Kid Rock Lashes Out Against iTunes, Endorses Illegal Downloading

[Leopold BUTTERS]

Originally Posted by becomingwater

I see what he is talking about. Apple just recently raised some songs to $1.29 from $.99, which I do not understand that. The next big act from Apple will be the App store going crazy with an outrage of high prices. Right now the App store is their baby with over 1 billion downloads. on another note Trent Reznor gave away one of his albums and his shows sell out, so it was a good thing on his part. The record company's get greedy which is sad and to top it off you get fake Billboard chart which to this day are still inaccurate.

It's because the songs are now up to the quality you would get from a cd. So they are 30 cents more.

[mikejet]

Originally Posted by Leopold BUTTERS

It's because the songs are now up to the quality you would get from a cd. So they are 30 cents more.

Nope, they inflated the prices of the more popular songs. The songs on iTunes have always been of CD quality.

[BStecke]

128kbps and 256kbps are NOT CD quality. It'll be interesting to see how many established artists start embracing this mentality. Trent Reznor, in the Napster days, even said that piracy was wrong, plain and simple. But unlike the record companies who have no idea how to handle the internet in terms of their product, he's actually realized that there is no way he control people downloading his music, so he's changed how his product is distributed and ended up better for it. Yes, it does suck for up and coming acts, but at the same time, it encourages people to put out a better product.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by BStecke

128kbps and 256kbps are NOT CD quality.

Thank you...it amazes me to see how many people actually think iTunes sound quality is equal to CD, and how many will actually PAY for something with inferior sound.

[JamesKurtovich]

Wow, for once I agree with Kid Rock. I usually hate his face. The one good thing about the internet is that it's forced people to reduce the price of CD's. Before iTunes, I had to pay $22 for a CD.

[hc666]

Originally Posted by BrandonT

Thank you...it amazes me to see how many people actually think iTunes sound quality is equal to CD, and how many will actually PAY for something with inferior sound.

MP3 quality blows from these sites...

they sound fine on a crappy ipod, but play them on a kick ass stereo and you can hear just how crappy MP3s really are.

It blows my mind that a place where people demand the best audio and video from bluray, will then download their music on mp3 format and think it's good.

:P

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by hc666

MP3 quality blows from these sites...

they sound fine on a crappy ipod, but play them on a kick ass stereo and you can hear just how crappy MP3s really are.

It blows my mind that a place where people demand the best audio and video from bluray, will then download their music on mp3 format and think it's good.

:P

Yes, but only to a certain extent: 320kbps mp3 is virtually indistinguishable from a CD or .wav file, as long as the encoding is done well. There have been many many double blind tests done that have proved the human ear cannot tell the difference between 320kbps mp3 and CD. I DJ on a huge 28-cabinet world-class Turbosound Aspect system, and no one can tell when I am playing 320mp3 or .wav. BUT...I would never play anything less than 320, even 256 I think I can tell the difference.

However in this day and age, when we all have huge hard drives, my philosophy is why NOT have everything in .wav, even if your ears can't tell the difference...

[mikejet]

Originally Posted by BrandonT

Yes, but only to a certain extent: 320kbps mp3 is virtually indistinguishable from a CD or .wav file, as long as the encoding is done well. There have been many many double blind tests done that have proved the human ear cannot tell the difference between 320kbps mp3 and CD. I DJ on a huge 28-cabinet world-class Turbosound Aspect system, and no one can tell when I am playing 320mp3 or .wav. BUT...I would never play anything less than 320, even 256 I think I can tell the difference.

However in this day and age, when we all have huge hard drives, my philosophy is why NOT have everything in .wav, even if your ears can't tell the difference...

.flac > .wav

[hc666]

Originally Posted by BrandonT

Yes, but only to a certain extent: 320kbps mp3 is virtually indistinguishable from a CD or .wav file, as long as the encoding is done well. There have been many many double blind tests done that have proved the human ear cannot tell the difference between 320kbps mp3 and CD. I DJ on a huge 28-cabinet world-class Turbosound Aspect system, and no one can tell when I am playing 320mp3 or .wav. BUT...I would never play anything less than 320, even 256 I think I can tell the difference.

However in this day and age, when we all have huge hard drives, my philosophy is why NOT have everything in .wav, even if your ears can't tell the difference...

Yeah not sure Man, I bought the new Metric Record(Vinyl) online and it came with the MP3s for free at 320kbps... anyway i burned them onto an audio cd and play it in my car and it seems to lack range and thump to my ears. Maybe thats just the way it sounds, but com,pared to other real CDs, it appears to be lacking.

[scweb13]

Originally Posted by Leopold BUTTERS

It's because the songs are now up to the quality you would get from a cd. So they are 30 cents more.

Some songs are also 30 cents less.

Originally Posted by mikejet

Nope, they inflated the prices of the more popular songs. The songs on iTunes have always been of CD quality.

All the songs are now iTunes plus (DRM free and higher quality).

It would be illegal for the studios not to pay the artist their royalties. Kid Rock probably just doesn't make as much money or sell as many songs as he would like to from iTunes.

[Galley]

Kid Rock is an idiot! It's the record companies who set the prices. Apple makes about 5 cents per track.

[Forrestandjen07]

yeap, hes ben pro illegal download for years now