But I haven't tried to download all tracks from or reconstruct an album since last year. And although I bought some albums and copied some, around 4 months ago, I never listen to them in their entirety. All my fanatical downloading and burning is going towards making ever more diverse and eclectic mix CDs. I'm pretty much listening to music I've bought this way too ie. putting one or two tracks from different albums onto compilations.
I don't want filler. I don't even want the homogeneity of albums by single bands. Maybe I'd still be interested in concept albums, where the whole is meant to be significant. But as a format for just agregating songs I'm through with it.
So can the album format survive? And is music downloading killing it?
― phil, Tuesday, 2 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago)
― Lord Custos III, Tuesday, 2 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago)
― A Nairn, Tuesday, 2 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago)
― Jeff, Tuesday, 2 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago)
To answer the question, I am gradually getting more into downloading and hope to start burning my own CDs soon, but I expect to continue to buy as many CDs in the future as I do now.
― Jeff W, Tuesday, 2 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago)
― Nick Southall, Tuesday, 2 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago)
― Siegbran Hetteson, Tuesday, 2 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago)
I think attention span has very little to do with compilation albums versus real albums... the amount of effort and time etc is loads. The problem as Phil says is that filler is all you get.
Also, when was the last time anyone sat and listened to music for 60, 120 or even 180 minutes without doing something else like reading or cleaning or whatever. Most of the time you don't even listen to the music and that's why bands can fill their albums with so much shit
Lets force bands to not record more than 39 minutes long - that will sort out the problem.
As for downloads... not until I have a faster modem
That way I can listen to one album b4 I get to work in the morning versus the first 6 or 7 tracks
― sonicred, Tuesday, 2 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago)
― Lord Custos IV - The One with The Old Guy with a Bundle of Sticks on his Back, Tuesday, 2 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago)
― phil, Wednesday, 3 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago)
― Lord Custos III, Wednesday, 3 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago)
Where is the RIAA and distributers? (Score:4, Insightful) by ImaLamer on Thursday January 24, @10:54AM At this point, the question needs to be asked: Why doesn't the RIAA come out with their own damn P2P? (Custos: They did, and it bit the big beef braunshweiger.) It could be fully under their control. They would be able to block certain songs, and maybe only let certain 'hot' singles out. Most of all, this would give them stronger legal basis when fighting current P2P companies and networks. They can point to their own network saying they own all rights to distribute their music, and thus other programs are violating their own legal market. Their refusal to distribute music electronically has hurt them more than anything else. We 'steal' music online, because there isn't one good for-pay network out there. But, of course we still don't buy into the fact that P2P has hurt music sales. I believe one problem is the fact that a average CD costs $15! When I was still paying for music a CD usually cost $12.99 - if it was $15 I wouldn't buy it. I was shocked to see "SALE!" signs over CD's at Media Play reading in the upwards of 15-16 bucks. But by their own account P2P saves the Recording Industry money. They haven't admitted this out loud, but read this from their website: [speaking on why the price on a CD isn't .30 cents] Then come marketing and promotion costs -- perhaps the most expensive part of the music business today. They include increasingly expensive video clips, public relations, tour support, marketing campaigns, and promotion to get the songs played on the radio. For example, when you hear a song played on the radio -- that didn't just happen! Labels make investments in artists by paying for both the production and the promotion of the album, and promotion is very expensive. New technology such as the Internet offers new ways for artists to reach music fans, but it still requires that some entity, whether it is a traditional label or another kind of company, market and promote that artist so that fans are aware of new releases. Huh? Makes sense... kinda'. But when I search for an artist I find all sorts of new songs. Many of which are great, but never make it to the radio. If the RIAA adapted the Fast Track technology [and of course make other than Windows clients] they could promote their own music on that main page. They could even tag certain songs as "hot" or "new". I mean, they can iron out the details, but considering they've got loads of cash. They've got the marketing minds that brough us O-Town and the like. Why can't they put this together? (Custos: Because it still implies a partial loss of control on their part. They want to control the distribution at every possible chokepoint.) Why are we hard at work marketing their songs? Why are we using our bandwidth and time? Why are we donating our computers to distribute music? Why are we bothering with P2P? Simple: It works. We've found a better way. It's not free music. It's because they refuse to step into the year we live in. (Custos: Amen, brother...testify!) Wake up RIAA, you can't fight it any longer. Go after the guy pressing thousands of CD's and making money off of your work. Leave us alone, we aren't making a thing. It's wrong to be making cash on their works. It's not wrong to refuse to go back to an old system that is dying quickly. Every computer today is sold with a CD-RW. Let us do it.