i know every album back in the day wasn't
on the level of sticky fingers or innervisions but facts are facts.

it was remarkable for a genius to create a run of 40 minute long albums
where every song is great. and even the greatest geniuses couldn't do that consistently for more than 10 yrs.

only a few elite geniuses could make a double album
where all or most of the songs were good.


nowadays, most albums are so long that they would be considered
double albums back in the day, and they are being released by artists
that barely have enough material for a single album.


this made a certain kind of sense in the CD era.
if the format can contain 70 or 80 minutes of music,
you might feel jipped if you only get 40.

but CDs are done and you can fit an infinite number of songs in a mp3
or on spotify (okay, not really. but you can fit a bunch).


is it time to let go of the concept of long albums?
most ppl dont have that much art in them at any given time,
nor are mos artist capable of creating material that demand that much attention. (again, that's not a slight. I actually think the 20 minute LP side is perfectly formatted
to suit the human attention span).


this post is brought to you by nas-- "life is good."
a perfectly good album that really could have been a masterpiece if it was about 40 minutes shorter.

thoughts?

i think the audience would reject a 40 minute album if it's priced like a 70 minute album. among other reasons. i think the 40 minute album is a good idea and it'd have to be priced accordingly, i think.

fuck you.

but i am wondering if they could cut a profit this way.
i think it's a fine idea, btw.

now i am wondering if it could happen.

say an artist only gets a budget to record ___ songs instead of however many they record now.

that would cut costs significantly.
artists get a budget to record 2 or 3 singles,
and then they record a few more songs for filler like in the Motown days.

album is released for 5 dollars a pop.

now i would assume albums used to cost 12 dollars because of promotion costs..:
not because CDs were so expensive.

would a 5 dollar album still be able to cover that promotional budget?
since CDs and spotify probably cost way less than a dollar to press,
i would say they could.

and iTunes has shown that ppl WILL buy music.
maybe 5 dollars would actually increase sales
because 5 dollars is closer to an amount that ppl will drop without thinking about it than 10 or 12 dollars.

that could lead to more sales.


and once artists blow up, some artists will probably want to release
albums that work as albums, instead of 3 hit singles with the rest being filler.
artists that blow up big enough will be able to have that kind of freedom
if their sales justify it. kinda like marvin and stevie were able to negotiate those deals.

and the labels made bank when a few geniuses released quality product.


A&R guys... are you reading this?
take it back to your board rooms and see if the numbers add up.

i actually miss the marketing machine we had back in the day.
it wasnt perfect.
but it was certainly better than...


whatever this shit is we have now.

>i think the audience would reject a 40 minute album if it's
>priced like a 70 minute album. among other reasons. i think
>the 40 minute album is a good idea and it'd have to be priced
>accordingly, i think.

they haven't been $5 since the 70s lol.

no account for inflation?? shit it cost a dollar to press wax. studio time? production? pictures? lol

$5 for Mp3s maybe

i was in starbucks this morning. muh fuckers was paying $6 for a cup of coffee that was made in two minutes.

an album that someone works on for a year...that you could enjoy for the next 30 is worth $5????

this is exactly why musicians shouldn't be using spotify and/or streaming services and even in FACT make ppl pay more.

they have CONSTANTLY short changed themselves

http://howardlloyd.bandcamp.com

i don't see ppl paying $15 - $18 for 40 minutes of music.

and i don't see them paying $1/track either b/c that too easily results in songs/records being split into multiple tracks for the $$ (so a 4 minute song becomes 2 tracks each priced at $1).

$5/album feels right. when Radiohead gave me the option to pay what i wanted for In Rainbows i paid them $5. most consumers paid them $0. but $5 felt right to me.

i think i'd go as high as $8 for 40 minutes.

fuck you.

a cup of starbucks is worth more than your favorite album

say no more

http://howardlloyd.bandcamp.com

used record stores are the shit!

fuck you.

-------------------------
�Floyd Mayweather should be taking fights up to 157 or 160 pounds...His frame can hold the weight..it's not even a lot of weight....Go to the gym and lift weights man..lol.�-- Warren Coolidge

If I'm not getting any physical packaging of any sort, then I don't see the justification for paying that much for a file. There's no shipping of the product to physical stores, no posters to print out in order to display in stores, no having to press CDs; wax; tapes; nor printing out the liner as well as pressing out the jewel cases and sleeves. Basically none of the ordeals of dealing with a physical product.

For the file, all they gotta do is upload a file and let everyone who wants it to download from that one file. Without all of the extras, why would I want to pay for an MP3 the same amount for a CD?



Since 1976

you're supposed to be so in love w/the art that you wanna give up as much of your hard-earned money to them as they demand.

for the love, boss. for the love.

fuck you.

I'm all for supporting an artist but not to the point of me getting screwed over. There has to be a middle ground somewhere. Downloaders shouldn't be charged the same as those who are getting the physical product. That would be a case of paying more for less. Those folks who think in the manner of what you're poking fun of must have crazy amounts of cash to burn. I don't. If you're gonna charge me the price of a CD for an MP3, then I will either avoid the album or stream it on YouTube or Spotify.



Since 1976

fuck you.

so first of all...you listen to MP3s right?

do you still have a tape/cd walkman? i doubt it

so on one hand nobody understands the resurgence of tapes... "why would i want all that inconvenience"

and not many own turntables...

so YOU WANT the Mp3s or maybe you want the CD. if you want the CD your argument is null and void because you get the packaging...

but thing is you want the convenience of the digital file and then want to complain about not getting the packaging? wtf. how stupid.

i would be remiss not to bring up the reason why you should pay for an mp3 even without packaging because you are getting to enjoy something that someone created and prolly had costs to create.

yall mutha fuckers really be jumping through hoops to deal with the cognitive dissonance this shit causes you

the proper question is...why do artists allowed their shit to be sold digitally or streamed in the first place?

edit: on some level i understand you were saying you wouldnt pay as much as for the CD...but my argument still holds. buy the CD or dont complain about what an mp3 cost. consider it a convenience tax

http://howardlloyd.bandcamp.com

I pointed out, in my post, some of the conveniences of not having to deal with a physical product on their end. It would be one thing if the convenience was strictly on my side but it's not. Them uploading an album is a helluva lot cheaper and convenient for them than dealing with all of the hullabaloo surrounding a physical release. Therefore my statement still stands. I had a feeling someone would use the "convenience for the customer" spin.


Since 1976

$15 on a cd

regular price anyway

shit needs to be mastered specifically for mp3s

artwork still must be paid for

itunes, amazon etc get a cut

uploading a song and dropping a cd or dat or 1/2" tape with the messenger is about the same effort

like i said keep jumping through hoops to rationalize your cognitive dissonance

y'all dudes will pay $10 for a beer in a club but your here valuing a Mp3 album at $5

really???? lol

a gallon of gas was $5 recently
a haircut cost $15
a ride on the subway $2.50

an album that you will listen to for 20 years.... $5

welcome to bizarro world

http://howardlloyd.bandcamp.com

>shit needs to be mastered specifically for mp3s

With the way cats gripe about MP3 quality, it couldn't be too labor intensive. Besides, a high cost still isn't justified since a lot of the middle man (notice I didn't say all) is cut.


>
>artwork still must be paid for

True but that same artwork doesn't have to be printed multiple times (which still costs) on their end unless it's for a physical product.


>itunes, amazon etc get a cut
>
Yeah, they get a cut just like stores get a cut of the sales. However, they don't have to pay for shipping, packaging, etc on top of Amazon and them getting a cut.


>uploading a song and dropping a cd or dat or 1/2" tape with
>the messenger is about the same effort
>
>like i said keep jumping through hoops to rationalize your
>cognitive dissonance
>
>y'all dudes will pay $10 for a beer in a club but your here
>valuing a Mp3 album at $5

First, I never valued MP3 albums to be no higher than $5. My thing is if they're as much as a CD or at the price range SoWhat had mentioned on the post I responded to, I wouldn't pay that much. As for the beer; I wouldn't dare pay that much for a beer in the club. I'm not a New York dude, so that price range is to be scoffed at.


>really???? lol
>
>a gallon of gas was $5 recently

I never paid $5 a gallon or near that much for gas. Even if I did, I need to get around in my car way more than I need an MP3.


>a haircut cost $15.

I cut my own hair and haven't been to a barber in years. I save money there.


>a ride on the subway $2.50

I haven't ridden the train in years and even if I did, it would more than likely be for work or school; two things more important than an MP3 album.

>
>an album that you will listen to for 20 years.... $5
>
>welcome to bizarro world

No way can you justify an MP3 being worth the same price as a physical means of listening to music. I refuse to pay more for less.




Since 1976

>I haven't ridden the train in years and even if I did, it
>would more than likely be for work or school; two things more
>important than an MP3 album.

i think a lot of your argument is disingenuous. one ride to work is worth as much as an album you will listen to for hours...have connected memories to?? cry and laugh to? lol. ok buddy

the most important thing...though is you scoffing at the price for Mp3s...

did musicians sell Mp3s first or was it a consumer format...traded on the internet ripped from CDs..???

consumers wanted and demanded the format...not the other way around

so you steal albums for years on said format...and the industry responds by giving you want you want. and then you complain about what you get and how much you should pay...

lol

BS

the ONLY place YOU will EVER get away with this type of approach is music cuz u can steal it from the comfort of your home.

you guys are disgusting and despicable

http://howardlloyd.bandcamp.com

>>I haven't ridden the train in years and even if I did, it
>>would more than likely be for work or school; two things
>more
>>important than an MP3 album.
>
>i think a lot of your argument is disingenuous. one ride to
>work is worth as much as an album you will listen to for
>hours...have connected memories to?? cry and laugh to? lol. ok
>buddy

How is it disingenuous? As much as I love music, listening to it ain't paying my bills. Work did. Now that I'm getting money due to being back in college, that is paying my bills. Sorry but the memories aspect isn't convincing me. I just checked CD Universe and some of those MP3s cost more than the actual CD. For what? No way should that even be. Once again, if I'm not getting a physical product, which means costs are lower, I shouldn't have to pay as much or more than the physical product.


>the most important thing...though is you scoffing at the price
>for Mp3s...
>
>did musicians sell Mp3s first or was it a consumer
>format...traded on the internet ripped from CDs..???
>
>consumers wanted and demanded the format...not the other way
>around
>
>i call BS

Just because customers want the format doesn't give you the right to gank them in the process. I'm doing you a favor by allowing you to cut some of the spending and hassle that comes with dealing with a physical product. I'm not saying MP3 albums have to be a few bucks but unless I can see a reason or two for justifying a price that is comparable to a physical release other than merely supporting the artist (which is a cop out in this type of situation), then I'm going to keep stating that a non physical release shouldn't as costly as a physical product.


Since 1976

you are paying for the music... not the format

how you gonna demand a format and then say but I'm not gonna pay what I paid for the format that I no longer want?

when you go to Burger King and tell em you don't want the lettuce do they take money off the price?

you dictate what you pay at a bar?

again you can take this position cuz u can steal the very format you demanded.

now the reason your being disingenuous is that you KNOW that albums are undervalued. you know thriller is worth more than a ride to work or two subway rides. YOU know this. it's not arguable. your are trying to make it seem like music is at the bottom of your priorities but the fact is you listen everyday. so it's disingenuous to sit and try to base your argument around other things having priority. it's total bs. you haven't bought a beer or a movie ticket? $10 for a two hour movie you leave at the theatre? but you can't steal that right?

cats is clowns

http://howardlloyd.bandcamp.com

>you are paying for the music... not the format
>
>how you gonna demand a format and then say but I'm not gonna
>pay what I paid for the format that I no longer want?

Easily. That format is cheaper and convenient for them as it is convenient for me. If I ask for a format that saves you money, then where are the extra costs coming from? They don't have the packaging, store promo items, shipping excuses for MP3s, so why do I need to pay more for less?

>when you go to Burger King and tell em you don't want the
>lettuce do they take money off the price?

Well we both can play this game. If I buy a pound of burger for a specific price but later on the company cuts down the portion to a half a pound but keeps the same price, would I pay for that?


>you dictate what you pay at a bar?
>
>again you can take this position cuz u can steal the very
>format you demanded.

Where do you get the stealing part from? I said if it costs too much, I'd either stream it or avoid it altogether. You're shoehorning in a point I never made.


>now the reason your being disingenuous is that you KNOW that
>albums are undervalued. you know thriller is worth more than a
>ride to work or two subway rides. YOU know this. it's not
>arguable. your are trying to make it seem like music is at the
>bottom of your priorities but the fact is you listen everyday.
>so it's disingenuous to sit and try to base your argument
>around other things having priority. it's total bs. you
>haven't bought a beer or a movie ticket? $10 for a two hour
>movie you leave at the theatre? but you can't steal that
>right?
>
>cats is clowns
>
>
>
>
No. The thing that aids me in getting money to pay bills and take care of my fam is definitely worth more than thriller or any other album. These albums aren't feeding me and mine. Fall back on the name calling. I never once went at you sideways, so I expect the same. You still haven't made a compelling argument as to why I should spend the same amount of money on a format that costs less to produce. And don't give me the "you guys demanded that format" because:

A: I was still buying CDs years after MP3s became popular and....

B: ....as I keep pointing out, the format is more convenient for the labels by allowing them to not have to press out as much of the physical product, thus cutting costs.



Since 1976

>Easily. That format is cheaper and convenient for them as it
>is convenient for me. If I ask for a format that saves you
>money, then where are the extra costs coming from? They don't
>have the packaging, store promo items, shipping excuses for
>MP3s, so why do I need to pay more for less?

How is more convenient for the artist when the format itself is stolen and traded more than it is bought? like...did you think this out?



>Well we both can play this game. If I buy a pound of burger
>for a specific price but later on the company cuts down the
>portion to a half a pound but keeps the same price, would I
>pay for that?

They not making the burger smaller though...your analogy is poor. you still getting the same amount of music. try again


>Where do you get the stealing part from? I said if it costs
>too much, I'd either stream it or avoid it altogether. You're
>shoehorning in a point I never made.

I'm getting the stealing part because that is the only reason ppl take these positions with music. because they can steal it without repercussion.


>No. The thing that aids me in getting money to pay bills and
>take care of my fam is definitely worth more than thriller or
>any other album. These albums aren't feeding me and mine. Fall
>back on the name calling. I never once went at you sideways,
>so I expect the same. You still haven't made a compelling
>argument as to why I should spend the same amount of money on
>a format that costs less to produce. And don't give me the
>"you guys demanded that format" because:

man...its worth more than ONE ride to work. of course its not worth not going to work. but you are really saying that an album (i dont care the format) isn't worth $10 is laughable. and like i said you buy movie tickets and beers and 1000 other items that dont provide the value that an album does. if you dont agree with that you are not being honest. because you are on a music board lol

and try this for a compelling argument. Cds cost less than records to produce but you paid double for those...lol...and WHY? convenience

>A: I was still buying CDs years after MP3s became popular
>and....
>
>B: ....as I keep pointing out, the format is more convenient
>for the labels by allowing them to not have to press out as
>much of the physical product, thus cutting costs.

your convenience argument is short sighted as it pertains to labels and artists. it has cost them much more money than it saves them...are you really going to argue that? lol

http://howardlloyd.bandcamp.com

>>Easily. That format is cheaper and convenient for them as
>it
>>is convenient for me. If I ask for a format that saves you
>>money, then where are the extra costs coming from? They
>don't
>>have the packaging, store promo items, shipping excuses for
>>MP3s, so why do I need to pay more for less?
>
>How is more convenient for the artist when the format itself
>is stolen and traded more than it is bought? like...did you
>think this out?
>


Just like the way physical isn't being purchased as much nowadays? Either way, sales are lost.



>
>
>>Well we both can play this game. If I buy a pound of burger
>>for a specific price but later on the company cuts down the
>>portion to a half a pound but keeps the same price, would I
>>pay for that?
>
>They not making the burger smaller though...your analogy is
>poor. you still getting the same amount of music. try again
>

And you keep overlooking the fact that I said that if I'm not getting the physical package, then I'm getting less. Some of the cost of a CD, vinyl album, etc. factors in the packaging, shipping, promotional items at various stores, etc. A grip of things that aren't needed for an MP3. So, once again, what are the charges for the MP3 coming from if it costs as much as or more than a physical pressing? Now that I think about it, music heads typically complain about how MP3s are lower quality than the physical options. So, I'm supposed to pay just as much or more for an MP3 as its physical counterparts yet have no packaging and lesser quality? You can't be serious.


>
>>Where do you get the stealing part from? I said if it costs
>>too much, I'd either stream it or avoid it altogether.
>You're
>>shoehorning in a point I never made.
>
>I'm getting the stealing part because that is the only reason
>ppl take these positions with music. because they can steal
>it without repercussion.
>

I don't give a crap about what tactics cats who "steal" use in their arguments. I didn't say anything about downloading for free, so your accusation doesn't apply to me.


>
>>No. The thing that aids me in getting money to pay bills and
>>take care of my fam is definitely worth more than thriller
>or
>>any other album. These albums aren't feeding me and mine.
>Fall
>>back on the name calling. I never once went at you sideways,
>>so I expect the same. You still haven't made a compelling
>>argument as to why I should spend the same amount of money
>on
>>a format that costs less to produce. And don't give me the
>>"you guys demanded that format" because:
>
>man...its worth more than ONE ride to work. of course its not
>worth not going to work. but you are really saying that an
>album (i dont care the format) isn't worth $10 is laughable.
>and like i said you buy movie tickets and beers and 1000 other
>items that dont provide the value that an album does. if you
>dont agree with that you are not being honest. because you
>are on a music board lol
>
>and try this for a compelling argument. Cds cost less than
>records to produce but you paid double for those...lol...and
>WHY? convenience
>
>>A: I was still buying CDs years after MP3s became popular
>>and....
>>
>>B: ....as I keep pointing out, the format is more convenient
>>for the labels by allowing them to not have to press out as
>>much of the physical product, thus cutting costs.
>
>your convenience argument is short sighted as it pertains to
>labels and artists. it has cost them much more money than it
>saves them...are you really going to argue that? lol
>


Is it or is it not cheaper for them to upload an album and artwork as opposed to shipping out a product, producing in store promo items, getting the product out to many markets, etc., etc.?



Since 1976

>Just like the way physical isn't being purchased as much
>nowadays? Either way, sales are lost.

you said...mp3s are more convenient to the artist. i asked how when it has led to their product being stolen. you reply with this lol. ok


>And you keep overlooking the fact that I said that if I'm not
>getting the physical package, then I'm getting less. Some of
>the cost of a CD, vinyl album, etc. factors in the packaging,
>shipping, promotional items at various stores, etc. A grip of
>things that aren't needed for an MP3. So, once again, what are
>the charges for the MP3 coming from if it costs as much as or
>more than a physical pressing? Now that I think about it,
>music heads typically complain about how MP3s are lower
>quality than the physical options. So, I'm supposed to pay
>just as much or more for an MP3 as its physical counterparts
>yet have no packaging and lesser quality? You can't be
>serious.

and you keep overlooking the fact that you CAN buy the physical product. none is forcing you to buy mp3s. and the artwork etc usually come with the mp3s...but if you want the actual thing in your hand BUY IT! this has no bearing on whether a mp3 album has $10 in value. again consumers demand the format (digital) and then say "but i'm not getting the physical". a musician sells music ...he aint selling the packaging. YOU can't be serious

i also love how you sidestepped the fact you PAID more for cheaper to manufacture CDs than albums all through the 90s lol. not too mention LP gatefolds were better and you were actually getting "more" with the vinyls. lol. you dont see the hoops you are jumping through?

>>>Where do you get the stealing part from? I said if it costs
>>>too much, I'd either stream it or avoid it altogether.
>>You're
>>>shoehorning in a point I never made.

No you don't understand. I'm saying the ONY reason ppl take all these hardline position with music is because it is easily stolen and/or accessible. you could never tell a restaurant i didn't like the food i'm not paying. or tell the cabbie how much you want to pay. your not gonna rationalize starbucks down on their price. all the things ppl do with music because the music can be stolen.

i also love how you sidestepped the fact you PAID more for cheaper to manufacture CDs than albums all through the 90s lol.


>Is it or is it not cheaper for them to upload an album and
>artwork as opposed to shipping out a product, producing in
>store promo items, getting the product out to many markets,
>etc., etc.?

is an album you listen to repeatedly at least worth the price of admission to a movie?
or two cups of coffee
two days worth of subway rides...
like 2.5 slices of pizza in NYC

smfh. ok buddy.

http://howardlloyd.bandcamp.com

>
>>Just like the way physical isn't being purchased as much
>>nowadays? Either way, sales are lost.
>
>you said...mp3s are more convenient to the artist. i asked
>how when it has led to their product being stolen. you reply
>with this lol. ok
>
>
>>And you keep overlooking the fact that I said that if I'm
>not
>>getting the physical package, then I'm getting less. Some of
>>the cost of a CD, vinyl album, etc. factors in the
>packaging,
>>shipping, promotional items at various stores, etc. A grip
>of
>>things that aren't needed for an MP3. So, once again, what
>are
>>the charges for the MP3 coming from if it costs as much as
>or
>>more than a physical pressing? Now that I think about it,
>>music heads typically complain about how MP3s are lower
>>quality than the physical options. So, I'm supposed to pay
>>just as much or more for an MP3 as its physical counterparts
>>yet have no packaging and lesser quality? You can't be
>>serious.
>
>and you keep overlooking the fact that you CAN buy the
>physical product. none is forcing you to buy mp3s. and the
>artwork etc usually come with the mp3s...but if you want the
>actual thing in your hand BUY IT! this has no bearing on
>whether a mp3 album has $10 in value. again consumers demand
>the format (digital) and then say "but i'm not getting the
>physical". a musician sells music ...he aint selling the
>packaging. YOU can't be serious


Newsflash. Nowadays, not everyone has a physical counterpart for their music. Some folks have nothing but the download option. Besides, I know I don't have to go the MP3 route. I do believe I stated as one of my options that I would avoid the album altogether. You're not telling me anything I haven't already mentioned.

Also, I keep mentioning the physical aspect because, if you were paying attention, I had mentioned that it is a part of the costs associated with the pricing along with shipping, in store promo items, etc. Since MP3s don't have all of that, the pricing isn't justified. I see you keep avoiding my question of what justifies having an MP3 cost as much or more than the physical option.


>
>i also love how you sidestepped the fact you PAID more for
>cheaper to manufacture CDs than albums all through the 90s
>lol. not too mention LP gatefolds were better and you were
>actually getting "more" with the vinyls. lol. you dont see
>the hoops you are jumping through?


How can I sidestep a fact that wasn't brought up? I have no problem addressing this. One, I used to complain about CD pricing for the longest. Of course I started gravitating to used CDs since they were cheaper than buying a lot of the new releases. Don't think for once I was cool with CD pricing. Still, even with the low costs of producing a CD, some of those costs associated with shipping, etc. are factored in. You still haven't made a compelling argument on why MP3s should cost the same.

If anything, your statement supports my argument. If labels were ripping us off by overcharging us for product that cost them pennies on the dollar to press, then they damn sure are doing so IF an MP3 album costs just as much or more than the physical product. Especially since most downloads aren't even lossless but of lower quality.

>
>>>>Where do you get the stealing part from? I said if it
>costs
>>>>too much, I'd either stream it or avoid it altogether.
>>>You're
>>>>shoehorning in a point I never made.
>
>No you don't understand. I'm saying the ONY reason ppl take
>all these hardline position with music is because it is easily
>stolen and/or accessible. you could never tell a restaurant i
>didn't like the food i'm not paying. or tell the cabbie how
>much you want to pay. your not gonna rationalize starbucks
>down on their price. all the things ppl do with music because
>the music can be stolen.
>

BUT, I can tell them that I'm not going to patronize their business and just avoid using their services altogether. Your analogies don't work because if they lined up with my statements, they would consist of me either finding cheaper competition (which lines up with streaming the album) or not patronizing their business at all (which lines up with avoiding the album altogether).


>i also love how you sidestepped the fact you PAID more for
>cheaper to manufacture CDs than albums all through the 90s
>lol.
>
>
>>Is it or is it not cheaper for them to upload an album and
>>artwork as opposed to shipping out a product, producing in
>>store promo items, getting the product out to many markets,
>>etc., etc.?


And I love the fact that YOU keep sidestepping my above question.


>
>is an album you listen to repeatedly at least worth the price
>of admission to a movie?
>or two cups of coffee
>two days worth of subway rides...
>like 2.5 slices of pizza in NYC
>
>smfh. ok buddy.


I already told you I'm not a NYC dude, so all of the expensive crap you guys put up with, I don't have to deal with. Hell, the reason I don't want to live in NYC is BECAUSE of the cost of living. I don't know why you keep bringing those comparisons up. I haven't been to the movies in two years, I am not a coffee drinker, I haven't ridden a train or subway in years and even if I did, more than likely, it's to somewhere important which would be more valuable than an album at that point. Even with that pizza comparison, yes, food is more important. I have to eat. I don't have to listen to an album in order to live.

I'm still waiting on those points that break down why an MP3 album should cost as much or more than its physical counterparts.

Since 1976

in fact I did address it.

I said musicians sell music. I said you're not getting less as an album of music is an album of music be it MP3 or cd

you are akin to a guy who wants the convenience of a motorcycle but you don't like the fact you get wet when riding lol

here's my points
an MP3 albun is worth at least $10. you never go to the movies, buy a bee, go out to dinner go see a show or spend $5 on something trivial (which I don't believe but goes along way to show the hoops you jump through... do you have an Internet connection? lol. a cellphone? any non need costs?). it would be easy to prove that an album is worth more than $10. like scientifically

my second point is if you want the physical packaging buy the physical product smfh

I only keep going because of your ridiculousness to admit an album is worth $10. your logic is mp3s cost less to produce. I point out that you bought CDs though they were more expensive yet cheaper to produce than albums and you say that proves record companies were ripping you. lol. your logic is a joke. one im not talking about labels... in talking about you and why your rationalization is bS. as you've already proved it was BS because you engage in exactly what your are arguing against (spending more for a product that costs less to make). so that CANNOT be the reason for your position. do you understand that?

you log on to a board to talk about music but it's so disposable $10 is too much

cats get exactly what they deserve as far as how this music shit pans out

the things people take for granted

http://howardlloyd.bandcamp.com

....I never told you how much I'm willing to spend on an MP3 album. I said what I had said based on the price range SoWhat had posted. See, you keep assuming things about my beliefs based on arguments you've had with folks who justify downloading for free. That's why you also keep shoehorning in things about what folks who "steal" say into the argument even though I was clear about how I never put down downloading free as an option.

You can miss me about how I'm getting the same amount of music because you keep over looking (purposely)the fact that I mentioned how those albums are being sold at a lesser quality. So, if I even left out the packaging aspect, even though I've mentioned countless times how that factors into the cost of the physical product along with other factors, I'm still paying more for less.

Your argument holds no weight if you can't break down what goes into the cost of an MP3 that justifies it being as much or more than a CD. Same amount of music doesn't cut it. Let's get to the real reason, it's greedy labels. It's not like most artists are getting a huge cut of the sales, so they aren't setting the prices. The labels are. Therefore, you can save the argument about how CDs are cheap to produce but are charged way higher if you're going to justify the same thing for MP3s. Besides, I told you I gravitated towards used CDs, thus saving me a grip.

Another thing, I'm not undervaluing music just because I want a lower cost. There has to be a middle ground. Just like the artist shouldn't be screwed, the consumer shouldn't be screwed either. It goes BOTH ways. You want support? Then your music better be reasonably priced or I'm not dealing with it. By the way, why do you keep saying I don't have to buy the MP3 and how no one is forcing me to do so when one of my options is to avoid the album altogether? I pointed that out once before how my initial post had said such a thing. But I'm the one being illogical. Ok, bruh.


Since 1976

>....I never told you how much I'm willing to spend on an MP3
>album. I said what I had said based on the price range SoWhat
>had posted. See, you keep assuming things about my beliefs
>based on arguments you've had with folks who justify
>downloading for free. That's why you also keep shoehorning in
>things about what folks who "steal" say into the argument even
>though I was clear about how I never put down downloading free
>as an option.

again... you either aint reading or lack comprehension. the only reason you feel you can demand a price is because IT CAN be stolen. nowhere did i say YOU stole it. you can't haggle your ISP provider or your energy company or a starbucks because those items can't be stolen. but because music albums are stolen by the minute it puts musicians in a compromising position of "if i ask for too much they will just steal it". so the fact its available for theft DEVALUES it FROM EVERYONES PERSPECTIVE. do you understand that? its not rocket science


>You can miss me about how I'm getting the same amount of music
>because you keep over looking (purposely)the fact that I
>mentioned how those albums are being sold at a lesser quality.
>So, if I even left out the packaging aspect, even though I've
>mentioned countless times how that factors into the cost of
>the physical product along with other factors, I'm still
>paying more for less.

But you are CHOOSING THE MP3. lol. the reason its convenient is because the file is smaller. the file is smaller because content is left out...so yes it sounds worse. but .wavs won't fit on your phone. YOU WANT EVERYTHING! the convenience of the mp3 format and the sound of a full frequency recording. How could that be?? smfh


>goes into the cost of an MP3 that justifies it being as much
>or more than a CD. Same amount of music doesn't cut it. Let's
>get to the real reason, it's greedy labels. It's not like most
>artists are getting a huge cut of the sales, so they aren't
>setting the prices. The labels are. Therefore, you can save
>the argument about how CDs are cheap to produce but are
>charged way higher if you're going to justify the same thing
>for MP3s. Besides, I told you I gravitated towards used CDs,
>thus saving me a grip.

i'm not talking bout labels...i'm talking about what a cd is worth. you keep bringing up how much less an mp3cost to produce is (which is basically zero) but CDs are produced for next to nothing as well. you paid more for those (for less) but now you have a problem with such practice. i haven't even pointed out yet how mp3 albums ARE cheaper than CDs smfh. bringing up used costs is moot/outside this discussion. a better point that you have consistently dodged is how you will spend that money on a movie (even if it was two years ago) on other things that are clearly LESS VALUABLE. yes...even a gallon of gas


> Another thing, I'm not undervaluing music just because I want
>a lower cost. There has to be a middle ground. Just like the
>artist shouldn't be screwed, the consumer shouldn't be screwed
>either. It goes BOTH ways. You want support? Then your music
>better be reasonably priced or I'm not dealing with it. By the
>way, why do you keep saying I don't have to buy the MP3 and
>how no one is forcing me to do so when one of my options is to
>avoid the album altogether? I pointed that out once before how
>my initial post had said such a thing. But I'm the one being
>illogical. Ok, bruh.


you're bugging. a piece of art that can be enjoyed for years and years is easily worth $10. the consumer is not being taken advantage of....the artist is at $10/pop

and i'm done

i've destroyed every single notion or point you made and all you can say is $10 is too much for an album...

lol ok buddy

http://howardlloyd.bandcamp.com

>>....I never told you how much I'm willing to spend on an
>MP3
>>album. I said what I had said based on the price range
>SoWhat
>>had posted. See, you keep assuming things about my beliefs
>>based on arguments you've had with folks who justify
>>downloading for free. That's why you also keep shoehorning
>in
>>things about what folks who "steal" say into the argument
>even
>>though I was clear about how I never put down downloading
>free
>>as an option.
>
>again... you either aint reading or lack comprehension. the
>only reason you feel you can demand a price is because IT CAN
>be stolen. nowhere did i say YOU stole it. you can't haggle
>your ISP provider or your energy company or a starbucks
>because those items can't be stolen. but because music albums
>are stolen by the minute it puts musicians in a compromising
>position of "if i ask for too much they will just steal it".
>so the fact its available for theft DEVALUES it FROM EVERYONES
>PERSPECTIVE. do you understand that? its not rocket science


Of course I can't haggle Starbucks or the energy company. I CAN choose to avoid those specific companies and get with their competitors. Something I keep having to explain since I SAID I'd either stream the album or avoid it altogether. Key points you KEEP overlooking. Quit bringing up how I can't haggle the prices of other services when I keep telling you, as with the MP3 albums, I can AVOID them if the price is too high.


>>You can miss me about how I'm getting the same amount of
>music
>>because you keep over looking (purposely)the fact that I
>>mentioned how those albums are being sold at a lesser
>quality.
>>So, if I even left out the packaging aspect, even though
>I've
>>mentioned countless times how that factors into the cost of
>>the physical product along with other factors, I'm still
>>paying more for less.
>
>But you are CHOOSING THE MP3. lol. the reason its convenient
>is because the file is smaller. the file is smaller because
>content is left out...so yes it sounds worse. but .wavs won't
>fit on your phone. YOU WANT EVERYTHING! the convenience of
>the mp3 format and the sound of a full frequency recording.
>How could that be?? smfh


You act as if lossless files don't exist. A lot of companies don't even provide it as an option. Cool, understandable. Just don't charge me just as much or more as the physical option. Anyway, I was using that example to make a point. The fact that I'm spending my cash, hell yeah I want everything. If you're not going to provide top quality, then don't charge the same amount you would charge for top quality. Since you like to use anologies about what I'm willing to spend on, I guarantee you that you wouldn't spend $500 for some cheap quality clothing. Oh, you'd have a fit if that were the case.


>
>>goes into the cost of an MP3 that justifies it being as much
>>or more than a CD. Same amount of music doesn't cut it.
>Let's
>>get to the real reason, it's greedy labels. It's not like
>most
>>artists are getting a huge cut of the sales, so they aren't
>>setting the prices. The labels are. Therefore, you can save
>>the argument about how CDs are cheap to produce but are
>>charged way higher if you're going to justify the same thing
>>for MP3s. Besides, I told you I gravitated towards used CDs,
>>thus saving me a grip.
>
>i'm not talking bout labels...i'm talking about what a cd is
>worth. you keep bringing up how much less an mp3cost to
>produce is (which is basically zero) but CDs are produced for
>next to nothing as well. you paid more for those (for less)
>but now you have a problem with such practice. i haven't even
>pointed out yet how mp3 albums ARE cheaper than CDs smfh.
>bringing up used costs is moot/outside this discussion. a
>better point that you have consistently dodged is how you will
>spend that money on a movie (even if it was two years ago) on
>other things that are clearly LESS VALUABLE. yes...even a
>gallon of gas


Are you serious? Lol. So a gallon of gas that can help me to go to places I may NEED to go to such as work, the hospital, etc. is less valuable than a damn album? The next time you need to go to earn money, get an ailment taken care of, get groceries, or wherever, you forgo the gas in your car and depend on that album to take care of you since it's so much more important.

Why do you say I NOW have a problem with paying more for less when I pointed out how I griped about CD prices back in the day and how I eventually gravitated towards USED CDs because they were cheaper? You really refuse to read what I've said numerous times because you'd rather debate me on whatever little argument you have in your head that you imagine me saying instead of what I'm really saying.

>
>> Another thing, I'm not undervaluing music just because I
>want
>>a lower cost. There has to be a middle ground. Just like the
>>artist shouldn't be screwed, the consumer shouldn't be
>screwed
>>either. It goes BOTH ways. You want support? Then your music
>>better be reasonably priced or I'm not dealing with it. By
>the
>>way, why do you keep saying I don't have to buy the MP3 and
>>how no one is forcing me to do so when one of my options is
>to
>>avoid the album altogether? I pointed that out once before
>how
>>my initial post had said such a thing. But I'm the one being
>>illogical. Ok, bruh.
>
>
>you're bugging. a piece of art that can be enjoyed for years
>and years is easily worth $10. the consumer is not being
>taken advantage of....the artist is at $10/pop
>
>and i'm done
>
>i've destroyed every single notion or point you made and all
>you can say is $10 is too much for an album...
>
>lol ok buddy

You say I don't read but keep pulling these statements out of your rectum that I had never said. I never told you how much I'm willing to spend on an MP3 album, yet you KEEP shoehorning in this statement about how I view $10 as too much for an album. I never told you what I would pay and I have to point out, ONCE AGAIN, that I responded to the prices listed in the example in SoWhat's post. Just like you said at one point that I believe $5 should be the most that MP3s cost even though I never said such a thing. No, you didn't destroy my argument. You keep putting in things I've never said.

You go ahead and get screwed over but I refuse to. Once again, if the MP3 is too high, I'll stream it or avoid it altogether. *Waits for you to tell me how I don't have to get the MP3 version even though I've said that from the jump*.



Since 1976

At least at the underground level, albums just still are 40 minutes (sometimes less - I own a lot that are just a shade past 30 minutes). It's the right amount of most albums to listen to in a sitting.

--

The highest selling album ever is what 9 songs?

We (artists) only get paid for 11 songs anyway.. (royalties in contract)

I dont know why people put so many on there. I can understand bonus tracks for retail. Other than that.. nothing should be more than 12 tbh

Shit illmatic was 10..

Double 0
DJ/Producer/Artist
Producer in Kidz In The Hall
-------------------------------------------
twitter: @godouble0
IG: @godouble0
www.thinklikearapper.com

>We (artists) only get paid for 11 songs anyway.. (royalties in
>contract)

Shit filled to the fuckin brim with songs.

____________
Twitter & IG: @rulerofmyself
SC: rulerofmyself17

Yes! She's on the drugs. (c) BoHagon

But if it counted as a double album then that number would be 22...

But yea I dont get people with 16 songs on an album (unless they are interludes).. like man.. no royalties on 5 on them thangs

Double 0
DJ/Producer/Artist
Producer in Kidz In The Hall
-------------------------------------------
twitter: @godouble0
IG: @godouble0
www.thinklikearapper.com

EPMD's first 4 albums topped out at 14 songs for "Business as Usual" with the other 3 having 10, 12, and 11 tracks.

"Paid In Full" was only 10 tracks, and the rest of Eric B and Rakim's albums never went past 12 tracks.

Good albums don't need 20+ tracks or need to be 60-70 minutes to be good. Back in the day, you were judged on the content of the album rather than how long it was.


---------------------------

forcing myself to actually respond to you is like bathing in ebola virus. - Binlahab

Like there is stupid, and then there is you, and then there is dead. - VAsBestBBW

R.I.P. Disco D

is 9 tracks...

kind of happening... really is the perfect length

i prefer it that way...

I've never understand the notion of someone who wants less dope music on an album, rather than more.

And mostly I've loved too many albums that are 60+ minutes runtime in lengths to think that someone 40 minutes is the optimum length for an album.

Only way I'd ever be down for it is if artists also went back consistently to dropping an album a year. Even then, not so sure.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

it's any "extra" material, why not sprinkle tracks out when the album loses steam.. fans still get the tracks, artists can ride the wave a little longer and the album will be held in higher regard down the road.. a 10 for 10 project looks damn near as good as 16 for 16.. and a LOT better than 10 for 16... imo anyways

at most they'll have about 40 minutes and if there's a remainder it's often not as dope as the meat of the album - which is about 40 minutes.

40 minutes = 8 to 12 tracks. i don't love many albums that have more than 8 or 12 dope tracks. if they have more than the dope stuff it's fluff that gets in the way. and that's not including skits. i hate skits as a general matter. too few of them are worth the trouble. they're mostly in the way. but i digress.

fuck you.

*************************
your ERA never low enough

>Only way I'd ever be down for it is if artists also went back
>consistently to dropping an album a year. Even then, not so
>sure.

albums used to drop once every year and a half to two or more years. Only artists I can think of off the top that did the one a year thing was MC Breed and Jay Z.

---------------------------

forcing myself to actually respond to you is like bathing in ebola virus. - Binlahab

Like there is stupid, and then there is you, and then there is dead. - VAsBestBBW

R.I.P. Disco D

i think CDs increasing dramatically the potential length for an album wasn't good for albums on the whole.

…when you had to keep the album short or you sacrifice some sound quality.

With the advent of the CD, album lengths and prices increased. In my opinion, in general, esp. with hip hop, quality did not increase. In general, albums got more bloated, much like the rapper's ego. Lots of filler, crappy tracks with too many guests, etc.

I think ultimately, hip hop fans appreciate quality. No one is sitting around bitching about why Illmatic wasn't 80 minutes.

but at the very least, I wouldn't mind some albums being cropped to the confines of a single vinyl record

but at the same time, I don't think I'm down with restricting artists either.

do something that hasn't been done before, artistically.

i have no idea what that will be.

so far, the only thing that kinda came close was wes eishold/cold cave release singles on itunes throughout 2013, sometimes the day after he finished them. he'd also press up a cool picture disc alongside it, or some other song-themed merch (like a t-shirt). at the end of the year, i was amazed at how the songs formed a cohesive whole, kinda like an album, but more like a song journal.

anyway, i think the point i was trying to make was that i'm less concerned with album length than i am with overall presentation. yeah, no one wants a bloated, unfocused 80-minute album that can't be digested in one whole. a focused, 40-minute statement is more desirable. but also, i'd like to see what other kinds of presentations would work in this post-cd era.

Happy 50th D’Angelo: https://chrisp.bandcamp.com/track/d-50

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

Not sure I can articulate why....but it just seems more appropriate for the way music is delivered now.

I would be happy if rap albums stayed under an hour. A handful of
my favorite albums this year are under 40 mins. The brevity works
to their advantage. Doesn't make it feel like a chore to listen to.

******************************************
Falcons, Braves, Bulldogs and Hawks

Geto Boys, Poison Clan, UGK, Eightball & MJG, OutKast, Goodie Mob

50 to 55 was back when the cassette was the supreme format, until rappers realized "hey, we can release compact discs like the rock guys?" Then it became 74-80 minute albums, which left room for more interludes, which then lead to the shortly-lived double CD treatment. I don't particularly want a 4CD box set of five good songs, 12 remixes, and 42 interludes. Cut the crap and give me the goods, or just post your stuff on Soundcloud for free.


THE HOME OF BOOK-NESS:
http://www.thisisbooksmusic.com/
http://twitter.com/thisisjohnbook
http://www.facebook.com/book1


http://i32.tinypic.com/kbewp4.gif
http://i60.tinypic.com/a59mp3.jpg