Do you still buy cd's???

[Paul_G]

No - shhh I download via p2p/irc/usenet/ftp sites etc etc.

I just usually buy a 100 stack of blank cds and a 100 stack of blank dvds and just download something I/family/friends want and buy more blanks when i run out.

If i have to buy a CD/DVD then it will be a mickey mouse one.

[ROF]

I haven't purchased an audio CD in years. There is no value to owning a CD anymore. There used to be goodies included with purchasing an audio CD, including contests, fold out posters, extra tracks, a VCD track, etc.

Now, there are maybe two songs worth buying, a bunch of filler, and a price tag higher than a new release DVD. There is no value and no reason to purchase anymore.

The last CD I bought was at a concert in '99. Why did I purchase it? Because it was not available anywhere else (still isn't) had a fold out poster included, and an extra disc with DVD Video, all for a price lower than what CDs sell for.

[Delerious]

If it comes from a major label - forget it. The only way I'd buy it would be used. I buy mostly independent label CD's and band produced CD's now.

You know, back when Napster was around, I found a lot of interesting music. I was probably buying 15 to 20 CD's a month minimum. Since about 6 months before they shut down (when I stopped using it), I'm averaging maybe 15 to 20 CD's a year.

[Bodyslide]

I buy a few Soundtracks a year, and any thing New by Def Leppard...

[banger298]

it must be over a years since i got a cd put got meatloaf's last tour on dvd(retail) do's this count(i am oldish)

[dcsos]

Yes I buy CD's
Usually One at a Time (I'm not wealthy)
and I 'm asking you.....
What can you do with the actual CD once you copy it onto your computer?

MyTop CD's
1. Pink Floyd (Atom Heart Mother) or any before the WALL
2. Brian Eno (Before and After Science) or any before all ambieent stuff
3. Fiona Apple (ExtrodinaryMachine 0ops that's not a CD #!!)or any of her 3?
4. Jimi Hendrix (Axis: Bold as LOVE)
5. Fun Lovin Criminals (100% Columbian) or any FLC really
6. Sarah McLachlan (They all sound the same but GOOD same)

Hey Alec..I usta live with the FUGS drummers(KEN) daughter, STACY!!
The Fugs wrota FOLK SONG called
"I Couldn't Get High"
and another called "You Gotta Like Boobs a Lot"

[ghoster]

yep i buy alot of blanks...... LOL

[whitejremiah]

I dont download anymore...because back in the day before the mean old RIAA, MPAA, ect started taking it upon themselves to start harassing everyone, you COULD actually find decent audio quality songs on p2p....these days using "legal" means, your forced to stick with lousy 128k/s DRM'ed to heck garbage music. When i want a cd i go out and buy it these days......which is when i want music that sounds BETTER than a high end CASSETTE recording, i just bite the bullet and drop ten or fifteen bux....but now the RIAA knows part of the reason that their sales are hitting rock bottom...1. because there isnt much good music around these days, and 2. because people dont WANT to drop 10-15 dollars on a cd that the artist sees almost NOTHING out of, and 3. why hasnt the price of a music cd dropped yet? i can pick up new dvd's the day that they come out for fifteen bux..why am i spending almost as much, if not the same amount on a music cd.....the media they use is cheaper, its cheaper to package, and.......well, thats about the end of my rant.

[oldfart13]

I don't even bother with that. Music has always had a bit of a "throw away" quality to it. I just listen to Sirious satellite radio in the car and leave it at that...

[NiteLite]

Usually make a list and purchase quarterly. Most from backroadsmusic which is the one of a very few that carry my artists.(Amazon will sometimes suprise me) Mostly independent made or self made CD-Rs. (Made and sold by the artists) My music does not have a pop fan base.
And being indefferent to ROF I buy for the music. The artists I buy provide great music throughout the entire CD.
I am more interested in buying High Resolution - Multi Channel DVD-A and SACD. But until people upgrade and realise the great sound available, choices are limited. It was great a couple yrs back to be able to hear "The Dark Side Of The Moon" in multi channel analog sound...the way it was originally recorded.

[disturbed1]

I only buy used anymore.

There's a pretty decent shop near me that caters to my type of music (Death/Thrash/Speed metal) I can pick up most titles for between $3 and $8. Plus, if you buy 3 you get one free. They also have a punch card, once I buy 10 discs, I get a free one.

Every now and then if there's a new album that's out, and the used CD shop doesn't have it, I'll think about buying it new, but never do. I will buy a CD/DVD set new though (White Zombie Past Present and Future). I don't mind paying the $15-$20 for these.

Problem is, since I don't listen to main stream music, only places like Tower Records and Media Play seem to carry what I want. I will never ever pay $17 for a music CD.

If listened to cRAP, then I can get all I want for $10-$12 new.

[minchjp]

You HAVE to support your favourite bands (go to their gigs, buy their CD's etc.), so I buy cd's every now and again.

[mcnabb311]

I download from allofmp3. I mean it's $.02US a megabyte for christ's sake. They have about every format available at whatever quality you choose. Plus you can always listen to full samples before you download. They don't have everything though. So yeah, sometimes I use P2P when I have to.

[dvdguy4]

I havent bought a cd since I last DJed at the nightclub I used to work at some 5 1/2 years ago.

[kisrum]

3 or 4 per year. So much easier to pluck individual tunes from Itunes, unless looking for jazz or classical. If the artist is not well known and/or wealthy I'll buy new CDs. For old/dead/rich farts, I'll buy used. Don't think I've ever downloaded illegally.

However, I don't understand the grousing about the cost of CDs. I can remember paying $5.00 for new vinyl LP's in 1970, which is WAY more in real dollars than $15.00 now. Tom Petty became a hero by trying to keep his LPs under $10.00 back in the 80s, which amounts to more than $15.00 in real dollars now. Guess how much I paid for the Doors 45 rpm single "Touch Me" in 1970. Yep, 99 cents, just like today. Music and entertainment in general are fabulously cheap nowadays.

To belabor the point, I paid $120.00 1979 dollars for a modest Sony radio-cassette boom box (extreme trivia - the exact same model that is riding in the helicopter with Schwarzenegger in "Predator"), and can now get similar quality technology with a CD player for $40.00 2005 dollars. The Holy Grail for audiophile tape heads in 1980 was finding 5 blank 90 minute Maxell cassettes for less than $10.00. You young whipper-snappers don't know how good you've got it.

[DereX888]

[...]
To belabor the point, I paid $120.00 1979 dollars for a modest Sony radio-cassette boom box (extreme trivia - the exact same model that is riding in the helicopter with Schwarzenegger in "Predator"), and can now get similar quality technology with a CD player for $40.00 2005 dollars. The Holy Grail for audiophile tape heads in 1980 was finding 5 blank 90 minute Maxell cassettes for less than $10.00. You young whipper-snappers don't know how good you've got it.

Hehe, this is one of very few analog media I've bought in my life:
bought it as a 3-pack in 1996 or early 1997 on sale at radioshack or walmart for $12.99, or maybe it was $14.99 They were veeeery hard to find lol

I still keep this last unused one as a souvenir from lesser-quality childhood times lol

[whitejremiah]

3 or 4 per year. So much easier to pluck individual tunes from Itunes, unless looking for jazz or classical. If the artist is not well known and/or wealthy I'll buy new CDs. For old/dead/rich farts, I'll buy used. Don't think I've ever downloaded illegally.

However, I don't understand the grousing about the cost of CDs. I can remember paying $5.00 for new vinyl LP's in 1970, which is WAY more in real dollars than $15.00 now. Tom Petty became a hero by trying to keep his LPs under $10.00 back in the 80s, which amounts to more than $15.00 in real dollars now. Guess how much I paid for the Doors 45 rpm single "Touch Me" in 1970. Yep, 99 cents, just like today. Music and entertainment in general are fabulously cheap nowadays.

To belabor the point, I paid $120.00 1979 dollars for a modest Sony radio-cassette boom box (extreme trivia - the exact same model that is riding in the helicopter with Schwarzenegger in "Predator"), and can now get similar quality technology with a CD player for $40.00 2005 dollars. The Holy Grail for audiophile tape heads in 1980 was finding 5 blank 90 minute Maxell cassettes for less than $10.00. You young whipper-snappers don't know how good you've got it.

Hate to admit it to you man...but this is where the heartbreak kicks in....the blank cd's that they use for pressing cost a HECK of a lot less than making an album did back in the day...i dont think that a blank disc including pressing, ect with the bulk that the "big guys" do could cost anything over maybe 5 cents per copy that they throw out...including packaging and stuff MAYBE 15-20 cents per cd and thats probably stretching it as the technology gets older. There is no reason in God's Green Earth that they should be throwing the cd's out for anything over even 3 dollars is overkill given the profit that THEY make (and by THEY i DONT mean the artists they barely see ANYTHING from their cd's) they probably churn something just obscene like a 700% profit on each cd that is pressed. It honestly sickens me but i still buy a few cd's here and there because i dont wanna be bothered to download REALLY CRUMMY SOUNDING AUDIO......ive got a 6 speaker infinity sound system in my minivan (insert soccer mom joke here) but you can DEFINATELY hear a quality differance between the lousy 128k/s that they offer on napster, itunes, ect and an original cd...now that i think about it, i wont support the evil corperations anymore, from now on all the cd's i buy will be used.

[burnman99]

Yes I still buy CD's but mostly from ebay since normally a lot cheaper. I did buy U2 Boy at Wal-Mart not too long ago since it was only $7.50 The last 2 CD's I bought were Howard Jones Perform 01 & Boz Scaggs Hits!. I love music owning around 200+ CD's and a zillion cassette tapes. I think the RIAA are rat-bastards, but I'm still gonna buy good music.

Later!

Rog

[whitejremiah]

Just a little update to prove that im serious about not buying new cd's, i went to the used cd store today and bought 2 cd's for a little less than the price i would pay for one brand new.........at 6 bux a pop, you cant beat that type of deal. I also dont have to pay the RIAA any more money than they already have....

[shititin]

xm satelite radio baby!!!! discover new music ,rediscover old music. i only buy used cd s or order imports for hard to find stuff,finland has some great metal bands.





p.s. OPIE AND ANTHONY ON XM 202

[laspis59]

I love music,so yes,I do buy CD's because the artists deserve the money for their work.I DONT do P2P and its crap quality anyway.

[DereX888]

you can DEFINATELY hear a quality differance between the lousy 128k/s that they offer on napster, itunes, ect and an original cd...now that i think about it, i wont support the evil corperations anymore, from now on all the cd's i buy will be used.

Yeah, I was in *shock* when I checked out itunes (me thinks? - the apple one) for the first time, and all of it was crappy 128kbps at $.99 each!
I was like: what idiot would pay for this? This won't last even a year... (well, I was wrong, people with wooden ears obviously dominate on earth).

I would buy music online if it was at least 16bit 44.1kHz PCM wave file at $.99/track.
But since they want money for something as bad as 128kbps MP3 then I won't let them rob me blind like this LOL - I would rather rob them back in return and download same shite of off P2Ps...
And here I come to the point where Im surprised by some of the comments.
People state that "P2P is crap quality", yet they buy SAME crap quality on itunes etc - or actually they pay there for even worse quality!
Im checking right now some of the popular P2P sites (dont worry moderators, I wont paste any links this time ) and all I see there are actually mostly best possible quality MP3s (with VBR bitrates of 320kbps) - which are way better quality than the crap sold on itunes and such.
So please people - STFU if you dont know shit from shite...
And not that Im supporting piracy - personally I don't listen to music lower quality than CDDA standard.

[laspis59]

All music download sites and P2P are crap,lossy,wma,mp3,all junk.I like quality and think paying for a CD that you will listen to over and over is well worth it.
Piracy is greedy,cheap and nasty.

[DereX888]

All music download sites and P2P are crap,lossy,wma,mp3,all junk.I like quality and think paying for a CD that you will listen to over and over is well worth it.
Piracy is greedy,cheap and nasty.

Yes, nothing beats the crisp sound of CDDA.
To me - all the MP3/AAC/[insert your favorite compression format] are crap, nothing more. Thats why I collect only CDDAs and some DVD-As and DVD-Videos with LPCM or high bitrate DTS. I think there is no doubt in any music collector's mind, that there is no better format to listen to music, so lets not discuss quality of crappy formats here since most of us know it.

I love music,so yes,I do buy CD's because the artists deserve the money for their work.I DONT do P2P and its crap quality anyway.

(I hope you don't 'do' any "itunes" etc either - because its even crappier quality and it would be really ironic to admit that you willingly pay for something you consider crap and could have get slightly better quality for free... )

but anyway...
1
Lets not forget that there is more to it than just piracy on P2Ps!
I've got tons of material by unknown bands for whom P2P is the only way to be heard and listened to - due to the greedy, cheap and nasty business model developed and enforced by giant studios/labels (with the help of their running dogs like RIAA and corrupted lawmakers) that we have now.
2
If you knew how much average artists are being paid for their music released by corporations like Warner you'd say "THAT is a real piracy"!
You won't hear about it on the corporate-owned television, but search the web, and you'll be surprised how many bands - currently under cutthroat contract with their labels - are actually happy that their music is being pirated on the web, and their 'oppressors' (labels) don't make much money of off them - because it may make it easier/cheaper for them to get out of their contracts they were forced to signed just to exist on the radio!
I can't tell names, but I've been during some loose discussion on this subject with one of the rather well-known band's member (their 1st album sold 600K worldwide) who said that himself!

Seeing some shit from the 'inside' (through my work) I am not that sure that online piracy (all the crap being shared on P2Ps etc) is what is really hurting the music business.
I used to think (in the early napster days) that P2P will kill the music industry - apparently it didn't.
There are billions of songs available for free on the web, often better quality than the same offered on itunes etc - yet there are customers on itunes and their business is growing, isn't it strange? Same with numbers of CDs sold! If the album is good - its CD's are selling like crazy, and it happens *regardless* of its huge availability on P2Ps as well!
But if the album sucks - obviously it doesn't sell on CDs, and in such case even P2Ps often don't have nor want it

People were always copying music, either for themselves or friends.
It was done on 8tracks, tapes and cassettes. Nothing really have changed in this matter since the times when my Dad was a teenager with a 1 inch tape recorder (or whatever he had back then, I dont really know), and NO ONE will ever tell me that making a copy of a CD for my own car, or for my girlfriend - is a piracy! If any of you believe it is a piracy - well, go back to your tvtube and get some more brainwash there, quit reading my post now, because you won't understand a word from what Im about to write here
So - what have changed since 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's? It's the access to the music.
We - the consumers - don't have to rely on their greedy, cheap and nasty way of distributing music no more. We can actually listen to the entire albums (of off 'illegal' P2Ps among other ways) before we decide to spend our money on a CD (at least thats what I do since the napster days - and I haven't bought any album I wouldn't like otherwise since then!).
Why labels don't distribute *entire* albums in an MP3 format (with simple yet effective 'copyright protection' as someone saying "This is sample of ..." in the middle of the song) as an album samples instead of those idiotic 30sec 'clips' on even crappier than MP3 windows media formats?
You know the answer I hope: they DONT WANT YOU TO KNOW WHAT YOURE BUYING! They still think its the 60's and they can sell us any crappy album with 1 cover song...

Anyone of you - as a consumers - by denying P2Ps its existence,youre actually shooting yourself - as a consumers - in the foot!
I too (I know, I've said that already - just to emphasize) I too collect only CDDAs and good quality music, but I see any P2P networks as my friend in helping me to do right selection before I buy a CD! No more cold turkey for me - thanks to "online piracy", not thanks to greedy-ass labels!

And the fact that Im buying very few CDs nowaday has nothing to do with P2Ps: most of the new bands promoted by big labels just SUCK.
There are tons of great independent bands on P2Ps whose music I would buy on CD - but I can't, because the artists themselves either won't sign-up lifelong contract with big labels to enrich more their fat asses, or they have been denied their chance at promoion by labels (thus you won't hear them on a radio, tv or anywhere else - only on P2Ps!).

Its not that simple as they try to brainwash us in the medias about P2Ps and piracy.
Until this old business model of music distribution won't finally collapse - we will have such turmoils and outcries from scared labels, and tons of 'illegal' or half-legal P2P networks.
Use your own brain to judge whats best for YOU, not for the corporations.
Don't be a parrot repeating after rich ******** (or their media dogs) crying out loud because people are more educated nowaday and its not that easy to rob them blind as it used to be!

EDIT:
forgot my usual rant :
F*CK RIAA!

[adam]

Are CDs overpriced for what you actually get? Yeah I think so, but its not as simple as arguing that, if it costs them $1 to make they should be selling for $2 or $3.

Its not that hard to get a hold of the statistical data for any given industry. I got these figures from CNN.

Consider a $17 CD. $6.23 of this goes towards retail markup. $3.34 to overhead and shipping. $1.99 to royalties. $ .75 to CD printing costs. The result is that each CD sold brings in a profit of $ .59.

Those are just the costs to get the product to market. The profit made on the sale still has to pay off the advertising and recording costs in order to turn a profit. Only about 10% of all albums made ever make a profit, so that means the successful albums have to subsize the others.

Music is simply a difficult product to sell cheaply. I think the real reason we all feel cheated is just because music is not what it used to be so all you are buying is 2 songs you like and a pipedream that the rest of the album will grow on you. I think 10-15 GOOD songs is damn well worth the price of a CD. Ask any bonified Pink Floyd fan whether the Wall or DSOTM is overpriced. Back in the day music was actually worth something. Now its not, at least not once you get past the age of 13.

I honestly don't blame the RIAA or the studio's for shitty music and overpriced CDs as much as I do Mtv. They completely ruined music and the CD market. Now all we can do is keep our existing album on replay while we search for the occasional gold mine.

[DereX888]

adam - perhaps if the labels wouldn't have bought off most of the radiostations (or put them on their payroll) and bought off entire music television industry - perhaps then the cost of marketing music would have been *way* lower for them?
I can't judge was it a good or bad decision (from economical point) for them (- to buy it all off, as it happened in the past 10-15 years), but if it was bad move then I'm sorry, but why *I* should pay for their mistake?

Almost every big city have its own independent university radiostation. Some of them are *really* good - and they are sooo popular among the prime music consumers (the 16-30 year olds). Ever noticed how many completely unknown, yet great songs they play?
Thats what Im talking about.
Forget about old business model they still trying to keep intact. The days of payola are gone, because they can't buy the internet Yes, they can buy one napster or two, but thats about it.
Times have change.

Anyway - I haven't heard of a single label seeking bankrupcy protection, have you?
Their business is fine, its their greed that is too big!
They were selling millions more CDs in the 80's and 90's - simply because *most* of the CDs were old LPs re-released on CDs! By the end of 90's they already run out of old material to re-edit and re-release, and since then they have to rely *solely* on new albums by new artists only. Thats why their giant profits from the nd of 80's till middle of 90's have suddenly shrunk to 1/2 of what it was. After all - how many times we can buy that old Pink Floyd album I already have DSOT on LP, CD, VHS and DVD. Well, I guess I'll buy it on HD-DVD/BR-DVD if it comes out too, but probably thats it


F* RIAA

EDIT:
yeah, youre right on the money here:
music is very difficult product to sell.
But don't you think they (CO.s) would have know something about it?
Its the greed that make them spend extra millions of dollars to search and prosecute few thousand kids swapping some albums they don't even listen to, instead of lowerng down all the seasonal crappy stars' CDs to prices even poor kids wouldn't resist, like $6.99 or something, I dont know - you know what Im talking about I hope? Minimum profit - maximum quantity sold. But no, they rather put $14.99 tag on a crap they know it has just 1 or 2 catchy hits that will be all forgotten in half a year - and they spend extra millions of $ trying to 'protect' it from 'piracy'...

DIE RIAA

[adam]

DereX888: I really don't know what you are talking about. Mtv is owned by Viacom and I'm not aware of record labels buying up radio stations and I don't know what the point of that would even be. Also record labels' profits have not been cut in half, they are higher now then they ever were. But they have always been a high risk/low return industry. Just ask any stock analyst or look at the cold, hard, impartial statistics.

Lots of smaller labels go bankrupt and I wouldn't be suprised if some of the larger ones have gone through chapter 11 reorganization, but I don't really see that as being relevant. You aren't successful just because you managed to stay in business. Yes the big labels are very successful and very greedy, I don't think anyone would argue against that.

But no economy is as simple as that. Everything wouldn't be perfect if "the man" would just lighten up. CD prices are set more by the market than greed, as evidenced by the fact that the price of CDs is probably being questioned more right now than it ever has, and yet CD purchases are approaching an all time high. The cost of suing 100,000 file sharers is positively infinitesimal compared to the cost of producing just one album, and the RIAA is funded by ALL the major labels.

Like I said I don't think the problem is the price of CDs, I think the problem is that the quality of the product no longer justifies its price. They could aleviate the problem by embracing the internet and independant label style distribution, rather than fighting it, or they could work on increasing the quality of the music. Ideally they'll do both, but personally I'd rather them just get back to the music.

[NiteLite]

After all - how many times we can buy that old Pink Floyd album I already have DSOT on LP, CD, VHS and DVD. Well, I guess I'll buy it on HD-DVD/BR-DVD if it comes out too, but probably thats it

You should really buy and hear it on SACD. Makes the others obsolete.
If your are talking DSOTM...

Also the breakdown that CNN gave on the costs of CDs is BS...no doubt transcripted directly from some music corporation CFO.
.75 printing?what a crop. and 3.34 to "overhead" huh? and shipping? I can mail a CD for 15cents. Imaging the bulk rate they get.
Again corporate BS.
Anyone remember the promise they made to congress to let them recover their R&D costs and they they would lower their price to compete with the then prices of LP's...didn't happen did it. Or Universal and their subs reducing their list to $12.99 in 2004 I think it was, maybe 2003...but the stores didnt reduce their prices. Well some did. Very few.
Problem is the music companies are reaching out to only a couple or so groups of listeners and it's not paying as high of return as they thought so instead of investing in other stlye, age groups taste, etc just complain and try to keep rasing the prices.
Greed Greed Greed...so glad I despise popular music.

[adam]

Give me a break. The major labels are all owned by public corporations. Their records are open to the public. Those and similar statistics can be found in any book on the music industry or through any number of completely disinterested sources. What is so hard to believe about a product's sale price mostly going towards recouping expenses? That is true for virtually all consumer goods sold in the world.

CD prices have actually steadily declined since 2001. The market is still recovering from the price fixing. The FTC broke up the MAP policies that artificially inflated the price, but the distributors and retailers just pocketed the difference. The price wars are finally settling back in, and faster and more aggressively than ever now that there is internet based competition. If mainstream music weren't so damn shitty this would actually be a good time for music lovers.

[NiteLite]

Adam, I simply dont believe something CNN or any news corp will print concerning the costs of doing business from a major corporation. I dont believe the public corporations are open with their finances. If that were true would Enron have been able to hide their figures so good?
You want blatantly lying statements? Take the online rental companies. All you hear or read is about their costs concerning postage, right? They dont tell you that postage is a liability and therefore a deductable expense from income before net is declared. Postage is not a factor concerning their net profits. Most all expenses as a part of doing business are deductable, so the figures in the CNN statement are incurred costs but not actual costs.
True net costs and net profits are rarely known by the general public.

And I agree fully with the 2nd paragraph.
NL