No longer. The figures alongside amply underline the current state of affairs. Success stories like Sonu Nigam’s Deewana (sales of a million at the last count) are a rarity nowadays. Others have witnessed a rude awakening. All this has led to bitter debates about how the market size was overestimated, how the artistes were pampered and how they let everyone (including audio companies) down.
Therein lies another story, of how costs were distorted. Indipop companies were at an inherent disadvantage to begin with. They were, though many dispute this, in direct competition with film music, both theme-wise and target-audience wise. If they had to achieve any kind of critical mass, acceptance into the massive fold of the film music fan was a must. But, in doing so they suffered on two counts.
Film music has a tremendous reach which is any marketing person’s dream. Movie music sales are anywhere between four to 10 times more than any Indipop items. Against this, worsening matters , Indipop in most segments had limited itself, in trying to create snob value and improve profitability. In doing so, all it did was price itself out of the average listener’s range with a 50 per cent premium over the price of a movie music cassette. Overseas, hit numbers are taken into movies and many pop artistes contribute to movie music to enhance their image. That is has not been happening here, of course with rare exceptions like Falguni Pathak’s Yaad Piya Ki Aane Lagi.
The other side
Overall, a lot of potential was messed up. Just one pithy statement by a former Indipop fan sums it up. In his words, "Forget growth. How about the existing market? You unleash just about anyone with a techno background and gaudy costumed characters on the screen and you call it a number? This is downright abuse of our patience. Even in movies we reject repetition and lack of finesse, and you expect us to put up with you?"
This appears valid. After all, music companies control the platform, the access point to the market and if they cannot screen talent, they forfeit the right to complain as well. Industry sources do admit in private that what everyone did was add his two bits of rubbish to the pile thinking that it could pass the muster. As such, something had to give way.
Also, if Indipop was as much about personalities as it was made out to be, where was brand-building done? Marketing orientation has always been the song and the theme, rather than the artiste. To be fair, the artistes also did not inspire any vision on the companies’ part. There are multiple instances of artistes going over to other companies for new albums. The emphasis, as the Americans would put it, seemed to be on the bigger, better deals and never mind the consequences.
Even technology, purported to be the greatest aid, ultimately ended up doing more harm than good. As an industry observer put it,"90 per cent of the people in charge of the technical aspect cannot innovate to save their life. How long could one continue seeing the same gimmicks? Interest had to fade."
In doing this, all they did was marginalise the singer. The song was reduced to a commodity, especially since fans could relate to the singer only the way the music companies projected him or her as -- nothing special.
Lack of innovation in ideas or execution resulted in Indipop getting hit by another supposed ally, namely the music channels. Why would anyone bother with music videos that were perceived as monotonously alike, where there was no emphasis on singer quality and the song, which was the selling point of the album, being available a month later on music channels anyway?
Back to the industry for some repairs and renewals.