Vinyl

[MattJ.D.]

If Vinyl some how made a come back, who would buy a turn table and a bunch of records? Personally I would never pirate again if vinyl was cheaper and easier to come upon..the sound quality is unmatched.

[Mark E. Hurling]

I don't have to buy either. I have both of them less than 5 feet from where I'm sitting as I type this right now. And I never pirated anything so I have no moral dilemma or cost benefit analysis to work my way through. Sound quality notwithstanding. For me it's more about respecting the intellectual property rights of the artist than my own selfish desires.

[VEremita]

I honestly think vinyl is making a minor comeback. I'm not sure where you live, but there are quite a few vinyl shops where I'm at -- new stuff and tons of used stuff for very cheap. In fact, most of the music purchases I've made over the last two years have been vinyl, and it seems like a lot of bands (at least the ones I listen to) are making vinyl in increasing quantities.

[MattJ.D.]

I don't have to buy either. I have both of them less than 5 feet from where I'm sitting as I type this right now. And I never pirated anything so I have no moral dilemma or cost benefit analysis to work my way through. Sound quality notwithstanding. For me it's more about respecting the intellectual property rights of the artist than my own selfish desires.

well, we all can't be perfect...

[JM3]

Why that is a nice sentiment Mark. As a musician who has had my work pirated and watched others make money on my sound without me benifeting- I appreciate that. I also know many others who would be grateful for your sentiments.
You may also be interested to know that the model is pretty much changing and the new wisdom is to give it away- that usually leads to better revenue not only through live performance but eventually sales.
nowadays that is the wisdom of turning a profit on songs.
I still have all my vinyl- unfortunately my tastes have changed a lot. I do like the sounds though- would be great to see a hybrid medium of some sort.

edit- Veremita which bands? names? curious.

[Mark E. Hurling]

well, we all can't be perfect...

I ain't perfect, but I'm no damn thief.

[MattJ.D.]

I honestly think vinyl is making a minor comeback. I'm not sure where you live, but there are quite a few vinyl shops where I'm at -- new stuff and tons of used stuff for very cheap. In fact, most of the music purchases I've made over the last two years have been vinyl, and it seems like a lot of bands (at least the ones I listen to) are making vinyl in increasing quantities.

What did you pay typically for a full album used and new, and for singles? I was talking to my mom, and she said back in the 70s, she paid like $35-40 bucks for Chicago's Full Discography, about 45 cent for a single, and around $5 for an album...to me thats not bad prices but of course it would be more now a days....still think for the quality of the music it would be worth it..even more so if you have like a $1500 mid range system

[MattJ.D.]

I ain't perfect, but I'm no damn thief.

To be fair, most of the music I listen to, is from a bunch of dead people. So its not like the artist is really losing out

[Mark E. Hurling]

Why that is a nice sentiment Mark. As a musician who has had my work pirated and watched others make money on my sound without me benifeting- I appreciate that. I also know many others who would be grateful for your sentiments.

Here's one of the seminal influences on why I feel that way. I remember how John Fogerty couldn't play his own music because of a bad contract with a manager. I know it's not quite the same thing, but my temporal lobe wants to perform a Mount Saint Helen's maneuver when I try to resolve the kind of situation that denies an artist the right or benefit of their own work. It's worse than slavery in my own opinion.

[Dastardly]

If Vinyl some how made a come back, who would buy a turn table and a bunch of records? Personally I would never pirate again if vinyl was cheaper and easier to come upon..the sound quality is unmatched.

Define Sound quality?

If you mean fidelity, then you are wrong. Sure a clean record sounds good, but does it really sound as detailed as an uncompressed digital format? Especially the SACD format that has been available for years, but totally flopped because everyone got into highly compressed audio files from Itunes rather than HIFI.

I like records, I buy and listen to them. But I know that unless I blow some serious cash on hifi stylus & cartridge, im not even gonna get close to the detail of CD. Plus most of my records wouldve been presses from a CD quality digital master anyway! Also I have dust and scratches to contend with.

If you want the best hifi option, look into SACD.

[Mark E. Hurling]

To be fair, most of the music I listen to, is from a bunch of dead people. So its not like the artist is really losing out

So the pirating you confessed to is like being only a little bit pregnant, right?

[JM3]

Mark- I don't know how old OP is - but this generation is changing the paradigm for how media and software are consumed- it is basically stealing- I won't argue that for a moment- but there is a flux in terms of how people think of information in general.
I was in a commerical studio recently and nearly everything being used was pirated- when I mentioned it to the engineer he replied that he had bought every current version with every update for the first 5 years - but after a point, the software companies he was a customer of made so many changes, and so many incompatibilities with older versions cropped up that he completely lost interest in spending 500-1000 per program every year to simply use a newer iteration of something he felt he had paid for. So he began to simply upgrade hardware only and get unlocked copies of all software.
Stealing? Yes, but, I had empathize with him a bit -he felt ripped off by the companies he had bought from. Obviously the cycle perpetuates itself.

[MattJ.D.]

Define Sound quality?

If you mean fidelity, then you are wrong. Sure a clean record sounds good, but does it really sound as detailed as an uncompressed digital format? Especially the SACD format that has been available for years, but totally flopped because everyone got into highly compressed audio files from Itunes rather than HIFI.

I like records, I buy and listen to them. But I know that unless I blow some serious cash on hifi stylus & cartridge, im not even gonna get close to the detail of CD. Plus most of my records wouldve been presses from a CD quality digital master anyway! Also I have dust and scratches to contend with.

If you want the best hifi option, look into SACD.


CDs aren't lossless, and itunes didn't cause the raise of lossy music, it was napster and everyone sharing 126 bit rate music in the 90s...aka mp3s(edit and the fact that storage wasn't, as cheap as it is today). You're right about lossless formats(flac, wav, etc.) though they do sound great, but I still think vinyl and a nice system is king...

and SADC>Cds ...cds only go up to 90db while SADC can be upwards to like 12db I think?....I wouldnt pay money for cds, because even they have a lot cut out...specifically in the highest and lowest dbs..

[Mark E. Hurling]

JM3, your point is well taken. Matt, I'll give you something of an apology for my brusque manner of speaking. I work in security and have been eye ball deep in the protection of information for some time. I have studied protection of intellectual property in the legal and practical realm. It's a really big deal for me. Mostly so in the area of technology and national security, but the law is the same. I have to pass background investigations and polygraphs about this every few years or so, and it's made me pretty inflexible about it. So please consider my remarks in this light. But it's still wrong and you shouldn't do it.

[Dastardly]

But its funny that the world choice convenience over quality, I dont think anyone predicted that. Back in the 90's everyone was gearing up for the new better format to replace CD and then all of a sudden HIFI dies. Everyone throws away there home stereos and big speakers in favour of listening to 128kbit mp3's through shitty earphones or laptop speakers.

Most people dont even know what a SACD is. Its strange because video formats have improved so enormously, but general public does not seem to care at all about quality sound. Most home recording musicians work with 24bit 96khz (or higher) recordings. Any crappy computer or even an Ipad can do this fine. But there is no format to pass this onto a listener.

[JM3]

Look at Hurling going soft on crime...

[Mark E. Hurling]

Look at Hurling going soft on crime...

Love ya' man, but not a bloody chance. I'm being more polite than is normally my practice. There are only a few people who can convince me to act this way.

[ColoWayno]

If Vinyl some how made a come back, who would buy a turn table and a bunch of records? Personally I would never pirate again if vinyl was cheaper and easier to come upon..the sound quality is unmatched.

I just need a new needle, ha.

[MattJ.D.]

But its funny that the world choice convenience over quality, I dont think anyone predicted that. Back in the 90's everyone was gearing up for the new better format to replace CD and then all of a sudden HIFI dies. Everyone throws away there home stereos and big speakers in favour of listening to 128kbit mp3's through shitty earphones or laptop speakers.

Most people dont even know what a SACD is. Its strange because video formats have improved so enormously, but general public does not seem to care at all about quality sound. Most home recording musicians work with 24bit 96khz (or higher) recordings. Any crappy computer or even an Ipad can do this fine. But there is no format to pass this onto a listener.

Storage...storage was extremely expensive then, and not having to carry around those huge packs of all your cds was a big plus...honestly even If I end up getting all lossless formats for my music..I'll still keep mp3 versions of it just for my ipod. I mean if I'm out somewhere its unrealistic to be able to have a ton of high quality music...for example a flac discography of The Beatles is 13gigs, even with my 160gig ipod thats a lot of fucking room, and the ipod wouldn't even be able to play the music to its potential anyway. So its wasted in that sense, but for at home or clubs(if you have a decent speakers/amp), mp3s do not cut it.

[hamburgerfan]

I only own one record. First press of Paranoid by Black Sabbath. I probably won't buy any more unless they're a cool thing to collect.

[Tom Campitelli]

Firstly, pirating music is not okay. I am with JM3 and Hurling. You like it? Then you buy it. You can almost always get free, legal samples of almost every song on an album now to determine if you are interested. There is no argument to be made otherwise. No, the record companies should not have to change their business models just because it became easy to steal their product. It is all but impossible for musicians to make a living now - not that it was ever easy. The few at the top do well, but the second tier bands with smaller followings that used to get by just fine have been hurt badly. I encourage everyone that thinks music should be free to write and record an album of a quality that would merit a major label release. Let me know how long it takes and how much money it cost and then let me know how easy it is profit off of that work.

I do not pine for the days of analog, but records can certainly sound good. I wonder what ultimately sounds better longer, CDs or vinyl? CDs are only about 20 years old. Will any of those still be playable after 40 years? there are some 40 year old records that still play okay. I can say that digital recording is absolutely the best thing since sliced bread. I used to record on an 8-track, quarter-inch, reel-to-reel to machine. Sound quality was better than a 4-track cassette machine, but not great. Now, I have as many tracks as my computer can handle in pristine audio quality and a ridiculously low cost. You can pry my computer out of my cold, dead hands.

Lastly, software piracy is equally shitty. Don't wanna pay for the software? Fine, don't use it. There is an immense selection of very capable, reasonably priced, wonderful sounding audio production software out there. If pirated software is being used in a commercial setting, that is even less excusable.

[DoctorWho]

I recall hearing some high end stereo (is that still a word?) equipment playing vinyl and still being disappointed by the degree of hiss and an occasional pop. It wasn't studio quality, but it made me accept whatever compressed format comes along. Some un-remastered (is that a word?) songs on CDs still have a hiss in the background.

Software piracy and music piracy are different animals. Software companies sometimes look the other way because a greater number of users can be beneficial, or that at least used to be the theory. Music piracy probably is more direct harm, and you have to feel for everybody involved. The record companies have tried everything: education, which only taught more users how to illegally download without much consequence; tough tactics, which got some grandmothers sued and very bad press. The industry's business model seemed to work once, but I wonder with a different model if there would have been more opportunity for a greater number of smaller bands. Instead, we got over-marketed super groups.

[JM3]

TomC- don't worry about any musician who can't make a living- this is one of the most interesting times to be a musician and major label deals aren't the only way to make money by music- recycling material and sampling and processing and sharing material are all easier now than before.
There are loads of way to do ok with music that didn't exist before when record companies had more control of content. Artists benefit from a free market that is more free- IF they have control of their content. It hurts major label industry- but indies can have a field day. Even in my narrow as hell niche- old jazz I have opportunities to sell material directly to the public- if I can figure out a good e commerce storefront- or even iTunes if not. But live performances are still healthy.
piracy itself is often tantamount to guerrilla marketing- it disseminates the material widely and generates interest in purchases later on.

[OCG]

Eh, bands earn very little from selling records, especially when they have to pay the record company their advance back, for the studio time...

[JM3]

OCG, You are assuming a business model that isn't practiced by the majority of bands. The simple fact is that any band who knows how to make a record for under 4000 can sell 50 units a month as long as their gig schedule is healthy. Also, as I said, the potential to recycle material and sell to video games, etc is through the roof. A musician who can't make money in this climate is pretty out of it. The game is a lot better than it used to be. Music is an art, and art is a business. Bands depending on record companies are mostly rock bands and usually- despite what they tell themselves and the chicks they are trying to bang after shows, not really in music for the long haul- if they are, most of them end up blending their business model with recording or sound or some other aspect of the profession. Rock bands in particular benefit from pirated music- if they are savvy and can turn that into interest in their own distribution mechanisms they can effectively cease to depend on the major labels. Going into debt to make a record is really foolish.

[Tom Campitelli]

Eh, bands earn very little from selling records, especially when they have to pay the record company their advance back, for the studio time...

That is dependent upon the contract. Some bands, especially those that have been around a while, can negotiate better rates. However, something is better than nothing.

[JM3]

http://www.musicbizacademy.com/articles/netprofitdeals1.htm - short article detailing newer versions of traditional record deals.


http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2011/05/23/on-snuggies-and-business-models/

Blog post by an indie artist who reportedly grossed 500k last year- no record deal whatsoever- mentions of piracy, record deals and the phenomena of the "middle class musician" Ive seen scores of artists take this approach and do better than bands looking for record deals.

[Dastardly]

The future of music is in streaming media. Its already here. But its going to get cheaper and better. Plus wireless connectivity will improve and our media players/phone will get better battery life. Eventually people will demand high fidelity streaming audio just like everyone has come to expect HD video on youtube.

[Dastardly]

Blog post by an indie artist who reportedly grossed 500k last year- no record deal whatsoever- mentions of piracy, record deals and the phenomena of the "middle class musician" Ive seen scores of artists take this approach and do better than bands looking for record deals.

megauploads mbox service will reportedly pay 90% of track sale price to the musician.

Compare this to back in the day. I remember Roger Mcguinn of The Byrds saying they got something like 0.04% royalties for Turn Turn Turn! which was a massive hit in the 60's and still sells well. But they never made any money from it.

[MattJ.D.]

The future of music is in streaming media. Its already here. But its going to get cheaper and better. Plus wireless connectivity will improve and our media players/phone will get better battery life. Eventually people will demand high fidelity streaming audio just like everyone has come to expect HD video on youtube.

Bandwidth sucks in america(10-25mb/s?)..I don't see it happening, and with data plans as the are right now, I just can't see it for mobile phones. Kansas city is just getting fiber optics put in by google(I guess they want to start their own internet provider, but they may just lease the lines to other providers). It could happen, but like before, horrible quality...so I don't care at all

Now if we could get fiber optics everywhere like south korea (which is like 1gb/s) holy hell

[Dastardly]

Bandwidth sucks in america(10-25mb/s?)..I don't see it happening, and with data plans as the are right now, I just can't see it for mobile phones. Kansas city is just getting fiber optics put in by google(I guess they want to start their own internet provider, but they may just lease the lines to other providers). It could happen, but like before, horrible quality...so I don't care at all

Now if we could get fiber optics everywhere like south korea (which is like 1gb/s) holy hell

They are rolling out 4g wireless now in the UK. It will be faster than a good home broadband service. I currently get 3g on my phone which is good enough to tether my laptop and watch 1080 streaming video.

[MattJ.D.]

They are rolling out 4g wireless now in the UK. It will be faster than a good home broadband service. I currently get 3g on my phone which is good enough to tether my laptop and watch 1080 streaming video.

Whats your data plan though for your phone, do you ever go over? Also I'm pretty sure only Verizon has 4G in the states, and I know in areas where you can't get it. The phone is constantly trying to pick it up, so it drains the battery fairly quick. America is behind in fucking everything, it sucks

Guessing the UK doesn't use fiberoptics either? Because that would blow away anything, 1gb/s bandwidth...it makes me balls wet

[Dastardly]

They have only started a trial in one county. Not at full speed yet. Its going to be 2 more years till we have it in more places.

But good 3g is fast enough for my needs. I have unlimited data. Technically I am not allowed to tether, but I do it anyway and have not got in trouble.

[MattJ.D.]

They have only started a trial in one county. Not at full speed yet. Its going to be 2 more years till we have it in more places.

But good 3g is fast enough for my needs. I have unlimited data. Technically I am not allowed to tether, but I do it anyway and have not got in trouble.

oh, I kinda do the same thing with my cable. I don't have a dvr, but I use my computer as one by connecting a firewire between my computer and Cable box, your actually supposed to pay a monthly fee for a DVR. We shouldn't talk of such things though, all the holier than thou members of the board will give us a big spiel

[mikeylikey]

I have a turntable and a couple hundred records, almost all of which were made before I was born. I buy them for two reasons,
1) they're often cheaper than CD's / iTunes
2) I like listening to music on its intended medium, with all it's quirks and idiosyncrasies. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization). Plus when buying old records, I can be confident I'm getting the orginal master, not a squashed-to-death-iPod-friendly "re-master".

[VEremita]

edit- Veremita which bands? names? curious.

Kind of an eclectic mix, but lots of punk (some favorites are Bad Religion and Social Distortion) and lots of classic rock (been on a bit of a David Bowie and Velvet Underground kick lately); I've also got a fair amount of classical piano and cello/violin, as well as some old jazz/blues stuff (I've got an old recording of some Chicago blues from the 20s/30s that sounds incredible on vinyl). I'm also a big fan of Radiohead, so I own quite a few of their records on vinyl. Other than that, I have a bunch of random used stuff I've come across just flipping through records at my favorite shop.

As to the whole issue over sound quality, maybe I'm a bit of an antiquarian, but I think vinyl just sounds better (objective sound quality notwithstanding). I also like the feel and smell of paper when I read a book....

[VEremita]

What did you pay typically for a full album used and new, and for singles? I was talking to my mom, and she said back in the 70s, she paid like $35-40 bucks for Chicago's Full Discography, about 45 cent for a single, and around $5 for an album...to me thats not bad prices but of course it would be more now a days....still think for the quality of the music it would be worth it..even more so if you have like a $1500 mid range system

In my experience, it's pretty much on par with CDs when it comes to new stuff. Used vinyl has a huge range. Most of the stuff I buy -- I'm not a serious collector -- is usually only a few bucks.

[Tamara Reynolds]

Every now and then, I get the urge to buy a record player and some vinyl.

I would buy the stuff that I remember listening to non-stop. My parents' albums: Neil Diamond, Barry Manilow, The Beatles. And then mine: Michael Jackson, Madonna, Prince, and The Muppet Movie soundtrack. My sister and I had dances to all of that stuff, and it was faster to skip to the correct part of the record than to rewind or fast forward a cassette tape. PYT came on at the gym the other day, and I was laughing remembering us dancing in the hall mirror to that album.

The first cassette tape I bought was Bon Jovi Slippery When Wet.

[Dastardly]

I can understand Neil Diamond, but does Barry Manilow have any redeeming features?

[JM3]

Kind of an eclectic mix, but lots of punk (some favorites are Bad Religion and Social Distortion) and lots of classic rock (been on a bit of a David Bowie and Velvet Underground kick lately); I've also got a fair amount of classical piano and cello/violin, as well as some old jazz/blues stuff (I've got an old recording of some Chicago blues from the 20s/30s that sounds incredible on vinyl). I'm also a big fan of Radiohead, so I own quite a few of their records on vinyl. Other than that, I have a bunch of random used stuff I've come across just flipping through records at my favorite shop.

As to the whole issue over sound quality, maybe I'm a bit of an antiquarian, but I think vinyl just sounds better (objective sound quality notwithstanding). I also like the feel and smell of paper when I read a book....

Ive got Colombia master series on 78s- it sounds pretty bad ass- but no longer own a turntable. I like the sound as well- a lot- but no longer get the opportunity to play it. This thread is making wish I had a turntable.

[Tamara Reynolds]

I can understand Neil Diamond, but does Barry Manilow have any redeeming features?

Hmmm. I will have to think about that.

Ooo, look! Glitter!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFwSzZQ4MVI