Vinyl or lakc of it
Ian Watson
"Half Set in Harlem" which is not available on vinyl. I can't see why the choice should not be offered.
James McGowan
i...@ossian.turing.ac.uk (Ian Watson) writes:
Here in the states, it's already become difficult to find stores that
carry new releases on vinyl. I don't know about the record companies
themselves, but it's apparent that the major retailers $ee no money in
vinyl. Of course, I'm not too depressed about it; one day I decided
to jump on the CD bandwagon and bought a cheap (under $100 U.S.)
player, which I've since replaced with a multi-disc unit with remote
control. And I've always got the old turntable and a few hundred
vinyl platters if I get sentimental.
- Jim
--
James McGowan Internet: ja...@nrc.com
Network Research Corporation Phone: (805) 485-2700
2380 North Rose Avenue FAX: (805) 485-8204
Oxnard CA 93030
Ken Josenhans
(I tried replying by mail, because this isn't really the right forum,
but Ian's machine is not known here.)
From my reading of FOLK ROOTS magazine, the UK is running about two years
behind the US in the elimination of the vinyl from the market.
Here's an excerpt from an article that went across the net in April:
>Recording industry singing sweet tune over revenues
>
>By Jeffrey Jolson-Colburn
>The Hollywood Reporter
>...
>
>((These numbers are from the annual report of the RIAA trade association.))
>
>Vinyl continued its slide into oblivion, with units down a whopping 66%
>in 1990 to only 11.7 million units, compared with more than 322 million
>vinyl LPs shipped 10 years ago. By comparison, 286 million CDs were
>shipped in 1990, along with 442 million cassettes.
In tabular form, that looks like this:
format units shipped % of album-length units
------ ---------- -----------------------
LPs 11.7 mill 1.6%
CDs 286 mill 39%
Cassettes 442 mill 60%
So, basically, no one in the business of selling music recordings wants
to bother with a format that accounts for 2% of sales and sinking fast.
I had expected the small folk music companies to be among the last to be
releasing new vinyl LPs. What I didn't count on was the shortage of
capital available to these firms; they couldn't tie up capital in bringing
three formats to market, so the slowest-selling format got axed.
To the best of my knowledge, the Big Four US folk music firms -- Rounder,
Shanachie, Green Linnet and Flying Fish -- all stopped making new vinyl
some time before the major labels.
They don't make 8-track tapes, pre-recorded Beta videotapes, CP/M computers
or 1957 Chevys any more, either...
--
--Ken Josenhans
BITNET: 13020KRJ@MSU Internet: 1302...@msu.edu
Tom Bruhns
I think it's economics: it's actually cheaper to generate a few hundred
CD's than it is to generate the same number of LP's, and of course the
one-time costs for tape are even less. Though I'd like the choice, I
would rather have more choice in the music available than more choice in
media; financing an LP pressing has discouraged many a budding artist.
If the album is wildly successful, then vinyl makes sense (or at least
used to--I suspect another part of the economics is that fewer and fewer
people are interested in buying LP's).
Lindsay F. Marshall
Whilst I agree with the sentiment the facts are wrong. Half set in
Harlem *is* coming out on vinyl, its just that CM are so inept that
they haven't got the covers done yet.....
Lindsay
--
MAIL : Lindsay....@newcastle.ac.uk
POST : Computing Laboratory, The University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU
VOICE: +44-91-222-8267
FAX : +44-91-222-8572
Greg Bullough
> Does anyone else lament the contining trend of so called "record"
> companies to issue new releases on CD and tape only? The most recent
> example is De Dannan's "Half Set in Harlem" which is not available on
> vinyl. I can't see why the choice should not be offered.
Nope, not a bit. Vinyl as a medium is so delicate, and the kind of
music I enjoy is sold in such small quantities, that a reliable medium
like CD is a godsend. Not to mention the ability to replay passages at
will, again and again, without having to be so careful with the medium.
Greg
Prentiss Riddle
indu$try somehow managed to convince consumers to accept a 50-100% hike
in the retail price for CDs over vinyl. (This despite the alleged fact
that CDs cost *less* to manufacture than vinyl records.) I for one
can't afford to buy CDs at $12 a pop, so I've switched to buying
cassettes.
On top of that, when CDs first came out, audiophiles praised them and
constituted their first market. Now, on the other hand, my audiphile
buddies turn up their noses at CDs and the high-end audio market is
having a mini-renaissance in audiophile vinyl pressings. Oh, yes, and
while CDs won't scratch up like LPs, they are not immortal as was first
claimed -- in a decade or two you can expect your CD collection to
start fritzing out on you.
To return this to folk contect: Roundup Records promised a couple of
years back to support vinyl as long as LPs are available. They seem to
have stuck by that, even though they are pushing lots of vinyl at
cut-out prices. If you have trouble locating the folk LPs you want,
get a copy of their catalog and buy those oldfangled records while you
can.
--- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada")
--- rice.edu!sugar!lobster!hounix!priddle uunet!buster!lobster!hounix!priddle
--- priddle%houni...@uhnix1.uh.edu
Tom Bruhns
pri...@hounix.uucp (Prentiss Riddle) writes:
>I, for one, lament the passing of vinyl, if only because the recording
>indu$try somehow managed to convince consumers to accept a 50-100% hike
>in the retail price for CDs over vinyl. (This despite the alleged fact
>that CDs cost *less* to manufacture than vinyl records.) I for one
>can't afford to buy CDs at $12 a pop, so I've switched to buying
>cassettes.
(further comments deleted)
I appreciate your comments, and think it's a shame that you've been forced
to switch to cassettes. However, as a perspective, while food, housing,
and many other costs have gone up tremendously since the time I bought
my first LP record in about 1958, till the advent of CD's, record prices
changed only marginally: that first LP (soundtrack of "Oklahoma"; don't
flame me for my tastes ;-) cost $4.95. Most LPs I bought up to about
two years ago weren't much more than that, and many good ones have been
at that price or less. I'd love to be able to buy a car or house
for only twice or even three times 1958 prices! (And of course, in the
bargain, I'd like to continue having my current salary, not 2 or 3 times
the equivalent 1958 salary 8-) -- true, manufacturing costs for either
vinyl or CD are low and a small percentage of the cost of either record
or CD. But there are a lot of folk along the way who have to make a
living: the artists, producers, wholesalers, retailers...
weg...@arisia.xerox.com
individual priorities. Personally, I find that a relativly inexpensive
CD player sounds a heck of a lot better than a comparitively priced
turntable. Plus CDs do not wear out in the same manner as an LP (as
far as I know there is not concensus about whether a CD will eventually
fail, contrary to what one poster claimed). Plus CDs have a longer
playing time than an LP (evening when one ignores the fact that an
LP must be turned over half way through the selections). Finally,
one can play a CD in a car - ever try this with an LP?
I don't think that I have been in some way fooled - these are real
advantages of the medium.
Tom Bruhns
>I suppose that the sides that one takes in this debate depends on
>individual priorities. Personally, I find that a relativly inexpensive
>CD player sounds a heck of a lot better than a comparitively priced
>turntable. Plus CDs do not wear out in the same manner as an LP (as
>far as I know there is not concensus about whether a CD will eventually
>fail, contrary to what one poster claimed). Plus CDs have a longer
>playing time than an LP (evening when one ignores the fact that an
>LP must be turned over half way through the selections). >Finally,
>one can play a CD in a car - ever try this with an LP?
Just to confuse you if you read my earlier posting, though I generally
agree, I am concerned that CD's failures are much more likely to be
catastrophic than LP's, discounting leaving an LP in the sun or other
heat: I have a CD or two now that doesn't play properly, and it
pretty much makes it useless, whereas I can almost always get
_something_ out of an LP. So far, the failures I've seen have been
player-dependent, but I'm pretty confident that _eventually_ CD's
fail so you can't reasonably retrieve any info from them. That
doesn't keep me from buying them, however.
DoN Nichols
[ ... ]
>I don't think that I have been in some way fooled - these are real
>advantages of the medium.
Not to mention one more. I can finally look forward to attempting
to catalog/index my collection of over 1000 vinyl recordings. :-) Of course,
I'll never finish the CDs until THEY are supplanted by another medium :-)
--
Donald Nichols (DoN.) | Voice (Days): (703) 664-1585
D&D Data | Voice (Eves): (703) 938-4564
Disclaimer: from here - None | Email: <dnic...@ceilidh.beartrack.com>
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
William Turnbow
My major beef with CD's is the cost. It seems that since CD's are
actually cheaper to produce than records, that the much greater price
is simply a way of doubling music cost and more than doubling profits.
It was a way of inflating music price to the consumer fed in a way
that your average consumer would accept -- even though it was a
prime example of inflation.
Also, having been into aerobic and dance stuff, I note that I haven't
seen any CD turntables that allow varying the speed by 'X' percent. This
was important when trying to fade one song's tempo into another. Oh
well.. The price was/is my major beef. Of course they have simply
raised the price of the remaining records that are for sale up to almost
equalling the CD price...*sigh*.
Do they even sell $5 LP singles, or $1-2 singles for CD's?
-wat-
--
"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine."
-- George Washington
Mr. Mike Passaretti
In article <633...@hplsla.HP.COM> to...@hplsla.HP.COM
(Tom Bruhns) writes:
Just to confuse you if you read my earlier posting, though I generally
agree, I am concerned that CD's failures are much more likely to be
catastrophic than LP's, discounting leaving an LP in the sun or other
heat: I have a CD or two now that doesn't play properly, and it
pretty much makes it useless, whereas I can almost always get
_something_ out of an LP. So far, the failures I've seen have been
player-dependent, but I'm pretty confident that _eventually_ CD's
fail so you can't reasonably retrieve any info from them. That
doesn't keep me from buying them, however.
Just to throw some real world info into the ring (Heaven forbid the
audio world EVER listen to real world data).
"After significant testing, the Library of Congress has begun the
transfer of all of its archival indexing material to CD format -
citing the longevity of the format (Over 100 years with >99% data
retention at average access rates) over the older magnetic tape
based computer system. The main resource reference will, however, be
retained in a form familiar to all... the card catalog."
[Sidebar box]
"Nothing really lasts like paper records when stored properly [...]
but newer technology is being developed all the time"
[Next to a picture of the longest line of card catalogs I've ever seen]
From an ad sent to me by DataTech, a company specializing in large
Magneto-optical jukeboxes for volume storage.
- MM
P.S. This, however has little to do with audio CD's handled by
mere humans :-).
--
passa...@crd.ge.com {whatever}!crdgw1!brahe!passaret
JP M{kel{
> -- true, manufacturing costs for either
> vinyl or CD are low and a small percentage of the cost of either record
> or CD. But there are a lot of folk along the way who have to make a
> living: the artists, producers, wholesalers, retailers...
True, but these costs apply similarly to BOTH vinyl and CD! As the only
difference between the two mediums is the cost of manufacturing, which
is cheaper for the CD, the CD should still be the cheaper one (or,
considering the extra tracks, of the same price).
Here in Finland, though, the difference has been getting smaller. Too
bad it happens that way that the price of vinyls goes up and CD prices
are stabile 8-(.
--
__________________________________________________________________________
This .sig intentionally left blank.
__________________________________________________________________________
Matthew Ault
CDs. Around Ann Arbor you can generally find used CDs for about $9 or less,
depending on the age and popularity of the CD. And due to their nature, they
sound just as good as new. The only degredation involved is that of the jewel
case or the booklet. The selection can sometimes be fairly poor. I'm in the
habit of dropping by my favorite stores once a week in hopes of coming across
any new arrivals.
-matt
--
|-------------------------| When I get up in the morning, I sometimes |
|Matthew A. Ault | wake up grumpy... |
|au...@caen.engin.umich.edu| Other times I let her sleep. |
|-------------------------| --? |
Tom Bruhns
> I thought I would share this with the newsgroup. I buy much of my vinyl
> mailorder from a firm in Cambridge, MA called Roundup Records. Each month
> they send me updates to their master catalog. The update I just received
> had a little article called "The State of The LP, mid-1991". I would like
> to quote an excerpt from this article:
>
> "If we thought that the LP's demise was totally due to declining consumer
> demand, we might not find this statistic so odd. But the fact is that our
> orders from you are still running close to 50/50 for LPs and CDs (although
> CDs are beginning to pull ahead). If we can be doing this well with LPs as
> late as 1991, it sort of makes us wonder about the industry's rush to bury
> the format."
Ian Watson
|> >
|> > "If we thought that the LP's demise was totally due to declining consumer
|> > demand, we might not find this statistic so odd. But the fact is that our
|> > orders from you are still running close to 50/50 for LPs and CDs (although
|> > CDs are beginning to pull ahead). If we can be doing this well with LPs as
|> > late as 1991, it sort of makes us wonder about the industry's rush to bury
|> > the format."
I made the original posting on "Vinyl or lack of it" mainly because I was a bit miffed that De Dannan's "Half Set in Harlem" was not coming out in vinyl (It seems I was in fact misinformed by Claddagh Records in Dublin who then managed to sell me the tape!). Thanks to all the readers who commented.
The above quotation seems to confirm my suspicion that the rush to bury vinyl is not wholly driven by consumer demand.
The debate about CD versus vinyl could run forever, and I don't want to burden this group with a debate on their relative technical merits. The point I would like get over, especially to the folk music labels and artists, is that the consumer ought to have a choice of CD, vinyl or tape and not just CD or tape. Why is a perfectly good medium being buried?
Any readers of this group in touch with Shannachie, Green Linnet, CM Distribution
etc?
PS Does anybody have any views on "Half Set in Harlem"?
Jim Muller
(Ian Watson) writes:
>...the consumer ought to have a choice of CD, vinyl or tape
>and not just CD or tape. Why is a perfectly good medium being buried?
As someone whose band has produced albums in 1987, 1989, and 1991, I can
address this issue. Largely it comes down to cost: We simply couldn't
afford to provide all the availability that technology would allow. Had
we had some sort of financial backing that could have afforded it, the
consumer would eventually have paid the price, and that consumer might
not want (or be able) to pay that price either.
On our first, the choices were obvious, tape and vinyl. On our second,
the choice was difficult. We couldn't afford all three but CD's were still
expensive to produce and not so widely bought, so we went with vinyl and
tape. Now we are left with a stock of vinyl that sells okay for an older
recording but has a diminishing future. For the third, we had no choice,
either produce a format with a diminishing future or go to something that
has a growing future. You can debate the relative merits of CD's vs. vinyl
all you want but you can't deny the buying trends. While we agonized over
the plight of vinyl enthusiasts and less wealthy fans who have not bought a
CD player, we could do little about it except produce vinyl in small lots
and sell them at the necesarily inflated price. This price would likely
cause them not to sell, leaving us with no better a solution than if we had
simply avoided vinyl in the first place. In short, the market size made a
difference for us, and this will be especially significant for any niche
music, including folk. Perhaps there is future profit (or at least a wise
investment) in making pop music vinyl (though the bean counters may think
differently), but the narrower the market, the more closely you have to
watch the beans.
The consumer ought to have a right to decent housing, good food, medical care,
good government, etc. In fact, these rights ought to come before the choice
music format, but money dictates their availability too.
--
__~o\____ ------------|\-----|
Jim Muller ~ '-0-----0-` --------|~--o|\|---:| { repeat as }
jmu...@stardent.com -~-~----~-----~~------------o|-----o|----| { necessary }
Tim Walters
|> I run a small record company, which does two or three pressings of a few
|> thousand records per year. Not high volume stuff at all. Unfortunately, the
|> cost of making a master for pressing vinyl is quite high, and it's a difficult
|> process that few do well. The startup costs for CD pressing are next to nil,
|> and as long as I send off a digital tape I am assured that what I send will
|> be identical to what appears on the disc.
|> With a small pressing, it costs me about $6 each to make an LP. It costs
|> less than $3 to make a CD. Of course, the CD can be sold for more money too,
|> which means the overall profit is greater (and sometimes I even break even).
Nothing personal, Scott -- I know you small record moguls have to keep
afloat any way you can -- but isn't this the heart of the CD ripoff problem?
The major labels tacitly agree to keep CD prices at their ridiculously
inflated level, and independents shrug their shoulders and go along. The
strategy works because record buying decisions are not based very strongly
on price -- most people are going to buy the album they want even if there's
another one next to it that's a few bucks cheaper.
I've seen some people bucking the tide -- Dischord Records sell their CDs
postpaid for $8.99, and Alice Despard sells her wonderful CD (which readers
of this group would probably enjoy, by the way) for an unbelievable $6.00.
And Dischord, at least, is commercially viable.
I like CDs, as a format, much better than LPs. And in the case of a great
album with lots of quiet passages (like _Abyssinians_) I'm willing to drop
major bucks to upgrade. But paying $13-14 bucks for a record that I know
should cost far less really annoys me.
Pete Young
tedious. I don't like it any more than you do, but its already happened.
We're too late to do anything about it. Wake up and smell the coffee.
It was exactly the same when we had to upgrade from wax cylinders. :-)
From article <10...@cronos.metaphor.com>, by wal...@Metaphor.COM (Tim Walters):
> major bucks to upgrade. But paying $13-14 bucks for a record that I know
> should cost far less really annoys me.
You don't know when you're well off. Paying 15 - 20 pounds for a CD
isn't my idea of fun. 14 bucks (whatever they are :-) is cheap in
comparison to the price in the UK and average earnings are higher in
the USA.
____________________________________________________________________
Pete Young pyo...@axion.bt.co.uk Phone +44 473 645054
BT Labs, Martlesham Heath, IPSWICH IP5 7RE UK
Tim Walters
|> From article <10...@cronos.metaphor.com>, by wal...@Metaphor.COM (Tim Walters):
|>
|> > major bucks to upgrade. But paying $13-14 bucks for a record that I know
|> > should cost far less really annoys me.
|>
|> You don't know when you're well off. Paying 15 - 20 pounds for a CD
|> isn't my idea of fun. 14 bucks (whatever they are :-) is cheap in
|> comparison to the price in the UK and average earnings are higher in
|> the USA.
True. But vinyl was always much more expensive in the UK, also.
I say we blame it on Thatcher.
Jim Muller
>I've seen some people bucking the tide -- Dischord Records sell their CDs
I'm going to have to argue with you on these points. (Let me preface this
by saying I know nothing about Dischord Records.) First, there are some
distributors that will sell a record or CD cheaper than the primary source
(meaning the band itself or direct sales from the label) can sell them. For
example, County Sales have sold our first two (self-produced) albums, and at
lower prices than we have sold them. To do so they bought them from us at a
ridiculusly low price, the result being that we essentially lost money on
every one they sold. Our only potential gains are the advertising effect of
having those records in their catalogue and the possibility of their making
sales that we would otherwise not make.
I said "*essentially* lost money" for a reason, which brings me to the second
point of this posting, one that is really the more significant of the two.
Your comment "for a record that I know should cost far less" does not reflect
the truth behind the financing of most small-distribution records. There is
no such thing as "should cost far less" because the cost of making the record
in the first place is fairly high. Of course, there are a few examples of
good-sounding home-recorded works, but in general, this is not the case: The
cost of the studio is usually reflected in the quality of the sound, and in
many cases, the time spent in the studio is reflected in the quality of the
performance. The same holds for production quality. In other words, it costs
money to make a good recording, and a band or record label might spend $10,000
to $15,000 making a good record. The production of the "product" itself might
be as little as $2 per disk but the costs of mastering vinyl can be $2000 or
more. There are additional costs per unit for printing and manufacturing the
jacket, but original costs for jacket design and color separation and type-
setting, etc. can cost another few $1000. (And a poorly designed cover will
limit sales, so you don't want to cut too many corners). The studio costs
alone for a small-budget project can be, oh, perhaps $3000 to $10,000. So the
total costs for a typical recording project might be as much as 3/4 fixed, the
rest being per unit. When you figure your selling price you have to amortize
the initial one-time costs for studio, mastering, printing, etc. over the
entire expected life of the project, or at least until you expect to make up
you initial investment. So how many do you figure you will sell? 1000? Maybe
you're only going to press 1000? How long will it take to sell them? If you
figure to sell 1000 and it cost you $10,000 to make 'em, you have to sell them
for $10 each *just to break even*! If you expect to sell 2000 and thus you
make that many, it will cost you maybe $13,500 (figuring $3.50 per unit), so
you'll have to sell them at $6.75, again, just to break even. Of course, that
means you have to sell twice as many, which may take twice as long. (When a
mail-order house buys them from the label at $3.50 each, that is more than the
per-unit cost but far less than the amortized cost. That's why I said we
"essentially" lost money when County Sales bought ours.)
Now, most small-time labels or musicians who produce their own records don't
have that kind of money floating around. They just can't dump $6000 into a
project then will only break even, and they can't wait a year or two for an
initial investment to be returned. They need grocery or rent money now. A
further complication is that an active band (less so for a single performer)
may have to produce a record every year or so to maintain a presence in the
radio marketplace. This means that as each record is produced, the previous
becomes a slower-selling item. To justify all this investment, the artist or
label must sell them at a price that returns the investment quickly, and also
offers enough chance of a profit to make that recording an intelligent risk.
It is not unreasonable that they'd want a profit margin of a factor of 2 and
thus ask $10 or even $15 per item.
So, the bottom line is that it costs a lot to make a recording of any type,
vinyl, CD, or tape. With a limited market, you few buyers have to shoulder
the total cost. (If each project made only one CD, you might have to pay
$10,000 for it!) If you want them to be cheaper, convince more people to buy
them. Until then, it is simply wrong to say it *should* cost less.
One could throw another factor in, too, saying that value-based pricing is
just as legitimate as cost-based pricing. But that would just be being
pedantic when the numbers work out as they do. This posting has said enough.
Tim Walters
|> Your comment "for a record that I know should cost far less" does not reflect
|> the truth behind the financing of most small-distribution records.
True enough, but I didn't really have small-distribution records in mind.
|> [very interesting discussion of recording costs deleted]
All the costs you mention are exactly the same for either vinyl or CD, and
therefore give no basis for CDs costing much more -- only a demonstration
of the basis for "quantity discount."
|> (When a
|> mail-order house buys them from the label at $3.50 each, that is more than the
|> per-unit cost but far less than the amortized cost. That's why I said we
|> "essentially" lost money when County Sales bought ours.)
Those CDs are presumably going to sell for $13+. Somebody's making a very
large unit profit here. I'm sorry it's not you.
I'm not sure how I got to be the curmudgeon in this discussion. I'm a
musician with professional ambitions myself, and someday I hope to find
myself in your position. Doubtless I'll do exactly as you've done. (My
only current product is a tape which I sell for $5, since my recording
costs were very small.) My complaint is not with independents, who
have to struggle just to break even -- it's with the major labels that
drove up CD prices when they were expensive to manufacture and failed
to lower them when costs went down. My beef is that of a chronic record
buyer. $100 used to get me 11-12 records just a few years ago. Now it
gets me 6-7 CDs. I guess I'm just whining (or whingeing).
Jeff LaCoss
>In article <1991Aug12....@Stardent.COM>, jmu...@Stardent.COM (Jim Muller) writes:
>
>|> Your comment "for a record that I know should cost far less" does not reflect
>|> the truth behind the financing of most small-distribution records.
>
>have to struggle just to break even -- it's with the major labels that
>drove up CD prices when they were expensive to manufacture and failed
>to lower them when costs went down. My beef is that of a chronic record
>buyer. $100 used to get me 11-12 records just a few years ago. Now it
>gets me 6-7 CDs. I guess I'm just whining (or whingeing).
In "Variety," that great daily rag of the entertainment industry,
there are several services that offer to deliver, for $3000-$5000,
1000 CDs filled with whatever data you supply. If these folks can
survive on the margin from production of these small volumes alone,
this implies that the record industry must be manufacturing CDs for
about a buck a pop (maybe less). Then there are the artists to
satisfy, plus recording & other production costs, plus distribution
costs, plus the retailer's mark-up.....
So why the hell are we paying more than $6-7 for CDs????
This reeks of a controlled market.
Jeff
weg...@arisia.xerox.com
> This reeks of a controlled market.
No, it reeks of a market where consumers are willing to pay the higher price.
I hate to bring this up (again), but the music companies are in
business to MAKE MONEY! If consumers will pay $13+ for a CD then the
record stores will charge that much. It's true that there are exceptions
where a record store will charge less (the House of Guitars here in
Rochester, NY normally charges $11.98 for CDs, and has been doing so
for several years) but this is only true if the store expects to make
up for the lower per unit profit in volume sales.
It's really a chain reaction. Consumers will pay a certain price, which
allows the major labels to charge a certain wholesale price, etc.
William C. Hopkins
Economies of scale allow the biggies either to lower prices or to make
bigger profits. One can make a case that a little competition would
drive prices down and we'd be better off. Adam Smith, free markets,
all that good economics stuff. But wait.
Suppose the price of _some_ CD's went down to $7. It costs the small
labels more to produce their CD's, which would still be priced where
they are now. Remember, many of them are on the edge as it is. How
many do you think they'd sell? (Sure, you'd buy them, but who else?)
So by keeping prices high, the biggies are creating a "price umbrella"
that protects the small labels and keeps them viable! My conspiracy
theorist suggests this was to get the small labels into CD's so that
we'd all buy CD players (since even Rolfe and the Ralfers* are on CD).
(IBM did the same thing with PC's, and had their lunch eaten by the
small producers because they were able to undersell Big Blue. Umbrella
promptly folded. Is there a lesson here for small CD labels?)
Bill (Don't You _Dare_ Think I Believe Any Of This) Hopkins
(*No, there ain't no such group; I hope not, anyway. I _could_ go
for "Adam Smith and the Invisible Hands," though.)
Tim Walters
|> So by keeping prices high, the biggies are creating a "price umbrella"
|> that protects the small labels and keeps them viable!
Interesting thought. So to help out small labels, we should find some
way to make the majors raise their prices even higher. Sabotage,
anyone?
|> My conspiracy theorist
I'm impressed. I can't even afford a lawyer.
Ed Blachman x4420
[amidst a useful analysis of the economics of issuing a recording]
> [...] an active band (less so for a single performer)
> may have to produce a record every year or so to maintain a presence in the
> radio marketplace. This means that as each record is produced, the previous
> becomes a slower-selling item.
Could others out there comment on this? I only know the music market as a
listener/consumer; as such, I know that if I buy one album by an artist or
a group and I enjoy that album, it makes me highly likely to seek out their
other works. In the book publishing world (which I know a little better),
it's *very* common for publishers to do reissues of old titles by an author
at the same time that a new title comes out; presumably they wouldn't do
that if new titles dragged down sales of old ones.
I'd expect that an album's sales would tend downward over time, but would
show an upwards kick each time a new album came out from the performer(s).
Ed Blachman e...@ileaf.com (or) ...!uunet!leafusa!edb
Tim Walters
|> I'd expect that an album's sales would tend downward over time, but would
|> show an upwards kick each time a new album came out from the performer(s).
This definitely happens. The effect is most pronounced when an artist has
a hit after a long string of non-hits; sales of the back catalog jump
noticeably.
Hi Ed!
Iain Baird
> [...]
> The point I would like get over, especially to the folk music labels
> and artists, is that the consumer ought to have a choice of CD, vinyl
> or tape and not just CD or tape.
> Why is a perfectly good medium being buried?
Because CDs are cheaper to store, cheaper to transport, require less
display area in shops, and are more profitable for the record companies.
The music industry is big business, and vinyl is being buried for purely
commercial reasons.