RealTechNews.com - Independent Tech

Monday, January 31, 2005

Music delivery evolution in the digital age
Note that the headline is a link. It will send you over to Livedigitally.com where new writer, Pauric, takes a shot at describing the way things have been, are, will be, and maybe should be in music distribution.

I have a minor problem with it. That's probably because Pauric is most likely a younger guy and I'm a Lieutenant in the Legion of Cranky Old Men. Here's the problem: "People who started listening to music in pre-Internet times became used to the concept that you buy before you listen."

In my world, that a wrong-headed implied assumption. Back in the day, we bought music "sound unheard" because we trusted that the artists we were buying wrote good music. Even the "B" stuff. (Name me one bad track on Abbey Road. And no, let's not talk about Mr. Spock's Music from Outer Space.) That changed as the quality of musicians and song writers diminished over time such that Pauric is now correct, you can no longer buy before you try if you actually want somthing to listen to for roughly the same length of time as the CD runs.

So, once Pauric gets beyond tripping over himself while he's trying to set up what he's about to say next (it happens with new writers; they think thay have to explain themselves; Ha!), he actually makes some reasonable, if possibly good, points. Worth a read.

# Permalink Posted at 9:44 AM 7 comments Email this Link

Comments on this Item:

Why do you keep pointing to such crappy stuff? That site stinks.
Elon in Wa

# posted by Anonymous 1:50 PM

Elon, would you believe that there are actually some (relatively few, a miniscule number, really) people out there who think that this site stinks? I know, real tough to imagine how they could come to that conclusion, huh?

Well, truth is, no site stinks. Some may be more or less relevant to what you in particular want to know, but that doesn't mean others don't or won't find them of some value.

Unfortunately, the way to knowledge involves abstracting as much information as possible from the world and then deciding how to apply it. We can't help you with the tail end of that process; it's strictly your decision how to use the tools you've accumulated. All we can do is help provide access to whatever information we find available so you can make an informed decision.

If you find that we've sent you somewhere that you don't feel is useful to you, just change the channel once you get there. But don't ask that we remove the channel from the lineup. Somebody else might want to watch.

# posted by Bill 2:30 PM

The last thing the music industry "innovated" was the CD, back in what 1980? The first thing they tried to do was kill internet music distribution, then they implemented such lousy solutions that it too Apple to do it right. Record companies are scared, and they should be, because many of the big companies are run by people who would still have us buying LP records recorded in jazzy "stereophonic sound."

I think the larger point here, however, is that people have gradually become accustomed to purchasing rights, or virtual "things" like music, rather than buying a "thing" that you can hold in your hands like a CD, DVD, or book. Still, I'm not going to shell $25 for movie rights over buying a DVD. 99 cents a track lessens the pain of buying a whole $16 CD for one or two tracks, however, and it's a good start. I still think digital music should be cheaper, and that more money should go direct to artists. That's happening, but slowly.

# posted by Dolemite 9:40 PM

There you go...

# posted by Bill 12:22 AM

I think there's still one or two more twists left in the digital music story. And it all comes down to the fact that while 99% of what's out there is horrible garbage, there's that 1% that tantalizes your brain and helps define your existence on earth.

Think of 1 song in your life that changed your life. We all know we have lots of these, but think of one. Now- would you only pay 99 cents for this song? What if somebody with access to a time machine said to you, "I'm sorry, 99 cents isn't enough. Give me $20, or I'll erase the song from history, and you'll never hear it, and all the good things that happened to you because of it might not happen." Would you pay the $20? I would. What if he wanted $40? $100? What price point is appropriate for the music that defines you?

We don't know how to define this music, of course, so we price everything at 99 cents and hope for the best. And it doesn't really work that well. Sure, iTunes is successful, but the music industry can't live on just that revenue stream.

Strangely enough, for me, music has gotten more expensive over the last few years because of the death of the used CD store. Internet file-trading killed most of the good CD stores in the area, which means I have either buy the music at the "new" price or look online for a digital substitute. That changes my buying decision.

Just throwing in my 2 cents. And your site is the opposite of suck, Bill. Don't let the idiots get you down. :)

# posted by Ray 7:30 AM

Thank you, Ray. Now you got me wondering if the reason I don't fly is because of "Leaving on a Jet Plane."

# posted by Bill 1:42 PM

"Octopus's Garden" is a bad song on "Abbey Road." But at least the rest of the album doesn't suck. Can't say that about, say, the last two U2 albums.

# posted by MattyDread 3:19 PM

Post a Comment