IDM Mailing Archive

quoted 1 line Fucking $18 for a CD that cost 25 cents to produce in mass quantities?

>Fucking $18 for a CD that cost 25 cents to produce in mass quantities?

Maybe I seem like a Bastard here, but, there only 25 cents for a c.d. if you pay the artist no money for his time and work and any extra engineers or mastering engineers gotta eat too. Your paying everyone who helped bring the disk to you, At least consider that. Many of my freinds are engineers at studios around the states and they don't make shit as it is...but yeah just let 'em starve. 'Cause you know the Label CEO's, they ain't gonna take pay-cuts. I don't think $ 18 is cool either but when you refuse to pay, you aint hurting the millionaire major label heads, you're hurtin' freinds of mine.... I'm sure I'll get a severe tongue lashing for even mentioning this P _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

I want to know where I can get CD's made for $.25. Sign me up. I'd be making a whole lot more money with that kind of manufacturing. This argument pisses me off. Fuck, after all the manufacturing, pre-production, marketing cost, tour support, shipping costs, overhead, paying the artist royalties (cause we're crazy like that), mechanical royalties, etc... we're not exactly killing it on the margins. We make a bit, artist makes a bit, store makes a bit, distributor makes a bit. Is 15.98 list really so high (the list on our titles). What do you pay to eat a good meal at a restaurant? How many drinks do you get at a bar for that? What do you spend for an average evening out? Let's face it. The whole argument exists because music is easily downloaded for free so all of a sudden there is a comparative value attached to it. "Fuck it I can get it for free, so I'm clearly being ripped off when I pay for it". I think the music industry is fucking sketchy as all hell also, but I've managed to carve out a comfortable living for myself and our artists where I don't have to subscribe to most of that bullshit that swirls around. I agree with a lot of what's being said here, but a lot of you got a lot of learning to do in the field of economics and the fact that this current mess could cause a nasty trickle down effect to the artist/labels you actually like. I'm already having trouble getting as many records out there as I'd like to because most of the stores are struggling and the budgets just aren't there right now for a lot of stores to take chances on the smaller/interesting shit. The irony being that that's the stuff that's selling right now as it's supported by dedicated fans, but that's the situation. At the end of the day, a lot of people will probably be fucked in the transition, but it's a billion dollar industry that isn't going away it's just going to change up a bit in how it operates. Jeff

quoted 34 lines From: "Patrick Norris" <untitledartist@hotmail.com>

> From: "Patrick Norris" <untitledartist@hotmail.com> > Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:16:35 -0500 > To: IDM@hyperreal.org > Subject: Re: [idm] 2003: The Year the Music Industry Dies - Wired Magazine, > 2/2003 > > >> Fucking $18 for a CD that cost 25 cents to produce in mass quantities? > > Maybe I seem like a Bastard here, but, there only 25 cents for a c.d. if you > pay the artist no money for his time and work and any extra engineers or > mastering engineers gotta eat too. Your paying everyone who helped bring > the disk to you, At least consider that. Many of my freinds are engineers > at studios around the states and they don't make shit as it is...but yeah > just let 'em starve. 'Cause you know the Label CEO's, they ain't gonna take > pay-cuts. I don't think $ 18 is cool either but when you refuse to pay, you > aint hurting the millionaire major label heads, you're hurtin' freinds of > mine.... > > I'm sure I'll get a severe tongue lashing for even mentioning this > > P > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months > http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

I could be wrong but I'd be surprised if E-Music was actually making money off what they're doing. I would be willing to bet they're operating on an aim for eventual profit model but that it probably still needs a fair amount of underwriting at this point. I could be wrong. Our split from E-Music wasn't in order to do this kind of thing ourselves. We didn't see eye to eye on some issues. Don't read to much into that comment. They're a decent company with a decent model, it's just one of those things. So here's the question. Can subscription be a profitable model? For instance if we put some rare out of print stuff on our site, some things that were previously only on vinyl, exclusive stuff, etc... would any of you pay a fee per track. Say $1 per track or something? I'm of the opinion that what attracts most people about downloading is the free part. I'm very much on the fence with all this downloading business. We're actually still doing quite well as a label even amongst all the doom and gloom predictions, but I can see where the trickle down will start to hurt us in the next few years as retailers and distributors take more and more bumps. Of course there's a lot of things hurting the industry outside of just downloading. Same stuff that's fucking all the other industries by plunging the US economy to shit. His first name is George... Jeff

quoted 147 lines From: Adam Piontek <adam@damek.org>

> From: Adam Piontek <adam@damek.org> > Reply-To: adam@damek.org > Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:43:17 -0500 > To: idm@hyperreal.org > Subject: Re: [idm] 2003: The Year the Music Industry Dies - Wired Magazine, > 2/2003 > > Let me get this straight. > > 1) Label tries to make money selling CDs. > > 2) Internet gets invented. People start trading files over the > internet. It's a lot of trouble finding the music that you want, and > it's a pain ripping CDs, but a lot of people prefer downloading music > to buying CDs because it's so much cheaper (free). > > 3) Labels complain that people aren't buying what they're selling, throw > up hands in frustration. > > So, if customers prefer the convenience and cheapness of digital music, > and aren't buying so many CDs, why not provide what the customers want? > > Emusic seems to have been doing all right. I would think a label with a > relatively OK back catalog and a good reputation would stand to have > some good success with a cheap subscription service where we can go > purchase access to a server and download the music straight from the > label. > > OK, once it's downloaded, people could still trade it and avoid spending > the money, but there are still a lot of people (like, non-college > students, for one) who do not have the time or the energy to go > searching for music they want on file servers and P2P networks. It's > not easy. You rarely actually find what you want. Most of the stuff > on P2P networks, even the good ones like Soulseek, is crap, often even > poorly encoded. > > So I still think the one thing that no decent label has tried is a music > subscription service. Charge money to give people access to your back > catalog in good, high quality digital music files. I suppose the > problem then would be if servers and bandwidth prove to be just as > expensive as (or more expensive than) pressing CDs... but as noted > above, eMusic seems to do OK. The service only needs to be cheaper > than CDs, and more convenient than the P2P networks. And not require > weird software and all sorts of digital rights stuff. > > As long as it's more convenient thant he P2P stuff, and cheaper than > CDs, there's the sweet spot, and people who want the music will flock > to it. I know I would. I spent quite a bit on eMusic getting a lot of > the good stuff they offer. > > I seem to recall some Ninja Tune stuff was available there for a short > while, only to be pulled, with some rumors about Ninja Tune looking > into offering their own download service - which doesn't appear to have > happened. I got some stuff while it was on eMusic - that was nice. > But I haven't found it worth my money to spend full CD prices on more > Ninja Tune stuff, as the Ninja Tune sound generally isn't my ball of > wax. > > Yeah, that was supposed to be a short single paragraph thing, but turned > into a long rant. So why aren't there label subscription services? > Seems to me some of the bigger indies would stand to make a bundle, > maybe... Buying cheap Ogg files straight from your websites would be > worth it over trying to find the stuff on P2P networks. > > Especially for those of us who run alternative Operating Systems on > which the best programs like SoulSeek don't even run... > -Adam Piontek > > On Friday 17 January 2003 6:20 pm, Jeff/Ninja Tune wrote: >> I want to know where I can get CD's made for $.25. Sign me up. I'd be >> making a whole lot more money with that kind of manufacturing. >> >> This argument pisses me off. Fuck, after all the manufacturing, >> pre-production, marketing cost, tour support, shipping costs, >> overhead, paying the artist royalties (cause we're crazy like that), >> mechanical royalties, etc... we're not exactly killing it on the >> margins. We make a bit, artist makes a bit, store makes a bit, >> distributor makes a bit. Is 15.98 list really so high (the list on >> our titles). What do you pay to eat a good meal at a restaurant? How >> many drinks do you get at a bar for that? What do you spend for an >> average evening out? Let's face it. The whole argument exists because >> music is easily downloaded for free so all of a sudden there is a >> comparative value attached to it. "Fuck it I can get it for free, so >> I'm clearly being ripped off when I pay for it". >> >> I think the music industry is fucking sketchy as all hell also, but >> I've managed to carve out a comfortable living for myself and our >> artists where I don't have to subscribe to most of that bullshit that >> swirls around. I agree with a lot of what's being said here, but a >> lot of you got a lot of learning to do in the field of economics and >> the fact that this current mess could cause a nasty trickle down >> effect to the artist/labels you actually like. I'm already having >> trouble getting as many records out there as I'd like to because most >> of the stores are struggling and the budgets just aren't there right >> now for a lot of stores to take chances on the smaller/interesting >> shit. The irony being that that's the stuff that's selling right now >> as it's supported by dedicated fans, but that's the situation. At the >> end of the day, a lot of people will probably be fucked in the >> transition, but it's a billion dollar industry that isn't going away >> it's just going to change up a bit in how it operates. >> >> Jeff >> >>> From: "Patrick Norris" <untitledartist@hotmail.com> >>> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:16:35 -0500 >>> To: IDM@hyperreal.org >>> Subject: Re: [idm] 2003: The Year the Music Industry Dies - Wired >>> Magazine, 2/2003 >>> >>>> Fucking $18 for a CD that cost 25 cents to produce in mass >>>> quantities? >>> >>> Maybe I seem like a Bastard here, but, there only 25 cents for a >>> c.d. if you pay the artist no money for his time and work and any >>> extra engineers or mastering engineers gotta eat too. Your paying >>> everyone who helped bring the disk to you, At least consider that. >>> Many of my freinds are engineers at studios around the states and >>> they don't make shit as it is...but yeah just let 'em starve. >>> 'Cause you know the Label CEO's, they ain't gonna take pay-cuts. I >>> don't think $ 18 is cool either but when you refuse to pay, you >>> aint hurting the millionaire major label heads, you're hurtin' >>> freinds of mine.... >>> >>> I'm sure I'll get a severe tongue lashing for even mentioning this >>> >>> P >>> >>> >>> >>> _________________________________________________________________ >>> The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months >>> http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

On Friday 17 January 2003 9:11 pm, Jeff/Ninja Tune wrote:

quoted 4 lines retailers and distributors take more and more bumps. Of course

> retailers and distributors take more and more bumps. Of course > there's a lot of things hurting the industry outside of just > downloading. Same stuff that's fucking all the other industries by > plunging the US economy to shit. His first name is George...

I'll definitely agree with you 200% there. As for the subscription idea, a dollar per track might be a bit much for regular releases - a 15-track release is then suddenly about the same cost as the CD, so that kinda cancels out the instant gratification value. But for rarer, out of print stuff, the convenience outweighs the cost. And the cost would presumably be cheaper anyway since rare stuff is so expensive if you do manage to get your hands on it. If you were to offer regular releases for download, though, they should at least be 2/3 the price of the CD - something like that. Or maybe the convenience of being able to get only the tracks you want would make up for the cost being nearly the same. I don't know... -adam --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

I know it's not IDM but I think this is perhaps the best idea from a record label in a long time. If you go to http://www.folkways.si.edu they have their ENTIRE catalog available -- popular titles are kept in print as manufactured CDs with artwork, and everything else is available on a burnt-to-order CDR. And to veer from my original topic a bit, I may be old fashioned, but an MP3 file, no matter how good it sounds, doesn't have the same value to me as the actual item -- CD or Vinyl. MP3 files lack a certain Ding An Sich-ness, or sense of artifact. And no matter how they were encoded, it's not the original music. And I don't think I'm alone, I have two sons who have had their own computers pretty much since they could read (and used mine before they could read) and MP3 files have second class status compared to the real thing. More disturbing, music downloaded might be entertaining, but they value it at or near the price they paid for it. As a musician I'd like it to have more value than that. Digital revolutions in distribution are fine, but I'm afraid it has, to some extent, devalued what musicians do, and makes it more difficult to make a living with music. On the upside, internet exposure has been a real boon to people who have a talent for live performance. They can expose potential fans to their music on line, offer them direct access to purchase music without the dreadful mall-record-store middle man, and keep them up to date on their touring schedule. In fact (and I think Chuck D was one of the first to point this out) one's ability to perform live is the one thing a record company -- or the internet -- can't take away from a musician. Sucks for those who can't figure out how to make a show out of their music. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

Jeff/Ninja Tune said the following on 18/01/2003 13:11:

quoted 6 lines So here's the question. Can subscription be a profitable model? For instance

>So here's the question. Can subscription be a profitable model? For instance >if we put some rare out of print stuff on our site, some things that were >previously only on vinyl, exclusive stuff, etc... would any of you pay a fee >per track. Say $1 per track or something? I'm of the opinion that what >attracts most people about downloading is the free part. >

I'm already an eMusic subscriber, so I'd certainly pay for Ninja Tune downloads assuming similar terms (previewable or well-described, good quality, burnable format like mp3, no technical controls over what you do with the tracks, etc). I'd pay a lot more than $1 for Solid Steel mix downloads, too. My main gripe with eMusic is that they're not adding music I want frequently enough for my liking. Of course, it didn't help that I'd already bought a load of the stuff which is up there -- Merck, Schematic, Fax, Mille Plateaux, etc -- *before* I subscribed :-( The location-based download restrictions for some releases (Cornelius, Pizzicato 5) are also annoying as a non-North American subscriber. -- Richard --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

quoted 5 lines So here's the question. Can subscription be a profitable model? For instance

>So here's the question. Can subscription be a profitable model? For instance >if we put some rare out of print stuff on our site, some things that were >previously only on vinyl, exclusive stuff, etc... would any of you pay a fee >per track. Say $1 per track or something? I'm of the opinion that what >attracts most people about downloading is the free part.

The free part, yes, but the reason that people are OK with it being free is that it's a non-tangible and rather easily destroyable medium. If I buy a CD, I know that CD is probably going to be with me for a long time. Sure, if I'm an idiot, or run into some bad luck, I'll lose the CD or it'll get broken. But with MP3's, most people don't get hyped up for a release and then download it on release day. They buy those releases. The ones they download are, for popular music, the ones already played on the radio, or for not-so-popular music, releases they're curious about. Maybe they heard about some band called the Flaming Lips and want to hear what it's about because it's not on the radio, but don't want to spend $15 on a gamble. Maybe they hear about an old Warp release but aren't sure if it's something they'll like, so they download a few tracks. Sure, there are also people who just collect and collect, but they're also not the ones who care about whether they delete huge swaths of mp3's that they don't like. They're not discerning buyers, or even listeners for the most part. They're traders, and would be trading mp3's online the same way they'd trade cd-rs and tapes among friends. They're usually worse-off financially, too :D The trick to getting people interested in downloading stuff is to continually offer things that people would want, and would therefore subscribe to. Say you ask all of your artists to submit 5 or 6 random tracks that they think are OK for mp3 release. You offer 5 tracks a week, and offer monthly subscriptions of like $10-15 a month. Say "It's the price of a compilation without the middle-man. Download these tracks, arrange them how you like, and burn it as an audio CD to enjoy." And offer the past 3 weeks to the normal subscribers, too. That's how a small record label with a small to decent sized sampling of artists could feasibly do well with online mp3's. You offer mp3's, probably at least 2 or 3 of which are exclusive per week, and keep adding new ones while deleting the old ones. The cool thing is that at the end of the year, you could release some of the better ones on a CD compilation and say "For those of you who missed the mp3 downloads, here are some of the tracks offered during the previous year. Subscriptions for this year are always available and will get you exclusive content etc. etc." That way the subscribers feel like they're getting something exclusive, since not all the tracks end up on a CD, and it generates some hype for the end-of-year (or twice a year) cd. But that way, people can download something, and if they don't get a chance to burn it, can download it again a few days later if something happens or if they accidentally delete it. Downloading on a "per track" basis makes people leery, as they don't know what the mp3 quality is or whether it'll end up deleted and they'll have just lost a buck. Plus, people tend to like coherent packages or collections for music -- it's what they're used to. Downloading 1 or 2 tracks will probably get shuffled off to some folder and forgotten about, and people know that. Downloading "this week's new mp3's" or "this old album" will get put in its own folder and most likely backed up on CD. And I think that's why people like downloading music -- it's more disposable -- but it's also why people are less willing to buy downloadable music. derek ------- eggytoast.com ------- coming soon: eggtastic.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

would be a bulk of them- like 650meg of 7-10 albums or the same amount of compilations, say - a full collection of albums of a certain artist or let the listener decide what he wants on the disc give them a choice of either downloading it or ground mail them a cd since i have a mp3 cd player in the car, at home and a portable one- i dont have to listen to trash or filler or something i am not in the mood to hear, i always have a choice from my wallet of 25 cd-s full of mp3 music very convinient, i will never go back to one album at a time __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

I haven't been reading this thread too closely so excuse if I miss some things (i'm lazy tonight sorry). I just wanted to say that Ninja Tune has always been of the coolest and most honorable labels in my opinion. I remember way back before they had a North American branch, their prices were always lower than other imports. The quality of the tunes were always solid and the prices were very fair. When they released Coldcut "Let Us Play!", they had videos and all kinds of extras, with no extra charge. "Xen Cuts" was also a great release with 3 cds for $16. They definitely don't seem like other labels that are just about pushing units. They seem like music lovers themselves and they stick to their vision. And who can really complain about their output and prices...or tours! --- Jeff/Ninja Tune <jeff@ninjatune.net> wrote:

quoted 41 lines I could be wrong but I'd be surprised if E-Music was

> I could be wrong but I'd be surprised if E-Music was > actually making money > off what they're doing. I would be willing to bet > they're operating on an > aim for eventual profit model but that it probably > still needs a fair amount > of underwriting at this point. I could be wrong. > > Our split from E-Music wasn't in order to do this > kind of thing ourselves. > We didn't see eye to eye on some issues. Don't read > to much into that > comment. They're a decent company with a decent > model, it's just one of > those things. > > So here's the question. Can subscription be a > profitable model? For instance > if we put some rare out of print stuff on our site, > some things that were > previously only on vinyl, exclusive stuff, etc... > would any of you pay a fee > per track. Say $1 per track or something? I'm of the > opinion that what > attracts most people about downloading is the free > part. I'm very much on > the fence with all this downloading business. We're > actually still doing > quite well as a label even amongst all the doom and > gloom predictions, but I > can see where the trickle down will start to hurt us > in the next few years > as retailers and distributors take more and more > bumps. Of course there's a > lot of things hurting the industry outside of just > downloading. Same stuff > that's fucking all the other industries by plunging > the US economy to shit. > His first name is George... > > Jeff

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

I believe Rockefeller or one of his co-barons back in th' day said something to the effect of 'Whatever the market will bear' with regard to pricing. The only problem with this pricing scheme is that it assumes that there is no viable competetion for the money - in the above case, rides and shipping to/from large cities, in the case being discussed, prerecorded music. It's also extroadinarily difficult to revert to competitive pricing after years of this sort of behavior because the extra revenues generated tend to create excess infrastructure (bloated promotional budgets & artist incentives, for example). The majors know that other factors affected last year's earnings, but the problem they see on the horizon, filesharing et al., is truly worrisome. A good businessman who is used to being able to sell his product for AT LEAST $9 a pop across the board sees filesharing and realizes that there is no way he can possibly compete. When a college radio DJ decides to treat the whole of KaZaA as a charity case by uploading the latest *** album that he got in the mail five weeks prior to release, he's undercutting every person in the chain - you can't go lower than free. So the answer in the case of music labels is to OUTLAW this practice because it is the only way to stop the juggernaut of $0.00 filesharing. Artists on the majors who speak out against the RIAA and the lawsuits against Napster and KaZaA etc. are not worth listening to for the following reason: Hi, I'm Prince, I've made my fortune nine times over and I think filesharing is a wonderful thing and the record labels are bad! Dear Prince, How did you make your fortune exactly? Yours, The Big Five If the future of music is filesharing networks clogged with the kind of quality music we've come to expect from free MP3 hosting sites and the like, then I think it's in your best interest to do like me and go stuff that backcatalogue with as many quality tracks as you can find - 'Clash On Broadway', the Led Zeppelin 4CD box + the Police anthology are a few excellent places to start. They do cost money, however. At least the packaging is nice. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org