The price of Beatles CDs...

[Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew]

Actually, the point I was trying to make was merely that in many cases, the prices of CDs have come down in absolute (not just inflation-adjusted) terms.

[Dead_Badger]

@Mr2001

Yep. Mainly, I just want to emphasize what a steaming crock of bullshit it was when they claimed the high price was due to production costs, but the price drop is insufficient regardless of the reasons behind it.

So, let me get this straight; the price drops by more than could possibly be accounted for by manufacturing efficiency improvements, but it’s still not enough for you? Here, I have a moon on a stick somewhere, been waiting for the right person…

The labels could just offer a list of singles and let stations decide for themselves what they want to play. The cost of doing that over the internet would be trivial.

Again, I think you’ve got a rather interesting idea of the way selling things works. A successful company is not one that just puts its product on a pile and hopes it sells. Such a company will go out of business. I realise that the idea of making money (spit) from music is just shocking, but this again is the reality which you seem so determined to avoid confronting. Marketing increases sales, and increases the amount of money made by artists and studios alike. If this weren’t the case, then zero-publicity internet bands would be ruling the world right now. They clearly are not.

An insightful comment, sir. Kudos! Now there can be no complaints about the price of anything, ever again, since prices are controlled by supply and demand, and no one can argue with that. You have taken debate on the SDMB to a new level.

Good to see you acknowledge it. There’s hope yet.

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

@todd33rpm

My apologies, then. Reading the quoted section with your response to it led me to believe that you were snottily and succinctly telling me that you thought I’d gotten too far off topic for your taste. My post was my way, with some sense of humor, to tell you to stick it…again, sorry!

So who were you intending to quote, then?

paulberserker, his post is about three above your post which I quoted.

[todd33rpm]

Gotcha. Thanks for the heads up…in the event I see the Beatles CDs in any of the used record stores for not too much money, should I keep an eye open for you? Most of our local places will retail used CDs, in very good condition, for around $8-$9 each (I think that’s what, four to five pounds each?) as a general rule. That’s how I grabbed a copy of Rubber Soul for my sister, and it was damn near in perfect shape.

Let me know when you can, and I’ll check periodically downtown on your behalf if you want.

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

Cool, thanks.

[paulberserker]

Just a thought, but do you have a local library that carries CDs? They normally rent out for 60p - £1 for a week, if you know what I mean.

[TwistofFate]

It’s completely down to Apple Records.

The same for Pink Floyd’s record company. I don’t think anyone alive still wants to pay full whack for The Division Bell.

[Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew]

@TwistofFate

The same for Pink Floyd’s record company. I don’t think anyone alive still wants to pay full whack for The Division Bell.

Would I be correct in guessing from your use of the expression “full whack” that you’re in the British Isles? The American release of The Division Bell is budget priced. (Fat lot of good it did 'em to lower the price–it’s still the only Pink Floyd studio album I don’t own.)

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Mr2001

Hmm… I think what I said applied to those as well. Producing a Beatles CD is even cheaper than producing a new, mainstream CD, since the recording itself was paid for decades ago, they don’t need to bribe any radio stations to play Beatles tracks, and they don’t need to take out ads to let consumers know about the band.

Just for the sake of argument, let me take the record company’s side here. Whenever the record company puts out an album by a relatively unknown or not nearly as popular artist, they’re taking a risk. They have to spend a lot of money on the recording process, packaging, distribution, marketing, etc., and the disc may not end up selling enough for the record company to recoup their investment. If they’ve got some sure money-makers like the Beatles on their label, it gives them room to afford to take chances on smaller or newer acts.

This argument is probably oversimplified and one-sided, but correct me if it doesn’t contain at least a grain of truth.

[LonesomePolecat]

@Thudlow Boink

Just for the sake of argument, let me take the record company’s side here. Whenever the record company puts out an album by a relatively unknown or not nearly as popular artist, they’re taking a risk. They have to spend a lot of money on the recording process, packaging, distribution, marketing, etc., and the disc may not end up selling enough for the record company to recoup their investment. If they’ve got some sure money-makers like the Beatles on their label, it gives them room to afford to take chances on smaller or newer acts.

This argument is probably oversimplified and one-sided, but correct me if it doesn’t contain at least a grain of truth.

There’s more than a grain of truth here. This applies not only to music recordings but to book publishing as well. Publishers and record producers can take chances on unknowns in large part because they have cash cows like the Beatles and Stephen King to take up the slack.

But this is somewhat offset by the “blockbuster” mentality that seems to dominate the publishing and entertainment industries these days. Too many producers and editors are just not interested in projects that won’t generate the gross national product of a third world nation over night.

[capacitor]

The Beatles’ CDs are sometimes so high, mainly because they are so good. There usually isn’t an ounce of fat in their albums. Even their filler songs could be someone else’s main songs, and they were.
You may find their CDs, and those many others, at bargain bins; whiners, don’t be so snooty as so not to shop there.

[Cardinal]

A. Are you saying you would like the capitalistic laws of your country repealed so that the government can force the sale of Beatles CDs at cheaper prices?

B. You haven’t tried very hard.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/detail/offer-listing/-/B000002UAO/all/026-7249375-6411654

[paulberserker]

@capacitor

The Beatles’ CDs are sometimes so high, mainly because they are so good. There usually isn’t an ounce of fat in their albums. Even their filler songs could be someone else’s main songs, and they were.
You may find their CDs, and those many others, at bargain bins; whiners, don’t be so snooty as so not to shop there.

This is stupid. The Beatles CDs are priced high because someones opinion of them is also high? Fucking bullshit. This is not the way it works.

Cardinal, i’d also pointing him in the direction of sub £10 CDs for sale on page 1.

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

Are you saying you would like the capitalistic laws of your country repealed so that the government can force the sale of Beatles CDs at cheaper prices?

Errr, let me see… no.