Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Jan Van Boghout · Feb 28, 2003, 03:57 PM

Would you use a music service that would let you download any song legally, for one dollar? I'd use it instantly, now all I have to do is hope that this ever comes true

starman · Feb 28, 2003, 04:03 PM

I've wanted a decent $1/song for a while now. BRING IT ON!

Mike

Zimmerman · Feb 28, 2003, 04:45 PM

Yes, especially if they could be downloaded as AIFF, not just 128kb/sec mp3's. Much easier to burn to CD's, and no quality hassles.

Moonray · Feb 28, 2003, 04:46 PM

"Apple music service"? you mean Apple records, huh?

But seriously: It would not be easy to transfer a single $ so that most of it arrives to ... ehh who should get it?

-

typoon · Feb 28, 2003, 04:47 PM

Either as AIFF or as Higher quality MP3's

I Bent My Wookiee · Feb 28, 2003, 04:52 PM

Why pay a $1 when you can get it for free. I don't want to download AIFF at 30 megs even if it sounds a tad better.

dencamp · Feb 28, 2003, 04:55 PM

If the person who made the music got more than $.03 from it, maybe.

I Bent My Wookiee · Feb 28, 2003, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by dencamp:
If the person who made the music got more than $.03 from it, maybe.

They already get money from radio play, concerts, t-shirt sales, CD sales and when you buy blank CD-r's.

Moonray · Feb 28, 2003, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by I Bent My Wookiee:
They already get money from radio play, concerts, t-shirt sales, CD sales and when you buy blank CD-r's.

And I always thought you get t-shirt's cheaper if they advertise for something.

-

Nonsuch · Feb 28, 2003, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by I Bent My Wookiee:
They already get money from radio play, concerts, t-shirt sales, CD sales and when you buy blank CD-r's.

LMAO.

95% of the bands out there are not making ****. Radio play costs money, money that is usually deducted from a band's earnings. (Yes, labels pay stations to play songs, using a middleman to skirt the payola laws.) Concert tours are expensive, and without label support or strong merch sales a band is lucky to break even; if they do get label support, they usually end up having to pay it back. And if you've got a really good record deal, you might see $2 or so for every $16 CD you sell.

Most working musicians need every dollar of support they can get, which is why I would enthusiastically support an Apple program like this (like how I brought that back on topic?)--if it did not require me signing up for .Mac (which I heard might be involved).

Peter · Feb 28, 2003, 05:35 PM

I wouldn't being in the UK, so the service will never arrive over here.

macvillage.net · Feb 28, 2003, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
LMAO.

95% of the bands out there are not making ****. Radio play costs money, money that is usually deducted from a band's earnings. (Yes, labels pay stations to play songs, using a middleman to skirt the payola laws.) Concert tours are expensive, and without label support or strong merch sales a band is lucky to break even; if they do get label support, they usually end up having to pay it back. And if you've got a really good record deal, you might see $2 or so for every $16 CD you sell.

Most working musicians need every dollar of support they can get, which is why I would enthusiastically support an Apple program like this (like how I brought that back on topic?)--if it did not require me signing up for .Mac (which I heard might be involved).

The music industry isn't the cash industry people think it is. Insurance and lawyers take most the cash.... Nobody realizes it, but for a concert to take place, the insurance costs millions alone... just in case. MSG needs 2 truck generators on standby for a concert. $500k regardless of use... Security costs money...

Now millions in the hole, no venue, band or anything else.

It's to expensive to make a profit off of concerts. It doesn't happen often, if ever. They are happy if they only lose a few hundred thousand dollars.

CD's are income since they are cheap to produce... the only expense is recording, which can be made up easily. Also, CD's provide steady income. Concerts are a one time deal. And scouting for new places to play is another cost.

Very few can make money off of this. It's not easy.

finalfantasy · Feb 28, 2003, 06:01 PM

No I want music to be totally free. If everyone ripped their cds the world would be great.

Music should be able to be enjoyed by everyone.

/me r0x0rz to Oasis

Mastrap · Feb 28, 2003, 06:04 PM

I've got an account with emusic. At the moment I use it mainly as a cheap preview service ($10 a month) as their encodings are all only 128kbps. If I really like a CD I just go ahead and buy it.

I'd sign up for a decent download service today. Either 256kbps or AIFF. I don't mind the bandwidth if I'd get the quality,

Mastrap · Feb 28, 2003, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by finalfantasy:
No I want music to be totally free. If everyone ripped their cds the world would be great.

Music should be able to be enjoyed by everyone.

/me r0x0rz to Oasis

Why on earth should artists produce music for free? Do you work free? Assuming you're working that is.

marusin · Feb 28, 2003, 06:37 PM

Rather than .aiff's or .wav files, Shorten files (or .shn's) are the way to go... Lossless compression of a .wav or .aiff file by 50%. Most people that trade live recordings of concerts go this route since we want to keep a high quality copy of the source but still want the physical file size to be compressed for quicker downloads.

More info is at http://www.etree.org and http://www.hornig.net/shorten.html

CollinG3G4 · Feb 28, 2003, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by marusin:
Rather than .aiff's or .wav files, Shorten files (or .shn's) are the way to go... Lossless compression of a .wav or .aiff file by 50%. Most people that trade live recordings of concerts go this route since we want to keep a high quality copy of the source but still want the physical file size to be compressed for quicker downloads.

More info is at http://www.etree.org and http://www.hornig.net/shorten.html

Why not Flac or Ape?

spacefreak · Feb 28, 2003, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Why on earth should artists produce music for free? Do you work free? Assuming you're working that is.

Because their entire merchandising and tour operations rely on the spread and acceptance of their music.

It is ridiculous that an artist from the 60s who recorded one hit song (probably a week's worth of work, if that) can collect eternal royalties and not have to work again for 30-40+ years.

Musicians need to free their music and hit the road and tour. That's where the elite make their money. Recorded music becomes a marketing tool for the tour and merchandise operations.

In the days of Napster, the recording industry was booming, reaching consecutive all-time highs in terms of CD sales and concert grosses. Once Napster died, the industry has been steadily going down in both of those categories. Coincidence? Not a chance.

fireside · Feb 28, 2003, 08:50 PM

uh why aiff? isnt aac cd quality? and smaller file size too?

Zimmerman · Feb 28, 2003, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by fireside:
uh why aiff? isnt aac cd quality? and smaller file size too?

The point is, extremely high quality.

One thing about mp3's is there is evidence they can damage hearing since they lack the range of the larger music formats since the cropped audio pounds on the ears in a more directed fashion. Its kind of like laser vs. regular light; regular light has wavelenghts all over the place, so its easier on the eyes at a given intensity, where as lasers are focused. Its sort of the same thing for mp3's.

Any body else read that article? I wish I'd kept the link... they (doctors) explained it better than I. One thing I did notice is that hearing can repair itself fairly well, so you'd have to listen to it for a long period of time before any damage became apparent (5+ years).

MacGorilla · Feb 28, 2003, 11:05 PM

I would pay $1. As long as I could do anything I want with the MP3...burn it to CD, play in my iPod, etc.

Go Ogg Vorbis. Better quality, smaller file size.

Mastrap · Mar 1, 2003, 03:02 AM

Originally posted by Zimmerman:
The point is, extremely high quality.

One thing about mp3's is there is evidence they can damage hearing since they lack the range of the larger music formats since the cropped audio pounds on the ears in a more directed fashion. Its kind of like laser vs. regular light; regular light has wavelenghts all over the place, so its easier on the eyes at a given intensity, where as lasers are focused. Its sort of the same thing for mp3's.

Any body else read that article? I wish I'd kept the link... they (doctors) explained it better than I. One thing I did notice is that hearing can repair itself fairly well, so you'd have to listen to it for a long period of time before any damage became apparent (5+ years).

AFAIK that article was a hoax. The same guy who did that also claimed that the colour pink could damage your eyes.

mp3s tend to cut off the top and bottom frequencies. Thus the tinny sound, especially at low quality encoding. If what he said was true then listening to AM or even FM radio would have a similar negative effect on your ears.

saltines17 · Mar 1, 2003, 03:55 AM

As long as the songs would be of high sound quality, this service would be a fantastic idea.

iTunes integration perhaps? It has potential, I think... just don't force a .Mac purchase, or some other stupid catch...

Nicko · Mar 1, 2003, 03:59 AM

I would pay 25 cents tops.

Besides, why pay when you can get it for free?

Nonsuch · Mar 1, 2003, 04:04 AM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It is ridiculous that an artist from the 60s who recorded one hit song (probably a week's worth of work, if that) can collect eternal royalties and not have to work again for 30-40+ years.

I can pretty much guarantee that no "one-hit wonders" from that era are still earning money on their work, unless they happened to write it, and probably not even then.

How do people still get the idea that anyone with a hit record ends up on some kind of lifetime gravy train?

Mastrap · Mar 1, 2003, 04:12 AM

Originally posted by Nicko:
I would pay 25 cents tops.

Besides, why pay when you can get it for free?

Because if everyone just steals music there won't be anything left worth stealing. If everybody just steals music the recording industry will continue to get their knickers twisted. Is that so difficult to understand?

MPC · Mar 1, 2003, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Because if everyone just steals music there won't be anything left worth stealing. If everybody just steals music the recording industry will continue to get their knickers twisted. Is that so difficult to understand?

I don't know about that. I have lots of friends in bands that make music because they enjoy it. It's fun to be in a band. You don't need to be full time to come up with "Hit me baby one more time". And I would prefer listening to music that is created for the love of music rather than the almighty buck.

Mastrap · Mar 1, 2003, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by MPC:
I don't know about that. I have lots of friends in bands that make music because they enjoy it. It's fun to be in a band. You don't need to be full time to come up with "Hit me baby one more time". And I would prefer listening to music that is created for the love of music rather than the almighty buck.

Good for your friends. It's called having a hobby. Ask them if they'd turn down the chance to make money though, get a recording contract. I'd be very surprised if they'd turn the chance down. Then what? Steal from your friends?

See, I have friends who run recording studios, I've got friends who are professional musicians. They feed their families with their earnings. They are session musicians, they write music for commercials, they direct produce and direct videos. None of them is rich btw. It's not really up to you to decide how people make their money.
Don't get me wrong, I have little sympathy with the big recording companies. They've been ripping off the consumer for decades. CDs are overpriced, no doubt about that. My solution? I support small labels. I support people who care about their music, I buy from independent record shops. It means that more people can create more music for m to enjoy.

Mac Zealot · Mar 1, 2003, 05:21 AM

So you're saying that even though the music industry already skullF***s us for every cd we buy, we should pay more?

You're crazy!

Mastrap · Mar 1, 2003, 05:23 AM

Originally posted by Mac Zealot:
So you're saying that even though the music industry already skullF***s us for every cd we buy, we should pay more?

You're crazy!

Where did I say that?

MPC · Mar 1, 2003, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Good for your friends. It's called having a hobby. Ask them if they'd turn down the chance to make money though, get a recording contract. I'd be very surprised if they'd turn the chance down. Then what? Steal from your friends?

See, I have friends who run recording studios, I've got friends who are professional musicians. They feed their families with their earnings. They are session musicians, they write music for commercials, they direct produce and direct videos. None of them is rich btw. It's not really up to you to decide how people make their money.
Don't get me wrong, I have little sympathy with the big recording companies. They've been ripping off the consumer for decades. CDs are overpriced, no doubt about that. My solution? I support small labels. I support people who care about their music, I buy from independent record shops. It means that more people can create more music for m to enjoy.

Yes it is called having a hobby. I don't know if they would turn down a contract. From who? Sony, a good chance. G7, probably not. It is just a hobby. And I enjoy the end result. My friends wouldn't put me in the position where I had to steal. If I'm at their house when they are eating they offer me a plate. Yeah they give me CD's since they get off on the fact people listen and enjoy their music. Most of these guys sell their CD's for three bucks. Not A huge deal. They make up for it with cover charge the next time they play. They make money by being good.

I don't download commercials, and my TiVo kills them dead. No MTV here.

"It's not really up to you to decide how people make their money."

All I said was I prefer listening to music made for the love of making music. That was my main point.

Umm. I still buy CD's. From small labels, and usually from the band's web site. I also go to about 5 to 10 shows per month. It's just 311 never in attendance.

Zoom_zoom · Mar 1, 2003, 09:39 AM

$1 sounds fair enough, but it also depends where that 1 dollar is going, i would hate to see (95%+) going to a label.

But yet again, i only download music which isn't good enough for me to buy, it may sound strange, but i may like one tune from a band and not there whole album.
Last time i saw a CD Single for sale it was for 10 dollars Australian!
And i am not going to pay that kind of money for ONE song, and 3 pathetic remixs of the same song.

So to Sum up, I really do like my free music, but if there was a fair way to download music (legaly) at high quality i would consider it.

"If we all download free illegal music, we can eradicate the world of POP artists by 2006"

Zoom_zoom · Mar 1, 2003, 09:40 AM

woops, didn't mean to post this, but it won't let me delete it

sorry!

Mar 1, 2003, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Zoom_zoom:

Last time i saw a CD Single for sale it was for 10 dollars Australian!
And i am not going to pay that kind of money for ONE song, and 3 pathetic remixs of the same song.

True - but that tells you something. Most of the cost of CD distribution is in packaging and distribution. It costs the same to manufacture, package, and distribute a CD single as it does for an entire album - that's why they are a rip-off.

A $1 downloadable service is a good idea and it gives fair compensation to songwriters and artists.

Although I like the album format. There are all too often many songs on an album that are never "released" as singles that I like. Sometimes I don't like them at first, but after listening to them a few times I like them even more than the singles. If everything is sold as singles, I'm afraid we might get less music that way.

I always wonder about people who complain about albums that they're "paying too much for two good songs and eight crappy ones." I think that's BS - these complainers often have the mentaility that because a song isn't played on the radio that is "musn't be any good."

bradoesch · Mar 1, 2003, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by Zimmerman:
The point is, extremely high quality.

One thing about mp3's is there is evidence they can damage hearing since they lack the range of the larger music formats since the cropped audio pounds on the ears in a more directed fashion. Its kind of like laser vs. regular light; regular light has wavelenghts all over the place, so its easier on the eyes at a given intensity, where as lasers are focused. Its sort of the same thing for mp3's.

Any body else read that article? I wish I'd kept the link... they (doctors) explained it better than I. One thing I did notice is that hearing can repair itself fairly well, so you'd have to listen to it for a long period of time before any damage became apparent (5+ years).

What happens if you burn the songs to a CD? Is it still bad for your hearing?

OB1 · Mar 1, 2003, 11:49 AM

No. It would have to be much cheaper for me to use it. How much does an album on cd cost in the usa? Here in the uk I reckon we pay around that per song for a music cd anyway.

SeSawaya · Mar 2, 2003, 01:05 AM

Considering that musicians get virtually NOTHING from the record companies, they would probably get $.00025 per dollar spent on this.

IN this day of age its much "smarter" to be a "suit" than a musician.

99.9% of people have NO idea on what really happens in the music business. Thats why Britney Spears is huge! - people are dumb.

I've only sold 1000 CDs of mine and I've earned every penny. That comes out to a profit of around $-2000!! Good for me!

I would do it (pay the 1$ if the record company split the profit even with the artist. Since there is NO distribusion cost. That will never happen. EVER.

joe_kr · Mar 2, 2003, 02:06 AM

In case people weren't aware... the topic of this poll is based on an actual rumor:

http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/...26195649.shtml

Sources report that Apple will be introducing an MP3 music-downloading service to users. The service partner to provide the music has not yet been identified, but songs are expected to cost $0.99 per song.

wataru · Mar 2, 2003, 03:04 AM

re: MP3s damaging hearing

That is total BS. I saw the article about that, and it was by the same guy who said that the color pink damages vision.

Even if it has some truth to it, I doubt you'd damage your ears listening to MP3s any more than you would just living in a city.

Originally posted by bradoesch:
What happens if you burn the songs to a CD? Is it still bad for your hearing?

Uh, since it's still the same sounds, yes, it supposedly would. The medium has nothing to do with it.