The day the music died...

There's hardly a week goes by now when people are decrying that it's the end of music as we know it. CD sales are down, piracy is endemic and the entire music industry is frantically thrashing around trying to find some way of stemming the tide. Usually this manifests itself in the head long rush to offer new ways of offering music via the internet in the ubiquitous mp3 format. Now I don't pretend to understand the complexities of this, nor am I really that interested, however it strikes me that the problem the music industry faces is broadly due to mp3. Normally when people make statements like this, they use the term “mp3” in the same way “CD” or “vinyl” was used in previous generations. I'm not using it in this sense. No I think the problems lie with the limitations of the mp3 format itself.

So why do I think this? I need to put this into context. Way back in the 1980's CD was introduced, becoming the de facto music delivery format. Neat shiny discs delivering music in a robust, high quality package, with sound quality that has only recently been surpassed - but more of that later.

Roll on a few years and CD's main competitor Compact Cassette was starting to look, well lets be blunt a we bit clunky, but as it was the only real way to deliver music on the move it had its place. Realizing that the writing was on the wall two of the companies who had most at stake with cassettes (Philips the inventor of the format and Sony the people who gave us the Walkman) started working on replacements. Each came faced the same problem – people, used to the sound of CD wanted something that sounded as good as CD, but without the bulk. Philips, in a brilliant, if doomed, piece of lateral thinking came up with a digital version of the standard compact cassette. Sony used the CD template and came up with Mini Disc. So far so different. But what these two companies realized was that to fit digital music on their formats they'd have to reduce (or compress) the amount of information stored. And the first mp3-esque formats were introduced. Each one worked on the belief that around 90% of the sound information on a CD was masked meaning that the file sizes could be reduced considerably, allowing music tracks to fit on these more compact formats, with their reduced storage capacity (there's a more technical explanation for this but I'll end up boring myself let alone anyone else reading this). When they were launched the publicity blurb told us that “they sound as good as CD”

Which, and not to beat about the bush, was utter, utter bollox. They barely sounded as good as FM radio. 

Roll on a few years. DCC, died on it's arse. Mini Disc struggled on in the face of newly introduced CD copiers. Compressed music seemed to have been consigned to the dustbin. What possible use was there for music tracks that jettisoned 90% of the detail so that the size of the file was small enough to fit on devices with tiny storage capacities? 

And then, someone realized there was a use. The the old days of dial-up modems downloading any big file was a slow, unreliable process. It didn't take long for someone to put two and two together. Small music files, slow download speeds where made for each other. Further sound quality wasn't that important as people would only ever listen to their downloaded music through the (appalling) speakers supplied with their PC's so it wouldn't be an issue. And anyway, we where told “mp3 sounds as good as CD”. 

Just before we go any further here I think its worth nailing that lie. - mp3 sounds as good as CD only if you need your ears syringed. There is no mid range. The mp3 sound is very much like the sound you would have got if you tweaked an old graphic equalizer, putting the bass and the treble up full and putting the bits in between down low. It is utterly crap. But if your idea of hi-fi is a stereo that costs £99 from tescos or one of those god awful ipod dock things well. Don't believe me. Find a track you like. Rip it to mp3 – even at the highest setting. Play the mp3 version against the CD version. Pretty conclusive*.... But I digress. 

All very interesting (or not as the case may be) but what does this have to do with the end of music as we know it? For the last 10 years or so the media has perpetuated the myth that mp3 sounds as good as CD. Therefore why should I buy a CD in a shop when the mp3 I download for free from a dodgy file sharing is just as good? And what does the music industry do? Do they try and counter this? Do they say mp3 has it's place, alongside CD, filing the role that cassette used to? No. Instead they go on a head long rush to release more stuff via the internet, trying (and largely failing) to sell mp3's (which sound as good as CD's remember) which people can get for free elsewhere. And what happens? CD sales fall, they release more tracks on mp3, tracks people can get for free elsewhere, which means fewer people buy CD's and so on and so forth. 

The demarcation between legitimate and illegitimate downloads vanishes. And the record companies are complicit in this. And it's too late. If they think that allowing gimmick websites to offer the albums for free if people listen to some advertisements, or charging a monthly subscription for the privilege of streaming some low resolution approximation of an album is going to save them then it is proof of the old saying. “There is no worse delusion, than self delusion” If on the other had they said buy CDs. They are the same price as these downloads, offer better quality sound, you can copy them to whatever device you like and you get something tangible to hold onto then they aren't competing with the people who are offering the music for free. 

But this won't happen. The die is, as they say, cast. 

Lets make no mistake about it. Mp3 is an old crap sounding technology that was only used because of technological limitations that existed a decade ago. And yet we are stuck with it. While it's too early to say that CD is dead, it is obvious that the hi def audio formats that were designed to replace CD (DVDA and SACD) are dead (if you ever get the chance to hear either of these going take it. Then scratch your head why people don't / won't buy then) . And why? For the first time it's because they are better than what has gone before. Let me put it a different way. Today people are falling over themselves to buy High Def TV's and Blu ray players – because they are better than what we've had before. They improve the viewing experience. Mp3 makes the experience worse. It's comparable having a device that could show thousands of TV channels but only in black and white.

No doubt, though someone would tell us “Black and white? It looks exactly the same as colour”  





*if you can't hear a difference between the two pop along to Boots or any reputable high street chemist and invest in some some cotton wool buds. 

Something new and / or currently popular "causes health risk"

"Something new and / or currently popular" causes health risks claimed a Doctor. Writing somewhere they said "something new and / or currently popular" can have a detrimental effect on the health of those participating, using, looking at, thinking about or wearing this thing that is new and / or currently popular. Symptoms include amongst others general malaise, hyper activity, loss of appetite, hunger pangs, dandruff, baldness, loss of vision, tennis elbow and fallen arches"

The Doctor also claimed "something new and / or currently popular" has had proven history of being risky to health "everything from ra-ra skirts, Rubic's cube, the Walkman, platform heeled shoes, skateboarding, riding a BMX, travelling on trains going faster than 15 miles an hour, television, diddly boppers, Heely's, the internet, trainers and indoor toilets have contributed to the current state of the general public's health. Although this "new" new and / or currently popular thing was particularly dangerous." They added "the risks are clear, people should do everything to lessen them. Take frequent breaks and drink plenty of water. Alternatively people could simply not engage in, wear, look at, or use this "new and / or currently popular thing" until it's been superseded by the next new and / or currently popular thing.  At this point all symptoms will vanish"

Although stopping short of demanding a ban on "something new and / or currently popular", the Doctor stated that as long as "new" "something new and / or currently popular" things continued to arise then health professionals would point out the risks as quickly as possible, conveniently blaming them for all humanities ills and, more importantly, providing an opportunity for getting their ugly bakes on daytime TV or, better still,  being quoted as an authority on the topic in the lifestyle sections of the Daily Mail.