<Garfield>Whoever's coming up with this should be dragged out into the street and shot.</Garfield>

Labels seek end to 99c music per song download

- trs

senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation Fred Lohmann told us recently. "If an iPod has room for 4,000, does Apple think people are getting to spend $4,000 filling it with music?"

4000 songs; approx 12 tracks per album, so 333 albums; at $US15 per album= $US4,995 for an iPods worth.

Quite a bargain for only $4000

Capitolist swine!

Well, the thing is that $1 per song is about right for a CD, give or take. But with a CD you get data that's full-bandwidth and not inflicted with any real restrictions as to where you can play it. From the Apple Store, I cannot play it but on one computer (which has to have iTunes installed, so forget about any OS other than Windows or MacOS) nor any device other than an iPod (no ideas about if other hardware vendors would have access to their DRM even if they supported AAC-- probably not). So for the same price as an album (again, give or take) you get songs that potentially don't sounds as good that you can play play in certain circumstances instead of ones that sound as good as are available that you can play anywhere.

Quite a bargain for only $4000

Sure, but if the record companies have their way, the price of iTunes downloads would be upwards of $2.50. This would mean filling an iPod from the iTMS would cost $10,000. Not a bargain.

- trs

Can I drag this immediately off-topic and point out that I saw the trailer for the new Garfield movie and it's just not the same with some other person doing his voice? That is all, back to your regularly scheduled program.

it's just not the same with some other person doing his voice?

I saw a preview for it and that's exactly what I thought, too. I suppose Lorenzo Music's voice is not an easy one to reproduce, but it definitely was the voice of Garfield. I couldn't imagine Garfield having any other voice.

- trs

are we talking about the cat?

Fred Lohmann is trying to point out that people will not be filling it with purchased music based on cost alone. I think the insinuation is that no-one would spend anything to fill the iPod, regardless of the way thy acquired the songs.

Personally i can't wait to start buying CD's again, but I'd rather buy direct from the artists.

are we talking about the cat?

Yes. The movie is currently in production. I'm not sure when it's slated to hit theatres, though. I'll be giving it a miss, having been unimpressed by Garfield since... uh... 1985, or so. The company I work for is doing the CG Garfield. Everything else is live action, including Odie (some other vfx company is making Odie talk).

Garfield jumped the shark many, many years ago. Four legs good, two legs bad.

Peter

No no -- Not the cat .. I'm talking about the new James A. Garfield biographical documentary. It's just not the same without the real James A Garfield doing his own voice.

OK.
Just kidding.
I was talking about Lorenzo Music and the cat

The company I work for is doing the CG Garfield. Everything else is live action, including Odie (some other vfx company is making Odie talk)

I'm sorry that you're connected to that movie. It certainly does look terrible. And how can you have a live dog playing Odie? That's just not right.

No no -- Not the cat .. I'm talking about the new James A. Garfield biographical documentary. It's just not the same without the real James A Garfield doing his own voice.

LMAO

- trs

It's important to note that Lorenzo Music died a few years back, so it's not as if they arbitrarily decided to snub him for some reason. And Bill Murray doesn't seem to be a bad choice, though I've not heard/seen the preview.

It's important to note that Lorenzo Music died a few years back

Oh, I know. I was just saying that Lorenzo's voice was so unique that I couldn't imagine anyone being able to come close on an impersonation. I'm not sure if that's what Bill Murray is trying to do or if he's not trying to sound like Lorenzo at all. But Lorenzo was Garfield's voice for so long, that I don't think I could watch Garfield with a different voice.

- trs

I found this in another BBS, pretty interesting:

Here's a piece of useless trivia, The guy who did the voice of Garfield in the old cartoon TV series also did the voice of Peter Venkman in the Ghostbusters cartoon TV series, and that character was of course played in the movie by... Bill Murray.

- trs

I didn't know that. According to the IMDB, Lorenzo Music did Venkman's voice for one or two years, later taken over by Dave Coulier of "Full House" fame.

I'm sorry that you're connected to that movie.

Meh. Not my project, so I don't particularly care. The last project I was assigned to (before I got sent to India) was this one. Since then, I've moved into a position where I'm not really assigned to anything.

And how can you have a live dog playing Odie? That's just not right.

There's a lot that just isn't right, IMHO.

I'm weirded out by that movie. (The trailer's SFX are pretty impressive, so congrats there.) It looks cool, but it also looks like it has basically nothing to do with the original. At least they got rid of Akiva Goldsman, potentially today's worst working screenwriter, Oscars notwithstanding.

Two interesting notes about music download sites...
1. Napster and any other site where you can listen to music you haven't paid for are easily hackable. Those that are prone to such activities might actually pay for music if the download was of a greater quality than that they're wave recorder can acquire for free.

2. Music downloading may return music purchases to the days of the old 45's. This isn't a new thought I know but the historian in me finds it interesting that my father bought Elvis songs one or two at a time and now I'm buying music the same way.

now I'm buying music the same way

I personally prefer it that way. The record companies for years have been “extracting” value out of music buyers. It is though bundling and tying arrangements that they have created this market for themselves. I hate this for the same reason that I am so irritated that I can’t just pay for the cable TV that I watch. I only want Cnn/FN, CNBC, the discovery channel, and local channels, but yet if I really want those channels, (and I must not want them too bad because I am not paying for expanded cable TV) I have to pay for all the crap in the world that I don’t want.

Now to play devils advocate:
Occasionally I have purchased a CD for one or two songs (not a habit of mine by any stretch of the imagination) that I have enjoyed, but loved one song in particular that would have never gotten air play. Case in point: Fiona Apple – When the Pawn. I bought the album for the song Paper Bag, but I fell in love with just about every other song on that album. In fact it is one of the few albums that have defined a point in my life (Pink Floyd – Dark Side of the Moon being another).

I'm not really trying to make a point here, but merely considering two sides out loud. I detest what the music industry has become, but they have added value to my existence.

but loved one song in particular that would have never gotten air play.

Agreed. Frequently, my favorite songs on albums are ones that aren't radio-friendly pop hits.

Of course, for this to happen, you have to listen to artists who make genuine albums as opposed to hit+filler mixtures.

There's also a third side: some people simply enjoy a full album. I'd say less than 5% of the CDs I own were bought because of one or two songs I liked. I simply appreciate a well-crafted album, and because I appear to listen to music differently from you, I hope your single-oriented market doesn't happen

Downloading makes listening to entire albums much easier than before. While I can share similiar stories of non-radio hits becoming personal favorites, I'd prefer to know an album fits that model before I purchase it. Napster lets me do this. In fact the only songs I can't download (this part is artist specific) are the radio hits.

Downloading makes listening to entire albums much easier than before.

Explain how.

I think he meant that downloading lets him make an informed decision about purchasing an entire album much more easily.

Okay, assuming so, explain how.

He just did. Napster lets him hear the songs on the album that weren't radio hits.

Oh, by downloading and not paying. It was that last part that I didn't follow.

Of course, for this to happen, you have to listen to artists who make genuine albums as opposed to hit+filler mixtures.

I still appreciate single songs for what they are. I have tried with great zeal to express my thoughts and feelings through song and I have written several, but I know out of the 15 or songs that I have written only one will connect with people the way I had intended. I believe that it is the artist’s wish to connect with people, initially anyway, not to sell a million albums. Yes I know I should write better, but I'm doing the best with the tools god has given me.

I’m not saying that credit isn’t due to folks that put out spectacular albums. I just think that the people that do put out good albums have more in common, and relate better to those listeners who love those albums.

I don’t want to get shut out of hearing a great song because the album was not up to industry standards.

It looks cool, but it also looks like it has basically nothing to do with the original.

I didn't see the original, and I try to avoid reading scripts when I can, so I can't comment.

Oh yeah, I agree. Even writing one good song requires talent. And I enjoy a good pop hit as much as the next guy.

I just personally prefer to listen to artists who write albums that work as a cohesive whole, or at least fill an album with songs that are uniformly good.

I hope the way allofmp3 sell their music is the future, they'll encode it any way you want it: ogg, flac, cbr, vbr even wma. I can't see why the majors aren't releasing large chunks of their not so valuable content in this way

Since you bring up the songwriters perspective I figured I'd jump in here. I really like the idea of writing for an "album". One of the decisions I have to make when we finish the one we're working on is which song to put on a sampler that we're going to be on. It's very difficult because each song is so different to me and none of them alone say all that I'd like to communicate.

That's not to say, though, that there's something wrong with investing songwriting into one or two songs as opposed to a whole album; it's just my preference. I go to a songwriter's forum at my church where we discuss the songs we've written and give each other advise. Most of the other songwriters there have written hundreds of songs, where mine number in the dozens. This just simply doesn't compute to my because I invest so heavily into the few songs I've written, and I very rarely write a new song unless I have something new to say, both muscially and lyrically. So in that sense I totally understand where you're coming from.

Finally, just because some of us like the ideas of getting things in a "package" (which is what an album is) doesn't mean that it's going to stay that way. Once people get used to buying stuff online I'm pretty sure the current concept is going to go away. It's change and I'm not happy about it, but really the album will have outlived it's usefullness. Consider that grouping music together on albums is only a recent thing, given that people have been writing and performing music for ages. Before if an artist wanted to group a musical idea with other musical ideas he or she could package them together and call the ideas movements, but unrelated pieces were always seperable and could be pieced together however a performer wanted. I'm certain that pop music will follow in this vein once there is no compelling value reason to group musical thoughts into albums.

Change is inevitable; one day I'm sure we'll all be trying to explain to our children why playing a certain group of unrelated of music was important to us. I'm sure they'll understand the "Soul Cages", but "Moving Pictures" just won't make sense to them.

I may be stating the obvious since Napster is the only service I use. I can listen to at least part of any song. Some artists use 30 second clips until you buy, but they're in the minority. I pay the monthly fee to be able to listen and even download 90% of the 500,000 songs that Napster has available. In that sense I pay for music a lot like a I pay for cable. I pay for the music through my monthly fees and if they downloaded at a I higher quality I'd buy them that way. However I can record them at the same quality I could download them for and I don't see it being any different that taping Law & Order with my vcr.