[subego]

Make my only option to get a song be buying an entire album for $7, then I'm going to steal the song...

And in fact, just did.

[Shaddim]

I still buy CDs.

[subego]

I've basically abandoned physical media.

The exceptions are art books, I have a 11th/12th edition Encyclopædia Britannica, and shit by Palladium, because Kevin Siembieda is a jackass who I won't give money to, so I'm forced to buy used.

[Mike Wuerthele]

I'm reasonably certain you can find Palladium PDFs somewhere on the Internet.

[subego]

You know, that never even occurred to me.

Some of his better business practices are using good binding and keeping the entire catalog in print, so decent used copies are cheaper than the shipping.

There's also that special something about the curled plastic covers.

[subego]

The curling on this one (which I just finished, and is as good as everybody says) almost looks like it's part of the cover art.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by subego 

Make my only option to get a song be buying an entire album for $7, then I'm going to steal the song...

And in fact, just did.

A whole album for US$7?!

Here in Oz we pay on average around US$16.80 for an album on iTunes.

Singles are either $1.69 or $2.19 (US$1.60 or US$2.05).

I buy the $1.69 singles, but steal the $2.19 singles. I have my limits.

[subego]

The iTunes standard here is $1 (or $1.29), and $10 for an album.

This guy was selling through Bandcamp for $7. Problem is, it was buy the whole album or get nothing.

Of course, in reality, he gets nothing and I get the song.

As contrast, a different band has a "pay what you want" scheme. They got $10 from me.

Again, the thousands of industry executives who roll in here on a daily basis... pay attention!

[besson3c]

Who here would pay a premium for lossless media, or abandon CDs if lossless downloads were an option?

[subego]

I've already abandoned them without lossless downloads.

I'm assuming that somewhere along the line, Apple will switch to lossless, and offer an iTunes Plus type upgrade program. If the price was reasonable, I'd buy into that.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I've already abandoned them without lossless downloads.

I'm assuming that somewhere along the line, Apple will switch to lossless, and offer an iTunes Plus type upgrade program. If the price was reasonable, I'd buy into that.

I was thinking more of the rental services such as Spotify, which seems to be on its way to becoming bigger than iTunes, if not so already. Would you pay a higher monthly subscription rate for lossless streaming?

It seems like the audio quality is the biggest deficiency and weakness in digital streaming today, but do enough people care?

[subego]

Probably not.

That said, I'd drop another $10 a year for "Pandora Lossless".

That that said, Pandora has trouble keeping up with their 320Kb stream as is.

[besson3c]

Yeah. While I empathize with musicians and audiophiles in their bemoaning over what is lost with our audio experiences (YouTube, Spotify, iTunes, etc.) due to highly compressed crud, part of me is ambivalent as to how much of this is due to what our national infrastructure can support. You live in Chicago, think about what that 320kb stream would be like in podunk Nebraska or something.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Who here would pay a premium for lossless media, or abandon CDs if lossless downloads were an option?

*raises hand*

I've pretty much abandoned CDs, but I won't buy lossy formats. My archive is large enough to supply most of my daily-work needs along with Youtube.

[Gankdawg]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Who here would pay a premium for lossless media, or abandon CDs if lossless downloads were an option?

I've already abandoned CDs (can't remember the last time I bought one, it's got to be 20 years) but would not pay more. I can't hear the difference, mp3 is just fine for me.

[Gankdawg]

Oh, and to the OP point - the music industry still doesn't get it. Steve jobs et al dragged them kicking and screaming into the digital age. Witness the huge brick and mortars closing and the industry still doesn't get it. They cry how piracy is killing them but they were the ones who refused to change. Same goes for the movie industry....

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Gankdawg 

Oh, and to the OP point - the music industry still doesn't get it. Steve jobs et al dragged them kicking and screaming into the digital age. Witness the huge brick and mortars closing and the industry still doesn't get it. They cry how piracy is killing them but they were the ones who refused to change. Same goes for the movie industry....

This is true, but fans are also often incredibly fickle and don't think clearly about their actions.

The profits artists from streaming services like Spotify are incredibly small in comparison to any form of distribution/media, that to many artists/bands albums are just seen as a marketing tool to get people to go to their concerts, where they can make the bulk of their money.

However, many people don't support the artists they like by going to their concerts, or when they do go, they want the performance to be a carbon copy of the album. They'll often pirate and justify it by assuring themselves that the artists they are pirating music from make their money from the concerts they won't go to.

Fans of music can't have it both ways and then just bitch about how they dislike the music industry.

[Gankdawg]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

However, many people don't support the artists they like by going to their concerts, or when they do go, they want the performance to be a carbon copy of the album. They'll often pirate and justify it by assuring themselves that the artists they are pirating music from make their money from the concerts they won't go to.

Fans of music can't have it both ways and then just bitch about how they dislike the music industry.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This is true, but fans are also often incredibly fickle and don't think clearly about their actions.

The profits artists from streaming services like Spotify are incredibly small in comparison to any form of distribution/media, that to many artists/bands albums are just seen as a marketing tool to get people to go to their concerts, where they can make the bulk of their money.

However, many people don't support the artists they like by going to their concerts, or when they do go, they want the performance to be a carbon copy of the album. They'll often pirate and justify it by assuring themselves that the artists they are pirating music from make their money from the concerts they won't go to.

Fans of music can't have it both ways and then just bitch about how they dislike the music industry.

If you can buy a song on iTunes for basic iTunes prices, there's no excuse to steal. What is being offered (backhaul, easy to use, quick, cloud library) is offered at a reasonable price.

Where it becomes reasonable is when the offer is "buy the whole album or get nothing".

[subego]

As for live shows, I don't need it to be a carbon copy of the album, but I want you to play the songs from the album you're promoting.

And if you could do it like you aren't sick to death of the ****er, that would be nice.

I've found one of the best solutions to the latter problem is to write good songs.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

As for live shows, I don't need it to be a carbon copy of the album, but I want you to play the songs from the album you're promoting.

And if you could do it like you aren't sick to death of the ****er, that would be nice.

I've found one of the best solutions to the latter problem is to write good songs.

But concerts are often where artists get to explore new material, new songs, new concepts. It used to be that this was done with record projects, but, like I said, those often aren't really profitable any more.

Your iTunes usage also seems a little outdated. To many kids these days, if it doesn't exist on YouTube or Spotify, it doesn't exist at all. I think I read that the world's largest music collection is now YouTube. I hope that these kids aren't influencing the direction of music distribution, but it seems like they are.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I hope that these kids aren't influencing the direction of music distribution,

Those damn kids influencing music distribution! Get off my lawn!

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Make my only option to get a song be buying an entire album for $7, then I'm going to steal the song...

And in fact, just did.

I could be wrong, but I swear that at least once where I found this, the rival service didn't have the same limitation.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I could be wrong, but I swear that at least once where I found this, the rival service didn't have the same limitation.

This was a rival to the two rivals (Bandcamp), and it wasn't an "album only" song, it was "album only... period".

I have found what you're talking about though.

[The Final Dakar]

Which is weird, right?

[subego]

Absofrigginglutely.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

But concerts are often where artists get to explore new material, new songs, new concepts. It used to be that this was done with record projects, but, like I said, those often aren't really profitable any more.

Your iTunes usage also seems a little outdated. To many kids these days, if it doesn't exist on YouTube or Spotify, it doesn't exist at all. I think I read that the world's largest music collection is now YouTube. I hope that these kids aren't influencing the direction of music distribution, but it seems like they are.

How is the way one uses iTunes any different than the way this artist is using Bandcamp? They charge a fee, you get a copy. The issue is the artist in question is only selling the entire album.

As for exploring new material, what do you think is a reasonable album to new ratio considering the point behind an album is to drive traffic to the live event?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Your iTunes usage also seems a little outdated. To many kids these days, if it doesn't exist on YouTube or Spotify, it doesn't exist at all. I think I read that the world's largest music collection is now YouTube. I hope that these kids aren't influencing the direction of music distribution, but it seems like they are.

Yes, absolutely.

But isn't that also quite ironic that the artist / label would agree to put it on Youtube, but NOT sell it as an individual song ?

How many times would I have to play it on Youtube for the artist to get the same amount in royalties as from buying a $0.99 song ? Hundreds ? Thousands ?

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

How is the way one uses iTunes any different than the way this artist is using Bandcamp? They charge a fee, you get a copy. The issue is the artist in question is only selling the entire album.

It's not, aside from Bandcamp being device agnostic.

As for exploring new material, what do you think is a reasonable album to new ratio considering the point behind an album is to drive traffic to the live event?

IMO it would depend on the band. Some bands just go around and play their hits for years and years and everybody is happy, some bands are constantly coming up with new things.

[subego]

For a band who has recently released an album with the intention of using it to drive traffic to their live shows.

[Waragainstsleep]

Isn't iTunes device agnostic these days? I know it won't manage other devices but the content isn't protected anymore right?

[Spheric Harlot]

Yep. iTunes music is DRM-free.

[subego]

You still need iTunes, which is a steaming pile of shit.

Bandcamp only needs a browser.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

For a band who has recently released an album with the intention of using it to drive traffic to their live shows.

I still don't think there are really hard and fast answers. Your disappointment is an answer to the band though, unless you are a small minority.

[Waragainstsleep]

Besides being on the large side, whats wrong with iTunes?

[Laminar]

It runs pretty poorly on Windows. Not sure if there's any real issue with it on the Mac side.

[besson3c]

It also doesn't exist for Android (the store, that is), nor Linux (not that that is a big deal)

[Waragainstsleep]

I don't see Apple ever catering to Android users unless the Watch starts to outsell the entire phone market. And I don't see that happening.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Besides being on the large side, whats wrong with iTunes?

As you mention, it's bloated.

When it's not crashing or stalling, it's molasses slow.

The worst though, is book organization.

Controlling your devices is massively shitty too.

[Spheric Harlot]

iTunes doesn't organize books. It merely used to.

It's got a lot better over the last year or two.

[starman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Who here would pay a premium for lossless media, or abandon CDs if lossless downloads were an option?

It already is.

Homepage | HDtracks - The World's Greatest-Sounding Music Downloads

[starman]

Originally Posted by subego 

As you mention, it's bloated.

When it's not crashing or stalling, it's molasses slow.

The worst though, is book organization.

Controlling your devices is massively shitty too.

I never had a single problem with iTunes. Slow? How so? What does it need to do to be faster than almost immediate?

EDIT: BTW: what does 'bloated' even mean anymore with 2TB drives?

Seriously...

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

iTunes doesn't organize books. It merely used to.

It's got a lot better over the last year or two.

Maybe I misunderstand, but the need to organize books hasn't disappeared.

I use are iDevices, so iTunes is all I have for organization.

[subego]

Originally Posted by starman 

I never had a single problem with iTunes. Slow? How so? What does it need to do to be faster than almost immediate?

EDIT: BTW: what does 'bloated' even mean anymore with 2TB drives?

Seriously...

I'm defining slow as: try to do something, get beachball.

Bloated as I am using it means trying to fit too much crap in too small a bag.

[starman]

Beach ball can mean a lot of things. My iTunes beachballs because the hard drive that I keep my music on hasn't spun up yet in the morning. That's normal.

Would your system beachball if you tried doing the same thing with Quicktime Pro? You can't just say "it beachballs, it sucks".

Your definition of bloated doesn't help.

[subego]

For me, it beachballs for nonsensical reasons. I change playlists... beachball. I open up multiple speakers, beachball. Not consistently, but enough to be a pain in my ass.

An example of too much crap in there is the entire books section. Books needs to be a separate app with a separate dev team and no need to fit within the constraints of an ancient MP3 player.

[starman]

Beachballing when you change speakers is normal for the OS. Well, maybe it shouldn't beachball, but I have several apps that switch speakers and they beachball, so it's not iTunes specifically.

I can't explain the playlist problem.

[subego]

Not changing speakers, opening the menu.

Those are just random examples. It'll happen whenever.

[subego]

For all my slagging, there are good things about iTunes.

The stock visualizer is truly brilliant.
The store is pretty decent.
iTunes Match/Radio isn't bad when it isn't broken.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

For me, it beachballs for nonsensical reasons. I change playlists... beachball. I open up multiple speakers, beachball. Not consistently, but enough to be a pain in my ass.

An example of too much crap in there is the entire books section. Books needs to be a separate app with a separate dev team and no need to fit within the constraints of an ancient MP3 player.

Apple agrees. Books (not audiobooks) have been managed by a separate application since Mavericks.