Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Why are most new albums these days "Leaked" prior to their release date?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why are most new albums these days "Leaked" prior to their release date?

post #1 of 16
9/11/09 at 9:22pm
Thread Starter 
Whether done purposefully by the artist or, stolen by someone and released on the net-why are most albums leaked early?

Why would an artist leak their own album or, why can't security be such that the album isnt stolen before its release date?

I just don't get it; I think its killing whatever poor excuse for a music industry we have left.
Reply
post #2 of 16
9/11/09 at 9:49pm
Promo albums are released to record reviews, radio stations, etc. in advance of the release date. Someone who works in the supply chain may also be able to get their hands on something early.

Oh, and thinking this is what is killing the industry is just asinine. If anything, it helps generate hype.
Reply
post #3 of 16
9/11/09 at 11:48pm
Leaked albums are not substitutes for the real thing since they're generally watermarked (and in essentially every case they certainly aren't FLAC). Also, they increase demand by letting people try before they buy. It's generally beneficial to the artist to leak an album.

Not going to get into the more generic pro- and anti-piracy arguments because they have been had many times before.
Reply
post #4 of 16
9/11/09 at 11:55pm
Leaking albums = hype

It is doing nothing to hurt the industry at all. They are doing it to themselves by way of other means.

It is all for the money. They know people have no patience anymore, so if it is "accidentally" leaked, it is no big deal. It is stoking the fire for the big feast, if you will. People only think it hurts the industry is most releases are formulaic and shallow, so the hype dries up soon after the actual release, because people are already sick of it. Good music still has very strong sales after the main release.

Case in point: Porcupine Tree has better sales now than ever in spite of the fact that leaks are more common now. Same thing with Opeth. Leaks do not hurt sales; crappy music hurts sales.
Reply
post #5 of 16
9/12/09 at 12:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadtonowhere08 View Post
Case in point: Porcupine Tree has better sales now than ever in spite of the fact that leaks are more common now. Same thing with Opeth. Leaks do not hurt sales; crappy music hurts sales.
I don't know about that. ****ty music is just about all that sells well.

Music sales are low because of piracy. The vast majority of people don't buy music anymore. Teenagers are happy with downloading a 128kbps rip off some torrent site. They throw it on their iPod and that's that.

The majority of people just don't care. It's quite simple, really.
Reply
post #6 of 16
9/12/09 at 12:28am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by evanft View Post
Promo albums are released to record reviews, radio stations, etc. in advance of the release date. Someone who works in the supply chain may also be able to get their hands on something early.

Oh, and thinking this is what is killing the industry is just asinine. If anything, it helps generate hype.
If its so asinine, can you mathematically prove your point that it generates hype? Unless you can show me via some statistic or reputable piece of info that music sales have increased, no ones gonna convince me that tens of thousands (if not more) of copies of these leaked albums being downloaded on the net are in turn, going to actually promote/stimulate the future sale of that album.

Audiophiles aside, most people these days (notably young people) will find the free download and NEVER go and buy the album as there is simply no reason to.



Quote:
Originally Posted by roadtonowhere08 View Post

Case in point: Porcupine Tree has better sales now than ever in spite of the fact that leaks are more common now. Same thing with Opeth. Leaks do not hurt sales; crappy music hurts sales.
How did you come up with this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dublo7
Music sales are low because of piracy. The vast majority of people don't buy music anymore. Teenagers are happy with downloading a 128kbps rip off some torrent site. They throw it on their iPod and that's that.

The majority of people just don't care. It's quite simple, really.
Exactly.
Reply
post #7 of 16
9/12/09 at 12:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dublo7 View Post
I don't know about that. ****ty music is just about all that sells well.
Haha, well yeah, if all you want to be is a flash in the pan. Bands that go almost diamond in debut album sales and gold on the follow-up are a dime a dozen these days. Bands with consistent sales over many albums are much harder to come by. Longevity was my point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dublo7 View Post
Music sales are low because of piracy. The vast majority of people don't buy music anymore. Teenagers are happy with downloading a 128kbps rip off some torrent site. They throw it on their iPod and that's that.

The majority of people just don't care. It's quite simple, really.
If you buy that, then I really do not know what to say.

There will always be people willing to pay for music. The RIAA likes to blame low sales on downloading, but they do not realize that those people were never going to pay for the music. The low sales are due to the fact that the accessible music is absolute crap. Laypeople do not want to buy crap music. The RIAA thinks they know what sells, but they are finding out that they have no clue what they are doing.

Bottom line: Good bands will always sell. The RIAA will never realize that, so F them. The result will be a less centralized distribution scheme and a more fragmented one where smaller bands have the opportunity to distribute with smaller, more talent appreciating labels or go it alone with small, self produced batches. I, for one, welcome that change.
Reply
post #8 of 16
9/12/09 at 12:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwitel View Post
If its so asinine, can you mathematically prove your point that it generates hype? Unless you can show me via some statistic or reputable piece of info that music sales have increased, no ones gonna convince me that tens of thousands (if not more) of copies of these leaked albums being downloaded on the net are in turn, going to actually promote/stimulate the future sale of that album.

Audiophiles aside, most people these days (notably young people) will find the free download and NEVER go and buy the album as there is simply no reason to.
Widespread exposure = hype. Nobody ever said it was warranted hype.

I know you cannot prove a negative, but could you provide evidence that leaks do not help sales?



Quote:
Originally Posted by kwitel View Post
How did you come up with this?
Sales numbers. How else would I come up with it?



Quote:
Originally Posted by kwitel View Post
Exactly.
See top reply in this post.
Reply
post #9 of 16
9/12/09 at 12:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dublo7 View Post
I don't know about that. ****ty music is just about all that sells well.

Music sales are low because of piracy. The vast majority of people don't buy music anymore. Teenagers are happy with downloading a 128kbps rip off some torrent site. They throw it on their iPod and that's that.

The majority of people just don't care. It's quite simple, really.
I hope you're kidding. Any website I've ever been on which features pirated music has had nothing less than 192k. Most websites pride themselves on having 320 or lossless files. The only place I know to get 128k regularly is iTunes. And most of the people I know who "pirate" music buy the albums they download. They want to see if the music is "**itty before they venture twenty bucks on the album.
Reply
post #10 of 16
9/12/09 at 1:23am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadtonowhere08 View Post
Widespread exposure = hype. Nobody ever said it was warranted hype.

I know you cannot prove a negative, but could you provide evidence that leaks do not help sales?
But I never said I could prove the negative. I simply stated "I think" as in "my opinion"; nothing anywhere about definitively knowing or, stating fact.




Quote:
Originally Posted by roadtonowhere08 View Post
Sales numbers. How else would I come up with it?
Uhhh...make it up?
Guess?

If you make a statement as flatly and as definitevly as you did above, be prepared to back it up with empirical data, otherwise it is merely and opinion an not fact.
Again, can you provide these numbers and, definitively contribute the increase in sales directly to an increase in their respective albums being leaked?
Reply
post #11 of 16
9/12/09 at 1:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarathustra19 View Post
I hope you're kidding. Any website I've ever been on which features pirated music has had nothing less than 192k. Most websites pride themselves on having 320 or lossless files. The only place I know to get 128k regularly is iTunes. And most of the people I know who "pirate" music buy the albums they download. They want to see if the music is "**itty before they venture twenty bucks on the album.
You picked at the most insubstantial part of my argument. Well done.

Roadtonowhere, I think you're right on some points. Good bands will always sell. Bands like Opeth, Porcupine Tree and The Mars Volta are growing in popularity because of the internet and because of leaking. Bands like this do gain hardcore followings as time goes on. However, like I said, the majority of people just don't buy music. I'd imagine that most people download the leak, and never go on to buy the album. The internet is both a curse and a blessing. I don't see myself budging on that particular point.

You also say that the layperson doesn't like to buy crappy music. I don't exactly know what point you're trying to make here. Crappy music sells like mad. Look at the charts.

Yes, the good bands sell, but they most likely sell well in comparison to their previous efforts. They won't sell well in comparison to someone like Pink or Eminem.
Reply
post #12 of 16
9/12/09 at 1:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwitel View Post
But I never said I could prove the negative. I simply stated "I think" as in "my opinion"; nothing anywhere about definitively knowing or, stating fact.


If you make a statement as flatly and as definitevly as you did above, be prepared to back it up with empirical data, otherwise it is merely and opinion an not fact.
Again, can you provide these numbers and, definitively contribute the increase in sales directly to an increase in their respective albums being leaked?
You want me to give numbers, but you are fine with sticking with your opinion? I really do not have the time or desire at this point to look up the numbers, but I know as a fact that both Opeth and PT have had successively stronger sales despite the growing presence of leaking, because I remember reading the numbers before. If you do not trust me, you can burden yourself with finding the info.
Reply
post #13 of 16
9/12/09 at 1:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dublo7 View Post
You also say that the layperson doesn't like to buy crappy music. I don't exactly know what point you're trying to make here. Crappy music sells like mad. Look at the charts.
Didn't you just say sales are low because of piracy?

I do not buy the argument that downloading suppresses buying. I will not budge on that issue, because the people who only download were never customers. Before there was the internet, these were the same people that listened to hissy mix tapes from their friends. New times, new media distribution, same cheap bastards...
Reply
post #14 of 16
9/12/09 at 2:22am
If you look at surveys of those who download music, most also buy. In fact, some heavy downloaders are also some of the heaviest buyers because they have the most extensive exposure to music and know what they'll like.

Also, less well known groups gain exposure from free downloads which generate popularity over a greater area.

Finally, there's some sort of illogical connection somewhere in your argument. Supposedly, crappy music sells well and good stuff doesn't. What? Do pirates only download good music? No, if you look at the statistics, piracy corresponds strongly with sales. So the "mainstream" music some are complaining about is the most heavily downloaded.
Reply
post #15 of 16
9/12/09 at 3:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwitel View Post
If its so asinine, can you mathematically prove your point that it generates hype? Unless you can show me via some statistic or reputable piece of info that music sales have increased....
It's like that old adage about advertising - that only 50% of it works. The problem is rhat no one knows which 50%.

Exposure isn't just about album sales. If a downloader is persuaded to buy a $60 concert ticket and a $25 t-shirt, that's revenue. Similarly, that downloader might convince four or five friends to attend a concert. One or two of those friends might buy an album, too.

If an album is heavily downloaded, radio stations might pick up on that and start giving it airtime. That can lead to sales and concert attendance.

It's not a black and white scenario. It's about generating buzz and attention. You want the most exposure possible and leaks promote exposure.

That can eat into album sales, however, the net effect can be greater than the loss.

I have a suspicion that this is what is at play. Otherwise, it isn't that difficult to lock things down at the studio.

Keep in mind that the business model is changing, too. People are unsure how to fully capitalize on music today. Deliberate leaks might be part of an emerging business model - you never know.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Why are most new albums these days "Leaked" prior to their release date?