DVDizzy Forum

So, I don't know if there was ever such a thread here but here's one.

Music Downloading has become a very popular way to obtain music. There are certainly pros to it and in turn ipods/mp3 players. Such pros consist of the convenience of carrying music portably. In many regards it's one of the best things to happen to listening to portable listening to music. But to a great many people, portably listening to music only represents a part of their music listening experience.

Now, my issue with downloadable music is three things.
(1) I feel like something is missing when I purchase music via downloads.
(2) Paying money for a mere file isn't something I'm a fan of.
(3) Sound quality: No matter how one slices it, purchased music downloads are not of the same quality as a CD.
(4) I want more than a file. period.

One thing that seems to baffle me is how the same people are willing to accept and defend lesser quality in music want higher quality in movies. I would think if one values high video and audio quality on their DVDs/BDs that they would value the audio quality in music. They embrace the degradation of sound quality in music formats and embrace the upgrading of the quality of movie formats.

What say you?

EDIT: This discussion has nothing to do with illegal downloading. That to me is a non-issue here.

The_Iceflash wrote:Now, my issue with downloadable music is three things.
(1) I feel like something is missing when I purchase music via downloads.

This is what I like to call the "pack rat" mentality, in which you feel as if downloading the file to something means you are getting less of something you really want, like a shiny cover, perhaps a collectible and other similar things. This is somewhat understandable because for DECADES we have been buying the physical form of something and thus we have created the mentality that we don't truly own something unless it comes in a physical form of some sort. This new idea of just downloading the file to it is rather surreal and thus I predict it will be years until the idea becomes the norm.

(2) Paying money for a mere file isn't something I'm a fan of.

This is an issue of PREFERENCE, not a real issue of downloading music. I know people that would rather buy just one song they like rather than spend 10 to 15 bucks on an album where they only like one or two songs in them. To me at least, this is a huge advantage because it gives me the option of buying one song rather than the whole thing.

(3) Sound quality: No matter how one slices it, purchased music downloads are not of the same quality as a CD.

I am no audio expert, but how is this exactly? I've listened to songs both on CD and MP3 and the quality seems to be the same. It depends on the people that worked on the file as well as the equipment it is being played on. I HAVE noticed the decline of quality on some MP3s, but again this depends on how the file was created.

(4) I want more than a file. period.

Once again, pack rat mentality. I already stated my thoughts on this.

If you don't mind my bluntness, your issues are of preference, not real issues that come with music downloads. If you want a REAL issue, then how about the limitations that come with this.

For example, when you buy a song off of iTunes or any other music download service, the song will be restricted to just your computer and the device you use it to play it on. This means that whenever you want to re-download your music you have to assign it to your computer once more, and if I am not mistaken the number of times you do this is limited. So for example, if you bought a song you can only assign it to a computer around 5 times until you are no longer allowed to do this and thus the song stays strictly in one computer.

These are attempts at preventing piracy and free distribution of music and other files. Noble at first, it can become a hindrance, even to those that actually support this idea. Something similar is the one year limit in digital files of movies. All lame attempts at controlling piracy.

BUT, regardless of flaws, one huge advantage of movie and music downloading is that what was once rare can become easily available. The problem with physical mediums is that once the companies decide to stop printing them, the object becomes very rare and unless they decide to re-release the product, you are screwed. And even then, if they re-release it chances are the product will have been altered (like if you want a movie soundtrack they either add or delete songs from the original soundtrack).

If all you want is to watch a movie or listen to a song, would you be willing to pay lots of money for just one quick pleasure? This is why downloadable services are a blessing for many, because companies can easily distribute even their rare stuff and be always available (this, however, depends on the company as well, which I find stupid because they are not paying to have it available in physical stuff).

The only ones that lose here are collectors and people that REALLY want the physical form of a product because of sheer romanticism and the idea that you feel better if you owned something.

So there you go, my honest opinion on the whole downloading thing. I realize that your objections are valid and that you have the right to buy your product however you want it. It's just that your issues are really just personal preference issues and the ones that I did mention have more weight, especially when you are trying to prove that the digital distribution of games, movies and music is not as great as it seems on paper.

The_Iceflash wrote:So, I don't know if there was ever such a thread here but here's one.

Music Downloading has become a very popular way to obtain music. There are certainly pros to it and in turn ipods/mp3 players. Such pros consist of the convenience of carrying music portably. In many regards it's one of the best things to happen to listening to portable listening to music. But to a great many people, portably listening to music only represents a part of their music listening experience.

Now, my issue with downloadable music is three things.
(1) I feel like something is missing when I purchase music via downloads.
(2) Paying money for a mere file isn't something I'm a fan of.
(3) Sound quality: No matter how one slices it, purchased music downloads are not of the same quality as a CD.
(4) I want more than a file. period.

One thing that seems to baffle me is how the same people are willing to accept and defend lesser quality in music want higher quality in movies. I would think if one values high video and audio quality on their DVDs/BDs that they would value the audio quality in music. They embrace the degradation of sound quality in music formats and embrace the upgrading of the quality of movie formats.

What say you?

I say I'm on the physical media side, for the exact same reasons you eloquently stated in your points 1-4, above!

I could elaborate further, but I've already gone into great detail about my feelings on the matter in your other thread about Best Buy beginning to phase out CD sales, so I won't repeat all that here again and sound like a broken record, er, CD,!

pap64 wrote:For example, when you buy a song off of iTunes or any other music download service, the song will be restricted to just your computer and the device you use it to play it on. This means that whenever you want to re-download your music you have to assign it to your computer once more, and if I am not mistaken the number of times you do this is limited. So for example, if you bought a song you can only assign it to a computer around 5 times until you are no longer allowed to do this and thus the song stays strictly in one computer.

These are attempts at preventing piracy and free distribution of music and other files. Noble at first, it can become a hindrance, even to those that actually support this idea. Something similar is the one year limit in digital files of movies. All lame attempts at controlling piracy.

I've never had any problems with this model when it came to burning songs to discs or putting them on other computers. There is a limit, but it's like 5, which I feel is fair enough.

pap64 wrote:The only ones that lose here are collectors and people that REALLY want the physical form of a product because of sheer romanticism and the idea that you feel better if you owned something.

Agreed on all your points Pap, however it is nice when a elaborate set like "A Musical History of Disneyland" is produced which sells itself as a collectible and is packaged with a substantial hard cover book and vinyl reproduction.

Flanger-Hanger wrote:

pap64 wrote:For example, when you buy a song off of iTunes or any other music download service, the song will be restricted to just your computer and the device you use it to play it on. This means that whenever you want to re-download your music you have to assign it to your computer once more, and if I am not mistaken the number of times you do this is limited. So for example, if you bought a song you can only assign it to a computer around 5 times until you are no longer allowed to do this and thus the song stays strictly in one computer.

These are attempts at preventing piracy and free distribution of music and other files. Noble at first, it can become a hindrance, even to those that actually support this idea. Something similar is the one year limit in digital files of movies. All lame attempts at controlling piracy.

I've never had any problems with this model when it came to burning songs to discs or putting them on other computers. There is a limit, but it's like 5, which I feel is fair enough.

I know that this isn't a problem for some people. What I am basically saying is that when a downloadable service is done very poorly you have more pros and cons, creating the illusion that downloadable services are an inconvenience. Plus, I see this as more of an inconvenience than the romanticized "I want to OWN this!!!" idea that people are passing off as an actual flaw.

The_Iceflash wrote:Now, my issue with downloadable music is three things.
(1) I feel like something is missing when I purchase music via downloads.

This is what I like to call the "pack rat" mentality, in which you feel as if downloading the file to something means you are getting less of something you really want, like a shiny cover, perhaps a collectible and other similar things. This is somewhat understandable because for DECADES we have been buying the physical form of something and thus we have created the mentality that we don't truly own something unless it comes in a physical form of some sort. This new idea of just downloading the file to it is rather surreal and thus I predict it will be years until the idea becomes the norm.

In actuality one is getting less. If I can spend $10 on a CD with all the trimmings or $10 for just files, it's a no brainer which I would choose. The fact that it's a 100% guaranteed hard copy alone makes it a better deal for ipods/mp3 players.

(2) Paying money for a mere file isn't something I'm a fan of.

This is an issue of PREFERENCE, not a real issue of downloading music. I know people that would rather buy just one song they like rather than spend 10 to 15 bucks on an album where they only like one or two songs in them. To me at least, this is a huge advantage because it gives me the option of buying one song rather than the whole thing.

Of course it's preference. I never said otherwise.

If CD single was actually pushed more than it was the one or two songs argument wouldn't be an issue. iTunes basically destroyed the idea of an album and a single. What's the point of releasing an album as a cohesive piece of work if the whole thing can be picked apart. The purpose of singles allowed for one to do that. I feel iTunes shouldn't allow cherry picking of albums. When an artist releases a single, then does that song become available for individual purpose. That whole mess it hurting the music world in that artists are getting careless reducing themselves to a singles-only act with their "albums" containing mostly filler.

(3) Sound quality: No matter how one slices it, purchased music downloads are not of the same quality as a CD.

I am no audio expert, but how is this exactly? I've listened to songs both on CD and MP3 and the quality seems to be the same. It depends on the people that worked on the file as well as the equipment it is being played on. I HAVE noticed the decline of quality on some MP3s, but again this depends on how the file was created.

Compression. Purchased downloads consist of heavily compressed files. The file you get when you purchase a download is only a fraction of the size you'd find on a CD. The more compressed it is the lower the quality.

(4) I want more than a file. period.

Once again, pack rat mentality. I already stated my thoughts on this.

If you don't mind my bluntness, your issues are of preference, not real issues that come with music downloads. If you want a REAL issue, then how about the limitations that come with this.

Getting less and a loss of quality isn't a real issue?

For example, when you buy a song off of iTunes or any other music download service, the song will be restricted to just your computer and the device you use it to play it on. This means that whenever you want to re-download your music you have to assign it to your computer once more, and if I am not mistaken the number of times you do this is limited. So for example, if you bought a song you can only assign it to a computer around 5 times until you are no longer allowed to do this and thus the song stays strictly in one computer.

These are attempts at preventing piracy and free distribution of music and other files. Noble at first, it can become a hindrance, even to those that actually support this idea. Something similar is the one year limit in digital files of movies. All lame attempts at controlling piracy.

I don't really see this as a problem but if one had the song on CD this wouldn't be an issue.

BUT, regardless of flaws, one huge advantage of movie and music downloading is that what was once rare can become easily available. The problem with physical mediums is that once the companies decide to stop printing them, the object becomes very rare and unless they decide to re-release the product, you are screwed. And even then, if they re-release it chances are the product will have been altered (like if you want a movie soundtrack they either add or delete songs from the original soundtrack).

Like I said in the first post, there are pros and cons. A pro would be the availability of rarer material. But at what expense?

If all you want is to watch a movie or listen to a song, would you be willing to pay lots of money for just one quick pleasure?

For the song I can go on youtube for my one quick listen.

for the movie it's called a rental.

This is why downloadable services are a blessing for many, because companies can easily distribute even their rare stuff and be always available (this, however, depends on the company as well, which I find stupid because they are not paying to have it available in physical stuff).

Like I said above, sure we might get rarer material but a what expense? Are we getting poor transfers/masters?

The only ones that lose here are collectors and people that REALLY want the physical form of a product because of sheer romanticism and the idea that you feel better if you owned something.

It's not so black and white.

So there you go, my honest opinion on the whole downloading thing. I realize that your objections are valid and that you have the right to buy your product however you want it. It's just that your issues are really just personal preference issues and the ones that I did mention have more weight, especially when you are trying to prove that the digital distribution of games, movies and music is not as great as it seems on paper.

Lower quality alone makes it not as great as it seems on paper. Add that to paying around the same price and getting less.

Well, as much as I do like having the actual disc and hard case, it is just so much more convenient to just boot up my computer and download a song off of iTunes than driving all the way out to a store. And something I really like about downloading music is that you can only buy one song off of the album, instead of the whole thing. So downloading music definitely saves me money and time. And, some items that are available on iTunes are no longer available in stores, or, in some cases, never were. I follow some musical groups on YouTube, and their work is available through iTunes, but not in stores. So, for me, it is the better option. More choice, and it saves me money and time.

While I like getting an actual, physical thing to hold in my hands and look at, it's much easier to get music online. Though, I absolutely refuse to pay for music online. You can spend, at one time anyways, 15 dollars or so on a cd to have one or two songs you love and 10 songs you never listen to. But with online, you can get just the songs you want, not spending any money on songs you don't. If there's a song I want, I just Limewire it. You can listen to songs from the album, and if you like them, you can buy the cd. For me to buy a cd, I have to like at least half of the songs. But for the last 10 years or so, there hasn't been one album where I like more than 2 songs. I haven't bought a cd for 4 years for several reasons. One, there hasn't been any music worth listening to. Two, on the very few occasions where there was a good singer or group, they don't have enough good music to justify buying an entire record.

Spottedfeather wrote:For me to buy a cd, I have to like at least half of the songs. But for the last 10 years or so, there hasn't been one album where I like more than 2 songs.

Exactly. And it's perfect for me because I do not have a favourite singer or band- if I hear a song I like, I'll download it. I only own about two or three songs for most artists in my library. So without buying music online I would have to buy all of these CDs just for one or two songs. And needless to say, I would not be able to afford that, and it would be a huge waste of money as well.

I actually just got burned today on MP3's. My computer has had issues due to power outage in my area and finally this last weekend I had to re-boot it. I lost all my files, including a number of MP3's that I had started to collect, trying to give the idea a chance. After this, I'm don't with MP3's, I don't trust them.

Not to mention, it destroys an art form when people buy songs and not albums and I think, makes it more expensive in the long run. Easier to find a CD at a discount store then a song on an MP3 music site.

Ugh, sorry you had to lose your files. I know some sites will let you re-download any MP3's you bought if they get lost or something - I think iTunes does that, not sure. I keep all my media that I want to keep on an external hard drive - true, the external can always fail, but considering I just bought this one earlier this year, I don't anticipate it. I'm actually considering buying ANOTHER one if I get plenty of Christmas money - I think it's time I finally went with a 1TB drive. I've also always backed up iTunes and Amazon MP3 purchases on CD-Rs just in case. But I don't typically buy MP3's from them - I only bought albums on iTunes cause I had gift cards and I only buy MP3's from Amazon if it's something rare and hard-to-find in good quality online for free.

I love CD's though - especially for album reissues, cause they can often have extensive liner notes, special packaging, etc. I bought three Judy Garland sets this year that I've had in MP3 form forever, and nothing compares to being able to read the booklets, look at the artwork, etc. in these sets. Lots of care went into these packages, and I think about that when I'm listening to the music and looking at the artwork and such.

However, downloading allows me to get hard-to-find albums and songs from albums where I don't like enough of the full album to justify buying it. I have to either REALLY love the artist or I have to love enough songs on an album where buying each song I love individually would be more expensive than buying the whole thing at the price it's being sold for. (Of course, I can often get it a few bucks cheaper from the Marketplace, and living in Kentucky, most purchases direct from Amazon are taxed, but Marketplace items never are, so that can save me another $1 or $2 sometimes.)