Parting with CDs

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Adam9, Aug 10, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I still listen to CDs, most often audiophile SACDs or gold disk (or multi-channel DVDs/BRs/SACDs). Most of my listening is music I ripped from my CDs and moved onto my portable FIIO player. This gives my a large chunk of my library on tap whenever I want in whatever definition I chose to rip (high def, lossless or 320). I sometimes make my own custom edits of songs and its nice to have them readily available. I do a bit of streaming via Amazon at work to sample music or just to listen to when I don't have my FiiO with me. I hope to rip my entire CD collection one day and purge some more CDs from the shelves. I'll also keep some, but many can and will be ripped and given away.
     
    AndyP79 likes this.
  2. Christian Hill

    Christian Hill It's all in the mind

    Location:
    Boston
    CDs are much harder to hit then clay pigeons
     
  3. :laugh:
    Why was it worth mentioning at all if not to brag?
     
  4. ANALOGUE OR DEATH

    ANALOGUE OR DEATH Forum Resident

    Location:
    HULL ENGLAND
    Yeah,but according to some(well one) on this thread,you're not allowed to give away your unwanted CD s to anyone because that means the person you are giving it to is robbing the artist if they play the CD even once.According to him your beneficiary should go buy it new or stream it!
     
  5. Yeah I read some of those posts (here and in other threads), I understand the argument, I just don't think it is very persuasive. I'm comfortable with my choice to give away or sell used CDs while maintaining a digital copy.
     
  6. Stencil

    Stencil Forum Resident

    Location:
    Lockport, IL
    Actually, I am going in the opposite direction. I spent most of the oughts and early part of the teens with buying digital/downloaded music. I am now going back and purchasing the stuff I still like as CDs or in some cases SACDs. In most cases I am surprised how much better the CD sounds than the streaming version. I find this whole "dump your CD/Declutter your life" thing just another marketing ploy. First it was "dump your LPs and buy again on CD" , now its "dump your CDs and rent your music". No thanks. Thankfully I kept my LPs when the hucksters advised me to sell them. Im going to be keeping my CDs too. As well as replacing some of the digital music I purchased with professionally burned disks; or even vinyl!

    As for used CDs somehow "robbing" the artist of royalties. I call bull. They got their royalties when the disk was originally purchased.
     
  7. Troy4

    Troy4 Forum Resident

    I've spent the last few weeks sorting 6,000 of my CDs around ready for there move to new racks.
    Still got another 2,000 or so to sort.
     
    Curveboy likes this.
  8. NettleBed

    NettleBed Forum Resident

    Location:
    new york city
    This thread hasn't seen much, if any, contributions by people who literally advocate taking something for nothing (in this scenario, that would be illegal downloading), so your comment is just a red herring.

    Consumers who buy subscriptions to streaming services aren't taking something for nothing, but participating in a business model voluntarily engaged in by the rights-holders of the music offered for streaming. Attempts to invalidate this model by some of the individuals that the rights-holders had contracted to produce the product are made purely from a perspective of self-interest, not from a larger perspective and, as such, they have limited value in a discussion about the overall merits of the market practice. Yes, by now we all "get" that some of the labor involved in producing an album (the musicians and writers) will likely receive less compensation from the rights-holders in market model A than market model B. That this particular grievance somehow renders the entire model "evil" is of course ludicrous, but not entirely uncommon when a subset of people put their own bottom line above everything else. This is the same kind of greedy, self-serving impulse that pits oil companies against the environment, banks against regulators, etc. Fierce advocacy for one's self-interest happens all the time, but the general public must take it as a grain of salt in any context other than interest group advocacy. This, for example, is why we don't let crime victims on the juries at the trials of the accused - impartiality and objectivity on the matter would be impossible, no matter how much we might sympathize with their particular plight.
     
  9. Grant

    Grant Just me

    Location:
    United States
    Censorship is not good. It should be age-appropriate. Sheltering your kids can backfire.
     
  10. NettleBed

    NettleBed Forum Resident

    Location:
    new york city
    If you make lossless rips, you get to keep your CD without having the unsightly clutter of hundreds/thousands of CD jewel cases.

    A win-win.
     
    Grant likes this.
  11. Grant

    Grant Just me

    Location:
    United States
    Yup. The guy who wrote the article, and a certain person who has hogged the thread with his self-righteous vision of the world has killed any real discussion of the topic.

    I'm outta this one.
     
  12. tmtomh

    tmtomh Forum Resident

    I just saw a short video, via another thread here, of Bonamassa talking about the Spotify issue. He cites an example of a songwriter he knows who was notified that their song had been streamed 25 million times, and they got a check for $750.

    From the context it appears the song is not one performed by Bonamassa, but for the sake of the discussion let's say it were - let's say this songwriter wrote a song that appears on a Joe Bonamassa album, and therefore this songwriter has helped Bonamassa's career.

    Now let's say Bonamassa were to say, "f*** it, I'm going to totally buck industry convention and I'm going to insist that the songwriter gets a bigger percentage of my song-streaming revenue. In fact, I'm not going to push for them to get double or triple, but instead I'm insisting they get 10 times the normal going rate."

    And let's say he was successful in that. In that case, the songwriter would have a hit song streamed 25 million times, and they would receive... $7,500. In that scenario, if the songwriter had an average-sized family, all they would have to do is make sure they wrote three 25-million-stream songs every year, and they would get paid an amount each year equal to the U.S. poverty line. Or they could write eight 25-million-stream hit songs each year and they would get paid an amount just under the U.S. median household income.

    This of course is assuming that even with a 10-fold increase in royalties, a songwriter is able to write 3 to 8 songs a year, every year, that end up getting recorded by popular artists and becoming hits on streaming services.

    So the difficulty you have in making your argument, it seems to me, is one of scale. It does not seem like the numbers add up in a way that would support your assigning the blame to the artists.
     
    CybrKhatru likes this.
  13. Dave S

    Dave S Forum Resident

    Nice try, but we all know its not a level playing field. Streaming is a very elastic product. Increase the price and people will dump streaming for illegal file sharing. It's as simple as that. An example of inelastic demand would be your water supply, which is why water suppliers are often regulated. You cannot easily swap your water supplier. And there are few cheap alternatives.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2019
  14. CybrKhatru

    CybrKhatru Music is life.

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    I just cancelled my Apple Music subscription.

    If I lived in an even smaller place, I *might* consider doing it again, but I doubt that will happen.

    While I will definitely be downsizing my physical collection a bit in the next few months, it won't be major.
     
  15. DRM

    DRM Forum Resident

    Modern Dad for the win.
     
  16. NettleBed

    NettleBed Forum Resident

    Location:
    new york city
    I'm not sure what you think I'm "trying." The consumer market for *any* product or service wants the lowest prices. Suppliers want the best margins that they can get. The suppliers of streaming content (the rights-holders) should be the credibility to not price their product at a point where the general public no longer wants to buy it. And they will *always* lose some customers to illegal downloading. Just as any licensed/regulated business can lose customers to cheaper black-market alternatives. What's the point here? I'm not advocating for the black market.

    I also highly doubt that the consumer public at large will "dump" streaming for illegal downloading - most aren't tech-savvy enough. The vast majority will just pay the higher prices. Those that don't will cancel the services.
     
  17. j_rocker

    j_rocker Forum Resident

    Location:
    WI
    This is one of the best points made thus far. It's only a matter of time before such groups aggressively pressure streaming services to remove tracks and artists that offend their worldview.
     
  18. Dave S

    Dave S Forum Resident

    Tracks have already been removed and/or banned. Some drill music for example.
     
  19. Dave S

    Dave S Forum Resident

    It reads like an admission of market failure. There is another option for suppliers: you simply don't supply the product, or in the case of recorded music, new recordings.
     
  20. This, plus they will never offer my edited version of Cream's Toad with most of Ginger's drum solo removed. :angel:
     
    rikki nadir likes this.
  21. Eric_Generic

    Eric_Generic Enigma

    Location:
    Berkshire
    Streaming hands over control of what you can and cannot listen to, and access to when you can listen to it, yet very few people ever seem bothered by this fundamental handing over of control to outside parties. Regardless of sound quality (which judging from QoBuz and the like, wouldn't seem to be a problem for audiophiles), what's available at any given time is completely at the mercy of whatever the providers decide to include, and whatever forces gain traction within society regarding what's acceptable or not.

    Why hand over all of that, when perfect-quality physical media exists that puts it completely in your own hands.

    EG.
     
  22. schnitzerphilip

    schnitzerphilip "Modern Dad" Unlocked Award

    Location:
    NJ USA
    I need more detail on how songwriters are compensated. Don't they sell songs for cash and then get residuals such as royalties from sales/plays? I was under the belief that songwriters are free agents and they sell their songs to the highest bidder. Publishing and royalties come later.
     
  23. schnitzerphilip

    schnitzerphilip "Modern Dad" Unlocked Award

    Location:
    NJ USA
    The old always makes way for the new. Civilization is predicated upon that.
     
  24. DRM

    DRM Forum Resident

    Preserving civilization for the win.
     
    schnitzerphilip likes this.
  25. Stencil

    Stencil Forum Resident

    Location:
    Lockport, IL
    I consider it neither unsightly nor clutter; both heavily weighted value judgement words IMHO. I have already ripped my CDs to lossless to load on my phone for long distance travel. I listen to actual media when I am home. Plus, my lossless rips are only legal to play if I also keep my CDs.
     
    ANALOGUE OR DEATH likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page