Here Today... Gone To Hell!

IF GNR decided to go the Radiohead...Saul Williams/NIN route and offer Chinese Democracy as a digital download...how much would you pay for it?



Edit: I added a poll for fun since this is a topic that seems to generate a lot of discussion not just aong GN'R fans, but others as well.

So here we have an opportunity to take a current event/possible trend and apply it to GN'R.

/jarmo

You mean I'd get to decide how much I'd pay for it? As much as I could afford. But not any less than a regular album in a cd format because that just wouldn't be right.

Unless of course they'd accept credit card payment only. (I can't get a credit card. :P )

Not a bad route considering the downloading of leaks...

It will sell regardless though.

I would pay 8-12 dollars for it. Somewhere in that area. I hate how Sam Goody and other stupid stores have like a new cd for 16 or 18 dollars. It's ridiculous. Thank god for downloading. I've saved so much money!

I would pay as little as possible for the digital download. Hey, just being honest here!
And why not, I'll buy the 'real' album when it's available.

How much is 16-18 bucks in euros? I think most new cds cost around 20-25 euros here. I'd much rather have a digital download if it cost less, because that way I'd get more albums the legal way!  ::)

*edit*

If it was done the legal way in the first place. I don't know if the Radiohead thing was considered legal... was it?

Someone help me here. By digital download, are you talking about through I tunes or something like that?

I'd pay as much as it takes.

they could make a "buy CD, get discount on Tour Tickets" or merchandise thing.

hell, they could do a "buy CD, support the democrats" also... or save the dolphins...

(I'm serious)... that would get some attention.

When Radiohead released In Rainbows...you had a choice of getting it for free or paying how much you thought was fair.  You could pay $1 or $100, or anything in between.  (I paid about 10 after the currency conversion)

So if GNR was to adopt the same strategy and let fans pay as little or as much as they wanted...how much do you think you would pay?

It was all legal, BTW.

Same.

I paid one penny for the digital download and then I bought the $80 box set, which was dumb because it came with the digital download anyway.

WTF ARE YOU SAYING?

Thanks for clearing that up.  :) I'd definitely get the digital download. I'd get another one later if I couldn't afford more than 5-10 bucks on the day of the release.  ;)

The dolphin thing that someone pointed out...  ;D Hey, Axl loves dogs right? They could raise money for homeless dogs or something. (I send dog & cat food every now and then to organizations that help homeless dogs&cats find new homes, and they really appreciate any help they can get.)

But it's got nothing to do with the band and the music so I don't know how most people would react...  ::)

I think the reason for the price markup is due to downloading isn't it?  Also the reason we pay more for concert tickets.  I know when I was in Lisbon in 06 to see them, Axl had a little rant at the beginning of the show, he said something to this affect "I understand we have some Portugese and Global downloaders here tonight, the audience begins to cheer, in return Axl says "Motherfuckers".  I am not here to judge anyone for downloading as many people don't always have the funds to spend on the music they want to hear, but with all due respect this is part of the reason the industry is suffering financially. 

$10 to $15 bucks.

Now you can vote in the poll I added.

For the people who read too much into things, it's just for fun.





/jarmo

I think it depends on how much tracks it's gonna have it.

From 13 tracks, Id pay 13 bucks. :P

As usual, I'm confused.

If this (the $1 part) is all legal and it's okay with the band to sell it this way, what's the logic of people paying more than $1.  ???

Well if you're prepared to pay $10 for it on iTunes why not elsewhere?

If you pay $10 for it on the artist's site, instead of let's say iTunes, you know that the majority of the money actually goes to the artist.





/jarmo

I paid $5 for ten In Rainbows tracks (download), then I bought the physical product for $8.47. Thus, in total, I paid $13.47 for the album. As for Gnr, it depends on how many songs are available for download and whether or not there would be a physical release. 

I'm still confused.

Are you saying that this $1 thing is NOT okay with the band?  And if that's the case then how can it be legal?

I wouldn't spend too much of money on a download... I must be one of the rare persons left who never bought a song online and  who'd rather pay 20  bucks for a CD, regardless of its artwork. I'm  more picky about my choices now. I used to buy at least a CD/week. God bless the 90ies. Now I buy one once in a while. I got most of my recent stuff on ebay  because I knew it would be fucking hard to get them in the town where I live.

Actually, you could pay $0 for the Radiohead album and it would still be legal.

With Radiohead it was ok since they let the people buying decide the price.


I just don't understand how fans can think the album is worth one cent or penny. Is the plastic and paper worth $10?




I see what you're saying.

I think the digital download should be a compliment for the actual physical release.


I like to look at the booklet etc.



But I understand that some artists don't have the opportunity to release physical albums. So if the option is no music, then it's not a difficult choice...



/jarmo

IMO, it is NOT a critique of the band or the material if the fans pay $1 instead of $100 if it's available legally for $1.

But I'm probably just missing some point in the concept of this whole $1 vs $100 thing. 

I don't think it's a question about legality.

More about what you think it's worth to hear new music by an artist you enjoy listening to.





/jarmo

I know... and I surely failed to check on tons of great music because of that (fi, I heard that Reznor's colaboartion w/ Williams is  awesome and I haven't checked on it).  I'm a collector, have always been. It implies touching an object (a CD), looking at it, storing it with care, reading the leaflet over and over... Downloading would kill much of the pleasure. If CD was available for download...well, I'd maybe buy it...so I could have the songs until the disc itself is available.

Sorry to keep beating this dead horse  :-[ ... But if it's okay with the artist to make their music available for $1 then why would I pay more than that?

Or is that the point I'm missing?  That it's NOT okay with the artist?

If I'm buying a cd from a store, I'm gonna buy it from the store that sells it for the cheapest price if it's the same exact item in every store.

It is ok!

But it's like tipping, what is it worth to you?

You get the same meal even if you tip 10% or 20%..... ;)


Buying it in the store is different since the artist is paid the same amount per album (as far as I know). So for the artist it doesn't matter if you get it from Best Buy, Amazon or a local independent record store.





/jarmo

To be honest, based solely on what I've heard so far, I'd pay between $16 and $20.

Thanks Jarmo! Hopefully the tipping analogy will clear it up for some people (although I can't figure out how it's confusing.)

I personally like to go to a store, get the CD, look at the artwork, and put quality sounding music in the CD player in my car.  Nothing better than great music filling up your car speakers.  It's much better than shitty little IPod earpieces. For Chinese Democracy, I would pay whatever they asked probably.  If I have a choice....around $15 would be fair.

Since I have to pay I prefer a cd instead of a download. I want to have the booklet, the lyrics, artwork...etc. If it was another singer or another band I would probably go with the download option but when it?s about my favourite band or one of my favourite singers I definitely buy the cd. I?m usually selective and I only buy the cd?s of my favourite bands/singers.

My answer would depend on how exactly it was released:

1. If it was available only as a download, 'bout $10 would be fair.

2. If it was available as a download first, then a physical release later, I'd pay maybe $5 for the download, then buy the CD when available.

3. If it was available as a download and as a packaged CD at the same time, I would buy the CD and have no need to download.

That seems fair.  :yes:

If it were setup as a download from the main site, I'd donate or pay up to $10 for it. I'm planning on buying numerous copies when it is finally released anyway, so I think they'd get my moneys worth :hihi:

U2 has some kind of online club that fans can subscribe to annually and they can download everything in U2's catalog, including alternate mixes and videos.

If GNR was recording and releasing tracks somewhat regularly, I would pay $100 / year for a similar club. Miscellaneous studio sessions, concert footage, discarded album artwork...


I would pay for a digital download if that is the only way; I would pay $20, maybe higher.

I would also pay highly for a deluxe version of a physical CD... premium packaging, some simple bonus features, extra tracks not available in the download. Charge whatever you have to to make the same profit that you expect to make on a digital download and I would pay.

I might go 0.1 per 20sec.  (sounds like a cell phone rate  :hihi:)that makes  $ 1.2 for a 4 min song.

it depends. if a physical release would not follow, I'd pay more.

That's actually a pretty clever idea!  It would be awesome for GNR to do something similar.

Interesting strategy.  I agree with your point about paying more if there's no physical release.

TBH, I would only buy a digital download if they wouldn't release a "physical album"

If there was 6 months between a digital release and a physical release, would you just wait?  I can't say I'd be able to do that!

I thought it was pretty cool. I remember a friend of mine showing me two videos for the same song. It looks like it is $45/year:

http://www.u2.com/demo/

When you put it that way, I would almost be inclined to not only buy it twice, but to maybe pay more than usual to get it early ;)

So the price people decide to pay IS considered a critique of the artist/material and what the fans think the download is worth??


As much as I like GNR and am looking forward to downloading (if it's legally available) and purchasing a hard copy of CD, if I have my choice between paying $15 for downloading it OR paying $1 and using the rest of the money for pizza, I'm going with the pizza n' CD deal.

I'd pay retail price of $12 for 2 copies of the album ($24), then I'd buy a couple of copies when it comes out on CD.

I think that they should release half of the album digitally, 1 song a week for $1 of the songs that we've already heard (only the final versions) plus the lead single (whatever that is).

It looks like you can STREAM songs and videos when you subscribe. You also get a physical live album sent to you.


So it's not like they're selling music in the same sense as discussed here.

Two different things I think.




/jarmo

Well...if that was the case, I don?t know.., well maybe I would pay for the download, but I wouldn?t pay too much since I would buy the physical album later.

I believe this is the future of music.  For instance, soon enough our cars should be built with sophisticated computers in which you can subscribe to a very large library of music.  No more popping a cd in the disc player or downloading music.  Simply you'll pay a fee which would probably vary depending on various preferences (e.g. if you want to listen to new releases you'll pay more).  Now with this system say you pay $40 per month and you have unlimited access to play whatever you want from your car.  Artists will get paid from the system which operates the library of music, much like fees paid by cable companies to networks.  I can see this same technology in your home with a set top box or any portable device as well and it will also apply to movies and tv shows.  Can't see downloading as a money maker in the future.

GNR could announce a Rolling Stones-esque Membership for $99.99 and 'Chinese Democracy' for digital download could be one of the many benefits.

I think that would be pretty popular and probably give the band some awesome fundage for tours, etc.

This would be real cool as long as the membership isn't the only option you had as far as being able to download CD . . .  Should be able to buy the download whether you can afford this membership or not.   

. . .  The ball's really rolling now.  If they're trying to figure out marketing they should be looking at this forum!

I wouldn't pay anything for a digital download.  I can download it for free.

That being said, I paid $80 for the In Rainbows discbox and would pay something similar for a GNR discbox  : ok:

So you don't believe in supporting your favorite artists?




/jarmo

What Radiohead did was an experiment...in some respects, to see what the free market would bare.   What do fans consider a fair price for a digital download?

The tipping analogy is a perfect example.  Basically, what do you believe the material is worth?  Radiohead actually had a method where you could get the album for free...listen to it...then come back and pay for it if you liked it.

I for one have no problem paying for music I like.  I personally would rather get a CD...but if Chi-Dem was coming out digitally prior to the actual release, I would pay for the download.  I'd pay $5 if it was less than a month between releases...I would pay up to $10 if it was going to be more like a 3-month gap...and probably $15 if it was to be a digital only release.

Yeah, iTunes :) Everything should be done through iTunes. Like for drug deals and selling your body.


I think this would be very cool. Not only get some money but reward the fans and let the critics review the album. Then a little later, the album would be hopefully riding some really positive feedback to the hard copy release and then a tour....oh my...

cd without a booklet and all that shit is not a cd at all.. I hate the internet..

but I'm sure uncle axl knows that physical cd is way better than...cheap ass download version  :beer:

What if the liner note, album cover, etc are also available from the official site?

Yeah that'd be nice but people are too pissy. "Blah blah blah these delays are rediculous".

But when we could potentially get the album earlier than later, what do some people do? Complain.

That's hilarious. Dirty muggs.

lol, I'm not gonna print a booklet or something. But regardless, I'd be very very very VERY happy with whatever format it is released. If released at all. If it's via internet, fine.... If it's on a cd, fine.... If it's both, also fine. I'm just very curious to hear what Chinese Democracy is gonna be about. There must be some great songs on it! Yeah, we heard the leaks but I got the feeling that the end product will be way different. Vocal wise for sure. Just a guess but I don't know ofcourse.  :P

Jarmo,

I do believe in supporting artists, however buying albums via the traditional major label release method really doesn't support the artist.  They make roughly 10% (or $1.50) per album, so I am really spending $13.50 to help support the ailing dinosaur that has turned popular music into a commodity.

If you want to support a band, your money is better spent buying a concert ticket, and then a licensed t-shirt at the concert.

and really, jarmo, i am a graduate student living on a wage below the poverty line.  the few bucks i could pay for a digital download are much more important to me that to Axl Rose.   : ok:

Well in cases like Radiohead and Saul Williams, I think they made more than 10% of the price of a download....

That's what I meant by supporting the artist.


Itunes doesn't seem to be different from buying a regular cd. You pay them for the download.


But in this scenario, you'd pay what you think it's worth and there's no iTunes involved.....



/jarmo

yea, but as I said, I paid $80 for the In Rainbows discbox, and I would do something similar for GNR (although I wouldn't pay $80 if it was released on Geffen or Interscope or whatever "brand" they end up putting on it). 

I do believe in supporting artists, that's one reason i feel so strongly about not supporting the corporations who are raping them.  I mean, who is now responsible for the CD delay??????  and i don't care how many millions they spent on CD, they are still evil  ;D

EDIT:  oh, i just reread your comment...

so if I could pay GNR directly for a digital download, I would pay $4 or $5.  But that's speaking realistically, like I said that $4 or $5 is way more important to me than axl rose... so i might pay nothing.  This man doesn't need anymore ferrari's or lambhorghinis

See the problem with that approach is if everyone shared the same view of - why pay more than $1 if I don't have to, then collectively you have pretty much destroyed the chances of the band ever bothering to release new material ever again.  If (as in the Radiohead example) they give the public the opportunity to pay whatever they think it's worth and the majority that download it only bother to pay say $1, then the fans are clearly saying to the band "that's all we think your music is worth".  If it was my band then I would stick my middle finger back up at the fans and never release new music again.  It's a bit like if you turned up for work for a year (in GN'R's case 15 years) and worked your ass off then asked the employer to pay what they think your efforts were worth for the year and they give you $1, you would be pretty insulted.

Now granted - they don't have to release it with a "pay what you like format" - I was just using this as an example to try and put into perspective why some people may in the ficticious example decide to pay more than $1 when  they didn't have to. 

Although really - when you think about downloading and torrents this situation is not fictious but a reality already for all bands and has been for some time.  So when people illegally download it is bascially sending the same message as someone paying $1 for the CD.

For me personally - I'm old school I want something physical - but hopefully it will be more than just a regular CD and packaging.  I hope for something a bit more elaborate with the packaging & artwork, perhaps a DVD etc.  If the music was available online before the physical release then I would pay to download it so I could hear it sooner, but I would only pay about $10 if I knew the physical release was coming because I would be buying that.

If if was only going to be available online and never a phyisical release (which personally I don't think will happen - but hypthetically) then I would pay more for the download - maybe up to $20.

I see your point, but just because Axl has more money than you doesn't mean he shouldn't be rewarded for hard work. Do you need any of the DVDs in your movie collection? Do you need your TV?

No, but you want it. You won't die without a television. Sure certain things increase your quality of life, but I don't see how just because Axl has money means that we should give him the screw. I love the art, the music that he produces so I think that funding him and people who allow him to produce that art is not only the fair thing to do, but the intelligent thing to do if we want more of that art.

People, I don't want to repeat myself but I will because my last post was ignored  :P - this is basically going to be a moot point in the future, maybe not for CD if it is released in the next two years, but I guarantee that 5 years from now subscription based music is going to be the preferred method.  The next generation will not understand why we purchased individual albums either physically or though download when a nearly limitless amount of music is available any time for a flat fee.  Psychologically this is a hurdle for many people because we are used to the idea of owning our music, but the current itunes and ipod business model will not last.  The current netflix business model will not last.  As increased bandwith for streaming and portable wireless devices gain traction, there is no where left to turn but subscription based.  I'm sure this idea is already being thrown around by the record companies and other entertainment industry companies.  The major music labels will be extinct if they don't move to more of an overall management business model soon, funding musicians for merchandising, publicity, advertising, and of course touring because distribution will be a thing of the past.

Anyway have any thoughts on this?

I'd pay >$1.
If I'm going to download it my oppinion is why pay more than I need to?
I could download it from another site for free, so if I have to download it I'd pay as little as possible.
But then I would pay full price when the physical album is released. But then again- if the person at the checkout said to me, "You choose how much you want to pay for this album" I'd give them maybe a 10 cent coin.
I don't really care if I'm not 'rewarding' the artists work etc. If I were allowed to pay whatever I want for anything, I'd pay as little as I could for everything.

I would probably pay around $15-$20.

if there was a choice, a la radiohead, id pay nothing. If there was a set price, it shouldnt be more than 15GBP, and thats if its in a good uncompressed and lossless format. If the format wasnt that good, id buy it on CD if that was also an option, just so i could rip it to a format of my choice.

I suppose it depends on how you view the world and how you feel what you do impacts on it - or whether you even care.

For example, taking your logic one step further - we should do away with minmum wages for workers as well - because hey if people are willing to do the same job for less why should we pay them more than we have to.  If someone is going to work for $2 per day then sack the current workers and pay the cheap skate instead.  Who cares about the social effects this has or if the $2 per day person does a crappy job of it. 

To bring it back to music, if we pay people $1 for their music then don't whinge when all the latest music is a heap of shit and there are never any good bands or releases anymore - hey if you pay peanuts....  Also don't whinge when you have to pay like $250+ for a concert ticket and extravagant prices for merchandise and food and drink at the concert venue, because they have to make the money back somehow.

I'm not saying you shouldn't pay as little as you want if given the opportunity - just be aware that it does have other flow on consequences. 

Okay.  I can understand that perspective ... BUT my perspective on it is that they shouldn't say I can have it for $1 if they don't really want me to have it for $1.

Agreed!

I paid 2 dollars for Radiohead's album and Im glad I only spent 2 as I am not a radiohead fan



GNR


Right now Id drop 20 on it easily.



I dont understand why u guys are hating on the one dollar.

Id rather have someone pay 1 dollar than download it for free.


If 1 million people who would normally DL for free paid a buck, thats a million dollars.


Take Radiohead.

I never would've bought that album.  So they got 2 bucks they normally wouldn't have gotten.  Maybe they bought some picks or something with my large contribution. : ok:

I agree with what you are saying - this is probably the way it is gonna go.  The problem you are left with then is - how do you find "good music".  How do you wade thru all the hundreds of new songs available free or via subscritption online to find the good stuff.  Where is the filter medium?  At the moment it's done mainly by the record company, they pay for radio rotation, fund music videos etc for acts that they think have potential .  If they make nothing off the CD's then they won't bother doing this.  The only way would be if (as I think you point out) they get a cut of touring and merch revenue.  If this is the case then they may be will to spend $$'s on marketing and promo for new bands.  But be prepared to see the prices for these things continue to increase.

The short answer is what I feel the majority would do.

Download it for free then buy the CD when it is released so that you get the album artwork and the actual disc and whatnot.

There's no hating involved and I agree, $1 is better than nothing.



But this is GN'R, it's an album that many of you claim to have "waited for" for a while.

You want to hear the album badly, it upsets you (maybe not you personally, but some of you) that you can't have the album now, but if you had the choice, you'd be happy to pay nothing for it.

It just makes no sense to me.....






/jarmo

keep in mind that the rich celebrity artist is a new phenomenon, starting in the 1960s.  even today, the majority of artists are poor/middle class.  they are not in the game for the money, they are in the game to (i suspect) influence their peers and those who follow, and help contribute to the future of their field.

I am a scientist, and I can tell you that 'real' science is the same way.  most science is done at universities, where teaching is a 'chore' that provides a salary.  however, your focus is not on teaching but on research.  this work is published in journals and you are not paid a cent for it.  (note that this work also forms the foundation of all technology, so corporations are in effect getting somethign for nothing).  however, the reward is that you are helping to expand the field you work in and leave thing better off than they were when you found them. 

I don't see how art is any different, and I think the idea of a rich celebrity rock star is pretty silly.  and I have a feeling that for Axl, it's not so much about the money as it is contributing to the future of music.

Going off of the Radiohead model, I'd pay $5 for the digital album and then buy the real thing when it came out.  Because digital music will never sound as good as the actual CD does.  If they released a special set with the vinyl, the CD, and the lyric and artwork books I'd buy that for sure. 

I absolutely agree.

If u are a member of any GNR community, anything less than 20 bucks, unless u are extremely poor, is unacceptable in my opinion.

But it begs the question of how many times will someone buy the album.  I personally am not a fan of digital music.  Since we, or at least I, am using Radiohead as the model here, they released their album online in MP3 form and then here is what they did

-MP3 "pay what you want" digital download in October
-Box set released early December
-Official digital download discontinued a week after the box set release
-Standard CD release at the end of December

Now if GnR were to release their album the same way, I would pay $5 for the digital which would be a "quick fix" until the box set.  I would pay money to hear the the album, because I wouldn't feel right about just downloading it for free.  At the same time, I'm not going to spend $20-30 on the album in MP3 format when I already know I'm going to spend $60+ on the box set in 6 weeks after which I will never listen to the MP3 format again.  I would gladly pay $20+ for a real CD or a box set, but not for a lossy format where that will be discarded in 6-8 weeks after I get a better quality copy.

On the other hand, if digital was the only way the album was going to be released, then I would pay $20+.  But I don't really like digital music, I much prefer the real, physical product

Rather than letting people pick the lowest amount they would pay, why not try to create a maximizing function that gains the artist the largest gains...

almost like a collaborative Ebay auction.

Me: "I agree to pay $2."
Site: "Would you pay $3?"

If X is the number of people who agree to pay $2 but not $3,
and if Y is the number of people who agree to pay $3,
then so long as Y * 3 is significantly larger than X * 2, let the price for everyone be $3.

Don't let cheap people cheapen the product.

The analogy with the minimum wage is just bogus, and you admit that in the end of your post really. I'm from the UK, and we're not big on tipping here anyway - fair days pay for a fair day's work.

If you dont want people to pay peanuts, dont let a monkey make the decision on pricing - dont offer it for free. And lets remember that radiohead offered the download for free, but then released (or will soon, im unsure as to the timing) a multiple CD version, a single CD version, and a vinyl version, i think. Via EMI. Thats hardlt stickin to da man izzit? No. its a publicity stunt. And was done on the basis that they can comfortably afford it (which is partly why the min wage thing is out of place here).

it prompted loads of journos to harp on about how its leadng to a revolution, but actually, it is a great big kick in the teeth tou younger acts, from a bunch of rich pompous arses ( a certain aforementioned band). Izzy Stradlin may be able to go stright to itunes and cut out the label side, but thats because he has a reputation - itd be great if younger bands could, but they cant. They would need traditional representation for that, i rekon (tho i dont know for sure).

And, as has already been mentioned, they dont have to offer it for free.

Now, the thorny issue of illegal downloads (and lets not just refer to it all as "downloading", eh? There are legit and nonm legit methods of downloading, and the are significantly diferent) - lets face it, most here will get it whn it arrives on the p2p websites. Thats jsut a reality. But amny will buy the full quality version on CD afterwards too.

For my part, what i said above is what i would do re: downloading. I wouldnt downlaod it illegally. But thats only coz i dont use the p2p site anymore, as i started to experiment with new music (id already spent ages getting all the "old" stuff i could think of), and discovered that most of it is contemptible shit. So i deleted those sites and progs from my system. My musical interests are pretty slim nowadys. There are 3/4 bands whos music ill always buy tho, and GNR are one. But, like i say, if they only released a compressed download version, i wouldnt pay much as the quality isnt up to snuff. For a CD, like i said, id pay 10-15GBP. All other music is just an experiment to me, and ill buy it off Amazon used, rip what i like, then sell it on, or keep it for future ripping/format experiments.

Apologies for the lengthy rant, had a bit of a drink. Hope this all makes sense.

the quality is indeed playing a role. i wouldnt want to listen to 128kbps mp3 of bands and music i am supporting. the cd format is now what? 25 years old or so? qualitywise such an inferior mp3 release -compared to the ~25 year old cd standard- just will never fit into my world. i wanna blast this fucker on my hifi stereo not on any stupid ipod or mp3-player or computer speaker! everything usually is goin to be better and better in quality with the years like in video vhs -> dvd -> blueray (hell in audio we could have DVD Audio, 24bit stuff as new standard for years allready!!) but fuck it, please -if digital download officially- then at least give us the chance to get the old WAV/FLAC format, too. i can see the scenario: first mp3/stream release...1-2 months later cd relase.....1-2 months later cd + bonus dvd release.....1-2 months later boxset relase.....then specials, remasters bla bla.
a fair information for the fans whats and when its goin to be available and for what price should be a must.

how many tuesdays left by the way?

Yeah they would need to be 320 kbps .mp3 Files. It makes a huge difference. Make those for the mass market but also a more high quality (possibly more expensive set of files with FLAC, etc.).

GNR could conceivably release Chinese Democracy digitally as a program file similar to a DVD where it would take much more effort for the songs to be ripped and have all the lyrics like a movie/slideshow complete with the art and liner-notes from the Booklet.

But if the album is available, and they say 'pay what you want' it's different than if they say 'the album wont be released for x months, but if you pay now you can hear it' if you know what I mean. Once the album is released the wait shouldn't affect how much you'd pay for it. If you paid to go to a theme park, and spent two hours in the que for a rollercoaster, once you get to the front you wouldn't say to the attendant 'heres a few extra dollars, I've been really looking forward to this'.
It's just like if I said to you that I had a painting which you liked and I said just give me however much you want for it, sure you could 'do the right thing' and pay a fair equivelent of its personal value to you. However, in a hypothetical world, why would you pay more than you need to?



If you were a owner of the business, or had a financial stake in it, then sure, you'd be happy to hire people for less. But we know that in reality that's not a good situation at all. But In the working world there are minimum wage laws in place. If you compare that to the record industry, that minimum wage is the equivilent of the cost of an album. When an artist offers it for download at whatever price, they are the ones taking away the 'minimum wage law' (ie- the set price of an album) by choice of the artist.
By saying concerts prices etc. would go up is interesting. Don't the artists only get a very low percentage of the money from an album sale, the rest going to the companey etc? So by paying for a download, all the money goes to the artist. And by offering it for whatever price more people would probably download it, and even if for only a few dollars, the artist would probably end up seeing more of the money than through conventional methods with the record company.

the band would make more money with a download, but not necassarily all of it. it still needs to be produced and mastered afterall.

Must admit I've little understanding of how tours work, but the record company do'nt come into it much do they...?

Because you think it's worth more and the product is something you value at more than $1?


I mean, if you're prepared to pay $10 for an album through iTunes, why would you pay only $1 for another album? Especially one that you "waited" for and one you look forward to.

I understand that most of us wouldn't pay a lot for some album by a totally unknown artist.

But this scenario involves GN'R.



I guess people expect albums to be free these days.

I think there's something weird in the thinking when you think a GN'R album is worth $1, but you'd be happy to spend way more on one beer.  :hihi:




/jarmo

As you'll see, I have'nt got hung up on the "1 dollar" thing, but hey, you know what you're getting from beer  :beer:

I should point out that the contract GNR is working under has no clauses for digital downloads - I can guarantee that.  What this means for 'pre-web' contracts is that the bands usually get 0% of digital downloads (this happened to e.g. Radiohead - google it).  I suspect that is one of the issues being negotiated.  : ok:

I should have pointed out that I'm not a fan at all of downloading albums- illegaly, or by paying. Just something about not having the physical thing in your hands. Therefore I've never/will never buy from iTunes.
The download would be to hold me over untill the physical thing came out, which is when I'd be more than happy to pay what's asked.

I would probaly pay 13 bucks for the CD 1 dollar per song 13 tracks on CD pretty simple.  I know they taped all their concerts in 06 and 07 it would be cool if you could also download a concert of your choice for 10 bucks.

i'd give my left nut if i could trans-act that through the internet to hear CHINESE DEMOCRACY.

hell i'd even shave it :yes:


:peace:

Yes this is true. I took a MUS120 (Music Business) Course at EKU.

It's a thick thing, but basically through the contracts and all that, there's a ratio as to how much money per album an artist gets that is moved to a store.

For example. If Walmart has 10 copies of Guns N' Roses "Greatest Hits" album and lets say Gn'R is getting around 1.10 for each album then that means that the band gets 11.00 for those albums in that store.

Usually it's around .40 - 1.20 per album. TLC only got .54 cents per album and sold 10 million copies and went broke.

It's pretty much a buck per album you see in a store. Like when a artist debuts really big and you see like 25 copies of a cd in a store, that's around 25 bucks or so that the artist has already gotten.

it's rough estimates but it's in that ballpark.

I would pay a decent amount for CD, I don't make much money so I have a hard time getting by anyways.

Artists deserve to be paid for their work.   I chose $11-$15. 

But as someone else hinted too, if it was a digital pre-release and I was going to buy the CD, then I'd probably pay $1 and then just buy the disc.   Given a simultaneous download and CD release I'd buy the CD.

This is an excellent post


Legalities are whats suppose to be holding up CD.

I think Digital Downloading rights is exactly what the hold up is.

No digital Downloads when Axl signed that contract back in the early 90's.

So,  nowadays if a record label owns the Digital rights, they get everything made off Itunes etc so the artist really gets screwed since so many people buy off Itunes etc.

Going by what happened with the greatest hits album, the label can basically do whatever they want. I'm sure they're going to do anything to make money off this album, and I'm sure, hoping without spending any.  :hihi: :hihi:

I really don't see where Axl has a leg to stand on in any negotiations, if that's really what the hold up is. It's their album, they paid for it. And I really doubt digital downloads is what's really holding it up.

If that's true that GNR wouldn't get a cent for digital downloads...that changes everything.

In Radiohead's case, they were getting 100% of the profits and were able to experiment with something novel: The Honor System.  Would people be honorable enough to pay?  Apparently the band more money in downloads sales (personally) than they did with all their previous releases combined.  In that scenario, I have no problem forking over the cash.  The band made the music...the money goes directly to them...who cares if they're millionaires...they did the work...they should still get paid.

So even those people saying they would only pay a dollar...that's actually about the exact same amount of money that the band would get if you bought the CD in the store.

BUT...if GNR isn't getting a dime for the downloads...then I hate to say it I don't know what I would do. 

Just to clarify, when Radiohead released their last album online they weren't bound by any contract to any label, so the profits went directly into their own pockets.  I don't know enough about the legal side of the music business to comment on how they would handle digital sales for an artist or band whose contract is old enough that it doesn't include anything regarding digital music, but I would imagine that it's not much different from regular releases, except that digital album sales yield a higher net profit because they don't have to account for the cost of producing the packaging for the album, though I'm not sure how the extra net income is distributed.  GnR will definitely make money from digital sales, possibly more than physical sales, but the record company will be taking their cut off the top because they financed the majority of the recording and have the band under contract

I highly doubt it.  go to ateaseweb.com and look on the news page, there is an article there about this issue and radiohead never made a cent from digital downloads.  It wasn't covered by their contract and record companies aren't in the business of giving away money.  in Axl's case, his best option now is to try and get his lawyers to block digital sales.  this isn't a new thing, gnr have been talking about the 'legal issues' surrounding CD for years now.

I don't know what the specific deal was for Radiohead, but regardless of the medium an album is sold in I'm pretty certain that when it comes to intangible assets like band names (since Axl owns the rights to the GnR name), and intellectual property, you can't get away with selling/profiting off of a name someone else owns without paying them, and you can't profit from music without paying the songwriter(s).  I'm no lawyer but it seems to me it would be illegal to profit off of music sold in any form without paying the songwriters and the person who owns the trademark/brand/band name that's generating the sales

Like many have already stated, a physical release is preferable (I plan on buying two copies no matter what happens).  Rarely do I purchase music on iTunes, and if I do it's because someone gave me a gift card.

I would be willing to buy CD on iTunes, or whatever is the primary source for the download.  GN'R is pretty much the only band I would do this for.  And even then there would need to be some sort of bonus content and an earlier release (even if only one day).  Should the digital version be released at least one month before a physical one, I would have no qualms choosing to pay $20. 

I believe in both this band and this album.  I spent $110 to go see them live.  That was only for one performance, where I heard four new songs (not complaining, amazing show worth every cent).  With CD we are getting around thirteen new tracks.  So why not spend a little money on that instead of a new DVD or whatever?

I look at it this way: maybe I pay more than someone else does, but if I receive many hours of enjoyment, did I really sacrifice that much?


Vinyl would be a dream come true...  :drool:

I am totally hoping that this comes out on vinyl.  That's my preferred format for buying music.  I can listen to the vinyl at home and download mp3 to put on my iPod  :hihi:

Totally OT, but isn't there a USB vinyl player out there (or have I just had a bad dream)?  :o  :D

if cd were a digital download im sure i would try to have intercourse with my computer as it played......it can be hard..... but thats what floppys are for.......... right?  :confused:

As far as i understand it, radiohead were actually label and contract-less when they did the download thing, then put out the other versions through EMI, so, no offence, but im takin that with a pinch of salt for now.

Here's an interesting idea from Anti.  Release the album first as a digital downland and charge $3.  Tell everyone that a physical CD will not be released until there are at least 2 million downloads of the album.  On the same line, you could release 10 songs in the digital form...then add maybe another 3 for the physical CD.


http://www.antimusic.com/news/08/jan/25Out_of_Patience,_Give_Us_Chinese_Democracy!_.shtml

regarding the post a few posts above about not releasing stuff without permission of whoever owns the band name - my understanding is that teh label can release whatever it has, if they want to use it to fulfill the bands contract. I.e., if a band owes 3 albums but leaves before the 3rd, the label have the right to release whatever they like i think, in order to get their 3 albums. If any other company tried to release work by a band without their permission, i'd agree, it would be illegal , as far as i can tell.

Right now I'd pay >20$ for CD. But I'd rather have the physical product, CD isn't just about the music for me now its so much more than that!

Having 10 songs for 10€ in digital format, and having 13 songs in physical for 20€ is a fucking hack. Whether you buy the digital or the physical, you should have the exact same content.

The poll should be about how much it should COST(keeping in mind how much avarage music consumer would pay for it), rather than how much you would PAY for it, 'cause all people here are fucking mental about GN'R. (imo)

I think it should cost something between 6-10$.

The trend seems to be to have "iTunes exclusives" and stuff like that.

So it's the other way around.... More tracks when you get the digital album.

Or at least different bonus tracks than you'd get on the cd.




/jarmo

I voted for $6-10 (?3-5, 4-7
I believe that every download such be under 5 pounds because its not a phyiscal product and also people are more willing to download it instead of being a rip off of 7.99 or more !

I hate this fucking trend of putting everything out via iTunes. I wouldn't pay anything to get some .mp3's, I want to buy the real thing and hold it in my hands.

I'd rather have a hard disc copy too, but not everyone feels that way. I mean think about it, you buy the CD and get the special feeling. You look at the liner notes. Then what?

Some people frame the liner notes. But the CD? It either sits and collects dust in the case or in your CD Holder.

I mean don't you rip the MP3s? Most people don't even use CDs for their car anymore, they hook up their iPod via an auxilary port. Most of my home theatre system is powered by computer.

Sure there is something about the tangible, opening the case, smelling the new print smell, and inserting the disc. It's dramatic and heightens the excitement. It's the musical foreplay.

But fact is, the industry is changing. GNR needs to adapt and make the right business choices. But when it comes down to hearing new music or not, I'll take new music everytime.

same here, i wouldnt pay anything for a download either, i would find it free somewhere and take it from there. i would however pay good cash for the real thing. although many people wont admit it on here but i rekon they would do the same, if they had a choice of paying for the download or taking the freebie i know which they would choose. I am aware that the industry is changing and things are moving more towards digital but i dont think its the right time for GN'R to try it out..... I WANNA SEE SKY NEWS OR CNN SHOWING MILES AND MILES OF DIE HARD FANS QUEING UP TO BUY THE FUCKER, then all the fucking haters can smell the fucking success! you wont get that with a download......remember the illusions!!

While iTunes/Digital downloads is the current trend, I do think that they do need to release the CD in a 'physical' format at some point.

Like Jarmo said, since the emphasis is with 'iTunes Exclusives' or other special downloads when you buy the album online, likewise they should make the cd release a 'collectors item'.
Even if there aren't any bonus/differing tracks on the cd edition, there are many things they can add to the cd release, such as extensive liner notes, lyrics, photos, and maybe even an extra cd with a behind the scenes/documentary feature on it.

That's the kind of extras that casual fans of the band won't necessarily be too interested in hence they won't feel 'ripped off' at seeing so many different versions of the album for sale, but at the same time, it would be appreciated by serious fans like us, who like the idea of having a physical/cd version of the album, and any extras on top of that even better, if that makes sense..

i'm not sure how much i would pay. this whole scenario is new to me and i haven't given it much thought. so i'm sorta just paying devil's advocate here. but these are fair questions to ask...

- where is the money going?
- can we expect more gnr albums in the near future?
- does the financial success of the album impact whether or not more albums are released?
- or are the proceeds simply going to line the pockets of millionaires?

so my point is, you are incorrect in assuming that people expect albums to be free. the fact is, people search for the best deal available. and i don't think there is anything wrong with that. it quite normal actually.

i think alot of people that would pay the cheapest price, would probably pay $100 for it tomorrow if it hit the stores at that price.

I wouldn't pay anything without a hard copy and package.

I never download music, have over 400 cds, and another 100 vinyls, so if CD was ONLY available through digital download, I'd just do it for free via limewire.

If Axl wants to put out a hard copy, I'll buy every version available (cd/deluxe/vinyl/etc.), but I won't pay for digital download when I don't have to.

I smell a "Hey Jarmo, ask the people what thinks" topic from GN'R people... :hihi:

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=50551.msg1036320#msg1036320





/jarmo

Maybe I'm oldschool, but I prefer having the disk in my hands. I hate digital download. Perhaps they can do both with the Chinese Democracy cd coming with some bonus features.

I'll be honest,I chose that I'd a pay $1.00,but I probably wouldn't pay anything if it was a download,I want a cd version of the album because it doesn't matter if it was offered as a download because most people would download it for free anyway because someone would buy it (in download form) and then they would post it on the torrent sites as soon as it was downloaded.

I hate to say it,but alot more people will download if for free then buy the album or the download,it's sad but that's the way it is,ofcourse when it does come out on cd I will buy 2 copies of the album. :smoking:

Digital download is a dumbass idea. Sure there are people out there who will do the honorable thing ad pay the same price they would pay for a cd in the store, I'm sure some would even pay more to support the band and all that. The majority however, are selfish fuckers who will take advantage of you if it's gonna save em a little cashish. This especially applies to a band like G'n'R because there will be a hell of a lot of people who are gonna be only curious about this album, cause it is G'n'R after all, and the last such album that saw the light of day was the Spaghetti Incident, an album disliked by almost everyone except hardcore fans. These people are not gonna pay if you put it online.

Seeings as how I'm against digital downloads because I wants to hold my cd and flick through the book, I wouldn't pay at all. I would get my old mate Benny to gimme a copy, as would most people with their respective mates.

It ain't smart.

My thoughts exactly, future sucks...

I think everybody is forgetting one thing, the target audience/demographic suited to the most sales are of the generation who know and want an actual album for the collection. Chinese Democracy is a BIG thing for these people and although the release may not be to grand because of the various bullshit going on behind doors a digital download would be a final insult to the people who have waited for a physical release for all these years, paid hundreds of dollars for tickets and merchandise only to have a dozen MP3's on your HD some of which have already been there for years anyway, only official now.
Its almost hard to comprehend Axl himself wanting to take this route let alone the rest of the group who lets face it, put their reputation on the line.

I can understand some of the players behind such things as i-tunes being interested in using CD as a flagship but the majority of people paying for downloads are not the type of person looking to hear this album, either fans or general curiosity. Its as simple as that. It would almost encourage pirating the release if it wasn't in stores before they offered some extra internet deals and who knows where that could lead sales wise. Not the safest bet.

Its been a big story so far with a lot of ups and downs, hopefully its end on a high and we don't all walk away disappointed listening to ipods.

I got into thinking about the way new music by existing artists is released. In the UK there quite often is a free drop in a newspaper, with new tracks mixed with old track (usually well known ones) used to promote a new album by an artist and that would be a better way to release the CD thing rather than down loads.

If Guns n' Roses were to produce live versions of the stuff for CD, along with SCOM, PC, WTTJ, LALD, YCBM not only would it re-engage old fans, but it would give a taste of the new stuff, without giving it away.... Put it in the Sun, the UK's biggest selling daily at 4m copies per day, then the potential for a mega launch is massive. No doubt this could be done on a world wide scale.

On the subject of CD, had a wierd dream last nite, that CD was released in a pop-up sleeve, that when opened, the sleeve turned into a 3D dragon, with hologram scales, I'm only on prescription drugs, so don't assk what I took. :smoking:

"If Chinese Democracy was offered as a digital download, how much would you pay for it?"
I think that is a wrong question..
..in a sense that there are people here who "would pay" hundreds of dollars for  digital download of cd.
Right price tag for it would be somewhere on either side of 10 euros, in my opinnion.

Why on earth would any major record label want to do that for a release of any major band?
Specially for a record like cd.

I think the issue is that the label and gnr dont want the album to leak before the release date and also try to pervent the album ending on torrents sites, so if you release it on itunes and other download sites it will be easier to stop a leak from happening before the release date and because itunes protects it files you wont be able to share it on torrents ! Also there is itunes plus which higher quality of file, And then they can release it on cd in november or somthing like that !

Also i dont buy into the idea that you have been cheated when they will release it later as a physical product

Also if there so many "real fans" wont you buy both version !  ;)

Nope. I'll get it from my mate for free when it's downloadable and buy it when it's in the cd store, like most people.
Digital downloads are fucked.

How ?
When the album will be tied to one account and file protected ?
Digital downloads are fucked ? ha hahaha yeah sure they are  :hihi:

I'm convinced there are ways around ANY kind of file 'protection.' Once the songs are out there (in ANY form), they are gauranteed to be on limewire and the like. The only thing they can do is delay that process a bit by making it more difficult to pirate.

If they're going to go the route of digital download, which I think is still a good idea despite my previous comment (a CD is no safer anyway), I think they should use the fans' impatience to their advantage and set up a 'countdown' to the files being available. As a fan, you could purchase a 'download ticket' in advance for $10. Have the website countdown the days, hours, minutes and seconds to a worldwide release of the download. This in and of itself will help promote the album and continue the hype. Put the money you would have used on in-store marketing into a server powerful enough that it won't crash when tens of thousands attempt to download the album all at once.

Now, like I said...of course it will show up on limewire eventually...maybe hours after the initial download release or perhaps a day or two if the security on the files has been stepped up a few notches. Regardless, I think the majority of the die hard fans will not be able to wait that undetermined amount of time (especially when there are thousands of other fans around the world ALREADY enjoying the album for the fifth time over). I mean c'mon...if you knew the album was out there and you could be among the very first to hear it, would you not fork over $10 bucks and plan your weekend around it?

The physical CD can then take a backseat...maybe be released a month or so later with some bonus material, etc.

I'm not too sure how Radiohead handled their digital release (if it was similar to what I've mentioned above)...but I gotta think that the buzz around this album and the never-ending wait will make for quite an eventful release no matter how they plan to do it.

Just do it...already  8)



EDIT: In fact, go one step further with it. GN'R should play a concert in conjunction with this release...taking the stage at the exact moment the countdown clock strikes zero and play the album live straight through. Fans that purchase the 'dowload ticket' would be treated to a live stream (and eventual download) of the show as well.

If you seriously don't think there are people out there who can get around file protection, you need a reality check my friend.
Can anyone here explain how a digital download is even close to being the same experience as opening a CD and checking out the booklet art while you listen to it for the first time?
I HATE the idea of a digital download. What incentive is there  to not listen to and download the leaks if they are only going to be released online anyway?

I think paying a penny for the download is fine if you plan on buying the hardcopy but want to hear it immediately. The internet service charge for radiohead was a couple of bucks, mind you there was an expense on the band to host thier album, collect funds etc but I trust that was recovered in that fee. The 1 cent download I bought contributed to online sales that prompted the record deal/distribution of the album now in every Starbucks in the country. The phisical copy I bought for $80 was a cash cow for the band and now sells on ebay for over $100.

Either way, Radiohead have announced that "name your price" was more profitable than a standard release (per sale) however normal distribution is a bigger market, largely due to Starbucks involvement.

I feel no guilt paying $80.01 for 2 copies. I could have ripped my buddies for free, but I chose not too because it was only a penny for my own and that penny plus service fees profited the band more than me stealing it until I got my hardcopy.

I havent really read anybody elses thoughts but I guess I'm old school. Cuz i wouldnt want to buy a digital download. I want the cd in my hands. I dont own a mp3 player. Im young too, well 26, but not too old where Im new to technology. I just dont have a desire for mp3 player and dont have a desire do download a cd.   :smoking:

There some good ideas !
you post them in gnr marketing theard !

^^^

thanks, man...maybe I will post it there too  : ok:

with exception of a handful of posts trying to further the idea of a digital release, I'm surprised by the negativity in this thread.

People have started petitions that sometimes get a lot of names, yet ultimately go nowhere.

And here, with the apparent blessing of an admin holding loose connections with the band, comes a poll where you have a good chance of communicating to the band just how much you want this album, and there are fans saying they would rather not pay ANYTHING for it?

Axl, Beta, whoever: I will pay you $1000--maybe more--today for a digital download, CD, vinyl, 8-track, or piece of tinfoil that has to be played on a Thomas Edison museum piece. I will sign a non-disclosure or other agreement that says I will not copy or play it for anyone else. I will accept the possibility of some kind of cryptographic signature in the data.

Of course, the price I am willing to pay may change according to general laws of supply and demand... but even in a mass market release, I would pay $100 for a digital-only download. I promise. And I would pay again for a physical product. I paid more to go see GNR in Vegas a while ago, and I have no problem paying about that much to be able to hear--over and over--more great music.

"Old school-fans" are not against supporting the band or anything like that. We just don't like mp3's, i-pods and stuff like that. For example to me the biggest internet-thing I'm capable of is to type this kinda message  ;) I just don't have enough patience to mess around with computers.

Ah, then put us down for *2* copies of Chinese Democracy on a piece of tinfoil for Thomas Edison's phonograph machine ;)

Best way to go about this is to have a lossless pre-order where the album is not released until say 2 million copies are sold. Sell them for $5 each. There are die hards that would buy 100 copies if they knew it was helping to speed up the release of the album. Take advantage of the die hard demand and you have an automatic $10 million before ever releasing the album on CD or iTunes, Amazon mp3, etc.

A lot of people are against digital downloads.

But in some cases, they're a very good thing. Without iTunes, Izzy wouldn't have released two albums in 2007....


The ironic thing is that in an age of HD big screen TVs, many people listen to their compressed music files using iPods with $20 headphones....




/jarmo

Precisely. Music is considered more portable than home entertainment like DVD's, Blu-ray, or HD DVD. However, even digital music stores are starting to increase their quality. All of Amazon's mp3 downloads are 256 kbps, and iTunes has some 256 kbps DRM-free AAC files even though the labels are currently favoring Amazon in an effort to defeat Apple's monopoly by forcing some of their downloads on iTunes to still have DRM with only 128 kbps bitrate. Led Zeppelin is the best example of this. Buy from Amazon mp3 and it's high quality mp3's vs. DRM, low quality AAC files from iTunes.

100% agreed. best post in this topic

even if they offer higher mp3 or AAC bitrates.... they still are all compressed files touching/cutting "hearable" frequencies for human ears. the main and weird point is: everything increased in quality over the years but with audio and internet in 2008(!) - quality is down and still much lower quality than a CD....and CD standard is more than 25(!!!!) years old allready (ask yourself if you tape video tv stuff on Betamax in 2008??). add the fact that a "real-25-year-old-standard-CD-format" from chinese democracy is produced anyway (you dont think Axl is listening through 128-256kbps MP3s through headphones/PC speakers, huh?)....i'll never get the point why going down qualitywise from there.

as for me i absolutley wouldnt like to be able to only get the compressed mp3 stuff at first, then waiting weeks/months for a possible physical (25-years-old-standard) cd!

Yeah, itunes is not the greatest of sound quality (it's good, but not befitting of a title like this imho) even at 256kbps.  Also, it's so easy to rip itunes stuff, i couldn't use AAC Protected files on my phone so it took me about half an hour to rip izzy's albums to MP3, and have them on my phone.  Using itunes as a means of protection is a joke. 

I will pay good money for a nice, cd, release, but I won't be at all thrilled with a digital release, unless it is in Flac, which seems quite unlikely. 

Agreed 100 percent. I don't trust having only MP3s, especially with how reformatting erases everything and leaves you with hours of re-downloading songs.  And I prefer an actual, physical copy. It looks good to have a giant rack filled with CDs in your room.

That's why I said they need to have a lossless or uncompressed pre-order. Make it .wav files or Apple Lossless or WMA Lossless ripped straight from the master. Don't release the lossless or uncompressed pre-order version, CD version, or compressed download versions until you have 2 million pre-orders. People can pre-order as many copies as they wish. The die hards would definitely get multiple copies of the pre-order in order to speed up the official release of the album.

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/illegal_music_downloaders_to_face_internet_ban.html

 :beer:

You are talking about New Labour and Gordon Brown, they  go for the populus vote and don't think them through ( alittle bit like some members here ;)), they can't even keep hold of the data they own, can't think they'd do a better job of gathering the stuff that they don't.

I dont support New Labour at all !
But i think it must happen, because it tearing apart the Music Industry !