At the recent Music 2.0 conference, an executive from one of the labels discussed ways in which digital music may eventually be embraced by the major labels. I must say, though, I’m not especially impressed by the idea of being able to pay 99 cents per track for lossy encoded music. Let’s take a quick history review (apologies for any sloppiness in the details - I’m shooting for the general overview, not a scholarly treatise).
In 1878, Thomas Edison build the first working phonograph, creating the medium of the phonograph cylinder. It’s safe to say those were very low quality recordings by any standards. Lateral-cut disc records came out 10 years later, in 1888. By the early 1900’s, people were enjoying double-sided 12-inch records (with perhaps four minutes of music per side). The first vinyl records date to 1930, with lower surface noise, although it took some time to gain market acceptance.
The first stereo recordings show up in 1958, although the technology was around for some time before then. Mass production of cassettes dates to around 1964, and fought a brief battle with 8-track cartridges. Compact discs came out in the early 1980’s, and started paving the way for digital music which we all know and love today.
At this point, my history tour branches. On the first path, we have the evolution of compressed audio formats. By making song files small enough to fit onto the storage media of the day, a whole new category of technology began to grow. The first MP3 player was released in 1995, Winamp in 1997, and Napster in 1999. Today we have multiple peer to peer networks, BitTorrent, iTunes, and lots of ways to use these digital files.
Meanwhile, technologies were being created to reproduce ever improved sound quality (things like Surround Sound). Super Audio CD’s were introduced in 2000, as was DVD-Audio. The record industry, which had been making a good living re-selling music on CDs which people had already purchased earlier, was banking on a repeat cycle with ever higher quality recordings. Of course, these technologies require more data to encode a song.
It turns out, though, that for most people, CDs were good enough. What people wanted was flexibility in how they enjoy their music. Portable MP3 players, home audio systems, things like that. The record industry responded with DRM, and the DMCA (passed in 1998).
So what’s my point? We’ve now reached the point, where we’re being asked to pay more, for less. For years, we’ve enjoyed DRM-free music on CDs, which can be easily place shifted, and used in all sorts of interesting ways. Now, we’re being offered lower quality recordings, with ridiculous restrictions and the message “See, we get it! Here you go!” Even if Steve Jobs got his wish, and DRM disappeared tomorrow, we’d be buying lossy files.
For me, when I buy music online from artists, I’m looking for lossless, DRM free music (like the FLAC version of The Vanity Project). I’d like to see even higher quality formats take off, which can really take advantage of the surround speakers on my computers, or a really nice set of headsets. Disk space is becoming less of an issue, and movies have much higher requirements on storage than even a surround sound audio file.
Is that too much to ask?
(Never one to pass up an opportunity to point out some good, free music… during the show, I also found a cool new music podcast, called The Plan Nine Rock Show. The host, Jasper, play mostly Punk and Rock music, and includes lots of local bands - in this case, that means Detroit. If that sounds like your thing, check it out.)