PDA

View Full Version : Green Day and Red Hot Chili Peppers on iTMS


MacRumors
Dec 12, 2003, 12:49 AM
Both Green Day and (some) Red Hot Chili Peppers have appeared on Apple's iTunes Music Store.

While we don't normally report on band appearances on iTunes, both of these bands were previously reported (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/07/20030703035451.shtml) as bands that were unwilling to agree to Apple's iTunes Music Store terms.

Specifically there were concerns about allowing the same of individual songs off of albums -- rather then the album as a collective unit.

Admittedly, the Red Hot Chili Peppers' album (itms://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=3625843) is a Greatest Hits collection and may not represent a change in policy for the band. However, as more and more online music stores make their way into the market, bands may be pressured into participating in digital music distribution.

rainman::|:|
Dec 12, 2003, 12:53 AM
great to hear about the peppers... but i swear i downloaded a green day album a few months back... shenanigans... what gives?

paul

arn
Dec 12, 2003, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by paulwhannel
great to hear about the peppers... but i swear i downloaded a green day album a few months back... shenanigans... what gives?

paul

Not sure when Green Day were added.

The Reuter's article was in July... so perhaps sometime in between. ;)

arn

Sabenth
Dec 12, 2003, 01:02 AM
i noticed this the other day too intresting shows that they might be looking and learning these big named artists

TyleRomeo
Dec 12, 2003, 01:03 AM
bring on Dave Matthews Band

SeaFox
Dec 12, 2003, 01:03 AM
They're both mediocre. Who cares?

shadowfax
Dec 12, 2003, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by SeaFox
They're both mediocre. Who cares? green day is mediocre, but red hot chili peppers has a lot of really good stuff. it's good to see them put their tale in between their legs and agree to make some money.

mrdeep
Dec 12, 2003, 01:32 AM
I demand Madonna, Radiohead, (flac (http://flac.sourceforge.net/) too, but thats another issue).

Sailfish
Dec 12, 2003, 01:43 AM
Now how does one link to a iTunes album from a web page link?

That was cool to say the least.

hmmm interesting....

album

<a
href="c.php?u=itms%3A%2F%2Fphobos.apple.com%2FWebObjects%2FMZStore.woa%2Fwa%2FviewAlbum%3FplaylistId%3D362 5843">album</a>

how does the html info breakdown?

I see the playlist id, how does one get that? What does it all mean?

Thanks

MacSlut
Dec 12, 2003, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by Sailfish
Now how does one link to a iTunes song from a web page link?

That was cool to say the least.

Someone enlighten me with the html please


In iTMS, find any link to the song, album or artist you want to link to. Then right-click or CTRL-click and select "Copy iTunes Music Store URL".

This URL will work with Safari or Explorer when pasted or as a link in a Web page or email.

Very cool indeed.

Sailfish
Dec 12, 2003, 02:01 AM
Very cool indeed,

thanks

Under the Bridge 4:24 Red Hot Chili Peppers Red Hot Chili Peppers: Greatest Hits $0.99

nope didn't work

what do I have to click on?

winmacguy
Dec 12, 2003, 02:07 AM
Although we cant get iTMS in NZ yet I would have to say that getting bands to release straight onto the iTMS would have to be a good thing and could be a sign of things to come.

shadowfax
Dec 12, 2003, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by mrdeep
I demand Madonna, Radiohead, (flac (http://flac.sourceforge.net/) too, but thats another issue). radiohead... what a nutty issue. they are mac users, they have a very iTunes personality... the only conclusion i can draw is that EMI, their label, sucks the big one.

SiliconAddict
Dec 12, 2003, 02:24 AM
Under the Bridge (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=3625624&selectedItemId=3625458)

Give it Away (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=3625624&selectedItemId=3625462)

Calfornication (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=3625624&selectedItemId=3625468)

Furtune Faded (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=3625624&selectedItemId=3625603)

Soul to Squeeze (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=3625624&selectedItemId=3625502)

Sailfish
Dec 12, 2003, 02:49 AM
Ok I figured it out, drag a link from iTMS on the web page, not iTMS itself.

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?selectedItemId=3146605&playListId=3146607

Of course only Apple knows all the slectItemID's and playListIds

Well back to downloading the RHCP's

Green Day is already in the bag...


control click....off

winmacguy
Dec 12, 2003, 02:51 AM
http://www.internet-nexus.com/2003_12_07_archive.htm#107099248777120375

iTunes sales dropping significantly as holidays near
In the Steve Jobs Rolling Stone interview I mentioned yesterday, his Royal RealityFieldness casually noted that the total number of songs sold on the iTunes Music Store rose to over 20 million downloads, up from 17 million in early November. That sounds great, but a cursory examination of Apple's publicly-revealed sales figures and the dates of those announcements reveals that iTunes sales are actually falling through the floor. This is particularly amazing because the service is now open to a much wider range of users since the company opened it up to Windows users, which account for about 95 percent of all computer users. On October 20, shortly after the Windows version of iTunes was released, Apple said it had sold over 15 million songs, or an average of 285,714 songs per day since the previous sales announcement. On November 6, the company revealed it had sold 17 million songs, or an average of 250,000 songs per day, a slight drop. But this week's sales figures reveal that average daily sales have dropped dramatically, to just 93,750 songs a day. What does this mean? Well, it suggests that most people who tried the service downloaded a few songs and then never returned. Apple hasn't seen attrition that high since it switched its free iTools service to the paid .Mac service over a year ago, and it represents a significant challenge for the company, since it's still losing money on iTunes and is facing significant competition for its popular iPod. Here are how Apple's average daily sales have tracked since the service was first launched in April 2003. Note that they're almost down to the level they were at before Windows users jumped on board. Not good.


If this is true it is pretty scary...?

Gymnut
Dec 12, 2003, 04:10 AM
Nice to see the Chili Peppers added. Maybe this'll give me an opportunity to listen to some of their lesser known songs.

shadowfax
Dec 12, 2003, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by Gymnut
Nice to see the Chili Peppers added. Maybe this'll give me an opportunity to listen to some of their lesser known songs. don't count on it... this is just their greatest hits album :(

arn
Dec 12, 2003, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by winmacguy
http://www.internet-nexus.com/2003_12_07_archive.htm#107099248777120375

If this is true it is pretty scary...?

Um... you can't calculate these numbers without knowing WHEN the 20 million song figure was generated.

They guy assumes the 20 million song is current as of today it seems, and not at some time prior to when the interview actually took place. Obviously the end date of that # affects it.

arn

Belly-laughs
Dec 12, 2003, 04:28 AM
Yertle the Turtle

winmacguy
Dec 12, 2003, 04:42 AM
Originally posted by arn
Um... you can't calculate these numbers without knowing WHEN the 20 million song figure was generated.

They guy assumes the 20 million song is current as of today it seems, and not at some time prior to when the interview actually took place. Obviously the end date of that # affects it.

arn
Well he does say
"But this week's sales figures reveal that average daily sales have dropped dramatically, to just 93,750 songs a day. What does this mean? " and the date above that says Tuesday, December 09, 2003
So I am taking that to be pretty current, also the graph falls dramatically after November 28th to about 90,000 down from 290,000 either way it makes for interesting reading even though we all know that the iTMS is meant as a loss leader for the iPod anyway.

arn
Dec 12, 2003, 04:57 AM
Originally posted by winmacguy
Well he does say
"But this week's sales figures reveal that average daily sales have dropped dramatically, to just 93,750 songs a day. What does this mean? " and the date above that says Tuesday, December 09, 2003

http://www.internet-nexus.com/2003_12_07_archive.htm#107099248777120375

Thurrott gets the 20 million figure from Steve Jobs' Rolling Stones interview. (This number was also echoed by Peter Lowe at the iHolywood Forum's Music 2.0 conference. )

The interview took place sometime before it was published. It is dated on Dec 3rd. So, unless the Rolling Stone guy was writing it with Steve in his office and typed it straight to the website... the interview took place at an unspecified time before Dec 3rd.

Point is, it's just made up numbers without a date on that figure. This blogger (incorrectly) assumes these numbers apply to "this week" (Dec 8th).

As of November 6th - 17 million songs sold (according to the blog)

It's only 4 weeks ago... so we can do some calcuations depending on the actual date of the 20million number.

Assume 20 million songs were sold as of the following dates, and you get these numbers:

Nov 13 => 428,571 songs a day
Nov 20 => 214,285 songs a day
Nov 27 => 142,857 songs a day
Dec 3 => 111,111 songs a day

So, it's certainly not December 3rd. It takes some time to write an article. And... the 20 million figure may not have been "fresh" right when steve was interviewed.

The point is, it's all speculation... just because someone can draw a pretty graph doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.

(a better guess would place it between 142,000-214,000/songs/day. but again, it's just a guess)

arn

Blaaze
Dec 12, 2003, 05:33 AM
wooo. it's about time.

Peyote
Dec 12, 2003, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by winmacguy
http://www.internet-nexus.com/2003_12_07_archive.htm#107099248777120375

iTunes sales dropping significantly as holidays near
In the Steve Jobs Rolling Stone interview I mentioned yesterday, his Royal RealityFieldness casually noted that the total number of songs sold on the iTunes Music Store rose to over 20 million downloads, up from 17 million in early November. That sounds great, but a cursory examination of Apple's publicly-revealed sales figures and the dates of those announcements reveals that iTunes sales are actually falling through the floor. This is particularly amazing because the service is now open to a much wider range of users since the company opened it up to Windows users, which account for about 95 percent of all computer users. On October 20, shortly after the Windows version of iTunes was released, Apple said it had sold over 15 million songs, or an average of 285,714 songs per day since the previous sales announcement. On November 6, the company revealed it had sold 17 million songs, or an average of 250,000 songs per day, a slight drop. But this week's sales figures reveal that average daily sales have dropped dramatically, to just 93,750 songs a day. What does this mean? Well, it suggests that most people who tried the service downloaded a few songs and then never returned. Apple hasn't seen attrition that high since it switched its free iTools service to the paid .Mac service over a year ago, and it represents a significant challenge for the company, since it's still losing money on iTunes and is facing significant competition for its popular iPod. Here are how Apple's average daily sales have tracked since the service was first launched in April 2003. Note that they're almost down to the level they were at before Windows users jumped on board. Not good.


If this is true it is pretty scary...?


He's not taking into account other factors...such as the fact that this is right before the holidays. I would expect iTMS sales to drop as people are spending money on physical gifts, not downloadable songs.

jholzner
Dec 12, 2003, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by SeaFox
They're both mediocre. Who cares?

Well, I'm glad to hear that your musical opinion should be the gold standard by which things should be judeged before anything is added to the iTMS. Music snobs are so annoying.

blybug
Dec 12, 2003, 07:55 AM
I have to believe the RHCPs refusal to allow their album catalog on the iTMS has everything to do with their (label) knowing that a Greatest Hits package was to be released.

If their whole catalog had already been available, the iTMS crowd would already have downloaded the "Greatest Hits." It was not so much the RHCPs protecting the integrity and art of their albums, but protecting the sales of their Greatest Hits. How else can they explain the existence of a "Greatest Hits" if, in fact, hearing their albums in their entirety is so essential to their art? Sorry guys, can't have it both ways. Expect to see the rest of their catalog to quietly show up after sales of the "Greatest Hits" has leveled off, and the RHCPs to happily take in their chunk of all the little 99c that trickle in from sales of their (gasp) disassembled albums.

Bands are going to have to come up with some creative ways of selling greatest hits packages in the future as digital music sales become bigger, since anyone can now purchase and create a personal greatest hits playlist for any band, any time. Notice that R.E.M.'s recently released package (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=3477362) comes with a bonus disc if you buy the CDs, that has alternate takes, live versions, and other obscurities. These tracks are not for sale (yet) on the iTMS.

Oh...and Green Day has been avaialble since June. Even at the time of the original article stating Green Day was not an iTMS player, their albums were there!

mfethers
Dec 12, 2003, 09:09 AM
Strangely, Green Day has been on ITunes since day one. I remember distinctly downloading 2 songs on the Greatest Hits album on the first day, because I didn't want to buy the whole thing.

Also, RHCP had Californication up for about one day a few months ago. I downloaded it, but then it disappeared.

Interestingly, I heard on the radio this morning that Napster-slayers Metallica are now selling their music as downloads through BuyMusic, but only as albums.

Jerry Spoon
Dec 12, 2003, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by blybug
I have to believe the RHCPs refusal to allow their album catalog on the iTMS has everything to do with their (label) knowing that a Greatest Hits package was to be released.

If their whole catalog had already been available, the iTMS crowd would already have downloaded the "Greatest Hits."

Makes sense to me, and actually, I hope you're right. RHCPs has a lot of great stuff out there that I'd like to have, but I don't want to invest in cd's if ITMS will have it in the future. I thought they would offer their music up to Apple sooner or later.

NavyIntel007
Dec 12, 2003, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by arn
He gets the 20 million figure from Steve Jobs' Rolling Stones interview. (This number was also echoed by Peter Lowe at the iHolywood Forum's Music 2.0 conference. )

The interview took place sometime before it was published. It is dated on Dec 3rd. So, unless the Rolling Stone guy was writing it with Steve in his office and typed it straight to the website... the interview took place at an unspecified time before Dec 3rd.

Point is, it's just made up numbers without a date on that figure. This blogger (incorrectly) assumes these numbers apply to "this week" (Dec 8th).

As of November 6th - 17 million songs sold (according to the blog)

It's only 4 weeks ago... so we can do some calcuations depending on the actual date of the 20million number.

Assume 20 million songs were sold as of the following dates, and you get these numbers:

Nov 13 => 428,571 songs a day
Nov 20 => 214,285 songs a day
Nov 27 => 142,857 songs a day
Dec 3 => 111,111 songs a day

So, it's certainly not December 3rd. It takes some time to write an article. And... the 20 million figure may not have been "fresh" right when steve was interviewed.

The point is, it's all speculation... just because someone can draw a pretty graph doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.

(a better guess would place it between 142,000-214,000/songs/day. but again, it's just a guess)

arn


Arn is right. Look people, it's Christmas. Why would you go out and buy music when someone might wrap it for you and put it under the tree? Downloads should be down before christmas. The week after Christmas, I would not be surprised if there were a Million dowloads a week. People will be using their gift certificates.

If you think Apple isn't selling loads of gift certificates right now, you're crazy.

edit: 111,111 songs a day is nothing to scoff at. That's roughly over 10,000 albums. You think Amazon.com is matching those sales figures?

Sailfish
Dec 12, 2003, 09:47 AM
It's because all the cheap windows users have stolen all their music already.

Their reaction is:

"Pay 99 a song, $9.99 a album? NEVER!"

"I could build my own band for that price, use toilet paper for sheet music and..."

: )

PretendPCuser
Dec 12, 2003, 10:03 AM
I think on TechTV they were talking about how downloads on file-sharing services was down.

To which my bro replied: "Yeah, cause everyone all ready has all the music that they want and the new stuff that's coming out just sucks."

Personally, i'm happy to see RHCP on iTunes. The more music on there the better.

And yes, after Christmas, i'm sure the Gift Certificate users will cause a nice spike. THat's what i'm hoping for.

And if Apple is listening, i'd like a gift certificate in my stocking for being an early supporter of iTunes. How about a freebie? Five songs? C'mon, i spent over $150! :) That would be some good press and good holiday cheer from Apple.

Trowaman
Dec 12, 2003, 10:07 AM
Chili Peppers are nice, but guess what? Metallica. They re now on buymusic.com and a few other website music stores and music math. Amazingly they are not on Napster or iTunes. IF Metallica joined the store. . . .

Not many artists left, and I agree . . . bring on my musical hero, Dave Matthews with his band. They got the violynist's solo album. :/

tny
Dec 12, 2003, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by mrdeep
I demand Madonna, Radiohead, (flac (http://flac.sourceforge.net/) too, but thats another issue).

Radiohead? Why? I can't imagine downloading single Radiohead songs, unless they were B-sides or other rarities. It's not like there's a lot of useless fluff on a Radiohead album.

Madonna? Why? Just, Why?

:-)

shadowfax
Dec 12, 2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Trowaman
Chili Peppers are nice, but guess what? Metallica. They re now on buymusic.com and a few other website music stores and music math. Amazingly they are not on Napster or iTunes. IF Metallica joined the store. . . .

Not many artists left, and I agree . . . bring on my musical hero, Dave Matthews with his band. They got the violynist's solo album. :/ personally, i think metallica can go sit on their music. after the crap they have pulled with their fans on napster, and after their latest CD, which was utter bullsh**, i don't care if they ever get on iTunes. we don't need their stink. if they want to agree to the terms, whatever, but i wouldn't go out of my way, or even particularly wish, for a band like that to be on itunes.

shadowfax
Dec 12, 2003, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by tny
Radiohead? Why? I can't imagine downloading single Radiohead songs, unless they were B-sides or other rarities. It's not like there's a lot of useless fluff on a Radiohead album.

Madonna? Why? Just, Why?

:-) you know, you would be able to buy radiohead albums just as soon as buy the songs individually. i can't imagine the punk losers that would buy a single song from them... probably a bunch of fake fans wanting "creep" or something... but just the same, i really wish they were on iTunes, just because i think they belong there.

u2mr2os2
Dec 12, 2003, 10:44 AM
I think any holdout bands are being ridiculous. They claim they don't want their albums parted out because they are part of a whole work. I understand that an album can be a whole, but not all of them, and every band releases singles off that "whole". iTunes is not parting out the "whole" albums much more than the bands are already doing. I think they could at least allow the singles they've already released to be in the store.

mrsebastian
Dec 12, 2003, 11:07 AM
it's just amazing to me, that things are finally turning around from the free-for-all of napster and the like. why wouldn't you give your fans/customers the option of getting something legally online?!

as for the individual song versus album debate, i as a consumer think it's great! how many times have you gotten a cd and there are one or two good songs and the rest sucks? make good music and we'll happily buy the whole cd.

finally to metallica, f#%k you! between the egos of lars and james i'm personally surprised you're still alive and making music. i appreciate the hard work you do and the fact that you've been so prolific, but get a grip and quit acting like god's gift.

TomSmithMacEd
Dec 12, 2003, 11:58 AM
No matter what you think of the bands it is a good thing. Bring on more music on iTMS!

TylerL
Dec 12, 2003, 12:03 PM
Holdout's guide to the iTMS
1: Pad all songs over 7 minutes
2: All songs over 7 minutes can only be purchased as part of an album.

...or just take Steve's word for it that half of all iTMS songs are sold in albums, and remember that your snobby attitude isn't stopping people from downloading single tracks from Kazaa.

jydesign
Dec 12, 2003, 12:10 PM
Yes! I was happy to grab the two NEW tracks off the Chili Pepper greatest hits on iTunes. As I already have most of thier stuff on CD/imported into my library, it was nice to have the legal option to go grab those two songs and not have to buy a whole CD etc.

ALL THOSE WAITING TO DOOM SALES VOLUME: It is interesting to see the fall in numbers, however, I think the real test will be to see what those numbers look like for the first 3 months of 2004.

REMEMBER Apple did something (imho is) very smart with iTunes GIFT CERTIFICATES. Early 2004 numbers may indicate whether people take thier gift certificates and xmas dough and start buying more music! If they stay down into March, then I'd be concerned...

e-coli
Dec 12, 2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by SeaFox
They're both mediocre. Who cares?

Green Day is just bad. And i don't really care for much of the Peppers stuff, but Californication is a phenomenal album.

winmacguy
Dec 12, 2003, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by arn
He gets the 20 million figure from Steve Jobs' Rolling Stones interview. (This number was also echoed by Peter Lowe at the iHolywood Forum's Music 2.0 conference. )

The interview took place sometime before it was published. It is dated on Dec 3rd. So, unless the Rolling Stone guy was writing it with Steve in his office and typed it straight to the website... the interview took place at an unspecified time before Dec 3rd.

Point is, it's just made up numbers without a date on that figure. This blogger (incorrectly) assumes these numbers apply to "this week" (Dec 8th).

As of November 6th - 17 million songs sold (according to the blog)

It's only 4 weeks ago... so we can do some calcuations depending on the actual date of the 20million number.

Assume 20 million songs were sold as of the following dates, and you get these numbers:

Nov 13 => 428,571 songs a day
Nov 20 => 214,285 songs a day
Nov 27 => 142,857 songs a day
Dec 3 => 111,111 songs a day

So, it's certainly not December 3rd. It takes some time to write an article. And... the 20 million figure may not have been "fresh" right when steve was interviewed.

The point is, it's all speculation... just because someone can draw a pretty graph doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.

(a better guess would place it between 142,000-214,000/songs/day. but again, it's just a guess)

arn
Thanks Arn , I just wanted to get it cleared up since it didnt sound to promising when I was reading it.

winmacguy
Dec 12, 2003, 01:15 PM
Profit-Friendly File-Sharing
12/12/2003 12:04 PM - Sue Zeidler - Reuters
The world's largest software and music companies, together with a broad alliance of companies, are set to work together in a bid to transform Internet file sharing from a haven for piracy into a potential profit centre.

Microsoft and Universal Music, a unit of Vivendi Universal are members of the Content Reference Forum, formed in March to develop a universal way to distribute digital content.

The group has issued an initial set of technology specifications in a bid to create a system in which users would share customized Internet links, called "content references," instead of swapping song or film files directly.

Michael Miron, president of the Content Reference Forum, said the links could work on existing file-sharing networks, which are now frequently used for illegal copying.

For example, if a user wanted a song in an MP3 format from a friend who has it in a different file format, the links would serve as a sort of middleman that would help locate that specific content in the appropriate form.

Pricing for content could be set dynamically, based on demand for specific files and file types, for example, or a company's decision to offer a promotional rate to the first users to download a particular song or video.

Even before Napster revolutionized the distribution of music in 1999 by making it easy for fans to swap music over the Internet, various companies have been grappling with ideas for how to profit from such delivery.

The original Napster, which let people share unlimited numbers of music files for free, was shut down as a result of copyright infringement litigation in 2001.

Napster recently relaunched with a legal subscription and download format, becoming one of several record industry-backed commercial online services like Apple Computer's iTunes, MusicNet, MusicNow and MusicMatch and Rhapsody that are seeking to lure customers away from free Napster-like sites.

But while these services are finding varying degrees of success, consumers still cannot easily get the content they want, in the format and with other preferences they choose, said Miron, who is also chief executive of digital rights management firm ContentGuard Holdings.

"The vision of the forum is for consumers to enjoy as well as redistribute content with commercial terms beneficial to all members of the value chain," he said.

Other members of the forum are chipmaker ARM Holdings, digital security company Macrovision, Japanese telecommunications giant Nippon Telegraph and Telephone and Web-commerce company VeriSign.

"We expect there may be additional interest from companies in joining the group and in participating in writing the standards," said Miron.

iTunes does this already -for free.

SeaFox
Dec 12, 2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by jholzner
Well, I'm glad to hear that your musical opinion should be the gold standard by which things should be judeged before anything is added to the iTMS. Music snobs are so annoying.

It's not the fact they were added to the iTMS, but that it's that big a deal. There's gotta be one or two Green Day tracks I like, and maybe some RHCP (Under the Bridge, of corse, being one). I have Californication, and it's only half and half to me. The rappy rock songs (which all sound the same) clash with the slower songs (like Porcelin).

If Apple want to add them I have no problem. But it's not like elvis coming back from the dead to release an exculsive iTMS album or anything.

Dahl
Dec 12, 2003, 04:13 PM
I got the Chili CD with the extra DVD just to get the videos and the new songs.
Part of it for me is also getting the artwork, I know most don't care about covers anymore, but I am a music snob and I do want my covers etc.
:)

vanillamike
Dec 12, 2003, 06:19 PM
Being in graphic design I value the cover art sometimes as much as the music.

Mike

Dahl
Dec 12, 2003, 06:58 PM
Same here, I'm a designer and feel a bit sad when I think of all the album sleeves we won't see in the future.

El Dandy
Dec 12, 2003, 07:01 PM
Ani? Green Day? Chilli Peppers? Bring on Foo Fighters!

Steradian
Dec 12, 2003, 07:25 PM
Any addition to iTMS big or small is a great thing, choices are a valuable thing :-). Hope too see other bands see the "light" and put there songs on iTMS. :-P

skymac
Dec 12, 2003, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by TyleRomeo
bring on Dave Matthews Band
I could not agree more, there one of my favorite bands and i just hope that by the time iTMS comes to Canada the'l be there.

GeeYouEye
Dec 12, 2003, 09:52 PM
Green Day's been there since the beginning. And cheap too; almost half their albums are $7.99

Personally, I'm glad they finally got The All-American Rejects.

iChan
Dec 14, 2003, 07:59 AM
has anyone noticed that Pearl Jam are linkig their music to the iTMS? that is certainly a great thing but...

Gracenote, the owners of the CDDB that is used by almost every MP3 program out there to get track info are linking alot of their results on their website to Napster!!! This is terrible news for iTMS!

why didn't Apple pull this deal off?

iChan
Dec 14, 2003, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by vanillamike
Being in graphic design I value the cover art sometimes as much as the music.

Mike

I totaly understand what you are saying... they are a very important aspect of albums. what i want to know is this:

if a band wants to release an album exclusively for the iTMS, will they still bother producing album covers at all? this will be a sad day and it is this one aspect of the whole digital music downloading thing that I fear will have an adverse effect in the long run.

that being said... I spent the other day finding album covers for every one of my song files and it was the best fun i've had in a long time...

I used a prog called Clutter...

cheers

shadowfax
Dec 14, 2003, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by iChan
has anyone noticed that Pearl Jam are linkig their music to the iTMS? that is certainly a great thing but...

Gracenote, the owners of the CDDB that is used by almost every MP3 program out there to get track info are linking alot of their results on their website to Napster!!! This is terrible news for iTMS!

why didn't Apple pull this deal off? that's just more money put into the iTMS that would be lost... iTMS is already taken by apple at a loss to sell their iPods. it is certainly a generally attractive program, but i don't think they are using iTMS to get more people to use iTMS. they are using it to get more people into iPods. i don't think paying to have CDDB link to iTMS would be very helpful. it would be somewhat helpful, of course, but probably not worth the money.

Sunrunner
Dec 14, 2003, 02:51 PM
Last I heard iTMS had something like 70% of the music download market.... I wouldn't expect this to change significantly in the near future, even with all the new services coming online. As Jobs recently stated, it is a mystery how any of these companies plan on making any money when iTMS, the biggest and most well-put-together of them all is only a loss leader. I expect to see a lot of buisness flameouts as companies come online with a music store and then lose their shirts; this is gonna be kinda like a dot.com boom... lots of hype because its the cool new thing, followed by a lot of thinning of the pack that will leave only the big boys that can do it right, like Apple. :cool:

iChan
Dec 14, 2003, 04:35 PM
I don't know...i have a feeling myself that napster is going places... anyway, we'll see with time...

applekid
Dec 15, 2003, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by mfethers
Strangely, Green Day has been on ITunes since day one. I remember distinctly downloading 2 songs on the Greatest Hits album on the first day, because I didn't want to buy the whole thing.

Also, RHCP had Californication up for about one day a few months ago. I downloaded it, but then it disappeared.

Interestingly, I heard on the radio this morning that Napster-slayers Metallica are now selling their music as downloads through BuyMusic, but only as albums.

I think I saw Green Day since day one. It was probably one of the first bands I checked for.

I can also say I did see Californiacation for a couple of days then it disappeared.

applekid
Dec 15, 2003, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by TomSmithMacEd
No matter what you think of the bands it is a good thing. Bring on more music on iTMS!

Thank you.

When people are saying [artist(s)'s name here] sucks or doesn't deserve to be on iTMS, they are only stating an opinion, and not a fact. Others are just sore their artists decided to not sell their music. Boohoo. Get over it! These people are opening themselves to a flame war. What makes them the judge of all music in the world? I don't mind people stating, I like [artist(s)'s name here], but if you're going to be an a--hole and bash some artist, just stop talking!

I just thought of something... Let's say a certain artist of ours is under contract with a different record company for their international CDs. You think there's a chance we'll see them at a, say, Canada, Europe, or Japan iTMS? Think about it. Let's say your favorite artist isn't listed in the iTMS because of one evil record company. They have a separate contract for their US releases and European releases. Apple goes to that European record company and gets them to sign up for an iTMS Europe. The European record company happily joins and BAM! Your artist is selling music for 99... or euro.

You think instead of just Music Store in the sidebar of iTunes, we'll see things like Music Store (Europe), Music Store (Canada), Music Store (Japan), etc? It'd be awesome having a larger selection for international music. And some of the foreigners here could their hands on their favorite songs from their motherland! Apple, hear me out on this one! :D

Don't you like how some artists that had iTunes "exclusives" all of a sudden have nothing new to show? I'm talking about artists that just recently came out with a CD or have released something a while since iTMS. Odd...

Just some things to think about.

Purple Worm
Jan 12, 2004, 10:24 AM
Hey I'm a music snob and I have to say both the Chilis (bar their current weak 'pop' album) and Green day are excellent bands.

It'll be good when all of their work is available legally 'online'.