New Album Stats..

[sventvkg]

So I did this record in my studio and it came out pretty good considering. I went up to Alaska to write with a chick I'm producing, record another artist and do 6 gigs in 8 days! Was a really busy time and I ended up writing 7 tunes with this lady and we actually got them demoed plus the gigs and recording 5 songs another singer songwriter...Anyway..

 

I had 40 CD's shipped directly up to AK from Kunaki to have available for shows. I ended up selling about 30 records, gave about 5 away and came home with the rest because I have to sign them and send them out to people who paid me...Thus far I've sold about 10 online as well.....Granted, I'm not gigging locally in Nashville yet and no one really knows me as a performer around here but lots of people on FB know me and my music, have my other CD's etc....bottom line....F$%^ it's really hard to sell an album these days..... Don't forget I priced it at $3 on Bandcamp for download!!!

 

So...Other than as needed for shows, why the hell does anyone other than the big mainstream artists, even bother making CD's?? It's a waste of time....I'll drop my stuff as 6-8 songs ep's on line as I record it I guess..but I'm only making CD's up for shows or small tours. So oldsters on here, make no mistake. The CD is a DEAD format and pretty much physical product only has a use a transportation media to get your tunes to someone so they can digitize it. Discuss?

[J.Paul]

This could be a good thread seeing as how the business model is changing right before our eyes....

 

What's worse is that some people STILL want physical press kits for booking or talent buying;

All the expense and work for an EPK and/or website domain and they still want an 8x10......

[Poker99]

Its damn near impossible to sell CDs online.

[daddymack]

yet, there are enough people out in the real world who prefer the audio quality of a CD to mp3 (what I consider the new millenium equivalent of the 8 track tape -there has to be a better way to transfer digital audio without gutting it!). Sooner or later, just as we have seen the resurgence of interest in direct to disc vinyl recordings, there will be an anti-mp3 backlash...and eventually a better digital format will evolve.

but in the meantime, sven, sell the crap out of the release anyway you can!

[richardmac]

You know, I can sell CD's at $5 at gigs but not $10. And since it costs me about $2 to make a CD, that's a grand profit of $3. Which is... not really worth it. I've sold out of my first two CD's and I have about 10 of my third CD left. Probably won't order any more.

 

Playing cover gigs is what's making me have fun and putting money in my pocket lately. But I play original tunes mixed in, and it IS sort of nice to have something there. That way people don't say "You should record a CD" because I've already said "Oh, by the way, if you liked that song, I've got some CD's available."

 

My problem is that I play songs from all three of my CD's, and no one wants to buy three CD's at a gig. I've seriously considered putting together a "Best of" CD, and putting all the songs I play at gigs on that CD. Then I could say "This is on my 'Best Of' CD." And maybe crack some jokes about it. Might work.

 

So... yeah. Selling music is sorta pointless, but it's another way, just like the tip jar, to make money at a gig, I guess. For that reason I probably ought to keep doing it.

[flatfinger]

http://blog.midem.com/2011/06/mark-mulligan-squaring-the-consumption-circle-why-and-how-the-model-needs-fixing/

 

 

 

Figure out how to make the better mouse trap in this case , and you will retire in comfort !!!

[flatfinger]

yet, there are enough people out in the real world who prefer the audio quality of a CD to mp3 (what I consider the new millenium equivalent of the 8 track tape -there has to be a better way to transfer digital audio without gutting it!). Sooner or later, just as we have seen the resurgence of interest in direct to disc vinyl recordings, there will be an anti-mp3 backlash...and eventually a better digital format will evolve. but in the meantime, sven, sell the crap out of the release anyway you can!

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure that absolute audio fidelity is the key ; I have mp3's that were encoded from older , high quality studio productions of the 60's and 70's, and at a higher sample rate ( 320 kps ) I have good monitoring( above average I would suspect ) and they sound dam good! Of course the flip side is when a mp3 is the product of a digital studio , and the folks running the show were inexperienced or just mickey mousing... then sent to a Mastering Mafia guy who clips the hell out of it .... I can spot those a mile away on my system , but on most horror tone or boom boxes , it's just not as much of a sore thumb because it just is lo-fi anyways .

 

They have done studies and the kiddies are habituated to the poor sonics , and even prefer it to hi-fi when given a choice !!!!

 

 

 

 

I think you also have to factor in that the IP degradation has removed songwriting pro's ( why bother ???).

........ supposedly a "good" recording of a great song should be all that's needed to do the trick .............. The current environmental conditions can give lots of good songs that are "great" recordings...; ( great in that they have a zillion tracks and all the cool stereo tricks and whatnot ...but lots of Beatles stuff was in mono but still is around and being regularly consumed due to the strength of the compositions themselves)

[kurdy]

I’m not sure I understand the question—why do small-timers make CDs, other than as needed for shows? Well, why else would they be making them? Unless you mean getting them into record stores? I agree there might be little point to that, since few people shop at record stores any more, and those that do probably never heard of you. But to me, selling them at shows would seem to be the main purpose of making CDs. Sure, it probably isn’t a good idea to go get a couple thousand of them made (learned that lesson the hard way, back when I was younger and had no clue what I was doing.) But having a sufficient number of copies on hand to make available at gigs makes sense, I think.

 

Here’s my theory on why CDs are still being made by smaller acts, which may or may not have any basis in fact. If a performer merely informs the audience during a gig to go online to a particular website to check out his or her mp3s, how many people are actually going to remember to do it after they leave? A CD is a physical thing a person can take with them—a reminder of what they just heard. So when they see that little hunk of plastic sitting on their desk a couple days later, they’ll think, “Well, I paid five bucks for this; maybe I should give it a listen.” It also allows people to get to know your music, so they’ll think, “You know, I really like these songs, maybe I’ll go see that guy again next time he’s in town”. Maybe they’ll even start paying attention to the originals!

 

I agree, the format is dying, and these days, CDs are just a means of transferring data, but it still remains a fairly convenient way of doing so. Sometime in the future, it may start becoming more common to sell some other sort of data device with your music on it, but the format isn’t really that important. It’s about getting a copy of your music into people’s hands as soon as possible, while you’re still fresh in their minds. Telling them all to go find you on the internet after they get home probably isn’t going to cut it, unless your audience happens to be an unusually motivated bunch. I think it’s safe to say, most of them won’t be.

[sventvkg]

 

You know, I can sell CD's at $5 at gigs but not $10. And since it costs me about $2 to make a CD, that's a grand profit of $3. Which is... not really worth it. I've sold out of my first two CD's and I have about 10 of my third CD left. Probably won't order any more. Playing cover gigs is what's making me have fun and putting money in my pocket lately. But I play original tunes mixed in, and it IS sort of nice to have something there. That way people don't say "You should record a CD" because I've already said "Oh, by the way, if you liked that song, I've got some CD's available." My problem is that I play songs from all three of my CD's, and no one wants to buy three CD's at a gig. I've seriously considered putting together a "Best of" CD, and putting all the songs I play at gigs on that CD. Then I could say "This is on my 'Best Of' CD." And maybe crack some jokes about it. Might work. So... yeah. Selling music is sorta pointless, but it's another way, just like the tip jar, to make money at a gig, I guess. For that reason I probably ought to keep doing it.

 

 

when I used to do the cover thing I sold substantially less CD's at a given show than I do now that i'm an original artist. It's a perception thing for sure. So CD's do sell for shows, just not zillions.

 

So CD's are usefully for me to pass around town for business purposes and sell at gigs. That's really it.

[david!]

Maybe the problem isn't that music is hard to sell. Maybe the problem is that CDs are not so great anymore. There is no CD drive on an iPod

 

Vinyl is great, but it is not portable and requires a level of care which most music fans aren't interested in.

 

Here's my simple solution: put your music on thumb drives. Plugs right into an iPod. The cheapest one I've seen is $5 for 2GB, and there may yet be a smaller, cheaper option. Obviously, not as cheap as a CDR, but perhaps easier to sell...?

[elsongs]

 

Here's my simple solution: put your music on thumb drives. Plugs right into an iPod. The cheapest one I've seen is $5 for 2GB, and there may yet be a smaller, cheaper option. Obviously, not as cheap as a CDR, but perhaps easier to sell...?

 

 

I seem to have a problem plugging a thumb drive into my iPod.

[richardmac]

 

I seem to have a problem plugging a thumb drive into my iPod.

 

 

LOL!

[daddymack]

I'm not sure that absolute audio fidelity is the key ; I have mp3's that were encoded from older , high quality studio productions of the 60's and 70's, and at a higher sample rate ( 320 kps ) I have good monitoring( above average I would suspect ) and they sound dam good! Of course the flip side is when a mp3 is the product of a digital studio , and the folks running the show were inexperienced or just mickey mousing... then sent to a Mastering Mafia guy who clips the hell out of it .... I can spot those a mile away on my system , but on most horror tone or boom boxes , it's just not as much of a sore thumb because it just is lo-fi anyways . They have done studies and the kiddies are habituated to the poor sonics , and even prefer it to hi-fi when given a choice !!!!

I agree that audio quality is not the final arbiter, my point was tha tthere are people who absolutely cannot stand the 'quashy' sound of mp3....like me.

What do kids know? They know iPods are cool...back in the day, the cassette Walkman was cool, but cassettes certainly were not the best audio quality.

Eventually, a better format will come along, and the iPod will vanish, replaced by the next big thing...one, hopefully, that will have a USB/firewire port

[Nijyo]

yet, there are enough people out in the real world who prefer the audio quality of a CD to mp3 (what I consider the new millenium equivalent of the 8 track tape -there has to be a better way to transfer digital audio without gutting it!). Sooner or later, just as we have seen the resurgence of interest in direct to disc vinyl recordings, there will be an anti-mp3 backlash...and eventually a better digital format will evolve. but in the meantime, sven, sell the crap out of the release anyway you can!

 

No one on iTunes is buying an mp3, they're all AAC which is so much better than mp3 for the same file size it isn't even funny.

 

And Amazon is selling 192kbps+ mp3s which, for most people, may as well be "CD quality".

 

Audiophiles always have been and always will be a small minority of listeners.

[sventvkg]

I agree that audio quality is not the final arbiter, my point was tha tthere are people who absolutely cannot stand the 'quashy' sound of mp3....like me. What do kids know? They know iPods are cool...back in the day, the cassette Walkman was cool, but cassettes certainly were not the best audio quality. Eventually, a better format will come along, and the iPod will vanish, replaced by the next big thing...one, hopefully, that will have a USB/firewire port

 

 

That's why I like Bandcamp because you can get FLAC lossless

[Nijyo]

That's why I like Bandcamp because you can get FLAC lossless

 

Which you need a plugin for Winamp to play, or convert to ALAC to work in iTunes (or maybe there's a plugin now?)

 

Also huge file sizes. Not good for a general population format.

[richardmac]

 

No one on iTunes is buying an mp3, they're all AAC which is so much better than mp3 for the same file size it isn't even funny. And Amazon is selling 192kbps+ mp3s which, for most people, may as well be "CD quality". Audiophiles always have been and always will be a small minority of listeners.

 

 

Agree that Apple's AAC (especially now) is a superior format to mp3. Always has been. And it's good enough for car stereo and iPods.

 

192kbps would be considered CD quality by most people, I agree, and I think it's sad, because it isn't CD quality. It's good enough for car stereo and iPods, like iTunes, but on good speakers you can definitely hear the difference in the high end.

 

But even though I can hear the difference I mostly don't care. Percent of my time spent listening to music other than my own in front of studio monitors = .0001%. I listen to music in the car and while running, pretty much. So I'm cool with Apple's iTunes quality.

[daddymack]

we now return you to the original topic...

[3shiftgtr]

I don't think CD's will die out any time soon like say, cassette tapes have. And I don't think that cuz I don't want them to. I kinda do. Let's git the damn thing over with, ya know?

 

But the reason I don't think they will die anytime real soon, is 2 fold:

 

1) CD audio is still 16 bit. And yet we can record in like, 1,023,544.9993 bit at 145,643 Hz or what ever. Guess what is gonna happen next? They are going to use hard media to "SWITCH" to new standards, giving legacy artists and what is left of the companies yet another opportunity to sell their stuff. This is the only way they will survive. The few attempts at HD didn't work cuz the concepts at the CORE of digital technology and it's quality, have to do with bit rate etc.

 

I suppose they could make yet another file format, but that wouldn't SOLIDIFY the change in the way that manufacturers can get behind, ya know?

 

2) A cd is a souvenir and considered by young-uns as 'audiophile' (ain't that a joke?). The guy with the cd player and a component stereo of decent quality is considered an audiophile. Also, a cd is a physical element that binds the artist to the listener. Yes, there are other ways of connecting, but this is still one option we have. I recently played with a band who sold cd's and download cards. They couldn't give the download cards away, but they sold a fair amount of cd.'s at shows. Yes, they sold more downloads online, but they still sold cd's.

 

And in my projects, OVERALL, I have made more money on cd sales (at shows and online) than on downloads (just online).

[richardmac]

Yes, they will try #1, but no one will give a {censored} and it will fail. Meaning they can switch the entire industry to 128 bit for all we care - no one is going to rebuy their CD's because we don't need fidelity better than 16 bit. Number 2 is dead on. A CD is still a very good way of giving someone your music in a physical format because it's universal, unlike a USB stick, which costs more money anyway.

[flatfinger]

2) A cd is a souvenir and considered by young-uns as 'audiophile' (ain't that a joke?).

 

 

 

I have lots of cd's that were first , produced with analog desk and tape decks , but then digitally mastered WITHOUT STUPID LOUDNESS WAR techniques ... They don't look like 2X4's in the wave editor ...

 

They sound terrific ; 16 bit's and all !!

 

I think that with engineers who managed to make the transition to digital gracefully , and M.E.'s who don't clipp and limit , the CD can sound very good !! ( it also helps if the recording is done with large sample rate and bigger word lenghts THEN dithered down properly ....

 

 

 

Part of the problem with taking almost all the profit out of the media is you don't get seasoned proffessionals in the production chain anymore ...

 

But if all the consumer wants is lo-fi , then that's all they'll get .........

 

 

It is too bad that an entire generation is brought up on sizzly mp3's , and thinks poorly done CD's are the shizzle !!!

[sventvkg]

Streaming is the future. Use Spotify ONCE and tell me otherwise. CD's are only a means to get your tunes to their computers so they can rip them, throw away the case with all your lovely art...Believe me, i'm correct.

[richardmac]

I think the tag team combo of Streaming and Downloading are the future, and CD's are going to be relegated to moving files around, like you said. But I think Spotify is doomed, too... I do not think they have a sustainable business model. But you know, I have another thought about selling CD's at gigs... and I'll post it in it's own thread instead of taking this thread off topic.

[sventvkg]

Yea, no..Gotta disagree..Spotify is the future.....Because it's what PEOPLE want and that can't be held back.

[richardmac]

Spotify is not a profitable company. They are losing money, not making money. The MODEL of Spotify is part of the future. Spotify itself will not make a big enough profit to stick around. They're going to fail, and the next company will come along and succeed by not making the same mistakes and by taking advantage of the groundwork that Spotify has set down. It's hard to argue with "losing money." Spotify's only shot at staying around is being there when the labels are so desperate they're willing to cut their own profit margins to avoid oblivion. I think they're too stupid and too stubborn for that. To me, Spotify is the next Napster - a company that came along, was ahead of its time, made a huge impact on how music is distributed, and then died.

 

Now... the real trick is the US launch. IF Spotify can ever get to the point where they've got consistent large profits (which they won't,) then I'll be wrong and they have a chance to be huge. But I don't think it goes down that way. And I'm pretty sure that's why Apple, the only winner in the new music biz, is NOT doing a subscription streaming service - they realize that in the current climate there's no profit in it. If there were, they'd do it and they'd kick Spotify's ass. They're laying back because you can't make money at it.