Both the downloaders and the people who still prefer to buy albums on a physical medium probably agree on one thing: the way the industry runs right now is not really appropriate for the times. The most common method of listening to music right now in developed countries is some sort of an mp3 player (lets make this a broad generalization, I'm including all media players that play digital file formats such as flac, ogg or whatever, and that includes computers obviously).

What is the first thing you do when you want to find out something about an artist? You go online. It would only make sense that it should be easy and cheap to also legally download that artist's music since you'll be listening to it on your computer and mp3 player anyway, right? There is no need for a physical medium for these people, it is at best a means of having a hard backup in case of a harddrive failure and at worst a useless piece of undegradable plastic that pollutes the environment.

Labels and artists need to really reconsider the current music market and adapt to it. Times are changing.

Personally, I hate CDs. To me, they are useless pieces of plastic that take up space and are extremely annoying to travel with since they take up so much space. I do not need to hold anything in my hands and I don't need a piece of paper with some artwork printed on it. I can just as happily enjoy the artwork on my computer. After all, I want to listen to the music, not to feel it (as in, feeling as one of the five senses). Having a physical copy of an album does not affect my enjoyment of the music at all - if anything, it might diminish it slightly due to the hassle of having to deal with those pesky plastic wastes of space.

I have a feeling that I'm part of a growing majority.

So - I want music and I want it in a digital format. What choices do I have to purchase it online? Pretty bad. iTunes and similar stores are stupidly expensive considering there is no manufacturing expense involved in selling an album online. Music needs to be cheaper online - its this simple. I have no problem paying for it but not if I feel I'm being cheated and if it is so easy for me to just go ahead and download a torrent for free. I understand that the artist needs to earn money to release albums and that not all labels are evil. Nevertheless, I just can't imagine why an album in mp3 format costs nearly as much as a CD in most online stores. I just don't get it.

The industry needs to adapt, let me repeat this. Downloading illegally forces the labels to reform themselves and rethink their distribution methods. For this reason, I think it is a boon. It is not right to steal, obviously, but I feel that at this particular moment in time, when music listeners such as myself are trying to do something to get the labels to rethink their distribution methods, it is a pretty damn strong argument for change. The Pirate Bay had an entire political campaign behind it. It wasnt there for no reason, the pirates tried to shock the labels into waking up and adapting.

As for those of you who enjoy physical mediums: you will be in a steadily falling minority as further technological leaps in digital technology are made. But this is OK. I think the labels should simply mail physical albums to people who want to buy them, instead of mass-producing them and then trying everything, including inflating prices of mp3 versions, to get back that money and then some profit. Is this idea so unreasonable?

Written by jupitreas on 03.11.2009 at 21:35

Is this idea so unreasonable?

Yesm because you are putting loads of people out of work. Just think how many people are involve from the CD burning process to the guy who sells you the album over the counter in the music store, cutting this out could be a financial burden all over the western hemisphere.

Yeah, i am aware i am part of an ever-older, and ever shrinking minority. call me a earthcriminal, call me a capitalist pig, but i like owning things, even if antiquated.

i like having a couple shelves full of disks, just as i like having shelves of another antiquated medium of expressing ideas with a shrinking market... books.

i can see the evolution of technology, have embraced it in one hand while clinging bitterly to the old ways with my other.

i have legitimate download-only releases from artists - hell, i got A Storm of Light's "Forgive Us Our Trespasses" from Neurot just last night.

to me the crux of the issue is financially supporting the artist (and label) for their efforts, as it increases the likelihood of their being able to remain labeled and pumping out more good music.

a lot of people will spout the "download and support them on tour" argument, which is great if the artist actually does tour your neck of the woods. if they don't, it's pretty hollow.

i agree that labels need to adapt to technology and find ways for better electronic distribution for those that use the internet as their primary means of sonic fun delivery. iTunes does suck for the tastes of those assembled here, and i haven't bothered to check out anything else (other than directly from labels).

i also think the audience needs to adjust/adapt as well to whatever system the labels do take and meet in the middle.

Written by Haddonfield on 03.11.2009 at 22:12

Written by jupitreas on 03.11.2009 at 21:35

Is this idea so unreasonable?

Yesm because you are putting loads of people out of work. Just think how many people are involve from the CD burning process to the guy who sells you the album over the counter in the music store, cutting this out could be a financial burden all over the western hemisphere.

So what are you saying? That the people who make CDs should continue making them just so that people don't lose their jobs? What if it becomes economically inefficient? And it will probably become such.

Written by K✞ulu on 03.11.2009 at 23:27

Written by Haddonfield on 03.11.2009 at 22:12

Written by jupitreas on 03.11.2009 at 21:35

Is this idea so unreasonable?

Yesm because you are putting loads of people out of work. Just think how many people are involve from the CD burning process to the guy who sells you the album over the counter in the music store, cutting this out could be a financial burden all over the western hemisphere.

So what are you saying? That the people who make CDs should continue making them just so that people don't lose their jobs? What if it becomes economically inefficient? And it will probably become such.

That's the main problem in the world today. Most things are done digitally or via the net. You get phone calls from sales folk and it's not a person but a machine on the other side of the phone. If things continue like this, there isn't going to be enough jobs for everyone and then what do we do. What I believe is, as mentionned above, there needs to be a just middle met by the producers and the consumers in order to save what's left of our economies.

Well, I can certainly empathise with the people who might lose their jobs due to the changing nature of the music business but... its a business. It the MUSIC business, not the CD printing business, although a lot of the labels still see it that way. Its about allowing for the artist to be rewarded appropriately for their work and for the audience to have the kind of convenient access to the music that it desires. Its about the artist-audience relationship basically. The labels made it possible for artists to produce the kind of music that they wanted in the past. Of course, some labels also tried to control the artist in order to sell more units. Either way, the label had a very significant role in an artists success and in how easy it was for the audience to have access to the music.

But this is changing now. So many bands self-release albums online and do a mighty fine living out of it with basically no label involvement at all. Take VAST or NIN as examples. The former release albums with a very respectable price on their website and judging by the amount of downloads, they then commission a reasonable amount of CDs to be printed and send these CDs to people who order them and to some record chains. The latter of course release albums completely free of charge and later get a LOT of money from touring due to the good press that comes from this practice. VAST is a relatively small band, NIN is a huge band so they can get away with not charging anything since they already have the exposure needed to guarantee sold-out tours. But the point is, these two examples show that in the current state of the music business, artists can prosper without label involvement at all.

Written by BitterCOld on 03.11.2009 at 22:21

i like having a couple shelves full of disks, just as i like having shelves of another antiquated medium of expressing ideas with a shrinking market... books.

I've known people that illegally download books in their Adobe eBook format and it is truly pathetic... but onto another point I find interesting. One negative aspect I see about legal digital downloads is nowadays you can buy an eBook for your Kindle, an mp3 for your iPod, or a digital distribution version of a video game while unwittingly supporting the destruction of the secondary "used" market. Once you are finished your eBook you can't donate it to a used book store or pass off that old band album you used to listen to years ago. This is a wise move for the primary businesses who want curious customers to buy from them instead of a cheaper secondhand market that they see nothing from. Is the secondary market fair to the musicians, developers and writers in the first place?

Written by jupitreas on 03.11.2009 at 21:35

the way the industry runs right now is not really appropriate for the times.

...

I hate CDs. To me, they are useless pieces of plastic that take up space

You are not wrong there - the system could be better. I think we are getting there, but it is slow going.

I also think it is very much an generation thing - for me it is natural to purchase a cd, if I wan't to get some music.
I guess others who have only lived in the age of internet percieves this differently...

Written by jupitreas on 03.11.2009 at 21:35


What is the first thing you do when you want to find out something about an artist? You go online.

Yeah - more often than not, I start on MS

Written by jupitreas on 03.11.2009 at 21:35


iTunes and similar stores are stupidly expensive considering there is no manufacturing expense involved in selling an album online.

Actually I don't think the (physical) manufacturing cost is a major part of the cost of a CD - but I could be wrong. Does anybody have some data on this?

Manufacturing costs in a wider sense is still there though (studio time, equipment etc).

Written by jupitreas on 03.11.2009 at 21:35

I just can't imagine why an album in mp3 format costs nearly as much as a CD in most online stores. I just don't get it.

Hmm... Personally I se (iTunes) pricing as not too bad:

A new CD in Denmark costs around DKK 160 ($)32 A new album on iTunes cost DKK 80 ($16) - so that's half price - which is not so bad.

(But yeah - it is not really cheap either. But then, there is no natural law that states that a music album must be cheap - just because you can deliver it electronically does not make that a given.)

Written by jupitreas on 03.11.2009 at 21:35

As for those of you who enjoy physical mediums: you will be in a steadily falling minority

Yeah, I know - we are the old & bitter dudes

Written by jupitreas on 03.11.2009 at 21:35

I think the labels should simply mail physical albums to people who want to buy them, instead of mass-producing them
and then trying everything, including inflating prices of mp3 versions, to get back that money and then some profit. Is this idea so unreasonable?

Sorry, you lost me totally there?

Written by BitterCOld on 03.11.2009 at 22:21

Yeah, i am aware i am part of an ever-older, and ever shrinking minority. call me a earthcriminal, call me a capitalist pig, but i like owning things, even if antiquated.

i like having a couple shelves full of disks, just as i like having shelves of another antiquated medium of expressing ideas with a shrinking market... books.

i can see the evolution of technology, have embraced it in one hand while clinging bitterly to the old ways with my other.

i have legitimate download-only releases from artists - hell, i got A Storm of Light's "Forgive Us Our Trespasses" from Neurot just last night.

to me the crux of the issue is financially supporting the artist (and label) for their efforts, as it increases the likelihood of their being able to remain labeled and pumping out more good music.

a lot of people will spout the "download and support them on tour" argument, which is great if the artist actually does tour your neck of the woods. if they don't, it's pretty hollow.

i agree that labels need to adapt to technology and find ways for better electronic distribution for those that use the internet as their primary means of sonic fun delivery. iTunes does suck for the tastes of those assembled here, and i haven't bothered to check out anything else (other than directly from labels).

i also think the audience needs to adjust/adapt as well to whatever system the labels do take and meet in the middle.

What he said. All of it.

Written by Introspekrieg on 04.11.2009 at 02:21

This is a wise move for the primary businesses who want curious customers to buy from them instead of a cheaper secondhand market that they see nothing from. Is the secondary market fair to the musicians, developers and writers in the first place?

i suppose it might be seen as such, but i don't agree wholeheartedly with it.

in terms of secondary markets for existing physical media (disks, books), in order for it to be re-sold, it has to have been sold/purchased at least once - whereas with electronic versions, there is no guarantee of any actual purchase.

additionally, secondary markets do serve a bit of a vital task - particularly in the case of the music industry. the sale of used disks represents income for the shop.

case in point... where i live i have three options for new music:

1. the web. i use from time to time for "rare" stuff i must have - but as an un-evolved knuckledragger who happens to be married, i prefer the "thrill of the hunt" poring over cd racks to just clicking a mouse to see if something is in stock. a dozen years ago i "hunted" women. now i "hunt" music.

2. the big boys ... S*Mart, Buy More, etc. if i want a more popular metal band, i suppose that is an option. however they are not likely at all to have anything i want after reading about here on MS.

3. the local indy store ... this is the venue that caters more to the actual music fan. they have a lot more variety in stock than the big box places do. because their income is based upon music sales (whereas in big boxes music is just a loss leader to get your ass in the door to buy something really expensive) they are more at risk to collapse. they go, my local access to good music goes.

they sell and trade in used disks. this gives them the opportunity to generate more revenue and stay afloat... which means that for many labels, a shot at direct sales. you won't find 90% of the stock in the metal rack at Buy More... so for those labels the continued existence of the store is a boon.

furthermore, in both the cases of books and disks, sure you might find used copies of the latest Metallica or Dan Brown work, but in a lot of cases, shelves are lined with stock that is no longer carried by new places. out of print stuff... just recently did record companies wisen up to the youth audience's craving for original stuff (i am thinking more DM/BM here...) and re-releasing old albums.

i also don't know of anyone who strictly buys used books/cd's. usually it's a fan of books/music they will go for both, new and used. they want what they want and will take it how they can find it.

and in the days prior to the internet, used music was also a good way for a band to get "discovered" by a new listener. pre-internet, it was a lot easier to convince yourself to part with $8 to get a used cd of a band you had heard good things about than it was $15. you like 'em, you likely buy more.


the biggest thing electronic media does for record companies/publishers is eliminate the need for production costs, which means more for the bottom line.



and while i do listen to music via digital format, the technology for books is not even close. no way in hell during a lazy sunday afternoon am i going to curl up in bed with a good laptop.

Written by Jan on 05.11.2009 at 21:28

Written by jupitreas on 03.11.2009 at 21:35

I think the labels should simply mail physical albums to people who want to buy them, instead of mass-producing them
and then trying everything, including inflating prices of mp3 versions, to get back that money and then some profit. Is this idea so unreasonable?

Sorry, you lost me totally there?

I believe he says that CD's shouldn't be mass-produced but produced for those who want the original album. And he also says [as far as I understand] that the labels try anything [like having expensive prices for mp3 versions] for getting back the money + profit for the money they lost in the mass-producing of the cds.

I think that's what he say and if that's the case... I don't agree with it at all.

It's quite funny, I understand the fact that it's annoying for him and many other people that the mp3 version are expensive, but if something like what Jupitreas just said actually happens then the ones who get mad are the people who wants to buy original cds because there's not mass-production anymore so it gets harder to get the cds and they have to also get them by mail. And so we are back in the same problem.
I find the problem that Jupitreas said funny because it seems like both sides can't be happy at the same time.

And yeah, it's just like you said, it's kind of a generation thing. Must people at my age don't buyy cds and find them useless, But I have a different opinion... It's quite sad for me that this way of thinking is vanishing, but that's just me...

Written by Jan on 05.11.2009 at 21:28

Actually I don't think the (physical) manufacturing cost is a major part of the cost of a CD - but I could be wrong. Does anybody have some data on this?

CDs cost close to nothing. What is expensive to a certain degree are the accompanying logistics. CDs have to be stored, handled and shipped and there is always additional expenses in a logistics supply chain, especially if there are manufacturer-independent retailers involved (as is often the case with music CDs).

And just to give my two cents regarding this issue: Downloading isn't something I'm crazy about for pretty much the reasons BitterCOld already mentioned (the only time I've ever did it was when I wanted the sole vocal track from an otherwise instrumental Masi album) but it's still pretty much a matter of personal preference.
Illegally downloading on the other hand is just selfish and so is pretty much every argument in favor of it such as convenience or money. If you can afford merchandise you can obviously afford CDs (as is the case with the OP and I bet quite a few more people) and Internet retailers have made it as the whole process as comfortable as it can get. Listening to music is entertainment i.e. a luxury after all and no one has a right to that, no matter where you are from or what you do for a living. If music is really something you are passionate about, you should also respect (and therefore compensate) it's maker and you should do so upfront as it is not the artist's problem whether you enjoy his work. Otherwise get a different hobby or cut back your other expenses. It's not like only rich people are committed to be honest in such things.

I also do not buy arguments such as illegal downloaders spending more money on music than the average person. It comes off as a selling of indulgences.

Written by DayFly on 07.11.2009 at 01:02

Written by Jan on 05.11.2009 at 21:28

Actually I don't think the (physical) manufacturing cost is a major part of the cost of a CD - but I could be wrong. Does anybody have some data on this?

CDs cost close to nothing. What is expensive to a certain degree are the accompanying logistics. CDs have to be stored, handled and shipped and there is always additional expenses in a logistics supply chain, especially if there are manufacturer-independent retailers involved (as is often the case with music CDs).

And just to give my two cents regarding this issue: Downloading isn't something I'm crazy about for pretty much the reasons BitterCOld already mentioned (the only time I've ever did it was when I wanted the sole vocal track from an otherwise instrumental Masi album) but it's still pretty much a matter of personal preference.
Illegally downloading on the other hand is just selfish and so is pretty much every argument in favor of it such as convenience or money. If you can afford merchandise you can obviously afford CDs (as is the case with the OP and I bet quite a few more people) and Internet retailers have made it as the whole process as comfortable as it can get. Listening to music is entertainment i.e. a luxury after all and no one has a right to that, no matter where you are from or what you do for a living. If music is really something you are passionate about, you should also respect (and therefore compensate) it's maker and you should do so upfront as it is not the artist's problem whether you enjoy his work. Otherwise get a different hobby or cut back your other expenses. It's not like only rich people are committed to be honest in such things.

I also do not buy arguments such as illegal downloaders spending more money on music than the average person. It comes off as a selling of indulgences.

It's is satisfying to see everyone,including you,when they give such comprehensive details on downloading.Be it for or against downloading.I hope I have finally posted a responsible discussion.Now for the topic,I simply can't afford to buy the records and I have to download it.All of my stuff are downloaded.Hope you understand.

No I don't. You own a band shirt. Ergo you have enough money to buy CDs. If that band shirt really was the only thing you could afford, tough luck. Being poor doesn't give you the right to be dishonest and selfish.

Written by DayFly on 07.11.2009 at 10:28

No I don't. You own a band shirt. Ergo you have enough money to buy CDs. If that band shirt really was the only thing you could afford, tough luck. Being poor doesn't give you the right to be dishonest and selfish.

It cost 350 Indian rupees i.e., about 6.5 dollars roughly.But an album costs about 10 dollars and I can don't think I can afford that whatever is within my range I can get it.I don't have a woe is me attitude as you opined earlier.If I can afford,I can and I will certainly buy the records. [Kreator] is one of my fav. bands and in my place there are no Kreator records available.Danke.