| Author |
Message |
Graham
One of the Coolest Member
Joined: 02 Feb 2008
Posts: 559
|
 Posted:
Sat Jan 16, 2010 10:06 am (No subject) |
  |
« Maff » wrote:
Too true. I had a rep from Polydor on my doorstep only last night, wanting to make sure my CD collection was in good condition.
Yup, the EMI rep was round at mine the other week defending their tactics that led me to buy the same Genesis albums at least half a dozen times over the years. We also chewed the cud about my Virgin TD collection, spoke about The Keep on vinyl etc.
Small companies like ourselves just can't match that sort of personal service.
|
|
   |
|
Graham
One of the Coolest Member
Joined: 02 Feb 2008
Posts: 559
|
|
Posted:
Sat Jan 16, 2010 10:06 am (No subject) |
|
« phaedra2008 » wrote:
My suggestion, get dbpoweamp which is more persistent than EAC and save what's left of those CDr's.
And don't buy anymore.
EAC is very fussy because of the secure rip. It is my product of choice for ripping valid discs, but I agree any CDs/CDRs that are "going south" it can chew on for hours, better to use something else such as dbpoweramp or audiograbber.
I much prefer getting the original .WAV files anyway from an artist. Then you have a bit-for-bit copy of what they consider the finished article. A CD/CDR is not.
|
|
| |
|
dlmorley
One of the Coolest Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2007
Posts: 817
|
|
Posted:
Sat Jan 16, 2010 10:58 am (No subject) |
|
Well yes, YOU pay the premium already by downloading a larger file. On top of that it costs you more in the first place. A double whammy.
And also, if you buy a physical product it should be a given that you get the download straight away if you want it (many don't) so that avoids you waiting for delivery.
The world is only just getting used to selling "data" in reality.
So I don't see why we should pay more for FLAC than MP3.
And I don't need to start anything up because others are doing exactly this.
That was my point. I hate the argument that this is EM and things are different here. Why? Because it's uncommercial? The best way to keep it uncommercial is to NOT lower prices if possible and offer the best deal for customers.
My next release will cost half what my last one did. I have to if I want to grow as an artist or at the very least keep my "customers" happy and keep their support.
It's doesn't make it exclusive just because it costs more. It just makes it less attractive for many
And this is in no way a negative towards musiczeit. Just my thoughts in general, but I do wish FLAC cost the same as MP3 
_________________
http://www.davidmorley.com
http://www.myspace.com/morleysmusic
|
|
  |
|
phaedra2008
One of the Coolest Member
Age: 66
Joined: 09 Aug 2009
Posts: 4035
|
|
Posted:
Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:35 am (No subject) |
|
dimorley,
EM has always been different, it's 99% instrumental, long tracks, unrecognisable instruments sometimes no melody, really, none of the top 10 types song ingredients.
I can't see how lower prices will make the music more popular, there is a lot of good free EM on the net and is still unknown.
What it does for sure, is put artists off releasing music.
Some points sound a bit like idealistic wish lists, if one man could change the world, I will follow too.
And also hope half the price will double the sales for your next release.
Why is flac more than an mp3, why was an LP more than a cassette, why is economy class cheaper than 1st,...there are still some who want to hear the full range of music, to me, mp3 audio is misapplied technology and not a benchmark.
We should really start a bitching thread, vent off there, look what become of this thread.
_________________
Imagination is more important than knowledge
Albert Einstein
|
|
| |
|
dlmorley
One of the Coolest Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2007
Posts: 817
|
|
Posted:
Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:01 pm (No subject) |
|
Half price won't double sales of my next project. It might keep figures where they are! I'm a realist in that respect. It's not income from that that I want. I want a fan base who will check out what I do, spread the word, see my music used in film and TV and allow me to keep doing what I do.
The actual money generated from sales is a small part of any income from music in my world.
And yes, MP3 is not a format that should be sold for the same price as a CD or a FLAC, but this shouldn't mean FLAC's cost more. It should mean MP3's cost less. Perhaps use the example below of apple apps. Maybe €2 and then if people want to upgrade to the "pro" or FLAC quality, they pay an extra 7 euros. I don't know. These aren't plans, just discussions, but quality should be taken as a given not a luxury.
Put another way, if FLAC's were the same price, perhaps people would look for ways of listening to them and then our music would be heard in top quality by all. Allowing a lossy format out there means people don't experience it in it's original quality. Something I doubt many artists (especially EM where it isn't pop and sonics are a strong element of the music) are not happy with.
So if anything, I am suggesting perhaps to just sell FLAC and explain why whilst offering all the tools for customers to deal with them.
I guess it (MP3 vs FLAC) seems like going for a service at your garage and the guy saying "I can service the car well or for a bit less, I can do most things but it may not run quite as well"
Don't offer the cheaper service. That is good for pop music and x-factor winners or major labels selling music that was originally released 30 years ago and they are just making money for nothing.
A totally different thing but look at iphone apps. Great apps cost a couple of euros or dollars (99 cents sometimes or free), so people buy them. If they were 10 euros, hardly anyone would (a few do and sell well, but they are exceptionally good)
Alas people have limited budgets and many things to spend them on these days.
So, no argument, just comments. I would love to sell 10,000 of every release, but I won't. I can however readjust my production costs and sell products for less and less and pass that saving on. FLAC or MP3 to me is not a storage thing. If you have 100 albums on site (which is a lot for any small label) for sale, you need how much hard drive space? 50 gig? With major backups and multiple systems, perhaps ou need a few drives. You pay more for delivering larger data perhaps but it's all peanuts compared to storing CD's, ordering, keeping an eye on stock, sending CD's out, dealing with lost CD's, breakages etc etc.
Just thinking out loud!
_________________
http://www.davidmorley.com
http://www.myspace.com/morleysmusic
|
|
| |
|
René
Guest
|
|
Posted:
Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:21 pm (No subject) |
|
Quote:
I guess it (MP3 vs FLAC) seems like going for a service at your garage and the guy saying "I can service the car well or for a bit less, I can do most things but it may not run quite as well"
Don't offer the cheaper service. That is good for pop music and x-factor winners or major labels selling music that was originally released 30 years ago and they are just making money for nothing.
Indeed Just sell MP3 or FLAC but not both, that makes it riduculous.
|
|
 |
|
Phrozenlight
One of the Coolest Member
Age: 66
Joined: 03 Feb 2007
Posts: 1983
|
|
Posted:
Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:52 pm (No subject) |
|
|
| |
|
phaedra2008
One of the Coolest Member
Age: 66
Joined: 09 Aug 2009
Posts: 4035
|
|
Posted:
Sat Jan 16, 2010 1:22 pm (No subject) |
|
Quote:
Just sell MP3 or FLAC but not both
Fully agree for flac, the lossy formats started transfer over the net & like any legacy, it's bound to be around for a while.
Quote:
they need to accept payments by Paypal
I had the same view and asked bout it, why band around the net my credit card details an extra time, but I only did it once, the details are there and is probably cheaper without a middle man.
So how do you sell your stuff without payPal but can't buy without it 
It would be a nice option though and am sure it will happen, payPal = mp3, it will be everywhere.
_________________
Imagination is more important than knowledge
Albert Einstein
|
|
| |
|
Graham
One of the Coolest Member
Joined: 02 Feb 2008
Posts: 559
|
|
Posted:
Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:15 pm (No subject) |
|
« phaedra2008 » wrote:
but I only did it once, the details are there and is probably cheaper without a middle man.
Just to clarify. We don't store credit card details on MusicZeit, indeed we never see them. I suspect your statement refers to your details being stored/cached locally in your browser.
I myself use Paypal, and understand why people like it. But there are countless people I know who make a point of never, ever, going near Paypal. Indeed there are whole sites dedicated to why, and associated bad experiences...
http://www.paypalsucks.com/
That said, it remains a regular topic of discussion between the MZ directors.
|
|
| |
|
dlmorley
One of the Coolest Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2007
Posts: 817
|
|
Posted:
Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:17 pm (No subject) |
|
|
| |
|
phaedra2008
One of the Coolest Member
Age: 66
Joined: 09 Aug 2009
Posts: 4035
|
|
Posted:
Sun Jan 17, 2010 9:58 pm (No subject) |
|
Well,
I used payPal for several years for many transactions, never had a problem, just been handy buying things from individuals in strange places around the world.
I am aware some hate it but had no reason to find out why, I'll check out why it sucks for some  see what may happen to me someday...
True, only address details are stored, I forgot I have to enter the card detail in the fields.
Quote:
Nasty company though!
they are becoming more and more a Bank, they all suck..from our funds
As for MZ, right now everything just works.
I still think it would be nice to have a recently added section, where only the last 1-2 weeks new entries pop up.
This thread has cooled down now, great stuff.
_________________
Imagination is more important than knowledge
Albert Einstein
|
|
| |
|
Graham
One of the Coolest Member
Joined: 02 Feb 2008
Posts: 559
|
|
Posted:
Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:42 pm (No subject) |
|
« phaedra2008 » wrote:
just been handy buying things from individuals in strange places around the world.
Yes, that's typically where I use it, or on ebay. I generally have no qualms entering CC details directly on sites that have been around a while and I know are legit.
I think you may have mentioned the 2 weeks feature, and I think I may have already replied that the Music Directory, by default, lists albums in reverse chronological order of activation date (which may be different to original release date).
If I am repeating myself, apologies.
|
|
| |
|
phaedra2008
One of the Coolest Member
Age: 66
Joined: 09 Aug 2009
Posts: 4035
|
|
Posted:
Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:59 pm (No subject) |
|
Yes you did Graham,
My routine was slack, just hovering around the home page and My purchases, I need a bit of discipline to click around a bit.
Cheers.
_________________
Imagination is more important than knowledge
Albert Einstein
|
|
| |
|
Petrus
Guest
|
|
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2010 12:57 am (No subject) |
|
Is there anyone in here who stills knows what the topic was ???
|
|
| |
|
Graham
One of the Coolest Member
Joined: 02 Feb 2008
Posts: 559
|
|
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:49 am (No subject) |
|
« phaedra2008 » wrote:
Yes you did Graham,
My routine was slack, just hovering around the home page and My purchases, I need a bit of discipline to click around a bit.
Cheers.
No problem.
Up to relatively recently the Music Directory implementation was quite poor (which is perhaps why, understandably, people weren't using it), and as the number of albums on the site grew it became more and more evident we needed to improve it as it is designed to be the main navigation tool for the site.
It has now been significantly improved so is hopefully a useful way into the site.
The search facility is another way in, though that only works if you know what you are looking for of course. And the drop-down artist/label boxes are a third alternative.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
