magiccarpetride
02-03-2011, 00:03
Just read in the January 2010 issue of "Down Beat" that famous jazz guitarist John Abercrombie said that he cannot see viable financial future for himself in digital downloads. I'm not sure I fully understand where his issues are.
The entire article ("Catering To The Minority", you can read it here: http://www.downbeat.com/digitaledition/2010/DB201001/_art/DB201001.pdf) revolves around the premise that CDs remain as the only viable container for delivering high quality jazz. Hence, the author appears skeptical that true jazz lovers would ever stoop to downloading jazz off the web.
Now, that's not strictly true. I've been downloading jazz off the web (the last piece I've purchased was Keith Jarrett's "Koln Concert" off the hdtracks.com). I actually prefer to pay for my music in high definition format, rather than in regular, red book CD format.
So what is then Abercrombie's beef? If he makes his catalog available as a high definition download, that certainly won't hurt his royalties now, would it? If anything, he may stand to substantiate higher profits, seeing how it's cheaper to distribute music as a stream of digital bits than as tangible discs that need to be printed and distributed across the globe (read: higher production and distribution costs, smaller profit margins).
Or am I missing something in this discussion?
The entire article ("Catering To The Minority", you can read it here: http://www.downbeat.com/digitaledition/2010/DB201001/_art/DB201001.pdf) revolves around the premise that CDs remain as the only viable container for delivering high quality jazz. Hence, the author appears skeptical that true jazz lovers would ever stoop to downloading jazz off the web.
Now, that's not strictly true. I've been downloading jazz off the web (the last piece I've purchased was Keith Jarrett's "Koln Concert" off the hdtracks.com). I actually prefer to pay for my music in high definition format, rather than in regular, red book CD format.
So what is then Abercrombie's beef? If he makes his catalog available as a high definition download, that certainly won't hurt his royalties now, would it? If anything, he may stand to substantiate higher profits, seeing how it's cheaper to distribute music as a stream of digital bits than as tangible discs that need to be printed and distributed across the globe (read: higher production and distribution costs, smaller profit margins).
Or am I missing something in this discussion?