Apple 'iTunes Producer'

[MacRumors]

MacMinute reports (http://www.macminute.com/2003/10/22/itunes) on a Billboard Bulletin article that reveals Apple is in the process of launching new tools for the iTunes Music Store.

The 'iTunes Producer' is said to provide artists and labels the ability to encode and send music directly to Apple. Apple is also said to have arranged a deal with Google to provide discounts on advertising for iTunes-associated labels.

[gwangung]

Well....verrrryyyy interesting....

[ChoMomma]

but will it cost to submit songs? I just might record myself singing in the shower :D

[stoid]

This is great news for the indie music market! Free advertising and placement for all artists. My friend is a great artist, and I would buy his songs off of the iTMS if they were on there.

[jouster]

Heh the recording companies are gonna love that - way to cut them out the loop, Apple.

Well, I got no problem with that - they made good money overcharging the public for uh....as long as records/tapes/CDs have existed.

[Ramsos]

This sounds like a great idea for independent artist!:D

[MGnards]

that'd be awesome... iTunes-garage band music store

[suzerain]

This would effectively make Apple a label, which does two things:

(1) It definitely increases the conflict with Apple Corps.

(2) It will impact the RIAAs opinion of the store. I wonder what kind of deal Apple has with the majors? If Apple's license for major label content was pulled over disagreements with the majors, the iTMS would be dead in the water.

I've always thought this is the logical evolution of this store (i.e., artists don't need the scumsucking, bottom-feeding leeches at the major labels anymore), but I thought Apple would wait a year or two before really setting this up.

Of course, as a music lover and RIAA hater, I'd love to watch those assholes drown in the quagmire of hate they've stirred up between both the artists and the music fans.

[Digipimp]

I'm not positive but I don't think this has anything to do with cutting the labels out of the loop yet. These are just tools for the labels and artists to use to submit their stuff to work with the store much easier. However I would like to find out more detailed info as to what it takes to make ones self an independant label and submit music to the store. I don't really see any details anywhere that indicated specific requirements or anything.

[mateft]

I think that this software collection is designed for the labels. It would stream line their submissions to the store. Is Apple doing all the encoding? If they are then that could be one reason for the backup of all the songs. Did Steve not say that the a reason why songs take time to get to the store is that they are not of high quality?

I think that this will speed up the process, even making ti possible for more labels to get on board.

[frinky23]

Originally posted by suzerain
This would effectively make Apple a label, which does two things:
(2) It will impact the RIAAs opinion of the store. I wonder what kind of deal Apple has with the majors? If Apple's license for major label content was pulled over disagreements with the majors...

Not if they wanted to keep the copyrights they currently own. Such an act would be anti-competitive, and doing so causes a copyright holder to lose their copyrights. Napster died before the issue could be litigated, but Apple has the money to stay the course.

[azdude]

Note that if Steve is true to the statements he made only last week, then all the submitted music will be heavily screened. Sorry, no singing in the shower.

I'll summarize the quote from memory ;): Watch the QT stream for verbatim.

"That's 400,000 *QUALITY* tracks... We're not letting just anyone put music onto the iTMS... this is *QUALITY* music."

[stoid]

Originally posted by azdude
"That's 400,000 *QUALITY* tracks... We're not letting just anyone put music onto the iTMS... this is *QUALITY* music."

Maybe there will be a separate indie section.

[rainman::|:|]

this just in: apple records is seeking to hire dozens of lawyers for a major lawsuit.

funny stuff :) i still think AR will lose a court case. or apple will buy them out, or something...

this is great news overall, i wonder if Producer will be mac/pc or just mac?

pnw

[Awimoway]

Originally posted by suzerain
(2) It will impact the RIAAs opinion of the store. I wonder what kind of deal Apple has with the majors? If Apple's license for major label content was pulled over disagreements with the majors, the iTMS would be dead in the water.

My impression (I have no insider info) is that the difference is: Apple does all the work (rip high quality AAC's, put them online, scan the cover art, put together any promotional materials for the iTMS) for the major labels on Apple's dime, but it's largely DIY for the indie labels.

[alset]

My music is so right there! I have a bunch of tracks that I have withheld from distribution just for this.

Dan

[From Win to Mac]

Maybe they leaked it to get a feel of what happens if it's released

[electric]

Imagine all the artists ... La La La La La ...

What if Apple bought Apple, They could then become the new digital Label Company. I wonder if Steve Jobs was a fledgling musician in his younger days and never leg go of a dream to be a rock star.

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

[LimeLite]

Could this have anything to do with Garage Band (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/09/20030914034831.shtml)?

Has potential to be a very awesome technology.

[suzerain]

Originally posted by frinky23
Not if they wanted to keep the copyrights they currently own. Such an act would be anti-competitive, and doing so causes a copyright holder to lose their copyrights. Napster died before the issue could be litigated, but Apple has the money to stay the course.

Explain what this means more fully, if you wouldn't mind. I don't know much about copyright law.

In my pedestrian understanding, which comes from both signing contracts with record labels (design work, mostly), and reading books like "Hit Men" by Fredric Dannen, the labels are already an anticompetitive cartel (which also includes the distributors and radio outlets like Clear Channel).

I guess the major case for me would be if a large act, like a Lenny Kravitz, or R.E.M., or Jay-Z, decided to just fill out the remainder of their contract with the label, and then self-distribute, utilizing a company like Apple who would give them a greater percentage of royalties, then it would seem to me the labels would get pissed off.

So, I can imagine labels approaching Apple and saying, "we're not going to let you build a business on top of our old catalog, which we invested billions of dollars in acquiring, and then turn around and sign away our artists".

To me, this makes sense...like, if CompUSA is a store carrying Compaq computers, and then suddenly Compaq buys the Best Buy chain, and is now in the business of selling computers, I could see CompUSA saying "well...piss off...we're going to sell Hewlett-Packard machines now."

[suzerain]

--

[azdude]

To me, this makes sense...like, if CompUSA is a store carrying Compaq computers, and then suddenly Compaq buys the Best Buy chain, and is now in direct competition with them, I could see CompUSA saying "well...piss off...we're going to sell Hewlett-Packard machines instead."

Compaq = HP (2003 merger)

I still understand your analogy, though. ;)

[suzerain]

Originally posted by azdude
Compaq = HP (2003 merger)

I still understand your analogy, though. ;)


haha...yes, i am an idiot. good point.

[sethypoo]

Originally posted by suzerain

I've always thought this is the logical evolution of this store (i.e., artists don't need the scumsucking, bottom-feeding leeches at the major labels anymore), but I thought Apple would wait a year or two before really setting this up.

Of course, as a music lover and RIAA hater, I'd love to watch those assholes drown in the quagmire of hate they've stirred up between both the artists and the music fans.

Amen to that! The RIAA has it coming.

[azdude]

Wow... 30 Positive, 0 Negative... how often does that happen? A handful of odd-thinking people always find a reason to rate every story Negative.

:D

[voicegy]

Give it time, azdude...give it time. :rolleyes:

I wonder if that means The Most Talented Female Singer in the World will be able to post directly to iTunes? Oh, I HOPE so!:D

http://www.wingmusic.co.nz/

[tjwett]

I agree that this will be something for the labels and artists already signed to deal with Apple and iTMS. this is not going to be something for every joe schmo in the world to just upload songs and sell them. there is no way to measure how absurd and out of control that would get. it's just not doable on soooo many levels. everything from Apple looking like fools for slinging every piece of crap record made in every basement in America to Apple's potential to get in heaps of trouble for distributing songs that contain say, uncleared samples, etc. the list goes on and on. this is not for the public guys, sorry.

[johnnowak]

Originally posted by azdude
Note that if Steve is true to the statements he made only last week, then all the submitted music will be heavily screened. Sorry, no singing in the shower.

I'll summarize the quote from memory ;): Watch the QT stream for verbatim.

"That's 400,000 *QUALITY* tracks... We're not letting just anyone put music onto the iTMS... this is *QUALITY* music."

Why hippy Steve gets to decided what's "quality" music is beyond me.

[billyboy]

Set up a section of the store called "Lucky Dip".

Apple could make it open door to anyone submitting music in the necessary format, but any material from "musical entities" that are not on their high quality books right now, would be shovelled it into a section specifically designated "Lucky Dip". There would be a time limit for it being on the store. The people cruising the Listen at you own Risk genre would be rating the potential garbage for Apple simply by virtue of the number of sales made. It would still cost 99c a song but once a trash song hit a certain number of sales, it could be flagged on Steve Job´s computer and he could decide whether it´s to his taste and suitable for the main store.

I know that listening to streamed music from mp3.com, there is a lot of rubbish, and you edit that out yourself by literally wiping it off. But there is plenty of really good music which, if it was a click away, would be bought.

[Analog Kid]

Originally posted by azdude
Note that if Steve is true to the statements he made only last week, then all the submitted music will be heavily screened. Sorry, no singing in the shower.

I'll summarize the quote from memory ;): Watch the QT stream for verbatim.

"That's 400,000 *QUALITY* tracks... We're not letting just anyone put music onto the iTMS... this is *QUALITY* music."

yeah that was the one downer of his message, in my mind. What better format to allow *anyone* to sell?

I don't want Apple filtering what I can listen to. If you want to sing in the shower, go for it. I won't buy it, but I can't imagine it would get in the way of my finding music I like...

[eric67]

I was already dreaming of it for the small bands for which it is impossible to get contract with big label companies, avoiding that way that their songs reach the public....
I was thinking that it would be so nice if a band could just upload some of its songs to iTMS, that way no intermediates getting their margin, iTMS will just become a music supermarket where it will be possible to buy the music you like!!!!!!! I have dreamed about it, and Apple might do it!!!!!!!
that way , the small music bands will get probably a bigger margin than if they had a contract with a record company....
yes Apple, go on.

PS : as usual, Apple is probably going to revolutionize the music market, the others will try to follow and copy, but will never surpass the master.

[Jerry Spoon]

Originally posted by azdude
Note that if Steve is true to the statements he made only last week, then all the submitted music will be heavily screened. Sorry, no singing in the shower.

I'll summarize the quote from memory ;): Watch the QT stream for verbatim.

"That's 400,000 *QUALITY* tracks... We're not letting just anyone put music onto the iTMS... this is *QUALITY* music."

That's exactly what I was thinking. Seems to fly in the face of what Steve said at the announcement... although he's flipped before on certain things....just not so soon. Maybe it will be another 6-12 months before we see this software.

[Sailfish]

Apple is going to allow artists a shot at broad distribution online, if it sells well the Labels will probably want to pick them up for larger distribution.

Apple is going to have to stream them to let people sample new artists songs longer than the 30 sec.

I know a jazz duo that sings at restaurants every Sunday morning, they would love to hear that they can get their stuff on iTunes. And they are good.

[howard]

this would be awesome...please please please let this happen

[wordmunger]

Originally posted by Analog Kid
yeah that was the one downer of his message, in my mind. What better format to allow *anyone* to sell?

I don't want Apple filtering what I can listen to. If you want to sing in the shower, go for it. I won't buy it, but I can't imagine it would get in the way of my finding music I like...
If the music wasn't screened, it would be very easy to spam iTunes. I could take my "shower song" and rename it 100 times:

"Would I lie to you guys" by Dave Lennox;
"Stacy's Mommy" by Fountains of Wayne State University;
"Thriller in Maniller" by Michael Jackson Pollock;
"Hey Mamma" by Black Eye Peas.

Multiply this by 10,000 spammers, and you get the idea: ITMS becomes unusable.

[howard]

Originally posted by billyboy
Set up a section of the store called "Lucky Dip".

Apple could make it open door to anyone submitting music in the necessary format, but any material from "musical entities" that are not on their high quality books right now, would be shovelled it into a section specifically designated "Lucky Dip". There would be a time limit for it being on the store. The people cruising the Listen at you own Risk genre would be rating the potential garbage for Apple simply by virtue of the number of sales made. It would still cost 99c a song but once a trash song hit a certain number of sales, it could be flagged on Steve Job´s computer and he could decide whether it´s to his taste and suitable for the main store.

I know that listening to streamed music from mp3.com, there is a lot of rubbish, and you edit that out yourself by literally wiping it off. But there is plenty of really good music which, if it was a click away, would be bought.


thats a pretty good idea.

i could understand that they would want to protect there server load and not put everything on there, and they could still filter it, also the artist would have to show they have the copyright to there music, as one person mentioned because of problems with samples etc... that in itself would be a good filter...no one is going to do some crap project at home if they have to take the time to get copyrights.

[NoVi]

A robust entrance fee for uploading your music would also clean out the "bathroom singers".

Anyway, for the real low end artist still wanting to put some music online I would say mp3.com is a great alternative.

[snahabed]

I doubt this is going to happen, but I think it SHOULD.

First of all, it would VERY much separate iTunes from MM/Napster.

Second, it would create tremendous amounts of interest and goodwill from consumers.

I would think it would be better to have a separate section for non-label music. It would make for a great reason for people to STAY interested in iTMS once all the old faves are bought.

The question is quality control. On the one hand, they cannot let true crap onto iTMS. But tons of the label stuff on the store right now IS true crap. And I fear who would be on the quality control board at Apple, considering Steve's unfortunate penchant for geriatric hippy rock. Would he approve of a do-it-yourself Peaches? Nottt so sure.

Maybe they could say "you get one submission of works per calendar year per Apple ID. The same work cannot be submitted in the same year by more than one Apple ID, and cannot be submitted by the same Apple ID in subsequent years." I think this would reduce system clutter and make people really get their works in good shape before submitting. And charging a processing fee for submitting, and only allow copyrighted works.

Of course, again, I dont think this is going to happen, but here's to dreamin! :)

[wordmunger]

Originally posted by howard
thats a pretty good idea.

i could understand that they would want to protect there server load and not put everything on there, and they could still filter it, also the artist would have to show they have the copyright to there music, as one person mentioned because of problems with samples etc... that in itself would be a good filter...no one is going to do some crap project at home if they have to take the time to get copyrights.

This is a good idea, as long as these submissions are not included in the standard search results--you should have to do something extra to get to them (see my spam post above).

Note for legal geeks: There is no way to "show you have copyright" to a work. Copyrights are automatic, as soon as a work is placed in tangible form. Once you have created a work, it's up to you to enforce the copyright, it's not up to others to demonstrate they are not violating yours.

In other words, if I create a ripoff of "Hey Mama" (or just copy it exactly) and post it to ITMS, it's up to Black Eyed Peas' lawyers (or more likely, their record label's lawyers) to show that I'm violating their copyright. They have to prove in court (not to Steve Jobs) that I've significantly copied their work and eaten into their potential sales.

[allday]

Are you kidding me MacMinute? That's why I read MacRumors. Steve Jobs just said 1 week ago that one of the reasons that the iTunes store is so great is that there is not just a hogwash of songs that any person who has a guitar and a computer can submit. All of the hundreds of thousands of songs are "good" songs.

[iLilana]

so long as the upload doesn't cost, this is the answer to the DIY dream. Aplle just gets a peice of the pie when a song sells. Independant artists and no labels... wow, I'm speechless.


ugh.. I gotta learn how to speel

Mind you, that whole Pat Metheny-Zero Tolerance For Silence was a debacle of crap. I challenge anyone to listen to it from beginning to end. I bet it's on iTunes. If it is then we must redfine quality music.

[The Reaper]

or, they could simply allow all 'garage band' songs on a special section, with someone screening audio quality so that no one just puts random noise etc. for such a song to remain in this section, it must be downloaded a certain number of times. otherwise, it will be deleted.

Songs will be ranked according to number of downloads, so potential buyers won't need to listen to crap songs that no one else likes.

in addition, the 'screeners' or apple employees in general can be encouraged to pick random songs from this section to find good music. those songs that they like will be promoted amongst other apple employees, and if they prove to be populat, they will be 'pushed' in the iTunes music store. just like the existing 'staff favorites' section, but for the 'garage band' section only.

[iLilana]

Originally posted by snahabed
I doubt this is going to happen, but I think it SHOULD.


The question is quality control. On the one hand, they cannot let true crap onto iTMS. But tons of the label stuff on the store right now IS true crap. And I fear who would be on the quality control board at Apple, considering Steve's unfortunate penchant for geriatric hippy rock. Would he approve of a do-it-yourself Peaches? Nottt so sure.

Maybe they could say "you get one submission of works per calendar year per Apple ID. The same work cannot be submitted in the same year by more than one Apple ID, and cannot be submitted by the same Apple ID in subsequent years." I think this would reduce system clutter and make people really get their works in good shape before submitting. And charging a processing fee for submitting, and only allow copyrighted works.

Of course, again, I dont think this is going to happen, but here's to dreamin! :)

have you ever watched a street musician play with a hat on the sidewalk. I think this is the only way to weed out the 'true' crap in the music industry. having a significant non label section on iTunes would allow buyers to recommend and rate as they purchase/try peoples music. Then maybe we can finally squash the backsmeer boys/britany spunks crap that gets force fed to us through traditional media.

the labels did this to themselves.

[Jeff Harrell]

Originally posted by frinky23
Not if they wanted to keep the copyrights they currently own. Such an act would be anti-competitive, and doing so causes a copyright holder to lose their copyrights.Huh? That's news to me. I'm no law-talkin-guy, but I consider myself to be reasonably informed about matters of copyright, and this is the first I've heard of such a thing. Seizure of private property by the government is very serious business. I find it hard to believe that it could just happen the way you describe.

If you know more about this than I do, I'd appreciate it if you'd share... even if it is ever so slightly off-topic. Feel free to email me or whatever.

[rjstanford]

Originally posted by wordmunger
In other words, if I create a ripoff of "Hey Mama" (or just copy it exactly) and post it to ITMS, it's up to Black Eyed Peas' lawyers (or more likely, their record label's lawyers [emphasis added]) to show that I'm violating their copyright. They have to prove in court (not to Steve Jobs) that I've significantly copied their work and eaten into their potential sales. One comment - read that again. For everyone who's so quick to bash the record labels, they really do provide services (such as legal defence, tour promotion, etc) that may be out of reach for many startup bands. They also charge the bands a huge amount of their potential money for basically being on retainer and doing these things. Its a trade-off, like so much of life.

Having said that, anything to streamline contributions assuming some sort of filtering/approval mechanism (for technical quality if nothing else) is a very cool rumor.

-Richard

[Jeff Harrell]

Originally posted by Analog Kid
yeah that was the one downer of his message, in my mind. What better format to allow *anyone* to sell?

I don't want Apple filtering what I can listen to.I think you missed the underlying message there. I think a lot of people did.

The point was not that Apple's filtering the music for you. The point was to spin the difference in Apple's library size versus the library of Napster/Roxio/Mr. Potato Head/Whatever. Apple has only 400,000 tracks compared to SomeBodyElse's 6,000,000, but the vast majority of the competitor's library is crap, whereas ours is all major-label or major-independent-label stuff that's known to be good.

It was just positioning and spin, not at statement of intent to become the world's musical gatekeeper.

[kimble]

Everybody is getting way of track here. All this is is a tool to help labels prepare and submit music to iTMS. It is not for individual artists and definitely not for DIY musicians. Submitting songs is more than just ripping an AAC an sending it to Apple. There are strict specifications and guidelines for submitting music to the store and it is the labels responsiblity to meet these standards. Apple does not do the ripping, the labels do. Every online music store right now has their own guidelines for how and what can be submitted and this is merely Apples way of making it as easy as possible for labels to get their music on the iTMS.

[greenstork]

Originally posted by suzerain

I guess the major case for me would be if a large act, like a Lenny Kravitz, or R.E.M., or Jay-Z, decided to just fill out the remainder of their contract with the label, and then self-distribute, utilizing a company like Apple who would give them a greater percentage of royalties, then it would seem to me the labels would get pissed off.


If you're an artist and you want to continue to produce CD's then you're still going to need a record company contract. Unless they want to sign on with an indie label but then big bands like the ones you mentioned will have a lot tougher time getting prime shelf space in the Best Buy (Tower, Good Guys, etc). Big label record companies own that prime shelf space.

In addition, any record contract would prohibit artists from directly affiliating with Apple.

This program was designed for two purposes, to give the smaller artists an avenue for distribution and to give record labels an easy system ti implement in house that connects them to iTMS. It's really brilliant actually, they are courting smaller artists and screening them while simultaneously making it easier on the big players, all without stepping on anyone's toes. If the smaller artists hits the big time because of iTMS, they're still going to want the big buck that go along with a record contract and this will promptly end their independant affiliation with Apple. Presumably however, their tunes will still be sold under the record label's affiliation with iTMS.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by kimble
Everybody is getting way of track here. All this is is a tool to help labels prepare and submit music to iTMS. It is not for individual artists and definitely not for DIY musicians. Submitting songs is more than just ripping an AAC an sending it to Apple. There are strict specifications and guidelines for submitting music to the store and it is the labels responsiblity to meet these standards. Apple does not do the ripping, the labels do. Every online music store right now has their own guidelines for how and what can be submitted and this is merely Apples way of making it as easy as possible for labels to get their music on the iTMS.

Exactly.

1) Apple has not reversed its policy of dealing only with labels, and the existence of this tool does NOT indicate in any way that it will.

2) From the Book of Jobs, October 18th, 2003: (rough paraphrase): the labels still provide the valuable service of filtering out the crap. Not Apple: the labels. This is both part of why Apple only deals with labels and why Apple has a few less songs than other sites.

3) It is highly unlikely that Apple will start a "Find the Next Star!" type of service. Such a service fits a whole lot better with a streaming/subscription business model than with the iTMS buy it/own it model. IMHO, such a "running competition" would only work if the artists gave their music away; there's no way I'd pay to filter out the crap from the good stuff, and the vast majority of listeners out there feel the same (which is why the "garage band" subscription services have cratered). For Apple to provide such a service, there has to be a benefit to Apple. Apple has the money to fund this, perhaps in exchange for an "exclusive tracks" agreement from the top downloads artists. Other than that, this doesn't play off the iTMS's current strengths.

4) If Apple were to do such a service, in keeping with the Book of Jobs chapter of October 2003, it would be completely separate from the main store. Searching wouldn't get you there, and it would be quite apparent when you entered that area that this was no longer a "99-cents/song" area. This allows Apple to keep all the "covers" of various songs to some level of quality, the "spam" aspect out of the running, and the general information-overload aspect of it minimized.

5) It is one thing to deal with legal issues with hundreds of labels; millions of wanna-be pop "stars" is a whole new ball of legal wax. It is unlikely Apple wants to start dealing with that unless there is a clear and obvious benefit to them.

I like the "Find a Star" idea, but it isn't one that Apple has given any indication of using. This product, certainly, does not even hint at such a program.

[greenstork]

Originally posted by jettredmont
Exactly.

1) Apple has not reversed its policy of dealing only with labels, and the existence of this tool does NOT indicate in any way that it will.

2) From the Book of Jobs, October 18th, 2003: (rough paraphrase): the labels still provide the valuable service of filtering out the crap. Not Apple: the labels. This is both part of why Apple only deals with labels and why Apple has a few less songs than other sites.

3) It is highly unlikely that Apple will start a "Find the Next Star!" type of service. Such a service fits a whole lot better with a streaming/subscription business model than with the iTMS buy it/own it model. IMHO, such a "running competition" would only work if the artists gave their music away; there's no way I'd pay to filter out the crap from the good stuff, and the vast majority of listeners out there feel the same (which is why the "garage band" subscription services have cratered). For Apple to provide such a service, there has to be a benefit to Apple. Apple has the money to fund this, perhaps in exchange for an "exclusive tracks" agreement from the top downloads artists. Other than that, this doesn't play off the iTMS's current strengths.

4) If Apple were to do such a service, in keeping with the Book of Jobs chapter of October 2003, it would be completely separate from the main store. Searching wouldn't get you there, and it would be quite apparent when you entered that area that this was no longer a "99-cents/song" area. This allows Apple to keep all the "covers" of various songs to some level of quality, the "spam" aspect out of the running, and the general information-overload aspect of it minimized.

5) It is one thing to deal with legal issues with hundreds of labels; millions of wanna-be pop "stars" is a whole new ball of legal wax. It is unlikely Apple wants to start dealing with that unless there is a clear and obvious benefit to them.

I like the "Find a Star" idea, but it isn't one that Apple has given any indication of using. This product, certainly, does not even hint at such a program.

Your post brings up a larger philisophical question about online music. A few friends and I were discussing whether or not the traditional record store is on its way out due to services like iTMS and others. We all agreed that while it may drive out the popular stores like Best Buy, Good Guys, Tower, Sam Goody, etc. in the long run, it will never completely eliminate the independant neighborhood record store. Just to clarify, I don't think the big record stores are going away any time soon but I think the advent of online music stores will eventually spell the demise of these industry giants.

The reason the smaller record stores will *never* go away is simple. For one, there will always be folks who want tangible products (read CDs, album covers, etc.) at high quality. <sidetrack> I think online music store like iTMS will eventually offer higher quality d/l's </sidetrack> Two, we need music geeks! What the hell am I talking about you might ask? The world needs music afficianados to tell us about good, small, independent artists that nobody knows about. These music geeks dwell in these small record stores and provide grassroots momentum to any up and coming artists. Contrary to popular belief, good bands don't just start off popular (unless of course they are corporate and that is a different story).

This brings me to your post. In order for the any online music store to prosper, it will eventually need a venue for these music geeks to hang out at. There will need to be a place online where new bands can be discovered and rated. I contend that an online music store is the perfect venue because d/l's can be tracked and the momentum of purchases can be databased. Consequently, the increasing popularity of artists can be measured and marketed accordingly.

So maybe iTMS Producer isn't the tool to enable independent artists but I would argue that iTMS needs something like this to ensure its long term success and popularity. Online music, in general, will needs this.

[Jerry Spoon]

Originally posted by voicegy
I wonder if that means The Most Talented Female Singer in the World will be able to post directly to iTunes? Oh, I HOPE so!:D

http://www.wingmusic.co.nz/

Wow!!! Celine Dion sure has gone all to hell!

[mrsebastian]

this has such freakin potential, i love it!!! this is what we were talking about in another thread the other day. keep the hits coming apple, at the rate they're going they may take over the industry!

[Phil Of Mac]

Working from the assumption that Apple will accept direct submission from artists, a few points:

1. They can still filter crap. By crap, it's not Steve Jobs as CEO single-handedly sitting there deciding whether or not he likes it. It's more like filtering out stuff like, say, me singing, which would be an utter disaster.

Originally posted by paulwhannel
funny stuff :) i still think AR will lose a court case. or apple will buy them out, or something...

That might work. Apple Records becomes part of Apple Computer, and becomes the in-house record label for Apple for the direct submissions from artists.

Originally posted by rjstanford
One comment - read that again. For everyone who's so quick to bash the record labels, they really do provide services (such as legal defence, tour promotion, etc) that may be out of reach for many startup bands. They also charge the bands a huge amount of their potential money for basically being on retainer and doing these things. Its a trade-off, like so much of life.

Having said that, anything to streamline contributions assuming some sort of filtering/approval mechanism (for technical quality if nothing else) is a very cool rumor.

This is really my main point: that with Apple handling the distribution, the record labels are going to have to change their practices. They're going to have to be a better value for the artist. This will make things better for everyone, like all innovation does.

[djfreak]

Well this is a critical discussion and I am glad to see many people joining in.

We have a similar thread going on over at osxaudio.com that everyone should check out.

I know I am not alone as an artist when I say that

1. Yes I am a professional

2. I absolutely REFUSE to let ex-hippie conservative capitalist Steve Jobs be the judge of whether my music will sell on the net or not.

Now we have to remember that the only thing separating the AAC that I create with QT Pro and the Protected AAC (.m4b) that apple sells on the iTMS is the "protected" part. And oh how protected that encoding is. If I'm understanding things correctly, Apple uses server varification to keep track of the AAC authorizations.

Now that may be a tightly guarded secret but it's just too simple for Apple to keep to themselves forever. Currently, the authorization process is iTunes only (for iTMS) but that will not always be the case. As I pointed out over on osxaudio.com Apple is now far from the only company launching this kind of venture.

Microsoft, Napster, Liquid Audio, and Real Audio are just a few companies each having their own theft protection scheme. Now we all know by now that that will not fly. Customers are going to demand the same freedom that they had with CD's. There will have to be a universal standard for encoding theft protection into these files. As it is you can play non-apple protected AAC's in iTunes but not the other way around (duh - of course).

Now as for iTunes Producer - no they are not about to start opening the gates for everyone to start uploading songs but if the universal standard that I just discussed gets implimented and I think it will, then some company or another will be in charge of licensing the technology to protect these files and then you will pay someone to give you the software or they'll encode it themselves to some kind of standard or something like that. The point is the whole thing is going to have to loosen up.

I'm going to be keeping my ears out for further mention of iTunes Producer though.

Evan