RIAA says music CD should cost more, much more

[Hairbautt]

The Recording Industry Association of America hasn't been making too many friends these days. I guess I should say that the organization does have many friends inside the music industry, because that's who makes up the the RIAA.

I'm not here to argue whether it's right or wrong to download free music where it's available, or whether it's OK to listen to your friend's "Beach Boys Greatest Hits Album." I'm just here to point out what the RIAA wants you to believe about the cost of music and CDs.

If you visit the Key Stats/Facts page on the RIAA website, you'll notice a justification for pricing CDs. The biggest argument appears to be the fact that the Consumer Price Index rose nearly 60 percent between 1983 and 1996, even though the price of a CD actually went down. While this might be a true statement, this is virtually worthless in determining how much a CD should cost.

Let's examine this statement, directly from the website:If CD prices had risen at the same rate as consumer prices over this period, the average retail price of a CD in 1996 would have been $33.86 instead of $12.75.

Source: Neowin.Net

[4play]

the average retail price of a CD in 1996 would have been $33.86 instead of $12.75.

I wonder how much the cost of production for these cds has gone down since 1996.

[Virtualbody1234]

The cost of blank media has gone way down.

Just like anything produced in such massive quantities.


If we went by what they are trying to pull then our computers would be worth a fortune.

[Barbarossa]

If we went by what they are trying to pull then our computers would be worth a fortune.

Some of them are. It all depends on how much music you're storing on it

[TheFoX]

Of course, the most important component of a CD is the artist’s effort in developing that music. Artists spend a large portion of their creative energy on writing song lyrics and composing music or working with producers and A&R executives to find great songs from great writers. This task can take weeks, months, or even years. The creative ability of these artists to produce the music we love, combined with the time and energy they spend throughout that process is in itself priceless.

Firstly, lets get something into perspective. Musical artists are no different from any other form of artist, be it a painter or sculpter.

Secondly, art is valued by the perception of those interested in it. It is a buyers market, and if an artist produces something that people do NOT like, then that art is not priceless, but worthless.

The cost of the medium used to deliver this material is immaterial. The cost of producing CDs is far less than the cost to produce the same volumes of vinyls.

But while the creative process is priceless, it must be compensated.

Why must it be compensated? Where do they get the idea that an artist should receive financial reward? If any of us were to start a business, would we expect people to just buy stuff off us, because we should receive financial reward, or do we need to work at building our business up.

The music industry is very fickle. What is favourite today can be old new tomorrow. No one piece of work can guarantee financial success. Ironically, the same article that makes the above statement then makes a contradictory statement...

In the end, less than 10% are profitable, and in effect, it's these recordings that finance all the rest.

So, while they tell us that the creative process should be compensated, it is 10% of their releases that realise a profit, which keeps the other 90% in business.

By all measures, when you consider how long people have the music and how often they can go back and get "re-entertained" CDs truly are an incredible value for the money.

In real terms, when we purchase music, it should not matter what medium it is delivered on, as long as we have access to listen to it. The statement about value for money holds no water, since we expect to be able to listen to something we have paid a license to listen to, as often as possible.

In opposition, if we purchased a CD that lasted only a few listens, then we would be asking for our money back. If we buy a coffee maker, do we expect it only to make a dozen cups of coffee, or would we expect reasonable wear and tear out of the machine before it packed up?

Music is no different from any other product, in that we expect it to last a reasonable period of time, based on how we use it. Remember also that Music, unlike many other products, is not tangible. We cannot eat it, or sit in it, or utilise it for any other purpose, other than to entertain.

Artists spend a large portion of their creative energy on writing song lyrics and composing music or working with producers and A&R executives to find great songs from great writers.

Finally, I have repeated a section of the first quote in this post. While some artists spend a lot of energy on creating masterpieces, we have to remember that there is actually an industry of songwriters just churning out music en masse. Remember Stock, Aitken and Waterman, or the Music Factory. They could churn out songs, left right and centre, then select someone to sing that song.

The majority of what we hear on the Radio is what I term as Massed Produced Music. There is very little artistic content in the majority of moderm music. Mind you, when a real artist comes along, their music shines through the fog of the crap produced in the name of music.

[Twigboy]

Firstly, lets get something into perspective. Musical artists are no different from any other form of artist, be it a painter or sculpter.

Secondly, art is valued by the perception of those interested in it. It is a buyers market, and if an artist produces something that people do NOT like, then that art is not priceless, but worthless.

The cost of the medium used to deliver this material is immaterial. The cost of producing CDs is far less than the cost to produce the same volumes of vinyls.

But while the creative process is priceless, it must be compensated.

Why must it be compensated? Where do they get the idea that an artist should receive financial reward? If any of us were to start a business, would we expect people to just buy stuff off us, because we should receive financial reward, or do we need to work at building our business up.

The music industry is very fickle. What is favourite today can be old new tomorrow. No one piece of work can guarantee financial success. Ironically, the same article that makes the above statement then makes a contradictory statement...

In the end, less than 10% are profitable, and in effect, it's these recordings that finance all the rest.

So, while they tell us that the creative process should be compensated, it is 10% of their releases that realise a profit, which keeps the other 90% in business.

By all measures, when you consider how long people have the music and how often they can go back and get "re-entertained" CDs truly are an incredible value for the money.

In real terms, when we purchase music, it should not matter what medium it is delivered on, as long as we have access to listen to it. The statement about value for money holds no water, since we expect to be able to listen to something we have paid a license to listen to, as often as possible.

In opposition, if we purchased a CD that lasted only a few listens, then we would be asking for our money back. If we buy a coffee maker, do we expect it only to make a dozen cups of coffee, or would we expect reasonable wear and tear out of the machine before it packed up?

Music is no different from any other product, in that we expect it to last a reasonable period of time, based on how we use it. Remember also that Music, unlike many other products, is not tangible. We cannot eat it, or sit in it, or utilise it for any other purpose, other than to entertain.

Artists spend a large portion of their creative energy on writing song lyrics and composing music or working with producers and A&R executives to find great songs from great writers.

Finally, I have repeated a section of the first quote in this post. While some artists spend a lot of energy on creating masterpieces, we have to remember that there is actually an industry of songwriters just churning out music en masse. Remember Stock, Aitken and Waterman, or the Music Factory. They could churn out songs, left right and centre, then select someone to sing that song.

The majority of what we hear on the Radio is what I term as Massed Produced Music. There is very little artistic content in the majority of moderm music. Mind you, when a real artist comes along, their music shines through the fog of the crap produced in the name of music.

Great post!

RIAA really needs to working on producing a better product.
I don't think a cd with 2 good songs out of 10 (in many cases) is considerd to be a good value by any standard,it's like buying a dozen eggs and getting 3 that aren't cracked.

[the_boss]

You think to compete with online they would try and find a way to lower prices.

[Barbarossa]

You think to compete with online they would try and find a way to lower prices.

They can't compete with online, and that's why they've been doing all the ridiculous lawsuits, and trying to muscle in on the action.

[clos]

If anything they should lower the prices and try to entice people back to buying music...

[popopot]

I have been using AllOfMP3 for years and they have a model which I think could work globally, ie. paying per MB, which will depend on the encoding quality you select for your songs. I think regular song downloads are stupid anyway. Paying 80p per 192 Kbit song, when you buy the CD for £8!