Lossless? Really?

Yeah I take your point Paul but this is just about how different pieces of equipment read data from an optical disc.  In the same way if you put an optical disk into a CD player that only had data files on it then your CD might make horrible noises or do nothing at all.  You can certainly make a 'mixed' of music and data - look at the BBC Music magazine for example.

But my basic premise is true  If you know how they have recorded a music disc then you will be able to take all the bits of and store them in a computer.  Otherwise we would not be able to copy music CDs on our PCs.

Madgerald I was also a bit of young for that too I suppose.  I never considered going down to Brighton to have a fight, I would always ignore violence.  Besides my 'old man' would have killed me if he had found out.

andarkian you got it in the end and yes I liked that track.  Cheers for that.

Jota I remember people saying this almost the day after CDs were first released but I have only ever had one CD that has deteriorated - the Britten CD I mentioned earlier.

I think that one day we won't even be using anything as 'physical' as downloads even.  Our record collections will be in the cloud, we will just log in and decide if we want to listed to the Dead or Wagner and select it from a menu.  It's a bit like that now with our streamers but our collection will no longer be stored at home.

Will that be more or less of a worry?

Big Bill, well I think Qobuz is getting us pretty close to offering that now. Lossless FLAC streamed on demand from the cloud.. been enjoying lots of DJ Cam and DJ Krush streaming this morning  that  I don't physically own.. I just pay my monthly subscription.

Simon

I wouldn't be happy if I couldn't listen to music cos my broadband was down...

Plus how would you listen to music on the move (in train tunnels for instance?)

Madgerald, that is a concern, and indeed as luck would have it my broadband did go down yesterday evening into the early hours. However Qobuz allows you to keep a local configurable cache from the cloud so as to play when offline. This worked perfectly last night.. But I only could play recently played albums or specific albums I had cached.  

Simon

I'm not sure I've had any CD's that have deteriorated, all I was saying that is may be a possibility, however distant,  given the testimonies of people either side of the Atlantic regarding one companies disks.

CD's, any physical media for that matter is on borrowed time.  As is the software, video games, movies etc you buy.  Companies want to control access and take away people's physical copies, presumably for a few reasons like saving money on the media, transport, cutting out middle men like shops and leaving customers with nothing physical to pirate.

Some people may not realise they don't own much of the software they think they bought. They purchased the rights to use it, not own it and this may be the future of music.  Just thinking about it, that's already here with services like Qobuz.  You pay for access and not to own the music.

For the record labels who want everybody to pay through the nose for essentially nothing and who demonise their own loyal (trapped) customers when daily profits fall below a googlezillion bucks, this will be the ultimate wet dream.

How does the line go? "We're so excited we can hardly count"

I think it will be absolutely superb! You can't "own" music. You can only own the right to listen to it. If you pay per listen, then the artists you listen to most will get most money, which seems to me quite fair, and it would be good for musicians too, because you'd be much more likely to listen to a wider variety of music because each "play" would be very little money. Not to mention the possibility of being able to listen "live" to concerts - already happening in the classical field.

How do you access this on the move, in your car, in a tunnel or when the internet goes down?

I don't really believe the artist will be getting all the cash either.  It'll still be the large music corps calling the shots as has been the case since day one.

If experience is anything to go by you are spot on. The labels will be rolling up their sleeves and getting ready for a really big lick. That's all. No one else is likely to benefit. The artists and their fans never have and I don't think they ever will. If artists increasingly take control of their source material and its distribution I'll happily pay to squeeze the obese middle. But for my own part I'd still want a local copy with no playing or backup restrictions.

Helen was given a CD by a local (to us) recording artist who wrote a little (printed big) missive in the sleeve notes to the effect that it is illegal to copy it. The wording went something like "if you want another copy you should buy one". So it's not just le labels who are deluding themselves. Happily this appears to be a relatively isolated case. He should get an adviser who understands the law. The industry continues to blur the distinction between personal use and piracy. Much of the static is predicated on the assumption that people are basically dishonest. That's nice.

Blimey that opened a can of worms and as some of you say we are just about there anyway with Qobuz etc already.  I guess when I said it I was thinking more of the high end and also of a time when this will be the only way you can buy music.

Still us old codgers will get a tear in their eyes when they look at their vinyl collection.

DJ Crush?  Is that what Bobby Crush become?

On the ripping issue, I've been doing some more digging and it seems Warner are the biggest culprits for 'bad' discs that can't be ripped; some don't read and others sound distorted after ripping.

The best workaround seems to be to use an old drive, which is what I stumbled on, but no-one seems to be really sure why the problem exists or why it's worse with modern drives. 

Another tip I picked up that some report as working is to copy the errant CD whole (i.e. clone the disc to a blank CD-RW) and then rip the clone.

All very odd!

In my bagatelle of a career I finished up being responsible (project manager) for the development of a  global  licensing System for a major music publishing company. I won't pretend that I understood the machinations that go into the contractual arrangements between the major corporations and the artists, but what I saw of how the licensing revenue was sliced and diced it did not appear to be very favourable to the artist, and was deliberately horribly complex. 

Although purity may may be an issue, I would have thought that artists now have the ability to record and submit their music via the internet in more favourable circumstances if they use a little judicious nous and intelligence. We may end up with fewer multi millionaire artists but it might just result in more successful exposure of unrecognised talent with less shyster middlemen. Just a thought. 

This is how some (and an increasing number of) artists now operate. Most don't. Many can't. But the more that can the better.

I am inclined to agree. But I put this to a buddy the other day and he related stories of bands he knew that were floundering in a sea of "easy exposure". It is easy and cheap to get your music published, but as hard as ever to stand out and be truly successful. Bands are still looking for gimmicks.

The point about a larger pool, and the internet is a World-wide pool, is that you have to be really special to rise to the top.

In reality the really fine will still become obvious, and the dross will sink without trace!

No harm done really.

ATB from George

If that was true George then how come people like One direction,Robbie Williams, The Spice Girls, Girls Aloud, Wet Life, Wet wet wet, Blue, Petula Clark etc etc etc became such huge earners and sold so much dross?  Oops I forgot to mention Bros.

Agreed, 'artists' are made by marketing machines, like Bieber, 100% created and when sufficient fish took the bait he was rolled out further.

Sadly, the good stuff will not take care of itself. 

George just reading back through my post it seems like I am criticising you and I didn't mean to at all.  It's the likes of Simon Cowell and Louis Walsh I would criticise.

I know their albums in 1986 and 1988 were considered crimes against humanity, but I love The Moody Blues right up to and including The Other Side Of Life and Sur La Mer.

It used to be "uncool" to like the Moodies, but they're probably my favourite band of all time - quite magnificent!