I've been a dedicated emusic annual subscriber for 3 years now. $96 per year has given me 40 songs to d/l per month. That's 480 songs for $0.20 each or if you figure the average album has 10-12 songs, that's nearly $2.25 per album (if you're into the stats).

So I visit emusic's page today and see that all of these Sony/BMG titles are being added to the catalog - Bruce, Cheap Trick, The Strokes, The Clash, Alice in Chains, The Byrds, Foo Fighters, etc. All of 'em.

The bad news? This notice on my account page:

How the change affects your account

On your next account refresh Jul 8, 2009, your plan will change to the new eMusic Bi-Annual 210 plan which gives you 210 downloads for $95.90 every 180 days.

We're sorry that we've had to retire your current plan, but we're confident that you'll find even more music to love among the many new additions to the music catalog. And of course, you can always choose a different plan by visiting the Plan Options page within Your Account.

So let me get this straight - I'm now paying $0.46 per song w/ a bi-annual plan or paying $5.05 per album (if you figure the average is 11 songs per album). BTW - I rarely purchase the albums w/ an excess of songs (20+) from emusic. Unfortunately, this is a downer for me because not only am I getting less for the same rate I paid, but I'm also forced to pay double if I want a full year's subscription. I was always under the impression that the subscription rate would stay the same for current subscribers. Giving us a major label's product does not justify raising the price for those customers who may not be interested in the new "deal". I feel as if emusic has always been great at just keeping it indie. I'm no elitist but in this case, I must side w/ the idea that emusic needs to keep it real with just putting out music on independent labels.

I'm a bit disappointed. Mainly because I have to pay more than double if I want to keep getting 40 songs per month. I get annual price increases and the fact that artists need to get paid and maybe I've been spoiled for 3 years with such a great deal but in this case, I'm getting 54% less for the same annual rate. Any other subscribers want to weigh in?

Please do.