New chart rules aim to boost physical singles
22 August 2007 - 15:25:38
Source: MW


Singles releases carried on USB memory sticks will be allowed into the 
chart for the first time next month as part of a shake-up of rules to 
try to boost physical singles sales.

The Official Charts Company and the Chart Supervisory Committee have 
agreed a new set of rules, coming into effect on September 16 (chart 
week 38), that will aim to halt the rapid decline of the physical 
singles market.

The OCC says the updated chart rules will allow more freedom in 
combining formats with one measure allowing content to be split between 
a physical release and online. As part of this, a new format will 
replace the existing two-track single that will comprise one main track 
and an additional track or ringtone or video on the physical release, 
but can then be combined with additional content on a microsite or as a 
download.

One of the biggest changes will be allowing USB stick sales to count 
towards the singles chart for the first time. A number of releases, by 
acts such as Fratellis and Keane, have already come out in the format, 
but this decision to make such releases in the future chart eligible may 
well increase the amount issued.

Among the other key moves in the new rules is a new one-track CD single, 
which will effectively be the physical equivalent of the one-track 
download. This will include one track with a maximum playing time of 15 
minutes with no additional content permitted.

Summary of changes:

One Track CD Single
New entry-level format, permitting one song with maximum playing time of 
15 minutes.
Packaging may be slimline jewelcase or slipcase.
No additional content permitted.
Minimum dealer price of £0.60.

One Track+ CD Single
Replaces two-track single, maximum playing time extended to 15 minutes.
Content permitted is 1 song + additional song or ringtone or video.
Additional content may be incorporated on a microsite or as a download, 
but lead song must appear on physical format and total must not exceed 
maximum timings.
Minimum dealer price remains at £1.20

Maxi Single
Maximum permitted content of four songs, may be either audio or video 
(one song and one video for remix maxi).
Additional content may be incorporated on a microsite or as a download, 
but lead song or video must appear on physical format and total must not 
exceed maximum timings.
Stickers permitted as free gift – one sheet to fit within packaging 
without folds.
Minimum dealer price remains at £1.79

One Track, One Track + Formats
The above singles formats may be released on CD or Enhanced CD

Maxi Single Formats
The above singles Formats may be released on CD, Enhanced CD, DVD, 
Dualdisc or DMD (digital memory device).
DMD maximum capacity of 256MB. Minimum dealer price of £2.49 for all 
single releases on DMD.
Vinyl (seven-inch and 12-inch)

Maximum permitted content of four songs, to maximum playing time of 25 
minutes (one song and 40 minutes for 12-inch remix).
Additional content may be incorporated on a microsite or as a download, 
but lead song must appear on physical format and must not exceed maximum 
timings.

Stickers permitted as free gift – one sheet to fit within packaging 
without folds.

Combining Formats
Where the maximum 3 formats are released at least one format must be an 
entry-level format: one track, 1 track + or seven-inch. Two maxi singles 
are chart eligible per release and may consist of a maximum of one of 
the following formats Maxi CD / Maxi DVD / Maxi DMD. No other 
restrictions on combining formats.

-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
news:brUKxqEOXSzGFw7P@blueyonder.co.uk...
> New chart rules aim to boost physical singles
> 22 August 2007 - 15:25:38
> Source: MW
>
>
> Singles releases carried on USB memory sticks will be allowed into the 
> chart for the first time next month as part of a shake-up of rules to try 
> to boost physical singles sales.

If this is how they try to boost physical sales, I shudder to think what 
they'd do to try and kill them off.


> The OCC says the updated chart rules will allow more freedom in combining 
> formats with one measure allowing content to be split between a physical 
> release and online.

...Er, has anyone (well any consumer) ever expressed any interest in this 
concept?

> As part of this, a new format will replace the existing two-track single 
> that will comprise one main track and an additional track or ringtone or 
> video on the physical release, but can then be combined with additional 
> content on a microsite or as a download.

Again with the ringtones! Why are record companies always so insistent that 
we want singles with ringtones on them?

> One of the biggest changes will be allowing USB stick sales to count 
> towards the singles chart for the first time. A number of releases, by 
> acts such as Fratellis and Keane, have already come out in the format, but 
> this decision to make such releases in the future chart eligible may well 
> increase the amount issued.

AFAIK, that number is currently three.

> Among the other key moves in the new rules is a new one-track CD single, 
> which will effectively be the physical equivalent of the one-track 
> download. This will include one track with a maximum playing time of 15 
> minutes with no additional content permitted.

Are they insane? I can't imagine why anybody would buy this format, unless 
the labels exploit it by releasing exclusive versions on the one-track.
And actually, this isn't that new an idea - 'Pretenders To The Throne' by 
the Beautiful South came out as a cheap one-track CD 12 years ago. All these 
rules do is legitimise the price.

> Summary of changes:
>
> One Track CD Single
> New entry-level format, permitting one song with maximum playing time of 
> 15 minutes.

Seems like a lot, incidentally. Especially since download tracks are 
(presumably) still restricted to 10 minutes.

> Packaging may be slimline jewelcase or slipcase.
> No additional content permitted.
> Minimum dealer price of £0.60.

By my maths, that means a retail price of about 99p (assuming that any 
retailer will actually sell these things) so it's more expensive than most 
one-track downloads, plus you have to go out to a shop and get it instead of 
receiving it in seconds. And it takes up space.
On the other hand, er... it'll probably be DRM-free.

> One Track+ CD Single
> Replaces two-track single, maximum playing time extended to 15 minutes.
> Content permitted is 1 song + additional song or ringtone or video.
> Additional content may be incorporated on a microsite or as a download, 
> but lead song must appear on physical format and total must not exceed 
> maximum timings.
> Minimum dealer price remains at £1.20

At least this is a step in something like the right direction, allowing them 
to offer more for the same price - but getting extra tracks online after a 
physical purchase sounds like a lot of hassle.

> Maxi Single
> Maximum permitted content of four songs, may be either audio or video (one 
> song and one video for remix maxi).
> Additional content may be incorporated on a microsite or as a download, 
> but lead song or video must appear on physical format and total must not 
> exceed maximum timings.
> Stickers permitted as free gift - one sheet to fit within packaging 
> without folds.

At last an end to no-free-stickers misery!

> Minimum dealer price remains at £1.79
>
> One Track, One Track + Formats
> The above singles formats may be released on CD or Enhanced CD

Although of course a One Track can't be enhanced.

> Maxi Single Formats
> The above singles Formats may be released on CD, Enhanced CD, DVD, 
> Dualdisc or DMD (digital memory device).
> DMD maximum capacity of 256MB. Minimum dealer price of £2.49 for all 
> single releases on DMD.

So they're not even going to be cheap.

> Vinyl (seven-inch and 12-inch)
>
> Maximum permitted content of four songs, to maximum playing time of 25 
> minutes (one song and 40 minutes for 12-inch remix).
> Additional content may be incorporated on a microsite or as a download, 
> but lead song must appear on physical format and must not exceed maximum 
> timings.

Interesting that they're allowing four-track 7"s again, although it may have 
been an error that they didn't in January.

> Stickers permitted as free gift - one sheet to fit within packaging 
> without folds.

...So they can scratch the record, and there's nowhere to put them if you 
don't stick them. Great.

> Combining Formats
> Where the maximum 3 formats are released at least one format must be an 
> entry-level format: one track, 1 track + or seven-inch. Two maxi singles 
> are chart eligible per release and may consist of a maximum of one of the 
> following formats Maxi CD / Maxi DVD / Maxi DMD. No other restrictions on 
> combining formats.

Clear as mud, eh?
I don't really grasp what the benefit of these combination rules is meant to 
be.

    Chris
-- 
"It's always hard meeting your heroes. Especially when they punch you in the 
face."

http://thehitparade.blogspot.com

More of my blathering is available at
http://faynights.users.btopenworld.com

In uk.music.charts on Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Chris Brown 
 wrote :
>>
>> Singles releases carried on USB memory sticks will be allowed into the
>> chart for the first time next month as part of a shake-up of rules to try
>> to boost physical singles sales.
>
>If this is how they try to boost physical sales, I shudder to think what
>they'd do to try and kill them off.

The above can't do any harm, surely?
>
>> The OCC says the updated chart rules will allow more freedom in combining
>> formats with one measure allowing content to be split between a physical
>> release and online.
>
>...Er, has anyone (well any consumer) ever expressed any interest in this
>concept?

I presume so, or why allow it?
>
>> As part of this, a new format will replace the existing two-track single
>> that will comprise one main track and an additional track or ringtone or
>> video on the physical release, but can then be combined with additional
>> content on a microsite or as a download.
>
>Again with the ringtones! Why are record companies always so insistent that
>we want singles with ringtones on them?

I assume all you'd have to do would be to stick the CD in the drive, 
then it would find & download the extra content on its own.
>
>> One of the biggest changes will be allowing USB stick sales to count
>> towards the singles chart for the first time. A number of releases, by
>> acts such as Fratellis and Keane, have already come out in the format, but
>> this decision to make such releases in the future chart eligible may well
>> increase the amount issued.
>
>AFAIK, that number is currently three.

Not hard to increase that, surely? :)
>
>> Among the other key moves in the new rules is a new one-track CD single,
>> which will effectively be the physical equivalent of the one-track
>> download. This will include one track with a maximum playing time of 15
>> minutes with no additional content permitted.
>
>Are they insane? I can't imagine why anybody would buy this format

I would! I generally only ever listen to A-sides, anyway.
>
>> Summary of changes:
>>
>> One Track CD Single
>> Packaging may be slimline jewelcase or slipcase.
>> No additional content permitted.
>> Minimum dealer price of £0.60.
>
>By my maths, that means a retail price of about 99p (assuming that any
>retailer will actually sell these things) so it's more expensive than most
>one-track downloads, plus you have to go out to a shop and get it instead of
>receiving it in seconds. And it takes up space.
>On the other hand, er... it'll probably be DRM-free.

Good enough for me.
>
>> Maxi Single
>> Maximum permitted content of four songs, may be either audio or video (one
>> song and one video for remix maxi).
>> Additional content may be incorporated on a microsite or as a download,
>> but lead song or video must appear on physical format and total must not
>> exceed maximum timings.
>> Stickers permitted as free gift - one sheet to fit within packaging
>> without folds.
>
>At last an end to no-free-stickers misery!

Who wants stickers anyway?
>
>> Vinyl (seven-inch and 12-inch)
>>
>> Maximum permitted content of four songs, to maximum playing time of 25
>> minutes (one song and 40 minutes for 12-inch remix).

>> Additional content may be incorporated on a microsite or as a download

How would *that* work - you can't stick vinyl into a computer disc 
drive!
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
news:eRFrvyHKkozGFw46@blueyonder.co.uk...
<snip>

...and this threads relevance to the uk.media.radio.bbc-r2 group is 
what exactly (considering that it's not a chart lead station, being 
reactive rather than pro-active)?

In uk.music.charts on Fri, 24 Aug 2007, ":Jerry:" 
<INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote :
>
>"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
>news:eRFrvyHKkozGFw46@blueyonder.co.uk...
><snip>
>
>...and this threads relevance to the uk.media.radio.bbc-r2 group is
>what exactly (considering that it's not a chart lead station, being
>reactive rather than pro-active)?

R2 might not be too relevant to singles, but it certainly is to albums.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
news:XIW5ZWFGExzGFwoE@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Fri, 24 Aug 2007, ":Jerry:" 
> <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote :
>>
>>"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
>>news:eRFrvyHKkozGFw46@blueyonder.co.uk...
>><snip>
>>
>>...and this threads relevance to the uk.media.radio.bbc-r2 group is
>>what exactly (considering that it's not a chart lead station, being
>>reactive rather than pro-active)?
>
> R2 might not be too relevant to singles, but it certainly is to 
> albums.


Rubbish!

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
news:eRFrvyHKkozGFw46@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Chris Brown 
>  wrote :
>>>
>>> Singles releases carried on USB memory sticks will be allowed into the
>>> chart for the first time next month as part of a shake-up of rules to 
>>> try
>>> to boost physical singles sales.
>>
>>If this is how they try to boost physical sales, I shudder to think what
>>they'd do to try and kill them off.
>
> The above can't do any harm, surely?

I can't see it'll be any great help though.

>>> The OCC says the updated chart rules will allow more freedom in 
>>> combining
>>> formats with one measure allowing content to be split between a physical
>>> release and online.
>>
>>...Er, has anyone (well any consumer) ever expressed any interest in this
>>concept?
>
> I presume so, or why allow it?

Well, I can see why it would appeal to the record companies, and on that 
basis the retailers have an interest in making sure labels continue to 
support the physical single. ISTM less plausible that anyone has ever said 
"Well, having these tracks on a CD is all very well, but I really wish I had 
to go on the internet before I could hear them".

>>> As part of this, a new format will replace the existing two-track single
>>> that will comprise one main track and an additional track or ringtone or
>>> video on the physical release, but can then be combined with additional
>>> content on a microsite or as a download.
>>
>>Again with the ringtones! Why are record companies always so insistent 
>>that
>>we want singles with ringtones on them?
>
> I assume all you'd have to do would be to stick the CD in the drive, then 
> it would find & download the extra content on its >own.

I'm not sure you've replied to the right point here, but in any case the 
references to "microsites" and "downloads" and the fact that this is 
considered a new addition means that it's a bit more than that - if it's 
just a matter of sticking a CD into a computer, that's an enhanced CD. If 
you're going to download stuff, that implies an internet connection as well.
Ringtones on CDs have always been done by codes, but I rather assumed from 
the shortage of them in the last year or two that there wasn't much demand.

>>> One of the biggest changes will be allowing USB stick sales to count
>>> towards the singles chart for the first time. A number of releases, by
>>> acts such as Fratellis and Keane, have already come out in the format, 
>>> but
>>> this decision to make such releases in the future chart eligible may 
>>> well
>>> increase the amount issued.
>>
>>AFAIK, that number is currently three.
>
> Not hard to increase that, surely? :)

Obviously not. But it's just that the article seems to imply that millions 
of people have been buying USB singles without it getting counted, which is 
hardly the case.

>>> Among the other key moves in the new rules is a new one-track CD single,
>>> which will effectively be the physical equivalent of the one-track
>>> download. This will include one track with a maximum playing time of 15
>>> minutes with no additional content permitted.
>>
>>Are they insane? I can't imagine why anybody would buy this format
>
> I would! I generally only ever listen to A-sides, anyway.

So don't listen to the B-sides. It doesn't do you any harm for them to be 
there. It's certainly not going to appeal to the fanbase buyers who prop up 
the physical market now, unless they put out one-tracks with live versions 
or something.

>>> Summary of changes:
>>>
>>> One Track CD Single
>>> Packaging may be slimline jewelcase or slipcase.
>>> No additional content permitted.
>>> Minimum dealer price of £0.60.
>>
>>By my maths, that means a retail price of about 99p (assuming that any
>>retailer will actually sell these things) so it's more expensive than most
>>one-track downloads, plus you have to go out to a shop and get it instead 
>>of
>>receiving it in seconds. And it takes up space.
>>On the other hand, er... it'll probably be DRM-free.
>
> Good enough for me.

Perhaps, but it's hardly going to tempt back the people who've given up CD 
singles in favour of downloads, and that's what they need to "save" the 
physical single.

>>> Maxi Single

>>> Stickers permitted as free gift - one sheet to fit within packaging
>>> without folds.
>>
>>At last an end to no-free-stickers misery!
>
> Who wants stickers anyway?

Children?

>>> Vinyl (seven-inch and 12-inch)
>>>
>>> Maximum permitted content of four songs, to maximum playing time of 25
>>> minutes (one song and 40 minutes for 12-inch remix).
>
>>> Additional content may be incorporated on a microsite or as a download
>
> How would *that* work - you can't stick vinyl into a computer disc drive!

No, but you can do it with PIN codes (if that's not too tautological a 
name). In fact, the obscure band Fields have already tried this - they 
released a 7" single with a code etched into the flipside which could be 
redeemed for a download - but of course it wasn't eligible back then.

    Chris

In uk.music.charts on Fri, 24 Aug 2007, ":Jerry:" 
<INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote :
>>>
>>>...and this threads relevance to the uk.media.radio.bbc-r2 group is
>>>what exactly (considering that it's not a chart lead station, being
>>>reactive rather than pro-active)?
>>
>> R2 might not be too relevant to singles, but it certainly is to
>> albums.
>
>Rubbish!
>
I agree that most of them are - but that doesn't stop people buying 
them... :)
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

In uk.music.charts on Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Chris Brown 
 wrote :

>Ringtones on CDs have always been done by codes, but I rather assumed from
>the shortage of them in the last year or two that there wasn't much demand.

I've never really been into ringtones - the only one I've ever 
downloaded being my all-time fav song - Kylie's 'Can't Get You Out Of My 
Head'.
>
>>>> this decision to make such releases in the future chart eligible may
>>>> well
>>>> increase the amount issued.
>>>
>>>AFAIK, that number is currently three.
>>
>> Not hard to increase that, surely? :)
>
>Obviously not. But it's just that the article seems to imply that millions
>of people have been buying USB singles without it getting counted, which is
>hardly the case.

But maybe that's partly *because* they were ineligible?

Leaving that aside - how can selling music, especially lone tracks, on 
data-sticks be economic though? Even the cheapest ones I've seen cost 
around £10 for 256mb.
>>>
>>>Are they insane? I can't imagine why anybody would buy this format
>>
>> I would! I generally only ever listen to A-sides, anyway.
>
>So don't listen to the B-sides. It doesn't do you any harm for them to be
>there.

Yes, but if I had the choice of a 1 track CD at 99p, and multi-track CD 
at £1.99 or £2.99 - and I only wanted to listen to the A track, which do 
you think I'd buy...

>>>On the other hand, er... it'll probably be DRM-free.
>>
>> Good enough for me.
>
>Perhaps, but it's hardly going to tempt back the people who've given up CD
>singles in favour of downloads, and that's what they need to "save" the
>physical single.

IMO sales of CD singles will stabilise as some point, albeit at a much 
lower level than they used to be. They will still be produced though, 
just as 7" & 12" vinyl is, since some people will still want them.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
news:504y2VC9a8zGFw$5@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Fri, 24 Aug 2007, ":Jerry:" 
> <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote :
>>>>
>>>>...and this threads relevance to the uk.media.radio.bbc-r2 group 
>>>>is
>>>>what exactly (considering that it's not a chart lead station, 
>>>>being
>>>>reactive rather than pro-active)?
>>>
>>> R2 might not be too relevant to singles, but it certainly is to
>>> albums.
>>
>>Rubbish!
>>
> I agree that most of them are - but that doesn't stop people buying 
> them... :)

What don't you understand about R2 being re-active to the charts (even 
albums) rather than pro-active? :~(

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
news:fUW7eGDHo8zGFw4E@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Chris Brown 
>  wrote :
>
>>
>>Obviously not. But it's just that the article seems to imply that 
>>millions
>>of people have been buying USB singles without it getting counted, 
>>which is
>>hardly the case.
>
> But maybe that's partly *because* they were ineligible?
>
> Leaving that aside - how can selling music, especially lone tracks, 
> on data-sticks be economic though? Even the cheapest ones I've seen 
> cost around £10 for 256mb.
>

You're not looking in the right places then. Online you can get 1GB 
for around 10 quid, whilst CCLOnline.com has a 256MB USB memory stick 
for 4 quid (inc vat). Not only that, but some companies are now giving 
out/sending out promo material on low capacity usb memory sticks 
instead of CD-ROM.

It wiould seem the manufacturing costs of USB memory sticks (esp the 
low capacity ones) is such that it is ecomonically viable to give them 
away or for record companies to use for distribution of  singles.

I'm not sure if i'd buy a single on USB format, but it might depend on 
whether they were read-only or not (plus what the single is and what 
the extra content is).

In uk.music.charts on Sat, 25 Aug 2007, ":Jerry:" 
<INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote :
>
>What don't you understand about R2 being re-active to the charts (even
>albums) rather than pro-active? :~(
>
How about - the fact that they playlist pre-release singles - if that 
isn't proactive, what is?
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
news:fUW7eGDHo8zGFw4E@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Chris Brown
>  wrote :
>
>>Ringtones on CDs have always been done by codes, but I rather assumed from
>>the shortage of them in the last year or two that there wasn't much
>>demand.
>
> I've never really been into ringtones - the only one I've ever downloaded
> being my all-time fav song - Kylie's 'Can't Get You Out Of My Head'.

I don't actually think my phone can cope with that sort of thing - but even 
if it could I don't think I'd bother. I also suspect that the people who 
really do care about having the latest ringtones would find it hopelessly 
uncool to wait until the CD single comes out.

>>>>> this decision to make such releases in the future chart eligible may
>>>>> well
>>>>> increase the amount issued.
>>>>
>>>>AFAIK, that number is currently three.
>>>
>>> Not hard to increase that, surely? :)
>>
>>Obviously not. But it's just that the article seems to imply that millions
>>of people have been buying USB singles without it getting counted, which
>>is
>>hardly the case.
>
> But maybe that's partly *because* they were ineligible?

Obviously.

> Leaving that aside - how can selling music, especially lone tracks, on
> data-sticks be economic though? Even the cheapest ones I've seen cost
> around £10 for 256mb.

I think they do vary in price, but in any case the retail price is bound to 
be higher than the manufacturing cost, even if you factor in whatever it 
might cost to load the music onto it.

>>>>Are they insane? I can't imagine why anybody would buy this format
>>>
>>> I would! I generally only ever listen to A-sides, anyway.
>>
>>So don't listen to the B-sides. It doesn't do you any harm for them to be
>>there.
>
> Yes, but if I had the choice of a 1 track CD at 99p, and multi-track CD at
> £1.99 or £2.99 - and I only wanted to listen to the A track, which do you
> think I'd buy...

That's not the question that really matters though. If they want to save the 
physical single, they need people who wouldn't otherwise buy the CD at all 
to buy this.

>>>>On the other hand, er... it'll probably be DRM-free.
>>>
>>> Good enough for me.
>>
>>Perhaps, but it's hardly going to tempt back the people who've given up CD
>>singles in favour of downloads, and that's what they need to "save" the
>>physical single.
>
> IMO sales of CD singles will stabilise as some point, albeit at a much
> lower level than they used to be. They will still be produced though, just
> as 7" & 12" vinyl is, since some people will still want them.

This may be true, but I don't think there's the same level of sentimental 
attachment to CD singles as to 7". It's not impossible that CD sales will 
decline to a point where labels decide they're not worth the effort.

    Chris

In uk.music.charts on Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Chris Brown 
 wrote :
>
>> Leaving that aside - how can selling music, especially lone tracks, on
>> data-sticks be economic though? Even the cheapest ones I've seen cost
>> around £10 for 256mb.
>
>I think they do vary in price, but in any case the retail price is bound to
>be higher than the manufacturing cost, even if you factor in whatever it
>might cost to load the music onto it.

Unless the data-sticks were reusable, I can't imagine why anyone would 
pay a premium to get their music in that format anyway.
>
>>
>> Yes, but if I had the choice of a 1 track CD at 99p, and multi-track CD at
>> £1.99 or £2.99 - and I only wanted to listen to the A track, which do you
>> think I'd buy...
>
>That's not the question that really matters though. If they want to save the
>physical single, they need people who wouldn't otherwise buy the CD at all
>to buy this.

In which case, the issue is surely one of signing some new *decent* 
acts, not of delivery format... :)
>>
>> IMO sales of CD singles will stabilise as some point, albeit at a much
>> lower level than they used to be. They will still be produced though, just
>> as 7" & 12" vinyl is, since some people will still want them.
>
>This may be true, but I don't think there's the same level of sentimental
>attachment to CD singles as to 7".

How about 10 years own the line, though?

>It's not impossible that CD sales will
>decline to a point where labels decide they're not worth the effort.

Some smaller labels, perhaps - but ISTM that without a physical format, 
record companies would be cutting themselves off from a significant 
section of the market. I refer to the casual buyer, who probably won't 
want to go to the trouble of setting up a download account for just a 
relatively few tracks per annum.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
news:fUW7eGDHo8zGFw4E@blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> IMO sales of CD singles will stabilise as some point, albeit at a much 
> lower level than they used to be. They will still be produced though, just 
> as 7" & 12" vinyl is, since some people will still want them.
> -- 

I prefer the phyhsical formats to downloads. CDs sound better anyway IMO 
(but that's subjective, even though CD audio is obviously technically 
superior as it's uncompressed). Most vinyl (any many CDs) is released as 
limited editions, which appeals to the collectors' market (some people, like 
me, don't just buy music to listen too).

Fans of particualr bands will always buy physical formats. Having a file on 
a PC doesn't feel as good as holding the product in your hands!

Has there ever been a 'limited edition' download single? Would it even be 
possible to release such a thing?

In uk.music.charts on Sun, 26 Aug 2007, Brian W 
 wrote :
>
>Has there ever been a 'limited edition' download single? Would it even 
>be possible to release such a thing?
>
I suppose it could be licensed to download sites for a limited duration, 
but once the cat is out of the bag...
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
news:MbpPtZElMS0GFwj1@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Chris Brown 
>  wrote :
>>
>>> Leaving that aside - how can selling music, especially lone tracks, on
>>> data-sticks be economic though? Even the cheapest ones I've seen cost
>>> around £10 for 256mb.
>>
>>I think they do vary in price, but in any case the retail price is bound 
>>to
>>be higher than the manufacturing cost, even if you factor in whatever it
>>might cost to load the music onto it.
>
> Unless the data-sticks were reusable, I can't imagine why anyone would pay 
> a premium to get their music in that format anyway.

Very much what I was wondering, at least once the novelty's worn off. 
Although I think the first Keane one might have been re-usuable, I suspect 
most of them went straight onto eBay unopened.

>>> Yes, but if I had the choice of a 1 track CD at 99p, and multi-track CD 
>>> at
>>> £1.99 or £2.99 - and I only wanted to listen to the A track, which do 
>>> you
>>> think I'd buy...
>>
>>That's not the question that really matters though. If they want to save 
>>the
>>physical single, they need people who wouldn't otherwise buy the CD at all
>>to buy this.
>
> In which case, the issue is surely one of signing some new *decent* acts, 
> not of delivery format... :)

Well quite.

>>> IMO sales of CD singles will stabilise as some point, albeit at a much
>>> lower level than they used to be. They will still be produced though, 
>>> just
>>> as 7" & 12" vinyl is, since some people will still want them.
>>
>>This may be true, but I don't think there's the same level of sentimental
>>attachment to CD singles as to 7".
>
> How about 10 years own the line, though?

If people aren't attached to them now, why should they be any more so in 
future?

>>It's not impossible that CD sales will
>>decline to a point where labels decide they're not worth the effort.
>
> Some smaller labels, perhaps

Of course, a lot of small labels gave up on singles years ago, or never 
bothered with them in the first place.

> - but ISTM that without a physical format, record companies would be 
> cutting themselves off from a significant section of the market. I refer 
> to the casual buyer, who probably won't want to go to the trouble of 
> setting up a download account for just a relatively few tracks per annum.

Not necessarily untrue, assuming you mean people who are casual buyers of 
music altogether. But as fewer outlets sell physical singles, those sales 
are bound to decline anyway. I'm not suggesting that the CD single will 
disappear overnight, but we could move to a point where they become the 
exception rather than the rule, because the extra sales and higher chart 
positions they bring no longer justify the costs.

    Chris

In uk.music.charts on Sun, 26 Aug 2007, Chris Brown 
 wrote :
>>
>> Unless the data-sticks were reusable, I can't imagine why anyone would pay
>> a premium to get their music in that format anyway.
>
>Very much what I was wondering, at least once the novelty's worn off.
>Although I think the first Keane one might have been re-usuable, I suspect
>most of them went straight onto eBay unopened.

Why would they be eBay'd when they could still be bought in the normal 
way?
>>
>> In which case, the issue is surely one of signing some new *decent* acts,
>> not of delivery format... :)
>
>Well quite.

The amount of American urban/rap around at the moment is hardly helping.
>>>
>>>This may be true, but I don't think there's the same level of sentimental
>>>attachment to CD singles as to 7".
>>
>> How about 10 years own the line, though?
>
>If people aren't attached to them now, why should they be any more so in
>future?

Hey, it worked for vinyl - most people were glad when CD's arrived 
because the sound reproduction was, and is, better than vinyl.
>
>Not necessarily untrue, assuming you mean people who are casual buyers of
>music altogether. But as fewer outlets sell physical singles, those sales
>are bound to decline anyway. I'm not suggesting that the CD single will
>disappear overnight, but we could move to a point where they become the
>exception rather than the rule, because the extra sales and higher chart
>positions they bring no longer justify the costs.

But the thing is - what can CD fans like myself, *do* to lessen the 
decline?
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

"Brian W"  wrote in message
news:BKbAi.25668$ph7.23191@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
> news:fUW7eGDHo8zGFw4E@blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> IMO sales of CD singles will stabilise as some point, albeit at a much
>> lower level than they used to be. They will still be produced though,
>> just as 7" & 12" vinyl is, since some people will still want them.
>> -- 
>
> I prefer the phyhsical formats to downloads.

I still very much prefer physical album formats, but these days I find CD 
singles more trouble than they're worth, which is why I've only bought one 
new one this year.

> CDs sound better anyway IMO
> (but that's subjective, even though CD audio is obviously technically
> superior as it's uncompressed).

I think I'm right in saying that technically speaking, CDs are compressed. 
But downloads are definitely more compressed, although they vary a lot; 
however, I don't think that's a factor likely to influence more than a 
limited sector of the market.

> Most vinyl (any many CDs) is released as
> limited editions, which appeals to the collectors' market (some people,
> like me, don't just buy music to listen too).

This is true, although a lot of "limited edition" releases are basically a 
con.

> Fans of particualr bands will always buy physical formats.

"Always" might be a bit of an overstatement, which is part of the problem I 
have with these latest rules - there's going to be a limited number of 
people prepared to pay even 99p for a one-track CD if it's one they've 
already got. It's mainly because fans are now so important to the physical 
market that I can't see the value in encouraging this format.

>Having a file
> on a PC doesn't feel as good as holding the product in your hands!
>
> Has there ever been a 'limited edition' download single? Would it even be
> possible to release such a thing?

Of course - you can just tell a server only to allow a certain number of 
hits, or whatever. I think this has been tried a few times (The Datsuns, I 
know, did it back in the days before it could have counted) but obviously 
the nature of the download doesn't lend itself to limited editions as well 
as physical products do. What's more common is to have a pre-order-only 
digital format.

    Chris

In uk.music.charts on Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Chris Brown 
 wrote :
>>
>> I prefer the phyhsical formats to downloads.
>
>I still very much prefer physical album formats, but these days I find CD
>singles more trouble than they're worth

How so?

>, which is why I've only bought one
>new one this year.

I've bought very few - but that's mostly because the music has been 
shit! :)

Three of the singles I *would* have bought on CD were download-only : 
Candyman, Say It Right, and a.n.other that slips my mind ATM.
>>
>> Has there ever been a 'limited edition' download single? Would it even be
>> possible to release such a thing?
>
>Of course - you can just tell a server only to allow a certain number of
>hits, or whatever.

Surely a server would cover the whole website, not just one track?
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
news:S+HYEiAccm0GFwjV@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Sun, 26 Aug 2007, Chris Brown
>  wrote :
>>>
>>> Unless the data-sticks were reusable, I can't imagine why anyone would
>>> pay
>>> a premium to get their music in that format anyway.
>>
>>Very much what I was wondering, at least once the novelty's worn off.
>>Although I think the first Keane one might have been re-usuable, I suspect
>>most of them went straight onto eBay unopened.
>
> Why would they be eBay'd when they could still be bought in the normal
> way?

Because there was only a limited supply and they'd all been pre-ordered by 
people who wanted to put them on eBay!

>>> In which case, the issue is surely one of signing some new *decent*
>>> acts,
>>> not of delivery format... :)
>>
>>Well quite.
>
> The amount of American urban/rap around at the moment is hardly helping.

I doubt that conclusion, given that it's a type of music that sells pretty 
well on single.

>>>>This may be true, but I don't think there's the same level of
>>>>sentimental
>>>>attachment to CD singles as to 7".
>>>
>>> How about 10 years own the line, though?
>>
>>If people aren't attached to them now, why should they be any more so in
>>future?
>
> Hey, it worked for vinyl - most people were glad when CD's arrived because
> the sound reproduction was, and is, better than vinyl.

I'm doubtful about the "was" there - heard any 1985 CDs lately - but that's 
not the point. I think it's a fair bet that most of the people who like 
vinyl now are the ones who did ten years ago.

>>Not necessarily untrue, assuming you mean people who are casual buyers of
>>music altogether. But as fewer outlets sell physical singles, those sales
>>are bound to decline anyway. I'm not suggesting that the CD single will
>>disappear overnight, but we could move to a point where they become the
>>exception rather than the rule, because the extra sales and higher chart
>>positions they bring no longer justify the costs.
>
> But the thing is - what can CD fans like myself, *do* to lessen the
> decline?

Keep buying the CDs. As long as the record companies think it's in their 
commercial interest, they'll keep doing them.

    Chris

In uk.music.charts on Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Chris Brown 
 wrote :
>
>>>> In which case, the issue is surely one of signing some new *decent*
>>>> acts,
>>>> not of delivery format... :)
>>>
>>>Well quite.
>>
>> The amount of American urban/rap around at the moment is hardly helping.
>
>I doubt that conclusion, given that it's a type of music that sells pretty
>well on single.

But it's the sort of music that appeals only to a relatively narrow 
market. It's the mass album sales of MOR artists like Coldplay, James 
Blunt, Dido etc that, however derided (hey, Dom), really pays the record 
companies bills, and allows them to take risks releasing singles by 
up-and-coming artists, or those from niche markets.
>
>I'm doubtful about the "was" there - heard any 1985 CDs lately - but that's
>not the point. I think it's a fair bet that most of the people who like
>vinyl now are the ones who did ten years ago.

And the people who like CD's now will still like them 10 years from now.

Besides, I think there'll always be a market for the physical delivery 
of music. Even if you immediately burn it to an iPod or MP3 player, a CD 
will remain as a back-up.
>>
>> But the thing is - what can CD fans like myself, *do* to lessen the
>> decline?
>
>Keep buying the CDs.

That's a bit awkward if the music I want to buy on CD singles isn't 
released in that format (Candyman, Say It Right). I refuse to be 
manipulated into buying a whole album if I only like one track, 
therefore I've little choice but to find another way of getting it that 
the record company will gain no revenue from...

>As long as the record companies think it's in their
>commercial interest, they'll keep doing them.

But are they following the market trend, or trying to accelerate it by 
manipulation?
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
news:T5WoVKHZnw0GFwjO@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Chris Brown
>  wrote :
>>>
>>> I prefer the phyhsical formats to downloads.
>>
>>I still very much prefer physical album formats, but these days I find CD
>>singles more trouble than they're worth
>
> How so?

They take up space on your shelves, you have to change over every three or 
four songs, and you've got to go out to the shops to get them in the first 
place.

> Three of the singles I *would* have bought on CD were download-only :
> Candyman, Say It Right, and a.n.other that slips my mind ATM.


It was 'The Ladies' Bras' wasn't it? ;-)

>>> Has there ever been a 'limited edition' download single? Would it even
>>> be
>>> possible to release such a thing?
>>
>>Of course - you can just tell a server only to allow a certain number of
>>hits, or whatever.
>
> Surely a server would cover the whole website, not just one track?

Well, yeah, if you're going to get technical about it, although I suppose 
they couldn't run the whole site off just one.
Anyway, they obviously have to track how many copies each track sells, so it 
should be easy enough to write a programme that says "stop" when a certain 
number of downloads has been reached.

    Chris

In uk.music.charts on Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Chris Brown 
 wrote :
>>
>> How so?
>
>They take up space on your shelves

Not a big deal for me - I buy maybe 15 CD singles+albums a year.

>, you have to change over every three or
>four songs

Not once you burn to MP3.

>, and you've got to go out to the shops to get them in the first
>place.

I have to go into town anyway, since I don't own a Star Trek type food 
replicator... :)
>
>> Three of the singles I *would* have bought on CD were download-only :
>> Candyman, Say It Right, and a.n.other that slips my mind ATM.
>
>It was 'The Ladies' Bras' wasn't it? ;-)

Christina & Nelly F can buy their own lingerie. :)
>
>Well, yeah, if you're going to get technical about it, although I suppose
>they couldn't run the whole site off just one.
>Anyway, they obviously have to track how many copies each track sells, so it
>should be easy enough to write a programme that says "stop" when a certain
>number of downloads has been reached.

And then moan about all the money they lose to piracy, when people who 
might have bought it legally are forced to obtain it by other means? :)

While I have *some* sympathy towards record companies over the issue of 
music piracy, it swiftly evaporates when they deliberately make it 
difficult to obtain tracks at the time/in the format that I want.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
news:T4d4lEEzUR1GFwbr@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Chris Brown
>  wrote :
>>
>>>>> In which case, the issue is surely one of signing some new *decent*
>>>>> acts,
>>>>> not of delivery format... :)
>>>>
>>>>Well quite.
>>>
>>> The amount of American urban/rap around at the moment is hardly helping.
>>
>>I doubt that conclusion, given that it's a type of music that sells pretty
>>well on single.
>
> But it's the sort of music that appeals only to a relatively narrow
> market. It's the mass album sales of MOR artists like Coldplay, James
> Blunt, Dido etc that, however derided (hey, Dom), really pays the record
> companies bills, and allows them to take risks releasing singles by
> up-and-coming artists, or those from niche markets.

I think that misses the point a bit though - yes, record companies make 
money from MOR, but as that market isn't particularly dependent on physical 
sales it doesn't do much to aid the format. And it doesn't encourage shops 
to sell them either.

>>I'm doubtful about the "was" there - heard any 1985 CDs lately - but
>>that's
>>not the point. I think it's a fair bet that most of the people who like
>>vinyl now are the ones who did ten years ago.
>
> And the people who like CD's now will still like them 10 years from now.

Well, the people who are sentimentally attached to them will indeed. But I 
think there are fewer of those.

> Besides, I think there'll always be a market for the physical delivery of
> music. Even if you immediately burn it to an iPod or MP3 player, a CD will
> remain as a back-up.

Which is true, although I don't think the backup market is really going to 
sustain them - not least because the CD single is such an inefficient means 
of doing that.

>>> But the thing is - what can CD fans like myself, *do* to lessen the
>>> decline?
>>
>>Keep buying the CDs.
>
> That's a bit awkward if the music I want to buy on CD singles isn't
> released in that format (Candyman, Say It Right). I refuse to be
> manipulated into buying a whole album if I only like one track, therefore
> I've little choice but to find another way of getting it that the record
> company will gain no revenue from...

Absolutely true, but that's your incentive to buy them when they do appear, 
I guess.

>>As long as the record companies think it's in their
>>commercial interest, they'll keep doing them.
>
> But are they following the market trend, or trying to accelerate it by
> manipulation?

Both, probably.

    Chris

In uk.music.charts on Thu, 30 Aug 2007, Chris Brown 
 wrote :
>>
>> But it's the sort of music that appeals only to a relatively narrow
>> market. It's the mass album sales of MOR artists like Coldplay, James
>> Blunt, Dido etc that, however derided (hey, Dom), really pays the record
>> companies bills, and allows them to take risks releasing singles by
>> up-and-coming artists, or those from niche markets.
>
>I think that misses the point a bit though - yes, record companies make
>money from MOR, but as that market isn't particularly dependent on physical
>sales

I assume you mean CD *singles* - as what format are most MOR albums sold 
on...? :)

> it doesn't do much to aid the format. And it doesn't encourage shops
>to sell them either.

We're back to the chicken & egg again. If shops refuse to stick CD 
singles, then people *can't* buy them.
>
>> Besides, I think there'll always be a market for the physical delivery of
>> music. Even if you immediately burn it to an iPod or MP3 player, a CD will
>> remain as a back-up.
>
>Which is true, although I don't think the backup market is really going to
>sustain them - not least because the CD single is such an inefficient means
>of doing that.

Why?

>>>
>>>Keep buying the CDs.
>>
>> That's a bit awkward if the music I want to buy on CD singles isn't
>> released in that format (Candyman, Say It Right). I refuse to be
>> manipulated into buying a whole album if I only like one track, therefore
>> I've little choice but to find another way of getting it that the record
>> company will gain no revenue from...
>
>Absolutely true, but that's your incentive to buy them when they do appear,
>I guess.

But they have to release music I want to buy, first. ATM it's mostly 
urban shit that I wouldn't play if they paid *me*! :(
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
news:uOJXolDjRm1GFwPm@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Chris Brown
>  wrote :
>>>
>>> How so?
>>
>>They take up space on your shelves
>
> Not a big deal for me - I buy maybe 15 CD singles+albums a year.

Ah, well, I buy a lot more than that, and I've been doing it since 1995.

>>, you have to change over every three or
>>four songs
>
> Not once you burn to MP3.

True, but if you're going to do that anyway, you can cut out the middleman.

>>, and you've got to go out to the shops to get them in the first
>>place.
>
> I have to go into town anyway, since I don't own a Star Trek type food
> replicator... :)

We get our groceries delivered.

>>Well, yeah, if you're going to get technical about it, although I suppose
>>they couldn't run the whole site off just one.
>>Anyway, they obviously have to track how many copies each track sells, so
>>it
>>should be easy enough to write a programme that says "stop" when a certain
>>number of downloads has been reached.
>
> And then moan about all the money they lose to piracy, when people who
> might have bought it legally are forced to obtain it by other means? :)

Of course, although that applies equally to something that's given a limited 
release physically.

    Chris

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
news:UilZj+EQd71GFwbO@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Thu, 30 Aug 2007, Chris Brown
>  wrote :
>>>
>>> But it's the sort of music that appeals only to a relatively narrow
>>> market. It's the mass album sales of MOR artists like Coldplay, James
>>> Blunt, Dido etc that, however derided (hey, Dom), really pays the record
>>> companies bills, and allows them to take risks releasing singles by
>>> up-and-coming artists, or those from niche markets.
>>
>>I think that misses the point a bit though - yes, record companies make
>>money from MOR, but as that market isn't particularly dependent on
>>physical
>>sales
>
> I assume you mean CD *singles* - as what format are most MOR albums sold
> on...? :)

Yes... I was thinking "physicals" as "physical singles" but in retrospect
that's not very clear.

>> it doesn't do much to aid the format. And it doesn't encourage shops
>>to sell them either.
>
> We're back to the chicken & egg again. If shops refuse to stick CD
> singles, then people *can't* buy them.

Exactly - so if music was dominated by forms that don't sell physical
singles, it'd lose retail support.

>>> Besides, I think there'll always be a market for the physical delivery
>>> of
>>> music. Even if you immediately burn it to an iPod or MP3 player, a CD
>>> will
>>> remain as a back-up.
>>
>>Which is true, although I don't think the backup market is really going to
>>sustain them - not least because the CD single is such an inefficient
>>means
>>of doing that.
>
> Why?

Because they only have a couple of tracks on them.
If all you want to do is backup, it's much more practical to burn 20-odd 
tracks on each disc.

>>>>Keep buying the CDs.
>>>
>>> That's a bit awkward if the music I want to buy on CD singles isn't
>>> released in that format (Candyman, Say It Right). I refuse to be
>>> manipulated into buying a whole album if I only like one track,
>>> therefore
>>> I've little choice but to find another way of getting it that the record
>>> company will gain no revenue from...
>>
>>Absolutely true, but that's your incentive to buy them when they do
>>appear,
>>I guess.
>
> But they have to release music I want to buy, first.

Well, yes. I wasn't implying that you'd go and buy every CD single in the 
world.

But ultimately the labels want to make money, and your best weapon is to 
convince them there's a market for the sort of thing you like.

    Chris

In uk.music.charts on Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Chris Brown 
 wrote :
>>>
>>>I think that misses the point a bit though - yes, record companies make
>>>money from MOR, but as that market isn't particularly dependent on
>>>physical
>>>sales
>>
>> I assume you mean CD *singles* - as what format are most MOR albums sold
>> on...? :)
>
>Yes... I was thinking "physicals" as "physical singles" but in retrospect
>that's not very clear.

Do you think full-album downloads will start to significantly impact CD 
album sales anytime soon? AIUI, they're only 1.5% of the market now.

How long did it take for download singles to go from 1.5% to their 
current level of dominance?
>>
>> We're back to the chicken & egg again. If shops refuse to stick CD
>> singles, then people *can't* buy them.
>
>Exactly - so if music was dominated by forms that don't sell physical
>singles, it'd lose retail support.

IMO there will be a very significant market for physical music formats 
for the foreseeable future.

For example - there are always going to be people who don't want a 
computer, or cannot afford one, plus others who have a sentimental 
attachment to CD's, just like those people who still like vinyl now.
>>>
>>>Which is true, although I don't think the backup market is really going to
>>>sustain them - not least because the CD single is such an inefficient
>>>means
>>>of doing that.
>>
>> Why?
>
>Because they only have a couple of tracks on them.
>If all you want to do is backup, it's much more practical to burn 20-odd
>tracks on each disc.

But you have to *buy* them first, and if you only like one track from an 
album, and that track happens to be out on CD...

Also, the only tracks that most people hear *are* those released as 
singles - random album cuts get little if any airplay.
>>
>> But they have to release music I want to buy, first.
>
>Well, yes. I wasn't implying that you'd go and buy every CD single in the
>world.
>
>But ultimately the labels want to make money, and your best weapon is to
>convince them there's a market for the sort of thing you like.

They don't need convincing - they *know* there's a big market for James 
Blunt, Coldplay, Katie Melua, Dido etc.. Unfortunately they think that 
MOR won't sell as singles, therefore are reluctant to do the promotion 
work that could prove them wrong.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

In uk.music.charts on Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Chris Brown 
 wrote :
>>
>> Not a big deal for me - I buy maybe 15 CD singles+albums a year.
>
>Ah, well, I buy a lot more than that, and I've been doing it since 1995.

I guess you must have rather broader tastes than me! :)
>
>>>, you have to change over every three or
>>>four songs
>>
>> Not once you burn to MP3.
>
>True, but if you're going to do that anyway, you can cut out the middleman.

Not without being stuck with DRM...
>
>>>, and you've got to go out to the shops to get them in the first
>>>place.
>>
>> I have to go into town anyway, since I don't own a Star Trek type food
>> replicator... :)
>
>We get our groceries delivered.

Makes you sound like one of those survivalist militia types. :)
>
>>
>> And then moan about all the money they lose to piracy, when people who
>> might have bought it legally are forced to obtain it by other means? :)
>
>Of course, although that applies equally to something that's given a limited
>release physically.

Not if it has unrestricted virtual release.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

Paul Hyett wrote:
> In uk.music.charts on Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Chris Brown 
>  wrote :
>>>>
>>>> I think that misses the point a bit though - yes, record companies make
>>>> money from MOR, but as that market isn't particularly dependent on
>>>> physical
>>>> sales
>>>
>>> I assume you mean CD *singles* - as what format are most MOR albums sold
>>> on...? :)
>>
>> Yes... I was thinking "physicals" as "physical singles" but in retrospect
>> that's not very clear.
> 
> Do you think full-album downloads will start to significantly impact CD 
> album sales anytime soon? AIUI, they're only 1.5% of the market now.
> 
> How long did it take for download singles to go from 1.5% to their 
> current level of dominance?

next to no time - download singles sales in 2003 were recorded (for 
official purposes though obviously not chart eligible sales until 2005) 
as being less than 400 (yup, that's FOUR HUNDRED!) out of total market 
sales of nearly 31m. There would have been more sales than that but they 
weren't officially recorded. In 2004 they were 5.8m (about 17% of the 
market), 2005 25m (54%) and last year, 2006, 48m (78%). They now account 
for 90% of the singles market.


-- 
Robbie

In uk.music.charts on Sat, 1 Sep 2007, Robbie  
wrote :

>>  Do you think full-album downloads will start to significantly impact 
>>CD  album sales anytime soon? AIUI, they're only 1.5% of the market 
>>now.
>>  How long did it take for download singles to go from 1.5% to their 
>>current level of dominance?
>
>next to no time - download singles sales in 2003 were recorded (for 
>official purposes though obviously not chart eligible sales until 2005) 
>as being less than 400 (yup, that's FOUR HUNDRED!) out of total market 
>sales of nearly 31m. There would have been more sales than that but 
>they weren't officially recorded. In 2004 they were 5.8m (about 17% of 
>the market), 2005 25m (54%) and last year, 2006, 48m (78%). They now 
>account for 90% of the singles market.

Thanks for that info.

Of course, the situation for albums won't be directly comparable, as 
unlike singles, they weren't from a standing start.

Given the different demographics for album-buyers, I cannot see 
downloads taking over in the same way, though

Also, CD singles blurb is virtually irrelevant, but albums often contain 
lyric sheets etc, which a lot of people are keen on, but would be 
completely absent from a download album.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
news:8JmjZuEQxQ2GFw0C@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Chris Brown 
>  wrote :
>>>
>>> Not a big deal for me - I buy maybe 15 CD singles+albums a year.
>>
>>Ah, well, I buy a lot more than that, and I've been doing it since 1995.
>
> I guess you must have rather broader tastes than me! :)

Probably, and I'm more naturally acquistive. Also I try to avoid spending 
money on other things.

>>>>, you have to change over every three or
>>>>four songs
>>>
>>> Not once you burn to MP3.
>>
>>True, but if you're going to do that anyway, you can cut out the 
>>middleman.
>
> Not without being stuck with DRM...

True, but DRM isn't an inherant property of download music.

>>>>, and you've got to go out to the shops to get them in the first
>>>>place.
>>>
>>> I have to go into town anyway, since I don't own a Star Trek type food
>>> replicator... :)
>>
>>We get our groceries delivered.
>
> Makes you sound like one of those survivalist militia types. :)

I somehow doubt they'd trust anybody to handle their food while it's out of 
their sight. And anyway, the supermarket and the record shop are in opposite 
directions from here.
But that's not really the point.

>>> And then moan about all the money they lose to piracy, when people who
>>> might have bought it legally are forced to obtain it by other means? :)
>>
>>Of course, although that applies equally to something that's given a 
>>limited
>>release physically.
>
> Not if it has unrestricted virtual release.

Well, no, but that doesn't have to happen.

    Chris

In uk.music.charts on Sat, 1 Sep 2007, Chris Brown 
 wrote :
>>>middleman.
>>
>> Not without being stuck with DRM...
>
>True, but DRM isn't an inherant property of download music.

I thought it *was*? It's only recently that it's been relaxed a little.

>>>Of course, although that applies equally to something that's given a
>>>limited
>>>release physically.
>>
>> Not if it has unrestricted virtual release.
>
>Well, no, but that doesn't have to happen.

I've never really understood the point of limited editions, myself. 
Surely the whole point is to sell your music to as many people as 
possible?
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
news:pp1mhOEesQ2GFwUy@blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> For example - there are always going to be people who don't want a 
> computer, or cannot afford one, plus others who have a sentimental 
> attachment to CD's, just like those people who still like vinyl now.


Of course, there are also the club DJs, they still need vinyl (and sometimes 
CD), I can't imagine going to a nightclub and seeing the DJ there using an 
MP3 player to mix music!  Real-time mixing with a computer would also be a 
monumental task.

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
news:OhKvTxDi0Z2GFwBS@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Sat, 1 Sep 2007, Robbie <

>
> Given the different demographics for album-buyers, I cannot see downloads
> taking over in the same way, though
>
> Also, CD singles blurb is virtually irrelevant, but albums often contain
> lyric sheets etc, which a lot of people are keen on, but would be
> completely absent from a download album.

Just on a pedantic note, it doesn't *have* to be that way. When I downloaded 
the Crowded House album, it included a pdf file of the CD booklet. Which is 
admittedly not as convenient as having it on paper, but the info is all 
there.

    Chris

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
news:9Mwz4DFLrl2GFwkn@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Sat, 1 Sep 2007, Chris Brown 
>  wrote :
>>>>middleman.
>>>
>>> Not without being stuck with DRM...
>>
>>True, but DRM isn't an inherant property of download music.
>
> I thought it *was*? It's only recently that it's been relaxed a little.

It is (presumably) true that the majority of digital tracks being sold now 
are DRM-encumbered, but it doesn't have to be that way. As you've implied 
EMI have just abandoned it, and most of the independent labels never 
bothered in the first place.
DRM is certainly a significant argument against buying music digitally now, 
but not an eternal disadvantage of the format - especially because a couple 
of years ago there were copy-protected CDs being released too.

>>>>Of course, although that applies equally to something that's given a
>>>>limited
>>>>release physically.
>>>
>>> Not if it has unrestricted virtual release.
>>
>>Well, no, but that doesn't have to happen.
>
> I've never really understood the point of limited editions, myself. Surely 
> the whole point is to sell your music to as many people as possible?

Indeed so, which is why you seldom hear of anything that could sell millions 
being given a limited release. Remember that with physical product at least, 
unsold copies are a cost to be avoided. So there's some argument for 
limiting it to a few fewer copies than you'd sell otherwise...
Also, you can rush people into buying the record sooner rather than later if 
they think there's a limited supply.

    Chris

In uk.music.charts on Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Chris Brown 
 wrote :
>>
>> Also, CD singles blurb is virtually irrelevant, but albums often contain
>> lyric sheets etc, which a lot of people are keen on, but would be
>> completely absent from a download album.
>
>Just on a pedantic note, it doesn't *have* to be that way. When I downloaded
>the Crowded House album, it included a pdf file of the CD booklet. Which is
>admittedly not as convenient as having it on paper, but the info is all
>there.

Why are PDF files so popular nowadays, anyway? You could send the same 
info in a much more compact form.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

In uk.music.charts on Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Chris Brown 
 wrote :
>
>It is (presumably) true that the majority of digital tracks being sold now
>are DRM-encumbered, but it doesn't have to be that way. As you've implied
>EMI have just abandoned it, and most of the independent labels never
>bothered in the first place.
>DRM is certainly a significant argument against buying music digitally now,
>but not an eternal disadvantage of the format - especially because a couple
>of years ago there were copy-protected CDs being released too.
>
By whom? I've not found one yet that Nero can't rip.
>>
>> I've never really understood the point of limited editions, myself. Surely
>> the whole point is to sell your music to as many people as possible?
>
>Indeed so, which is why you seldom hear of anything that could sell millions
>being given a limited release. Remember that with physical product at least,
>unsold copies are a cost to be avoided.

So press less - if the demand is more than expected, you can always 
produce more.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
news:pp1mhOEesQ2GFwUy@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Chris Brown
>  wrote :
>>>>
>>>>I think that misses the point a bit though - yes, record companies make
>>>>money from MOR, but as that market isn't particularly dependent on
>>>>physical
>>>>sales
>>>
>>> I assume you mean CD *singles* - as what format are most MOR albums sold
>>> on...? :)
>>
>>Yes... I was thinking "physicals" as "physical singles" but in retrospect
>>that's not very clear.
>
> Do you think full-album downloads will start to significantly impact CD
> album sales anytime soon? AIUI, they're only 1.5% of the market now.

Depends on the definition of "soon" I suppose. I don't think they'll account 
for a majority of the market in the next few years, anyway.

> How long did it take for download singles to go from 1.5% to their current
> level of dominance?

Not very.

>>> We're back to the chicken & egg again. If shops refuse to stick CD
>>> singles, then people *can't* buy them.
>>
>>Exactly - so if music was dominated by forms that don't sell physical
>>singles, it'd lose retail support.
>
> IMO there will be a very significant market for physical music formats for
> the foreseeable future.
>
> For example - there are always going to be people who don't want a
> computer, or cannot afford one, plus others who have a sentimental
> attachment to CD's, just like those people who still like vinyl now.

Absolutely true - but the question is not whether there's any market, but 
whether there's enough of one for shops to make money. Singles are obviously 
a pretty low-margin product, so they need to sell a lot to make significant 
money for shops that could put that space to other uses.
Most of the supermarkets have already abandoned the single (admittedly after 
only a few years) and if Woolworths dump them as well that's going to 
destabilse the market.

>>>>Which is true, although I don't think the backup market is really going
>>>>to
>>>>sustain them - not least because the CD single is such an inefficient
>>>>means
>>>>of doing that.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>>Because they only have a couple of tracks on them.
>>If all you want to do is backup, it's much more practical to burn 20-odd
>>tracks on each disc.
>
> But you have to *buy* them first, and if you only like one track from an
> album, and that track happens to be out on CD...

Right, but that's not the easiest way if your only interest is having a 
back-up copy on CD. I think their future lies with people who want to play 
them.

> Also, the only tracks that most people hear *are* those released as
> singles - random album cuts get little if any airplay.

Apart from 'Teardrop' and (presumably) 'Lollipop'.

>>> But they have to release music I want to buy, first.
>>
>>Well, yes. I wasn't implying that you'd go and buy every CD single in the
>>world.
>>
>>But ultimately the labels want to make money, and your best weapon is to
>>convince them there's a market for the sort of thing you like.
>
> They don't need convincing - they *know* there's a big market for James
> Blunt, Coldplay, Katie Melua, Dido etc.. Unfortunately they think that MOR
> won't sell as singles, therefore are reluctant to do the promotion work
> that could prove them wrong.

Oh, what planet do you live on where James Blunt singles don't get promoted? 
I might have to move there.

    Chris

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
news:8pojx1Fonw2GFw2X@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Chris Brown
>  wrote :
>>>
>>> Also, CD singles blurb is virtually irrelevant, but albums often contain
>>> lyric sheets etc, which a lot of people are keen on, but would be
>>> completely absent from a download album.
>>
>>Just on a pedantic note, it doesn't *have* to be that way. When I
>>downloaded
>>the Crowded House album, it included a pdf file of the CD booklet. Which
>>is
>>admittedly not as convenient as having it on paper, but the info is all
>>there.
>
> Why are PDF files so popular nowadays, anyway? You could send the same
> info in a much more compact form.

I'm no IT expert, but I think in this particular case they wanted to 
preserve the layout and things as well as the text.

    Chris

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
news:KJPuJUG2pw2GFwz8@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Chris Brown
>  wrote :
>>
>>It is (presumably) true that the majority of digital tracks being sold now
>>are DRM-encumbered, but it doesn't have to be that way. As you've implied
>>EMI have just abandoned it, and most of the independent labels never
>>bothered in the first place.
>>DRM is certainly a significant argument against buying music digitally
>>now,
>>but not an eternal disadvantage of the format - especially because a
>>couple
>>of years ago there were copy-protected CDs being released too.
>>
> By whom? I've not found one yet that Nero can't rip.

I didn't say it worked, did I? :-)
Seriously, I have successfully ripped tracks from supposedly copy-protected 
CDs by BMG (Elvis) and EMI (Talk Talk), but that doesn't mean the labels 
weren't trying. Sony went through a phase of releasing CDs that claimed to 
to play on computers (they never released anything I wanted to buy in that 
form, so I can't vouch for it) and only a couple of years ago got themselves 
into a lot of hot water by releasing some that did play but installed a load 
of clandestine software.

>>> I've never really understood the point of limited editions, myself.
>>> Surely
>>> the whole point is to sell your music to as many people as possible?
>>
>>Indeed so, which is why you seldom hear of anything that could sell
>>millions
>>being given a limited release. Remember that with physical product at
>>least,
>>unsold copies are a cost to be avoided.
>
> So press less - if the demand is more than expected, you can always
> produce more.

That can be and usually is done, which is why not every record is a limited 
edition. But you don't want to have too few copies on the shelves in case 
you lose sales in the crucial early weeks.

    Chris

In uk.music.charts on Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Chris Brown 
 wrote :
>>
>> Do you think full-album downloads will start to significantly impact CD
>> album sales anytime soon? AIUI, they're only 1.5% of the market now.
>
>Depends on the definition of "soon" I suppose. I don't think they'll account
>for a majority of the market in the next few years, anyway.

I doubt they'll account for even 10% in the next several years.
>
>>
>> IMO there will be a very significant market for physical music formats for
>> the foreseeable future.
>>
>> For example - there are always going to be people who don't want a
>> computer, or cannot afford one, plus others who have a sentimental
>> attachment to CD's, just like those people who still like vinyl now.
>
>Absolutely true - but the question is not whether there's any market, but
>whether there's enough of one for shops to make money.

Certainly for the big chains like HMV, Virgin, etc. Also specialist 
genre shops will probably do OK too.

>Most of the supermarkets have already abandoned the single (admittedly after
>only a few years) and if Woolworths dump them as well that's going to
>destabilse the market.

Woolies already marginalise them - but as for 'destabilising the market' 
what share of the CD singles market do they even have - 10-20%?
>
>>>
>>>But ultimately the labels want to make money, and your best weapon is to
>>>convince them there's a market for the sort of thing you like.
>>
>> They don't need convincing - they *know* there's a big market for James
>> Blunt, Coldplay, Katie Melua, Dido etc.. Unfortunately they think that MOR
>> won't sell as singles, therefore are reluctant to do the promotion work
>> that could prove them wrong.
>
>Oh, what planet do you live on where James Blunt singles don't get promoted?
>I might have to move there.

OK - perhaps JB wasn't a good example, but Katie Melua, Norah Jones & 
similar MOR artists don't get the same promotion that say, Kanye West 
gets - yet the girls generate far more royalties for record companies 
than he does!
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

In uk.music.charts on Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Chris Brown 
 wrote :

>Seriously, I have successfully ripped tracks from supposedly copy-protected
>CDs by BMG (Elvis) and EMI (Talk Talk), but that doesn't mean the labels
>weren't trying. Sony went through a phase of releasing CDs that claimed to
>to play on computers (they never released anything I wanted to buy in that
>form, so I can't vouch for it) and only a couple of years ago got themselves
>into a lot of hot water by releasing some that did play but installed a load
>of clandestine software.

I remember.
>
>>>Remember that with physical product at
>>>least,
>>>unsold copies are a cost to be avoided.
>>
>> So press less - if the demand is more than expected, you can always
>> produce more.
>
>That can be and usually is done, which is why not every record is a limited
>edition. But you don't want to have too few copies on the shelves in case
>you lose sales in the crucial early weeks.

ISTM that is now virtually irrelevant in the age of downloads.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
news:MDpPr5Guk62GFwyU@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Chris Brown
>  wrote :
>>>
>>> IMO there will be a very significant market for physical music formats
>>> for
>>> the foreseeable future.
>>>
>>> For example - there are always going to be people who don't want a
>>> computer, or cannot afford one, plus others who have a sentimental
>>> attachment to CD's, just like those people who still like vinyl now.
>>
>>Absolutely true - but the question is not whether there's any market, but
>>whether there's enough of one for shops to make money.
>
> Certainly for the big chains like HMV, Virgin, etc. Also specialist genre
> shops will probably do OK too.

This is true, and I don't expect the record shops that currently handle 
singles to pull out of the market. But they're likely to have fewer releases 
to sell in future.

>>Most of the supermarkets have already abandoned the single (admittedly
>>after
>>only a few years) and if Woolworths dump them as well that's going to
>>destabilse the market.
>
> Woolies already marginalise them - but as for 'destabilising the market'
> what share of the CD singles market do they even have - 10-20%?

It may be that small now, but I think it used to be larger - it's their own 
gradual abandonment of the format that shrinks their share. Even so 20% is a 
lot for one company to have.
The point is that if/when only record shops sell (physical) singles, only 
people who go into record shops will buy them. An obvious point, perhaps, 
but a significant one.


>>>>But ultimately the labels want to make money, and your best weapon is to
>>>>convince them there's a market for the sort of thing you like.
>>>
>>> They don't need convincing - they *know* there's a big market for James
>>> Blunt, Coldplay, Katie Melua, Dido etc.. Unfortunately they think that
>>> MOR
>>> won't sell as singles, therefore are reluctant to do the promotion work
>>> that could prove them wrong.
>>
>>Oh, what planet do you live on where James Blunt singles don't get
>>promoted?
>>I might have to move there.
>
> OK - perhaps JB wasn't a good example, but Katie Melua, Norah Jones &
> similar MOR artists don't get the same promotion that say, Kanye West
> gets - yet the girls generate far more royalties for record companies than
> he does!

They do get the promotion, it's just that it inspires people to buy albums 
rather than singles. Incidentally, on an international level I'm not 
convinced that Kanye is the best example you could have picked. It is true 
that Katie Melua accounts for a far greater share of her label's income than 
any of the others, though.

    Chris

In uk.music.charts on Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Chris Brown 
 wrote :
>>>
>>>the question is not whether there's any market, but
>>>whether there's enough of one for shops to make money.
>>
>> Certainly for the big chains like HMV, Virgin, etc. Also specialist genre
>> shops will probably do OK too.
>
>This is true, and I don't expect the record shops that currently handle
>singles to pull out of the market. But they're likely to have fewer releases
>to sell in future.

Or perhaps just fewer copies of each release.
>>
>> Woolies already marginalise them - but as for 'destabilising the market'
>> what share of the CD singles market do they even have - 10-20%?
>
>It may be that small now, but I think it used to be larger - it's their own
>gradual abandonment of the format that shrinks their share.

For around 15 years from the mid 80's, we didn't even have a Woolies in 
Cheltenham.

>Even so 20% is a
>lot for one company to have.

That was just a number I plucked out of the air, though. I suspect WH 
Smith dropping singles had a pretty significant effect, though.

>The point is that if/when only record shops sell (physical) singles, only
>people who go into record shops will buy them. An obvious point, perhaps,
>but a significant one.

You're saying casual buyers will be almost totally excluded?

Do we even know what proportion of physical singles are bought by casual 
buyers? I would guess it would always have been fairly insignificant.
>>>
>>>Oh, what planet do you live on where James Blunt singles don't get
>>>promoted?
>>>I might have to move there.
>>
>> OK - perhaps JB wasn't a good example, but Katie Melua, Norah Jones &
>> similar MOR artists don't get the same promotion that say, Kanye West
>> gets - yet the girls generate far more royalties for record companies than
>> he does!
>
>They do get the promotion, it's just that it inspires people to buy albums
>rather than singles.

Hence the extra revenue generation...

On a side note, given that albums sell so much more than singles, how 
come JK & Joel treat the album chart like something you'd scrape off the 
bottom of your shoe?

>Incidentally, on an international level I'm not
>convinced that Kanye is the best example you could have picked.

Well obviously urban music dominates the US charts, but I thought we 
were talking about the UK?

BTW, is the case that white musicians in America are actually in a 
minority, or do they just lack publicity?

Given that blacks comprise only about 1 in 8 of the US population, maybe 
white artists need to press for some 'affirmative action' in their 
favour. :)

>It is true
>that Katie Melua accounts for a far greater share of her label's income than
>any of the others, though.
>
Well she is on an indie label - in fact she looks like the *only* major 
artist Dramatico has!
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
news:dqybRLIGZQ3GFw6M@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Chris Brown
>  wrote :
>>>>

>>>
>>> Woolies already marginalise them - but as for 'destabilising the market'
>>> what share of the CD singles market do they even have - 10-20%?
>>
>>It may be that small now, but I think it used to be larger - it's their
>>own
>>gradual abandonment of the format that shrinks their share.
>
> For around 15 years from the mid 80's, we didn't even have a Woolies in
> Cheltenham.

I can't really claim to remember which shops we had in the 80s with any 
accuracy. I think the nearest Woolworths to where we lived then was Preston 
Road, about half-an-hour's walk away.

>>Even so 20% is a
>>lot for one company to have.
>
> That was just a number I plucked out of the air, though. I suspect WH
> Smith dropping singles had a pretty significant effect, though.

Probably, although I don't think they were ever as important as Woolworths.

>>The point is that if/when only record shops sell (physical) singles, only
>>people who go into record shops will buy them. An obvious point, perhaps,
>>but a significant one.
>
> You're saying casual buyers will be almost totally >excluded?

Yes, more or less.

> Do we even know what proportion of physical singles are bought by casual
> buyers?

Of course we don't - how could we?

>I would guess it would always have been fairly >insignificant.

I think it probably used to be a lot higher than it is now. But it obviously 
varies between records anyway.

>>>>Oh, what planet do you live on where James Blunt singles don't get
>>>>promoted?
>>>>I might have to move there.
>>>
>>> OK - perhaps JB wasn't a good example, but Katie Melua, Norah Jones &
>>> similar MOR artists don't get the same promotion that say, Kanye West
>>> gets - yet the girls generate far more royalties for record companies
>>> than
>>> he does!
>>
>>They do get the promotion, it's just that it inspires people to buy albums
>>rather than singles.
>
> Hence the extra revenue generation...

Indeed so.

> On a side note, given that albums sell so much more than singles, how come
> JK & Joel treat the album chart like something you'd scrape off the bottom
> of your shoe?

It's not really part of their remit, and squeezing it into the singles chart 
show has always been a bit awkward. Also, following the album chart in the 
same level of detail as the singles one would be quite boring.

>>Incidentally, on an international level I'm not
>>convinced that Kanye is the best example you could have picked.
>
> Well obviously urban music dominates the US charts, but I thought we were
> talking about the UK?

We were, but he just seems like a bad example.

> BTW, is the case that white musicians in America are actually in a
> minority, or do they just lack publicity?

I've never seen any statistics, but it's incredibly unlikely that there 
aren't massively more white musicians. But for one thing, a lot of them are 
in non chart-friendly genres, and/or are unknown over here.

> Given that blacks comprise only about 1 in 8 of the US population, maybe
> white artists need to press for some 'affirmative action' in their f