Trent Reznor and downloading music - Is it downloading working for NIN?

[Pellaz]

Hmm, how about:

92kbps mono download: free <-- ya get what ya don't pay for

192kbps stereo download: $2.00 <-- listenable for most folks

FLAC or 320kbps (or other uncompressed format) download, including printable liner notes and tray back: $5.00 <-- not that much to pay for, effectively, the actual CD

As above, but with CD liners and such mailed to you: $7 or $8


Biggest problem there would be the 'clearinghouse' fees for the $2 charge, which is why I didn't make it $1.00.


That pricing model might not work for unsigned bands, but it could work for labels and their websites, with lots of bands offered from one place.

 

[diablomozart]

"I actually agree with you that those who choose art as a vocation should be paid for their labor like any other craftsman. If one chooses not to pay an artist for art one should also choose to not possess that art."

it kills me when i read someone saying how all music and art should be free...thats basically saying all artists should work a full time job to live then effectively work a second job (writing recording etc) to provide people with free entertainment...as if our time and efforts are really worth nothing...and that isnt including the amount of money it takes to either purchase recording gear or pay for a studio...the old argument of "doing it because you love it" doesnt apply as most people wouldnt be in the recording industry if they didnt have some hope of making a living at it...so lets put it in plain english for people to understand...

no matter how fun it is...its still work...and no album sales equals no money for tour support hence no opportunities to make any money from either ticket sales or merch sales...so in closing...how may of you people who believe in free art are out there actually touring the us in a beat to shit 70's van, leaving your wife and kids at home, and watching the bills pile up and hoping you have a place to live when you get back?...because thats exactly what you are expecting of the people who provide you with music...*gets off soapbox*...d.m.

 

[Photino Decay]

Hmm, how about:

92kbps mono download: free <-- ya get what ya don't pay for

192kbps stereo download: $2.00 <-- listenable for most folks

FLAC or 320kbps (or other uncompressed format) download, including printable liner notes and tray back: $5.00 <-- not that much to pay for, effectively, the actual CD

As above, but with CD liners and such mailed to you: $7 or $8


Biggest problem there would be the 'clearinghouse' fees for the $2 charge, which is why I didn't make it $1.00.


That pricing model might not work for unsigned bands, but it could work for labels and their websites, with lots of bands offered from one place.

I agree with every single word said in this posting. (I only read the whole thread to find out if someone had the courage to bring this kind of concreteness and sanity to the discussion.) Although, for the high quality download, I'd make it 320kbps MP3 <B>and/or</B> FLAC <B>and/or</B> 256kbps OGG. and/or maybe even offer 192 and 128 kbps MP3s for people to put in their portable players. Main point I'm trying to make is that if you pay for a higher quality download, you should be offered lower quality downloads, too, so that you don't need to go through the hassle of re-encoding to save space on space-constrained devices.

 

[eaeolian]

I think that threads like these are the "abortion debate" arguments for people into music. I think that nothing new will be said, and that the best thing a moderator to this forum could do would be to combine every single thread like this into one.

Or, short of that, I think that these kinds of discussions should be on a completely different site, because nobody will change their minds, and the opinions read are always the same.

I think that I hate myself for even posting in this thread because the 4 replies I read and the time I spent typing this are 5 minutes out of my life that I will never get back.

Thats is what I think.

I think that there are a few people that behave that way - and have raised themselves to practically being trolls on this issue - and in-between their sermons, there's some good discussion on how this could be modified into a viable real-world model for bands to use in promoting themselves. Since many of the posters here are actually in bands that are trying to climb the ladder, I think it's a topic that *should* be discussed.

Like it or not, downloading, digital distribution, and economics are going to play a role in the music most people in this forum like to listen to.

 

[spag]

I'd love to be able to buy albums from the bands I listend to in FLAC format for $5 a piece.

Agreed. I ripped all mine to FLAC years ago, and all my physical media is in boxes in the garage. I would much prefer to be able to purchase music this way, rather than with a CD I'll look at once, and then stash in a huge pile.

 

[Pellaz]

I agree with every single word said in this posting. (I only read the whole thread to find out if someone had the courage to bring this kind of concreteness and sanity to the discussion.) Although, for the high quality download, I'd make it 320kbps MP3 and/or FLAC and/or 256kbps OGG. And/or maybe even offer 192 and 128 kbps MP3s for people to put in their portable players. Main point I'm trying to make is that if you pay for a higher quality download, you should be offered lower quality downloads, too, so that you don't need to go through the hassle of re-encoding to save space on space-constrained devices.

Agreed. (And I fixed your oh-so-html bold tags )

If someone were willing to pay 'top dollar' ($5 or $7) for an album download, they could get it in whatever format they wanted.

Oh, I forgot to add at the end of my list:

• Actual copy of the CD including domestic postage: $11
• Actual copy of the CD including domestic postage in a jewel case: $12