I do prefer to use iTunes, but I am still buying the odd CD because iTunes isn't up to date e.g. they list the Lee Kernaghan single, The New Bush, but the album has been out and in the shops for a few weeks and still no sign of it on iTunes. Why?

Fair call, Charles, although to be honest, in using the sentences she did, the reporter I think in this case has lost much of the gist of the conversation. What we were talking about was, first, not just music, and second, a pure subscription model: the idea that you would pay for access, and then lose access when you stopped paying your subscription.

The point I had been trying to make - and which has been lost in the abridgment - is that people like to own their copies of culture. So it is not so much that we like to buy CDs, but that we are attracted to having copies which we can call our own and refer back to in several years' time. The concept of music like a tap - you keep getting it but only if you keep paying - I think will take a lot longer for people to buy into.

Now, I might of course be wrong on that, and we can fight about that. But I would agree with you that people aren't addicted to buying the physical form of the CD in particular.

The clue will be in how fast people incorporate their portable music devices into a form of the home stereo system, either through a lead to the amp or putting a DVD/hard drive player into the mix. Adoption of portable players is the simple bit but playing compressed digital requires a little more geekdom, though technically yes should just be slipping a lead into the ipod. However whose ipod? and what to do if someone's taken the ipod for a walk or drive? And for that matter how good do 128kb tracks sound on a good stereo? And remember also that 5.1 home cinema systems aren't ideal for music. And what about the portable CD player/radio in the kitchen?

At the moment I think cds and mp3 are coexisting like records and cassettes used to. And as it was then they serve different purposes and there is not a great deal of incentive to change exclusively from one to the other.

So CDs remain simple and yes also have the display factor, like books and records. Moreover a lot of people still like to see, find and pick up things physically.

I'm sure at some point in the future one will have a flat screen on the wall that can show at the press of a button one's extensive playlists. But for now, we've got the cds, the equipment and the habit of using them.

Afterthought 1: I do think the mini systems one sees that also play wmv and mp3 files on burnt cds, and have a usb input for the portable player, will be a bridging technology.

Afterthought 2: if my cds are stolen the insurance company replaces them, but if my (in my case hypothetical) ipod goes they replace the ipod but maybe not the tracks?

Phew, Kim. You ARE quick off the mark!

I'm not, by the way, trying to belittle your opinion, or at least, the abridged view of your opinion. (Why people continue to speak to us journalists I do not know, given what so often happens to one's copy. In my last interview with you, for instance, the subs turned you into a man! For which my apologies.)

I'm merely venturing a completely subjective view here, and trying to find out what others think.

I'd like to have all of mine available on a hard disk that I just plug in, but to date, there is no such device - at least not with the 100GB disk I'd need.

cheers, Paul

For me, I oprefer the bits and bytes rather than the media usually. However, I bought the last two Springsteen CDs from JB's as both came with accompanying DVDs. In the case of We Shall Overcome (a great CD of folk music and spirituals) the disc is dual-sided - one side is CD, the other DVD.

If the "physical media" music business is to continue then it needs to continue delivering these value adds (without additional costs to consumers). For the bits and bytes music market to increase its market and put the physical media out of business it needs to deliver more than just the music.

The modern music lover has grown up in the MTV age and wants more than just the music.

I still buy CDs and haven't subscibed to an online service. Why?

I don't have an iPod and don't listen to music with earplugs. I have speakers and amps and CD player in 4 rooms and under the back veranda and in the garage and in the cars. At least two of the set up could be called Hi-Fi. I don't use MP3s except a very rare download on the PC for curiousity.

I can't get my head around paying almost the same price from mainstream online music retailers as I pay for a high fidelity, easily stored and transported, cover enclosed CD with artwork and liner notes. I can copy the CD for other rooms and for car so that the master remains "pristine".

I also have around 3,000 vinyls LPs and a few hundred singles many (most?) of which aren't available in CD, vinyl or digital form.

I have no objection to purely digital, after all I have been downloading lossless .shn and .flac and ogg vorbis for years and converting to .wav or Red book for playback.

My problem is at least two fold.
1 - I would have to invest substantial $ [I estimate at least $1,000] to set up to play digital in all setups for not much gain and
2 I would have an inferior lossy source as my master.

I don't have a problem with MP3 per se but I do have a problem paying for lossy music which is my only copy and master. In addition if I was to lose the storage I am then up to repay again.

I also object to the charges for (most) online music. Online music prices should be approaching marginal costs of less than $5 an "album" but at the present from what I can see its about the same price as an old style CD, for less (digital and text and art)information.

So
If online music was to approach marginal price AND to be available compressed but lossless, I might then have an incentive to change.

Is this the type of thing you mean Paul?

You can even open up your own $49.00 DVD Cheapo Player from your local discount store and add your own removable HDD caddy yourself, replace the firmware and your away. (Most use standard IDE devices, though you should check if a hacked firmware is available for that player before you purchase one to attack with hammers and jigsaws)

I did the same Anthony at Xmas for my neice and nephew and grabbed a Greenday CD/DVD combo and John Butler Trio CD/DVD combo respectivly. Far greater value in my mind for an extra $3-$5, getting a DVD concert at the same time was well worth it in my opinion. (And my neice did want Hilary Duff and luckily Hilary is signed with SonyBMG so thus I refused on principle).

The ones I looked at for myself was the R.E.M back catalogue re-released with 5.1 surround sound DVD's included in most titles from years gone by (Even though I already have half a dozen REM CD's, I wanted them to have the same favorite songs from the CD available on a Live performance DVD in surround sound for the home cinema). Then I noticed they are full of Copy Control Digital Restriction Managament so alas I thought REM were on a great thing, NOT now though. Pay the cash to the teller at your favorite music shop, when you get to the car in the carpark you cannot listen to the 'audio disc' as it is not a CD. So close REM were in getting me to purchase new copies of CD's I already owned and then it gets all up with DRM.

Being a fully fledged music nerd, I have definitely found this. I use iTunes and emusic for downloads but still buy a heap of "real" CDs. One thing, I like to have the liners notes, even if it's just the musician info. For instance, I recently bought from iTunes the 3 disc Elvis gospel set "Peace in the Valley." There is a 2 disc set out already which I have and it would be good to be able to compare the tracks, which are the same, different. Where were they recorded? Who was in the band? Can't find that info via Google so am bereft. I bought the new Springsteen from iTunes and it comes with a video of one track, but the store bought copy as Anthony says has a longer DVD with five or six songs. So now the completist in me will have to go and buy the CD. Lots of cheap remasters/reissues these days have fairly impressive booklets with essays and pics, that's what I'm buying too.

If I buy individual songs I weirdly feel it's somehow ... incomplete. Many times I have not bought a song because I think "no, I want that whole album, might as well buy the 'real thing.'" I am surgically attached to my iPod so it's not a technophobe thing, I'm not a real audiophile, don't mind the loss in quality when converted to MP3. I think generally like Kim says, it will take a while for our various habits to change enough that things in purely electronic form have the same aura as the bit of plastic in our hands.

That's the sort of thing, but it's tricky to stick in the car or take on the plane.

cheers, Paul

Everyone seems to be assuming that "music" is rock and roll. Or vice versa.

If, when you use the word "music", you mean Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn or Bach then the attraction of the physical CD is that it is a facsimile of a work of art to which you can constantly return.

There is a world of difference in the experience of hearing music through a good sound system and hearing the same thing through ear buds. Ear buds are OK. I quite like them. But sitting in a dark room with The Marriage of Figaro on the sound apparatus at realistic levels is another thing altogether.

Perhaps the physical disc is no longer relevant for the lovers of head banging but when it comes to music the disc is still the storage medium of choice.

Actually Anthony,

Copying your cd's to protect the original is against the law... I'd keep an eye out for the Ruddock patrol.

:)

You can store your classical music on hard disk with no loss of quality - it's only bits - but this requires lots of storage, hence the gadget Stephen found.

cheers, Paul

hi floppy - what you doing over here?

apal - no assumption on my part about music=r'n'r.

It "classical" and jazz and other less mainstream musics that show up the limitations of MP3 on a decent set of speakers.

Labels like EMC and Chesky seem to make it a crying shame to strip out information (music) to use as MP3.

As someone else pointed out above, I'm not prepared to pay as much as they're charging for online music downloads. It's not cheaper than buying CDs now, and CDs contain much higher quality versions of the songs, as well as the artwork and whatever else happens to be on the cover.

We should be getting lossless versions of the songs we want WITHOUT DRM for much less. As it stands now, it's a ripoff.