Artists are leaving the sinking ship

Hi !

I am a musicien and I ask another question. How can a musicien accept to distribute his work in MP3 format ?
It can take months to try and get the best sound as possible, it costs time and money and is an important part of the artistic work. All this destroyed by the compression of MP3 !
This may not be understood by many people who can’t hear any difference between an original file and its MP3 version, but for a musicien who cares about the quality of his work, it’s anacceptable.
Unless it’s only a matter of money…

MP3 is not the only possible format. There are lossless formats available that could be used to distribute music. Remember, if you distribute your music by yourself you make the decisions.

I personally prefer mp3 or ogg because those files tend to be a lot smaller than those lossless files which is better for putting them on my mp3 player and hard drive.

If you are an artist then the most important thing is the act of creating.
If you want to make a living from your art then sometimes you will have to compromise.
What does it matter if people prefer one format over the other as long as they enjoy your music and are willing to pay for it, thereby giving you more time to do what you love?
If money doesn’t matter to you then make your music and don’t let anyone else hear it, or distribute it only in your preferred format.

Martin - it’s a big question who needs the RIAA.
My guess is that the RIAA will attract people who need the hype and their vast PR machine, in other words people who are more entertainers than artists, or else just people desperate to make a buck.

Use OGG (level 10 or 500 kbit) and you’ll get about half the file size of a lossless flac, which is already about 30-50% of the uncompressed original.
The quality loss compared to the original can’t be heared by anyone, only measured.

With todays big storage devices this is a perfect tradeoff between quality and filesize.

I use it to store CD rips.

You’re right, Martin, but at 16 bits/44.1 MHz (the CD quality), a wav file takes 10 Mo per minute. This means around 40 Mo for a song, and around 500 Mo for an album. It’s possible to offer such downloads, but no one does yet.
The music industry cares about money and nothing else. Such a shame to see artists doing the same !

Martin, if I see you with your MP3 player, I shoot ! Last warning !

Joe,

If you’re a cooker, doesn’t it matter if what you cooked with care arrives cold on the table ?
If you’re a painter, doesn’t it matter if your painting is damaged when you deliver it ?
If you’re a writer, doesn’t it matter if your writing is hardly readable because of the bad quality of the printing ?
Etc…

The most important thing is not the act of creating, as you say. You have to respect the ones you created for, and your work has to be respected too.

Quasimodo,

Yes, a destructive compression of 30 % is heard by me and many musiciens. Some formats are very good, but destructive compression is destructive anyway.

I can’t tell the difference

320kb CBR mp3 is good enough quality. I agree, 128, and even 160kb, I can tell a difference, noticeable, but most people can’t afford audio playback equipment that would benefit from anything above 320k. If you contradict me on this, you are delusional. But I predict there will be at least one delusional person responding to this post just for the sake of arguing on the internet.

The people who buy music don’t notice, most playback equipment is not high fidelity enough to make a noticeable difference.

But what are you talking about ? I make music, I compose it and record it, and I know what I’m talking about.
When I listen to music, the best for me is headphones. Anyone can afford headphones and just plug in directly to the CD player.
I agree, most people can’t hear any difference between MP3 and an original CD track, but most of them can’t sing in time and in tune either.
MP3 may be good for many people, but I say again that it’s a destruction of the original record.
The majors don’t care, most of the people don’t care, but I care, as a musicien.

The majority of the music buying public are not audiophiles. They do not own equipment that even plays all sounds that are audible to the human ear.

But I digress, the real issue here is how much money the labels make compared to what the artists make.

Check out this post on my site that outlines the amount of money it takes make a record, the amount of money a record makes and the amount each party gets paid when it is all said and done.

oops, link here…

http://ofwhatitis.com/webzine/2007/10/06/some-of-your-friends-are-already-this-fucked/

“The majority of the music buying public are not audiophiles.”
Right.

“They do not own equipment that even plays all sounds that are audible to the human ear.”
They own a CD player, and 16 bits/44.1 KHz is Hi Fi. It is just what is needed to play with high fidelity what has been recorded, not more, not less.

Yeah but you tell me how many people own headphone or speakers that have FULL SPECTRUM RESPONSE?

i don’t leave the bitrate that low. i usually encode or obtian music that is 192 kbps. nor will i stray to the 320 kbps. I think some people who have posted are correct about hearing the difference and such the others should just get off their fucking horse.

I don’t know, Jessee, but 10 - 20 000 Hz headphones are common and not expensive.

Of course you don’t know, I don’t know either, but really, the entire point that I am trying to make is just that the general music buying public has no clue about frequency response. They wouldn’t even know what an artifact of sound from a transcode is. They don’t know the difference between a 128kps vbr mp3 and a V0 mp3. They just want the music.

Yes there are audiophiles out there. Yes there are people who can tell a difference. There are people who only buy vinyl.

But I digress, I just looked up the specifications of the headphones and I found out that the ipod headphones are full frequency.

Yes. I agree with you, Jessee, and we’re not gonna fight about that.
But you will admit that if the music industry, in order to be able to survive and make money, would convert and sale music in monophonic vynils, there would be a problem, no ?

My feeling isn’t the same as the kid who listens to his MP3 player on his skateboard because I make music and I can’t stand that it could be modified or damaged by any compression.

I try and rip my CDs to the best possible MP3 compression possible (320kbps CBR) mainly because it’s just much more practical, as I can fit more songs into my older mp3 player this way as I love listening to music on-the-go.

I would say agree that a lot of the people who buy CDs (and mp3s online from iTunes for instance) really can’t hear the difference between a compressed version and the original CD version of the song.

Hopefully there will be an alternative route for artists to market their ‘original recordings’ (so it doesn’t get destroyed?) without the record company, but yet still offer smaller file sizes for fans who really just want to listen on-the-go.

I think the best solution is for storage to get cheaper so artists can be satisfied with the sound quality and fan can fit tons of lossless music on their players.

I read on the BBC that a 4TB hard drive may become available in the future due to recent advances:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7044606.stm

4TB is a bit over kill, i have a 30 GB ipod and I’m finding it rather tough to fill it. Not to say that i have a very comprehensive selection of music, but it is a lot. Furthermore, Memory will always become cheaper with the advent of the next best thing. Not trying to spite anyone, just adding my 2 cents

4T could be overkill. But if you take into account
video, all of a sudden 4T isn’t so much over kill if you are storing bluray discs. Plus you could back up everything in another place.

Even with video, 4TB is still a bit much ….don’t get me wrong it would be really sick to have 4 TB and I’d be right on board to getting one