Concord on the future of OJCs

[jazzbo]

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.

Also nice about eMusic: you can download AGAIN. Just go to your account and select the downloads you have already paid for and download them again . . . very cool feature.

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

we don't have that in Europe...

:(:(

[JSngry]

Ok, let's look at this from a musician's standpoint, somewhere in the not too distant future. Let's say you do an album. You got your expenses for that already, no mattter what. You gotta do the mastering and all that, and ditto.

Now, you gotta sell the thing.

So...do you:

A) Go ahead and spend $X on manufacturing CDs, replete with printing artwork and such? That's an additional expense on top of what you've already incurred, and it is not insignificant. To make that back on top of what you're already spent, you gotta sell the buggers. That means you got storage, postage, packaging, all that. And with the decline of brick & mortars, you're going to be pretty much dependent on mail-order of some sort and in-person sales. You're adding expense and slowing down, at least somewhatt, your efficiency of delivery.

Or...

B) Make the album (either as a whole or as individual cuts) available as a CD-quality download, replete with optional artwork & such, upload it to a server, get a spiffy website that's actually fun to visit, and make your money back that way. Of course, for the OldSkool Collector Fetishists, you can go ahead and offer CDs, but at a really exhorbatant price, just to teach them a lesson and make them feel special because now they "own the music".

Really, which model makes more sense these days to deliver the same music to your audience - spending

more or spending less? Having multiple copies of the same thing that you have to manually disperse, or having one centeral copy that can be dispersed faster, cheaper, and with more end-user options?

Manufacturing costs are a bitch, make no mistake about it. They add significantly to where your break-even point is going to be. For unknown artists and/or "fringe" musics (of which jazz is one), it's going to be a helluva lot easier to offer the music without them, and it could/should lead to a decrease in retail cost per album, since your outlay is going to be less, and you don't necessarily have to sell an entire album to see some revenue from your "project" (I hate that word myself, but...).

A lot of us know of (or might even be) artists that have recorded some pretty nifty stuff that's just sitting there gathering dust because there's no lable interest. And what does a label provide? Manufacturing, packaging, distribution, and sometimes promotion. Out of those, promotion is the only one that anybody will still need once downloads become a common method of delivery. That's 3 out of 4 significant economic hurdles to getting your music heard substantially reduced, and that ain't nothing to sneeze at.

By no means is the issue of quality and such resolved. I'd not be surprised to see a whole new file format specifially for high-quality downloads appear at some point, just as I'd not be surprised to see the whole thing turn into a mess of low-quality bullshit at equally bullshit prices. It could go wither way doncha' know. But the potential is immense, and the potential impact is even immenser. This is the logical next phase of digital music, because once we left the analog realm behind, everything changed in a fundamental way (and I was a very late adapter to CD btw. I knew that once you went digital there was no turning back, and I kinda liked things analog-y, and not just sonically. But like the man said - adapt or die).

The choices are to either confront the new and demand that it meet our needs in its own way or else just retreat, give up, and become a Grumpy Old Fart. Ain't too much in between.

[JohnBlutarski]

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

of course. and maybe first you can choose. and afterwards, there will be only one system, because of "public demand", right??

[J Larsen]

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

A system whereby for a monthly fee you could stream lossless files of *anything* would not be without its appeal...

[JSngry]

Especially if you got a recording-capable soundcard & some good capturing software...

Digital music - Pandora's Box indeed!

[RDK]

Not that anyone's specifically bashed emusic, but a few people have admitted to not having downloaded anything (or very little) and one senses that they're arguing more from the heart than the head. If anyone hasn't tried emusic, do yourself a favor and do so. I believe they still have a "25 free tracks" offer with no further obligation. It can't be a simpler process and some of you might be surprised at how easy it is and how good the mp3 tracks sound.

[JohnBlutarski]

Especially if you got a recording-capable soundcard & some good capturing software...

Digital music - Pandora's Box indeed!

but that would be as illegal as dowloading is now (from illegal sites)...

JB

Edited April 16, 2007 by JohnBlutarski

[jazzbo]

Not that anyone's specifically bashed emusic, but a few people have admitted to not having downloaded anything (or very little) and one senses that they're arguing more from the heart than the head. If anyone hasn't tried emusic, do yourself a favor and do so. I believe they still have a "25 free tracks" offer with no further obligation. It can't be a simpler process and some of you might be surprised at how easy it is and how good the mp3 tracks sound.

Yes, well said.

[Noj]

Not that anyone's specifically bashed emusic, but a few people have admitted to not having downloaded anything (or very little) and one senses that they're arguing more from the heart than the head. If anyone hasn't tried emusic, do yourself a favor and do so. I believe they still have a "25 free tracks" offer with no further obligation. It can't be a simpler process and some of you might be surprised at how easy it is and how good the mp3 tracks sound.

Seconded.

However, I still feel my emusic downloads "count" less than my purchased cds. I like having the artwork and manufactured cd like others.

[JohnBlutarski]

Not that anyone's specifically bashed emusic, but a few people have admitted to not having downloaded anything (or very little) and one senses that they're arguing more from the heart than the head. If anyone hasn't tried emusic, do yourself a favor and do so. I believe they still have a "25 free tracks" offer with no further obligation. It can't be a simpler process and some of you might be surprised at how easy it is and how good the mp3 tracks sound.

Seconded.

However, I still feel my emusic downloads "count" less than my purchased cds. I like having the artwork and manufactured cd like others.

I agree,

JB

[Kyo]

Not that anyone's specifically bashed emusic, but a few people have admitted to not having downloaded anything (or very little) and one senses that they're arguing more from the heart than the head. If anyone hasn't tried emusic, do yourself a favor and do so. I believe they still have a "25 free tracks" offer with no further obligation. It can't be a simpler process and some of you might be surprised at how easy it is and how good the mp3 tracks sound.

I second this recommendation! Also, if you know where to look you can start with 100 free mp3s...

eMusic - 100 free downloads

Edited April 16, 2007 by Kyo

[JSngry]

Especially if you got a recording-capable soundcard & some good capturing software...

Digital music - Pandora's Box indeed!

but that would be as illegal as dowloading is now (from illegal sites)...

JB

Such is the nature of all things Pandorian...

[JohnBlutarski]

Also nice about eMusic: you can download AGAIN. Just go to your account and select the downloads you have already paid for and download them again . . . very cool feature.

[J Larsen]

Especially if you got a recording-capable soundcard & some good capturing software...

But we wouldn't do that, would we???

Seriously, though - if they can figure out how to make a file that can only be played 10 times before it self destructs, they can figure out how to make a file that can only be played once before it self destructs, and then you have essentially the same system that I wished for (and am unlikely to ever get...)

[JohnBlutarski]

Especially if you got a recording-capable soundcard & some good capturing software...

But we wouldn't do that, would we???

Seriously, though - if they can figure out how to make a file that can only be played 10 times before it self destructs, they can figure out how to make a file that can only be played once before it self destructs, and then you have essentially the same system that I wished for (and am unlikely to ever get...)

so you want a system where you don't own music, and pay for every song you play on what machine you have, in house or mobile?

JB

[RDK]

However, I still feel my emusic downloads "count" less than my purchased cds. I like having the artwork and manufactured cd like others.

I agree as well. Old habits are hard to break, but they're slowly changing. Still, there's a ton of stuff that I've discovered, taken a chance on, or otherwise isn't available outside of emusc that I've been able to download and hear - and I wouldn't trade that for anything.

The thing is, I've got a couple thousand CDs that I can play on my semi-audiophile system and convince myself that they sound better than any digital downloads out there. But I have a ton of mp3 (and lossless) files as well, and I've mostly stopped burning them to CD and simply play them through my mp3 player or through my computer here at work. I simply consider them different formats, don't usually see the need to purchase both (or rip/burn one to the other), and treat them as if they're CDs or LPs - I play my CDs through a disc player, my LPs on a turntable, and my mp3s on a computer. I have more than enough music to go around, still buy more than ever before, and have my ears opened by stuff that I otherwise wouldn't purchase (or even find) at full price.

[JohnBlutarski]

not sure, J. but I strongly suspect all that classical indie stuff isn't tracked by anyone except the respective co.s. i'll leave the greater politics of SACD to the pop/rock folks who had a horse, etc. again, it's not huge #s but real ones, & ones the jazz market should consider.

but could you explain what you mean by this? that jazz should consider SACD?

JB

[JSngry]

Not that anyone's specifically bashed emusic, but a few people have admitted to not having downloaded anything (or very little) and one senses that they're arguing more from the heart than the head. If anyone hasn't tried emusic, do yourself a favor and do so. I believe they still have a "25 free tracks" offer with no further obligation. It can't be a simpler process and some of you might be surprised at how easy it is and how good the mp3 tracks sound.

Seconded.

However, I still feel my emusic downloads "count" less than my purchased cds. I like having the artwork and manufactured cd like others.

Do you feel that CD reissues of LPs "count" less than the actual LPs? Or that Chronological Classics CDs "count" less than having the original 78s?

On the first point, I did up until recently. And on the second point, I never really grew up in a 78-centric time (although I had more than a few encounters with them as a little kid).

But most of the music we're talking about here isn't "new" in any way shape or form. The need for the "object" lessens as time goes by, which is why hardly anbody today insists on having, for example, the contents of the Ellington RCA box on 78s & LPs. I've got almost all of the 60s stuff on original LPs, and you know what - it's the same music as is on the CDs! Shocking, I know...

I keep those LPs because I enjoy having them, lots of memories there about when, where, & how I got some of them, but the music is the same whether its on CD, LP, 45, 78, flexi-disc, whatever. And if I was a young cat about 20 years from now, and if I wanted to hear me some Ellington in quantity, and if downloads were the dominant form of distribution, I very seriously doubt that I'd even bat an eye about it, because hell, I'm hearing some great music in the format of the time. I'm not going to feel that I'm "missing out" on something because of the format I get it in. All I'm missing out on is the object that the music got delivered in back in the day, and although that's not without it's considerable charm and historical relevance, it ain't got too much of a lot of anything to do with what I hear coming out of the speakers right now, dig?

I've twice seen original copies of Norman Granz' The Jazz Scene in the hands of people I knew on a "regular" basis. One was a college buddy of mine, the otehr was an elderly lady in whose house I rented a room for a while. It's a breathtaking package, really it is. You gotta see it to believe it. I've got the CD reissue of it, and as nice a package as it is, it pales in comparison to the original, just as most CD reissues do in terms of packaging. If I had the chance to pick one up at a price I could afford, yeah, I propbably would, just to have the "object". Becuase, yes, I do dig objects.

But I don't for one second feel that my CD "counts" less than the original 500 lb. 20 square mile bundle that the original 78s came in when it comes to the music. Becuase you can do a lot of things with packaging - touch it, smell it, roll joints in/on it, do lines off of it, use it as an instrument of sexual arousal, eat a sandwhich off of it, use it as a coaster, hell, the options are almost unlimited. But there's one thing you can't do with it - listen to it.

And afaic, that "counts" more than anything else. Big time.

[Noj]

Of course, being able to listen to the music is what's most important, I agree.

[ghost of miles]

Funny thing is, I'd rather have (and do have) the CD reissue of THE JAZZ SCENE than the 1950 edition. There's more music on it, the CDs are more durable than the 78s, and just about all of the original "packaging" in the way of liners & photos is there, along with Brian Priestley's historical overview.

[Teasing the Korean]

Haven't read all 9 pages of this thread. Will OJC LPs continued to be manufactured?

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Haven't read all 9 pages of this thread. Will OJC LPs continued to be manufactured?

It's a nice thread to read. But there's no answer to that question.

True Blue had a sale last year of OJC LPs that were going out of print. Don't know if that was the whole lot that was available, but I really don't see them issuing any replacements once they run out.

MG

[JSngry]

Funny thing is, I'd rather have (and do have) the CD reissue of THE JAZZ SCENE than the 1950 edition. There's more music on it, the CDs are more durable than the 78s, and just about all of the original "packaging" in the way of liners & photos is there, along with Brian Priestley's historical overview.

Yeah, the original liners and photos are all there. But they're small. As is the one CD vs all those 78s. It was a BIG sonofagun, big and weighty. Almost as big & weighty as the suit that Hawk was wearing...

Things were bigger then, people had more room, physically & mentally. At least externally. It ain't like that now, is it (and if not everywhere, in enough places to matter). Now if you want space, you gotta find it inside. Thus the portabiulity factor, and thus the lessening importance of "objects" as means of delivering content.

That's not to say that the industry ain't gonna look for a way to do its thing, but, contrary to what some might feel, this whole thing is not being industry-driven. The industry's in a pants-shitting freakazodial frenzy trying to get a grip on it, and they may be in over their head once and for all.

We'll see.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

That's not to say that the industry ain't gonna look for a way to do its thing, but, contrary to what some might feel, this whole thing is not being industry-driven. The industry's in a pants-shitting freakazodial frenzy trying to get a grip on it, and they may be in over their head once and for all.

We'll see.

Well, it's not being driven by the record industry. It's perhaps being driven by the advertising industry, since what you seem to get all the time is adverts, with your music.

MG