Commodore Remix

Ph0B1uS wrote:

Chris Abbott wrote:Here's another blue-sky idea: what if prices above a certain level got the CD thrown in?

Would that have a different psychological effect to putting a minimum price on the CD version?

I wish we have a computer simulation of this

Chris

Isn't that system already in effect for the newer releases?
I am however a fan of physical cds odd as it may sound so I like the idea.

I think the pay whatever you think it's worth-idea might work too but I prefer the latter one.

[edit: aah, you mean _I_ already do this. Yes, though I was thinking of setting the minimum for CD a lot lower]

BTW: I think I'd better clarify that the model is more magnatune than Radiohead, in that giving stuff away unconditionally still isn't an option.

Chris

Sorry, I added an option and the votes were lost.

Chris

Hmm...

Ref new option - I think if you're going to do it, it has to be globally for new and old releases. Otherwise you will get is the classic C64 'budget game' syndrome whereby people will just wait until a new release gets 'old' and then buy it for much less anyway.

Possibly.

The more I think about it, the more it seems a good idea. If a 'high' price tag is stopping a person hearing my music, I'd prefer to lower it and be heard so long as I'm not out of pocket...

I don't want to get rich from my album - that's really not why I'm doing it. That said, I don't want anyone to lose money because of it, either (especially me).

Chris Abbott wrote:Here's another blue-sky idea: what if prices above a certain level got the CD thrown in?

Would that have a different psychological effect to putting a minimum price on the CD version?

I wish we have a computer simulation of this

Chris

yes.
i think the 'pay what you think its worth' thing is a good idea.... in a way

set a lower limit. have a nice message for 'donations' below an acceptabe amount (£0.06p for a digital track is taking the pi$$ and the to$$er that tries it knows that)

if someone wants a full album and is willing to 'donate' enough, reward him with the CD.

i know that getting us lot to write reviews is like getting a drink out of a scot .. erm .. stone, but having a 'see customers opinions' link would help loads i think. (i did have reviews for the first few BIT CDs but lost the lot to a sad little $#!t who hacked my site and deleted the lot .. i have meant to re-do them but ...)

the sad fact is, people ... humans .. like things easy. if they can get it for nothing, then they will.
we as a race have spent the last 2 million years making things easier (and by default, cheaper). that is going to be a hard thing to shake off.

'we' all know the paid for content is worth every penny.
the thing is, 'we' are but a few.
its the uneducated heathens we have to get into buying content.

Steve B wrote:
'we' all know the paid for content is worth every penny.
the thing is, 'we' are but a few.
its the uneducated heathens we have to get into buying content.

This is where I think the model will work better for us (more so than commercially signed artists), because apart from buying from C64audio, there is really nowhere else you can get these albums. Cracking groups would look really sad if they were to distribute semi-professional remix CD's, and they know it - there's no option of getting it for free, as far as I can tell.

Also, what about a 'top ten' list of the highest contributors for each album. Not as an incentive for someone to pay more, but more of a 'thank you' for going beyond the call of duty.

I voted "Yes" bc I think that if people are not put under pressure ("You have to pay, otherwise it's illegal to download!"), they (or most of them, well... at least some of them) are willing to pay for the music they listen to.

Only problem I see: I have just downloaded Radiohead's "In Raibows" album, and I have chosen a price of £ 0.00 bc I want to listen to the tracks first i.e. use the downloaded files as a preview and then decide whether I want to keep them and pay for them or whether I want to delete them and pay nothing. So some kind of 2-step model (download now/pay later) would be more appropriate for this kind of user behavior.

Maybe some kind of email notification after 1 week would be good. Something like: "You have downloaded blablabla 1 week ago. Have you listened yet? Did you enjoy it? Do you want to pay?", followed by web links like: "Remind me again in 1 week" and "pay now".

But I think the artist should be involved in the decision which model his album is sold by.

omoroca wrote:But I think the artist should be involved in the decision which model his album is sold by.

Indeed. I think I said that earlier in the thread, but I wouldn't dream of doing something with an artist album that the artist wasn't happy with.

Chris

Tonka wrote:

Steve B wrote:
'we' all know the paid for content is worth every penny.
the thing is, 'we' are but a few.
its the uneducated heathens we have to get into buying content.

This is where I think the model will work better for us (more so than commercially signed artists), because apart from buying from C64audio, there is really nowhere else you can get these albums. Cracking groups would look really sad if they were to distribute semi-professional remix CD's, and they know it - there's no option of getting it for free, as far as I can tell.

Unfortunately it's all available somewhere: there's one site which was boasting about how it was distributing only albums which weren't readily available: which was an empty piece of hypocrisy when one Google would tell them otherwise. As far as I remember, my emails went unanswered.

I'd say "at least our stuff is a bit harder to find." That's probably not really true, but hey...

Chris

A big NoNo!

Radiohead fucked us in the ass.. (but a great record btw...)

Only 30% of the people paid for it and the average amount was £6,-. Radiohead are billionaires and will sell 100.000s of copies anyway. They don't give a shit anymore. But they don't realise they screw it up for the rest of the industry.

Average bands don't sell those amounts sadly anymore and the budgets for albums are getting smaller and smaller by the day. A funny quote from our biggest radiostation called 3FM here in Holland: "Bands here in the Netherlands are complaining that we don't play their music that often or that we're not interested in them anymore. But the truth is that most new productions sound shit and sound like crap on the radio.".

I think lots of people don't realise that making good albums cost money. Now with the ability to make music with just your PC it makes it much easier to make music and the general output of music is so much greater, the average level and quality of music has been going down.

I know we're in a strange transition-period both musical and financial and that both the artists and the industry are in some kinda void of what's going to happen next, and nobody is really sure, but this new Radiohead experiment isn't the solution and will be hard on the rest of us.

Yours truly,

Reyn.

OK - can I change my vote now? Reyn has just given me a moment of clarity!

Well, that's the beauty of rational fact-based discussion

Chris

Well... speaking for Remix64 volume 3: the idea was for you to calculate a minimum price to make it safely break even and if there is a surplus, pay royalties and stuff. So I would try the minimum price plus extra donation thingy.

I don't want to go off topic, but for the record, I also agree with Reyn about the quality of music.

Thesedays we are all expected to be songwriters, arrangers, musicians, mixers, technicians and producers... Frankly, it's begining to show...

LMan wrote:Well... speaking for Remix64 volume 3: the idea was for you to calculate a minimum price to make it safely break even and if there is a surplus, pay royalties and stuff. So I would try the minimum price plus extra donation thingy.

Yeah - and I keep forgetting that this is where our model differs from Radiohead. This (to me) is a more sensible and acceptable model.