PDA

View Full Version : Music execs upset on iTMS


pretentious
Jun 9, 2003, 06:18 AM
From the NYPost (http://www.nypost.com/business/662.htm)

It seems that the Music execs are upset that they have to sell all music on a per-track bases, and is keeping big-time artists such as Madonna and the Foo Fighters, from joining the iTunes Music Store

From the NYPOST
Music execs have been lobbying Jobs to concede to the artists' wishes and allow musicians to only sell full albums, without offering singles.

"We're saying to him he should look at the artist issues here," David Munns, the head of EMI Recorded Music North America, recently told The Post.

MorganX
Jun 9, 2003, 06:40 AM
that's the real reason for the slump in the Music Industry. Artists are turning out garbage. One or two hits and a bunch of canned filler.

When Kelly Clarkson has the most well-rounded pop album, something's wrong. Pop/R&B artists have gotten greedy and lazy.

No one's going to buy bad music just to support their lifestyle. They'll either buy singles from ITMS or download them for free.

KershMan
Jun 9, 2003, 07:35 AM
I agree. No way I would pay for a full album unless it is all good. Even from my favorite bands. I really like iTMS. I have bought about 30 songs (not so many but enough) and one full album

All the single songs were from albums that only had one or two good songs. Now, if you force me to buy the album you would get 0 instead of a couple of bucks. Just makes sense to allow people to buy what they want. Ultimately it pays off.

I think the iTMS numbers that half the sales come from full albums shows people will buy the whole thing if it is good. Especially if you have 12 or 13 good songs for the price of $9.99.

al256
Jun 9, 2003, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by MorganX
that's the real reason for the slump in the Music Industry. Artists are turning out garbage. One or two hits and a bunch of canned filler.

Well said! The only album I will buy is a "greatest hits" album. I think the artists should cut their losses and go with the iTunesMS. Well, if they don't like it the legal way (iTunesMS) and they don't like it the illegal way (P2P) then they'll be left behind by artists that actually want to make money. I think the individual song download is a great idea. I pay only for what I want. I hope they, eventually, realize that "the customer is always right".

mactastic
Jun 9, 2003, 09:47 AM
"We're saying to him he should look at the artist issues here," David Munns, the head of EMI Recorded Music North America, recently told The Post

And we're saying they should look at the consumer issues here.

It's really silly too, since almost half of the tracks bought were full albums. That should dispel artists fears that people will only buy individual tracks. And so what if we want to anyway? That should be our right as a consumer. Or make all the songs good enough that I want to buy them all. My only real gripe with iTMS (besides selection, which is being worked on) is that I don't get all the goodies I get when I buy a CD. When I buy an album from iTMS, I would like to get all the liner notes, and an option to dl and print all cover artwork, lyrics, etc.

It all keeps pointing to finding a new way of doing business for these record companies. It was forced on the record labels almost without warning by the rapid and unforseen explosion in music swapping. Evolve or die.

jxyama
Jun 9, 2003, 09:57 AM
agree with all of ya... i don't understand why recording industry thinks they are in a position of leverage. i really hope steve won't get bullied into this.

"Think of the artists"?? That's garbage. Artists can go make whatever they want. Whether they will be supported by consumers or not is up to us (consumers) not them. If they make junk, it's not our obligation to buy them.

The only time I can support the artists in this case is if they make a compelling argument that their artistic creation (music) is compromised unless the entire album is sold as is... I haven't heard an album I felt I got money's worth since radiohead's ok computer.

e-coli
Jun 9, 2003, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by jxyama
I haven't heard an album I felt I got money's worth since radiohead's ok computer.

hmm...that's sad. Thare's so much great music happening right now.

Get the new Four Tet album. rounds. It's great.

But I agree. I'm not buying an album unless the whole thing is good. I'm not even the type of person to buy good singles. If the band isn't good enough to put together a cohesive, solid album, then they're not good enough for my cash. ;)

springscansing
Jun 9, 2003, 11:35 AM
I don't why this is stopping artists from signing up. Its a question of no additional revenue, or some additional revenue. I don't think having your songs on ITMS would affect CD sales at all.

James.Paul
Jun 9, 2003, 12:55 PM
Even though I haven't used the ITMS cos I'm from England, I think the music companies should look more at the exclusives area and really push them. Steve has said that the exclusives were doing great business. The store is an excellent place for rare or live tunes. People want things that are different from the tracks on an album or singles.

iJon
Jun 9, 2003, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by James.Paul
Even though I haven't used the ITMS cos I'm from England, I think the music companies should look more at the exclusives area and really push them. Steve has said that the exclusives were doing great business. The store is an excellent place for rare or live tunes. People want things that are different from the tracks on an album or singles.
the funny thing is that most of the exclusives can be found on p2p sites, its not like they werent in exsistent before iTMS. but it yes an easy nice legal way to see what the artists are offering.

iJon

Ugg
Jun 9, 2003, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by iJon
the funny thing is that most of the exclusives can be found on p2p sites, its not like they werent in exsistent before iTMS. but it yes an easy nice legal way to see what the artists are offering.

iJon

You make it sound as though "legal" is less than desirable!

I've read a number of reviews by the 30+ crowd about iTunes and the majority of them have been highly favorable. Most people who have lives away from their computers don't view P2P sites as being an option. They want to easily search, listen and buy and organize their purchases. With iTunes you get all that at a price reduction of about 30% from CDs.

In regards to the execs not liking the single idea, well, tough luck. Music isn't inherently about profit, it's about artistic expression. The success of cdBaby reflects the desires of the American music listening market to hear other than what is heavily promoted by the bloated music industry and increasingly bland radio industry. You can bet your booties that Clear Channel is getting very anxious about the success of Yahoo and AOL and iTunes and the iPod. The labels may hold the rights to a lot of existing music but I really think that a lot of artists in the future won't have need of a traditional label. cdBaby will provide them their access to the distribution outlets.

The reluctance of big name artists to distribute their music electonically isn't about their "rights" it's about their wallets. They have come to expect millions of dollars flowing into their pockets as a result of their mostly manufactured fame. This has come at the expense of smaller groups who have a niche appeal.

The music industry as we know it has become a dinosaur and whether it becomes extinct or is merely evolving is anyone's guess.

iJon
Jun 9, 2003, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
You make it sound as though "legal" is less than desirable!

I've read a number of reviews by the 30+ crowd about iTunes and the majority of them have been highly favorable. Most people who have lives away from their computers don't view P2P sites as being an option. They want to easily search, listen and buy and organize their purchases. With iTunes you get all that at a price reduction of about 30% from CDs.

In regards to the execs not liking the single idea, well, tough luck. Music isn't inherently about profit, it's about artistic expression. The success of cdBaby reflects the desires of the American music listening market to hear other than what is heavily promoted by the bloated music industry and increasingly bland radio industry. You can bet your booties that Clear Channel is getting very anxious about the success of Yahoo and AOL and iTunes and the iPod. The labels may hold the rights to a lot of existing music but I really think that a lot of artists in the future won't have need of a traditional label. cdBaby will provide them their access to the distribution outlets.

The reluctance of big name artists to distribute their music electonically isn't about their "rights" it's about their wallets. They have come to expect millions of dollars flowing into their pockets as a result of their mostly manufactured fame. This has come at the expense of smaller groups who have a niche appeal.

The music industry as we know it has become a dinosaur and whether it becomes extinct or is merely evolving is anyone's guess.
no no, that wasnt what i was getting at. i love the store and im just waiting from them to add some music i want and ill buy some. all i was saying is the exclusive songs for most of my major artists i have already heard before, implying that its not like they were locked in a secret vault bfore apple came along.

iJon

mymemory
Jun 9, 2003, 03:50 PM
And everybody inside say "one song sell one album".

Today I was listening to the latest Madonna album and is the worse piece of crap ever, she may be one of those poor artist.

I see everything in the oposite way, if I was an artist I would have to produce just one song at a time to be rich! at the end we just listen to 2 of the most popular songs per album and we buy the albums because of the first and second promotional songs, so, lets get those two songs! period.

The thing is that those executive get comisions for studio hours, the more songs to produce, more hours = more $$$.

ear2ear
Jun 9, 2003, 04:09 PM
well, I kind of agree with the artists/labels. You guys do make great points about albums which contain only a few good songs, but my biggest fear with this service would be the death of albums. I try to steer clear of Greatest Hits albums because they fail to give me real perspective of the artist's work. I don't care what their #1 songs sound like bundled together, I want to see where their head is at during the time they made that hit. What else were they up to.

I think artists should have the option of only selling their music by the album. I'm sure that would have a negative effect on sales, so I wouldn't worry about this choice becoming too popular. Let's face it, if you want the whole album, you're more likely to buy the CD. Give the artists the option and let them decide if they are content with low sales. No harm no foul. At least their music will be available in some form (meaning someone will buy it).

Ugg
Jun 9, 2003, 07:36 PM
I agree with you, some albums are meant to be listened to in their entirety and I would hate to see the death of them, however, I don't think I should have to pay an artist for something I'm not interested in. It would be like going to an art gallery and being told that none of the pieces are available individually only in groups of ten or whatever. Sure, artworks sell for a lot more than a buck apiece but either the album needs to feel like an album or I will only buy the songs I want.

Music distribution is going through a fundamental shift and it is the distribution (radio, at the beginning) that created the music industry, not the other way around. I feel for artists but the ones who are most likely to suffer are the ones who earn millions not the ones who earn a few hundred a gig.

pretentious
Jun 9, 2003, 08:30 PM
Ok if the deal breaker right now is the that they have to offer all their songs as singles...How about a compromise?

I would at least rather have the artist in the store than no artist, and personally I can see the artist perspective at this, they will make more money by trying to sell more albums than singles.

Why doesn't Apple offer this; a 4-1 ratio, the artist has to offer at least 1 track to the 4 in an album. So if an album has say 10 tracks they have to offer at least two singles. but make the labels fully aware that sales are still going to be calculated by a per-track bases, so that gives an incentive for the artist to offer the best tracks as singles.

As a consumer I think that this will be perfectly fine, since most people don't really want the more filler tracks, but rather the hits, which should still be offered by the artist as singles. and if the consumer does like the filler I would think that they would be more happy with the full album.

synthetickittie
Jun 9, 2003, 11:24 PM
heres a big problem.. most people listen to whats on MTV and 90% (now I didnt say ALL of it) of whats on there is like everyone else said a couple good songs then the rest of the cd is horrible. Personally almost everything I listen to I get the full cd because its all good but Ive only bought 4 cds from the iTMS because I dont realy listen to a lot of music on major labels and the things I do I all ready had the cds, but those 4 cds I got all have come out since the iTMS has been out. Now if apple gets a couple of the labels that I LOVE Im ready to buy tons of cds on it and stop ording online and gettin the cds in about a week lata. Has anyone heard of anyone posting all the labels that were at that meeting? labels Id be so HAPPY that got on board would be road runner records and Id seriously go crazy if subran noize records got all their music into the iTMS.

Mblazened
Jun 9, 2003, 11:33 PM
well i cant find anything i'm looking for on itms
no metallica, no trance, just a bunch of mainstream crud. Nice service, but no artists! time for round two, apple.

zuggerat
Jun 9, 2003, 11:35 PM
iTMS is a really great revenue boosting idea for smaller bands like Taking Back Sunday, Dashboard Confessions, and Coheed and Cambria, as well as other small hip hop and soul groups. this thing could really put those artists on the map with the attention iTMS is getting, i say they should try and sign vagrant records with a long term deal

zuggerat
Jun 9, 2003, 11:36 PM
dashboard confessional...my bad

moby1
Jun 10, 2003, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by mymemory
And everybody inside say "one song sell one album"...if I was an artist I would have to produce just one song at a time to be rich! at the end we just listen to 2 of the most popular songs per album and we buy the albums because of the first and second promotional songs....

That recording industry worked that trick to death in the '80's and '90's. It ain't gonna work no more - that's the positive influence of the P2P craze.

OTOH, the iTMS has rekindled my interest in collecting full albums - from the truly great artists. I'm often disappointed to see only a "partial album" listed. However, I think the audience should have the right to choose.

Solid artists don't need to fear that their albums will be ripped apart but the pop franchises don't have the confidence to post singles.

psxndc
Jun 10, 2003, 12:09 AM
I recently went to the taping of the Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn where the Foo Fighters performed. I thought they were amazing live. After the show, I thought "Hey, I like what I've heard on the radio by them. I'll check the iTMS to see if I can get the album or at least some singles."

No such luck. I entered in an artist request for them and picked the album from Best Buy and I am pretty disappointed with my decision. My fiancee likes it, but I only like about half the songs, if that. And I don't feel that it has a flow to it that constitutes a "whole album only" experience. They're a bunch of individual songs on the same record. It's not like the album is Operation Mindcrime (anyone? anyone?) or a tool album: meant to be a cohesive experience

Given my disappointment, it is unlikely I will buy another Foo Figthers album. I'm not mad or anything, I just don't like their stuff enough to spend another $15 on it. I'd buy singles, but not albums. If they'd rather get $0 instead of say $5, well, I guess that's their decision.

As for Madonna (and Metallica as someone posted their preference for them) she/they will never, EVER, see another cent from me. And I bought every Metallica album up to the black one. Anyone that disrespects their fans, or anyone else, like they have deserves to flicker out as an artist. File sharing got you down? Fine. Try this:

"Dear file sharers, I am glad you enjoy my music, but please understand it is my livelihood. If you don't agree with the existing pricing structure, that is unfortunate, but please do not steal the music. May I suggest putting your energy towards proposing a new pricing structure, one that you feel is fair to both consumers, artists, and any others whose livelihoods depend on the music business? Again, thank you for being a fan. But please work within the existing system, or be an agent of change of that system, as long as it follows the letter of the law"

Stealing music is wrong, no matter how you slice it. But telling people doing it "What the **** do you think you're doing?" through an mp3 only makes you look immature, and it certainly doesn't stop them. And metallica.... cripes. Sueing your fans? gg. I was one. No longer. And no amount of apologizing will ever change that. Could I go get the album off p2p and "stick it to them"? Sure. But I'd rather be Metallica-free than sink to their level.

-p

shadowfax
Jun 10, 2003, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by springscansing
I don't why this is stopping artists from signing up. Its a question of no additional revenue, or some additional revenue. I don't think having your songs on ITMS would affect CD sales at all. well, that's a really simplistic way to look at it, they would probably argue. the idea of iTMS is that people buy music online instead of buying it at the store. the catch is, while cutting physical album revenue, i'd be willing to bet money that this would be incentive for people to actually buy songs they like rather than just illegally downloading them which is honestly almost as easy as iTMS, probably even easier for common songs that are popular like good DMB stuff.

that's really sad, though, that they are so set on making you buy their bad stuff with their good that they turn down a good oppurtunity like this. their loss, IMO. in a similar vein, metallica has discovered the ULTIMATE solution to internet piracy: making really really bad music. kudos to them. i hope my favorite bands don't follow suit.

nagromme
Jun 10, 2003, 12:20 AM
The iMS makes it easier than ever to buy whole albums--no need to enforce that. Half my songs bought were from full albums, and the store stats say I'm typical.

When I find a single I want at iMS, I also preview the other tracks, and decide if I want the album. If I don't, nothing will force me to buy it.

I have some albums that are great from start to finish. They ARE out there. And that's subjective anyway. But don't try to force people into it.

And if artists want to make albums, for artistic reasons, that's great--the iMS isn't stopping them from doing so by any means.

alset
Jun 10, 2003, 12:21 AM
Some great points in this thread. Making me think a little more on a topic I thought I already thought to death.

I support artists who don't want their work picked apart. I like the idea that a record is presented as a whole. Then again, if my copy of Pink Floyd's The Wall gets a skip on one song, that's the only one I want to buy. I can't justify replacing the whole album for one track.

There really are no winners with this one, as far as I can see.

As for the artists who have a full album available, minus one track, I won't buy a single song. I'm tired of finding records that have 13 songs ready to buy, but just one has been left out. I thought those final tracks were still coming, when iTMS was brand new. Now I figure that artists like Sticky Fingaz (20 track partial) are just trying to get every cent they can, and I won't play ball.

Dan

edit: wooha, psxndc - mindcrime!

vwcruisn
Jun 10, 2003, 01:14 AM
ok... to all the greedy musicians that wont allow singles to be sold.. don't sign up... and people will just keep stealing your music...

you think theyd jump at the opportunity to get paid for something thats gonna happen anyway

LethalWolfe
Jun 10, 2003, 02:09 AM
Originally posted by psxndc
I recently went to the taping of the Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn where the Foo Fighters performed. I thought they were amazing live. After the show, I thought "Hey, I like what I've heard on the radio by them. I'll check the iTMS to see if I can get the album or at least some singles."

No such luck. I entered in an artist request for them and picked the album from Best Buy and I am pretty disappointed with my decision. My fiancee likes it, but I only like about half the songs, if that. And I don't feel that it has a flow to it that constitutes a "whole album only" experience. They're a bunch of individual songs on the same record. It's not like the album is Operation Mindcrime (anyone? anyone?) or a tool album: meant to be a cohesive experience

Given my disappointment, it is unlikely I will buy another Foo Figthers album. I'm not mad or anything, I just don't like their stuff enough to spend another $15 on it. I'd buy singles, but not albums. If they'd rather get $0 instead of say $5, well, I guess that's their decision.

As for Madonna (and Metallica as someone posted their preference for them) she/they will never, EVER, see another cent from me. And I bought every Metallica album up to the black one. Anyone that disrespects their fans, or anyone else, like they have deserves to flicker out as an artist. File sharing got you down? Fine. Try this:

"Dear file sharers, I am glad you enjoy my music, but please understand it is my livelihood. If you don't agree with the existing pricing structure, that is unfortunate, but please do not steal the music. May I suggest putting your energy towards proposing a new pricing structure, one that you feel is fair to both consumers, artists, and any others whose livelihoods depend on the music business? Again, thank you for being a fan. But please work within the existing system, or be an agent of change of that system, as long as it follows the letter of the law"

Stealing music is wrong, no matter how you slice it. But telling people doing it "What the **** do you think you're doing?" through an mp3 only makes you look immature, and it certainly doesn't stop them. And metallica.... cripes. Sueing your fans? gg. I was one. No longer. And no amount of apologizing will ever change that. Could I go get the album off p2p and "stick it to them"? Sure. But I'd rather be Metallica-free than sink to their level.

-p

I think it's funny the Foo Fighters are holding out 'cause when the whole Napster/Metallica thing was goin' one Dave Gruel (?) was bashing Metallica on talk shows and what not. I guess Dave doesn't mind if you download all the Foo Fighters trax for free but if you want to pay for them by God you will buy the whole album...

Speaking of Metallica. They didn't sue their fans. They tracked downloads and complied a list of like 300,000 Napster users that downloaded studio versions of Metallica songs in a given time period and presented that list to Shawn Fanning (and his lawyers I'm assuming). Metallica did that because when they presented their original cease & desist order to Fanning he said that just because Metallica songs were on the network it didn't mean they were being downloaded.


Lethal

shadowfax
Jun 10, 2003, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Speaking of Metallica. They didn't sue their fans. They tracked downloads and complied a list of like 300,000 Napster users that downloaded studio versions of Metallica songs in a given time period and presented that list to Shawn Fanning (and his lawyers I'm assuming). Metallica did that because when they presented their original cease & desist order to Fanning he said that just because Metallica songs were on the network it didn't mean they were being downloaded.


Lethal i believe they then had those users banned from napster though, isn't that right? i seem to remember a good friend of mine having that happen a few years back.

at the end of the day, whatever the case, metallica are a bunch of ****s; i am glad i pirated their good stuff just to spite them, and by the sound of their latest single, i am never going to be tempted to buy or even listen to any of their music ever.

LethalWolfe
Jun 10, 2003, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by Shadowfax
i believe they then had those users banned from napster though, isn't that right? i seem to remember a good friend of mine having that happen a few years back.

at the end of the day, whatever the case, metallica are a bunch of ****s; i am glad i pirated their good stuff just to spite them, and by the sound of their latest single, i am never going to be tempted to buy or even listen to any of their music ever.

I think you might be right. I'm honesty not sure though. What I am sure of though is that Napster was the target of the suit, not the users on the network.

To each their own but I'm not going to waste my hate on Metallica because Shawn Fanning repeatedly refused to obey copyright law.


Lethal

shadowfax
Jun 10, 2003, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
To each their own but I'm not going to waste my hate on Metallica because Shawn Fanning repeatedly refused to obey copyright law. are you referring to the napster incident or something else. eitherr way, how do you mean?

LethalWolfe
Jun 10, 2003, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by Shadowfax
are you referring to the napster incident or something else. eitherr way, how do you mean?

I'm refering to Napster. Metallica served Fanning (the dude behind Napster) w/a cease and desit order for allowing distribution of their studio songs w/o permission (which is violation of copyright law). Fannying basically said just because the songs are on the network doesn't mean people are downloading them. That's when Metallica tracked the downloads and presented Fanning w/the list of users and downloads that I mentioned previously. Those users were banned but all it took was a simple re-insall and signing up w/a different user name to get past the ban. So obviously the ban didn't work. Around this time Dr. Dre started tracking downloads of his songs on Napster. Napster refused to install any sort of filtering software over the network to keep people from downloading specific songs/artists and said all they would due was ban offending accounts. Which obvioulsy was an empty gesture since getting around the ban was so easy. Of course after this Napster was eventually shut down.

The reason I don't feel at all for Fanning is because he decided not to work w/artists whose only request was for their music to be blocked/banned from being traded on Napster (which is clearly w/in their rights as copyright holders of said music). It's all about respect IMO and Fanning clearly decided not to respect other people's property. Now, if Fanning had tried to work w/the artists sueing Napster but still got shut down in the end I would have some sympathy for the guy. But he didn't so I don't. ;) Maybe he really believed he would win. Maybe he didn't want to appear to be a "sell out" to all his users. Maybe he knew he would lose but wanted to become an internet martyr. I honestly don't know. But he decided to mess w/the bull and he got the horns.


Lethal

EDIT: I'm officalling apologizing to pretentious for hijacking this thread. Sry. :(

d46799
Jun 10, 2003, 03:46 AM
Madonna can kiss my buttski

Dunepilot
Jun 10, 2003, 04:48 AM
Originally posted by alset

I support artists who don't want their work picked apart. I like the idea that a record is presented as a whole. Then again, if my copy of Pink Floyd's The Wall gets a skip on one song, that's the only one I want to buy. I can't justify replacing the whole album for one track.

There really are no winners with this one, as far as I can see.

As for the artists who have a full album available, minus one track, I won't buy a single song. I'm tired of finding records that have 13 songs ready to buy, but just one has been left out. I thought those final tracks were still coming, when iTMS was brand new. Now I figure that artists like Sticky Fingaz (20 track partial) are just trying to get every cent they can, and I won't play ball.


I quite agree - any band worth its salt takes its time over not just compiling an album, but composing it so that it works as a unified whole. The Beatles set that precedent with their short songs leading you between the classics.

So, thinking about bands who have always written albums the correct way, I looked up Faith No More on the iMS. Needless to say, there's only Album of the Year available and that is in an incomplete form. It's very irritating to see the album 'discount' being confounded on releases like this that demand to be listened to as a whole album.

Also, why does the iMS think people would be willing to pay the full album price for the Nine Inch Nails singles? Seems a little unreasonable to me.

evilelvis
Jun 10, 2003, 04:57 AM
Without the digital bogeyman, music artists would have to deal with the fact that they are putting out sub-par material. Now they can blame slumping sales on piracy.

If people only download singles it proves that the rest of the album is just filler, especially if you have a chance to preview it before you buy.

I think artists like Madonna are afraid that record companies will realise they only have a handful of good songs.

chewbaccapits
Jun 10, 2003, 05:32 AM
"But many big-time artists - including Madonna, the Foo Fighters and the Dave Matthews Band - still balk at making their music available to Apple because of the computer maker's demand that the artists allow single tracks to be sold in addition to albums. "

All the more reason to PERSUE indie-bands...The Foos and Madonna will see how good the service is, after a while! Stay up STEVE!...Don't back down.

springscansing
Jun 10, 2003, 05:37 AM
Originally posted by Shadowfax
metallica has discovered the ULTIMATE solution to internet piracy: making really really bad music. kudos to them. i hope my favorite bands don't follow suit.

Sing it sister.. er.. brother.

**** those guitar playing bitches!

scribbleed
Jun 10, 2003, 06:25 AM
Is it the artist or the agent's fault?

I would have thought Jobs' agreement with the studios is that the studios must provide at least an X% of their music to iTMS.

DougAdams
Jun 10, 2003, 07:47 AM
Fifty years and longer ago, pop artists would record two tracks at a time. These were called "Sides", because one could be etched to either Side of a recorded Disk (called a "Record"). Buyers would by two Sides at a time. As more Records by an artist were produced, they would be collected into Albums, very much like Photograph albums or scrapbooks (classical music required this primitive "long-form"). These Albums contained pockets to hold each Record. These pocketed Albums would be produced by the record company. When the 7" Record replaced the 10" Record, and technology enabled the Long Playing 12" Record (LPs), collections of Singles were produced and still called "Albums". For example, the Beatles produced Singles, which were assembled into Album LPs and sold by the record company. Producing an entire album by a pop music artist is a relatively new phenomenon, popularized by early concept Albums (Beatles, Mothers of Invention, Pink Floyd, et al).

solvs
Jun 10, 2003, 08:23 AM
You guys have made some interesting points. I'm kinda shocked that the Foo Fighters would be doing this. And yeah, you'd think getting some compensation through legal means would be better than people just using p2ps and the "artist" getting nothing. Instead of getting a few cents for a song, they want a few cents for an album, and wind up with no one buying anything. I think this is a perfect opportunity for the real artists to get out there and show their stuff. I think the age of albums with 1 or 2 good songs, and a bunch of filler crap, is over.

No more $5 singles, either.

Wonder Boy
Jun 10, 2003, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by psxndc

Given my disappointment, it is unlikely I will buy another Foo Figthers album. I'm not mad or anything, I just don't like their stuff enough to spend another $15 on it. I'd buy singles, but not albums. If they'd rather get $0 instead of say $5, well, I guess that's their decision.


-p



Dude!!! Rethink this! The Colour and the Shape is an amazing album, but I believe their first is the best. As a Foo Fan from the start . Nirvana is my favorite band (sniff sniff), and I have noticed a progressive change in the Foo. I did not buy their most recent album because it got away from the style of the first 2 CD's. Their third CD is good, but it's different.Don't judge the Foo on the most recent release. Get Foo Fighters and you'll see that buying it is was worth it.

majesticsock
Jun 10, 2003, 10:00 AM
I don't believe in the "save the album" argument for not letting consumers download individual tracks. When it is time for the album to become extinct, people will stop buying it. Obviously, since about 1/2 of all iTMS purchases are albums, people still enjoy them.
What those big name bands are worried about are people who hear the single on the radio/mtv and go out and buy the whole cd instead of a single. Why else would they try to hold back change unless it benefited them in some way?

rjwill246
Jun 10, 2003, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by majesticsock
I don't believe in the "save the album" argument for not letting consumers download individual tracks. When it is time for the album to become extinct, people will stop buying it. Obviously, since about 1/2 of all iTMS purchases are albums, people still enjoy them.
What those big name bands are worried about are people who hear the single on the radio/mtv and go out and buy the whole cd instead of a single. Why else would they try to hold back change unless it benefited them in some way?

None of the 'BIG' artists wants to have only 99c singles downloaded when they could sell the whole album- either from the Music Store or from regular retail. They would argue that the album is a 'holistic whole' and that the songs compliment each other.. riiighhht! That hasn't happened since Lord knows when. I still think SJ should put the albums online at the artists' requests and then watch them NOT sell. It would prove a point and stop the argument, weak as it is. The likely truth behind the opposition is fear of the internet and having the music stolen. But it is is more 'professional' to claim that the artistic integrity of the work (whole album) is being undermined by having it bought piecemeal.

yzedf
Jun 10, 2003, 11:25 AM
To sell by the song is better than by the entire album, in most cases. 99cents per song vs 9.99 (and up) per album. This is all about choice. The music industry is not keen on choice, and more and more the artists themselves aren't either. It is nice to see the iTMS bringing this issue out of the shadows of "ownership rights" and into the "mainstream conciousness." Not that iTMS usage is mainstream yet... but it might be.

thirdwaver
Jun 10, 2003, 03:19 PM
I think it's ironic that some of the artists most opposed to single song sales are the artists with the most good single songs! Whatever your feelings about Madonna, it would be difficult to argue that she was a one hit wonder.

The fact is, the world is changing. The Internet has closed some avenues and opened up new ones. I'm growing tired of hearing these whining artists who want the world to stay the same. Waaaa.

Wake up recording industry! Consumers want to buy songs not albums. If you succeed in strong-arming Apple into removing song purchases, you will find out that consumers will go right back to doing what they were doing all along... Stealing music.

These record company executives should tell these multi-millionaires to shut up and concentrate on making good music instead of trying to stick us for $12 with one good song and nine songs of "creative" crap that the artist wants to record because he's been stoned once too many times.

Just my two pennies.

Sean

maxterpiece
Jun 11, 2003, 05:26 AM
I agree that a lot of albums are stuffed with bad material, but in the end, as Napster proved, artists have a right to present their work in whatever format they choose. If a painter explained to you that he wouldn't sell a single painting, only a set of x paintings because he felt that part of what he was trying to express was lost when the paintings were separated, you wouldn't argue. You wouldn't say, "but those other paintings are kind of boring and poorly done. I really only want this one." The same thing goes for these musicians. They have a right to sell their music in whatever format they see fit. We can speculate all we want about whether it is about $ or whatever. And if their music sucks and they only have 1 or 2 good tracks, their album probably won't sell as well as other albums - no one will want to fork over $10 for 2 songs when they can pay $2 for any 2 other songs - and their desire for money will force them to either make better music, and/or start selling their music as singles.

thirdwaver
Jun 11, 2003, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by maxterpiece
You wouldn't say, "but those other paintings are kind of boring and poorly done. I really only want this one." The same thing goes for these musicians. They have a right to sell their music in whatever format they see fit.

Actually, I would tell the artist that the others are boring and poorly done. And the way I tell the artist that is by casting my consumer vote.

I agree with you that Artists have the right to choose... with two points...

1) A person should still be able to sample each song before choosing the buy the album. To use your analogy, the "Tower Records" method is like paying over 9 times the cost of a single painting for the painting on display at the gallery, but getting 8 additional paintings site unseen.

2) If a person only likes only one song, the album won't sell and the person will still go steal it. Hence we go back to the same ol thing.

The record companies have got to realize that technology has them by the short hairs. They make a fairly substantial investment in their signed artists. If those artists insist on dumb business strategies, I would assume that someone in the record company would pull their head out of a dark place and give them an economics lesson.

I do agree that the decision ultimately rests between the record company and the artist and Apple should allow these artists to piss off their fans if the artists want that bad enough.

Sean