Album Price Should Drop to $1.60

$1.60 for a full album is way too cheap. I'm all for cheap stuff but people have to make money.

Exactly, at the very least to break-even, if they're someone like me, who doesn't really care about making money and is about the music. It's at least nice to break-even. Studio time, pressing, PR and distribution does cost money.

We're printing CD's right now and it's costing us a hell of alot more than $1.90 a Cd :(/

Don't know what press you're using, but depending on how you're having it pressed, it shouldn't be "a lot more" than that, unless you're pressing a digipack.

But, if people want to know, it can cost between $1.50-$3.00 (for a double CD or special digipack) per CD to press. At the very least, it's about $1.50 U.S. per CD, plus the cost of shipping CDs if you're selling them yourself, or paying for the man-hours if you have a staff. To be honest, even at $15 a pop, neither the artist or label makes all that much of a profit after shipping, staff and PR costs.

If the artist is releasing it themselves at $15 (which isn't usually the case for artists who self-release, because they're not retarded, generally), maybe they'll make about $10 (max) profit, best case scenario.

If it's being released by a label who releases many bands, at about $15/CD, between their cut and the above-mentioned costs, usually the artist would be lucky to see $.50-$1.00 (maximum) on the CD, which is a pretty standard contractual rate. That's it.

For truly "major" artists, $3 on a CD (maybe slightly more for really huge acts), and that's for only maybe some very, very large acts.

Even "bigger" bands cant live off music as it is, the most money coming from playing shows, and most "real people" still have to have regular jobs. Unless you're Eminem, Brittney Spears, Michael Jackson (ugh), The Rolling Stones etc., you're never going to make an actual living off of music. So, cutting CD prices that radically will definitely hurt the "smaller" bands, whether they're doing it for the music or not.

I do believe that prices could be lowered, I always felt that maybe around $6-$9 would be appropriate (and what I've sold CDs for), but not simply as a way to "reduce piracy", as no company should be forced to lower the price of anything just because too many people want something for nothing/are cheap and selfish.

For those seriously trying to make a living off their art, that's great, but almost impossible. However, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't receive any royalties from their art, which is what would happen if CDs were sold for $1.60 per... actually, the entire industry wouldn't exist if they did something that extreme.
 
I haven't purchased an album since - my god - since as long as I can remember. My favorite artists, I find, release their tracks for free, or via podcast/mixes which are free to download. This is why I have no issue blowing 30$ to go see a great show. I haven't pirated a song in years either - there's very little worth my time - and if pirating was not an option, *I would forgo listening to that music anyways"

You can't get blood from a stone - and as a student, my wallet is a stone. If I didn't have freely available music, I would likely pirate it. But I would never pay for it, as it's simply not worth it - compared to let's say, proper nutrition.
 
What about websites like http://www.legalsounds.com/

9 cents per song & no DRM.

They state, on their legal info page, that all material on their website is available for distribution on the Internet due to a specific license in the "Russian Multimedia and Internet Society". They go on to say that they pay license fees for all material that comes under their local copyright laws.

It is to be noted, however, that all MP3s downloaded from LegalSounds are only legal when being used for personal use only - you are not authorised to distribute, re-sell, or broadcast what you download.
 
I haven't purchased an album since - my god - since as long as I can remember. My favorite artists, I find, release their tracks for free, or via podcast/mixes which are free to download. This is why I have no issue blowing 30$ to go see a great show. I haven't pirated a song in years either - there's very little worth my time - and if pirating was not an option, *I would forgo listening to that music anyways"

You can't get blood from a stone - and as a student, my wallet is a stone. If I didn't have freely available music, I would likely pirate it. But I would never pay for it, as it's simply not worth it - compared to let's say, proper nutrition.

I know you have money, I can see your awesome computer in your signature! :)
 
Most of that is purchased before I started College and bought a car (think about it - socket 775 came out when? I've had my board since the conroe launch) and through gifts and such. The last damn computer piece I netted myself was a Corsair 800D - and I was sponsored that for a modding competition!
 
Most of that is purchased before I started College and bought a car (think about it - socket 775 came out when? I've had my board since the conroe launch) and through gifts and such. The last damn computer piece I netted myself was a Corsair 800D - and I was sponsored that for a modding competition!

Just messin with you man :)
 

It's a damned shame that the people creating content are the ones getting the least amount of compensation for it. Promotions are important, along with buying shelf space in retail stores (if that even applies) etc., but IMO publishers should be competing for artist's business. The way it sounds now, there's not much to differentiate between the big record labels unless the artist is extremely successful, and that usually involves completing a multi-album contract at a reduced rate of compensation. It's a rare band that can carry their top stuff beyond the initial contract.

But.. Regardless of who makes the money, I would buy much more music at $5 per album or $0.50 per song than I do now. I'd prefer to buy from the artist directly and cut out the middle man but for the most part I'd be shopping on Amazon and not give it a lot of thought unless I really loved the band.

Finally.. It really chaps my ass to see 70s music selling for top dollar today.
 
If downloadable albums were that cheap and the store was taking 30%, only the top 100 artists worldwide would be really making a livable salary off their music. Sure there are concerts, memorabilia and other crap but only the biggest names get to do all that stuff. Pirates complained that there was no download service and now that there is, it is too expensive for them. They all want everything free or as close to it as possible but people have to eat too. It is not all about them.
 
I agree 100%, especially with the lossless or at least 320kbps part.

Second that...I'll buy the extra storage space to ensure I can have highest quality. Funny how my mindset for paying for music has evolved over the years.
 
What about websites like http://www.legalsounds.com/

9 cents per song & no DRM.

They state, on their legal info page, that all material on their website is available for distribution on the Internet due to a specific license in the "Russian Multimedia and Internet Society". They go on to say that they pay license fees for all material that comes under their local copyright laws.

It is to be noted, however, that all MP3s downloaded from LegalSounds are only legal when being used for personal use only - you are not authorised to distribute, re-sell, or broadcast what you download.

Huh. I hadn't heard of this before. After doing some quick research, I find they are fully legal in Russia, with a lot of people using the service without issues. The only thing is apparently the artists get no royaties for sales ( I read conflicting reasons why ), and you have to pay in $25 at a time - not the total of your purchase.....guess they're making money with your money until you use it up.
It comes down to a concience issue.
 
Back
Top