Universal CDs now under $10

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

why does Beck want a physical CD

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

could Beck also be happy with an inflatable Unicorn?

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

is buying useless goods a basic drive

[Geoff Grace]

just one guy speculating here - I posted the Billboard reported stats above that would posit sales are now in area of 300m CDs, down from 700m + in 2000. The Universal pricing move is not intended to revitalize the industry. This is more of an endgame aimed at keeping their new release CDs exposed at the few retailers that actually merchandise new release product. If you are in a business that has shown no growth and declining demand you are simply competing for square footage with other products with better markups and more growth. The Billboard story suggested that the pricing structure would point to a 7.50 cost and a retail price point at $10. That margin works for a handful of big retailers with a handful of new releases on the endcaps. It is aimed at dominating the limited shelf space that these merchants are providing. These aren't principally music retailers, because we have already killed those. There is nothing that compels WalMart and Target to stay in the CD business. These really big retailers, have no real incentive to completely drop their departments, but they will continue to streamline and reshape them to suit their own purposes of traffic, competition and dominance. The music business in a download based future has nothing to offer these big retailers in the long term. This seems more like choosing partners for the last dance.

 

 

This is my take on it too. We're watching the latest round of a death spiral.

 

Recording artists of the future will essentially be either hobbyists or musicians who make their income from other music gigs -- like performances or music for television, film, video games, and advertising. They'll choose to release their music to the public for free as a means of promoting themselves for paying gigs. Most of this music will be soundtrack music designed to accompany live action, and it will be listened to as such -- via headphones while studying, or walking on the beach, or driving, or dancing -- to accompany the live action of the listener.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[Beck]

over and over again i am amazed what fantasies and marketing concepts you develop which are obsolete before you ended the thought you can order CD online with whatever combination of music you like, one track of Pink Floyd and all other John Mayall & His Bluesbreakers for example, then the postman brings it to the door of the Sammler und Jäger

 

 

 

You're Drunk... Again!

 

And I'd rather have DVD, but the general public doesn't care enough about quality right now to make that happen as it did with CD. It could change... but you and the general public will have to sober up first.

[MikeRivers]

$10 would have been fair about 5 years ago. Now, they better think $5 if they want to stay competitive. Start treating them as disposable and start buying space on every gas station counter.

Sounds like you're describing the cassette of the early 1980s, with the only difference being that back then most people also had the LP and the cassette was just a convenient way to listen to their favorite music in the car or when on a jog. Even though the standard home cassette deck had a RECORD button, the recording of recording an LP on to cassette was pretty much limited to kids trading tapes at school. Adults, as a rule, didn't do that - not because of morality, they just didn't know how and pre-recorded cassettes were everywhere and so easy to buy.

I think that it's not a matter that we don't value music as much as we used to, but that we don't value the means in which it's delivered. People had their favorite radio stations because they knew that when they tuned in, they'd hear music that was familiar and that they enjoyed, and the next week they'd hear some new music that they also liked, but they didn't have to keep any of it because it was constantly being replenished. Very much like downloads today.

What we lost, and never really regained, was the concept that an album (whether a collection of disks in a real album, an LP, or a CD) was crafted to be listened to as a package, and to be enjoyed visually, with supplemental reading material as well. When putting together an album, it was important to choose songs that make some sort of sense as a group and put them in a listening order so that they made an entertaining show. You could hold the jacket in your hand, sit on the living room couch, and almost fell like you were attending a concert. Even though radio DJs and MDs programmed from the singles that came in, the show that they created was still important.

People made their own "mix tapes" with the same ideas in mind. But now, with personal collections far exceeding the size of most radio station libraries in the peak years, people depend on their computers or music players to make random selections, or "theme" selections, and the music just goes in one ear and out the other.

So the question arises - how can you base an industry on that?

After they do that, then the only step is to bring back vinyl. That's where the 19.99 an album comes back in. Unique sound, room for expanded artwork, and old style inserts makes the "value" a much better ratio.

The consumer would know that to get the full effect of an album, you need to buy the album for the true "high fidelity". And the best part is you can't send a record through a torrent!

A few years ago, a local record historian and restoration expert, Steve Smolian, wrote a tongue-in-cheek article in a Library of Congress newsletter (I believe it was in an April issue) about a new form of copy discouragement that, when you read through all the technical mumbo-jumbo, you realized he was describing a 78 RPM record.

But, just imagine if records hit the mainstream again? New record players and stereo systems to play back on...you could bring back stereo stores! Record stores! Holy cow, this would be more than just the industry...we can save the whole economy! Sock hops! Jukeboxes! Bring back the whole mess and start an economic recovery program.

The trick is to get people to sit in one place for an hour, tune out the rest of the world, and pay attention to the entertainment that they brought home. Seems that home theaters are doing that right now. Maybe the future isn't in audio recordings, but in multimedia. If you wanted the sense of handling an LP or album, you could turn on the TV and see pictures, or read the liner notes. Maybe it could even be interactive so you could look up and follow the lyrics of a song, or see photos about what was taking place in the song, or a light show.

Would that be worth $15? Probably. Could it be produced for $15? Only if they sold a truckload of them. There are a lot more people other than the artist who would have to be paid for their work on a project like that. It's only recently that production costs didn't have to be spread around - the artist, songwriter, manufacturer, distributor, and banker could be all one person. But usually all we ever get from those productions are songs, and unfortunately, many really are disposable.

Also, bring back singles. 45s, 78s, splits, remixes, whatever. An album is just that and should be approached as such. A lot of times, it's a waste of money to make a whole album if you are dealing with a one hit wonder, ya know?

Maybe it's time to discourage one-hit wonders from even being in the business, or encourage them to find their own niche where they can have a productive career.

I always thought duping a tape for a poor buddy who didn't have cash was doing the right thing. I was spreading music, helping the poor, and gaining obscure bands another fan.

That's what radio was/is for, particularly college and community stations. They're still around. And concerts.

f you sell a 100K copies of a CD at $5 a pop, that's $500K. And how on earth can you not make a profit like that?

By spending $250K promoting it, and giving the artist a $200K advance to record his next CD, and paying all the salaries for the people who worked on that project, as well as the other ten in the same time period that sold 100K and had 75K of them returned even though they gave away 10K copies.

We know it don't cost much to make an album. A great album can be made for cheap.

True, and a couple of those will actually make a significant amount of money for those involved. What makes a cheap album expensive, though, is what it takes to make a LOT of money from it. And the record business is about making A LOT of money, it's not about 150,000 singer-songwriters making enough money to supplement their day jobs so they can afford to make another CD. There are exceptions that you can count on a few hands, of course, but not many.

The truth is, you can't figure in million dollar marketing campaign into the cost of making an album. If the music is good, it will sell itself.

That's where you're wrong. It won't. It might sell itself on a small scale, but without the promotional machine, only a few rare (and often for no obvious reason) exceptions have gone "gold."

Only in the case of total prefab crap do you need a media blitz to convince the masses your lame-o dung is cool.

I don't know if "cool" is the right word, but "gotta buy" is what's important in order to make money. The test is whether people will buy the next record by the heavily promoted artist with only minimal promotion, and the truth is that they won't (again, with a few rare exceptions).

[the stranger]

Great points, Mike. Thanks for the detailed response to my various thoughts.

[Geoff Grace]

 

A great album can be made for cheap.

 

I guess it depends on what you consider cheap and what kind of album you're making. I don't see how you can make a great symphonic album "for cheap," for example.

 

Sure, you can buy a computer, hard drives, a monitor, an audio interface, DAW software, some plug-ins, a pair of powered speakers, some microphones, acoustic treatment, cables, a controller keyboard, any other instruments needed for the recording, and rent or buy a house with one more room than you would otherwise have needed to assemble your studio in. Then you can record your album "for cheap."

 

But we still haven't factored in the cost of your time. How much do you earn per hour and how much of your time are you going to spend assembling this studio, learning how to use your software, writing the songs, and recording this album? Are you going to pay anyone else -- an engineer or studio musicians, perhaps -- to help you make this album?

 

And that's the low end of the cost scale -- the "cheap" price of recording a solo artist on a computer at home. If you have a band, you'll need more acoustic treatment, more cables and microphones, an audio interface with more inputs, and a bigger space in which to record.

 

And what if your music involves brass or string sections? Sure, you can save money by buying string and brass sample libraries; but the best and most realistic ones will still set you back around $1,000-$3,000 each. And then, you'll have to take the time to learn how to use them and slowly go through the tedious, time-consuming process of piecing together realistic performances, because none of these libraries sound realistic when played with a keyboard technique. Again, how much is your time worth? You may ultimately decide that it's better to hire real players, and how cheap is that?

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[flatfinger]

Interesting;


All talk about the physical media ( I.E. canvas and paint ) and not enough about the fact that it seems that the real victim is the songwriting craft....
With the deluge of homemade , dilitante "content" , the music industry goes down the same path as Television.. a 50-50 proposition filled with lowest common denominator dreck.

Anyone can write a song! And without the ability to make it a vocation as opposed to an avocation ,When The effort expended into the craft amounts to stolen moments here and there, It will yeild throw away efforts that will not stand the test of time.
A society that stops supporting the arts gets the art it deserves ... you reap what you sow . No worries though , There is always T-shirt and trinket sales to be had:facepalm:


This isn't only about the devaluation of physical media my friends:cry:

[Geoff Grace]

Well sure, the more hats you wear, the more your quality of work in any particular area suffers -- jack of all trades, master of none. The advantage of the old system was that songwriters were songwriters, arrangers were arrangers, performers were performers, studio designers were studio designers, producers were producers, and engineers were engineers. They had the time and resources to develop their individual crafts; and when they teamed up, the release benefitted from their combination of expertise.

 

I touched on this a little bit in my post above concerning how much time it costs to release an album the "cheap" way. When factoring time in, low cost is still an illusion - unless you're willing to settle for lower quality in most ares, that is. And yeah, we're getting many more lower quality releases these days. The problem with DIY is that one person has to choose between the lengthy process of spending the hours it takes to properly do the work of many or the corner cutting method of doing the work of many in a semipro, or even shoddy, way. This becomes an even bigger problem on hobbyist hours, when you have to work a day gig and record an album in your spare time. Once the field is leveled by removing income for all from the recording process, we'll have a greater abundance of amateurish releases from even the most talented of us.

 

Of course, the closest thing to an exception to this rule will be releases coming from people who've spent decades amassing the experience to wear many hats well -- in other words, from middle-aged or elderly people. But for the most part, that's not what the public wants.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[Lee Flier]

Y'know, to put this another way... CDs have always been too expensive. The labels used the new CD format to jack up the price of albums, even though CDs didn't actually cost as much to produce as vinyl. Vinyl albums just prior to the emergence of the CD were retailing for around 10 bucks; the first CDs were double or nearly double that, and the price never really came down, even though prices went down on pretty much all other consumer electronic gear and media.

[MikeRivers]

The labels used the new CD format to jack up the price of albums, even though CDs didn't actually cost as much to produce as vinyl.

 

Actually, at least early on, they did cost more to produce than vinyl because one of the things that CDs were noted for was more playing time. While the average pop LP at the time CDs came on the market was about 25 minutes long with maybe 10 songs, CDs were coming in at an hour with 15 or 16 songs. Right off the top, that's more royalty payments, and more studio time (at least studio time cost-accounted to the project). While manufacturing cost may have been lower for CDs than LPs, the cost for the music on them was greater.

 

People were willing to pay 50% more for a CD than an LP because they got nearly twice as much music, better sound quality, no wear effects, and you didn't have to get off the couch to turn it over half way through.

 

Today, I dunno. I don't buy or listen to enough pop CDs to comment, but since you usually only hear one cut from a CD on the radio, there might be 40 minuts of filler on most of them, but it still costs royalties and studio time.

[Geoff Grace]

And the price of CDs didn't keep pace with inflation, so a CD that sells today for $18.99 would have cost $9.65 in 1985. (Source)

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[spokenward]

 

Actually, at least early on, they did cost more to produce than vinyl because one of the things that CDs were noted for was more playing time. While the average pop LP at the time CDs came on the market was about 25 minutes long with maybe 10 songs, CDs were coming in at an hour with 15 or 16 songs. Right off the top, that's more royalty payments, and more studio time (at least studio time cost-accounted to the project). While manufacturing cost may have been lower for CDs than LPs, the cost for the music on them was greater.

 

 

CDs did extend the average running time, partly to show value, and partly because the bits would fit without regard to the volume / tracking issues that were once addressed in mastering for vinyl.

 

The royalties were less of an issue because CDs had a negotiated royalty rate that reflected "new technology". At the time of the first prototypes, the oil prices had spiked and quality vinyl production was looking dicey. The weight and printing / packaging issues were also getting out of hand. If an artist wanted to release 70 minutes on vinyl, that would require two vinyl discs vs. a single CD. It balanced out.

 

The real money that was made on CDs was on the sale of catalog to replace the Vinyl. That was the gravy train. That was made possible because the CD introduction was very successful and very fast because people did like CDs.

[Ernest Buckley]

Anyone besides Lee (I know you did and would be shocked if you didn`t) here read Fahrenheit? This thread is starting to remind me of that book the more we talk about this subject. Its really depressing.

 

 

I need some coffee.

[Geoff Grace]

Ernest, are you talking about Ray Bradbury's book about censorship and book burning, Fahrenheit 451?

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[Ernest Buckley]

Ernest , are you talking about Ray Bradbury's book about censorship and book burning, Fahrenheit 451 ? Best, Geoff

 

 

Yes, thats the book. And I`m not referring to the censorship and book burning but how society in that book became so fast paced and meaningless that music was only used as background music and no time was ever taken to truly listen to the music, sort of how music is treated today. Its eerily similar.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

You're Drunk... Again!

 

 

 

not today, no

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

of course the consumer can think that compact discs are to expensive.


i think a compact disc should cost minimum 50.00 USD

[MikeRivers]

of course the consumer can think that compact discs are to expensive. i think a compact disc should cost minimum 50.00 USD

 

That goes hand-in-hand with my belief that recording equipment is too inexpensive. If it still cost $100,000 to equip a recording studio, we wouldn't have so many people (particularly woudl-be recording artists) thinking that music was cheap to produce.

[Lee Flier]

Well, {censored}ty music is cheap to produce, it's true.

 

The good stuff, as always, still takes a lot of time, and usually $$ beyond setting up a computer in your bedroom.

[Geoff Grace]

Yes, thats the book. And I`m not referring to the censorship and book burning but how society in that book became so fast paced and meaningless that music was only used as background music and no time was ever taken to truly listen to the music, sort of how music is treated today. Its eerily similar.

 

I had forgotten about that dimension of the book -- it's been at least 35 years since I read it. Thanks for reminding me.

 

Yeah, it seems that Ray Bradbury caught a glimpse of the (then) future in that respect.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[Beck]

Actually, at least early on, they did cost more to produce than vinyl because one of the things that CDs were noted for was more playing time. While the average pop LP at the time CDs came on the market was about 25 minutes long with maybe 10 songs, CDs were coming in at an hour with 15 or 16 songs.

 

 

LP’s could come in around 40 minutes and still maintain great fidelity. Deep Purple’s Machine Head (1972) was just under 38 minutes, Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon (1973) was 43 minutes, and Boston’s Third Stage (1986) was around 36 minutes. I mention Third Stage because it was the first album to go gold on CD and separately on LP (just some fun trivia). And don’t forget the Disco era right before CD was introduced. Some of those LPs in the mid-late '70s broke records (no pun) for the amount of music they packed into one 12” disk.

 

CD had the potential for longer play... you are right on that part, but in the beginning few took advantage of it… not in pop/rock genres anyway. And for people that were just buying CD versions of LPs they already had… and that was common, the songs and length were identical to the LP. Of course later they started throwing in extras for many albums, so now we have several different versions of many albums on CD.

 

I have quite a few of my fav albums in four flavors – reel-to-reel, cassette, vinyl and CD. The hoopla about CD in the ‘80s was all about alleged superior fidelity – “Perfect sound forever.” So for those CDs that were simply digital versions of previously released albums or standard length because old music industry habits die hard, the cost couldn’t be justified on the greater capacity of the medium.

 

We thought we were buying the new format of the god’s, sonically speaking, and that it would never wear out because it was only touched by a laser (haha). CDs were way overpriced and for far too long.

[the stranger]

That goes hand-in-hand with my belief that recording equipment is too inexpensive. If it still cost $100,000 to equip a recording studio, we wouldn't have so many people (particularly woudl-be recording artists) thinking that music was cheap to produce.

 

 

Yeah, that's what everybody keeps saying. But, what I keep seeing is that loads of money is being spent by the majors to produce crap. Where is this glut of music that is being produced by everybody and their brother that is killing the music business, or perceived value of music?

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

Accordin to our highly appreaciated friend and forumite who plays the cello (I forgot his name),

Beck can't hear a diffrence between a mp3 and a 80-bit master, nor can I...