Steve Albini on Piracy

[wormcode]

@exfox Pretty Lights is probably one of the best examples of what you mean. I'm not into the tunes I heard, but it seems they are all free. He seems to have more bootlegs than originals though from what I saw, that might be why. But doing that has gotten him pretty successful with live stuff which I suppose is what he wanted to do.

[scspkr99]

I really don't see the point of having 'lossless' music with ipod earbuds, sorry. Or even with decent headphones tbh. I buy wav files mostly, but I convert to 320 for mp3 player. Not sure why you don't want to choose new music to put on there, I get sent new mixes and tracks every couple of days so I'm constantly changing stuff out anyway.

I guess we just listen to or watch different artists because I see an LP every 1 or 2 years or so from the ones I follow, maybe a couple of EPs a year. 15-20 for vinyl is pretty standard, but even with digital I would rather pay more than .50/.99 because the actual artist will see a bigger return quicker. As I mentioned I usually buy wavs anyway which are usually around 2 or so per tune.

You're making assumptions as to how people use stuff though, not that it matters but I use an aftermarket DAC and decent headphones, not that there will be a massive difference between lossless and 320's but I don't particularly want multiple versions of the same track inb my library.

I get your idea that lower costs have devalued the music but it's counter intuitive that people download more because stuff is cheaper, people who will download because they're skint are going to do so if the tracks more expensive. When you're paying $2 a tune for wav's the artist sees no more than he does when you buy lossy it's not related to what the label receives it's the storage and bandwidth for the host. If you're paying that much more for wav's shop better.

[Alty]

This is a reason why I'm a fan of subscriptions for files rather than buying them. That way you're paying more for a service rather than the actual 'things'.

[fractal]

@exfox Pretty Lights is probably one of the best examples of what you mean. I'm not into the tunes I heard, but it seems they are all free. He seems to have more bootlegs than originals though from what I saw, that might be why. But doing that has gotten him pretty successful with live stuff which I suppose is what he wanted to do.

the weekend is a pretty good example of shared music gone well. he gave away 3 albums last year and is selling out live shows no problem

[wormcode]

I get your idea that lower costs have devalued the music but it's counter intuitive that people download more because stuff is cheaper, people who will download because they're skint are going to do so if the tracks more expensive. When you're paying $2 a tune for wav's the artist sees no more than he does when you buy lossy it's not related to what the label receives it's the storage and bandwidth for the host. If you're paying that much more for wav's shop better.

It will vary from contract to contract, but for example if a label invests 1 grand in a digital release counting mastering, some promo, artwork etc., the artist usually won't see any money until the label makes that grand back at least. The stores they sell on also take a cut, sometimes a large one. Beatport was taking 50% last I heard from a few people. Gonna take a long time if they are that cheap. I just bought a few WAVs from Juno a week or so ago, and they were £1.75/$2.75 each, MP3 was about half. I only checked Bleep to compare, but they weren't much cheaper. Transistor Rhythm was the last album I bought, it was £12/$19 for WAV and like 1 less for the actual physical CD (plus shipping) which I opted for but had to wait for shipping. The 3xLP was 10 more btw, but I don't have my decks atm. That seems okay to me really.

[scspkr99]

I use boomkat pretty much exclusively and flac comes in at about £9 but yeah that all seems reasonable. I want the artists paid as well I'm just not sure how comfortable I am with the relatively cheap cost devaluing music argument.

Revenue streams have to adapt, and while it sucks that they have to adapt to piracy failing to do so is akin to telling the tides to turn.

[wormcode]

I'm just not sure how comfortable I am with the relatively cheap cost devaluing music argument.

It's just my opinion, doesn't mean it's absolutely true. From what I have encountered with people though, that's the impression I get. To music lovers, it will always be extremely valuable, but to average people who just listen to radio or whatever (and aren't discussing nerdy music aspects on music forums lol)... not so much. A few people I know are still shocked I buy music at all! They tell me about torrents, spotify, youtube etc...

[nowaysj]

How bout illegally downloading the tracks/album, and then writing a check to the artist? You've transferred the cost of hosting/distribution/bandwidth to the illegal fire sharers, and the artist gets paid entirely/immediately.

Just joking around.

[wolf89]

How bout illegally downloading the tracks/album, and then writing a check to the artist? You've transferred the cost of hosting/distribution/bandwidth to the illegal fire sharers, and the artist gets paid entirely/immediately.

Just joking around.

Putting the label out of business meaning that the music doesn't get the exposureit does from being associated with a label and and you don't have a label to follow.

[garethom]

A few people I know are still shocked I buy music at all! They tell me about torrents, spotify, youtube etc...

This is MOST people for me haha. Even more shocked when I tell them I buy vinyl too.

Was having a conversation at work about DJing with a guy I ended up selling my old decks to, he asked me why I DJ with vinyl

Me: I just prefer to be able to touch something, but I might get something like Serato in the future
Guy1: Fair enough, because there must be releases out there that don't have vinyl releases?
Me: Yeah, I've got a couple cut to dubplate or one-off vinyl?
Guy2 (Cutting In Like The Knobhole He Is. HE DON'T KNOW NOTHIN' 'BOUT NOTHIN'): WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?
Me: Because I just like vinyl.
Guy2: BUT WHAT'S THE POINT? YOU CAN JUST TORRENT IT.
Me: (Turn around, continue with work).

[nowaysj]

How bout illegally downloading the tracks/album, and then writing a check to the artist? You've transferred the cost of hosting/distribution/bandwidth to the illegal fire sharers, and the artist gets paid entirely/immediately.

Just joking around.

Putting the label out of business meaning that the music doesn't get the exposureit does from being associated with a label and and you don't have a label to follow.

Then release vinyl then.

Still joking.

[Soulstep]

I personally feel that the majority of people will pay for good music. To use an example, Adele's album has sold more then Thriller, which has been out for 30 years. While I know it is easier to buy music online etc now, it still shows that people will pay for music they enjoy.

The main issue I feel is that we are bombarded with lots of music which has no longevity and people feel that they shouldn't bother paying for something they only will listen to a handful of times.

Adele sold more albums than MJ in the uk only
Thriller is still the best selling album of all time (worldwide).

"Ke$ha's Tik-Tok has sold more copies than any Beatles single"

[alphacat]

I think what many heads (on both sides of this debate) kind of fail to see is that the horse is out of the stall, so to speak: we can't roll things back to the way things used to be; all attempts to reconcile the reality of the situation (whose wild card is technology and its profusion) with current popular economic models are either doomed to fail or kinda moot, because... the whole thing is undergoing massive flux. Not just the music, but the economics, the tech, everything. Interestingly enough, this particular combination of future indicators have co-manifested in world-shaping ways before, like the co-development of jazz, radio, and the whole concept of rights management as regarded reproductions - which never applied to musicians before and raised all kinds of philosophical issues that are still playing themselves out to this day in the form of the sampling debate, etc.

In the end, the people who love music and are compelled to make music no matter what will continue to do so. The money is nice, but it comes second [to me.]

Albini's right in my book.

I also think everybody who hasn't already done so should read this - which is a few decades old but still relevant in terms of underlying mentality of many labels, esp. majors:

The Problem With Music

by Steve Albini

Whenever I talk to a band who are about to sign with a major label, I always end up thinking of them in a particular context. I imagine a trench, about four feet wide and five feet deep, maybe sixty yards long, filled with runny, decaying shit. I imagine these people, some of them good friends, some of them barely acquaintances, at one end of this trench. I also imagine a faceless industry lackey at the other end holding a fountain pen and a contract waiting to be signed. Nobody can see what’s printed on the contract. It’s too far away, and besides, the shit stench is making everybody’s eyes water. The lackey shouts to everybody that the first one to swim the trench gets to sign the contract. Everybody dives in the trench and they struggle furiously to get to the other end. Two people arrive simultaneously and begin wrestling furiously, clawing each other and dunking each other under the shit. Eventually, one of them capitulates, and there’s only one contestant left. He reaches for the pen, but the Lackey says “Actually, I think you need a little more development. Swim again, please. Backstroke”. And he does of course.

Every major label involved in the hunt for new bands now has on staff a high-profile point man, an “A & R” rep who can present a comfortable face to any prospective band. The initials stand for “Artist and Repertoire.” because historically, the A & R staff would select artists to record music that they had also selected, out of an available pool of each. This is still the case, though not openly. These guys are universally young [about the same age as the bands being wooed], and nowadays they always have some obvious underground rock credibility flag they can wave.

Lyle Preslar, former guitarist for Minor Threat, is one of them. Terry Tolkin, former NY independent booking agent and assistant manager at Touch and Go is one of them. Al Smith, former soundman at CBGB is one of them. Mike Gitter, former editor of XXX fanzine and contributor to Rip, Kerrang and other lowbrow rags is one of them. Many of the annoying turds who used to staff college radio stations are in their ranks as well. There are several reasons A & R scouts are always young. The explanation usually copped-to is that the scout will be “hip to the current musical “scene.” A more important reason is that the bands will intuitively trust someone they think is a peer, and who speaks fondly of the same formative rock and roll experiences. The A & R person is the first person to make contact with the band, and as such is the first person to promise them the moon. Who better to promise them the moon than an idealistic young turk who expects to be calling the shots in a few years, and who has had no previous experience with a big record company. Hell, he’s as naive as the band he’s duping. When he tells them no one will interfere in their creative process, he probably even believes it. When he sits down with the band for the first time, over a plate of angel hair pasta, he can tell them with all sincerity that when they sign with company X, they’re really signing with him and he’s on their side. Remember that great gig I saw you at in ’85? Didn’t we have a blast. By now all rock bands are wise enough to be suspicious of music industry scum. There is a pervasive caricature in popular culture of a portly, middle aged ex-hipster talking a mile-a-minute, using outdated jargon and calling everybody “baby.” After meeting “their” A & R guy, the band will say to themselves and everyone else, “He’s not like a record company guy at all! He’s like one of us.” And they will be right. That’s one of the reasons he was hired.

These A & R guys are not allowed to write contracts. What they do is present the band with a letter of intent, or “deal memo,” which loosely states some terms, and affirms that the band will sign with the label once a contract has been agreed on. The spookiest thing about this harmless sounding little memo, is that it is, for all legal purposes, a binding document. That is, once the band signs it, they are under obligation to conclude a deal with the label. If the label presents them with a contract that the band don’t want to sign, all the label has to do is wait. There are a hundred other bands willing to sign the exact same contract, so the label is in a position of strength. These letters never have any terms of expiration, so the band remain bound by the deal memo until a contract is signed, no matter how long that takes. The band cannot sign to another laborer or even put out its own material unless they are released from their agreement, which never happens. Make no mistake about it: once a band has signed a letter of intent, they will either eventually sign a contract that suits the label or they will be destroyed.

One of my favorite bands was held hostage for the better part of two years by a slick young “He’s not like a label guy at all,” A & R rep, on the basis of such a deal memo. He had failed to come through on any of his promises [something he did with similar effect to another well-known band], and so the band wanted out. Another label expressed interest, but when the A & R man was asked to release the band, he said he would need money or points, or possibly both, before he would consider it. The new label was afraid the price would be too dear, and they said no thanks. On the cusp of making their signature album, an excellent band, humiliated, broke up from the stress and the many months of inactivity. There’s this band. They’re pretty ordinary, but they’re also pretty good, so they’ve attracted some attention. They’re signed to a moderate-sized “independent” label owned by a distribution company, and they have another two albums owed to the label. They’re a little ambitious. They’d like to get signed by a major label so they can have some security you know, get some good equipment, tour in a proper tour bus — nothing fancy, just a little reward for all the hard work. To that end, they got a manager. He knows some of the label guys, and he can shop their next project to all the right people. He takes his cut, sure, but it’s only 15%, and if he can get them signed then it’s money well spent. Anyways, it doesn’t cost them anything if it doesn’t work. 15% of nothing isn’t much! One day an A & R scout calls them, says he’s ‘been following them for a while now, and when their manager mentioned them to him, it just “clicked.” Would they like to meet with him about the possibility of working out a deal with his label? Wow. Big Break time. They meet the guy, and y’know what — he’s not what they expected from a label guy. He’s young and dresses pretty much like the band does. He knows all their favorite bands. He’s like one of them. He tells them he wants to go to bat for them, to try to get them everything they want. He says anything is possible with the right attitude.

They conclude the evening by taking home a copy of a deal memo they wrote out and signed on the spot. The A & R guy was full of great ideas, even talked about using a name producer. Butch Vig is out of the question-he wants 100 g’s and three points, but they can get Don Fleming for $30,000 plus three points. Even that’s a little steep, so maybe they’ll go with that guy who used to be in David Letterman’s band. He only wants three points. Or they can have just anybody record it (like Warton Tiers, maybe– cost you 5 or 7 grand] and have Andy Wallace remix it for 4 grand a track plus 2 points. It was a lot to think about. Well, they like this guy and they trust him. Besides, they already signed the deal memo. He must have been serious about wanting them to sign. They break the news to their current label, and the label manager says he wants them to succeed, so they have his blessing. He will need to be compensated, of course, for the remaining albums left on their contract, but he’ll work it out with the label himself.

Sub Pop made millions from selling off Nirvana, and Twin Tone hasn’t done bad either: 50 grand for the Babes and 60 grand for the Poster Children– without having to sell a single additional record. It’ll be something modest. The new label doesn’t mind, so long as it’s recoupable out of royalties. Well, they get the final contract, and it’s not quite what they expected. They figure it’s better to be safe than sorry and they turn it over to a lawyer–one who says he’s experienced in entertainment law and he hammers out a few bugs. They’re still not sure about it, but the lawyer says he’s seen a lot of contracts, and theirs is pretty good. They’ll be great royalty: 13% [less a 1O% packaging deduction]. Wasn’t it Buffalo Tom that were only getting 12% less 10? Whatever. The old label only wants 50 grand, an no points. Hell, Sub Pop got 3 points when they let Nirvana go. They’re signed for four years, with options on each year, for a total of over a million dollars! That’s a lot of money in any man’s English. The first year’s advance alone is $250,000. Just think about it, a quarter million, just for being in a rock band! Their manager thinks it’s a great deal, especially the large advance. Besides, he knows a publishing company that will take the band on if they get signed, and even give them an advance of 20 grand, so they’ll be making that money too. The manager says publishing is pretty mysterious, and nobody really knows where all the money comes from, but the lawyer can look that contract over too. Hell, it’s free money. Their booking agent is excited about the band signing to a major. He says they can maybe average $1,000 or $2,000 a night from now on. That’s enough to justify a five week tour, and with tour support, they can use a proper crew, buy some good equipment and even get a tour bus! Buses are pretty expensive, but if you figure in the price of a hotel room for everybody In the band and crew, they’re actually about the same cost. Some bands like Therapy? and Sloan and Stereolab use buses on their tours even when they’re getting paid only a couple hundred bucks a night, and this tour should earn at least a grand or two every night. It’ll be worth it. The band will be more comfortable and will play better.

The agent says a band on a major label can get a merchandising company to pay them an advance on T-shirt sales! ridiculous! There’s a gold mine here! The lawyer Should look over the merchandising contract, just to be safe. They get drunk at the signing party. Polaroids are taken and everybody looks thrilled. The label picked them up in a limo. They decided to go with the producer who used to be in Letterman’s band. He had these technicians come in and tune the drums for them and tweak their amps and guitars. He had a guy bring in a slew of expensive old “vintage” microphones. Boy, were they “warm.” He even had a guy come in and check the phase of all the equipment in the control room! Boy, was he professional. He used a bunch of equipment on them and by the end of it, they all agreed that it sounded very “punchy,” yet “warm.” All that hard work paid off. With the help of a video, the album went like hotcakes! They sold a quarter million copies! Here is the math that will explain just how fucked they are: These figures are representative of amounts that appear in record contracts daily. There’s no need to skew the figures to make the scenario look bad, since real-life examples more than abound. income is bold and underlined, expenses are not.

Advance: $ 250,000

Manager’s cut:

$ 37,500

Legal fees:

$ 10,000

Recording Budget:

$ 150,000

Producer’s advance:

$ 50,000

Studio fee:

$ 52,500
Drum Amp, Mic and Phase “Doctors”:
$ 3,000

Recording tape:

$ 8,000

Equipment rental:

$ 5,000

Cartage and Transportation:

$ 5,000

Lodgings while in studio:

$ 10,000

Catering:

$ 3,000

Mastering:

$ 10,000

Tape copies, reference CDs, shipping
tapes, misc. expenses:

$ 2,000

Video budget:

$ 30,000

Cameras:

$ 8,000

Crew:

$ 5,000

Processing and transfers:

$ 3,000

Off-line:

$ 2,000

On-line editing:

$ 3,000

Catering:

$ 1,000

Stage and construction:

$ 3,000

Copies, couriers, transportation:

$ 2,000

Director’s fee:

$ 3,000

Album Artwork:

$ 5,000

Promotional photo shoot and duplication:

$ 2,000

Band fund:

$ 15,000

New fancy professional drum kit:

$ 5,000

New fancy professional guitars [2]:

$ 3,000

New fancy professional guitar amp rigs [2]:

$ 4,000

New fancy potato-shaped bass guitar:

$ 1,000

New fancy rack of lights bass amp:

$ 1,000

Rehearsal space rental:

$ 500

Big blowout party for their friends:

$ 500

Tour expense [5 weeks]:

$ 50,875

Bus:

$ 25,000

Crew [3]:

$ 7,500

Food and per diems:

$ 7,875

Fuel:

$ 3,000

Consumable supplies:

$ 3,500

Wardrobe:

$ 1,000

Promotion:

$ 3,000
Tour gross income: $ 50,000

Agent’s cut:

$ 7,500

Manager’s cut:

$ 7,500
Merchandising advance: $ 20,000

Manager’s cut:

$ 3,000

Lawyer’s fee:

$ 1,000
Publishing advance: $ 20,000

Manager’s cut:

$ 3,000

Lawyer’s fee:

$ 1,000

Record sales:

250,000 @ $12 =
$3,000,000

Gross retail revenue Royalty:

[13% of 90% of retail]:
$ 351,000

Less advance:

$ 250,000

Producer’s points:

[3% less $50,000 advance]:
$ 40,000

Promotional budget:

$ 25,000

Recoupable buyout from previous label:

$ 50,000

Net royalty: $ -14,000
Record company income:


Record wholesale price:

$6.50 x 250,000 =
$1,625,000 gross income

Artist Royalties:

$ 351,000

Deficit from royalties:

$ 14,000

Manufacturing, packaging and distribution:

@ $2.20 per record: $ 550,000

Gross profit:

$ 710,000

The Balance Sheet: This is how much each player got paid at the end of the game.


Record company:

$ 710,000

Producer:

$ 90,000

Manager:

$ 51,000

Studio:

$ 52,500

Previous label:

$ 50,000

Agent:

$ 7,500

Lawyer:

$ 12,000

Band member net income each:
$ 4,031.25


The band is now 1/4 of the way through its contract, has made the music industry more than 3 million dollars richer, but is in the hole $14,000 on royalties. The band members have each earned about 1/3 as much as they would working at a 7-11, but they got to ride in a tour bus for a month. The next album will be about the same, except that the record company will insist they spend more time and money on it. Since the previous one never “recouped,” the band will have no leverage, and will oblige. The next tour will be about the same, except the merchandising advance will have already been paid, and the band, strangely enough, won’t have earned any royalties from their T-shirts yet. Maybe the T-shirt guys have figured out how to count money like record company guys. Some of your friends are probably already this fucked.

Steve Albini is an independent and corporate rock record producer most widely known for having produced Nirvana’s “In Utero”.

[kay]

I think it all boils down to the devalueing and loss of what "money" actually means. "Money" was originally developed as a portable medium of exchange for what is perceived as equivalent values of goods/effort. When this inherent meaning is lost, or the value associated with a particular good/effort is diluted to the point of pointlessness, then "piracy" of the kind alluded to in this thread grows.

Simply put, digital pirates by and large do not associate the human labour/effort/creativity involved in creating a piece of non-tangible set of digital media with real world values. I think that this is an inherent difficulty that humans have with linking the tangible to the intangible.

[scspkr99]

I think it all boils down to the devalueing and loss of what "money" actually means. "Money" was originally developed as a portable medium of exchange for what is perceived as equivalent values of goods/effort. When this inherent meaning is lost, or the value associated with a particular good/effort is diluted to the point of pointlessness, then "piracy" of the kind alluded to in this thread grows.

Simply put, digital pirates by and large do not associate the human labour/effort/creativity involved in creating a piece of non-tangible set of digital media with real world values. I think that this is an inherent difficulty that humans have with linking the tangible to the intangible.

I think there's a lot in this and I think people have blinkers on when it comes to digital goods.

People have stated that they wont pay for digital but they will pay for CD's obviously ignorant of the fact that is paying for digital. The paper plastic and disk are worth pennies yet there are people that will not pay for a download but will pay for this because there peripheral stuff gives the items some tangibility. Ironically I'm guessing that those who take this line rip the CD anyway.

[Today]

i did link to some better scientific studies earlier in the thread.

i agree that whether piracy has increased or decreased sales is not the only issue.

but it is one issue. i'm not clear what your position is on that issue. earlier, you seemed to be saying that piracy obviously decreased sales, studies that suggested otherwise were flawed, but that there was no need for you to produce studies supporting your view, because it was obvious. now you seem to be saying that it doesn't matter. or that it's offensive even to discuss the idea that piracy might not have decreased sales.

i actually pretty much do think it is offensive to suggest piracy didn't hurt sales. it is blatantly obvious. The studies are probably just becoming old enough and thorough enough to settle on a correlation. But it's just the way it is.. it's everywhere. What can you really expect? I think if you're gonna say it didn't hurt sales you're ignoring the entire world; you're disillusioned. the amount of young kids just DLing unauthorized dupes is staggering. The effects will eventually be recorded and will be inarguable at that point.

[wolf89]

I think it all boils down to the devalueing and loss of what "money" actually means. "Money" was originally developed as a portable medium of exchange for what is perceived as equivalent values of goods/effort. When this inherent meaning is lost, or the value associated with a particular good/effort is diluted to the point of pointlessness, then "piracy" of the kind alluded to in this thread grows.

Simply put, digital pirates by and large do not associate the human labour/effort/creativity involved in creating a piece of non-tangible set of digital media with real world values. I think that this is an inherent difficulty that humans have with linking the tangible to the intangible.

I think there's a lot in this and I think people have blinkers on when it comes to digital goods.

People have stated that they wont pay for digital but they will pay for CD's obviously ignorant of the fact that is paying for digital. The paper plastic and disk are worth pennies yet there are people that will not pay for a download but will pay for this because there peripheral stuff gives the items some tangibility. Ironically I'm guessing that those who take this line rip the CD anyway.

The difference is is that you get a physical item with a visual element to it that can be taken out an played on your cd player when you see it sat up on the shelf. I've still got all the cds I've ever bought and I still will spot one pull it out and listen to it. Also to have the artwork and a proffesionally put together package will always give it more of a presence to you.

Shit that I downloaded sits on my hard drive and doesn't get noticed or played so much after a while in comparison. This is even taking into acount the fact that these are bought downloads that I care about enough in the first place. A pirated mp3 holds no particular value. It was good enough to get for free but may not have been good enough to buy. Leading to the file being worthless to the listener and probably completely forgotten about. Physical presence combined with the actual concious effort to get music will lead to it being valued and remembered a longer time.

If it is forgotten about you can always spot it in your collection and remember why you bought it.

[scspkr99]

And this is the nuts thing, the stuff that makes the physical item is worth pennies it's a bit of paper and plastic with a cd you can buy hundreds of for a couple of quid. Why does looking at artwork on a piece of paper be more valuable than looking at the same artwork on a computer screen? You probably spend more time looking at it on the screen as most people put the case away when the CD's on.

You are buying the music not the wrapping

Given disk technology is improving with cheaper SSD drives it's possible to get a better quality from a computer playback than it is from a lot of CD players unless you want to spend hundreds+, it's easier to find stuff on your computer and it won't degrade, if you want the CD then fine but the stuff that differentiates it from it's digitally downloaded cousin is almost worthless

[nowaysj]

You are buying the music not the wrapping

It is like synthetic to separate them. Like boomkat or juno is a part of the mp3 experience, the cd case is part of the cd experience. And the smell of vinyl and the cardboard, and the arm of the turntable, and the spinning, haha, is all part of the vinyl experience. To say music is just a disembodied concept is inaccurate at this time. Maybe when we've been uploaded to the central core, it'll be just pure 1's on 0's, but so long as you are in your body, you will be having a physical experience with your music whether it be digital download, or fragrant vinyl.

[scspkr99]

It is like synthetic to separate them. Like boomkat or juno is a part of the mp3 experience, the cd case is part of the cd experience. And the smell of vinyl and the cardboard, and the arm of the turntable, and the spinning, haha, is all part of the vinyl experience. To say music is just a disembodied concept is inaccurate at this time. Maybe when we've been uploaded to the central core, it'll be just pure 1's on 0's, but so long as you are in your body, you will be having a physical experience with your music whether it be digital download, or fragrant vinyl.

see I get this with vinyl more I think it's much better to touch and includes a different listening experience. but CD's an mp3's are often played from the same devices and the CD itself doesn't have any specific material worth.

I flip flop a bit on this and I go through periods where I'm more likely to purchase a CD than I am a download because of the wrapping and those that have a booklet or w/e definitely adds value but it doesn't impact my relationship with the actual sound