If CD was a digital download?

[Wicked Demon]

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!

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

[GypsySoul]

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

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

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

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.

[mrbucketfoot]

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).

[jarmo]

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/

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.

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

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

[November_Rain]

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!

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.

[14 Yrs Of Silence]

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/

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.

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

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

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.

[mrbucketfoot]

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.

[bodine]

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!

[nonlinear]

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 

[jarmo]

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

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




/jarmo

[acompleteunknown]

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.

[mrbucketfoot]

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. 

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

I personally would rather get a CD...but if Chi-Dem was coming out digitally prior to the actual release

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...

[wyldechild]

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 

[ppbebe]

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

[mrbucketfoot]

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.

[Dont Try Me]

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

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. 

[nonlinear]

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

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




/jarmo

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.   

[jarmo]

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

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




/jarmo

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.   

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

[nonlinear]

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

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




/jarmo

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.   

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 

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

[williambailey]

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

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

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

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.

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.