| Author
|
Chaos Unlimited is reborn !?
|
Nik
Error Corrective
Started Topics :
13
Posts :
142
Posted : Sep 19, 2006 15:28
|
Its a no brainer.
Online is where all the CD buying public are buying there music now - look around, everyone is wearing an Ipod.
The only thing stopping psy trance fans was that you could only purchase MP3s - DJs want WAVs.
However you may have noticed shops like beatport.com and trackitdown.net are doing WAVs now so what is stopping you?
The price?
Perhaps. The WAV handling charge is quite dear and this price has just been upped by beatport recently but think about how many times you have bought a compilation CD and only ever used one maybe two tracks. That would have cost you £10-£15 (in UK) - the same two tracks online would only cost roughly £5.
You see what Im getting at here - the online experience can make your buying experience so much more selective so that you can specifically choose the quality tracks for your collection. There will be no more reason to buy and waste money on useless compilation filler tracks found on all the CDs brought about by all the new labels.
YOU can choose the music and buy the music made by your favourite artists - you can make your own compilation if you like - or rather just buy tracks as singles 
I used to pay £5 for a two side 45RPM six years ago I can get two WAV tracks for roughly the same, £5 online now.
I think buying tracks online will be healthy for the scene and for the quality of the music - we can find a situation where listeners would target artists and particular tracks - you could argue a need for labels as artists could just as easily release there own music through the online shops.
The mass of compilations were partly responsible for the demise of the scene and the demise of the music by forcing the listener to be gluttons of trance music that they perhaps didn't want. From buying music online listeners can be so much more selective and target tracks that they only want.
Ive been talking to PsyMP3 and there are looking in to selling WAVs soon. They say that the main problem is with them getting too many complaints with users connections 'timing out' with the lengthier download time with WAVs but when this gets sorted and the downloading technology improves, this will be the future of our scene (touchwood).
The only sacrifice is the physical box but that is just rubbish in the end.
  1-0-1-0-1-0-1-0-?-0-1 |
|
|
|
dirty 1
Started Topics :
8
Posts :
141
Posted : Sep 19, 2006 15:50
|
very correctively spoken mr nik,no error in your words..you missing one point though....
the psy scene is full of poncing sudo hippies that want everything for free...
how can we get around this(they're complaining over 25p extra for a track that may have taken an artist a month to make.(from £1.50-£1.75...)wankers.
|
|
|
|
Basilisk
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
168
Posts :
2984
Posted : Sep 19, 2006 17:57
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-09-19 15:28, Nik wrote:
The only thing stopping psy trance fans was that you could only purchase MP3s - DJs want WAVs.
However you may have noticed shops like beatport.com and trackitdown.net are doing WAVs now so what is stopping you?
The price?
Perhaps. The WAV handling charge is quite dear and this price has just been upped by beatport recently but think about how many times you have bought a compilation CD and only ever used one maybe two tracks. That would have cost you £10-£15 (in UK) - the same two tracks online would only cost roughly £5.
You see what Im getting at here - the online experience can make your buying experience so much more selective so that you can specifically choose the quality tracks for your collection. There will be no more reason to buy and waste money on useless compilation filler tracks found on all the CDs brought about by all the new labels.
YOU can choose the music and buy the music made by your favourite artists - you can make your own compilation if you like - or rather just buy tracks as singles
|
|
I keep hearing this argument for high WAV prices, but I am not convinced. For starters, assuming we are drilling down to find the two or three gems on a compilation, how exactly can the consumer tell killer from filler? Beatport's samples are terrible, and I don't think the other shops have anything better. It all comes back to so-called "piracy" as a means to preview music before purchasing it, and in that sense, the digital music marketplace has yet to build on the potential of the core concept of bits over atoms.
The CD medium does have a few advantages over digital downloads while the price of WAVs remain high. Should a person find at least three tracks that look good on a CD, one may as well purchase it. That's not a lot, when you think about it. With the prices where they are now, the only use these digital download shops have is to cherry pick the better tunes from crap releases. When you think about it, that is rather weak. Shelf space costs next to nothing online, manufacturing costs are negligable, and yet a full CD's worth of music is as much as twice the cost of th physical media. There is no way around this. The prices have to come down for this new industry to really blossom.
|
|
|
|
Nik
Error Corrective
Started Topics :
13
Posts :
142
Posted : Sep 20, 2006 13:05
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-09-19 17:57, basilisk wrote:
I keep hearing this argument for high WAV prices, but I am not convinced. For starters, assuming we are drilling down to find the two or three gems on a compilation, how exactly can the consumer tell killer from filler? Beatport's samples are terrible, and I don't think the other shops have anything better. It all comes back to so-called "piracy" as a means to preview music before purchasing it, and in that sense, the digital music marketplace has yet to build on the potential of the core concept of bits over atoms.
The CD medium does have a few advantages over digital downloads while the price of WAVs remain high. Should a person find at least three tracks that look good on a CD, one may as well purchase it. That's not a lot, when you think about it. With the prices where they are now, the only use these digital download shops have is to cherry pick the better tunes from crap releases. When you think about it, that is rather weak. Shelf space costs next to nothing online, manufacturing costs are negligable, and yet a full CD's worth of music is as much as twice the cost of th physical media. There is no way around this. The prices have to come down for this new industry to really blossom.
|
|
'itunes', the most popular download site in the world, sell their MP3s (typically 3 minutes long) for 79p (in the UK) and don't make any profit from those sales.
1-0-1-0-1-0-1-0-?-0-1 |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Sep 22, 2006 16:08
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-09-20 13:05, Nik wrote:
'itunes', the most popular download site in the world, sell their MP3s (typically 3 minutes long) for 79p (in the UK) and don't make any profit from those sales.
|
|
The problem for iTunes is that the labels don't want the downloads to be cheap, so they demand something like 65 cent on each track sold for 99 cent.
With card transactions fees and their overhead it means that they only make a few cents per track, but obviously they realise that people are not willing to pay more than $1 for the tracks and they want to sell iPods so hence it works out for them.
The record industry gets an ideal partner who lock people in a format that demands that they buy their hardware so they can make profit even if they sell their products while passing all profits to them.
If you compare how much the label would get per sold CD in a shop it's easy to see that 65 cent per sold track is ridiculously high margin in comparasion and doesn't mean that a digital shop have to charge more than $1 per track and only shows how retarded and greedy the mainstream record industry is.
The argument that it's a good deal for the consumer nevertheless since they might only want a few tracks from a release is extremly weak to say the least.
It's an excuse to hike the prices, but not an explanation to the customer why one have to charge unresonable prices since it doesn't change the fact that the music is selling with an extortionate profit margin.
I guess there is a concern that people will buy less if they can pick and choose what to buy, but I don't think it's as simple as that.
If someone have $40 to spend on a few CD's they wont usually go online and just buy the 5 best tracks from those CD's instead just spending $5.
They will often get more tracks from many different releases while their at it.
Also some that would never buy a whole CD will actually bother to get the few tracks they did like.
There is also not the issue of lmited shelf space, so with a digital distribution the labels can release more material and keep old back catalouge online, so there should not be as much of an issue for consumers that they cannot find enough tracks they like to spend their money on.
My guess is that neither beatport or CU is setting the exuberant prices they currently have, but rather some labels demanding a lot per sold track.
All with the justification that one can now buy only the track one likes, so even if it's double the price per track compared to a physical CD it's still a bargain.
Customers who actually think their releases is really good and want more than half on the tracks on them are then forced to buy the music in a format they don't like or resort to illegal downloads.
I really doubt that attitude works in favour of the labels and I doubt the digital distribution will take off until labels have developed a more mature approach to it.
They need to start to simply look at what margin they need on each sold track instead of comparing with how much they would have earned if someone bought a whole CD from them because they liked one track.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
TrippyJohnny
Inactive User
Started Topics :
2
Posts :
445
Posted : Sep 22, 2006 17:01
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-09-22 16:08, Spindrift wrote:
My guess is that neither beatport or CU is setting the exuberant prices they currently have, but rather some labels demanding a lot per sold track. |
|
Not true. Beatport is the one that set the prices. The labels do not have any saying in this at the moment.
Another shop is Junodownload. They also set the prices even though you can choose from more price ranges as a label.
There's not one shop at the moment where you can set your own prices as a label and I doubt it will happen anytime these days. The shops set the price and offer you a service as a "take it or leave it".
http://www.peopleagainstpeace.net/ |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Sep 22, 2006 17:24
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-09-22 17:01, TrippyJohnny wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2006-09-22 16:08, Spindrift wrote:
My guess is that neither beatport or CU is setting the exuberant prices they currently have, but rather some labels demanding a lot per sold track. |
|
Not true. Beatport is the one that set the prices. The labels do not have any saying in this at the moment.
Another shop is Junodownload. They also set the prices even though you can choose from more price ranges as a label.
There's not one shop at the moment where you can set your own prices as a label and I doubt it will happen anytime these days. The shops set the price and offer you a service as a "take it or leave it".
|
|
Did I say that the labels set the prices in the shop on an individual basis?
That they don't offer individual pricing doesn't mean that the labels have no influence on the actual pricing.
If a couple of important labels ask for a certain price the shop have basically two options:
1. Adjust their pricing accordingly for all releases to make sure they can still all releases for a profit.
2. Set up variable pricing depending on how much the labels ask per track.
Having variable pricing has it's disadvantages and all shops I know of has the same price for all labels. Junodownload seems to be an exception I was not aware of.
But for sure the labels have their say in how much they expect per track, and those demands will influence the final retail price.
The mainstream labels did actually want to increase the cost per track for iTunes and expected them to introduce variable pricing or raise their prices overall.
iTunes was with a 70% marketshare in the position to say that they refuse, and the labels had to take the millions they getting from their service or leave it.
In the trance scene there is no download shop with that position, so they are even more under the mercy of the labels and to adjust the prices to the labels expectations.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
|
