What is Digg?214 Comments
- MrCodeDude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+114There is no DRM and a new pricing structure, that's better than free.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+107"Can you honestly tell the difference between a 160k mp3 and a cd audio track? A more pertinent question: do you have the expensive high-end sound equipment that make the differences perceivable?"
Usually yes, and yes. But that's not the point. Statements like yours perpetuate a lie, the lie of what's "good enough." The technology to make essentially perfect recordings is cheap and widely available today. Why on earth should we aim LOW? But in the end, the point is that lossy formats like MP3 are not a suitable format for archiving. For listening in the car? Probably. But if you need some other lossy format, you want to compress from an uncompressed original; you don't want to recompress an MP3.
And it's clear from your questions that you don't know what dynamic compression is. And you're not alone; that's why no one is going to stop the record companies from ruining all music with it. Dynamic compression is ruining every album made today, and record companies are rapidly going through their back catalogs and destroying past music as well. You want to know why recent songs are "louder" than older ones on your iPod? You want to know why it's hard to find the right volume setting now? You want to know why you're quickly sick of songs you would've once played over and over?
The answer is dynamic compression, maxing out the level of every part of the musical spectrum, every millisecond, so music is nothing but a wall of noise. Drums have no impact. Cymbals are buried in the mix. Ever notice that every recording made in the last five to ten years sounds dull as hell? It's because nothing peaks above anything else. Pull up the waveforms in Sound Forge or some other audio editor and check it out.
And for what? There is no benefit whatsoever, only destruction. It's not even fun to turn music up anymore, because there's nothing in there to reveal. Notice how popular it is to mix OLDER music? Dynamic compression is hell for DJs, too, because there's no room in any mix for new elements.
Record companies are robbing us financially and culturally. Seriously, people, we've seen the sad end to decades of musical heritage. - Endemoniada, on 10/12/2007, -1/+80The difference is that when you pay money for these DRM-free songs in particular, 70% of that goes _directly_ to the artist. Some of us want to be honest and support the artists that make great music, but we'd rather not support greedy record labels and only get carefully packaged ***** in return.
So, in conclusion: DRM-free music + artists getting paid what they are ACTUALLY worth = a sweet deal - Grimdotdotdot, on 10/12/2007, -21/+75Acetv:
No he wasn't - wake up. - Gomek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+46They don't. That's on your honor. The point is that DRM tries to prevent that, and in doing so places heavy (and unnecessary) restrictions on individuals that DON'T plan on doing these things.
- OsakaWilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+39Probably they just want to make music and hope that people appreciate it enough to pay. If they pass it on to other new potential fans, wonderful. They are not adding annoying DRM and not sueing their fans which makes them better than almost all the other bands out there.
- KlayBorg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+38Well, its closer to free...
But it is a brilliant move. If people support this service, it might send the message to the major labels that DRM just puts people off their product. I know these days I refuse to buy any warner, universal and sony product. :P - DoodlesMcPooh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+38What would be point in that?
This site is legal so you would be paying twice! - DoodlesMcPooh, on 10/12/2007, -6/+43Even if you don't like BNL please download this song just to make a point.
As far as I am concerned DRM free is much better than price free. I would rather pay for a non DRM version than get a crippled one for free. - DoodlesMcPooh, on 10/12/2007, -3/+40Link to site http://www.amiestreet.com/
- LowRentDiggs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+32I'll buy from that site just on principle.
- alpinweiss88, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29Why don't artists just release these songs for free on their website? Record a message saying "Hey this is blah blah from whatever group - we hope you like this song, and decide to purchase the higher quality copy of it - thanks for listening!" Tack it onto the front of the song, encode it at 96k, and just let people download it for free. The audio quality won't be that good, but you'll get to hear the song to see if you want to buy it. If you like it, you'll probably want the higher quality version. If you are ok with just keeping the low-quality one, you most likely weren't going to buy it in the first place.
Where the hell is the innovation in the music industry? When MP3 encoding came out, it was going to KILL the music industry. But I don't understand why they don't get it.. music is their business, and they can't seem to understand that MP3 players make people listen to MORE music. Their stupidity boggles my mind. The labels are sitting on a gold-mine with the thousands upon thousands of songs they 'own'. Why not release them for $0.10 apiece, for any song older than 10 years? It is FREE MONEY. Those songs are just sitting there, with nobody listening to them. I had this idea when MP3s first came out, and I still think it would be fantastic for everyone:
1. Get all music into a digital format.
2. Any song 10 years or older: 0.10 per song.
3. Any song 3-9 years old, 0.25 per song
4. Any song new-2 years old, 0.50 per song
(don't nit-pick my math, you get the idea)
Now, getting the songs is where some more innovation could come in. Make them available in-store, at burning stations or download stations. You go into the store (rule 1, get people into the stores) and choose what you want to buy. You can get it downloaded directly to your device, but you also get them on CD or DVD, for a small surcharge ($1-$2). Think about that - 100 old songs on a CD for $11. Pretty good deal.
Now, think about how long it would take to pick out 100 songs. It might even take a little while to get your CD/DVD burned. (rule 2, keep people in the store) You can have T-shirts, new CDs, movies, etc. in the store for purchase while people are in there. The other great thing would be to have pre-packaged songs for a small charge. e.g. top 100 billboard songs of the 90s for $15. You pay the extra couple of bucks for the service of compiling those lists. Just think for a second about how many different lists there could be. You could even have 'user compiled lists', features of the month, etc etc.
What is the overall benefit of this? People would be listening to more music!! If someone is in buying 100 songs for $15, they may be more likely to drop $13 on a new CD. Why would someone waste the time downloading 100 songs when they could make a trip to the local store and get 1000 in about an hour? Make downloading obsolete by offering a more innovative solution to the problem of people wanting to listen to music. - Surefoot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25Prices on the tracks already started to climb thanks to digg.
Now the site is down.
Hi, we're currently upgrading for increased traffic. Sorry for the inconvenience. We'll be back up in a second. We miss you already.
DB_DataObject Error: DB Error: connect failed
Thanks, Digg. - acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26@willynilly: wow, you're right: I just pulled up three songs in Audacity - Frank Sinatra's "Glad to be Unhappy" from 1955, The Who's 'Substitute' from 1971, and The Darkness' 'Friday Night' from 2003. Maybe Sinatra wasn't the best choice for comparison, but even between 'Substitute' and 'Friday Night' the differences in waveforms are HUGE - Sinatra's looks absolutely full of peaks and valleys, as does the The Who's track.
The track from The Darkness, on the other hand, is a different story entirely. Here, just see for yourselves:
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/338/waveformsbu3.jpg
I'm not an audio expert by any stretch of the imagination, so I'm going to keep my mouth shut and just let that image speak for itself. - rebotfc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22Because DRM doesnt stop anything. The concerted ripper will always over come it and the honest but non-technical user who just happens to want to play the song on a variety of media players is punished.
Its like those stupid ads at the start of DVDs treating honest customers like criminals. - RobMackenzie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23I think they are trying to prove that, even WITH file sharing, there is a large enough fan base out there who want to support good bands. I think BNL is a great band to headline it, as their fans are not (IMHO) the typical "Download everything and screw the artist" type.
As for the site (which has been dugg to death already) they offer music for free at first, then once it becomes more popular (on a song to song basis) the price goes up, to a max of 98 cents I think. Comes in MP3 format, but I was unable to find the bitrate before it crashed.
I for one, am going to go download the album. (and this is the first BNL I have actually bought... Now I am because its easy and DRM free, go Crazy newfies! (They are from Newfoundland Canada)) - jbekkema, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20"cool concept once the site can actually handle some TRAFFIC..."
Site now has: Hi, we're currently upgrading for increased traffic. Sorry for the inconvenience. We'll be back up in a second. We miss you already.
Huzzah - Quix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19I'd pay extra for lossless encoding...
- kevincannon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Agreed. Anyone who opposes DRM should buy this album to try show there's a market for DRM-free music.
Your wallet speaks louder than any philosophical argument ever can. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Band members still need food and shelter?
WTF! - shark72, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17"That's expensive. Does allofmp3.com have it yet? Is The Pirate Bay pointing out where I can get free copies?"
Yeah, it's $2.58 on allofmp3.com.
This will present an interesting choice for allofmp3 fans. Lots of people say that allofmp3 finally charges a "fair price." It's over eight bucks on Amie Street -- three times the allofmp3 price. To those of you about to call Amie Street "greedy" because they charge 3X the allofmp3 price -- please, PLEASE keep in mind that the BNL won't see any of the money if you buy it from allofmp3, and even if they did, it would be on the order of $0.25. The guys in BNL are hardly rich, so the "the artists already have too much money" argument does not work well here, either.
Please do the right thing. - Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18I love BNL.. such a great band. I caught them in concert last Monday (front row, too!) - awesome show.
My friend has been a member of their fan club for quite some time now (how we got front-row tickets), and when Barnaked Ladies Are Me came out, she was given a free download of the album as well as a couple free copies to give to friends. - chaddhall, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16If I had a million dollars, I'd buy me a lot of DRM free music.
If I had a million dollars, I'd buy me a trip to the Pirate Bay.
If I had a million dollars, I'd buy me a K-car.
(Never really understood the last one. Hehehe....) - nogahide, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15I'm voting with my purchase...I suggest anyone else here who believes in DRM free music do the same.
This is what we want and if this falls on its face then RIAA has proven their point.
This is NOT the music to steal. Please pay for it. Only 9 bucks!! - ziggystardust, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Idiots are everywhere. US idiots are free to be so in public.
- elliam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14They are not from NFLD. All band members are from Ontario, majority from Scarborough.
- goodbeershow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Up to $8.67 for the album.
- Shadowhawk22, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Did you guys hear about how BNLs stopped the RIAA from suing someone downloading their music. They said, we will pay for the settlement, and pay for any other costs incurred by our fans. I think some other bands stood up and did the same thing, but I can't remember their names. Doesn't that alone want you to go out and buy all of their CD's? I love the Bare Naked Ladies!
- Spaggie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13@willynilly et al
BNL deliver their songs in .flac from Werkshop if you want - nogahide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10The chrysler K car was their golden vehical that brought them out of bankruptcy...I dont know why it was popular except it got good milage and was afforable. It was very bland. I would compare it to spam (the food). No one was Kool in a K car.
- forteller, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10nogahide: Yes, when songs becomes less popular the prices sinks again. But that might take some time with Barenaked Ladies! :)
BTW: If you want a dollar plus 5 RECs for free use promo code "forteller" when you register. - pondster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I'm shocked that no one has mentioned this - Barenaked Ladies are on E-Music, DRM Free and if you havnt had an account - the first 25 songs are FREE (trial account) which cover the 16 songs in the album. Actually there are 7 barenaked ladies albums available on emusic for those of you interested.
- destro713, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10320kbps MP3 is a bit of a silly thing to pine for if you ask me, the trustworthy expert sound engineer. The point of lossy compression formats is not to retain the most information possible, but to retain the least amount of information needed to make the compression transparent to you. These codecs have come a very long way in the last 10 years or so. There may be people who can hear the difference between 320 CBR and, say, LAME ~190 VBR, but with most playback systems, listening environments, musical styles and sets of ears (a body part which is abused more and more with each passing generation), the difference will not be discernible. You should test this yourself of course, if you can find a way to perform the test in a self-blind manner. (The audiophile community has this subset of people who are completely against blind testing, because apparently they like paying tens of thousands of dollars for the placebo effect.) I blind-tested myself to tell the difference between 192 MP3, 128 AAC and uncompressed PCM with three different types of music, using some Pro Tools hardware as a DAC and listening on a couple of highly accurate nearfield monitors. While I did hear subtle tonal differences between the files, the differences didn't necessarily make me think any of the files were obviously better than the others, and I failed to identify the uncompressed file all three times.
Of course, the fact that I encoded the files myself from CD's I own plays a part. Lossy compression gets a bad rap because of the assiness of MP3 encoders circa the late 90's, and because of illegally downloaded files of uncertain origin, many of which sound so bad that they must have been transcoded. (There are still people who think you can increase the quality of a file by transcoding it from 128 to 192.) But when you have complete control over the music's "path," from PCM to lossy file, you can do some pretty amazing things with small(er) bitrates.
The perfect digital music download would allow you the freedom to have that same level of control, which is why you should be pining for lossless codecs, not high-bitrate compressed files. A FLAC file can be decompressed into a bit-for-bit dupe of the CD original, and then harmlessly transcoded into whatever lossy codec you choose -- at the most efficient bitrate for your own ears, in your own listening situation. You'll likely end up with a file that's much smaller than a 320 MP3 to throw on your iPod or whatever, and you'll retain the original so you can listen to true lossless sound on your badass home system (if you have one) and crank out files with other flavors of compression to your heart's content.
Just downloading an MP3 that's already encoded at a pointlessly high bitrate is silly, because you're forced to choose between the original file which takes up probably double the space you'd need to achieve transparency, or a crappified downconvert with MP3 transcode nasties galore. Useless.
So really, these companies should be offering up two choices: VBR files at a bitrate that’s just barely high enough to be transparent for the vast majority of people (probably somewhere between 190 and 210), and a lossless alternative. Casual listeners can opt to save storage space and download time, enthusiasts can opt to maximize their quality and options, and everybody wins. - theDevilsDue, on 10/12/2007, -11/+20It's ***** like tanglefuzz who are partly to blame for the RIAA's mindset...
- artfuldodga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8*****, we killed the best music service of all time. :P
anyhow, i'm def buying a few songs from there, starting with barenaked ladies as they deserve it. - bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16Yeah good to see Amiestreet is getting the publicity they deserve...
Our band's had our album on amiestreet for a while (http://www.amiestreet.com/childreninthegame) and it's been great.
Its such a brilliant business model, and it doesn't lock musicians in to sell only through one channel, so you can still sell through traditional means (if your record company allows it) Plus the developers are NICE. They're the nicest bunch of guys - they respond to emails, they take suggestions on board... It's just a really clean set up... - Endemoniada, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12You do know that copying music and giving it for free to friends and family used to be/is *quite* legal in many, many countries, including (correct me if I'm wrong) the US. The only problems is the DMCA making it illegal to strip DRM from CDs and other media.
In Sweden it's still quite legal to rip your CD to your computer, and even make copies to hand out to your friends and family. This isn't piracy, no matter how hard the RIAA tries to make it. It's one of the privileges I acquire by purchasing the original legally. - unruled, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8This is ***** awesome.. The business model is great... it really gives smaller bands a better chance of getting known and a good fanbase.
That, and it gets rid of the middleman, aka greedy record labels nobody wants around anyway... - nogahide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Does the price start coming back down when the downloads(purchases) slow down???
- Endemoniada, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9This is a pretty new site, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if lossless/HQ files will be an option pretty soon.
And not to descend into the usual format-war, but MP3 ripped in V0 VBR sounds pretty darned good, and is still way within reasonable file size limits. - mav7469, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Hi, we're currently upgrading for increased traffic. Sorry for the inconvenience. We'll be back up in a second. We miss you already.
Digg brings another web site to it's knees. ;) - lhrabovsky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It's just not loading the stylesheets. Apache is starting to bail.
- mousky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Page and Robertson were on The Hour on the CBC not too long ago, and they said that they had no problem with people sharing their music. You have to remember that their indie release, Yellow Tape, a demo cassette that was soundly rejected by every label and sold at shows, became the first indie album to achieve platinum status (100,000 sales) in Canada.
- JJCDAD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Harvey Danger did this better: http://www.harveydanger.com/press/why.php
They realize that the music itself should perform as a marketing tool. Not a profit center. The goal is to have the music hit as many ears as possible so people will come to the concerts and buy merchandise. - cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13willynilly - You have some good points. However, there is no way you can tell the difference between a 320kbps mp3 and a CD audio track. I'm not an audiophile but I have pretty good ears, and pitch. I stop hearing a difference at around 192kbps, and that's on music which I know.
- brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@ImTheDarkcyde
maybe if you explained how you support DRM (even though it doesn't help the artist), I wouldn't be digging you down right now. - akshay626, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Wow that is the most genius idea ever. Too bad the site is down or i would have bought the album.
- Obsidian743, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@cawpin,
I agree for the most part. I am somewhat of an audiophile and I find it to be highly exaggerated that anyone can tell much of a difference. It's strictly an elitist attitude. - catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@spyrochaete
Turn off the MTV dude, its rotting your brain. - sooperdooper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8They have other bands and other labels, with the same/ similar pricing models.
Asobi Seksu ftw, as far as I'm concerned. -
Show 51 - 100 of 206 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 