Start Buying Music People!

NativeBreaks · Post by **NativeBreaks** » Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:20 am

yeah. umm. the idea of paying actual money for an MP3 seems like a rip-off.
I know cuz, I recently bought 19 tracks off of BeatPort.com, and it costs me over $35.
I just can't afford that. Now, if I'm a DJ playing other peoples music, then sure, cuz it's biz. but for listening pleasure, I'll go broke before I can buy enough music to last half the evening. And then they wanna charge $2.50 for a WAV formated song. OUCH!
How much of beatport's profits actually go to the artists? I'm sure it's more than iTunes, but it's still a bit over priced.

Personally, I think the artists should give their music away at CD quality for FREE. And if the listeners are passionate about their music, they will donate, and probably more than what the songs are actually worth.

there needs to be a new communion of artists where they can at least sell their music at minimum of 25 cents, and the artists should get to keep 20 cents from that.

$1-$1.50 is absurd for one song, especially at mp3 quality. how long is it gonna take for artists to get organized and use the Internet for their benefit, and not some rich greedy blood suckin corps such as Apple's itunes store. they score a big negative 10 on my list. And one big up for NIN and setting an example. I bought every one of their CD's back in the day, and today, I can't find one of them..
And how much money did Trent see off each one of those CD's? Pennies?

synnack · Post by **synnack** » Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:45 am

@NativeBreaks

a 128k mp3, and a 360k mp3 are not even comparable in quality. You can't just say "mp3 sucks".

a high bit rate mp3 version of a track is certainly worth a dollar.

j2j · Post by **j2j** » Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:49 am

The music industry is still in flux, even without the bad economy, "pay-for," digital downloading would still be experiencing infancy and growing pains.

adventurepants_ · Post by **adventurepants_** » Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:05 am

tempus3r wrote:@NativeBreaks

a 128k mp3, and a 360k mp3 are not even comparable in quality. You can't just say "mp3 sucks".

a high bit rate mp3 version of a track is certainly worth a dollar.

highly disagree. To me, an mp3 is not worth any money at all, this is the reason i buy CDs. In Australlia it pretty much costs the same to buy a DRMed, 128k MP4 album, as it does to buy the CD.

what, are they stupid?

an mp3 is not the product, it is a sketch of the product. Regardless of wether a particular individual can tell the difference, why would i pay the same for a lossy copy? it honestly makes no sense to me.

Artists should be giving away low quality mp3s, and making money on physical product, and lossless downloads.

The main problem is a generation of idiots who cant tell the difference between a 128k mp3 and the cd, ,so they think the mp3 is good enough to not buy the album.

This is one of the many things that baffles me about the modern music biz. Why are they not educating people in the quality of music rather than punishing individuals for downloading shitty quality mp3s? If they foster an expectation of sonic quality, people will pay for a better product.

synnack · Post by **synnack** » Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:06 am

Word.

BTW, in the past, maybe 5 years go. I rarely bought music.

I would go to a record store and completely forget what I might even want.

There was rarely a case for impulse buying. I just listened to all the music I had bought years ago. I have thousands of CDs. Just listening to what I already own would take a while.

But in the past 5 years or so, I have bought more music than I ever did on CD.

I just do it now in iTunes. Now that "iTunes Plus" is DRM free and higher quality, I can think "oh yeah, i'd like that" and bam. within minutes i have it and can listen.

For me personally, I've spend way more on music online than I ever would have buy buying CDs.

Even though technically speaking, I could find a torrent site or something and get it free... i think paying $10 to have it now, in higher quality, without the bullshit of "stealing" is the way to go.

iTunes, eMusic, etc... that's where it's at. Even when I do buy a cd i rip it and put it on a shelf and never touch it again. Every time I move i curse myself for buying them at all.

synnack · Post by **synnack** » Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:14 am

adventurepants_ wrote:
tempus3r wrote:@NativeBreaks

a 128k mp3, and a 360k mp3 are not even comparable in quality. You can't just say "mp3 sucks".

a high bit rate mp3 version of a track is certainly worth a dollar.
highly disagree. To me, an mp3 is not worth any money at all, this is the reason i buy CDs. In Australlia it pretty much costs the same to buy a DRMed, 128k MP4 album, as it does to buy the CD.

what, are they stupid?

an mp3 is not the product, it is a sketch of the product. Regardless of wether a particular individual can tell the difference, why would i pay the same for a lossy copy? it honestly makes no sense to me.

Artists should be giving away low quality mp3s, and making money on physical product, and lossless downloads.

The main problem is a generation of idiots who cant tell the difference between a 128k mp3 and the cd, ,so they think the mp3 is good enough to not buy the album.

This is one of the many things that baffles me about the modern music biz. Why are they not educating people in the quality of music rather than punishing individuals for downloading shitty quality mp3s? If they foster an expectation of sonic quality, people will pay for a better product.

Well your scenario is different. I too, wouldn't buy a DRM'ed release as MP3 when i could get the CD (and higher quality) for the same price.

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the idea that "mp3 sucks and is not worth money".

Even in your post you are not talking about DRM-free, high bit rate digital files.

Quality-wise, buying an Apple Lossless of FLAC version of a release via download is exactly the same as buying the CD.

adventurepants_ · Post by **adventurepants_** » Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:30 am

tempus3r wrote:
adventurepants_ wrote:
tempus3r wrote:@NativeBreaks

a 128k mp3, and a 360k mp3 are not even comparable in quality. You can't just say "mp3 sucks".

a high bit rate mp3 version of a track is certainly worth a dollar.
highly disagree. To me, an mp3 is not worth any money at all, this is the reason i buy CDs. In Australlia it pretty much costs the same to buy a DRMed, 128k MP4 album, as it does to buy the CD.

what, are they stupid?

an mp3 is not the product, it is a sketch of the product. Regardless of wether a particular individual can tell the difference, why would i pay the same for a lossy copy? it honestly makes no sense to me.

Artists should be giving away low quality mp3s, and making money on physical product, and lossless downloads.

The main problem is a generation of idiots who cant tell the difference between a 128k mp3 and the cd, ,so they think the mp3 is good enough to not buy the album.

This is one of the many things that baffles me about the modern music biz. Why are they not educating people in the quality of music rather than punishing individuals for downloading shitty quality mp3s? If they foster an expectation of sonic quality, people will pay for a better product.
Well your scenario is different. I too, wouldn't buy a DRM'ed release as MP3 when i could get the CD (and higher quality) for the same price.

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the idea that "mp3 sucks and is not worth money".

Even in your post you are not talking about DRM-free, high bit rate digital files.

Quality-wise, buying an Apple Lossless of FLAC version of a release via download is exactly the same as buying the CD.

youve missed the point. I AM saying that mp3 sucks and is not worth the money. Apple lossless or FLAC is worth some money, but mp3 by definition is lossy, so not worth a penny to me in any bitrate.

A lossless download should still cost 50% less than the physical product for several reasons:

CD booklet and cover art. cover art is one of the wonderful things about music to me. the best cover art is a companion to be studied while enjoying the music.

Permanent, physical top quality sound that can be re ripped and encoded as fashions in compression change.

no retail store to pay rent on, no costs for physical storage and shipping of product.

synnack · Post by **synnack** » Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:37 am

Ok so your point is that if a format is lossy at all, no matter how much or little, than it is suddenly not worth anything?

I know we disagree, I'm just making sure I actually get what you're saying.

I would gladly pay 10 bucks for a high bit rate mp3 release if the artist was getting all that.

leedsquietman · Post by **leedsquietman** » Wed Dec 17, 2008 4:38 am

I have bought about 2 albums in 6 years online in mp3 format. Rare albums that I couldn't get on CD.

I never buy mp3s. I have 2 mp3 players, but they are mostly full of my own music, or rips from CDs that I own, where I can dictate the quality. The minimum quality I can tolerate is 224 Kbps mp3, or ogg vorbis Q6.

I cannot STAND 128 Kbps, I hear all kinds of artifacts and horrible stuff going on, especially in loud hyper compressed material, or very busy mixes with lots of layers.

I also agree that an mp3 album should always be at least 2-3 dollars less than a CD as you are not having to pay for printing, duplication and packaging.

To me, an album is not an album unless there is a vinyl or CD physical product. Any idiot with a cracked copy of fruity loops can put out an 'album' if it's just a collection of lo bit mp3s and one front cover that they hacked off google image. 'producers with beetz' is usually some 17 year old kid running a crack with some fruity loops presets and no clue. A lot of people trying to sell their mp3s are putting out badly produced, badly mixed, bad arrangements, sampling the crap out of famous stuff without permission and they want money for it. (not everyone, there is quality music worth paying for, but all the crap people want money for demeans the whole market unfortunately). While most people putting their stuff out for free is pretty good, and if it was crap then it cost nothing anyway.

adventurepants_ · Post by **adventurepants_** » Wed Dec 17, 2008 5:02 am

tempus3r wrote:Ok so your point is that if a format is lossy at all, no matter how much or little, than it is suddenly not worth anything?

I know we disagree, I'm just making sure I actually get what you're saying.

I would gladly pay 10 bucks for a high bit rate mp3 release if the artist was getting all that.

i know it sounds a bit silly and dogmatic, but yeah, i dont believe in paying any money at all for an mp3. Like Leeds above, I do and have when something I want isnt readily available or for a reasonable price (ie imports). Even though i use 320k for my own listening, i dont feel like paying money for that. Would you feel ok paying for petrol that was 99% petrol and 1% squirrel droppings? No youd probably want what you paid for which is proper petrol, and thats how i feel about mp3s.

i agree that the artist should be getting more, but so often my choice is to buy the cd that rips the artist off and gives me good value, or buy the 192k mp3 for the same price ,that rips me off but gives the artist good value!

I like the labels that give you the mp3 download, when you buy a physical album, best of both worlds.

koneko · Post by **koneko** » Wed Dec 17, 2008 7:59 am

tempus3r wrote:Word.

BTW, in the past, maybe 5 years go. I rarely bought music.

I would go to a record store and completely forget what I might even want.

There was rarely a case for impulse buying. I just listened to all the music I had bought years ago. I have thousands of CDs. Just listening to what I already own would take a while.

But in the past 5 years or so, I have bought more music than I ever did on CD.

I just do it now in iTunes. Now that "iTunes Plus" is DRM free and higher quality, I can think "oh yeah, i'd like that" and bam. within minutes i have it and can listen.

For me personally, I've spend way more on music online than I ever would have buy buying CDs.

Even though technically speaking, I could find a torrent site or something and get it free... i think paying $10 to have it now, in higher quality, without the bullshit of "stealing" is the way to go.

iTunes, eMusic, etc... that's where it's at. Even when I do buy a cd i rip it and put it on a shelf and never touch it again. Every time I move i curse myself for buying them at all.

that sums up how it works for me too at the moment. i buy online because its easier than digging in p2p networks and such.

if it's too rare to find in online stores, i might do look for it in the shadier coreners of the web.. but thats because i dont own anymore, and have no intention to own in future, those useless plastics known as Audio CD. this era is gone for me.

8O · Post by 8O » Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:12 am

adventurepants_ wrote:The main problem is a generation of idiots who cant tell the difference between a 128k mp3 and the cd, ,so they think the mp3 is good enough to not buy the album.

Depends a lot on your playback equipment - for lots of kids with speakerphones or cheap bud earphones it's good enough. I did a blind test comparing 192kbps AAC vs CD on my hifi and I was surprised at how small the differences were. I had the preconception that it would be glaringly obvious, but not so. Try it (get someone else to switch sound sources for you so you have zero idea which one is playing) - and then try higher bitrates, I'm sure you'll be surprised too!

freshdrumma · Post by **freshdrumma** » Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:58 am

i do my best and i buy a lot of vinyl, few cds and no mp3s, the situation it's so bad that i'm forced to have a digital label instead of the vinyl label that i really want!
not only people are not buying vinyl, but distributors are not distributing new vinyls too, that means that at one point i'll have to be a digital dj and play the new stuff or a vinyl dj and play the old stuff.

sucks

please go back buying music, it's killing the artists, the label, the distributors and the shops. just one album instead of none will make a big difference.

and i'm very pissed that people are pleased to pay for the latest ipod, but not for the music that they like!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that's STUPID!!!!

NativeBreaks · Post by **NativeBreaks** » Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:30 pm

all you so called musicians who have ears to listen and can't hear the difference between mp3 320kbps and CD quality should slap your selves. seriously.
Take a favorite CD of yours, something with acoustic instruments: drums, guitar, etc... & listen to it once or twice on your headphones or a nice system, then import it into iTunes with a 320kbps setting, and play it back. & tell me you can't hear a difference....

If you don't hear the destruction of your hi hats and cymbals, or anything above 10khz, go get your ears checked, you have a serious cutoff of fequencies in the upper range, probably from listening to the headphones or monitors too loud at home or at shows. Ya know, there are little hairs in your ear canals, that are all different sizes, and each one is tuned to a specific frequency, and loud vibrations actually break them right off. And news flash: THEY DON'T GROW BACK. I protect my ears, when someone is blaring music, I RUN. FAST. I once met a "recording producer/mastering engineer", who makes quite a bit of money and is well known in this part of the state, and he was blaring his music at an outrageous level during mixing. I TOOK MY CD, AND RAN OUT THE DOOR. Not only to protect my ears but to protect my music from this murderer. The guy had a horse voice from talking to loud all the time because he couldn't hear himself. Not to mention, when you mix music that loud, your ears act as compressors. YES, your ears have built in compressors.

When it comes to paying money for music,
EITHER BUY THE CD, or download the mp3 torrent, and send the band/artist a donation. Even a small donation will give them more money than what the labels give them. And this way, you are paying a reasonably fair price for the quality of the product. And don't forget to tell the artist to offer the music for free at CD quality through the internet and ask for donations. I know I'm up against a lot of people, because everybody and their cousin have songs for sale on site like beatport and such. But paying money for an MP3 is ABSURD! And charging $2.50 for a song is completely ridiculous. A lot of music I hear, I may wanna buy, but I listen to them once or twice, and then they never get played again. If I download a song in low quality (320 kbps) and I like the song and the artist, and the music grows on me, then I will go buy the CD, which is usually on line because the stores don't carry anything good anymore.

All of the labels and retailers such as apple and many others KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THEY ARE GONNA SELL YOU THE SAME MUSIC TWICE, OR EVEN THRICE, because one day, they'll up the quality a little closer to CD quality. DUH!! I promise everyone, they're gonna BURN YA TWICE.
DON'T PAY FOR SOMETHING THAT ISN'T WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE. IT'S IMITATION!!
It's like eating cloned beef over the real thing.
That's it. Imitation.

NativeBreaks · Post by **NativeBreaks** » Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:32 pm

freshdrumma wrote:i do my best and i buy a lot of vinyl, few cds and no mp3s, the situation it's so bad that i'm forced to have a digital label instead of the vinyl label that i really want!
not only people are not buying vinyl, but distributors are not distributing new vinyls too, that means that at one point i'll have to be a digital dj and play the new stuff or a vinyl dj and play the old stuff.

sucks

please go back buying music, it's killing the artists, the label, the distributors and the shops. just one album instead of none will make a big difference.

and i'm very pissed that people are pleased to pay for the latest ipod, but not for the music that they like!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that's STUPID!!!!

BRAVO! I think buying vinyl is one of the best things you can possibly do. That vinyl contains a lot more "DATA" than any CD or HD recording. Even tho there are small losses, the gain severely out weigh the losses. I think one day, people will learn to appreciate vinyl more. It's stuck around this long...