximately 60% of musicians employed AI in 2025 for tasks including melody generation, track mastering, and album artwork creation, with electronic music genres showing the highest adoption rate at 54%.[124][123] Major platforms like BandLab integrate AI to suggest loops and harmonies based on user inputs, streamlining workflows for both amateurs and professionals.[125] Labels have begun experimenting with AI for voice cloning and synthetic performers, though large-scale implementation remains limited due to licensing disputes over training data.[126] The generative AI segment alone grew from $440 million in 2023 to projected $2.8 billion by 2030, reflecting compound annual growth exceeding 30%.[127] Beyond production, AI enhances distribution through hyper-personalized recommendations and contextual playlists on streaming services, contributing to sustained revenue growth—global recorded music hit $29.6 billion in 2024, up 4.8% year-over-year.[13][128] Services like Deezer introduced AI detection tools in early 2025 to identify synthetic tracks from models like Suno, aiming to maintain platform integrity amid rising AI-generated content.[122] Looking to future technologies, AI synergies with blockchain promise improved royalty tracking via smart contracts, potentially addressing opaque payout systems, though widespread adoption hinges on regulatory clarity.[129] Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) enable immersive concerts and spatial audio experiences, with experiments in real-time AI-driven interactivity at live events projected to expand by 2025.[130] These advancements, while boosting accessibility, raise efficiency gains that could displace traditional roles unless balanced by ethical frameworks for data usage and creator compensation.[131]Artist Dynamics and Labor
Management, Contracts, and Representation
Artist managers oversee the overall career trajectory of musicians, including strategic planning, deal negotiations, branding, and coordination with other industry professionals such as labels and promoters.[132] They typically earn a commission of 15-20% on an artist's gross income from various sources, though industry discussions in 2022 highlighted pressures to increase this rate due to managers' expanded roles in digital marketing, touring logistics, and ancillary revenue streams amid shifting business models.[133] Effective managers emphasize communication and long-term vision, as seen in firms like Right Hand Co., which manages artists such as Khalid by integrating multiple disciplines to sustain careers.[134] Representation extends beyond managers to include booking agents, who specialize in securing live performances and tours but are restricted by state licensing laws from handling broader negotiations like recording deals.[135] Unlike unlicensed managers, agents focus narrowly on gig procurement and fee structures tied to performance earnings, often collaborating with managers to align bookings with career goals.[136] Additional roles encompass entertainment lawyers for contract review and business managers for financial oversight, forming a team that mitigates risks in an industry where artists frequently change representation due to evolving demands like streaming and social media strategy.[137] Recording contracts typically feature advances—non-returnable loans recouped solely from the artist's future royalties—alongside royalty rates ranging from 10-16% for established acts on net sales, with lower percentages for newcomers after deductions for packaging and reserves.[138] Recoupment clauses allow labels to deduct recording costs, marketing expenses, and advances before royalties flow to artists, a process that can extend over multiple albums and often leaves emerging talent in debt despite commercial success.[139] Terms usually span 5-7 years or 3-5 albums, with labels retaining master ownership, though cross-collateralization—applying deficits from one project to others—has drawn criticism for hindering artist mobility.[140] The proliferation of 360 deals since the mid-2000s enables labels to claim 10-50% of non-recording income like touring and merchandise, providing upfront investment in exchange for diversified revenue shares but risking artist exploitation through diluted earnings and reduced incentives for label effort across streams.[141] Proponents argue these agreements align interests by funding comprehensive promotion, as in major label pacts with acts like those under Universal Music Group, yet critics note they transform artists into broad monetization assets, prompting negotiations for caps or exclusions on high-margin revenues.[142] Recent examples include disputes where artists like Megan Thee Stallion challenged 360 provisions amid label battles, underscoring ongoing tensions over control and recoupment in an era of independent alternatives.[143] High-profile contract disputes illustrate enforcement challenges, such as Kesha's 2014 attempt to void her Sony deal over producer Dr. Luke, resulting in a 2023 settlement after years of litigation that highlighted restrictive morality clauses and injunctions binding artists despite personal allegations.[144] Similarly, Taylor Swift's 2019 masters dispute with Big Machine Label Group exposed ownership transfer risks in sale clauses, leading to her re-recording strategy and industry shifts toward artist-retained rights in new agreements.[144] These cases, often resolved via arbitration or settlements rather than trials, reveal systemic leverage imbalances favoring labels with deeper resources, prompting calls for legislative reforms on contract transparency.[145]Royalties, Rights, and Compensation
In the music industry, copyrights are divided into two primary categories: master recording rights, which pertain to the specific sound recording of a song and are typically owned by record labels or independent artists, and publishing rights, which cover the underlying musical composition including lyrics and melody, generally owned by songwriters or their publishers.[146][147] Master rights generate revenues from uses of the recording itself, such as streams or sales, while publishing rights yield income from the song's exploitation regardless of the recording version.[148] This separation allows for distinct royalty streams, though labels often control masters under recording contracts, leaving artists with limited ownership unless negotiated independently.[149] Royalties encompass several types tied to these rights. Performance royalties compensate for public performances, including radio airplay, live shows, and streaming, collected by performing rights organizations (PROs) such as ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC, which issue blanket licenses to users and distribute shares to songwriters and publishers based on usage data.[150] ASCAP and BMI operate on open membership models with similar payout structures derived from license fees, while SESAC remains invite-only and for-profit.[151] Mechanical royalties arise from reproduction of the composition, such as in physical sales, downloads, or on-demand streams, with rates set by statutory formulas like the U.S. Phonorecords IV settlement at approximately 9.1 cents per song or a percentage of revenue.[152] Synchronization royalties are negotiated fees for licensing music to visual media like films or advertisements, often split between master and publishing owners, with no fixed statutory rate.[153] Print royalties, though minor, derive from sheet music sales.[154] Artist compensation frequently involves royalty rates of 10-20% of net revenues for signed acts after label deductions, but advances—non-refundable upfront payments for recording or promotion—are recoupable solely from the artist's future royalty share, not the label's portion.[155][156] Labels deduct costs like production and marketing before royalties flow to artists, a process known as recoupment, which can leave many performers unrecouped and ineligible for further payments despite generating label profits.[157] In streaming, payouts per play remain low, with Spotify averaging $0.003 to $0.005, Apple Music $0.007 to $0.01, and Tidal up to $0.0128 as of 2025, requiring millions of streams for substantial earnings amid platform revenue pools allocated by pro-rata shares.[158][159] Independent artists bypassing labels retain higher percentages but forgo advances, relying on direct distribution for mechanical and performance collections.[160]Independent vs. Major Label Paths
Artists pursuing an independent path typically self-fund production, distribution, and marketing, leveraging digital platforms such as DistroKid, TuneCore, or Bandcamp for global reach without intermediary ownership of masters.[161] This approach grants full creative control and higher royalty rates, often 70-100% after distributor fees, compared to the 10-20% net typically retained by major-label artists after recoupment.[162] However, independents face challenges in visibility, as they lack access to major labels' promotional budgets, radio relationships, and playlist curation influence, resulting in 70% of independent artists earning less than $10,000 annually from music.[163] Success stories include Chance the Rapper, who topped charts with self-released mixtapes like Coloring Book in 2016, generating millions in revenue through streaming and tours without a traditional label deal.[164] In contrast, the major label path involves signing with one of the "Big Three"—Universal Music Group, Sony Music, or Warner Music Group—which provide upfront advances, professional production, and extensive marketing support, including paid placements and global distribution networks.[165] These deals often include 360 clauses capturing revenue from touring, merchandise, and endorsements, with artists recouping costs against future earnings, leading to effective royalty shares as low as 8% on high-selling albums.[166] Majors dominate chart performance due to their resources, but this can limit artistic autonomy, as evidenced by disputes over creative direction in contracts.[167] Examples of major-label breakthroughs include artists like Billie Eilish, signed to Interscope (UMG) early, whose debut album When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? (2019) benefited from label-backed viral promotion to achieve over 20 billion streams.[168]| Aspect | Independent Path | Major Label Path |
|---|---|---|
| Creative Control | High; artist retains decision-making on content and release timing.[161] | Lower; label approvals required for key elements like artwork and singles.[165] |
| Financial Upfront | Minimal; self-funded, no advances.[162] | Advances available (e.g., 1M+), but recoupable against royalties.[166] |
| Promotion Reach | Relies on organic social media and DIY efforts; limited playlist access.[169] | Extensive; budgets for ads, radio, and DSP deals enhance discoverability.[170] |
| Royalty Retention | 70-100% post-fees; direct monetization via streaming and sales.[162] | 10-20% net; 360 deals capture ancillary income.[167] |
| Risk and Longevity | High failure rate but potential for sustained ownership; e.g., Frank Ocean's independent Blonde (2016) earned $20M+ independently.[171] | Lower initial risk via investment, but shelf-life tied to label priorities; many artists dropped post-recoupment.[161] |
Controversies and Debates
Piracy, IP Enforcement, and File-Sharing
Digital file-sharing in the music industry began prominently with the launch of Napster on June 1, 1999, a peer-to-peer service that enabled users to exchange MP3 files, rapidly attracting up to 80 million users and facilitating unauthorized distribution of copyrighted recordings.[40][175] This platform exemplified early digital piracy, bypassing traditional sales channels like physical CDs, and prompted the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) to file lawsuits against Napster in December 2000, leading to its shutdown in July 2001 after a court ruling on contributory infringement.[175] The RIAA's enforcement extended to individual users, initiating over 17,587 lawsuits by February 2010 targeting alleged uploaders and downloaders, often resulting in settlements averaging $3,000–$11,000 per case.[176] By 2018, however, the RIAA ceased mass individual suits, redirecting efforts toward prosecuting torrent sites and streaming piracy facilitators due to limited deterrent effect and high costs.[177] The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998 provided a key framework for IP enforcement by granting online service providers "safe harbor" immunity from liability for user-generated infringement if they promptly remove notified content via takedown notices.[178] In music, this enabled rights holders to issue millions of DMCA notices annually to platforms hosting unauthorized streams or downloads, though enforcement challenges persist due to the ease of relocating infringing sites offshore.[178] International efforts, such as the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty, supplemented domestic laws, but fragmented global jurisdiction limits efficacy against cross-border file-sharing networks.[178] Empirical assessments of piracy's economic impact reveal conflicting evidence, with industry estimates claiming $12.5 billion in annual U.S. revenue losses and 71,060 jobs displaced, primarily from displaced sales.[179] Peer-reviewed studies, however, indicate weaker causality: Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf's 2007 analysis of 2002 data found file-sharing downloads had no statistically significant negative effect on album sales, attributing industry revenue declines more to broader factors like unbundling of albums and competition from substitutes.[180] Contrasting findings, such as Zentner (2006), estimated a 30% reduction in music purchase probability among peer-to-peer users, though aggregate sales impacts remain debated due to potential promotional benefits like increased concert attendance or sampling leading to legitimate buys.[181] These discrepancies highlight RIAA reports' reliance on assumptions of one-to-one displacement, which econometric models often refute by controlling for confounders like income and tastes. By 2024, music piracy trends shifted with streaming's dominance, recording 13.9 billion site visits—a 18.6% decline from prior years—attributed to affordable legal platforms like Spotify capturing market share.[182] Yet, stream-ripping tools and unauthorized downloads persist, adapting to paid services' growth, with overall digital piracy visits rising to 216 billion amid fragmented access and regional price sensitivities.[183] Enforcement now emphasizes site-blocking and AI-driven detection, though causal realism suggests piracy's net harm depends on unmeasured positives like market exposure outweighing losses for niche artists.[184]Artist Exploitation and Low Streaming Payouts
Streaming services dominate music consumption, accounting for over 67% of U.S. recorded music revenue in 2024, yet artists receive fractions of a cent per play, exacerbating financial precarity for most.[185] Platforms like Spotify distribute royalties via a pro-rata model, pooling subscription and ad revenue after operational costs and allocating shares based on total streams, resulting in average payouts of $0.003 to $0.005 per stream in 2025.[185] [186] This equates to approximately $3,000–$5,000 for one million streams before label or distributor deductions, insufficient for a living wage given industry estimates that artists need 200–300 million annual streams to earn around $1 million pre-split.[158] Record labels and distributors claim 50–80% of these royalties under standard contracts, leaving artists with effective rates as low as 10–20% of the platform payout after recoupment of advances and expenses.[187] Exploitation intensifies through "360 deals," where labels extract percentages from non-recording income like touring, merchandise, and publishing—clauses proliferating since the mid-2000s amid declining physical sales.[188] For instance, independent artists bypassing labels via distributors like DistroKid or TuneCore retain more but still face platform-level micropayments, with surveys indicating 70% dissatisfaction among European musicians due to inadequate compensation relative to listener growth.[7]| Platform | Average Payout per Stream (2025) |
|---|---|
| Spotify | $0.003–$0.005[185] [186] |
| Apple Music | $0.007–$0.01[189] |
| TIDAL | $0.01284[158] |
| YouTube Music | $0.00069[158] |
