former warners boss says albums should cost a quid

on the subject of albums for a quid

www.amazon.co.uk/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&docId=1000454783

the code is NMEPROMO.
I had 58p gift voucher credit so have just bought my FIRST EVER mp3 download, the foals album for 42p.

42p too much I'd say

it was the only thing on the list that I didnt already have or know for a fact i won't like. I think mp3 albums for a quid is a good idea. get rid of CDs completely and sell vinyl for a tenner.

foals is on spotify

the foals album is pretty much alright imho

TOO MUCH!

i'm probably the only one that thinks albums should cost more than that. I'd say 7£ to 9£ is a good price. BUT, more money should go to the artists, not the 10 or so pence they get today.

Music isn't free. You get paid for your work, musicians should too. We're paying the cost of that on gigs tickets now, it's getting ridiculous.

this all works for lady gaga and shit like that but when you get an underground indie orchestra selling records they're going to sell the same amount whether the price is 1 or 10 bucks

That would never work. Artists usually get approximately £1 to £1.5 from a record that costs a tenner. So they get around the 10% - 15% of the pie.

If a record costs a quid, they would get 10p, which is ridiculous because they won't sell 10 times more even if the price is so low. They can't raise the price of gig tickets because, admit it who would see, say Eels for £130.00?? Most of the bands don't care about merchandising aswell because they don't have fans who buy t-shirts or pins.

One solution I think is to lower the production costs: records shouldn't be luxory items, and if there's low cost flights then there should be a way to produce low cost cds. I don't care about the packaging, they can save a lot of money if they don't waste that much on photos, booklets and cd cases.

Who really cares about booklets eh? Does it really matter if an album comes with a 16 pages book with the lyrics and pictures? They would publish the lyrics and the pictures online anyway, so that's an extra cost that could be avoided.

Plus that's a big lie, you won't get a chart cd for less than £7.90 now. And people who are used to download music and listen on ipod won't start buying cds even if the price drops. They want their whole music library in their pocket and they are now tired of the idea of having the house full of cds. Extra shelves and things like that are out-of-date. Music business people can only hope that people who ALREADY buy cds would buy more and more. If they drop the price to £4.90 it wouldn't hurt anybody (financially) and it would be enough for people to buy records even if they are so-so or they don't have a clear idea about it already.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about mp3 albums and not CDs.

Most of the bands we know subsist thanks to the tours and their strong fanbase, which grew before the itunes era. New bands will rise and fall in a shorter space of time, as people who don't buy albums won't buy albums anyway and that kind of loyalty with bands is gonna disappear. SAD TIMEZ

if its that, it makes him even more stupid because no one is going to pay for something just for ethic's sake as we don't live in Utopia. I can understand the physical thing but buying mp3 is just demential.

That opinion is beyond me, TBH.
When I buy a MP3, I don't buy a file, I buy music that someone has done. That said, I dont buy a lot of music online as I find it too expansive. I'm actually thinking of suscribing to Spotify.

Yeah, internet is really expansive. And there's a big difference in buying a physical release and mp3s, however you look at it

if how much the artist gets is of concern to you, spotify really isnt the answer.

Yes that works incredibly well in theory. We are honest, we support music, we pay for art and not for mere digital files etc etc.
It works well when I decide to buy your music or you decide to buy mine. But why should I spend £6 for a digital version of the latest Neil Young record when I can buy a physical copy for just £3 more and get something nicer with all the trimmings and that sounds x1000 better?!

Plus I can easily make my private digital copy from the physical release just ripping the cd. Basically, I can get both for 3 or 4 quid more. Not to mention second-hand records.

The absurd thing here is that they want to challenge piracy giving EXACTLY what piracy gives you (so-so quality mp3 files) only for a price and a blessing that you are doing good to artistry. That's fucking catholic-like mental and the whole pay-per-download thing is going to collapse sooner or later.

Follow me: pretend you have a physical record out that sells for £10 and you get £1 each copy. If you sell 100 copies, you get £100. Not bad but its not easy to find 100 fans willing to pay.
Now you have a digital record out that sells for £1 and you get 10p each: to match the same gain, you need 1.000 fans willing to pay. Do you have 1.000 fans Chuze?

Isn't it easier to reach 100 people willing to pay 10 quid than 1.000 willing to pay 1 quid?

No, I don't have 1000 fans, no need to rub it in.