This is not a download thread. It DOES discuss the issue of downloading very directly, however, so I decided to post it here, where those most involved would see it.

In another thread, a composer asked that links to his music be deleted. He was kind enough to stick around for a few days to discuss his issues with pirating. I wrote a response stating that I felt that if the music companies hadn't been so greedy about their pricing (their attitude being "as much as the market would bear"), there would not have been such a huge backlash when another option, pirating, finally became available. Buyers have been feeling ripped off for a very long time.

I made a crack in my post about the printing of a cd costing a dollar, yet selling for $15 or more. The composer latched on to that one statement from my response to say that the manufacturing cost was only one of a lot of costs going to make a cd.

Fair enough. It seemed worthwhile to find out why music companies had to charge $15.99 to make a profit. After some Google searching I found the following from an article which was about, of all things, Wal-mart wanting the music companies to sell their products for under $10.

Here is what the breakdown looks like:
__________________________________________________ ____________
This breakdown of the cost of a typical major-label release by the independent market-research firm Almighty Institute of Music Retail shows where the money goes for a new album with a list price of $15.99.

$0.17 Musicians' unions
$0.80 Packaging/manufacturing
$0.82 Publishing royalties
$0.80 Retail profit
$0.90 Distribution
$1.60 Artists' royalties
$1.70 Label profit
$2.40 Marketing/promotion
$2.91 Label overhead
$3.89 Retail overhead
__________________________________________________ _____________

Now, most of those costs are self explanatory, except for the last two, which also happen to be the largest costs. What exactly is label overhead and retail overhead? These two nebulous costs make up over 40% of the total price. More importantly, are these legitimate costs, or might they be inflated? Thoughts, folks?

Here is the link to the original article, which was from Rolling Stone:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6558540/walmart_wants_10_cds

Would you mind linking to the thread with the composer's thoughts, too?

"Nebulous?" Really?

From Wikipedia, since it's succinct enough...


In business, overhead, overhead cost or overhead expense refers to an ongoing expense of operating a business. The term overhead is usually used to group expenses that are necessary to the continued functioning of the business, but do not directly generate profits.

Overhead expenses are all costs on the income statement except for direct labor and direct materials. Overhead expenses include accounting fees, advertising, depreciation, insurance, interest, legal fees, rent, repairs, supplies, taxes, telephone bills, travel and utilities costs.

Retail packaging and distribution are two pricey ventures.

This really should go in the parent forum... and not the "Download LINKS" one... just because you want people to see it doesn't mean you should post it in the inappropriate place to do so.

Now on the subject, this really seems like common sense information.

How can you actually think the costs of putting out a product is in manufacturing alone?

Hmm, let's see what I can remember from cost accounting... ;)

Overhead costs are indirect costs resulting from activities that occur at the unit, batch, product, and facility levels. They can usually only be estimated using expense drivers through activity-based costing. This is where you assign an application rate to different activities related to various products and services.

I'm guessing that label and retail overhead are referring to product- and facility-costs, respectively. Basically, retail costs can't be directly traced to a particular product or service. Also, label costs are fixed with respect to the number of units and batches but can vary with the number of products!

Excess overhead is economically inefficient and the ability for an entity to continue operations amid such high indirect costs is most likely driven by monopolistic power. This would help explain why iTunes still sometimes charges retail price even when distributor overhead is nonexistent.

Interesting.

OK, I'm coming into this a bit late, but I really have to comment.


I made a crack in my post about the printing of a cd costing a dollar, yet selling for $15 or more. The composer latched on to that one statement from my response to say that the manufacturing cost was only one of a lot of costs going to make a cd.

With the utmost respect, isn't that completely obvious anyway? Putting out a music CD is about considerably more than manufacturing little plastic discs in little plastic boxes.

$15 really isn't a lot of money. You want to try living in the United Kingdom, where, not so long ago, you might pay �15 ($25-30) for a new CD.

The "I can't afford to pay!" argument you see so often is absolutely insane.

I can't afford to pay for an Aston Martin - so maybe I should just go visit the factory and take one off the forecourt, on the grounds that I would buy it if I had the money, and because I believe that they are overpriced.


Fair enough. It seemed worthwhile to find out why music companies had to charge $15.99 to make a profit. After some Google searching I found the following from an article which was about, of all things, Wal-mart wanting the music companies to sell their products for under $10.

Well, ultimately it's up to a music label how much profit they want to make - who are we to demand they make less money?

There may be any number of economical reasons why they need to make back that amount of money. The album may have been expense to record initially, the artists fees may be high, there may have been a lot of musicians involved, etc, etc. There is a massive initial outlay to consider. If you're a record label, you have to weigh up how much you spent MAKING the album, how much you're going to spend in manufacturing and distributing it, how many copies you think you might sell, and how much profit you want to make - and use these figures to calculate a sensible price.

Granted, the current market is forcing some record labels to reduce prices to reduce piracy. The cheaper the CD, the fewer people will steal it, and so even though the record company receives less profit per disc, their overall profit will be the same or higher.

Some labels really can't do any better.

Let's use a standard game score as an example; I'm not privvy to the exact finances behind these projects, so I'll be using a lot of conjecture here - but I have experience in the industry so I'll try to make my figures and reasoning as sensible and generic as I can:

Let's assume an orchestral game score is on sale for $10.

Let's also assume that it's a 70 piece orchestra and about 60 minutes of music. To record sixty minutes of music with a symphony orchestra will usually take between two and three days if you're on a budget - they don't just sit down and play it; they have to rehearse. The general rule of thumb is that you can expect to record just a couple of minutes of finished music per hour in your recording session.

So, you paying eighty musicians for two days work. A day of recording is two sessions (3-4 hours each) so you have four sessions.

If you're using a very, very cheap orchestra - I got a quote for $10,000 for two sessions and 40 players - so we'd be looking at $40,000 for the numbers and session times we're looking at (four sessions and 80 players) and add in everything else.)

OK - so, just to pay off the orchestra, you need to sell 4,000 copies of your album at $10 each and that's before you've even considered manufacturing costs, rights costs, union fees, distribution, and all the rest of it. That's a pretty optimistic sales quantity - there is a reason why most film music albums are now in limited editions of 1,500 to 3,000 copies - it's because they simply don't sell more than they because it's a minority interest project.

Now, you could argue that since you're releasing a game score, the music recording has already been paid for out of the game budget and so the music production costs aren't an issue in terms of an album release.

But you still want to sell a certain quantity of discs otherwise:

a) Your expenses may not be made back.
b) Your effort is wasted.
c) You don't bother releasing the next one.

Let's be honest - if you pirate some crap top ten album, it's illegal and wrong, but in the end, it's not going to hurt any individual HALF as much as it does when you pirate a minority interest VGM/film/TV project album.

In most cases, composers themselves have to push for their music to be released - sometimes they even have to put their own money up front to convince the label - and it's no small effort. They're doing all this off their own backs whilst simultaneously furiously writing away at their next score.

I would imagine, for gentlemen like Chris Tilton, album releases aren't really a way of making money. I have no idea if a composer receives royalties on album sales - perhaps somebody can enlighten this discussion?

You might say he got paid for delivering the finished score and that's that.

But if it's not about money, what IS it about? Respect for his fans - working hard not only to write the best music he can, but also making sure that the people who want it can get it. What is the problem people have with returning that respect and just buying the damn album? If you can't afford it - save up, ask for it for Christmas, get a job, or just don't have it; that's the way the world works.

And, as far as album sales are concerned, it's swings and roundabouts. If he sells a billion copies, he's not going to have to battle quite so hard when the next score comes around. If he sells nothing or very few copies, and then finds these efforts being circulated for free, well - you can see why that would be disheartening.

Respect, all. :)
D

$15 really isn't a lot of money. You want to try living in the United Kingdom, where, not so long ago, you might pay �15 ($25-30) for a new CD.

The "I can't afford to pay!" argument you see so often is absolutely insane.

I can't afford to pay for an Aston Martin - so maybe I should just go visit the factory and take one off the forecourt, on the grounds that I would buy it if I had the money, and because I believe that they are overpriced.
Intellectual property is nonrival. If you listen to a CD, that does not prevent me from listening to the same CD. If you eat a candy bar, it does prevent me from eating the same candy bar!

Agreed - if I take a copy of a CD, I haven't impaired the original in any way or affected the owner's ability to enjoy it.

However, the fact remains that there are now two copies of "something" in circulation and the manufacturers have only sold one.

I don't think there is any point in making analogies involving the exact definition of the word "theft" because it's quite clear that copying something without paying for it - whilst not constituting actual removal of property (intellectual or otherwise) - does most definitely allow somebody access to that property without having recompensed its owner/creator for their effort.

You benefit; the person who made the property / designed it / built it does not benefit. Your gain is his loss. Theft.

Are you telling me you think "I can't afford this CD therefore I shall pirate it!" is a valid, morally sound argument to adopt? Surely not...

[Edit: You have edited your post to remove a certain "aggressive" undercurrent; thank you.]

I'm new, but found this thread through a link and thought I would add something.

Wal-Mart is an interesting beast. They buy in bulk. I can't remember the numbers, but of the dvd, book, cd, etc markets, Wal-Mart sells more than any other place, and they only sell certain items. They are not Amazon, but they sell the most of the items they do carry, by a lot, or something like that.

On principle, I don't like Wal-Mart. But they are one of the few stores that can go toe to toe with record labels and get their way, because record labels and other companies know they sell.

But I can still remember when CDs were like 7 bucks in the '80s. Record labels put a tax on cassette tapes to profit off people's piracy. The problem is they can't tax MP3's, so they're struggling to find a way to capitalize on this. Their response was to raise CD prices, which caused more people to pirate.The fact is, the digital age has made the RIAA and 3rd party marketer/distributors obsolete. NIN and Radiohead have shown you don't need a contract with a label if you're good.

Indeed - one thing's for certain; the old business model isn't working any more and it's not going to survive much longer.

The cassette tax was interesting because it was almost admitting defeat: "We know you're going to copy CDs so we'll make our money back on the blank recordable media instead."

Isn't there also a Canadian tax on recordable CDs or did I imagine that?

I think there have been discussions about a blanket P2P tax to be levied upon all internet connections - ie, you pay an extra �5 per month for your internet connection which is distributed evenly amongst rights holders, and in exchange, universal file sharing is legalised.

Interesting idea but the industry will never go for it. Not yet, anyway...

NIN and Radiohead have shown you don't need a contract with a label if you're good.

Hmmm...Maybe maybe. Or they showed that an already successful band that tours a lot can count on making their money through touring. VGM composers, as one of a number of people who wouldn't benefit from this model, don't have that luxury.

Isn't there also a Canadian tax on recordable CDs or did I imagine that?
I'm not entirely sure. I recall hearing that most blank CD companies told the record labels to fu** off, because they didn't want to raise their prices. They knew people would buy their CDs, and MP3's meant people would buy even more. Plus most record labels made their own tapes. Now a lot of computer companies are making blank CDs, not music companies.

I do know that there is a HUGE difference from one CD company to the next, and I doubt it's because their blank CDs are REALLY 10 bucks worth better.

I could be wrong though, it's been a long time since I did any reading on the topic.

VGM composers, as one of a number of people who wouldn't benefit from this model, don't have that luxury.
True, but that was also before Itunes. I know a lot of smalltime, local bands that sell on Itunes. Plus 10 years ago no one wanted to buy the Sonic the Hedgehog, or Mario Brothers music. Nowadays with actual bands and composers making real music for games, it's different. But still even if printing the CDs would be a waste, Itunes would be a perfect market for those as well. I'm sure Tommy Talarico would approve.

[COLOR="DarkOrange"]True, but that was also before Itunes...Plus 10 years ago no one wanted to buy the Sonic the Hedgehog, or Mario Brothers music. Nowadays with actual bands and composers making real music for games, it's different. But still even if printing the CDs would be a waste, Itunes would be a perfect market for those as well. I'm sure Tommy Talarico would approve.

I agree with you except I'd re-word, "Nowadays with actual bands and composers making real music for games." By "real music" I assume you mean that it's recorded using high quality synthesizers and live performance now, and that's true. We're no longer working in chiptune. But the quality of the compositions and composers back in the day was astounding, especially because of the technological limitations. Don't want to denigrate the skill of those composers. It was "real" music. The sounds producing the melody, counter-melody, bass, and percussion just didn't adhere to mainstream conventions because of the technological limitations.

I guess I should have. What I meant was mainstream bands selling music for games, or writing songs specifically for games. Like Reznor for Quake.

Gotcha. I was actually disappointed in the Quake soundtrack. I'm a huge fan of Reznor, but I didn't find it to be very interesting.

Interesting comments, particularly from Dannyfrench (who maintains his usual high standard). Some thoughts of my own.

First off, the point of my starting this thread was not to try and justify pirating. Pirating is stealing. Period. End of debate on that one. My point on the artificially inflated prices of cds is that I can understand the backlash when people suddenly had another source for music. It may not be right, but I understand the mentality behind it.

On a very minor point, I initially put this thread in the Downloads forum, not because I wanted it to be seen, rather because I wanted it to be seen BY THE PEOPLE most involved with the subject. My logic has been born out by the fact that by placing the thread is this forum, of everyone who has responded, only one is a regular poster to the download forum. Hence the topic is not reaching the people it was meant for. Oh well, water under the bridge.

I personally find it interesting that over 40% of the price of cds is for the costs of �label� and �retail� overhead. They are so nebulous, that companies can add anything but the kitchen sink in that line item, and who knows, maybe the kitchen sink IS in there, too! The rest of the line items are quite specific, there is no question what packaging/manufacturing is for.

Danny mentioned that music companies have every right to price their products whatever amount they choose. Yep, he is right. He also feels $15.99 is not so much to ask. I think that is more relative. For some yes, for others, that is a real hardship. Which, again, does not justify pirating it.

If people feel they are being charged an unfair price, however, they are going to feel more justified pirating. Most people I know have been complaining about the high prices of cds for years. Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people seem to think they are being taken advantage of. When over 40% of the cost ends up being for line items that are completely subjective numbers, that leaves a lot of room for doubt that the $15.99 price is not price gouging.

I agree danny that $15 is not a lot of money and if I really like a CD then it is a worthy price and I pay it. The hard part is finding those cds that are worth buying among the cds that aren't even worth buying for $5 as a MP3 format. With very distinct tastes that are not represented on the radio I have no other choice but to resort to downloading in order to sample things before I buy them. I can't possibly get a good idea of the quality of a CD by listening to 30 second low-bitrate samples assuming they actually exist.

I think the price of a typical CD has been about the same as long as Ive ever bought them :)

The fact still remains: If I really like your music, I'll find the money to buy it.

Gotcha. I was actually disappointed in the Quake soundtrack. I'm a huge fan of Reznor, but I didn't find it to be very interesting.

OFFTOPIC: That's because it's dark ambient music. You need to listen to it in the middle of the night lying in your bed, with no lights on, a good headphone on, and volume up. Not when the sun is shining and you're doing other things while it's playing.

Only then can one appreciate it. I find Quake to be Reznor's best, albeit strangest work, and it's composed before his other major albums...

Grisly Grotto, baby. Listen to at least this one in the middle of the night and focus on the sonic experience ;)

Sorry for the major off-topic post, as you can tell, I'm very fond of Quake's soundtrack.

I actually listened to it twice on headphones around 3-4 a.m. And I like ambient music. I just found it boring. Oh, well... Reznor has made enough music that we can all find something to like.

I actually listened to it twice on headphones around 3-4 a.m. And I like ambient music. I just found it boring. Oh, well... Reznor has made enough music that we can all find something to like.

Oh darn it all :p

And yes, true that.

Just to reiterate something that danny indicated earlier, in the UK we are used to being overcharged for EVERYTHING, not just cds. In fact, the price of music is the least of our worries. When I was a teenager I was able to get into classical music largely thanks to the budget label Naxos, who’s mission statement, if you like, was to offer ‘no-frills’ quality recordings of core repertoire and more obscure stuff all for 5 pounds a disc. Thus, I went through a phase of spending pretty much all of my humble funds exploring what I considered to be the best of music. It was ok to risk a purchase on a composer you’d never heard of, or a slighter piece by one of the big names, because it was only a fiver.

Film music is a different kettle of fish of course. In my view there is a lot of utter trash out there, and cds in highstreet stores are usually around the 12-15 pound mark. That didn’t stop me from buying as many Goldsmith and Herrmann cds (my all time favourite film composers) as I could lay my hands on though.. It was always something of a pleasant shock to actually find a Goldsmith cd in a store - as soon as the few copies (one copy?) of Star Trek, Supergirl or Small Soldiers appear in stock they whizzed off the shelves, meanwhile endless Gladiators, Back to Titanics and Bladerunners lay around undesirably. The internet has changed things a lot, and frankly you’d have to be a fool to buy dvds, books, cds etc on the British highstreet today.

The thing that disturbs me slightly about this forum is the seemingly indiscriminate, obsessive downloading/collecting that goes on – ie it’s a score, so I must download! I’m mostly interested in out of print or non-commercially available (ie bootleg, promo) releases of stuff I’m passionate about or have a developing curiosity for. Sometimes I do also download newer, expanded editions of scores I already own (like the recent FSM Twilight Zone – but I def intend to buy this). I also listened to the new Star Trek and Terminator scores recently, which I never would’ve done normally (if I had to buy), as Giacchino and later-day Elfman simply don’t interest me enough. Suffice to say, I’ve now deleted both, and it’s only in the most vapid sense that I’ve ‘stolen’ this music. There was, however, the outside chance that one or other of them *might* have surprised me with their inventiveness and emotion, and I *might* have been compelled to buy the disc, and changed the normal course of events. So I do agree to an extent that it may encourage you to buy more. I’ve discovered a lot of great new music thanks to this forum. At no point though do I feel the need to ‘justify’ this to myself, and I find it slightly odd (if not to say naive) to do so. The Orchestral thread is something of a haven because people offer personal selections of music and discuss their interests. It’s totally different to the kind of robotic grabbing that goes on elsewhere. It’s less about unthinking opportunism and more about sharing – or at least, that’s how it seems to me..

Chris Tilton’s recent appearance was interesting and very humbling. I haven’t heard any of his music. I’ve never played the games he’s written for, and didn’t download any before they were spirited away. I only know that several members here whose opinions I respect greatly admire his work, and I could totally understand his request. The obvious irony is that it will be his most ardent supporters and sympathisers that were quickest to download it all in the first place. The ethical dimension of the situation shifted significantly by the composer himself asking for removal of the links, however – and I was stunned at the tone of certain replies! But of course, we are all in danger of sounding like guilt-tripping hypocrites if we assume a righteously indignant tone on any of this.

I was planning on going to bed about an hour ago but saw this note and then had to backtrack to catch up with Chris Tilton's appearance and the ensuing conversation. I'm all out of energy now, but I wanted to thank you, Lens of Truth, for running some crowd control during that conversation and also calling on the forum to be civil. I enjoy talking about music with the people here because the conversations usually don't devolve into shouting matches, and that atmosphere is something I want to preserve. I'll write some more tomorrow.

I can understand the backlash when people suddenly had another source for music. It may not be right, but I understand the mentality behind it.

Indeed - it was inevitable. I don't think, however, that it has a great deal to do with any perception of over-inflated prices: Let's be absolutely honest - if a CD cost a penny and there was a way to have it for nothing, 99% of people would take it for nothing. Humans will take the route of least effort and least expense. Every single time.


...music companies have every right to price their products whatever amount they choose. Yep, he is right. He also feels $15.99 is not so much to ask. I think that is more relative. For some yes, for others, that is a real hardship. Which, again, does not justify pirating it.

Well, it IS up to the label what they charge; but at the same time they need to be mindful of the fact that if they're charging "too much" then you and I will vote with our wallets and not buy the CD.

To be, the $15.99 doesn't really need to represent raw materials and expenses in order to be justified. It's a token - it's a sum of money that you exchange for art. Music cannot have a pricetag put upon it because it is priceless.

If you can't afford $15.99, then it's too much to ask. It is indeed relative.

If you don't think the music is worth $15.99 then it's also too much to ask.

But the solution in both cases is GO WITHOUT. That's the way it goes.

People who justify piracy with "I'm too poor!" or "It's too expensive!" or "I'm only twelve and I don't have a credit card!" -- it was to those individuals that I was directing my rant.


If people feel they are being charged an unfair price, however, they are going to feel more justified pirating.

They will feel justified, but they won't be.


When over 40% of the cost ends up being for line items that are completely subjective numbers, that leaves a lot of room for doubt that the $15.99 price is not price gouging.

When I'm working from home, my boss can't actually see that I'm working. I might be watching the TV, sitting on the toilet, masturbating, or reading the newspaper.

It may be gouging - it may not be; but ultimately nobody is forcing you to pay that much money.

Record company wants to make a profit.

The sad fact is, whilst sufficiently numbers of people are willing to pay $15.99 - regardless of how justified that price actually is - the record company isn't going to put down the prices. Obviously the major labels are still making enough money that they're not particularly worried - YET. This may change, though I fear it will be for the worse as legal download services grow in popularity and fewer physical CDs are sold. To satisfy the lesser demand, prices will go up. This will encourage fans of physical media to move to downloads. Prices will go up further and CDs will die out. Then the record company will charge whatever he likes for downloads, and the consumer loses out once again.


The hard part is finding those cds that are worth buying among the cds that aren't even worth buying for $5 as a MP3 format. With very distinct tastes that are not represented on the radio I have no other choice but to resort to downloading in order to sample things before I buy them. I can't possibly get a good idea of the quality of a CD by listening to 30 second low-bitrate samples assuming they actually exist.

Tell me about it - that's why I download, and it's why I share. Samples give you a good idea but ultimately you're going to want to be as certain about your purchase as you possibly can - particularly in these dark economic times. I've downloaded albums before, played them once, then went straight out to the record store (remember those?) to buy them. Otherwise they get deleted or ignored.

Trouble is, the morally-justified side to piracy is completely offset by the fact that 99.9999% of people won't use free downloads in that way. They'll use them as a speedy alternative to paying for music.

In order for the "piracy helps artists" model to work, 100% of humans have to be honest, morally-upstanding members of society. They aren't - so it doesn't work.


From Lens Of Truth: When I was a teenager I was able to get into classical music largely thanks to the budget label Naxos - it was ok to risk a purchase on a composer you’d never heard of, or a slighter piece by one of the big names, because it was only a fiver.

Me too - if it hadn't been for Naxos I wouldn't have been able to develop my musical taste at all.


The thing that disturbs me slightly about this forum is the seemingly indiscriminate, obsessive downloading/collecting that goes on – ie it’s a score, so I must download!

Indeed - I've commented on that before. It's largely about "free stuff is free so I will take it because it is free!" and not at all about music.


At no point though do I feel the need to ‘justify’ this to myself, and I find it slightly odd (if not to say naive) to do so. The Orchestral thread is something of a haven because people offer personal selections of music and discuss their interests. It’s totally different to the kind of robotic grabbing that goes on elsewhere. It’s less about unthinking opportunism and more about sharing – or at least, that’s how it seems to me..

You don't have to justify a thing; and neither does anybody else who downloads and shares in the manner you do.

As I say, people attempt to justify all piracy because they personally are guided by their moral compasses. If all people were, life would be great. All people aren't.

Chaps like Chris Tilton will see downloading happening and of course they'll be pissed off.

It doesn't matter in the great scheme of things that MYSELF, PERSONALLY, I have downloaded one pirated Tilton score and then immediately purchased it and two others at the same time because I was so thrilled with the first. That fact can only justify my use of illegal downloads.


Chris Tilton’s recent appearance was interesting and very humbling. I haven’t heard any of his music. The ethical dimension of the situation shifted significantly by the composer himself asking for removal of the links, however – and I was stunned at the tone of certain replies! But of course, we are all in danger of sounding like guilt-tripping hypocrites if we assume a righteously indignant tone on any of this.

Absolutely. It was humbling for me because I have such a great respect for the man - and yet I have been a participant in piracy. Yes, I download pirated music. Yes, I can reconcile this fact morally because of my statements earlier on. My main complaint is, as you say, regarding the indiscriminate, full-throttle theft that occurs here and on the internet at large - that can't be justified legally, morally, or in any other way.

I expect that's what people like Chris Tilton are objecting to - obviously he's an intelligent man and I'll eat my hat if he's never downloaded a track or two from Kazaa or perused the Pirate Bay. His complaint, I suspect, isn't to any one individual. I doubt that he'd hate me personally if I told him that I downloaded Black and then immediately bought it, Mercenaries and Mercenaries 2 because I was so thrilled with it; because from his perspective I bought three CDs. The problem is the fifty million people who downloaded everything in sight and never bought a damn thing.

I wanted to add to this thread a small question that I can't seem to find a good answer to. Is there possibly an inexpensive web site where you can import european albums? I discovered two awesome European metal groups recently and noticed that the online stores where they sell their albums it costs 18 euros which is approximately 25$ to buy the album and that is a bit ridiculous for one CD. Are there any other web sites that you guys are aware of that may offer them for less to US consumers?

I'm pretty sure Quake was after Downward and Further Down, which depending on who you talk to, were two of his biggest and most remembered albums (unless you were born in the '90s).

Also, the problem with CD pricing is that supply and demand no longer applies when you introduce the free pricing of piracy. It's a variable that wasn't offered by the company, and one they can't control, which I'm sure they hate. But it exists.

Also, Itunes has redefined the business model. The concept of the album no longer applies. I don't have to buy the whole CD just to get one track anymore, which is great. And yes there were singles, and still are, for the biggest names. What about small time bands/singers that don't have that marketing power? And what about the bands that don't have American distributors? Most of my favorites are from over seas. Some happen to have an American label, one recently got a new American label, and rereleased some previously UNreleased albums, and another has no American label at all. Forcing me to pirate them, cause I can't afford the higher price in import taxes.

My only problem is the credit card hoop that I need to go through in order to import a CD from Japan. But even then, I found a way to import 6 albums. It's just that I would be much more eager to drop my money on some VGM albums if I could just walk into a store and pick my poison for the day.

Hey guys just wanted to answer my own question at least with regards to importing euro metal/rock. www.cdinzane.com has great prices for import metal/rock.

Chloe - I never had a problem with using a credit card to import CDs from Japan. I have been importing CDs from Japan for years now and never had a problem even when I ordered over $200 worth of stuff at a time. I typically use www.yesasia.com or www.play-asia.com for VGM and www.yesasia.com and www.cdjpapan.jp for JPOP/JROCK

Hey guys just wanted to answer my own question at least with regards to importing euro metal/rock. www.cdinzane.com has great prices for import metal/rock.

Chloe - I never had a problem with using a credit card to import CDs from Japan. I have been importing CDs from Japan for years now and never had a problem even when I ordered over $200 worth of stuff at a time. I typically use www.yesasia.com or www.play-asia.com for VGM and www.yesasia.com and www.cdjpapan.jp for JPOP/JROCK

I have a Maestro card. But anyway, I know some people who import CDs from Japan, so I simply ask them and throw my cash their way when I can.