If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I will say this for you – the inelasticity in the price of CDs created a situation where the consumer knew they were getting screwed. But as for the digital medium, what devalued albums wasn't piracy, but the ability to finally purchase singles individually (I remember buying single CDs for like $4, at the cheapest). The ability to buy just the track you want undermined the album price, forcing them down. It's also what led to variable pricing on songs later on down the line.
And yet, at the point where everybody was complaining about the price of CDs, the price of recorded music was lower than it had ever been in history, at least in Europe.
In the 70s, normal people used to have maybe ten records. Only rich people or total fanatics had "collections".
And yet, at the point where everybody was complaining about the price of CDs, the price of recorded music was lower than it had ever been in history, at least in Europe.
In the 70s, normal people used to have maybe ten records. Only rich people or total fanatics had "collections".
Well, I'm sorry it came off that way. I figured that just backing out would be more rude than giving the topic some final thought.
So, it's only getting the bronze in the Rude Olympics rather than the Gold.
What's frosting my ass is I demanded the answer to a very simple question. I have zero interest in changing your opinion even though I know it's different than mine. I just want to know why you have this opinion.
You go "wrong, wrong, wrong," refuse to answer my question, and demand the debate be framed to your specifications.
I do this, and wake up to "sorry, can't be bothered".
The fundamental component of economic scarcity is the "trade-off". The good is considered scarce because I am required to give something up to get it.
I am not required to give something up to get a recording, certainly not money.
The economic value of talent and ability can only be realized by limiting access.
If I'm still making money off the thing for which there is unlimited access, I'm not making that money by way of economics, I'm making it by way of good will.
Yup. There was a period where CDs were significantly more expensive than vinyl. But most of the complaining seemed to me to be mid-90s. IIRC, the situation was a little different in Europe.
Also, that's "all albums", which includes cassettes. Now adjust for inflation.
Yup. There was a period where CDs were significantly more expensive than vinyl. But most of the complaining seemed to me to be mid-90s. IIRC, the situation was a little different in Europe.
Also, that's "all albums", which includes cassettes. Now adjust for inflation.
Oh. So you just ignore 50% of what I said to tell me that the rest is hyperbole. That's an interesting way to discount a point.
First off, you're still wrong, regardless if I used half or all of your BS statement.
"In the 70s, normal people used to have maybe ten records. Only rich people or total fanatics had "collections"."
No, normal people had lots of albums. I grew up middle class and every house I went to had a large number of them. Not hundreds, mind you, but far more than just ten.
As for your grammar skills, you used the word "or", which means I'm free to use one part OR the other. The fanatics part, since you used "OR" and not "AND" means that fanatics aren't necessarily rich. If you used "AND", that would preclude that collectors are rich. You did not use that word. Therefore, I picked out the first half of your statement to comment on since the second part is irrelevant to the first due to the word "OR".
I can mail you my 2nd grade English book if you'd like.
Seeing as my argument included both ("or" meaning that EITHER might apply), I think you just disqualified yourself on your self-selected grammar battleground.
Whatever the **** that was about.
You may counter with anecdotal evidence that you knew people who were neither fanatics nor rich who had lots of records, and that would be fine. I couldn't even dispute that.
Seeing as my argument included both ("or" meaning that EITHER might apply), I think you just disqualified yourself on your self-selected grammar battleground.
Whatever the **** that was about.
You may counter with anecdotal evidence that you knew people who were neither fanatics nor rich who had lots of records, and that would be fine. I couldn't even dispute that.
...and starman accuses me of wanting to just argue.
Better that than just wanting to be a condescending asshole.
So you lived where I did, saw your friend's collections (like 50 albums), and you're parent's friends' collections (easily 100) and I just "want to argue".
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Jun 26, 2015, 01:45 AM
Originally Posted by starman
So you lived where I did, saw your friend's collections (like 50 albums), and you're parent's friends' collections (easily 100) and I just "want to argue".
So you lived where I did, saw your friend's collections (like 50 albums), and you're parent's friends' collections (easily 100) and I just "want to argue".
I'm not saying you're lying, I'm saying...
It's such a minor point in this thread to get worked up about – to the point of repeatedly insulting the guy.
I suddenly have this urge to go home and connect my cassette deck and start recording every Taylor Swift song off the radio, then use the high speed dub deck and hand them out for free at the local swap meets.
I suddenly have this urge to go home and connect my cassette deck and start recording every Taylor Swift song off the radio, then use the high speed dub deck and hand them out for free at the local swap meets.
I suddenly have this urge to go home and connect my cassette deck and start recording every Taylor Swift song off the radio, then use the high speed dub deck and hand them out for free at the local swap meets.
Originally Posted by besson3c
Why?
Because I can. AFAIK recording songs off the air is still legal. I avoid the fate of this poor kid.
I don't understand why in this thread and others where this topic has come up terrestrial radio seems to come up pretty often. Maybe I underestimate its popularity and relevance.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
So you lived where I did, saw your friend's collections (like 50 albums), and you're parent's friends' collections (easily 100) and I just "want to argue".
Leaving aside the matter that I grew up in the 80s before CDs gained traction, and knew only one person who had a record collection of at least 100 albums - Spheric`s fanatic - the real fun part is thinking about how much space you used to need for all this stuff. My record collection is pretty small and specific, but it still takes up so much room in the cabinet.
I guess that's why it's so much easier to live in a 850-sq foot condo shoebox these days. Other than the annoying cable situation, everything is just so small and compact and pretty awesome, really.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
Leaving aside the matter that I grew up in the 80s before CDs gained traction, and knew only one person who had a record collection of at least 100 albums - Spheric`s fanatic - the real fun part is thinking about how much space you used to need for all this stuff. My record collection is pretty small and specific, but it still takes up so much room in the cabinet.
I guess that's why it's so much easier to live in a 850-sq foot condo shoebox these days. Other than the annoying cable situation, everything is just so small and compact and pretty awesome, really.
Same here. I've got about 50 albums on vinyl, they take up a ton of space.
Let's turn the topic to solutions. What do you guys think are solutions to the music industry in seeing that musicians get paid enough to sustain the creation of future works and to elevate our culture?
Live performance is an obvious one. That's our plan. Money we make off of recordings will be gravy. The (economic) intent behind the recordings is to drive people to our live shows.
Honestly, what the recordings will allow us to do is make videos, which will do the majority of the driving. IOW, the real economic point of our recordings is to give them away for free on YouTube.
Yes, I think treating recordings as a catalyst for getting people to live shows is the thing now. However, do you think that we are all ready to concede quality recordings at this point? That isn't a leading question, I'm unsure as to whether the mass public recognizes this proposition.
And yet, at the point where everybody was complaining about the price of CDs, the price of recorded music was lower than it had ever been in history, at least in Europe.
In the 70s, normal people used to have maybe ten records. Only rich people or total fanatics had "collections".
I dug up some old 45s from the early 60s - some of them are .98 each! You're right though, if you were lucky you had 10 or so albums (and maybe 20-30 45s). Buying an album was a big deal, however what overshadows all of this today is that music is generally absolutely horrible, not worth .05, and that's my .02.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
I dug up some old 45s from the early 60s - some of them are .98 each!
That's $8 (EIGHT DOLLARS) for a single, corrected for inflation (1960 vs. 2015).
Yes: eight dollars for a single song (and a probably less desirable b-side).
Prices for a stereo album in the 1960s would range between $35 and $50 in today's money, with double albums costing a lot more, and considerably higher depending upon location and popularity of the item.
You're right though, if you were lucky you had 10 or so albums (and maybe 20-30 45s). Buying an album was a big deal, however what overshadows all of this today is that music is generally absolutely horrible, not worth .05, and that's my .02.
Most music in the early 60s was a lot worse, and the ratio of shit to gold was about what it is today.
Most music in the early 60s was a lot worse, and the ratio of shit to gold was about what it is today.
I agree, most of my music isn't even from the 60s, I just happen to have found a bunch of 45s - belonged to my mom. lots of "Big Girls Don't Cry" shrilling and shrieking stuff... lol
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST