Concord on the future of OJCs

[ghost of miles]

Another point: given the erratic durability of CD-Rs, are we really going to be storing hundreds or even thousands of jazz albums in download form on our home computers? Again, technology may bring us to that point of capability... but I couldn't do it right now on my three-year-old Dell (and have a functioning computer, anyway).

[J Larsen]

Another point: given the erratic durability of CD-Rs, are we really going to be storing hundreds or even thousands of jazz albums in download form on our home computers? Again, technology may bring us to that point of capability... but I couldn't do it right now on my three-year-old Dell (and have a functioning computer, anyway).

Likely not - we're getting close to fundamental limits on how much data can be read (as opposed to written) off of a magnetic disc of a given size. Also, hard discs have finite lifespans. On the other hand, there is plenty of room for improvement in download speeds, so perhaps we will be paying for the right to download a given record as often as we want. We'll find out soon enough, because the days of the widespread availability of recorded media are clearly numbered.

[Claude]

You don't need to keep the music on your hard drive.

I downloaded thousands of OJC albums during the Emusic "all you can eat" days, and I keep them on DVD-Rs. Given the low bitrate of these files (back then), more than 100 albums fit on one disc.

Most DVD players now play MP3 files from CD-R and the newer ones also from DVD-R, so the music can be played directly from the backup DVD-Rs also without using a PC.

Edited April 15, 2007 by Claude

[JSngry]

The music matters more than anything else, and I (like many others here) have a large number of OOP things on CD-R, often with Xeroxed liner notes, color reproductions of the covers, etc. I'm just not willing to shell out 15 bucks to the Music Man for a similar product at this point. As he's always done, he'll inevitably force us to play this way (remember the "no-returns" policy on vinyl in the late 1980s?).. but until then I'm not going to bargain.

That's the Pandora's Box of digital. You don't have to pay anything to get a perfect copy. Once it's been done, it's out there for anybody & everybody. Ask the good folk in Andorra...

So if downloads are priced at hardcopy levels, it ain't gonna work. There's not that many people whose personal ethics will take that much of a screwing indefinitely.

[J Larsen]

You don't need to keep the music on your hard drive.

I downloaded thousands of OJC albums during the Emusic "all you can eat" days, and I keep them on DVD-Rs. Given the low bitrate of these files (back then), more than 100 albums fit on one disc.

Most DVD players now play MP3 files from CD-R and the newer ones also from DVD-R, so the music can be played directly from the backup DVD-Rs also without using a PC.

I did the same thing as you with the emusic MP3s, but the question was will we keep the music backed up on our hard drives because of the failure rate of cdrs. Also, I think we're all wanting lossless files in this thread, in which case you'd be looking at around 10 albums to a DVD (rough estimate).

[JSngry]

All the more reason to hold on to those LPs...

[Dan Gould]

Jim,

the difference you are looking for is the difference between MP3 downloads and redbook standard CDs. That is what is represented by a CD, as far as I am concerned.

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.

Having said that, given the choice between OJCs going completely OOP and having them be available as downloads in the future, I'd still gladly take the latter option.

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.

The more I think about it, the more I am going to prefer commercially produced CDs, until they get around to offering downloads of the forgotten or never issued sessions. Then I'd lower my standards.

[felser]

If quality downloadable music comes with quality downloadable artwork/liner notes/etc at an adjusted downloadable price that reflects the savings of the company gets from not having to physically replicate any of it, then I for one would be more than just tolerant of it.

Hey - why pay $12.99 & up for something you could/should be able to download for 75% or less of that? You still get a CD out of the deal, and if you got a good printer and some good paper, original cover art at the very least. Shortest distance between two points and all that.

I agree with you, but that is also the basis of my argument. There are no indications from the companies (that I'm aware of, there sure aren't any in the current marketplace) that there will be any price breaks offered at all on downloads, and I don't see any other possible benefit (you can always throw away the jewel case!).

[jazzbo]

Here's what my crystal ball shows:

The industry is going to shift to downloads off the net and even in stores and charge just about as much, and we're not going to have a choice, we're going to either have our heads in the sand (or elsewhere) or participate in this new format change just as we did from analog to cds.

Edited April 15, 2007 by jazzbo

[ghost of miles]

I think you're right, jazzbo--that's how the Music Man likes to operate. But I'll be the grizzled old guy holed up in his study with a big bunch of CDs!

Edited April 15, 2007 by ghost of miles

[JSngry]

Here's what my crystal ball shows:

The industry is going to shift to downloads off the net and even in stores and charge just about as much, and we're not going to have a choice, we're going to either have our heads in the sand (or elsewhere) or participate in this new format change just as we did from analog to cds.

Oh but we do have a choice. It's called burning (is a crackproof copy-protection scheme even possible? I think not...) & sharing, and if the industry doesn't offer a price that has the perception of being "fair" to a "reasonable person", then aquiesence is entirely voluntary, as is the screwing of the consumer that will ensue.

[jazzbo]

I understand. . . . I'll be doing what I am now: listening to cds and listening to cdrs of downloaded material.

[Claude]

For the moment, download-only is an option to keep music available which does not sell enough CDs.

To release music as downloads only (new recordings or new reissues) won't work, especially not on the jazz market, since many buyers still completely ignore downloads.

I think new CDs will be released for many years to come. Just because CD sales are going down and downloads are going up doesn't mean CD is dead. It's still the dominant format, by a wide margin.

[JSngry]

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.

[Late]

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!

... in theory, downloads could be a godsend for those of us interested in obscure (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."

What I say to those who resist the notion of downloading is this — now is the time to use your misgivings to your advantage. Participate in the process vocally and vigorously. Make some noise to let the companies know what you will or won't accept and spend some money accordingly.

E-Music, for one example, uses variable bit-rate, and all the CDs I've burned from their digital files sound good — even some of the needle-drops. The latest Coltrane Concord box, for example, sounds excellent. Right now, the only way to get, say, Bahia in good sound is to get that Concord box. If you don't want to buy it because you already have other albums (Soultrane, etc.) in that set in K-2 or what-have-you editions, downloading is a good option.

I don't know too much about "lossless" digital files, but I'd suspect if the demand for them (.ogg files, .flac files) became more prevalent — and user-friendly for both PC and Mac — we'd see them available more readily.

[JohnBlutarski]

Myth or fact: factory-manufactured CDs have a longer audio life than CD-Rs?

Fact, but the esitmated lifespan of cdrs properly stored (ie in their cases and not in the sun) is over 100 years, so it is sort of a moot point. Also, there have at times been manufacturing issues with cds that caused unexpectedly short lifespans (chemical reactions between the plastic and recorded layers) - who knows if there are any more such issues waiting to be discovered in our collections in the neext 5, 10 or ?? years. I don't think it is likely, but the possibility can not be ruled out.

I have had more than a few cdrs where they started to skip and the info wasnt holding up .

so i also think it's the brand of cd-r you burn to some are better than others.

I think 100 years is way too optimistic...

A friend of mine works in a museum, where they want to store information in a reliable way, and they certainly don;t use 100 years as a fact....

JB

[JohnBlutarski]

Another point: given the erratic durability of CD-Rs, are we really going to be storing hundreds or even thousands of jazz albums in download form on our home computers? Again, technology may bring us to that point of capability... but I couldn't do it right now on my three-year-old Dell (and have a functioning computer, anyway).

and how about a HD malfunction?

then I'd have to have a back-up with a zillion GB, too..

JB

[Dan Gould]

ogg is nothing but an open source MP3. Flac and shn are the lossless files, as far as I know.

And Jim, I did not see Brett Primack here or know that changes were made to a download source file due to complaints.

I'd be more in favor of downloads if the quality was high enough.

[JohnBlutarski]

ogg is nothing but an open source MP3. Flac and shn are the lossless files, as far as I know.

And Jim, I did not see Brett Primack here or know that changes were made to a download source file due to complaints.

I'd be more in favor of downloads if the quality was high enough.

but isn't it funny (sarcastically???) that in one hand the industry (and the consumer market) wants us to up grade quality (audio, 16 bits, 20 bits, 24 bits, SACD, DVD-audio, etc, etc, (you name a few), and also for video: VHS, super VHS, DVD, HD-DVD, and television: wide screen, 100 Hrz, HD-TV, etc tect), and wants us to pay big $$ for it, and on the other hand they want us to pay the same amount for crap like music mp3???

JB

Edited April 15, 2007 by JohnBlutarski

[felser]

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 can resell a CD if I decide I don't like it. I can buy multi-cd lots on ebay at very low unit prices and explore stuff I'm not familiar with. Some CD's appreciate in value (hello Mosaic), so I can buy those and explore, knowing that I can get my money back if I don't want to keep it. I can legally trade one CD for another CD without breaking any copyright laws, thus being able to further explore more music.

[JohnBlutarski]

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 can resell a CD if I decide I don't like it. I can buy multi-cd lots on ebay at very low unit prices and explore stuff I'm not familiar with. Some CD's appreciate in value (hello Mosaic), so I can buy those and explore, knowing that I can get my money back if I don't want to keep it. I can legally trade one CD for another CD without breaking any copyright laws, thus being able to further explore more music.

I agree

[felser]

Here's what my crystal ball shows:

The industry is going to shift to downloads off the net and even in stores and charge just about as much, and we're not going to have a choice, we're going to either have our heads in the sand (or elsewhere) or participate in this new format change just as we did from analog to cds.

But, Lon, acknowledge the point I was making, this is a change being pushed by the companies for their profits, not pulled by consumer desire to change to a better format, the way CD's were (at least for many of us). Concord (and the whole industry) was dishonest in trying to indicate that the switchover to digital is due to "customer demand". That's my point.

[J Larsen]

I doubt there is sufficient customer demand for each individual OJC to make it profitable to keep each one in print, however it does not require much customer demand for an MP3 to make providing it profitable.

[JohnBlutarski]

I doubt there is sufficient customer demand for each individual OJC to make it profitable to keep each one in print, however it does not require much customer demand for an MP3 to make providing it profitable.

just one big computer, an internet connection and a bank account to cash the money???

JB

[DMP]

The way I read the original statement is that Concord is not planning to delete the OJC catalog. Good for them! (EMI, Sony/BMG routinely delete even recent reissues - Fantasy was an exception to this.) There have been titles that I've tried to order from my local outlet, and the response has sometimes been that they're no longer available, but I've been able to find them in the Concord site. We'll see.