I'm currently downloading the pay-what-you-want new album from Radiohead. I think their decision to distribute their album themselves, on their own website, for a user-chosen price is a fascinating idea. There have been complaints about the less-than-CD-quality audio compression of the download. I'm not sure this will make a difference. There is as yet no perfect solution for digital music distribution, where everyone walks away happy - and I mean everyone. A model where bands and labels make some money, and consumers don't feel ripped off? Pie in the sky, at this point. Labels aren't (and probably won't be) content with making just some money, and as for us consumers, well...
I can only speak for myself. I'm still willing to pay for music, but only up to a point. If you must know, I chose to pay four pounds for the album download. A fee of 45 pence was tacked on (credit card companies have to take their cut, of course) - that converts to just over $9 total. Which is about as much as new CDs should cost. I think $8-10 for a new CD is ideal. Why is the actual cost twice that much?
Of course, there's the question of whether the music is any good in the first place. I'll know in about 10 more minutes.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"I'm struck by the narcissism and banality of so many personal blogs." - Blaise Cronin, Professor and Dean, Information Science, Indiana University. Is corn the most banal thing possible? Certainly it's not narcissistic to think about and talk about corn. Perhaps I skew 100% banal, 0% narcissistic, then. So here it is - some thoughts about corn. Enjoy. It's nutritious!
6 comments:
I agree about the price of music. It's ridiculous that at one point I paid over $20.00 for one CD. And the CD ended up sucking. I think 8-10 (9) bucks is perfect. Let me know how the Radiohead is, I have heard one song from the new CD but that's all so far.
How does it feel to be so average? From the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7041447.stm
"A survey of 3,000 people who downloaded the album suggested an average sum of £4 paid, with a third choosing to download it gratis, and several people paying a generous £12."
I'm not willing to pay the same price for a download as a physical CD from a store or directly from the band. There are several things that the actual object provides: sound quality, permanence, and that special nerdy-record collector itch that I haven't been able to get rid of.
I think $10-12 would be my ideal price for a physical purchase, with a download being $3-4 cheaper.
Interesting note: I see a number of new vinyl releases that include a free digital download of the entire album. A very nice touch, if you ask me.
Neil
Maybe there is a wider market consensus on CD pricing! What would Adam Smith think (or Milton Friedman)?
Digital download and vinyl? This is intended to capture the record collector/iPod listener niche market? Well, it makes more sense than a CD/digital download combo, which is just redundant.
"record collector/iPod listener niche market?" I think you mean "insufferable hipster niche market."
That having been said, having a professional musician (and hipster) in my immediate family, I feel I can comment on this.
#1: Unless you are a DJ, vinyl is retarded. Just because someone spends $15k on stereo cables doesn't mean they are right when they say it more accurately capture s sound. This misunderstanding came about when there were a bunch of shitty analog to CD conversions dropped on the market in the mid-80's. Properly mixed, a CD has much higher fidelity than an analog record, especially after it's been played a few times.
By the same token, mp3s also sound remarkably inferior to CDs. Doesn't it make sense to have the CD as your full-quality archival copy, and use the lossy mp3s in your iConform? Who wants two lo-fi copies?
Finally, 8-10 bucks is way to much to pay for a CD. Only about 1/10th of 1% of signed musicians make any money from CD sales. The record company takes everything, and the artist is left to make money on t-shirt and concert ticket sales, so the "hurting the artists" argument is specious.
The discs and packaging themselves cost cents to make, and most cost less than $10k to produce and record, and beyond the top tier artists, the labels spend very little money to promote artists. Really, the labels could sell discs (and yes, that is -discs-, not just basically cost-free downloads) for 2-3 bucks and still make a tidy profit. But instead, they'd rather sue grandmothers because their 13 year old grandkids installed edonkey on the computer.
Those are all good points, but I still don't understand your vitriolic hatred of the iPod. Maybe I should buy you this t-shirt.
Seeing as you apparently like that shirt, I am duty-bound to hate it.
Post a Comment