Neil Young discusses Apple / iTunes

PJGARDEN

I thought this article was interesting. Neil Young is talking about the diminishing quality of music because of the increasing popularity of MP3s. I know this has been discussed here before but he makes some pretty good points. I hope more musicans start demanding better quality for their music.

http://techland.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/07/23/neil-young-takes-on-the-ipod/

Shawn Smith Collective

I have to disagree with Uncle Neil on this...the sound quality is out there for those who want it (I know I do). Many digital music sites offer songs with multiple quality options, and if people choose lower bitrates for smaller file sizes so they can fit more on their mp3 players, that's their choice. Even though iTunes doesn't offer more than one quality, it comes down to consumer demand, as noted in the article.

Some artists won't authorize their music to be sold on digital music sites because they don't want their albums to be broken down into "singles." Maybe for an artsist like Neil Young, he doesn't want it to be in an inferior audio quality, and I think that's fine and support his position, but he's placing blame on the wrong parties. And I don't even know that there's any blame to go around...the fact is just that (many) people don't care about the quality like he does, or that I prefer myself.

Gremmie95

Good read and spot on.

Pauk

I agree with SSC, if people want lower bitrates then that's their choice. Quality snobs need to get off their soapboxes and let people listen to what they want to listen to. Do they really think people use mp3s 100% of the time?! Believe it or not, some people do listen to vinyl and CDs at home, but take an mp3 player outside for convenience. I'm not going to get a portable CD player just because it's a higher quality. Sometimes it's better to go for quality, sometimes it's better to go for convenience. It's not a black and white choice with everyone being a musical heathen or an enlightened smug snob.

As for the iPod argument... Of course mp3 players aren't geared towards high quality yet, they've been fairly constrained in harddrive capacity til recently. It wouldn't surprise me at all if as ipods get greater and greater capacities the 'standard' bitrates of mp3 players will increase. Afterall, 160Gb is more than enough for 90% of the market, and it's bound to get higher in coming years. Soon people will use larger harddrives to hold more quality because they can't fill it with quantity.

I find it odd that Young wants to champion Blu-ray but stamp down on digital music. Let the technology progress.

phatucini

Anything under 192kbps should be forbidden! If you're paying for it I would not except anything under 224kbps. I think that almost everything sounds good from 224 kbps on. Even if you put it out on big speakers. I listen to almost everything on mp3. Even the records I own on vinyl & cd it's just a thing of comfort.

gabers

Shawn Smith Collective wrote:

I have to disagree with Uncle Neil on this...the sound quality is out there for those who want it (I know I do). Many digital music sites offer songs with multiple quality options, and if people choose lower bitrates for smaller file sizes so they can fit more on their mp3 players, that's their choice. Even though iTunes doesn't offer more than one quality, it comes down to consumer demand, as noted in the article.

iTunes does offer some albums in the higher quality format. Not many though. I think they plan on expanding that option.

PJGARDEN

I guess the main issue I have is there seems to be a growing trend of songs or bonus tracks that are released exclusively to iTunes. i.e. Into the Wild. I know for know this is only a small portion but there seems to be more and more releases this way all the time. I don't care if there is higher quality format I can purchase I just don't want an MP3 to be my only option.

Shawn Smith Collective

PJGARDEN wrote:

I guess the main issue I have is there seems to be a growing trend of songs or bonus tracks that are released exclusively to iTunes. i.e. Into the Wild. I know for know this is only a small portion but there seems to be more and more releases this way all the time. I don't care if there is higher quality format I can purchase I just don't want an MP3 to be my only option.

Typically, digital only releases are those which would NOT otherwise be released. Bands release EP's, live material, remixes, etc in digital format for many reasons, but in most cases the artists and/or labels would have little or no interest in spending the money for a proper hardcopy release.

If anything, the digital option is OPENING the door to more music from these bands. For example, The Gutter Twins are about to release an iTunes exclusive b-sides/covers companion to their album, Saturnalia. There was never any inidication that Sub Pop would have any interest in releasing this in CD/Vinyl format, and it's doubtful the band would secure distribution to do so on their own (if that was even an option).

This really is a non-issue.

I just want to make it clear that I'm a huge advocate of legitimate hardcopy releases myself. I own roughly 5,000 CD's and close to 750 pieces of vinyl...who knows how many promos CD's and cassettes I have...and I always prefer the real deal to digital...but that doesn't change the fact that it's not the digital music industry that is killing the way people hear their music...it's the people opting for inferior sound quality when, generally speaking, they have a choice.