| Original message ([an error occurred while processing this directive] Views )[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Replies:
|
| Grave 522th Post
 
New Red Carpet Member
    
    
|  "Re(4):i urinated on my foot earlier today"
, posted Tue 12 Aug 11:59
quote:
They're overcharging for horrible music. I mean, how much does a CD REALLY cost to make?
Less than 50 cents... O.O yet they try to sell them for so much more. Bastards.
Oh, come on. You know it's not about that.
It doesn't matter how much it costs to produce a CD, case, and booklet. Do you think paying 50 cents to buy a CD would be fair? Now, what part of that 50 cents is going to cover cost of production, and then allow the label and the artist to turn a profit? Well, I doubt much would change for artists. They're even getting screwed at the high prices some CDs are at.
Occasionally there's a disc that's stubbornly planted at $18. However, most new CDs are easy enough to find for $9-$13, and I think that's fair enough.
It's important to respect and support quality artists. If you don't like their prices or music, boycotting them is one thing. Stealing it instead is another.
If it was because of copy protection, I might understand... making CDs that won't play in computers and deny you your own fair use are not good, and I won't buy them.
But be realistic about CD pricing. A lot of work goes into the production of the CD... not just what happens at the factory.
|
| Undead Fred 810th Post
Red Carpet Regular Member+
  
| "Re(5):i urinated on my foot earlier today" , posted Tue 12 Aug 12:39
quote:
Oh, come on. You know it's not about that.
It doesn't matter how much it costs to produce a CD, case, and booklet. Do you think paying 50 cents to buy a CD would be fair? Now, what part of that 50 cents is going to cover cost of production, and then allow the label and the artist to turn a profit? Well, I doubt much would change for artists. They're even getting screwed at the high prices some CDs are at.
Occasionally there's a disc that's stubbornly planted at $18. However, most new CDs are easy enough to find for $9-$13, and I think that's fair enough.
It's important to respect and support quality artists. If you don't like their prices or music, boycotting them is one thing. Stealing it instead is another.
If it was because of copy protection, I might understand... making CDs that won't play in computers and deny you your own fair use are not good, and I won't buy them.
But be realistic about CD pricing. A lot of work goes into the production of the CD... not just what happens at the factory.
I know that. I do buy CD's. I don't burn CD's. I was just making a point. If there's a band I like and they make a CD, then I'll buy it to support the band (as well as the fact that I wanted the CD anyway). The lowest I've seen CD's at was around $13, but that's when Best Buy first gets the CD and marks it down while it's new. I don't really have a problem paying $13-$15 for a CD I want, I'm just making the point that they could be much cheaper.
quote:
I think there's a healthy medium to CD pricing. While you are paying for more than just the burning of the CD, companies have been price fixing and driving up the costs for the last decade. I think that $10 would be a good price for a quality CD. Problem is now most CDs are crap with one decent song on them so you're forced to shell out twenty dollars for a 3 minute track.
That's what I'm talking about. I realize that there's more to the cost than just burning the CD itself, but they're still not worth as much as they charge. I'd say they're definitely cheaper to make than cassettes, yet they're still way more.
I was just saying that the music industry charges too much for CD's that people don't really want anyway (they just want that song that they hear on the radio all the time, anyway), and they're wondering why sales are slipping.
Oh boy! It's summertime!
|
| Grave 525th Post
New Red Carpet Member
| "Re(6):i urinated on my foot earlier today" , posted Tue 12 Aug 13:26
quote:
I was just saying that the music industry charges too much for CD's that people don't really want anyway (they just want that song that they hear on the radio all the time, anyway), and they're wondering why sales are slipping.
And they're semi-resistant to change, too. Most online music stores are pretty crappy at best, with bad DRM that doesn't work well, and varying amounts of quality music. I think the iTunes Music Store has it done best, and once iTunes hits PCs, I think it'll get that much bigger. Apple's DRM that's in place is hardly restrictive, and very fair. The songs are good quality, too, but I prefer to buy physical CDs, as always. I'm not sure why, but it just feels better to me.
Some artist are resisting the one-track one-price system Apple has going, too. They claim their work needs to be sold together, as a complete work. Now, I can understand that in some actual cohesive works. Would you want just one track of The Wall? Probably not. But in the case of Green Day, are their works really one connected piece? The guys say they dont' want their songs sold apart from the album, yet they have a greatest hits album that does just that.... huh?!
It sounds to me that a lot of artists are scrambling because they want to be able to continue to sell filler with 2 or 3 good songs at top dollar. And if they can't do that, well, who knows what'll happen.
|
| Undead Fred 813th Post
Red Carpet Regular Member+
| "Re(7):i urinated on my foot earlier today" , posted Tue 12 Aug 21:21
quote:
Some artist are resisting the one-track one-price system Apple has going, too. They claim their work needs to be sold together, as a complete work. Now, I can understand that in some actual cohesive works. Would you want just one track of The Wall? Probably not. But in the case of Green Day, are their works really one connected piece? The guys say they dont' want their songs sold apart from the album, yet they have a greatest hits album that does just that.... huh?!
It sounds to me that a lot of artists are scrambling because they want to be able to continue to sell filler with 2 or 3 good songs at top dollar. And if they can't do that, well, who knows what'll happen.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Seriously, people need to stop calling them artists... it's going to their heads. There's a big difference between a performer and an artist. This whole "sell them as a 'complete work'" is absolutely retarded. Hey, N*SYNC- you're not artists. Not in the slightest. Well, I don't know if N*SYNC said that or not, but I'm trying to make a point. Someone who writes their own music and/or lyrics could possibly be called an artist. I still don't think "artist" quite fits anyone in our music industry (whether it's a band I like or not); "performer" is much more accurate. I'm not about to start up the "what makes someone an artist" argument (some of us here have already been down that nasty road), I'm just saying a lot of these retards in the top 40 are not artists. That's why it's so stupid that they're acting like Blink182's CD is like a set of photos or woodblock prints or something like that. NO. It's crappy music. If Pavarotti started some "complete work" speech, I'd give him credit. I'm not a Pavarotti fan in the slightest, but he's not singing jerk-off teeny-bopping music. They're just trying to pretend that their filler songs are necessary to fully enjoy their radio song on the CD.
Oh boy! It's summertime!
|
|
|
"i urinated on my foot earlier today" 
2003
"Re(3):i urinated on my foot earlier today" 
"Re(7):i urinated on my foot earlier today" 
