Physical, Digital, et al

Firstly, I am not a fan of pirated music. I think sharing of music is ok to an extent, in that you are promoting music to your friends and they are a captive audience and so it should be of benefit to the music industry if done in moderation. For example, I posted yesterday about watching a couple of videos on YouTube and then I spent 30 pounds on music by those two bands (which I would not have done were it not for the free access to the video and the quality of the videos - which costs money).

I am not entirely convinced by the "music will die if piracy continues". There is plenty of unsigned musicians out there (I posted last week about Electric Boy Shock). Now you may argue that they continue in the hope that they get signed and that they would not bother if there is no music industry. But I think ultimately that people who want to make music will make music and may do so but not in a professional manner. This may mean less lavish production but isn't lo-fi cool? And didn't Keane do most of it all themselves on a Macintosh?

But generally, if people own the rights to stuff and invest in stuff to create money and take risks in doing so then they are entitled to charge and be rewarded. Any arguments about the music industry taking too much are poppycock. We (in the West) live in a capitalistic world and the music industry is no different from the bumper profits that banks, supermarkets, MPs, Prime Ministers et al make and the people who do the hard work get paid peanuts.

So I am not a fan of piracy or mass sharing, I am a fan of sharing music as promotion, I don't believe that music will die out, I don't care too much if music companies continue (in fact, I would probably prefer that they didn't* although you have to accept that some bands won't be able to survive but then also you won't get manufactured crap).

[* because I feel ripped off by them not at the price of music but because of multi formats and re-issues].

So I am not ruling out Digital because of piracy issues.

Now I think there is a place for both Digital and Physical. My main gripe about Digital was worry about losing the music (no physical backup) which is not helped by DRM. I also think that download quality should be higher. iTunes Plus is 256k AAC which is probably fine seeing as I rip my CDs at 192 AAC at the moment and iTunes Plus also removes DRM. So I am now a big fan of Digital. You get it earlier, it is automatically in your library and tagged properly with artwork etc, so it is easier. It is also less storage space intensive (my CDs take up approx. 8 foot by 8 foot). I don't DJ so I'm not worried about that. Computer storage is dirt cheap so backups are no problem.

So the only thing left really is collect-ability, having the physical product in your hands, and the price.

You won't ever escape collect-ability for downloads. Things are collectable if they are in limited supply and if I can easily create 100's of copies that won't degrade then there is nothing collectable about it. There is no collectable packaging. In fact, you don't get any packaging and I like packaging. Especially cardboard rather than dull plastic (unless it is the Pet Shop Boy's Very album in orange plastic).

So FOR ME this leaves a gap in the market for the physical product. Collectability and having something physical. But FOR ME this means that I am happy to buy some stuff in a physical format but others which I am not interested in collecting I can just get it in a Digital format. Dance music - digital. Next Blur single - CD. That one off tune by Simon Webbe that I am too embarrassed to buy in a shop - Digital. The next Fierce Angels album - CD (for the packaging).

Cost is, however, an issue. 6 mixes of a Dance song on CD Single - 2.99. On Download - 4.74. Album on CD from HMV - 8.49. Download (without packaging) - 7.99. Old CDs - A pound from Ebay.

To me there is not enough price differential. You don't feel that you are getting enough for your money. I would like to see album downloads at 5.99 or less. I would like physical singles to be banned as they are a pain.

What is good, price-wise, are the subscription sites where you cannot actually download and keep music. I am thinking of Napster but that is not available on Mac operating system. These services also save backup issues but are limited in how you can listen to music.

A good example though of use of downloading music was at a party last Saturday. A song requested wasn't there so it was just downloaded and played as the next song anyway. Imagine if DJ's did that in clubs . . .

I would LOVE to be able to subscribe to a band and be pushed their music - like a premium fanclub. For example, suppose I sign up for Coldplay. I would pay 15 ponds, 20 pounds whatever a year and they would send me everything they do that year with some exclusives. So that may be a studio album (or live album if between studio albums), single versions of songs if different, b-sides or other remixes, maybe some demos or cover versions. And then I don't have to seek out stuff or look out for new releases.

By signing up for an annual subscription, the music companies would have repeat business which would be very good for them financially.

So the convenience and quality of digital downloads has arrived, and I can see myself buying more especially if the price fits compared to the physical product (but I'll still buy that limited edition CD and DVD pack).

Finally, when you get a CD you can also find out who the producer was (which is important especially to the producer). I don't seem to find this out for downloads. I think downloads should also come with a digital booklet (some do, I know).

Just a thought . . . (for music fans rather than casual listeners).