Low-down downloads
So, paying for downloads. It sounds like a fair idea, and in your average circumstance, it certainly is. But when I heard about flat fees such as $1 per song, I figured shit like this would happen soon...
At one site, Downloadpunk.com, you can pay $1.99 for Godspeed You Black Emperor!'s 2000 double-disc "Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven", a hell of a deal for a relatively recent, well-regarded album that clocks in at more than 87 minutes. GYBE! are all about long-ass droning mood piece songs that are perfect for zoning out, working in an office or slitting your wrists, and in this case those 87+ minutes are divided into four tracks. Four long, subtle, dynamic, expansive tracks... obviously not everybody's cup of tea, right?
Now, at the same site, you can also get something peppier, like the first Le Tigre album, but it will cost you $9.99. The Offspring's "Smash", which was actually a mainstream hit you've heard of (albeit eleven years ago), will also cost you $9.99. That seems to be the site's average album price, no matter how old or popular it is, and it turns out length has nothing to do with it. How much do you think The Sunshine Fix's 15-minute "The Future History of A Sunshine Fix" EP costs? Or Jello Biafra's ever-enjoyable 119-minute spoken word album "I Blow Minds For A Living"? Or The Locust's three-track, three-minute "Follow the Flock, Step in Shit" single? Why, they're all $9.99!
At least you can get Daylight Dies' "Idle" demo for $7.99 at Downloadpunk.com, which is less than I paid for the actual disc. But why is that GYBE! album so cheap? It's like a crazy mismarked find in the cutout bin. And the flat per-song fee is the same scam I assumed you'd get from iTunes or eMusic or whatever cutely-capitalized site you choose: tell me it's fair that on The Crown's "Crowned Unholy" redux, the ambient intro track costs the same as an actual song. Or as any actual song from the new Yob disc.
I suppose this lopsided system is not a big deal for someone who only wants to download, say, the same fucking Gwen Stefani song they can just hear for free every hour on the radio. (In fact, I wholeheartedly endorse charging those grazers as much as possible for their lazy listening habits.) But if the industry wants to sell serious music fans on this pay-for-download deal, they're going to have to find a way to get money from post-rock or prog without screwing punk and grindcore, if you catch my drift. Serious music fans will notice that if you want to buy Tee-Pee's "uncut" version of the final Sleep album, you can just pay 99 cents for each of the two tracks individually rather than the $9.99 full album fee. I'll stop now. This is making my head hurt.
On a related topic, downloading is the only way you can get the new Savage Circus single. And guess what? It's totally free. This is a new band with a couple of guys from the Swedish band Persuader, who sound like Blind Guardian back when they used to play fast, onetime Blind Guardian engineer Piet Sielck (of Iron Savior) and Blind Guardian's longtime (now-ex) drummer Thomen Stauch. Thus, Savage Circus, despite their awful name, sound pretty much like old Blind Guardian. That's just fine with me.
At one site, Downloadpunk.com, you can pay $1.99 for Godspeed You Black Emperor!'s 2000 double-disc "Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven", a hell of a deal for a relatively recent, well-regarded album that clocks in at more than 87 minutes. GYBE! are all about long-ass droning mood piece songs that are perfect for zoning out, working in an office or slitting your wrists, and in this case those 87+ minutes are divided into four tracks. Four long, subtle, dynamic, expansive tracks... obviously not everybody's cup of tea, right?
Now, at the same site, you can also get something peppier, like the first Le Tigre album, but it will cost you $9.99. The Offspring's "Smash", which was actually a mainstream hit you've heard of (albeit eleven years ago), will also cost you $9.99. That seems to be the site's average album price, no matter how old or popular it is, and it turns out length has nothing to do with it. How much do you think The Sunshine Fix's 15-minute "The Future History of A Sunshine Fix" EP costs? Or Jello Biafra's ever-enjoyable 119-minute spoken word album "I Blow Minds For A Living"? Or The Locust's three-track, three-minute "Follow the Flock, Step in Shit" single? Why, they're all $9.99!
At least you can get Daylight Dies' "Idle" demo for $7.99 at Downloadpunk.com, which is less than I paid for the actual disc. But why is that GYBE! album so cheap? It's like a crazy mismarked find in the cutout bin. And the flat per-song fee is the same scam I assumed you'd get from iTunes or eMusic or whatever cutely-capitalized site you choose: tell me it's fair that on The Crown's "Crowned Unholy" redux, the ambient intro track costs the same as an actual song. Or as any actual song from the new Yob disc.
I suppose this lopsided system is not a big deal for someone who only wants to download, say, the same fucking Gwen Stefani song they can just hear for free every hour on the radio. (In fact, I wholeheartedly endorse charging those grazers as much as possible for their lazy listening habits.) But if the industry wants to sell serious music fans on this pay-for-download deal, they're going to have to find a way to get money from post-rock or prog without screwing punk and grindcore, if you catch my drift. Serious music fans will notice that if you want to buy Tee-Pee's "uncut" version of the final Sleep album, you can just pay 99 cents for each of the two tracks individually rather than the $9.99 full album fee. I'll stop now. This is making my head hurt.
On a related topic, downloading is the only way you can get the new Savage Circus single. And guess what? It's totally free. This is a new band with a couple of guys from the Swedish band Persuader, who sound like Blind Guardian back when they used to play fast, onetime Blind Guardian engineer Piet Sielck (of Iron Savior) and Blind Guardian's longtime (now-ex) drummer Thomen Stauch. Thus, Savage Circus, despite their awful name, sound pretty much like old Blind Guardian. That's just fine with me.
posted by SoulReaper at 1:15 PM
7 Comments:
Jeff, I'm going to have to disagree with the tenor of your post.
Yes, the pricing system on many of these sites is capricious at times, but it makes sense economically. The average album contains about 14 songs and is generally priced at about $14 in CD format. Thus, the $1/song download price is the standard average price per song. So, while it's irritating that an entire movement of a concerto and a They Might Be Giants song cost the same while differing greatly in length, it makes sense.
Secondly, not everyone on iTunes is merely searching for the latest hits. And why is it a sign of lazy listening habits to download only one or two good songs from an otherwise tedious album? For a sense of completion?
It seemed to me that you took your frustration with these music sites out on people with different tastes than you. Hey, just because I don't like metal, that doesn't mean that I'm looking for the latest Jay-Z single.
The odd cheap-ness of that one album could be their "loss leader," the one they're planning on getting reamed on in favor of reaming you on all the other albums once you're in the door. This way they get to say "Albums starting at 1.99," but when you log in, you find that the only album that's that cheap is one you're not particularly into. They weren't lying, though...
Kitten, I appreciate your comments. You're right about pricing for the average album, but I'm talking about the anomalies. The examples I pointed out are where people can cheat this particular system or be cheated by it. Buying music by the track at a flat rate means people who mainly listen to music with long songs are coming out ahead, while people who like short songs get the shaft.
Perhaps "lazy" was too strong an adjective; I guess I meant "passive." I wasn't talking about picking a few songs from an album you've already heard and decided you only like 1/6 of, I was referring to people who are just looking for the latest Jay-Z single. It's not a matter of taste. I don't care if you like the wink-wink nerd pop of Weezer or the Radio Disney stylings of The Black Eyed Peas or whatever the majors are pushing this week, but if you've spent hundreds of dollars on online tracks just so your iPod playlist is identical to that of your favorite radio station, what's the point? Why not just digitally record the radio or something?
In the wake of recent national events, I realize bitching about downloads is a lame bourgeois contention, but this sort of thing is insulting to someone like myself who saved all his school lunch money so he'd have enough money to get a tape at the end of the week. People for whom discovering new music is not a priority tend to be passive listeners, buying a couple of albums a year and choosing their favorites from the relatively small pool of performers that reaches them. The corporations who paid to get those performers on whatever radio station, movie soundtrack or cell phone commercial reached those passive listeners are rewarded when those listeners choose to buy one product over the few others of which they are aware. If those people go to one concert a year, they will choose that same performer. The popular performers become more popular this way, and major labels rally around performers that sound just like the popular performers.
Having listeners with a small range of incoming music is beneficial to the music business. Get enough listeners like that together, that's how we end up with something like Creed, fifth-generation clones so bland they can't help but fill stadiums. As someone who looks at the music he enjoys (not just metal, mind you) as a literal lifesaver, I feel that for perpetuating the popularity of the same old song while helping ensure that new sounds that they might have found themselves liking even more remain locked out, those people deserve to pay top dollar.
Those are all excellent points.
It makes me wonder about my own musical habits. I don't listen to the radio that often, I rarely go to concerts, and I buy only a few CDs a year.
The last three CDs I bought were "Alphabetical" by Phoenix, "Rive Gauche Rio" by Celso Fonseca, and the "Gilmore Girls" soundtrack. I'm not familiar with any of the top ten albums or singles. Are my tastes just off the beaten path or am I sheltered from popular culture? What do my tastes say about me?
I think it says you like River Phoenix, somehow...
I thought he was great in "Sneakers" but how did you get that from my musical tastes?
The words "Rio" and "Phoenix" were both in the same sentence. I was going for a sort of Freudian subconscious thing. Translation: I'm not funny.
Post a Comment
<< Home