Distruction of music?

ramblinponyramblinpony Posts: 115
edited November 2007 in A Moving Train
(I KNOW IT SHOULD BE DESTRUCTION) sorry

I did some deep thinking on the subject of music and I wondered about the state of it today. With the advancement of technology in the past 20 or so years it is now extremely easy for us to get music right when we want it. This got me thinking about MP3's and how they have affected what people listen to.

I will start by giving you a little background on me. Like most people, and all the people on this board, I love music. I love the power it has, the ability to effect emotions, beliefs, etc. I am what many people call a "purist". I love vinyl. I like the warmth of the sound, the smell (freaky, I know, but vinyl junkies know what I am talking about,) the physical disc itself, everything. I also have a large CD collection, and a sizable MP3 library. When Napster first took off, I would utilize it to listen to artists that I would have otherwise overlooked, and if I liked the music, I would buy the album. I also think MP3 has its place in the world, as it helped me discover some really great music. HOWEVER, I think mp3 may also lead to the destruction of great music. I am willing to bet that if Itunes forced people to buy an entire album, the service would be much less popular. It seems that the term "thats a great band" gets thrown around alot these days. When I was younger, a great band was judged by the quality of the albums they produce, not the quality of one song that has a great hook and is played a ton on the radio. What Itunes has done is allowed people to buy a single song, play it till they grow tired of it, and then download another radio hit from another band and repeat the process.
(I know that singles were available in the past, but very few are in my collection, as well as those in the other collections I have seen.) Maybe it is just my Midwestern mentality, but it seems that before MP3, if people liked a song enough on the radio, it would equal them buying the cd. Not the single. What seems to be happening is the return of the one hit wonder. People are becoming less curious with music, and just buying single songs they like. This forces bands to regurgitate the same idea over and over again, they get stuck in a creative padded cell, and they never see outside that cell. Usually their career end in less then half a decade, and you dont see them again untill they appear on the surreal life. (This is why PJ is so great, they dont seem to be restricted by the record company. They make what they like, and we usually like it too)

Another issue with mp3 is that you dont get to look at cool pictures in the liner notes. There is a sense of pride in physically owning something, and MP3 takes that away.

My fear is that MP3 will lead to the destruction of physical music. What do you guys think?
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    (I KNOW IT SHOULD BE DESTRUCTION) sorry

    I did some deep thinking on the subject of music and I wondered about the state of it today. With the advancement of technology in the past 20 or so years it is now extremely easy for us to get music right when we want it. This got me thinking about MP3's and how they have affected what people listen to.

    I will start by giving you a little background on me. Like most people, and all the people on this board, I love music. I love the power it has, the ability to effect emotions, beliefs, etc. I am what many people call a "purist". I love vinyl. I like the warmth of the sound, the smell (freaky, I know, but vinyl junkies know what I am talking about,) the physical disc itself, everything. I also have a large CD collection, and a sizable MP3 library. When Napster first took off, I would utilize it to listen to artists that I would have otherwise overlooked, and if I liked the music, I would buy the album. I also think MP3 has its place in the world, as it helped me discover some really great music. HOWEVER, I think mp3 may also lead to the destruction of great music. I am willing to bet that if Itunes forced people to buy an entire album, the service would be much less popular. It seems that the term "thats a great band" gets thrown around alot these days. When I was younger, a great band was judged by the quality of the albums they produce, not the quality of one song that has a great hook and is played a ton on the radio. What Itunes has done is allowed people to buy a single song, play it till they grow tired of it, and then download another radio hit from another band and repeat the process.
    (I know that singles were available in the past, but very few are in my collection, as well as those in the other collections I have seen.) Maybe it is just my Midwestern mentality, but it seems that before MP3, if people liked a song enough on the radio, it would equal them buying the cd. Not the single. What seems to be happening is the return of the one hit wonder. People are becoming less curious with music, and just buying single songs they like. This forces bands to regurgitate the same idea over and over again, they get stuck in a creative padded cell, and they never see outside that cell. Usually their career end in less then half a decade, and you dont see them again untill they appear on the surreal life. (This is why PJ is so great, they dont seem to be restricted by the record company. They make what they like, and we usually like it too)

    Another issue with mp3 is that you dont get to look at cool pictures in the liner notes. There is a sense of pride in physically owning something, and MP3 takes that away.

    My fear is that MP3 will lead to the destruction of physical music. What do you guys think?
    ...
    If Napster was around in 1973... a lot of people probably would have bought 'Love, Reign O'er Me' and missed out on one the the greatest records of all time.
    That's the opposite of the 'Chumbawumba Effect'.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Brisk.Brisk. Posts: 11,561
    I just think artists need to sort out the issue with the labels and company etc recieveing such a high % of money each copy. Maybe mp3's is the way forward.. and Im sure artists will still release the physical music.

    I like the art etc, but really its all about the music here, i wouldn't be sad if artwork dissappeared, as long as i got the music
  • I, too, like having a physical copy. I have a lot of CD's and vinyl, and only a handful of digital and CD-R stuff. Plus, its harder to find some of the older stuff online
    4/23/03 - Champaign, IL
    5/16/06 - Chicago, IL
    8/23/09 - Chicago, IL
    5/4/10 - St Louis, MO

    ...tickle my nausea...
  • I'm not really a big completist as far as physical cds or vinyl go. I dont even have any of my original PJ cds. I keep all my music on my PC now and burn stuff to play in my car. I can enjoy an mp3 as much as a CD; i cant tell the difference in quality.

    Most of the album artwork in CDs are total half-assed crap that doesn't match the music in most cases. I dont miss it, even though I'm an artist myself.

    i agree that the digital downloads are hurting albums, but it probably hurts generic pop crap groups more than real rock bands. i still buy albums if I like the band, because usually the best songs are not the singles.

    I think the downloading has opened up plenty of new windows for music. I wouldnt know half the bands I like today if it weren't for the internet.
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    I downloaded a couple of MP3s (Free) from some indie bands in Seattle area. I subsequently purchased all of their albums on CD. The other cool part is that they might respond to an email I send them.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Kel VarnsenKel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    MrSmith wrote:

    Most of the album artwork in CDs are total half-assed crap that doesn't match the music in most cases. I dont miss it, even though I'm an artist myself.

    That is so true. So many bands don't put any effort into their CD artwork anymore. You are lucky if it is just a few photographs. It is especially true when you compare it to some of the vinyl sleeves from the 70's. Anyone who has seen the original vinyl sleeve from Led Zeppelin III knows exactly what I am talking about.
  • Here is a great write up of how music is being destroyed in other ways related to digital downloads.

    http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicrange.htm

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article231913.ece

    http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article1878724.ece

    The first link is the best out of them all and has a link to a youtube video at the bottom. It is just a 2 minute clip but it explains things talked about in the first link that many people, including myself, might not understand right away.
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    I almost always buy CDs, put em on my PC then leave the CDs in my car. If I were home then I'd just listen to the music on my PC/Laptop... If I'm anywhere else, then it's on my iPod. In the car, I either hook up my iPod or take out my CDs.

    I don't really know if mp3s are "destroying" music. I don't really care. Album artwork was never really THAT important to me. For me, it's all about the music, so as long as I'm able to listen to the songs, I'm fine.
  • I dont know how many people would agree, but i think mp3's and file sharing is a benefit to the music industry in many different ways. For one, it can be used to gain a following for low profile independent bands. Its so much easier nowadays to find underground music. A local band touring the club scene some 15 years ago would would absolutely kill for the chance if they knew there was a way have potentially thousands of people have access to hear your music. The may not get paid for it, but it creates fans. There will be people who like your music who will probably show up at your next concert, maybe buy a t-shirt if he likes the show. He may get the cd to look at the pretty artwork. My personal cd collection trippled when the internet and file sharing gained popularity. I discovered so many new bands, their had to be many more people like me who bought cd's they would otherwise have never heard of before there was a cyberspace.

    I agree that CD sales may be down due to file sharing. The casual CD buyers have turned to ITUNES to buy the top 40 hits. You have to admit though, the digital age has allowed for smarter music shopping. Back in the old days, you bought a cd based on a couple of songs you liked on the radio. You find out after a few listens that the rest of the cd really sucks. How times did it happen to you...? You'd have to sell it back to your local CD Warehouse and loose $10 in the process. I believe this is the big reason why RIAA goes after file sharing so viciously. Labels cant market the records they way they want. They somewhat loose control of their product. Its my opinion that the recording industry is being hurt far worse than the artists. These are the same companies that sign the up and comming bands that have very little leverage to horrible contracts that stretch 10 years or more, and then dump them on the street when they dont sell. I think the music business just needs to adapt to a new kind of music listener. Its the digital age, like it or not, its here to stay.
    www.myspace.com/sharkie002
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    If Napster was around in 1973... a lot of people probably would have bought 'Love, Reign O'er Me' and missed out on one the the greatest records of all time.
    That's the opposite of the 'Chumbawumba Effect'.

    Chumbawumba had been around for about 10 years before that one single sent them to the top of the charts. And that success was never their intention/ambition anyway.
    Just thought I'd point that out.
  • mp3's, in the future, might cause the destruction of major labels, but they certainly aren't leading to the destruction of great music.
    7/16/06 7/18/06
  • I say burn the labels down.
    model, role model, roll some models in blood
  • bump
    www.myspace.com/sharkie002
  • spiral outspiral out Posts: 1,052
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Chumbawumba had been around for about 10 years before that one single sent them to the top of the charts. And that success was never their intention/ambition anyway.
    Just thought I'd point that out.

    I see your a big fan then.
    Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!

    The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
  • We may be witnessing the destruction of great music, but i disagree as to the cause.

    a. I think consumer choice is a right dandy idea. if people are allowed to listen to song clips and decide that they only like one on an album, that is a discredit to the artist -- it says that there is only one song on the album worthy of purchase.

    b. Per the story below, the true case may be more that an over supply of technology has caused the recording artist to be less focused on the EXPRESSION of their music and more on the technical production of the album. The ability to fix mistakes easily simply means artists dont try as hard to get it right the first time around. And, WORSE, the easy access to technology means that CRAP is flooding the market from mediocre dolts who just happen to afford a microphone and a digital recording box.


    I finally finished reading Here, There, and Everywhere: My Life Recording The Beatles by Geoff Emerick. In the concluding pages of his book he reminisces on the early 90's period when the surviving Beatles teamed up again with their old recording staff and took back to Abbey Road to dig through the archives and release Beatles Anthology. Geoff remarks of the snooty looks they got for digging up an old analog mixing console, and for using tape machines. He argued throughout the book, and in the concluding pages specificaly, that the increase in recording technology was directly to blame for a decrease in musical artistry.

    Bottom line for him: the unlimited potential of modern recording technology has removed the artist from the creative crux of the recording process. It has allowed the artist to become endlessly engaged with technical pursuits at the expense of focused effort the creative process. He believed that even with the advent of the 8-track console (and demise of the 4-track recorder), the shift towards technical focus -- and towards overdubs particularly -- was causing a decline in musicality. Even the Beatles themselves discussed this to some extent. The idea of being able to go back and fix a mistake, to overdub a guitar part -- while it was helpful in a pinch -- actually served as a mechanism for which artistic output as measured case by case began to DECLINE. "Hey, i can just fix this in the studio later, why give it my all ... why try so hard this time, we can get it right later." ...
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/piracy-not-raiding-cd-sales/2007/11/06/1194118008817.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

    Piracy not raiding CD sales
    Email Printer friendly version Normal font Large font Saved Asher Moses
    November 6, 2007 - 12:45PM

    The enforcement arm of the Australian music industry has dismissed damaging overseas research that found illegal music sharing actually increased CD sales.

    The study, conducted by two researchers at the University of London for the Canadian Government, found people downloaded songs illegally because they wanted to hear them before buying or because they were not available in stores.

    "We estimate that the effect of one additional P2P (peer-to-peer) download per month is to increase music purchasing by 0.44 CDs per year," the researchers found.

    The findings, based on a study of 2000 Canadians, fly in the face of years of expensive campaigning by the music industry worldwide, which claims file sharing costs it millions of dollars a year in lost revenue.

    Individual file sharers in the US were sued and hit with exorbitant fines on the back of such claims - Jammie Thomas, a 30-year-old single mother, was recently fined $US220,000 ($239,000) for sharing 24 songs on Kazaa.

    Numerous file sharing sites were shut down by music industry investigators this year, most recently the invite-only site OiNK. Ironically, the free publicity the move generated has led to an explosion of new file sharing sites in its wake.

    The local music industry's anti-piracy unit, Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI), has threatened to start suing Australians if local ISPs don't police their users' file sharing habits.

    But the Canadian study suggests file sharing is not the cause of the music industry's problems and is actually beneficial to music sales.

    MIPI general manager Sabiene Heindl insisted the study's results did not translate to Australia.

    She pointed to a telephone survey of 1000 Australians aged 14 to 74, conducted by Quantum Market Research last year, which found 57 per cent of those who downloaded via P2P file sharing programs rarely or never went on to purchase the music legitimately.

    "It's not rocket science to work out that if you get your music for free, why would you go out and buy it," Ms Heindl said.

    "Of course 'true fans' are hopefully in a different category and we encourage them to do the right thing and get the music from a legitimate source."

    Ms Heindl said there were many places other than file sharing networks where people could try music before they buy, "including record company and artist sites themselves".

    MIPI wants ISPs to voluntarily send infringement notices and disconnect users identified as having engaged in illegal downloading, but it has met significant resistance from the ISPs. The Federal Government has been reluctant to get involved so far, with the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, recently telling all parties to go back to the negotiating table.

    A recent survey conducted by GfK found 40 per cent of Australian internet users admitted to illegally downloading music.

    Research firm IBISWorld estimates the music industry loses $100 million a year in revenue as a result of piracy, with illegal channels accounting for about 11 per cent of all music acquired by the general population.

    The pervasiveness of P2P file sharing and music piracy has led some bands, such as Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails, to embrace it.

    Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor, dismayed at the high cost of CDs in Australia, recently encouraged fans at a Sydney concert to pirate the band's music. Reznor has since been working with fellow musician and friend Saul Williams on a concept album, The Rise and Fall of Niggy Tardust, which has been released first as a digital download. The basic album is free but higher quality versions can be bought for $US5.

    Radiohead recently released its new album, In Rainbows, as a digital download, saying fans could pay whatever they liked for it. But even the promise of a free album wasn't enough for many file sharers, who obtained it illegally anyway as opposed to going through the Radiohead site.

    Forbes, citing statistics from illegal download tracker Big Champagne, reported 240,000 people downloaded the album illegally on its first day of release. The number had risen to over 500,000 just days later.

    "It's quite simply easier for folks to get the illegal version than the legal version," Big Champagne chief executive Eric Garland told Forbes.

    Sales figures for the first six months of the year, released by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA), show total physical music sales dropped by almost 16 per cent in unit terms, but legal download sales increased by just under 90 per cent.

    The Canadian study found no statistically significant relationship between illegal P2P downloads and paid-for digital downloads from stores such as iTunes. In other words, it found file sharing neither increased nor decreased the likelihood of legal download purchases.

    IBISWorld predicts that by 2010, legal online music will comprise 22.4 per cent of all music sales in this country, with online delivery replacing the manufacturing of pre-recorded media within the next five to 10 years.
    www.myspace.com/sharkie002
  • PegasusPegasus Posts: 3,754
    Here is a great write up of how music is being destroyed in other ways related to digital downloads.

    http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicrange.htm

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article231913.ece

    http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article1878724.ece

    The first link is the best out of them all and has a link to a youtube video at the bottom. It is just a 2 minute clip but it explains things talked about in the first link that many people, including myself, might not understand right 2. away.
    WOW, that's really interesting.


    I think the artwork was killed by the CD.
    I did love the art on vinyls, but when it got shrinked to CD size, it became boring.
    I always thought CDs should have been released in a vinyl-size sleeve :)

    I can't comment on singles, I haven't bought one of those in nearly 20 years.
    I think now like then, you're either a single person (generally Pop) or an Album person (more likely Rock).
    the 1 track on iTunes is cheaper than singles used to be so more popular (but then you have no B-sides, the ONLY interest of a single to the album person, and the only chance for the single person to be tempted in the album).

    As an Album person, I don't like paying for digital music, I'd rather spend the same amount having something with the best quality possible and artwork and no restriction (I then put it on MP3 for convenience, but on MY terms).

    and the article about p2p increasing sales:
    She pointed to a telephone survey of 1000 Australians aged 14 to 74, conducted by Quantum Market Research last year, which found 57 per cent of those who downloaded via P2P file sharing programs rarely or never went on to purchase the music legitimately.
    1. that means 43% do frequently buy as a consequence of downloading!
    2. wrong question; should have been: " how much of the music you buy would you have purchased had you NOT downloaded/copied it first?".
    in my case less than 5%, in my entire life (and I've been buying music for 25 years)!
  • i blame radio. it sucks, and no matter what state you go to, the stations play the same shit.
  • tybirdtybird Posts: 17,388
    Nice article in the current Rolling Stone talking about how "big box" U.S. retailers (Best Buy, Target, Wal-Mart etc.) are cutting down on floor space for CDs. Interesting stuff about profit margins on CDs too.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • MrSmith wrote:
    i blame radio. it sucks, and no matter what state you go to, the stations play the same shit.

    True. I HATE the radio. I'm lucky if I ever hear Pearl Jam or heaven forbid a B-Side from any band. Let alone all of the club music taking over the waves. 94.7 WCSX in Detroit is good when it comes to Classic Rock. They play whole albums and B-Sides. A-Z lists of an artist and all.
  • I think the internet and mp3's are good for promoting independant artists and has created a DIY ethic , similar to the punk scene in the 70's, where unsigned artists can get exposure and promote their music around the world.I still purchase albums and take time to listen and absorb the artwork etc. Most people don't listen to a whole album anyway, and just fast forward to the singles. Being a music fan is just about being openminded and taking time to listen to the product,whether it be corporate or independant.
  • halszka123halszka123 Posts: 1,109
    Here is a great write up of how music is being destroyed in other ways related to digital downloads.

    http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicrange.htm

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article231913.ece

    http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article1878724.ece

    The first link is the best out of them all and has a link to a youtube video at the bottom. It is just a 2 minute clip but it explains things talked about in the first link that many people, including myself, might not understand right away.


    Big thanks! Specially for the link to YouTube. Sometimes I wondered what's happen with my ears or maybe my cd player, that all I hear was a noise... now I know. Thanks!


    About radio... In Poland we have many radio station, two of them are the biggest and... commercial, playing popular songs, not necessarily good. For example - PJ U can hear in smaller station. But people like the bigger station - they don't have to think what they listen - it's easier...

    About MP3. Maybe U are right a little.But like other before me - I have to admit - many songs (albums) I wouldn't ever hear, if I didn't get it from the net. But - if I liked them I would buy the cds (I guess my english is getting worse again... sorry)
    Not 10c member? Have sth to say? write to me - I'll put it on the forum
    halszka123@op.pl
  • mr orion wrote:
    I think the internet and mp3's are good for promoting independant artists and has created a DIY ethic , similar to the punk scene in the 70's, where unsigned artists can get exposure and promote their music around the world.I still purchase albums and take time to listen and absorb the artwork etc. Most people don't listen to a whole album anyway, and just fast forward to the singles. Being a music fan is just about being openminded and taking time to listen to the product,whether it be corporate or independant.
    I agree to that. Many unknown bands and artists who doesn't have a chance to sign with a label, found their lifetime chance by publishing on the net.
    On the other hand, since music is a complete personal taste, nobody can force people to listen to all the album instead of the songs they like. It is freedom of choice.
    "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." Robert Pirsig
  • halszka123 wrote:
    Big thanks! Specially for the link to YouTube. Sometimes I wondered what's happen with my ears or maybe my cd player, that all I hear was a noise... now I know. Thanks!


    About radio... In Poland we have many radio station, two of them are the biggest and... commercial, playing popular songs, not necessarily good. For example - PJ U can hear in smaller station. But people like the bigger station - they don't have to think what they listen - it's easier...

    About MP3. Maybe U are right a little.But like other before me - I have to admit - many songs (albums) I wouldn't ever hear, if I didn't get it from the net. But - if I liked them I would buy the cds (I guess my english is getting worse again... sorry)

    Well, I am glad to hear you got something out of the links I posted. Chances are if your are listening to something and it makes it sound like your speakers are blown but those very same speakers normally work, it is more likely the horrible quality recording than your speakers going out.

    I understand what you are saying about MP3's. I certainly feel they have a place with music as they are very accessible for people. My problem is when people start recording music specifically for the low quality MP3's. That is when music starts to lose its dynamics and truly becomes a dumbed down, less-than enjoyable experience.
  • If i had my way everything would be on SACD, but the reality is most people just don't care, and probably listen to their music from itunes through multimedia speakers. Which is my definition of hell
  • I HATE the idea of mp3's and ipods and all that shit... not just cos I don't use them but because I like going out and actually BUYING something and having something to show for it. If I hear a song I like, I'll buy the album. If I were browsing all different artists online I don't think I'd give them a proper chance like I do when I OWN the album.

    Everything just seems so cheapened these days :mad: The whole experience.
    The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
    Verona??? it's all surmountable
    Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
    Wembley? We all believe!
    Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
    Chicago 07? And love
    What a different life
    Had I not found this love with you
  • KannKann Posts: 1,146
    I HATE the idea of mp3's and ipods and all that shit... not just cos I don't use them but because I like going out and actually BUYING something and having something to show for it. If I hear a song I like, I'll buy the album. If I were browsing all different artists online I don't think I'd give them a proper chance like I do when I OWN the album.

    Everything just seems so cheapened these days :mad: The whole experience.

    mp3s are nice. When someone recommends a band (for instance on the other music forum) I like to download an album, give it a few listens. If I like it, I'll delete the mp3s and buy the album, if I don't, I'll just delete the files. That way I don't end up buying albums with just one good song on them, because that just sucks.
    It's just not possible to listen properly a whole album in a record store. And if you don't know anything about the band, except something you read on a message board, well downloading first is a nice compromise.
  • Kann wrote:
    mp3s are nice. When someone recommends a band (for instance on the other music forum) I like to download an album, give it a few listens. If I like it, I'll delete the mp3s and buy the album, if I don't, I'll just delete the files. That way I don't end up buying albums with just one good song on them, because that just sucks.
    It's just not possible to listen properly a whole album in a record store. And if you don't know anything about the band, except something you read on a message board, well downloading first is a nice compromise.
    I suppose it's like trying on clothes in a shop before you decide if you want them or not... you should really know what you're buying. However you can't walk out of the shop wearing the new clothes without paying :eek:
    The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
    Verona??? it's all surmountable
    Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
    Wembley? We all believe!
    Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
    Chicago 07? And love
    What a different life
    Had I not found this love with you
  • Brisk.Brisk. Posts: 11,561
    LOL

    it doesn't bother me as long as i have the actual music and if i dont have a physical cd or whatever im not going to cry
  • If i had my way everything would be on SACD, but the reality is most people just don't care, and probably listen to their music from itunes through multimedia speakers. Which is my definition of hell

    Wow! I wanna go live in your world because it would sound alot more awesome than this one!
Sign In or Register to comment.