EMusic - C/D

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (340 of them)

Saxby-

My sources come from the eMusic FAQ page, a contract I signed with them for my first label, and the deal memo I rejected for my second label. When I did my first deal way back in 00, they were handing out stupid money, so I took it without really thinking and subsequently went out of business so it barely mattered. But then came the statements. At first they were really high, like 45 cents a song (this is pre-iTunes), but then they switched over to the unlimited downloads plan, and shit just plummeted. Most of the time the money I was getting per track didn't even cover the standard mechanical royalty (then around 8 cents per track). When my deal was up in 2005 I had them pull all of the content. They stopped pleading when I responded to their overtures with:

I'd rather people steal my music than give it away.

They changed models (and owners) a few times before settling on their current "subscription" plan. These numbers are not refutable:

$9.99 per month divided by 30 downloads is 33 cents per download. Take off eMusic's 50/50 revenue split off, and another few pennies for their various fees (uploading, delivery charge) and you arrive at roughly 14 cents. Fuck it, let's round up to 15 cents, and again, this isn't even figuring in the free downloads. Many indies do 50/50 deals, so everyone winds up with 7.5 cents. This in no way factors in mechanicals or percentage deals, of which most bigger indies pay. I've never heard of a label getting better than a 50/50 deal, but maybe it exists, so you could have the big boys getting 20-25 cents, but I doubt it.

Their entire approach to labels is this idea of "found" money. As if you'd just be leaving it on the street if you didn't sign on. But the reality is that between iTunes and the ever growing crop of indie niche digital sites (Other Music, Boomkat, Juno, etc, with Wax Poetics and Turntable Lab following), you do have options. Good options really. The kind of options that pay you a respectable percentage of the sale. eMusic is finding out the hard way that their business model is again broke, as more and more labels are deciding pull out. They aren't the only game in town anymore, and Darwinian law still prevails:

Adapt or perish.

― VG++, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 13:15 (sixteen years ago) link

[eMusic's]entire approach to labels is this idea of "found" money. As if you'd just be leaving it on the street if you didn't sign on. But the reality is that between iTunes and the ever growing crop of indie niche digital sites (Other Music, Boomkat, Juno, etc, with Wax Poetics and Turntable Lab following), you do have options. Good options really. The kind of options that pay you a respectable percentage of the sale. eMusic is finding out the hard way that their business model is again broke, as more and more labels are deciding pull out. They aren't the only game in town anymore, and Darwinian law still prevails:
Adapt or perish.

I think you're taking eMusic's notion of "found money" too lightly. I'd bet that many indie labels are mistaken if they think that the people who download their songs on eMusic will seek out the label's material -- either at iTunes, a brick and mortar store, or elsewhere online -- if they sever their ties to eMusic. I think many eMusic subscribers look at the service as a valuable clearinghouse/recommendation engine for discovering music. Without it, I likely wouldn't have discovered Folkways or Pressure Sounds, for example. And if those labels left, I might seek out some of their titles elsewhere, but it's far less likely. So, for those labels, at least, the money they receive from my eMusic downloads is likely the only money they'd receive from me (and I don't download illegally). Labels also recognize that an online music clearinghouse/recommendation engine can generate business. If it weren’t so, why not simply sell your music on your own online store, sever your ties to iTunes (which, presumably, also takes a percentage of all money generated from downloads), and take a higher margin of the profit?

― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 9 May 2007 13:43 (sixteen years ago) link

Also, I thought your comment implying that eMusic isn’t adapting to the new playing field (“Adapt or perish”) was an interesting notion, inasmuch as your marginal profit is higher by selling a song elsewhere. But, ultimately, I think your position is shortsighted, for reasons partially set forth in a comment that appears on an eMusic thread discussing the label defections:

I read a very interesting article about China, where piracy is quite rampant. They were saying that musicians there pretty much have come to accept that selling the music itself is a no-profit option. They do try, of course, but at the same time, they recognize that the true profit to be had is in a) live sales aka concerts b) related concert items like t-shirts etc. and c) building a brand name e.g. commercial endorsements, spin-off media etc. So basically, the actual music track is a freebie that you use to build your fanbase so you can sell them other stuff, be it more merchandise (books, magazines) or some sort of 'experience' (concerts, shows etc.) Interesting business model, I think.

In my opinion, the problem is that we are really, in this day and age, in a customer-driven market. Those who want to survive and profit have to cater to the customer. If the customer does not want to spend 99 cents a track, they will not and you won't sell to them unless you offer something else they do want, at a price they want. It doesn't mean they are wrong and you are right, or they are evil and you must punish them or legislate them into doing what you want. It means that if you want their money, you have to sell them what they want at a price they want.

An analogy I often use with the students I teach, when we talk about it is this: let's say you are a bakery and you are known for your carrot muffins. You open your new store and you find that everyone there wants to buy chovolate chip muffins. You have two options. 1) Spend allt his time, money and effort trying to convince them that they need to be buying carrot muffins instead or b) spend that same time and money investing in the infrastructure that will allow you to make chocolate chip muffins. Sell them these and rake in the dough. The meainstream music industry is clinging to an outmoded business model. If they want to keep having profits, they need to get with the times.

― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 9 May 2007 13:43 (sixteen years ago) link

yeah i understand the difficulty musicians and labels are having in adjusting to the devaluation of their product -- but the product has been devalued. if you can still get someone to spend a dollar a track or whatever, great, go for it. but for the most part, a song ain't "worth" what it used to be. i like emusic becase i always said if anyone ever started selling downloads for 25 cents a track, i'd join right up. that's as arbitrary a number as 99 cents, obviously, but as a consumer i don't feel ripped off at 25 cents, where i do for 99. i would expect producers to feel differently. where the price-point is that everyone can be happy with, i have no idea.

― tipsy mothra, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 13:52 (sixteen years ago) link

Shortsighted? I'm actually looking at the bigger picture, wherein labels have no money to operate so they stop making records altogether. You say you wish eMusic had Soul Jazz and Numero, but did you ever stop to think that you're missing out on half the story by just downloading the songs? It takes thousands of hours to create a Folkways or Pressure Sounds record, and despite what you may think, there are still rights holders to be paid. The four compaines above make an outstanding product, so why should they give it away? You don't go to McDonalds expecting fine dining, do you? If you can't afford the restaurant, that's fine, but don't stand outside berating the chef for your ill fortune.

So here's the big question: Why does all music have to be cheap? If the product is of a high quality, why are you opposed to paying for it? I buy organic produce because it's better for me and the environment, but I don't bitch about the cost to the guy stacking fruit or the farmer who creates it. I understand that the process of growing organic food is more costly and I throw it in my cart. If you want Soul Jazz, Numero, Folkways, or Pressure Sounds to continue to exist, you've got to support them. We don't live in China where people will work hard for nothing, so that analogy is pointless. If you worked at a toll booth and they lowered your pay because of automated tolling, would you stay there, or would you go look for new work? What happens when the artists and labels making the muic you really like stop doing it and find jobs elsewhere? Will your response be:

I couldn't find them on eMusic.

?

― VG++, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 15:03 (sixteen years ago) link

In your analogy, the restaurant sees its tables empty, with patrons just outside and willing to pay a slightly lesser rate, but not what they consider your restaurant's too-high prices. And the restaurant's response is to let the tables remain empty and berate the prospective customers -- who are standing at your doorstep -- for their apparent stinginess.

Look, I'm willing to pay more for eMusic. Explore ways to work with them. If, for instance, they'll provide full liner notes and/or extras for downloading a full disc, I'll pay more for that disc (e.g., Numero Group, Soul Jazz, and so forth). If, for instance, labels offer some enticing special access to their artists or curators -- through eMusic -- in exchange for an extra amount that, minus hard costs incurred by eMusic, goes directly to the label, I might do it.

Maybe I’m wrong – or maybe your label will be a lucky exception – but I’ll still bet that many labels that leave eMusic will see a decrease in their net profits. If that’s the case, why not explore ways to tap into that existing market?

― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 9 May 2007 15:31 (sixteen years ago) link

Sorry if the tone of these posts sounds harsh. I'm not trying to be a jackass here (I have to be a jackass often enough in my chosen field).

― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 9 May 2007 15:34 (sixteen years ago) link

We don't live in China where people will work hard for nothing, so that analogy is pointless.

This misses the point. Whatever amounts Chinese people are willing to work for, the Chinese model has succeeded in providing a living for artists, which appears comparable to the living they presumably made under the prior, older model (the model that U.S. labels are stuck on).

― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 9 May 2007 15:49 (sixteen years ago) link

As additional evidence of labels backward-thinking, there's this item:

Florida apparently just passed a law that severely hampers the buying and selling of used CDs. The law states that stores have to wait 30 days before reselling the CDs. (via BB, via AT)

“No, you won’t spend any time in jail, but you’ll certainly feel like a criminal once the local record shop makes copies of all of your identifying information and even collects your fingerprints. Such is the state of affairs in Florida, which now has the dubious distinction of being so anal about the sale of used music CDs that record shops there are starting to get out of the business of dealing with used content because they don’t want to pay a Florida apparently just passed a law that severely hampers the buying and selling of used CDs. The law states that stores have to wait 30 days before reselling the CDs. (via BB, via AT)

“No, you won’t spend any time in jail, but you’ll certainly feel like a criminal once the local record shop makes copies of all of your identifying information and even collects your fingerprints. Such is the state of affairs in Florida, which now has the dubious distinction of being so anal about the sale of used music CDs that record shops there are starting to get out of the business of dealing with used content because they don’t want to pay a $10,000 bond for the ‘right’ to treat their customers like criminals.”

This would pretty much suck. Except for a few choice new releases, the used bin at my work is pretty much the only way I buy albums any more.0,000 bond for the ‘right’ to treat their customers like criminals.”

This would pretty much suck. Except for a few choice new releases, the used bin at my work is pretty much the only way I buy albums any more.

Yikes. A link to the original story is below:

Record Shops: Used CDs? Ihre Papieren, bitte!

― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 9 May 2007 16:44 (sixteen years ago) link

So here's the big question: Why does all music have to be cheap? If the product is of a high quality, why are you opposed to paying for it?

i don't think anyone's opposed to paying for it. but who says what's "cheap"? a sizable chunk of the traditional cost of recorded music used to be in replication and distribution. but as replication and distribution have gotten exponentially cheaper, there has not been a concomitant decline in the price to the consumer. the emusic model represents an attempt to reflect that reality. i guess if enough labels opt out of it, it won't work for too long, but at least they're trying something.

it may well be that it will become much harder to get wealthy by performing, recording and distributing music. but of course the vast majority of people who make music have never gotten wealthy anyway.

― tipsy mothra, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 16:59 (sixteen years ago) link

Also, it's just an unfortunate truth that there's more competition for one's *entertainment dollar* than ever. Even leaving out all the stuff like DVDs, video games, etc., we've gone from an age where one could mostly just buy whatever was in one's local record shop at the time to being able to get virtually any recording ever made in any town at any time, not to mention the jump in the number of new recordings being released.

Each artist wants their art to be treated as unique and special work that is intrinsically valuable, and it is, but the consumer has to make choices between one record and another, and price is going to play a role whether you like it or not. Yes, I want to support artists and labels, but it's pretty hard for me to justify paying, say, $15.99 to support one artist and one label when I might have a way of getting three or four albums I want for the same price, supporting all of those artists and labels, albeit with a lower profit margin.

This is just economics. There's too much good music available, and unfortunately that devalues good music somewhat, makes it less special and worth less money.

Besides, no one forces labels to sell at a lower price than they can afford. If it doesn't work for labels, they'll raise prices or leave the system.

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 17:28 (sixteen years ago) link

i can imagine a lot of different models for musicians and labels to pursue, all of which we'll probably see some attempts at. the emusic one is basically a commodity approach: every unit costs the same as every other unit, and they get cheaper in bulk. you could also use more of a stock market approach, where the price of a given song or album would increase as demand increased (and then fall again as demand ebbed). there's the artisanal model, where i guess people could sell their own stuff only through their own web sites and mailing lists, and set prices according to what they either could get or needed to make a living. and also the high art model -- once someone reached a certain level of success or acclaim or whatever, they could start selling one-off, single- or limited-edition releases through galleries, for $5,000 or $10,000 per song (or whatever the market would support). the major challenge to all of these models is controlling replication and distribution. but that's not insurmountable for most of them. in the emusic model, you just keep the pricing low enough and the selection good enough that the convenience dissuades people from looking for illicit channels. in the artisanal model, you're mostly relying on a small base of fans, who are going to pay you because they want to, which serves as some hedge against piracy. and the high-art model would probably involve some kind of major investment in cryptography, plus also the people buying it would have a disincentive to copy and distribute it to maintain the value of their investment. so the most troubled model is the market-based supply and demand one, because if something gets more expensive as demand goes up, then you have dual incentives for piracy. this is somewhat the problem the riaa is facing. of all the possible music-delivery models, they have the one that is in a lot of ways most vulnerable to piracy. until they bring their price-per-unit down substantially, that's not going to change.

― tipsy mothra, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 19:01 (sixteen years ago) link

there's the artisanal model, where i guess people could sell their own stuff only through their own web sites and mailing lists

Are there really many examples of this working though? I don't see it as very viable.

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 19:16 (sixteen years ago) link

Very interesting discussion going here. It's fascinating (to me anyway) to watch it all play out as previous format changes weren't nearly earth shattering in their effect on the industry.

― matt2, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 19:20 (sixteen years ago) link

i don't think there are many examples of any of the alternative models, because so much is still driven by the existing channels. but to the extent that most bands now have websites with their own merchandise and mailing lists, the infrastructure is already there. another model that falls somewhere in between is the boutique, which can be either labels (like soul jazz and numero) or specialized retailers like other music, etc. obviously those already exist, and they are likewise less threatened by the shifts in technology and the marketplace because they're already catering to a specialized audience.

― tipsy mothra, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 19:28 (sixteen years ago) link

I'd imagine we'll see more and more small hybrid label/management/promo companies. It kind of makes sense (from my inexperienced perspective, at least) to consolidate all the things involved in the promotion and selling of an artist and have one company taking a bigger piece of the pie instead of a bunch of different actors taking smaller pieces.

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 19:28 (sixteen years ago) link

Yeah, I see the boutique label as a much better model than the individual artisanal model. It's just too much to expect one artist (most of them anyway) to have the skillsets needed to make good music AND promote/manage/book/sell effectively.

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 19:30 (sixteen years ago) link

I mean I find it naive when people say "Nowadays all an artist needs is a myspace page and a paypal account!" Just because the music is on the net doesn't mean anyone's going to find it, and pure "word of mouth" without any marketing push never goes as far as people would like to believe.

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 19:31 (sixteen years ago) link

What Hurting says is true, but I love the inventiveness of TM's ideas. Maybe there are ways to modify them, to address some vulnerabilities. For instance, in the stock market model, you could set price floors (but no ceilings) so songs that aren't so popular -- say, old items on the Smithsonian label -- receive something of value when they're downloaded. And piracy can create distortions in the stock market model, e.g., an Arcade Fire song isn't legally downloaded as often because of rampant pirating. But maybe common P2P sources can be monitored -- without in any way condoning piracy -- to ensure that real demand is reflected in the price of a song.

― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 9 May 2007 19:38 (sixteen years ago) link

i dunno if everyone discussing here has seen it, but emusic's ceo wrote a blog post related to all of this.

― YGS, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 20:05 (sixteen years ago) link

interesting. i wonder if emusic (or anyone) has considered some kind of multi-layer pricing system, with various levels of premium content. like, your subscription will get you 40 downloads of level-1 tracks, or 20 downloads of level-2 tracks, or 10 of level-3, etc. then the labels could set their content at whatever level they thought it could get. and albums or songs could move up and down the levels depending on demand.

― tipsy mothra, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 20:23 (sixteen years ago) link

Thing is, consumers like simplicity. Once there are all these tiers to keep track of they'll probably just go and download for free somewhere.

― Mark Rich@rdson, Thursday, 10 May 2007 06:21 (sixteen years ago) link

Its a shame that the emusic model seems to be failing. I'm a very happy subscriber. I think it is priced about right for what I see as its value to me (mainly taking a chance on things I don't know and would never have heard otherwise).

Domino in the UK left them earlier this year and if a few more labels go then I will too eventually. But what I am unlikely to do is put more money into the music industry. The choice isn't my 12 quid a month for 5 or so albums becoming 60 quid a month for retail purchases. Its that 12 quid going to some other part of the entertainment industry. Which means that all the stuff about supporting starving artists are irrelevant.

The 50% cut seems low to me, but maybe emusic should just be more open about their overheads - are they making a profit?

― Sandy Blair, Thursday, 10 May 2007 16:21 (sixteen years ago) link

i don't know what evidence there is that they're failing. they still have tons of labels, and their subscriber base has gone up hugely every year.

― tipsy mothra, Thursday, 10 May 2007 16:27 (sixteen years ago) link

I hate when these types of discussion occur with little or no mention of JUST HOW MUCH free downloading is going on out there.

Of course people will spend their entertainment dollar elsewhere when the stuff is free. And the prime demo 18-24 is quite unaccustomed to paying for music let alone getting choked up about primo physical product. If you were 18 in the year 2000, you are now OUT OF THIS DEMO.

The big problem is all of the KEY MISSTEPS taken by the RIAA at crucial times. Their efforts to go after working families with college or mall kids was plainly a huge PR blunder that anyone in the industry is still paying for. It was cruel, seemed (well, was) arbitrary and it also got people realizing that "illegal downloading" ISN'T EVEN ILLEGAL!!! The Supreme Court will probably one day change that but for now it's still the Betamax "fair use" ruling that we (in the U.S.) are going off of.

I think that if anything, they have created a climate of "download absolutely everything because soon it's all going to change radically", just as it was in the final days of the "all you can eat" model of eMusic.

Dude, btw I wouldn't leave eMusic because Domino is going. That's just some crazy ass shit. I might leave if Prestige/Riverside/Fantasy etc did but DOMINO?!!

― Saxby D. Elder, Friday, 11 May 2007 03:49 (sixteen years ago) link

Yeah, and free downloading irritates me and I refuse to do it. I still think it's a kind of stealing, even if it's not equivalent to shoplifting. I mean it's inevitable that a person is going to copy a song or an album from a friend once in a while - has been so since long before downloading, but it's another thing to expect a whole library of music for nothing.

I'm just not sure what's to be done about it.

― Hurting 2, Friday, 11 May 2007 03:54 (sixteen years ago) link

You know, the other thing that actually saddens me just a bit is that people don't even really care about "lossy" music anymore.

I mean, I am no Flim & the BBs fan (i.e. no audiophile wanker) (wanker maybe but not a classic audiophile), but I still really get into the full spectrum of sound that Vinyl offers (and which CDs do their digital best to approximate).

Seems like yet another part of the paradigm lost in the discussion.

(and yes, I know about FLACs ya dumbass so don't even start).

― Saxby D. Elder, Friday, 11 May 2007 04:02 (sixteen years ago) link

the thing with illegal downloading is that an entire generation is growing up now with basically no other alternative -- at my school, i honestly don't know anyone who gets their music primarily through stores (buys music, sure, but everyone downloads it first), and i'm not just talking about the techy kids. even the "oh i listen to __(selection of top 40 groups)__" kids get their music through the internet, as a rule.

― lucas pine, Friday, 11 May 2007 04:08 (sixteen years ago) link

Regarding lossy music: give me convenience or give me death, as someone cleverer than I once called an album.

― Mr. Odd, Friday, 11 May 2007 04:12 (sixteen years ago) link

the thing with illegal downloading is that an entire generation is growing up now with basically no other alternative

There are many alternatives, e.g., iTunes, eMusic, InSound, a label's own online store, and so forth.

― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 11 May 2007 04:23 (sixteen years ago) link

yes

but no matter how many sales these retailers claim, i can say with 90% certainty that i don't know a single person who listens to music (new music -- not their parents' beatles collection) and doesn't download it illegally

― lucas pine, Friday, 11 May 2007 05:10 (sixteen years ago) link

hmmm this is at the very least pretty goddamn anecdotal but I buy it.

I think I mentioned on another thread (or here maybe, too tired to look), take a look sometime at the OiNK top 10 snatches. The top entry is like 22,000+ snatches. Then factor in USENET (which the RIAA still doesn't seem to have noticed incidentally), Soulseek, IRC, Limewire, AIM, MSN and the billions of other ways to get and exchange "free music" and you really have to be talking about millions of dollars in lost sales, even factoring in those people who would have never in a million years purchased the item in question.

And who is the big winner here? The ISPs who look the other way on this. You think they don't know which ports soulseek uses?! My ISP has a fantastic array of newsgroup options of "pre-teen" sex groups to choose from as well, let alone the music binary groups us normal people frequent. Then they are looking to strip your net neutrality from you and all of a sudden they seem quite evil.

Not to mention what my ISP has done to the Knicks!! Criminals!!!!

― Saxby D. Elder, Friday, 11 May 2007 05:46 (sixteen years ago) link

I spend more money each month buying real CD copies of stuff I have liked that I got initially via eMusic than I do on the eMusic subscription itself. Boredoms and Clientele, for instance, have done very well out of me having an eMusic subscription.

― Scik Mouthy, Friday, 11 May 2007 06:47 (sixteen years ago) link

one month passes...

bit of an update on this... I had a chat with a "digital music professional" who told me that the sort of math contained in this thread, while technically correct, does not accurately reflect the sort of business model being used by eMusic. He likened it to the "Gym Membership" model, where essentially they sign you up and pray like hell that you never use their gym.

So, the gross numbers are all correct, but the hope is that the labels will net just a bit more because not everyone (including me!) remembers to use up their 40 DLs every month.

The net for labels and artists IS still quite low regardless.

― Saxby D. Elder, Sunday, 17 June 2007 19:21 (sixteen years ago) link

Right - they basically divvy up a pool of subscription money based on downloads, so it's not a solid per-track fee.

In any case, bad deal for labels/artists or not, I think it's one situation where the market can work things out. No one is forcing any artist or label to be on eMusic, and if the deal is unfair, they can renegotiate or leave. As long as a label puts their stuff on the site, I'm going to assume they're ok with the compensation.

― Hurting 2, Sunday, 17 June 2007 19:47 (sixteen years ago) link

yeah, exactly...

― Saxby D. Elder, Sunday, 17 June 2007 20:06 (sixteen years ago) link

xpost - Why do you do that, Nick? I thought it was only sad older guys like me who grew up fetishizing the physical that need to buy CD copies of stuff they download and like.

― Mr. Odd, Sunday, 17 June 2007 21:18 (sixteen years ago) link

one month passes...

Man, eMusic has been seriously crashing Safari the last few days. I know I have an older version of the browser, but the site used to load perfectly. Dud.

― Roy Kasten, Friday, 27 July 2007 14:20 (sixteen years ago) link

Heh, I was going to bump this to say something. Just noticed the problem yesterday-- can't access their site on Safari at all. It's been going on for days?

― Jon Lewis, Friday, 27 July 2007 14:30 (sixteen years ago) link

Yeah. Loads fine in Firefox, but instant crash on Safari 1.3.2. I wonder if newer versions of Safari are working ok.

― Roy Kasten, Friday, 27 July 2007 14:41 (sixteen years ago) link

hey guys -- there is a bug w/ 1.3 and we (emu) are working on it. thx for yr patience.

― YGS, Friday, 27 July 2007 14:52 (sixteen years ago) link

Thanks, Y.

― Jon Lewis, Friday, 27 July 2007 14:56 (sixteen years ago) link

Gracias big Y.

― Hurting 2, Friday, 27 July 2007 15:05 (sixteen years ago) link

The new Safari is MUCH BETTER and my eMusic works fine with it.

I really recommend the new Safari, it's worth the upgrade or whatever you have to do if you are a user of a previous version.

Mine was working so poorly before and I thought it was because I hacked into it and changed it so that it will remember my entire "history" for 99 years. But now that i am on the new version, it runs way better than Firefox, which I have grown to really hate. HTH, FWIW, YMMV, ETC

― Saxby D. Elder, Friday, 27 July 2007 15:42 (sixteen years ago) link

Ah, thanks Y. It would be most awesome if you're able to work out the bugs--I can't upgrade my Safari without buying a whole new Mac OS, which might not run on my faithful clamshell iBook anyway.

― Roy Kasten, Friday, 27 July 2007 16:53 (sixteen years ago) link

perhaps someone has said this somewhere upthread -- i'm too lazy to read -- but it's a demonstrably better deal for artists and labels, dollars- and cents-wise, than bittorrent, megaupload and other free avenues, which is what this is competing with.

― fact checking cuz, Friday, 27 July 2007 18:29 (sixteen years ago) link

I think that's a good point cuz and I don't think that's been mentioned yet.

My computer is really old too btw... It is a G4 tho. Also, I think Tiger only comes as a DVD, so if you only have a CD-ROM drive you might have to install in some sort of makeshift manner. Feel free to msg me for some mac talk, anyone...

― Saxby D. Elder, Friday, 27 July 2007 21:39 (sixteen years ago) link

four months pass...

dumb question (but my googling/looking at their website for a few mins didn't answer it): is it really priced per track, with no concession for albums? so this cd would cost over $20? or am i missing something?

http://www.emusic.com/album/Paul-Hillier-Theatre-of-Voices-Stockhausen-Stimmung-MP3-Download/11077559.html

― toby, Saturday, 15 December 2007 14:47 (sixteen years ago) link

You're right. It's an eMusic quirk. On the other hand, you can download full albums with just a few very long tracks for far less than on, say, Amazon or iTunes. At a minimum, it balances out.

― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 15 December 2007 14:50 (sixteen years ago) link

wow, that seems extraordinary - i would have signed up, but i think most of the albums i'm interested in (all classical) would be way more expensive than buying them on CD, which sucks.

― toby, Saturday, 15 December 2007 15:17 (sixteen years ago) link

Skipping 240 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.