If CD was a digital download?

[mrbucketfoot]

so i might pay nothing.  This man doesn't need anymore ferrari's or lambhorghinis

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.

[14 Yrs Of Silence]

People, I don't want to repeat myself but I will because my last post was ignored   - 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?

[cfcsfc]

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.

[Jim Bob]

I would probably pay around $15-$20.

[Bartlet]

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.

[williambailey]

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 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. 

[GypsySoul]

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. 

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.

[williambailey]

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. 

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!

[D]

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.

[williambailey]

People, I don't want to repeat myself but I will because my last post was ignored   - 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 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 Chad Cometh]

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.

[jarmo]

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

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

[nonlinear]

so i might pay nothing.  This man doesn't need anymore ferrari's or lambhorghinis

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.

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.

[ShotgunBlues1978]

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. 

[D]

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

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

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.

[ShotgunBlues1978]

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

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

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

[Wicked Demon]

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.

[Bartlet]

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.

[Limulus]

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?

[mrbucketfoot]

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.