Perhaps I’m the only one believes the following premise: CD’s are a bargain when they’re compared side-by-side with the price of other (non-carnal) entertainment media.
Sports Tickets (The parking alone costs more than a CD)
Books (Cost more and can be enjoyed once, perhaps 2x)
Movie Tickets ($10US for +/- 90 minutes)
DVD’s (See books)
Museum Admission (read donation)
etc, etc, etc
but it’s all relative and YMMV
For comparison purposes, for the sake of us Americans, how much is that in real money—I mean, in U.S. dollars? 
I notice amazon.co.uk has Beatles albums for £9.99 each. On the U.S. amazon.com, the “list price” is $18.98 each, but Amazon’s selling them for $13.49 for the later ones or $13.99 for the earlier ones. 
(Or $27.99 for the White Album.) For what it’s worth, the average Beatles disc costs less than the average Britney Spears disc.
According to XE, it’s about $32.48! :eek:
You’re buying the wrong books.
You’re going to the wrong cinemas, and seeing the wrong films.
Eh? Either it’s an admission, or a donation. One is likely to be less than a CD single, the other as much or as little as you see fit.
The price of CDs in general pisses me off. I worked at a record store right when CDs were first coming out. At the time, records and cassettes usually had a list price of $9.99 and would go on sale for $6.88 or $7.88. CDs were priced at $15.99 and the music companies kept promising that they’d get cheaper once they were in mass production. Guess what? They never got cheaper. In fact, the average list price (the price the record company sets, not the sale price) is $17.99 for a new release. I truly believe record companies are shooting themselves in the head for more profit. If CD’s were around $10, they’d see a lot more sales and less temptation to obtain the music via other means.
And, yeah, the price of the Beatles CDs has always been ridiculously high. Most albums that old are part of a record companies midline series - CDs usually priced at $12.99 that are often featured in sales. I don’t know what the rational is behind keeping the prices so high (other than maybe some stiff royalty agreements) but they’re definitely losing sales…
Actually, I was going to rant about those prices myself (the Beatles CD’s here in Canada are usually around $30 - maybe $25 at best, while other ‘back catalog’ stuff is usually $10-$15), but JohnBckWLD has a very good point - compared to other entertainment, CD’s (and DVD’s for that matter) are very inexpensive.
Take books. I no longer read hardcover books. I make a good salary, and I can’t afford them. Mainstream hardcover non-fiction books in Canada can easily run $35-$50. I used to buy 3-5 books a month, but I had to stop years ago, because it was just too expensive. $200 per month for books? I can not afford $50 for a book to read over a weekend. Even paperback novels here in Canada now run from $10 to $15.
It’s not just Beatles’ CDs either. I paid $AU30 for a Jimi Hendrix CD for the husband a few years ago. Great CD but a ripoff price.
And, speaking of books, what’s the deal with Trade Paperbacks? They’re at least $AU10 more than paperbacks. I used to buy a huge number of books but I won’t buy hardcover or TPs anymore. A person still has to eat.
Perhaps, but have you really ever read the same book 3x or more? I couldn’t even count the # of times I’ve listened to my 100 fave albums.
I concur, but with 2 daughters and winter weather, the occasional romp to see SpongeBob is unavoidable.
They only time I ever paid the $20 they are charging @ MoMA was for a rare OOP 45.
If I’m really, really disciplined, I can very occasionally get down to that, sometimes two months in a row. 
Yeah, $200 is my baseline budget for books. I exceed that maybe half the time. (but, in my defense, a lot of my books are imported from Japan and shipping fees are included)
Come on, folks! Won’t someone please think of the artists? If not for the prospect of huge sacks of money from selling overpriced CDs, what possible incentive would The Beatles have to record any more albums?
Oh, wait…
Without thinking I’d have to explicitly state it, the thrust of my point was that if it was me having to mull over paying huge money on the discs, I’d like to see them be at least as state-of-the-art as they could be.
However, it’s your hermetically sealed, not-to-be-touched-with-other-input-because-oh-God-now-you’ve-gone-and-sullied-it-with-your-fingerprints-let-go-before-you-break-it-already, way-too-brief-as-it-is OP, dude. Whatever. I’ll play along:
“Boy, no kidding. Those wacky Beatles!” Or, “those wacky multinational record conglomerates and their shiny silver discs!”
I hope that was of more help. appropriate smiley implied here
When I was young and poor (being 14 and without a job) I wanted to collect all the songs.
So I listened to Breakfast with the Beatles every Sunday for several months, and I got all the obscure songs. It just takes a little perserverence.
Of course, as soon as I got money, I invested it all in the albums, the movies, books…What’s weird is, I never remember paying more than $14/CD and usually less (around $10).
Good ol’ K-Mart…
Found you a good place to buy everything you need. Also on that little known website, Play.com, nigh on all their albums are £9.99. On that other obscure website, CDwow, they’re £8.99, both with free P&P. How much do you want to fucking pay? Saves you bus fare into town as well.
Well, CDs did come out in the mid-80s; 20 years of inflation means that in real terms, $17.99 is substantially cheaper than they were initially. $16 in 1985 would be the equivalent of about $27 now (well, in 2003), and in reverse, the list price of $18 now is just above $10 in 1985 money. So it works out about right.
(Nifty site wot I just discovered…)
Yep.
$18 in 2003 equates to $10 in 1984. So in real terms, they’ve kept their promise. http://www1.jsc.nasa.gov/bu2/inflateCPI.html
Kept their promise? Barely. The price of CDs is still 2/3 of what it was 20 years ago. It’d be enlightening to know how much of a CD’s price in 1984 was manufacturing costs vs. how much of it is today.
Or, as proven, the cost of music in real terms is identical to what it was in 1985. Do you think music has become less valuable in that time? Why the obsession with what the physical media costs? Is that really what you’re paying for?
I quoted the wrong person. Fuck knows what your post actually means, though.
As half owner of the Beatles’ song royalties along with Sony/ATV, could it be that Jacko’s considerable legal expenditures have necessitated the continued high CD price?