Concord on the future of OJCs

[J Larsen]

John Great post , why is it that movies on dvd are going in one direction Plasmas , big screens ,HD

and music on crappy little ipods, cell phones, something doesn't add up ?

Because there is massive market demand for high-res movies and (especially) video games, but there are very few audiophiles. People don't pay close attention to music as much as they used to; background listening is the norm and hence audio quality for music files is not a big issue. Movies and video games are activities that require one's full attention, so video quality is more important to the average consumer.

An important point.

MG

sure, but not the complete story. If the focus was only on video, then the industry would never have develloped SACD or audio-DVD.

JB

or to be more precise, if they wouldn't think they couild make a lot of money with those systems, they wouldn't have develloped them..

JB

The development history of these formats pre-dates the paradigm shift in the consumer market. The industry ended up losing a lot of money rolling these formats out.

[Aggie87]

Objectification of packaging is fine. We all do it (I'd not have a copy of the original Miles Ahead cover in my collection if it didn't "matter" to me at some basic level). But let's be honest with ourselves - it's in no way shape or form about the music.

It IS about the music, though. I love music, AND I have always been something of a collector - I'd venture that many of us are collectors. Whether it was as a kid collecting coins and stamps, or discovering vinyl later on, then CDs. Collectors don't collect things they don't love, I wouldn't think.

While the packaging may not really matter to you (or more importantly to the teenagers and 20 something that really are the target market for the big labels) it does for me. My paradigm hasn't shifted, though I'll grant that the younger generation(s) have different paradigms than I do.

[Late]

I think I understand people's resistance to downloadable music. As a result, I suppose, no one will probably want to download this not-very-interesting Duke Ellington album on Reprise ...

Duke Ellington: Afro-Bossa

I don't think Jim A will be psyched about a link to an illegal copy of an in-print CD.

Guy

Guy,

I didn't realize it was in-print. I can delete that post if you like.

I thought I was linking to a fairly hard-to-find Ellington album. (Shows you how much I know about what's in and out of print in regard to Duke.) I thought if people were happy to download it, it would show that downloads weren't so bad. That was my only point.

Honest intentions, but it (essentially) backfired.

L

[Bill Nelson]

The packaging gives each album an image and identity. In my multi-thousand collection, the packaging makes each album EASIER TO FIND.

I grab it and can immediately punch-up what I want to hear without searching thru an index of nine other stored albums of content (on DVD).

Also, I'm more secure with the more-durable laminate coating of the aluminum in purchased CDs.

I've had my share of MP-3 recorded projects which eventually crapped-out for a variety of reasons. It'd be a pisser to have to PAY AGAIN for each download which gets muffed at my non-techno-savvy end of the line. If so, then the music 'distributors' might well hope I keep messing things up fairly often.

"You might well think that. I couldn't POSSIBLY comment."

[Guy Berger]

I think I understand people's resistance to downloadable music. As a result, I suppose, no one will probably want to download this not-very-interesting Duke Ellington album on Reprise ...

Duke Ellington: Afro-Bossa

I don't think Jim A will be psyched about a link to an illegal copy of an in-print CD.

Guy

Guy,

I didn't realize it was in-print. I can delete that post if you like.

I thought I was linking to a fairly hard-to-find Ellington album. (Shows you how much I know about what's in and out of print in regard to Duke.) I thought if people were happy to download it, it would show that downloads weren't so bad. That was my only point.

Honest intentions, but it (essentially) backfired.

L

Yes, you should probably delete it.

Even with OOP stuff, I believe Jim prefers to avoid direct links.

Guy

[Claude]

I'd think that if SACD & DVD-A were going to become a viable "format of the future", they'd have done so by now. Instead, they're....Betamax. Superior format, not enough customer support to make it an ongoing proposition.

The comparision with Betamax is too harsh. SACD is doing quite well on the classical market, which has a much larger proportion of audiophiles than pop or jazz. There is a consistent flow of new releases. From the recent BBC Music Magazine awards (which is not a hifi mag), half of the awarded discs are SACDs.

Significantly, it's the large companies that have abandonned SACD, while for the small labels the format seems to pay off.

[mikeweil]

And I very very very seriously doubt that any future download system will offer loss-less files. Not in an age where I-pods rule and no one seems to give a rip about audio quality or lack thereof.

I would like to think that Concord will realize who their main audience for OJC-type material is, and offer a lossless option at a competitive price, as well simple higher bit-rate mp3s. That would be smart of them.

And not necessarily just for the OJC-type stuff either. There's an audiophile market for almsot every genre. The beauty of downloads is that you can offer all these levels of quality w/o having to incur the expense of manufacturing hardcopies, and then putting them on the market to wait for them to sell (yeah, I know about wholesale, middle man, etc. but with the decline in brick & mortars, the wholesale level becomes all the more critical, I'd think).

What could be a "safer" (from an investment/return standpoint) form of retail for any label than preparing a master, loading it onto a server, and then letting consumers obtain the material directly from the server? Talk about cutting out the middle man/men!

Think back to when Bret Primack fielded complaints here about the bit-rate of the new Sonny Rollins side that was being offered for download. He upgraded it what, overnight? Or almost? How much expense do you think was involved in that? How much time & labor?

I'm telling you, in theory, downloads could be a godsend for those of us interested in obsure (relative to the broader marketplace) material. No longer will we be dependent on somebody deciding that the market will support a manufacturing run and release. It can all be on servers, in excellent quality, and we can, at last, "have it all".

That's in theory. The reality might well be something else. But any way you look at it, this is definitely the beginning of something new in the music industry, and it's in the beginning that consumers can have the most direct impact. Once a comfortable "consensus" has been reached, the industry will hunker down. So waht I say to those who resist the notion of downlaoding is this - now is the time to use your misgivings to your advantage. Participate in the process vocally & vigorously. Make some noise to let the companies know what you will or won't accept and spend some $$$ accordingly. Reward those who do it right and rip those who don't a new one. Do it while the window of opportunity is still open.

It ain't going away, this downloading thing. You can't kill it, but you sure can decide how it goes. So speak now, or forever hold your peace.

Similar thoughts here. I don't see a point in offering lower resolution downloads for jazz collectors like most of us here - you can download 700 MB (the file size of an 80 minute CD) in a few minutes. Those kids listening to music only on the comps or iPods might not hear the difference, but I do, and won't go for MP3s - it all sums up to the fact that the industry always thinks in large figures, and the rarities - jazz is one, with less than 5% of sales totals - will always remain neglected, no matter what format we're talking about.

[mikeweil]

Same thing imo with downloadable books. Tried it a few times and quickly bagged it. Yeah, cheaper than buying the book.......but?

..... and how many books are there that never ever will be available as e-books?

[mikeweil]

Much of all the interesting thoughts written here leave me with one central point:

The music industry wants to make money, which is alright with me, but seems to be fixed on some aspects, like large sales figures - a factor that implies certain production processes. They should think up profitable ways of selling small quantities of rarer product to specialized people like us - if we were pop freaks we wouldn't give a damn!

[Claude]

eBooks are a different story, because they are not very convenient. You can't print out a ebook as easily and cheaply like burning a CD-R from a music download.

One day when "digital paper" will be ready for the market, that could however change very quickly.

[JohnBlutarski]

I'd think that if SACD & DVD-A were going to become a viable "format of the future", they'd have done so by now. Instead, they're....Betamax. Superior format, not enough customer support to make it an ongoing proposition.

The comparision with Betamax is too harsh. SACD is doing quite well on the classical market, which has a much larger proportion of audiophiles than pop or jazz. There is a consistent flow of new releases. From the recent BBC Music Magazine awards (which is not a hifi mag), half of the awarded discs are SACDs.

Significantly, it's the large companies that have abandonned SACD, while for the small labels the format seems to pay off.

Betamax, VHS AND Video 2000 existed for quite some time here, next to each other.

I know a lot of people who had to throw away a lot of tapes, when finally VHS was the only one left.

One of the reasons that I don't even consider SACD is that I want to be sure which one survives. SACD or DVDaudio.

(who remembers superVHS, DCC digital cassettes, DAT tapes, minidisc, etc, etc)

JB

Edited April 16, 2007 by JohnBlutarski

[JohnBlutarski]

Betamax, VHS AND Video 2000 existed for quite some time here, next to each other.

I know a lot of people who had to throw away a lot of tapes, when finally VHS was the only one left.

One of the reasons that I don't even consider SACD is that I want to be sure which one survives. SACD or DVDaudio.

(who remembers superVHS, DCC digital cassettes, DAT tapes, minidisc, etc, etc)

JB

[Claude]

One thing is certain: as almost all SACDs released in the past 3 years are hybrid discs, you won't need to throw them away in case there are no longer SACD players available. You can play them in every CD player.

In fact, the labels which release SACDs usually have a single inventory policy, i.e. they issue the titles as hybrid SACDs only, with no CD version available.

Edited April 16, 2007 by Claude

[J Larsen]

I'd think that if SACD & DVD-A were going to become a viable "format of the future", they'd have done so by now. Instead, they're....Betamax. Superior format, not enough customer support to make it an ongoing proposition.

The comparision with Betamax is too harsh. SACD is doing quite well on the classical market, which has a much larger proportion of audiophiles than pop or jazz.

According to the RIAA, as of year-end 2005 less than 3 million SACDs had been sold in total (across all titles). That figure probably excludes hybrid discs, but still, not exactly a flourishing format.

[Claude]

As I said, SACD is quite successful on the classical market, but classical itself is just a small niche on the music market, in terms of sales.

The RIAA figures probably include US sales only, but most classical labels releasing SACDs are european. If the figures only include single layer SACDs, they are not telling the whole picture. The best selling SACD titles have been hybrids.

For example, check the classical charts on the page of the JPC store (one of the largest in Germany). 6 discs among the top 20 are SACDs:

http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/charts/-/nooffers/1/page/1

Edited April 16, 2007 by Claude

[felser]

Let me see if I got this right...

When weighing the possibility (in theory, of course) of

A) Having easy, legal, ongoing access to quality (in theory, of course) downloads of music that would otherwise maybe or maybe not be available due to "market forces" through a business model that would still make provisions for appropriate royalty payments, etc. (in theory, of course)

against

B) Having this same music go in and (mostly) out of print (and all that that entails) and/or being subject to Andorran-like exploitation (and all that that entails)...

There are people who favor the latter scenario simply because of...

...perceived loss of potential resale value?

ONE of the reasons I favor the second scenario is that it enables a secondary market,with ALL that entails. Also, the time involved in downloads (I buy a LOT of CD's), the quality of the CD itself vs. the CD-R (I'm in the camp that believes CD-R's degrade quicker than CD's), and the packaging. liner notes and related info, the print quality involved in the real artwork vs. what I am able to produce on my home inkjet with all-use paper, etc. And that preference doesn't make me some sort of freaking idiot deserving your public scorn and your oversimplification/distortion of my points. If you disagree, just say you disagree (or don't bother), and spare me the bold font and the little faces. And it's interesting that with all your posts about standing up to what we feel is wrong and making ourselves heard, etc., that you're now saying we should roll over and give thanks for an inferior product because maybe the companies will make enough off of it to not withold product from us. And THAT fits my definition of exploitation more than Andorran companies adhering to Andorran copyright laws does. If the choice given to me in the marketplace is between an Andorran CD and a US download, I am going to go with the Andorran CD and my conscience will feel just fine with it.

Edited April 16, 2007 by felser

[JSngry]

Oh my!

[felser]

Oh my!

Well, if that's your idea of fun, I just learned a lot more about you today.

[ghost of miles]

Can't we just get back to beating up on poor Late for his inadvertent link?

[J Larsen]

no direct offense to you J. but motherfuck the RIAA twice-- quoting them is like quoting the Bush admin. Claude is correct-- SACD is a niche but a strong one in classical, w/BIS esp. doing significant #s in hybrids, also hybrid only label Pentatone (check out ANY disc w/Julia Fischer, violin, esp. her Bach sonatas & partitas). The curious thing in classical is that an otherwise enlightenend label like Hyperion has wasted space/$$$ NOT doing hybrid, rather releasing cd & SACD for certain titles... wot gives? (NOTE: i ain't now & will likely never be equipped for 'multi-channel' playback.)

edc

I hear you, but I think in this case that the RIAA, if anything, has an incentive to overstate SACD sales (no one wants to buy into a doomed format).

[Claude]

I think felser raised an important issue.

The (current) impossibility to resell downloaded music (while erasing it from one's own collection) should be reflected in the purchasing price of the downloads.

Most people may see music as a consumable good (use it and throw it away after some time), but for collectors who invest alot of money into music, the possibility to resell parts of the collection is important. I'm constantly recycling some discs.

Technologically, transfers of license between users should be possible, but that would mean that people have to live with a system of license management, where the labels or download stores have a certain control over the customer's computer.

[JohnBlutarski]

I think felser raised an important issue.

The (current) impossibility to resell downloaded music (while erasing it from one's own collection) should be reflected in the purchasing price of the downloads.

Most people may see music as a consumable good (use it and throw it away after some time), but for collectors who invest alot of money into music, the possibility to resell parts of the collection is important. I'm constantly recycling some discs.

Technologically, transfers of license between users should be possible, but that would mean that people have to live with a system of license management, where the labels or download stores have a certain control over the customer's computer.

also very true.

but I read a few articles a while ago, that parts of the industry don't want to sell downloads at all. they have to, now it's the new craze, but what they're really after is a system simulair of "pay per view", and that's a system you guys in the US are more common with. You buy for a download to listen to it 10 times, and then the download is unlistenable. In that way, they can make money of it all the time!

JB

[RDK]

I'm just wondering what the "object" is with a CD that makes some resistant to the notion of downloaded digital music.

It can't be the disc itself, because you can make one of those yourself after the download (assuming that the industry uses a format that makes that possible, which they'd be crazy not to not at least offer that as an option, which means that anything can happen...). Unless you're really into the "label" of a CD, one's just like the other, especially once it's inside the player.

Surely it's not the jewel box itself. Jewel boxes suck. Digipacks are hipper, but less durable, and I've heard plenty of complaint about them here.

It must be the artwork, the booklet & tray card, that constitutes the "object" that one feels is lost by downloading. Ok, I can buy that, even if, once again, for reissues of LPs they're usually a poor substitute for the originals.

So, what if...

You download (presumably in a high-quality format) an OJC for, say, $7.95 (or, hopefully, less), and pay an additional $2.95 to have the booklet & tray card mailed to you. (Adjust the proces of each to whatever might be more "realistic"). Then you can burn your download to a physical CD, assemble the artwork into a jewel box of your choosing, and voila, there's your object.

Good enough? Or is that nifty yellow & black stuff on the CD face what really matters?

I think it's that sticky plastic security tape that some people crave...

[Claude]

also very true.

but I read a few articles a while ago, that parts of the industry don't want to sell downloads at all. they have to, now it's the new craze, but what they're really after is a system simulair of "pay per view", and that's a system you guys in the US are more common with. You buy for a download to listen to it 10 times, and then the download is unlistenable. In that way, they can make money of it all the time!

It's all a question of pricing. Pay-per-listen can more economical when one does not come back very often to the same music. It's like renting DVDs. Of course it's not for those who like collecting more than listening

Edited April 16, 2007 by Claude

[RDK]

And one other thing - the dominance of the i-pod means the dominance of the I-pod pricing scheme: .99 per tune. So I would count on $10 or so downloads, for medium quality MP3s, and maybe some artwork, but then again, maybe not. In other words, the old "mid-price" CD, without the CD, the redbook quality, the commercial quality burn or the professional four color art.

Generally agree re: the .99 pricing structure, but OJCs have been readily availably now on emusc for only about .25/track (and even "less" in the unlimited days). I also find emusic preferable for being DRM-free mp3.