Why go back to the retro way or vinyl way of calling them 45's? Why not just a "single"? If memory serves, we've had cassette singles and CD singles with 2 songs on them.
But are the b-sides the same songs that were actually on a vinyl release of an old single? Historically accurate, in other words? And what do you get for artwork?
That is hardly possible. In many cases, singles had a different B-side for other countries. And totally different artwork. Often when a single was re-released it had a different B-side and artwork than the first release.
That is hardly possible. In many cases, singles had a different B-side for other countries. And totally different artwork. Often when a single was re-released it had a different B-side and artwork than the first release.
Sure but they could pick from among actual historical releases. discogs.com
I would love to see Apple create a section on iTunes where aspiring artists can sell their music directly to the consumer. I think they would have already, but I bet the bastard record labels won't allow it.
Every once in awhile there was a charm on the b-side or because people played the a-side all the time then would listen to the b-side and begin to like it or see the value in it.
It probably depends on the band. I liked the B-sides that I listened to, but the odd thing is that the original concept of a B-side was long obsolete by the time I cared to listen to music.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard
Why go back to the retro way or vinyl way of calling them 45's? Why not just a "single"? If memory serves, we've had cassette singles and CD singles with 2 songs on them.
Right, but the CD singles I had usually had four or five tracks, usually two different songs, and the remaining tracks were different versions or mixes of the title song.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
Really?
"the release of D45s marks the 60th anniversary of the 45 single record."
Still, it's a concept that doesn't even apply to the current technology. I might as well start marketing keyboard & mouse bundles as Quills.
I guess this is a neat idea for some of the older folks, but it strikes me as an obvious marketing gimick.
To me, it's a shame that this is generally being reported as some kind of "new format" instead of what it really is, which is a way to get older folks onboard the big iTunes train by appealing to their nostalgia.
The labels will never give up on forcing you to buy content you don't want. CD's writ small.
For every great 'B' side, there were a thousand crap B's.
Funny, I wonder how many young people understand this concept, let alone vinyl records!
It's an interesting idea, but, falls a bit short. The original 45 concept essentially got you two songs for the price of one in an effort to promote a not-so-popular song. Sometimes those b-side songs became number 1 hits due to being distributed with another hit song.
But, with the iTunes pricing, you're essentially paying for the two songs with a bit of a discount for the second one. $1.99 isn't much of a bargain for an a-side and b-side song, IMO. So, to me, this totally misses the idea of the Original 45 record. But, it's a cute marketing idea.
But, with the iTunes pricing, you're essentially paying for the two songs with a bit of a discount for the second one. $1.99 isn't much of a bargain for an a-side and b-side song, IMO. So, to me, this totally misses the idea of the Original 45 record. But, it's a cute marketing idea.
Is this any surprise? I mean, the RIAA made such a big deal about variable pricing about providing lots of cheaper as well as more expensive tracks, and when variable pricing comes out, it turns out that the list of cheaper tracks is so short that they are barely token tracks.
Is this any surprise? I mean, the RIAA made such a big deal about variable pricing about providing lots of cheaper as well as more expensive tracks, and when variable pricing comes out, it turns out that the list of cheaper tracks is so short that they are barely token tracks.
I know, there are very very few 69-cent songs in the iTunes Store, but PLENTY of $1.29 songs!
Recording companies seem to be trying the same old techniques to "package" or "bundle" music together so they can force you to pay more money for crap you don't want. This is essentially why 45s disappeared while LPs remained. The same principles were then applied to cassettes and then CDs. With CDs, you were able to buy a "maxi-single" (sounds like a feminine product) which had one song with a few other mixes of that same song, but sold for $6.99. Fleeced again!
Already in the iTunes Store you see a lot of songs that can only be purchased with the full album. I'm sure we'll be seeing more and more of this as time goes on. Apple will lose the will to fight this because they will actually benefit from this financially, too.
Too bad the teenagers that use iTunes today don't even know what a vinyl record is, or a 45 single. Most of them don't even know how to spell if you look at their idiotic and pathetic reviews.
Funny, I wonder how many young people understand this concept, let alone vinyl records!
It's an interesting idea, but, falls a bit short. The original 45 concept essentially got you two songs for the price of one in an effort to promote a not-so-popular song. Sometimes those b-side songs became number 1 hits due to being distributed with another hit song.
But, with the iTunes pricing, you're essentially paying for the two songs with a bit of a discount for the second one. $1.99 isn't much of a bargain for an a-side and b-side song, IMO. So, to me, this totally misses the idea of the Original 45 record. But, it's a cute marketing idea.
Agree completely.
The real value of the B-side (on vinyl) was to the record company, not the consumer: people are initially attracted to a catchy song they hear on the radio (or elsewhere), and bought the single just to get that song. The B-side was an opportunity for the label to sell the consumer on the larger product of the artist ("see, he does love songs, too!")
Once again the "geniuses" in the record business are more focused on squeezing every drop of blood from a nickel, so instead of a pretty good idea of offering 2 songs for $1.29 (the hit and the b-side) in order to develop artists (and to spur sales of A-sides by including for free stuff that hardly anybody would pay for anyway), we've got another transparent marketing gimmick that does nothing for anybody.
Jeez, enough with all the whinging and griping, music lovers these days don't know they're born.
Music has never been cheaper to buy than it is today and these D45s actually cost less than they did 30 years ago.
In real terms their cost today is negligible; a far cry back in the 70s when you had to save up to buy music or had to forgo a Saturday night out in order to buy a couple of 45s.
You can buy a couple of these for less than the price of pint, or you could if they were available on UK iTunes; I can't find them
It looks like they're including original single artwork and legitimate b-sides, for example, the "Billie Jean" Digital 45 (now with correct spelling!) b-side is "Can't Get Outta the Rain" which according to discogs was the b-side of the US 7-inch vinyl. AFAIK it hasn't been released digitally before.
So it looks like they're doing it right. I hope this takes off.
Music has never been cheaper to buy than it is today and these D45s actually cost less than they did 30 years ago. In real terms their cost today is negligible; a far cry back in the 70s when you had to save up to buy music or had to forgo a Saturday night out in order to buy a couple of 45s.
Yes, and it's also never been cheaper for music companies to make and distribute music today, too. Digital distribution saves a HUGE amount of money on packaging, shipping, renting stores, hiring employees, etc. etc. Yet the price of music keeps going up!
When CDs first arrived, they sold for about $7.99. Now they sell for double or more. So, how do you figure that it's never been cheaper to buy music?
Comments
See, like my mom, this marketing ploy goes both ways.
Does your mom have video to prove it?
(Hey you started it!)
But I agree it goes both ways.
But are the b-sides the same songs that were actually on a vinyl release of an old single? Historically accurate, in other words? And what do you get for artwork?
That is hardly possible. In many cases, singles had a different B-side for other countries. And totally different artwork. Often when a single was re-released it had a different B-side and artwork than the first release.
That is hardly possible. In many cases, singles had a different B-side for other countries. And totally different artwork. Often when a single was re-released it had a different B-side and artwork than the first release.
Sure but they could pick from among actual historical releases. discogs.com
I would love to see Apple create a section on iTunes where aspiring artists can sell their music directly to the consumer. I think they would have already, but I bet the bastard record labels won't allow it.
Why go back to the retro way or vinyl way of calling them 45's?
Really?
"the release of D45s marks the 60th anniversary of the 45 single record."
Every once in awhile there was a charm on the b-side or because people played the a-side all the time then would listen to the b-side and begin to like it or see the value in it.
It probably depends on the band. I liked the B-sides that I listened to, but the odd thing is that the original concept of a B-side was long obsolete by the time I cared to listen to music.
Why go back to the retro way or vinyl way of calling them 45's? Why not just a "single"? If memory serves, we've had cassette singles and CD singles with 2 songs on them.
Right, but the CD singles I had usually had four or five tracks, usually two different songs, and the remaining tracks were different versions or mixes of the title song.
Really?
"the release of D45s marks the 60th anniversary of the 45 single record."
Still, it's a concept that doesn't even apply to the current technology. I might as well start marketing keyboard & mouse bundles as Quills.
I guess this is a neat idea for some of the older folks, but it strikes me as an obvious marketing gimick.
To me, it's a shame that this is generally being reported as some kind of "new format" instead of what it really is, which is a way to get older folks onboard the big iTunes train by appealing to their nostalgia.
The labels will never give up on forcing you to buy content you don't want. CD's writ small.
For every great 'B' side, there were a thousand crap B's.
It's an interesting idea, but, falls a bit short. The original 45 concept essentially got you two songs for the price of one in an effort to promote a not-so-popular song. Sometimes those b-side songs became number 1 hits due to being distributed with another hit song.
But, with the iTunes pricing, you're essentially paying for the two songs with a bit of a discount for the second one. $1.99 isn't much of a bargain for an a-side and b-side song, IMO. So, to me, this totally misses the idea of the Original 45 record. But, it's a cute marketing idea.
But, with the iTunes pricing, you're essentially paying for the two songs with a bit of a discount for the second one. $1.99 isn't much of a bargain for an a-side and b-side song, IMO. So, to me, this totally misses the idea of the Original 45 record. But, it's a cute marketing idea.
Is this any surprise? I mean, the RIAA made such a big deal about variable pricing about providing lots of cheaper as well as more expensive tracks, and when variable pricing comes out, it turns out that the list of cheaper tracks is so short that they are barely token tracks.
Is this any surprise? I mean, the RIAA made such a big deal about variable pricing about providing lots of cheaper as well as more expensive tracks, and when variable pricing comes out, it turns out that the list of cheaper tracks is so short that they are barely token tracks.
I know, there are very very few 69-cent songs in the iTunes Store, but PLENTY of $1.29 songs!
Recording companies seem to be trying the same old techniques to "package" or "bundle" music together so they can force you to pay more money for crap you don't want. This is essentially why 45s disappeared while LPs remained. The same principles were then applied to cassettes and then CDs. With CDs, you were able to buy a "maxi-single" (sounds like a feminine product) which had one song with a few other mixes of that same song, but sold for $6.99. Fleeced again!
Already in the iTunes Store you see a lot of songs that can only be purchased with the full album. I'm sure we'll be seeing more and more of this as time goes on. Apple will lose the will to fight this because they will actually benefit from this financially, too.
Funny, I wonder how many young people understand this concept, let alone vinyl records!
It's an interesting idea, but, falls a bit short. The original 45 concept essentially got you two songs for the price of one in an effort to promote a not-so-popular song. Sometimes those b-side songs became number 1 hits due to being distributed with another hit song.
But, with the iTunes pricing, you're essentially paying for the two songs with a bit of a discount for the second one. $1.99 isn't much of a bargain for an a-side and b-side song, IMO. So, to me, this totally misses the idea of the Original 45 record. But, it's a cute marketing idea.
Agree completely.
The real value of the B-side (on vinyl) was to the record company, not the consumer: people are initially attracted to a catchy song they hear on the radio (or elsewhere), and bought the single just to get that song. The B-side was an opportunity for the label to sell the consumer on the larger product of the artist ("see, he does love songs, too!")
Once again the "geniuses" in the record business are more focused on squeezing every drop of blood from a nickel, so instead of a pretty good idea of offering 2 songs for $1.29 (the hit and the b-side) in order to develop artists (and to spur sales of A-sides by including for free stuff that hardly anybody would pay for anyway), we've got another transparent marketing gimmick that does nothing for anybody.
Music has never been cheaper to buy than it is today and these D45s actually cost less than they did 30 years ago.
In real terms their cost today is negligible; a far cry back in the 70s when you had to save up to buy music or had to forgo a Saturday night out in order to buy a couple of 45s.
You can buy a couple of these for less than the price of pint, or you could if they were available on UK iTunes; I can't find them
So it looks like they're doing it right. I hope this takes off.
Music has never been cheaper to buy than it is today and these D45s actually cost less than they did 30 years ago. In real terms their cost today is negligible; a far cry back in the 70s when you had to save up to buy music or had to forgo a Saturday night out in order to buy a couple of 45s.
Yes, and it's also never been cheaper for music companies to make and distribute music today, too. Digital distribution saves a HUGE amount of money on packaging, shipping, renting stores, hiring employees, etc. etc. Yet the price of music keeps going up!
When CDs first arrived, they sold for about $7.99. Now they sell for double or more. So, how do you figure that it's never been cheaper to buy music?