Neil Young: Piracy Is The New Radio (But The Quality Sucks)

Say That Again

from the well,-there's-that... dept

Thu, Feb 2nd 2012 7:40am — Mike Masnick

Neil Young apparently isn't too concerned about copyright infringement these days, according to his comments at the D: Dive into Media conference:

It doesn't affect me because I look at the internet as the new radio. I look at the radio as gone. [...] Piracy is the new radio. That's how music gets around. [...] That's the radio. If you really want to hear it, let's make it available, let them hear it, let them hear the 95 percent of it.

Of course, that's a bit of a reverse from back when he was angry that YouTube wasn't paying him money when people uploaded his songs. Still, it's good to see him come around to the view that infringement is, basically, a new form of radio. Artists like Chuck D have been making that argument for over a decade.

Young is still concerned... but about the fact that the quality of MP3 files sucks. He'd prefer technologies that provide a much fuller sound:

Steve Jobs was a pioneer of digital music, his legacy was tremendous. [...] But when he went home, he listened to vinyl.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: neil young, piracy, quality, radio

125 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

but.., 2 Feb 2012 @ 7:54am

"Young is still concerned... but about the fact that the quality of MP3 files sucks."

What about FLACs and WAVs? I've heard these should provide pretty good quality.
I don't have a sound system to hear the difference between 320 kbps .mp3 and FLAC, but that's just me. I'm fine with mp3s - and I don't even use mp3s that much these days, I'm using GrooveShark :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:00am
  
  Re:
  I'm going to take a shot in the dark and say that Young may well be one of those people who think that CDs are inferior to vinyl as well, so a FLAC rip probably wouldn't sate him. That's a blind assumption, though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Keroberos (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    CD's are many times inferior to vinyl due to the fact that they are horribly mastered for loudness introducing all kinds of clipping and audio distortion, look up "Loudness War" for more info.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Bengie, 2 Feb 2012 @ 9:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "mastered for loudness"
      
      That's why we need 32bit float 192khz audio instead of 44.1khz 16bit.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Agust�n Dall'Alba, 2 Feb 2012 @ 3:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why would you need higher sample rates than what you can hear? Most of the audio equipment I've seen is a LOT less sensitive past 22kHz anyway.
        Dynamic range of modern CDs is between 3 and 6 dB, while 16 bit samples allow for 96 dB. Compression is compression, it does not matter if your samples are 8 or 64 bit wide.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 6:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        To anti-aliases the audio it has its own name of course which I can't remember right now.
        
        The same thing happens to video, you can see the difference from a video encoded from Bluray and DVD the Bluray ends up with 1.5 gigabytes but it is better quality than the 4 gigabytes from the DVD itself, so in audio I assume is the same thing, they use higher frequencies to smooth out the corners of the wave.
        
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aliasing.gif
        
        That graph shows what sampling does to an analogue signal. It becomes more squarish the more samples you take the more smooth it becomes. Of course that only works if you had a good quality source to begin with, trying to reencode a MP3 from 22 KHz to 44.1 KHz will sound exactly the 22 KHz or worst because it had no data to do it better it started with a squared wave and turned into something more square.
        
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_rate
        https ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_rate
        
        So to answer your question, you need bigger sample rates to have more data points to make the sound more smooth.
        
        To make it more pleasant you actually need another thing and that is Acoustic Illusion aka: psycho acoustics, bineural acoustics, holophonics and other names for how sounds are perceived by the brain, using only two physical points of collection(aka: ears), but take this statements with a grain of salt since I'm not a sound engineer and don't know what names they use, I do know trigonometry though so I understand the math behind it, no matter what the name given.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - AzureSky (profile), 3 Feb 2012 @ 12:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      now I agree with this and disagree.
      
      as stated by others in reply to your post, vinyl is better due to mastering, It also has a bit more detail (most of it you cant hear without great gear and golden ears)
      
      the thing is, the loudness wars dont effect vinyl because its a dead format(you can now get some newer stuff in it but its pricy as hell and sometimes is made from cd masters...no, im not kidding..)
      
      a good test is to get the latest remasters of some beatles or eagles or boston and compare them to the vinyl versions....its shocking how bad the newer versions are.
      
      http://turnmeup.org/
      
      good video on there that shows why MOST old versions soundbetter then their modern western masters.
      
      mind you, I have been getting japanese masters or unmastered stuff alot lately because it just sounds better, even when converted down to 16/44 (really cant hear the dif if the files are down sampled and converted properly)
      
      so tired of the loudness wars....makes me wana cry when i can hear the destortion from their shoddy work....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - saulgoode (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 9:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    Your blind assumption is correct; as is Mr Young's view that CD quality is inferior to that available with vinyl. The sample rate of CDs, 44100 samples per second, was based upon the presumption that humans were incapable of discerning audio frequencies above 22kHz. This cutoff frequency was determined with tests involving AB comparisons of music (e.g., A with high frequencies, B without).
    
    The problem with the AB testing that led to the CD sample rate was, while humans might not immediately recognize the absence of higher frequencies while listening to a brief snippet of sound, they are able to perceive them at a subliminal level. Tests which involved subjects listening to music for extended lengths of time (30 minutes or more) produced results where humans demonstrably preferred the versions containing higher frequency content, suggesting that the perceived range of human hearing extended to nearly 50kHz.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Groove Tiger (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 9:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That's interesting, because my PC tells me that CD quality is 44.1 KHz, 16-bit stereo.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 9:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why is that interesting? He mentioned what CD quality was earlier...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 3 Feb 2012 @ 3:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah well, I think it's interesting. So sue me :P
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Bengie, 2 Feb 2012 @ 9:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The sample rate of CDs, [44.1k] samples per second"
        
        "CD quality is 44.1 KHz, 16-bit stereo."
        
        yep
        
        your max frequency is 1/2 the sample rate. 44.1 KHz samplings = ~22kHz max
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 9:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I know nothing about sound,music,frequencies etc.
        But he did say that
        "The sample rate of CDs, 44100 samples per second, was based upon the presumption that humans were incapable of discerning audio frequencies above 22kHz"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TtfnJohn (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 9:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        When CD's first appeared the assumption was made that as 22kHz was near the high range humans can hear and distinguish that they could safely cut off the top end there. The testing, remember, was done with single tone frequency runs not by playing notes on an instrument. Pianos and guitars and harps were too imprecise for what they wanted.
        
        Remember, though that I did say distinguish. As a whole musicians and singers can distinguish the side tones created by a note played at 22kHz well up into the 40kHz range. And that's where the observation that CD's sound "flat" or toneless comes from. The high frequency side tones are missing. Rather they were because they're back in there now.
        
        Analogue is different than digital in that it creates side tones surrounding the note(s) being played or sung. Digital doesn't. Early CD recordings would drop the sidetones altogether.
        
        Still, I'd agree with Neil if he thinks mp3's are crap. I prefer to think of them as sonic swamps what with all the compression and all.
        
        As usual it will work itself out over time. FLAC is far better while WAV does some cut off at the high and low end to save bandwidth.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Locke21, 17 Sep 2012 @ 6:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    Like it or not, vinyl IS better quality than cd's and mp3's. All digital recording is just a snapshot of the original soundwave. Since vinyl is analog recording, it captures the entire soundwave, nothing is lost in the recording process.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Frank's Beard, 17 Sep 2012 @ 10:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    I don't think he is. After reading a lot of interviews in guitar magazines about his archive sets his ideal of full quality is BluRay which is still a digital medium. With that insight I read the vinyl comment as making a point about inferiority of .mp3s by choosing an opposite format.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:01am
  
  Re: Newness
  It's all about doing something "new."
  
  It doesn't matter that's there's already a way to do it with existing tech.
  
  Take the 'DMARC' thing from Google, Facebook and others. Their developing something new despite the fact PGP public/private encryption could just as easily solve the problem.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - aldestrawk (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 3:34pm
    
    Re: Re: Newness
    I don't think you should dismiss new technology, or a new mixture of old technologies, as something that is just redundant and unnecessary because a previous technology seems to get the job done. I sometimes listen to MP3 recordings on a conveniently portable player and earbuds when I'm traveling or outside. Ambient noise in those circumstances generally mask any potential difference in quality between MP3 recordings and analog or high quality digital recordings. At home, I have a decent stereo system and can tell the difference between standard audio cds and DVD Audio or SACD recordings. I stand by that despite claims that it is just the remixing during remastering that is responsible for a perceived improvement in quality. I would only play MP3 recordings at home to learn of new music. Those two formats have not become popular enough to be widely adopted so I would welcome any high quality digital recording format that would be accepted generally enough to enable both old and new music to be mastered, or remastered, in that format. I am pointing out that differences in features that alternate technologies offer can make both or several technologies attractive to even just a single person. It will probably pass, that in the future, a single very high quality audio format we be useful for everyone when flash devices become dense enough to store thousands of songs in the highest quality format and high, end-user, bandwidth to the internet makes downloading or streaming requirements inconsequential.
    
    DMARC is different than PGP:
    DMARC offers a subset of what PGP offers but PGP requires adoption by and key distribution to all the people you want to communicate with securely. DMARC is, essentially, use in sending email of the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) and Domain Keys Identified Mail (DKIM). A critical point for DKIM and SPF is that an end-user receiving mail (and in some cases sending mail if the Mail Transfer Agent supports this) does not have to do anything for this to work, not even updating their email client. They can rely on their Mail Delivery Agent (MDA) to filter out spam and phishing emails, whether it be Yahoo mail, Gmail, or their own ISPs mail server. This is useful even if it only applies to email sent or hosted by just the current set of companies who have adopted DMARC. Ease of widespread implementation is an important feature. PGP has been available since 1991. I have used it since 1996, but is use is not widespread because too many people don't think it's worth the bother. PGP differs from DMARC in offering confidentiality, end-to-end integrity, authentication of both sender and receiver, and non-repudiation. DMARC is limited to verifying the senders IP address and the domain of the sender. This allows for filtering of a good percentage of spam or phishing emails. So, DMARC and PGP are different technologies with only some overlap in purpose. Both are useful.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:58am
  
  Re:
  I cant even hear a difference between 192 and 300 kbps mp3s, so whats this FLAC-fuss all about?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Groove Tiger (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 9:20am
    
    Re: Re:
    FLAC is completely lossless. I don't care much about how "better" it sounds than high bitrate mp3, I only agree that it is a good format if you're editing (lossly decompressing/recompressing an audio sample every time you cut and paste and hit save is a big no no, you'd probably end with something that sounds like a gorilla making love to a cat)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - A Monkey with Atitude, 2 Feb 2012 @ 9:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      But the Gorilla and Cat would be HILARIOUS!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Hephaestus (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 9:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh Noes!!! poor kittty ...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 9:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        lol gorillas
        
        http://lawlgorilla.ytmnd.com/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bengie, 2 Feb 2012 @ 9:34am
  
  Re:
  I can hear the difference between 320kb MP3 and wav/flac on my $10 headphones with my integrated realtek sound card.
  
  MP3 likes to muffle the highs A LOT. Voices and certain other sounds can be quite different with the highs muffled.
  
  Vorbis 192kb is hard for me to hear a difference. Usually requires a lot of highs, like cymbals or other high sounds from pianos or violins. Vorbis 256kb I can't hear the difference on my crap hardware. I haven't tried on higher end hardware though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- derp, 2 Feb 2012 @ 11:04am
  
  ...streaming music?
  When you use grooveshark you are being streamed mp3 files, likely at a lower quality than if you had downloaded them from iTunes and had them sitting on your hard drive.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ian, 2 Feb 2012 @ 4:03pm
  
  Re: but..
  It's true, mp3 isn't the greatest quality. It IS smaller and easier to store/transfer though, which is why it's more of the standard. But it's just that, a standard. Just like a Bud, Miller or Coors is more or less the standard for beer; its not exceptional, great, good, whatever, it's just beer. But its cheap and easy for the companies to make and distribute them. (Figured beer would be something most people would understand. Also I do not mean to offend if one of those is your favorite beer, but you must realize that they are not considered a high quality beer, they are just beer.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Heretic3e7, 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:53pm
  
  Re:
  "Accepting" piracy while pointing out the lower quality of MP3's as opposed to other forms of media that the industry still has control over is a shrewd move. Graciously view piracy as "radio" and then promote the "higher quality" of the industry product.
  
  Too bad the industry did not go with this idea. I would have bought that line of crap before I read SOPA the way it was originally written. Now I won't ever buy anything from the music industry ever again unless I can find it at a legal reseller such as a used CD or book store.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- You're an idiot, 17 Sep 2012 @ 2:52am
  
  Response to: but.. on Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 7:54am
  Grooveshark uses mp3s
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Xmas, 17 Sep 2012 @ 4:11am
  
  Re:
  They do sound better, but I think the problem with them is that FLACs, last I checked, didn't work on iPods.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PaulT (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 7:57am

"Steve Jobs was a pioneer of digital music, his legacy was tremendous. [...] But when he went home, he listened to vinyl."

(citation needed)

Well, I did a quick Google search and all I could find in reference to this is Young's own speeches. Anybody have a cite?

Either way, I think he's learned one of the hard truths of doing business - your own personal taste does not dictate what sells and what's successful. You like vinyl? Great. I can't fit that on my iPhone or my Spotify app, which is what I use to listen to most music nowadays. So, offer me the version I'll pay for, don't try to force me to stick to vinyl - I won't buy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- fogbugzd (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:05am
  
  Re:
  Young was talking about personal discussions with Jobs. He would be the original source on this.
  
  It would be nice to have some supporting evidence from another source, but I doubt that we will ever see any.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:27am
  
  Re:
  You use Spotify? Don't let TechDirt know you listen to music produced by RIAA member labels or they will revoke your TD membership.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ron, 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    Nobody here cares about that. We just want them to stop being stupid and provide the people with what they want. Affordable music that is easy to get!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So iTunes, Amazon, Spotify, WalMart.com, etc.. Aren't easy and affordable? I'm confused here. Why do so many people on this site constantly bitch about the RIAA if all they want is affordable easy access to music? DONE
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Where do you think all the pirates get their iPods filled?
        If they are not using the Pirate Bay they are using iTunes, Amazon, Spotify duh, but they will only do it once, not forever.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Another AC, 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Exactly, and they are making a ton of money from it, so they should just shut up and leave our internet and our rights alone, and stop trying to squash new delivery technologies. As far as affordable? 1.29 per song is a bit steep (in my opinion) as a 12 song set will cost you the same as buying the disc, except they do not have to pay for all of the additional manufacturing and transportation costs.
        
        The MPAA however are not trying to make things easier with their windowing models and all the pushback on streaming.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 10:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sure, don't bitch about the RIAA until they sue your printer for alleged downloads.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Blatant Coward (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes, yes, we want to make sure no one gets monies *yawn* evar. Look you have fun with the beating, the stick, and the horse, I'll be over there looking at cat pictures.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 9:57am
  
  Re:
  he's not staying to stick to vinyl. he mentioned in his talks with steve jobs on trying to develop the 'next' music player which would be able to store these high quality files in some way. he discusses the downsides and the problems, so he's completely aware. he's not trying to force vinyl on anyone, just saying he doesn't want to see it go away until there's something that can replace it. it's terrible to lose access to real quality just because a bunch of people are happy with quantity over quality.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- First Last, 2 Feb 2012 @ 6:09pm
  
  Re:
  Citation: http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/story/2012/01/31/neil-young-digital-music.html?cmp=googleeditorspick
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dan, 17 Sep 2012 @ 7:38pm
  
  Response to: PaulT on Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 7:57am
  I think it was more of an analogy.
  
  And no one's telling you to buy vinyl, chill out. You totally missed the point he was making.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Skeptical Cynic (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 7:59am

Radio is dead!! Long live Radio!!!
I am an audiophile going back over 20 years. I love vinyl, but as you age those subtle differences are harder and harder to hear. So I bet that good old Neil could be tested and he would not be able to hear the difference between a high bit rate MP3 and vinyl.

The fact is that very few people today have ever really heard good full sound music and they don't know enough to care. So they enjoy the music they hear and then enjoy even more when they hear it live. Might be the reason more and more bands are making more money from live concerts.

Experience is not black and white. MP3's are not perfectly white or black they are just a bit gray.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:33am
  
  Re: Radio is dead!! Long live Radio!!!
  Clearly you don't listen to vinyl then. It doesn't sound even remotely like an mp3. Two completely different things.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Skeptical Cynic (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:41am
    
    Re: Re: Radio is dead!! Long live Radio!!!
    I do and I am well aware of the difference. I love the warm and engrossing tones I hear from a vinyl record. But I hear less of a difference than I heard years ago. Hearing is always the first to go and I lament the loss. I paid over $3800 for a stereo and speakers with THD of less than .025%. I know sounds. There will never be a medium that can compare to vinyl but... Most people don't know any different unless they hear it in a venue that provides true acoustics.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 3 Feb 2012 @ 12:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Radio is dead!! Long live Radio!!!
      "Most people don't know any different unless they hear it in a venue that provides true acoustics."
      
      Bingo. Most people will listen on the earbuds that came with their smartphone and use the other $3000 for something else - and be perfectly happy with what they have.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Skeptical Cynic (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:56am
    
    Re: Re: Radio is dead!! Long live Radio!!!
    Just like most people can't appreciate the subtle differences in a well done painting. They don't hear the subtle differences between analog and digital audio. They don't hear the depth of tone, the variances in notes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 4:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Radio is dead!! Long live Radio!!!
      it's all in your head. you don't hear any differences either. Audiophiles are all on crack.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PT, 2 Feb 2012 @ 10:49am
    
    Re: Re: Radio is dead!! Long live Radio!!!
    Clearly you don't listen to live performances then. It doesn't sound even remotely like vinyl. Two completely different things.
    
    For that matter, a real landscape doesn't look like a painting of a landscape, or a photo of a landscape. Sound recordings are no different in that respect from photographs, they're just captured and edited samples of the real thing that include a very small subset of the available sound information. Arguing that one format is more "realistic" than another is like arguing about the "realism" of a photo of a mountain printed on matt or glossy paper. So, there's more detail? Big deal. It's 2% realism versus 1.99%.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jp, 16 Sep 2012 @ 9:42pm
  
  Re: Radio is dead!! Long live Radio!!!
  They're making more money at concerts because that's the only way they have a chance at turning a profit these days with the labels sucking them dry.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Frank, 17 Sep 2012 @ 11:30am
  
  Re: Radio is dead!! Long live Radio!!!
  I bet he would be able to...you underestimate the man.
  
  I cannot find the article now but in it they talked of how Neil brings along an autotransformer to each gig with him for his primary amp. His techs were amazed because he used to call out the voltage fluctuations (by changing tone of the amp) and always be spot on
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:02am

Legitimate concern
Young is still concerned... but about the fact that the quality of MP3 files sucks.

That was always the legitimate concern of authors/creators over piracy - the tendency of pirates to cut corners on quality.

Of course these days the "legit" outlets seem to trim the quality as much as any pirate ( perhaps even make it worse cf DRM) .

But it seems to me that there is a business model out there that would gel perfectly - let the low qual mp3 s circulate freely - and sell really high quality wav or FLAC files.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:05am
  
  Re: Legitimate concern
  You're still looking at a business model problem due to the infinite copyability of FLAC and high quality wav files.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:10am
  
  Re: Legitimate concern
  If you test the public, there is a very, very tiny portion of it that can differentiate an low MP3 file from a CD recording.
  
  But I bet you anything that if you stamp it with "Higher Quality" or "Master Recording Quality" even though those people can't hear the difference they all will pay through their noses to get it, just like there are people who pay $500 dollars for an iPhone wallpaper or $1000 dollars for a "superior" digital cable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Skeptical Cynic (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:57am
    
    Re: Re: Legitimate concern
    See my comment above.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 9:15am
    
    Re: Re: Legitimate concern
    See Bose.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 10:03am
    
    Re: Re: Legitimate concern
    this has already been commented on, but folks can't discern the difference when asked after one song, but if you let them play long enough, even though they don't know the difference, they'll pick the higher quality. you can hear them subliminally, and it's still important. even if you can't 'hear' it... you still hear it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 3 Feb 2012 @ 12:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Legitimate concern
      " you can hear them subliminally, and it's still important. even if you can't 'hear' it... you still hear it."
      
      But is that difference enough for most people to care about, especially if they're not really consciously aware of the differences, and many people only listen through earbuds and basic car stereos anyway where those frequencies don't come through?
      
      I'm sure we can argue back and forth constantly, but the fact is that most people when listening on their normal equipment either can't tell the difference or don't care. I know that's difficult for audiophiles to understand, but it's the harsh truth.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 2:19pm
  
  Re: Legitimate concern
  It has been the very industry the one that has been cutting corners on quality and the public just takes what's available.
  
  Around audiophile pirate sites flac files are preferred.
  
  There's only a portion of the audience that cares about high quality audio, and the model you propose hits the same problem as before, flacs and wavs are still infinitely reproduceable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Samuel Abram (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 6:23pm
  
  Re: Legitimate concern
  Have you heard of Bandcamp? They're awesome for many, many reasons, one of which that you can download the music files in any format you wish: MP3, AAC, OGG, Apple Lossless and FLAC. Last month, their clients made approximately US$1,000,000.
  
  So the business you want is out there, and thriving.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:04am

What Neil Young wants is to have people offering 24 bits 96KHz audio files, the same quality as a master recording used today, which can only be heard with special equipment and the file size will be significantly bigger which was one reason UMG wanted Apple to offer it, because in their minds the bigger the file the harder to pirate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:09am

Difference between piracy and radio
I think the analogy is flawed. In the old days, with radio, you got exposed to music when it is played over the air. If you want to play a song anytime you liked, you had to buy it (ignoring cassette tape, CD-R/W). With piracy, you can play the song anytime you like without buying it.

But I think the idea is right. Get your music out there, get noticed, get fans, then sell them concert tickets and merchandise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dcee (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:16am
  
  Re: Difference between piracy and radio
  Well, all my taped cassettes were kind of singing something different from what you're saying...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Doe, 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:22am
    
    Re: Re: Difference between piracy and radio
    See my reply to AC below. Before the cassette and recordable CD, you bought music or listened to the radio. The piracy started when the cassette tape caught on. That wasn't all the long ago in the history of things.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - dcee (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Difference between piracy and radio
      I don't know dude, in the late 70s they became recordable... I know there was music before, but you're kind of stretching your argument...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:33am
    
    Re: Re: Difference between piracy and radio
    Agreed. Today's "piracy" is not really all that different from taping songs off the radio. It didn't stop me from buying music then (when I finally had money), it doesn't stop me from buying music now (the difference being I make sure my purchases now aren't RIAA's, and especially the major label's, artists).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 4:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Difference between piracy and radio
      Very different. Taping something from the radio was very inconvenient (you had to wait until just the right moment) it didn't encompass all music (only a tiny fraction of music commercially available was played on the radio) and the sound quality was noticeably terrible, even to an average consumer (fm radio is very compressed and has a significant loss of fidelity, recording that onto cassette compounds the problem to the point where even the most oblivious of listen can tell the difference)
      
      That's why taping things from the radio didn't hurt revenue where downloading does. The devil is in the details.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 4:10pm
  
  Re: Difference between piracy and radio
  So how would a songwriter make money in the scenario you just described? Songwroters don't get paid based on concert tickets or merchandise.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mitch Skool, 2 Feb 2012 @ 7:17pm
  
  Re: Difference between piracy and radio
  When I was 11 (1961) I spent long evenings in front of the radio waiting patiently for my favorite songs. I was armed with the tape recorder my parents bought to record my piano practice. AM radio to dictaphone tape. In comparison, mp3 is awesome.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:17am

If you want to play a song anytime you liked, you had to buy it (ignoring cassette tape, CD-R/W).

So - if you ignore the thing that makes them the same, they're different?

What kind of warm-up do you need to be able to do twisted mental gymnastics like that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:19am
  
  Re:
  You do realize there was a time before cassettes and CDs right? Or does you mental capacity not extend that far?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:44am
    
    Re: Re:
    In the early 60's I used reel to reel. That was good stuff.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
GMacGuffin (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:19am

... but we're mixing to the LCD anyway
He's right, mp3s suck. But ... here's a little mixing trick used by many famous producers/musicians: Once you get a good mix, you play it on everything you can find, especially the car stereo, boombox, and crappy earbuds. Then you remix accordingly. Meaning, much popular music is mixed specifically to work on crappy sound systems in the first place. (OMG, you shoulda heard it on the studio monitors though ...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Symphony Sid, 17 Sep 2012 @ 8:12am
  
  Re: ... but we're mixing to the LCD anyway
  I don't know if Phil Spector pioneered this, but he mixed recordings and listened to them on a car radio, then adjusted accordingly. Dude did some amazing things before becoming a creepy murderer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:26am

This makes me...
Want to buy a few of his CDs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Loki, 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:36am
  
  Re: This makes me...
  I still like Lynyrd Skynyrd better.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ervserver (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:30am

re
"Piracy is the new radio"

this makes sense...Neil nailed it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 4:15pm
  
  Re: re
  Yeah, he's a genius ... piracy is the new radio, if by new radio you mean, taking something without the consent of the creator and distributing it without paying anyone at all.
  
  Completely unlike radio.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 7:05pm
    
    Re: Re: re
    Yeah, with radio airplay which as we know boosts actual sales and so is in effect an advertisement, the labels did pull off the rather special achievement of getting paid by the radio stations for the privilege of broadcasting the adverts.
    
    The labels even managed to get government to make it illegal for them to pay the radio stations to play the tracks they wanted the radio to promote and even still, they are occasionally caught doing just that.
    
    Now that was a massively brilliant deal, but it is clearly insane, and its day is over.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:32am

Yup, piracy is the new radio, but it delivers the full product in a way that no longer requires anyone to actually buy the product anymore. That is so significantly different.

We are no longer satisfied just to send out a flyer with the restaurant's menu... now we are expected to send a free dinner and hope they tip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:46am
  
  Re:
  No one was ever "required" to buy the product.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 9:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    Don't forget to do this too:
    
    No one was ever "required" to buy the "product".
    
    Funny kind of product that can be replicated an infinite amount of times. Can't do that with dinner.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 10:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    "required" as in "needs to buy it to fully enjoy it".
    
    You could tape off the radio (massively compressed and ugly) or copy tape to take (hiss on top of hiss...) or copy from vinyl (crackle, pop, and more tape hiss anyway). You would probably want to buy an original for yourself.
    
    Now you can have a perfect digital copy for free. Why buy it?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Agust�n Dall'Alba, 2 Feb 2012 @ 3:57pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Because of the artwork and the feeling of owning the CD, being able to touch it, read the correct lyrics, and being "forced" to sit though it all.
      
      I would never buy a MP3 though, when you have FLACs easily downloadable for free.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Because of the artwork
        >Google image search
        feeling of owning the CD, being able to touch it,
        >burn one if you need to own a physical medium
        read the correct lyrics,
        >Google (again)
        and being "forced" to sit though it all
        >Skip
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2012 @ 12:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      To... support the artist you actually like? Isn't that the angle you're going for here? Or are you saying that people who support the artist - like darryl calling the guy who paid three times to watch Murdoch's Simpsons - are idiots?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 7:06pm
  
  Re:
  "now we are expected to send a free dinner and hope they tip"
  
  If you are ever in the situation of having an infinite amount of dinner, then yeah, you would have to find a different way to make money from it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 12:16pm
  
  Re:
  Yeah I can see how you would resent doing that, when it means lifting your arse off that solid gold toilet.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:40am

I dont think using Steve Jobs' name in this instance to be that thought out considering under his management, apple still to this day promotes a closed eco system, exclusive rights to as much media as they can get a hold off, and using lawyers to interupt other competitors to their own products

As much as i can respect the revitilization (not invention) apple have done to the phone and tablet markets, at heart there a bunch of douches, for the above reasons, and i would never think them as supporters for "piracy" or the nature of the internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 9:55am
  
  Re:
  "at heart the(y')re a bunch of douches"
  
  How do you think that is not emphasised by talking about vinyl being superior.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 10:07am
  
  Re:
  well, steve jobs was brought up because neil actually talked to steve jobs about this. he's not just using his name, this interview is touches on neil's personal conversations with steve jobs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Delusional, 2 Feb 2012 @ 10:37am
    
    He may have thought he talked to Steve about music but really Steve was talking about Neil's monkey grind music.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:40am

What's wrong with mp3's?
mp3's will be the salvation of the RIAA members.

A 96 kbps mp3 is sweet music as God & the RIAA meant it to be. (Nevermind what the artist says.)

Consider, if people don't like how it sounds, then they won't pirate it.

(Of course, they won't listen to it either, but since when does the RIAA care about collateral damage?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom the toe, 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:57am

Listen to Neil's boxed set
A few years ago Neil released a boxed set that contained low-fi cd's vinyl and high end flacs on DVD. If you have a good quality system you can hear the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rich Fiscus (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:58am

On one hand, as an audiophile I'm sympathetic to Young's complaints. At the same time, his track record on providing high quality audio is a business model disaster. I consider that a shame since I happen to be a big Neil Young fan, especially his Crazy Horse releases.

He has already begun releasing his back catalog on Blu-ray to maximize sound quality, but there's no chance I could (or would) pay $35 per album or $300 for a 10 disc set. Especially when he seems to have made a point of leaving some songs out.

That's a ripoff even compared to HDtracks, where I can buy FLAC downloads which aren't infested with DRM. With most albums costing $18 ($23 for a double album), I still consider their prices too high. But at least they are trying to make their product more compelling. You can even spend an equally ridiculous $2.50 to buy most tracks individually if that's what you prefer.

The bottom line is this. Neil Young really only pays lip service to expanding the popularity of high quality formats. Considering most people can't tell the difference, making it more expensive and generally less accessible has exactly no chance of doing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MooreCowbell, 2 Feb 2012 @ 9:11am

Senility is kicking in
Neil Young doesn't realize that most music now is being played through crappy stock iPod/iPhone headphones and even crappier computer speakers. You have to be a serious audiophile that has invested some serious bank to hear a difference in a higher quality digital recording and an mp3.

Besides Neil is nearly deaf (years of standing next to gigantic sound speakers will do that) from what I understand, so he wouldn't be able to tell the difference from a high quality digital recording and an mp3 anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jake, 2 Feb 2012 @ 9:35am
  
  Re: Senility is kicking in
  Define "higher quality". I can't hear an appreciable difference between 128kb/s and 320kb/s, let alone FLAC or WAV, in anything from $4.99 headphones to a $70 speaker and sub-woofer set.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bengie, 2 Feb 2012 @ 9:52am
    
    Re: Re: Senility is kicking in
    You're deaf?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 10:00am
    
    Re: Re: Senility is kicking in
    "Define "higher quality". I can't hear an appreciable difference between 128kb/s and 320kb/s, let alone FLAC or WAV, in anything from $4.99 headphones to a $70 speaker and sub-woofer set"
    
    I can't either, but I think we have to assume that that is us, not everyone.
    Someone I knew, did not notice colour flashing playing a film from a vhs tape that had been copied direct tape from macrovision protected tape.
    I still don't know how someone wouldn't even notice, but he genuinely didn't.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Bengie, 2 Feb 2012 @ 10:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Senility is kicking in
      I've had a few songs that when compressed with 128kb MP3, it would literally hurt my ears. It would feel like there was a pressure against my ear drums, which turns into an ear ache, and then I would shortly get a headache. The mild pain actually persists for quite a while.
      
      Raising it to 320kb got rid of it and even low bitrate ogg/vorbis didn't have the issue. Why I love ogg/vorbis for compressed audio.
      
      I can hear the compression artifacts from sub 256kb MP3, quite annoying.
      
      My ears are sensitive to distortions as many cause actual physical discomfort. Because of this, I think I've taught myself to pick-up on the distortions.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glen, 2 Feb 2012 @ 9:20am

Well considering....
I pretty much blasted my hearing back in the '80s and '90s with cassette tapes, I highly doubt I would be able to appreciate the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LazDude2012 (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 9:24am

Live music
I LOVE vinyl, it is really the best quality sound you can get. Personally, I buy vinyl and then "pirate" mp3s for when I'm on the go. They get more money than they would from most people, cause vinyl's more expensive than CDs. But, I'm still the bad guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DirtyFeedback, 2 Feb 2012 @ 10:34am

Quality Sucks?
Quality sucked back when he was selling 45rpms on cheaply pressed vinyl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DirtyFeedback, 2 Feb 2012 @ 10:35am

Quality Sucks?
Quality sucked back when he was selling 45rpms on cheaply pressed vinyl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 12:05pm

That's funny...
I never needed to tune my mp3s or worry about them being scratched or cracked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 1:42pm

I don't play music very loud, because I don't want to damage my hearing. The only way I can hear differences in quality is to play it very loud.

People complaining about quality will be wearing hearing aids and stuff when older, if lucky enough to still be able to hear at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark Tehan, 2 Feb 2012 @ 1:46pm

Neill
I doubt Mr. Young would be able to determine the difference between an mp3 encoded @ 320 or v0 and a .wav or FLAC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
paul, 2 Feb 2012 @ 2:17pm

what neil young really wants....
He wants record labels and bands to stop brickwall limiting and clipping the daylights out of these songs.

There are good songs and albums out there whose listenability have been wrecked by look ahead limiting or clipping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
teejones, 2 Feb 2012 @ 2:36pm

"It doesn't affect me..." (Neil Young) Cause I'm already rich. HAHAHA!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 3:24pm
  
  Re:
  Well, of course it doesn't affect Neil Young - he can actually make music that people want to buy. But what about the artists who make music that nobody likes?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 4:18pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Oh yeah, that's hilarious, completely defund an entire industry so almost no new artist can break in to it or even pay for gas money and then, literally, add insult to injury by claiming it is because they make music no one likes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Samuel Abram (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 6:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Have you heard of Ingrid Michaelson? Her album "Human Again" was #1 on iTunes overall for three days. As of this writing, she's #23 overall. Oh, and she's unsigned.
      
      Or how about Jonathan Coulton? Two years ago, his income was $500,000 which he made from digital downloads, merchandise (which includes CDs and T-shirts) and live shows. Oh, he licenses all the music he wrote (which the exception of the music in the Portal and Portal 2 video games) with a CC: BY-NC license.
      
      Also, Bandcamp makes independent artists a collective total of $1,000,000 every month.
      
      The Major Labels alone do not make "The Music Industry" per se.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 9:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      defund an entire industry so almost no new artist can break in to it or even pay for gas money
      
      This is nonsense for two reasons.
      
      First, major labels never helped new artists "break in to it." In order to get signed, you had to have already been successful, either on your own or (more likely) on an underground label. Either that, or your family was already working for a label, and you got signed due to nepotism (hello, Lily Allen!).
      
      Second, artists are making more money than they were twenty years ago. People are spending more money on music than they were in the 90's, and more of that money is going directly to artists themselves (B2B, merch, live, even digital sales).
      
      So, if you're an artist who isn't making money now, there's no way in hell you would have made any in the 90's, either.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jalek (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 4:54pm

Any MP3 is better quality than listening to music on a monochannel AM radio, where I typically heard Neil Young songs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris, 2 Feb 2012 @ 6:46pm

Yeah, if it ain't 320K, it's barely worth listening to. That's why I'll never buy anything off of iTunes. Vinyl is the way to go!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
M Reed, 2 Feb 2012 @ 7:20pm

"Steve Jobs was a pioneer of digital music..."

Wasn't Steve a bit too late to the party to be considered a pioneer? Seems like he was quite dismissive of digital media players for many years, right up until the day before Apple introduced the iPod.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cyan, 2 Feb 2012 @ 10:21pm

Meh
My collection of Drum&Bass/Dubstep/Garage is mostly 320 and some FLAC/WAV I can't even hear the difference between the two.
Itunes is a weak player...I'd recommend foobar or MediaMonkey for the real music collectors.

Most people stream their music nowadays and don't mind the low bit rate of their hip hop or rock. Those who listen to the bass music usually care more about sound quality.

Music can be pirated/bough in any possible format (private trackers, DDL forums) from WAV, FLAC, 320, 256.. so explain what "Higher Quality" is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Raging Sage, 2 Feb 2012 @ 10:32pm

"MP3 is low quality"
v0 MP3 is transparent.

Get over it, audiophiles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techderp, 3 Feb 2012 @ 4:15am

The MP3
The German company Fraunhofer-Gesellshaft developed MP3 technology and now licenses the patent rights to the audio compression technology - United States Patent 5,579,430 for a "digital encoding process". The inventors named on the MP3 patent are Bernhard Grill, Karl-Heinz Brandenburg, Thomas Sporer, Bernd Kurten, and Ernst Eberlein.
In 1987, the prestigious Fraunhofer Institut Integrierte Schaltungen research center (part of Fraunhofer Gesellschaft) began researching high quality, low bit-rate audio coding, a project named EUREKA project EU147, Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave P, 3 Feb 2012 @ 4:58am

Digital all bad?
Surely it's not just the fact that stuff is digital that makes current recordings sound so horrendously bad? I would suggest the lousy sound is more due to the hideous amounts of audio processing and compression that's applied these days to try and make the sound "punchier". So-called re-mastering appears to just add compression, whereas, in my opinion, it should really be more akin to the original master tape. I have open-reel (look it up!) tape copies of old 45 rpm vinyl singles and comparing them with modern re-issues on an editing program like Audacity shows the modern version to be as flat as a pancake. Same as radio. Dreadful sound nowadays, with some stations (including DAB here in the UK) audibly "pumping". Awful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Bald, 3 Feb 2012 @ 7:10am

FLACs and hi res mp3s
I think the problem is the amplifier used. most people only play their 192kbs mp3s through their dumb phone or ipod... and that's fine if you have low expectations or are on the go. But when I play 320kbs mp3s on my ipod, plugged into my stereo system, with proper eq and amplification: all sounds pretty f'n good. I also find FLAC rips of vinyl to be almost always superior to the crappy "remasters" on CD these days... convert those FLACs to 320 mp3 for mobility and I'm good to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chosig, 17 Sep 2012 @ 3:24am

Youtube
Of course, that's a bit of a reverse from back when he was angry that YouTube wasn't paying him money when people uploaded his songs.

Well, pirates doesn't make money of playing his songs, youtube does... fair is fair, or?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 7:02am

Releasing 90% of the music is a bit of a stretch; but definitely around 50% - it doesn't necessarily even mean dropping album tracks, but nowadays artists need to rapidly release music to keep listener's interested in buying their projects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
doinstuff, 17 Sep 2012 @ 8:07am

The part he left out is when I want real full sound I pay to see a musician in concert live. That's the best, and that's the way its always been. That's also where musicians make most of their money, not the recording, recording money went to the labels. The mp3s are just advertising to see the musicians live if you ask me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Asicaster, 17 Sep 2012 @ 10:41am

positivity of it all
Hi there, I understand the downsides to pirating music, but Neil is right when he says it's the new radio, and I think it's an improvement on the radio in many ways. Take this local band for instance, I think they're sick but they play instrumental dance stuff, and their name is Fat As Fuck for god's sake, but they would never have gotten recognition from a big time radio site, but now they can just get their own shit together and it has a chance to reach some people that it wouldn't have in the radio days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 4:09pm

The troublr with vinyl is this--true, the first time you play it is superlative, but it is nevwr as good after the first time. Thats why listening to a record for the first time was kind of an event.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]