Joe Harriott

[A Lark Ascending]

We'd all get to listen to music that is locked away from us now.

Not all of us, the "non-downloaders" (like me) wouldn't.

But that would be a personal choice.

Hardly a reason for not making the music available in the most economic form if the costs of a more physical option are not affordable.

If there was enough demand, then I'm sure physical releases would be made in the way that vinyl copies of CD releases appear for some recordings.

I understand why some people don't like downloading; but surely it's better to have music available in this form rather than not available at all?

[A Lark Ascending]

I still can't bring myself to pay 10-15$ for some crappy MP3 without any art and information.

A bit out of-date on the 'crappy MP3' assertion. They may not be up to the exacting standards of the Hi-Fi buff but I'd say they sound 'very good' these days. Certainly much better than the first generation of CD remasterings of pre-digital music - or the thin vinyl that I bought most of my records on in the post-Oil Crisis years!

You do lose the art work - but as I generally only glance at this once. I'm content without.

If Mosaic did downloads (not an option, I know, because of licensing reasons) I'd go that way rather than go through the hassle of getting the boxes sent over the Atlantic.

My concern with a Harriott Mosaic would be that it would lock Hum Dono into a package with other recording I have. Though, maybe, once the trouble had been taken to prepare it for the Mosaic a single release might follow. It's happened before.

Though I suspect the economics of all this have changed dramatically in just the last few years. The idea of older music as a cash cow that can produce major returns if rationed doesn't quite work in a world of easily available illegal downloads and diminishing interest in music that was once considered the core of a 'collection'.

[papsrus]

If there was enough demand, then I'm sure physical releases would be made in the way that vinyl copies of CD releases appear for some recordings.

The compelling economic argument for owners of the music to make as much available as possible in some kind of "on demand" form is this:

Not only is every one of Rhapsody's top 100,000 tracks streamed at least once each month, the same is true for its top 200,000, top 300,000, and top 400,000. As fast as Rhapsody adds tracks to its library, those songs find an audience, even if it's just a few people a month, somewhere in the country.

You reach a point where the bottom part of the catalog generates more revenue than the more popular top part. It's kind of an amazing economic phenomenon, to me anyways. And it's the reason that virtually everything will almost certainly eventually be available "on demand."

[J.A.W.]

I still can't bring myself to pay 10-15$ for some crappy MP3 without any art and information.

A bit out of-date on the 'crappy MP3' assertion. They may not be up to the exacting standards of the Hi-Fi buff but I'd say they sound 'very good' these days. Certainly much better than the first generation of CD remasterings of pre-digital music - or the thin vinyl that I bought most of my records on in the post-Oil Crisis years!

I prefer CDs, they always sounded better on my system than the downloads I've heard.

[king ubu]

Bev, I do trust your judgment on the improved quality of commercially sold MP3s - but still... I have an ipod, I do my own MP3 (@ 320) and nowadays M4A (at even higher bitrate), but I still find the notion of paying for bits and bytes a bit weird... after all there's also the question of how long these files will be around and be readable and usable (not to speak of computer crashes). In short: if I buy something, I prefer to get a physical product of some kind, not just a file on my computer.

Anyway, as I said, I might be in the market for real high quality downloads.

[A Lark Ascending]

Oh, I understand completely a personal preference for an older technology over a newer. I'm sticking with paperback books until someone invents a floppy Kindle that I can mould to how I'm sitting, throw on the couch, stick in my pocket etc.

I'm just not convinced CD and vinyl can survive as much more than a bespoke niche area given the advantages of the download in terms of distribution, storage, accessibility etc. Especially in a time where there are so few shops selling none mainstream music anymore - so it's a case of buy a CD from Amazon to arrive a few days later or download it and listen ten minutes later. Perhaps a sign of our impatient, instant-gratification culture - but part of a continuum of increasingly demanding expectations (who would put up with turning discs over every 3 mins in order to hear a Beethoven symphony these days?).

Permanence? Well you can break or scratch CDs or records too. Once upon a time you just had to buy new ones - at least today you can back up.

On the Harriott front I was listening today to Michael Garrick's 'Promises' from the early 60s and was utterly spellbound by him on 'Parting is Such'. However the music gets out, it deserves a chance for the curious to be able to hear it.

[sidewinder]

I still can't bring myself to pay 10-15$ for some crappy MP3 without any art and information.

A bit out of-date on the 'crappy MP3' assertion. They may not be up to the exacting standards of the Hi-Fi buff but I'd say they sound 'very good' these days. Certainly much better than the first generation of CD remasterings of pre-digital music - or the thin vinyl that I bought most of my records on in the post-Oil Crisis years!

I prefer CDs, they always sounded better on my system than the downloads I've heard.

Totally agree. I always prefer the physical product too. CD or vinyl.

If ever there was an artist who merits the posthumous honour of a Mosaic big box and booklet, it's Harriott.

Edited February 7, 2011 by sidewinder