The Future Of Music

[Radical Dreamer]

Have the RIAA lawsuits put you off downloading music?

If not, do you think CDs will become obsolete one day? What do you prefer: CDs or MP3s? I'd rather own a CD than have a song digitally stored on my hard drive or MP3 player, I love seeing things like album art and liner notes but this is only possible if CD prices are lowered, which doesn't seem to be happening where I live.

[F-ck Casey]

Of course CD's will eventually become obsolete. Just like the A-Track & Records, we'll find a more advanced way.

As for if I prefer CD's or MP3's: I like CD's, mainly for the extra stuff they usually come with, and the artwork. I like to have MP3's for my home use, and CD's for when I go out somewhere, you know?

Yeah.

[limited_edition]

I like cds: if its just one song i would like i would get it as an mp3 but i like the artwork and the extra stuff and the cds are alot more stronger its harder to scratch them :D

[Radical Dreamer]

Originally posted by Casey@Feb 27 2004, 12:42 AM
Of course CD's will eventually become obsolete. Just like the A-Track & Records, we'll find a more advanced way.
Hopefully not in my lifetime. I'd hate having to update my entire CD collection. :rolleyes:


and the cds are alot more stronger its harder to scratch them :D

:lol:

[dips]

For how to tote them around, I'd like mini disc's. It'd be a hell of a lot more easier to carry them around, and still have the disc in hand.

As for the musical talents, music is going to SH*T&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; >_<

[F-ck Casey]

Originally posted by Radical Dreamer+Feb 26 2004, 06:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Radical Dreamer @ Feb 26 2004, 06:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Casey@Feb 27 2004, 12:42 AM
Of course CD&#39;s will eventually become obsolete. Just like the A-Track & Records, we&#39;ll find a more advanced way.
Hopefully not in my lifetime. I&#39;d hate having to update my entire CD collection. :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]
technically you wouldn&#39;t have to do that.

since, in 2004, we don&#39;t really have the technology needed to advance to something beyond CD&#39;s, by the time that comes around, you&#39;ll be able to just convert your CD&#39;s into whatever the new thing is.

Right now, it looks like the new thing is going to be MP3&#39;s. You can fit ALOT more songs on a customized CD that you can only play in an MP3 player, so maybe they&#39;ll just update CD&#39;s, and put the MP3 technology on it, so then they can fit 200+ songs on one CD. This way, no more box sets. Now, bands don&#39;t have to decide which songs to pick for their new CD, they can use them all.

Concert Set-lists would be better to, because if one band has a CD that has 20 or so songs on it, the set-list would be different every night, depending on if the band wanted it that way.

See, it works out for everyone.

[User Name]

I wrote an (semi) article on where I thought the industry was heading as a project for Music Appreciation and I got 100% on it. Here it is.




<div align=center>Last One Out, Hit the Lights
written by Cameron [insert last name here]</div>

The music industry is responsible for bringing out some of the greatest talents to ever hit the entertainment scene. Regrettably, the music industry is also responsible for bringing out the worst creations since unsliced bread as well, and it doesn&#39;t seem to be letting up. I want to look at one key event in which I believe started the downfall of the industry as we knew it.

I guess it wasn&#39;t that big of a suprise, was it? Yes, that event was the whole Napster dispute between it&#39;s founder, Shawn Fanning, and the members of Metallica (not to forget the various record labels as well) over copyright issues. We should all know the story after that. Shawn lost, and Napster was shut down (then later revived last year). Metallica and the labels won, but the band had to sacrifice a lot of their credibility and some of their fans in the process.

The only positive thing that I can think of that came out of this is that it challenged artists to stop coming up with mediocre albums and start writing material that people would actually want to go out and buy. Other than that, any other attempts to try and justify the whole thing is fruitless.

The negative impact of the whole Napster issue is quite evident. Prices for CD&#39;s have gradually increased, labels are going bankrupt, and overall quality of songs have gone down considerably. To put in my own words, the music industry is pumping out more crap than someone with diarrhea.

As for the future of the record labels, this is what I am guessing will happen. Labels will continue in their onslaught of marketable bands, one right after the other, and the Radioheads will be overrun by the Justin Timberlakes. Faced with the fact that people are not buying albums, the major record labels will keep merging together or closing until one mega-label exists. It may take years or several decades, but like its&#39; miniture versions, the mega-label will fall under, and the music industry will be taken over by the independant labels. This is when I believe that music worth buying will surface.

I am not saying, however, that the era I described would forever be the golden age of music. Somewhere down the road, one of those independant labels would start to morph into one of the money-hungry labels that we see today. After that happens, history would slowly once again repeat itself, and we would be right back where we started, only with different bands and different labels.

When everything is all said and done, the last person out will still close the doors and hit the lights.

[F-ck Casey]

it&#39;s funny about Metallica & Napster, because to gain more fans for their St. Anger CD, they had to make something like a P2P network for their MetallicaVault.


Hypocrites.

[coley8605]

Originally posted by Cameron@Feb 26 2004, 06:57 PM


It may take years or several decades, but like its&#39; miniture versions, the mega-label will fall under, and the music industry will be taken over by the independant labels. This is when I believe that music worth buying will surface.



Go Indie labels&#33;&#33;&#33; :teehee:

[F-ck Casey]

Originally posted by coley8605@Feb 26 2004, 06:59 PM

[QUOTE]
It may take years or several decades, but like its&#39; miniture versions, the mega-label will fall under, and the music industry will be taken over by the independant labels. This is when I believe that music worth buying will surface.
In theory, wouldn&#39;t the indie lables then become the major labels, and then be corrupted by greed, much like many of the record labels today?

[Ander]

Originally posted by Casey+Feb 26 2004, 05:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Casey @ Feb 26 2004, 05:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -coley8605@Feb 26 2004, 06:59 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Cameron@Feb 26 2004, 06:57 PM


It may take years or several decades, but like its&#39; miniture versions, the mega-label will fall under, and the music industry will be taken over by the independant labels. This is when I believe that music worth buying will surface.
In theory, wouldn&#39;t the indie lables then become the major labels, and then be corrupted by greed, much like many of the record labels today?[/b][/quote]
Yes. :P

[F-ck Casey]

Originally posted by superxero88+Feb 26 2004, 07:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (superxero88 @ Feb 26 2004, 07:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Casey@Feb 26 2004, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by -coley8605@Feb 26 2004, 06:59 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Cameron@Feb 26 2004, 06:57 PM


It may take years or several decades, but like its&#39; miniture versions, the mega-label will fall under, and the music industry will be taken over by the independant labels. This is when I believe that music worth buying will surface.
In theory, wouldn&#39;t the indie lables then become the major labels, and then be corrupted by greed, much like many of the record labels today?
Yes. :P [/b][/quote]
and to further my point, when the mainstream music listeners won&#39;t buy into these so called "worth buying" bands, they&#39;ll make their bands on their talent roster conform to their own mediums of music producing, writing, etc.

Yeah.

[Radical Dreamer]

Originally posted by Cameron@Feb 27 2004, 12:57 AM
I wrote an (semi) article on where I thought the industry was heading as a project for Music Appreciation and I got 100% on it. Here it is.




<div align=center>Last One Out, Hit the Lights
written by Cameron [insert last name here]</div>

The music industry is responsible for bringing out some of the greatest talents to ever hit the entertainment scene. Regrettably, the music industry is also responsible for bringing out the worst creations since unsliced bread as well, and it doesn&#39;t seem to be letting up. I want to look at one key event in which I believe started the downfall of the industry as we knew it.

I guess it wasn&#39;t that big of a suprise, was it? Yes, that event was the whole Napster dispute between it&#39;s founder, Shawn Fanning, and the members of Metallica (not to forget the various record labels as well) over copyright issues. We should all know the story after that. Shawn lost, and Napster was shut down (then later revived last year). Metallica and the labels won, but the band had to sacrifice a lot of their credibility and some of their fans in the process.

The only positive thing that I can think of that came out of this is that it challenged artists to stop coming up with mediocre albums and start writing material that people would actually want to go out and buy. Other than that, any other attempts to try and justify the whole thing is fruitless.

The negative impact of the whole Napster issue is quite evident. Prices for CD&#39;s have gradually increased, labels are going bankrupt, and overall quality of songs have gone down considerably. To put in my own words, the music industry is pumping out more crap than someone with diarrhea.

As for the future of the record labels, this is what I am guessing will happen. Labels will continue in their onslaught of marketable bands, one right after the other, and the Radioheads will be overrun by the Justin Timberlakes. Faced with the fact that people are not buying albums, the major record labels will keep merging together or closing until one mega-label exists. It may take years or several decades, but like its&#39; miniture versions, the mega-label will fall under, and the music industry will be taken over by the independant labels. This is when I believe that music worth buying will surface.

I am not saying, however, that the era I described would forever be the golden age of music. Somewhere down the road, one of those independant labels would start to morph into one of the money-hungry labels that we see today. After that happens, history would slowly once again repeat itself, and we would be right back where we started, only with different bands and different labels.

When everything is all said and done, the last person out will still close the doors and hit the lights.
Holy crap, that was a good article. :mellow: You&#39;re a great writer. :)

Time for indie labels to take over.

[coley8605]

In theory, yes. But hopefully they&#39;d learn from the mistakes of majors and focus on being consistent in doing things their same old way. There are a ton of Indies out there, though, and I don&#39;t think many would make it to the level of a major label anyway. Who knows...

[F-ck Casey]

Originally posted by coley8605@Feb 26 2004, 07:09 PM
In theory, yes. But hopefully they&#39;d learn from the mistakes of majors and focus on being consistent in doing things their same old way.
it all comes down to the money. if they can make money off of the good bands, then they&#39;ll do it.

if not, then they&#39;ll make the bands change.


at the current state of the music industry, if an indie label made it HUGE, then they&#39;d make their bands change most likely.

[coley8605]

I&#39;ve done some small work for a few indie labels, and they&#39;ve all basically said the same thing: A label will make or break a band. Most are definitely focused on the money aspect, but there are a few decent ones out there that are truly there to help the band(s) get their name out there and help them get a feel for the industry. It seems like it&#39;s hard to get anywhere without a label, and at the same time, it&#39;s hell with one. And yet, I want to work for one in the future. B)

[F-ck Casey]

Originally posted by coley8605@Feb 26 2004, 07:19 PM
I&#39;ve done some small work for a few indie labels, and they&#39;ve all basically said the same thing: A label will make or break a band. Most are definitely focused on the money aspect, but there are a few decent ones out there that are truly there to help the band(s) get their name out there and help them get a feel for the industry. It seems like it&#39;s hard to get anywhere without a label, and at the same time, it&#39;s hell with one. And yet, I want to work for one in the future. B)
eh, i&#39;m just saying, indy labels won&#39;t stick to their roots for long when they aren&#39;t bringing in alot of money.

If they can make it in the big time, that&#39;s great. I mean, I would have loved to see At The Drive-In as big as bands like Staind and whatnot.

But to me, it&#39;s not about the popularity, it&#39;s about their underground following. [cheap band plug]Otep is a good example. Despite Capital Records changing most of Sevas Tra, the fans stuck by Otep.

Myself included.[/cheap band plug]

[User Name]

Originally posted by Casey@Feb 26 2004, 05:03 PM


[QUOTE]
It may take years or several decades, but like its&#39; miniture versions, the mega-label will fall under, and the music industry will be taken over by the independant labels. This is when I believe that music worth buying will surface.
In theory, wouldn&#39;t the indie lables then become the major labels, and then be corrupted by greed, much like many of the record labels today?
It gets to that point later on in the article.

[Glenn]

I&#39;m completely clueless :o :(
What are indie labels?

[Anthony.]

Music right now is going nowhere, but saying why I belive so would start an unnecessary "conversation".

[coley8605]

Originally posted by DuffsterLP@Feb 26 2004, 08:32 PM
I&#39;m completely clueless :o :(
What are indie labels?
It stands for independent label... They&#39;re smaller labels with fewer bands, smaller budgets, etc. Bands signed to them don&#39;t usually get as much publicity since the labels themselves don&#39;t have tons of money to throw around like major labels like Warner Bros., Capitol, or Epic do. It&#39;s not always the case, but generally they can dedicate more time to each band since they don&#39;t have a huge roster to work with.

[Amy]

Cds are better.


That is all :chemist: .

[Eilonwy]

I prefer CDs, because I like to have the liner notes and artwork, and they look nicer in my CD holder than burned ones B)

I&#39;ve only recently gotten into downloading. I only get stuff that you can&#39;t buy (i.e. some of LP&#39;s demos and other songs that aren&#39;t in stores) and stuff that I want for mixed CDs. I don&#39;t download a lot, either.

But I really wish CD prices would drop. As it is now, I can only afford to buy one CD every couple of weeks. I really don&#39;t see a need for CDs to cost over &#036;10, because downloading has proven to consumers that it doesn&#39;t take a lot of money to make a CD.

[Whimsicality]

CDs. I love CDs. I love reading the notes and looking at the artwork, I love they way they look in my CD book, and I love supporting the band.

Out of all my 50something CDs, the only burned ones are The White Stripes (De Stiji), The Used (although I may buy it if I can find it used--no pun intened), Iggy Pop (Skull Ring) and Green Day (Dookie).

That said, lately I&#39;ve gotten very careful about buying CDs. They&#39;re so damn expensive, and for every great band I discover I tend to get a little more picky. Two years ago I could enjoy most generic post-Nirvana rock, now I&#39;m pretty much sick of it.

Thankfully, my local music store has listening to stations, so I can listen before I buy. Before I moved here I&#39;d just download as much as I could.

For artists losing money, I think the only solution is going to be to tour more. Everyone notice how most rock bands support downloading, while most (but obviously not all) pop stars are the opposite? Rock bands tour more. It just comes with the territory. So they have less to lose from downloading, because they have touring bringing in a larger percentage of their income.

[Will]

Originally posted by Radical Dreamer@Feb 26 2004, 07:37 PM
Have the RIAA lawsuits put you off downloading music?
HA. HA. HA.

I&#39;m downloading around 12 albums as I type this. :)

[arT saveS]

Originally posted by Casey+Feb 26 2004, 06:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Casey @ Feb 26 2004, 06:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Radical Dreamer@Feb 26 2004, 06:49 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Casey@Feb 27 2004, 12:42 AM
Of course CD&#39;s will eventually become obsolete. Just like the A-Track & Records, we&#39;ll find a more advanced way.
Hopefully not in my lifetime. I&#39;d hate having to update my entire CD collection. :rolleyes:
technically you wouldn&#39;t have to do that.

since, in 2004, we don&#39;t really have the technology needed to advance to something beyond CD&#39;s, by the time that comes around, you&#39;ll be able to just convert your CD&#39;s into whatever the new thing is.

Right now, it looks like the new thing is going to be MP3&#39;s. You can fit ALOT more songs on a customized CD that you can only play in an MP3 player, so maybe they&#39;ll just update CD&#39;s, and put the MP3 technology on it, so then they can fit 200+ songs on one CD. This way, no more box sets. Now, bands don&#39;t have to decide which songs to pick for their new CD, they can use them all.

Concert Set-lists would be better to, because if one band has a CD that has 20 or so songs on it, the set-list would be different every night, depending on if the band wanted it that way.

See, it works out for everyone. [/b][/quote]
About the set lists and putting more songs on a CD..

Now I know that CD&#39;s can&#39;t fit 200+ songs on them now, but I know that they can fit more than 12-15, which is the average of what bands put on there CD&#39;s...so even without CD&#39;s that could fit 200 on it, a band could still put a lot. Besides that, I don&#39;t think a band would put more than 30..if that many..on one CD, because then they would have to write a lot more songs...a lot...to put out another.




Back to the actual topic, I prefer CD&#39;s, mainly cause they are cheaper, and I don&#39;t want discs that small, to easy to break, to easy to lose, I just don&#39;t wanna deal with them.




And I dunno about the music nowadays. I like some of the older-new (ie. linkin park, disturbed, tool, ect) like the newer rock and metal but started 3-4 years ago if not more. I don&#39;t like all the emo bands coming out and all the pop-punk bands.
So no, I dont think it&#39;s getting worse, there are to many genres to say the whole music business its starting to suck.

[Radical Dreamer]

Originally posted by iamthealmighty@Feb 27 2004, 11:03 PM
Now I know that CD&#39;s can&#39;t fit 200+ songs on them now, but I know that they can fit more than 12-15, which is the average of what bands put on there CD&#39;s...so even without CD&#39;s that could fit 200 on it, a band could still put a lot. Besides that, I don&#39;t think a band would put more than 30..if that many..on one CD, because then they would have to write a lot more songs...a lot...to put out another.




Back to the actual topic, I prefer CD&#39;s, mainly cause they are cheaper, and I don&#39;t want discs that small, to easy to break, to easy to lose, I just don&#39;t wanna deal with them.




And I dunno about the music nowadays. I like some of the older-new (ie. linkin park, disturbed, tool, ect) like the newer rock and metal but started 3-4 years ago if not more. I don&#39;t like all the emo bands coming out and all the pop-punk bands.
So no, I dont think it&#39;s getting worse, there are to many genres to say the whole music business its starting to suck.
Not just that. I can&#39;t imagine how someone using a CD containing 200+ tracks can fast forward to track 193 or something in a given minute. :wth:

[arT saveS]

Originally posted by Radical Dreamer+Feb 27 2004, 05:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Radical Dreamer @ Feb 27 2004, 05:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--iamthealmighty@Feb 27 2004, 11:03 PM
Now I know that CD&#39;s can&#39;t fit 200+ songs on them now, but I know that they can fit more than 12-15, which is the average of what bands put on there CD&#39;s...so even without CD&#39;s that could fit 200 on it, a band could still put a lot. Besides that, I don&#39;t think a band would put more than 30..if that many..on one CD, because then they would have to write a lot more songs...a lot...to put out another.




Back to the actual topic, I prefer CD&#39;s, mainly cause they are cheaper, and I don&#39;t want discs that small, to easy to break, to easy to lose, I just don&#39;t wanna deal with them.




And I dunno about the music nowadays. I like some of the older-new (ie. linkin park, disturbed, tool, ect) like the newer rock and metal but started 3-4 years ago if not more. I don&#39;t like all the emo bands coming out and all the pop-punk bands.
So no, I dont think it&#39;s getting worse, there are to many genres to say the whole music business its starting to suck.
Not just that. I can&#39;t imagine how someone using a CD containing 200+ tracks can fast forward to track 193 or something in a given minute. :wth: [/b][/quote]
Good point. :)

[F-ck Casey]

Originally posted by iamthealmighty+Feb 27 2004, 05:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (iamthealmighty @ Feb 27 2004, 05:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Casey@Feb 26 2004, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by -Radical Dreamer@Feb 26 2004, 06:49 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Casey@Feb 27 2004, 12:42 AM
Of course CD&#39;s will eventually become obsolete. Just like the A-Track & Records, we&#39;ll find a more advanced way.
Hopefully not in my lifetime. I&#39;d hate having to update my entire CD collection. :rolleyes:
technically you wouldn&#39;t have to do that.

since, in 2004, we don&#39;t really have the technology needed to advance to something beyond CD&#39;s, by the time that comes around, you&#39;ll be able to just convert your CD&#39;s into whatever the new thing is.

Right now, it looks like the new thing is going to be MP3&#39;s. You can fit ALOT more songs on a customized CD that you can only play in an MP3 player, so maybe they&#39;ll just update CD&#39;s, and put the MP3 technology on it, so then they can fit 200+ songs on one CD. This way, no more box sets. Now, bands don&#39;t have to decide which songs to pick for their new CD, they can use them all.

Concert Set-lists would be better to, because if one band has a CD that has 20 or so songs on it, the set-list would be different every night, depending on if the band wanted it that way.

See, it works out for everyone.
About the set lists and putting more songs on a CD..

Now I know that CD&#39;s can&#39;t fit 200+ songs on them now, but I know that they can fit more than 12-15, which is the average of what bands put on there CD&#39;s...so even without CD&#39;s that could fit 200 on it, a band could still put a lot. Besides that, I don&#39;t think a band would put more than 30..if that many..on one CD, because then they would have to write a lot more songs...a lot...to put out another.




Back to the actual topic, I prefer CD&#39;s, mainly cause they are cheaper, and I don&#39;t want discs that small, to easy to break, to easy to lose, I just don&#39;t wanna deal with them.




And I dunno about the music nowadays. I like some of the older-new (ie. linkin park, disturbed, tool, ect) like the newer rock and metal but started 3-4 years ago if not more. I don&#39;t like all the emo bands coming out and all the pop-punk bands.
So no, I dont think it&#39;s getting worse, there are to many genres to say the whole music business its starting to suck. [/b][/quote]
not quite.


Bands normally write alot of songs inbetween albums, and they end up with 30 or so songs.

I&#39;m just saying, instead of having to pick the best 13 or so, they can put all of them on there if they choose.

And you can fit 200 songs on a CD, if you make the songs mp3&#39;s, and burn them to a data cd. You&#39;d have to have a MP3 player to play them, but that&#39;s not a big deal, since all MP3 players play regular CD&#39;s.

[arT saveS]

Originally posted by Casey+Feb 27 2004, 11:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Casey @ Feb 27 2004, 11:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -iamthealmighty@Feb 27 2004, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by -Casey@Feb 26 2004, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by -Radical Dreamer@Feb 26 2004, 06:49 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Casey@Feb 27 2004, 12:42 AM
Of course CD&#39;s will eventually become obsolete. Just like the A-Track & Records, we&#39;ll find a more advanced way.
Hopefully not in my lifetime. I&#39;d hate having to update my entire CD collection. :rolleyes:
technically you wouldn&#39;t have to do that.

since, in 2004, we don&#39;t really have the technology needed to advance to something beyond CD&#39;s, by the time that comes around, you&#39;ll be able to just convert your CD&#39;s into whatever the new thing is.

Right now, it looks like the new thing is going to be MP3&#39;s. You can fit ALOT more songs on a customized CD that you can only play in an MP3 player, so maybe they&#39;ll just update CD&#39;s, and put the MP3 technology on it, so then they can fit 200+ songs on one CD. This way, no more box sets. Now, bands don&#39;t have to decide which songs to pick for their new CD, they can use them all.

Concert Set-lists would be better to, because if one band has a CD that has 20 or so songs on it, the set-list would be different every night, depending on if the band wanted it that way.

See, it works out for everyone.
About the set lists and putting more songs on a CD..

Now I know that CD&#39;s can&#39;t fit 200+ songs on them now, but I know that they can fit more than 12-15, which is the average of what bands put on there CD&#39;s...so even without CD&#39;s that could fit 200 on it, a band could still put a lot. Besides that, I don&#39;t think a band would put more than 30..if that many..on one CD, because then they would have to write a lot more songs...a lot...to put out another.




Back to the actual topic, I prefer CD&#39;s, mainly cause they are cheaper, and I don&#39;t want discs that small, to easy to break, to easy to lose, I just don&#39;t wanna deal with them.




And I dunno about the music nowadays. I like some of the older-new (ie. linkin park, disturbed, tool, ect) like the newer rock and metal but started 3-4 years ago if not more. I don&#39;t like all the emo bands coming out and all the pop-punk bands.
So no, I dont think it&#39;s getting worse, there are to many genres to say the whole music business its starting to suck.
not quite.


Bands normally write alot of songs inbetween albums, and they end up with 30 or so songs.

I&#39;m just saying, instead of having to pick the best 13 or so, they can put all of them on there if they choose.

And you can fit 200 songs on a CD, if you make the songs mp3&#39;s, and burn them to a data cd. You&#39;d have to have a MP3 player to play them, but that&#39;s not a big deal, since all MP3 players play regular CD&#39;s. [/b][/quote]
True..

But what I&#39;m saying is that CD&#39;s can already carry 80+ mins, right? And most of the bands barely use only half of that..
I mean I would love it if one of my favorite bands put like 30 songs on just one album, that&#39;d rule, but most wouldn&#39;t.

Though there are a few bands out there who have to have 2 or more CD&#39;s in one package to listen to all the songs, which is really annoying. I dunno, but also if they put more songs on the CD, won&#39;t it cost more? I mean its about &#036;15 for a 12-songed album....what about a 30-songed album, it&#39;s be almost twice for one CD...

[Hybrid Theory]

True..

But what I&#39;m saying is that CD&#39;s can already carry 80+ mins, right? And most of the bands barely use only half of that..
I mean I would love it if one of my favorite bands put like 30 songs on just one album, that&#39;d rule, but most wouldn&#39;t.

Though there are a few bands out there who have to have 2 or more CD&#39;s in one package to listen to all the songs, which is really annoying. I dunno, but also if they put more songs on the CD, won&#39;t it cost more? I mean its about &#036;15 for a 12-songed album....what about a 30-songed album, it&#39;s be almost twice for one CD...
30 wouldn&#39;t fit on a regular CD for most bands. 22 or 23 would, unless if the artists are Eminem or Metallica. Then the number of songs would be 18.

[Ander]

What if its a CD containing one 80 minute song :lol: Or a CD with eighty 1 minute songs :lol:

[Todd]

Yeah. maybe they do write 30 songs, but I doubt they record them all. If they do, they&#39;re demos that would need a lot of touching up. Thats why they choose 12-15 of the best songs and concentrate on those.

To have 30 tracks on one CD, you&#39;d either have 30 really crappy tracks because they didn&#39;t have time to work on them, or you&#39;d be waiting 5 years between CDs while they polished up all the songs

[frgt10_soldier]

it will soon be all minidiscs...then i dunno what it will be...like chips that go in your ear with tons of music...it will all be wireless and sutff...welp i guess we gotta see for oursevles waht happens in the future

[Glenn]

Originally posted by coley8605+Feb 26 2004, 11:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (coley8605 @ Feb 26 2004, 11:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--DuffsterLP@Feb 26 2004, 08:32 PM
I&#39;m completely clueless :o :(
What are indie labels?
It stands for independent label... They&#39;re smaller labels with fewer bands, smaller budgets, etc. Bands signed to them don&#39;t usually get as much publicity since the labels themselves don&#39;t have tons of money to throw around like major labels like Warner Bros., Capitol, or Epic do. It&#39;s not always the case, but generally they can dedicate more time to each band since they don&#39;t have a huge roster to work with. [/b][/quote]
Is Mike&#39;s label an indie label?

[Will]

Originally posted by DuffsterLP+Feb 29 2004, 05:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DuffsterLP @ Feb 29 2004, 05:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -coley8605@Feb 26 2004, 11:06 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--DuffsterLP@Feb 26 2004, 08:32 PM
I&#39;m completely clueless* :o* :(
What are indie labels?
It stands for independent label... They&#39;re smaller labels with fewer bands, smaller budgets, etc. Bands signed to them don&#39;t usually get as much publicity since the labels themselves don&#39;t have tons of money to throw around like major labels like Warner Bros., Capitol, or Epic do. It&#39;s not always the case, but generally they can dedicate more time to each band since they don&#39;t have a huge roster to work with.
Is Mike&#39;s label an indie label? [/b][/quote]
Um. No.

[F-ck Casey]

Originally posted by superxero88@Feb 28 2004, 04:09 PM
What if its a CD containing one 80 minute song :lol: Or a CD with eighty 1 minute songs :lol:
Nine Inch Nails did it on Broken.



Well, tracks 4 through 98 were only one second long, but still. :whistle:

[Radical Dreamer]

Originally posted by superxero88@Feb 28 2004, 10:09 PM
What if its a CD containing one 80 minute song :lol: Or a CD with eighty 1 minute songs :lol:
Unless the storage capacity of a blank CD is enlarged, it won&#39;t be able to hold more than 30-40 songs on each disc, depending on the size of the songs. The standard CD-R can store 700MB&#39;s worth of songs so there&#39;s definitely going to be a limit as to how many songs bands can put on one CD.

[User Name]

Originally posted by Casey+Feb 29 2004, 02:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Casey @ Feb 29 2004, 02:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--superxero88@Feb 28 2004, 04:09 PM
What if its a CD containing one 80 minute song :lol: Or a CD with eighty 1 minute songs :lol:
Nine Inch Nails did it on Broken.



Well, tracks 4 through 98 were only one second long, but still. :whistle: [/b][/quote]
The shortest song on FIF&#39;s Cheese of Nazareth was 4 seconds. One second is kinda pushing it a little bit. :mellow:

[Radical Dreamer]

Originally posted by Cameron@Mar 1 2004, 04:46 AM
The shortest song on FIF&#39;s Cheese of Nazareth was 4 seconds.
Would that even be considered a song? :mellow:

[Odaton]

I like what Tool did on their Undertow album, they have 9 regular tracks, then they have 59 one-second tracks until you get to the hidden track, the FREAKY &#39;Disgustipated&#39; at #69. It has one part at the end that gives me the chills... :chemist:

As for musical talent, the only talented players nowadays are underground in the progressive rock/fusion scene. In metal, talented musicians are hard to come by. There used to be many in the mainstream, but labels are going for more &#39;marketable&#39; products. Marketable means MASS PRODUCTION. They are trying to give us the same old stuff, pressuring bands to cut corners and get their albums out as soon as they can. Its a disgrace :angry: