mp3s or mp4s [-^A^-] r they so cool...

Jan 27 16:36 UTC 2003

hi to all
i have been a musicaholic for the past eight years.
and from new kids on the block to the cradle of filth, i have listen to many
pop, rock, heavy metal, death metal and country music. but the problem with me
is that i don't encourge mp3s. where as my friends they spread the mp3s like
viruses and any new album for which i may be spending hell lot of money they
will copy it for free or download it from interne. but i feel somehow these
mp3s are not good cause most of times they are spurious and not decoded well
from cds  soemtimes they are not of full length also we don't know which band
they belong to and info like this

so i just want to know general opinion of all grexers


regards
mukesh

response 2 of 27:

Jan 29 19:38 UTC 2003

Unfortuantely (?) with the obsolescence of the vinyl disk ("record"), there
is no equivalent of the "45", which had a popular tune, and a "throw-away"
on the flip side - the 45 was as way to buy just the hit song you wanted. 
If you liked the artist(s) well enough, you would spring for the LP.

(For those of you who do not know either 45 or LP, ask your parents! :-)

response 4 of 27:

Jan 30 01:20 UTC 2003

Why do you think 3-4 dollars for a single is too much?

response 8 of 27:

Feb 1 07:01 UTC 2003

Yeah, True Cyklone.


thanx
anyway i should realise it before..
still i am not anti mp3s...

regards

response 10 of 27:

Feb 2 23:15 UTC 2003

Obviously, I'd like the record industry to be more responsive to consumer
demands. What I was trying to point out is that responses like mynxcat's
show that even when there is a belated attempt by the record industry to
be more responsive, at least some consumers may not respond favorably even
then. Which is to say, I'm not sure that some music fans would pay even if
they could download music for a reasonable fee and the download was not
copy-protected or otherwise restricted. 

I'm not sure I understand your point about supply and demand except to point
out that people who go to bars and clubs will only pay so much for a ticket.
Of course, how much of that goes to the bands is another question entirely.

response 12 of 27:

Feb 3 03:53 UTC 2003

I can agree with at least part of that!

response 14 of 27:

Feb 3 15:18 UTC 2003

Actually, the songs I've gotten online (via the artist sending them to me,
or buying them from the artist) have been of perfectly fine quality. In fact,
I find that they are pretty neat (I have gotten two d/ls of concert recordings
used as promo material and one that was offered by the artist on his website,
and a couple of songs sent to me by the artist that are not on any recording).
Since those are all done digitally (I assume) they have an immediacy that a
studio recording would lack. I don't know that I would buy something online
that was very studio-tweaked, though.

response 16 of 27:

Feb 3 21:48 UTC 2003

 As for myself, unless they were much, much cheaper than the corresponding CD,
 I don't think I'd be particularly tempted to buy digital downloads of songs.

 Download-only music seems much more ephemeral than having a concrete physical
 object like a CD.  It's already hard enough to keep track of my computer
 files whenever I move to a new machine or upgrade my hard drive.  I'm not
 wild about the computer copy being the only one I have, and am especially
 concerned about the push towards "secure" media files that are locked to
 a single device.  I can't imagine ever paying money for those.

 On the other hand, I've spent a *lot* of time converting my CDs to MP3 so
 I can play them on my iPod.  A CD that came with a data segment which
 included high-quality music files in a non-proprietary format with proper
 tags and cover art would be a really welcome improvement over a regular CD.
 I don't expect to see anything like that come from a major label anytime
 soon, though (if ever!)

response 18 of 27:

Feb 3 23:49 UTC 2003

In case you haven't noticed, my main points are about whether your views
are similar to those of a substantial number of people who currently
download music for free. The fact that you've shown a basic
misunderstanding of the music business is not a point of disagreement from
my perspective. I do disagree with the conclusions you draw from your
distorted views. I don't disagree with someone who says Product X is too
expensive. I'm simply trying to understand the basis for such views
(entirely separate from your misunderstanding of the music biz).

As best I can tell, you are saying a couple of things: (1) You won't buy a
CD if there are only a few songs you want on the CD. This presumes (2)
which is that at some point in your life you apparently felt that CDs
contained more quality content than the do now, and you purchased more CDs
accordingly. (3) you justify downloading single songs for free since you
do not want to buy a CD with only one or two good songs, and either (4a)
you dislike the idea of buying a single so you refuse to pay for those one
or two songs you want or (4b) you don't feel singles are priced properly,
and therefore refuse to pay on that basis.

How am I doing so far?

response 20 of 27:

Feb 4 18:01 UTC 2003

For some reason, I view the idea of filling my hard drive with 
downloaded music files with undisguised horror.  It's not a desirable 
prospect for a classical-music lover anyway.  However many hundreds or 
even thousands of MP3 files of 3-minute pop songs you can fit, it won't 
make that many 50-minute symphonies, nor would the sound quality be 
desirable.  I'll stick with the CDs.  If music goes all download, I'll 
just stop acquiring music.  The same way, if books go all electronic, 
I'll stop reading new books.  Posts are one thing, but I've read an 
entire book on a computer screen and I don't ever want to have to do 
that again.