 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That only applies to streaming, not digital downloads, where artists often get a bigger share than from a physical disc. Though of course, if they sell their own pressings at concerts (no label involved), that may be another story.
Not true. It applies to downloads too, and it's quite bad. Though it's worse with streaming. Here's part of what used to be a much longer article, with a graph breaking it down. Note the article and graph is now ten years old! So it's probably much worse today, except the data on CDs is no doubt still true.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/11/how-musicians-really-make-money-in-one-long-graph/249267/
That article seems to be focused on "bands" and compares apples and oranges and cucumbers.
1. A lossy download is obviously of lesser quality than a CD or lossless one, so the comparison is silly. I would not pay a dime for an MP3.
2. The article compares self pressed CDs with lossy DRM albums bought via iTunes. Why not compare self pressed CDs with self offered lossless downloads? Like the San Francisco Symphony offers on their own label?
3. Retailled CDs from stores should be compared with lossless downloads from online sores etc.
The focus of the article is more on how bands make money "today" (ten years ago), not on the actual return of the various distribution models.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dude, I'm just forwarding the information. Old though it may be. And it covers artist returns from the distribution models. They're the figures in pink on the far right column of the graph.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Feb 21, 2021 - 7:07 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Filmmaker
(Member)
|
On the other hand, it's much easier to back up a hard drive than CDs. I can just keep my music collection on a RAID NAS system and/or back it up in a cloud. It takes a couple of hours maximum to completely and bit-for-bit back up a collection of thousands of CDs. Can't do that just with physical recordings. If a CD is gone or breaks, it's gone or broken.
Also, at least as long as the download store exists, you could re-download your purchases (like Qobuz for example). If a CD is corrupt, you can't always get a replacement from the label.
1. How do you treat your CDs? Why would they ever be gone (theft or acts of God excepted) or break?
2. If a CD is corrupt, I’ll find out by playing it back well before replacement unavailability would be an issue.
3. All this digital backup you are recommending can be done by way of a CD. It isn’t exclusive to the source being a download. But beyond that, other than a laptop for work, I don’t even own a home computer. Just about anything I need from a computer experience, I can do on my smartphone. Except download and store loads of high quality audio downloads. #teamcd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not in the No CD No Sale camp. I do understand the mentality behind it though. CD usually has better quality than digital. I personally like having a physical CD for collection’s sake and the liner notes. I almost never use the CD to listen to the music though. I transfer the WAV copies of the tracks to my PC and then upload them to my phone via itunes. So if a day ever came where scores were only released digitally, I would be bummed out but in reality not much would change for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't feed labels for streaming ! Pay them for physical media only!
Now you're ordering people around, and that's not about preference.
3. Most importantly, buying a digital exclusive sends a message to the label that I’m okay with them not offering a CD option and that they should feel free to continue such a myopic business model.
It's more likely that, in 4k or blu-ray heyday fashion, companies would rather stack their preferred products (digital) with all the tchotchkes and leave the lesser products (CDs) to rot in banality, just to push a format. It's already happening with blockbuster scores being expanded digitally. What if liner notes came with 3D videos, or what if they caught on to you recording digital to CD-R and offered everything a box set could afford except the CDs... in extremely limited quantities, of course?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the other hand, it's much easier to back up a hard drive than CDs. I can just keep my music collection on a RAID NAS system and/or back it up in a cloud. It takes a couple of hours maximum to completely and bit-for-bit back up a collection of thousands of CDs. Can't do that just with physical recordings. If a CD is gone or breaks, it's gone or broken.
Also, at least as long as the download store exists, you could re-download your purchases (like Qobuz for example). If a CD is corrupt, you can't always get a replacement from the label.
1. How do you treat your CDs? Why would they ever be gone (theft or acts of God excepted) or break?
No, my CDs are fine, including my first ones, which I bought in 1987. I am just saying that purchase safety is not an argument. On the one hand, CDs are very durable, on the other hand, files are easily backed up. If a CD of mine ever gets defect, I can't get easily a replacement, if a Qobuz file of mine gets corrupt, I can just re-download it.
Since it was a lot of work to have my CDs all transfered to files, I make sure I have redundancy and backups. Even if my house burns down, I would still have my music collection.
2. If a CD is corrupt, I’ll find out by playing it back well before replacement unavailability would be an issue.
I can't say the same thing. For one, there are sometimes a few years between my point of purchase and my first listening of a CD, and not all my listening is done so attentively that I would immediately spot imperfections.
3. All this digital backup you are recommending can be done by way of a CD. It isn’t exclusive to the source being a download.
This if of course true. In fact, the vast, vast majority of my music files are from my own CDs, not bought as download. It's only within the last few years that I actually started to buy downloads too. Back in the day of lossy downloads and proprietary DRM technologies, I would not have spent any money on downloads. Ever.
But of course you can convert a CD to a FLAC/ALAC, instead of just buying a FLAC/ALAC. I'm doing it all the time.
I am not arguing against CDs at all, I've accumulated a few myself over the years.
I just want to get some misunderstandings and misconceptions in the debate out of the way.
There are those here that say they value the experience of physcially holding a CD, to "possess" a physical thing in the real world, they enjoy having a nice edition album or a booklet on paper and taking a CD out of a shelf and opening it, put it into the CD-player, etc., and I think that is a perfectly VALID argument. If one enjoys the haptic part of a CD collection, that is something a download cannot deliver. Period. I have some CDs that I enjoy holding and opening... I love the way the complete LORD OF THE RINGS CDs sets are done, with high-quality paper booklets, note samples, etc., or the Arista STAR WARS Trilogy, or the Rhino BEN HUR... etc. I enjoy holding these too. But I never actually play them anymore, I play the files.
However, there are some other arguments said that just don't hold water. Sound quality, for example, is not an issue. If anything, downloads can offer higher sound quality than CDs. For example, the currently new release of Beethoven's Piano Concertos with Zimerman, Rattle, LSO is offered on CD (16-bit/44.1kHz) or as download in (24-bit/96.0 kHz), for about the same price. No need to go into a discussion whether one needs such high resolutions, I'm just saying that the argument of sound quality is squarely in the corner of downloads, not CDs.
Also, while I enjoy some CDs that I already have as a physical product (just as I enjoy my vinyl records for that reason), I don't need any more of either, and personally, I don't see much point in buying more CDs (other than if that's the most efficient medium for me to get the music, like in case of specialty label releases that are CD only). I would rather buy a high-res download and skip the CD. Saves a lot of space, too, which is actually an issue for me now. (I just moved, and my CD collection is still packed in boxes.)
The only advantage CDs have over downloads is if you really enjoy the haptic experience, that you can hold them, and feel them, and smell them, etc, but that is also a "disadvantage", because these things take up space. In all other aspects that I can see, like sound quality, ease of backup, versatility, etc., downloads easily trump CDs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 22, 2021 - 2:27 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Rameau
(Member)
|
The only advantage CDs have over downloads is if you really enjoy the haptic experience, that you can hold them, and feel them, and smell them, etc, but that is also a "disadvantage", because these things take up space. In all other aspects that I can see, like sound quality, ease of backup, versatility, etc., downloads easily trump CDs.
Oh, I think there's more than that. I can rip my CD onto iTunes using my (very) old standalone computer (which I just use for my iTunes library), & then I can rip it onto my laptop using the Windows Media Player for other devices (I have a few cheapo MP3 players), & if I get another laptop, & can just rip it again. My problem is my limited understanding of computers. I did download a soundtrack (The Professionals 1966) onto a laptop about a year ago, but I couldn't figure out how to get it from documents to my Media Player list, & to my old computer for my iTunes list...& I seem to have lost it now, it's probably hiding in the laptop somewhere
I admit, that's all down to my lack of computer skills, but I don't any of that trouble with a physical CD. If a real "must have" score is released download only, I'll give it a go, but I'll always prefer a CD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only advantage CDs have over downloads is if you really enjoy the haptic experience, that you can hold them, and feel them, and smell them, etc, but that is also a "disadvantage", because these things take up space. In all other aspects that I can see, like sound quality, ease of backup, versatility, etc., downloads easily trump CDs.
One matter of the craven tactile experience I don't quite understand is that, in the end, you can't really "hold" music. Opening a case and transporting a CD from a case to a player is about the only temporary part of touch that's involved, unlike reading a book.
I am gonna need a headcount of those who are CD sniffers... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 22, 2021 - 3:19 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Graham Watt
(Member)
|
Count me in with the almost extinct dinosaurs expressing the sentiment "No CD, no sale". I know some of you have said this before, but I actually like the look of CDs (and LPs), and a well-produced booklet can be a kind of work of art, and if not that, then at least a vindication that listening to geeky music is actually okay. Here's a cliché - "It's a labour of love" when done right.
I don't think there's any right and wrong in this. It's all down to personal preference and the way we're made up. I like pulling books off my shelf and flicking through the pages, then settling down to read a story under the lamp. E-book? No sale.
And a final thing, which I think may put me in a minority within a minority... I NEVER listen to music in the car, or when I'm working (how can people actually do that?), or when I'm out walking. If I'm walking, I'm looking at trees and smelling the moistness of the forest undergrowth, on the lookout for birds of prey. Music is superflous there. I do put on some rock music or a certain kind of jazz if I'm cleaning the house and I have my earbuds in, but listening to the radio or YouTube interviews does the trick too.
So, when I get the chance to listen to soundtracks, I'll go through the ritual of selecting it, preparing the correct lighting, choosing the appropriate drink, and I'll sit down and LISTEN to it intently. My whole focus of attention is on the music. The downside is that I don't have enough free time, and so may only hear one or two a week.
ADDED A FEW MINUTES LATER AFTER SEEING THE NEW POSTS - I'm a sniffer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 22, 2021 - 3:30 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
hyperdanny
(Member)
|
I'm no cd , no sale, too , for all the reasons the Laurent78, Graham and others have said.
I might miss out on something, but I don't care.
I don't beat the drum about it, I'm more than happy with this choice, I accept the possible losses. (which are next to nonexistent anyway)
I find slightly annoying the tiny (or big-ish, doesn't matter) subculture of those who went "immaterial" and pretend to tell others they're wrong,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Technology upgrades and times change folks. If downloads can be offered for a cheaper price with the same quality, then so be it. I prefer the physical for the ability to display. I am also well aware of the fact that things have to evolve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't agree with the merits of digital. Digital music costs about the same and takes up as much HD space as CD's take up shelf space.
Hmm... you can easily fit thousands and thousands of CDs/albums lossless on a hard drive for $50.- the size of a trade paperback. Shelves are way more expensive than hard drives and actually need way more room. Physical space is an actual issue for me (not necessarily for everyone, but for me it is), I can't add physical space to my house, and I cannot even add shelf space at will (since the exact line of shelves I used are no longer made... hmpf)... HD space on the other hand is easily and cheaply added whenever needed.
One HD crash and you lose all of it. Yeah, yeah, do back ups. But really how many ppl do that in practice?
Well, I sure do, and I think most people who have actually valuable data do. Last year (2020), I accidentally dropped my main drive holding my entire music collection on a concrete floor and the drive was history. It was annoying, because I had to order a new drive, but boy, was I happy I had a complete backup. It had been a lot of work to rip and tag my collection... I would not ever want to do that again. :-)
Unless your house burns down your physical media is safe
That's true, my first CDs are over 30 years old and still play fine.
There is one more thing to be said for physical media over downloads only that I forgot in my posting up there when I referred to the haptic experience, that is buying and trading and selling. As some people have noted, of course you can buy and sell CDs used on the secondary market. Physical media you can buy used, or sell, or trade, something you can't do with downloads only. (Well, you could technically, but not legally, and it would be morally questionable not to support the labels or artists who release the music by at least buying their stuff if you enjoy it so much).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think there's any right and wrong in this. It's all down to personal preference and the way we're made up. I like pulling books off my shelf and flicking through the pages, then settling down to read a story under the lamp. E-book? No sale.
I agree with Graham's statement above.
Of course, I agree too. There is no "right" or "wrong" with any of this. Anyone can buy or enjoy music anyway they see fit, and that is as it should be. But the reason why some people prefer some things is quite interesting.
For example, I still enjoy good printed books, I like having paper in my hand and turning the page, etc. That said, I had to get rid of a lot of books too (again: space considerations) and at least for some books, an e-book reader (my wife uses one) looks more and more like a good alternative. But of course, an e-book reader can't give you the enjoyment of flipping through a nice illustrated edition of THE HOBBIT, and there is a different feel to sitting on the porch with the feeling of fine paper and a bound hard copy of ALSO SPRACH ZARATHUSTRA then just reading it in an e-book reader.
The "feel & touch" experience is certainly more pronounced and important for me when it comes to books, not so much when it comes to CDs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
