Is music too expensive?

[Xanderzdad]

I also feel that CD's are good value. I remember happily paying £12 a CD nearly 20 years go. Now I can get them for £7.

I would never download any song as it never sounds as good as the CD (possible exceptions being some of the specialist sites such Linn).

The problem is that most 'younger' people (please don't flame me) - such as my 17 year old son have never really heard 'good' quality music as it is all MP3 or streaming.

He takes the mickey every time I tweak my system as he says he cannot hear the difference.

Maybe one day he will really sit and listen - but they are all too busy with their phones and facebook. In my day..... oh my god I've turned into my grandad!! helpppppp

 

[Anonymous]

I started buying cds around 12 years ago, back then HMV etc were charging £13.99 as standard. Then supermarkets got in the act, and prices dropped to around £10 mainly due to non-VAT cds bought from Jersey (record companies tried to counter it be offering UK editions of albums, usually offering some extra b side tracks).

Now some cds can be bought in supermarkets for £7ish, and I recently got the Editors latest album, the week is came out for £4.99 delivered! (not sure if I can mention the website?)

Also HMV/Amazon/Play etc regulary offer albums a few years old for £2-3, still classic albums.

I love album artwork, and to have a tangible product in my hand, its all part of it, but also put them all onto my iPod for ease of use. But for a serious listening session, it has to be cd for me.

Also if anyone has a spare Spotify invite I could use one, thanks.

 

[JoelSim]

I'll send you a Spotify invite if someone can do the honours on the email addy.

My view on this, and sorry to the artists, but there is an awful lot of money made by loads of talentless people in this business which really irks! Having said that there are some very talented people who earn very little.

Perhaps they should invent a computer programme that rates talent, so the likes of Girls Aloud get ****** all, and those such as Angus & Julia Stone get more. Then perhaps Cheryl could get a bonus for getting 'em out.

 

[8009514]

Very rarely I pay full price for a CD. Thats when I can't find it in charity shop, 2nd hand music shop, or public library. Public library is the best deal. 50p to reserve a cd and have it sent from another library, and a further 50p to take it out for a week. A total cost of a quid for something you can play/rip is a pretty cheap deal IMO.

 

[jaxwired]

Is music too expensive? Well, I'm fine with the price of CDs at around $10 to $12 (US dollars), but MP3 downloads are ridiculous. Greedy corporate fat cats. I personally don't buy downloads. I buy all my music on CD. However, the MP3 prices are way too high. I mean they can sell a CD for around $10, and that requires a physical CD be burned, printed material be created, jewel cases assembled, product transported and distributed, retail shelf space, etc, etc. Yet MP3 requires none of that and they can only knock off 20%? WTF! MP3s should sell for around 25 cents a song (US money).

If the corporate people weren't so greedy, and they sold MP3s for 25 cents a song, who would steal the music???? Very few. And the record labels would make MORE money. It's like what the Laffer curve says about taxes. Lower taxes can equal more gov revenue. Same thing with MP3s. Lower the price and you make more money since everyone will buy more AND way less people will steal it. Duh. But, I don't see it changing. It's 99 cents a song people, can you say RIP-OFF? No thanks, I'll stick with CDs for just a teeny, tiny, bit extra I get a permanent physical copy in CD resolution with jewel case and liner notes. OR I can save a dollar and get low res music, no liner, no physical medium. I could rant all day, it's so moronic...

 

[Anonymous]

I buy loads of cd's ... I dont mind paying £16 for an import if it is not available in local stores .... even if there are only 2 tracks on there that I enjoy ...

I will listen to those tracks regulary over the years so it will pay itself off ....

I also pop into a large pawn shop on mondays on my way back from work .... they sell loads of good hifi equipment and have loads of used cd's ... prices for cd's range from £2 to £5 ...

normally get 4-5 cd's there every monday and have bought some really rare cd's (last monday bought the beatles white album ... (the limited edition for a fiver) and also bought The Who Live at Leeds- double cd-deluxe edition for £4) ... both in mint condition

 

[Anonymous]

JoelSim:

I'll send you a Spotify invite if someone can do the honours on the email addy.

My view on this, and sorry to the artists, but there is an awful lot of money made by loads of talentless people in this business which really irks! Having said that there are some very talented people who earn very little.

Perhaps they should invent a computer programme that rates talent, so the likes of Girls Aloud get ****** all, and those such as Angus & Julia Stone get more. Then perhaps Cheryl could get a bonus for getting 'em out.

nickwhite91@hotmail.com

much appreciated - thankyouplease!

 

[Anonymous]

Superaintit: I feel cds are too expensive and here's why:

-cds have been around for decades, still the prices stay roughly the same for new releases

I do remember purchasing Bjork's 2nd album from HMV around release date for £14.99 or something. I don't think today's new releases cost that much on the high street, and much less from the supermarkets or other channels such as online. As for my opinion right now, I do think they are still too expensive overall.

 

[idc]

I know I bang on about it, but streamed music is very good value indeed. The original article in the Guardian that started this thread stated that your average CD is listned to about 15 times, so at £10 to buy, 75p a listen. Spotify costs £99 for the year (free for non premium use), but even at £99 what a bargain. I must be at about 5p a track by now and I still have 7 months to go. Furthermore, there are no worries about repeated listening and relative cost as the music is there anyway, whether I listen to it or not. I have 39 albums in my favourites playlist. Since much of that is obscure prog rock where albums are coming in at £20 plus on Amazon, I have saved a fortune.

OK so I have sacrificed some sound quality for quantity, but music streamed at 320kbps sounds mighty fine in my system.

 

[Ant8519]

WAY too expensive.

I spent years and thousands on a fairly limited collection (<1000 cd's) and then months ripping it all to flac for streaming.

Now I have a nokia comeswithmusic phone and this gives me 2 years unlimited downloads to my phone and pc AND I get to keep all the tracks once the contract ends. This for just £20/month and that gives me a good phone and more minutes and texts than I can use, so I am more than happy.

So in 6 months I've amassed another 500 odd albums, basically with a few clicks. Now I haven't heard them all yet and they are wma's but the sound quality is very high. Thing is if I download an album and come to love it then I can happily buy the cd too, buy there is no way I would have bought this many in this period of time. Also half of my downloads have been of the listen once variety, which if I had forked out £5 - £10 for the cd I'd be a bit cheesed off with.

As a means of trying music the current set up of cd's and shops is finished and streaming/downloading legally is the only viable future option. Buying cd's may well continue and I would still buy a few if the sound quality was sufficiently better than the download, but that is it.

We have been ripped off for years by greedy labels and artists. Listening to a tax exile bleating about lost income and then preaching about feeding the world doesn't wash with me. The modern music industry is a relatively new phenomenon and in the past an artist wuold only ever be paid well for live performances, so why should it be any different now?

I will not miss the labels and will not shed a tear over their demise. When my comeswithmusic contract ends I'll either extend it or try spotify or grooveshark or whoever. I'll not be beating down the doors at hmv though...

 

[Anonymous]

Ant8519:We have been ripped off for years by greedy labels and artists.

Well, very few artists can actually live by selling their music.

If only those who can were published, we would be stuck with a few hundred recording artists world wide. I'll bet those would not be the most inventive ones...

Lot's of artists pay for their recordings themselves. If they're lucky, they'll get their expenses covered. Other artists get their expenses covered by their record company, if that company earns money on other artists and is willing to invest some of the profits in new talent.

As for being paid for live performance, it's very much the same. Admission fees seldom cover the expenses.

Ant8519 argues as if all musicians were international stars backed by huge record companies. That's not the case. Most recorded music are made by artists who needs a day job to survive, published by companies that cover their expenses, but gets no profit to speak of.

 

[Ant8519]

I need a day job to survive. I don't see why a musician needs to be different. I put in 40 hours a week, some musicians may put in the same or even more, many will not. There seems to be an expectation that to be a successful musician you should also become a millionaire - and preferably not pay any tax either - which I find unreasonable.

My all time favourite band are strictly small time (mostly by choice) and probably earn little from cd sales, they are loyal to a tiny independant label and tour relatively little, although as they drive themselves and hire a transit van I suspect they profit fairly well from their infrequent gigs.

I pay for their cd's and visit their gigs and have a great time. They make a living based on this, whether they supplement this realtively small amount of work with a day job is really their own business.

Seems a pretty fair deal to me....

Anyone can get their music worldwide nowadays and doesn't really need a mega bucks record company to help them do so, although distribution is another issue. Mega bucks record company exist to make mega bucks selling music, if musicians want to make mega money then that is fine, they should court the big labels and take their chances, but I don't see that as art.

I maintain that we have been ripped off for years and that in the digital age a record company is expecting too much money for their products.