#1
Yeah, I could've came up with better title, but anyway...

I've never even talked to anyone, NO ONE about this, but I'd like to know other people's opinions.....What do you think of the digital world completely taking over music from here on out?

First off, I love the idea of getting my music in dozens of places at the same time, but I hate the fact that fans and MUSICIANS are getting more and more lazy.

Okay, the digital music phase has been bothering me for at least a good 7 years now and yes, I realize that it's not going anywhere. But what really pissed me off today is that I'm realizing that more artists aren't even being bothered with releasing ARTWORK anymore. WTF?! Why?? I mean, sometimes they'll just upload the album and have a "Buy Now! MP3 files only" or something like that on their website. Really? Is this what it's all come down to?

Enough of my talking, what do you think?
#3
I like my albums and CDs and album art. For me its part of what makes a new release by a favourite band fun and exciting.
So come on in
it ain't no sin
take off your skin
and dance around in your bones

#4
You talk about loving the music, yet your post seems to indicate that you're largely pissed off about not getting album artwork.

Since when has album artwork affected the music?

Also, obligatory "U MAD?"
Quote by GLP_Arclite
Pooping is well good though, to be fair.


I've got a handle on the fiction.

I'm losing my grip, 'cos I'm losing my fingers.
#6
The argument isn't simply about "not getting album artwork".

It's the whole concept of paying 99 cent for a song and having the labels/musicians think that that's what the fans want. Like, we think the music is cheap, so it's only worth $0.99. Now, I'm not saying that I insist on paying $10 for a CD or something. All I'm saying is that people want everything fast and cheeep, so now, musicians/bands don't even put effort into the music anymore.... NOT EVEN THE MUSICIANS WHO USED TO.

So, their point of view is like "Why put effort into if it's not gonna be worth anything?"
#7
I thought you meant the world from Digimon. That would have been alright.
XIAOXI
#8
Quote by heymickey!
The argument isn't simply about "not getting album artwork".

It's the whole concept of paying 99 cent for a song and having the labels/musicians think that that's what the fans want. Like, we think the music is cheap, so it's only worth $0.99. Now, I'm not saying that I insist on paying $10 for a CD or something. All I'm saying is that people want everything fast and cheeep, so now, musicians/bands don't even put effort into the music anymore.... NOT EVEN THE MUSICIANS WHO USED TO.

So, their point of view is like "Why put effort into if it's not gonna be worth anything?"


Give me a single example of where this happens?

If singles are being sold for $0.99, then that's what the market dictates they are worth. By not putting effort in because "it's not wurf it", then musicians wouldn't make shit all money.
Quote by GLP_Arclite
Pooping is well good though, to be fair.


I've got a handle on the fiction.

I'm losing my grip, 'cos I'm losing my fingers.
#9
Quote by heymickey!
The argument isn't simply about "not getting album artwork".

It's the whole concept of paying 99 cent for a song and having the labels/musicians think that that's what the fans want. Like, we think the music is cheap, so it's only worth $0.99. Now, I'm not saying that I insist on paying $10 for a CD or something. All I'm saying is that people want everything fast and cheeep, so now, musicians/bands don't even put effort into the music anymore.... NOT EVEN THE MUSICIANS WHO USED TO.

So, their point of view is like "Why put effort into if it's not gonna be worth anything?"


isnt it time for your nap grandpa?
Remember through sounds
Remember through smells
Remember through colors
Remember through towns
-Modest Mouse, "Novocaine Stain"
#10
Quote by heymickey!
The argument isn't simply about "not getting album artwork".

It's the whole concept of paying 99 cent for a song and having the labels/musicians think that that's what the fans want. Like, we think the music is cheap, so it's only worth $0.99. Now, I'm not saying that I insist on paying $10 for a CD or something. All I'm saying is that people want everything fast and cheeep, so now, musicians/bands don't even put effort into the music anymore.... NOT EVEN THE MUSICIANS WHO USED TO.

So, their point of view is like "Why put effort into if it's not gonna be worth anything?"

No it isn't. That's something you've made up, isn't it?
I'LL PUNCH A DONKEY IN THE STREETS OF GALWAY
#11
seriously, what the hell are you talking about?

What musicians put less effort in their music because of the way it's distributed? Nearly all bands distribute mp3s AND CD's, so I have no idea on what facts you're basing your stupid, 95-year old grandpa opinion on.
#12
I embrace the digital revolution. My stack of CD's is in a box, all nicely ripped to my iTunes. Over the last two years, I might have purchased one CD, and that was at a live show. The rest of my buying has been on iTunes.

I don't steal music. The culture of "music should be free" is, IMHO, the only major downside of this digital revolution.

That said, the consumer has spoken loud and clear. The consumer doesn't want to spend $10-20 on a full CD. The consumer wants to attain the songs they want and leave the rest. The market responded to that and made that possible. Take your $9.99 or $12.99 and divide that by ten songs and you get $0.99-$1.29/song.

The price really hasn't changed, and with the music industry becoming even more competitive than ever before, I would venture to suggest that nobody is getting lazy - at least nobody who makes it. Labels are quicker than ever to dump you as soon as you're not profitable by a certain margin, and with downloading running rampant, there are fewer labels than ever before. When the gun is pointed at your head, you have a tendency to play by the rules.

Sure, artwork is nice, but if I can skip the process of ripping the CD to my iTunes, only buy the tracks I want and not have to leave home to get them, and pay $3 for the three songs I like rather than spend $17 for all the songs I don't want (but get the artwork).... I'll gladly skip the artwork, thank-you-very-much.

Now, as a perspective.... I'm not a kid. I'm 40.

I've also released a CD commercially that was a physical product, and I had a significant hand in the artwork and packaging that was part of it. When we release our next EP, it will be straight to iTunes, probably, and will have minimalist artwork. It's not lazy. It's practical. It costs $1000 to get 500 CD's manufactured. Going digital means that our "break even" point is WAAAAY lower!

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#13
i dont think digital music is gross. but i enjoy buying an album and having the artwork and whatnot.
Gibson RawPower SG 2009 (Zales)
Gibson Hummingbird 70's? (Amy)
Jet City JCA 20 Watt Combo
Dunlop Crybaby wah
MXR 10 Band EQ
Ibanez TS-9
#14
I never have, and I'm sure likely never will, give a **** about album art.
Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
Remember us - if at all - not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.
#16
I'm not against digitally distributing music, but I much prefer physically owning the music. If I can, I'll go out and buy the CD in the shop than go onto itunes and buy it. That said, if I can't get it in shops, I will go online and buy it there, but only if I must, as in, a physical copy isn't being released. I feel much safer owning a physical copy, as if something goes wrong with my computer, I'm not going to lose the music, as I can just copy it off the CD again.

I do agree with you to an extent. For bigger, more established musicians/bands, it is just being lazy and cheap to release a CD version with artwork. However, for younger bands/musicians I can see the appeal, as it is MUCH cheaper to not get those produced, and just put your work straight onto the web.
#17
Quote by heymickey!
Yeah, I could've came up with better title, but anyway...

I've never even talked to anyone, NO ONE about this, but I'd like to know other people's opinions.....What do you think of the digital world completely taking over music from here on out?

First off, I love the idea of getting my music in dozens of places at the same time, but I hate the fact that fans and MUSICIANS are getting more and more lazy.

Okay, the digital music phase has been bothering me for at least a good 7 years now and yes, I realize that it's not going r4i gold anywhere. But what really pissed me off today is that I'm realizing that more artists aren't even being bothered with releasing ARTWORK anymore. WTF?! Why?? I mean, sometimes they'll just upload the album and have a "Buy Now! MP3 files only" or something like that on their website. Really? Is this what it's all come down to?

Enough of my talking, what do you think?


fans and MUSICIANS are getting more and more lazy, That is right
#18
I think your rant is a little bit misplaced.

Digital distribution isn't reducing the prices of music because "the musicians aren't trying anymore". It's because you're paying less for the fact you're not getting the music printed onto a piece of hardware, and not getting album art or anything like that - not doing album artwork and not having to burn thousands upon thousands of compact discs and package them and physically ship them to all the record shops takes a lot out of the cost of producing an album or a single or whatever, and THAT is why it's so much cheaper. it's not because "band's aren't putting any effort into making music anymore".

However, i do agree with you that the quality has declined - in terms of sound quality, digital downloads are appauling - if you've ever tried encoding some of your own recordings you've done on things like cubase or logic pro into the same bit rate and sample rate as a MP3 file you'll know exactly what i mean. You get fluctuations in pitch, some grainy harmonics, all kinds of horrible sounds that you wouldn't notice if you've only heard the song in that format. But you know what? you get what you pay for.
I like analogue Solid State amps that make no effort to be "tube-like", and I'm proud of it...

...A little too proud, to be honest.
#19
Quote by robhc
I'm not against digitally distributing music, but I much prefer physically owning the music. If I can, I'll go out and buy the CD in the shop than go onto itunes and buy it. That said, if I can't get it in shops, I will go online and buy it there, but only if I must, as in, a physical copy isn't being released. I feel much safer owning a physical copy, as if something goes wrong with my computer, I'm not going to lose the music, as I can just copy it off the CD again.

I do agree with you to an extent. For bigger, more established musicians/bands, it is just being lazy and cheap to release a CD version with artwork. However, for younger bands/musicians I can see the appeal, as it is MUCH cheaper to not get those produced, and just put your work straight onto the web.


Exactly! Thanks for the sensible answer.
#20
Quote by ICOG
I like my albums and CDs and album art. For me its part of what makes a new release by a favourite band fun and exciting.


Me too. But I've never seen an album or song without artwork...
Quote by turd_ferguson
[0:17] If my parents knew I was part of a group who celebrated christmas by drinking cough syrup they would probably cry

WEATHERER, the greatest band ever.
#21
Eh, album artwork isn't really necessary.

I still love it though, I'd release all of my stuff with artwork.