Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UMG To Price New CDs Under $10

Posted by kdawson on from the too-little-too-late dept.

marmoset writes "Perhaps a decade late, Universal Music Group has decided to try out sub-$10 CD pricing in the US. 'Beginning in the second quarter and continuing through most of the year, the company's Velocity program will test lower CD prices. Single CDs will have the suggested list prices of $10, $9, $8, $7 and $6.'" CD retailers are not convinced the price cuts will work out. For one thing it depends on whether other major labels follow suit, but the article notes that "executives at the other majors were nervous about the UMG move" and "privately, some appeared annoyed."

72 of 362 comments (clear)

  1. I Am Shocked! by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the article notes that "executives at the other majors were nervous about the UMG move" and "privately, some appeared annoyed."

    You don't say. You mean to tell me that they might have to price their music competitively? That they might have to take a pay cut in order to compete in the market? That their 'silent agreement' of what all music should cost among the biggest labels is no more?

    Music record contracts really annoy me in this respect. They are nothing but middlemen when it comes to publishing music. I understand their role in promoting and paying upfront cash for studio time but their role as publishers is leech at best.

    If bands had the ability to pit manufacturers against each other in publishing their CDs and albums (and also if the band could decide what percentage they needed from sales) then we would see prices dramatically plummet. Look at CDBaby and think how inexpensive it could get if that kind of market was where we bought all our CDs. And in a capitalistic world, that's how it is supposed to work. But no, acts have contracts and the most popular acts love how the labels shove only those acts down our throats. The music industry is a sorry state right now and rarely do we hear news like this. At least UMG appears to be slowly realizing that it's adapt-or-die time.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:I Am Shocked! by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If bands had the ability to pit manufacturers against each other in publishing their CDs and albums (and also if the band could decide what percentage they needed from sales) then we would see prices dramatically plummet. Look at CDBaby and think how inexpensive it could get if that kind of market was where we bought all our CDs. And in a capitalistic world, that's how it is supposed to work. But no, acts have contracts and the most popular acts love how the labels shove only those acts down our throats. The music industry is a sorry state right now and rarely do we hear news like this. At least UMG appears to be slowly realizing that it's adapt-or-die time.

      We'll bands do have the ability to do that - it's just that an unknown band has to decide - do it myself or go with a label that may turn me into a hit? Most decide the later.

      I'm not surprised that they are revising their pricing model - CD sales in the US are still significant (65% of sales) and with WalMart selling the highest share at 20% and driving pricing down to less than $10/Cd anyway all they are doing is giving in to the inevitable.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    2. Re:I Am Shocked! by White+Shade · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For less than $10 I'd buy a lot more cd's than I do now. $9 to download an album, or $8-10 to get the better quality hard copy, it's a no-brainer.

      --
      ìì!
    3. Re:I Am Shocked! by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Otherwise, downloads are fine for that one song or two to see if you like it, but mostly they still fail on decent audio equipment for regular listening.

      Bullshit. Most DJ's I know have gone to using MP3's for their business needs. Any time you hear music at a club, bar, or formal function these days, chances are you're listening to an MP3. You may be one of those audio-snobs who insist that they can detect a difference but, even if we accept that silly claim, there's no way you can go from "a few people say they can detect a sight difference" to "lossy codecs fail for regular listening".

    4. Re:I Am Shocked! by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bullshit. Most DJ's I know have gone to using MP3's for their business needs. Any time you hear music at a club, bar, or formal function these days, chances are you're listening to an MP3. You may be one of those audio-snobs who insist that they can detect a difference but, even if we accept that silly claim, there's no way you can go from "a few people say they can detect a sight difference" to "lossy codecs fail for regular listening".

      And those places aren't good listening conditions, nor do people really care about audio quality. Heck, I'd guess radio stations have gone MP3 as well simply because radio is a poor quality audio transmission medium to begin with. Plus, MP3 is great with some types of music (rock/metal/etc) where adding (dynamic-range) compression/distortions/etc and artifacting don't make a big difference, and can enhance the music. Hell, clipping can help, too.

      But other types of music, like say, classical, orchestral and the like, (data) compression can add unpleasant artifacts to the sound. Add in clipping and it makes it even worse (this kind of music also often has huge dynamic range variations which is very hard to compress).

      Finally, I will say that certain compression levels you can't tell, it's not being able to control the compression that hurts. I could buy reasonably sounding music through iTunes, confident in the 256kbps AAC to do a reasonably good job. But there's the little worry that if the music is too demanding, that 256kbps might not be enough (that's why people use VBR).

      I personally buy CDs, that way I can control how it's encoded (I know that LAME presets do a really good job). Since the quality loss happens in the encoder, a good encoder and a lousy encoder will have visible differences in final quality.

    5. Re:I Am Shocked! by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Informative

      Any time you hear music at a club, bar, or formal function these days, chances are you're listening to an MP3.

      I'm no audiophile, but even I can tell that the PA speakers used in those situations sound like total crap. Of course nobody would notice if the earsplitting output of those ugly black crates originally came from a less than perfect source.

    6. Re:I Am Shocked! by StuartHankins · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually I'm of the opposite mindset. Not only do the downloaded versions not have to be ripped, but they cannot contain trojans from Sony. That's been one of the reasons I haven't bought any physical CD's in a very long time.

      For me, the whole Sony problem was not academic as I was one of the people who had the rootkit. I wasted a lot of time researching and removing it and finally just wiped the system and started over -- with a Mac.

    7. Re:I Am Shocked! by Bobb+Sledd · · Score: 4, Informative

      I produce MP3's for mass distribution, and also support them when they don't function correctly (encoding/corruption issues).

      In my opinion, VBR is not supported well-enough for mass consumption. Too many players out there still dork up when VBR is used. Granted, it's typically older players, but they are still out there.

      The majority of people cannot tell the difference between (get this) 32kbps and 128kbps. I'm talking about the general population, not music enthusiasts. Most engineers cannot tell the difference between 162kbps and 192kbs, and certainly less of them can distinguish 192kbps and 256kbps -- and even I have doubts that most of those can in a true blind test.

      But consider this: I put forth that the reason the you don't need full 44khz 16-bit audio is that you'll never hear the music as originally intended, and that is because of the following factors:

      1) You usually listen in your car, and road-noise alone will destroy your ability to discern slight volume changes and perception of frequencies anywhere near 12khz and above

      2) If you don't listen in a car, you often use your cheap speakers on your laptop

      3) Most headphones people use are either cheap (under $50), or they are biased on the lower-end, and most are not equalized correctly, or not equalized to your ear physiology (different sizes ear canals can cause resonance/standing waves that cause a different perception in frequency for different people -- each set must be tuned individually if you are a true audiophile).

      4) If you're older than 21, you probably can't hear above 16Khz at all

      5) Your ears are not perfect (many people's frequency response is different from one ear to the other)

      6) Your player is not perfect

      7) Your speakers are not perfect, and you most likely haven't calibrated them with an RTA for the room they sit in or for where people are actually positioned.

      8) The humidity, temperature, air pressure, and even the air pressure on the other side of your ear-drum changes frequently causing a difference in frequency response.

      And if I'm completely wrong on points 1-8, then you are now in the .01% of all listeners, and you are not the target audience for mass-produced and distributed MP3s anyway.

      --
      "They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
    8. Re:I Am Shocked! by wealthychef · · Score: 2, Insightful

      they only have to pay a penny to the artist and half a penny to the songwriter, per song. It's the only way the label can sell the CD for so cheap and still make money..

      It almost sounds like you're serious, so I'll just go ahead and point out that at 1.5 cents per song, that leave $9.75 at least out of $10.00 that does NOT go to the artist. So blaming the artist for high CD prices is of course ridiculous.

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    9. Re:I Am Shocked! by davester666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course, the royalties are first put towards marketing expenses, production costs, daily hookers for the producer, and anything else the record label could conceivably bill before either the songwriter or the artist gets anything.

      Because if it weren't for the label's, the entire music industry just wouldn't be viable. The world would be without music.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    10. Re:I Am Shocked! by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well bands do have the ability to do that - it's just that an unknown band has to decide - do it myself or go with a label that may turn me into a hit? Most decide the later.

      I don't think it is just whether the label turns the band into a hit. There is also what I'd call risk equalization.

      If you strike out on your own the business model is simple. Either you lose a fair amount of money (whatever you spent on promotion/production/etc), or you strike it enormously rich (probably slowly since you won't have much capital). 99.99999% of the time you lose the fair amount of money.

      If you sign with a record label the business model is also simple. You will not lose any money under any circumstances. You will definitely get to keep your advance, which for a 20-year-old artist is a fair chunk of cash. Most likely that will be the end of it, but there is a modest chance that you could make a little more money, and a very very small change that you'll be a mega hit and outlast your contract and be able to be super-rich.

      Essentially record labels take money from the people who are hits and spread it out among those who don't become hits (while keeping 90% of the money for themselves). They also take all the risk - they're the only ones putting out hard cash.

      For a new band they have the choice of making taking a $100k advance RIGHT NOW, or seeing how many CDs they can sell on their own - without serious promotion. Making even $100k selling CDs on your own is EXTREMELY difficult - especially without any capital investments. Sure, signing the deal means that you could end up getting $120k instead of $25M, but most likely it means you'll get $100k instead of ending up with a crate full of CDs and T-Shirts that you can't sell while you work at the pizza place down the street.

      Don't get me wrong - the whole industry needs a major overhaul. However, most people critical of the RIAA miss the fact that it does provide one valuable service to the new artist, and that is the key to their success.

    11. Re:I Am Shocked! by Voyager529 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a mobile DJ who has friends all over the industry, I can tell you that MP3 has become the de facto standard here. Sure, you'll find a few jocks who still spin pressed CDs and/or pressed vinyl, but they are a minority.

      More often than not, you'll find that you're listening to MP3's anyway. Serato/Traktor/Torq/Virtual DJ have made serious inroads, and they all support timecoded CD and vinyl, so even if they look like they're spinning CDs, if there's a laptop in sight, they're spinning timecode and you're listening to MP3s off their laptop. Even if they have regular discs, companies like PrimeCuts, Promo Only, RPM, etc. also burn MP3 discs, and EVERY DJ-grade CD player plays MP3's nowadays. Finally, services like Crooklyn Clan and Crack4djs.net make their releases exclusively in MP3, so even if they burn Redbook audio CDs, you're still listening to something that started as an MP3.

    12. Re:I Am Shocked! by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course, the royalties are first put towards marketing expenses, production costs, daily hookers for the producer, and anything else the record label could conceivably bill before either the songwriter or the artist gets anything.

      Which are exactly the terms the artists agreed to when they signed the shoddy contracts.

  2. Shocking by kseise · · Score: 5, Funny

    You mean it doesn't cost $20.00 to make a CD? Really?

    1. Re:Shocking by Aphoxema · · Score: 5, Funny

      It actually costs 40 dollars but the labels are so generous they were paying 50% of the cost out of pocket. Their hearts grew even bigger thanks to everyone being so happy with them, so they decided to pay 75%. Soon they'll just start handing them out for free!

      I love our music industry, they're so nice to us little, unimportant people!

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    2. Re:Shocking by Life2Short · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can remember the first CD's I bought in the early 1980s. The price was much higher than vinyl, but there were a number of advantages: easier playback, no wear to CDs, etc. The other "comfort" was that I was paying higher prices for CD's because I was an early adopter of the format. As the format became more mainstream, the price would drop. Shyaaa, right...

    3. Re:Shocking by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Informative

      To be fair, CD prices have dropped, especially if you consider inflation. How much were you paying for your vinyl records in 1985? When we account for the rate of inflation, paying $20 US for a CD today is equivalent to paying about $10 back then. The average price of a CD today - roughly $13 - is equivalent to about $6.50 in 1985. Were your records were much cheaper than that?

    4. Re:Shocking by Life2Short · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True, with inflation the price of the CD has probably dropped somewhat since the early 80s. But compare that price drop with price drop of the CD player. I think you could argue that the savings in terms of reproduction costs, recording costs, packaging, etc. have not been passed on to the CD cost the way they were for the CD player. My first CD player had no features and cost >$500. I could buy one today that was a quarter of the size and a fifth of the price with LOTS of programming features and a remote control. The CD I buy today is cheaper to reproduce, cheaper to record, and cheaper to package (remember the big boxes they came in during the 80s?) but I don't pay a fifth of the price.

    5. Re:Shocking by bennomatic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I read an interesting article in Wired a few years back--gee, maybe more than a decade ago--that put an interesting spin on the decision not to drop CD prices.

      The idea is that as the cost to produce the new medium dropped, they could take that overhead and invest it in riskier artists. Where they used to only risk a contract with a band that might sell 100,000 LPs, they could now act like indy labels and take on bands that might only sell 10,000 CDs.

      Doing so, according to the article, led in part to the explosion of options in music in the 90s. Rap/Hip-hop, grunge, etc., all would have been relegated to minor labels with minor distribution channels. Green Day would have stayed on local college radio. Snoop Dog would still be rapping in his parents' garage. Etc.

      As such, even with the much higher prices, album sales soared. You can argue about where the value is, but clearly the buyers were interested in having the music that *they* wanted being available on the shelves.

      Take with appropriate amounts of salt. It may be that without the majors seeing this opportunities, some of the minors would have become bigger, faster. But it's an interesting take.

      That having been said, they also made a bazillion dollars of those risky investments, so it's time for them to stop living off yesteryear's biz model. I'm sure they'll come up with some new way to stay rich after the CDs get cheaper.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
  3. CDs! How *quaint* by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 4, Funny

    I remember CDs. They made such pretty coffee coasters after I burned all their music to my MP3 player.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:CDs! How *quaint* by Pojut · · Score: 2, Funny

      Especially the AOL ones...they seemed to soak up more liquid than any of the others.

      Remember: if it ain't an AOL disc, it ain't worth jack!

      --
      Living With a Nerd
    2. Re:CDs! How *quaint* by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I remember CDs. They made such pretty coffee coasters after I burned all their music to my MP3 player.

      I believe the correct verb you're looking for is 'ripped.' But before you go on about how 'quaint' CDs are, keep in mind how nice it is to own something physical. You have, as a physical object, evidence of your licensing of personal enjoyment of that media. I do buy $5 albums on Amazon MP3 but I feel almost like I somehow receive less rights or a watered down licensing of that album as opposed to if I had purchased the album. If you find this concept quaint then why are vinyl sales slowly rising?

      My favorite form of purchasing these albums is vinyl + lossless digital download. A lot of the indie record labels are adopting this method and you pay a $1 or $2 premium on the CD or vinyl album in order to have the music now with the physical artifact shipped to you later. I purchased my Cloud Cult albums in this manner and also She and Him. Instant gratification and I don't even have to take the album out of its wrapper. Don't expect the major labels or even Amazon to warm up to this idea though ... it's far too empowering for the consumer.

      --
      My work here is dung.
    3. Re:CDs! How *quaint* by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Funny

      Especially the AOL ones...they seemed to soak up more liquid than any of the others.

      That's because they were specifically designed to withstand the tears of users installing AOL.

    4. Re:CDs! How *quaint* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Audio CDs aren't quaint. They're reliable read-only long term storage media for losslessly encoded music. The data is unencumbered by DRM, you can lend CDs to your friends, you can sell CDs and you can listen to your CDs on as many devices as you like. I don't pay for downloads. I pay for CDs or get my music for free.

    5. Re:CDs! How *quaint* by somersault · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't even have to take the album out of its wrapper.

      Yeah, that sounds really worth the extra money. I have barely any space to store my DVDs and blu-rays in my flat right now. I'm glad I could shove all my CDs into my mum's attic. I used to have some kind of sentimental attachment to them, but that starting going after Amazon began offering cheap MP3 albums, and completely evaporated last time I had to move flat. Storing and moving CDs and DVDs is a real pain - and records would be even worse in terms of space - not to mention more fragile. I don't see anything empowering about needing to keep highly inefficient backups of what is essentially just something you want to hear - not something you need to look at or touch.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    6. Re:CDs! How *quaint* by maxume · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Vinyl sales are rising because people are fools.

      (There is some chance that the audio never experiences any filtering and the frequency response of the entire chain of analog equipment is such that there is no cutoff of high frequencies, and that the ears listening can hear the high frequencies, and that there isn't any dust on the record and that the record hasn't been worn by previous playback, but it isn't really all that likely)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:CDs! How *quaint* by geekmux · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you find this concept quaint then why are vinyl sales slowly rising?

      Because the dynamic range of vinyl albums can't be compressed as much as they are on a CD resulting in better sounding music?

      Uh, that may be true, but it would also require that the overprocessed, overmodulated, autotuned, beatbox crap they're calling "music" these days be worth a shit to press onto vinyl. In most cases, vinyl is nothing more than turd polish.

    8. Re:CDs! How *quaint* by Aphoxema · · Score: 2, Interesting

      [...] before you go on about how 'quaint' CDs are, keep in mind how nice it is to own something physical. You have, as a physical object, evidence of your licensing of personal enjoyment of that media.

      Though the short life expectancy of CDs appears to have been greatly exaggerated, they do have a finite lifespan while music in a more transient form can happily be saved from one hermetically sealed hard disk to the next. Either way, all the CRC checks in the world can't guarantee immortality of any data.

      Speaking of transient... I've lived most of my teens going from one place to the next, often losing or giving away my possessions in the process. Those quaint, physical goods meant bullshit to me sleeping in an alley or at so-and-so's couch for the week.

      What did comfort me was recovering collections of music from friends I shared with since the days of Napster, an impossibility if relying solely on CDs, regardless of the legality.

      I'm an immaterial girl living in an immaterial world. Well, except for my recent journey into my PS3 and buying up used games for it. At least Blu-rays are a little sturdier than DVDs and CDs.

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    9. Re:CDs! How *quaint* by jayme0227 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you find this concept quaint then why are vinyl sales slowly rising?

      Probably for the same reason that young people prefer MP3s to higher quality music. People grow up listening to music in a certain way and the cracks and pops of vinyls, much in the same way as the sizzle sounds of MP3s, are what the listener expects to hear in the music. Because they expect to hear it, the music doesn't sound "right" when they hear high quality recordings without it. So now that baby boomers are reaching retirement age, they look back at what they loved when they are younger and buy old vinyls.

      --
      But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
    10. Re:CDs! How *quaint* by MBGMorden · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you find this concept quaint then why are vinyl sales slowly rising?

      Even the link you quoted shows that ALL forms of music - CD's, digital, AND vinyl - are rising in sales. Vinyl also, despite "rising" sales, is still not really selling in any significant amounts.

      As the article pointed out, Taylor Swift's latest album sold nearly twice as many copies in six months as the ENTIRE SALES VOLUME of vinyl records in a year.

      Vinyl is making about as much of a comeback as any other retro tech - some people are clinging to it, but you're dreaming if you think that there's going to be some mass movement back to the format.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    11. Re:CDs! How *quaint* by twistedsymphony · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have, as a physical object, evidence of your licensing of personal enjoyment of that media

      Not necessarily: you could have shoplifted it. Actually, given the RIAA's attitude to its customers, they'd likely assume that until proven otherwise.

      I'd rather they assumed I shop-lifted it than I downloaded it... the penalties are less severe for shop-lifters.

      --
      Collector's Edition
    12. Re:CDs! How *quaint* by moosesocks · · Score: 2

      Tears.....OF JOY!

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    13. Re:CDs! How *quaint* by Hatta · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sure it can. It just usually isn't. The dynamic range of vinyl is less than that of CDs, so if you had an uncompressed (dynamic range) digital music file, you'd have to compress it more to put it on vinyl than on a CD. If you chose to compress it even further, you could do it on either vinyl or CDs.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    14. Re:CDs! How *quaint* by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't see anything empowering about needing to keep highly inefficient backups of what is essentially just something you want to hear - not something you need to look at or touch.

      Ah! You hit the nail square on the head, and didn't even realize it. People keep vinyl records not because they need to look at them or touch them, but because they want others to look at them. It's like the people who have a bookshelf stacked with all sorts of classic literature, none of which has ever been opened. It's all about appearance.

    15. Re:CDs! How *quaint* by Duradin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Mythbusters proved that polishing a turd can be rather effective.

    16. Re:CDs! How *quaint* by afidel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you REALLY want to compare the bit error rate of HDD's to CDDA?!? Many orders of magnitude difference and the winner ain't CDDA!

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    17. Re:CDs! How *quaint* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because the dynamic range of vinyl albums can't be compressed as much as they are on a CD resulting in better sounding music?

      The dynamic range of CDs is actually at least three orders higher than that of vinyl (120dB dynamic range for high-end vinyl equipment vs 150dB for CDs). The reason that CDs sound worse is because of the skill (and agenda) of the sound engineers, not the medium.

    18. Re:CDs! How *quaint* by RapmasterT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Vinyl is rising because it bottomed out and is doing the proverbial "dead man bounce".

      The reason some people like vinyl better than digital, is because it sounds "warmer", which is just a positive spin on "muddled" or "lower dynamic range". They complain that digital sounds too harsh.

      The unpleasant truth though is LIVE music is harsh, that's the sound you don't like. You just won't find self-proclaimed audiophiles proudly saying "I don't like how live music sounds, so I prefer it run through a distortion filter first".

    19. Re:CDs! How *quaint* by afidel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Man I was so reminded of how absolutely terrible vinyl is when I went to audition my new speakers. All the HiFi shops use a mix of vinyl and CD's because that's what their clientele expects but I honestly can't understand how people who profess to love music can stand vinyl. The pops and hissing 10-20 times per track even with multi-thousand dollar turntables was unbearable. I'll gladly stick with MP3's that I can't ABX distinguish from the source material (even if the source is 192/24 digital) the vast majority of the time (I can FLAC any CD's that have a serious problem with LAME).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    20. Re:CDs! How *quaint* by hondo77 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Add to that the vinyl produced today is higher quality than back in the day because the volume being produced is so low and people are now willing to pay a premium. The crap that used to be present on an LP for a million-selling act right after you brought it home from a record store was amazing. I, for one, don't miss vinyl at all. Been there, done that, moved on to something better.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    21. Re:CDs! How *quaint* by vertinox · · Score: 2, Funny

      Vinyl sales are rising because people are fools.

      I recently went into a local indie record store a few months ago and saw a stack of new cassette tapes for sale at the register.

      And I was like: "Hah! Did someone find these in an old factory somewhere unopened?"
      Indie store guy: "No, these are brand new from a local artist."
      Me: "Ummm... Why?"
      Indie store guy: "Yeah its a new hot trend for local bands to make cassette tapes now instead of releasing them on CD or Vinyl"
      Me: "Ok... But can you even buy cassette players anymore?"
      Indie store guy: "Nope. But they still sell for some reason amoung the hipsters."

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  4. 0$ by krapski · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I get them for 0$ in pirate bay, how do you compete with that!?

    1. Re:0$ by bzipitidoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Mature adult? You tool! The industry is keen to exploit that attitude. It's the biggest reason their war on progress and technology has had some success, why the immense savings of switching from physical to electronic distribution has been mostly unrealized, or diverted into the pockets of leeches. You enable them to continue to deny reality. Artists must switch to another model, one where they want their music freely shared as much as possible, and people aren't "pirates".

      $10 is too little, too late. CDs should die. What still exists should be under $5, and they should drop all the smug, self-aggrandizing and expensive anti-theft measures such as the jewel case and its oversized cage. I imagine the typical record exec as a shriveled Gollum like creature hiding in a cave, wearing a CD on his finger-- after the Lord of the CDs had already fallen.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  5. Just like cassettes by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...when they still existed. I remember having the option between a $13 CD or an $8 "inferior" cassette version, so I picked the cassette. I didn't see why I should have to pay a $5 premium for the disc version.

    Now it appears the same pricing has come to CDs. Why pay $13 for a CD when I can just download my favorite 2-3 songs at about $3. The internet is forcing music companies to drop the pricetag for the "inferior" CD format to about $8.

    Why inferior?

    CDs aren't portable. And take-up a lot of space.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:Just like cassettes by Pojut · · Score: 3, Funny

      CDs aren't portable. And take-up a lot of space.

      My binder with 300+ death metal CDs and the jewel case inserts in it from high school would agree with you -_-;;

      --
      Living With a Nerd
    2. Re:Just like cassettes by floatednerd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Maybe I'm going into the future kicking and screaming... but I don't feel like I "own" a song unless I have it on CD (or cassette, vinyl, etc). From my point of view, CDs are the "superior" product verses the MP3 from iTunes or Amazon.

    3. Re:Just like cassettes by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why would I want to “own” a song? I just want to listen to it.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    4. Re:Just like cassettes by whisper_jeff · · Score: 4, Funny

      Did you seriously just write "CDs aren't portable"? Really? I know nerds have the stigma of being out of shape, but really?

    5. Re:Just like cassettes by ZOmegaZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yet.

      --
      Former US House candidate, TN-5
    6. Re:Just like cassettes by Jer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By the OP's suggestion I should ditch all my books and scan/torrent/rebuy them in PDF.

      You make it sound like that's a ridiculous suggestion, when in fact there are a lot of people who want to do exactly that.

      Well, maybe not PDF. But something like that.

    7. Re:Just like cassettes by mister_playboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I gave up on binders because they seem to damage CDs once the plastic in them starts to age and harden. It's usually subtle "pin-holes" in the disc when held up to the light, and it doesn't always audibly affect the sound, but it's still extremely disappointing. My collection is too big and represents too much cash outlay over time to risk it.

      I still make a lot of use of CDs, but always burned ones. I keep the original in its jewel case on the shelf.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    8. Re:Just like cassettes by jandrese · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, lets compare. Say you have an iPod that can hold 20,000 songs. Assume an average album is 12 songs. That's 1,667 albums. A CD weighs about 16g. Your collection of music weighs about 26kg. Compared to the 140g iPod that's substantial. It gets worse if you're carrying them with the booklets and inside the jewel case, then the weight goes up to about 60g per album, for a total weight of right about 100kg. When your jogging music is a 4 man lift, I wouldn't call it portable anymore.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    9. Re:Just like cassettes by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nowadays RIAA doesn't sue people for having MP3s.
      They sue them for uploading the MP3s, so having ownership doesn't matter if they have a record of you ULing the songs.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    10. Re:Just like cassettes by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ownership confers upon you the right to listen to that song for your whole life. - Perhaps I'm in the minority on this but I still listen to tapes or records that were purchased 30-50 years ago, and every listen costs me nothing.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  6. It only took a decade or so... by TACD · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You'd think the music companies would have at least one economist on staff who could explain to them, slowly and gently, that under certain circumstances it is actually possible to make more money when each individual unit is priced lower. It really takes some stubborn failure of logic to prioritise your sale price above your actual monetary returns.

    Of course, it's also possible that the music quality will just decline to compensate for the drop in price.

    --
    Security through promiscuity is no better than security through obscurity.
    1. Re:It only took a decade or so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course, it's also possible that the music quality will just decline to compensate for the drop in price.

      No, no that's not possible.

    2. Re:It only took a decade or so... by HeckRuler · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Not so much in the long run when you've got a monopoply of a few oligarchs who all collude to keep prices high. Now that one of the prisoners has come face to face with his dilema, he's breaking ranks and diving for some quick cheap cash.

      Of course, it's also possible that the music quality will just decline to compensate for the drop in price.

      HAHAHAHAHA, oh that's a good one. A decline in music quality? You think that corporate profits influence musicians in ANY way? And I don't think that the quality of pop music has to drop very far before it becomes noise.

  7. What's the first thing you would do with a CD? by thered2001 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If given a music CD, what would be the first thing you'd do with it? Play it or burn it? (Or give it back with an apology of "this is not a format I support any more"?)

    --

    If your only tool is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail.

    1. Re:What's the first thing you would do with a CD? by Mr.+DOS · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Try “rip it”.

      Who burns CD's any more?

    2. Re:What's the first thing you would do with a CD? by quantumplacet · · Score: 4, Funny

      I dont know, most cd's that come out these days I'd rather burn than rip...

  8. I love the juxaposition by edremy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ""Why does Universal feel the need to get below $10?" a senior distribution executive at a competing major asked. "

    Quickly followed by

    "[Sales of CDs] which [are] down 15.4% so far this year. Album sales were down 18.2% last year, and 19.7% in 2008, "

    I swear, Thick as a Brick should be a Jethro Tull song, not a description of record company executives....

    --
    "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
  9. The business model isn't completely dead with this by Coopjust · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'll be honest. I'm usually more of a singles person than an album person.

    However, when the album and digital copy are near the same price, the physical copy provides a long lasting backup (pressed CDs last longer than burnt), and I have a lossless copy that I can legally use, rip to lossless on my PC, and not have to go on a tracker and seed until my eyeballs fall out of my head for the ratio...it makes sense for a number of albums.

    Weird Al Yankovic stated that he was happy for either avenue his customers used to buy music, but his take per track on iTunes was about two cents a track and his take on CDs was about 26 cents- which is pretty major if you want to support the artist.

    Anyhow, it's a good move by UMG, albeit overdue. I think it's like the MPAA- the "boston strangler" of VHS turned out to be a major blessing and boon to their business. Hopefully other companies follow suit.

  10. Too late by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This would have been a great strategy for the late 1990's, when the CD was still a relevant media (and, for that matter, when consumers were demanding that prices be lowered, both through their words and through their actions -- which the industry by and large ignored completely).

    I'm not sure I'd call CDs relevant still. We've moved on to solid state media, writeable storage decoupled from the content. You could discount 8-track tapes and they wouldn't sell today. CD's don't have the same analog appeal that vinyl records to, either. I expect that eventually they'll just stop making CDs, and all music will be distributed via the network.

    This price reduction merely indicates that we're a little bit closer to that day. I doubt it'll do much to boost sales at this point.

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  11. Normal price here. And still way overpriced. by wvmarle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In Hong Kong a typical release CD of some local artist costs around USD 10 already. That's been since I moved here 7, 8 years ago. Older releases cost less. Import from US is typically USD 8-12 for a CD.

    Now there are a few differences: the entertainment world lives on a smaller budget and the top artists are at a level that wouldn't even make it into American Idol. That says more about the cantopop than about American Idol.

    Movies on DVD cost about USD 20 (new releases), older movies are sold at far cheaper prices. On VCD one can buy a movie for a few dollars.

    The above prices are for the official media, not for the pirated ones. Those are far cheaper.

    Still I think US$10 for a CD is overpriced. Pirated CD's are selling for well under USD 1 each. So that is a $9.something mark-up for what? Recording and artist's share?

    Both pirated CD's and official CD's have to be manufactured and distributed. That incurs costs that are independent of the content. The only difference is the actual recording and the marketing. Even the shops selling pirated disks are in the same expensive locations as the official outlets, so even there is no difference: they both have to make the same profit to survive. Both shop's suppliers have to run their trucks and pay their drivers and workers and run their CD/DVD machines.

    Official releases have better quality CD (technical: play guaranteed, last longer than a few years) and come in jewel case instead of paper sleeve. That may add $0.20-0.30 to manufacturing. Even when selling at USD 2.50 each the label should be able to make a USD 1.00 gross profit on each. And at that price level it becomes vending machine material, and volume may skyrocket due to all those impulse buys. Sell a million disks, make a million in gross profit. If a million dollars is not enough to cover recording, marketing, and a fat profit, then you're doing something terribly wrong.

  12. price fixing? by eagl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the other music groups complain or retaliate in any way, doesn't that constitute illegal price fixing?

  13. Huh? by Fnord666 · · Score: 2, Funny

    What's a CD? Some sort of offline backup of the originally seeded songs?

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  14. Re:The business model isn't completely dead with t by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nothing.

    To judge efficiencies, I’d have to also know how many CDs were sold vs. how many digital downloads were sold.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  15. Price according to quality. by FlyingBishop · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are quite a few artists whose new albums I want to pay $20 for. The majority however is cheap cookie-cutter crap.

  16. Premium vs Discount Format by BlueBoxSW.com · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I see this as a really important shift.

    Previously, the CD was the premium format, with all it's uncompressed audio glory. And it is fairly portable, playable in most consumer electronic devices found in the living room or car.

    The MP3/AAC format was the discount format. Compressed with some audio loss, and playable in less devices. Also encumbered in some cases with DRM.

    The premium format carried a 50% markup, with most MP3 albums costing around $10, and CD's costing around $15.

    With CD's potentially costing LESS than MP3/AAC formats, this signifies the market is placing premium on the MP3/AAC format over the CD. This could be because the format is now supported in more devices, or consumers find it friendlier to deal with, perhaps because there's no need to fight the packaging then burn it on your own.

  17. Only in the US.... by Niedi · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here in Germany they still expect me to pay 13-16 euro for most new cds. Mind you according to Google, that's 17,65$ to 21,65$...

    And they seem honestly surprised why I'm not willing to pay that much...

  18. Compact Disks, or "Compact Disks" by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One interesting question is whether the $10 disks would be proper CDs, capable of having the trademarked Compact Disc Digital Audio logo, or whether they'd be bastardized pseudo CDs with weirdo copy protection (and ergo NOT authorized to have the Compact Disc Digital Audio logo), which don't play in lots of devices. The invisible cost of nonstandard disks would make them quite unattractive to many.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  19. Yes! by malp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not even the youngest generation. Napster took off about 11 years ago. Many kids just graduating college and entering the workforce probably never bought a CD during their teenage years.