CD's or Mp3?

Now this is possibly one of the most random topics I've ever hit up in a long time but I figured I'd write about it before I lose my train of thought. For about the past 5-6 years, most of us have accustomed ourselves into buying an iPod, iPod Touch, iPhone, Zune or some sort of mp3 or multimedia platform that provides us with music as we travel to school, work, driving or en route to hang out with friends. You would think that the CD would be rendered obsolete. I will be the one to firmly state that the CD won't be dying anytime.

Being that I lived throughout the 80's, 90's and 00's, I've seen all sorts of means for music to be stored. Thus far, it is the CD that tends to stand strong. Why? Think about it -- the average person with an iPod find themselves either buying a new one or needing to replace it in barely 2 years! The audio cassette is easily prone to damage and if you're an avid mp3 player geek, I guarantee you that you will find yourself running through a few of them within a few years. This is coming from a guy who had a Zune's headphone jack die after 2 years, an iPod die within a year and a half, lost an iPod, had it pick pocketed and even die while plugged to an audio dock. As for my Sony Walkman mp3/CD player? 10 years and it lives strong! While I may be a big fan of the convenience and ease of dragging and dropping music onto an mp3 player in contrast to needing to take time to burn a cd, nothing beats the longevity of the CD player. The most you'll have to worry about is putting in a new AA battery in less than 2 weeks.

There's also another element to the CD format that is less appreciated -- listening to an album. CD's sold like crazy because musicians and artists busted their rear ends to make the music they have to market to the masses and in long term, people not only buy but also would recommend it to others to buy it due to how enjoyable they found it to be. Sorry Gaga but if people are buying singles instead of your albums, there's something wrong. I understand why people buy singles now though -- who wants to pay 10-12 dollars for an album that has only 2-3 good songs to enjoy? In that case, instead of going for singles, I think the artist should strive to give the listener, casual or avid, the biggest bang for their buck when they buy an album. Iron Maiden's Number of the Beast was enjoyed as a whole by everyone that bought it, as was Michael Jackson's Thriller, U2's Joshua Tree, Third Day's Offering, Creed's Human Clay, AC/DC's Back in Black, Led Zeppelin's IV, Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, Santana's Supernatural just to name a few of the multi-platinum/diamond status albums.

Granted, there's always the debate about p2p and illegal downloading. So long as the artist continues to deliver the best service they can offer at what they do (making quality music and genuine artistry), your loyal fans will buy. If your material is crap, it's a little more likely that your stuff will be downloaded by torrent engines. Let's be real -- if you can afford a computer, you can afford buying an album. Heck, these days, there are even offers that end up having you buy an album for only 8 bucks instead of the stand 10-12. Hey, no one can get a lawyer for free and even with health insurance, there's no sure chance of getting surgery done cheap either.

In the end, nothing comes for free. You wanna be loved? Love yourself first. You want to be a teacher? Hit them books, get your certifications and get your resume out there in those departments of education. You want to be a great entertainer. Study, practice, sweat (possibly some blood) and tears. Unless you're born into the Trump or Hilton families, it is a real possibility that you need to bust your chops and step up your personal dreams.