Latest on CD Purchasing

[Ksyrup]

No, this isn't intended to re-start a debate around here about illegal file downloading, but I thought this was an interesting bit of news from today's WSJ:


By ETHAN SMITH
March 21, 2007; Page A1

In a dramatic acceleration of the seven-year sales decline that has battered the music industry, compact-disc sales for the first three months of this year plunged 20% from a year earlier, the latest sign of the seismic shift in the way consumers acquire music.

The sharp slide in sales of CDs, which still account for more than 85% of music sold, has far eclipsed the growth in sales of digital downloads, which were supposed to have been the industry's salvation.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/P1-AH451_MUSIC_20070320214830.gif

The slide stems from the confluence of long-simmering factors that are now feeding off each other, including the demise of specialty music retailers like longtime music mecca Tower Records. About 800 music stores, including Tower's 89 locations, closed in 2006 alone.

Apple Inc.'s sale of around 100 million iPods shows that music remains a powerful force in the lives of consumers. But because of the Internet, those consumers have more ways to obtain music now than they did a decade ago, when walking into a store and buying it was the only option.

Today, popular songs and albums -- and countless lesser-known works -- can be easily found online, in either legal or pirated forms. While the music industry hopes that those songs will be purchased through legal services like Apple's iTunes Store, consumers can often listen to them on MySpace pages or download them free from other sources, such as so-called MP3 blogs.

Jeff Rabhan, who manages artists and music producers including Jermaine Dupri, Kelis and Elliott Yamin, says CDs have become little more than advertisements for more-lucrative goods like concert tickets and T-shirts. "Sales are so down and so off that, as a manager, I look at a CD as part of the marketing of an artist, more than as an income stream," says Mr. Rabhan. "It's the vehicle that drives the tour, the merchandise, building the brand, and that's it. There's no money."

The music industry has found itself almost powerless in the face of this shift. Its struggles are hardly unique in the media world. The film, TV and publishing industries are also finding it hard to adapt to the digital age. Though consumers are exposed to more media in more ways than ever before, the challenge for media companies is finding a way to make money from all that exposure. Newspaper publishers, for example, are finding that their Internet advertising isn't growing fast enough to replace the loss of traditional print ads.

In recent weeks, the music industry has posted some of the weakest sales it has ever recorded. This year has already seen the two lowest-selling No. 1 albums since Nielsen SoundScan, which tracks music sales, was launched in 1991.

One week, "American Idol" runner-up Chris Daughtry's rock band sold just 65,000 copies of its chart-topping album; another week, the "Dreamgirls" movie soundtrack sold a mere 60,000. As recently as 2005, there were many weeks when such tallies wouldn't have been enough to crack the top 30 sellers. In prior years, it wasn't uncommon for a No. 1 record to sell 500,000 or 600,000 copies a week.

In general, even today's big titles are stalling out far earlier than they did a few years ago.

The music industry has been banking on the rise of digital music to compensate for inevitable drops in sales of CDs. Apple's 2003 launch of its iTunes Store was greeted as a new day in music retailing, one that would allow fans to conveniently and quickly snap up large amounts of music from limitless virtual shelves.

It hasn't worked out that way -- at least so far. Digital sales of individual songs this year have risen 54% from a year earlier to 173.4 million, according to Nielsen SoundScan. But that's nowhere near enough to offset the 20% decline from a year ago in CD sales to 81.5 million units. Overall, sales of all music -- digital and physical -- are down 10% this year. And even including sales of ringtones, subscription services and other "ancillary" goods, sales are still down 9%, according to one estimate; some recording executives have privately questioned that figure, which was included in a recent report by Pali Research.

Meanwhile, one billion songs a month are traded on illegal file-sharing networks, according to BigChampagne LLC.

Adding to the music industry's misery, CD prices have fallen amid pressure for cheaper prices from big-box retailers like Wal-Mart and others. That pressure is feeding through to record labels' bottom lines. As the market has deteriorated, Warner Music Group Corp., which reported a 74% drop in profits for the fourth quarter of 2006, is expected to report little relief in the first quarter of this year.

Looking at unit sales alone "flatters the situation," says Simon Wright, chief executive of Virgin Entertainment Group International, which runs 14 Virgin Megastores locations in North America and 250 world-wide. "In value terms, the market's down 25%, probably." Virgin's music sales have increased slightly this year, he says, thanks to the demise of chief competitor Tower, and to a mix of fashion and "lifestyle" products designed to attract customers.

Perhaps the biggest factor in the latest chapter of the music industry's struggle is the shakeout among music retailers. As recently as a decade ago, specialty stores like Tower Records were must-shop destinations for fans looking for both big hits and older catalog titles. But retailers like Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Best Buy Co. took away the hits business by undercutting the chains on price. Today such megaretailers represent about 65% of the retail market, up from 20% a decade ago, music-distribution executives estimate. And digital-music piracy, which has been rife since the rise of the original Napster file-sharing service, has allowed many would-be music buyers to fill their CD racks or digital-music players without ever venturing into a store.

Late last year, Tower Records closed its doors, after filing for bankruptcy-court protection in August. Earlier in 2006, following a bankruptcy filing, Musicland Holding Corp., which owned the Sam Goody chain, closed 500 of its 900 locations. And recently, Trans World Entertainment Corp., which operates the FYE and Coconuts chains, among others, began closing 134 of its 1,087 locations.

But even at the outlets that are still open, business has suffered. Executives at Trans World, based in Albany, N.Y., told analysts earlier this month that sales of music at its stores declined 14% in the last quarter of 2006. For the year, music represented just 44% of the company's sales, down from 54% in 2005. For the final quarter of the year, music represented just 38% of its sales.

Joe Nardone Jr., who owns the independent 10-store Gallery of Sound chain in Pennsylvania, says he is trying to make up for declining sales of new music by emphasizing used CDs, which he calls "a more consistent business." For now, though, he says used discs represent less than 10% of his business -- not nearly enough to offset the declines.

Retailers and others say record labels have failed to deliver big sellers. And even the hits aren't what they used to be. Norah Jones's "Not Too Late" has sold just shy of 1.1 million copies since it was released six weeks ago. Her previous album, "Feels Like Home," sold more than 2.2. million copies in the same period after its 2004 release.

"Even when you have a good release like Norah Jones, maybe the environment is so bad you can't turn it around," says Richard Greenfield, an analyst at Pali Research.

Meanwhile, with music sales sliding for the first time even at some big-box chains, Best Buy has been quietly reducing the floor space it dedicates to music, according to music-distribution executives.

Whether Wal-Mart and others will follow suit isn't clear, but if they do it could spell more trouble for the record companies. The big-box chains already stocked far fewer titles than did the fading specialty retailers. As a result, it is harder for consumers to find and purchase older titles in stores.

[vtbub]

You would think that they might start addressing the quality of the music that is released, or push MTV to actually promote music or startpromoting different niches of music.

The slide of the music industry started a generation ago and the effects are now starting to hit home.

[CU Tiger]

The poor music executive billionaires, what ever will they dow?

Maybe when it hits their pocket they will again start listening to the fans, and pushing the artists that make ood music.

They sold their soul to beat each other to the 12 year old preteen market, and now that a double-bald brittney is not attractive to anyone the artists who were producing good works a decade ago, are now sitting in offices and have abandoned the dream.

I think its cyclical like anything else, but the age of waiting in line for a week for the GnR double release are gone forever.

[wade moore]

Personally, I just don't see the reason to buy CD's 90% of the time anymore.

[Draft Dodger]

oh joy, more p2p lawsuits.

[Ksyrup]

I don't think there's any doubt that file sharing is an issue, but personally, I think that if they focused on the product, people would be more likely to buy it. I think what we're seeing is possibly a shift from the big, traditional companies to indie labels, where some indies will become the next generation BMG/Columbia's of the industry. The internet has started to level the playing field, in some respects. Look at this report, for example. That seems to support the argument that if the public likes the product, they will buy it.


<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=629 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=3>'Record' year for music on indies


</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=416><!-- S BO --><!-- S IIMA --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=203 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42205000/jpg/_42205126_arcticmonkeys_203_getty.jpg The Arctic Monkeys will be releasing their next album on 23 April


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- E IIMA --><!-- S SF -->The Arctic Monkeys and Kaiser Chiefs helped independent record labels to one of their most successful years ever, a UK industry organisation has claimed.


Indies earned an all-time high of two-thirds of the silver discs awarded to British acts in 2006, the Association of Independent Music said.

The Arctic Monkeys had the year's best-selling indie album.

And releases such as this helped labels to "punch well above their market share", the association added.
<!-- E SF -->
It found that eight out of 12 UK albums to sell more than 60,000 copies last year - and therefore go silver - were on indie labels.

Jarvis Cocker, Elbow and two early Snow Patrol releases were among those earning silver discs.

<!-- S IIMA --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=203 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42566000/jpg/_42566565_jarvis_getty203b.jpg Jarvis Cocker's silver album Jarvis was released on Rough Trade


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- E IIMA -->And another eight independent acts - among them Paul Weller, Morrissey, Babyshambles and Embrace - shifted more than 100,000 albums to achieve gold status.

The association criticised the "stocking policies" of supermarkets, which generally tend to focus on established major-label names. It said that these had resulted in independent music "being largely excluded from platinum and multi-platinum sales awards". But it concluded that there was, nonetheless, cause for optimism in 2007, through the release of "hotly-tipped" albums by acts such as Bloc Party and Enter Shikari.<!-- E BO -->


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[lordscarlet]

Personally, I just don't see the reason to buy CD's 90% of the time anymore.

But they're saying digital downloads have not made up the gap. Some of us get music the legit way, but the non-legit way has grown far more prevelant. I believe that is the point of the article (of course, I got bored 2 paragraphs in. ;) )

[molson]

I don't get the argument that if the music's better, the ratio of people that pay for it will increase. That makes no sense.

Also, I know it's accepted now, but when did bands and singers become "artists". It still sounds weird to me.

[gstelmack]

But they're saying digital downloads have not made up the gap. Some of us get music the legit way, but the non-legit way has grown far more prevelant. I believe that is the point of the article (of course, I got bored 2 paragraphs in. ;) )

Is this because people are getting the music other ways (piracy?), or because people now have the option to buy just the 2 good tracks and not waste money on the 8-10 filler tracks on the CD that the music industry was ripping everyone off on?

[wade moore]

But they're saying digital downloads have not made up the gap. Some of us get music the legit way, but the non-legit way has grown far more prevelant. I believe that is the point of the article (of course, I got bored 2 paragraphs in. ;) )

I have to wonder how much buying singles vs. albums plays into this. I RARELY buy albums anymore and I'm much more inclined to buy singles - whereas on CD I never bought singles. It's just much more cost effective that way.

[Franklinnoble]

Jeff Rabhan, who manages artists and music producers including Jermaine Dupri, Kelis and Elliott Yamin, says CDs have become little more than advertisements for more-lucrative goods like concert tickets and T-shirts. "Sales are so down and so off that, as a manager, I look at a CD as part of the marketing of an artist, more than as an income stream," says Mr. Rabhan. "It's the vehicle that drives the tour, the merchandise, building the brand, and that's it. There's no money."

This is exactly how it should be. 100 years ago, musicians didn't make money on album sales - they made a living going out and performing in front of live audiences. If you were a good act, you sold out big venues, and you got rich. For 99% of musicians, this is still how they make a living - they bust their butts getting gigs at bars, coffee shops, fairs, festivals, whatevever, and build a fan base that way. The internet helps them cultivate it, and most are happy to give their digital recordings away free, since it makes it more likely they'll have a better chance landing a gig and having a big audience when they play one.

It's that 1% that gets lucky and lands a big recording contract and doesn't even have to tour that fuels the entire recording industry. That whole model is really just an abberration, and now history will remember it as such - because in 20 years, there won't be any recording companies anymore.

[Ksyrup]

I don't get the argument that if the music's better, the ratio of people that pay for it will increase. That makes no sense.

It's not much of an argument, it's a fact. Why are indies selling so many CDs right now, as the big labels continue to decline?

I think FN has it right - the record labels have taken advantage of a model that was built on an ass-backwards premise, and the internet has simply hastened the demise of their way of conducting business. While there will always be room in the music industry for a post-1966 Beatles way of doing things (no touring, just crank out music that would probably suffer in the translation to live music anyway), gone are the days when record companies will be the ones to profit from that model. Now, the artists can choose to make a living in that way if they want, and distribute the music themselves via the net.

[Bee]

I have to wonder how much buying singles vs. albums plays into this. I RARELY buy albums anymore and I'm much more inclined to buy singles - whereas on CD I never bought singles. It's just much more cost effective that way.

I would think things like Satellite radio, online radio stations, etc would also impact CD sales. I used to buy lots of CDs because the local music radio stations suck. Now there's Satellite Radio or if I'm in the office I can stream one of the billion or so online radio stations. I haven't bought a CD in ages, not because I pirate music (which I don't) but because I now have other options to listen to music I like.

[lordscarlet]

Is this because people are getting the music other ways (piracy?), or because people now have the option to buy just the 2 good tracks and not waste money on the 8-10 filler tracks on the CD that the music industry was ripping everyone off on?

I have to wonder how much buying singles vs. albums plays into this. I RARELY buy albums anymore and I'm much more inclined to buy singles - whereas on CD I never bought singles. It's just much more cost effective that way.

You are probably correct. I am odd in that I am very computer-savvy, but I primarily buy CDs. If an artist only has one or two songs that I like I just don't bother purchasing anything they release (for the most part). I buy a large number of albums, but they're normally used or from small labels that may not even be counted in this study. Whenever I visit Charlottesville I normally buy a handful of used CDs. I've probably bought 5-10 singles from iTunes ever, and I do not pirate music.

[Ksyrup]

You are probably correct. I am odd in that I am very computer-savvy, but I primarily buy CDs. If an artist only has one or two songs that I like I just don't bother purchasing anything they release (for the most part). I buy a large number of albums, but they're normally used or from small labels that may not even be counted in this study. Whenever I visit Charlottesville I normally buy a handful of used CDs. I've probably bought 5-10 singles from iTunes ever, and I do not pirate music.

I'm the same way. I never buy anything other than albums, and don't even listen to anything other than albums, straight through in their original song order. The only "single" I have ever bought was that Numa Numa Mya Hee song that was a huge, if fleeting, sensation thanks to the fat kid who lip synched it, and that was for my 4-5 year old (how long ago was that?), not me.

I would hate to see the "album" fall by the wayside, even if it meant grudgingly accepting MP3s as the only medium in which to buy it. My biggest issues are with sound quality and hard drive storage of my collections, neither of which I am happy with. Which is why even though I download a ton of CDs to preview before buying, I always end up trashing the ones I don't like and buying the ones I do like, because the CD sounds a million times better and I like having the hard copy.

[Surtt]

I haven't bought a cd in years, even though there are some I would like to have.
The main reason is the copy protection. When I feel I am putting my computer at risk just listening to a commercial cd, I am not going to do it. I think this has a lot more to do with it then people would think.

[molson]

It's not much of an argument, it's a fact. Why are indies selling so many CDs right now, as the big labels continue to decline?



I still don't see the logic jump - you're saying that if the big labels started pushing more "quality" music, (what today are considered indies instead are on big labels), and if that "quality" music then becomes mainstream, that mainstream audience is somehow more likely to pay for the big label music than download it for free?

[wade moore]

I haven't bought a cd in years, even though there are some I would like to have.
The main reason is the copy protection. When I feel I am putting my computer at risk just listening to a commercial cd, I am not going to do it. I think this has a lot more to do with it then people would think.

I think this is an element that is far blown out of proportion by a small minority. I have ripped 100's of CD's and magically my computer still works.

[Ksyrup]

I still don't see the logic jump - you're saying that if the big labels started pushing more "quality" music, (what today are considered indies instead are on big labels), and if that "quality" music then becomes mainstream, that mainstream audience is somehow more likely to pay for the big label music than download it for free?

I see a couple of reasons for this. One, indies embraced the internet earlier, and thus haven't taken a combative, adverse position against their customers. Two, people who buy from indies tend to have more respect for those labels and more loyalty to them, resulting in a greater % of buys.

I could probably add a third point, which is entirely my own opinion, that the music on indie labels tends to be less "disposable" and thus lends itself to purchases by people who are into the music for more than just background listening or dancing or because that guy's got it so I have to have it. Which, necessarily, would limit the extent to which the general public would be (and will ever be) interested in true indie music, but I think loyalty and giving the customer what they want plays a big role in affecting whether that person will buy a track or CD.

Right now, in addition to the ease with which a person can steal music, the big companies are fighting an active hatred for the way they have gone about dealing with the new technology that others have embraced. So they have stacked the decks against themselves - they offer a limited selection of crappy music, by and large; they are multi-billion dollar companies in the anti-establishment business; and they have done too little to take advantage of the internet and have responded by attacking their customers. Brilliant strategy, all around.

[Ksyrup]

I think this is an element that is far blown out of proportion by a small minority. I have ripped 100's of CD's and magically my computer still works.

Yeah, that's not a concern for me.

[14ers]

I would think things like Satellite radio, online radio stations, etc would also impact CD sales. I used to buy lots of CDs because the local music radio stations suck. Now there's Satellite Radio or if I'm in the office I can stream one of the billion or so online radio stations. I haven't bought a CD in ages, not because I pirate music (which I don't) but because I now have other options to listen to music I like.
Ditto.


I have not purchased a CD in over a year because of my XM radio.

[Ksyrup]

So you never have a need for something on demand, or in a different form or quality than what you can get online or by satellite?

As much as I enjoy listening to XM music stations from time to time, I still turn the channel from song to song 75% of the time the next song starts. Not being able to listen to what I want when I want it has limited by enjoyment of radio in general, although satellite at least provides a greater variety of stuff to choose from (both among and within genres), so I end up listening to a lot more stuff I haven't heard before than on regular radio. Still, when I don't like it, I quickly turn it off.

I just can't imagine listening to music totally as a stream of consciousness thing. Every morning, I plan out what I'll be listening to for the day and make sure to have 4 or 5 CDs with me at all times.

[path12]

Is this because people are getting the music other ways (piracy?), or because people now have the option to buy just the 2 good tracks and not waste money on the 8-10 filler tracks on the CD that the music industry was ripping everyone off on?


Bingo. That's what's really changed -- technology has now made it so songs and not entire CD's are the draw. I buy at least as much music as I ever did, but it's downloading individual songs, not entire CD's with the exception of a few favorite artists where I'd like to physically have the CD on hand.

[cthomer5000]

One additional thought could be that the online world has people spending what was music listening time in other ways. I own more music than all but one person I've ever met, and I find myself listening to hours and hours of podcasts daily now. All of that time was spent listening to music less than a year ago. I've found my music purchases have ground to a near complete stop.

[wade moore]

One additional thought could be that the online world has people spending what was music listening time in other ways. I own more music than all but one person I've ever met, and I find myself listening to hours and hours of podcasts daily now. All of that time was spent listening to music less than a year ago. I've found my music purchases have ground to a near complete stop.

This is certainly true for me (as I listen to a podcast right now).

[Bee]

So you never have a need for something on demand, or in a different form or quality than what you can get online or by satellite?

As much as I enjoy listening to XM music stations from time to time, I still turn the channel from song to song 75% of the time the next song starts. Not being able to listen to what I want when I want it has limited by enjoyment of radio in general, although satellite at least provides a greater variety of stuff to choose from (both among and within genres), so I end up listening to a lot more stuff I haven't heard before than on regular radio. Still, when I don't like it, I quickly turn it off.

I just can't imagine listening to music totally as a stream of consciousness thing. Every morning, I plan out what I'll be listening to for the day and make sure to have 4 or 5 CDs with me at all times.


I'm more of a genre listener than someone wanting to listen to a specific song. If I'm in the mood to listen to salsa, it's not necessary that I listen to a specific Celia Cruz song. Because I have the option to listen to a wide variety of music on demand, I seldom buy CDs any more. If I absolutely must hear a specific song, I buy it from Itunes.

I can't imagine planning out what I'll be listening to for the day and organizing CDs to take with me anymore. That's just too much effort and the chance of my mood changing during the day is just too great. My point was that there are others out there that probably no longer buy as many CDs as they used to because there are other music options out there whether it's MP3, Ipod, satellite radio, streaming music from the internet or whatever. I don't think the drop off in CD sales is exclusively a result of digital downloads (legal or illegal).

[Desnudo]

It's the same as any industry that no longer can control the flow of information as well as they did before the internet, in this situation - music. Its natural that music will become less expensive and profitable. It's about time. I saw hardly any CDs as worth $15 or $17. I think most people probably felt the same and now companies are seeing that.

[Franklinnoble]

This is certainly true for me (as I listen to a podcast right now).

Agreed. I use my MP3 player for podcasts more than music on a daily basis.

[Ksyrup]

I'm more of a genre listener than someone wanting to listen to a specific song. If I'm in the mood to listen to salsa, it's not necessary that I listen to a specific Celia Cruz song. Because I have the option to listen to a wide variety of music on demand, I seldom buy CDs any more. If I absolutely must hear a specific song, I buy it from Itunes.

I can't imagine planning out what I'll be listening to for the day and organizing CDs to take with me anymore. That's just too much effort and the chance of my mood changing during the day is just too great. My point was that there are others out there that probably no longer buy as many CDs as they used to because there are other music options out there whether it's MP3, Ipod, satellite radio, streaming music from the internet or whatever. I don't think the drop off in CD sales is exclusively a result of digital downloads (legal or illegal).


See, that's interesting because I choose CDs specifically based on what bands I want to listen to, and genre is somewhat a secondary consideration. Now, I guess there's a bit of genre pre-selection in what I choose in that if I'm in the mood for something heavy, Rufus Wainwright is out of the running and Scar Symmetry is near the top, and vice versa. But otherwise, it's a matter of what band/CD I want to listen to first and foremost.

[QuikSand]

No, this isn't intended to re-start a debate around here about illegal file downloading, but I thought this was an interesting bit of news from today's WSJ

And without taking the bait... what exactly did you think was the likely result from this?

[lordscarlet]

One additional thought could be that the online world has people spending what was music listening time in other ways. I own more music than all but one person I've ever met, and I find myself listening to hours and hours of podcasts daily now. All of that time was spent listening to music less than a year ago. I've found my music purchases have ground to a near complete stop.

This happened to me more like 4 or 5 years ago. My primarily music listening time is in the car. When I was commuting ungodly amounts of time in a car I had moved to listening to all talk radio. People don't believe me when I tell them I don't know songs or artists that have appeared in the last 4/5 years, but I really don't. I listen to talk radio in the car. I listen to podcasts nowadays on my way to work since I don't have a car. The only way I hear new music is by someone pointing it out to me or seeing an opening band at a live show.

[Ksyrup]

And without taking the bait... what exactly did you think was the likely result from this?

Pretty much the discussion that we've had. Illegal downloading, and certainly any arguments about it, haven't really been a major area of discussion, has it? The article itself only mentions it as one of several factors influencing sales. I think it has gotten an appropriate amount of reference given the focus of the article.

*shurg*

[Ksyrup]

This happened to me more like 4 or 5 years ago. My primarily music listening time is in the car. When I was commuting ungodly amounts of time in a car I had moved to listening to all talk radio. People don't believe me when I tell them I don't know songs or artists that have appeared in the last 4/5 years, but I really don't. I listen to talk radio in the car. I listen to podcasts nowadays on my way to work since I don't have a car. The only way I hear new music is by someone pointing it out to me or seeing an opening band at a live show.

So maybe, in some ways, people should be looking at music in the same way we are now viewing TV-watching habits. The expectations for the kinds of ratings that CBS/NBC/ABC/FOX can now get have changed, given then numerous calbe/satellite and DVD/DVR offerings out there. Sporting events are seeing their lowest ratings ever, but in reality, there's far more things to watch or do these days than back when everyone would gather to watch the World Series or the series-ending MASH episode. With music and various forms of "listening entertainment," there are simply more choices thanks to the internet and technology.

[MJ4H]

ditto on the podcasts. I find myself searching for enjoyable podcasts so I can fill my weekly commute time with them, rather than have to fall back on listening to music.

Unfortunately, I have a hard time finding enjoyable podcasts on subjects I'm interested in. As good a time as any to tell cthomer thanks again for his. It is really my favorite one.

[14ers]

So you never have a need for something on demand, or in a different form or quality than what you can get online or by satellite?


You are one generation behind on satelite radios. Satelite radios now have built in records allowing you to record up to 50 hours of broadcast. When you switch modes going from live to recorded you can search for a specific song you have recorded earlier.

I have my radio set to record 2 new hours of programs every night when I am sleeping.(1 hour of channel 8 and 1 hour of channel 41). When I am away from home and the live broadcasts are not doing it for me I just change modes and search for a song I want to listen to. Works great at the gym.

[lordscarlet]

ditto on the podcasts. I find myself searching for enjoyable podcasts so I can fill my weekly commute time with them, rather than have to fall back on listening to music.

Unfortunately, I have a hard time finding enjoyable podcasts on subjects I'm interested in. As good a time as any to tell cthomer thanks again for his. It is really my favorite one.

Having said all this, I think the state of today's music radio is probably what drove me to talk radio and podcasts. I always listened to talk radio growing up, but it was a balance with music radio. With the general hegemony and repetition on radio I was driven to something that has the same content every day.

Make sure you check out Ron and Fez. They have an hour long show in NYC that podcasts. I also like Don and Mike and The Junkies, but that's largely a local bias. I think Ron and Fez is a better show overall these days.

[Ksyrup]

The only reason I got XM was because it came built-in with my car. There's no way I would attach one of those things to my dash. I went through that headache with a portable CD player in the early 90s. No way I would do that again. And I don't see myself ever buying a stand-alone unit, unless it comes as part of an MP3 player or phone or whatever device will eventually carry everything we need.

[cthomer5000]

Unfortunately, I have a hard time finding enjoyable podcasts on subjects I'm interested in. As good a time as any to tell cthomer thanks again for his. It is really my favorite one.

Woot! good to hear.


Make sure you check out Ron and Fez... I think Ron and Fez is a better show overall these days.

And you will actually here Jivin on Ron & Fez from time to time, for whatever that's worth. :)

[BrianD]

It's not much of an argument, it's a fact. Why are indies selling so many CDs right now, as the big labels continue to decline?


My guess would be that indies aren't popular enough yet to make it to the p2p networks. People that want that music have to buy it. It isn't that indie sales are higher than popular music sales, just that they aren't seeing the same decline.

[Ksyrup]

My guess would be that indies aren't popular enough yet to make it to the p2p networks. People that want that music have to buy it. It isn't that indie sales are higher than popular music sales, just that they aren't seeing the same decline.


Are p2p's still the best (or most prevalent) way to get music these days? MP3 blogs, newsgroups, and YSI/RapidShare links on boards are the only things I've used in the past 4 years. And I can have my pick of indie bands from those sources.

[cthomer5000]

Are p2p's still the best (or most prevalent) way to get music these days? MP3 blogs, newsgroups, and YSI/RapidShare links on boards are the only things I've used in the past 4 years. And I can have my pick of indie bands from those sources.

Among people I know I think bittorrent is far and away the leader in illegal downloads.

[BrianD]

Are p2p's still the best (or most prevalent) way to get music these days? MP3 blogs, newsgroups, and YSI/RapidShare links on boards are the only things I've used in the past 4 years. And I can have my pick of indie bands from those sources.

I would bet a very small portion of the internet community even know what newsgroups are. I'm not familiar with MP3 blogs, so I don't know how easy it would be to find something specific. p2p and torrents are still huge.

[Ksyrup]

Among people I know I think bittorrent is far and away the leader in illegal downloads.

I stay away from the direct downloads via bittorrent. I let others do my dirty work and usually trade YSI links with folks on other boards.

[Ksyrup]

I love the newsgroups. They're not as efficient in that you are essentially "fishing" for content instead of being able to search for exactly what you want, but the variety always leads to something I never expected to find. I've found so many bands just by downloading tons of newsgroup MP3 postings, it's incredible. I just placed a $100+ order at The End Records based on a trolling session from last week.

[BrianD]

I love the newsgroups. They're not as efficient in that you are essentially "fishing" for content instead of being able to search for exactly what you want, but the variety always leads to something I never expected to find. I've found so many bands just by downloading tons of newsgroup MP3 postings, it's incredible. I just placed a $100+ order at The End Records based on a trolling session from last week.

I would place you in the minority of people who are willing to fish through a bunch of potential crap to find the diamonds. Most people don't even know who they like until their friends or the radio stations tell them, so they just look for what they know.

I occasionally fish through newsgroups as well, but the vast majority of stuff I come across gets tossed. Once in a while I find something worth buying and holding on to, but not too frequently.

[Ksyrup]

I either find names I am familiar with, stuff that says it is a new/upcoming release, or stuff that has a genre attached to it that I like. From there, I listen to a few tracks and either discard immediately or put in the "second try" bin. A couple of days later when I listen again, if I like it, I trash it and put it on the list to purchase.

Mostly, I'm looking for new stuff from bands I love that I can get before the release date, or bands I've never heard of. Rarely am I looking for a specific artist whose CD is readily available. I figure I can listen to clips of those artists from multiple sources. But I guess that goes to the crux of why I'm downloading...I'm not downloading to have a free copy of something that can easily be purchased at Best Buy, I'm looking for new stuff I haven't heard (or, in the case of pre-releases, jsut to get an advance copy of my favorite bands' new music).

[dawgfan]

It's the same as any industry that no longer can control the flow of information as well as they did before the internet, in this situation - music. Its natural that music will become less expensive and profitable. It's about time. I saw hardly any CDs as worth $15 or $17. I think most people probably felt the same and now companies are seeing that.
Bolded for emphasis - this is simple supply and demand. People aren't buying CD's as often because the price is too high relative the the perceived value.

I don't download music (yet) and I won't download music illegally. I still get my music from CD's only. My buying rate has decreased significantly in the last 5+ years. Part of that is simply changes in my lifestyle, but a bigger part is the sharp rise in cost of buying CD's. I'm a lot less likely to invest in a CD at $18+ than at $12.

[Ksyrup]

You really think there's been a sharp rise in the cost of a CD? Other than smaller artists whose CDs aren't widely distributed and for which I have to add S&H to the total cost (especially for imports), I haven't spent more than $15 on a CD ever. And most stuff can be purchased at BB or online for $10-14.

Part of this is precisely why stores like Tower are going out of business. If you're spending $18 on a CD, you simply aren't shopping smart.

[Surtt]

I think this is an element that is far blown out of proportion by a small minority. I have ripped 100's of CD's and magically my computer still works.

Well, I had to reinstall windows twice from scratch because of this. That was several years ago and I haven't bought a cd since. At this point I think I got one of the various experimental cds they were test back then.

I played a cd I got from BMG after, my burner would no longer copy anything that was a commercial disk, including stuff I have a right to back up. I had to reinstall to get it to work again. At that point I did not know what caused it. When I played the cd again the same thing happened. Maybe I am just paranoid and it is just coincidence, but I have never played the cd again and never had the problem again.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think, just for variety, I'll keep my first post away from the 10,000 pound gorilla sub-topic sitting in the corner of the room ;)

If I'm any sort of example at all (even as just a minority of the marketplace) I'd say the returning availability of buying singles vs full albums has definitely had an impact on albums sales. I've spent more money on music in the past year or two than I did in probably the previous 3-5 years, but more & more, I'm buying individual tracks instead of full projects. I simply don't have the patience, nor the desire, nor the willingness to spend money for so much that I don't enjoy/won't listen to, especially not now that it's easy to cherry pick titles I already know I like/want.

Something I haven't seen mentioned in the thread yet, but I'm pretty convinced is also affecting sales is the increased niche formatting of radio, and even satellite radio. It hasn't been that long ago that music formats were pretty broadly defined. You had country, rock, alternative, pop/Top 40, R&B/Urban, and Oldies. Depending upon the year you want to go back to, Adult Contemporary appeared, starting to replace MOR/Easy Listening. And that was about it, give or take the odd market that had a Jazz station to go along with the inevitable non-profit Classical station and one white Christian/Gospel station to go with one black Gospel station.

Now there's New Country, Classic Country, Country, there's CHR(Dance), CHR(Pop), CHR(Rhythmic), CHR(Hip-Hop), CHR(No Rap), Urban, Urban Adult, Urban Oldies, Hip-Hop, New Rock, Active Rock, Classic Rock, Rock, Alternative, Adult Alternative, AAA (Album Adult Alternative), Classic Hits, Jazz, AC, Soft AC, Hot AC, Modern AC, Rhythmic AC, at least a half dozen distinct Hispanic/Spanish-language music formats and about that many religious music formats. And those are just some of the highlights.

As those formats broke down into more specific audiences, so did the artists who got airplay on them. Basically, a #1 song doesn't reach as many people as it used to, not necessarily because radio listening is down (total users of radio hasn't changed much in the past decade, although TSL or Time Spent Listening is steadily declining in a lot of demos). Music was always given to radio stations because it was essentially a commercial for the artist/album sales/ticket sales. That hasn't changed, it's just less effective than it used to be.

[wade moore]

If I'm any sort of example at all (even as just a minority of the marketplace) I'd say the returning availability of buying singles vs full albums has definitely had an impact on albums sales. I've spent more money on music in the past year or two than I did in probably the previous 3-5 years, but more & more, I'm buying individual tracks instead of full projects. I simply don't have the patience, nor the desire, nor the willingness to spend money for so much that I don't enjoy/won't listen to, especially not now that it's easy to cherry pick titles I already know I like/want.

This is a good point. My music spending is definitely up over the last 2-3 years compared to the 2-3 years beforehand - but it is on single songs instead of albums.

[Ksyrup]

It would be interesting to see the ratio between CD purchases 10 years ago and individual song purchases now. For example, let's say for every 2 full, $15 CDs a person might have bought in 1996, how many single tracks would that same typical person be likely to buy today? In other words, for that $30 of revenue to record companies in 1996, how much are they recouping in individual song sales now? From the numbers they are giving us, it seems to back up the idea that it was much easier to force someone to buy 2 full CDs for $30 then to get them to purchase, say, 20 song downloads at $1.50 each to earn the same revenue, notwithstanding the relative ease at which we can purchase those songs today.

Which, in my mind, goes back to the quality of the offerings. When all you had to do was convince Joe Consumer that 1 or 2 bands were worth spending $30 on, it was much easier than convincing that same person 10 years later that 15 artists have at least one song that's worth spending your money on. Not to mention, we can preview songs now when we largely couldn't 10 years ago, so we're not only being asked to spend our money on a broad range of artists whose quality may vary greatly, but we're also "educated" consumers in the sense that we can try before we buy.

In other words...the record companies are working from an outdated business model and they're trying to place a disproportionate amount of the blame (it's still there, but not to the extent I think they are claiming) on illegal downloads.

[lordscarlet]

I don't know why you guys waste money on an artist that you can only stand to hear one or two songs from. :) I'd much rather invest myself in one that I can listen to at least 75% of their songs on a regular basis.

[Ksyrup]

I don't know why you guys waste money on an artist that you can only stand to hear one or two songs from. :) I'd much rather invest myself in one that I can listen to at least 75% of their songs on a regular basis.

I'm with you. Not to mention, I see the "album" as more than just a device by which to transmit music. I guess the popularity of the album as an art form is dying, but I still enjoy it as such.

[MJ4H]

I don't know why you guys waste money on an artist that you can only stand to hear one or two songs from. :) I'd much rather invest myself in one that I can listen to at least 75% of their songs on a regular basis.

I'm not sure why youd buy that other 25%, personally. So that's the difference.

[BrianD]

Which, in my mind, goes back to the quality of the offerings. When all you had to do was convince Joe Consumer that 1 or 2 bands were worth spending $30 on, it was much easier than convincing that same person 10 years later that 15 artists have at least one song that's worth spending your money on. Not to mention, we can preview songs now when we largely couldn't 10 years ago, so we're not only being asked to spend our money on a broad range of artists whose quality may vary greatly, but we're also "educated" consumers in the sense that we can try before we buy.


I disagree with this. 10 years ago I bought a CD or two to find out that I only liked one song. Since then I never bought a CD unless I knew that I could listen to most of it. Back then, as now, I would think it much easier to find 15 artists that have just one good song rather than 2 that have a worthwhile CD. The way record companies are pushing out "popular" artists, finding their 1 good song is easy.

What is becoming increasingly difficult is getting people to hear that 1 good song and then buy the whole CD. Singles are much easier to deal with since you no longer have to carry around a whole cassette single or CD single. Just buy the one good song and slap it on the MP3 player.

How can sales not go down when you give people the ability to personalize their purchase so much?

[BrianD]

I'm not sure why youd buy that other 25%, personally. So that's the difference.

I think you said what I said in a lot fewer words. :)

[Ksyrup]

I'm not sure why youd buy that other 25%, personally. So that's the difference.

Because the price I put on sound quality necessitates that I spend $13 for 10 songs, 7 of which (for argument's sake) I would have bought individually for $.99 each, rather than spending $7 for just those 7 tracks that sound like dogshit on a respectable audio system.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'd much rather invest myself in one that I can listen to at least 75% of their songs on a regular basis.

So would I ... but very few groups (that are still together) fit that description any more. The ones that do, I have a somewhat renewed tendency to buy the full album (recently Stone Sour, Black Stone Cherry, and Fozzy) but there's only so many times in a row that I want to listen to 3 CD's.

I don't actually drive a lot on most weekdays, and taking my son to school is a short trip, so I can easily keep one CD in the car for most of the week. But if I've listened to that one CD all week, when we're in the car for an hour or two I like to have some variety to keep it interesting, so I'm inclined toward more of a mixed artist CD (since it's pretty much impossible anymore for me to find a radio station that will play more than 3 songs in a row that I like).

It would be interesting to see the ratio between CD purchases 10 years ago and individual song purchases now.

That would be interesting to see, although I'd guess the ratio is much more similar versus, say, 10 years ago but nowhere near what it was 30-35 years ago. (as 45's were in their final death throes). I think it is easier to get the money from two albums than from 15 singles, but not more satisfying for the consumer. Of the last set of singles I bought, which I think was 14 tracks from like 10 artists, I would guesstimate that I would have eventually bought 2-3 of the albums to get the songs I wanted most, maybe 4 tops. The others I would have simply passed on. Quick math says they lost about $15-$30 because of the easy availability of single tracks, and that's just from legal sales of singles.

[Ksyrup]

I disagree with this. 10 years ago I bought a CD or two to find out that I only liked one song. Since then I never bought a CD unless I knew that I could listen to most of it. Back then, as now, I would think it much easier to find 15 artists that have just one good song rather than 2 that have a worthwhile CD. The way record companies are pushing out "popular" artists, finding their 1 good song is easy.

What is becoming increasingly difficult is getting people to hear that 1 good song and then buy the whole CD. Singles are much easier to deal with since you no longer have to carry around a whole cassette single or CD single. Just buy the one good song and slap it on the MP3 player.

How can sales not go down when you give people the ability to personalize their purchase so much?

I think we agree, in the conclusion - I expect sales to decline, but I think it is because of a lack of good artists. Record companies are consolidating their artist rosters, not expanding them. So I don't buy your premise that it is much easier to find 15 good songs from 15 different artists because record companies are pushing them out there. If anything, they're doing the opposite, spending only on proven commodities or artists that somehow get hot/noticed without promotion. The rest get 1, maybe 2 chances to prove they can sell without money backing them, and they are gone from the roster.

What you describe in your first paragraph is the transition from no choice to choice. I'm referring to when people had no choice, they not only bought just the CD, but rarely got the chance to hear it apart from what was on the radio or MTV. As your expectations changed as a consumer, it affected your buying habits. But before you had that power as a consumer, you bought CDs based on the best information you had available, and that was limited to 1 or 2 songs.

[Ksyrup]

Of the last set of singles I bought, which I think was 14 tracks from like 10 artists, I would guesstimate that I would have eventually bought 2-3 of the albums to get the songs I wanted most, maybe 4 tops. The others I would have simply passed on. Quick math says they lost about $15-$30 because of the easy availability of single tracks, and that's just from legal sales of singles.

And that's my thought on it as well, which leads me to the conclusion that the record companies simply haven't come to grips with the fact that their business has changed in front of them and they can't expect the same revenue streams from recorded music that they have grown accustomed to for 40+ years. Those days are over.

This isn't about getting sales back up to where they were, and it's (IMO) even less about the money they are losing from illegal downloads. This is about a fundamental change in the industry due to technology and consumer preference that will likely never go back to what it once was.

[cthomer5000]

This is about a fundamental change in the industry due to technology and consumer preference that will likely never go back to what it once was.

I lean this way as well, and I'm a bit interested to see if this shift will bring back true single releases.

Not that any of this really matters to me since 99% of my listening is done well outside the mainstream.

[dawgfan]

You really think there's been a sharp rise in the cost of a CD? Other than smaller artists whose CDs aren't widely distributed and for which I have to add S&H to the total cost (especially for imports), I haven't spent more than $15 on a CD ever. And most stuff can be purchased at BB or online for $10-14.

Part of this is precisely why stores like Tower are going out of business. If you're spending $18 on a CD, you simply aren't shopping smart.
Well, costs of CD's in brick and mortar stores like Tower back around the late '90's was rising above $15. I remember when CDNow.com came online how happy I was to have a way to buy CD's for closer to $11-12 with no sales tax as opposed to Amazon.com where I had to pay sales tax as a Washington resident, and their prices were a bit higher anyway. Once CDNow.com went under as an independent entity, I noticed online prices elsewhere were back towards the $15 mark or more.

I do still buy CD's on occasion at places like Best Buy when they have some on sale, but it's been my impression that most stores are charging $15-18 or so for CD's. Just checking on Amazon.com right now, I see that their prices have dropped some, but there are still some new CD's going for $17.

Putting that part of the discussion aside, I still contend this is a basic economics issue - if the music industry wants to sell more music, they need to lower the per unit cost. If they feel that lowering the cost won't generate enough extra sales to offset the lower revenue, then that's a legitimate business decision, but they can't bitch about lower sales - they have to find more compelling content and generate greater demand.

Obviously pirated content has some effect on sales. I know a few people that have Netflix accounts and copy every DVD they rent, and I'm sure it's not that difficult for relatively computer-savvy people to still acquire MP3's by the bucketload. The ease of acquiring the content and the high quality of the pirated content (as opposed to the era of home-taping for music and VHS tapes for movies) is going to have an impact on sales of media content. IMO, the best way to combat that is to make it easier to buy the content (through downloads) and to lower prices.

[Ksyrup]

Do you mean hard copy? Would that be a smart idea? If anything, I would think maybe a digital version of the old single, where you throw in a B-side or 2 in an attempt to sell the entire album. But that might be fruitless and a waste of a good song or two that might be purchased individually. They're in a tough spot right now, because even though they have finally come around to digital music, it seems that that's not going to be enough to help them recoup what they are losing from CD sales.

[Ksyrup]

Putting that part of the discussion aside, I still contend this is a basic economics issue - if the music industry wants to sell more music, they need to lower the per unit cost. If they feel that lowering the cost won't generate enough extra sales to offset the lower revenue, then that's a legitimate business decision, but they can't bitch about lower sales - they have to find more compelling content and generate greater demand.

I agree, but it seems like digital is the way to lower costs, and if you want hard copy, production/shipping costs would necessitate higher prices, comparatively speaking. So if they lower CD prices, they have to lower digital prices, I would think.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Just randomly throwing out some more stuff here.

I think we agree, in the conclusion - I expect sales to decline, but I think it is because of a lack of good artists.

Or is there a lack of airplay (i.e. marketing) for "good artists"?

A label could triple or quadruple the size of their roster but in the decline of the free marketing radio provided for so long, the cost of doing adequate promotion to give an act enough exposure to generate sales is usually too high to be worthwhile. No sense selling $10k in product by an act if you spent $30k to promote them. (although adding another zero to those numbers is probably closer to accurate)

And I'm not lambasting radio for the trend toward tighter playlists. Those exist because in most formats, those stations have the most listeners. In other words, shorter playlists/music libraries didn't just appear suddenly for no reasons.

What you describe in your first paragraph is the transition from no choice to choice.

I'm glad you said this, because I knew there was something else I wanted to mention in my previous post but couldn't remember what it was.

It concerns choice. Young adults (say 12-24) have been a mainstay of music sales for decades, but the amount of competition for their dollars has never been higher. The amount of disposable income in the group is almost certainly up, but perhaps not as far up as the competition for that money. If an album/cassette was $10 back in the 80's when I was a teen, how many things could I have spent it on that cost 2x-3x album equivalents? Concerts were about $20 a ticket then, so that's one thing, but movies were $4-$5 a ticket. If you were a sports fan, tickets were usually around an album cost per ticket, give or take. Other hobbies, whatever you might have been into on your own time, captured a portion (and still do today, although I might guess less than they did then, which I'll explain in a minute). Dating seems to have had about the same proportional cost then as now AFAIK. I'll omit booze, drugs, other vices here since I don't think the proportion of income going to them has changed a lot in 20-30 years either.

But if you take music purchases & put it under a broader heading of "entertainment", the competition has gotten a lot stiffer. Video games were just getting into the home good (can't remember the cost then, but now around 3x-4x of an album), we didn't know from computer gaming (1x to 2.5x of an album) we didn't buy movies (1.5 to 2x an album cost) usually just rented them (maybe 1/2 an album), and so forth.

There just seems to me to be more things taking money out of the music category than there used to be.

[dawgfan]

I agree, but it seems like digital is the way to lower costs, and if you want hard copy, production/shipping costs would necessitate higher prices, comparatively speaking. So if they lower CD prices, they have to lower digital prices, I would think.
Absolutely.

[gstelmack]

I don't know why you guys waste money on an artist that you can only stand to hear one or two songs from. :) I'd much rather invest myself in one that I can listen to at least 75% of their songs on a regular basis.

Who cares who the artist is if I like the song?

I own 2 Enya songs and one Sheryl Crowe song. There might be other songs by them I'd like, but I know I like those and they were worth spending money on (paid for the single tracks for download). As opposed to the Bryan Adams CD I bought a while back where I like "Summer of '69" and "Everything I Do" and don't listen to anything else from it.

I usually buy music because I hear the song someplace (often a movie or TV show lately, sometimes radio but I don't listen much) and then go find my options for buying it. I probably buy more soundtracks than artist albums because of this, but I'll sometimes decide to just download the single instead. It's nice to have the option to buy a CD if I find several other songs I like on it (and it's nice to be able to listen to snippets of those other songs from the online stores to help me decide) or just buy the single download if I don't.

One fun note was I went hunting the one Enya song after hearing it again, and ended up buying the other while poking around and liking it. But both were on separate albums. Would have cost somewhere between $20 - $30 to buy both on CD and maybe have found a couple other songs I like, instead of the $2 to get a pair of songs I know I like.

I also tend to build up playlists in media player, and then listen on random shuffle. I group the playlists by "mood": upbeat action type songs to get the blood pumping for a workout session, singalongs when I'm just having fun, or kid's stuff for when the kids are playing but we want some background music. I'm never in the mood for a particular artist, but rather for a type of song.

All an artist is good for to me is potentially leading me to other songs I like. But history has shown I'll probably like only some of the songs they make, and I'm not paying for the rest just because. There have been exceptions (Genesis / Phil Collins, the Monkees, some others), but they are rare enough that I'm not just assuming that because I like one song, I'll like them all.

[stevew]

I lean this way as well, and I'm a bit interested to see if this shift will bring back true single releases.

Not that any of this really matters to me since 99% of my listening is done well outside the mainstream.

Yeah, I wonder if the CD-5 or EP could make a solid comeback. Artists putting out 5-7 tracks at a time, at around 10 bucks per cd. might work if the filler was minimized.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yeah, I wonder if the CD-5 or EP could make a solid comeback. Artists putting out 5-7 tracks at a time, at around 10 bucks per cd. might work if the filler was minimized.

After seeing 20-30 CD's with eight or nine cuts, from top selling artists, priced at $9.99 at Best Buy yesterday, I'd have to think the price would need to be a good bit lower than the $10 you just mentioned.

With singles at about buck apiece right now, I can't see the EP format being sellable (saleable?) at anything much more than that price.

[Ksyrup]

And I'm not lambasting radio for the trend toward tighter playlists. Those exist because in most formats, those stations have the most listeners. In other words, shorter playlists/music libraries didn't just appear suddenly for no reasons.

I remember when MTV announced it was deliberately moving to airing videos from only a select group of artists, that certainly felt like it came out of nowhere. But I assume it was driven by some sort of marketing study.

I guess what's puzzling me is the divergent trends we're seeing...tighter playlists, less promotion for fringe artists, seemingly driven by consumer forces, yet in the context of myspace.com and the rise in indie labels, a trend toward more consumer choice than ever for all sorts of artists. Or maybe what's really happening is that the fringe element (indie now, alternative in the 90s, new wave and metal in the 80s, punk in the 70s, etc.) is being pushed to the internet and the big labels are sticking strictly to what they believe are cash cow artists/genres.

[Julio Riddols]

In my opinion, for the sake of the music being created, it would only be a good thing to see major labels and "cookie cutter" pop music die out and be replaced by bands and artists who use their own creative vision as opposed to the vision of some producer or agency that thinks they know what the world wants to hear. Now with indie bands and artists getting more exposure via the internet, people are realizing that theres more and better stuff out there than what they've been force fed in recent years. I think this is most prevalent in the younger generation, where it seems there is a renewed sense of individuality. People want to hear new stuff, people want to feel like the music they listen to is "theirs", so to speak.. At least this is true amongst a majority of my friends.. The simple truth in my opinion is that the corporate giant music machine is being replaced by a do it yourself mentality, and local bands/indie bands who sell albums that they make themselves will sell their work before a major label artist will because of that. (Not to mention the quality of the music is often much higher across the board rather than having a couple singles and a bunch of filler.)

I would much rather buy a cd from a friends band or from some lesser known band for $5-10 than go to the music store and buy some crap for $15-20.

For instance, how many people have heard of the hip hop artist Apathy? He sure as hell isn't on MTV but I'll be damned if he isn't one of the best to ever do it in my opinion..

I think the main factors in this decline are the individuality of the consumer, the quality of the music, and the price of what is most widely available.

People need to learn not to bite the hand that feeds them and instead focus on putting something worthwhile in that hand.

[Ksyrup]

After seeing 20-30 CD's with eight or nine cuts, from top selling artists, priced at $9.99 at Best Buy yesterday, I'd have to think the price would need to be a good bit lower than the $10 you just mentioned.

With singles at about buck apiece right now, I can't see the EP format being sellable (saleable?) at anything much more than that price.

I just bought the US release of The Feeling's Twelve Stops from Home for $7.99. I had an "illegal version" of the UK release for 6+ months, but it cost me $8 for the US version. What are these albums selling for online? Surely they can't be charging $10 an album on itunes for a digital download of what I can get in hard copy for $8, can they?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I guess what's puzzling me is the divergent trends we're seeing...tighter playlists, less promotion for fringe artists, seemingly driven by consumer forces, yet in the context of myspace.com and the rise in indie labels, a trend toward more consumer choice than ever for all sorts of artists. Or maybe what's really happening is that the fringe element (indie now, alternative in the 90s, new wave and metal in the 80s, punk in the 70s, etc.) is being pushed to the internet and the big labels are sticking strictly to what they believe are cash cow artists/genres.

I think there's also a degree of relativity that has to be kept in mind here. A "successful" album for an indie artist has a lower standard to meet than a major label artist. Think about the differences between the number of viewers needed for a broadcast TV show to be a hit versus a cable show, that illustrates what I'm getting at I guess. If an indy sells 10k copies, it's a pretty big hit, but that's a failure for a major label.

Or think about podcasts, which the last numbers I've seen (from last summer) indicate are utlitized by less than 10% of all adults who ever go online. Divide up their usage between the countless number of podcasts & what you end up with are typically very very small numbers for each individual podcast, something like fewer total listeners nationwide than the 15th rated morning show gets in Atlanta alone. XM & Sirius are even better examples of this really, with the number of total listeners to any individual channel being extremely small by national standards.

[lordscarlet]

I'm not sure why youd buy that other 25%, personally. So that's the difference.

Because the 25% is still very good, but I won't necessarily listen to it every time through.

I lean this way as well, and I'm a bit interested to see if this shift will bring back true single releases.

Not that any of this really matters to me since 99% of my listening is done well outside the mainstream.

EP releases would be nice as well. :) Ben Folds did this a few years back releasing them only over the internet.

[Ksyrup]

XM & Sirius are even better examples of this really, with the number of total listeners to any individual channel being extremely small by national standards.

You mean I'm one of very few people listening to the latest Cattle Decapitation song on Liquid Metal? :D

[st.cronin]

I'm also no longer buying cds, but instead buying individual songs, and listening to more radio. Part of it is price, part of it is a lifestyle choice - I no longer have a place to keep cds, so it makes no sense to buy them.

[Ksyrup]

EP releases would be nice as well. :) Ben Folds did this a few years back releasing them only over the internet.

This works well for moderately-known artists with a small but rabid following. Heck, Tori Amos, Trent Reznor, and Dave Matthews pretty much owned the marketing mantle in the 90s. I've never seen so many EPs/maxi-singles, remixes, etc., to come from an artist based on a small base of music as what Amos and Reznor did back then. And DMB had an entire marketing arm in full swing before most of the US had even heard Under the Table and Dreaming.

These days, internet releases like these have to be money makers. VAST, one of my faves no one's ever heard of, basically released the same set of songs in various stages of production at least 4 times. King's X, another band that fits the description of relatively unknown but having a rabid fan base, is finally getting its shit together and releasing all sorts of old demos from the 80s/90s, live shows, etc. Between that income and touring, that's what they rely on to be able to make new music. It really isn't about selling a lot of albums anymore; that idea went by the wayside after Woodstock 94 for them.

Personally, aside from music rights issues, I'm not sure why more bands aren't doing this.

[cthomer5000]

Yeah, I wonder if the CD-5 or EP could make a solid comeback. Artists putting out 5-7 tracks at a time, at around 10 bucks per cd. might work if the filler was minimized.

Not what I meant really, I mean will we see true single releases in the download arena. The distribution costs nothing, so if a major artist wanted to put out a new single every 6 weeks, there would be nothing stopping them.

[st.cronin]

Didn't eps used to be primarily a European/British thing?

[BrianD]

I think we agree, in the conclusion - I expect sales to decline, but I think it is because of a lack of good artists. Record companies are consolidating their artist rosters, not expanding them. So I don't buy your premise that it is much easier to find 15 good songs from 15 different artists because record companies are pushing them out there. If anything, they're doing the opposite, spending only on proven commodities or artists that somehow get hot/noticed without promotion. The rest get 1, maybe 2 chances to prove they can sell without money backing them, and they are gone from the roster.


Not to belabor a point everyone has moved past, but it seems to me (uneducated guess) that record companies are parading out a number of artists/groups that sound alike, each have enough "pop" to sell one CD and then they are never hard from again. It wasn't too long ago that there were 6 or 7 artists that sounded exactly like Kelly Clarkson - probably trying to build on the Idol and Idol-sound-alike fame. I can't believe that each of these artists got enough of a following on their own to get the notice of the record companies. It is just the usual plan of see what works and copy it for a quick buck before the novelty wears off.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I just bought the US release of The Feeling's Twelve Stops from Home for $7.99. I had an "illegal version" of the UK release for 6+ months, but it cost me $8 for the US version. What are these albums selling for online? Surely they can't be charging $10 an album on itunes for a digital download of what I can get in hard copy for $8, can they?

12 songs, released Feb 27, 2007,
Buy Album $9.99

edit to add: I also owe you a "Thanks". I was curious about this, so I went ahead & reinstalled iTunes after my harddrive disaster. I also crossed my fingers & held my breath & managed to successfully restore all the music files recovered from my old drive (I had serious doubts that was going to work out okay). And, while I was messing around with iTunes, I discovered the new track from the reunion of Black Sabbath (Dio version), and discovered that they're going to tour.
None of which I would have known until who knows when except for you asking about some band I've never heard of ;)

[Ksyrup]

Glad I could help!

It boggles my mind that someone would pay $2 more for a crappier-sounding version of the same album, minus the artwork and liner notes. Amazing.

[Groundhog]

Glad I could help!

It boggles my mind that someone would pay $2 more for a crappier-sounding version of the same album, minus the artwork and liner notes. Amazing.

I'm one of those geeks that likes to read through the booklet, look at the artwork, and hold the CD in my hand. And there's no argument that an encoded mp3, unless encoded at a higher bitrate than usual, sounds poor on a sound system. For these reasons, I'll always buy CDs from bands I like even moderately.

When it comes to singles, or albums by bands I'm sorta "whatever" about, I'll usually just buy them from iTunes. I'm not so fussed about either the artwork nor the sound quality from these groups, and even if I'm only saving a few bucks, it saves me the hassle of having to actually get off my butt and go and buy the CD from the store that is 5 mins away from my house. ;)

[Ksyrup]

I still care about the sound quality of whatever I'm listening to. And my bigger issue is that even if I encode an MP3 at higher than a 192 bit rate, it still sounds like crap as filtered through my MP3 player hooked up in my car. So basically I end up having to burn a physical disc to enjoy the music anyway, so why not just buy the real thing?

I guess this is why DVDA and SACD are not all that popular. People by and large just don't care about the sound quality of the music they listen to. At least Porcupine Tree is still putting out DVDAs for me to enjoy in my car. The multi-channel separation is incredible to hear...you can actually hear each layered voice in a harmony vocal.

I know...big wow!

[Karlifornia]

I still buy CD's....When I hear a song on the radio/internet/TV, I can usually tell within 20 seconds whether or not I'm going to like it. If I've never heard of them before, I'll do a little research on the artist/album...not much, though. If there's nothing showstopping that comes up (like, Chad Kroeger produced it or Amy Lee does guest vocals on one of the songs), then I'll probably buy it.

[gstelmack]

I still care about the sound quality of whatever I'm listening to. And my bigger issue is that even if I encode an MP3 at higher than a 192 bit rate, it still sounds like crap as filtered through my MP3 player hooked up in my car. So basically I end up having to burn a physical disc to enjoy the music anyway, so why not just buy the real thing?

I use high-quality WMA (I think at 192-bits, but not positive) for ripping my CD collection or buying online. I can't stand MP3 quality, but WMA sounds just fine to my unsophisticated ear (and over whatever crappy speakers I'm using). For the car, I burn whatever mixes I want back to CD. As I said earlier, I rarely like an album's worth of an artist, plus most CDs aren't full anyway. I can probably cram 2-3 albums worth onto a single CD by the time I filter out the stuff I don't like and bump it up to a full 80-minute disc.

[Ksyrup]

Pretty timely, considering our discussion in this thread. I had never bought a single track from iTunes, so I didn't realize this was an issue. Much like I didn't know about the marriage penalty until I got married and did my taxes...



<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 20px" vAlign=top width="99%">Apple iTunes Offers 'Complete My Album'</TD><TD vAlign=top align=right>http://img.breitbart.com/images/ap.gif (http://www.breitbart.com/partner.php?source=ap)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- headline end --><!-- date/author start --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=2>http://www.breitbart.com/images/common/dot.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="99%">Mar 29 12:46 PM US/Eastern
By MAY WONG
AP Technology Writer</TD><TD style="PADDING-TOP: 5px" vAlign=bottom align=right><TABLE style="BORDER-RIGHT: #bababa 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #bababa 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #bababa 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #bababa 1px solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #edf0f4" height=33 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=1 border=0></TR><TBODY><TR><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">http://www.breitbart.com/images/article/email.gif (http://www.breitbart.com/email.php?link=%2Farticle.php%3Fid%3D2007-03-29_D8O5UR5G0%26show_article%3D1%26cat%3Dbreaking&id=D8O5UR5G0)</TD><TD background=images/article/dots.gif>http://www.breitbart.com/images/common/dot.gif</TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">http://www.breitbart.com/images/article/print.gif (http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=2007-03-29_D8O5UR5G0&show_article=1&cat=breaking)</TD><TD background=images/article/dots.gif>http://www.breitbart.com/images/common/dot.gif</TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><SCRIPT>try { insert_digg_btn('world_news'); } catch(e){}</SCRIPT>http://www.breitbart.com/images/article/digg.gif (http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http%3A//www.breitbart.com/article.php%3Fid%3D2007-03-29_D8O5UR5G0%26show_article%3D1%26cat%3Dbreaking&title=Apple%20iTunes%20Offers%20%27Complete%20My%20Album%27&topic=world_news)</TD><TD background=images/article/dots.gif>http://www.breitbart.com/images/common/dot.gif</TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">http://www.breitbart.com/images/article/delicious.gif (http://del.icio.us/post)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2>http://www.breitbart.com/images/common/dot.gif</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- date/author end --><!-- article start --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 14px" vAlign=top width="99%">SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) - Apple Inc., the company that popularized selling songs online for 99 cents apiece, now hopes to buoy interest in albums, giving customers credit for purchases of full albums from which they have bought individual tracks (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22individual+tracks%22&sid=breitbart.com).


Apple introduced the "Complete My Album" feature Thursday on its iTunes Store. It now gives a full credit of 99 cents for every track the user previously purchased and applies it toward the purchase of the complete album.

For instance, most albums on iTunes cost $9.99 so a customer who already bought three tracks can download the rest of the album for $7.02.

Previously, users who bought singles and later opted to buy the album had to pay the full price of the album and ended up with duplicates of those songs.

The album price reduction is good for only 180 days after the initial purchase of individual tracks.

Eddy Cue (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=cue&sid=breitbart.com), Apple's vice president (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=Apple's+vice+president&sid=breitbart.com) of iTunes, said the new feature should help eliminate the resistance that customers, including himself, may have felt in buying an album after they had already bought a single from it.

"Once we bought a song, we wondered why we had to buy it again if we wanted the album," Cue said. "We hope it helps us sell more songs ultimately, and from the customer point of the view, we think it's the right thing to do."

About 45 percent of the nearly 2.5 billion songs sold on iTunes were purchased as albums, Cue said.

For a limited period of 90 days, Apple said it will make the "Complete My Album" offer retroactive to users who purchased tracks dating back to the launch of the iTunes Store four years ago.

Apple dominates the online music market and is a leading music retailer worldwide behind only Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Best Buy Co. and Target Corp.

Shares of Apple climbed 1 cent to $93.25 in afternoon trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22Nasdaq+Stock+Market%22&sid=breitbart.com).
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Yossarian]

Seems like a feature they should have included from the get go.

I would assume you were always able to 'finish my album' by buying the remaining tracks one by one?

[nilodor]

Is this because people are getting the music other ways (piracy?), or because people now have the option to buy just the 2 good tracks and not waste money on the 8-10 filler tracks on the CD that the music industry was ripping everyone off on?

I was thinking the exact same thing.

[wade moore]

Good news KSyrup. This issue has made me not buy Albums that I would have otherwise bought.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I would assume you were always able to 'finish my album' by buying the remaining tracks one by one?

You could, but on any album with more than 10 tracks, you would end up paying even more that way.

[Ksyrup]

Good news KSyrup. This issue has made me not buy Albums that I would have otherwise bought.

Anything I can do to help the music industry.

[Yossarian]

You could, but on any album with more than 10 tracks, you would end up paying even more that way.

Ah, that explains it. Cheers.

Still a mugs game buying into all that DRM imo - but that's another story...

[DanGarion]

Ah, that explains it. Cheers.

Still a mugs game buying into all that DRM imo - but that's another story...

that's why you burn it to CD and then if you want free use (as it should be) you can rip it back to the format you want...

[Yossarian]

Well, yeah - *I* am not outwith the means to strip DRM (via either the method you suggest or by using something like soundtaxi).

But that's besides the point.

Most people don't know how to do that, won't do it (because it is illegal) or can't be bothered because their music library is big enough that that is a pain.

I was talking to a girl who's a teacher at a primary school. She bought a CD (something crap, can't remember what). DRM stopped her copying it onto her IPod. But she saw that HMV have an online store so she bought the same album over their service, but of course, it comes with DRM in WMV format so she still couldn't copy onto her IPod.

That kind of story illustrates why it isn't really a solution for there to be a workaround for things like DRM. Work arounds are fine if you're "in the know" but for the majority of causuals they're no good.

Didn't mean to turn this into a DRM rant though. As you were :-)

[DanGarion]

Well, yeah - *I* am not outwith the means to strip DRM (via either the method you suggest or by using something like soundtaxi).

But that's besides the point.

Most people don't know how to do that, won't do it (because it is illegal) or can't be bothered because their music library is big enough that that is a pain.

I was talking to a girl who's a teacher at a primary school. She bought a CD (something crap, can't remember what). DRM stopped her copying it onto her IPod. But she saw that HMV have an online store so she bought the same album over their service, but of course, it comes with DRM in WMV format so she still couldn't copy onto her IPod.

That kind of story illustrates why it isn't really a solution for there to be a workaround for things like DRM. Work arounds are fine if you're "in the know" but for the majority of causuals they're no good.

Didn't mean to turn this into a DRM rant though. As you were :-)
Agreed. But then I don't think removing DRM from something you have purchased to allow yourself fair/full use of the product illegal. The whole thing is ridiculous.

Soundtaxi is pretty good software, been using it for a couple months.

[Yossarian]

But then I don't think removing DRM from something you have purchased to allow yourself fair/full use of the product illegal.

It is under the DMCA.

But it's also pure dead mental.

[DanGarion]

It is under the DMCA.

But it's also pure dead mental.

Yeah I know.

[Young Drachma]

I primarily use subscription services. I listen to a lot of different genres and usually as a dizzying clip and so, it's really the only way I can find the sort of stuff I want as fast as I want it. And it's still not that great with all of the DRM constraints and such, but...it's still cheaper than buying CDs and lowering my music consumption or being forced to listen to radio.

[Marc Vaughan]

I buy CD's and have never purchased a download mp3 (or got an illegal one either - for those cynics amongst you wondering ;) ) ....

Simply put if I don't have the cd then when my hard-disk/Ipod fubar I lose the songs and thats a pain in the butt imho.

Its for this reason I partially dislike the Wii/360 arcade downloads - if there's a problem with the machine they're 'gone' ...

[lordscarlet]

I primarily use subscription services. I listen to a lot of different genres and usually as a dizzying clip and so, it's really the only way I can find the sort of stuff I want as fast as I want it. And it's still not that great with all of the DRM constraints and such, but...it's still cheaper than buying CDs and lowering my music consumption or being forced to listen to radio.

If the ipod could use a subscription service, or if everything that streams wasn't blocked at work, I would probably use one of the subscription services. Although they probably wouldn't have half of what I listen to. :)

[Ksyrup]

I guess this confirms what we've been discussing. Looks like I'm in the clear minority and sound quality will continue to deteriorate.



High fidelity takes backseat to portability

<!-- date --><SCRIPT language=JavaScript type=text/javascript> <!-- if ( location.hostname.toLowerCase().indexOf( "edition." ) != -1 ) { document.write('POSTED: 1750 GMT (0150 HKT), April 23, 2007');}else { document.write('POSTED: 1:50 p.m. EDT, April 23, 2007');} //--> </SCRIPT>POSTED: 1:50 p.m. EDT, April 23, 2007 <!-- /date -->


<!--endclickprintinclude--><!--startclickprintinclude--><SCRIPT language=JavaScript type=text/javascript>var clickExpire = "05/23/2007";</SCRIPT><!---->Story Highlights

• MP3 players now preferred means of listening to music
• Stereo system, CD sales way down
• Some audiophiles unhappy, but most people like MP3 devices
<!--startclickprintexclude-->Adjust font size:
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.5/story/misc/icon.minus.dim.gifhttp://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.5/story/misc/icon.minus.gif
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.5/story/misc/icon.plus.gifhttp://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.5/story/misc/icon.plus.dim.gif
<!--endclickprintexclude-->
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Music lovers remember a familiar advertising image from the past: a man reclined in a chair, head back, blown away by music from his high-fidelity sound system.

Like the Marlboro Man before him, Maxell's pitchman is now a relic.

With their ability to store vast libraries of music in your pocket, sleek digital music players have replaced bulky home stereo systems as the music gear of choice. But the sound quality of digital audio files is noticeably inferior to that of compact discs and even vinyl.

Are these the final days of hi-fi sound? Judging by the 2 billion songs downloaded from Apple Inc.'s iTunes service, the ubiquity of white iPod "ear buds," and the hundreds of thousands of folks file-sharing for free, the answer is yes.

"In many ways, good enough (sound quality) is fine," said Paul Connolly, an art installation specialist and longtime audiophile from Sugar Land, Texas, who's now in the process of digitizing his 2,400 CD collection in Apple's lossless digital audio format.

"The warmth and the nice distortion that the album had was beautiful," he said. "But do I long for the days of albums? No. Do I long for the days of CDs now that we've gone digital? No. It's a medium."

Justin Schoenmoser, of San Francisco, also traded in his rack system for an iPod. Currently working abroad and toting along his iPod, the convenience of carrying thousands of songs in a gadget smaller than a pack of cigarettes outweighs the sacrifice of quality.

"The last time I had a full-blown home stereo system was in the mid-90s, and it was a gift from my parents," Schoenmoser said. "As I converted most of my stuff to digital over the last 5 years, I finally got rid of all my old equipment."

A song ripped from a CD at 128 kilobits per second -- the default setting for most software -- retains only a fraction of the audio data contained on the originally mastered disc. Whether you downloaded the track from iTunes or copped it off LimeWire, the song remains the same. The small digital music file is a highly compressed shadow of the originally mastered recording.

And regardless of how advanced your home audio setup is, if you're pumping a low-rate MP3 or iTunes file into it, you're getting a low-rate rendition of the original song out of it. It's listenable, but still lacking the luster of a CD played on the same system.
'It doesn't compare'

Some experts say the sound quality lost in the process is undetectable to most untrained ears. But Michael Silver can hear the difference.

Audio High, his high-end stereo shop in Mountain View, sells things like a $5,000 needle for your turntable and stereo cable at $2,700 a meter.

"It doesn't compare," Silver said of the sound quality offered by today's portable digital music players and their compressed audio files.

If his high-end gear is like a Ferrari for sound, and run-of-the-mill stereo equipment is a Honda, an iPod is "a moped," Silver said.

That difference in sound quality, perceptible or not, hasn't saved some of the bigger traditional stereo and music sellers.

Tweeter Home Entertainment Group Inc., a Canton, Massachusetts-based retailer of mid-to-high end audio equipment, is closing 49 of its 153 stores nationwide. Slumping sales at Sacramento, California-based Tower Records led that former industry juggernaut to declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in August.

And Circuit City, the nation's No. 2 electronics retailer, is laying off 3,400 of its most experienced clerks.

Year-to-date data from a recent Nielsen SoundScan report shows sales of prerecorded CDs in the United States down 20 percent from last year.

"Everybody has a certain amount of money to spend. It's not that they're choosing not to spend it on the old-style audio. It's that something new came along," said James McQuivey, principle analyst for media technology at Forrester Research Inc.

"The MP3 player integrated the collection of the music with the playback of the music," he said. "Now all of it's seamlessly hidden away on a hard drive somewhere."

With the networked household ready to fill the void left by the demise of rack stereo systems, McQuivey sees a steady stream of new devices on the horizon that will erase any lingering drawbacks to going all-MP3.

Santa Barbara-based Sonos, Inc., for example, sells a system that allows you to use a handheld device to navigate streamed music from your PC to an existing amp and speaker or home theater setup, sort of a hybrid between the old guard and the new.
"A CD is not relevant to me anymore," said John MacFarlane, founder and chief executive of Sonos. "The iPod and that type of portable music player has even accelerated that trend."

Even when consumers do buy CDs these days, "the first thing you do is rip your CDs and put them on your iPods," MacFarlane said.

MacFarlane isn't even convinced that casual listeners can hear the difference between CD-quality sounds and the dumbed-down MP3 files, which he calls "good quality, not perfect."

"When Philips and Sony first made the CD, they didn't cut any corners because they were careful to preserve everything that was there, even if you couldn't hear it," MacFarlane said. "That 128 is pretty darn good. A lot of Ph.D.s went in to making that 128 kbps work well and sound well.

Schoenmoser, the globetrotting Californian, agrees.

"I honestly can't really tell the difference between CD, tape and digital," he said. "I'd even accept a lower quality as long as it's digital and portable."

[Draft Dodger]

Some experts say the sound quality lost in the process is undetectable to most untrained ears. But Michael Silver can hear the difference.

Audio High, his high-end stereo shop in Mountain View, sells things like a $5,000 needle for your turntable and stereo cable at $2,700 a meter.

"It doesn't compare," Silver said of the sound quality offered by today's portable digital music players and their compressed audio files.


well, what the hell would you expect him to say?

[Ksyrup]

Santa Barbara-based Sonos, Inc., for example, sells a system that allows you to use a handheld device to navigate streamed music from your PC to an existing amp and speaker or home theater setup, sort of a hybrid between the old guard and the new.

"A CD is not relevant to me anymore," said John MacFarlane, founder and chief executive of Sonos. "The iPod and that type of portable music player has even accelerated that trend."

Even when consumers do buy CDs these days, "the first thing you do is rip your CDs and put them on your iPods," MacFarlane said.

MacFarlane isn't even convinced that casual listeners can hear the difference between CD-quality sounds and the dumbed-down MP3 files, which he calls "good quality, not perfect."

What the hell would you expect HIM to say?

[Drake]

Personally, I love the bit about "hundreds of thousands of folks file-sharing for free". Hundreds of thousands, you say?

[AlexB]

Personally, I love the bit about "hundreds of thousands of folks file-sharing for free". Hundreds of thousands, you say?

Mmmmmm.... Hundreds and Thousands....

http://www.nimbusfoods.co.uk/images/library/cake_sm.jpg

http://www.nohomers.net/images/avatars/HomerDrool.gif

[Easy Mac]

You better not try and purchase a CD from a used CD store, who knows what might happen.

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i9ebf2d8ce6fd1e267bac18d43959ac24

[Young Drachma]

Went to a music store the other day and as usual when I've gone to them over the past few years, it's been a pretty awful experience.

[Daimyo]

For most people with iPods the mp3/aac compression isn't nearly the limiting factor for sound quality when you're listening with the crappy Apple earbuds. To really hear a noticeable difference in sound quality between CD and a 128 kb aac file you need pretty serious equipment like $300+ studio headphones. I have a nice pair of shure sound isolation in-ear headphones and I can't even begin to tell a difference with them (except for maybe classical music).

[Rizon]

I've purchased maybe 5 CDs in the last 8 years, not because I'm getting the albums for free, but because I don't feel there are any CDs worth buying.

[Easy Mac]

you must have very poor taste in music

[Rizon]

you must have very poor taste in music

Or I've already bought all the CDs for the good music from the 70s.

[watravaler]

I love all forms of music, and I find a new artist I enjoy at least once per week. There is no shortage of good new bands/artists, imo. The internet has been a god-send for my musical tastes, and I will never have to purchase a CD, other than blank ones, again.

[Ksyrup]

You better not try and purchase a CD from a used CD store, who knows what might happen.

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i9ebf2d8ce6fd1e267bac18d43959ac24

What a crock of shit. I'm glad I left Florida, and I feel bad for the used CD shops there.

I also love this line:

"Laws that result in the curtailment of used CD sales likely would be considered good news to record labels and music distributor executives who have long abhorred the growing strength of the used CD market."

As if the record industry lobby isn't directly responsible for the passage of these laws in the first place! No, they just happen to be unintended beneficiaries of these laws! :rolleyes: This is obvious because:

"Meanwhile, video and video game retailers are less hit. Stores selling previously owned video and video games do not need a permit, and only have to wait for 15 days before reselling the merchandise."

I have to hand it to them, though, this is a much easier and less noticeable way to get what they want than lawsuits.

Oh, and looking at the firm conflicts check this morning, I see that we're representing an individual against the RIAA. So I'm happy to report that my firm is also adverse to the RIAA, and it's not just me. :D

[Surtt]

The CD is quickly going the way of the album.
The industries response to losing their cash cow? Take as many CDs out of circulation as you can, so everyone quits buying and playing them and switches to mp3s. Who are these music executives and how do they keep their jobs?