Why download MP3s?

esuhl

OK_Sauce wrote: »

I do wonder why they (CDs) were never invented with some sort of caddy like the mini discs had.

I remember when CD-ROMs were new (must've been ~1990) and you did have a caddy (the ones at my school did, anyway). It was a bit like the casing on a floppy disk.

As for the popularity of MP3s - they're quick to obtain, easy to find/play and don't take much storage space. Having said that, I don't think I'd ever pay for an MP3 - the sound quality doesn't justify it, and considering what you get (i.e. no tangible goods) they're over-priced.

I must have at least 400 CDs, and I hope they continue to be the dominant music format for years to come!

Marty_J

OK_Sauce wrote: »

Why is downloading music so popular? Is it just a cultural thing? I remember when CDs first came out they were hailed as the ultimate in quality and convenience. They pretty much were. The first CD I bought was Dire Straits' "Brothers in Arms". I couldn't beleive how clear it was. Apart from a few innovations that didn't really become mainstream, DVD-Audio & HDCD spring to mind, the audio quality of a CD hasn't been bettered. Why then does downloading MP3s, etc. seem to be the norm. After all you can buy a CD and rip it on your PC anyway. I like having a physical copy of the music I own. Cost wise CD prices have dropped dramatically so it can't be a price thing surely? Even my own kids and their mates download their music. I've asked them why but they don't really have an answer!!

Well a good record can still sound better than a CD, so I don't think CDs were exactly a step up in sound quality, especially in the early days. We're still putting up with the terribly mastered Beatles CDs from the 80s. I have a SACD player and it sounds fantastic, but as you say, that sort of thing never took off. Which is a pity, as some of the disks are hybrids disks, so they have both the CD version and the SACD version on them.

I buy most of my music on CD, but it generally gets copied onto my computer, and then never opened again. I download things occasionally from iTunes if they have a DRM-free version. If someone wasn't a hoarder like myself and didn't care about a physical copy, I can totally understand why they'd just buy everything online. Downloads are generally cheaper too. If you want a single, you can walk to the store and pay £4 for the song you want and a few crappy B-sides, or you can buy it instantly in your home for 79p. It not hard to see where the attraction lies.

mistral_2

You are assuming people pay for downloading music.

Remove that assumption and there is your reason

There is the main reason i love music but have not bought a cd in 10 yrs but have a huge mp3 collection

I even get paid from a web site to review music

MC

vyseyboy

OK_Sauce wrote: »

I remember when CDs first came out they were hailed as the ultimate in quality and convenience. They pretty much were.

Even a good tape deck and a well mastered tape can be higher fidelity than CD's (although admittedly not cheaply,) and vinyl definately surpasses CD's in terms of playback quality, so long as you keep your gear clean.

To provide an answer to your question, though, my personal view is that the music industry hasn't been around forever, and we are now witnessing it's death.-It was only ever destined to be temporary. With broadband internet, it's not only possible but downright cool to be able to swap quite high quality media within a few minutes with minimum effort. - all for no cost. Today's generation can't really understand or justify paying hefty amounts for degenerate music, probably the same opinion shared by the parents of teenagers in the sixties.

The only future for pop musicians is to sell themselves as true artists, with the complete package.... live shows, interactivity, fanbase involvement, creative approaches to their physical media.

Record companies are well on the way out, and speaking as an ever-struggling performer, this is a great thing. Hopefully the next generation will regard music as more something they can do rather than something they can buy.

GaryS

I agree with savemoney, and prefer to have a physical CD. I have managed to build up a very nice collection over the last 15 years or so.

But I have also ripped each and every one of them to a networked HDD so that all are easily accessible from any PC in the house.
All tracks are also on my iPod (currently circa 15000 tracks) for palying in the car when needed.

Marty_J

vyseyboy wrote: »

The only future for pop musicians is to sell themselves as true artists, with the complete package.... live shows, interactivity, fanbase involvement, creative approaches to their physical media.

Record companies are well on the way out, and speaking as an ever-struggling performer, this is a great thing. Hopefully the next generation will regard music as more something they can do rather than something they can buy.

Where are musicians going to get their money from?

Pikeyp

If I could find a new stylus for my AR P77 cartridge (a decent one, not a cheapo copy) I'd still be playing my vinyls LP's .. still got 'em all from the first one I bought in 1969!!

vyseyboy

Marty_J wrote: »

Where are musicians going to get their money from?

When have musicians ever made money :rotfl:

It's just how I think thing's will unfold, it may not be fact. But really, the takings from record sales through a major label are paltry anyway. A tiny percentage. So who cares if it makes the band any money? Bands would be as well to sell their music directly if they are to sell it at all (a la Radiohead's online offering.)

If a band can put on a good show, people will come, tickets will sell. And there will always be people who will want t-shirts, pin badges, and that limited edition 7" blue vinyl with hand drawn artwork

Marty_J

vyseyboy wrote: »

When have musicians ever made money :rotfl:

It's just how I think thing's will unfold, it may not be fact. But really, the takings from record sales through a major label are paltry anyway. A tiny percentage. So who cares if it makes the band any money? Bands would be as well to sell their music directly if they are to sell it at all (a la Radiohead's online offering.)

If a band can put on a good show, people will come, tickets will sell. And there will always be people who will want t-shirts, pin badges, and that limited edition 7" blue vinyl with hand drawn artwork

I think some artists will market themselves this way, but I can't see it working for everyone. Recording, mixing and mastering an album is very expensive. Making videos costs a lot of money. Touring is unbelievably expensive, and the more successful you are, the more expensive it gets. Unless they're phenomenally successful, most singles actually lose money (even ones that get to number one), and they just serve as an advertising vehicle for the album. However, many are predicting the demise of the album as consumers pick and choose the songs they want. In some ways this is a good thing, and in some ways it's not so good.

I think the relationship between artists and record labels needs to change and probably will change, but I don't see them going anywhere for the foreseeable future.

OK_Sauce

I think there's a lot of truth in the fact that we could be seeing the end of major record labels. Bands make more money out of live shows than CD sales. What about all those major bands signing with Live Nation and the fact that artistes like Radiohead and Prince can give their music away for free (or for the price of a newspaper)!