Baby It's Me: the New Release

[soulster]

Soulster, if this is referring to the comments by Henry Rollins, I think his point was more digital vs. analog than listening to digital on a hand held device. According to Rollings, any digital recording simply can't keep up with an analog one.

An, I dig Rollins because he's an audiophile and I like his music and all, but, it's his opinion.

[TomBairdFan]

Ditto again: #NoCD=NoSale

[soulster]

Ditto again: #NoCD=NoSale

As if posts like this will change their minds...

[skooldem1]

I listened to the radio show the other day. Andy and George wanted to get this out to the fans. This was the only option. Either make it a digital download, or nothing. For those fans that want to hear the music and don't care about holding anything in their hands , they will be satisfied.

[calvin]

Didn't someone mention the possibility that Universal may allow another company to print up some physical cds?

Some time ago the self-titled "Mandre" album was released as a download only in the US. I was waiting to buy this as a lossless download on Qobuz but it never appeared - and when I last checked, it wasn't even available as a lossy download on any of the major sites in the UK [[including the UK iTunes). Now it's coming out as a cd.

http://www.amazon.com/Mandre/dp/B00O...6499121&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mandr%C3%A9/...6499140&sr=1-1

Ok, I suppose no one has much interest in Mandre [[I started a thread about this release, but there was not a single response). But I think this is interesting in the sense that Universal seems to have allowed another label to make a cd of what was a "download-only" release.

Has anyone heard of this label, "Fever Dreams"? Given that Universal recently made a digital master of this album, will this cd release be using Universal's mastering?

[calvin]

I listened to the radio show the other day. Andy and George wanted to get this out to the fans. This was the only option. Either make it a digital download, or nothing. For those fans that want to hear the music and don't care about holding anything in their hands , they will be satisfied.

I don't care about holding anything in my hands, but I'd like to see it made available as a lossless download.

[jobeterob]

As far as having something to hold, isn't it as simple as hitting "Burn" and then hitting "Print"?

I can see Universal farming out Mandre but refusing to farm out Diana Ross.

When you have a release selling 30000 copies [[mostly download) and reaching #3 on the national sales charts, when you have no more CDs at Costco ~ you have to accept the message.

[RossHolloway]

Ditto again: #NoCD=NoSale

Your loss..

[soulster]

I think the overriding message for some is that they don't like to be forced into change. Am I right on that?

[skooldem1]

The further we move into the digital age, the more some folks will be left with nothing. That is their choice. They will be missing out on a lot of stuff.

[jobeterob]

Change is hard for people.

Imagine if you were a heritage artist, not that well known, perhaps part of a group, making $85000 a year from royalties on sales in the 1980's ~ and you see that dwindle to nothing in the 2000's. And if you want a retirement income, you've got to get out there doing concerts now.

That kind of change would be a lot more brutal than us having to switch to downloads from a physical CD.

I printed the Funny Girl booklet and enjoyed reading it. I enjoyed a couple of the songs I knew and some of the alternate cuts.

I'll enjoy BIM a whole lot more.

[soulster]

Change is hard for people.

Some people. Not all.

Imagine if you were a heritage artist, not that well known, perhaps part of a group, making $85000 a year from royalties on sales in the 1980's ~ and you see that dwindle to nothing in the 2000's. And if you want a retirement income, you've got to get out there doing concerts now.

What does that have to do with it? That happened before the internet.

That kind of change would be a lot more brutal than us having to switch to downloads from a physical CD.

Give me lossless, and i'm happy. If the complete liner notes are provided online with artwork, i'm good. After all, I already have the files, so all I do is tag them to my liking, put them all together, imbed them in the audio files, and place it all inside a folder for that title. Then, I copy that and store them both on two or more separate drives. Al I have to do after that is open up the music files in a program or a transport, and enjoy.

[RossHolloway]

While I love physical cds, I also understand that this is a business. The music industry as a whole is in the pits, and sales are down - both physical cd and digital music. At this point I will take what I can get - Just don't stop the music!!

[marybrewster]

What's up with all the negative attitudes re: those that want a physical release? Comments like "too bad" and "your loss" add absolutely ZERO.

Clearly these "complaints" have some merit, otherwise Andy and George would have thrown in the towel and given up. But they haven't. They have heard our voices and fighting for us. And I applaud them for that.

[smark21]

I downloaded it night before last and I'm enjoying it very much. One of Diana Ross' best albums. Good batch of songs and the album is enhanced that one producer, Richard Perry, guided the project. which gives the album a cohesive feel. And Diana delivers some of her best vocals of her career. Phrasing is impeccable; great facility with rhythm on the up tempo tracks. Of the bonus songs, I enjoy Brass Band and Country John. While I understand why they may have been left off the official album back in 1977, glad they're now out there.

[jobeterob]

From Facebook:

Dick Ketler

November 18 at 7:32pm · Edited ·

.
"Baby It's Me" is now at #23 on the iTunes R&B Top 100 Album Chart as of 11-18; 10:30 pm ET, and outselling Aretha Franklin's "Sings The Diva Classics."

[Bokiluis]

I'm not convinced that downloads are the future, they're on top now but declining rapidly. Look at the RIAA numbers for the US for the first half of 2014 vs the first half of 2013:

all numbers in millions, units given first and then dollar values:
cd albums: 56.3 vs 73.7, down 24%; 715.6 vs 884.1, down 19%
cd singles: very small
download albums: 54.3 vs 61.3, down 11%; 543.7 vs 630.5, down 14%
download singles: 643.6 vs 707.0, down 9%; 752.9 vs 842.4, down 11%
vinyl albums: 6.5 vs 4.6, up 41%; 145.7 vs 102.0, up 43%
vinyl singles: very small

number of paid streaming subscriptions: 7.8 vs 5.5, up 43%
total dollar value from digital subscription and streaming: 859.5 vs 673.1, up 28%

http://riaa.com/media/1806D32F-B3DD-...31C0217836.pdf

Apple iTunes Sees Big Drop in Music Sales
http://online.wsj.com/articles/itunes-music-sales-down-more-than-13-this

Cds may well disappear, though not soon. Downloads are probably here to stay for a long time, but sales have already peaked and are in decline. Streaming may become dominant in the next years, as it already has in Sweden.

And that is today's reality. More and more music fans prefer access to millions of songs for a monthly fee rather than downloads. Most of us on this forum, are not typical music listeners. Most songs/albums have about a 4 month popularity appeal. Even with how much I love music, there are tons in my collection that just sit on my shelf..."until iPods gave you the option to "shuffle". Now I'll hear songs I haven't heard in awhile and be excited to hear it.
I am very proud of my CD/vinyl collection, but, not many of the people that visit have much to say about it anymore.
"Baby It's Me" is an alltime favorite. But after pining over the liner notes, I would swipe them into my music library and the CD basically sits on the shelf.
Seismic changes have happened in the music industry before as sheet music died and physical disc took over. You used to be able to find almost everything on sheet music.....not anymore. And as "streaming" becomes more popular, it will leave physical CDs even less visible.
i listen to "Funny Girl" quite a bit, but, went over the digital booklet maybe 3-4 times. The future is here and I try accept it as a positive. There's not much choice to do anything else. It doesn't interfere with my deep love of music.

[kenneth]

And that is today's reality. More and more music fans prefer access to millions of songs for a monthly fee rather than downloads. Most of us on this forum, are not typical music listeners. Most songs/albums have about a 4 month popularity appeal. Even with how much I love music, there are tons in my collection that just sit on my shelf..."until iPods gave you the option to "shuffle". Now I'll hear songs I haven't heard in awhile and be excited to hear it.
I am very proud of my CD/vinyl collection, but, not many of the people that visit have much to say about it anymore.
"Baby It's Me" is an alltime favorite. But after pining over the liner notes, I would swipe them into my music library and the CD basically sits on the shelf.
Seismic changes have happened in the music industry before as sheet music died and physical disc took over. You used to be able to find almost everything on sheet music.....not anymore. And as "streaming" becomes more popular, it will leave physical CDs even less visible.
i listen to "Funny Girl" quite a bit, but, went over the digital booklet maybe 3-4 times. The future is here and I try accept it as a positive. There's not much choice to do anything else. It doesn't interfere with my deep love of music.

That is perhaps the best elaboration on this subject I've heard especially the closing thought. I far prefer physical CDs, but will buy something as a download if I just "gotta have it" and yes, as with Bokiluis, it doesn't interfere with my deep love of music.

[jobeterob]

Nicely stated by both of you.

[soulster]

I listen to my collection more now that they are all in file form than I even did when they were just records, tapes, or CDs. When I scroll down to figure out what I want to listen to, I come across things I haven't heard in literally decades. I figure I have about 80,000 tracks now, and 7000, albums. I don't hoard music. I really like everything in my collection. I don't keep anything I don't care about. In many cases, though, there are multiple copies of the same song. Then, in some cases, I have both stereo and mono, single versions and album versions, or disco versions, and so on.

I'm in the middle ensuring my Isley Brothers albums are properly tagged. It's been a blast going through and listening to them while working on them. I also had a chance to upgrade the album art.

[calvin]

Give me lossless, and i'm happy.

Exactly my feeling.

But how would you feel if some titles are only offered in a lossy format? That seems to be the case with "Funny Girl", at least so far. It's probably too early to say with "Baby It's Me", but I do find it odd that it appeared on Qobuz [[and is coming to Pono) as a lossless download without the bonus tracks. [[Yes, I know you don't care about these bonus tracks, but I won't buy this download without them.)

If Universal wants to issue only a download, fine, but there's no excuse for not giving us the option of buying lossless, with all bonus tracks included.

I'm not holding out as a protest or anything, and I know that Universal doesn't care what I think. I still hope to buy these titles in lossless format. But hey, another good thing about downloads? Unlike limited edition physical cds, these aren't going to sell out. And I'm in no hurry.

By the way, how about the release of Bob Dylan's Complete Basement Tapes? A limited-edition box set, 6 cds with a book in a case, about £100. And offered as a download from Qobuz on the same release date as the physical set, in high resolution [[about 50 Euros, much less than the box which is how it should be) and in cd-quality audio [[about 40 Euros). Something to make all the fans happy. It can be done, at least for the top artists with large, loyal fan bases. Thanks Sony!

[soulster]

But how would you feel if some titles are only offered in a lossy format?

It's been a major aggravation.

If Universal wants to issue only a download, fine, but there's no excuse for not giving us the option of buying lossless, with all bonus tracks included.

I agree.

I'm not holding out as a protest or anything, and I know that Universal doesn't care what I think. I still hope to buy these titles in lossless format. But hey, another good thing about downloads? Unlike limited edition physical cds, these aren't going to sell out. And I'm in no hurry.

Don't take too long. The downside of downloads is that the record label or the vendor can pull a title at any time without warning.

By the way, how about the release of Bob Dylan's Complete Basement Tapes? A limited-edition box set, 6 cds with a book in a case, about £100. And offered as a download from Qobuz on the same release date as the physical set, in high resolution [[about 50 Euros, much less than the box which is how it should be) and in cd-quality audio [[about 40 Euros). Something to make all the fans happy. It can be done, at least for the top artists with large, loyal fan bases. Thanks Sony!

A lot of what we see or don't see has to do with the artist and legalities the labels never tell us about.

[Lulu]

I think I posed the question here or over on Facebook: what if CDs go the way of VHS tapes?

[Jimi LaLumia]

bought the digital album on iTunes..
sounds amazing, playing it frequently

[soulster]

I think I posed the question here or over on Facebook: what if CDs go the way of VHS tapes?

I do think the arrival of legal lossless downloads here in the U.S. will hasten its demise.

[Lulu]

I do think the arrival of legal lossless downloads here in the U.S. will hasten its demise.

That's what I was thinking. How will the naysayers adapt?

[calvin]

I think I posed the question here or over on Facebook: what if CDs go the way of VHS tapes?

If you only mean that it might one day be difficult to buy most titles on cd, that seems to be coming, though slowly.

But in another way it's very different from the demise of VHS. VHS tapes were analogue magnetic. They were replaced by a totally different way of representing the video/audio data, digital DVDs. DVDs had huge advantages over VHS tapes - much better video/audio quality, much slower degradation, and they're smaller and more convenient. [[Though the design of those unnecessarily large dvd cases was unfortunate.) It was no contest.

The underlying idea behind digital encoding of music is the same for cds and downloads - the Shannon-Nyquist Sampling Theorem, with amplitudes digitally approximated [[quantization). Mathematically, you can approximate the original signal better as you go to higher bit depths and frequencies [[due to the error in amplitude quantization). But beyond a certain point, the limitations of the human ear will mean that the listener will not be able to discern the difference.

Other things [[ie the original master tape) being equal, a cd - which is fixed at 44.1 kHz frequency, 16 bits for amplitude - will be a *better* representation of the audio data than a lossy download from iTunes. You're not getting better quality audio going from cds to lossy downloads, you're getting something worse. So I think this is very different than the switch from VHS to DVD. People who are switching from cds to lossy downloads are perhaps getting something more convenient, but of lesser quality. If you're happy with that, that's fine.

With lossless downloads, the audio quality is the same as a cd. But so far, "Funny Girl" has not been released in lossless format, while it seems that "Baby It's Me" is appearing as a lossless download but without the bonus tracks.

Lossless [[44.1 kHz, 16 bit) downloads and cds basically differ in the medium on which the data is stored. Do you want it on a shiny disc or on your hard drive [[or in the cloud)? I find playing music much more convenient from the hard drive, plus you have tagging, etc. Of course cds can always be ripped to get the same.

[midnightman]

Lossless MP3s are much of a threat to CDs as iTunes was. Plus, people are more into streaming than MP3s...

[soulster]

If you only mean that it might one day be difficult to buy most titles on cd, that seems to be coming, though slowly.

But in another way it's very different from the demise of VHS. VHS tapes were analogue magnetic. They were replaced by a totally different way of representing the video/audio data, digital DVDs. DVDs had huge advantages over VHS tapes - much better video/audio quality, much slower degradation, and they're smaller and more convenient. [[Though the design of those unnecessarily large dvd cases was unfortunate.) It was no contest.

The underlying idea behind digital encoding of music is the same for cds and downloads - the Shannon-Nyquist Sampling Theorem, with amplitudes digitally approximated [[quantization). Mathematically, you can approximate the original signal better as you go to higher bit depths and frequencies [[due to the error in amplitude quantization). But beyond a certain point, the limitations of the human ear will mean that the listener will not be able to discern the difference.

Other things [[ie the original master tape) being equal, a cd - which is fixed at 44.1 kHz frequency, 16 bits for amplitude - will be a *better* representation of the audio data than a lossy download from iTunes. You're not getting better quality audio going from cds to lossy downloads, you're getting something worse. So I think this is very different than the switch from VHS to DVD. People who are switching from cds to lossy downloads are perhaps getting something more convenient, but of lesser quality. If you're happy with that, that's fine.

With lossless downloads, the audio quality is the same as a cd. But so far, "Funny Girl" has not been released in lossless format, while it seems that "Baby It's Me" is appearing as a lossless download but without the bonus tracks.

Lossless [[44.1 kHz, 16 bit) downloads and cds basically differ in the medium on which the data is stored. Do you want it on a shiny disc or on your hard drive [[or in the cloud)? I find playing music much more convenient from the hard drive, plus you have tagging, etc. Of course cds can always be ripped to get the same.

Great little primer, Cal! You speak truth! Don't forget to add that hi-rez [[24-bit and usually a higher sample rate) is superior over CD.

Lossless MP3s are much of a threat to CDs as iTunes was. Plus, people are more into streaming than MP3s...

Which is sad because artists are hurt by the streaming model, although artists like Taylor Swift want to improve matters.

[calvin]

Lossless MP3s are much of a threat to CDs as iTunes was. Plus, people are more into streaming than MP3s...

Yes. As the numbers I gave in an earlier post show, streaming is growing rapidly while both cd and download purchases of music are falling hard [[comparing the first half of 2014 with the first half of 2013, US sales of cd albums were down 19% while download album sales were down 14%). I would expect some switching from cds to lossless/hi-rez downloads while sales of both continue to fall at the expense of streaming.

I welcome downloads, as long as they're lossless, because avoiding all the costs of physical cds [[production, distribution, inventory storage, shipping to customers/stores, returns of damaged products, etc) can make possible the release of many titles which would never be released on cd.

[[By "mp3" I understand that you mean downloads generally. Mp3s themselves are not lossless, they were originally designed with a maximum possible bitrate of 320 kbit per second. There are now encoders which can make higher bitrate mp3s, but there are compatibility issues, many mp3 players can't play the higher bitrate mp3s. I think that mp3 as a format will also gradually die out.)

[soulster]

[[By "mp3" I understand that you mean downloads generally. Mp3s themselves are not lossless, they were originally designed with a maximum possible bitrate of 320 kbit per second.

ALL mp3s are lossy. The mp3 may have been designed for 320 kbps, but at the time, no one could get one through the internet, as most connections were on telephone lines and slow as molasses. So, people went to low bit-rates like 128 kbps, like during the old Napster and Kaazaa days. As internet connections and people who cared about audio started downloading, the average bit-rate started to improve. Even iTunes improved, using the occasions to put on one of their grandiose announcements. But, iTunes doesn't use mp3. They now use 256 kbps AAC, and many people think it sounds a bit better than mp3. I am not one of them.

There are other formats that are capable of higher bit-rates. AAC goes up to something like 460 kbps, and it sounds very, very good, very compact, virtually indistinguishable to CD, but iTunes won't use it. Another very good format is Ogg Vorbis, but it failed in the all-important U.S. market. But, it is used as a container for other formats. And, there is the Microsoft format .wma, both lossy and lossless. The lossless version will play in my car along with mp3.

There are now encoders which can make higher bitrate mp3s, but there are compatibility issues, many mp3 players can't play the higher bitrate mp3s. I think that mp3 as a format will also gradually die out.)

Just about every player can play mp3. Many or most of those will also play wma. Some play AAC, and many more will play FLAC, which has become the lossless standard. Very few play wav. The new issue is if they will play gapless, meaning there are no breaks in the music during the track transitions. Some players will, some won't. I used Foobar on my computer because it plays gapless mp3 and FLAC.

[warehserat2911]

I downloaded it today and I have to say, it has never sounded this good!! They did a great remastering job on it. In my opinion, this is one of the most underrated Diana Ross albums of all time. Her vocals are incredible on these tracks. One of the finest DR albums ever!!!

[calvin]

ALL mp3s are lossy.

That's what I wrote, they're not lossless. 320 kbit/s is the *maximum* bitrate for standard mp3s, I didn't write that they were ever the most common. Even now, I think Amazon sells 256 variable. I bought the “Motown Unreleased” sets from 7Digital because they had 320 constant.

And yes of course nearly all players can play mp3. What I wrote is that it's now possible to encode mp3 in bitrates higher than 320 - but this is nonstandard and most players can't play these higher-than-320 mp3s. So there's really no point in this.

I think it should be a matter of time before all the lossy-only formats disappear. For home use, file size is no longer an issue - I have a few thousand cds and they all fit, in lossless flac, on a 2 TB drive. And now 4 TB drives are common. One can boost a smartphone up by 64 GB with an SD micro card. But then again, it seems that most people don't care and are happy to take whatever iTunes offers them. Many would rather buy a lossy iTunes download than buy the same title, at the same price, lossless from another vendor.

I should also note for those who want to jam as many files as possible onto mobile devices - if you buy lossless downloads, it's also easy to make lossy mp3s from these for your mobile devices, if you care [[I don't). Or you can just stream them from the vendor from whom you bought the download. Then you can still listen to lossless at home.

[soulster]

Unless Apple, with its iTunes, upps their inventory to lossless, they will eventually get left in the dust. The truth is that the record industry never really liked dealing with Apple, and now is their chance to give them the finger. The reason is that Apple always called the shots because they have been the only real game in town. They have the download market cornered. Their iTunes software is lousy, bloated, and difficult to navigate. And, you have to use their AAC files. You can convert those to wav it aiff, but they don't make it easy, and if you convert the resulting wav file to, say, an mp3 for your car, you wind up damaging the sound. You also strip the metedata do you have to retag everything again. It's a pain. And, if Apple does go lossless, they show no signs of using FLAC, which is the worldwide standard for lossless. They will want you to continue in their ecosystem by forcing AAC lossless. I don't like their arrogance.

The good news is that the average, non-audiophile public is slowly, but surely, finally starting to learn and know the difference in sound quality. I'm even seeing more people on this forum mention it. That's better than even a year ago when people were bitchin' at me for even bringing up the issue.