Music: Building a Collection
This year, one of my New Year’s resolutions was to legalise my music collection. Since writing that post I haven’t given it much thought. Now, with only a couple of months left in 2009, I’ve given some serious thought to how I might go about achieving this. This renewed thought was, in part, prompted by the realisation that my music collection has remained largely unchanged since I left university. It is time to discover new things and time to legitimise the collection I do have.
The digital music industry has come a long way in the last couple of years and there are now several different legal options for obtaining music. The industry is still evolving, but there are two main approaches to downloading music; the subscription model, and the pay per track model. I decided that now was as good a time as any to take a look at some of the main options and decide how best to go about bringing my music collection into the world of legitimacy.
Spotify
(link)
Everyone’s favourite start-up, Spotify, may be the next big thing in internet music, but I remain a sceptic. The service itself is great. The signup process is pleasantly simple and the client (the Mac version at least) not only looks good, but works well. On top of all that, the adverts in the free edition are less intrusive than those on many commercial radio stations.
Assuming I’d want to listen to music on a portable device I’d need to pay for a premium subscription. At £9.99/month for access to the complete Spotify collection, this sounds like a good deal. However, this works out at around 15 CDs a year – for life. If you cancel your subscription, your premium access goes with it. If you are likely to be purchasing more than 15 CDs a year then this is definitely an attractive option, especially as you don’t have to worry about physical or digital storage requirements.
For:
- collection available on any PC (with Spotify player)
- no need to worry about storage
- no upfront costs of legalising full collection
Against:
- monthly subscription
- unable to safeguard music collection
- requires proprietary player
iTunes Music Store
(link)
The market leader when it comes to digital music downloads is Apple’s iTunes Music Store. In a Mac household (2x iPhone, 3x Mac computer) the iTunes Music store stands out as the obvious choice for building up a music collection.
I have yet to purchase a single music track from the iTunes Music Store. Initially this was because I didn’t like the idea of building up a collection of DRM controlled music, but now that the DRM has been stripped from the iTunes Music Store this argument no longer holds.
However, I have purchased a couple of TV series from iTunes and was very impressed with the experience. Picture quality was excellent and the files come with a complete set of meta-data (I’m a sucker for meta-data.) making it incredibly easy to organise your library. If I am going to build a complete collection, there is a lot to be said for having a good set of meta-data to help with organisation. This is something that is a lot harder to do with a collection of real CDs, despite the services offered by the likes of Gracenote (formerly CDDB).
One thing that does concern me about going down the all-digital route is the need for increased storage capacity. The demands on digital storage, and the associated backups, are increasing faster than ever before (photos, music, videos, etc.). Apple only allows you to download items from the iTunes Music Store once and so backups, and storage are your own responsibility.
For:
- extensive collection of DRM free music
- ease of use and consistent experience on all my (current) devices
- extensive meta-data to support organisation
Against:
- storage requirements
- inability to transcode files without quality loss
- spending yet more money with Apple
Amazon (mp3)
(link)
An alternative to the iTunes Music Store is one of the many services offering music for download in true mp3 format. I’ve picked Amazon as a big name brand, but the number of sites offering mp3 music for download seems to be increasing daily.
Amazon requires you to install the Amazon downloader in order to download albums although they do allow you to download single tracks without the downloader if purchased one at a time. In some ways this is no different to the iTunes Music Store requiring you to have iTunes installed to download (or even purchase) tracks, but it feels a bit cluttered. It reminds me of being asked to install a proprietary program in order to transfer files of a digital camera, something I detest.
The two things the Amazon store has going for it are the decision to use true mp3 and increased flexibility in how they price their music. Back when DRM was still an issue, the format of the encoded files was a critical issue, but now that iTunes Music Store has gone DRM free, there appears to be little difference between AAC or mp3. I don’t fully understand the different restrictions on the use of AAC/mp3 codecs but I am almost satisfied that the choose of format is no longer the issue it once was.
So, it comes down to pricing. The price of music on the Amazon mp3 store varies considerably, with some albums being considerably cheaper than the iTunes Music Store. There is no doubt in my mind that using Amazon would be a cheaper alternative to iTunes.
For:
- extensive collection of DRM free music
- cheaper alternative to iTunes
- real mp3 format for the downloads
Against:
- storage requirements
- inability to transcode files without quality loss
- cluttered store (needs download manager)
The CD
(various stores)
There is something quite attractive about the idea of building up a CD collection. Apple doesn’t seem to think so as they cite a reduction in clutter as one of the main advantages of a purely digital collection. I’ve often felt that a well presented CD collection adds a homely feel to a room. I’ve never had such a collection and even though it may be at odds with the minimalist design principles of the modern day, I still find it quite an attractive proposition. I do however have to face the reality of living in a studio flat in London; physical space is at a premium.
Aside from the attraction of having a physical music collection, there are several significant upsides to having albums on CD. The format is open and can be copied to a computer in a any format. Should a new format be adopted for digital music, it would be easy (if a little time consuming) to re-encode the entire collection without the quality issues associated with transcoding between lossy formats.
For:
- a real physical collection
- high quality, lossless format
- ultimate flexibility with how I consume the music
Against:
- requires physical storage space
- requires a working CD player (believe it or not, I don’t have one)
- slightly more expensive
My Thoughts
If price were the only factor the cheapest option would be to decide on an album by album basis. A quick analysis of the top 25 album downloads on Amazon’s mp3 store gives an average album price of £5.88. The same set of albums from the iTunes Music Store have an average price of £6.96. Based on the average album price, going with Amazon would result in a saving of £135.33 over my entire music collection.
However, as is often the case with these decisions, price isn’t the only factor. Ease of use, high quality meta-data, portability and consistency of presentation are all things I value. But in what order?
My gut feel is to got with either the iTunes Music Store or physical CDs. I don’t like the thought of a subscription service even though the value of my music equates to a 7 year Spotify subscription.
Have you had similar thoughts? Have you already embraced the world of digital music? I’d love to hear any advice, questions or suggestions in the comments.
I wouldn’t strictly classify CDs as a lossless format – it is easy for them to get scratched and worn. The price of CDs often comes down quickly also and if you don’t mind waiting isn’t so much more expensive that digital downloads.
Anyway, good luck with your challenge!
You are right about the risk of damage to CDs. I’ve always found them fairly scratch resistant, but looking at the CD collection of certain family members it would seem CDs don’t last more than a couple of months.
Perhaps I should have mentioned that I would instantly copy all CDs to mp3 so that I can actually play them, though I believe that this is still illegal in the UK. It is likely that they would then sit untouched on a shelf somewhere.
The reduction in price is an important point actually. CDs tend to come down in price quite quickly whereas the prices of download has tended to remain fairly constant.
One of the interesting points here is that you cannot re-sell a download whereas it is still possible to sell a CD (even when you have copied it, which is technically illegal, but I think the BPI would have a hard time prosocuting everyone that has backed up theirs and their friends music collections).
The music industry faces a hard time, becuase it really has resisted change. Th thing which confuses me about it is though, they shut down about 10 services which had better libraries of music than iTunes does curently. Instead of working with those companies to make a service which would work (like say spotify now) thy wasted years worth of oppertunites honing a great service.
The music industry resisted mp3s for about 8 years. And for good reason, two of the major reord companies invented CDs. They get a small royalty everytime one is made. With mp3’s they also lose that extra income. Even as far back as blank tapes (which is often cited as similar to mp3s ease of copying) Major record labals had invented them and got a liscense fee every time one was made.
Interestingly I tend to stay away from buying music online, I don’t really like mp3 players, I much prefer CDs and I guess if I was ten years older would also prefer vinyl.
I also have to admit that as a music marketing student found out that I didn’t like the music industry much either. The bands and artists get virtually no money, and it still stuns me that so many people think of the music industry as a glitzy one. Bands get (typcially) 8.5% of each CD sale which seems ok, until you realise they were given a £50K advance to pay for the recording and advertising, that all needs to be payed back before they can earn a penny.
In this way successful bands actually end up making no money, they are several notable bands that still make no money (a recent example is kaiser chiefs) they still have made no money. It is a little deflating and having played in bands myself, was a motivation for leaving the performing aspect.
I do however reccomend a couple of services that offer about 50% payment to the artists instead of the standard 8.5% when buying online. Sadly due to the obvious resttrictions most major label artists won’t be found on these sites, but still worth a look, if you are into helping out smaller bands.
CDBaby: http://www.cdbaby.com/
Reverbnation: http://www.reverbnation.com/
Tunecore: http://www.tunecore.com/
Re-sale is an interesting point that I hadn’t even considered. I can see why all music downloads come with terms and conditions stating that you are not allowed to re-sell, but this raises questions as to what exactly you are buying. It sounds to me as if you are buying the right to listen to the music as opposed to buying something physical that can be re-sold. It worries me slightly that I might be handing over money without fully understanding what exactly I am paying for.
The finances mechanisms of the music industry are clearly in need of a good shake up. We have reached a situation whereby the parties generating the most value receive the smallest share of the revenue. I don’t profess to know anything about the music industry, but how does something like the Apple App store sound in terms of a workable model: 70% to the artist, 30% to the label for distribution? Obviously this includes no marketing or promotion at all. The percentages could be tweaked, but I’m guessing a model like this is more appropriate for online downloads.
As far as I am aware you would be buying a liscense to listen to that piece of music, wheras a CD you buy the liscense and the physical product. As far as I am aware iTunes currenty typically offers an 15-20% (20 if you are say Rolling stones or other influential act). You also have publishing revenue, tax and the money for the service to take into account.
So I would say; tax (17.5%), Publishing might be about (10%), Money to record company/artist (upto 20%), which leaves in the region of 50% for iTunes and most other stores.
The problem with these figures for the artist is that record companies and artists usually take a 50:50 split of the above 15-20%. leaving the artist anywhere between 7.5-10% of their rights in their own recorded music (and that percentage is then recouple to the record company before they earn anything).
The 70:30 you talk of would be fantastic but as yet doesnt exist, as there is publishing costs, tax etc to think about. iTunes still claims it only makes money becuase of the iPod, and that if they took any less cut they would shut down the service as it wouldnt make business sense.
I think you have to make decisions depending on the music. For me subscription works only if I am in the mood for listening out for new (to me) music. It gives me the chance to sample a wide variety without having to take the risk of buying a disappointing album.
iTunes and Amazon have there place for individual rock and pop tracks, but mp3 doesn’t offer good enough quality for classical. For this I will stick to CDs and a proper HiFi system.
Quality is an interesting issue, and one that I chose to avoid. The truth is, I have never been able to tell the difference between mp3s encoded at various bit-rates and the original CDs. The number one reason for this is that I probably don’t pay enough attention whilst listening. Another reason is that the equipment I use to listen to music is unlikely to be able to reproduce the full quality of the original media. (I use a 14 year old stereo system plugged into a Mac Mini with a home-made cable. The speakers are then connected to the stereo system with mains cable.) That said, using a higher quality input source can only improve things.
Perhaps I shouldn’t be so quick to ignore the quality issue. Maybe CDs are the way to go. As long as I could settle on an efficient method of converting/storing them as mp3/aac then this is a solution I’d be quite comfortable with.