If CD was a digital download?

[cfcsfc]

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

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?

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. 

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.

[Bartlet]

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...?

[jarmo]

However, in a hypothetical world, why would you pay more than you need to?

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. 




/jarmo

[Bartlet]

However, in a hypothetical world, why would you pay more than you need to?

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. 




/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 

[nonlinear]

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...?

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. 

[cfcsfc]

However, in a hypothetical world, why would you pay more than you need to?

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. 




/jarmo

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.

[GNR4L]

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.

[GNRreunioneventually]

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

[Thorned Rose]

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

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.

[Howard2k]

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.

[D]

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...?

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. 

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.

[misterID]

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. 

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.

[acompleteunknown]

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. 

[ShotgunBlues1978]

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

[nonlinear]

GnR will definitely make money from digital sales

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.

[ShotgunBlues1978]

GnR will definitely make money from digital sales

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

[bigblue88112]

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?

If they released a special set with the vinyl, the CD, and the lyric and artwork books I'd buy that for sure. 

Vinyl would be a dream come true... 

[nonlinear]

If they released a special set with the vinyl, the CD, and the lyric and artwork books I'd buy that for sure. 

Vinyl would be a dream come true... 

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 

[Jaci_Roxx]

If they released a special set with the vinyl, the CD, and the lyric and artwork books I'd buy that for sure. 

Vinyl would be a dream come true... 

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 

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

[Megaguns]

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?