I don't see what's so ridiculous about paying $12/mth to access millions of songs.
The whole "renting" thing seems a lot less silly to me now than it did earlier. With DRM going where it's going, we're basically renting it until our hardware crashes.
What's really killing Yahoo's service is incompatability with the iPod.
I'm really starting to dislike Apple for keeping the iPod unnecessarily locked down so tight. They scream and cry when others play dirty pool, but the nano-second they get a market advantage they do the exact same thing.
I don't see what's so ridiculous about paying $12/mth to access millions of songs.
The whole "renting" thing seems a lot less silly to me now than it did earlier. With DRM going where it's going, we're basically renting it until our hardware crashes.
What's really killing Yahoo's service is incompatability with the iPod.
I'm really starting to dislike Apple for keeping the iPod unnecessarily locked down so tight. They scream and cry when others play dirty pool, but the nano-second they get a market advantage they do the exact same thing.
The one thing abour renting songs is this: it's under the assumption you want to continue to use that service. For example, if I buy two songs using Yahoo's service, it will always cost me a monthly fee for only those two songs. However, if I choose to purchase only two songs through iTunes, I'm billed once and that's it. The flipside is that I have access to an ulimited number of songs, but I am always paying for those songs. For myself, it seems easier to pay a small one time fee for two or three songs rather than having to pay yearly fees to retain the ability to listen to rented music.
Having said that, I still think buying used CDs and then mp3'ing them on my own is a far better solution than to be locked into DRMs from any company.
Exactly, especially when you consider that iTunes isn't really much cheaper. Better quality and no DRM.
I think where iTMS appeals is primarily in the purchasing in singles. I still would buy albums on CD. But where getting a single song costs me a whole album...iTMS provides a decent solution for me.
EDIT: Looking over my Purchased Music playlist...I have not purchased more than 4 songs from the same artist/album. So, it would seem I am saving money (vs. buying albums...probably even used ones). I did make the impetuous decision to buy the U2 "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb" album on iTMS...and then got it on CD as a gift. Oops.
I can see where the concept of the entire album is quite desirable in discerning the band's evolution over time. As the band grows and gets more experienced, their music may become more mature or shift from album to album.
That said, I think it's likely that MANY albums nowadays contain songs that aren't at all related to each other, though the "feel" of the whole album is very different from the one immediately prior to it.
I can see where the concept of the entire album is quite desirable in discerning the band's evolution over time. As the band grows and gets more experienced, their music may become more mature or shift from album to album.
That said, I think it's likely that MANY albums nowadays contain songs that aren't at all related to each other, though the "feel" of the whole album is very different from the one immediately prior to it.
Most albums have always been like that.
Reletively few albums really should be listened through.
Even albums that tell a story through the whole album have a couple of very good songs, a few decent ones, and several very forgettable ones. I would rather miss the forgettable ones and most of the decent ones for the good ones.
Reletively few albums really should be listened through.
Even albums that tell a story through the whole album have a couple of very good songs, a few decent ones, and several very forgettable ones. I would rather miss the forgettable ones and most of the decent ones for the good ones.
yes, albums generally seem to be 2 or three good songs and the rest as filler to fill up the X amount of minutes left on the CD
yes, albums generally seem to be 2 or three good songs and the rest as filler to fill up the X amount of minutes left on the CD
I think that most artists think that everything they do is gold.
My cousins are song writers. They tell me that it's tough to get performers to reject anything that they themselves write, even if they (my cousins) are called in to try to fix problems.
I think that most artists think that everything they do is gold.
On the other hand, shouldn't it be so? I though't artists created art, and produsers created revenue. Record labels don't want Madonnas and Michael Jacksons, who after one succesful disk actually start demanding their share of money, It's allways cheaper to labels to produce one hit wonders, and dump them afterwards. If the creative side was left for artist, even if they created some over artistic crap, it still would be something real, insted of this overproduced goo that saturates the music market now.
On the other hand, shouldn't it be so? I though't artists created art, and produsers created revenue. Record labels don't want Madonnas and Michael Jacksons, who after one succesful disk actually start demanding their share of money, It's allways cheaper to labels to produce one hit wonders, and dump them afterwards. If the creative side was left for artist, even if they created some over artistic crap, it still would be something real, insted of this overproduced goo that saturates the music market now.
Actually it's not. Record companies don't make much of any money at all with "one hit wonders". They make almost all their money from artists who produce year after year.
And most artists are failures, after all. They cost the companies plenty. The companies make money on the average. Well known artists want more of the profits. That's natural. But if they get it, then there won't be money for new acts.
I remember a few years ago on a TV disscussion show about writers and royalties that Stephen King was asked if it was true that he recieved $8,000,000 advance for a book. He said yes.
Someone else brought up the fact that there was a limited amount of money that a publisher could spend in total every year for these advances, and that every time a well known writer recieved huge advances it meant that new writers would recieve less, or none at all.
Of course, very successful writers, like musicians, bring home the bacon time after time. Those profits pay for everyone else.
Well I hate the very idea of singles, so perhaps that's part of the problem.
Albums are (or at least should be) works of art as a whole.
How do you feel about albums that have only a couple of good songs on them, and the rest have a completely different tone, etc? Do you ignore those good songs because the album as a whole isn't that great? I agree that some albums can be really great, but there are some albums out there that don't hold much other than a song or two that are worth anything.
I'm not trying to patronize you, but I'm really interested in what you thing about this. I think the albums vs. singles discussion is more interesting than the original discussion. I like to have the CD if possible because the quality is so much better. Not only that, but you have a 'master copy' should you lose your entire mp3 collection. (though that would suck for a sufficiently large collection b/c the time invested in ripping all of the tracks).
Since you view the entire album as a work of art, do you prefer to keep your CDs in the original cases, etc? Does the idea of storing them in CD binders turn you off?
How do you feel about albums that have only a couple of good songs on them, and the rest have a completely different tone, etc? Do you ignore those good songs because the album as a whole isn't that great? I agree that some albums can be really great, but there are some albums out there that don't hold much other than a song or two that are worth anything.
I'm not trying to patronize you, but I'm really interested in what you thing about this. I think the albums vs. singles discussion is more interesting than the original discussion. I like to have the CD if possible because the quality is so much better. Not only that, but you have a 'master copy' should you lose your entire mp3 collection. (though that would suck for a sufficiently large collection b/c the time invested in ripping all of the tracks).
Since you view the entire album as a work of art, do you prefer to keep your CDs in the original cases, etc? Does the idea of storing them in CD binders turn you off?
This is one viewpoint that will never be resolved. It's just a personal matter of taste. Some of us will only buy complete albums, and some of us will swing back and forth.
Comments
Originally posted by kmok1
5 1/2 months.
I wonder who won the bet...
CNN article
I don't know, but it seemed inevitable.
It's stil a few bucks a month cheaper than the others.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2005/...ap2302891.html
stu
The whole "renting" thing seems a lot less silly to me now than it did earlier. With DRM going where it's going, we're basically renting it until our hardware crashes.
What's really killing Yahoo's service is incompatability with the iPod.
I'm really starting to dislike Apple for keeping the iPod unnecessarily locked down so tight. They scream and cry when others play dirty pool, but the nano-second they get a market advantage they do the exact same thing.
Originally posted by groverat
I don't see what's so ridiculous about paying $12/mth to access millions of songs.
The whole "renting" thing seems a lot less silly to me now than it did earlier. With DRM going where it's going, we're basically renting it until our hardware crashes.
What's really killing Yahoo's service is incompatability with the iPod.
I'm really starting to dislike Apple for keeping the iPod unnecessarily locked down so tight. They scream and cry when others play dirty pool, but the nano-second they get a market advantage they do the exact same thing.
The one thing abour renting songs is this: it's under the assumption you want to continue to use that service. For example, if I buy two songs using Yahoo's service, it will always cost me a monthly fee for only those two songs. However, if I choose to purchase only two songs through iTunes, I'm billed once and that's it. The flipside is that I have access to an ulimited number of songs, but I am always paying for those songs. For myself, it seems easier to pay a small one time fee for two or three songs rather than having to pay yearly fees to retain the ability to listen to rented music.
Having said that, I still think buying used CDs and then mp3'ing them on my own is a far better solution than to be locked into DRMs from any company.
Originally posted by Jim Paradise
Having said that, I still think buying used CDs and then mp3'ing them on my own is a far better solution than to be locked into DRMs from any company.
Exactly, especially when you consider that iTunes isn't really much cheaper. Better quality and no DRM.
Originally posted by groverat
Exactly, especially when you consider that iTunes isn't really much cheaper. Better quality and no DRM.
I think where iTMS appeals is primarily in the purchasing in singles. I still would buy albums on CD. But where getting a single song costs me a whole album...iTMS provides a decent solution for me.
EDIT: Looking over my Purchased Music playlist...I have not purchased more than 4 songs from the same artist/album. So, it would seem I am saving money (vs. buying albums...probably even used ones). I did make the impetuous decision to buy the U2 "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb" album on iTMS...and then got it on CD as a gift. Oops.
Albums are (or at least should be) works of art as a whole.
Originally posted by AquaMac
With Republicans in charge? I don't think so.
Yeah, blame the Republicans over Yahoo's service.
Originally posted by groverat
Well I hate the very idea of singles, so perhaps that's part of the problem.
Albums are (or at least should be) works of art as a whole.
Why? Aren't albums just a byproduct of technological evolution?
Originally posted by groverat
Well I hate the very idea of singles, so perhaps that's part of the problem.
Albums are (or at least should be) works of art as a whole.
Some are. Some aren't. Such is reality I guess.
That said, I think it's likely that MANY albums nowadays contain songs that aren't at all related to each other, though the "feel" of the whole album is very different from the one immediately prior to it.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
I can see where the concept of the entire album is quite desirable in discerning the band's evolution over time. As the band grows and gets more experienced, their music may become more mature or shift from album to album.
That said, I think it's likely that MANY albums nowadays contain songs that aren't at all related to each other, though the "feel" of the whole album is very different from the one immediately prior to it.
Most albums have always been like that.
Reletively few albums really should be listened through.
Even albums that tell a story through the whole album have a couple of very good songs, a few decent ones, and several very forgettable ones. I would rather miss the forgettable ones and most of the decent ones for the good ones.
Originally posted by melgross
Most albums have always been like that.
Reletively few albums really should be listened through.
Even albums that tell a story through the whole album have a couple of very good songs, a few decent ones, and several very forgettable ones. I would rather miss the forgettable ones and most of the decent ones for the good ones.
yes, albums generally seem to be 2 or three good songs and the rest as filler to fill up the X amount of minutes left on the CD
Originally posted by mynamehere
yes, albums generally seem to be 2 or three good songs and the rest as filler to fill up the X amount of minutes left on the CD
I think that most artists think that everything they do is gold.
My cousins are song writers. They tell me that it's tough to get performers to reject anything that they themselves write, even if they (my cousins) are called in to try to fix problems.
Originally posted by melgross
I think that most artists think that everything they do is gold.
On the other hand, shouldn't it be so? I though't artists created art, and produsers created revenue. Record labels don't want Madonnas and Michael Jacksons, who after one succesful disk actually start demanding their share of money, It's allways cheaper to labels to produce one hit wonders, and dump them afterwards. If the creative side was left for artist, even if they created some over artistic crap, it still would be something real, insted of this overproduced goo that saturates the music market now.
Originally posted by Project2501
On the other hand, shouldn't it be so? I though't artists created art, and produsers created revenue. Record labels don't want Madonnas and Michael Jacksons, who after one succesful disk actually start demanding their share of money, It's allways cheaper to labels to produce one hit wonders, and dump them afterwards. If the creative side was left for artist, even if they created some over artistic crap, it still would be something real, insted of this overproduced goo that saturates the music market now.
Actually it's not. Record companies don't make much of any money at all with "one hit wonders". They make almost all their money from artists who produce year after year.
And most artists are failures, after all. They cost the companies plenty. The companies make money on the average. Well known artists want more of the profits. That's natural. But if they get it, then there won't be money for new acts.
I remember a few years ago on a TV disscussion show about writers and royalties that Stephen King was asked if it was true that he recieved $8,000,000 advance for a book. He said yes.
Someone else brought up the fact that there was a limited amount of money that a publisher could spend in total every year for these advances, and that every time a well known writer recieved huge advances it meant that new writers would recieve less, or none at all.
Of course, very successful writers, like musicians, bring home the bacon time after time. Those profits pay for everyone else.
Originally posted by groverat
Well I hate the very idea of singles, so perhaps that's part of the problem.
Albums are (or at least should be) works of art as a whole.
How do you feel about albums that have only a couple of good songs on them, and the rest have a completely different tone, etc? Do you ignore those good songs because the album as a whole isn't that great? I agree that some albums can be really great, but there are some albums out there that don't hold much other than a song or two that are worth anything.
I'm not trying to patronize you, but I'm really interested in what you thing about this. I think the albums vs. singles discussion is more interesting than the original discussion. I like to have the CD if possible because the quality is so much better. Not only that, but you have a 'master copy' should you lose your entire mp3 collection. (though that would suck for a sufficiently large collection b/c the time invested in ripping all of the tracks).
Since you view the entire album as a work of art, do you prefer to keep your CDs in the original cases, etc? Does the idea of storing them in CD binders turn you off?
Originally posted by pyr3
How do you feel about albums that have only a couple of good songs on them, and the rest have a completely different tone, etc? Do you ignore those good songs because the album as a whole isn't that great? I agree that some albums can be really great, but there are some albums out there that don't hold much other than a song or two that are worth anything.
I'm not trying to patronize you, but I'm really interested in what you thing about this. I think the albums vs. singles discussion is more interesting than the original discussion. I like to have the CD if possible because the quality is so much better. Not only that, but you have a 'master copy' should you lose your entire mp3 collection. (though that would suck for a sufficiently large collection b/c the time invested in ripping all of the tracks).
Since you view the entire album as a work of art, do you prefer to keep your CDs in the original cases, etc? Does the idea of storing them in CD binders turn you off?
This is one viewpoint that will never be resolved. It's just a personal matter of taste. Some of us will only buy complete albums, and some of us will swing back and forth.