Do you really need to worry about money when you've made the 2nd biggest selling album of all time?
Don't forget that the tour they just did tooke in $477million. That's how they've really made their money.
Oh, no. Every time you turn up something monumental and terrible happens.
I don’t think I have the stomach for it.
--Raziel (Legend of Kain: Soul Reaver 2)
maybe not so much those albums but The Razors Edge is definitely my favourite
Loved that album aswell.
Even if they did release the rights to itunes download,people*most would* would still avoid paying for the music.
i see it over again record companies and artists complaining about illlegal downloads,im sure if that was clamped down there be whinging about second hand cds outselling their reissued old album.
Other note i see kindle books cost way more than the second hand paper editions ,so not much incentive to go the kindle route.
Even if they did release the rights to itunes download,people*most would* would still avoid paying for the music.
i see it over again record companies and artists complaining about illlegal downloads,im sure if that was clamped down there be whinging about second hand cds outselling their reissued old album.
Other note i see kindle books cost way more than the second hand paper editions ,so not much incentive to go the kindle route.
people still would download them illegally BUT the point is theyre losing out on money people would pay who would buy LEGAL downloads.
but it is nice they earn enough to stick with integrity, even the beatles and pink floyd have given in i believe
Professional Mel-the-Bell Simulator................"So realistic, I found myself reaching for the Kleenex King-Size!" - Richard Darling
i think the beatles delay goes back to the long running court battles over their apple corps vs apple computer.
it's more to do with the copyright and protection of their stuff.. and due to time, the protection is gonna get less... ironically how apple computers have kept their tech to themselves isn't so far different, generally speaking.
to license a beatles track for a film etc.. is SERIOUS money.. think it's 250k a song or something silly.. or was.
beatles could have released their stuff with another provider, but it comes down to solely the protection of it and it running out.
I don't get why anyone would want an MP3 or download instead of a CD, especially when there's so little difference in price (if any sometimes). To me it makes far more sense to get the CD so you get superior sound quality, the album artwork, booklet etc and don't have to worry about DRM or all that crap. Plus, you can make your own MP3/AAC/whatever you want copy AS WELL so it's a win-win situation as far as I can see.
I don't like CDs - I can't carry my collection around with me unless I have a huge bag. MP3s are better, IMO - they're free, they don't contain DRM (Sony got their hands slapped the last time they tried it, but they'll try it again - just you wait), and they fit on a micro-SD card which sits in my player, rather than aforementioned huge bag.
It all comes down to a matter of convenience vs aesthetics.
Sure, a CD ROM with artwork, jacket etc looks good on a shelf but when you'd rather listen to your music anywhere, anytime there's nothing to beat the portability of music formats like MP3, AAC, WMA. That and the fact that you can browse online stores and download single tracks or albums without ever stepping out of your home.
The small trade-off of sound quality vs convenience is worth it IMO.
Which is also the reason why I'm loving my Kindle ATM. I love books and love collecting them so that I can put them on my bookshelf and I adore the smell of old books. However, having used the Kindle for a bit now I have to say the convenience of the device just about compensates for not having a physical book on hand. Will I stop buying books? Probably not. But I don't think I'll be buying as many anymore. :)
I don't like CDs - I can't carry my collection around with me unless I have a huge bag. MP3s are better, IMO - they're free, they don't contain DRM (Sony got their hands slapped the last time they tried it, but they'll try it again - just you wait), and they fit on a micro-SD card which sits in my player, rather than aforementioned huge bag.
It's win-win for MP3, here.
D.
I'm not sure why you'd want to carry a load of CDs round anyway - unless you're a fugitive from justice who's constantly on the run and has to carry all his worldly goods with him at all times? If that's the case then MP3 is definitely more convenient for you ;)
My point was that if you decide to PAY for an album then your options are: (a) buy an MP3 version, (b) buy a CD and make an MP3 version yourself
Given that prices are pretty much the same for both options then I can't understand why anyone would go with option (a). You get a physical copy of the album in a superior format and can knock out as many different copies as you like in MP3, AAC, Ogg, FLAC, etc. If there was a vast difference in price then I'd understand but there isn't nowadays. In fact, some CDs are cheaper than their MP3 equivalent which makes buying an MP3 copy seem even more ridiculous to me.
If you use something like LAME you'll get a better quality MP3 than an iTunes encoded one as well. (OK, so in reality you might not notice any difference but I've bored myself senseless reading all the encoding tests on places like hydrogenaudio.org)
It all comes down to a matter of convenience vs aesthetics.
Sure, a CD ROM with artwork, jacket etc looks good on a shelf but when you'd rather listen to your music anywhere, anytime there's nothing to beat the portability of music formats like MP3, AAC, WMA. That and the fact that you can browse online stores and download single tracks or albums without ever stepping out of your home.
The small trade-off of sound quality vs convenience is worth it IMO.
If we ever descend into a world of mp3 only then there are a lot of artists who will stop making music. Quite a few interviews I've read over the last few years have artists bemoaning the fact that converting to mp3 destroys the sound they're creating. The latest being Laurie Anderson on the BBC website last week.
Which is also the reason why I'm loving my Kindle ATM. I love books and love collecting them so that I can put them on my bookshelf and I adore the smell of old books. However, having used the Kindle for a bit now I have to say the convenience of the device just about compensates for not having a physical book on hand. Will I stop buying books? Probably not. But I don't think I'll be buying as many anymore. :)
Not quite the same thing is it really, the printed word is still the same whether it's on paper, a computer screen or a tablet of stone...
to license a beatles track for a film etc.. is SERIOUS money.. think it's 250k a song or something silly.. or was.
beatles could have released their stuff with another provider, but it comes down to solely the protection of it and it running out.
Very suave business people the beatle estates,i think the anthology series has only being shown once on tv*or anyone else remember an more recent airing?.
If there was a vast difference in price then I'd understand but there isn't nowadays. In fact, some CDs are cheaper than their MP3 equivalent which makes buying an MP3 copy seem even more ridiculous to me.
that isn't true, there are lots of CDs on amazon that are ?30+ but only 6 or 7 quid to download it from them
look at this, ?64 for the Cd, or ?6.99 to download - think I know what I'm choosing tbh :)
Oh come on, play fair - that's a stupid example! :P
It's also a USED CD that some mentalist has decided they want a fortune for. You know what I mean. Most CD releases do not differ much in price from their MP3 equivalent. There's always going to be the odd exception and if the only way to get that particular album on CD is going to cost that much then yes, the MP3 version would make more sense. But I stand by what I said before: If the price isn't that much different, why buy MP3?
look at this, ?64 for the Cd, or ?6.99 to download - think I know what I'm choosing tbh :)
That's like saying Moonwalker on the speccy really is worth ?100 as seen on ebay :p
Oh, no. Every time you turn up something monumental and terrible happens.
I don’t think I have the stomach for it.
--Raziel (Legend of Kain: Soul Reaver 2)
No idea if that's true, but hey: why let the facts get in the way of a good story.... :-P
Well the recent tour just earned them ?477M, put on top of that album sales, DVD sales. on-line merchandising sales, investments and you can see that thats probably an underestimate.
As an aside, only one member of AC/DC is Australian, the rest are either English or Scottish.
if i hear a band giving an interview and they say they do what they do because of their love of the music and that they would happily do it all for free. i take that as red that they wont mind me downloading all their songs for free. :D
Comments
I don’t think I have the stomach for it.
--Raziel (Legend of Kain: Soul Reaver 2)
https://www.youtube.com/user/VincentTSFP
fixed that for you :p
Loved that album aswell.
Even if they did release the rights to itunes download,people*most would* would still avoid paying for the music.
i see it over again record companies and artists complaining about illlegal downloads,im sure if that was clamped down there be whinging about second hand cds outselling their reissued old album.
Other note i see kindle books cost way more than the second hand paper editions ,so not much incentive to go the kindle route.
but it is nice they earn enough to stick with integrity, even the beatles and pink floyd have given in i believe
i think the beatles delay goes back to the long running court battles over their apple corps vs apple computer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer
it's more to do with the copyright and protection of their stuff.. and due to time, the protection is gonna get less... ironically how apple computers have kept their tech to themselves isn't so far different, generally speaking.
to license a beatles track for a film etc.. is SERIOUS money.. think it's 250k a song or something silly.. or was.
beatles could have released their stuff with another provider, but it comes down to solely the protection of it and it running out.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1330177/Apple-sell-Beatles-music-iTunes-time.html
much like they releasing the 2 sets of albums as mono / stereo.. some will / did buy both sets.
I don't like CDs - I can't carry my collection around with me unless I have a huge bag. MP3s are better, IMO - they're free, they don't contain DRM (Sony got their hands slapped the last time they tried it, but they'll try it again - just you wait), and they fit on a micro-SD card which sits in my player, rather than aforementioned huge bag.
It's win-win for MP3, here.
D.
Meh, when you get above 192kbps there's next to sod-all difference ;-)
And at your age you're unlikely to be able to tell the difference between FLAC and 128kbps MP3 anyway!
D.
And yes I can tell the difference even at my advanced age...
Sure, a CD ROM with artwork, jacket etc looks good on a shelf but when you'd rather listen to your music anywhere, anytime there's nothing to beat the portability of music formats like MP3, AAC, WMA. That and the fact that you can browse online stores and download single tracks or albums without ever stepping out of your home.
The small trade-off of sound quality vs convenience is worth it IMO.
Which is also the reason why I'm loving my Kindle ATM. I love books and love collecting them so that I can put them on my bookshelf and I adore the smell of old books. However, having used the Kindle for a bit now I have to say the convenience of the device just about compensates for not having a physical book on hand. Will I stop buying books? Probably not. But I don't think I'll be buying as many anymore. :)
Bytes:Chuntey - Spectrum tech blog.
Myself i prefer holding, looking and listening to powerage on vinyl than any other format
I'm not sure why you'd want to carry a load of CDs round anyway - unless you're a fugitive from justice who's constantly on the run and has to carry all his worldly goods with him at all times? If that's the case then MP3 is definitely more convenient for you ;)
My point was that if you decide to PAY for an album then your options are: (a) buy an MP3 version, (b) buy a CD and make an MP3 version yourself
Given that prices are pretty much the same for both options then I can't understand why anyone would go with option (a). You get a physical copy of the album in a superior format and can knock out as many different copies as you like in MP3, AAC, Ogg, FLAC, etc. If there was a vast difference in price then I'd understand but there isn't nowadays. In fact, some CDs are cheaper than their MP3 equivalent which makes buying an MP3 copy seem even more ridiculous to me.
If you use something like LAME you'll get a better quality MP3 than an iTunes encoded one as well. (OK, so in reality you might not notice any difference but I've bored myself senseless reading all the encoding tests on places like hydrogenaudio.org)
Very suave business people the beatle estates,i think the anthology series has only being shown once on tv*or anyone else remember an more recent airing?.
myself is a wma format fan :oops:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Screwed-Life-Dead-End-Alliance/dp/B00000DAQ7/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1304867540&sr=1-1
look at this, ?64 for the Cd, or ?6.99 to download - think I know what I'm choosing tbh :)
Oh come on, play fair - that's a stupid example! :P
It's also a USED CD that some mentalist has decided they want a fortune for. You know what I mean. Most CD releases do not differ much in price from their MP3 equivalent. There's always going to be the odd exception and if the only way to get that particular album on CD is going to cost that much then yes, the MP3 version would make more sense. But I stand by what I said before: If the price isn't that much different, why buy MP3?
Exactly when you can rob them for nowt! :lol:
I don’t think I have the stomach for it.
--Raziel (Legend of Kain: Soul Reaver 2)
https://www.youtube.com/user/VincentTSFP
there's another...
tbh tho its not the norm, ive seen ones vastly over the odds too, sadly :(
http://www.best-reviewer.com/how-much-money-does-acdc-make-1944.htm
No idea if that's true, but hey: why let the facts get in the way of a good story.... :-P
As an aside, only one member of AC/DC is Australian, the rest are either English or Scottish.
i don't bother if the band is **** though.