What's new

Why DVDs are thriving while CDs tank (1 Viewer)

John Berggren

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 17, 1999
Messages
3,237
A CD recording Kiosk might be a good thing, but this was tried with cassette tapes about 10 years ago. Of course you had to order your tape, and it took a few weeks to get it, but the basis of the idea is the same. It failed, perhaps because the selection was secondary songs or songs that had been out for 5 years or more, nothing "first rate". I'm sure the immediacy factor was also there.

I used to buy CDs left and right. I'd buy them the first week they were out based on favoring a band, or enjoying a video on MTV (generally 120 minutes). I was burned a few times with albums I didn't like AT ALL, and stopped. Even REM let me down with Monster.

I do find that manufactured pap gets the big promotion while talented artists get shorted. I look at someone like Sting who's making better music than he ever had in the past, and it seems nobody is paying attention. I've thought this of other older artists, listening to their new material and thinking, it's too bad they stopped promoting them 5 or 10 years ago.

With the amount of CDs I did buy that had 1 or 2 good songs and a bunch of crap, I tried Napster for a while, and it was good for me. I tried a lot of artists I'd not heard of (because they weren't N'Sync of course) and ended up buying their albums; I found that they were good ALBUMS and not just good singles.

With Napster gone, I'm fairly out of touch again. I rely on films and television shows to alert me to the music out there. Occasionally a friend may have a recommendation. MTV never seems to be playing videos when I turn it on, nor VH1. When they are, I'm not under the impression that I'm the target audience. Radio doesn't work either. Seems they are only aware of 10-20 songs at a given time. I've actually switched between the three major stations trying to avoid the song of the moment once, and it was playing on all 3! Now I listen to NPR and CDs I already have.

BMG and CDHQ are the only places I'll try artists I'm unsure of. I just can't justify plunking down $10-20 on an album of questionable value.

Since I do have several CDs where I enjoy 2-3 songs, I don't want music companies to threaten me with copy protection. I want to be able to burn those 2-3 songs on a CD with the 2-3 songs from another junk album with some good singles. I also want to be able to take a bunch of songs from albums I DO like and create mix CDs for the car.

I don't have a whole lot of faith in the music industry. Even when it seems they have it right, they mess it up. One of my favorite artists, Tori Amos, releases multiple singles alongside any given album. On each single are a handful of B-sides, cast-offs that didn't work on the album, but are perfectly good songs anyhow. Atlantic, in some fit of distress as she was going to leave the label, refused to release any singles for her last album and canned her video DVD - though the majority of album buyers for her tend to buy all ancillary products, ensuring good sales. Kind of backwards if you ask me.

The music industry needs a shakedown, from production to delivery. Someone needs to create a new music video network that isn't owned by the labels or pushing non-music shows. Unfortunately radio is already owned by conglomerates that know they can get an extra nickel everytime they play N'Sync, so that battle appears to have been lost.
 

Mark Zimmer

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
4,318
The majors really need to pay attention to the Naxos model. They're a classical music label that has an enormous catalog, keeps just about all of it in print, sells at $5.99 or so per CD and is making money hand over fist.

Since they use eastern European musicians and pay them little, the economics work. If the majors started signing bands for small amounts and released their CDs at $6 or $7, they could sell a heck of a lot through impulse purchases.
 

Ted Todorov

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2000
Messages
3,706
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, if people indeed paid a "copying" fee for blank media, then using it for such a purpose would most certainly not be piracy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The price you pay for items at a supermarket also factors in the cost of shoplifters. Does that make it OK to steal?

DJ
Supermarkets don't mark up items by 500% to factor in shoplifting. But that is exactly how much "music" CD-Rs are marked up. There is no comparison here.

Please correct me if I have my prices wrong, but in the US CD-Rs retail for 50 cents each and "music" CD-Rs retail for $3 each. The reason for that huge mark up is that the music industry has argued that the ONLY purpose for "music" CD-Rs is the copying of copyrighted music, therefore the RIAA should receive a substantial royalty (tax) for each one sold. Indeed, in Germany IIRC the right to copy for non-commercial use copyrighted music on such pre-taxed media is enshrined in law. While that is not the case here, it is the clear understanding behind the blank media royalty that it will be used for the copying of copyrighted material. Otherwise the royalty would make no sense.

Ted
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
26,972
Location
Albany, NY
A CD recording Kiosk might be a good thing, but this was tried with cassette tapes about 10 years ago. Of course you had to order your tape, and it took a few weeks to get it, but the basis of the idea is the same. It failed, perhaps because the selection was secondary songs or songs that had been out for 5 years or more, nothing "first rate". I'm sure the immediacy factor was also there.
Also, tape is tape. With the songs I download off Kazaa and such, they're MP3s encoded at 128k-256k per sec. CD Wave audio is well over a megabyte per second. The quality difference is there... I'd probably take advantage of such a system if it we're to come about.
 

John_Berger

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2001
Messages
2,489
This is all quite intriguing. In briefly looking throught this thread, the one common denominator that I've been reading is that on a price-per-value comparison, audio CDs and the music recorded on them ... well ... suck.
I personally still buy CDs if (A) there are three or more songs that I like, (B) I have confidence that the majority of songs will be acceptable, (C) the people are true "artists" and not "the pop sensation du jour", (D) the music is performed by real people and not computers, and/or (E) primarily instrumental movie soundtracks. How many CDs that have been released anymore fit this criteria for me? Not a whole helluva lot.
I've bought two CDs this year because nothing else appeals to me, not because I'm downloading like crazy off the Internet. If it's a CD that I know I'll like and I'll listen to regularly, I'll buy it. I'm pretty much relegated to classical or movie soundtracks (which are easily the majority of my collection) because for me they provide a much better listening value than the crap that is put out today.
It's just amazing that the nazis in the RIAA are blaming everything on piracy, when it's clear that most people, at least here on HTF which is fortunately a diverse group, simply don't like the music that is put forth.
 

Jeff Ulmer

Senior HTF Member
Deceased Member
Joined
Aug 23, 1998
Messages
5,582
That's why I think bands and/or record companies should do some "reverse engineering" here: earn your money through live music.
Bands aren't the only ones who make a living off the music industry, and in several genres the musicians don't even have a hand in the songwriting process. Some artists don't want to tour, it is a different job entirely to making records. Should they be dictated to stop making music as a result? I wonder what The Beatles would say about that. I don't see Jerry Goldsmith out touring, I guess he should be forced out of business too, since he won't be able to make a living selling his soundtrack recordings on CD.

As for the tax on "music only" CDRs, this is one area the RIAA and the majors are in colusion. I'd love to see the accounting trail as to where this money ends up. I'm certain all the artists whose work is supposedly being licensed this way never see a dime.
 

Ted Todorov

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2000
Messages
3,706
Excellent post, Jeff.

As for the tax on "music only" CDRs, this is one area the RIAA and the majors are in colusion. I'd love to see the accounting trail as to where this money ends up. I'm certain all the artists whose work is supposedly being licensed this way never see a dime.
One thing that can't be emphasized enough is that the artists and the record companies should not be lumped together. What is good for the record companies is often bad for the artists and fans.

There was a great article recently (in the NY Times???) about a would be (female) teen pop sensation on whom the record company spent over $2 million on recording and promoting her first album which then sold around 100 copies. Meanwhile bands who have paid their dues, with real talent and local followings get ignored, used as cannon fodder, cheated.

Ted
 

CamiloCamacho

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 18, 2000
Messages
122
.50 rather than driving to a retailer and paying nearly $20 for virtually the same stuff. Does anyone actually think that this process results in the recording industry selling more copies? That's absolutely not the case.
I have downloaded a couple movies from the net, and in both cases i ended buying the movie in DVD. Why?, again, because i want the best quality and extras and there is only a place where i can get it. The DVD. (By the way, those movies were Moulin Rouge and The Drunken Master)
 

Max Knight

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 8, 2000
Messages
530
I buy a fair amount of CDs, but they are all used. I just can't stomach paying more than $10 for a CD. If it's a band I really really like, I might pay more, but that's very rare.

I have broadband, and I would much prefer to buy a CD rather than download all the songs. Even with broadband, the time it takes to get good versions of all the songs on a CD vastly outweighs the cost of buying it used.

I agree with many of the posters here that most albums these days are simply filler with one or two good songs. That is why file sharing is so prevelant. It's easy to download two hit singles. It's a pain to download an entire album. Thus bands with 2 hits and 10 stinky tracks are going to have their 2 hits ripped off. No one wants to pay $18 for two good songs.

But for a few "mainstream" artists, I listen mostly to jazz and indie stuff. I can buy indie albums right from the artists for $10-12, and most of the time they will sign them if you ask. That's the way music should be sold. Let the artists do it themselves. They'll make better money on each album and they won't have to sign any "and your firstborn" contracts.
 

Jeff Kleist

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 4, 1999
Messages
11,266
How about give up on Teen Bands like N Sync, who, once their fan base grows up, will be long forgotten. You don't have bands like the Beach Boys anymore, who last more than a few years in terms of song popularity.
N'Sync ARE pop idols

The Beach Boys were different for if no other reason

They

A-Had talent
B-Wrote their own songs
C-Played their own instruments
 

Mark Hanson

Agent
Joined
May 4, 1999
Messages
49
There is so much to this question and CD vs DVD. Still to a bunch of old timers like me, we have seen a changes.

1. Was listening to the count downs this weekend. How long have some of those songs been there. Forever, there used to be always some hot new thing bouncing the songs around. No cookie cutter assembled bands, boys who had been in the garages for years trying something new, not gross, but new. That appears to be missing.

2. Artist development. Lonestar has been just about the last band I saw on the in the van secondary market tours. First tour some set up some songs, test them with audiences, record that first better be good, choc full of hits album, then go of on tour and start the process again, ablums without this stamp of approval, one good song and fillers usually ended up in the cut pile and for 99 cents were not a bad bargain. Compliled the single songs on tape.

To many by the numbers bands being assembled like a recipe that then self destruct. They were not through the fire of the early tours to meld them into a group.

3. Milking the one song rest filler albums, Yuck,

4. Pricing, escpecially for the one song, filler albums.

5. Knowing when to do the greatest hits, Vol 1, etc These seem to be harder to find, by the number of hits and albums as in the past.

6. Pricing vs alternatives. Lets see a DVD of a concert with most of the hits and a couple of the better fillers in the new album. Through in a couple music videos of songs not in the concert, usually newer. Add an interview, lyrics on screen. $17.99 Lets see DVD may not just be cool, it is cool in the manner you got a a heck of a deal. Now CD 10-12 songs same as in the days of LP's 1 maybe two good songs, the rest listen to once, program them out of my CD player after that. $17.99, I am not a marketing person but given the choice I know what will sell, I think any one with the brain turned on will.
 

Barry_B_B

Second Unit
Joined
May 14, 2001
Messages
453
Real Name
Barry
Someone raised the point of buying used cd's which is about the only way I buy them now. Several stores in the area get new titles in only a week or two after release; they do charge more for these but still get a better feeling than paying what local chains are asking for. eBay is now my main source for music. MSRP's just make me shake my head, especially for jazz cd's or titles older than two years. DVD's do provide more entertainment value, and outweigh my cd purchases about 6:1 :emoji_thumbsup:
 

Jeff Ulmer

Senior HTF Member
Deceased Member
Joined
Aug 23, 1998
Messages
5,582
While it would be nice to single out the labels as the bad guys, it also must be said that without them, a very large percentage of music would never reach the marketplace (though some of it shouldn't ;)). What the label offers an artist is twofold: first, they finance the recordings, which allows an artist to create a marketable product (they actually act as a bank, since the expenses are recoupable, but banks won't lend money for speculative businesses like music). Second, the label offers a promotional and distribution device to allow a product to be exposed to a larger audience. However, the downside is that most new artists are not in a position of power when negotiating heir deals - they need the record company more then the record company needs them, which is to their disadvantage. Like any business there are compromises that must be met in order to achieve the goal, and for many artists, the control and percentage of profits are surrendered for the chance at bat. While some see this as unfair, the record company has a lot to lose signing new talent. There is no guarantee that they will ever see a return on investment, and like all highly speculative investing, the flipside is a higher return if there is success. If the company involvement facilitates an artist to move from their basement onto the world stage, what is that service worth? It is better to get 2% of something than 100% of nothing.
The alternative is for an artist to go strictly independent, which means raising capital to fund their project, actually producing something marketable (this is not as straight forward as most people believe), then dealing with the logistics of distribution and marketing. All of these efforts take time, and distract from any creative process. They are also the reason why a high percentage of potentially great acts never get heard.
Usually at some point along the way there is company involvement, whether major or independent, to help with areas that are beyond the area of expertise the artist has. This is where licensing comes into play. Until there is a time when consumers feel comfortable buying direct from the manufacturer, the hierarchy that the industry is based on will remain in effect. The biggest hurdle for any artist is the first release, since no audience is going to pay in advance for a product they can't see, especially if there is no track record that assures them that they will actually get what they are buying into.
 

Travis D

Second Unit
Joined
Feb 15, 2001
Messages
368
Charging 1 dollar a song is ludacris if they want to make an impact with kiosks. There are several guys at my school who burn CD's illegally so I don't agree with them at all, but it is interesting to see the progress of an actual buisness model forming in the school.

1999 - The first guy at our school to have a burner charges 15 dollars for a 74 min CD.

2000 - More people with burners come into the equation. The guy lowers his price to 10 dollars.

2001 - Spindles are cheap and so are the burned CD's, He now charges 5 a CD.

2002 - Several people now make CD's for 4 dollars each. The guy said he is making complete profit because the spindles that he buys always have a complete price return rebate on them. He also offers teirs of quality: $3 - 80min CD but he doesn't check the quality. $5 - He listens to every song before burning and gets the highest possible bitrate whenever he can. He even downloads the wav versions sometimes (BTW - wavs are 10 megabytes a minute, not a 100 a second.)

There is something funny about how at home pirates are adapting to the changing music and technology scene but the record companies won't budge. The guy I talked to said he is making more money now than when he charged 18 a CD and had a monopoly to boot. Crazy.
 

John Berggren

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 17, 1999
Messages
3,237
I do wish artists had more power. I look at Pearl Jam, who provide every concert of their last tour on double disc for around $10. That's an excellent idea at an excellent value. It makes bootlegs of the same shows obsolete in terms of both cost and quality. I wish some of my favored artists would do the same, but I imagine their label will not let them.

I think it's imporatant that they know the artist, know the market, and know the fan. Rarely do I think any or all of these are true.

In the movie business, ever Spider-man helps to fun smaller, more modest films. The profit made on a monster hit allows for smaller films with smaller expectations. I don't get the impression this happens in the music business. It seems they are all after the monster hit, and don't want to pursue the smaller artist with smaller returns.
 

Mike Broadman

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
4,950
I still buy literally dozens of CDs per month, so I guess this trend is not affecting me.

One big problem, IMO, is the demographic: it is true that kids will rip and download music. Unfortunately, they are the big target audience.

Many of you are saying that you would buy more CDs if the price was lower or if the music was better. But they are not targeting you, they are targeting the people who will download no matter what. This makes no sense.

The question they ask should not be "How do you get kids to stop downloading music?", it should be, "How do we get adults to buy music?"
 

Jason Harbaugh

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2001
Messages
2,968
While it would be nice to single out the labels as the bad guys, it also must be said that without them, a very large percentage of music would never reach the marketplace (though some of it shouldn't ).
I personally think that is because that is how it has always been done and they know no different. P2P sharing like Napster, Kazaa etc have opened the door for many artists to get their name out and product out for little investment. There are tons of local artists near me in Boulder and Denver that have/had all of their songs on those networks and are gaining an audience and a career. All of this without the help of Big Brother RIAA and Labels.

Sure you don't get the huge media tours and advertising and backing, but then again, how many artists out there get that anyway with the the music labels?

I think that the RIAA has gotten a hole in their boat and keep trying to use their hands to bail the rising water. Now if only they give in to new technology, the bucket, they would be able to bring their ship back above flood waters.
 

John_Berger

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2001
Messages
2,489
N'Sync ARE pop idols
The Beach Boys were different for if no other reason
The Beach Boys were at least something fresh and new back when they first came out, and they STILL have not been successfully duplicated even to this day -- not because no one wants to duplicate them, but because no one has the ability. I'll still put the integrity and chemisty of Beach Boys music against crap from N'Sync any day. All of the boy bands are nothing more than pale imitations to the real boy bands of the 60s and 70s.
N'Sync are nothing more than yet another, marketing-only product of the "Orlando Boys Group and Chocolate Fondue Manufacturing Corporation."
Anyway ... back to the topic at hand. :)
 

Jeff Ulmer

Senior HTF Member
Deceased Member
Joined
Aug 23, 1998
Messages
5,582
Travis, the big difference between the criminals you mention and the record companies is that, unlike the bootleggers, the record companies and artists have to pay to create and distribute the music they offer, they don't just steal it. I can buy a stolen car or TV for substantially less than one at a store, go figure!

Those bootleggers are one of the driving arguments for higher CD prices and increased copy protection. They are thieves pure and simple, and the day some of them find themselves serving time will be a wakeup call to the rest of them. They should be treated exactly the same way as the guy who comes into your house and steals your TV, and are no different than the rest of the scum who leech off the talent that supplies the content for their endeavors. The record companies may be screwing artists out of some of their money, but the bootleggers are only paying themselves.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top