quote:

Originally posted by Hophead:
Part of the problem is that a 192kps rip without artwork and packaging isn't worth $12-$15.

Exactly. If I'm going to be spending $8-9 or more for an album, I'm going to want a physical copy, preferably on vinyl. What most retailers and labels are charging for digital downloads is more than what I feel a digital copy is worth.

quote:

Originally posted by Hophead:
If artists or labels offered safe, quality full album downloads for say $3-$5, people would be all over it.

The good thing is it looks like the market is headed towards cheaper digital downloads. Amazon is starting to test this out with select albums for limited amount of times. They have Coldplay's Parachutes for two bucks and the Shins Wincing for four dollars. Plus eMusic already has a lower cost per album track (I think I'm paying about a quarter per track), so the typical album will be around two to four dollars.

eMusic is a good source for music for those that go digital, and the album price is fairly low (I think the cheapest package is 30 downloads for $9.99).

So why aren't people all over this? Because they can get music earlier and for free by illegal downloading. I don't think that cheaper album prices are going to make much of a difference. They are available now, and I don't see anyone here championing eMusic over torrents and P2P downloads.

quote:

Originally posted by Built to Sleep:
So why aren't people all over this? Because they can get music earlier and for free by illegal downloading. I don't think that cheaper album prices are going to make much of a difference. They are available now, and I don't see anyone here championing eMusic over torrents and P2P downloads.

That's because they always try to limit it in those retarded 30 songs for $10 whenever we feel like posting new songs tyranny. If they really want to compete, they need to make everything available now and for a reasonable price like 25 cents a song/$5 an album (possibly variable according to recording costs or whatever that may fluctuate as flat rates are kinda retarded in theory and practice... $1 for a ten second intro). But they'll never do that. They want to restrict what you have access to and charge what they want (often more than an actual CD/LP), while fighting what the potential customer actually wants. It's a losing situation that won't change until the industry accepts the fact that consumers want everything now, they won’t accept anything less no matter how much you sue them, and there's no reason why that shouldn't be. Make it work or die the slow death you're well on your way to, Mr. Recording Industry.

Also, when eMusic started, it was unlimited downloads for a flat rate, and a good deal. I subscribed for months and downloaded a whole bunch of George Carlin and Jello Biafra. Then they decided to suck, while trying to make it sound like they were giving me a better deal. "People don't download that much, so instead of unlimited for $20 a month, we'll give you 30 tracks for $10. That's like getting two and a half low quality albums for the price of one high fidelity record!" I have not resubscribed since.

quote:

Originally posted by Filmore Mescalito Holmes:
Also, when eMusic started, it was unlimited downloads for a flat rate, and a good deal. I subscribed for months and downloaded a whole bunch of George Carlin and Jello Biafra. Then they decided to suck, while trying to make it sound like they were giving me a better deal. "People don't download that much, so instead of unlimited for $20 a month, we'll give you 30 tracks for $10. That's like getting two and a half low quality albums for the price of one high fidelity record!" I have not resubscribed since.

I missed out on their earlier unlimited downloads but still think that getting $.25-.30 a download is a much better deal than paying closer to $.89-.99 at iTunes or Amazon. eMusic's selection isn't as good (no major labels or certain larger independents like Sub Pop and Drag City), but theres always more than enough for me to download. Some labels have left eMusic because they didn't think they were getting enough money (Victory Records), so at least eMusic isn't giving in to the pressure of the recording industry and charging the "standard" prices.

I don't think they're exactly "low quality" either. Certainly not high fidelity, lossless flac files or anything, but its not not they're ripped off of a myspace stream or anything.

quote:

Originally posted by nmeiborg:
I don't think they're exactly "low quality" either. Certainly not high fidelity, lossless flac files or anything, but its not not they're ripped off of a myspace stream or anything.

In the early days, there were a lot of transcodes and noisy files. I cannot attest to their current level, but I would hope it's higher.

quote:

It's a losing situation that won't change until the industry accepts the fact that consumers want everything now, they won’t accept anything less no matter how much you sue them, and there's no reason why that shouldn't be. Make it work or die the slow death you're well on your way to, Mr. Recording Industry.

True, the recording industry does seem like one of the least costumer friendly industries there is. The "voice of the costumer" has been asking for affordable and digital for years and years. Yet they still continue to try and push CDs and have only recently really began to embrace the digital format that most of their costumers moved to at least five years ago. Of course consumers are partly to blame for illegally downloading, but the recording industry has shot themselves in the foot by completely ignoring their costumer base. I agree with you Fillmore: they need to do a better job of providing people with something they want or they will go away, period.