cost of a WAV

[Fisticuffs]

(2011-04-01 15:12:33)flagfab Wrote:  

(2011-04-01 14:58:14)Time to Boogie Wrote:  U Iz A Jkr Blud,


Seriously that's more than 200 Euro's an album.

0,99 for a track made in sometimes very expensive studio in sometimes few weeks or few months very often...

...which can be duplicated and sold an infinite amount of times for free, whereas it costs money to make each individual loaf of bread.

[flagfab]

(2011-04-01 17:10:46)Fisticuffs Wrote:  

(2011-04-01 15:12:33)flagfab Wrote:  

(2011-04-01 14:58:14)Time to Boogie Wrote:  U Iz A Jkr Blud,


Seriously that's more than 200 Euro's an album.

0,99 for a track made in sometimes very expensive studio in sometimes few weeks or few months very often...

...which can be duplicated and sold an infinite amount of times for free, whereas it costs money to make each individual loaf of bread.

of course this is true. ;)
i dont want to debate honeslty.
i've been stupid to take part of the discussion here indeed

now i finally understood the topic (hehe) i think that this topic does not interested me anymore haha
but i still think the real topic should be the scandaleous low price (and shamefully often free) of music nowadays...

[andy8271]

yup we aren't talking about 0.99 being too expensive for music (it certainly isnt)we are on about the EXTRA £1 that is charged for a wav even when it costs the same to make as a 320

its not the artists getting that extra £1 anyway

---

(2011-04-01 17:03:43)Santero Wrote:  I understand that its a shame that the perceived value of music has dropped so precipitously over the years - I used to think nothing of spending £8 to buy a single on vinyl just to get the one song that I wanted. Now I would have to be really, really keen to do the same, but that is the world in which we have to operate as consumers, sellers, artists, whatever part of it you are.

The problem for me is that this WAV handling charge is basically a scam. It has nothing to do with size - there is that DJ Hell remix that is about 30 minutes long, so the MP3 is actually bigger than some of the WAVs I have bought from Beatport. And anyway, data storage simply isn't anywhere near that expensive. MP3s from Beatport are already at the more expensive end of the scale, so adding on £1 per track for WAVS makes them ridiculously so imho.

And then there is the fact that so often it is cheaper to buy a physical product than get equivalent quality on Beatport. Shadow Dancer's Murder Room EP was about £5.99 for the vinyl. To buy as WAVs on Beatport would have been well over £10. My own debut EP was only available digitally, and was Beatport exclusive for 2 weeks; to buy the whole EP as WAVs was about £20!!! For some 1s and 0s on a hard drive! I know how much work went into that release, but in no way was that a fair price to get a lossless copy of it.

I absolutely hate the fact that 320 mp3 is perceived as being the desirable format, to the point where there's even a fantasy thread on this forum about having dream tracks as 320s - a lossy format! If we're in the realms of fantasy, lets at least aim for WAV! Data storage is so cheap these days that I just think its high time that lossless was the standard, and I think the price discrepancy is totally disproportionate in most shops. [/rant]

i cant see why labels dont get together and complain about that wav handling thing. especially labels who mostly sell digital. surely they wont people to hear there music in its best quality ? both the people buying it and the people hearing it in clubs ?

down with beatport...

[Claude Perdu]

Why are people bashing on flagfab here? I'd have a lot of respect for someone who's willing to pay a high price for the love of music.

[Evangelink]

(2011-04-01 19:07:01)Claude Perdu Wrote:  Why are people bashing on flagfab here? I'd have a lot of respect for someone who's willing to pay a high price for the love of music.

No doubt. But talking about paying nearly £100 for 5 tracks is a bit excessive. Even on the record company's old business model, that would be a lot!

I remember when I used to buy CD singles. Day of release they would be £3-£4, and you'd normally get an original and two remixes on them. So charging around a pound for a track on the internet makes sense to me. I'm not even getting a physical product with that, so I'm saving record companies money.

Also agree with Santero, I used to spend shitloads of cash buying those elusive tracks on vinyl, and it felt like value at the time especially as that was the only way I could DJ with those tracks. But that was a long time ago, and a lot has changed.

[The Gentlemen]

Yeah, it's absurdly overpriced. The extra storage and bandwidth doesn't justify that much extra per song at all.