Streaming v Physical release: Don't hold your breath for Chems Singles 2004- ??

[Wolkenkrabber]

Yeah, it's a cheeky thread title. The article below doesn't mention the Chems at all. But it does address Greatest Hits releases and physical releases of albums.
Perhaps if you're 15 you don't care, but following on from discussion of double albums, and the concept of touring/promoting an album, this article seemed worth a mention:

In the UK, 2017 was the year in which streaming rose to account for more than half of music consumption - 50.4%, to be exact - up from just 36.4% the year before.

For the time being, ...[it's] more worthwhile to put out physical CDs in France that wouldn't make it to the release schedule in the UK.

Is the greatest hits album dead?

[inchemwetrust]

I think the idea of chems singles 2004 - present would make some sense down the road if only a guaranteed profit would be made (especially for universal)

since vinyl is still roaring in sales, might be a good time for the chems to consider it.

[Bosco]

Here in the USA we have a "big box" electronic chain store called, 'Best Buy'. Outside of the few remaining "Mom and Pop" record stores, this is the final frontier in terms of major players in physical CD sales (not including online sales). 'Best Buy' is now removing CD's from their chain stores later this year.

I do think there is a future market for physical sales, but it's strictly limited through a collectors market.

[Enjoyed]

I do think there is a future market for physical sales, but it's strictly limited through a collectors market.

Agreed. But I think even that is at risk of collapsing if the price isn't kept appropriate.
I'm still a big fan of physical releases. There are certain bands I will always buy a CD from no matter the cost. But for bands I'm not completely sycophantic for, I'm finding things too expensive a lot of the time. I do a reasonable amount of record shopping in Portland, we have some decent used record stores, but when I'm looking for an album that's been out for years and I can't find it for less than $8, I'm not going to be handing over my cash. Some albums I see at the same 'as-if-it-just-came-out' price for way too long - even when they're used. And I can't help but think it would be better for everyone involved if they just lowered the price.

[inchemwetrust]

Agreed. But I think even that is at risk of collapsing if the price isn't kept appropriate.
I'm still a big fan of physical releases.

same here! been buying alot more cause prices are falling online in the last 2 months. I have a few local record stores near me that are a few bucks higher than regular prices, but I prefer any new releases under 20 bucks a sweet spot for me. if music companies can do this and stop putting out the gimmicky 25 to 30 dollar, 180 gram reissues of fleetwood mac, im ok!

check /r/VinylDeals for good prices

[neorev]

This topic is something that I am passionate about. Not only as a music lover but also as a music maker. I absolutely hate streaming, especially when it comes to music I know and love. Yeah, it's nice to use streaminf when you're juat looking around trying to find something new. But when I find it, I want the actual WAV/FLAC files or a CD. I'm sorry, but I hate MP3 and lossy compression, so sites like Spotify and Apple Music don't help. I have Spotify set to extreme quality and it still sounds crap. Plus I want to actually have the music, not pay for access to it.

But hey, people want to stream... fine. But you certainly are not supporting the artists you love with streaming. So folks gotta stop pretending paying a measly $10 per month is showing support. Buy a digital album, a physical release, a shirt, or a ticket to a show. That's how you support artists you love.

CDs are cheap as f--k to press. I've done full on replication presses. The more CDs pressed, the cheaper per CD it is. A 1000 CD pro glass master pressing with digipack and artwork ends up being around $1.25 per CD to press. These labels are pressing CDs in much larger amounts, so even cheaper per CD. The place I use to press even have repeat customer discounts and discounts on represses when you need more ofan already pressed release with them.

I still buy A LOT of music, especially digital music. I love the French-based digital music store Qobuz.com (they sell 16 and 24 bit). They're the closest music store to Bandcamp. I find the idea of charging different prices from MP3 to FLAC ridiculous. I even seen price difference between FLAC and WAV. All digital music should be the same price no matter what the format or quality is. Sadly Qobuz does charge slightly higher prices for 24 bit, but it's still not ridiculous prices like some of these other digital stores (cough HDTracks cough ProStudioMaster). Even Beatport price gouge those who want to buy releases in simple WAV.

Qobuz, like Bandcamp, you pay for a release and lets you download in the format of your choice and they save your entire catalog to access whenever you want to download or stream. Qobuz also has their own streaming service called Sublime that has lossy and lossless streaming plus a special annual pricing deal that also lets you buy 24 bit releases at MP3 prices and you can stream those purchases in 24 bit. It's 2018. It's digital music. It should all be the same price. Hell, you are creating more work to compress a file from its original 24 bit WAV. Even iTunes demands 24 bit files, but refuses to sell lossless music.

I also find pricing a bit outrageous. Personally I don't believe any standard digital album should be more than $10 no matter the format/quality. $10 for an album, $5 for an EP, $1.50 for a single. Done.

I gotta give Neil Young props for speaking out about this topic. I never used Pono, but this kind of record label bulls--t hurts the artist in the end and purposely holds back audio quality from progressing.

"The record labels killed it. They killed it by insisting on charging two to three times as much for the high-res files as for MP3s. Why would anybody pay three times as much? It's my feeling that all music should cost the same. The [high-resolution] file doesn't cost any more to transfer. And today with streaming, you don't have the problem [of unauthorized file sharing]. Who wants to copy something if you can stream it? The record companies, by charging three times as much for hi-res music as they charge for regular music, they've killed hi-res music. It's the dumbest thing I've ever seen."

http://www.nme.com/news/music/neil-young-record-labels-killed-pono-2243030

For me, I purchase music in lossless (WAV/FLAC) and 24 bit whenever available. I still buy CDs from the artists I love. If I can't find something in lossless, I go and buy a CD copy with the track. I recently bought a couple of singles on Discogs because I wanted a specific track that I couldn't find anywhere to buy digitally or it was only available in MP3. I have a 4TB external HD filled with music, not even my own music (that's on other externals).

[sandelic]

Lossless is only way for me, too
on better sound systems mp3s sound like crap, excuse my Klatchian 

[neorev]

Meanwhile real artists are making shit...

http://www.nme.com/news/music/playlist-maker-scam-nearly-1-million-spotify-2246568