Is There Big Trouble Brewing?

Good points Sean

I beg to differ Hueske. The information sources I utilized before posting this thread was totally devoid of any information provided by RIAA. Information sources such as Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Investors Business Daily, The World Economist, etc. probably do not have any vested interests in RIAA so I would suspect less of a bias/slant towards the industry.

I am sure that "newsgathering" by the aforementioned would contain some information from RIAA, but I would not be sure that the RIAA input would be all that they would use.

To the contrary, I noticed a "you made your bed, now lay in it" slant, if any.

But Sean, are you considering the quality and quantity of music then vs. today? I find that many albums from that era contained much higher quality material for the majority of the album. I find that today, its' the exact opposite.

For example, back in that period, musicians had a longevity. Bands were around for 10,15,20 years. It's seems today we have many more "one hit wonders", "overnight sensations" that last literally, overnight.

Sit and listen to Beatles/Abbey Road, Yes/Fragile, Elton John/Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, etc. One song after another, great music. That is what motivated me to buy more from that particular musician. I find today that the albums today consist of a lot of "filler" from musicians that never even make a second album.

I'm I that far off?

Sean, the synthesizer AND disco were the culprits back in the 80s.:-)

And by the way, you have good taste in music. I was born in 59. And I consider myself fortunate to have lived in a great era of music. It might just be my age catching up to me but, I feel that music was a much better value back in those days. As you said, I can pull albums out of my collection from the 60s-70s era and enjoy those albums from start to finish. I find it increasingly difficult to do the same with newer recordings.

I also remember buying new release albums for $3.00-$4.00 then, versus $15.00-$18.00 today. Boy, now I'm REALLY sounding old.

Let's see; then, $4.00/ 12 good songs, now, $18.00/ 3 good songs. And should I buy regular LP or 180 gram LP, redbook CD, HDCD or SACD, DVD-A or SADVD. I don't know. Now I'm so confused, I think I'll just illegally download it from the web.

It's not really that important anyway, they are all the same album I've been listening to for the last 20 years. In fact, if I look hard enough, I might even be able to find it on 8 track.

Unclejeff, Isn't it ironic that "the kids" who always funded the music recording industry are downloading their own music off the web? What goes around, comes around.

T bone, I have to agree with you fully from a numbers aspect. My problem is with quality. If there was some form of relativity between price and quality, I would not have as much of a problem.

Example; (using your terms) In 1970, a Porsche 911 was approx. $6000.00. In 2003, a Porsche 911 is approx. $70,000. But, you are still buying the quality of a Porsche.

It would be very hard for someone to convince me that CDs cost as much to produce as an LP. If you consider just the packaging that was provided with an LP of that era, (album covers, sleeves, artwork, lyrics, posters, etc.) versus what is being provided today in the average CD. Let's not even discuss the quality of the musical content.

Several weeks ago I purchased several XRCDs. Beautiful packaging, excellent sound, overall a very nice quality product. This indicates to me that the music industry is completely capable of producing such a product. The cost? $30.00 each.

Personally, I have a hard time understanding how a product of this quality can justify it's cost. Does it really cost that much more to produce an XRCD with all of it's packaging versus the average redbook CD? And the real clincher is that the XRCDs that I purchased were all recordings from the 50s-60s-70s era. Is this indicative of the fact that maybe even the record companies feel that much of the newer musical material is not worthy of "special treatment"?

Let us also consider the newer formats such as SACD or DVD-A. How often do you see new musical material being used for these newer formats? Why wouldn't the industry try to promote their new formats using new musical material. I mean how many times are you going to purchase "rereleases" of Pink Floyd's Dark side of the moon?

With all do respect T bone, I really have a hard time understanding this.

Seandtaylor, In regards to closing this thread...Sit by your keyboard, I have this sinking feeling that this thread hasn't even started yet.

Also, opinions such as everyone has provided, are what help to make threads like this "great". Feel free to jump in as this thread progresses. I feel your opinions are very much respected by many of us. Ed.

Ozfly, I ditto the first 2 paragraphs of your last statement. And I mean, to the letter. I really don't want you to all think that I feel the only good music was from years ago. That's just not the case.

As a matter of fact, if I was to look back over the last 100 music purchases that I have made, I would bet that at least 80 were releases post 1995. And probably 25 or 30 were releases from the last 2 year period. There is some wonderful and innovative new music and musicians out there.

My tastes are diverse. I listen to a lot of different styles of music. So that adds to the joy of making new music purchases and experiencing new musical presentations.

So why do I always feel so "victimized".

Example; My very last music purchase was a 2003 release, Peter Cincotti on CD. Absolutely phenomenal musician. Pristine recording with incredible sonics. Overall fantastic performance.... Borders, $17.99. Come on... Give me a break. Is that cost because of the extensive amount of promotion provided for this talented new musician?

Have any of you even heard of Peter Cincotti?