Apple, Record Labels Want You to Buy Albums

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

eyemaster

Distinguished
Apr 28, 2009
396
0
18,930
Already, like everyone else is saying... People are buying 1 song at a time because it's what they want. Sell a product that people want and they will buy it. It's simple logic. And, what do people want? Duh, to buy the songs they want!!!!! Why are they not listening?
 

dman3k

Distinguished
Apr 28, 2009
385
0
18,930
According to the church of Steve Jobs, another person's life is worth a MacBook. His own life, however,is worth a lot of anonymous donations to a certain Methodist Hospital in Memphis, TN.

BOYCOTT APPLE!
 

kansur0

Distinguished
Mar 14, 2006
48
0
18,580
Seems they miss the money they get from full album sales. It isn't enough to have a record store in every household. Now they want you to buy crap you don't need so you can make their wallets fatter. Maybe they should just get the bands to make one song and only one song so they won't waste precious studio time (write off) and not make the other nine songs of filler that nobody wants to listen to.

All record companies take note. The game has changed. We now only want to buy single songs that make us happy. Why don't you just accept it and take your albums and shove them up your fat greedy...

Or...you could charge by the minute and make a medley of ten shitty songs and string them all together to force the public into buying a really terrible thirty dollar song. Oh wait. Did I say THIRTY dollars a pop? Who wants to bet they try to do this! I bet you $1.29 they will!!! GREEEEEEED!
 

Hanin33

Distinguished
Feb 13, 2009
210
0
18,830
[citation][nom]nurgletheunclean[/nom]And why exactly is MP3 outdated? AAC is great for 5.1 but for stereo MP3 is great. It's supported by every digital music player, no matter how obscure everything will play an mp3 and not complain about it. You would be hard pressed to distinguish the difference between a 192k MP3 and any other format in therms of quality.Also the number of gain, normalization, waveform, ID3, general manipulation tools for MP3s make MP3 currently most desirable format for stereo audio.[/citation]

mp3 is not a very good format from a quality perspective but then, hardly anyone uses a quality player or headset anyway... i still would prefer a format with higher fidelity either way. compression always makes a copy sound worse than the original!
 

glorfendel

Distinguished
Mar 5, 2009
13
0
18,560
The format has very little to do with quality. The golden rule of audio\video is garbage in garbage out. The vast majority of music we all hear is trash it sounds good due to filtering and sound blending. even the majority of off the shelf cd's are only 128x2 and unlike 10 years ago where it was a analog to digital convert to cd its digital all the way witch is good in some ways but very bad in others. if you are a pop,rap, or rnb person you are not missing anything. for the rest of us that enjoy music made with instruments the affect known and cliping becomes a problem it makes the music cold and dry its something that you cant get away from in modern music and that is why i refuse to pay for it. flac and ogg do alright there range number of waveforms per channel is ok. realy if you want to argue about quality if its not flac or ogg its garbage and even then its only ok if you want true quality of sound get your self a good record player player and some lp's digital music and photo is in no way better then the analog its just smaller and easy.
 

marraco

Distinguished
Jan 6, 2007
91
0
18,580
If the music industry want to make again the same money they got with "with or without you", "new sensation", "Final countdown ", and "moonlight shadow", they need to sell NEW, SAME-QUALITY songs.

Not another rap, please...
 

ravewulf

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2008
394
0
18,930
I simply don't have the money to go buying the whole album for every individual track I buy. And, as already mentioned, most of the music on albums are not that great and/or filler material. If an album truely is great all the way through (or enough so that it is cheaper to buy the album than the individual tracks) then I will buy the full album
 

antilycus

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2006
397
0
18,930
Times change, maybe the RIAA and Music Industry should learn to change with it before everything they had is gone. Welcome to middle class you pricks.
 

martel80

Distinguished
Dec 8, 2006
123
0
18,630
[citation][nom]Draven35[/nom]With Itunes etc, artists don't need the record companies anymore... how about them earning $.71 per track sold, instead of them getting about $.20 per CD sold? and that's *after* Apple's share and the aggregator's share...[/citation]
And who will pay for the recording studio, mixing and mastering? Who will promote the album to radios and public?
Perhaps if you're doing rap, techno or other stuff which is just electronic music (you need only a tracker+samples/synth) with or even without voice. For some real instruments the things get a lot more complicated (read expensive).
 

Ridik876

Distinguished
Oct 31, 2008
23
0
18,560
While I don't think record companies are by any means fair with their compensation, I will still tend to agree with Martel. People need to have a little better understanding of how business works before automatically flaming any business decision made by the record companies. As for all the negativity:

A) I wouldn't call this business plan greed; their is no extortion, they aren't forcing a new model until us, we can still buy the single tracks if we want. If I go to your art store to buy a painting, and I end up walking out of there with three, I'm not going to call it greedy. I'm going to call it good business.

B) While there MAY be pressure from record companies to push out more tracks(How do YOU know? Are you signed on a major record label?), it's ultimately the artists fault for making only one good song. Listen to The Hazards of Love by The Decemberists from start to finish. That's the way a record should be.
 

Draven35

Distinguished
Nov 7, 2008
57
0
18,580
And who will pay for the recording studio, mixing and mastering? Who will promote the album to radios and public?
Perhaps if you're doing rap, techno or other stuff which is just electronic music (you need only a tracker+samples/synth) with or even without voice. For some real instruments the things get a lot more complicated (read expensive).

Actually, most real synths get really expensive, especially if you want an analog synth. (Dave Smith Instruments Prophet '08 $2,000; Alesis Andromeda $3,000; Moog Voyager $3,300)

And paying for the recording studio etc? Learn to budget. In many cases smaller artists have to pay for these out of their advance anyway.

 

TwoDigital

Distinguished
Jan 2, 2008
137
0
18,630
Actually, the way it went was: record companies were selling full albums and people who wanted just a single song would get a ripped mp3 of that track from a friend who purchased the CD in full.

"Digital downloads" of a single track is how the market responded to people who wanted just a single song and were willing to get it illegally rather than waste $20 (at the time) to buy the full CD for a single song they wanted. We'll see how the market responds when Apple et.el. try to push for more full album sales... I have a hunch I know how it will end up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.