I'm sure this topic has been discussed many times, but I'd like to go over it again in light of recent events. With SOPA and the US Government attempting to control who shares what information on the internet, I feel like many artists out there are trying to implement this form of pricing with their albums or songs. And I think it's a great idea.

In general, anyone who wants to hear almost any song can go to Youtube or google the name of the track and be able to hear it instantly in relatively high quality. Artists who offer their songs or albums for any price are putting enough faith in their own work to know that a majority of listeners will be getting it for free, one way or another, whether it be through file-sharing or a streaming site like Youtube. However, I feel like they can still make good profits using this method.

For instance, I just paid £10.00 GBP for Jon Gomm - Passionflower (video) because it was fucking worth it in my opinion. Not only this, but 10% of his proceeds go to The Happy House children's home in Watamu, Kenya. It's the right thing to do, to ask your listeners to pay what they think it's worth. It's putting the emphasis on the music and not the cost.

Anyway, feel free to use this thread to bitch about SOPA, privacy rights, sell-out labels, Nickleback, or the fact that Beatport charges $2.50 for some tracks.

___________________

Set Archive | TA DJ Challenge

i get most of my music second-hand when i do buy it. wouldn't mind naming my own price there.

Jon Gomm's technique reminds me of

Juno is my main source of music-purchases, taken as I have problems buying from Beatport. I sometimes buy CDs and rip them myself.

2.23€ for a track (WAV) is ok I guess. Would like to see some Christmas / Holiday sales though - which never happen. Never understood how the hell all tracks end up having the same price, whether it's some 1998 ID - ID obscure techno record on a label long forgotten, or the latest release on, let's say, Kompakt.

In my country most of these treaties are being blocked by parliament on the basis that there is no good legal alternative for the exchange of digital music. And i agree.

What i would like to see is an open, preferably public and non-profit - although that will cause other issues regarding promotion and the like, but for the sake of it - platform in which artist and labels can sell their music.
Now, the problem with the current pricing system is obviously that it feigns equal value in different pieces of music, which simply isn't the case. As a 10 second recorded intro now costs the same as a 15 minute orchestral epos.

So, why not bounce the ball back at the seller and let them provide a price they think is adequate? They can be honest about how much work it cost to produce the track. They can compete with each other. Why not?
If they overprice their products it will eventually come out through forums and other media. Under-pricing might be more of a problem, but to be honest i think it will still provide a lot more leveled playing field then they have now.

___________________
Mixes: Alaé (Conceptional ambient dub)
AOTSE (Experimental)

Listens:
http://www.last.fm/user/bierheld

Last edited by Bierheld on Jan-11-2012 at 21:23

quote:

Originally posted by Bierheld So, why not bounce the ball back at the seller and let them provide a price they think is adequate? They can be honest about how much work it costed to produce the track. They can compete with each other. Why not?

I don't think that will work, just because the fact that many (most?) won't be honest.

___________________

Longest (classic) Trance playlist on YouTube (5000 tracks released up to and including 1997), click here

quote:

Originally posted by Trance-MB I don't think that will work, just because the fact that many (most?) won't be honest.

Well, they don't have to be. It was only example on how to determine cost. you're basically just introducing normal market mechanics. If people think that you're asking too much they simply won't buy it.

___________________
Mixes: Alaé (Conceptional ambient dub)
AOTSE (Experimental)

Listens:
http://www.last.fm/user/bierheld

quote:

Originally posted by Bierheld Well, they don't have to be. It was only example on how to determine cost. you're basically just introducing normal market mechanics. If people think that you're asking too much they simply won't buy it.

Well, in the 90's I spend an nice car on cd's of which I still think I paid way too much. That didn't stop me. Also there weren't alternatives, so there was no competition. Many should take the step at the same time for this to work.
It's also the question if 'they' will let it happen.

___________________

Longest (classic) Trance playlist on YouTube (5000 tracks released up to and including 1997), click here

quote:

Originally posted by Chimney Juno is my main source of music-purchases, taken as I have problems buying from Beatport. I sometimes buy CDs and rip them myself. 2.23€ for a track (WAV) is ok I guess. Would like to see some Christmas / Holiday sales though - which never happen. Never understood how the hell all tracks end up having the same price, whether it's some 1998 ID - ID obscure techno record on a label long forgotten, or the latest release on, let's say, Kompakt.

2.23€ a track is ok for you? At that price a digital EP costs the same as a record which is utterly stupid, if you ask me.

___________________
June 2018 mix

quote:

Originally posted by Woony 2.23€ a track is ok for you? At that price a digital EP costs the same as a record which is utterly stupid, if you ask me.

I'm just taking wild shots in the dark here. It's a bit much, come to think of it, yea.

quote:

Originally posted by Trance-MB Well, in the 90's I spend an nice car on cd's of which I still think I paid way too much. That didn't stop me. Also there weren't alternatives, so there was no competition. Many should take the step at the same time for this to work. It's also the question if 'they' will let it happen.

That's basically the key reason why i think this could be a success. Because it benefits both sides. Labels are free to create their own earnings model, rather then the current initiatives were they are forced to deal with an arbitrary price based on what people will pay for it, which doesn't really stimulate artists in making their music into something special. As a consumer i really don't think the nominal price is too high, but it annoys me that i have to pay a high price for a short segment of music that may have taken an hour at most to produce, while at same time vastly underpaying for something i think is worth a lot more.

OP's idea is a logical idea in a sense, since music has no discernible value other then a subjective one based on the listener. But labels simply can't operate that way, it's really only something an individual can decide upon.

___________________
Mixes: Alaé (Conceptional ambient dub)
AOTSE (Experimental)

Listens:
http://www.last.fm/user/bierheld

quote:

Originally posted by Woony 2.23€ a track is ok for you? At that price a digital EP costs the same as a record which is utterly stupid, if you ask me.

Is that so strange? A physical record really isn't that costly to produce. Not to mention you can make it into a physical product yourself by burning it. There's other factors then costs when it comes to preferring digital music.

___________________
Mixes: Alaé (Conceptional ambient dub)
AOTSE (Experimental)

Listens:
http://www.last.fm/user/bierheld

quote:

Originally posted by Bierheld Is that so strange? A physical record really isn't that costly to produce. Not to mention you can make it into a physical product yourself by burning it. There's other factors then costs when it comes to preferring digital music.

While a record isn't that costly to produce anymore, things like distribution are a huge factor. Profit margins for records are very slim unlike digital sales, which are probably 98% profit.

But my main problem with this is that your average digital audio file has no worth. It's (generally) not limited, you can choose to get it for free (pirating) and it's not physical - it has no real, materialistic worth and you can't resell it unlike a record.

A bunch of files (not physical, no worth) costing exactly the same as a record (actual physical product, worth) is just mindboggling to me. And even if you buy digital music with the intentions of supporting the artists, the seller and the label take the majority of the cut (probably around 70% in your average case) for essentially doing nothing. But I'm pretty shure I have complained about this countless times.

___________________
June 2018 mix