If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.
Fark SearchWeb Fark

         more options... Create account

(AP) Interesting Physical album sales fell 10% in 2007 but legal digital downloads increased by 14%. Where are your RIAA lawsuit ethics now   (hosted.ap.org) divider line 21
More: Interesting  
•       •       •

251 clicks; posted to Music » on 04 Jan 2008 at 10:58 PM   |  Make this a Fark FavoriteFavorite    |   share: Share on OMGTWITTER WEB2.0share on StumbleUponshare on Facebook  more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!

21 Comments   (+0 »)


Archived thread
 
bronyaur1 [TotalFark] 2008-01-04 09:40:09 PM  
Um, a 10% drop on a large number is NOT offset by a 14% increase on a smaller number.

Subby fails 9th grade math.

 
ChewbaccaJones [TotalFark] 2008-01-04 09:43:04 PM  
10% drop in sales is actually not bad considering the precipitous 40% drop in music quality coming from major labels over the past few years.

 
serpent_sky [TotalFark] 2008-01-04 11:03:37 PM  
Actually, my co-worker and I were discussing this at the end of the day. They seem to have gotten their numbers oddly. For example, when I bought a single off an album, it counted as an album sale, from what I gathered from him. He was writing the article, not me, so I could be wrong, but that's how I understood it.

Anyway, it will eventually all even out when they find a viable model... but we're not at that point just yet.

My new car came with a CD player; 6 CDs. I loaded it up with discs i got from the labels at work. and then today, bought a proper cord to set my iPod up in the car. CDs are pretty useless to me; I like carrying pretty much all my music with me at all times.

 
BRENDAN-FACE 2008-01-04 11:28:04 PM  
serpent_sky: CDs are pretty useless to me; I like carrying pretty much all my music with me at all times.

This.

 
Walt_Jizzney 2008-01-04 11:38:44 PM  
serpent_sky: CDs are pretty useless to me; I like carrying pretty much all my music with me at all times.

Don't count them out yet; even encoded at 320 or at a .wav, your CDs will sound better played straight then from an iPod going through an aux input or what-have-you.

As for the drop in sales - yeah: churn-and-burn artists don't help. And the ease of nicking a track of the web and the current "iPod generation"'s lack/;oss of hearing ability makes crapily-encoded 96-128 kps .mps perfectly acceptable to them. Ugh.

 
noobcake 2008-01-04 11:48:40 PM  
Walt_Jizzney:the current "iPod generation"'s lack/;oss of hearing ability makes crapily-encoded 96-128 kps .mps perfectly acceptable to them. Ugh.

Hey, we like our crappy music to be encoded at a crappy rate too! If we have to listen to a pure .wav we may want to slit our wrists at a faster rate.

 
genzoman 2008-01-05 12:04:52 AM  
i came here to say what the zeppelin fan said

 
serpent_sky [TotalFark] 2008-01-05 12:09:17 AM  
Walt_Jizzney:
As for the drop in sales - yeah: churn-and-burn artists don't help. And the ease of nicking a track of the web and the current "iPod generation"'s lack/;oss of hearing ability makes crapily-encoded 96-128 kps .mps perfectly acceptable to them. Ugh.


I've had tinnitus since I was 17. It all sounds the same to me. Is it convenient and easy? Awesome. I live for music, but I can't honestly tell you the difference between a CD and my iPod.

I was annoyed that I just had 6 CDs to choose from in my car. I bought a cable to connect my iPod and now have hundreds of albums. I can grasp how audiophiles go nuts at this, but I'm really just a fan, and I like having whatever I am in the mood to listen to.

If there is a loss of quality, I don't notice it [and the CDs I loaded into the car's player are also on my iPod] and the diversity/choice is worth any loss I don't even notice.

 
tatum 2008-01-05 12:17:51 AM  
Minus 10% of a million; plus 14% of 3...

Things are looking up.

 
MrEricSir 2008-01-05 12:21:35 AM  
The artists? Sometimes they don't make ANY money off iTunes. Yet the RIAA makes more profits off iTunes downloads than CDs.

Support the artists: don't buy from iTunes.

 
torch [TotalFark] 2008-01-05 01:59:30 AM  
Albums are $15, downloads are $0.99. See what I did there?

 
grandjoke 2008-01-05 04:39:37 AM  
you know, I kinda like iTunes for the sheer fact that it allows a lot of bands to sell their music that otherwise wouldn't be able to, but on the other hand, I just prefer the tangibility of CDs. I just hope they're going to be around for a while.

 
danduran 2008-01-05 08:11:49 AM  
grandjoke: you know, I kinda like iTunes for the sheer fact that it allows a lot of bands to sell their music that otherwise wouldn't be able to, but on the other hand, I just prefer the tangibility of CDs. I just hope they're going to be around for a while.

Until it becomes feasible to download 700meg files on a whim for the average joe, CDs will stay around.

 
Broktun 2008-01-05 10:28:23 AM  
Sure there is a little loss of quality with MP3, but is it significant driving down the freeway at 70mph?

Not an audiophile, but I play one on TV.

 
mandrsn1 2008-01-05 10:55:17 AM  
Broktun: Sure there is a little loss of quality with MP3, but is it significant driving down the freeway at 70mph?

Bringing logic to an argument... Rare on fark. I agree with the MP3/CD argument in home listening environment, but even in the nicest luxery cars, road and engine noise is much greater than the loss in quality of MP3.

 
HitInTheJunk 2008-01-05 12:32:45 PM  
MrEricSir: The artists? Sometimes they don't make ANY money off iTunes. Yet the RIAA makes more profits off iTunes downloads than CDs.

Support the artists: don't buy from iTunes.


I love music and love the iTunes store. Stop spreading this rumor. They make money on iTunes, although big-label artists probably make a bit less then they should.

Most albums I buy are impossible to find in retail stores, and many artist's websites direct me to iTunes to buy the album. Now why would they do that?

As for Amazon, I'd rather pay $10 from Apple than $16+ and have to wait five days to get it.

Google "iTunes artist royalties" for more.

 
Tenebreux 2008-01-05 01:47:03 PM  
In the old model, Artist would create album, and them and their label would decide what to release as a single. Maybe it was the best of the album, maybe it wasn't. In the past (the far distant past now), I'd bought albums and found songs I much preferred that never made it as singles. In the new model, an artist can release a new album on iTunes, and map which songs their fans (the people who like their songs enough to pay for them) like. I'm not saying that artists should use this to decide what kind of song they want to release, but if you're not making music that fans want, then go back to playing in the basement.

 
Will Continue to Monitor 2008-01-05 03:17:37 PM  
HitInTheJunk:

As for Amazon, I'd rather pay $10 from Apple than $16+ and have to wait five days to get it.

Google "iTunes artist royalties" for more.


Amazon's downloads are comparably priced and immediately available.

 
mhix01 2008-01-05 04:27:14 PM  
Amazon needs more selection but I love being able to just download and play with anything. I don't have to write to CD and then rip to mp3 in order play songs with winamp or on my Sansa. I ain't no Aplle hater but I ain't no sycophant either. Plus all my tags are intact. Nice.

 
Bukharin [TotalFark] 2008-01-06 02:15:46 AM  
The booklet is the best part of the CD. It's like the extras on a Criterian edition of a DVD. Without it, why bother taking up all that jewel case space when thousands of albums can be in a portable harddrive/player of the size of just one disk?

 
galleech 2008-01-07 12:43:22 PM  
Broktun: Sure there is a little loss of quality with MP3, but is it significant driving down the freeway at 70mph?

Not an audiophile, but I play one on TV.


Thats why i turn on the AC instead of opening the windows.

 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments


[Continue Farking]