Music vs Film - or the 'try before you buy' convention

guitarfishbay

One thing I hear/read again and again is that people these days won't buy an album without hearing it first.  Often music acts have entire albums available to stream for free via official channels, both prior to launch and actually in parallel to the album being available.  Arguably we now have a situation where fans in a lot of cases only have to pay for music they enjoyed listening to, after listening to it, if they still want to.

So why and how has music ended up in a totally different position to film?  There isn't a conventional norm to release an entire film for free streaming as a promotional tool for a paid product.  I don't see this ever changing either but do you?  Though it may slowly change, my own personal experience seems to suggest that people are still more likely to buy a DVD/Blu Ray than an album.  Is it purely the physical product thing, or is it a quality thing?  Or is it just because people view films different to music?

I'm not talking about paid subscription streaming services like Spotify/Netflix etc though their influence (and that of illegal downloading sites) can't be ignored as a contributor to this trend.  I'm talking about bands releasing non monetised entire album streams on soundcloud/youtube.

Your thoughts?

bobblehat

How many films have you actually watched more than once? 

With the exception of a few classics most would never watch the same film twice.

I get my Star Wars Trilogy out once a year but other than that I have a cupboard full of DVDs that have only ever been played once.

RocknRollDave

Interesting question.

I remember the days of films coming out on VHS literally years after they had finished in the cinema. It was felt that the home release would detract from bums on seats in the cinema. Interesting that these days when you can buy the DVD weeks (in some cases) after the cinema release, it doesn't seem to harm the film industry - if anything the two keep each other in good health.

I don't know what my point was ...but anyway I think bands/ record companies are paying the price now for people paying way over the odds in the 80's/ 90's for albums that were loaded down with filler. We want to see the pig before we'll pay for the poke now, if you see what I mean.

guitarfishbay

bobblehat said:

How many films have you actually watched more than once? 

With the exception of a few classics most would never watch the same film twice.

I get my Star Wars Trilogy out once a year but other than that I have a cupboard full of DVDs that have only ever been played once.

That argument only supports the value of music though.  Especially since newly released films tend to be more expensive than newly released albums, even if over time this equalises in many cases.

There are probably several albums I've listened to 30+ times.  I can't think of a single film I've watched more than 5 times in my life.

RocknRollDave

With a film, watch it once and you've "heard the punchline", so to speak. You know the ending, what the pay-off is to the build up etc etc.
With music, it's different as it does bear repeated listening (in fact, you could argue that repetition is part of music's appeal, in some ways).

Some folk still like to have a collection of original DVD's/ Blu-rays etc..

I'm kind of a bad example as I have lots of DVD's...but 90% of them are music!

EricTheWeary

Bob Monkhouse! He owned one of the first VCR's in the UK and was prosecuted under the copyright laws because he owned videos of so many films.


Anyhoo:

On Virgin on demand a lot of the films can be watched free for the first ten minutes now, there is a similar thing on my new smart tv which is an app for watching this kind of thing as well. This kind of thing brings the two ideas closer together maybe?

With film by and large you pay more for the novelty ie costs more to see it at the cinema, bit less to buy a dvd, less again for on demand services and eventually ( sort of) free on tv channels. Music roughly mirrors this but perhaps it could more closely - brand new Artic Monkeys full price for cd or download, two months after release half price, two months after that bargain bin and after that free on Spotify ( if you don't mind the ads). How much you pay depends on how keen you are to hear it. This ignores free rip off downloads but then I'm ignoring film bootlegs as well.    

chrispy108

I see cinema more like live gigs than I do DVDs.

Home movies I mostly stream via netflix/lovefilm/nowTV - the ultimate try before you buy model!

guitarfishbay

chrispy108;232709" said:

I see cinema more like live gigs than I do DVDs.

I agree that is the most obvious parallel to draw.

EricTheWeary said:

On Virgin on demand a lot of the films can be watched free for the first ten minutes now, there is a similar thing on my new smart tv which is an app for watching this kind of thing as well. This kind of thing brings the two ideas closer together maybe?

Interesting, I wasn't aware of this.

With film by and large you pay more for the novelty ie costs more to see it at the cinema, bit less to buy a dvd, less again for on demand services and eventually ( sort of) free on tv channels. Music roughly mirrors this but perhaps it could more closely - brand new Artic Monkeys full price for cd or download, two months after release half price, two months after that bargain bin and after that free on Spotify ( if you don't mind the ads). How much you pay depends on how keen you are to hear it. This ignores free rip off downloads but then I'm ignoring film bootlegs as well.

This model would only 'work' for established acts with regular release schedules and fan bases ready to buy as each album comes out.  In all honesty most of the albums I buy have been out at least a year if not a couple of years before I buy them.  It isn't always a case of not being keen to hear more often a case of I'm not aware of it yet.

Axe_meister

I can see film going to purely online streaming in the future with no physical media.
It works for film as you don't usually watch a film whilst walking about so not reliant on a crappy 4g signal.
Where as music you do need a digital copy as you listen on the move. One you have a digital copy it will be cracked. Now I do buy a lot of DVDs/blurays, but I rip them immediately so they Don't get damaged by the kids. However with fast broadband connections download is actually quicker than ripping. Alas at the moment there is no subscription service that releases movies the same day as the DVD.

frankus

CDs are okay to rip to MP3 or whatever.. but with DVDs you're actually breaking copyright law transferring them to another media IIRC.

A song is rarely a story - it's more often a state of mind that we want to "load", a film can put you in a state of mind but it's an aweful big investment of time... I find watching Ironman gets me into a DIY phase again... full of energy.. it can last for weeks (so a worthy investment).

I think at one stage, before colour TV and hobbies (quite a recent occurence) watching films several times was the norm. Before gramophones, hearing a song was probably as expensive as going to the cinema.

So whilst on the face of it the question appears to have an obvious answer it actually is rather interesting exploring how this perception has changed over a few lifetimes.

hmm how do we invite people who'd have that experience without offending them? @Fusionista, @Phil_AKA_pip any ideas how we can invite people who've witnessed the shifting role of cinema into this discussion?

Drew_TNBD

People are entitled arseholes, and it's more difficult for them to steal movies.

guitarfishbay

Drew_fx said:

People are entitled arseholes, and it's more difficult for them to steal movies.

Is that true though?  Honest question, I've not illegally downloaded any film/music/software in about 10 years.  But I do know plenty of my mates download films quite regularly and they seem to be watching recent DVD releases all the time.  Unless you're counting proximity to cinema release date, but again as I'm aware that is usually the first and only means of watching a film to begin with so I'd guess it would be harder than just ripping a DVD and uploading.

Drew_TNBD

Ah I dunno. I'm just talking shit.

Fretwired

Economics. These days you can record an album for peanuts and even a major act like Coldplay will have a finite budget - there's no sitting in the studio for a couple of years noodling around until something comes out. A big blockbuster film can cost between $100 and $200 million dollars - the studio needs to recoup that through sales of cinema tickets. merchandise, DVD/Blueray discs and TV film rights.

Ease of access: New music can easily be copied and put on YouTube so why not do a Coldplay and give people the chance to listen to a new album online. A record company can add other content like videos, live recordings and interviews and create a buzz around an artist. In the case of big acts a CD launch could coincide with a tour so selling tickets could be important.

Streaming: Spotify is now mainstream and Apple iTunes will be offering a similar service soon. I have a Spotify account and use it to listen to new albums and find interesting artists. If an album is really good then I'll buy it. I tend to find too many albums these days are full of filler. Just becuase a CD can hold over 60 mins worth of music doesn't mean you have to fill a CD up with 60 mins worth of music. There's something to be said for the LP record.

And as people have said - a film will be watched a few times. An album or individual tracks can be listened to 100s of times.

holnrew

I download TV and films. I would pay money if I had it.

hungrymark

Film bears repeated viewing in exactly the same way as music. You know how the music goes second time round but that doesn't stop the enjoyment, you just appreciate more than just the surprise. A good film can be appreciated in the same way - nuances and subtleties that are only apparent after repeated viewings. There's loads of films in my collection that I've seen more than a few times.

Adam_MD

holnrew;234247" said:

I download TV and films. I would pay money if I had it.

I download all the tv shows I watch as well though my reasons are

A - I can get it when it aires in the states rather than here
B - no adverts, probably my main reason
C - fuck Rupert Murdoch and how much they charge for Sky tv now.

Fretwired

holnrew said:

I download TV and films. I would pay money if I had it.

So you think it's OK that artists don't get paid for their work?

wave100

Also, in the old days, people were used to hearing music for free (on the radio) so I think that attitude has persisted.

frankus

hungrymark said:

Film bears repeated viewing in exactly the same way as music. You know how the music goes second time round but that doesn't stop the enjoyment, you just appreciate more than just the surprise. A good film can be appreciated in the same way - nuances and subtleties that are only apparent after repeated viewings. There's loads of films in my collection that I've seen more than a few times.

Like for like: most popular song, most popular film - how many times do you think you've replayed them?

chrispy108

Thinking about this more, I see your point about people trying before they buy with music, but I'll happily buy any new release by a band I like blind (deaf?), and I imagine most people are the same.

The average director/writer/actor is going to make/be in more films than the average band release CDs, and obviously they all work in different combinations, so the try before you buy seems less relevant, as you've got a much better idea of what you're going to get than with a new band.