« Does illegal file-sharing cut into CD sales? | Main | The Coldest Winter »
Rehashed hash
When blogging I try to keep book rehash to a minimum. But tonight I cannot resist making a point from Good and Plenty:
In the past most people didn't much like or listen to most of the music they bought, or in any case most of the value came from their very favorites. A relatively small percentage of our music purchases accounted for most of our listening pleasure. So if people can sample music in advance, and know in advance what they will like, music sales will plummet. This will be a sign of market efficiency, not market failure.
Admittedly copyright issues are being superimposed on this scenario at the same time, so the net assessment of current music trends is complex. But when there is uncertainty about consumer tastes, falling output can be a strong Pareto improvement. (It's just like how having lots of dates is not necessarily the sign of a happy love life.) Less music is being produced, but we're getting more of the stuff we want.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on September 27, 2007 at 10:14 PM in Music | Permalink
Comments
Since I don't have your book, can (or did) you justify the premise that people in the past behaved as you describe?
Posted by: billb at Sep 27, 2007 10:22:44 PM
Does giving away a taste of a product at the grocery store induce buyers to buy the
product? Sometimes the free samples work. iTunes gives a song a week away. Tyler,
don't you give me a copy of your new macro textbook and see if I buy the supplementary
workbooks, and CDs that complement it?
Posted by: Mike Fladlien at Sep 27, 2007 10:27:19 PM
What about the information signals generated by the market for CD sales? Don’t we lose something when everyone downloads everything, but what they play and like is known only to them (and perhaps their iTunes software which tracks plays)? Hasn’t our signal-to-noise ratio plummeted in the download world?
Posted by: at Sep 27, 2007 11:09:27 PM
What has been the value of radio or a record store blaring songs in music purchases in the past? Wasn't that a "taste?" and how is that different that the "taste" iTunes or Amazon MP3 stores offer today?
(i'm not arguing with the conclusion I'm just curious on the opinion if its really all that different today)
Posted by: tim at Sep 27, 2007 11:10:58 PM
People don't listen to all the music they purchase? Am I the only person who listens to his 19 GB of CDs in alphabetical order by song title? Sure, it takes about three months or so to go through them all, but I listen to each of my tunes just as much as the other tunes that way. Switched on the last rotation to alphabetical by album title. Rather wish that Windows Media Player could handle random play by album draw without replacement....
As for buying tracks vs full albums, I still pick full albums from Audio Lunchbox. Buying individual tracks is irritating. Would much rather buy full albums, then delete unwanted songs if they prove irritating after a couple of listens.
Posted by: Eric Crampton at Sep 28, 2007 1:05:18 AM
Your point is interesting, but I do not believe that it is a main explaining factor for the decline of
music sales. If it were the case, the typical music consumer would own a smaller music library today than
in the past. When looking around me, I see people owning GBs of music corresponding to hundreds of CDs.
Clearly, free copying and not better taste matching is the reason for the plummetting of music sales.
Posted by: vic at Sep 28, 2007 3:47:49 AM
Do you really think people are more satisfied with music today than in, say, 1967 or 1979?
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Sep 28, 2007 5:03:28 AM
in the past. When looking around me, I see people owning GBs of music corresponding to hundreds of CDs.
Posted by: Bedava oyun oyna at Sep 28, 2007 6:51:02 AM
@vic
Doesn't your point confirm Tyler's point? Tyler said that legal record sales are falling.
You say people's music collection(legal+illegal) has exploded. Both of these facts can go hand in hand and support each other assuming that downloading illegal songs is cheaper comapred to buying it legally for a certain demographic(young college students) and your sample is predominantly comprised of this demographic.
I think favourite songs are way overrated since music is primarily a singaling device within peer groups. I think the falling record sales are driven primarily by a) to some extent by illegal file sharing b) to a greater extent by the supply of a much greater number of peer signalling devices like shoes, clothes, online memberships, etc which to a great extent is the triumph of marketing in the American society.
Posted by: sa at Sep 28, 2007 7:53:26 AM
this seems very true to me. i buy a lot fewer albums, but actually listen to the ones I buy. It's now become unthinkable that I would buy music that I haven't at least heard a sample from. Even barnes and noble has to let you sample all of their cds now.
Posted by: josh at Sep 28, 2007 8:27:38 AM
"So if people can sample music in advance, and know in advance what they will like, music sales will plummet. "
Except that developing a liking for a piece of music usually takes time and a few listenings. It only sometimes happens instantaneously.
You're describing one aspect of the dumbing-down of musical culture, not some "efficiency" gain.
Posted by: jult52 at Sep 28, 2007 11:28:20 AM
I think the whole point is that the illegal downloads are the sampling. Gigabytes of downloads is the modern way of sampling a wide variety of music. But no one who downloads also doesn't own any CDs. The CDs that a downloader feels compelled to purchase are truly special to them.
Posted by: Nathaniel at Sep 28, 2007 11:57:02 AM
You've been able to "sample" CDs in record/department stores for a good while now, I'd say since at least a couple years before widespread music downloading.
I remember sampling cassette tapes (!) in the late 80s in a music store.
Posted by: Bob Montgomery at Sep 28, 2007 3:20:54 PM
Arnold Plant pointed out in his 1934 article on the economics of copyright in books
that copyright skews the production of books away from those that people
want to those they don't want as much as they would without copyright.
Copyright has the effect of being a sort of lottery for publishers and authors,
and leads them to take a chance on books they wouldn't otherwise.
Posted by: Bill Stepp at Sep 28, 2007 5:54:24 PM
1957 Elvis,Louis Armstrong
1967 The Beatles, Nat king Cole
1977 Barbra Streisand. The Eagles
1979 disco trash
1987 Maddona. Cindy Lauper.Dire Strait.The Boss
1992 Guns and Roses.
1997 New kids on the block, backstreet boys ,
2007 Timberlake.jessica Simpson
The descending curve of music. Sailer is right
Posted by: juancarlos at Sep 28, 2007 6:41:39 PM
juancarlos:
1957: Clancy Brothers
1967: Fairport Convention, Steeleye Span
1977: Andy Stewart
1987: The Irish Descendants
1992: Great Big Sea
1997: Gaelic Storm, Brobdingnagian Bards
Not all music is descending.
Posted by: jb at Sep 28, 2007 8:22:19 PM
So if people can sample music in advance, and know in advance what they will like, music sales will plummet.
Really? But aren't purchases of music a function of perceived value? In a condition where I consistently enjoy the music I purchase, won't I tend to keep on buying more as compared to a situation where I often find that I regret my purchases and wonder why I wasted the money?
No, I think the obvious explanations are the right ones:
1. Music can be duplicated perfectly and distributed instantly by end users (and at zero cost).
2. Competition from other forms of home entertainment (in particular -- the Internet, computer gaming, and video). Forgetting about the net, compared to, say, 1980, the cost of movies has declined dramatically, and video games have exploded).
Steve Sailer: Do you really think people are more satisfied with music today than in, say, 1967 or 1979?
Well, they certainly should be, since virtually everything available in 1967 or 1979 is available today (with higher quality, greater convenience, and at a lower price).
Which points to a serious problem for producers of new music -- the long tail. To a far greater extent than in the past, new recorded music must compete with the whole body of old recorded music.
Posted by: Slocum at Sep 29, 2007 8:01:45 AM
Considering how many bands play every night in most major cities, how many people I know play music as a hobby, if not professionally, and the sheer volume of MP3s given away by bands via Myspace and their own websites, I honestly question the assertion that "Less music is being produced". The top of the charts may be filled with junk (or not, depending on your tastes) but the rest of the music world is clearly overflowing with beautiful, amazing stuff.
Posted by: Mike at Oct 1, 2007 11:41:52 AM
jb, it's hard for me to imagine Fairport 1967 --> Gaelic Storm 1997 as proof that music is not descending. Guess that's a "to each his own" -- my list in support of your point would skip GS, the Irish Descendants, and Brobdingnagian Bards (?) and add The Bothy Band, Old Blind Dogs, Lunasa, and a Crowd of Bold Sharemen...
I think I might buy an argument that popular music is fading in quality, but oh my, the "Celtic" traditional niche is alive and better than ever. Besides the great bands mentioned above, there has been a fantastic blossoming of solo and duo albums.
Posted by: Sol at Oct 2, 2007 7:09:04 AM
It IS great to sample before you buy. My problem is the "grow on me" aspect - some of my faves took about 4 listens to get that way.
Posted by: paul merrill at Oct 2, 2007 12:51:09 PM
Hi Best wishes。Allow me to offer my heartiest wishes.xicao loves-流水线娱乐博客常年提供高、中、低压锅炉钢管、流体钢管、结构钢管、化肥专用钢管、石油裂化钢管、地质钢管、液压支柱钢管及合金钢管-无缝管-无缝钢管等论文发表资讯/刊物信息，协助客户制定论文发表方案
Posted by: 无缝钢管 at Nov 13, 2007 9:05:45 PM
Buy RuneScape Gold
Cheap RS Gold
Posted by: RuneScape Gold at Dec 27, 2007 11:48:52 PM
Buy RuneScape Gold
Cheap RS Gold
Posted by: RuneScape Gold at Dec 27, 2007 11:49:18 PM
Read several Web sites, I am very interested inecosway , hope and a common interest in the exchange to a friend, thank you
Posted by: wangtao at Jan 9, 2008 9:13:57 PM
Posted by: 翻译公司 at Feb 13, 2008 9:28:40 AM
