To download or not to download: That is the question

[Mr Badguy]

How does everyone feel about file sharing?

Does anyone buy music anymore?

Personally, I still buy original CDs when they are released by any bands that I have been collecting over the years, not just to support the bands but I feel that it`s the right thing to do.

I have downloaded albums that have been out-of-print on CD but I owned the LP for years.

I feel that is fair as I have already paid for a copy of that music.

Just like sharing bootlegged concerts I think that it is alright provided there is no profit made by the downloader.

Record companies had their chance to cut the price of CDs years ago but kept selling them at ridiculously high prices (althought they have come down now), so anyone, like me, who has bought music for the past 25-30 years might feel that it`s time to get something back.

Having said all of that, let`s not forget that low record sales lead to bands getting dropped from company rosters.

Huh?

[PHOENIX]

I dont buy much anymore. Although i did splurge last year and bought stuff on CD only cause my old cassettes have nowhere to be played anymore.

But i do like downloading. Especially from artists that i only like a song or 2 and would thus never have bought their album anyways.

[kwame k]

I do both.....usually if a new band or an established band releases something, I download a few songs and see if it's worth buying. Like Guns-n-Roses new album, I downloaded it first and didn't like it, so I saved money by not buying it. That one I even deleted from my hard-drive. Most artists nowadays have most of their new songs on their website that you can listen to and then decide if you want to buy it. The Black Crowes new one had most of the songs on their website.....loved the music bought the album.

[Nickdfresh]

I also do both. MP3s are okay and have gotten better. But I'd rather have the original as sort of a "master source," especially if it's from an artist that I like. Then I can make personal copies in lossless formats. The only stuff I download without buying is hard to find stuff from one-hit wonders and stuff I consider to be novelty songs for my iPud...

But let's face it, most artists don't make much off their recordings. They make it by touring and merchandising!

[Nickdfresh]

Related...

Music sales boom, but albums fizzle for '08
By Ken Barnes, USA TODAY
Americans bought more music in 2008 than ever before, but album sales — the music industry's main source of revenue — dropped for a fourth year.

According to the Nielsen Co.'s year-end figures, music purchases — CD, vinyl, cassette and digital purchases of entire albums (grouped together as total albums), plus digital track downloads, singles and music videos — attained a new high of 1.5 billion, up 10.5% over 2007.

More than 70% of those transactions were digital track downloads, a record total of 1.07 billion that swamped 2007's previous high of 844.2 million by 27%. Last week's track downloads set a record of 47.7 million, and 71 songs exceeded 1 million downloads this year, compared with 41 last year (and just two in 2005). Track downloads outsold albums by a ratio of 2.5 to 1.

Total album sales dropped to 428.4 million, 14% fewer than in 2007, and have fallen 45% since 2000. Even combining album and track sales (by a formula that counts 10 track downloads as one album sale), the 535.4 million total is still down 8.5% from 2007 and more than 30% below 2000's physical album sales of 785.1 million.

Music purchases are "astronomically high," says Rob Sisco, Nielsen's president of music, "but it's a marketplace in transition from physical to digital." He sees promise in the rise of digital purchases of entire albums, which reached a high of 65.8 million in 2008. New albums by big acts bring the market up, he says, but "there hasn't been a steady stream of high-profile releases." Other '08 results:

•Leona Lewis' Bleeding Love was the year's top-selling digital song with 3.42 million downloads. Lil Wayne's Lollipop also topped 3 million, by 160,000. Rest of the top five: Flo Rida's Low, Katy Perry's I Kissed a Girl, Coldplay's Viva la Vida.

•Lil Wayne's Tha Carter III was the No. 1 album, selling 2.87 million copies. Coldplay's Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends, Taylor Swift's Fearless and Kid Rock's Rock 'n' Roll Jesus were the only other albums to sell 2 million in 2008, compared with eight in 2007.

•Swift, whose self-titled first album was No. 6 for the year, behind AC/DC's Black Ice, sold 4 million albums overall, tops for any artist. Rihanna was the leader in track sales with 9.94 million.

•Low is the all-time best-selling digital song, with 4.53 million downloads. The only other track above 4 million is Timbaland & OneRepublic's Apologize, at 4.01 million.

•Garth Brooks lost ground to The Beatles but is still by far the best-selling artist of the SoundScan era (post-1991, when Nielsen began tracking album sales electronically), leading the Fab Four by a tally of 68.1 million to 57.1 million.

•Although vinyl albums gave way to CDs years before SoundScan launched, it's worth noting that vinyl sales hit a 17-year high in 2008 with 1.88 million, up dramatically from just under a million in 2007. Radiohead's In Rainbows was the top vinyl seller with 25,800 copies.



Find this article at:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2009-01-01-soundscan-numbers_N.htm

Also see this thread on a recent study that indicated that downloads have essentially replaced the defunct single, that is now only available on expensive compilations and imports...

[WACF]

I download alot.

If I like it...I buy it.

I bought way too many cds for one or two songs in the past...not anymore.

When the whole downloading thing started cd prices were way too high...now they are lower.

I have found though...I used to buy something and play the shit out of it.

It is very rare I do that anymore...I never put anything on and listen start to finish.

With sat radio...my attention span for one artist just does not exist anymore.

[Nickdfresh]

I have to add that I have NO PROBLEM paying a buck or two for a song. My main problem with downloads is that they're mostly offered in a lossy format on iTunes and the like. I have no problem paying say $1.50 or $2 for a song in "Apple Lossless." But for some reason they still don't offer that and only download in AAC (basically an MP3). If I'm going to pay for something, I'd like true CD or vinyl quality...

Some artists like Sarah McLaughlin offer fully lossless versions of their music on their websites, usually in FLAC...

The truth is that it's almost more trouble to download and burn as it is to buy the fucking thing...but I also refuse to pay frigging $18 for a CD when I know they cost less than $1 to produce. Back in 1984, they could do that. But not now. Some manufacturers did lower prices, but really the time to do that was in the early 90s when the cost of producing a CD dropped as the tech matured...

[WACF]

Yeah...while I have not done it yet...I do like the idea of buying a single song...albiet it better be good quality.

IMO...Halford was smart in doing it...and VH stupid for not testing the waters with it.

[FORD]

The thought of paying for MP3's seems ridiculous to me, because if your hard drive dies (and occasionally they do) then you lose that file forever. Plus, it's a lossy format, so it's a ripoff anyway.

At least if they were selling a lossless format online, it would be the genuine equivalent of what you would get on CD. And then you could buy it and burn it, and have at least the audio equivalent of what you would get at the record store (if not the cover art, liner notes and all that shit, if that matters to you)

But the labels actually LIKE the idea that you could lose the file, because they're only too happy to sell you the same piece of music again and again.

As anyone here who has owned the same album on vinyl/cassette/8 track/CD/remastered CD/digital download could tell you.

Hell, they would start pressing Edison cylinder albums again if they thought they could sell them. Just picture "Fair Warning" playing on this bitch.......

[Nickdfresh]

The thought of paying for MP3's seems ridiculous to me, because if your hard drive dies (and occasionally they do) then you lose that file forever. Plus, it's a lossy format, so it's a ripoff anyway.

At least if they were selling a lossless format online, it would be the genuine equivalent of what you would get on CD. And then you could buy it and burn it, and have at least the audio equivalent of what you would get at the record store (if not the cover art, liner notes and all that shit, if that matters to you)

But the labels actually LIKE the idea that you could lose the file, because they're only too happy to sell you the same piece of music again and again.

As anyone here who has owned the same album on vinyl/cassette/8 track/CD/remastered CD/digital download could tell you.

Hell, they would start pressing Edison cylinder albums again if they thought they could sell them. Just picture "Fair Warning" playing on this bitch.......

I'm a big believer in external hard drives. I have a shitty one (Simpletech) somewhere in storage, but need to get a better drive so I can finally reformat my 'puter...

As far as saving MP3s (AAC for Apple iTunes actually, but basically the same difference), the gay iTunes interface won't let you pull your songs off the iPud and re-save them to your hard drive, only place them onto you iPud from your hard drive. Kind of a shitty thing after paying a buck for a song. Am I supposed to buy a new copy of a song after I place it on there??? WTF?

I was faced with this when my iPod Mini started having battery problems. Actually, it always had "battery problems" as it never had the charge those tools claim it does of like eight hours or whatever. This never bothered me much since I mostly just used it for running or spinning, and I never go any more than 45 minutes, and rarely if that. But I started losing power after only playing a few songs and it gradually got to the point where it wouldn't hold a charge much at all, and after recharging it for hours! So, fearing I would have to replace it with the contemporary rough equivalent, the iPod Nano, which for me was too small since it is half the size even though it holds twice the data capacity as the Mini! I did a Googe search and found this: http://www.ephpod.com/ I don't need that many songs (8 gigs worth) and my current Mini has taken its share of abuse being dropped while running, or exposed to torrential downpours...

Ephpod was the first iPod interface for Windows, and was configured by a kid in college who just wanted his iPod to work with his Windows 98. While it is a bit unwieldy and outdated (he hasn't updated it in years 'cause he graduated and has a real job now), the great thing is that you can burn copies of the songs on your iPod to transfer them to the next one. Or at least you can reformat your iPod software and put your songs back on it. But it turns out that I didn't really need to do all that as I just replaced the battery for $25 and resurrected my beloved Mini and it is better than new! The aftermarket batteries are actually a hell of a lot better than the defective pieces of shit Apple originally used and will last quite a bit longer...

[WACF]

I'm with Nick on the external hard drive.

They are cheap enough too these days.

The wife has so many pictures on our Hard drive I figured I better copy everything...one good failure and that is one hell of a loss.

[Coyote]

I'm a big believer in external hard drives. I have a shitty one (Simpletech) somewhere in storage, but need to get a better drive so I can finally reformat my 'puter...

As far as saving MP3s (AAC for Apple iTunes actually, but basically the same difference), the gay iTunes interface won't let you pull your songs off the iPud and re-save them to your hard drive, only place them onto you iPud from your hard drive. Kind of a shitty thing after paying a buck for a song. Am I supposed to buy a new copy of a song after I place it on there??? WTF?

I was faced with this when my iPod Mini started having battery problems. Actually, it always had "battery problems" as it never had the charge those tools claim it does of like eight hours or whatever. This never bothered me much since I mostly just used it for running or spinning, and I never go any more than 45 minutes, and rarely if that. But I started losing power after only playing a few songs and it gradually got to the point where it wouldn't hold a charge much at all, and after recharging it for hours! So, fearing I would have to replace it with the contemporary rough equivalent, the iPod Nano, which for me was too small since it is half the size even though it holds twice the data capacity as the Mini! I did a Googe search and found this: http://www.ephpod.com/ I don't need that many songs (8 gigs worth) and my current Mini has taken its share of abuse being dropped while running, or exposed to torrential downpours...

Ephpod was the first iPod interface for Windows, and was configured by a kid in college who just wanted his iPod to work with his Windows 98. While it is a bit unwieldy and outdated (he hasn't updated it in years 'cause he graduated and has a real job now), the great thing is that you can burn copies of the songs on your iPod to transfer them to the next one. Or at least you can reformat your iPod software and put your songs back on it. But it turns out that I didn't really need to do all that as I just replaced the battery for $25 and resurrected my beloved Mini and it is better than new! The aftermarket batteries are actually a hell of a lot better than the defective pieces of shit Apple originally used and will last quite a bit longer...

Dude, the latest WinAmp supports iPods...

Add songs to a playlist, then "send" those to your iPod.
Works for my iPod Shuffle...

[Coyote]

I download alot.

If I like it...I buy it.

I bought way too many cds for one or two songs in the past...not anymore.

Same here.

[Mr. Vengeance]

Downloading has killed music. I've been known to buy album downloads on puretracks...usually older albums. But what this whole download trend has done is kill album rock. The record companies push their shitty hip hop fruit of the month, because they know that they'll have one or two songs and the fans of that loser will just download those songs for $.99.

The days of getting an epic like Beggars Banquet where the entire album is just great are gone. Why make an album or even try if you can just sell a shitty single.

[Coyote]

The days of getting an epic like Beggars Banquet where the entire album is just great are gone. Why make an album or even try if you can just sell a shitty single.

I wouldn't say that's true.

One reason why we don't have modern day epic albums is the artists themselves consciously aiming for such an album. C'mon, does anyone think the Stones planned to make Beggars Banquet so awesome?

Another reason why is the labels. They can't afford to give the necessary time to the bands.
They're happy with pushing the single, since it makes more money.