Would you buy a resonably-priced CD version of a free/independent release you liked?

[Basilisk]

One comment that comes up quite regularly as I post and promote free music is "I'd buy that if it were released it on CD!" You can see similar sentiments expressed here on Psynews any time people are posting free music for download (or even selling digitally). As I see it, the potential of online distribution (whether free or paid) is immense, but there are always going to be fans and listeners out there who cherish the physical product. It seems the question to ask is: why not find a way to do both?

 

My vision is one where industry forces no longer inhibit the creative drive of the musicians creating the music we love. As sales have declined and options (more artists, more labels, more niche styles) have increased, commercial activity is increasingly compartmentalized. By that I mean most of the music that is released must fit one or another niche to have a hope of being licensed by a label for physical manufacturing and eventual distribution. I think we can break this pattern by changing the rules... and I think it is an important step forward to develop the technology to simultaneously release free/independent/underground music physically as well as online.

 

I've researched a way to make it happen. I have even shopped the idea around to a few of the netlabels and other free music providers I work with through my site. The reaction has been mixed (some are for it, some don't see the point). What I'd like to know is what the Psynews community thinks of it... say you could download an album for free, but also show your support for the artist(s) and label by ordering a reasonably priced CD version. If you enjoyed the music, would you go for it?

 

P.S. - I am starting this poll to develop a little traction with the artists/labels I've been speaking to... so, show your support one way or another, and of course I'd love to hear what you think of the basic idea this is very much a project in the early stages of development!

[amphiton]

I would if it was a proper printed CD.

 

and if wasn't from... you know what label :wank:

[Malevol3nt]

I'm in for this idea. Sort of a way to sell your cd's without a record label too.

[Melancholyman]

The Nolax album is available for free but I would definetly buy it if it existed in physical form, not only to support the artist but also cause I really like to have the retail cd and not some burned one with my crappy handwriting on it

 

I would if it was a proper printed CD.

I would buy when it is no CDR... if it is properly printed, and I like the music, i'll buy for sure!

Agree

[Anoebis]

I would buy when it is no CDR... if it is properly printed, and I like the music, i'll buy for sure!

[Basilisk]

Let's hone in on the CD-R issue... the main reason CD manufacturers have 500 or 1,000 unit minimums is the fact that traditional CD manufacturing processes require the production of a master disc, as outlined here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD_manufacturing

 

This imposes an unavoidable minimum cost on the procedure that is the source of the problems I'm looking to tackle.

 

One of the digital manufacturers I've been looking into has the following claim:

 

Duplication has made major strides over the last few years. Today mediocre duplication is superior to bad replication. And superior duplication is better than mediocre replication. Lastly, superior duplication is every bit as good as the best replication.

I am still researching the veracity of this statement, but it seems sensible to me (technology does move ahead). We're not talking a home-burnt CD-R here; this is a major manufacturing plant with professional-grade equipment using duplication as opposed to replication to eliminate the minimums.

 

I think there may be two challenges to address here: the perception of CD-R media, and the actual physical quality of modern CD-R manufacturing processes. If the quality is good, then it's just a matter of how it looks, right? CD-R carries the stigma of poor presentation (no case, no cover, just some marker on a consumer-grade disc). I've not been looking into that kind of thing... only professional-quality duplication. Along the way I've wondered if there are any labels already using such techniques... for instance, if no one told you, could you tell the difference between a CD manufactured using traditional glass master replication and one made using modern CD duplication processes?

[KozmikTentacles]

I voted Yes. I do download free releases sometimes, from Thinner's site for example. It's nice of them to give away music like this, but I would actually prefer to buy it if I like it. Sometimes it feels a bit frustrating when you hear a good net-release and it's not available as phyiscal medium, cos I think a good release should be.

[RAH]

i think these kinds of polls serve more to inspire personally than to answer any useful statistical information about whether this kind of endevor is actually viable in any kind of standard. If it's good music i would even buy it in a well presented CD-R, like i twas the case with scozbor. But truth of the matter is the great majority of the community will not cough up money to buy something they can get for free... that's why things are the way the way are...

[Pandemonium]

I have never downloaded for free or bought any music digitally, which is sad, because there is alot of great music out there not available on cd. I have to have the physical product and done properly.

[Mindphilux]

if it was a non-cdr then yes. Chi-ad's album is at the top of my list...

[psychonaut]

other.

 

i would donate money but i would not buy the cd.

 

i see no point in supporting fedex with my money, i think they have enough.

 

buying information on a physical medium in the 21st century is a lot like trying to buy a horse in a BMW dealership.

 

you have to consider of course that about 95% of all people are complete morons.

[Goa Bill]

other.

 

i would donate money but i would not buy the cd.

 

i see no point in supporting fedex with my money, i think they have enough.

 

buying information on a physical medium in the 21st century is a lot like trying to buy a horse in a BMW dealership.

 

you have to consider of course that about 95% of all people are complete morons.

+1 but not morons, technologically challenged

[KozmikTentacles]

other.

 

i would donate money but i would not buy the cd.

 

i see no point in supporting fedex with my money, i think they have enough.

 

buying information on a physical medium in the 21st century is a lot like trying to buy a horse in a BMW dealership.

 

you have to consider of course that about 95% of all people are complete morons.

You prefer to live in arab countries instead? I'm sure they don't have fedex. and they hate the modern western world too.

[abasio]

other.

 

i would donate money but i would not buy the cd.

 

i see no point in supporting fedex with my money, i think they have enough.

 

buying information on a physical medium in the 21st century is a lot like trying to buy a horse in a BMW dealership.

 

you have to consider of course that about 95% of all people are complete morons.

Buying something you want is moronic?

 

What do you have against Fedex (you must have worked for them, right?) They ship damn fast here & the delivery people are always very friendly & nice :posford:

[jivamukti]

I voted "Other". I have found quite good indie tracks by various people, but I don't feel they are so good that I must have them in better quality and on CD when I can have a good quality version for free.

[Guest antic]

No. Most likely wouldn't buy a CD version of free-for-download release, unless it would be something really, really good (and properly printed), which I doubt since there had to be a reason why it is released for free in the first place...

 

It is a totally different thing with payable mp3/wav/flac/whatever. For me a payable music file (of any type) has no use, so either I will buy the music in a form of professionally released CD or won't buy at all.

 

EDIT: Wow! I'm the first one to vote 'No'

[Charlie]

I would, yes.

[Tatsu]

Yes I would. If I'd like the music and it is properly mastered I'd go for it. There is a small Swiss label that releases albums with cover and everything but not yet as professional done as a regular release. As soon as they have enough CDs sold they can afford to press a regular release and everybody who bought one of the demos gets a regluar CD too. I quite like that way of operating and since I like the music I allready bought two CDs from them.

 

I personaly understand if people prefere digital formats for independent (or whatever you wanna call them) releases but I'm not a big fan of that. I prefere to have my stuff with proper covers and an actual media. I can't burn CDrs (I'm using an old notebook) and I also prefere to have an actual media at my hands when I pay for it.

[reger]

other:

id buy it, if it would be exceptionally neat piece of plastic and music itself would be great. if its not up my street, i wouldnt buy it.

[no-nonsense]

My main concern with CD-Rs is the "bit rot" issue. That after some years, one day I'll pick it up from the shelf and it won't play anymore. I see CD-R as a medium for temporary, disposable storage, not a collectable one. If I can't have a pressed CD I'd rather pay (less) for a download and burn it myself.

[auryn]

I'm not sure...

 

I share the feeling of wanting to have something tangible when I pay for it (preferably with some nice artwork).

 

For the sake of the environment though, I think it might be better if we try to leave that attitude (and all the hard plastics that come with it) behind.

[Veracohr]

Let's hone in on the CD-R issue... the main reason CD manufacturers have 500 or 1,000 unit minimums is the fact that traditional CD manufacturing processes require the production of a master disc, as outlined here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD_manufacturing

 

This imposes an unavoidable minimum cost on the procedure that is the source of the problems I'm looking to tackle.

 

One of the digital manufacturers I've been looking into has the following claim:

I am still researching the veracity of this statement, but it seems sensible to me (technology does move ahead). We're not talking a home-burnt CD-R here; this is a major manufacturing plant with professional-grade equipment using duplication as opposed to replication to eliminate the minimums.

 

I think there may be two challenges to address here: the perception of CD-R media, and the actual physical quality of modern CD-R manufacturing processes. If the quality is good, then it's just a matter of how it looks, right? CD-R carries the stigma of poor presentation (no case, no cover, just some marker on a consumer-grade disc). I've not been looking into that kind of thing... only professional-quality duplication. Along the way I've wondered if there are any labels already using such techniques... for instance, if no one told you, could you tell the difference between a CD manufactured using traditional glass master replication and one made using modern CD duplication processes?

I had 150 CDs made of my album, professionally duplicated. I haven't heard of any failing to play, or having any other problems that people associate with home-burnt CDRs.

 

As for the original question: yes I would. I like to support the artists I like.

 

However...

 

I do not believe that I am indicative of any majority of music fans. Most of my close friends are musicians, and it has only been fairly recently in my life that I have met people whom I would consider to be "average-Joe" type music fans. And I've come to realize that average-Joe type music fans not only don't give a fuck about physical vs. soft media, a lot of them also don't give a fuck about supporting the musicians they like. Most people out there would take things for free if they could (not just music.) After all, what's better than free stuff, right? But while I recognize and appreciate the effort people put into creative endeavors, most people just want to get as much free shit as they can.

[Darkarbiter]

Yes I would. Heck I met this guy that was playing psytrance in the background along with didgeridoo and I bought his cd (was about $10). Depending on how good it is I'd pay $10-15 to get it shipped/mailed to me. So long as it is a decent quality cover and cd.

 

Yes I torrent... but if it's decent I'll pay for a 320kbps/wav version of it off beatport and if I can't find it anywhere then that's the artists fault. Although TBH I just prefer to pay for stuff in wave/320kbps mp3 off Beatport.

[Taika-Kim]

My point of view as somebody who has been doing this for over five years now:

 

I get something between 600-900 downloads a month for the latest album, but it took me about a year to sell 100 CDs from my site (and some in parties) for 10e apiece, including postage.

 

A part of the problem is tricky net payments. Paypal is OK, but IIRC they leech almost one euro for each CD i sell Then there's direct bank transfers, which should be OK inside EU at least. (for some reason Belgians especially are fond of these?)

 

So one trick could be to find a real distributor for the CD so people could buy it in normal record stores.

 

The CDs I sell are factory made CDRs with nice enough sleeves and disc graphics, and I would say that 99% of the people don't know or care about the difference to pressed discs really. I believe that modern factory-made CDRs are supposed to last quite well.

 

Also I know that pirates of my CDs sell for about 20 bucks in at least one Moscow collectible record store. And dozens of Russian MP3 sites sell downloads of my music, which is indicative of a fan base large enough, that some people don't even realize that they could download the same music for free from our site...

And actually I've been talking to somebody who actually bought such a pirate just to get it in audio quality... The mysterious "audio quality" religion is deeply rooted in the scene. I would say that 320kbs MP3s have practically no difference to the originals, especially with the kind of soundsystems people use usually to listen to the music...

 

I have some pretty fanatic fans in East Europe and Israel especially, but the thing is that young people these days are not used to buying CDs... Granted, there's some people who said to me that my CD is the first "DJ" album they bought just because they love the music so much, but these are a minority. In fact, I haven't seen too many original CDs in the last year of travelling (even at the organisers' houses!), if I think about it...

And even CDRs are getting redunant because some DJs only play from Traktor. "No worries about scratched discs anymore"...

 

So from my experience, I would say that don't have too high hopes for selling free releases these days... (and judging from discussions with my label owning friends: good luck selling _any_ CDs these days!)

 

As I see it, by distributing free music, I push out around 10000 copies yeach year in the best scenario, and add to this the fact that many MP3s I see of my music are NOT from our site, for some reason or another, so in total there is probably around 50-100K people each year receiving my album, when counting for all the copies people spread to their friends and so on...

And yes I DO have some ideas about turning that amount circulation into money... But that will have to wait until I have my next album ready...

[Charlie]

I don't understand this obsession with artwork. Well, no, that's a lie, I do, because it mattered to me once too. But putting it into perspective, if you like a tune why should it matter when there's no accompanying artwork? Does anyone actually keep looking at the same CD artwork once they're familiar with it?