|
Post by historywak on Oct 17, 2010 9:33:29 GMT -5
Talk about music downloads, their role in the declining sales of the CD, and the fate of the music industry in general due to this.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 17, 2010 9:36:05 GMT -5
I still don't see that CDs are done with. I picked up the 2009 Beatles Remasters last year, and now the 2010 Lennons. I'll never resort to downloading, and if there's ever a time where that's the only alternative, I've already got all my music on discs forever. And just as we can still play tapes and vinyl and 16mm films on projectors, so too shall I always be able to play my CDs.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 17, 2010 12:18:40 GMT -5
I still don't see that CDs are done with. I picked up the 2009 Beatles Remasters last year, and now the 2010 Lennons. I'll never resort to downloading, and if there's ever a time where that's the only alternative, I've already got all my music on discs forever. And just as we can still play tapes and vinyl and 16mm films on projectors, so too shall I always be able to play my CDs. I agree with you Joe, I hate downloading music. I want CD's where I can pick and choose what I want to put on my I-Pod. I don't want to fill my computer, or I-Pad, or whatever with downloaded material. But I am probably a dinosaur in this respect. My ears will probably give out in another 20 years anyway, so hopefully CD's will hold out a little longer.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 17, 2010 22:12:35 GMT -5
I still don't see that CDs are done with. I picked up the 2009 Beatles Remasters last year, and now the 2010 Lennons. I'll never resort to downloading, and if there's ever a time where that's the only alternative, I've already got all my music on discs forever. And just as we can still play tapes and vinyl and 16mm films on projectors, so too shall I always be able to play my CDs. I agree with you Joe, I hate downloading music. I want CD's where I can pick and choose what I want to put on my I-Pod. I don't want to fill my computer, or I-Pad, or whatever with downloaded material. But I am probably a dinosaur in this respect. My ears will probably give out in another 20 years anyway, so hopefully CD's will hold out a little longer. I hear there's this thing called a "remote control" that allows you to change channels on your television set without having to get out of your seat. And, did you know you can actually have a machine answer your telephone for you? Man, it's good to be alive today.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 18, 2010 5:26:24 GMT -5
I agree with you Joe, I hate downloading music. I want CD's where I can pick and choose what I want to put on my I-Pod. I don't want to fill my computer, or I-Pad, or whatever with downloaded material. But I am probably a dinosaur in this respect. My ears will probably give out in another 20 years anyway, so hopefully CD's will hold out a little longer. I hear there's this thing called a "remote control" that allows you to change channels on your television set without having to get out of your seat. And, did you know you can actually have a machine answer your telephone for you? Man, it's good to be alive today. Advanced Technology is about the only better thing about today. And even then, that only goes for SOME technology, as cell phones and endless texting are rotting the brains of today's kids, and too much internet access is helping bullies cause some teens to commit suicide, and predators to emerge and prey. Anyway, I've said I enjoy "2009 and 2010 Remasters", and CDs themselves were a leap in technology. Downloading creates crappy sound often times, as well as having a situation where volume levels differ. Sayne, I am extremely proud to say I enjoy what I enjoy. And I will always say "Boy, is it Over" with regard to "today". ;D
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 18, 2010 23:22:28 GMT -5
When searching out the new Lennon reissues, I was horrified to see that Best Buy has once again downsized its music department. It has like half an aisle now. It was once four or five long aisles of c.d.'s. Next downsize they are gone I am afraid. That October 5, 2010, we had my 26 year old stepson with us and he enjoyed my playing in the car an album by my favorite new group, The Avett Brothers' I And Love And You(on c.d. I proudly add). They are not new other than to me and I will write more on them later. Anyway, I ran in and bought some reissued Lennon and as a surprise picked up the Avett Brothers' c.d. for my stepson. Imagine my surprise and somewhat chagrin when he respectfully declined the gift saying that he would prefer to download the album. He was moving to Florida and didn't have room he said for a compact disc. The kid turned down a new c.d.! The times they have a changed. He later downloaded the album and loves it but who knows if he legally downloaded it so the artists got paid? I was stunned, he turned down a gift of music in a hard form, something he could hold, read the booklet and have to keep. Damn, in 1976 if someone wanted to give me a new vinyl record of the White Album I wouldn't have said, "No thanks, I'd prefer to have it on cassette tape!"
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 20, 2010 20:13:44 GMT -5
When searching out the new Lennon reissues, I was horrified to see that Best Buy has once again downsized its music department. It has like half an aisle now. It was once four or five long aisles of c.d.'s. Next downsize they are gone I am afraid . . . I liked that seen in "The Social Network" when the guy who created Napster is talking to the guy who "invented" Facebook. Someone brought up the fact that Napster didn't go anywhere so what did he know, and he replies by saying something like, "Oh, yeah? Wanna buy a Tower Records store?"
|
|
|
Post by historywak on Dec 3, 2010 20:51:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Dec 3, 2010 21:17:30 GMT -5
Those who are so against downloading often miss the point. It gives the consumer power. Forget about the Beatles. Let's talk about "mere" humans. How many times have you bought an album in any form and found only 1 song you liked? If record companies continue to put our crap CD's with only 1 or two good songs on it AND charge $15-$20 for it, then I think consumers should have the power to NOT be forced to pay for what they do not want. Now, for collectors or die-hard fans, they can CHOOSE to buy the whole CD or download the whole thing, but for the casual listener, being able to only buy the songs you like is empowering.
|
|
Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Dec 3, 2010 23:19:35 GMT -5
What I would like to know is this: who are the people who PAY for downloaded music?
Before the day of their release, the Dylan mono albums were "out there" for download: I could only find 320 kbs mp3s then (on music blogs; I don't like to dl via torrents). For lossless files I had to wait a couple of days. Oh dear! But I coped.
I can (just barely) understand someone paying for lossless files: but mp3s? Ridiculous.
McCabe
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 4, 2010 5:40:25 GMT -5
Those who are so against downloading often miss the point. It gives the consumer power. Forget about the Beatles. Let's talk about "mere" humans. How many times have you bought an album in any form and found only 1 song you liked? If record companies continue to put our crap CD's with only 1 or two good songs on it AND charge $15-$20 for it, then I think consumers should have the power to NOT be forced to pay for what they do not want. Now, for collectors or die-hard fans, they can CHOOSE to buy the whole CD or download the whole thing, but for the casual listener, being able to only buy the songs you like is empowering. I think another point is missed. That being, sure I used to buy a whole album and upon first listen I would be very disappointed, and only like one or two songs off the entire record. But what I often found was that the other unlikable songs could tend to grow on me with repeated listens, as long as I had them there and did not always intentionally lift the needle OFF the record every time a song came on which did not grab me immediately. I guess in a way I could say that old-time vinyl had this advantage... more often that not you would let it play through instead of getting up to manually lift the tone arm off one track to another. Now, with downloads, it's a different story. A person may sample just a few moments of a song and hastily decide "nah, I don't like this one"... and maybe sometimes before the song really even hits its stride! Unlike when you have a whole album at your disposal to go back to from song to song here and there, with sampling downloads for a prospective "song-by-song" purchase, a person would likely NEVER return to a tune which did not grab him the very first moment. And that is a sad shame. They will never know what they missed. YAY! for the Old Way.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Dec 4, 2010 8:17:27 GMT -5
What I would like to know is this: who are the people who PAY for downloaded music? Before the day of their release, the Dylan mono albums were "out there" for download: I could only find 320 kbs mp3s then (on music blogs; I don't like to dl via torrents). For lossless files I had to wait a couple of days. Oh dear! But I coped. I can (just barely) understand someone paying for lossless files: but mp3s? Ridiculous. McCabe Just curious- why not through torrents-viruses? Mp-3 is sort of the equivalent of taping FM stereo, which many of us did.
|
|
|
Post by historywak on Dec 4, 2010 10:22:06 GMT -5
Those who are so against downloading often miss the point. It gives the consumer power. Forget about the Beatles. Let's talk about "mere" humans. How many times have you bought an album in any form and found only 1 song you liked? If record companies continue to put our crap CD's with only 1 or two good songs on it AND charge $15-$20 for it, then I think consumers should have the power to NOT be forced to pay for what they do not want. Now, for collectors or die-hard fans, they can CHOOSE to buy the whole CD or download the whole thing, but for the casual listener, being able to only buy the songs you like is empowering. The first article is defending it and the second is against it.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Dec 4, 2010 11:43:16 GMT -5
Those who are so against downloading often miss the point. It gives the consumer power. Forget about the Beatles. Let's talk about "mere" humans. How many times have you bought an album in any form and found only 1 song you liked? If record companies continue to put our crap CD's with only 1 or two good songs on it AND charge $15-$20 for it, then I think consumers should have the power to NOT be forced to pay for what they do not want. Now, for collectors or die-hard fans, they can CHOOSE to buy the whole CD or download the whole thing, but for the casual listener, being able to only buy the songs you like is empowering. sayne, no arguing with that post. We are given choices we never had before. Yet.... Music was once a social network all by itself where we gathered face to face in a bedroom, rec room or someone's "remodeled" basement. We would play a finite amount of vinyl records(maybe cassettes but mostly vinyl) and we would decide what we liked and didn't like, three or four albums at a time. Who had the money for too much more music to be brought to the table in one sitting? The real beauty of these settings was the social interaction between humans, talking music sure but everything else under the sun. And person to person. The "extra curricular" activities that accompanied such music listening endeavors, whether legal or illegal, added to the thrill of hearing new music together! Recently, a retired lawyer in my town e-mailed me(how quaint that is now, what with texts and twitter) asking me to join his "music sharing club" where we will never meet face to face but with touches of a mouse will transfer more music to each other than what a record store would once have in inventory! I declined his offer because I could never meaningfully listen to all of that music and second, where is the joy of human interaction? Sure, my very serious music listening is by myself but do I miss when listening to even nonlive music was more of a communal thing and I don't mean computer to computer but face to face. Concerts are still pretty cool in that regard. As I think about it though, a large part of what I am reminiscing on is due to youth versus old age: the older we get the less likely we will gather to play recorded music together, it seems a joyful province of youth, so.......never mind! ;D
|
|
Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Dec 4, 2010 15:12:11 GMT -5
Just curious- why not through torrents-viruses? Can sometimes be very slow: you get a "torrential" download sometimes, but with more niche stuff, generally no. Viruses are a risk no matter what your dl method. Yes, and the quality is OK. "OK" means just that - medium-fi, tops. My point though is that I can't understand why one would pay for mp3s. McCabe
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Dec 5, 2010 17:41:07 GMT -5
. . . the older we get the less likely we will gather to play recorded music together, it seems a joyful province of youth, so.......never mind! ;D You are such a romantic. I do remember those days when someone would be the first one to have an album (now classic) and we would all gather and listen, each one fondling and examining the album cover and lyrics. Bonus, if there was a poster or sticker or something inside. Back to the point of this thread, though. It seems that the ONE MAIN POINT about the technology today is based upon the sound of the music. We argue about vinyl vs CD vs streaming vs torrents vs MP3s vs this vs that (I don't even know what all that techo stuff means anyway.) Here's my bias: I do appreciate high fidelity. I came away in wonder when I went to the movie theater to see the rerelease of Yellow Submarine. Hearing things I had never heard before was just so cool. I appreciate the new remasters. And, I love remixes and mashups. But, as an ordinary listener, when it comes right down to it, I just like hearing the songs. I've mentioned this before and one of the linked articles disparagingly referered to it. I go back to the transistor radio days. It didn't matter that the sound was cheap and tinny. It was still Satisfaction, Light My Fire, Sugar Sugar, Purple Haze, and I'm a Believer. When I got into my teen years, I managed to buy my own stereo system, a cheap one, but it didn't matter. I still rocked and played air guitar to Won't Get Fooled Again and Free Ride. As I got older, I DID listen more closely and developed an ear for what was being played and recorded, but when it came down to it, I liked Close to the Edge and Thick as a Brick because I liked the songs - despite the fact they were played on my cheap home speakers or my car radio with only one cheap speaker. So, today, for me the issue is not fidelty. It's convenience and economics. For me, it's going to be my IPOD. Why? It's more portable than my CDs. At home, I rarely listen to music and just listen. I'm usually doing something else. I don't want to have to go turn my vinyl over after 10-15 minutes, then when it finishes, go back to the where the stereo is, take off the album and put away, then take out the other LP, dust it off, and then gently put it on, and so on the whole night. Even CD's are a minor inconvenience, for me. It's just easier to just put my IPOD on and let it run. Never do I think about the sound. I'm just listening to music. Economics I've addressed in other posts. I hate buying a whole CD - especially by an artist whose hit song I really like, and then finding that THAT song is the only good song on the CD. This is not meant as an argument. It's just expressing my listening preference which supports the new download technolology. Since my listening habits have never been about the quality of sound, it would make sense that my listening habits today would not be, as well. That's just me.
|
|
|
Post by Blackguard on Apr 13, 2012 17:26:32 GMT -5
I have an iTunes account and enjoy the convenience of downloading the songs. There are some albums out of print on LP or CD that are available on iTunes, or as a download from the artists website. For years I looked for a playable copy of Frank Zappa's Mothermania compilation. On a whim I look at his website and there it was. Clean digital versions of the songs without surface noise from a too well played copy of the vinyl. The artwork came in as a pdf file.
I really don't see the end of the CD any time soon. Vinyl has made a comeback too. 180 gram pressings with much improved dynamics and reduced surface pops and clicks have been introduced and seem to be propping up LP sales. How many of you would like to see a few Beatle titles on 180 gram. I'd pop for a copy of Magical Mystery Tour on 180 gram! If it has the Capitol rainbow band label, so much the better.
But to be honest, a CD has one advantage over an mp3 download. A CD can play in 5.1 sound. Mp3's are limited to 2 channel stereo. In the end it depends on how you like your music. Each format has it's advantages and drawbacks. There's room for more than one way to buy your tunes. Except for those of you who prefer reel to reel tapes or 8 Tracks, those just aren't going to comeback.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 13, 2012 18:50:56 GMT -5
Since this thread started some 18 months ago, not only am I still seeing CDs and have ZERO need or interest in downloading, but I have gone back to collecting Vinyl Records! -- I began about 6 months ago and already I have re-acquired almost all the U.S. Beatles and Solo records. I think those pining away for "a world of downloads and streaming" are like Chicken Little's screaming "The Sky Is Falling!" (or, in this case, "Physical Media Is Dying!!"). Wishful thinking on their part, but it's never going to happen. In fact, the annual "RECORD STORE DAY" this year falls on April 21st -- with a ton of new and exclusive VINYL releases!
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Apr 13, 2012 19:00:23 GMT -5
I have an iTunes account and enjoy the convenience of downloading the songs. There are some albums out of print on LP or CD that are available on iTunes, or as a download from the artists website. For years I looked for a playable copy of Frank Zappa's Mothermania compilation. On a whim I look at his website and there it was. Clean digital versions of the songs without surface noise from a too well played copy of the vinyl. The artwork came in as a pdf file. I really don't see the end of the CD any time soon. Vinyl has made a comeback too. 180 gram pressings with much improved dynamics and reduced surface pops and clicks have been introduced and seem to be propping up LP sales. How many of you would like to see a few Beatle titles on 180 gram. I'd pop for a copy of Magical Mystery Tour on 180 gram! If it has the Capitol rainbow band label, so much the better. But to be honest, a CD has one advantage over an mp3 download. A CD can play in 5.1 sound. Mp3's are limited to 2 channel stereo. In the end it depends on how you like your music. Each format has it's advantages and drawbacks. There's room for more than one way to buy your tunes. Except for those of you who prefer reel to reel tapes or 8 Tracks, those just aren't going to comeback. I thought only superCD and DVD audio could play 5.1?
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Apr 13, 2012 20:37:27 GMT -5
I have an iTunes account and enjoy the convenience of downloading the songs. There are some albums out of print on LP or CD that are available on iTunes, or as a download from the artists website. For years I looked for a playable copy of Frank Zappa's Mothermania compilation. On a whim I look at his website and there it was. Clean digital versions of the songs without surface noise from a too well played copy of the vinyl. The artwork came in as a pdf file. I really don't see the end of the CD any time soon. Vinyl has made a comeback too. 180 gram pressings with much improved dynamics and reduced surface pops and clicks have been introduced and seem to be propping up LP sales. How many of you would like to see a few Beatle titles on 180 gram. I'd pop for a copy of Magical Mystery Tour on 180 gram! If it has the Capitol rainbow band label, so much the better. But to be honest, a CD has one advantage over an mp3 download. A CD can play in 5.1 sound. Mp3's are limited to 2 channel stereo. In the end it depends on how you like your music. Each format has it's advantages and drawbacks. There's room for more than one way to buy your tunes. Except for those of you who prefer reel to reel tapes or 8 Tracks, those just aren't going to comeback. I thought only superCD and DVD audio could play 5.1? I'll be interested to hear the answer to this. When I got Yellow Submarine Songbook on CD, for some reason, I thought it was in 5.1. It seems like I remember putting it in a DVD player and hearing it. It seemed like at the time, CDs would only play in the front speakers, but this cd played all the way around. Now there is nothing on the jacket that says anything about 5.1 so I guess I was imagining something. I'm not hooked up right now to test it.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Apr 13, 2012 21:04:43 GMT -5
I thought only superCD and DVD audio could play 5.1? I'll be interested to hear the answer to this. When I got Yellow Submarine Songbook on CD, for some reason, I thought it was in 5.1. It seems like I remember putting it in a DVD player and hearing it. It seemed like at the time, CDs would only play in the front speakers, but this cd played all the way around. Now there is nothing on the jacket that says anything about 5.1 so I guess I was imagining something. I'm not hooked up right now to test it. The songs on the YS DVD are mixed 5.1, the CD to my knowledge was remixed in 24 bit, and used some of the original feeder 4 track reels (containing non bounced tracks). Otherwise, the final CD product is still a stereo wav file.
|
|