Poll: How much have you spent at the iTunes Music Store (pre-tax)? [Archive]

pgwalsh

Oct 17, 2003, 12:23 PM

I would certainly buy music, but I don't listen to mainstream music. I definitely see the value of the store and the ease of buying tunes... It's great, but I buy so much European music from small tiny labels, that I don't see too much that I'd want.... Now maybe a U2 album or a mixed disk may pop out at some point, but not much right now...

I think they need to make the preview of tunes either longer or lower quality bit rate and full length....

mangoman

Oct 17, 2003, 12:29 PM

I'm with you about the small labels. It'd be great if Pork could get on the iTunes bandwagon. I'd probably buy the whole d#mn catalog, starting with everything Fila Brazilia's ever done.

Wait, wasn't I just remarking how I need to slow down with the iTunes purchases?

:rolleyes:

pgwalsh

Oct 17, 2003, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by mangoman
I'm with you about the small labels. It'd be great if Pork could get on the iTunes bandwagon. I'd probably buy the whole d#mn catalog, starting with everything Fila Brazilia's ever done.

Wait, wasn't I just remarking how I need to slow down with the iTunes purchases?

:rolleyes: I could see how you would easliy spend 200 clams in the itunes store... There's plenty of artists that you'd want just one song from. But the small labels must come... It would be cool if artists could sell their material directly through the itunes store. Then they could keep a larger portion of the profits... Maybe not the avenue for everyone, but for some.

DeusOmnis

Oct 17, 2003, 01:12 PM

*to the song "if i only had a brain...*

if i only had ungodly-amounts-of-money..... da doo da doo da dooooooo

3-22

Oct 17, 2003, 01:20 PM

I have spent 8 whopping dollars, but I just got my Mac 2 weeks ago. iTunes is shaping up but it still has a lot of gaps. Most of the music I search for is either not available or they only have older albums. So I don't know if it's them, or the label being difficult. If they can double there current catalog (and add some more smaller labels), I think it would be great. I understand the business reasons for inititally pushing the crap that sells, but now they need to fill in the gaps.

rogueimage

Oct 17, 2003, 01:25 PM

I assumed the poll was for how much I've spent since the Windows version came out yesterday, so I clicked $10.00-$19.99. Silly me. The actual total amount I've spent is between $70 and $100. Would have been a lot more, if I had the money. I've got a StickyBrain list of 50+ artists whose music I stumbled across in the store and want to buy.

Thanks to Apple's Staff Picks, I found the song Delirium by Euphoria yesterday, which I've tried to find the title of for a long time.

nagromme

Oct 17, 2003, 01:58 PM

I've bought 148 songs, 84% as full albums. Ten full albums and 23 singles from 18 other albums.

My average iMS price per song: 79 cents. (Range: .53 to .99)

But at my local stores or Amazon, I pay about $13 per CD on average--and I must buy the WHOLE CD even if I want just a song or three. So my iTunes songs from 28 albums would have cost about $365 in the store! I only paid $118 and saved 68%! (Not to mention gas, time, and grief--exploring music is actually fun, not like at a store, where you can't even preview everything.)

I've only bought 2 "real" CDs since iMS opened. I do that for favorite artists, or when I want the liner notes... or when iMS doesn't have what I'm after. And don't think for a minute that the labels are losing money on this: I'd have bought MAYBE 3 or 4 more CDs in the same time if iMS wasn't here. I've spent MORE on music because of iMS... and my collection is finally growing :)

nagromme

Oct 17, 2003, 02:03 PM

To answer some of the above:

* Apple IS getting smaller labels signed up. 200 so far, and counting.

* Artists CAN get their stuff on iTunes without a label. There are at least two companies that act as "pseudo-labels" to get your stuff on iTunes for a very reasonable fee. EDIT--see my post below for links to both :)

* It's the labels, not Apple, who decide what goes up. Anything missing is the label's fault. (I WISH they would flesh out those partial albums that pop up sometimes!)

wdlove

Oct 17, 2003, 02:12 PM

Personally I spent none. My wife spent $0.99 for one song.

Chealion

Oct 17, 2003, 02:13 PM

I may join that $200+ catergory so long as Apple allows us Canadians to purchase songs. (I don't have a US Billing Address, that is why.)

Dahl

Oct 17, 2003, 02:21 PM

I still haven't used IMS ( I'm still using OS 9 ) and I'm not sure I will when I get my G5. Maybe the audio books and a song here and there, but I'm still old school when it comes to record buying. I love the booklets ( and custom packaging, some CD's have today. )

Chomolungma

Oct 17, 2003, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by nagromme
I've bought 148 songs, 84% as full albums. Ten full albums and 23 singles from 18 other albums.

My average iMS price per song: 79 cents. (Range: .53 to .99)

But at my local stores or Amazon, I pay about $13 per CD on average--and I must buy the WHOLE CD even if I want just a song or three. So my iTunes songs from 28 albums would have cost about $365 in the store! I only paid $118 and saved 68%!

I've only bought 2 "real" CDs since iMS opened. I do that for favorite artists, or when I want the liner notes... or when iMS doesn't have what I'm after. And don't think for a minute that the labels are losing money on this: I'd have bought MAYBE 3 or 4 more CDs in the same time if iMS wasn't here. I've spent MORE on music because of iMS... and my collection is finally growing :)

What do Tower Record and iTMS have in common? They are both control and influence by the RIAA and the Big Five Labels. iTMS just found a new way to screw the artist once more. Thank you nagromme for helping!

nagromme

Oct 17, 2003, 02:33 PM

You do realize that:

a) There are 200 labels on iTunes, not just the big 5. And Apple does NOT take pay for promoting any music, and does NOT have different rules for the little guys.

b) Apple/Steve Jobs have won (with great difficulty) unheard-of concessions from the RIAA.

c) ANY artist can be on iTunes without having a traditional label at all. There are at least two companies who have agreements with Apple (and other online stores) to get your music up for a very reasonable fee. EDIT--here they are: http://www.cdbaby.net/dd and http://www.oasiscd.com/raindog

d) The artists got more money from me because of iTunes. Not less. I spent more on music than I would have. I wish the labels benefitted less and the artists more, but both did benefit.

Since you are so concerned about the RIAA vs. artists problem (as am I, for economic AND creative reasons)... how about something constructive instead of flames? Isn't that more likely to win people over to your cause? So instead of insulting me, help me: What is YOUR preferred method for supporting artists without their label getting a cut? Boycott the artists for their own good? Probably not. Buy more alternative music and less mainstream? I do. That's my tastes. Pirate less music? I have never pirated a song in my life, nor will I. Pirate MORE music in altruistic "protest" that just happens to save me money while stealing from artists AND labels alike, and breaks the law without even making a public statement about it? What else? I'm open to productive suggestions.

mrsebastian

Oct 17, 2003, 02:35 PM

not that i'm completely immune from downloading a song or two from the web, but i must say apple has made me a legal downloader! with reasonable pricing, option to buy a single song, and general ease of use, i'm very happy with itunes. like others i can see my music "bill" quickly escalating out of control!

rogueimage

Oct 17, 2003, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Chomolungma
What do Tower Record and iTMS have in common? They are both control and influence by the RIAA and the Big Five Labels. iTMS just found a new way to screw the artist once more. Thank you nagromme for helping!

Either present a viable alternative or shut up. As far as I can tell, the great majority of artists love the iTMS--especially independent and lesser known artists, because they get much more equal representation than in chain stores.

Edit: See nagromme's post two above this for a more rational list of counter-arguments. Thanks, nagromme!

QCassidy352

Oct 17, 2003, 02:37 PM

now now, let's not not target individuals here. No need to get personal. :rolleyes:

but I sort of agree with Chomolungma. I'm not spending one penny if even a fraction of it goes to the RIAA. They've gone so far too far it's not funny. So my total at the iTMS is $0 and will remain there.

nagromme

Oct 17, 2003, 02:40 PM

So what's your alternative, QCassidy? I really am curious--the ones I can think of aren't good. Just don't listen to music? Or steal music "for the good of the artists" you steal from? Or buy used (I'm all for that, personally--when it's possible) which makes no money for the artists either?

Options, please... from anyone. I won't get into flamewars, but I would find genuine discussion of alternatives to be interesting and valuable. Especially options that let me buy an album OR one song.

And feel free to link to a new thread instead of hijacking this one, if it gets long. :)

I'd also like to suggest that Apple and iTunes are changing the industry, kicking and screaming, getting the labels to agree to things they NEVER would have--and artists are very vocally in support of this new model. (The ones that aren't seem to be opposing it for materialistic and shallow reasons--and yet are misguided about their own interests: would they rather NOT get paid, when people download illegally?) Now, maybe a different kind of revolution would be more satisfying--one which instantly kills and punishes the labels in revenge. But in the absence of a practical plan for that... this IS a revolution, the start of much-needed change, and it DOES benefit artists in many ways. It's a much better start in the right direction than we would have had without Apple.

(And on the subject of public good... the lack of waste is one thing that appeals to me about iTunes. No paper/plastic/chemicals, no fossil fuels to transport CDs--and shoppers--etc.)

Also, for the record, I listen to public radio almost exclusively so I don't even support music advertisers. (It's nice to have a good public rock and alternative station!) My buying habits are based primarily on listening to what other people have, and finding things I never knew about. Most of my favorite artists are not on iMS--or in stores very much for that matter--which means that my buying habits will shift towards Amazon unless iMS' catalog grows--which is happening.

mrsebastian

Oct 17, 2003, 02:46 PM

we are pretty far from a perfect solution to the artists/industry debacle, but i must say that before itms i hadn't purchased a cd in about 3 years. i had become completely fed up with the greedy industry and frankly felt no remorse for downloading music. when they charge $20 for a cd and you end up with 2 good songs to listen to, it's hard to justify the cost. on top of that they take most of the profits, leaving the artist with almost nothing. before i rant on, itms has shown a way (maybe not perfect) to make this thing work!

mrsebastian

Oct 17, 2003, 03:02 PM

"So what's your alternative..."

i think itms is a good start in that direction. if we look at all of what's involved in putting out a record, itms can alleviate packaging and distribution. which brings us to the biggest part and that's marketing/advertising, otherwise known as getting the word out so you can sell your music. this is ultimately where artsist get shafted by record companies, as most contracts make them pay all the costs back out of the profits...

so onto a scenario for an alternative. for sake of argument let's say an artist has their record completed and ready to get out there. for a small fee apple/itms would distribute their album, which leaves marketing. obviously the biggest thing is getting out there and playing live! on top of that, there a million levels of advertising an artist can do, from self promotion (flyers, stickers, etc.) to hiring a company specifically for that purpose. i think for those that truly love what they do and are not in the music bus. for a quick buck, it's something they would do anyway.

so in the end if you work it right, itms could actually be a very good alternative.

Wuddel

Oct 17, 2003, 03:07 PM

Let’s hope that iTMS/International comes next.

Illmatic

Oct 17, 2003, 03:08 PM

I will admit that before the iTMS came out I honestly thought that never in my life would I pay to download a song, but sitting here a couple months later I have racked up close to $300 in purchases, almost all full albums. iTMS saves me so much money in the long run. I don't have to waste any time driving to the store to go pick up new CDs every Tuesday (and then just find that they are already sold out or something) and I'm not tempted to buy all kinds of random things everytime I walk into Best Buy and Circuit City. Seriously how many of you have walked into a store to just buy a cd and walked out with 2 new dvds as well. It's just wonderful that I can wake up on Tuesday morning and click a few buttons so that by the time I get out of the shower my shopping for the day is done. Damn I love Apple. (I do miss the liner notes though and I wish they would download as a pdf or something)

Wonder Boy

Oct 17, 2003, 03:10 PM

Haven't we already had this poll?

nagromme

Oct 17, 2003, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by mrsebastian
so onto a scenario for an alternative. for sake of argument let's say an artist has their record completed and ready to get out there. for a small fee apple/itms would distribute their album, which leaves marketing.

This is ALREADY happening :) see my two links above. CDBaby and Rain Dog.

Other responses:

Re: liner notes as PDFs. Yes, please!

Re: iTMS international... It's coming :) Apple said next year--and the hold up is not technical, it's legal. Music companies and lawyers to be waded through. Not Apple's fault.

mclosers

Oct 17, 2003, 03:35 PM

I think steve said in his keynote that Apple would not be letting people without record labels pay a fee to upload music ala cdbaby and others. I'm almost positive he said that and that they are 400000 "quality" tracks. I've known about the CD baby thing for a while but I don't know if that is a viable option because of Apple's policy about having final aproval.

Anyone actually gotten any music on the store this way?

pgwalsh

Oct 17, 2003, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by nagromme
You do realize that:

a) There are 200 labels on iTunes, not just the big 5. And Apple does NOT take pay for promoting any music, and does NOT have different rules for the little guys.

b) Apple/Steve Jobs have won (with great difficulty) unheard-of concessions from the RIAA.

c) ANY artist can be on iTunes without having a traditional label at all. There are at least two companies who have agreements with Apple (and other online stores) to get your music up for a very reasonable fee. EDIT--here they are: http://www.cdbaby.net/dd and http://www.oasiscd.com/raindog
.
Thanks for the info chief.

nagromme

Oct 17, 2003, 04:07 PM

True, as far as Apple is concerned, technically CD Baby and Rain Dogs are labels. That's the relationship with Apple. But they don't work like conventional labels: you pay them a little, and you're in--the label doesn't choose you, you aren't committed to them, and they don't take a big cut.

Now, those "pseudo-labels" (and probably Apple too) do have a say over what is just too poor to occupy servers with. Primarily, I expect that means really bad home recordings without good mics etc. Nobody is likely to buy most of that anyway--and people can put MP3s on their personal site if they are THAT amateur, and still get some exposure.

The decision of what makes the cut is subjective--you can't just get anything up without someone evaluating it. BUT--and this is the key--it is NOT the RIAA making that call. Nor is it a label getting ready to spend big bucks promoting you.

The extreme of "anybody can upload any sound file no matter what and sell it on iTunes" does have it's appeal--but the compromise of being able to refuse is more practical. Otherwise the store would be flooded with junk.

Time will tell how successful the CD Baby/Rain Dog model is, for them and for artists, and how effective word of mouth can be to get an artist known. I suspect there will be pitfalls along the way--but the power of the big labels has begun to fade.

I too would like to hear reports from early adopters on what kind of a start this model is off to.

(Remember, if CD Baby and Rain Dog are "labels" to Apple, then they get the same rules as everyone else--but that doesn't mean Apple can be promoting those options publicly. Apple has a fine line to walk, since they are still working with the RIAA of necessity--and those alternatives could potentially scare the RIAA off. Apple needs to be careful about CD Baby and Rain Dog until the big labels are firmly committed to online sales and are totally sold on iTunes for the future. A sad compromise, maybe--but not a defeat by any means.)

1macker1

Oct 17, 2003, 04:39 PM

The great majority of artists dont really have any say so in the matter.
Originally posted by rogueimage
Either present a viable alternative or shut up. As far as I can tell, the great majority of artists love the iTMS--especially independent and lesser known artists, because they get much more equal representation than in chain stores.

Edit: See nagromme's post two above this for a more rational list of counter-arguments. Thanks, nagromme!

rogueimage

Oct 17, 2003, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by 1macker1
The great majority of artists dont really have any say so in the matter.

Many artists may not be able to choose whether their music is on the iTMS, based on their contract with their label. (Though this varies widely. Some do have the power to specifically allow or disallow their music, e.g. The Eagles, The Rolling Stones, etc.) But regardless of their choice in the matter, they like the idea.

reedm007

Oct 17, 2003, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by mclosers
I think steve said in his keynote that Apple would not be letting people without record labels pay a fee to upload music ala cdbaby and others. I'm almost positive he said that and that they are 400000 "quality" tracks. I've known about the CD baby thing for a while but I don't know if that is a viable option because of Apple's policy about having final aproval.

I think the idea is that every song goes through screening by a record label of some kind, and then by Apple. nagromme posted liknks to places like CDBaby, which anyone can join, but they actually have to have a real vested interest -- it costs a decent chunk upfront, plus you are still required to send them physical CDs, which they can distribute via their online store, etc. So there is certainly some crap, which Apple might "block", but by far most of their stuff can be put up without problem.

The problem Jobs brought up in the announcement was that you can literally go to BuyMusic and say "I want you to sell my music. Here it is in WMA." and they'll ACCEPT it. Why? Because, as far as a lot of these Windows Music Download services are concerned, they're competing on raw "who has more tracks!?" numbers right now, which is really pretty ridiculous, and is most likely because thi business is sprouting out of the computer industry and not the normal retail channels... When was the last time you saw ads promoting how Best Buy has 40,000 CDs in stock, while Circuit City only has 35,000? :)

The funny thing about this whole "numbers" game is -- who cares. They're *stores*. You don't necessarily exclusively shop at one. If you don't find what you're looking for at one, you'll go to another. AFAIC, that's the major drawback to all of the windows pay-per-download services. Of course, us Mac users are only left with one choice. We're just darn lucky it's the best one ;)

pivo6

Oct 17, 2003, 05:05 PM

I've spent $3.00 so far. It would be about $300 if I had an iPod.

nagromme

Oct 17, 2003, 06:53 PM

With Rain Dog (and presumably CD Baby too--both are associated with CD replication services) you are NOT required to send them physical CDs to sell. In fact, I don't think that's even an option. You send the music, and IF you want them to carry your physical CDs, you work that out with them and THEY replicate the CDs. That aspect is pretty traditional like any label.

The online sales, however, do not require you to have any physical CD sales with them. Thus, it costs them very little--it's all data processing essentially.

You do send them a CD of course--but it's the master of your music, not mass copies they receive and sell.

arn

Oct 17, 2003, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by 1macker1
The great majority of artists dont really have any say so in the matter.

Look... the agreement between the Record Label and the Arists is a contract.

If the Record Label's suck so much... why do the artists sign with them? Because they bring something to the table... money and marketing.

Artists can spend the $$ to do their own marketing if they want... but obviously, most can't afford it.

I find the whole one-sided "Record Labels" are evil attitude a bit tired. Yes, they try to make the most money possible. Should the artist make more money per album sold? Maybe... and they could make 100% of they money of each album sold if they went to the time/trouble/money to publish market themselves.

which comes back to nagromme's challenege.... Those who balk... what are you doing to insure that _artists_ are making more money? Not buying any music? Pirating it?

arn

KLFloyd

Oct 17, 2003, 07:05 PM

I just checked my purchased music playlist and have downloaded 60 songs to date. I probably would have easialy purchased 100 or more if the store had more music.

I'm most disapointed because I see so many partial albums that are missing just a song or two that I want, so I go out and buy the CD insead.

But I must say overall I'm very happy with iTunes and my iPod. In fact, I'm thinking about going out and buying a new stereo for my car so I can hook my iPod up. I only have a CD player and have not been at all sucessfull with products like the iTrip. I spend upwards of 10 hours in the car each week and I could see having my iPod may be worth the expense of adding a new stero system, just depends on what the total cost would come out to be.

daijones

Oct 17, 2003, 08:41 PM

23% of respondents to the poll (at time of writing) can't buy music on iTMS. They obviously want to, or they wouldn't even have looked at the poll. 23% of respondents want to use iTMS so much that they they bothered look to see if there was a "I can't because I'm international" option! What does that tell us? Apple needs to look after international customers too, and give us things like iTMS, and iPhoto printing (still missing), and usable Sherlock channels (still missing). I buy a new Mac every 12-18 months, but the more they piss on international buyers, the less inclined I'll be to bother. Windows may suck, but at least it sucks internationally.

bousozoku

Oct 17, 2003, 09:55 PM

I have yet to buy anything from the store.

I have browsed a bit but I haven't found anything that I want that I would accept in the current compression scheme. The licencing restrictions are fine with me, but the sound is my main concern. If it doesn't meet my standards, why should I buy it?

The prices have been a concern, but for the right thing, I'll pay plenty--I just spent $25.99 on a Japanese CD. Of course, I can go to Target or Best Buy or Circuit City or Sam's Club to get the best price on domestic music.

If Apple does enable better sound, especially for the classical music, I would be happy to buy music online.

jbomber

Oct 18, 2003, 12:17 AM

3 whole dollars.

The store is cool as hell. hope the windows users catch on and help Apple break some more records.

jadariv

Oct 18, 2003, 01:06 AM

QCassidy352

Oct 18, 2003, 01:07 AM

Originally posted by nagromme
So what's your alternative, QCassidy? I really am curious--the ones I can think of aren't good. Just don't listen to music? Or steal music "for the good of the artists" you steal from? Or buy used (I'm all for that, personally--when it's possible) which makes no money for the artists either?

I never said I cared if it was a good solution for the musicians. I said I'm not putting one penny in the RIAA's hands. My problems with the RIAA have little to do with fairness to artists.

nagromme

Oct 18, 2003, 01:22 AM

Again--what's your alternative? What is the nature of your issues with the RIAA, and what method do you use to answer those issues? I can't change my behavior and abandon iTunes unless I know what others choose instead.

rogueimage

Oct 18, 2003, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by QCassidy352
I never said I cared if it was a good solution for the musicians. I said I'm not putting one penny in the RIAA's hands. My problems with the RIAA have little to do with fairness to artists.

If your issue is with the RIAA finally suing file-traders, I think you should reevaluate that. It is perfectly within the rights, and one could even argue the responsibility, of the RIAA to take legal action against people who steal copyrighted music. They were very patient with the whole thing. They have been reminding file-traders for at least four years now that distributing digital copies of copyrighted music is illegal. People had ample time to get the hint, and they did not, so there was no recourse but legal action.

edenwaith

Oct 18, 2003, 02:20 AM

Originally posted by pgwalsh
I would certainly buy music, but I don't listen to mainstream music. I definitely see the value of the store and the ease of buying tunes... It's great, but I buy so much European music from small tiny labels, that I don't see too much that I'd want.... Now maybe a U2 album or a mixed disk may pop out at some point, but not much right now...

Same here. I'd love to see SPV/Steamhammer added to the list. However, I have probably saved money through the iTunes store by being able to buy only one particular song instead of shelling out $15+ for an album. A good case is the song "You Know You're Right" by Nirvana off of their Best Of album which was released last year. I already have all of the other songs and don't want to spend a bunch of money on songs I already have. But I spent $1 and got the song I wanted. Also there was another album which was made in a different country from what I bought, so there was one different song. Why rebuy the album when all I want is that one song?

Still, I enjoy buying CDs and just watching my collection grow. If it wasn't for the ego factor of having a larger CD collection, I'd probably stop buying mainstream albums. I went to three different stores today looking for INXS' popular album Kick. Couldn't find it anywhere. However, I can easily buy it for $10 from the iTunes music store. If I can't find it soon, I'll probably just download it then.

There are still tons and tons of songs out there I'd love to get through the iTMS, but for the time being, I just might have to keep on buying CDs through Amazon.

SiliconAddict

Oct 18, 2003, 05:20 AM

About $50 so far in the last couple days. I think I'm done for a while :)

Sailfish

Oct 18, 2003, 06:56 AM

I have slightly over 4000 songs purchased via cd's. Just before iTMS came out.

I concentrated on "Best of" and "hits" when buying.

Of the 4000 songs, 2000 are worth listening to.

Since iTMS I have purchased 60 songs.

Phil Of Mac

Oct 18, 2003, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by Chomolungma
What do Tower Record and iTMS have in common? They are both control and influence by the RIAA and the Big Five Labels. iTMS just found a new way to screw the artist once more. Thank you nagromme for helping!

You do realize that iTMS allows any artist, after their contract runs out with a major label, to just sign with Apple by themselves and keep the money that the record label would have kept. Far from being controlled by the Big Five, iTMS may be the death of them.

Originally posted by mclosers
I think steve said in his keynote that Apple would not be letting people without record labels pay a fee to upload music ala cdbaby and others. I'm almost positive he said that and that they are 400000 "quality" tracks. I've known about the CD baby thing for a while but I don't know if that is a viable option because of Apple's policy about having final aproval.

Anyone actually gotten any music on the store this way?

Just like being Scottish, if it's not on the iTMS...IT'S CRRRAP!!!!!

Originally posted by arn
Look... the agreement between the Record Label and the Arists is a contract.

If the Record Label's suck so much... why do the artists sign with them? Because they bring something to the table... money and marketing.

Artists can spend the $$ to do their own marketing if they want... but obviously, most can't afford it.

And guess what? A lot of artists do just that, after long enough.

Originally posted by arn
I find the whole one-sided "Record Labels" are evil attitude a bit tired. Yes, they try to make the most money possible. Should the artist make more money per album sold? Maybe... and they could make 100% of they money of each album sold if they went to the time/trouble/money to publish market themselves.

And I think iTMS will make this more possible as an option, thus turning the table on the record labels and making it a better deal for the artists.

In other news, I've decided not to buy any books because Amazon's just selling out to the publishers, who are screwing over the authors. And when I scan my books and give them away as PDF's, they sue me for copyright infringement!

jackc

Oct 19, 2003, 12:31 PM

Spent about $40-45 so far. I have to force myself not to spend more. It's too damn easy!

g5man

Oct 19, 2003, 07:18 PM

I spend a little over $100. It is much too easy, but I have enjoyed all the music purchased.

It would have taken a long time to find the CDs in a store and I saved several hundred by not buying full CDs.

Apple will do well in Windows with the music store.

Macmaniac

Oct 19, 2003, 08:34 PM

I just did some quick multiplication and I have a rough estimate of how much people who are on this site spent.
If I use all minimum values, .99, 10, 20, and so on I got a grand total of $93,839.07 spent on iTMS.
If I use all the max values 9.99, 10.99. 29.99, and so on I got $134,402.46.
So people on this site have spent a fair amount.

nagromme

Oct 19, 2003, 09:59 PM

Now figure out how many hours of music we've bought!

manitoubalck

Oct 19, 2003, 10:15 PM

Why pay for what you can get fro free. BearShare/Limewire/Kazza/etc... are free and the list is ever expanding plus you can download programs.

Or if your intent on supporting the industry go buy a CD from a shop, @ least then you have a CD and all the trimmings

bluebull

Oct 19, 2003, 10:31 PM

Once I get the internet for my new iMac tomorrow, i'm going on a rampage.

howard

Oct 19, 2003, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by arn
Look... the agreement between the Record Label and the Arists is a contract.

If the Record Label's suck so much... why do the artists sign with them? Because they bring something to the table... money and marketing.

Artists can spend the $$ to do their own marketing if they want... but obviously, most can't afford it.

I find the whole one-sided "Record Labels" are evil attitude a bit tired. Yes, they try to make the most money possible. Should the artist make more money per album sold? Maybe... and they could make 100% of they money of each album sold if they went to the time/trouble/money to publish market themselves.

which comes back to nagromme's challenege.... Those who balk... what are you doing to insure that _artists_ are making more money? Not buying any music? Pirating it?

arn

i can't quite agree with this,

yes an artist gets a lot more advertising with a better label and yes they could get better prices per cd if they did that all themselves...however advertising for a nation is just not possible for a single band...they NEED to go to the bigger labels if they want to really make money in there field and reach a bigger audience. so basically they have 2 choices:

1. get slaughtered with shotty deals and have tons of people hearing your music and make most of your money off tours...or...

2. make more money per album but yet the album hardly sells.

both are fine paths to choose but it could be a lot better than that. the amount of money these companies take out of the artists paychecks is un needed... its either taken to feed the greed of that company, or to pay for other overspending artists like micheal jackson...who blows 20million making a record that only sells 4 million.

basically say that if the labels are so bad don't use them is just like saying oh general electric is bad so don't use it... or oh ameritech is bad so don't use it...

if its the only thing out there to use it should be benefit both parties in all ways, not cripple one and benefit one.

artists need what labels do for artist, but then need to change how they go about doing it

Phil Of Mac

Oct 20, 2003, 12:00 AM

I've decided that we should ban water. Of course you can choose between water and dying of thirst, but water isn't a good solution. It adds weight and has no taste. This means I'm going to steal water instead of buying it.

howard

Oct 20, 2003, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
I've decided that we should ban water. Of course you can choose between water and dying of thirst, but water isn't a good solution. It adds weight and has no taste. This means I'm going to steal water instead of buying it.

ahh if labels were only free, like water :)

Phil Of Mac

Oct 20, 2003, 12:19 AM

Anyone working in agriculture knows that water isn't free.

howard

Oct 20, 2003, 12:25 AM

righto,

just like anyone in the music business knows that making records and advertising them isn't free...

...however...

...water is free on a personal level, or cheap, just like music is dirt cheap on a personal level... 10-15 dollars for something that will give you hours and hours of pleasure

Phil Of Mac

Oct 20, 2003, 12:30 AM

I don't see what your point is.

howard

Oct 20, 2003, 12:37 AM

yeah, i was never sure what yours was either with the whole water statement, i was just continueing the comparison

my point in my first post was this

we need labels however we need a new system in which the labels and artists can benefit, just saying that the labels are bad so don't use them isn't really going to help...

just like if water is bad don't use it...exactly..what is the point?

Phil Of Mac

Oct 20, 2003, 12:42 AM

My point is, we're better off with labels then without them. If they're so essential, than they are worth the price.

howard

Oct 20, 2003, 12:45 AM

i compared them to ameritech...well where i used to live ameritech was the only phone company...you used them or you didn't have a phone...if you didn't like there deals the only other option was to not have a phone or use a cell phone all the time....well what if you don't like either of the options?

kinda similar with labels, and theres no reason why labels couldn't change, still make money, and be fair to the artists

Phil Of Mac

Oct 20, 2003, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by howard
i compared them to ameritech...well where i used to live ameritech was the only phone company...you used them or you didn't have a phone...if you didn't like there deals the only other option was to not have a phone or use a cell phone all the time....well what if you don't like either of the options?

I use a cell phone all the time. It's easier to just have one phone number. It's not unfeasible.

Originally posted by howard
kinda similar with labels, and theres no reason why labels couldn't change, still make money, and be fair to the artists

Why should they? The artists are millionaires already.

howard

Oct 20, 2003, 01:08 AM

wow first of all your missing the point

options options, yes you may like a cell phone and it may be convienent for you but not everyone, lots of people live in poor reception area...and lots of people don't like to get the random cut outs that can happen with cell phones..not to mention the plain not as good quality as regular phones...and price also, for those who talk during the day-time

second, your extremely miss informed...first of all...the artists that are popular and millions are probably...what .03% of the artists out there...and not only that but even those artists made there millions mostly from concerts than cd sales granted they get better results than the less successful bands they still don't get much per album. and in a lot of cases its just the concerts that they get there money from

Phil Of Mac

Oct 20, 2003, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by howard
wow first of all your missing the point

options options, yes you may like a cell phone and it may be convienent for you but not everyone, lots of people live in poor reception area...and lots of people don't like to get the random cut outs that can happen with cell phones..not to mention the plain not as good quality as regular phones...and price also, for those who talk during the day-time

So get a landline instead. There are multiple options. There are even multiple cellular service vendors

Originally posted by howard
second, your extremely miss informed...first of all...the artists that are popular and millions are probably...what .03% of the artists out there...and not only that but even those artists made there millions mostly from concerts than cd sales granted they get better results than the less successful bands they still don't get much per album. and in a lot of cases its just the concerts that they get there money from

Still, they chose to be in that situation. They didn't go indie. And, quite frankly, given the fact that most bands they sign fail, the record label's taking a big risk.

Are the book publishers ripping off authors as well?

wdlove

Oct 20, 2003, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Anyone working in agriculture knows that water isn't free.

In my youth water was free. My grandmother used to collect rain water to use to wash her clothes. Both they and my parents had a well, so the only cost was the electricity to run the pump. My parents had a large cistern to collect rain water for all uses. I was in high school before city water came to our area. Because of the increase in housing in our area the ground water table had fallen. Many times the well would run dry, so it was lucky that we had the cistern.

Phil Of Mac

Oct 20, 2003, 04:08 PM

Okay, if it falls on your own property, water is free. But that's different :)

Awimoway

Nov 17, 2003, 12:45 AM

I can't believe I have 90 songs from the store already. I'm too poor for this!! I need to cut back...

The problem is that it seems so cheap when it's just a song here, a $9.99 album there. But it adds up, I can now see. Yikes.

iMacZealot

May 17, 2007, 11:23 PM

RESURRECTION!

According to iTunes, I've purchased 115 items which total to $227.81. Wow. I hadn't realised I had spent that much. Of course, my brother did spend about $20,000 at our local record store throughout his life. :eek: So, my music purchases are nothing compared to his.

Cassie

May 17, 2007, 11:55 PM

$67 according to my Mini. But that's just my Mini, which I've had for 5 months (Has it already been that long? It still seems new :))

Over the course of buying songs on 3 computers in 4 years, I'd say the total is closer to $200

Cindynjgirl79

May 18, 2007, 12:35 AM

Re: iTMS international... It's coming :) Apple said next year--and the hold up is not technical, it's legal. Music companies and lawyers to be waded through. Not Apple's fault.

does this go for movies and tv too? that would make me very happy!

JesterJJZ

May 19, 2007, 06:08 AM

I don't think I've even bought 10 songs on itunes. I'd rather buy a used CD on amazon for $3 bucks. I need something higher than 128kbps anyway.

feyd_ehway

May 22, 2007, 08:47 PM

ive spent less than 10 dollars.
i like owning the physical item. the liner notes. the etched grooves on my vinyl. the cd booklets.
currently, i have just over 3000 songs on my eternal hard drive(s). 90% came from my great cd burn [which took up the early portion of 2007 (and i now fear i didnt maximize everything *shudders at the thought of going through that process again*] and 7% from burning friends discs and 3% illegal which i couldnt find elsewhere.
im conflicted bcos it is hella nice not to have to physically go through my collections, take the disc, open the case,... just to play that one track [ie: the perfect song for my mood]. gad, it sounds worse typed out than it did in my head. *sighs*
anyway - so now that i have transferred my music over ~ digi may win in the future
:confused: idk:confused:

Royale w/cheese

Jun 6, 2007, 11:46 PM

$0.
I buy my CD's the same week they come out for $4.99-$9.99 at Bestbuy, Target or NFM, and then burn them over to my media mac, currently an Intel mini hooked to a 42" sony wega dlp via vga, (never got the scaling correct with the hdmi input) better than any :apple:tv as far as I'm concerned.

I just can't see only having digital copies of my music. Especially when most music I buy since it is on sale to promote first week numbers, is cheaper than itunes and I have a non-DRM (for most discs) hard copy of my music in its original artists form. I am somewhat of a musician, and I gotta tell you, your cd design is a part of your whole image, digital can't replicate that in the same way.

But I have almost every free download that itunes has ever offered, I'm frugal. :D