Let the music play.

[Jerry1]

Just want to thank members of the forum that discussed ripping CD's and others who discussed the value of Amazon Prime, specifically, the music benefit.

The one thread was about storing all your music on a USB stick. That led me to buy (ugh) a ripping program and re-rip all my purchased CD (physical CD's). That was actually fun. First, the purchased program did rip the CD's much quicker and with less hassle than the free program so the process wasn't too bad. Second, of course I listened to a bunch of music I had not listened to in awhile.

The other thread was about Prime and the music benefits of Prime. That led me to investigate Prime and Amazon Music and I am very much enjoying the music, new and old, heard and never heard before.

An interesting observation. In one of the threads, a comment was made about not owning music any longer. That the new services were the way this person was going. At first, I though, I'd prefer my OWN music. After this process, I think not. Storing and dealing with my own music is a bit fun 'cause I'm a geek, but truly, I do have better things to do. There is also no comparison to the amount and variation of music between what I can own and what I can access through a service, Amazon Music, in this case.

An interesting development is that somewhere down the line, Amazon obtained my music ownership. Not sure if it's all the CD's I've bought from them or if they accessed my iTunes or hard drive at some point, but I looked under the My Music tab and there were most of my CD's. It wasn't captured from this latest ripping because some CD's are not there. But as a result, if I have my phone with me and open Amazon Music, I do have all MY music with me, plus the benefit of having a huge selection. I still have a bit more to go in terms of understanding Amazon Music, but I can say that I do like a service like this very much and accordingly, the music has been playing much more in the house than it was before this exercise.

Thanks!

 

[RunningBum]

I sure hope they aren't going into personal hard drives, even just to see what I have and echo it from their own collection. I guess a lot of services ask to sync your music library. I never allow it. I don't see any music from CDs that I know I ripped and never bought, so I don't think they are going in without permission.

I still like to own music. I like to listen to music on airplanes, while I'm running without my phone, and I'm sure other places. I like to listen to music in the car from my own USB stub rather than draining my phone battery. Plus I don't like the idea that someone can increase the monthly charge whenever they want, or simply stop providing music. Way back when I bought some .wma tracks with DRM. For a little while I could transfer the rights to other devices, but I can't do that anymore, and I lost access to some of my own music. But I don't get bored listening to the same music over and again, while I know some people would always like to hear new stuff.

 

[Jerry1]

I sure hope they aren't going into personal hard drives, even just to see what I have and echo it from their own collection.

My guess is that it happened through iTunes at some point, plus what I’ve bought from them. Hard to say, but even though you don’t allow it, I give odds are 50/50 that they have knowledge of your library if it’s on your computer. Try as I might, they get through.

 

[Freedom56]

In my opinion most of the new music is not worth owning. I can't see how Amazon and Itunes can grow in an environment where there are so many free streaming music stations around and the vast majority of kids download their music illegally using torrents. The golden age of rock, pop, and dance music was, in my opinion, from the late 60's to the late 90's. After that, we entered the era of forgettable artists. Sure there are a few that are okay such as Coldplay, Onerepublic, and even Bruno Mars, but they just don't compare to the super bands of the past. The people who grew up during that golden era have their CD collections. Ripping those CDs to MP3 is convenient, but MP3 just doesn't sound even close to the original CD or even a cassette recording of a CD. A lot of the original recording is discarded during the compression process. FLAC is the best way to go with your own private in-home music server.

 

[Jerry1]

I agree with the golden age, but a few observations. First, I have what I would call a bit better than average sound system, Yamaha receiver with Klipsch 5:1 speakers and after I ripped all my CD’s, I played a FLAC and an mp3 (Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon. CD was digitally remastered) and I can’t tell the difference. Not saying there isn’t one, but I either don’t have the ear to tell the difference or the equipment.

Second, there is so much music from the 60’s to 90’s that it would be very costly to build a great library. I only have about 150 CD’s but I’d need to quadruple that even to get started. Therefore, these streaming services are a great thing for my listening pleasure. More music than I could ever hope for and too deaf or equipment constrained to tell any difference. OTOH, if I could hear a difference, It probably would ruin it for me since I am pretty anal. One idea there is Tidal.

The main thing is the music that’s available that I wouldn’t even know existed. They recommend music and if I really liked it, I’d even consider buying the CD. If I don’t, no cost, no problem. Hit a button and on to something else..

 

[Freedom56]

My primary stereo system has a Carver amplifier (still working after all these years) and Energy RC-70 tower speakers. I used to have Paradigm towers but they eventually blew on me. I have a fairly large collection of CDs. My plan is to rip them to all to FLAC and store them on a network share drive. It's going to take some time to do that. I will be buying a network audio player to access my share drive and play back the FLAC format music through my amplifier.

For me MP3 audio even at 320 kbs is missing a lot of the mid range. A lot of streaming music like Sirius/XM I can't even listen to.

 

[harley]

In my opinion most of the new music is not worth owning. I can't see how Amazon and Itunes can grow in an environment where there are so many free streaming music stations around and the vast majority of kids download their music illegally using torrents. The golden age of rock, pop, and dance music was, in my opinion, from the late 60's to the late 90's. After that, we entered the era of forgettable artists. Sure there are a few that are okay such as Coldplay, Onerepublic, and even Bruno Mars, but they just don't compare to the super bands of the past. The people who grew up during that golden era have their CD collections. Ripping those CDs to MP3 is convenient, but MP3 just doesn't sound even close to the original CD or even a cassette recording of a CD. A lot of the original recording is discarded during the compression process. FLAC is the best way to go with your own private in-home music server.

I read this as "Get off my lawn, and take that noise with you."

And I doubt very much the "vast majority" of kids download their music illegally. I don't think even the record companies are making that claim.

 

[Freedom56]

I read this as "Get off my lawn, and take that noise with you."

And I doubt very much the "vast majority" of kids download their music illegally. I don't think even the record companies are making that claim.

Just some facts here:

Music piracy grew in 2017 and is now "more popular than ever" - NME

https://brandongaille.com/21-shocking-music-piracy-statistics/

It's more popular than ever. They are even ripping music streams which is not that different from recording FM radio onto cassettes.

 

[ERD50]

... a few observations. First, I have what I would call a bit better than average sound system, Yamaha receiver with Klipsch 5:1 speakers and after I ripped all my CD’s, I played a FLAC and an mp3 (Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon. CD was digitally remastered) and I can’t tell the difference. Not saying there isn’t one, but I either don’t have the ear to tell the difference or the equipment. ...

I have a pretty good system, and a reasonably discriminating ear, and I was surprised that I couldn't easily tell the difference in A/B between uncompressed and even a low rate mp3. But...

It seemed that if I kept it playing for 10 minutes or so, I just lost interest in the mp3, it seemed boring, lifeless. But that wasn't apparent in an A/B? Here's my take on that:

Ever get into a car, and think that the seat was very comfortable, but when you take that same car on a long drive, the seat is driving you nuts, you can't get comfortable at all? I think sound can be like that - we don't hear the difference immediately, but after a while, something just isn't right. And it kind of makes sense, the mp3 algorithms must remove some detail from the sound. It is designed to not be obvious (or it would not be as successful as it is), but maybe we do recognize that lack of detail after some time? And lack of detail just sounds boring to some of us?

It would be interesting to see a double blind study done over longer listening periods, rather than the typical quick ABX tests that are done.

-ERD50

 

[Starsky]

Just some facts here:

Music piracy grew in 2017 and is now "more popular than ever" - NME

https://brandongaille.com/21-shocking-music-piracy-statistics/

It's more popular than ever. They are even ripping music streams which is not that different from recording FM radio onto cassettes.

...or just listening on Youtube for free. IMO, Napster just emboldened corporations like Pandora and Youtube to rip off the artists too. Artists have lost all control over their product to big technology, and revenue streams for hit songs are nothing like they used to be.

From the NYT:

In 2006 — years after Napster, and well into the iTunes era — record labels still reaped $9.4 billion from CD sales in the United States, more than the total sales revenue of the business today. Last year, CD sales stood at just $1.5 billion, a drop of 84 percent in a decade. And downloads, also once viewed as the industry’s savior, have now been falling for three consecutive years with no sign of recovery.

In a note accompanying the recording industry’s report, Cary Sherman, the group’s chief executive, criticized sites like YouTube — characterized in the report as “on-demand ad-supported” — for what he described as paltry payouts compared to their enormous popularity online. Last year, YouTube and sites like it generated $385 million in royalties. In comparison, vinyl records — a niche if there ever was one — brought in $416 million.

Edit: It's surprising to think about the total revenue of the record industry as being less than $9.4 billion. When you throw in touring, that sounds like not a lot of money for such a seemingly large industry.
Here are some global figures for 2017. It's crazy that two dead artists were among the top 10 artists in the world revenue-wise in 2017 - Bowie (#2) and Prince (#9).

 

[RunningBum]

I took a brief look at the global figures link in post #10. It looks like download revenue is down, but streaming revenue is up, so clearly the trend is towards not owning music.


Of course physical CD sales are way down. What I can't tell is whether streaming+download revenue fully replaces it. And don't forget shows. That's an important source for performers.


I suspect music collections are a lot larger today than what I had when I was younger, especially for those pirating music. You could argue that all pirated music is revenue lost, but I'll bet if pirating methods weren't available, that music wouldn't have been bought. Does the extra exposure give musicians a better chance to be known, so that more people will go to their concerts, and maybe more of those who do pay for music will buy theirs? Didn't Justin Bieber (excuse me while I go throw up) get his start on YouTube? Where is he if he has to rely on traditional methods?

 

[Jerry1]

I have a pretty good system, and a reasonably discriminating ear, and I was surprised that I couldn't easily tell the difference in A/B between uncompressed and even a low rate mp3. But...

It seemed that if I kept it playing for 10 minutes or so, I just lost interest in the mp3, it seemed boring, lifeless. But that wasn't apparent in an A/B? Here's my take on that:

Ever get into a car, and think that the seat was very comfortable, but when you take that same car on a long drive, the seat is driving you nuts, you can't get comfortable at all? I think sound can be like that - we don't hear the difference immediately, but after a while, something just isn't right. And it kind of makes sense, the mp3 algorithms must remove some detail from the sound. It is designed to not be obvious (or it would not be as successful as it is), but maybe we do recognize that lack of detail after some time? And lack of detail just sounds boring to some of us?

It would be interesting to see a double blind study done over longer listening periods, rather than the typical quick ABX tests that are done.

-ERD50

Interesting concept. I’ll try that. I’m also going to try listening through my headphones. Of course they are not top of the line, but I suspect that being “directly connected” to my ears may help me discern a difference.

 

[harley]

Just some facts here:

Music piracy grew in 2017 and is now "more popular than ever" - NME

https://brandongaille.com/21-shocking-music-piracy-statistics/

It's more popular than ever. They are even ripping music streams which is not that different from recording FM radio onto cassettes.

The first article doesn't say anything. The second says a lot, like

95% of music downloads are illegal in nature

but doesn't source the information. It then turns around and says

Music piracy accounts for just 2.9% of the total amount of online piracy events that occur annually

Again, no source, but that sounds counterintuitive.

I'm not doubting that piracy is a big problem. I just questioned your statement that the vast majority of kids download their music illegally. Maybe I could buy "the vast majority of kids and technically competent adults have downloaded some music illegally." I think the legitimate purchasing of music still outweighs the illegal downloads. If it wasn't making money the record companies wouldn't be in the biz anymore.


Anyway, my main point is that there is still plenty of great music being made, and the late 60s through the 90s (including the late 70s and 80s? Disco and glam rock?) weren't the high point of music, even though I grew up with it and am a huge fan of some of it. But just in the past year I've seen the Tedeschi/Trucks Band, Trombone Shorty, Ben Harper, String Cheese Incident, Lake Street Dive, Trey Anastacio Band and Florence + the Machine. There's tons of amazing musician still making music out there.

 

[Freedom56]

Anyway, my main point is that there is still plenty of great music being made, and the late 60s through the 90s (including the late 70s and 80s? Disco and glam rock?) weren't the high point of music, even though I grew up with it and am a huge fan of some of it. But just in the past year I've seen the Tedeschi/Trucks Band, Trombone Shorty, Ben Harper, String Cheese Incident, Lake Street Dive, Trey Anastacio Band and Florence + the Machine. There's tons of amazing musician still making music out there.

I'll stick to my Beatles, Rolling stones, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Genesis, David Bowie, Steely Dan, Santana, Nirvana, King Crimson, Earth Wind and Fire, Styx, Peter Frampton, Eric Clapton, Green Day, Creed, Jimi Hendrix, Sade, Queen, Doobie Brothers, The Who, Fleetwood Mac, The Doors, Eagles, U2, Deep Purple, Billy Idol, Foreigner and others.

As for new artists, I don't think Coldplay or OneRepublic have anything to worry about. Bands make most of their money these days from touring, endorsements and royalty from airtime play. I know a few well known professionals who live nearby and its a feast and famine lifestyle for them.

 

[mountainsoft]

I played a FLAC and an mp3 and I can’t tell the difference.

If I sit down and really listen to MP3's and the original CDs I can certainly tell the difference. However, I can't remember the last time I listened to music for that sole purpose. Music is almost always in the background now, while I'm working, while I'm cooking, while I'm driving, etc. It's competing with road noise in the car, woodworking machines in my shop, and keyboard clicks in the office. I rarely listen intently enough to notice, or even care, if the quality is less than perfect.

 

[mountainsoft]

Of course physical CD sales are way down.

I haven't purchased a CD in at least 20 years. These days I mostly just listen to the radio, but if I like a song I buy it on iTunes. It always seemed dumb to buy a complete album when I only liked one song. Even back in the vinyl days I preferred to buy the 45rpm singles over the full record.


I haven't tried any of the commercial streaming services, but I do stream free radio stations on the internet.


That said, radio stations typically play the same 10 to 20 songs over and over again. Most of the new music I find is by various searches on iTunes.

 

[Freedom56]

I haven't purchased a CD in at least 20 years.

My last CD purchase was in 1999 (Santana Supernatural) and I have a lot of CDs. You should stream Beatles Radio. It's free and great music.

 

[mountainsoft]

You should stream Beatles Radio.

The Beatles were a little before my time and not really my genre. I usually stream "Got Radio - Today's Country" or "BestNetRadio.com - New Country". Occasionally I'll stream christian stations if I need a break from country music. I use the free "RadioSure" program to stream online radio stations.



Ironically, most of the music I buy from iTunes is for singer-songwriters.