How many releases do you buy a year?

[Sir Exar Kun]

Similar idea, from my database..... Definitely on the decline since 2002-2004 (had my first kid in 2005, and stopped attending PP regularly, so that makes sense).

1985 18
1986 26
1987 35
1988 54
1989 70
1990 67
1991 84
1992 99
1993 98
1994 107
1995 113
1996 108
1997 125
1998 132
1999 149
2000 161
2001 148
2002 185
2003 151
2004 171
2005 148
2006 136
2007 143
2008 122
2009 105
2010 91
2011 99
2012 61
2013 81
2014 32

 

[TheLongshot]

You do realize that you aren't actually allowed to keep your ripped copies then, right?

Not exactly new behavior. People have been doing that stuff since people could check out records from the library and record them to cassette.

Personally, I need to clean out my CD collection. I've run out of space and have stacks of CDs sitting around. I need to clean out the stuff that I just don't care about keeping.

It used to be one of my main arguments for sticking with CDs was that there are some places I can't bring digital music. Course, nowadays, I can't bring CDs either, so that's somewhat moot. Now, the only reason now is because the major digital shops only sell music in lossy formats. (Yes, I know, you can't tell the difference, but that isn't the point for me. The point is that I want an archive format that I can transcode into any format I need.)

Still, there is a visceral thrill missing from digital releases of opening up a CD and going through the booklet while listening to the music.

 

[drmetal8]

50-100, all physical CDs. Used to average a CD a day to my collection, but have become far more picky (and poorer) in recent years.

 

[General Zod]

Now, the only reason now is because the major digital shops only sell music in lossy formats.

I understand why they do this, but really wish they would offer us the ability to download FLAC files. It's yet another example of greed ruining the music industry.

The truly crazy part is, the majors don't even offer high quality MP3s. Only Google (of the major players) offers 320 Kbps CBR MP3s. iTunes and Amazon are less than that. I can't tell you how many times I've purchased music from Amazon, but rather than downloading the files I just paid for, I simply kept the version of the files I downloaded from a torrent, because the torrent file was superior than what is available for legal purchase. That's just crazy!

It makes me laugh when I hear artists and labels say that people downloading "illegal" files are hearing music at a diminished quality. The fact of the matter is, torrents are almost always 320 Kbps CBR and are often available as FLAC. How screwed up is that? How screwed up is it that the Pirate Bay offers better music quality than iTunes and Amazon?

 

[Met-Al]

My purchases are about 99% CDs and 1% vinyl. I often look for back catalog releases, but I have a select few bands for whom I still purchase new albums within the first week of release. Though I belong to the group who purchase between 0 and 25 releases per year, it's always much closer to 25. I used to belong to the next group up on that list, but then I took on a mortgage. Add to that the fact that I refuse to buy used CDs unless the album I want is out of print, and you should have an understanding of my current number of music purchases.

It's interesting to see some of the comments about having a hard time reading liner notes. I'm well aware of cases in which the font is too small, formatted illegibly, or sharply contrasted with the background, but I find those cases to be the rare exception rather than the rule. Then again, I was born with incredible sight. In this technological age, so many folks have destroyed their eyes by staring at these screens for too long. Even I have to admit that my sight has suffered a bit due to increased time spent on computers as I get older, but that's exactly why I try to spend more time off the computer than on it. After all, I have liner notes to read!


Stay metal. Never rust.
Albert

 

[skyrefuge]

Zero. I haven't paid for any music in nearly 3 years.

Well, I've been paying $120/year to Spotify, but not for "ownership", which is what you seem to be asking. Apparently I'm totally fine with "renting".

Also, please post the results from the last 20 years that you've run this poll, so we can examine the trends over time. Thanks!

I understand why they do this, but really wish they would offer us the ability to download FLAC files. It's yet another example of greed ruining the music industry.

What do you think is their greed-motivated reason for doing it? Are you sure it's not simply that only a small subset of their market (thinks they) can hear a difference, and they just don't want to put out the effort/cost to cater to that small subset?

Maybe 15 years ago "greed was ruining the music industry", but these days, as revenue has continued to decline even while the music industry has now made their products legally available through more channels than ever in history, and piracy has become (slightly) more difficult, it's becoming more and more clear to me that this 15-year decline is just a broad cultural move away from ownership of music albums as an entertainment/leisure activity, and the "piracy" part was just a coincidental red-herring.

So iTunes releasing Lady Gaga albums in FLAC isn't going to turn things around.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

I understand why they do this, but really wish they would offer us the ability to download FLAC files. It's yet another example of greed ruining the music industry.

I'm not sure how it constitutes as greed. If anything, selling FLAC files would constitute as greed since it's done for financial gain is it not? After all, their incentive is to make money, so potentially passing on a revenue stream wouldn't be greed at all! More to the point, they do it because they don't think it's worth it for some weird reason - perhaps they feel like there isn't enough of a market for it - which is untrue, and a shame. Since again, they'd only make more money and it wouldn't cost them a dime to sell FLAC files.

Well actually, I guess saying it "wouldn't cost them a dime" would be incorrect, because I'm sure it would mean Apple having to make slight adjustments to its infrastructure, but since they already take 30% of all iTunes sales, I doubt they'd pass those losses onto everyone else since they make "free money" with iTunes.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

You do realize that you aren't actually allowed to keep your ripped copies then, right?

First sale doctrine gives him the right to sell his CDs, and whether or not you're legally allowed to keep the music on your computer after selling the CD is murky ground. Yes, he can't upload ripped MP3s anywhere since that's illegal, but if the legal system permits me to install digital games onto my computer from a disc, and then sell the disc - even though I can keep the game, the same case could be made for a CD. When you buy a disc, you don't pay 15 bucks for the disc, you pay 15 bucks for a license to use the contents inside the disc. Therefore, if I want to make a copy of that CD for my personal records - whether via MP3 or through a CDR - I'm legally allowed to do that (or I should say, the legality of this has yet to be challenged/upheld).

But it's also kind of a murky case as well - since the distribution of those files is NOT protected under first sale doctrine and is illegal. (http://ipspotlight.com/2012/02/06/c...installed-software-that-was-licensed-to-oems/)

 

[Justin G]

Zero. I haven't paid for any music in nearly 3 years.

Well, I've been paying $120/year to Spotify, but not for "ownership", which is what you seem to be asking. Apparently I'm totally fine with "renting".

...this 15-year decline is just a broad cultural move away from ownership of music albums as an entertainment/leisure activity, and the "piracy" part was just a coincidental red-herring.

This is just sad. If even the dedicated fans (and I'm assuming you consider yourself one) of specific genres don't feel any reason to buy the music they consume - or if they view it as disposable entertainment - then we really are in trouble.

 

[dcowboys311]

I'm sure there are many computer illiterate/stoned/otherwise not paying attention types buying digital songs and albums too. It may not be worth the effort of dealing with nonstop questions of "why won't these songs play/go on my iPod/iPhone/etc" when adding FLAC to the mix.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

This is just sad. If even the dedicated fans (and I'm assuming you consider yourself one) of specific genres don't feel any reason to buy the music they consume - or if they view it as disposable entertainment - then we really are in trouble.

While I myself don't rely on Spotify for my music consumption - only to listen to music I'm unsure of and then buy the music I am sure of - I'm not really sure why people get so hostile towards people who do rely on Spotify for their music consumption exclusively. If Spotify was an issue with the music industry, the music industry wouldn't sign deals with distributors to get music on there in the first place. Spotify isn't Napster. It's a legal operation that sets terms with labels and artists that agree to use it. This is why there are still a number of artists not on Spotify, like Tool for example. Copyright holders get paid via ad dollars for stream, and while individual payouts per individual stream appear paltry, thousands or millions of net streams could yield significant income for an artist or label.

I'm sure there are many computer illiterate/stoned/otherwise not paying attention types buying digital songs and albums too. It may not be worth the effort of dealing with nonstop questions of "why won't these songs play/go on my iPod/iPhone/etc" when adding FLAC to the mix.

Sure, although Apple could fix that by updating the software on their devices to allow FLAC. Wouldn't be the first time they changed their software to accommodate consumers - remember when iTunes had DRM and wouldn't export MP3s? Although in the end, the amount of people who would actually buy FLAC files en mass is probably insignificant to Apple in the long run and not worth any sort of headaches to update their infrastructure.

 

[TheLongshot]

I agree. It is more laziness than greed. If it were greed, they would offer it and charge you more money for the privilege.

While I myself don't rely on Spotify for my music consumption - only to listen to music I'm unsure of and then buy the music I am sure of - I'm not really sure why people get so hostile towards people who do rely on Spotify for their music consumption exclusively. If Spotify was an issue with the music industry, the music industry wouldn't sign deals with distributors to get music on there in the first place. Spotify isn't Napster. It's a legal operation that sets terms with labels and artists that agree to use it. This is why there are still a number of artists not on Spotify, like Tool for example. Copyright holders get paid via ad dollars for stream, and while individual payouts per individual stream appear paltry, thousands or millions of net streams could yield significant income for an artist or label.

I understand Justin's perspective on this, in that many of us are fans and should support the bands we listen to and that just listening to Spotify is really paltry in comparison. That being said, bands aren't charities, and if these music services fill your needs for music it is hard to complain. Personally, Spotify just isn't good enough for my uses. There are too many places where I don't want to be dependent on an internet connection for my music needs. I also don't want to depend on the whims of a provider as to whether a song is available or not.

 

[Justin G]

While I myself don't rely on Spotify for my music consumption - only to listen to music I'm unsure of and then buy the music I am sure of - I'm not really sure why people get so hostile towards people who do rely on Spotify for their music consumption exclusively. If Spotify was an issue with the music industry, the music industry wouldn't sign deals with distributors to get music on there in the first place. Spotify isn't Napster. It's a legal operation that sets terms with labels and artists that agree to use it. This is why there are still a number of artists not on Spotify, like Tool for example. Copyright holders get paid via ad dollars for stream, and while individual payouts per individual stream appear paltry, thousands or millions of net streams could yield significant income for an artist or label.

My issue is that we're supposed to be more committed to our music than the average person who just wants to hear the latest radio hits. Maybe that's cliche, but it just sends this message to artists that they should keep spending money to make the music that allegedly means the world to us, but they're not worth more to us than a few cents.

 

[skyrefuge]

This is just sad. If even the dedicated fans (and I'm assuming you consider yourself one) of specific genres don't feel any reason to buy the music they consume - or if they view it as disposable entertainment - then we really are in trouble.

Who is the "we" that is in trouble? Us as music fans? The music creators? Society in general?

As music fans, we'll never have to worry about running out of awesome new music to listen to. The inexorable advance of technology that lowered the prices for consumers also greatly lowered the prices for creators, thus hugely expanding their numbers. And if less money floating around decreases the motivation of some musicians, that's probably better for listeners, as I'd rather hear music motivated by passion than money anyway.

For the music creators, yes, there is less money going around than there used to be, but really, that 40-year period where artists could make a buttload selling recorded copies of their music was a historical anomaly.

I feel like society still values music just as much as they used to, as the live-music industry has continued to do quite well. But technology is just making album-ownership a thing of the past.

The $120/year I spend on recorded music, while a lot less than I spent 15 years ago, is still twice what the average music consumer has spent throughout history (and a MUCH higher percentage of it goes to artists/labels rather than middlemen). I don't think that's really "sad", it's just the nature of things. It's as sad as the fact that consumers today spend a lot less stamps and stationary than they did 20 years ago. Things change, and none of us signed a contract to continue spending a set yearly amount on recorded music in perpetuity.

 

[General Zod]

What do you think is their greed-motivated reason for doing it?

I'm not sure how it constitutes as greed.

When you compare the size of FLAC to MP3, you're talking about a 4x size difference. That means the provider would require 4x the disk space, 4x the network bandwidth, 4x the backup processing, and various multipliers for each of the different IT infrastructure components required for support. So if you take issue with the word "greed", that's fair. For the purposes of this discussion, let's simply call it "financial considerations". Still, it's the industry putting "financial considerations" above music quality.

As for the FLAC debate, it's not just about the small percentage of people who can hear the difference. It's also about giving your customer options. Maybe I don't want a file as large as 320 or 256, maybe I want 192. If I have the lossless files I can just rip them to whatever size I want. Maybe I will one day decide I want to convert it to CD. Maybe one day MP3 will no longer be the dominant lossy format and I'd prefer to now have my music library in that new format. If I have the lossless files I can covert them. For years and years and years, the music industry tried to sell us on newer mediums because they provided an improved listening experience. Now they've somehow concluded something less than CD is optimal.

Finally, as I pointed out earlier, there's an irony at play. The music industry is always in an uproar over illegal downloads. Yet, illegal downloads provide for higher quality downloads than the industry itself. How do you expect to entice your customers into buy something, when it's not as good as what can be had for free? Again, as I noted earlier, I typically buy my digital music from Amazon (unless it's available on Bandcamp), but I keep the files I've downloaded via torrents because they're better. But I do so because I have the same passion for the music and respect for the musicians that most of us here share. But can you really expect the average person to say to themselves, "I've downloaded a superior version for free, but let me go back out and pay for the inferior version"? That's a bizarre business model.

 

[General Zod]

As music fans, we'll never have to worry about running out of awesome new music to listen to.

As my wife likes to point out, so long as guys can get laid for being in a band, people will always create music.

 

[Justin G]

Who is the "we" that is in trouble? Us as music fans? The music creators? Society in general?

As music fans, we'll never have to worry about running out of awesome new music to listen to. The inexorable advance of technology that lowered the prices for consumers also greatly lowered the prices for creators, thus hugely expanding their numbers. And if less money floating around decreases the motivation of some musicians, that's probably better for listeners, as I'd rather hear music motivated by passion than money anyway.

For the music creators, yes, there is less money going around than there used to be, but really, that 40-year period where artists could make a buttload selling recorded copies of their music was a historical anomaly.

I feel like society still values music just as much as they used to, as the live-music industry has continued to do quite well. But technology is just making album-ownership a thing of the past.

The $120/year I spend on recorded music, while a lot less than I spent 15 years ago, is still twice what the average music consumer has spent throughout history (and a MUCH higher percentage of it goes to artists/labels rather than middlemen). I don't think that's really "sad", it's just the nature of things. It's as sad as the fact that consumers today spend a lot less stamps and stationary than they did 20 years ago. Things change, and none of us signed a contract to continue spending a set yearly amount on recorded music in perpetuity.

Sorry, but I just can't get on board with any of this. It comes down to telling bands they should spend their time and money, and maybe - maybe - we'll throw them some pocket change.

 

[batmura]

And if less money floating around decreases the motivation of some musicians, that's probably better for listeners, as I'd rather hear music motivated by passion than money anyway.

There are tons of bands wih passion that are unable to put out music due to "lack of interest," i.e. not enough fans buying their music because they can download their music for free. To claim that these bands lack passion for what they do is inane.

Guess I will *never* understand not paying for music I enjoy because I can pirate it easily and quickly.

 

[Justin G]

There are tons of bands wih passion that are unable to put out music due to "lack of interest," i.e. not enough fans buying their music because they can download their music for free. To claim that these bands lack passion for what they do is inane.

Guess I will *never* understand not paying for music I enjoy because I can pirate it easily and quickly.

Stupid musicians, trying to pay rent and eat food. Passion should sustain them.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

When you compare the size of FLAC to MP3, you're talking about a 4x size difference. That means the provider would require 4x the disk space, 4x the network bandwidth, 4x the backup processing, and various multipliers for each of the different IT infrastructure components required for support. So if you take issue with the word "greed", that's fair. For the purposes of this discussion, let's simply call it "financial considerations". Still, it's the industry putting "financial considerations" above music quality.

Doesn't matter. Netflix is streaming in 4K now! If there's a market for it, the companies will obviously want in on the revenue stream, and the profit share.

In fact, the whole issue with net neutrality being removed is so that companies could get away with do things like streaming 4K video and the bandwidth losses get passed onto you, via the ISP charging Netflix more money for the service and then that leading to Netflix subscriber rates going up. The point being, if there's money to be made, companies will find ways to make money. Passing on an opportunity to potentially make money is the exact opposite of greed.

Finally, as I pointed out earlier, there's an irony at play. The music industry is always in an uproar over illegal downloads. Yet, illegal downloads provide for higher quality downloads than the industry itself. How do you expect to entice your customers into buy something, when it's not as good as what can be had for free? Again, as I noted earlier, I typically buy my digital music from Amazon (unless it's available on Bandcamp), but I keep the files I've downloaded via torrents because they're better. But I do so because I have the same passion for the music and respect for the musicians that most of us here share. But can you really expect the average person to say to themselves, "I've downloaded a superior version for free, but let me go back out and pay for the inferior version"? That's a bizarre business model.

To be fair, there ARE a couple of ways to legally obtain FLACs. Bandcamp (as you pointed out) offers lossless downloads, and there are a few others if I'm not mistaken.

That being said, while I agree with you wholesale in what you've said - if the stubborn artist/label refuses to sell you FLAC, then that's the breaks. It's no different from Warner Bros selling me the Nolan Batman movies in that retarded IMAX format that changes aspect ratios every other scene and looks awful. I would LIKE them to sell me the Nolan Batman movies with a consistent aspect ratio. I would LIKE video game companies to sell me games in 1080p 60 FPS standard. But it's up to the seller to sell us these things- illegally downloading content as a response to that isn't really a fair answer. Vote with your wallet, yes, but it doesn't make us entitled to pirate content we aren't entitled to own either.