Really, that’s somewhere close to the magic number. $.30 per song or $3.00 album (regardless of track count. Maybe $4.00-4.50 for a double album.)
When allofmp3.com was functional, I bought many albums at their lower-than-that-magical-pricepoint of $.70 or so per album..that was sweet. But alas, nothing gold can stay.
The bullshit iTunes price of .99/track & 9.99/album (although I think that is tweaked a little by now) and Amazon’s .99/track & ?6.99-9.99/album is just too much. I can buy 2 used cds at those prices. and frequently do. It is in no way worth $6-10 for something that provides no physical medium or physical art/textwork to digest. I can’t see how the record labels fail to see this. They save MASSIVE amounts of money on not producing & distributing the physical medium – how can they think it would be a value to us to pay close to the same price?
But once that number comes down…I mean I can see like $2.00-3.00 for old albums and $3.50-4.50 for new realeases, that would be ok too. Once those numbers come down to something closet to what I think most people already subconsciously realize is “worth it” – THEN the online music sales are really gonna blow up.
Because everyone loves a good deal.
And you, fucktarded record labels, are dying. So – have some money and survive, or sure as many people as you can and desiccate. Your call.
Onefine(mess)Archive 
Comment has nothing to do with your article: How come my stupid wordpress says I’m already subscribed to your new link but I don’t see anything past the “Blog Moved” entry?! Stupid computer!
LikeLike
Hmm. I’m not sure, I don’t use the wordpress feed reader, I use the google one.
But as long as you’ve used the feed link on THIS page, it should update eventually (??).
LikeLike
Considering I’m more than willing to spend far more on a new record, I still think the itunes/amazon pricing is very cheap. However, I also don’t buy anything from them. Sure, I love getting a used record for $7 (and I definitely think shitty sounding, booklet-and-art-lacking digital files should be cheaper than physical music) but in my mind going as low as $3 represents an over-commodification of something I (however likely over-) value.
Even I think the pleasure of listening to Born To Run is worth more than $3.
LikeLike
Ooo trying to hit me where it hurts, I see.
I think there’s a lot of factors in play these days, and it’s a debate I’d like to have. I’m not no stubborn that I won’t change my mind, and the 3-4.50 zone is my starting place. You’re going to have to work to get me to change it though!
It sounds like you’ve been involved in the industry a bit – do you know what the artists usually get from a cd sale? Back when I knew a few folks that were signed, it was very low, like $1 per cd was a good deal or something (for non super-stars of course). Or maybe I read that somewhere, I forget.
The rest went to the labels & middlemen.
So part of me is envisioning a world with smaller, less greedy labels. More DIY and more indie stuff, where the artist gets most of the money.
I’m thinking less “mega stars” like britney (and bruce even) and more “budget stars”. I don’t like the idea of music making folks millionaires more than I like the idea of any art making anyone that rich. Some of that is because I like the “hungry artist” idea in that I wonder how that much money affects your creative power.
Sure, I like the modern Bruce stuff, and some of the Elvis Costello stuff but, honestly, none of it holds a candle to their poor artist phase. Sure, 20 years of playing and your skill level goes up – but does your inspiration levels? Hard to say.
Anyway. Yeah. That was an unrelated tangent and should be its own thread.
SO. Lets say $4.50 for a new release – with no packaging (also meaning no packaging and distribution overhead!).
$1.50-$3 for older disks.
As great as Born to Run is, I can pick that CD up used WITH case/insert/etc. for $2-5. So it had better be under $3 digitally.
LikeLike
Ha! If I could find good used stuff for less than $5, I’d be stoked (half.com does not count). And my argument would kind of fall apart.
Depending on what label an artist works for, I’d say a good rule of thumb is that the less records you sell, the higher percentage you make. Some indie label split profits with the artist 50/50, but reality looks more like this.
The record companies want pricing to be based on demand- so Britney and Bruce songs cost more because they’re more popular, but wouldn’t it be cool if more respected artists got to charge more (TO A POINT, guys) because they make great music? Although then you run into the problem of no one ever hearing the good shit because they’re cheap. I like the NIN/Radiohead model a lot (you pay as much as you want to spend for what you get), but that fall apart when you aren’t a cult act. I’m just throwing out gems here, aren’t I? You’re welcome, music industry.
Meh, you can’t win. And for as much bad as record labels do, some have actually made music better through their involvement (old SST, Dischord, Touch & Go, even old Atlantic and Island Records), so killing them off completely would kind of be a bummer too.
People (not you or I) are just too stupid to vote with their dollars, that is my only conclusion.
[And yes, I am a Recovering music industry person. War is hell.]
LikeLike
That is an awesome link, and I think I read it years ago and it partially informed some of my thought process.
Born to Run is $7 on Amazon including shipping, I can pick up a copy around here for $5-$6.50 I think. But that was a really common album…more recent stuff is usually more (although you can get Modest Mouse’s Good News… for $6 including shipping). I think Amazon shipping only used to be $2…that was much nicer.
I thought the Nin/Radiohead thing was very cool as well (yet I still didn’t download either of their albums because Radiohead annoys the hell out of me now and I was never into NIN), and agree with your assessment.
So what’s your bottom line? Should “new” digital content be less or more than average new and used physical content?
For me, it should be absolutely always less than new physical, and I think, probably also tied with or generally less than used physical – because you’re still getting media & paper there!
I think $4-5 is still a magic zone for me – I just can’t see paying more than that, because given enough patience I will find that CD online somewhere for $6.50. Unless its a fucking rarity like the 2 Lifter Puller discs I still can’t get my grubby hands on.
LikeLike
I can’t really say whether or not I have a bottom line- maybe around $10 for a new, normal physical non-special-edition normal cd/vinyl. (I far too regularly pay $20+ for the extra songs/dvds/sweet vinyl colors and packages= SUCKER)
I certainly agree that digital should be less- mostly because you don’t really get anything, and I’m one of those dorks that thinks (even high bitrate) digital files sound bad, even compared to cds. $10 Seems to be on the top end of reasonablity and $5 seems a bit low. So somewhere between there? I don’t know, I wouldn’t buy them anyway I guess.
And that is a smokin’ deal for born to run, btw. Even I am considering buying it at that price.
LikeLike
this is fascinating to me as i watch my livelyhood shrivel up & die screaming…(& deservedly so, for the most part). in that spirit, i’m going to whore off of this for mine own discussion…thx for getting the ball rolling, and some really interesting thoughts…
LikeLike