[Darkestred]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gjkphd /img/forum/go_quote.gif In addition to the illegal file sharing sources there are some innovative websites that offer an alternative to buying new CD''s I've been using a couple of websites lately to get music for my collection. One is MusicGiants which sells for download full CD's and individual tracks that are in WMA format. I don't listen through my computer, I burn CD's from these downloads and they are very high quality. More recently, through a billboard at my local post office I've been turned on to Lala.com. This is great, it's a system that allows you to trade CD's with others for a small fee (you pay 1.75 for each one you receive, including shipping and they supply the shipping supplies). In about 6 weeks I"ve sent out and received about 60 cd's. Some of their profit is paid to the artists. For folks like me who burn their own CD's of just the songs they like this is terrific. Of course, the burned copy does lose a little fidelity but that's another topic

Lala is a pile of crap. Its the same thing as going to a music store and buying used cds. The artists receives none of the profits and if lala does give a "small" profit to the artists its much worse than what they'd get for someone buying a cd at retail.

As for previous posts, bands do make money off cds...concerts do help the cause even more.

I dont know what the fuss is about downloading. Im on quite a few torrent sites (private) myself. I have over 400 cds and will continue to buy cds. I want to support the artists (i rarely buy from big name labels) and i want the package and if i lose all my mp3s on my computer I dont have to rely on the Internet to recover them.

Going back to the private torrents: i have found over 300 bands i would have never found outside of various review/music sites. Ive also seen trends in who buys music and who doesnt. More people still buy records than those who download.

Price is def a concern for cds. To this day i will never buy a cd for over 12 bucks. There are a few exceptions (imports etc).

I think the fact that many sites allow the user to listen to the albums now has possibly contributed to less album sales. i cant tell you how many mainstream bands i have bought when i was younger only to find 2 songs out of 12 were good. Another reason why i support the underground scene mostly.

I dont even read the RIAA or any other study anymore as just last month there was an article saying that music sales hardly took a hit.

p.s.

an example would be when 50 cent was shattering record sales left and right just a few years ago. Yet, piracy has destroyed music sales?

 

[Spyro]

In 2007 to date, Nielsen SoundScan has tracked more individual music purchases than at any point in the history of this type of tracking
-overall music purchases are up 19%. This includes album and individual tracks.
-the amount of individual tracks sold is increasing (288 million vs 242 to date last year)
album sales have dropped (99 million vs 119 million last year)
- CD sales have decreased by 20%. They account for 90% of the sales where an album has been purchased in its entirety. In other words 90% of digital buys are cherry picked, although that could mean someone bought 9 out of 10 of the tracks on the CD.
-Digital Album sales increased 100% over last year
-individal track sales increased 54% over last year

So it's obvious that people are moving toward digital purchases and they are cherry picking. As far as digital purchases broadband has become more accessible so it's easier for people to go in and buy the album or tracks from it. You can do it any time you want without getting dressed or stuck in traffic and you get the instant gratification you can't get buying a "hard" CD online. And no shipment charge.

It's becoming hard to find most music at retail anyway, so what are you gonna do. People choose to buy it on iTunes rather than drive all over town trying to find it.

 

[Riordan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif You talk about loud-mastering. That practice hasn't been around for nearly ten years, and was uncommon even before then. Radio stations, especially post clear channel, re-master all their tracks for optimal FM play, a necessary and sonically beneficial process, which actually makes loud-mastered albums clip. The resulting tracks sound awful, even to everyday Joe consumers over their FM radio, so no one does it. And, even if they did, that loud-mastering would apply equally to the vinyl and cd releases, so re-buying the albums you don't like on cd would be pointless.

this part of your post negates reality. completely. read around, here and elsewhere, about the 'loudness wars'. in the last years loud-mastering has become the norm in rock and pop music, and it keeps getting worse. you don't need the additional radio remastering to get clipping, many cds clip all the way through already. this sad state of affairs also isn't limited to mainstream productions, though it does happen more frequently there.

 

[Coltrane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darkestred /img/forum/go_quote.gif Lala is a pile of crap. Its the same thing as going to a music store and buying used cds. The artists receives none of the profits and if lala does give a "small" profit to the artists its much worse than what they'd get for someone buying a cd at retail.

So how exactly does that make lala a 'pile of crap."? Artists shouldnt get money for cds they have already sold, which is what is happening. I think lala says they will give 20 cents for each cd traded, which is of course way more in terms of percentage than they get for a retail sale, and for a CD they have ALREADY recieved royalties for.

 

[gjkphd]

double post

 

[gjkphd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darkestred /img/forum/go_quote.gif Lala is a pile of crap. Its the same thing as going to a music store and buying used cds.

Find me a music store with the amount of titles available through lala. Also, as the previous poster noted they are giving some $ to the artists for re cycling their stuff after they've already been paid royalties for the initial purchase

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coltrane /img/forum/go_quote.gif So how exactly does that make lala a 'pile of crap."? Artists shouldnt get money for cds they have already sold, which is what is happening. I think lala says they will give 20 cents for each cd traded, which is of course way more in terms of percentage than they get for a retail sale, and for a CD they have ALREADY recieved royalties for.

I agree that artists shouldn't receive money for albums they've already sold, but do you really see a problem with the musicians making more money than they do now? Most musicians in this world signed to any record label do not make enough money to survive decently in the United States.

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowmagnet /img/forum/go_quote.gif CDs aren't a low-value purchase to me. I think Vinyl is a far lower value considering the difficulty of finding capable playback equipment. My car doesn't have a record player, my home doesn't have a record player, etc. I can easily rip a CD to disk and if I was playing a physical CD, I wouldn't have to flip it over at 22 minutes. Levels/loudness tweaking and copy protection notwithstanding, CDs are still a great value, but they have increased in price over the years. Still, I can go to zunior and grab an album for 11 bucks in flac, and that seriously makes me consider switching away from the mainstream publishers for this model.

That's you. You're thinking more akin to a victim of mass-consumerism, and less like a person who simply wants the immediate satisfaction of a higher value directly after purchase. Your personal contexts really shouldn't come into account when discussing an economic trend of the music industry.

 

[Error]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman /img/forum/go_quote.gif I agree that artists shouldn't receive money for albums they've already sold, but do you really see a problem with the musicians making more money than they do now? Most musicians in this world signed to any record label do not make enough money to survive decently in the United States.

Agreed. The money that musicians receive from the sales of their music is truly pathetic. Even big name artists that consistently do well in the charts would have financial difficulties if it weren't for album advances and revenue from ticket sales to concerts. Considering this, it makes me somewhat reticent to say that artists don't deserve the revenue from trades on lala, but ultimately the fact that they have already seen revenue from the sale of that album (however meager) counteracts that feeling.

 

[Digitalbath3737]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman /img/forum/go_quote.gif I agree that artists shouldn't receive money for albums they've already sold, but do you really see a problem with the musicians making more money than they do now? Most musicians in this world signed to any record label do not make enough money to survive decently in the United States.

If artist should see money from used sales then I believe the original buyer of the album should be able to keep a copy of the album. The artist already got their money, so it's not fair for them to continue seeing profits from used goods if the original buyer isn't allowed to keep a copy.

 

[DocHamm]

As stated prevously... "CDs are still at the forefront of all music sales". Sure digital music is coming, but...

I do not buy digital downloads. The majority of people I know do not buy digital downloads. The majority of people I know do not even own a digital music device. The ones that do, are (mostly) under the age of thirty (<-clue).

CDs are not going anywhere. C'mon! It took a decade for CD sales to hit full steam, and twenty years for stores to stop selling cassettes! Even vinyl still exists, albeit used. I stopped spending money on LPs years ago and switched to cassette. You can't carry LPs around or play them everywhere, ergo the introduction of the cassette to replace 8-track (which replaced 4-track... anyone else remember those?) because of convience. If Sony had put more into marketing MD in the US, you would have seen them in stores as well.

No retail? You're kidding right? Every bookstore in my city sells CDs and there is at least one in almost every town. And don't forget used music stores, for which we have at least one in every third town. Even better is buying them online with free shipping to your front door!!

CDs have decreased in price, not increased. Back in the 80's CDs started out a $20-$30 each with a rough average being $23-$25 each. Today single CDs are rarely seen higher than $18.99 even in retail stores. Used CDs go from $4-$8 each on average. Not bad if they haven't been abused. And back then the average album only had 9-11 tracks where today, due to storage the capability of CDs, the average is more like 15-18 tracks.

Previewing music, either in stores or online, and people are buying more, not less. Yes, people become more selective, but when you can sample for free, folks end up buying things they otherwise would not have considered.

Yes, my choice for CDs is personal preferance, but I am not alone in this preferance. Long before digital can become the main sales force, everyone has to have either a computer or other means of music transfer. Got bad news, not everyone owns or has access to, or even desires to have a computer. Even some of my collegues, who work in the IT industry, do not own a personal computer.

There are a number of factors contributing to the decline in sales. Only a few have been touched on in this discussion. Oh, and this may be a novel idea for some of you, but females also buy music!! Instead of nail polish in this house, you'll find over 1500 CDs at last count.