In an age where most people can have a used album from the likes of The Who, Smiths, Bowie, Lou Reed (whatever your taste really) delivered to your door for around £2-3, is it realistic for unsigned, unpromoted artists (however good) to sell downloads at £1 per track? I'm not sure what costs are involved in selling a download, but I would have thought they are minimal? Would it not be better for everyone to sell lots of tracks at 20p than next to none (I'm guessing) at £1?
Trouble is, it's not a fair comparison. First of all, you're talking second hand copies - the availability of which relies on massive production scales. And secondly, you're comparing something that's already paid for itself many times over to something that may never pay for itself - ever.
For example, my album cost me several £thousand, since I couldn't achieve the production standard I was after by myself. The cost of duplicating the CDs or uploading my music to an aggregator is a tiny fraction of that cost, but it's the only cost anyone actually sees.
You could also argue that making the album cost me many more thousands in hours spent not earning while I was learning instruments, practising, writing, driving to gigs, driving to the studio etc etc etc.
I don't *expect* anyone to pay anything, and actually I'm grateful if someone's even interested in hearing my music, but I do believe it has value, and I'm happy to sell it at the recommended price for whichever platform it ends up on.