BuyMusic.com lets you sample all the tracks at 20k, I think anyone who has heard the song before should know which one it is in the 30 seconds it takes to listen to a sample.
My opinion on offering samples is that they should offer two options:
1) Full song, but in a "far-below-radio-quality" encoding....so that you can hear all of the lyrics.
2) Also offer a 25-30 second clip (like most do anyhow) at a listenable quality....to see if you like the full "sound" of the song.
__________________ Jordan M. Wigley
Aximsite.com
Email: jordan AT aximsite.com
.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Come join the friendly community at To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Haven't been to this site in a year or so....it's probably changed since I was last there but, used to be a good site. Also, I do like the one that slease mentions...BuyMusic. This is the one I've been going to lately.
And, Napster is due back at some point this year although I never really was a fan of Napster. Will have to see how it changes.
ok, thoughts on mp3 and file sharing....remember years ago when a friend would buy a tape and you listened to it...and liked it?? how many of you took your friends tape and "dubbed" on a blank tape for yourself.....why wasnt that illegal...cuz metallica and alll those other $$ hungry greedy corps werent out there pullin the crap they are now. and why werent the blank tape selling companys fined for selling the blank tapes that you would buy to copy your friends tape or cd?? same crap here..there will always be file sharing,i think its good for the bands...it keeps their music out there and circulating so it doesnt stagnate..the bands complain that it takes away from $ in their pocket....ha..look at it this way,if 1 person downloads a song for $1,or 10,000 download the same song at $1 each,do you really think the artist is going to see that $$...NO,it all goes to the websites,managers,legal crap,
and stick this in your pipe and smoke it...every site you look at to get mp3s offers the same singers...all the hit stuff thats out right now...what about the bands that are hard to find,,ya know,not everyone likes the bubble gum chewin crap like nelly,j-lo,brit,green day...case in point,what if i want to get mp3 for a band called blackeyed susan who put a cd out way back in 1991,do you think ill have a good chance at finding an mp3 on a pay site somewhere?? me thinks not,but im sure its out there somewhere...or, a band called tuff who most resently put out a cd in 2001,but do you think these mp3 sites promote the good ol 80s rock...no,just whats hot for the moment!! or blues music,like robert cray's newest...these companys are dictating what gets sold downloaded and listened to by squeezing out the stuff they dont think will sell..and flooding the net with all this mirror mirror everyone sounds and dances and looks the same crap like j-lo,christina ag...u-whatever,and all the rappers who think they so different...but accually look and rap just like every other one out there who says they different...but looks and acts the same cuz they think they diff,,,,ya see what i mean??
so even if i were able to find a site that has an mp3 download of tim weisbergs "tip of the weisberg" or the rainmakers or hair of the dog or robert cray 1st cd,or thunders 1991 cd or little caesar.....i could go on...but even if a site has these...and charges per download...do you REALLY think the artist will see any of that $$...i think NOT!! its all about what the big business wants to market and promote,but how can u sell it if u dont advertise it or make it available??
thats why i feel file sharing is perfectly fine,i see someone has a tune by (lets say) the 80s group valentine...."never said it was going to be easy".....try to find the cd...much less the mp3...i dare you!! i searched for 3 months trying to find it,got on napster way back when and found someone who had it,got it..love it...the cd is out of print,the guys in the band themselves cant even find a copy of it.......anyway...all the crap about file sharing is stupid...just another big wig ploy to keep their finger on what they want.
have any of you ever borrowed a movie from someone to watch??? same flippin thing!!!! get over it..bring back napster!
and thats MY 2cents!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
If you just 'think' about it.......
life will pass you by.
JeepfanEd
Originally posted by jeepfaned ok, thoughts on mp3 and file sharing....remember years ago when a friend would buy a tape and you listened to it...and liked it?? how many of you took your friends tape and "dubbed" on a blank tape for yourself.....why wasnt that illegal
That was illegal but it didn't hurt the industry enough to be noticed. Now you can rip a song at the same quality as the original (often before its even released) and EVERY copy is as good as the original. No this won't ever entirely kill the industry but it will drive up the cost to we honest music fans just like it has to most major software. Piracy is, was, and always will be just a glossy name for theft. You want to do it, do it. Just don't try to convince everyone that its not wrong. It doesn't fly.
Oh, and borrowing a movie to watch is not illegal. Burning a copy other than for archive by the owner is.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
yes a little hostile...but not just today....for many years...im a hard core rock and blues fan and have had a business called Tintagel Music where a buddy (in a rock band) and i tried to help promote and market local talent. you dont know how hard it is and the ropes and rings you have to go thru just to get people to return phone calls,let alone sit down for a listen to some local home grown talent.
and explain why its illegal to dub a copy of a friends movie onto a blank tape...but the guy who sells you the "so called smokin gun" doesnt get in trouble...last i checked a guy who sold somethin "for illegal gain" is doing somethin illegal himself.
and about burning a copy of a song thats just as clear as the original...before its even released?????
GOOD!!! ha ha....thats the way it should be!!! just goes to show that some 15 year old kid in po-dunk nowheresville can create somethin just as top notch quality as a billion dollar mega company like sony or artisa electra..whoever. big biz corporate money mogals should not be the only people privey to a1 recording and tech elec computer equipt.......
ya know...just think about it...some people on this topic are so stupid and blind to what all this does....1 thing...IT GETS A BANDS MUSIC HEARD BY----MORE----PEOPLE!! the more people who listen...the more chance you have of getting more fans...the more fans...the more people who go to concerts...and buy tickets..and shirts...and stickers,posters,banners...blah blah...its all about getting your music heard,so why not dabble the bait (file sharing mps) to start...and cash in on the big catch down the road!!
takes $$ to make $$
__________________
If you just 'think' about it.......
life will pass you by.
JeepfanEd
I'm in a band myself and we've always released the mp3's on the CD with the regular songs, that way people didn't even have to go through the trouble of ripping them. Its great publicity.
I'm not going to rail against the RIAA anymore in this thread (unless someone pushes more of my buttons...) I just want to leave a few facts for everybody else to chew on...
1) Copying and sharing a friend's casette has been deemed legal by the courts.
2) Recording companies get a kickback (tax? fee?) from the manufacturers of blank casettes.
3) Those same recording companies have signed a contract with those casette manufacturers that legaly binds them to charge more for CDs than casettes.
4) Not counting the actual case and packaging, which run about even, a mass produced CD costs about $0.02 while the casette costs over $1.00.
5) The recording companies get to pocket that extra dollar as easy profit. (Sometimes this is offset a little bit by including booklets, or special packaging, but don't think for a minute that that stuff ever raises the production costs by a dollar.) Yes, it is profit, they're not losing money on casette sales.
__________________
The news story that made my signature clever has been deleted, lost into the aether that is the home of all bits deleted from the internet. I'll fix it when I find something else clever that hasn't yet been To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. or To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .
There is much more to this than the RIAA. Millions of people have jobs tied to the music industry. Why would you want to take their jobs away just because you don't like the RIAA?
4) Not counting the actual case and packaging, which run about even, a mass produced CD costs about $0.02 while the casette costs over $1.00.
5) The recording companies get to pocket that extra dollar as easy profit. (Sometimes this is offset a little bit by including booklets, or special packaging, but don't think for a minute that that stuff ever raises the production costs by a dollar.) Yes, it is profit, they're not losing money on casette sales.
I'm not in the music industry, so I have no facts regarding this, but I've got to imagine that it costs money to distribute tapes and cds right? And they want us to pay $1.00 or $.79 per song and they get to eliminate the distribution step? I realize there are costs involved with running the web based service, but it seems like it wouldn't be as much as conventional distribution. How about they make it a reasonable amount like $.25 per song and then maybe people would be more inclined to buy the music. I'm guessing that as long as there is so much profit and so little competition in the industry, it'll never happen.
On another note, I think I have a right to listen to the songs that I purchased on records and tapes that have been damaged and are no longer playable. Software companies make it pretty clear that you don't buy the software but a license to use it. Most software companies will for a small fee supply you with replacement media if your is damaged. Why shouldn't the record companies be held to the same standard. Leagally I could be way off base here, but it all sounds the same to me.
You'd be surprised how much server costs can run....especially for constantly transferring large files to tons of users. Then you still have to factor in large amounts of money to pay employees (web developers, maintenance, etc.). At first it sounds like it would be a lot cheaper than conventional distribution....but many companies have quickly found out that it can be just as costly, if not more expensive.
__________________ Jordan M. Wigley
Aximsite.com
Email: jordan AT aximsite.com
.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Come join the friendly community at To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Super Member
