›

E-music...any good?

mrmatthewmrmatthew 1,575 Posts
edited February 2007 in Strut Central
So has anyone here ever signed up for this "50FreeDownloads" thing? Is it a scam? Whats the deal?I could get 50 free downloads of good indie stuff then cancel my accoun before i am billed, right?

  Comments

  • mr.brettmr.brett 678 Posts
    I don't like it because the bitrate generally sucks. It varies depending on what album or label your file comes from. I cancelled my subscription because I would just rather buy more expensive files with a better bit rate.
  • montymonty 420 Posts
    Q: What is a bitrate? At what bitrate are eMusic's MP3s encoded at?[/b]

    A: Bitrate is the number of bits per second used in the encoding process. A higher bitrate (a.k.a encoding rate) usually means a larger size file, but higher quality sound. eMusic currently encodes its MP3s using VBR (Variable Bit Rate). VBR is a type of audio compression that allows certain sections of the audio to be encoded at different bit rates. The intricate audio sounds are encoded at a higher rate while the simple sounds are encoded at a lower rate. This is different than standard bit rate encoding, which allows for all of the sounds to be encoded at the same rate. The average bit rate used for VBR on eMusic is 192k. Essentially VBR encoding gives you the best possible sound quality in the smallest file size possible.

    yes, you can get the free downloads, and then cancel the account. i did that long ago, but i have since rejoined. i like emusic.

    the most important thing is their mp3s are DRM free.[/b] and independent labels and artists get paid.
  • ZomBZomB 397 Posts
    http://www.slsknet.org
  • mr.brettmr.brett 678 Posts
    If you're just listening to music or aren't concerned with playing the highest quality files, I would say that emusic is a good service. Personally, I would rather buy lossless files like wavs so that when I dj out I know that I'm playing the highest quality digital audio file that I can play.
    I do most of my digital shopping at stompy.com and beatport.com because they have a large selection of elctronic music in wav format.
  • TNGTNG 234 Posts
    independent labels and artists get paid.

    This is open for debate. As all of eMusic revenue comes from subscriptions, their payouts are based on net revenue divided by number of downloads. So, if after eMusic takes their fees and perecentage off, the total net revenue is 1M, and they "sold" 10M songs, then the actual amount is only 10 cents per track sold to the label/artist. The full stat rate on mechanicals is 9.1 cents, leaving the label and artist to quibble over 9/10ths of a cent.

    But for the sake of argument, lets say it's 1M/2M downloads. That's 50 cents per track. Knock off a dime (rounded) for mechanicals, and the label and artist split a whopping 40 cents. If the artist is on a 50/50 revenue split, then they make 20 cents. But what if they're on a 70/30 split? The numbers continue to get worse as the percentage divide increases.

    Consider that iTunes pays 70% of the retail price of 99 cents, and you're looking at 2/5th more than my best case eMusic model. In a business of pennies, that 2/5ths will stack up really quickly for the artist and label. Other Music's new download service is offering labels 65% and various levels of pricing, giving the label and artist opportunities to decide how much their music is worth.

    eMusic is of much greater benefit to the consumer, which is great if you're only a consumer. But for people trying to make a living off their art (or business prowess), eMusic is working in direct competition to them. By offering their product for cheap, or free in the case of "50 free downloads," they're really just finding a new way to cut up the penny. They don't comp the artists or labels for those 50 free downloads because their primary concern is getting that trial subscriber to buy in at $9.99 a month.

    Let's look at the real eMusic basic subscription economics:

    $9.99 per month divided by 30 downloads is 33 cents per download. Let's knock eMusic's 50/50 revenue split off, and take off another few pennies for their various fees (uploading, delivering charge, the list goes on and on). Where are we at? 14 cents? Mechanical at 9.1 cents and you're down to less than 5 cents. One nickel. And it just gets worse for each subscription level. Now, throw in the 50 free downloads times maybe 1000 trials a month. The net result is that they increased the pool of songs without increasing the pool of revenue. The net result is that you were fucked before you encoded your first track.

    So yes, eMusic techincally "pays," but so does Walmart. Can I interest anyone in a smock?

    (Edited to correct a spelling error and wrongly inserted number)
  • snicka_gsnicka_g Hong Kong 276 Posts
    independent labels and artists get paid.

    This is open for debate. As all of eMusic revenue comes from subscriptions, their payouts are based on net revenue divided by number of downloads. So, if after eMusic takes their fees and perecentage off, the total net revenue os 1M, and they "sold" 10M songs, then the actual amount is only 10 cents per track sold to the label/artist. The full stat rate on mechanicals is 9.1 cents, leaving the label and artist to quibble over 9/10ths of a cent.

    But for the sake of argument, lets say it's 1M/5M downloads. That's 50 cents per track. Knock off a dime (rounded) for mechanicals, and the label and artist split a whopping 40 cents. If the artist is on a 50/50 revenue split, then they make 20 cents. But what if they're on a 70/30 split? The numbers continue to get worse as the percentage divide increases.

    Consider that iTunes pays 70% of the retail price of 99 cents, and you're looking at 2/5th more than my best case eMusic model. In a business of pennies, that 2/5ths will stack up really quickly for the artist and label. Other Music's new download service is offering labels 65% and various levels of pricing, giving the label and artist opportunities to decide how much their music is worth.

    eMusic is of much greater benefit to the consumer, which is great if you're only a consumer. But for people trying to make a living off their art (or business prowess), eMusic is working in direct competition to them. By offering their product for cheap, or free in the case of "50 free downloads," they're really just finding a new way to cut up the penny. They don't comp the artists or labels for those 50 free downloads because their primary concern is getting that trial subscriber to buy in at $9.99 a month.

    Let's look at the real eMusic basic subscription economics:

    $9.99 per month divided by 30 downloads is 33 cents per download. Let's knock eMusic's 50/50 revenue split off, and take off another few pennies for their various fees (uploading, delivering charge, the list goes on and on). Where are we at? 14 cents? Mechanical at 9.1 cents and you're down to less than 5 cents. One nickel. And it just gets worse for each subscription level. Now, throw in the 50 free downloads times maybe 1000 trials a month. The net result is that they increased the pool of songs without increasing the pool of revenue. The net result is that you were fucked before you encoded your first track.

    So yes, eMusic techincally "pays," but so does Walmart. Can I interest anyone in a smock?

    This was really interesting. Thanks for taking the time to write this up.
  • TNGTNG 234 Posts
    This was really interesting. Thanks for taking the time to write this up.

    I'm here to help.

    If anyone has had a different experience on the label/artist end, please post. FYI: My "rant" is based on my first label's deal with eMusic (there was a waste of five years), the proposal they sent to Numero (declined obv), and the information posted in their FAQ.
Sign In or Register to comment.