Ligeti

I think that would depend on the flutuating price of the physcial product, no? I generally pay less than $10 for the discs I buy - though of course it varies based on rarity, the nature of the release (box sets etc,). How much is a single track from iTunes? The only thing I could find is that a single track costs somewhere between ,69 to 1.29 per track. What do they vary it on, length? Apple themselves are not an ethical company - but dislike of them isn't solely to do with iTunes, it's just one facet. I don't intend to go into detail on that because a) It's not musically related, and b) it's so divisive a tipic it can only end in a flame war. Still, if you keep up with news about Apple their practises shouldn't be too difficult to find. AAC is lossy compression, just like MP3.

HERE is a great article. A couple quotes: That's not to say other storefronts wouldn't have the same issues necessarily..........

Well, it hasn't (hopefully) morphed into being about iTunes. Views are without a doubt fully entrenched on the matter. If you own an Apple Smartphone or PC you're not going to be able to ditch iTunes entirely even if you wanted to. But the fact there is no physcial stock has certainly been taken into account - it is why I argue that digital prices ought to be far lower than they are. No physical product ought to mean lower pricing. If I recall correctly the physical product costs around $2 to produce. I am pulling from a long held memory bank there though, so it could be a little more or a little less.... Don't forget, profits on digital downloads largely depend on whether there has been a purchase of 1 track (no profit) or two or more tracks (increasingly profitable). I don't think anyone buys from iTunes because they think it's better for the artists - it's mostly about convenience as far as I can work it out. Apple release a phone with their own proprietary OS on it, they tie it into iTunes automatically, and that's the end of it - if you buy an Apple device you're going to be shopping on iTunes. It's a convenience thing, and part of the horrible practise that is becoming common of tieing specific devices into single storefronts. I recall the good old days when you shopped where the prices and service suited.... in the digital era, that's gone to an extent. The idea of a competitve market for some of these devices is gone, signed away with the software license agreement. OOP CD's are another issue again. Of course, if no-one is stocking an item, it cannot be bought. It is easier to keep them alive in the digital era - but you don't need iTunes for that. As I've said, eventually we'll be forced to buy digital, including me. However, that won't be MP3's. Here's something I came across: Much of what you see there applies to digital and physical. The size of the band and the skill of the manager in negeotiating the contract may swings things one way or the other, but it's a ballapark. I saw a documentary recently about a band called.... something like 10 Miles to Mars or something..... sorry, their music was horrible and I've erased it from memory - but anyway, the main point made was.... digital sales in their contract were treated identically to physical product sales. Just another way the record companies remain to screw over the people that make them money.....

At $.054 per album play you would have to had played Born to be Blue about 370 times to generate $20.00 of revenue. You must really like that album. At $.06 per song, a ten track album would have to be played all the way through 100 times to make $6.00. There are very few, if any, albums in my collection that I have listened to 100 times. Most jazz albums are considered successful if 1000 - 2000 copies are sold. For musicians who sell that few albums, the economics of Spotify do not make sense. Sure I like it! I'm surprised at someone playing their albums so little, but I don't know how old you are It takes me a LONG time to listen to an album many, many times. Only about 27% of my collection has more than 100 plays - but 60% of my collection is stuff I've bought since 2000 and that's too short a time for me to listen to anything as much as that. But returning to an album year in and year out for up to fifty odd years... it mounts up. And I still greatly enjoy those albums; I don't play them out of a sense of duty or getting value for money. I'm actually quite shocked to find you saying that 1-2000 copies are regarded as success for a jazz album. Do you think that reflects a perception on the part of the public that jazz isn't entertaining any more? Even in a small country like Senegal, NORMAL first runs of Mbalax albums are 25-30,000 and, since royalties have to be paid on numbers manufactured rather than number sold, those first runs are set conservatively. The black population of the US is several times that of Senegal and there are, in addition, a lot of white people who like jazz. MG I've heard the 1000 number previously, I think it's about right. I recall being shocked at the time that so few copies of a disc were made, and trying to imagine world wide sales of a physical disc being as low as 1000 total. It's a scary thought. It's difficult in the digital age to aggregate all digital sales, but I suppose the physical number of copies reflects the size of the audience in some way. We should also acknowledge that not all Jazz is the same. So I'd imagine Miles Davis' Kind of Blue has done very well in total sales - it has crossover, and a lot of people seem to have heard of it - as opposed to say a Brotzmann title. Like everything else, Jazz sales probably has a top 1% that defy the usual, and the rest struggle. I think there is a subtle difference these days - on the one hand we have more genres and sub-genres than you can wave a stick at. On the other, specific genres seem to mean less and less to an attentive audience - I guess it comes with easy and free access to many different types of music. I fear that if Jazz artists made music that they thought a larger audience would want to hear, that I'd like it less. I mean, I can't imagine a mass-friendly Brotzmann, and what it would sound like..... maybe I'd be surprised......

Well you were honest enough to say "imo" instead of "imho". And hopefully his quote clears things up for Daniel. David, it would have to be a loss leader by default. It is indeed used almost exclusively to sell devices. ITunes is far more beneficial to artists than Apple as far as actual music sales are concerned. They are the biggest distributor in the world, at a fair price (for both artist and consumer), and with millions of subscribers who can download songs/albums in the comfort of their own homes with a click of a button. The impulse buying power involved there cannot be overstated. When folks can listen to music samples and then buy an album right then and there all from the comfort of their easy chair, that's a huge paradigm shift in music consumption. It's not a loss leader, the numbers don't show that at all. It may have been at the beginning, but not now.

If you do a Google search you will turn up plenty of evidence that the "break even" mantra isn't accurate. I have found trying to have a critical discussion with users of Apple products is not too fruitful. I commend the company for its indoctrination of its fans though. Regardless, the latest estimates on profits at the iTunes store is 15% of revenue (apparently around $2b based on 2012 numbers). Still - Apple rose to be a big seller of music, and they can fall to the wayside in time. I have no idea what the market for iPods are these days (I've always bought other brands), but I would imagine they're in decline - everything is Smartphone now, no? Here's a quote from Forbes: So the argument they make nothing and it's a loss leader may hold water if you're buying one track at a time - but otherwise.........

Agree, that's a very fine GP album. I am a little embarassed to say that it was my first real introduction to him. I was given a mix tape back when it was released, and that contained a few tracks from Squeezing Out Sparks. I went to the store and the new release was Mona Lisa's Sister, so I picked it up. it's worth noting that it got a reissue a few years ago. They played around with the mix, and added some extra bass response. I like the newer version, although the jangly bite of the original remains a favorite. The song "Back in Time" is so good I can't begin to describe it, It raises the hairs on my neck every time I hear it. Marvellous!

A brick and mortar has all kinds of expenses that Apple simply don't have. The 30% they skim is another hold over from a past time (using brick and mortar costs as a model), and they do virtually nothing for it. They upload a small file, and they host it. The storage and maintenance costs are spread across their entire business - it's miniscule, an infinitesimal amount per track or album. It's nowhere near 30%, in fact per track it likely doesn't reach 1%. It's a con, and the artists suffer the brunt of it, along with consumers who are having to pay far too much for their music. MP3 costs at retail should be nothing close to physical product costs. And before I'm asked - yes, I have worked in large scale server farms offering web services (for example, we hosted and maintained large parts of Disney's web presence.) For many Apple have normalized a 30% skim, and Apple people being what they are, they'll defend it to the end of days. The web should have brought a new, fairer model to all. Instead they charge the same and offer far less in many ways. Mind you, trying to tell Apple junkies anything negative about them is akin to trying to hold you breath the entire journey under water between Cuba and the US, so I simply don't bother to tread the same old ground over and over. There's nothing more gullible than someone with an iPhone and iTunes account, imo. As such, this is my last post specific to Apple. They're con men, and I don't do business with them. There're certainly no better than Spotify in my eyes, and as far as the consumer goes, they're much worse. That's my opinion and view, and that's the end of it. In effect, that's what we do when we go hear music in a club or concert hall. A year or so ago there was a 10-CD box set released of early and unreleased music by Pauline Oliveros. I bought it on release. In fact, it sold out very quickly. Since it's her 80th year, a conference was held to celebrate her music, and the record label wanted to have copies on their table at the event. So, they did indeed have a Kickstarter campaign to raise funds to do it. They made their money, and made new sets. I think it's a fantastic idea, and would certainly consider giving to such campaigns if it were a title I dreamed of having.

And your reason is.....? A debate about Apple and their skinning 30% off every music sale, and other things, would certainly derail the thread - and my issues are not entirely related to music. So I don't think such a debate would be fruitful. People who use Apple and like them will be pro - people like me anti. I can ssure you though, I will never buy an Apple product or service, so it's not an option for me. I hope you understand - I'm not avoiding the issue, it's just that I can predict the path any debate would take. It wasn't a rhetorical question. I'm seriously curious about your reasons. Apple's 30% is (I think) less than most brick and mortar stores take. Well, it's gone up a bit since the sixties, which isn't wholly surprising. Back then the shop I worked in was making between 20 and 25 percent margins. MG The world was a different place back then, a place where you essentially only shopped locally at brick and mortars. There are so few brick and mortars now - in fact, I am aware of only 3 within a 20 mile radius of where I am, and one of those is HMV which would rather sell movies and T Shirts. My dislike of Apple goes way beyond their 30% skimming. My choice not to have anything to do with them is one I'm more than happy with, there are other services that would suit me. But honestly, while I admit the future is digital (though not MP3, imo), I am in no rush. To date I have never paid for a digital file. I'll hold off for as long as it takes for a vendor to convince me they offer value-add of some sort. Higher resolutions are quite compelling, but not enough to tip me over the edge. As titles stop becoming available on CD the pendulum will swing. Fortunately, it's a long way off at the moment. Still, signs aren't good. I note Linn, for example, no longer make CD players, which is shame. Also, I found an article in the Wall Street Journal stating that music sales at iTunes have dropped 13% since the start of the year. One factor is the pricing of streaming services, apparently.

Aki Takase is so awesome. I have several of her discs, and she never fails to challenge and bring pleasure. Her Ornette Coleman disc was the last I bought, I think.

You're right. In my defense let me say that if I'm new to a board - and in effect I am here - having to use the IGNORE feature after a couple days of posting is more an indication that I'd leave the board rather than use Ignore. Using ignore after only two days is a bad sign. But I'm now more informed, I assure you.

I miss an updated PRINTED version of the All Music Guide to Jazz. I spent countless hours going through that book. It's all online, of course - but it's not the same. I don't think we'll ever see another printed version, sadly.

If I have caused you some offense in my comments here, I apologize unreservedly. Sincerely. As an excuse, I only just started visiting the site - and I had no idea what a certain individual was like. In future I will know that any comment he makes isn't worth reading, and certainly has no value in a debate. Initially I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. That's fine, but sometimes you come across bullies and over-bearing fools - and the benefit of the doubt isn't the right approach. Sorry again.

In theory, yes. In application and real world listening tests? No. It is absolutely relevant because it completely disproves your claim that "MP3's" don't have cover art or liner notes. Which is only true if one is dumb enough to buy them from a vendor who doesn't offer those things. Both Emusic and iTunes certainly do. Though Emusic offers a lot less albums with liner notes than iTunes, each and every one of them absolutely comes with the cover art. Sorry, that's not even a legitimate argument. I guess all the CDs you trade are done by people coming to your house? If not, it means you leaving your house to go some place else. That's much easier than doing it from your computer? Again, a completely irrelevant point. I only need to worry about them being around if I lose my collection due to disaster! Otherwise, it's already on my computer, with a redundant copy on an external HD. So even with your insurance, your back up plan is to re-order thousands of CDs. Whereas mine is to simply re-download, which takes about 1 min per album. That means in the 48 hours it will take for CDs to start arriving at your door, I could have already retrieved, and been listening to, close to 3,000 titles. I see not reason to buy lossy formats. None at all. Perfectly good non-lossy formats are available, why bother with MP3? Who knows what codecs and systems will become available in the future? I see no downside to lossless formats, I see them on MP3's. As such, I won't pay for MP3's. You on the other hand are perfectly entitled to do so, so it's all good. No - it's irrelevant. I don't care if Apple arrange for the band to play live in my living room. I don't want anything to do wth Apple. Therefore, what they do is nothing to do with it. I've made myself clear about my stance - you can choose to ignore it if you want (and hell, have you ever read anything you didn't want to disagree with?!?!?!) but you're simply wasting your time - Apple are not an option. Period. I can get liner notes and cover art from Amazon and other sites if I want. I'd much rather do that. Or - I can buy physical product which prefer. But a JPG isn't a good substitution for the real thing, imo. And whether you consider a remark "not even a legitimate argument" is also irrelevant. You sir are a bully who looks at all possible ways to disagree. Your debating style is one of a overly aggressive frustrated man. Rather than open up discussions or give the benefit of the doubt, you seek to dictate your own view and put those of others down. It makes you come across like a child having a tantrum. So please, you'll have to get used to my dismissing your view without much thought from now on, you've exhausted any good will I would normally offer through a desire of being civil - you're simply no longer worthy of consideration. (Now - cue a defensive response where you lash out some more and make excuses, insiting only your view is relevant and everything I wrote is wrong and irrelvevant.........) It's funny you would write "irrelevant post" a couple times. Nothing you're written is relevant -I made it clear Apple is not an option, and you keep going on about them as though they are. Huh? You don't get to dictate what is, and what is not, relevant to me or others. On the other hand, if nothing else, your responses have shown me that you don't know what you're talking about and your opinion isn't worth the digital bits to render them on my screen. You and I have virtually nothing in common, even as music lovers, a fact for which I am extremely grateful. You have a nice day now, you hear? ps: If you want an illustration at how ridiculous and petty you are, and how you strive to dictate to others no matter what - read your response regarding insurance. Who the hell introduces a house fire into a discussion on collecting music in order to support their decision to by lossy MP3 files? Only a tool.

And your reason is.....? A debate about Apple and their skinning 30% off every music sale, and other things, would certainly derail the thread - and my issues are not entirely related to music. So I don't think such a debate would be fruitful. People who use Apple and like them will be pro - people like me anti. I can ssure you though, I will never buy an Apple product or service, so it's not an option for me. I hope you understand - I'm not avoiding the issue, it's just that I can predict the path any debate would take.

1. I have no idea if that's true since I no longer buy CDs. 2. If that's the case on Amazon, that's a shame. It is definitely not the case on iTunes. 3. Fair enough. 4. I never said digital files sounded better than CD. But 256kbps VBR AAC (the standard for iTunes) sounds just as good. 5. All AAC files from iTunes have cover art, and many of them do indeed have liner notes. And more and more are being added everyday. I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but it is terribly outdated. 6. I have multiple albums which I have converted to both ALAC as well as higher bitrate AAC. ALAC is no more compelling than AAC, and neither are less compelling than CD/.wav. 7. So keep buying physical media. I personally have moved away from it so that I can avoid more clutter. 8. You can trade files to your hearts content. Just get something like Dropbox. Sure, you can't sell them, but since you say you rarely do it, I'm not seeing the big deal. Either way, many of your opinions seem uninformed, or at best about ten years old. The technology has moved forward by leaps and bounds. Another enormous advantage is that when you purchase music through iTunes, it's yours for life. Pretty sure Amazon is the same way. So for example, lets say your house burns down. Everyone's worst nightmare. Well, how will you replace all of those CDs that were lost? Well, if you bought your albums through a service like iTunes, they are all still right there on your account. So all you have to do is download them again without paying a penny out of your pocket. That's an unparalleled upside. 1. It's not difficult to check, but why you would I don't know since it's not a consideration for you. 2. I don't care about iTunes, it's not at all relevant to me, since I won't ever use it. 3. Indeed. 4. You know what's just as good. Buying the CD, making your own MP3's at whatever bitrate you want. 5. Irrelevant - I won't ever use iTunes or Apple products. 6. 24-bit and more, with lossless, is better than any lossy format. FLAC is better than MP3. I much prefer the data to be in the file. 7. Avoid clutter? Wow. It's not clutter, it's a collection. It's part of who I am, my musical journey. It's anything but clutter, it's important beyond simply holding physical music. I can't see ever feeling the same way about a hard disk. But each to their own, I don't see any value in just having the files. I think it's great when I go to someones house and they have a collection to look through. Not true of looking at folder and files. 8. Nah, it's daft. To me they're just files, like documents and spreadsheets. Sure I can copy them for someone else, which I'm suggesting is the normal way it goes rather than truly trading. And seriously, Dropbox? So now I need another account and password, and another site I need to deal with. No thanks, CD's by comparison is nice flexible, and simple. Like me. The music you buy from iTunes is yours until they don't sell music anymore, change their terms and conditions, or maybe even forever. Personally I don't want to be reliant on a software vendor. Whatever - I have the CD. I can make MP3 files whenever I want, as many times as I want. As for my house burning down - you ever heard of insurance? Plus - just about every CD you buy on Amazon comes with the MP3 version which they store for you in the cloud........ not that ever I access them...... but it's there.

I've heard the view that live shows is where it's at. My main issue with it is that it may work for top rock acts, but what about everyone else? If I feel like listening to some Ligeto tonight, just where would I go to see it performed live? It's difficult enough for Jazz acts to find a venue, let alone an audience to fill the place. I think what he's saying is true of popular music - but I don't know about you, but I've not been part of the scene for some time.

Thanks for these, I haven't used either site before. How do i keep up? Amazon. They make recommendations, and they're often very good. Plus I get emails from them highlighting various releases. And of course, forums such as this. But Europadisc looks like a site that coulod easily make me spend a lot more than I already do.

Reasons I don't like MP3's (and some other digital formats): There is often no price advantage Often they only sell parts of albums (seems to be tracks over 12 minutes don't get sold on amazon) I won't ever give money to Apple - I will never install iTunes, nor buy their products If I'm going to go digital, I want something better than I have now, otherwise I might as well stick with what I have. I've never heard an MP3 that is better than a CD MP3's don't have cover art, and don't have liner notes - both of which interest me greatly There are non-lossy formats out there that are much more compelling I come from a background of buying physical product, and I am accustomed to having my music that way I sometimes trade CD's or (rarely) sell them. You can't do that with an MP3 (if you're going to do it with an MP3 you might as well use nefarious web sites) For me MP3's are a non-starter. I admit - I just don't feel there is any value in them. Clicking on an MP3 is not, for me, a satisfying experience. I make MP3's of recordings because I want to play my music on the go - but when at home I don't have a reason to play them - I have a perfectly good setup without them. And yes, of course digital files are the future - no doubt. Hence I never went back to vinyl. If I'm going to move away from CD, it will be a lossless digital format. It seems to me that it's inevitable - but that doesn't mean I am in any rush to get there. In truth, much of the music I buy is back catalog. While I've had two instances this week where a release was announced and there is no CD, it's rare. Of course, with new music it will get increasingly common, and a move will be forced. On the other hand, I might be able to sneak it. I don't have infinite time left on the planet, after all, and as stated earlier, with 2500 items in my WIsh List, it'll take plenty of time to get through them. EDIT: A year or so ago I downloaded and installed several MP3 Catalog applications (not iTunes, but I've already said I won't ever use Apple products). They were universally horrible. Maybe they've gotten better in the mean time...... Tonight I went on Spotify to listen to an album I'd just read about..... and inevitably, they don't have it. I tried another, and they never had that. Pffft. They cater to a mainstream audience mainly - which makes sense money wise - but as a music lover with eclectic tastes, it's a long way from being a perfect tool, imo.

£10 is basically one CD a month or thereabouts. If you're someone who listens to a lot of music on the radio, or are into buying MP3's, then it's probably good value. Personally it doesn't suit me. I think I will be forced to go purely digital eventually, but it certainly won't include me handing over money for MP3 files. The biggest problem for the recording industry is surely the younger generations who are growing up never accepting music has to be paid for - as David wrote. I'd really appreciate a vendor who designed a site to satisfy collectors though, with a focus on at least trying to match the physical product in terms of information etc. Sorry, I didn't see this post until after I'd clicked POST. Huh, it seems rather simplistic doesn't it? I mean, the average person today isn't buying anywhere near the amount of music as I have and do. Doesn't taking an average like that water everything down to such an extent the free guys are winning, and the artists are losing? Maybe I'm over-reacting. Returning to my earlier point, the fee needs to be a lot more if artists are going to get the kind of return that will make them happy. Seems with this pricing model Spotify will never be a good deal for the artists.

I'm in the UK. The other evening I downloaded the software and installed the free version. There is a "Get Premium" button - I clicked on it and it wanted £10 a month, around $15...... I swear when I had it before it was half that.... but that's what it wanted. Maybe there's a "Super Premium"? Here's what their web site says:

You first. Believe it or not the BBC web site ran a story on that lady I'd never heard of. It occured to me that if I assume Spotify are on the up and up and their statements about fund distribution is correct, then they really ought to consider charging considerably more for their service. Seems to me £20 a month rather than £10 would be a step in the right direction. I wonder where the tippy point is for subscribers?

Give it a rest - you've just proven once again that you've simply gone into defensive mode. I have read your messages, as have others. We seem to interpret them in the same way, and you're busy trying to pretend everyone is wrong except you. Look - I just don't care. Let it go. Move on. Let's talk about the thread topic and forget the bullying.

I have a few of the Soul Note sets - such a great label! The ones I have: Bill Dixon Dave Douglas Paul Motian George Russell Lester Bowie Muhal Richard Abrams Anthony Braxton Cecil Taylor Steve Lacy I started with the Dixon set since I have an abiding love for his playing. I had individual discs from some of these sets, but didn't hesitate to get the box anyway if it contained titles I wanted. They work out to be good value considering the price the individual discs go for sometimes. Packaging? Well, it's a sturdy box, and looks good on the shelf. The cardboard covers are clearly low rent, and the lack of a booklet is disapointing. I will say though - even as individual discs, there were different production runs. I already had two copies of the individual disc release of a Dixon album - one of them had 8 pages of an article, the other only had pages 1 and 7! And no, no staple marks to suggest the pages had just been torn out and lost. I decided that the music was the thing, and happily bought a bunch of them. I'd like more, but at the moment I'm engrossed elsewhere.

Scott Dolan - you are the worst kind of Internet bully. Rather than reflect on what you wrote and how it might be interpreted, you simply get increasingly defensive. That's what Internet bullies do. It's not original, interesting, or convincing - and no amount of trying to cover your ass with more nonsense is going to make cover up the fact you posted a lot of assumptive crap to criticize me for buying too much music. Setting aside the fact that you got most of your assumptions plain wrong, it's all a bit juvenile and dare I say - stupid. Strange how it never once occurs to you to ask someone a question, preferring instead to interject some fantasy of your own. Since you're incapable of self-reflection, and seem to have a habit of assuming the very worst at every turn, how about we simple agree that you and I aren't going to get along, and leave it at that? You have more than 2000 posts on this board - I truly hope a lot of those were constructive, conversational, amiable, and interesting. In other words, the exact opposite of what you've posted here. Final thought on that - if you want to address your silly comments to me, can I suggest you send them to me in PM? That way you don't derail a topic, and the bullying isn't read by visitors to the board. Seems reasonable, so you'll likely not do it. I tried. Back to streaming music folks....... I confess I had self-control issues with it. I didn't do well when offered a huge library of things I could play whenever I wanted. This entire process of enjoying music works far better for me when I maintain control over what enters the house, and is limited in some way (usually money). I appreciate others don't suffer this issue, perhaps I'm unique. The trouble is my musical tastes span a wide berth of genres and artists - and Spotify allowed me to access all of it at once. It caused me issues. Another issue I had with Spotify - cover art is a small JPG - and liner notes were nowhere to be found. The latter is heinous, imo. Yes I could go to Allmusic and get the information, but by the same token I could to a pirate site and get the music too. I'd put it this way, Spotify doesn't feel like a music lovers site. it feels like a commercial enterprise that sells access to albums. It's all a bit corporate. IMO, of course.