It stands for independent label... They're smaller labels with fewer bands, smaller budgets, etc. Bands signed to them don't usually get as much publicity since the labels themselves don't have tons of money to throw around like major labels like Warner Bros., Capitol, or Epic do. It's not always the case, but generally they can dedicate more time to each band since they don't have a huge roster to work with.
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've only recently gotten into downloading. I only get stuff that you can't buy (i.e. some of LP's demos and other songs that aren't in stores) and stuff that I want for mixed CDs. I don'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't see a need for CDs to cost over $10, because downloading has proven to consumers that it doesn't take a lot of money to make a CD.
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've gotten very careful about buying CDs. They'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'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'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.
technically you wouldn't have to do that. since, in 2004, we don't really have the technology needed to advance to something beyond CD's, by the time that comes around, you'll be able to just convert your CD's into whatever the new thing is. Right now, it looks like the new thing is going to be MP3's. You can fit ALOT more songs on a customized CD that you can only play in an MP3 player, so maybe they'll just update CD'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'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's can'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's...so even without CD's that could fit 200 on it, a band could still put a lot. Besides that, I don'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's, mainly cause they are cheaper, and I don't want discs that small, to easy to break, to easy to lose, I just don'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't like all the emo bands coming out and all the pop-punk bands. So no, I dont think it's getting worse, there are to many genres to say the whole music business its starting to suck.
Not just that. I can't imagine how someone using a CD containing 200+ tracks can fast forward to track 193 or something in a given minute. :wth:
Not just that. I can'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.
About the set lists and putting more songs on a CD.. Now I know that CD's can'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's...so even without CD's that could fit 200 on it, a band could still put a lot. Besides that, I don'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's, mainly cause they are cheaper, and I don't want discs that small, to easy to break, to easy to lose, I just don'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't like all the emo bands coming out and all the pop-punk bands. So no, I dont think it'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'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's, and burn them to a data cd. You'd have to have a MP3 player to play them, but that's not a big deal, since all MP3 players play regular CD's.
not quite. Bands normally write alot of songs inbetween albums, and they end up with 30 or so songs. I'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's, and burn them to a data cd. You'd have to have a MP3 player to play them, but that's not a big deal, since all MP3 players play regular CD's. [/b][/quote] True.. But what I'm saying is that CD'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'd rule, but most wouldn't. Though there are a few bands out there who have to have 2 or more CD'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't it cost more? I mean its about $15 for a 12-songed album....what about a 30-songed album, it's be almost twice for one CD...
30 wouldn'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.
Yeah. maybe they do write 30 songs, but I doubt they record them all. If they do, they'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'd either have 30 really crappy tracks because they didn't have time to work on them, or you'd be waiting 5 years between CDs while they polished up all the songs
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
It stands for independent label... They're smaller labels with fewer bands, smaller budgets, etc. Bands signed to them don't usually get as much publicity since the labels themselves don't have tons of money to throw around like major labels like Warner Bros., Capitol, or Epic do. It's not always the case, but generally they can dedicate more time to each band since they don't have a huge roster to work with. [/b][/quote] Is Mike's label an indie label?
Nine Inch Nails did it on Broken. Well, tracks 4 through 98 were only one second long, but still. :whistle:
Unless the storage capacity of a blank CD is enlarged, it won'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's worth of songs so there's definitely going to be a limit as to how many songs bands can put on one CD.
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's Cheese of Nazareth was 4 seconds. One second is kinda pushing it a little bit.