Well actually my reference to the quality of 128K MP3's was in relation to all these companies trying to fight the battle. It is not cd quality. It does not replace the original. It also does not keep me from buying the CD !
Maybe I'm in the minority but I'm listening to an MP3 rip of Fila Brazillia's - Black Market Gardening. It's in my very high-end car stereo and it just sounds so DULL!
It's a great album and having the MP3's *before* I bought it (since you can no longer listen to music before you buy it OR return opened music) means that I can decide whether or not I want the original...
Im not referring to the creation of MP3's - I'm referring to the industries view that somehow downloadable MP3's can *replace* traditional media.
This rolls in to the DIVX;-) debate as well. Movie houses are now getting *worried* because of all the freely available movies out there.... Do they really think compressed movies are going to replace DVD, VHS, or even the Movive Screen?
And now, to top it all off - post Napster - the record companies are all scuttling to be the first to roll out some kind of "subscription" service for downloadable music.
Bastards!
Shimone/Justes
http://www.staticbeats.com | Electronic Music For The Mind
http://www.shimone.org | Pictures From The Soul
On 08/14/01, Brian MacDonald wrote:
>
> Heh. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't this one of the main motifs of having a
> compressed, downloadable music file format? I'm not an RIAA apologist --
> but I think it would be naive to think that Mp3s were created for the
> purpose of digitally archiving music at high quality. (Not to call you
> one of those naive people, Mista Beats... just speaking rhetorically)
>