Join 3,430 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Music industry makes first mature move in years!
June 12, 2002 11:14 AM   Subscribe

Music industry makes first mature move in years!
Universal and Sony will respond to piracy by selling CDs at $9.99 - and singles at .99. How easy was that? (Link requires free registration but well worth it, IMO)
posted by magullo (51 comments total)

 
I can't comment on the story since the LA Times seems to be enforcing a valid e-mail address for registration to which I say screw you times. Somebody let me know when mefi/mefi works.

However, with respect to the post, it's a step. But, they need to let us download 192 bit MP3s without any cripple-ware anti-consumer crap tacked to top of it for about $.50/track. If you figure a typical disc has around 10-15 songs, then that's about $5 to 7.50 which is just about right when you take the physical media out of it and add in the cost of the pipes.

If they do that, I'll start buying music again.
posted by willnot at 11:26 AM on June 12, 2002


It looks like I'll be buying some CD's from Universal and Sony artists.
posted by Hugh2d2 at 11:31 AM on June 12, 2002


This link will work without registration, on the Baltimore Sun's site. Stories are in the same database; Baltimore hasn't instituted registration yet.
posted by krewson at 11:35 AM on June 12, 2002


Wait...I think they meant the whole album for $9.99, in mp3s.
posted by jennak at 11:48 AM on June 12, 2002


In related news (sort of), BMG just bought Zomba, home of Britney, Backstreet Boys and Frank Zappa.

I'd be fine buying MP3 albums for $10, if they ever figure out a decent system to do it. Pressplay and that other one just won't cut it.
posted by me3dia at 11:58 AM on June 12, 2002


Sheesh -- some "painless" registration: they even wanted my phone number! If the record companies can smarten up, why can't newpapers?
posted by maudlin at 12:01 PM on June 12, 2002


home of Britney, Backstreet Boys and Frank Zappa

Imagine the Christmas dinners in that home!
posted by billder at 12:04 PM on June 12, 2002


For goshsakes me3dia, read the article. For Universal at least, files will operate independent of PressPlay/MusicNet/Rhapsody, from a number of websites, using Liquid Audio.

This is a fantastic development; I wish they were using MP3 (so I could employ the software I'm accustomed to), but it's the first smart move I've seen the industry do in some time. We'll all have to put out money where our mouths are and buy some of these tracks when they're available.
posted by Marquis at 12:07 PM on June 12, 2002


For goshsakes me3dia, read the-

Bah. Twice is probably enough.
posted by Marquis at 12:09 PM on June 12, 2002


Wow! What a great change! And free burning, too! If it actually works, of course. Get out of town, Hillary Rosen.

(and btw, metafilter/metafilter as login still works on latimes.com)
posted by gramcracker at 12:14 PM on June 12, 2002


Ouch, a double-posted flame. I bow to you, Marquis, and apologize for my ignorant post.

"Sony also has quietly changed its policy on downloads to allow CD burning—a change that should go into effect any day, according to company executives. That is expected to increase the number of downloadable songs dramatically this summer, and a spokeswoman said prices would drop to $1.49 a song as soon as Sony's vendors could make the change."
Is that a typo?
posted by me3dia at 12:17 PM on June 12, 2002


this is a step forward? ugh. to me, us$10 for something i have to download and burn myself is a rip off. i'm in toronto and most cds i purchase are in the C$15-18 range (us$10-13). i get the packaging, the cd, the liner notes, and save the hard disk space, all for $0 - $3 more than this scheme.

in my opinion, these record labels will be laughing all the way to the bank with this system. they're gonna make even more money than before. they no longer have to pay for packaging and cds, liner notes, copywriters, distribution, returns, artists to design covers, etc.

right now i use emusic and love it. i pay us$10 a month for unlimited downloads. for the labels that aren't on there, i buy the cds.

the article makes it seem like the labels are compromising to please people when in fact they're just finding a way to make more money with less effort.
posted by dobbs at 12:29 PM on June 12, 2002


use l: generic p: generic.
I try to use it everywhere when registering and so do a lot of people I know.
posted by Nauip at 12:30 PM on June 12, 2002


Zappa and Br1tney mentioned in the same sentence?

Get a rope ;)
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 12:46 PM on June 12, 2002


Er, sorry about that me3dia... When I posted my initial comment, MeFi showed it as coming up twice; the final comment was thus an attempt at self-mockery. I see now that the gods of MeFi were toying with me, and that my attempt to save face was unnecessary. Your comment didn't actually deserve multiple harangue, and I appreciated the BMG/Zomba link.

Get a rope?
posted by Marquis at 12:49 PM on June 12, 2002


$7.99 for an album is the sweet spot. That's what LPs cost before the CD came and started inflating prices during the 1980s.
posted by Erendadus at 1:13 PM on June 12, 2002


No apology necessary, you caught me fair and square.
posted by me3dia at 1:14 PM on June 12, 2002


willnot wrote: "... But, they need to let us download 192 bit MP3s without any cripple-ware anti-consumer crap tacked to top of it for about $.50/track."

You know, I'm tired of being a conservative. Being a liberal is so much more fun. Here, let me try being a liberal....

I think the mean old record companies should pay us 50 cents a track every time we download a song. That way, we can all get rich! How easy was that!
posted by mikegre at 1:16 PM on June 12, 2002


i didn't realize this was a liberal/conservative issue.
posted by tolkhan at 1:23 PM on June 12, 2002


This is a step in the right direction, but it is a timid and tentative baby step at best. If the labels are able to get $9.99 for an album and the consumer has to do their own downloading, burning, and cover, the label will actually make a ton more money than they already do, and they will kill music retailers in the process. This is not a realistic long-term solution. The only good thing really, for the consumer, is that the labels are finally admitting that $9.99 is a fair price for a CD. What they really need to do is drop the standard list price to $9.99 at retail. With regard to the comparison Erindadus made above to the LP's of yesteryear: CD's are now cheaper to make, cheaper to package, cheaper to warehouse and cheaper to ship than LP's ever were. Yet they still cost the consumer twice as much. I believe that when the savings finally gets passed on to the consumer, the music industry's woes will take care of themselves. In the meantime, it is really hard to feel sorry for them.
posted by spilon at 1:30 PM on June 12, 2002


tolkan wrote: "i didn't realize this was a liberal/conservative issue."

It is. Conservatives like to let the market set the price. Liberals like to meddle.
posted by mikegre at 1:39 PM on June 12, 2002


"Universal plans to sell tens of thousands of high-quality digital singles for 99 cents or less and albums for $9.99 through online retailers such as Amazon, Best Buy and Sam Goody"

Doesn't sound like their cutting the retailer out of it to me. Or at least at the moment.
posted by nedrichards at 1:43 PM on June 12, 2002


As I said, the first move. Hopefully not the last. What you also get is reliance on not getting a copy, rip-off, etc, which if they play it right, goes a long way. Combine that with their enormous content base and go to town, baby. This is also brilliant in the sense that hopefully the industry will do what it should be best at: competing. Competing to get the best technology to deliver the content to multiple platforms. We've had enough of mid-twentieth century type tough wiseguys like Valenti. Let's look ahead.

(Funny how they smarten up once profits go down. Remember, boys and girls: when Napster was at it best, the industry was raking in plenty of cash to keep everyone pretty happy with their old cds-by-the-linear-meter/yard mentality.)
posted by magullo at 1:48 PM on June 12, 2002


Conservatives like to let the market set the price. Liberals like to meddle.

Heh. Cuz, y'know, those meddling liberal consumers aren't actually part of the market. :)
posted by cortex at 1:50 PM on June 12, 2002


Conservatives like to let the market set the price. Liberals like to meddle.

So then, I guess Sony and Universal are the liberals here and willnot is the conservative?

After all, willnot is part of the market and was giving his opinion of what the free market value is, while Sony and Universal are setting the price to what they want it to be, regardless of the market's opinion of value.

Why is it conservatives and liberals so often choose to look at any and every situation through a political lens? This isn't a liberal/conservative issue. It's a capitalist issue, the tug of war between company and customer. Willnot and other consumers want more for less, the music industry wants less for more. It's simple economics. Leave politics out of it.
posted by me3dia at 1:53 PM on June 12, 2002


How is this a promising step? Most of the people pirating music on broadband aren't looking for some sort of compromise with the music industry. They don't care. They won't download a CD for $9.99 for the same reason they wouldn't buy it for $12.99 - they can download the entire album for free in minutes.

That's the enormity of the situation, and why the music industry is up shit's creek. If they want to keep making money from album sales they're either going to have to compete with the free downloads available now or legislate file sharing (or broadband) out of existence. Neither is going to be very easy.
posted by tirade at 1:53 PM on June 12, 2002


I don't mean to troll you, mikegre, but it looks like the market is setting the price a lot closer to $0.00 than $0.99 per song. I'm not saying that this is fair, but there's no denying that this is what's happening.

Unfortunately, the music industry hasn't responded by bringing its prices closer to what the market has set. Instead, they have been lobbying for legislation (DCMA, CBDTPA) that supports their arbitrary price by restricting the liberties of the public. If they won't play by the rules, it's unfair to expect anyone else to.
posted by Eamon at 1:55 PM on June 12, 2002


this is stupid again. for $9.99 you can download music without the cd, or lyrics or box! or for $0 you can download music without cd, lyrics, or box! um, i choose $0!

it's like they're retarded. you can't sell the same product for more money, you have to sell a better product, and it's generally accepted that the boxed cd is a better poduct than 192bit mp3, they have a better product they could sell, try adjusting the price on that! adjusting the price up for a new product that is the same quality as what's available for less won't sell you more items. jesus

it's like everyone is drinking $2 water, and a champagne company is worried because it's hurting their profits, so they think, well, i know, i'll sell water for $15! genius! no, it's stupid, sell beer for $5 or decide to be a niche product provider...

or try to outlaw water, and wells, and rain of course...
posted by rhyax at 2:04 PM on June 12, 2002


I am a conservative (libertarian actually, but when it comes to this stuff as good as).

I'm letting the market set the price. As a member of the market that spends thousands of dollars a year on media, I have stopped purchasing the record companies product. Clearly based on all the hand wringing other consumers have followed suit. It probably has more to do with inflated CD prices/lowered quality of acts, the emergent popularity of DVD and the economy than it does with protests (the way I'd like to spin the numbers) or piracy (the way they'd like to spin the numbers), but nevertheless prices are out of whack with the market.

$.50/track is a fair price. That plus no anti-consumer garbage to punish people who want to buy music while doing nothing to discourage people who want to share/steal music is what will be required to get me back into their market. I suspect many others have the same price point and format demands, but time will tell.

(actually, I'm OK with $1/Song or the equivalent of .50/track if you buy the entire record - it's just I'm not a 1 song kind of buyer, so that rarely occurs to me)
posted by willnot at 2:05 PM on June 12, 2002


Most of the people pirating music on broadband aren't looking for some sort of compromise with the music industry
you are correct, after a fashion, tirade. at this point it doesn't matter what the riaa and the companies they represent price their products at. i'm not looking to compromise with them. i'm simply not buying their products.

and yet, i continue to plunk down $8-12 dollars per cd for bands that aren't part of the riaa. weird huh?
posted by lescour at 2:07 PM on June 12, 2002


Or - what Me3dia (and others) said. I was just so surprised to be called a liberal in this. If my friends could only see me now!

By the way tirade (and others) I think there is a market for people who would rather pay for the product than download it from "friends" - particularly since the major labels could work together and provide service levels that are considerably better than what the P-to-P networks I've experimented with can offer. It's just they have to come through with a format people want to buy at a price people are willing to pay.

I might even go for the monthly subscription route - guaranteed, predictable cash flow - if they did it right. So far none of the services I've looked at do it right as far as I'm concerned.
posted by willnot at 2:16 PM on June 12, 2002


Record companies will charge what the market will bear. If enough buyers stop buying, the record companies will adjust their prices accordingly.

The capitalist system produces more wealth than any other system out there. And one of the founding principals of capitalism is the respect for private property. Without private property, there is no capitalism. And without capitalism....there is Bulgaria or Rumania or some such dark and dreary place.

The CDs are the property of the reocrd companies. They can charge whatever they want. You can refuse to buy.
posted by mikegre at 2:22 PM on June 12, 2002


rhyax: it's generally accepted that the boxed cd is a better poduct than 192bit mp3

I agree that this is a common argument, but I don't see where it comes from. Do all you guys with racks and racks of jewel cases really take individual ones out and regularly admire the cover art or lovingly browse through the lyrics? They look cool and help sell the CD when it's sitting in the store, but other than that I don't see the point. For the most part cover art is just advertising and the track info and lyrics are usually available elsewhere. I threw all my old CD cases out after I had to move a few times too often. Just keep my CDs in one of those binder things now.

lescour: you are correct, after a fashion, tirade... and yet, i continue to plunk down $8-12 dollars per cd for bands that aren't part of the riaa. weird huh?

Not sure if you got what I was trying to say. Those of us with strong enough feelings on this issue to boycott RIAA labels and deliberately buy indy are vast minority. The thousands of college kids downloading the top 40 every week aren't keeping up with DMCA/CBDTPA debates breathlessly on slashdot and mailing their representatives. They're just getting music the easy way.

willnot: particularly since the major labels could work together and provide service levels that are considerably better than what the P-to-P networks I've experimented with can offer. It's just they have to come through with a format people want to buy at a price people are willing to pay.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. But like I said, it's not going to be easy. The price people are willing to pay is going to end up being pretty low and mostly unnoticeable, because the major labels are competing with free.
posted by tirade at 2:27 PM on June 12, 2002


And that seems to be what's happening mikegre. It's just that I and others in this thread, and quoted in the story, and quoted anytime this discussion comes up don't feel that the record companies have yet recognized how far out of whack they are with the market. Their sales have fallen considerably because they are out of whack. There is every reason to believe their sales will continue to fall.

Like I said, time will tell, but I think .50 is going to end up being the price. If the labels don't offer it then the artists are going to start going around the labels to offer it themselves. I'd actually rather see that happen, but in the mean time it would be nice if the labels woke up and looked at reality because I would like to start buying music again.
posted by willnot at 2:33 PM on June 12, 2002


Record companies will charge what the market will bear.

Or more. In 2000, 28 states sued the music companies for forcing discount music shops to raise CD prices.
[The Attorneys General] said the record companies in February 1995 conspired to force several large discount retailers to raise prices after the retailers bought CDs in such large volume that they could undercut the prevailing high retail prices.
“The purpose of the illegal agreements was to raise prices and reduce retail price competition which threatened the high and stable profit margins for CDs enjoyed by both the defendant labels and distributors and many music retailers,” the lawsuit said.
The deals initially drew vigorous protests from discount retailers but the chains eventually gave up because the financial penalty for not participating in the scheme was too costly, the lawsuit said.
As a result, CD prices stabilized and then rose, the lawsuit said.
I'm all for music companies making money, but it hasn't seemed to me like the music companies are all that interested in a free market for their goods.
posted by me3dia at 2:52 PM on June 12, 2002


Record companies will charge what the market will bear. If enough buyers stop buying, the record companies will adjust their prices accordingly.

Or they'll claim that the decline in sales is due to piracy (pdf link, read page 13), and push for legislation. This isn't the "free market" at work, because in this case, a free marked doesn't suit them.
posted by Eamon at 3:52 PM on June 12, 2002


Or they'll claim that the decline in sales is due to piracy (pdf link, read page 13), and push for legislation.

Exactly what I was going to say. Being the sort of person who has over 1200+ commercially produced cd's in his home, you'd think that I'm keeping the music industry somewhat happy - but you'd be wrong. I've only bought about 3 or 4 cd's this year. So, the music industry says, you're downloading the music and burning it yourself. Nope. Broadband is unavailable in my area except for cable (in order to get it I have to subscribe to cable tv, which I do not want) and satellite is just way too bloody expensive so I am saddled with a 56k line - downloading music would cut way into my other net usage so it isn't happening. That's okay though, because there really isn't anything out there that I'm all jacked up about owning. Radio deregulation has allowed record companies to homogenize music to the point where everything coming out sounds just like something I already own - so why fucking bother! I'm not buying cd's because there's nothing worth buying...period.

Oh yeah, I *do* have a few mp3 downloads on disc. Yeah, I'm sure they want to come after me for burning a copy of "Pearls" by The Buck Pets which is unavailable by any other method (the rare record guys wished me luck trying to find a copy of the album "Mercurotones" which the song is from.)
posted by RevGreg at 4:54 PM on June 12, 2002


CD's are now cheaper to make, cheaper to package, cheaper to warehouse and cheaper to ship than LP's ever were. Yet they still cost the consumer twice as much.

To be fair, they offer the consumer at least twice as much value as LPs did. Near-perfect sound on a medium that (with proper care) sounds as good the 1000th time you play it as the first? In a size you can easily carry around with you and even play in the car? No previous recording medium had offered anything like it.
posted by kindall at 5:09 PM on June 12, 2002


When it gets right down to it, people will use the option of getting their music for free. It's that simple.

There was an interesting article in the NY Times about David Bowie. There was the usual blah blah about the new album, but here's the important part:

His deal with Sony is a short-term one while he gets his label started and watches the Internet's effect on careers. "I don't even know why I would want to be on a label in a few years, because I don't think it's going to work by labels and by distribution systems in the same way," he said. "The absolute transformation of everything that we ever thought about music will take place within 10 years, and nothing is going to be able to stop it. I see absolutely no point in pretending that it's not going to happen. I'm fully confident that copyright, for instance, will no longer exist in 10 years, and authorship and intellectual property is in for such a bashing."

I don't know if he's being prophetic or not, but I do know that there will be a very large change, and very soon.
posted by ashbury at 6:25 PM on June 12, 2002


They look cool and help sell the CD when it's sitting in the store, but other than that I don't see the point.

yea, me either, but i hear it all the time, so i guess other people must hoard cover art like it's crack.
posted by rhyax at 6:40 PM on June 12, 2002


To be fair, they offer the consumer at least twice as much value as LPs did.

What you are syaing makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. By your logic, since I paid $1,200 for a 1.2Mhz computer in 1981, I should pay $1,200,000 for a 1.2Ghz in 2001 because it's 1000x faster. Do you think that's practical? How about double the price of 1981, that would be a bargain under that logic? The computer market grew by adding value and reducing price - the music industry would do well to emulate them. You also forgot to mention that CD's are also MUCH less expensive to produce and ship than vinyl, they take up less room allowing for more product to be displayed (important in high rent stores) and that the music companies made a bundle selling people music on CD they they already owned on other formats (music which required zero investment on their parts to produce and market because it was already paid for.) They did all of this while spending huge amounts of cash on perks and parties for record company execs as they continued to shaft the artists who create the music, who make very little on the sale of their hard work. Then, when presented a new medium through which they could distribute their products, instead of embracing it and profiting - they attempt to stifle this innovation because it spells doom for their old boy network of payoffs and favors. Well, screw 'em!

I have NO sympathy for bunch of pirahnas who are going hungry because people refuse to swim in their river anymore...
posted by RevGreg at 7:15 PM on June 12, 2002


the music companies made a bundle selling people music on CD they they already owned on other formats -RevGreg

You know, that is one really good point, isn't it? Now that kind of burns me up, now that I think about it. Granted, many of those were sold at $9.99 or less, but it's the principle.
posted by ashbury at 7:19 PM on June 12, 2002


sometimes its fun to watch a huge, once mighty fat Beast slowly die in a dramatic manner.

sometimes it's sad.

this is one of those times when it's wonderful.
posted by tsarfan at 7:24 PM on June 12, 2002


What you are syaing makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. By your logic, since I paid $1,200 for a 1.2Mhz computer in 1981, I should pay $1,200,000 for a 1.2Ghz in 2001 because it's 1000x faster.

Yes, indeed you should. That you do not is basically a miracle -- a phenomenally rare exception to the general rule.
posted by kindall at 7:46 PM on June 12, 2002


That you do not is basically a miracle -- a phenomenally rare exception to the general rule.

No, it is market-driven economics. In fact, your statement is a complete fallacy for the entire consumer electronics industry since the general rule in that market is that as goods improve they also tend to get cheaper. Radios, televisions, computers, cameras, audio equipment, etc. - there is always premium priced equipment on the cutting edge but the lower end is where improvement and decreased cost go hand in hand.
posted by RevGreg at 9:48 PM on June 12, 2002


Wasn't there a thread about this a year or so ago, and someone stated that this would actually hurt the smaller independent record labels tremendously, thus pushing the music industry monopoly closer to us?

It said that, basically, the indy labels (from which I buy most of my music) _have_ to charge that $15-18 to stay afloat....

Hmmmm...
posted by Espoo2 at 9:48 PM on June 12, 2002


sometimes its fun to watch a huge, once mighty fat Beast slowly die in a dramatic manner.
Watch out for those death throes.
posted by darukaru at 10:40 PM on June 12, 2002


Or you can just wait until the CD shows up in a used CD store and pay $8 or less for the original CD with liner notes and all.

I keep my CDs and liner notes in sleeves (I toss the jewel cases, but I do like to keep the cover art/lyrics, regardless of the fact that I look at them an average of zero to 1 times each....).

$9.99 doesn't seem like much of a bargain.
posted by Astucity at 12:06 AM on June 13, 2002


n general, if you receive twice the benefit from product A as you do from product B, you will expect and even often be willing to pay twice the cost. In fact, with luxury goods, people will generally assume that the higher-priced item is of higher quality.

Let's not derail this by comparing one year to the next. During technological revolutions prices do tend to plummet as products improve. However, once the technology is mature, you can expect this basic rule to reassert itself. When you buy a car, you do not expect a $10,000 Kia to be equal in performance or overall quality to a $40,000 Lexus. When you buy clothes, you do not expect the shirt you buy for $10 at Wal-Mart to be as nice as the one you pay $40 for at Eddie Bauer. People who have experienced technological revolution their entire lives may come to believe it is the natural order of things, but it is not. Revolution is an anomaly and it often causes miracles.

My point was and still is is, if most people were offered an LP or a cassette for $8 or a CD for $16, they would perceieve sufficient benefit in the CD to pay the premium. If this had not been true, CDs would never have essentially replaced both of these older formats. The CD brought a host of real benefits that consumers were willing to pay for. This continues to be true even today: while people would always be happy to pay less for their music, I doubt unit sales would double if prices were cut in half. For someone who buys only a handful of albums a year, as most buyers do, the difference between $8 and $16 every few months is marginal.

There is still no good substitute for the CD. Its benefits have resisted competition from MD and DCC. MP3 is making inroads among early adopters, but it'll be a long, long time before my mom is downloading MP3s instead of buying CDs.
posted by kindall at 12:09 AM on June 13, 2002


To be more specific, I would suggest that the price should not be more than $.10 a minute for songs at 192Kbps, but I also believe there should be proportional pricing for higher quality files as well. Downloads will be priced on a per minute or per MB rate over the net eventually. This still brings the price of a full CD to about $7.50.

I would also pay an additional $2.50 per album for artwork, lyrics and liner notes multimedia in reusable formats for print or screen presentation, screensavers, desktop and webpage themes. Yes, you too could create your own Sarah McLachlan Rarities + B-sides blog template!
posted by yonderboy at 5:20 AM on June 13, 2002


Kindall - ' For someone who buys only a handful of albums a year, as most buyers do, the difference between $8 and $16 every few months is marginal.'

i don't know how much of their business comes from people who spend <$100/year. maybe that part of the market is not as subject to pricing variations.
the people they are losing are those who buy a cd a week, or more. people who spent the lions share of their disposable income on music are the ones who are now downloading songs as well as buying music via the usual channels. but, not so much from the major labels, perhaps.

' If this had not been true, CDs would never have essentially replaced both of these older formats. The CD brought a host of real benefits that consumers were willing to pay for.'

CDs were marketed as a 'wonder medium' in the 80s, indestructable digital plastic. the companies who make cds also make hi-fi equipment, so they have a vested interest in pushing the new media. your cd may sound as good on the 1000th play as the first, if you bought one which did not degrade due to the glue used (as some of the early cds did) and you looked after it very carefully. cds get scratched, just like vinyl, only they are completely unlistenable when scratched, nudging the cd player does not move the reading heads along, unlike a record player.
whilst it is true that a digitally recorded artist may sound 'better' on a digital medium, do artists recorded on analogue equipment sound better? even after 're-mastering'? the jury is out on that one.
most people lack the quality of equipment to reproduce music to it's highest fidelity, so the 'digital sounds better' argument is moot.
the only benefit of cds that i can appreciate is their size. a quality wasted by packaging them in cumbersome protective plastic boxes. two audio tapes take up the same room as two cds.
the price charged for cds is a travesty of the 'free market'. the manufacturers charge what the market will bear, not what is best for the consumer. the control of the market by a consortium distorts pricing, making it very difficult for anyone to charge a reasonable amount for a cd. after all, they cost <$2 to produce, including sleeve and box, what an attractive mark-up.
on a purely aesthetic note, cds are too small to have decent cover art. a 12" record sleeve (gate-fold) has enough area to play with for a designer, but a 12cm cd sleeve is a postcard compared to vinyls' poster.
anyway, each to their own.
posted by asok at 6:16 AM on June 13, 2002


« Older Oooh, Martha's in trouble......  |  How about some Mark Leyner to ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments