Some Bands Say No to iTunes

[MacRumors]

This Reuters article (http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=3029706) reports that certain bands won't agree to sell albums by the song.

The Red Hot Chili Peppers, Metallica, Green Day and Linkin Park are cited as bands unwilling to agree to Apple's iTunes Music Store terms which require individual song sales. The reason is said to be due to "creative" concerns (according to Mark Reiter with Q Prime Management Co):

"If you download a single, you may ignore the other tracks on the album," he said. "When our artists record a body of work, it's what they deem to be representative of their careers at that time."

The details of Apple's iTunes Music Store agreements were briefly posted (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/06/20030606081257.shtml) after Apple met with independent labels. Information from that meeting indicated that Apple had a single agreement for all involved and was not planning on negotiating individually.

[Awimoway]

This article does not ring true.

According to Reiter, Apple refuses to sell albums in their entirety unless the artists also allow the tracks on the album to be sold independently as digital downloads.

I've seen several albums that must be bought as a whole, so I think this is just an excuse. But it's their loss, not mine.

[cc bcc]

I don't get it, they release single-cd's all the time..

[RHutch]

Those bands lost the money that I was willing to give them. There's no way that I would buy entire albums by them. But I would buy a few songs. If they don't want my money, fine.

"creative concerns" = greed

[MrRivers]

>"If you download a single, you may ignore the other tracks on the album,"
>he said. "When our artists record a body of work, it's what they deem to be
>representative of their careers at that time.

yeah right, that's why they sell singles on CD.

Seriously they don't seem to get it. If they don't offer people a way to pay for the download of the single, most people will simply download it without payment.

MrRivers

[Porshuh944turbo]

I can see this... I mean, when you used to have a tape deck.. you'd listen to the album through and trhough side to side.. now with cd's we lose that "album" feeling and just go straight to the track we want.. most people just listen to the same songs you can hear on the radio.... THAT is the loss....

I force myself sometimes to listen to new CD's through from a to z before I start pcking tracks, but even then, it's not the same feel. I don't get the entirety of the project from the artist.

music has changed so much.....

[conantonatiu]

"If you download a single, you may ignore the other tracks on the album"

I usually ignore the tracks I don't like on an album which usually is about 50% of an album. It sounds to me they' ve lost connection with reality: not everybody wants all the songs they release. The alternatives have been to buy a single (if they release it) or to buy the whole album for a few songs you like. Why not change the way they sell their art? Greed? Maybe...

Anyway it's the hit singles that make a band big not the albums, isn't it?

[Doraemon]

Originally posted by Porshuh944turbo
I can see this... I mean, when you used to have a tape deck.. you'd listen to the album through and trhough side to side.. now with cd's we lose that "album" feeling and just go straight to the track we want.. most people just listen to the same songs you can hear on the radio.... THAT is the loss....

So the next step is that Metallica (or some of the other bands) tries to sue the company that invented the compact disc?

[Porshuh944turbo]

Ok.. I don't how you can realistically get to that conclusion... but ok...

[nagromme]

Making exceptions to the "rules" for creative reasons--or simply to get big-name bands in the catalog--is not totally irrational. I can see the arguments for that.

BUT making exceptions (and there already are some, I know) encourages artists to violate one of the store's big draws--buying singles--AND makes extra work. (But that work is probably handled by the labels who upload the music--not by Apple.) Plus, Apple just told all the independent labels that there would be no exceptions--and that the big names would not get special treatment.

So I see two solutions:

a) Hold firm until the store catalog is much larger, with much/most of the independent music in there, etc.--and THEN start bending the rules a little to fill in some holes. The rules must then be bendable by holdout artists at small labels who share the same concerns--not just the big names.

or b) Just let people buy the physical CD for those artists. Which is how things now stand. You still get it into your iTunes library in the end, so I can live with it. If you could buy the CDs direct from Apple (as an Amazon affiliate) that would be cool--but Apple shouldn't start that too soon, or it will slow the momentum of the download store.

[maka]

I think there are two very different interests here...

First, there are "artists" that want to sell you a whole album because there's one good song on it, and the rest are just for filling. They have no confidence on their music, so they want to make sure people buy the whole album.

Second, there are artists that really work on the whole album as a complete piece. I can think of the albums of Mr. Bungle as an example. Most of the tracks even overlap eachother, so it would be difficult to sell them as songs...

Now... I don't know to which of the two these bands belong :) I think RHCP may belong to the second, though...

[leenoble]

Now I'm a huge Chili Peppers fan but this hisses me off. When was the last time you actually sat and listened to an album all the way through from start to finish uninterrupted?
I'd probably say the last two Chilis albums are the only ones for about the last 5 years that I regularly listened to every track on. That's mainly due to the fact they're both fantastic albums. Had they been available on iTMS I would no noubt have bought both full albums. Especially since the Chilli Peppers don't usually skimp on songs. Both have far more than the usual 12 tracks on.
But really, if you're going to protest that this encourages people to not listen to the album as a piece of art then why not refuse to allow the CD to be played on any player which has a random track function or a programming option which allows you to miss tracks out as you please.
I do think they'd have an argument if they said that 9.99 for an album with 18 tracks on shouldn't cost the same as the latest Justin Timberlake effort. (Now I'm just casting aspersions. I have no idea how many tracks are on his album. I'm just guessing it's not eighteen).

[midifarm]

Lars, get your head out of your ass. This is a LEGAL method for you to get paid. You've bitched and bitched about Napster and Kazaa and now there's a perfectly legit method and you're blowing it off. BTW have you ever heard of "skip track" or a deleted song file on a CD player?

Just because I buy a CD doesn't mean that every song on it is worth listening to nor is it necessarily good. I have bought plenty of CD's for a song or two, but I decide what music I listen to. There are plenty of songs that Metallica has recorded that are good and ones that suck. Nobody's perfect. I'm a huge Beatles fan, but Revolution 9 was an atrocity.

Are these "artists" heads so far up their ass that they really think because they sell a million CD's that every song is fabulous? There are few and far between albums that are flawless. I'm all for the guys getting paid. Let's face it, compared to the label and the distributor and even the retailer the guys you actually write and perform the music get nothing, maybe $.03 per disc. Apple is offering you $.12 per song! Do the math guys. That's typically $1.20 per disc if they buy the whole thing. Something's not wired correctly!

[hvfsl]

If we can choose the songs we want to buy then that means artisits can no longer make filler songs just to fill up the CD. It should also increase the quality of music since people will not release rubbish music. Actually the bands mentioned are some of the worst at filler songs, some don't even put songs in but them talking.

[Porshuh944turbo]

Thing is.. they don't HAVE to do this! it's their choice yo.. so leave it alone..

they can't control HOW you listen to your CD... but they CAN control how they SELL their music.. leave it alone

[QuiteSure]

These bands will eventually have to change. As an earlier poster pointed out, the single tracks are available on Kazaa and similar services. Although illegal, they do offer the "singles only" choice.

But these bands are missing out on a much deeper level. I look in my 400+ CD collection and I see:

Red Hot Chili Peppers: 0
Metallica: 0
Linkin Park:0

I also see 0 Dixie Chicks, Thorns and Coldplay, but thanks to the iTMS I have purchased several of their tracks and will certainly buy more. So the three "rebel" bands will lose me as a "sampler" of their music, because I have already demonstrated a reluctance to buy a complete album of theirs.

[Marvy]

I just wonder if it's really the bands saying no, or much more their managers... :)

[yumpin yiminy]

pardon me if this has already been mentioned....and i don't mean to be rude by not reading it all....

c'mon. how lame are those bands to even try and not make money off of singles? there is too much to say about how pompous and ignorant that is to think that eveyone should buy the whole album because the whole album is good. if the whole album is good, then any one song should be good enough to listen to without dealing with 8 other bad songs.
bah.

[and another thing: that blurb on the main page makes it sound like those band think it is one option, just singles...aren't the bulk of the sales from whole records? complete albums? so to think people won't have the option is pffft ridiculous. those bands are no better than the record labels.
yeah i can understand concept albums being best served whole, but, puhlease. not every band can make a good concept album...]

[melo]

Yeah, rigth...

If they had creative concern's, maybe the CD they sell should only have one track, so that a "power" user could not use the next song button to ruin their creative work.

Or maybe they should demand that their air time in radio must play the album in full.

Frankly, I don't care... I intend to buy my music mostly via Appe Music Store as soon as it's available in Europe.

If some musicians don't want me to buy it, it's their choice, it really is. And there's nothing I can do about it. I just hope they realize that they are wasting a lot of .99c purchases. I might not buy a album from Metallica or Linkin Park, but I sure might buy a song...

I just can't stand that they are calling this creative concerns (is the phrase for real?)

[Pants]

Originally posted by Doraemon
So the next step is that Metallica (or some of the other bands) tries to sue the company that invented the compact disc?

I wouldnt put it past Metallica! These are just sad old men living on past glories. Their last few offerings have been a joke - theres not even a single on the last one! As for green day, the less said the better.

What really saddens me is the way these mega rich bands have become leaches on their 'fans'. We are now no longer fans, merely sources of revenue to be sucked dry..

[JOHNGAETANO]

These bands are missing the point. They are the ones missing out, not us.

[foofan]

Maybe we are better off? All of the bands mentioned are on their way down in the careers.

Have you heard the new Metallica song that's playing on the radio? It is so BAD, I first thought it was a joke. I felt embarrassed for them when I heard their new stuff off the St. Anger cd

[maka]

Originally posted by leenoble
Now I'm a huge Chili Peppers fan but this hisses me off. When was the last time you actually sat and listened to an album all the way through from start to finish uninterrupted?

I don't want to defend these artists... (I don't listen to any of them except for RHCP once in a while...) but I do sit and listen to the albums I like all the way through from start to finish... And even if sometimes I don't pay the same attention to all the songs, I enjoy hearing the whole album.

BTW, This is not really about "singles" as these are the songs the band (or record company) choose to get the maximun attention in order to sell the whole album, which sadly, normally isn't as good... If people can choose which songs to buy, lots of bands are not going to sell as much as they do now...

This said, I do think for real "artistical" purposes a band should be able to sell the whole album only. It's their loss, but It's their choice. Think of some albums as a really long song :) (That said, What about bands with albums of three or four songs of 30 mitues each? You could buy the album track by track much cheaper than buying if whole....)

[skunk]

Who on earth do these "artists" think they are? Can you think of any other medium where an artist would behave like this? If they were painters, they would be insisting that you had to buy a certain number of square feet of canvas. The whole idea of the album was based on the length of time you could record on a piece of vinyl: it's completely arbitrary anyway.

[moby1]

Soooo...These these bands don't want their music played on the radio either since most stations won't play an entire album?

Why don't they have the "artistic integrity" to tell us the real reason; they're holding out for more money.

[Wes]

A while back one of the users talked to the lead members of Linkin Park who said they had no problem with online music purchasing, so I'm more inclined to think it's the managers saying they need to retain their "Artistic Reasons".

[sosumi]

If their whole album is a great piece of art, maybe they should trust their customers to come to that conclusion. We don't hear any complains from artists like Bob Dylan and Alanis Morisette who really creates true albums. I would never by a single song from Blood On The Tracks, I would by the album. I mean Linking Park and Greed Day.... Com'on! I think the Music Store really has a chance to improve the quality of music in the long run.

I just saw Iron Maiden on the Roskilde festival (Denmark) and Bruce Dickinsson made a great speach. Something like: "We're now gonna play a song from our forthcomming album and I'm sure somebody here is gonna record it and send it out on the net... But that's just fine. Download it all you can because they ain't gonna play it on the radio. And if our next album is crap, download that too. But if it's great, promise me you will buy it. Do we have a deal?"

[Ambrose Chapel]

i can see both sides of this argument - look at a band like Radiohead, who obsessively labor over track running orders in order to create a complete *album* and not just a collection of songs. i believe their one album on the iTMS was pulled because they weren't comfortable with allowing people to purchase individual songs.

OTOH, as a number of people have already stated, taking away the legitimate option for people who want to get single tracks ensures that they will look elsewhere, to kazaa or wherever, and then the artists lose income, and the riaa can moan some more about stealing music.

as for metallica, i never liked them or knew much about them so i can't really say it's a huge loss, but the rhcp definitely had albums that would have benefitted from some editing. bloodsugarsexmagik was about 25 minutes too long...

[CheekyGit]

If they don't want to play then...screw em. I hope Kazaa, Morpheus, LimeWire and company send you all to the poor house.

Metallica's latest album sucks royal. You hear that Lars and James ... you suck!!!

I never understood the RHCP music anyway.

Greed Day is still around???


I thought the Van Halen brothers were egotistical, but Metallica takes the cake. At least I see Van Halen music in the ITMS. I don't hear them complaining.

C'mon boys, the 80's and 90's are dead. Time to grow up like the rest of us.

Just my 99 cents worth...

CheekyGit :D

[Stella]

Well, if artists won't allow their music to be distributed through legal channels - then I have no sympathy.

-> Let the illegal distribution continue

They get no money for their work. Tough


The music market has changed, its about time artists catch up with consumer demand.

[X-Baz]

surely they're missing the point - if the album works as a complete piece of "art" (and I'm fully behind them saying that) then people will buy it as an album. If it's a piecemeal collections of songs then people will pick and choose. It's not like any of these bands refuse to sell singles is it? Or have a three minute video on MTV?

[SlowX]

Me, i WANT to buy entire albums very often. In fact, I hate that there are (still?) so many "Partial Albums" in the store.

But that's when the album, as a whole is good. When just a few tracks are good, then maybe artists need to reeaxmine what they do.

I mean, I always wondered about artists who release "Greatest Hits" albums. Shouldn't EVERY song be a GREAT HIT in the eyes of the artist? Or could it be that (GASP!) some songs on CDs, well, suck?

:)

[SlowX]

Originally posted by Ambrose Chapel
i can see both sides of this argument - look at a band like Radiohead, who obsessively labor over track running orders in order to create a complete *album* and not just a collection of songs.

That's why I'd ONLY buy an entire Radiohead album.

[leenoble]

Since 'The Bends' I'd be hard pushed to listen to an entire Radiohead album from start to finish since by about the third song I'd have slashed my wrists.

I need someone to pass me the prozac whenever I hear a single one of their songs on the radio.

[Squire]

Originally posted by midifarm
Are these "artists" heads so far up their ass that they really think because they sell a million CD's that every song is fabulous? There are few and far between albums that are flawless. I'm all for the guys getting paid. Let's face it, compared to the label and the distributor and even the retailer the guys you actually write and perform the music get nothing, maybe $.03 per disc. Apple is offering you $.12 per song! Do the math guys. That's typically $1.20 per disc if they buy the whole thing. Something's not wired correctly!

Are those numbers accurate? Just wondering.

I think an album like "The Wall," for instance, should be listened to in its entirety. But even that album had singles.

Squire

[FriarTuck]

It would be nice if these fat cats suffered for their art again. Maybe it would remind them of where they came from and their product would improve.

As a few others have said, I don't begrudge them the right to control distribution of their "art." Just as Apple refuses to change the way it does things to gain more of the mass market (going cheap, abandoning design, following rather than innovating), these music acts are self-selecting a smaller audience.

Good for them. I hope it works out the way they think it will. Otherwise...

enjoy the government cheese, boys.

[zim]

I am confused, Green Day does have albums for sale, 6 in fact... and one of them is their biggest seller, Dookie. So what is their beef?

I know it is the artist option to sell through iTunes but I think as the audience and fans, we should encourage these artist by emailing them from their web sites.

I also think that their statements regarding single song sales ends up looking very foolish due to all the over priced cd singles that they flood the market with.

[MyLeftNut]

Why cant they at least offer their older albums up for singles sales, they would still be making money and probably more for instance, where people who would not normally listen to thier music will have a try at 99c...hardcore fans have already got their whole collection for Gods sake..I mean do Metallica really think they can increase their audience to anyone under 25? geezz

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by Squire
Are those numbers accurate? Just wondering.

I think an album like "The Wall," for instance, should be listened to in its entirety. But even that album had singles.

Squire Same with Dark Side of the Moon, but it's on iTMS. (so is The Wall, btw)

Pink Floyd get's it - why don't those other guys --- oh yeah, they're idiots!:rolleyes:

[Squire]

I just saw Iron Maiden on the Roskilde festival (Denmark) and Bruce Dickinsson made a great speach. Something like: "We're now gonna play a song from our forthcomming album and I'm sure somebody here is gonna record it and send it out on the net... But that's just fine. Download it all you can because they ain't gonna play it on the radio. And if our next album is crap, download that too. But if it's great, promise me you will buy it. Do we have a deal?"

Comments like that make me want to buy the album no matter how bad it is.

About bands mixing tunes together and stuff...I personally believe there's a less noble reason than for the sake of art. I was thinking, a few months back, how a band could get more album sales and dissuade people from downloading. After listening to the latest Oasis album (which has a lot of songs "running into" the next one), I realized that they would be crappy-sounding downloads. (Kind of like recording stuff off the radio.) The latest Foo Fighters disc has a DVD bundled with it. Cool idea. Audioslave's CD will unlock other tunes from their website if it's in your drive. As Jack Welch said, "Change before you have to."

Squire

By the way, can anyone recommend some Chili Peppers albums? (Seeing as the ITMS doesn't run here, I have to buy albums anyway.)

[MattG]

Like you couldn't just buy the album and "ignore the rest of the songs." How stupid.

[gotohamish]

Originally posted by moby1
Soooo...These these bands don't want their music played on the radio either since most stations won't play an entire album?

Why don't they have the "artistic integrity" to tell us the real reason; they're holding out for more money.

I think an album is a work of art - and to be viewed as a whole. If I really wanted it, I'd buy it.

[QuiteSure]

Originally posted by gotohamish
I think an album is a work of art - and to be viewed as a whole. If I really wanted it, I'd buy it.

I certainly think an album can be a work of art (e.g., Supernatural by Carlos Santana) but more times than not, they are simply a collection of songs.

Artists who don't contribute to iTMS also deprive themselves of the ability to expose the audience to the excellent 30 second samples. To get that kind of exposure the artists need to depend upon customers visiting brick and mortar retailers who offer that service. For me, I don't think I'll ever buy music from a physical store again.

[merge]

seriously...

#1... Thosse bands have been putting out really crappy albums with 1 or 2 "good" songs...
They know that.... we know that... and they want us to spend $15 to listen to those songs, and skip the others???
That is crap..

The Apple music store lets you preview all songs for 30 seconds, and those bands all know that no one will buy the songs if they get to hear them first...

I hate Metallica...
It is funny how the bands with too much money are such little bi#ches about their songs... but the bands with no money just want to be heard...

[Windowlicker]

hehe I never liked linkin park anyway.. and rhcp has become pretty lame from the old days :P

I don't mind.. I usually listen the whole album through since most of the music I buy I know there's no tracks I don't like. and if there is, they are very few.

still the thing I want is iTMS to europe and european labels onboard..

[rt_brained]

"When our artists record a body of work, it's what they deem to be representative of their careers at that time."
How about we agree to buy their albums, if they agree to offer a money-back guarantee that the album doesn't suck?

'Cause I'd sure like to return a couple recent Metallica CDs.

[Lanbrown]

Most CD's only have a few good songs anyway, so they failed on their part. Just like the RIAA, they fail to see that the consumer dictates the market, not anyone else.

[Moxiemike]

Originally posted by Macrumors
[BThe Red Hot Chili Peppers, Metallica, Green Day and Linkin Park are
[/B]

...all old, dated, crappy sounding bands.

Plus we all know about Metallica and their witchhunt on the napster kids.

RHCP and Green Day will continue to release clichéd albums, metallica will continue to lose bassists and Linkin Park will be forgotten in a few minutes.

No big loss. :)

[bperkins]

Originally posted by CheekyGit
Just my 99 cents worth...

:D That was great!

[Sonofhaig]

Originally posted by QuiteSure
These bands will eventually have to change. As an earlier poster pointed out, the single tracks are available on Kazaa and similar services. Although illegal, they do offer the "singles only" choice.

But these bands are missing out on a much deeper level. I look in my 400+ CD collection and I see:

Red Hot Chili Peppers: 0
Metallica: 0
Linkin Park:0

I also see 0 Dixie Chicks, Thorns and Coldplay, but thanks to the iTMS I have purchased several of their tracks and will certainly buy more. So the three "rebel" bands will lose me as a "sampler" of their music, because I have already demonstrated a reluctance to buy a complete album of theirs.

When at the end of this year itunes hits Windoz and becomes global, the bands opting out now will see how much they're losing.

[rjwill246]

Originally posted by Sonofhaig
When at the end of this year itunes hits Windoz and becomes global, the bands opting out now will see how much they're losing.

No kidding. Reading the above- well, I must admit, I skipped a couple of "tracks," it's clear that choice is the key word and these bands simply don't get it! To release a single off a CD nihilates their argument in any case and some of the artists in quesion have certainly done that. Apple clearly has it right. To HAVE to buy albums only, the Music store would lose all the purchasers who only want songs... bad move.

[vollspacken]

:eek: hey, I couldn't care less...

- first, I almost never listen to mainstream rock music like those artists ANYWAY, so don't give a *peep* about those guys

- second, most music I listen to is released (or re-released) on small jazz and electronc music labels... I think Apple's efforts to get the small labels on board is much more important, because that's were consumers develop a long term relationship to particular artist (yes, I'm also talking about small rock, punk and metal labels)

some of these artists (like those mentioned in the thread) go to major labes once they have reached a certain level of success, and that's fine... but we are talking about the future here, not the past. if metallica don't want to sell their songs through iTunes, so what, there will be other emerging artists and big bands that will or already sell their music through Apple...

Metallica, RHCP, Linkin Park - go to hell!!!

vSpacken

[LethalWolfe]

Oh well... their music they can do what they want w/it. I already own all of RHCP's and Metallica's catalog (not all the free trax from their site though yet) and Green Day and LP I never liked. So this doesn't really matter to me at all. ;)

It's interesting to note though, at least IMO, that all these bands are managed by Q-Prime. I wonder if Q-Prime has something to lose in regards to iTMS so they have/are convincing their clients to stay away from it...?


Lethal

EDIT:
Originally posted by Sonofhaig
When at the end of this year itunes hits Windoz and becomes global, the bands opting out now will see how much they're losing.

Well, I think something will change. Either you are going to sell yer music via things like iTMS or you are going to sell more than just songs on a CD (i.e. Metallica including, for free, a DVD + access to dozens of unleased live trax via their website when you purchased St. Anger). I think the days of selling just music on a CD are on their way out.

[amnesiac1984]

Originally posted by leenoble
Since 'The Bends' I'd be hard pushed to listen to an entire Radiohead album from start to finish since by about the third song I'd have slashed my wrists.

I need someone to pass me the prozac whenever I hear a single one of their songs on the radio.
[off topic]
I always laugh when people find Radiohead depressing. Because you can not really get any further from the truth. Just cos a song is slow doesn't mean its depressing. I mean if you bother to listen to the lyrics or understand what the songs are about you'd realise that its anything but. Radiohead's sound is intimate and reflective and innovative. If you find it depressing then you can't have much of an idea of what they are about. Depressing songs are usually about life being crap and not being able to deal with things, the general message from radiohead is more like a commentary on how to improve things in life.

What makes me laugh harder is when Nirvana and Korn fans find it depressing!

On another note, the one song that I think can be described as depressing is "Creep" but that's from a different era.
[/off topic]

I agree, the only albums I like, I listen to all of at times, and at times I just have iTunes on Random. But every album I have I make sure I listen to all the way at times.

I agree that these bands generally suck, although RHCP use to be pretty good. I do think they should just give in, but as an artist myself, your work is very personal to you and its a big step to let anyone listen to it, so you want them to listen to it in the way you intend them too. Music is not about market forces and consumer demands, it is about music. Modern Pop, which is NOT music, however, is entirely about market forces and consumer demands.

[Le Big Mac]

Well, at least we can't blame the record cos.

Let the bands do this. I don't feel a need to buy their whole album. If they want to lose money on single sales for "creative" reasons, so be it. They won't get my money for anything.

It's not just the record cos. that need to adapt to the changing music market. So do the bands. Make it worth our while to buy the whole album, or lose sales.

[tazznb]

quote:

"If you download a single, you may ignore the other tracks on the album," he said. "When our artists record a body of work, it's what they deem to be representative of their careers at that time."

TRANSLATION: :mad:

This will severely disrupt sales of certain songs that we know would NEVER sell on their own, and is mainly added to an album as an afterthought to fill in the huge gaps in the album that are representative to the artist's gap in consistent creativity.

Apple's response; eat it: In the future make ALL SONGS equally entertaining. :D

[soosy]

I understand where these artists are coming from (it's not all greed)... it usually takes at least 2 or 3 listens to a new album before I start to get into it—even with bands I like. In their view, ALL the songs on the album are good and they don't want people to miss out. The thing is... they need to realize that they'll have big fans that love all their stuff and then they'll have other people who only like them as far as "catchy" singles. Why shut out these people?

I do agree with others here... If they don't offer them, people may get them other ways. They'll also lose the exposure of having all 30 second previews of all their songs on iTMS. Plus Apple has said half the song purchases have been as complete albums anyway.

[NatronB]

Originally posted by amnesiac1984
[off topic]
I always laugh when people find Radiohead depressing.

Amen, brotha.

And who's the joker that doesn't listen to Radiohead albums all the way through? KID A, anyone? What, can't focus for 45 minutes?

Everything I've heard about St. Anger sez that it's terrible, not like Metallica has been the vanguard of anything interesting ever.

Chili Peppers have evolved from straight up funk to ballad surfer rock. Plus I have more vocal range than Anthony Kietus.

As for Green Day, since when do they write album music? Even Dookie (one of the great albums of our times) is a collection of singles. And haven't the last two Green Day albums been 1) a collection of greatest hits, and 2) a collection of B-Sides.

Linkin Park- yeah, cause rap metal was a good idea.
I've never seen little kids be more serious about bad music. Do some drugs for chrissake!

-N

[Bear]

Originally posted by Macrumors
This Reuters article (http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=3029706) reports that certain bands won't agree to sell albums by the song.

The Red Hot Chili Peppers, Metallica, Green Day and Linkin Park are cited as bands unwilling to agree to Apple's iTunes Music Store terms which require individual song sales. The reason is said to be due to "creative" concerns (according to Mark Reiter with Q Prime Management Co):
...
As far as I know all of the above groups have albums that do not contain themes. If all of their albums were themed and a cohesive set, then their argument might hold water.

For an example, many Pink Floyd albums tell a story. (But not all.) And even then a lot of those tracks from the "story" albums could stand alone.

These groups just don't want to make more money I guess.

[JMGrimp]

If it's so important that the album be heard in its entirety then make one 30 minute long song. Pink Floyd, in essence, did that with The Wall. Problem solved.

Carry on....

[Bear]

Originally posted by JMGrimp
If it's so important that the album be heard in its entirety then make one 30 minute long song. Pink Floyd, in essence, did that with The Wall. Problem solved.

Carry on....
Actually The Wall is 26 tracks. It is Wish You Were Here that is two tracks. Of course those two tracks represent the two sides of the original record.

[NatronB]

Originally posted by QuiteSure
I certainly think an album can be a work of art (e.g., Supernatural by Carlos Santana)

You go say something like that, how the hell am I supposed to take you seriously?

-N

[JMGrimp]

Actually The Wall is 26 tracks.

True, but that is only because they sliced it up that way. If you listen straight through, there's rarely a pause in the sound. It's one of the rare albums where the tracks sound so much richer when listened to in context.

[Frobozz]

Apple should allow these artists to sell whole albums online. I would buy an album online if they cut a deal on it... many are $9.99 for an album of 13 songs. Why complain?

Furthermore, I think there is a very good argument for the sale of albums versus single tracks. I'm all for selling single tracks... really I am. But I must consider the other side of this argument. If an artist was to only make an album for "chart-toppers", then everything would end up being the same (within the genre and target audience of course). If artists were to just release songs that they thought would sell, then we no longer have the concept of an album as we know it today. Well, maybe that's good and maybe that isn't. How many times have you listened to an album that you love, even though you'd only pick out maybe 4 of the 10 tracks individually? Probably a lot, because you enjoy the entire work.

I'm not necessarily defending the whole album sale, because I think it's used as a defense for generally poor quality albums these days. But there is another VALID side to the arguement-- you don't get the artists vision and complete "story" for each album. Some people will miss this, and some don't care-- but I think there needs to be a happy middleground. Personally, I think they should allow single song downloads, but give the customer a good deal on an album.

Quite frankly, the cheap-ass people who don't want to buy an album for $9.99 are a little scary. It's one thing if there is truly a single song you want and you have to dish out for the full $9.99... but that's not usually the case unless the artist is a one hit wonder.

Now how about compilation albums? These albums take all the "hits" from a band, or group of bands, and put them on one album. I could go and buy each song on each album seperate, or buy the compilation and save a load of cash. Case in point: "The Very Best of Sting and the Poilce". $9.99 for 18 tracks of (IMO) great music. These songs spanned probably 6 albums that I had the option of buying seperate. While these compilations are less likely for newer songs, they are common for newer songs by DJ's and for Hip-Hip. You see them on late night TV all the time. Are these CD's going to make it to the iTunes store? If so, we begin to make an arguement for the good-value album sale and the per-song $.99 charge.

I think that a couple of things have to happen on both sides of the coin:

1) More signal-to-noise from the record industry. I want less same-as-before crap and less one hit wonders. Musicians: you write music for a living. If you can do that sucessfully you should thank your lucky stars. I don't owe you anything. If you don't make something I want to buy you shouldn't expect legal requirements to get poor suckers to fork over cash anyway.

2) Apple should allow whole-album sales. Let the artists who want this to have it. They will either sink or swim on their own merit.

3) Album sales should always be $9.99

4) Compilation albums should be more popular in the iTMS. They are, statistically, very high sellers in stores because people want more bang for their buck. Again, less crap tracks.

5) Apple will have to figure out a way to make whole-album-only sales versus single-track sales fair to the body of artists who are in the store. How? I'll be damned if I know. Maybe it's a threshold based on volume of sales? If you have enough clout we'll allow you to sell an album? I dunno.

Ah well, that's my 99 cents.

[Squire]

...but as an artist myself, your work is very personal to you and its a big step to let anyone listen to it, so you want them to listen to it in the way you intend them too.

The bands mentioned are professional musicians. They should be past the "big step" of having other people listen to their music. I can understand an artist refusing to allow a portion of a song to be played somewhere for the reasons mentioned. However, not wanting the album sold in "bits" for fear of damaging the artistic nature of the album? I say it's a crock. Those bands don't produce rock operas.

Music is not about market forces and consumer demands, it is about music. Modern Pop, which is NOT music, however, is entirely about market forces and consumer demands.

Totally agree with the second part. It's amazing how pop stars can just be made, like any other marketable product. The first part...I dunno. I guess I haven't taken my philosophical pills yet today. Actually, I think I do get your drift. Musicians who are TRUE music lovers and have absolutely NO interest in the almighty buck, should be honoured to have their music heard in any forum. Is that what you mean? I'm sure those types are few and far between but you saw a couple of bands speak out on Napster's behalf (i.e Dave Matthews Band, Foo Fighters). I have to respect that. (Although it's undoubtedly an easier position to take after you've made a few of those unimportant almighty bucks.)

Anyway, music is good.

Squire

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Bear
Actually The Wall is 26 tracks. It is Wish You Were Here that is two tracks. Of course those two tracks represent the two sides of the original record.

Actually five tracks IIRC (Have a Cigar, Welcome to the Machine, Wish You Were Here, plus the mega-song Shine On You Crazy Diamond split into two chunks, parts 1-5 and 6-8 or something like that) ...

But, yes, SOYCD is something like 80% of the running time of the album, and totally dominates the beginning of the first side and end of the second side ...

OTOH, Pink Floyd is fairly well represented (maybe fully represented; I only looked for a few albums for curiosities' sake) in iTMS ... Hmmmmm ....

[MacJoe]

This just further proves that the music industry isn't about talent at all. AFAIC, this just means three fewer no-talent "artists" I have to wade through to get to the good stuff. Someday, both the "artists" and the labels will wake up and smell it.

[Foxer]

Actually, they're right for the wrong reasons. I think these bands are grasping at straws in order to sell these lesser known songs in their catalog. Simple profit motive, and there is nothing wrong with wanting to be paid for your labors. However, the risk they run is to lose revenue as the internet sale of music moves along without them.

However, in the long run, I am worried that "albums" could die out. Many of my favorite songs are "burried" deep in albums, and one can wonder if I would have ever heard them if I wasn't compelled to buy them by the economics of the industry.

[iJon]

man that really sucks but i can see there concern. when i got meteora all i listened to was somewhere i belong. but like what i did with hybrid theory, i listened to all the songs and soon enough somewhere i belong was the song i was listening to the least. that just really sucks linkin park wont hop on, ive really been waiting to purchase meteora from the store.

iJon

[Squire]

However, in the long run, I am worried that "albums" could die out. Many of my favorite songs are "burried" deep in albums, and one can wonder if I would have ever heard them if I wasn't compelled to buy them by the economics of the industry.

Excellent, excellent point.

One example- a great band from Canada, The Tragically Hip, has an album called Phantom Power. One of the last tracks is a wicked tune called Emperor Penguin. Like you said, it's "buried" in the album and even a lot of Hip fans missed the greatness of that tune.

Squire

[XForge]

These artists don't seem to have the slightest "creative" concerns when commercial radio gets their discs and only plays one or two songs off them. You can get eighty minutes of music on a compact disc and the radio plays maybe seven minutes total off any one of 'em, ever. But I never seem to hear RHCP, Metallica or Linkin Blecch whining about that. Wonder why - could it beeeee... hmm, I dunno.... BLATANT GREED????

[beefcake]

Abbey Road is an album, a Linkin Park cd is one or two popular tracks surrounded by noise.

[Potus]

Originally posted by amnesiac1984
[off topic]



I agree that these bands generally suck, although RHCP use to be pretty good. I do think they should just give in, but as an artist myself, your work is very personal to you and its a big step to let anyone listen to it, so you want them to listen to it in the way you intend them too. Music is not about market forces and consumer demands, it is about music. Modern Pop, which is NOT music, however, is entirely about market forces and consumer demands.

IMO, that's what concerts are for: to listen to the music in the way the musicians want us to listen to it. Metallica fought and destroyed Napster, now they're aiming at iTunes. I think they will lose this battle and the opportunity to sell more music.

[MetallicPenguin]

NNNNOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! METALLICA!!!!!!!!!! I'll try to get in contact with them.

[serpicolugnut]

If any of these "artists" (and I use that term quite loosely) ever actually put out an album that was worthy of being listened to from start to finish, I might respect their dissent. But they haven't.

It all comes down to economics. They obviously feel threatened that someone can buy 1 song and their take would only be about 10 cents. They would rather alienate that customer and gamble that they will opt for the entire album.

These acts need a kick in the arse. None of them are producing the modern day equivilent of Sgt. Pepper. Jeesh. Get over yourselves.

[amnesiac1984]

Originally posted by Squire
The bands mentioned are professional musicians. They should be past the "big step" of having other people listen to their music. I can understand an artist refusing to allow a portion of a song to be played somewhere for the reasons mentioned. However, not wanting the album sold in "bits" for fear of damaging the artistic nature of the album? I say it's a crock. Those bands don't produce rock operas.


I think you missed my point, and I think just cos they are "professionals" doesn't mean they don't feel a little shy, they are constantly worrying about what ppl think. If they don't then they are just arrogant bastards. :p

What I mean is that an album lets a listener here the bands more "interesting" stuff and give it a chance. Have you noticed how many albums have grown on you? You start off skipping tracks you don't like which end up, a few months later, being your favourite tracks on the album. Music require patience and the one song purchase system doesn't promote patience. And as an artist I know that works I am most proud of are the ones that take the most listens by my friends and the ones that i think are okay but not very interesting are instantly loved by my mates. (Check my web-site and see the tunes "Sun is blue" vs "Don't play with matches")

In iTMS peeps would here the samples and just not buy some tracks, both the artist and the fan can loose out in this situation.



Totally agree with the second part. It's amazing how pop stars can just be made, like any other marketable product. The first part...I dunno. I guess I haven't taken my philosophical pills yet today. Actually, I think I do get your drift. Musicians who are TRUE music lovers and have absolutely NO interest in the almighty buck, should be honoured to have their music heard in any forum. Is that what you mean? I'm sure those types are few and far between but you saw a couple of bands speak out on Napster's behalf (i.e Dave Matthews Band, Foo Fighters). I have to respect that. (Although it's undoubtedly an easier position to take after you've made a few of those unimportant almighty bucks.)

Anyway, music is good.

Squire

Agreed, they should be honoured, and I think they should be honoured with good audiences at live performances as much as any bucks. Add Radiohead to your friends of Napster list, bassist Colin Greenwood appeared on UK BBC news stating the usefulness of napster for live bootlegs, meaning the fans will be able to sing along to tunes at gigs before they've been released in studio form. Also, with a band like radiohead where live tracks are often very different from studio versions (recent stuff especially) it gives the fan better material.

Anyway I rant


Peace bro!

amnesiac

[iJon]

Originally posted by serpicolugnut
If any of these "artists" (and I use that term quite loosely) ever actually put out an album that was worthy of being listened to from start to finish, I might respect their dissent. But they haven't.

It all comes down to economics. They obviously feel threatened that someone can buy 1 song and their take would only be about 10 cents. They would rather alienate that customer and gamble that they will opt for the entire album.

These acts need a kick in the arse. None of them are producing the modern day equivilent of Sgt. Pepper. Jeesh. Get over yourselves.
whats the point of bashing music. some people like certain kinds, others dont. its not about what music they put out, its how they are putting it out, and itunes isnt one of the ways. i like linkin park, we dont have to go around bashing people's music in this thread, it will just lead to trouble.

iJon

[XForge]

Originally posted by Porshuh944turbo
I force myself sometimes to listen to new CD's through from a to z before I start pcking tracks, but even then, it's not the same feel. I don't get the entirety of the project from the artist.

Some albums are meant to be heard from beginning to end; others are merely a collection of songs. I mean, if you pull one or two songs out of any of Pink Floyd's major works (Dark Side of the Moon, The Wall), you're literally taking a song out of context.

On the other hand you can pretty much pull a song off any of Weezer's works and you won't be doing any damage to the artists' intent...

Apparently before the Beatles released Rubber Soul, an album was just a place to put a single or two and a bunch of other stuff nobody really wanted to hear anyway. Then Rubber Soul came out and every track was Top-40-worthy, and people thought differently about albums after that.

[Pablo]

Originally posted by merge

I hate Metallica...
It is funny how the bands with too much money are such little bi#ches about their songs... but the bands with no money just want to be heard...

It's funny how Metallica just wanted to be heard when they were a garage/small bar band and encouraged bootlegging and swapping of their tapes, but now that they've reached a certain level of popularity, shun those same fans who made them what they were.

[Bear]

Originally posted by Squire
The bands mentioned are professional musicians. They should be past the "big step" of having other people listen to their music. I can understand an artist refusing to allow a portion of a song to be played somewhere for the reasons mentioned. However, not wanting the album sold in "bits" for fear of damaging the artistic nature of the album? I say it's a crock. Those bands don't produce rock operas.
...
And Tommy as a rock opera still has lots of tracks that stand alone well.

[billyboy]

I can see the individual singles sales would maybe ruin the impact of work by the better artists whose albums include a certain amount of experimentation within their recognised style - Im listening to Bowie at the moment and he is full of surprising twists in material, (probably to the point that its hard to say what the overall style is )- But at the end of the day, quality sells, and if the off- the-wall-tracks that would have a big impact appearing in the middle of a stylised album are good outside the context of the 30 second sample time frame, the public will get to hear about it eventually and will probably buy more material, even the whole album.

As has been said, artists need to be a bit lateral nowadays. Why not make a 30 second sample for iTunes of them explaining why they feel we should buy their album in its entirety as a complete work of art. The hotch potch rip off merchants should just keep their mouths shut and be grateful for every cent they get from any sort of sale be it a single or two of worth. ITMS is a great opportunity for a cut of something.

[Spock]

Would the bands prefer that I use Limewire to download the single tracks I want?? At least they are making money using the store.

[Pablo]

Originally posted by Foxer
However, in the long run, I am worried that "albums" could die out. Many of my favorite songs are "burried" deep in albums, and one can wonder if I would have ever heard them if I wasn't compelled to buy them by the economics of the industry.

In my opinion, this is the best thing that could possibly happen to the recording industry.

Get the 'industry' out of the music. Seperate the artist from the companies. The artist can write their own songs (and own the rights to their own music), or purchase/license other people's songs, either directly with the songwriter or through a company which acts as an agency. Let the artist have the choice.

The artist can contract with a company (be it one of the big record companies like Universal, or any company of their own choosing) to handle production, marketing, etc. With the evolution of the internet, they can do much of this themselves.

The artist, either through their own website or through services such as iTMS can make tracks available to the public directly. With this process, they don't need to release entire albums, but rather can release individual tracks more frequently.

The best thing about it is they are able to keep 100% of the profits. They operate their own business (through a manager if they choose) and have expenses (marketing, production, whatever), and the profit goes to them rather than the RIAA.

Granted, this helps popular/established artists more, but it's clear that the market has drastically changed, and the RIAA clearly does not have the artists' best interests in mind but rather their own. It's time for the artists to change with the market, even if it means they leave the RIAA behind.

The sooner we can get the industry out of music, the better the quality/service will be.

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by Pablo
It's funny how Metallica just wanted to be heard when they were a garage/small bar band and encouraged bootlegging and swapping of their tapes, but now that they've reached a certain level of popularity, shun those same fans who made them what they were.

EXACTLY. Absolutely agreed. Who would have thought the band that wrote Seek and Destroy would turn into a bunch of greedy corporate suit types. Screw Metallica.

[jaison13]

there are a few but the one that kills me is that almost every album i'd like to buy, especially the greatest hits ones, are all partial albums. so you'd have to but it one track at a time and it would cost more than $9.99 and you don't even get the full CD.

why is greenday on that list?? i bought some greenday on the iTMS

[gunb0y]

Meh, the itunes store will probably be shut down a year from now anyways.

The Beatles have something to say about apple distributing music when they agreed not to be involved in the music industry.

[pgwalsh]

I can respect that some artists consider the entire album a piece shi.....er, music...

I'm still not going to buy everyone's album.

They should sell singles like they already do on cd. That way those of us that like some of the popular songs will buy the single. Those of us that want to hear more will buy the album. Sell all the different version of singles too.

Someone may have already mentioned this, but I'm too lazy right now to read through all the posts.

Have a great 4th.... :D

[Foxer]

Originally posted by gunb0y
The Beatles have something to say about apple distributing music when they agreed not to be involved in the music industry.

I would hope that the folks at Apple (Computer) made sure that this wouldn't be a conflict.

Speaking of The Beatles, I would count them as worthy of the title "artist" as any of the internet music holdouts (Chili Peppers, Lincoln Park, Metallica, Madonna). However, until Sgt. Pepper in 1967, all of their English albums were chopped up an repakaged in the US. The catalog is entirely different. A UK Beatles fan has an entirely different notion of what is on Rubber Soul or Help! than an American fan.

The catalogs were synced in the late '80's when their CD's were finally released, but prior to that they were very, very different.

And yet, The Beatles didn't seem to care too much that thier "works" were being chopped up to maximize profit.

[iJon]

Originally posted by gunb0y
Meh, the itunes store will probably be shut down a year from now anyways.

The Beatles have something to say about apple distributing music when they agreed not to be involved in the music industry.
why do you think it will be shut down, im sure if they had something to say it would have already been said. im sure apple took all legal actions necessary to make sure this wouldnt blow up in their face when they launched it. i think apple will grow the iTMS into the online standard for buying music.

iJon

[P-Worm]

Whoa, Metallica doesn't want to be part of the music store? What a shock! :eek:

P-Worm

[RIP]

Pink Floyd's The Wall and pretty much anything else they did is a perfect example. As a fan of Floys, it's annoying when I hear a song from that album on the radio. It's so incomplete.

Today you get Brittany, who would be more than happy to sell just one song.

These other "musicians" think too much of themselves.

Originally posted by Porshuh944turbo
I can see this... I mean, when you used to have a tape deck.. you'd listen to the album through and trhough side to side.. now with cd's we lose that "album" feeling and just go straight to the track we want.. most people just listen to the same songs you can hear on the radio.... THAT is the loss....

I force myself sometimes to listen to new CD's through from a to z before I start pcking tracks, but even then, it's not the same feel. I don't get the entirety of the project from the artist.

music has changed so much.....

[applekid]

A while back one of the users talked to the lead members of Linkin Park who said they had no problem with online music purchasing, so I'm more inclined to think it's the managers saying they need to retain their "Artistic Reasons

I find that somewhat odd. Linkin Park was (or maybe the managers @ WB) sharing fake MP3s of songs on the Meteora CD before it was released. All you would get is the band members talking and this same conversation would loop.

It's funny, ABCNews had a similar story on TV. They were saying how people download songs, yet the people buy CDs are the one's that like the feel of holding something tangible.

I like how the only angry people (the one's saying, "go to hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!," using obscenities for no reason [it makes you sound unintelligent]) this forum are the people that aren't pure fans or actually doesn't listen to their music. So shut up. You probably support your favorite bands in anyway you can (i.e.: goto concerts, buy CDs, buy what you can on iTunes stores, etc.). The article wasn't about them so your opinions are mostly useless and biased. Really, I had enough of this bashing. I'm with iJon, we all have our own tastes, but it seems most of the negative opinions are from hatred of a band or genre, not because of what you think should be done with music in general. Or maybe you're just complaining because you're lazy. I doubt the nearest music store is farther than 5 miles, unless you live on the country side or you haven't found one.

whats the point of bashing music. some people like certain kinds, others dont. its not about what music they put out, its how they are putting it out, and itunes isnt one of the ways. i like linkin park, we dont have to go around bashing people's music in this thread, it will just lead to trouble.

iJon

I am a fan of most of these bands that were in this article... Minus the new Metallica CD. That song on the radio sucked horribly and a few of my hardcore friends were more than disappointed.

Heck, I bought a lot of the above named bands' CDs, and I listen to them all the way through. All of these bands don't only sell their songs. You can hear it online, you can hear it on the radio, you can hear it/watch it through music videos. It's funny how Californiacation by RHCP was once on the iTMS. I'm serious. It was sometime in mid-June and it was only there for about 3 days. I think a lot of those bands would benefit if their CDs were on iTMS. Linkin Park, for example, has tons of media on their website and lost of stuff on their CD. There's so much exclusive stuff they could add, it would work to their advantage.

I find Billboard a little skewed (I heard Metallica was @ 900K last week, yet it hasn't hit Platinum/1 Million this week... riiiiiiiiight. Even though I don't them want to succeed :D), but I think at the end of it all, it's the Billboard charts and record execs. I really doubt iTMS contributes to the Billboard charts. Most of the songs are singles, but even if an album is sold, I doubt it counts. And I think record execs are counting on Billboard charts to figure out popularity. Looking at the top 5, only one of the CDs is on iTMS. Must have a reason... Their other albums/songs are online (for some of them).

[neesley]

I wonder if Mahler complained about people not listening to every movement of his symphonys...

Or if Miles moaned about his audience not listening to Bitches Brew from start to finish...

Seems to me that many great "creative artists" don't give a hoot about who listens to their music and how they listen to it.

Who cares about these tired sounding bands? Flashes in the pan...

[Ambrose Chapel]

Originally posted by Foxer
And yet, The Beatles didn't seem to care too much that thier "works" were being chopped up to maximize profit.

Actually they did; I think they were just powerless to stop it. The title, "Beatles for Sale" reflects this, and the original cover of the the US only "Yesterday...and Today" was a picture of smiling happy Beatles dressed as butchers and covered in meat and chopped up baby dolls. Capitol pulled it I think. If you can track one down now they are worth a lot. My parents have that album but it's the edited cover, the Fab 4 in a packing trunk or something.

[slffl]

Well who cares about the others, but Linkin Park! What are you thinking? You're starting to act like Metallica. I've been waiting for you to get on Itunes Music Store so I could purchase your music because there is no way I'm paying $15 for a $.10 plastic disc and have all that profit go to the record label instead of you.

Some people don't care about what artistic crap you were trying to convey when you made the album. Some just want one song (not me, I like all of them). However, they are either going to purchase the one song or not at all and download the one song .mp3 instead.

Oh well, your loss.

[macguymike]

Originally posted by Pants
I wouldnt put it past Metallica! These are just sad old men living on past glories. Their last few offerings have been a joke - theres not even a single on the last one!

That's not true. "St. Anger" is the name of the single (cacophonous and weak though it may be :rolleyes:).

And personally, I've enjoyed Load and Reload as well as S&M.

That said, I won't be purchasing the St. Anger album and I do think these bands are missing out by not participating. I don't like the Chilli Peppers enough, for example, to buy an album but I love their singles. And there's no way I'd buy the new Marilyn Manson but I did download "mOBSCENE". Same goes for Candlebox's "Far Behind." And so on.

[Pants]

Originally posted by macguymike
That's not true. "St. Anger" is the name of the single (cacophonous and weak though it may be :rolleyes:).



errr....yes it *is* a single, in that is released here as one and has been pushed on the saturday morning pop music shows here in the UK. But c'mon, lets be honest, its utter toss!!! Its not worthy of being called a single - its laughably bad (which is no doubt why its being pushed to gullible Timberlake fans as being 'edgy')

No, if I download a track that is good (that "woo!" factor), then I'm likely to buy the album. Concept albums on vinyl used to be in the order of 45 minutes - but now 'concept' albums stretch to the full 80 odd minutes of tedium...

[plastree]

The only problem I have with the iTunes music store is iTunes itself. I cannot understand why there has to be a gap in the audio between consecutive tracks. That little gap ruins the continuity between songs on a continuous-mix cd. NIN's The Fragile is a perfect example of an amazing continuous-mix album who's integrity get's maddeningly compromised whenever the next track ensues. This same issue applies to my iPod as well.

How friggin hard can it be to cache the next song in a playlist and butt it up sample to sample with the previous track? And no, the crossfading option is not an acceptable alternative. As a musician, I would definitely be bothered by this limitation if my albums were for sale at the iTunes music store. I'd still sell them there, though.

[d00d]

Personally, I'm a big fan of Linkin Park. For all those that can't appreciate their musicality, I feel sorry for you. Even my roommate at college (music major with a full scholarship, will probably attend NEC, lover almost entirely of jazz) thinks that Linkin Park is great and their music is incredibly complex. I'm disappointed that they won't be on the iTMS but it's their loss. I loved listening to my brother's copy of Hybrid Theory and bought Meteora as a result (great album but way too short). I was going to buy a copy of Hybrid Theory on iTMS, but since it's not available, I'm not going to buy it at all.

As for Metallica, they used to be good, not my favorite band, but they were ok. Recent albums have been horrible IMHO. They're getting old and instead of stopping while still relatively in their prime, they're going to continue until they lose all of their fans' respect. Even DJs are having a hard time selling their new single. About the best thing I've heard a DJ say about it is "Some fans sorta like it." First they picked on Napster for robbing them of money. Personally, I disagreed but at least I could respect their position. Well, except for their declaration that they were doing it for small bands to protect them. That was pretending to be noble to hide their greed. Now they can get their stuff distributed online and collect royalties, but that's not good enough! The whole reason they didn't want their stuff distributed online was addressed, so they had to change their reasoning. That's when I lost respect for them. There are two Metallica's as far as I'm concerned, then and now. Then Metallica makes great music, is concerned about their fans, and just wants to be heard. Now Metallica makes horrible music, gouges and abuses their fans, and cares only about money.

[MrMacMan]

God damn greedy people!

I mean if they were so greedy they should have said yes, but you were forced to buy the album only, like others have done!!

[Groovsonic]

Originally posted by amnesiac1984
[off topic]
I always laugh when people find Radiohead depressing. Because you can not really get any further from the truth. Just cos a song is slow doesn't mean its depressing. I mean if you bother to listen to the lyrics or understand what the songs are about you'd realise that its anything but. Radiohead's sound is intimate and reflective and innovative. If you find it depressing then you can't have much of an idea of what they are about. Depressing songs are usually about life being crap and not being able to deal with things, the general message from radiohead is more like a commentary on how to improve things in life.

I find your whole post funny. My brother got me the new radiohead album, and I too thought it was depressing. Not the lyrics, but the music. It is draggy and murky and thom yorkes whiny - wailish vocals.
NIrvana and Korn, although not favs of mine, don't always have that depressing sound. The reason "creep" was radioheads biggest (and my favorite) single was because the music wasn't depressing.

Further in your post, you claim that POP music isn't music. What exactly is radiohead if not pop? Pop is short for popular. Last time I checked, they were pretty popular. Be careful flinging around statements like that. Just because you don't like a certian type of music dosent make it "Not music".... Don't be condecending. There is nothing wrong with a little Nsync now and then. Sometimes its good to listen to something that isn't so serious.

Just my $1.05, including tax.

[evilscientist]

what really gets me about this is how narcissistic these bands are being. their respective albums might be wonderful, or they may be trash. but that's up to each listener to decide. to believe that an album should only be had in its entirety and that this is the only way i should listen to it is absurd. i'll be deciding on the quality of their music for myself, thank you.

(and as others have said, don't want to sell me a song? i'll go download it. no loss to me.)

-dg

[zim]

If the artist claims that their album is a work of art, then when we go see whoever that artist is, we should hear the album in its entirety, not a random selection of songs...

After reading everything here, I am starting to think, as well as some others are, that this could possibly a management decision because I am sure that none of the mentioned artists approach their live shows with the feeling that they have to stay true to the album. I really find it hard to believe that Green Day sees each album as a work of art, especially when some of their earlier albums regurgitate songs from their pre label days.

I think what we are seeing is a back lash from signals sales, why buy them. singles go for up towards 7 or 8 bucks now and come with one song remixed 3 times and maybe if were lucky some random track that was left off the album fir some reason. The ITMS is the best thing for the artist, it opens up all new possibilities, no need to make a full album anymore, they could release songs when ever, however... at least that is how I see the future.

[Groovsonic]

Originally posted by beefcake
Abbey Road is an album, a Linkin Park cd is one or two popular tracks surrounded by noise.

This is a good point. Abbey road (especially side 2) is an album. Most of the songs run together and fit together awesomely. Disagree? Try listning to it on random on a CD player. Its jarring.

Beatles For Sale, while a great album, is basically a collection of songs. Good songs, but still, individual songs.

I really can't understand greendays point on this. They put out (and I own) a greatest hits collection.

[j33pd0g]

The Red Hot Chili Peppers, Metallica, Green Day and Linkin Park are bands that are all washed up... I used to love the RHCP but that last album didn't sit well with me... I give it a listen from time to time... but the problem is that I skip through tracks, not because I can, but because certain tracks aren't really worth my time... IMHO I think if artists want people to buy and enjoy their whole album, they should stop recording the 1-3 good songs and a handful of filler songs... instead they should just record all good songs. That's why I love the iTunes music store... I can filter out the crap...

...people enjoy music for the listening experience... not because a particular band chanced upon recording a tune...

To hell with The Red Hot Chili Peppers, Metallica, Green Day and Linkin Park... oh, and I never liked Linkin Park anyway... I liked lincoln logs though:)

[Ja Di ksw]

Hey now, I'm sure the artists do have creative concerns . . . about getting money. Or maybe they're concerned that now people won't have to pay for the songs they put on their albums that everyone knows suck.

The idea that people can legally buy any single should IMPROVE artists. People are always looking at everything with a negative view, looking at how it hurts them, instead of how they can use it to improve themselves. The idea that songs can be bought as singles should get artists to make each song good. Why bother spending any time on a song that you know will barely sell, if at all, right? Also, it should push them to actually make the songs in the album go together and sound the best when they are listened to together. Yes, this will be harder at first, not being able to crank out bad filler songs, but having to face something hard and rising to the challange will make you better in the end.

Too many people are too concerned with bringing others down instead of bringing themselves up.

[macnews]

What a bunch of washed up idiots. Like many have said, the whole "album" issue doesn't hold much water with CDs, single releases, best of albums, radio, etc. There are just so many reasons why that is just crap!

The bands are the ones losing out. Let's face it, none of them are really just getting in to their prime - they all (in my opinion) are on the downward side from their peak in terms of mass audience listening. They will soon enter the "oldies" category which my teenage cousin already ascribes to Metallica. Can't say I blame her because I listened to them back in the 80's. These bands all need to take some marketing lessons and learn that younger generations are going this route ( old Napster, Kazaa et. al) to get music. The Apple music store is a LEGAL way to get paid (read again Metallica - LEGAL, no more wasting your money in court for years of legal battles to shut the others down). I personally don't see why Apple shouldn't let album only sales be made. It would be a great test to see how much an artisit could make by offering album only sales vs. both album and singles.

They also need to look at how the public response has been to the sale of singles and the pricing. Apple's music store has done well and I read an article the other day about another online subscription service that offers a $0.79 burn to cd option and since offering that price sales have really gone up. Wake up to what will be the future - like it or not. It will either be paid or stolen if that option is not available.

[macdong]

Originally posted by maka
I think there are two very different interests here...

First, there are "artists" that want to sell you a whole album because there's one good song on it, and the rest are just for filling. They have no confidence on their music, so they want to make sure people buy the whole album.

Second, there are artists that really work on the whole album as a complete piece. I can think of the albums of Mr. Bungle as an example. Most of the tracks even overlap eachother, so it would be difficult to sell them as songs...

Now... I don't know to which of the two these bands belong :) I think RHCP may belong to the second, though...

if they don't wanna agree with iTMS because they want to sell a whole album everytime, that means they have no confidence in their own music. if they are indeed that good, they don't need to worry. people will buy their album.

[gunb0y]

When Apple computer became Apple computer they signed an agreement not to get involved with the music industry because the beatles didn't want their music label to be associated with it. Apple had to settle with them in (i think, not sure) the early 90's for persuing music orientated hardware/software. I read an article on it a while ago so most likely my facts are grossly mistaken. But the jist of it was that The Beatles lawyers are getting ready to fight Apple again.

Anyways. I just would like to say that i like Linkin Park but the radio overplays them so i grow to hate songs. Since i don't have a credit card i can't buy anything from the music store, but of course i want it to succeed.

It baffles me how the recording companies and (some) artists are so out of tune with whats going on. They are desperately clinging to the past and don't seem to realize that everyone has moved on. Music sharing isn't a piece of software, its an idea. You can't kill an idea in the courtroom. The only way to get rid of it is to create a better idea. To me thats what the iTunes music store is.

To quote my Dad:
"Once you put an idea into the wild there's no way to make it dissapear."

I think the music industry needs to understand that.

[crees!]

It's not the artists fault or Apple's.

It's the corporate music world. They (corporate) are the ones that tell the radio stations what to play. They decide what people hear one song at a time. If anyone is to blame is the corporate music industry. Once again, trying to get their way. :mad:

PS - Metallica and RHCP were good back in the day. They suck terrible skank a** today. I wish they would turn over and rott like yesterdays garbage because that's what their music sounds like. (coming from an honest fellow musician)

[midifarm]

There is no offense to anyone that likes any of the bands mentioned here. I would have to agree that Radiohead is depressing and whiny, which is fine because it appeals to that section of the generation, depressed whiny kids that don't particularly like the hand dealt to them. Nirvana on the other hand, while yes Mr. Cobain was obviously depressed (heroin doesn't help), the music I find was more "angry" than anything else. The same can be said for NIN. Trent comes across as the tortured kid from high school, but he's definitely angry! Al from Ministry is just angry at society, the government and all the sheeople that allow it to go on without any question.

I do agree that Apple needs to fix the caching problem in iTunes where there is NO break in between songs, if so desired in the prefs. I mean come on guys, my CD player does that with shuffle. And yes I've even submitted feedback to incorporate a linking function in iTunes that would allow you to link certain songs together (even on shuffle playback) so that the continuity is maintained. Hearing Pink Floyd's Brain Damage w/o Eclipse when in shuffle mode drives me nuts.

I employ you all to encourage Apple to include this feature in the next revision of iTunes. It would be a relatively simple modification to the code and would be a joy to us all. Musicians regardless of talent have always been pretentious about their "art" and that won't change. Going back to the PF references, for the most part anything that Syd Barrett touched was garbage, with a few exceptions. Yes it was his idea, his band, but it became a truly monumental band when David took over. Guitar playing ability has a lot to do with it, but so does song writing and the give of being able to sing.

Artistic differences aside, they all have something in common, $$$. The whole point of being a pro musician is to do something you love and make money while you do it. Oh and girls! Anyone that says different is either a liar or insane. Happy 4th everyone and remember to ALWAYS question authority! It's your right and duty of living in a "free" society.

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by gunb0y
Meh, the itunes store will probably be shut down a year from now anyways.

The Beatles have something to say about apple distributing music when they agreed not to be involved in the music industry.

What, Paul and Ringo?

There are no Beatles anymore, just the estates that manage them and their music...

[macdong]

Originally posted by melo
I just can't stand that they are calling this creative concerns (is the phrase for real?)

it sounds almost like if they don't sell whole album, they can't create music.
and guess why?
because their "creativity" are spent in filling music.

[rueyeet]

First: I apologize in advance for anything I say that will make it painfully clear that I have not read all 95 (currently) posts in this thread. :)

Beyond the fact that this "albums only" stance makes no business sense simply because it prevents these bands from making singles money off people who would never buy a full album from them, I just think it's a wee bit ironic that the bands they cite are not usually known for creating albums that are united works of art. Their albums aren't even really thematic, much less "concept" albums that would truly suffer from cherry-picking preferred songs.

More ironic still is the fact that NIN's Trent Reznor, who has made at least one full-blown "concept" album, and who also objects to the loss of the album format, nevertheless allows his stuff to be sold on the iTMS. Now there's a guy who knows what side his bread is buttered on, as they say.

I think that people who like a band well enough will still buy albums, and that people who know they don't like enough of a given band's work to ever buy a complete album should be able to pick and choose. The record companies have simply made it too expensive to buy music just to see if you like it.

Which is why I wish the iTMS had longer previews! I'm thinking of instituting a policy of borrowing CD's from friends to see if I want to buy them or buy singles from Apple.

[jayscheuerle]

It's the artist's choice and they obviously don't have faith in the format. They must know of the rampancy of online trading and downloading, so I really don't understand what they're making a stand against.

If I want to buy a Metallica song (ha, ha), I'd head to the iTunes Store first and if it wasn't there, I'd grab it with Acquisition or whatever. There's no way I'd rush over to plunk down $16 at Tower for it unless I wanted to buy the full album.

The days of making me buy the full album are over. If it's worth it, I will, but chances are it won't be.

[midifarm]

Why doesn't the music industry just go back to it's roots? Release singles until the band gains enough popularity and warrants the issuance of an actual album. This would not only be cheaper, but would resolve many issues. This would get rid of the whole 3 album issue with bands. If you can't release 3 consecutively charting singles then why should they help you make an album? And frankly who would want to buy on with one hit and 12 filler songs?

I believe Elvis sold more singles than he did actual LP's and correct me if I'm wrong, but he was successful, right? Beatles For Sale was a great concept so that fans could get all the singles in one spot. This was the whole reason for the LP in the first place. To hear more from a band or artist that you wanted to. Just another thought.

[ell2002]

What I don't like about the iTMS is that the (economic) incentives for you to buy the whole album are not there. There are even albums that costs "more" to buy the whole thing instead of music by music. If these groups wants fans to buy the whole cd, all they have to do is to decrease the price of buy the whole album option!!!

[iLilana]

Originally posted by Porshuh944turbo
Thing is.. they don't HAVE to do this! it's their choice yo.. so leave it alone..

they can't control HOW you listen to your CD... but they CAN control how they SELL their music.. leave it alone


true

I think there is more going on than what we hear. Apple has provided an equal sales platform for all artists. This may be a strategic way to initiate contract renegotiations with the labels. When all of the production costs of cd's are eliminated from an album sale there is a large amount of profit. Very LARGE. The only thing about these bands are that they had some pretty swanky contracts to begin with.

If they were really smart, all bands would jump contracts in a mass move to eliminate labels and develope an artist coalition for fair payment practices. Not to be confused with the corrupt RIAA. the ACFPP would need autonamy from large corporations and provide leverage for signing with online retailers such as AIMS or pressplay etc.

Then I would buy music again.

The main obstacle is the glitter that the labels dangle in front of the artists eyes. While indie and garage artists get smarter, they also get hungry (for food and rent etc) in the lean days and the label provides them with a creative window but this is a gamble that 80-90% of artists loose. For whatever reason. Now, some of these artists have 100000 cd's printed and 5000 sold. That would be a loosing venture for all and the label usually has many financial outs to clear them of this debt including tax writeoffs and contract clauses that specify all costs be paid by the artists. There are classic contract examples for the curious out on the web. Some bands have in the past posted their contract on their website to illustrate the doubletalk legal speak actually used to swindle the simple minded and legally inexperienced.

not that I am legally experienced , but I did learn from an almost very big mistake.

[job]

I don't think any of these bands owe anyone anything and thus are free to do what they want with their 'creative endeavors.'

That being said, I personally find the decision asinine and retro-active. Their loss.

[XForge]

Originally posted by gunb0y
Meh, the itunes store will probably be shut down a year from now anyways.

The Beatles have something to say about apple distributing music when they agreed not to be involved in the music industry.

Eh, "sosumi."

hehehe

[mattalici]

Last time I heard it was called show BUSINESS not show ART.

Idiots. The first casualties of the media revoution!

DIE DIE DIE

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by mattalici
Last time I heard it was called show BUSINESS not show ART.

Idiots. The first casualties of the media revoution!

DIE DIE DIE

Classic!

Mattalici attacks Metallica!

[macguymike]

Originally posted by Pants
errr....yes it *is* a single, in that is released here as one and has been pushed on the saturday morning pop music shows here in the UK. But c'mon, lets be honest, its utter toss!!!

Which is why I called it cacophonous and weak. ;)

It's still a single. Just like, y'know, the latest "music" from [insert random rap artist or pop singer here].

Concept albums on vinyl used to be in the order of 45 minutes - but now 'concept' albums stretch to the full 80 odd minutes of tedium...

Not sure how we got on the topic of concept albums here but I personally enjoy them, even long ones. One of my favorite is Dream Theater's "Scenes From A Memory". However, I do usually prefer to have songs that don't require me to listen to the whole album to appreciate (like "Home" on SFaM).

And I agree, if I like the music enough after buying a song, I'll buy the album. However, US$15 is too much to pay for the music usually when I only end up listening to about 40% of the album.

Of course there are also other things to consider like album art and liner notes and having the album in your hands and ready to pop into your car CD player. Which makes me think that even $.99 is too much to pay for one downloaded song.

[cliffardo2001]

Originally posted by cc bcc
I don't get it, they release single-cd's all the time..

As a musician, I can understand these musicians' point of view. What I really can't ascertain is whether or not this is the truth and that they are in fact greedy.
I just wanted to say that I agree with the idea that an album is a representation of an artist's current stage of development.
Also, why can't Apple just let them sell their music by album only and let the consumers continue to decide what they want to buy or not want to buy?

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by cliffardo2001
Also, why can't Apple just let them sell their music by album only and let the consumers continue to decide what they want to buy or not want to buy?

Apple could let them, but there's no way I'd pay full album price these days for a single. That's ripping me off. Give me the option to buy it and I'll play fair. Take away that option and I'll still get the single.

Weird way to make a stand...

[bousozoku]

I think everyone is done with Metallica, save their staunchest fans. They haven't produced much of consequence for a number of years, and it took them forever to be recognised for what they did at that point. There were a couple of things that I liked at that time but none before or after that.

I liked Linkin Park's Hybrid Theory album. Most of it was good for me. It's unfortunate that the statement makes them look like greedy trolls.

Looking at most CDs, they're slim on real content. They might as well put Muzak (my apologies to Muzak) in there as it would draw as much attention. If their only need is to fill dead air space, maybe they should get together with other groups to create a CD that contains great music.

If you're in a creative business, you should be creative.

[rDLr]

Originally posted by XForge
Eh, "sosumi."

hehehe


LOL
Apple was pretty bold to call that system sound sosumi before. Now they probably have enough money to BUY Apple Records (or whomever owns the Beatles interest now.)

On a side note: I wonder if they could sue Apple for the iTMS? Apple is not creating music and they are not a record label. They are not participating in the music industry, they are creating a new industry with Music!

[Java]

True. A lot of bands put out one or two good songs, and the rest of the album is not worth listening too. It is the reality that these bands are facing that people DO have a choice on what they want to listen to.

I must say, when an album is good, an album is good. I don't think there is any other way of listening to "Blood On The Tracks" or "Blonde on Blonde" by Bob Dylan without listening to it from start to finish.:cool:

But of course, the RHCP and others aren't Dylan.

In my opinion, let them lose out. It is their choice.

[Trekkie]

My personal opinion = these artists that are complaining sometimes have albums that are sold by one or two songs. Linkin park especially. If you could have bought one or two of the remixes off their last non-new album would you?

Personally, I'll buy a CD version if I like the artist bad enough. For example Liz Phair's last release was not released as a 'Buy Album' option and would have cost me more to buy it per song than to buy the CD and rip it to AAC instead.

Though Chilli Peppers to me have people that are 'fans' of a song, but not the whole group. Myself I could think of one song I'd pay $0.99 for but would never buy the album.

[AhmedFaisal]

Creative concerns my ass, its about us shelling out money for your stinking CDs, so say it like that! That was the last straw for me regarding bands like Metallica. I will just not buy ANYTHING from them anymore... before iTunes Music Store I actually went and bought their Albums, how dumb of me... You know, I stayed away from Kazaa and eDonkey because I was waiting for a legal way to buy stuff from those bands over the net, now that there is an acceptable way they get greedy and snub it, fine, then be snubbed by me in the future too! Kazaa here I come!

Ahmed
(who will keep buying songs over iTunes but will now leech those that snub the store!)

[Matthé]

if they care so much about their record being listened to as a whole, why don't they just put one huge track on a cd or ITM and sell that?
I know bands who do (eg. godspeed you black emperor)
and i'm sure thats why they only play a full record live on stage and not just any set list composed of single songs of different albums
...
sad

[ColoJohnBoy]

Awwwwwwww... no Linkin Park.

Well, though their annoyingly whiny, depressive music isn't available on iTMS I suppose I'll live.

[MacFan25]

I can't believe that they were this greedy. It almost makes me not want to listen to their music, but some of Linkin Park's songs arent bad. :D

[hvfsl]

Originally posted by rDLr
LOL
Apple was pretty bold to call that system sound sosumi before. Now they probably have enough money to BUY Apple Records (or whomever owns the Beatles interest now.)


Michael Jackson now owns the rights to the beatles songs, which means Sony own them since Sony owns Jackson. And their is no way Apple could buy Sony. Although the two companies are working together on the PS3 (it is let slip by a Sony exec).

[amnesiac1984]

Originally posted by midifarm
There is no offense to anyone that likes any of the bands mentioned here. I would have to agree that Radiohead is depressing and whiny, which is fine because it appeals to that section of the generation, depressed whiny kids that don't particularly like the hand dealt to them. Nirvana on the other hand, while yes Mr. Cobain was obviously depressed (heroin doesn't help), the music I find was more "angry" than anything else. The same can be said for NIN. Trent comes across as the tortured kid from high school, but he's definitely angry! Al from Ministry is just angry at society, the government and all the sheeople that allow it to go on without any question.



I resent being called a depressed whiny kid. And I fail to see any evidence that suggests I am of a minority in Radiohead fans, IOW what you just said could not be further from the truth. I happen to consider myself to be incredibly lucky with the hand I have been dealt with, and so do the band Radiohead. As do most other fans of theirs that I have met. Your comment about Al Ministry is much closer to what Radiohead are about, they just do it in a not very obvious way and with much ambiguity while mixing in all sorts of other concerns as well. Most Radiohead fans that I have met are quite a lot older than me, and I am 18. I don't think these are depressed whiny kids, they are perhaps just adults who are concerned about whats going on and don't necessarily agree with governments. Thom recently became a father and I heard him say that his latest song-writing work was greatly affected by that. On the morning becomes eclectic show on some radio station he was asked about this. He said that it basically comes down to the fact that he is pissed off with his powerlessness to affect the world that his son will have to live in, "mother-****ers, what gives them the right to **** up the world that my son has got to live in". To me that sums up the album, its not depressing, its more clarity of reality.

Radiohead are in a situation where $$$ doesn't matter and they do not exploit that to make more $$$. If anything it means their music can become even more interesting because the Record company knows it can sit back and whatever they release will sell. Remember, they are 3 albums past their turning point "best album of all time" and things are going strong. Kid A succeeded, whether intended or not, in getting rid of the whiny kid fans who only understood music on a basic level.

Radioheads political messages are not the main reasons I listen to radiohead, although they help. As a musician I am in awe of their talent, as performers but mostly as composers, lyricists and arrangers (Jonny Greenwood has a degree in classical cello). I find Thom Yorkes voice to be incredibly unique in a scene of increasingly droany sounding dull mid range male vocalists. A fellow fan once equated his voice with that of Bob Dylans, I agree Bob cannot sing in the traditional sense, I believe the noises he makes work for his songs and no-one else (except may hendrix, but thats another story) could pull off his songs as well as he does. Thom however, can actually sing, he can sing beautifully, the reason why he is considered whiny is that he has a falcetto much lower than many other singers which contributes to his uniqueness.

As a fellow fan of Pink Floyd (also now money grabbing b*stards BTW) I suggest you take a closer look at them, as they are described as the modern pink floyd. I'm not trying to preach to anyone, just don't like seeing my favourite band dissed based on untruths.


anyway, I should not hi-jack this thread anymore, there are numerous threads on raiohead on this board so if you want to discuss further head on over.

oh yeah. to hear why more classical and jazz musicians are studying and learning from radiohead's music, click here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/arts/frontrow/ram/2003/frontrow20030702_spin_radiohead.ram)

[scuppernong]

I'm so sick of these whining musicians who refuse to progress with the music industry. Once someone buys a CD they will listen to what they want, when they want to anyway (most likely skipping the garbage) I think it's [the act of purchasing digital music] becoming more of a buyer's market and I like it. I have purchased several albums from the apple music store and plan on still doing so. These artists loose.

[tizza]

Even if we were forced to buy the whole albums over iTMS that would be better than nothing.... here in Australia we have to pay A$30 for new CD albums ... talk about a rip-off!!

[mymemory]

Show me a radio station that aired all the songs of every album!

If radio stations doesn't air a complete album why they are obligatting me to listen to their all their songs?

If radiostations can choose what songs they want to play to the entire city from any album I have the right to choose which song I want to listen too.

[cliffardo2001]

Originally posted by cliffardo2001
As a musician, I can understand these musicians' point of view. What I really can't ascertain is whether or not this is the truth and that they are in fact greedy.
I just wanted to say that I agree with the idea that an album is a representation of an artist's current stage of development.
Also, why can't Apple just let them sell their music by album only and let the consumers continue to decide what they want to buy or not want to buy?
Are you saying it would be a rip off even on the Apple iTunes Music Store? I think you need to consider more seriously the viewpoint of the musician before you can objectively make any claims.

[mac-lad]

Personally, I'm surprised the record companies are nice enough to let the individual artists determine how the product is sold...

I wonder if they had this same debate when 45's were introduced?

I can see the artists' point to a degree. There are songs I enjoy that have never made singles. They're usually the more personal tracks on the album. If I were a music artist, I'd be feeling enormous pressure to pump out hit singles to sell at 99 cents a pop as opposed to personal songs that may not have mass appeal.

Again, hit singles may be worth $0.99, but I think they should drop the prices on the "other" tracks to $0.49 later on. That would encourage people to try out the whole album if they liked what they've heard.

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by mac-lad


I can see the artists' point to a degree. There are songs I enjoy that have never made singles. They're usually the more personal tracks on the album. If I were a music artist, I'd be feeling enormous pressure to pump out hit singles to sell at 99 cents a pop as opposed to personal songs that may not have mass appeal.


Hey, a good song's a good song. The beauty of something like the iStore is that you can listen to part of every song before you buy it. You may find that diamond in the rough. When buying a CD, you may have heard the "hits" on the radio, but you have no idea what you're getting unless the store has a listening station of some sort. You look at that list of 10 songs, recognize 2 or 3 and roll the dice. It could be that those odds dissuade you from buying it at all.

I would think that a single track release format frees musicians up to put out a 4 song compilation instead of including songs they know aren't up to snuff just for filler. It also enables "album artists" to put out a personal single (or even a Christmas song) that doesn't fit with anything else.

It seems to me that this format has much to exploit! - j

[NNO-Stephen]

Originally posted by mymemory
Show me a radio station that aired all the songs of every album!

If radio stations doesn't air a complete album why they are obligatting me to listen to their all their songs?

If radiostations can choose what songs they want to play to the entire city from any album I have the right to choose which song I want to listen too.

actually, every weekday here, we have a thing called "3rd shift shuffle" where they play every song on a CD in a random order. yes it's at 2 in the morning (right after LoveLine...) and they play some really good stuff sometimes. they played the Kung-Fu records sampler no. 4 last night, and they have played Staind, and Evenesence or whatever, and lots of stuff in Rock, Punk, and then other crap that someone thinks fits into some sub-genre of rock... it's really good. but anyway, I do not see the POV's of the artists. if it's all about the whole experience, why the HELL did they release greatest hits albums (Green Day, Red Hot Chillie Peppers) and why a remix album which is just their only other album... but remixes (Linkin Park) so yeah, I really think it's just an excuse not to do it. panzies. I guess they'd rather me DL their CD from Acquisition then huh. I'm especially shocked at Metallica's response to the iTMS... they put up such a fuss over Napster and the like... would seem an ideal solution for them. Hell, even releasing radio singles would ruin the whole "album experience" they speak so highly of. it's just a bunch of ************. The worst one of all even... CD Singles. they sell like 3 songs on a disc for 6 bucks... greedy ****ing bastards... there is no whole album experience in that is there? **** no. these bands are just scared that the singles will sell and nothing else... if they made sure that all their music was quality then they would have no reason to be scared of people not buying the filler... errr.... non-singles.

[tazo]

Originally posted by Macrumors
This Reuters article (http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=3029706) reports that certain bands won't agree to sell albums by the song.

The Red Hot Chili Peppers, Metallica, Green Day and Linkin Park are cited as bands unwilling to agree to Apple's iTunes Music Store terms which require individual song sales. The reason is said to be due to "creative" concerns (according to Mark Reiter with Q Prime Management Co):



The details of Apple's iTunes Music Store agreements were briefly posted (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/06/20030606081257.shtml) after Apple met with independent labels. Information from that meeting indicated that Apple had a single agreement for all involved and was not planning on negotiating individually.

well RHCP is one band I would actually look forward to spending money on :P. iI would have bought like 5 songs :(

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by midifarm
Lars, get your head out of your ass. This is a LEGAL method for you to get paid. You've bitched and bitched about Napster and Kazaa and now there's a perfectly legit method and you're blowing it off. BTW have you ever heard of "skip track" or a deleted song file on a CD player?

Just because I buy a CD doesn't mean that every song on it is worth listening to nor is it necessarily good. I have bought plenty of CD's for a song or two, but I decide what music I listen to. There are plenty of songs that Metallica has recorded that are good and ones that suck. Nobody's perfect. I'm a huge Beatles fan, but Revolution 9 was an atrocity.

Are these "artists" heads so far up their ass that they really think because they sell a million CD's that every song is fabulous? There are few and far between albums that are flawless. I'm all for the guys getting paid. Let's face it, compared to the label and the distributor and even the retailer the guys you actually write and perform the music get nothing, maybe $.03 per disc. Apple is offering you $.12 per song! Do the math guys. That's typically $1.20 per disc if they buy the whole thing. Something's not wired correctly!

That's it! Metallica is going to sue everyone until we rip the fast forward buttons off of everything we use. I'm sorry Lars... even on your best albums... I don't want to hear it all.

I would think there is money to be made when someone buys a couple songs from an album... then decides they want all the songs, even the extra songs that you can only get if you buy the whole album. So you've actually hit their wallet up twice.

Apple should stand firm. If their customer base soars and their catalog reaches huge amounts of music these scumbags will give in.

Also... has anyone noticed how many CD stores are closing these days? Here in tampa, the only place to get music is the big name stores (best Buy et al.). If lots of people start buying off iTMS, these stores may start reducing inventory. Another reason to give in.

Even if they don't... look at the groups that are against this... Metallica, RHCP, Madonna, Linkin Park (so what?). With the exception of LP, all these artists are growing old and are passing their prime. I think most new artists realize where the world is going and are ready to adapt to the new age in music.

<sarcasm> I mean what shall I do without new music from madonna?? </sarcasm> :D :cool:

[MrMacMan]

God damn bands who want people to buy their CD's so damn bad that they will not even allow their songs to be downloaded.


BOOOOO!!!!!

[macman13]

those bands sucks anyway except for RHCP

[iJon]

Originally posted by macman13
those bands sucks anyway except for RHCP why do you people keep bashing people's music? we are talking here about these bands choices and decisions about the music store and half the posts are like who care, link park sucks, green day..screw them beatles rock. did you join macrumors just to say that, you only have 2 posts. lets keep it on topic and stop bashing what people like.

iJon

[macman13]

Originally posted by iJon
why do you people keep bashing people's music? we are talking here about these bands choices and decisions about the music store and half the posts are like who care, link park sucks, green day..screw them beatles rock. did you join macrumors just to say that, you only have 2 posts. lets keep it on topic and stop bashing what people like.

iJon

im am just expressing my opinions about them. and the reason why i only have 2 posts is becsause i just joined

[applefan]

Once this is unleashed to the windows world and the international community, the hold outs will quickly realize how much more music they could be selling. Then they'll be calling Steve. I can hear it now: Hello, Mr. Jobs? Hey ah, this Lars, from Metallica. Say, do remember that offer you made a while ago?? Well ah me and the guys've bin thinkin.........

[bretm]

Originally posted by leenoble
Now I'm a huge Chili Peppers fan but this hisses me off. When was the last time you actually sat and listened to an album all the way through from start to finish uninterrupted?
I'd probably say the last two Chilis albums are the only ones for about the last 5 years that I regularly listened to every track on. That's mainly due to the fact they're both fantastic albums. Had they been available on iTMS I would no noubt have bought both full albums. Especially since the Chilli Peppers don't usually skimp on songs. Both have far more than the usual 12 tracks on.
But really, if you're going to protest that this encourages people to not listen to the album as a piece of art then why not refuse to allow the CD to be played on any player which has a random track function or a programming option which allows you to miss tracks out as you please.
I do think they'd have an argument if they said that 9.99 for an album with 18 tracks on shouldn't cost the same as the latest Justin Timberlake effort. (Now I'm just casting aspersions. I have no idea how many tracks are on his album. I'm just guessing it's not eighteen).

They've only HAD 2 albums in the last 5 years! Too funny.

[patman_Z]

Well, Metallica's hayday was the late 80's and early 90's, Green Day had minor success among the skater crowd until dookie, Linkin Park's songs all sound the exact same, but have uber-digital videos. The Chili Peppers were cool until "What Hits" came out. Screw those bands, I could understand if their reason was "we are ignorant of puters, so we stay away" but I know better. These bands would probably like to enforce licenses on their music where you pay each time you listen to it. Creative reasons is a bad excuse for these guys, they haven't been creative, well ever really. For instance in regards to Metallica, they were at one time, long ago "creative" like with pre-black album stuff. They chose sometime to sound like every other run of the mill band, like linkin park. Rock music has a definate pattern there will be a HUGELY innovative band with something new, and then for the next 10-15 years all that comes out is the backwash of said band. A good example is Nirvana, nowadays you turn on the radio and you have to ask "I thought he was dead". Rock has become the boom-boom chick type of stuff that can be mastered in a matter of days. I have seen more of crappy bands hitting it nicely with MTV and then disappearing, and on the other hand you have bands you wish would disappear like Bon-Jovi. And for clarification, yes I can play most of the songs those bands have made on guitar, and probably sing them too in the same way, the kicker is I am a jazz drummer who has picked up a guitar a few times. I suppose the .music bubble has bursted and the record co's are realizing people don't like "extreme" "garbage" music. I guess they'll have to "WINGER" it until the next "BEATLES" come again like they did with NKOTB, NSYNC, BSB, and "american idol". Until then I have my "dead can dance" and old "frank black" tunes.

[VIREBEL661]

Originally posted by RHutch
Those bands lost the money that I was willing to give them. There's no way that I would buy entire albums by them. But I would buy a few songs. If they don't want my money, fine.

"creative concerns" = greed

These bands, particularly Metallica, are absolutely ignorant to the power of the internet and p2p networks... For me, downloading songs is a gateway to being a fan and giving the band (actually more the record label) more money. To these bands I say this - give honest people a chance to PAY for your downloads, 'cause you aren't going to be able to stop technology. Piss people off, and they'll at the very least consider using p2p, at the worst, not buying your crap no matter what because you've shown contempt for your own fanbase...
This sort of thing has happened all through history - with cassette (you can copy and distrubute music without paying for it), with CD (full digital copies of music to be pirated), with DVD (digital copies of movies to be pirated)... Whatever!:rolleyes:

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by Pablo
It's funny how Metallica just wanted to be heard when they were a garage/small bar band and encouraged bootlegging and swapping of their tapes, but now that they've reached a certain level of popularity, shun those same fans who made them what they were.

Actually Metallica actively supports audio and video boot legging of their live *****. In their forums and the Fan mag they have buy/sell/trade sections for boot leggers.


job I don't think any of these bands owe anyone anything and thus are free to do what they want with their 'creative endeavors.'

That being said, I personally find the decision asinine and retro-active. Their loss.

Not to sound like an ass but I think you need to look up the meaning of "retro-active." ;)

I'm sensing some conflicting gripes going on here. Some people people are calling the bands greedy for not joining iTMS and then later calling them stupid because iTMS would be a great way for them (the band) to make more money... :confused: So they are greedy for "sticking to" CDs, which many people here think will hurt their sales, but joining iTMS, which many people here think will boost a bands income, isn't greedy...?


Lethal

[Blah64]

__________________
When Bill Gates' kids grow up, they will use Apple products.

------------------------------

Don't you know they already do?!?! At least the older one that's in school already. Out of concern for the kids' privacy I won't mention the name of the school, but my kid almost went there and I guarantee you they all use Macs!! That may change with the huge donations this year for new construction, but I have to say I laugh whenever I think about it. :p

Edit: whoops, a little off-topic, sorry. But there isn't really a way to on-topic respond to someone's signature....

[herocero]

i love macrumors. i love the forums. i love the discussions, so please don't flame me too bad with this response.

after reading the front page of this thread, it is blatantly obvious that probably 95% of you are not musical artists nor understand some basic concepts in this story.

metallica, rhcp, foo fighters, green day aren't being "bitches" to make more money. in case anyone hasn't noticed, they all have more money than GOD, which is why their qualms with kazaa and their own demands in the distribution of their music are the most clear-sighted than any. i.e. linkin park was a nobody band who got heard by an a&r guy who took a chance where no one would. if anyone should be open in the distribution of their music it would be them but they don't. instead of trying to understand why, you make them out to be money hungry snobs. i won't blame you though, jealousy and misunderstanding are very difficult to distinguish.

for some groups, an album isn't just a bunch of songs thrown together. rather it is a journey from beginning to end, with low points and high points and mood swings, just like human emotion (this is why everclear gets very old very quickly, cause you get tired of hearing G-C-E all the time). now, they choose to have the music sold in album format. if they were only looking to make the most money, they'd throw their music up on every service however the most people wanted it done (singles, albums, etc.). they have the ability to make that decision because they are already successful. so when you whine at them and say "well, you aren't getting my $.99," they couldn't really give a *****. if you want to call them sell outs, go ahead. metallica will sell out, rhcp will sell out . . . any venue, anywhere in the world.

singles are great. with all the usual crap on the radio, it's nice to know that those albums full of filler can be avoided. but if you like a band enough or you want to take the journey they intended you the listener to take, then don't be a whiny nancy and buy the CD. the truth is no one but the artist should decide how their music should be distributed. notice how this came from q prime, a major player management co. if this were really about money, this statement would come straight from elektra or sony music or their label/big 5 distributor. if i'm lucky to put out my own CD, i would like to be in their position and release my own music however i want to.

[SiliconAddict]

Metallica I can understand. They have turned into the RIAA's corp whore and who’s music I will NEVER buy again even if they did sell individual songs for 5 cents a piece. But the others? I'm sick of individual artists and music companies with their head so far up their butts. When are these idiots going to realize that the theft of their music will continue until a cheap alternative to CD's is found and selling whole albums ain't going to cut it.
On a side note expect some serious backlash from customers after this latest round of going after individuals. Theft or not this is going to be seen as nothing short of taking it out on the little guy while the big time counterfeit pirates are still out there. I didn't think it was physically possible for the RIAA's image to get further smeared in the mud but somehow they did it.

[skunk]

Originally posted by moby1
Why don't they have the "artistic integrity" to tell us the real reason; they're holding out for more money.
Why don't they just admit most of their songs are crap? :rolleyes:

[amnesiac1984]

Oh don't get how you can say these bands are greedy for doing this and then in the same post say they won't be getting as much money without going on iTMS

[Ananna]

I guess that explains why Prince doesn't have "Lovesexy" available at iTMS. It's a one-track CD with like 8 songs. Definately a concept album. Prince does pretty much all concept albums, its just that The Artist is the only one who understands the concept.

Everybody, everybody knows, when love calls, you got to go.

[gooddog]

"album only" items in the music store !

Check out "The Damned Don't Cry" by
John Coltrane .... album only.

I am really offended by any artist who feels that coercion is the best way to promote their work.

This phoney excuse for gouging teenagers out of their lunch money is precisely what helps me to rationalize p2p downloading.

I am old enough to remember that the best way to clear a house of party animals, when it was time to crash, was to up-end the stack of 45's on the adaptor spindle and play all the flip sides :)

The garbage that came out of those record players would clear buzzards off of a poop wagon !

We are being decoyed away from the realization that even 99 cents is way too much to pay. Given the extirpation of the parasitic label hogs and all the overhead, we are still paying the same PER SONG as if vinyl were being shipped to our front doors !

Apple ought to double the previous 4 cents per song to the artist, and then give US a good slice of the savings.

Labels need to go. Find honest work.

Price : $0.25 per song would be generous.

Apple isn't helping us. They are merely refraining from screwing us as much as the labels would. Thank gawd for little mercies.

I'd like to call for a boycott of any phoney baloney artists who can't trust/respect their fans judgement and freedom in the marketplace. They may think that everything emmanating from their chute is golden ambrosia. But it is
commonplace that the best artists in all media produce a great deal of garbage along with their masterpieces.

Set it down guys ! The ego has landed.

---gooddog

[AhmedFaisal]

Originally posted by herocero
i love macrumors. i love the forums. i love the discussions, so please don't flame me too bad with this response.

after reading the front page of this thread, it is blatantly obvious that probably 95% of you are not musical artists nor understand some basic concepts in this story.

metallica, rhcp, foo fighters, green day aren't being "bitches" to make more money. in case anyone hasn't noticed, they all have more money than GOD, which is why their qualms with kazaa and their own demands in the distribution of their music are the most clear-sighted than any. i.e. linkin park was a nobody band who got heard by an a&r guy who took a chance where no one would. if anyone should be open in the distribution of their music it would be them but they don't. instead of trying to understand why, you make them out to be money hungry snobs. i won't blame you though, jealousy and misunderstanding are very difficult to distinguish.

for some groups, an album isn't just a bunch of songs thrown together. rather it is a journey from beginning to end, with low points and high points and mood swings, just like human emotion (this is why everclear gets very old very quickly, cause you get tired of hearing G-C-E all the time). now, they choose to have the music sold in album format. if they were only looking to make the most money, they'd throw their music up on every service however the most people wanted it done (singles, albums, etc.). they have the ability to make that decision because they are already successful. so when you whine at them and say "well, you aren't getting my $.99," they couldn't really give a *****. if you want to call them sell outs, go ahead. metallica will sell out, rhcp will sell out . . . any venue, anywhere in the world.

singles are great. with all the usual crap on the radio, it's nice to know that those albums full of filler can be avoided. but if you like a band enough or you want to take the journey they intended you the listener to take, then don't be a whiny nancy and buy the CD. the truth is no one but the artist should decide how their music should be distributed. notice how this came from q prime, a major player management co. if this were really about money, this statement would come straight from elektra or sony music or their label/big 5 distributor. if i'm lucky to put out my own CD, i would like to be in their position and release my own music however i want to.

Fine comment, slick. However its besides the point. Fact is *I* only like one song on that damn album and don't give a rats ass about the rest, journey or not. The problem is that either those people are greedy or even worse they think they are something like Monet or van Gogh when they are not. And besides that, I am not required to buy an entire collection when I like *one* painting Monet or any other painter did. With music it is the same way. You want *my* money for your work then let it be *my* decision what I want and what not. Who pays the bill is the boss, thats what they say in my country. If artists don't like it, find a different profession. This whole thing about "creative concern" pisses me off as much as listening to that dumb-ass architect that designed my house using *my* money who gave me a big bunch of artist-pride ************ when I wanted the design changed in certain aspects that I believed I'd prefer in *my* house! I am willing to give you *money* for your work so you can live, so stop bitching about how I want it and what I do with it!

Ahmed

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by herocero
so when you whine at them and say "well, you aren't getting my $.99," they couldn't really give a *****.

Really? So they don't care? OK then, give us the music for free. Where were you when Metallica jumped on Napster? Was that for artistic reasons too?

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by macman13
im am just expressing my opinions about them. and the reason why i only have 2 posts is becsause i just joined

iJon is right. Everyone likes to loudly express their opinions on music, expecially to bash what others like. Control yourself. The quality of some band's music is completely OT.

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by AhmedFaisal
The problem is that either those people are greedy or even worse they think they are something like Monet or van Gogh when they are not.

LOL. Good way of putting it.

As has been mentioned before, the track-select button on any CD player completely invalidates all of this artistic nonsense.

[maka]

Originally posted by AhmedFaisal
Fine comment, slick. However its besides the point. Fact is *I* only like one song on that damn album and don't give a rats ass about the rest, journey or not. The problem is that either those people are greedy or even worse they think they are something like Monet or van Gogh when they are not. And besides that, I am not required to buy an entire collection when I like *one* painting Monet or any other painter did. With music it is the same way. You want *my* money for your work then let it be *my* decision what I want and what not. Who pays the bill is the boss, thats what they say in my country. If artists don't like it, find a different profession. This whole thing about "creative concern" pisses me off as much as listening to that dumb-ass architect that designed my house using *my* money who gave me a big bunch of artist-pride ************ when I wanted the design changed in certain aspects that I believed I'd prefer in *my* house! I am willing to give you *money* for your work so you can live, so stop bitching about how I want it and what I do with it!

Ahmed

I think You got it wrong. You didn't pay these musicians to do something for you specifically. Artists create art and people who like the art buy it. That's it. If you don't like it don't buy it. In art, the artist is boss. That's it. Like it or not.

Maybe it's artist's attitudes that cause these kind of violent reactions, but well... I don't think they serve any purpose.

If you want your music specially made for you, I'm sure you can pay someone to do exactly what you want, or you can do it yourself (which in the end, is what more and more people are doing :) )

EDIT: I just want to add something about singles. The artists release the singles that they want, and some don't want to lose this power and have all of their tracks as selling as singles. It is clear, that for whatever reasons (monetary or artistical) they want us to buy the albums... we choose whether to do it or not.

Also, on behalve of the artists: If you think of an album as a whole, you can compare it with a book or a movie... Let's start selling individual chapters too!!! :) Now. I'm not going to get into the discussion of what albums are worth listening all the way through, or can be seen as whole art pieces. This is up to each of us.

[tveric]

In art, the artist is boss. That's it. Like it or not.

Are you out of your mind, or just deluded by your own choice of profession? Your boss is the one that pays you. Even if you don't subscribe to that simple definition that applies to 99% of the world, at the MOST, an artist could maybe be their own boss - if they're truly independent, and don't mind starving for their "art".

That's certainly not a definition applicable to Metallica, being the corporate whores that they've evolved into. Their record company is most definitely their boss, and the people that buy their music are their bosses in an indirect way. When they decided to start making more mainstream music in 1991, they got a raise. They now have so much money and are so out of touch with reality that they don't understand the downloads will NEVER stop - and if they don't offer singles online for pay, people will just continue to download them for free. Like me.

They don't want to contribute to the death of the album format? Wrong strategy, boys. They could make their album available online along with the singles and some people would buy the album. They're making nothing available, so what will people do? You ever try to download an entire album via Limewire or Kazaa? Way too much effort. People will keep downloading Metallica singles, and "artists" are kidding themselves if they think the RIAA is EVER going to be able to put that genie back in the bottle.

[macmax]

what do they think, that they will make an album like the dark side of the moon????

As far as i am concerned, metallica can kill themselves and then they will do some good to the listener


after the black album , they just plain suck

[Uragon]

Originally posted by maka
......That's it. If you don't like it don't buy it. In art, the artist is boss. That's it. Like it or not.........


I agree with you. I doubt if da vinci is willing to accept $0.99 for Mona Lisa's lips only.

For the others, don't sound like Frantic, or that you bur(ST) Anger towards these bands that they are Some Kind of Monster or a Dirty Window. Though I am an Invicible Kid to them, but in My World, it doesn't matter whether they are part of ITMS, it is All Within My Hands whether to buy their CDs or thru ITMS. My choice.

[Java]

Originally posted by Potus
IMO, that's what concerts are for: to listen to the music in the way the musicians want us to listen to it. Metallica fought and destroyed Napster, now they're aiming at iTunes. I think they will lose this battle and the opportunity to sell more music.

Napster was run by college kids. Metallica knew they could win that battle.

Try butting heads with Steve. Please. Steve is more of a celebrity than Lars and the gang from Metallica will ever be. :cool:

I want to watch Apple eat them for lunch.

[mattmack]

Originally posted by herocero
i love macrumors. i love the forums. i love the discussions, so please don't flame me too bad with this response.

after reading the front page of this thread, it is blatantly obvious that probably 95% of you are not musical artists nor understand some basic concepts in this story.

metallica, rhcp, foo fighters, green day aren't being "bitches" to make more money. in case anyone hasn't noticed, they all have more money than GOD, which is why their qualms with kazaa and their own demands in the distribution of their music are the most clear-sighted than any. i.e. linkin park was a nobody band who got heard by an a&r guy who took a chance where no one would. if anyone should be open in the distribution of their music it would be them but they don't. instead of trying to understand why, you make them out to be money hungry snobs. i won't blame you though, jealousy and misunderstanding are very difficult to distinguish.

for some groups, an album isn't just a bunch of songs thrown together. rather it is a journey from beginning to end, with low points and high points and mood swings, just like human emotion (this is why everclear gets very old very quickly, cause you get tired of hearing G-C-E all the time). now, they choose to have the music sold in album format. if they were only looking to make the most money, they'd throw their music up on every service however the most people wanted it done (singles, albums, etc.). they have the ability to make that decision because they are already successful. so when you whine at them and say "well, you aren't getting my $.99," they couldn't really give a *****. if you want to call them sell outs, go ahead. metallica will sell out, rhcp will sell out . . . any venue, anywhere in the world.

singles are great. with all the usual crap on the radio, it's nice to know that those albums full of filler can be avoided. but if you like a band enough or you want to take the journey they intended you the listener to take, then don't be a whiny nancy and buy the CD. the truth is no one but the artist should decide how their music should be distributed. notice how this came from q prime, a major player management co. if this were really about money, this statement would come straight from elektra or sony music or their label/big 5 distributor. if i'm lucky to put out my own CD, i would like to be in their position and release my own music however i want to. I understand your artistic point of view,but then why not just require albums t be downloaded as a whole. There are several on the website like that. I believe this is a stand again by Metalica against downloadable music. For the simple fact of money. Now this might be one band and the managment forcing the other artists to support them, but whatever it is a pointless stand against the inevitablity of the electronic media for music. I too am in a band, but I can see that with the advent of the electronic media compromises would have to be reached so that artists and the consumer are not screwed. I think apple has reached a wonderful compromise (albeit only for Apple users right now) and I think these bands need to take a hard look at what is going on around them

[mattmack]

Originally posted by macmax
what do they think, that they will make an album like the dark side of the moon????

As far as i am concerned, metallica can kill themselves and then they will do some good to the listener


after the black album , they just plain suck I would have to agree with that, but again even if they haven't released an album that you deem listenable as a whole doesn't mean they don't think they have

[mattmack]

Originally posted by maka
.. Let's start selling individual chapters too!!! :)
This idea has already been breached by Stephen King sorry

[mattmack]

Originally posted by soggywulf
Really? So they don't care? OK then, give us the music for free. Where were you when Metallica jumped on Napster? Was that for artistic reasons too? Yes I agree with you and when Metalica did there first video it wasfor expression in a new medium (that could make them lots of money). Here's a chance to express themselves in a new media and they don't want to do it oh could it be because they don't make a lot of money from it hmmmmmmmmmmmm:confused:

[Groovsonic]

Originally posted by herocero
i love macrumors. i love the forums. i love the discussions, so please don't flame me too bad with this response.

after reading the front page of this thread, it is blatantly obvious that probably 95% of you are not musical artists nor understand some basic concepts in this story.



I read you whole post. Hear me out...

Music can be art, but recorded music is also almost always product. I don't understand the reasoning of these bands. Greenday has put out a greatest-hits cd, which I own, and you would have a hard time finding any "theme" or "journey" on any of their CDs. Same with the RHCP. Same with Madonna.

Maybe some of them do have actual creative concerns, but I doubt that is the real reason.

Look, you make music. I make music. I'm sure we both would be thrilled for anyone to want to listen to what either of us made so much that they would be willing to pay $.99 to listen to it. That is someones hard earned dollar, and they choose to spend on my song instead of buying a Big Mac. How cool would that be!?

I think some of these artists need to get thieir egos in check. Just because they play in a band and make music dosen't make them any more important or special then anyone else. They need to remember that their music is product. It may come from a creative place, but once they put it out there, it is product.

Lastly, I wouldn't buy a CD by any of those people (except the greeddays greatest hits I mentioned earlier), but I would buy individual tracks (like Crawling by Linkin Park). So they have a choice... Either some money from me, or NO money from me. i will spend my money on a BigMac.

[mattmack]

Originally posted by gooddog

I'd like to call for a boycott of any phoney baloney artists who can't trust/respect their fans judgement and freedom in the marketplace. They may think that everything emmanating from their chute is golden ambrosia. But it is
commonplace that the best artists in all media produce a great deal of garbage along with their masterpieces.

I agree if you don't like their music or the band don't buy their stuff! And the down fall of the artistic part of the music industry has been THE LABELS and MANAGEMENT teams. Rush put it best when they sang "glittering prizes and endless compromises have shattered the illusion of integrity "

[iLilana]

Originally posted by tveric
In art, the artist is boss. That's it. Like it or not.

Are you out of your mind, or just deluded by your own choice of profession? Your boss is the one that pays you. Even if you don't subscribe to that simple definition that applies to 99% of the world, at the MOST, an artist could maybe be their own boss - if they're truly independent, and don't mind starving for their "art".

They don't want to contribute to the death of the album format? Wrong strategy, boys. They could make their album available online along with the singles and some people would buy the album. They're making nothing available, so what will people do? You ever try to download an entire album via Limewire or Kazaa? Way too much effort. People will keep downloading Metallica singles, and "artists" are kidding themselves if they think the RIAA is EVER going to be able to put that genie back in the bottle.

Art should be the focus. A painter paints a picture and a gallery hangs the picture then sells it. The gallery gets a commision. 15-20% maximum for each item. Even if they took 30-40% it leaves
well over half for the artist. A song is a painting be it crappy or not so that leaves the choice up to the buyer. I can however go to the library and look at these paintings in a book for free. I can even borrow the book to show friends this painting. I can even download the picture to my computer so long as I don't try to use it commercially. The library will even let me photocopy the page from the book.

I can't however download a single song from an artists album (from a pay site mind you)? This is absolutely ridiculous. If they prefer it to be a 'whole' album then they should list the songs on the album as one track and encode it as such when mastering it.

This is not an 'art' control issue. I don't even blame them for being greedy.


I would go to jail before supporting the big lable funded RIAA ever again. While these few artists enjoy the control they have, they are still supporting an industry thats corrupt from the bottom up. They may have large amounts of money but they. These artists don't represent reform. They represent the exception to the rule.

[Docrjm]

Originally posted by herocero
i love macrumors. i love the forums. i love the discussions, so please don't flame me too bad with this response.

after reading the front page of this thread, it is blatantly obvious that probably 95% of you are not musical artists nor understand some basic concepts in this story.

singles are great. with all the usual crap on the radio, it's nice to know that those albums full of filler can be avoided. but if you like a band enough or you want to take the journey they intended you the listener to take, then don't be a whiny nancy and buy the CD. the truth is no one but the artist should decide how their music should be distributed. notice how this came from q prime, a major player management co. if this were really about money, this statement would come straight from elektra or sony music or their label/big 5 distributor. if i'm lucky to put out my own CD, i would like to be in their position and release my own music however i want to.

Have any of the artists listed released material as a single? Did any of those singles originate from an album? If so they are talking complete and utter sh..e and they can Pog Mo Thon.:D

[iLilana]

The only time I remember an album being played on the radio as a whole was back in the 70's and early 80's when FM stations banned disco and would plop on a Grateful Dead LP like Anthem Of The Sun or Led Zepplin LPs, Pink Floyd, MC5, Hawkwind, ELP, JethroTull. They would put the album on and have the second side on que at the other turntable so we could get a feel of the 'concept' album. Roger Waters was like that with his stuff as well even in the late 80's but the record companies fought it. Classical work, Chillout/ambient/newage work Like KLF's Chillout or the Art Of Noise Or Vangelis, Brian Eno (who can produce a mean single as well BTW)

Some of those artists' albums are concept art. Dookie, however is far from a concept album and sold because of 3 singles. For a group to say they won't let you DL singles the promote the product with 3 to 4 singles is hipocracy. Where are the guys from Consolidated and Disposable Heros of Hiphopracy? Where is there platform on this? Metallica's early work may qualify as concept but I think that may only apply to one album. Metallica stuff is shown on MTV and Much Music as a video single. That in itself disqualifies it. Plus its crap. Lincoln Park... don't make me laugh. Radiohead may be the closest Pop group to provide concept ideas but they still make videos and push singles.

Here's the irony.. Trance music is the closest thing to concept work these days and the artists sell most of it as singles for the DJ's to use.

Get the middleman out of the picture and give the artist complete control. We don't need the labels anymore.

[Potus]

Originally posted by Blah64
__________________
When Bill Gates' kids grow up, they will use Apple products.

------------------------------

Don't you know they already do?!?! At least the older one that's in school already. Out of concern for the kids' privacy I won't mention the name of the school, but my kid almost went there and I guarantee you they all use Macs!! That may change with the huge donations this year for new construction, but I have to say I laugh whenever I think about it. :p

Edit: whoops, a little off-topic, sorry. But there isn't really a way to on-topic respond to someone's signature....

Actually, I think Gates likes Macs. If Apple didn't exist he would have to invent it, since the hallmark of MicroSoft software is NIH (not invented here).

[maka]

tveric said:

Are you out of your mind, or just deluded by your own choice of profession? Your boss is the one that pays you. Even if you don't subscribe to that simple definition that applies to 99% of the world, at the MOST, an artist could maybe be their own boss - if they're truly independent, and don't mind starving for their "art".


I'm certanly not out of my mind :) Selling something you create makes you the boss. You create what you want, how you want, and it's up to people to buy if if they want...

Now, I agree that most music sold in big quantities now is made specifically to meet ceirtain market conditions, so that it sells as much as possible, but Not all the music made is like this, and even the music that it is, may have a degree of compromise.

Ah! And not all artists depend on their art for a living :) Lots of artists that don't want to compromise their art have other means of making a living...

iLiana said:

I can't however download a single song from an artists album (from a pay site mind you)? This is absolutely ridiculous. If they prefer it to be a 'whole' album then they should list the songs on the album as one track and encode it as such when mastering it.

This is not an 'art' control issue. I don't even blame them for being greedy.


I would go to jail before supporting the big lable funded RIAA ever again. While these few artists enjoy the control they have, they are still supporting an industry thats corrupt from the bottom up. They may have large amounts of money but they. These artists don't represent reform. They represent the exception to the rule.

I think by now most bands offer some sort of preview download in their sites. The problem is that they are not sure you'll buy the album if you choose which tracks to preview :) so they choose the singles that they think will make the most sells for the album. I like the concept of the iMusic shop. It's a bold step, and artists should drop their fears and jump right into it.

And about the industry you're right. I choose not to buy from these big labels. All the music I'm buying is from smaller independent labels these days. Lot's of them local, and others from around the world.

Now, if Apple would let bands without a label sell their music on their store.... :)

[gooddog]

Originally posted by mattmack
This idea has already been breached by Stephen King sorry

__________________

The wisest way to get exposure for the artist's "non-singles" is to make them available with a narrative track wherein the artists tell us more about why they feel as they do about the piece - something analogous to the "director's commentary" track in a DVD film. I love these tracks and willingly pay for them. They might also make a short documentary for each album that is offered for free or at cost :
this would get the interest of virtually all willing buyers. The rest who are just not interested can only be put off by strong-arm techniques like trash-bunddling.

What could these artists possibly hope to gain by irritating and insulting the non-buyer ?

They will succeed only in accelerating the evolution of bigger and better p2p engines: like cryptoglyph transfers , distributed systems, etc.

Taking away CHOICE is virtually always
a WRONG MOVE.

---gooddog

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by tveric
That's certainly not a definition applicable to Metallica, being the corporate whores that they've evolved into. Their record company is most definitely their boss...


Are you refering to Elektra? Whom Metallica successfully sued in 1994 to renegocate their contract because their then current contract was ********* them outta royalties.


Lethal

[gooddog]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Uragon
[B]I agree with you. I doubt if da vinci is willing to accept $0.99 for Mona Lisa's lips only.

____________________


This argument is brought up often in these debates.

This argument fails immediately.

It fails because the Mona Lisa would have ceased to exist , as a whole , if it had been sold piecemeal. The world would have been deprived of it as a whole.

The reproducible nature of digitized art is of an entirely distinct character : the art piece as-a-whole remains intact for all those WHO WISH to purchase and enjoy.

The two situations are simply not comparable items.

--------

Similarly, the "theft" analogy to p2p downloading must be considerably modified : they are not exactly the same, albeit there is more in common here than in the case above.

A thief who steals an apple deprives the vendor of the apple. Data, by contrast, is DUPLICATED : the vendor retains the original apple. There is , however, a diminution of the vendor's ability to sell
what is made available for free.

Also, a downloader who would not otherwise have bought the song is NOT depriving the vendor of anything.

It is when the downloader posts that song for others and THOSE AMONG THEM who WOULD HAVE purchased opt to get the free version, that the theft has been perpetrated - by the downloader from the WOULD-HAVE-BOUGHT category.

The poster is merely an accessory to the theft .


[ I once calculated the price of 15 ancient oldies I wanted at over $600- all were out of production albums; many were "Best Of" collections with no artistic theme. There was NO WAY that I would buy these. And I did not for several years.
Then I discovered Napster. I would have paid a buck a song gladly for these dinosaurs that no one buys anymore. But the LABELS chose to play rough with me.

They lost. ]



This latter case belongs in the category of unfair business practices (on the part of the downloader who shares) and is more akin to the methods employed by Microsoft, MacDonald's , and other corporate giants when they put small companies out of business by dumping cheap or bundling for free , an equivalent item....

...sauce for the goose.


---gooddog

[Skelator]

*very sorry if this was already posted*

Isn't there an option in the music store already to only allow your album to be distributed in full? I swear I've seen some larger albums (or live albums) that are only available at the $10 price.

I'll look for an example.

[kevin73]

I was a long-time Metallica fan up until the black album. That was probably the last album of theirs worth listening to all the way through. And I can't see any of their albums (except maybe ...And Justice For All) to be an "artistic vision"... there was no story persay (like with Pink Floyd albums, or even Queensryche's Operation Mindcrime or Empires).

Since the black album however, Metallica lost their own vision. They became more consumed with Metallica as a corporation than as an outlet for their music. Their song quality began to slip on albums like Load and Reload had their moments, but as a whole, could have easily been smashed together into one CD.

Now, their latest effort, St. Anger, is a large collection of crap that is more suitable to torture Al-Quada prisoners than to listen to in my iPod. The reviews are horrible - look anywhere. I downloaded St Anger a week before it came out in stores - and by having this option, I saved myself $$$ by not having to buy this tripe, and then deleted the tracks after trying to stomach them for a few days.

The point of all this rambling is that bands need to get back into making QUALITY music, and not just putting out crap that they think their fans will buy, just because they've bought all the other albums.

Thats why the Apple Music Store is so great - singles for one hit wonders, or albums with filler, whole albums for the worthwhile albums, and 30-second previews for artists I've never heard of before.

[Squire]

Originally posted by iLilana
The only time I remember an album being played on the radio as a whole was back in the 70's and early 80's when FM stations banned disco and would plop on a Grateful Dead LP like Anthem Of The Sun or Led Zepplin LPs, Pink Floyd, MC5, Hawkwind, ELP, JethroTull. They would put the album on and have the second side on que at the other turntable so we could get a feel of the 'concept' album. Roger Waters was like that with his stuff as well even in the late 80's but the record companies fought it. Classical work, Chillout/ambient/newage work Like KLF's Chillout or the Art Of Noise Or Vangelis, Brian Eno (who can produce a mean single as well BTW)



I agree. A little off-topic but isn't it cool how the final track on disc #2 of "The Wall" is continued on track #1 of disc #1? Now THOSE guys could call that whole album one large creative effort.

Squire

[Blah64]

When Bill Gates' kids grow up, they will use Apple products.

------------------------------

Don't you know they already do?!?! At least the older one that's in school already. Out of concern for the kids' privacy I won't mention the name of the school, but my kid almost went there and I guarantee you they all use Macs!! That may change with the huge donations this year for new construction, but I have to say I laugh whenever I think about it.

Edit: whoops, a little off-topic, sorry. But there isn't really a way to on-topic respond to someone's signature....
------------------------------

Originally posted by Potus
Actually, I think Gates likes Macs. If Apple didn't exist he would have to invent it, since the hallmark of MicroSoft software is NIH (not invented here).

------------------------------

Hmmm. Apple has a lot of NIH as well. A LOT.

But I've heard some 2nd hand (not 3rd or 4th hand) stories of stuff Gates has said in recent years about people using Macs. It's not pretty. He truly wants to rule the computing world, and it may only be the anti-trust issues that have kept him from taking a strong stance and squishing Apple like they did Netscape.

okay, now we're really getting OT, but I still love the fact that Gates' kid uses Macs in school! :-)

[CmdrLaForge]

This argument is absolut nonsense, because the music store does exactly this for some CDs. You must purchase the complete album and it is not possible do download only tracks.

So it seems that the music store is configurable in exactly this way.

See MACWORLD July 2003.

Cheers
CMDRLAFORGE

[arlecchino]

To me, an artist who doesn't offer singles is using a flawed argument to support pure greed.

The "works" in question are the songs themselves, not the "collective work" called the album. Artists, however, get this notion into their head that the "album" is the work. Well, hate to burst your bubble, but that is a collection of individual works (songs), thus it is a "collective work". See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#103

So, they can offer an album as a "collective work" and I might buy it... IF I like all the songs (which, based upon the schlock that has been put out the last few years, has been very few albums... John Mayer's latest being a notable exception, and yeah, Linkin Park has an exception as well... but that is completely my opinion).

But, artist can take their pick... they can offer me individual works along with their collective work ("the album"). If I don't like almost every song on the album, I won't buy it. So they either get nothing or a buck or two depending upon the number of individual works that they've put out in a certain time period that I like. This artist notion that the album represents "a body of work" proves that it is pure greed. Only in the corrupt music business does an artist have a "body of work" where you can't select individual works. Tom Clancy doesn't require me to buy five of his novels if I only want one! A painter doesn't require me to buy 10 of his paintings if I only want one for the mantle... so this "body of work" argument is bunch of crap!

I'm OK with not having a license to the one song I like if I don't have to buy the album. Frankly, I don't see these artists offering me credit for the albums I bought pre-file sharing where I like only 2 of the songs.

-A

[NNO-Stephen]

is it still stealing if you are unable to purchase something? :D

[Tequila Grandma]

I think this is wonderful news. The less people listen to outstandingly ****ty bands like Red Hot Chili Peppers, Metallica, Green Day and Linkin Park, the better off we'll be. :D

[QuiteSure]

This makes no sense. Try to buy Don McLean's American Pie as a single on iTMS. You can't. You have to buy the whole album. How is Don McLean able to get away with something the RHCP's can't?

[Groovsonic]

Originally posted by QuiteSure
This makes no sense. Try to buy Don McLean's American Pie as a single on iTMS. You can't. You have to buy the whole album. How is Don McLean able to get away with something the RHCP's can't?

Because American Pie is longer than 7 min. The way it is set up, you can make people buy the whole album to get songs that are longer than 7min. If the Beatles were on there, You wouldn't have to buy Rubber Soul to get Taxman, but you would have to buy (if they set it up like that)the White Album to get Revoloution #9, because it is over 7 min long. If the RHCP mad a song longer than 7min, they could (although they wouldn't have to) specify that you could only get it by buying the whole album.

I do appreciate Meatloaf, becuase even though "I would do anything for love, but I won't do that" is 12 min long, it was still available as a 99cent download. cool.

[NNO-Stephen]

Originally posted by Tequila Grandma
I think this is wonderful news. The less people listen to outstandingly ****ty bands like Red Hot Chili Peppers, Metallica, Green Day and Linkin Park, the better off we'll be. :D

Green Day is really good live...

[Tequila Grandma]

Originally posted by NNO-Stephen
Green Day is really good live...
If they're still playing their own songs, then I highly doubt that :p

[Sabenth]

Plain and simple....

Music industry is a law all to itself look at what happend to Napster. It was shut down because it fed a demand that the Industry couldnt controll. In shutting it down the demand went though the roof for downloading music.. Bands like Metalica green day and such like feel they can take controll over what is pushed and isnt pushed. To say that one bands songs can be sold for 99cent and so called Metalica songs wont is uptoo the artists and the record lable do metalica have there own lable by now..... If so they decied on how things work.. Apple is offering a service if metalica and bands dont like it then good for apple not bending the rules...

[anubis]

Metallica loves blaming things like kazaa and napster on their slumping record sales in the last few years. Bands like this need to wake up and realize something: maybe your CD sales are down because your music SUCKS. The last few albums released by Metallica are terrible (including St. Anger... horrible album, glad I didn't buy it). Of course, it's much easier to blame everyone and everything BUT themselves. And now because of it, they are refusing to allow iTunes to sell their songs online individually. And there's a really simple reason why... duh, because they KNOW all of their songs suck, except for maybe a couple of songs. So instead of admitting they don't have any talent, they force consumers to buy their whole album of crap.

Bands like Good Charlotte and Three Doors Down, now those are some real musicians. Every song on their albums are kickass. Bands like RHCP and Metallica need to take note and stop scapegoating online music stores.

[Mercury]

It doesn't make sense, even greed-wise. More like having sticks up their you-know-whats. Seriously, if they think their work isn't good enough for people to want to buy en masse-in toto CDs, then why wouldn't they at least want to make some money from singles? Most people probably won't buy anything now.

No one is going to say, "Well, I wanted that song, I guess I'll just have to buy the whole CD."

[Abstract]

Haven't read the entire thread, but I thought I'd add my 3 cents anyway ('cuz 2 cents isn't enough :p ):

Topic: Some Bands Say No to iTunes

Then *******'em. They're like the music industry itself --- slow to catch up with modern times. They have been slow to catch up because an established business practice that has worked for soooo many years has little incentive to change the way we purchase/get music.
Before any large-scale change, there is always chaos. There is always a messy period where things are trashed, broken, stolen, etc... People break laws because it is a sign that our system doesn't work. The people/companies/groups that don't adapt are the ones who aren't around anymore once a new model is established. If Metallica doesn't like it, then people will continue to steal their music instead of buying it. They're dinosaurs.

[mattmack]

Originally posted by Squire
I agree. A little off-topic but isn't it cool how the final track on disc #2 of "The Wall" is continued on track #1 of disc #1? Now THOSE guys could call that whole album one large creative effort.

Squire I agree Pink Floyd was an awesomely creative force. off topic but oh well

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by anubis
Metallica loves blaming things like kazaa and napster on their slumping record sales in the last few years. Bands like this need to wake up and realize something: maybe your CD sales are down because your music SUCKS. The last few albums released by Metallica are terrible (including St. Anger... horrible album, glad I didn't buy it). Of course, it's much easier to blame everyone and everything BUT themselves. And now because of it, they are refusing to allow iTunes to sell their songs online individually. And there's a really simple reason why... duh, because they KNOW all of their songs suck, except for maybe a couple of songs. So instead of admitting they don't have any talent, they force consumers to buy their whole album of crap.

Bands like Good Charlotte and Three Doors Down, now those are some real musicians. Every song on their albums are kickass. Bands like RHCP and Metallica need to take note and stop scapegoating online music stores.

Good Charlotte? MTV's new favorite pop-punk band? Wow...

Anyway...

Last time I checked Metallica hasn't complained about slumping sales and has had no problem selling CDs or selling out shows. Napster? What? Are we still in the year 2000? Metallica and Kazaa? What? Metallica left all the P2P ********* behind 3 years ago and never looked back (why can't anyone else?). Metallica is using iTunes as a scapegoat for their fictional plight of poor CD sales? What? Where do you read that at? If yer gonna rag on something/somebody it helps to know what yer talking about. Making stuff up usually isn't the best way to present a persuasive argruement.


Lethal

[mattmack]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Good Charlotte? MTV's new favorite pop-punk band? Wow...

Anyway...

Last time I checked Metallica hasn't complained about slumping sales and has had no problem selling CDs or selling out shows. Napster? What? Are we still in the year 2000? Metallica and Kazaa? What? Metallica left all the P2P ********* behind 3 years ago and never looked back (why can't anyone else?). Metallica is using iTunes as a scapegoat for their fictional plight of poor CD sales? What? Where do you read that at? If yer gonna rag on something/somebody it helps to know what yer talking about. Making stuff up usually isn't the best way to present a persuasive argruement.


Lethal I remeber when Metallica could easily sell a million albums without any radio airplay and without videoes. This is not an arguement about whether or not Metallica has sold out or are even good musicians. This is an arguement about a band who wants to sell albums and is adimantly agaist the electronic medium in any form. And also has what seem to be very weak reasons to be against the iTunes store.

[bograt]

Originally posted by Macrumors
This Reuters article (http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=3029706) reports that certain bands won't agree to sell albums by the song.

The Red Hot Chili Peppers, Metallica, Green Day and Linkin Park are cited as bands unwilling to agree to Apple's iTunes Music Store terms which require individual song sales. The reason is said to be due to "creative" concerns (according to Mark Reiter with Q Prime Management Co):



The details of Apple's iTunes Music Store agreements were briefly posted (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/06/20030606081257.shtml) after Apple met with independent labels. Information from that meeting indicated that Apple had a single agreement for all involved and was not planning on negotiating individually.

Firstly: Will they still sell singles in the shops?

Secondly: Who cares? The reason I don't know the answer to the first question is because I wouldn't want to buy their music! When I heard on the financial news 'major bands' I waited till the list had finished and talked to the radio saying 'who are they? where are the major bands'. Seems to be that those bands have yet to bridge the Atlantic, either that or they have less fans than Bill Gates.

[PretendPCuser]

OK, whatever. This is representative of your body of work at a specific time, that's cool, but that's like saying that radio stations should play your whole album start to finish, cause otherwise, people are hearing your "body of work" out of context. This all or nothing attitude and "body of work" bs make me think, "well, you've got 10 songs on this album, and 7 of them suck, so at this particular time, i have to think that your band sucks 70% of the time, so why should i give you 100% of my money?"

Greed kills!!

[amnesiac1984]

Originally posted by bograt
Firstly: Will they still sell singles in the shops?

Secondly: Who cares? The reason I don't know the answer to the first question is because I wouldn't want to buy their music! When I heard on the financial news 'major bands' I waited till the list had finished and talked to the radio saying 'who are they? where are the major bands'. Seems to be that those bands have yet to bridge the Atlantic, either that or they have less fans than Bill Gates.

I agree with you and I don't like any of these bands but are you talking about the list of bands on this thread? If so then where have you been? These four bands, espeically metallica and RHCP are some of the biggest bands to come out of the USA in the last 20 years. Are you seriously saying you've not heard of them?, BTW I'm in the UK too.

If you were talking about a load of other bands then i take it back, but if that is the case then you could have been a bit more specific about what the hell you are talking about! :D :p ;)

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by mattmack
I remeber when Metallica could easily sell a million albums without any radio airplay and without videoes. This is not an arguement about whether or not Metallica has sold out or are even good musicians. This is an arguement about a band who wants to sell albums and is adimantly agaist the electronic medium in any form. And also has what seem to be very weak reasons to be against the iTunes store.

When you buy St. Anger you get a key so you can go to Metallica's website and down load dozens of previously unleased live trax. Also, a few days before St. Anger was released Metallica had a "scavanger hunt" on their website. They posted clues to other sites which hand complete St. Anger songs "hidden" on them.


Lethal

[mattmack]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
When you buy St. Anger you get a key so you can go to Metallica's website and down load dozens of previously unleased live trax. Also, a few days before St. Anger was released Metallica had a "scavanger hunt" on their website. They posted clues to other sites which hand complete St. Anger songs "hidden" on them.


Lethal
You are right I should have said they are against the medium in which they apperently don't make a lot of cash or get self promotion from. I don't have a problem if they don't want to use itunes because they feel they are not adequately compensated for it, but don't spout the BS that they don't want to allow individual song downloads instead of an album

[LethalWolfe]

Wow... that was an odd double post. :o


Lethal

[XForge]

Originally posted by crees!
It's not the artists fault or Apple's.

It's the corporate music world. They (corporate) are the ones that tell the radio stations what to play. They decide what people hear one song at a time. If anyone is to blame is the corporate music industry. Once again, trying to get their way. :mad:

I found it particularly funny when the RIAA people tried to intervene in Launchcast, an online music (listening only) service, to make them get rid of their "skip this song 'cuz I hate it" button. "You MUST listen to EVERY PIECE OF CRAP WE SEND YOU!!! MUST MUST MUST!!!!"

Heh. How about I'll go listen to whatever I've RIPped into my iTunes and y'all can go scratch?

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by mattmack
You are right I should have said they are against the medium in which they apperently don't make a lot of cash or get self promotion from. I don't have a problem if they don't want to use itunes because they feel they are not adequately compensated for it, but don't spout the BS that they don't want to allow individual song downloads instead of an album


I don't follow your first sentence. Can you elaborate for me please?


Lethal

[novicegeek]

"Those bands lost the money that I was willing to give them. There's no way that I would buy entire albums by them. But I would buy a few songs. If they don't want my money, fine."

"creative concerns" = greed"

Way too simplistic. While the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Metallica do not point a clear picture of what it is for most major label bands that haven't become zillionaires, the fact is that the conversion to a single based business makes it considerably more difficult for artists -- and bands in particular -- to make money.

Supposing you are a band whose heydey has past. You had acouple of big albums on the strength of one single on each of them. Your albums, if you're lucky, will sell 20,000-60,000 copies a year (between 250,000-600,000 bucks a year.) for several years. This is the fate of the ACDCs and Def Leppards and even Michael Jackson.

Sounds like a lot of money. More than many of us make. But not if you're a band and your business becomes a single based one over the internet.

What Apple is saying is that the business you're screwed without them and so you might as well sign up. They may be right.
But if you're a band, you might just be screwed with it too.

Suppose your band of 4 has three big hits that sell 20,000 copies each on the internet.This comes to $60,000. This btw, is almost unheard of, after a single drops off the charts. Figure that after the label takes their cut and apple takes theirs, you're left with 35 cents per copy. Now divide it by four people, and you've got about 9 cents a copy. Multiply it by 60,000. You've made a whopping $5,400 for the year.

Big difference it makes in your life to sign up with Apple, whose collection, btw, still kinda sucks. What's going on now is not a joke and it's not small stuff. It is not wrong that the major labels are out of touch with consumers or that their system has been terrible recently for creativity. But to write off the Chili Peppers for this is too easy. Even if they should bite the bullet and show some support for the service.

[XForge]

Originally posted by rDLr
LOL
Apple was pretty bold to call that system sound sosumi before. Now they probably have enough money to BUY Apple Records (or whomever owns the Beatles interest now.)

Not entirely sure who's holding the Beatles' catalog right now; for a little while Michael Jackson owned the whole thing. But I think I heard it reverted back to the creators after a while.

I'm sure Sir Paul and Ringo, and the estates of George and John still have a little legal clout. But I'm also thinking they're not very worried about this. OTOH notice you can't get any Beatles at iTMS.

[XForge]

Originally posted by mymemory
Show me a radio station that aired all the songs of every album!

If radio stations doesn't air a complete album why they are obligatting me to listen to their all their songs?

If radiostations can choose what songs they want to play to the entire city from any album I have the right to choose which song I want to listen too.

I agree with you completely, in fact one of my posts said the same thing - but radio stations don't choose songs. They play what the record company pays them to play. Period.

[XForge]

Originally posted by iLilana
Art should be the focus. A painter paints a picture and a gallery hangs the picture then sells it. The gallery gets a commision. 15-20% maximum for each item. Even if they took 30-40% it leaves well over half for the artist. A song is a painting be it crappy or not so that leaves the choice up to the buyer. I can however go to the library and look at these paintings in a book for free. I can even borrow the book to show friends this painting. I can even download the picture to my computer so long as I don't try to use it commercially. The library will even let me photocopy the page from the book.

I can't however download a single song from an artists album (from a pay site mind you)? This is absolutely ridiculous.

Difference of course being, when you view an image of a painting in a book, you're not looking at the original, just a reproduction of it. For all intents and purposes, a digital copy of a song is a exact duplicate of the one the artist is charging people to hear.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by novicegeek
"Those bands lost the money that I was willing to give them. There's no way that I would buy entire albums by them. But I would buy a few songs. If they don't want my money, fine."

"creative concerns" = greed"

Way too simplistic. While the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Metallica do not point a clear picture of what it is for most major label bands that haven't become zillionaires, the fact is that the conversion to a single based business makes it considerably more difficult for artists -- and bands in particular -- to make money.

Supposing you are a band whose heydey has past. You had acouple of big albums on the strength of one single on each of them. Your albums, if you're lucky, will sell 20,000-60,000 copies a year (between 250,000-600,000 bucks a year.) for several years. This is the fate of the ACDCs and Def Leppards and even Michael Jackson.

Sounds like a lot of money. More than many of us make. But not if you're a band and your business becomes a single based one over the internet.

What Apple is saying is that the business you're screwed without them and so you might as well sign up. They may be right.
But if you're a band, you might just be screwed with it too.

Suppose your band of 4 has three big hits that sell 20,000 copies each on the internet.This comes to $60,000. This btw, is almost unheard of, after a single drops off the charts. Figure that after the label takes their cut and apple takes theirs, you're left with 35 cents per copy. Now divide it by four people, and you've got about 9 cents a copy. Multiply it by 60,000. You've made a whopping $5,400 for the year.


Ah, but therein lies the flaw in your argument.

If there are 60,000 people willing to pay $15 for your CD, then you will likely sell far more than 60,000 singles. The additional singles come from two groups:

1) Those that actually like more than one of the songs on your CD (which comprise the majority of people willing to buy your CD ... if a person only likes one song on a back-catalogue item they are more likely to either wait until it comes out in a multi-artist collection or until it is released with the one or two other songs by the artist he likes as a "Greatest Hits" collection). These people will, quite logically, either buy multiple tracks off the album (the ones they like) or the whole album.

2) People who really only like one song off your album and thus are completely unwilling to part with $15 just for that one song, but would gladly pay $1 for it.

No, you will not make the same amount as from album sales if you really have one phenomenally good song and fourteen tracks of crap. But if you have any consistency whatsoever, then the per-song model works tremendously well (allows more people to buy when otherwise they would completely pass on your works).

As for preserving album integrity ... listen, you either make albums that sell well or you don't. If you make a cohesive album, people will buy the whole album. If you make a collection of individual songs, people will buy the individual songs they enjoy listening to. If you make one good song and ten tracks of filler, then, sorry, you get $1 only!

[mattmack]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
I don't follow your first sentence. Can you elaborate for me please?


Lethal I was just saying that they seem to be dead set against the electronic medium when it is not self promoting (such as their web site) or make them more cash (teasers for buying the album). I do not have a problem with their pursuit of P2P sharing of files because you do have the problem of piracy, but when they make a stand against the itunes store by saying they only want you to buy the album I believe they are doing it because they don't make as much of a profit on it

[mattmack]

Originally posted by XForge
Difference of course being, when you view an image of a painting in a book, you're not looking at the original, just a reproduction of it. For all intents and purposes, a digital copy of a song is a exact duplicate of the one the artist is charging people to hear. one that you have paid for though

[Docrjm]

The only musician who has taken his music to the nth degree as art has been Jean Michel Jarre. Music for supermarkets was auctioned to the highest bidder, after the sale the mastercopy was destroyed, there is only one copy. Using the art analogy we are all only purchasing prints and not originals. Perhaps if the Artists were to put the master tapes on sale then they could sell the entire album?:D
I am not so stupid as to believe this as a realistic reality. Those who choose not to make their product available, will reduce their target market and as a consequence their sales.:D

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by mattmack
I was just saying that they seem to be dead set against the electronic medium when it is not self promoting (such as their web site) or make them more cash (teasers for buying the album). I do not have a problem with their pursuit of P2P sharing of files because you do have the problem of piracy, but when they make a stand against the itunes store by saying they only want you to buy the album I believe they are doing it because they don't make as much of a profit on it


Now I'm just totally confused. You are saying Metallica is agianst the web as a medium for music distribution except when it either makes them money or is used as a promotional tool. But that is exactly what bands (and companies, and people) are using the web for. Making money and/or self-promotion which will hopefully lead to making money. Bands that are going w/iTMS are making money off it and they, especially smaller bands, are gainig exposure thru it. And, getting more general, almost every band has a website w/self-promoting extras on it (videos, pix, screen savers, songs/clips ect.,).

What stand has Metallica made against iTMS? Their management company just said they band doesn't want to be a part of it. It's not like they are bashing it or trying to destroy it or anything. They just don't want to join up.

If yer underlying point is that you think Metallica thinks they can making more money selling albums and not individual trax on-line so they chose to only sell albums then all I can say is you might be right. But by trying to add all this baggage that Metallica is anti-web or something is just inaccurate and, IMO, clouds your main point which is that you think Metallica has shunned iTMS because they believe they will make more money selling just albums and not individual trax.


Lethal

[Groovsonic]

Originally posted by XForge
Not entirely sure who's holding the Beatles' catalog right now; for a little while Michael Jackson owned the whole thing. But I think I heard it reverted back to the creators after a while.

I'm sure Sir Paul and Ringo, and the estates of George and John still have a little legal clout. But I'm also thinking they're not very worried about this. OTOH notice you can't get any Beatles at iTMS.

Well, Michael Jackson owns the rights to most of the songs, not the recordings. That is why you might hear a crappy cover of a Beatles song in a commercial, but you never hear the original. That is also why you have a ton of covers of beatles songs on iTMS, but not beatles recordings.

[applekid]

"quote:
Originally posted by mymemory
Show me a radio station that aired all the songs of every album!

If radio stations doesn't air a complete album why they are obligatting me to listen to their all their songs?

If radiostations can choose what songs they want to play to the entire city from any album I have the right to choose which song I want to listen too. "

Bands or radio stations don't choose the music to play on the radio. There's this committee that looks at an artists' CD and then they say, "Hmm... We like this one. It'll promote you. We want it on the radio." Nobody important has the right to choose which song is played on the station. Some random people do. This info coming from an article by a band's interview (don't remember who though).

[Nawlins]

The following is a list of bands I like. I would like someone to let me know how many of these bands are not on the iTunes Music Store. I do not currently own a Mac, but am planning to own one soon:

Guster
Catch 22
(hed) p.e.
Rolling Stones
The Doors
Led Zeppelin
Ozzy Osborne/Black Sabbath
Godsmack
Seether
Pink Floyd
Beatles
Nirvana
Alice in Chains
Rage Against the Machine
Foo Fighters
Nas
2pac
Bone Thugs n Harmony
Oasis
the Offspring
Pearl Jam
Sublime/Long Beach Dub All Stars
Sum 41
System of a Down
Weezer
The Who
Tom Petty

One other question - is it possible to rip songs from Cd's into the .AAC format? Thanks

[mattmack]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
What stand has Metallica made against iTMS? Their management company just said they band doesn't want to be a part of it. It's not like they are bashing it or trying to destroy it or anything. They just don't want to join up.

Lethal
They have taken a stand against it by saying that they will not participate. I agree that I might have had a little anti metalicca propaganda in there but what I am trying to say is that the stand they are taking
"If you download a single, you may ignore the other tracks on the album," he said. "When our artists record a body of work, it's what they deem to be representative of their careers at that time."
Is bull because you can require the album to be downloaded as a whole.
I believe that they do not like the liberal licensing terms that come with the itms agreement and thereby getting my "anti web" stance by Metallicca. It seems they don't like people making copies of there music whether they own it or not.

PS I am biased against metalicca I believe they have sold out and this might be influencing my opinion on the issue, but if they don't want to participate they just lose a broader customer base IMO

[Flowbee]

Originally posted by mattmack

PS I am biased against metalicca I believe they have sold out and this might be influencing my opinion on the issue, but if they don't want to participate they just lose a broader customer base IMO

Metallica are a bunch of greedy, middle-aged businessmen. They are so far out of touch with their fans, it's obscene. Dinosaurs of the rock world.

[Squire]

Originally posted by Nawlins
One other question - is it possible to rip songs from Cd's into the .AAC format? Thanks

If you're in the US, you can probably get most (all?) of that music on iTMS. I'd check, but I'm not on my Mac right now. And, yes, you can rip your CD's to AAC. I started ripping my small CD collection into mp3 format and decided to start it again after the new iTunes was released.

You should check out apple.com for more info on iTunes.

Squire

[mattmack]

Originally posted by Flowbee
Metallica are a bunch of greedy, middle-aged businessmen. They are so far out of touch with their fans, it's obscene. Dinosaurs of the rock world.
Thats another way of putting it: ;)

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by Flowbee
Metallica are a bunch of greedy, middle-aged businessmen. They are so far out of touch with their fans, it's obscene. Dinosaurs of the rock world.


Hey, Metallica can't be that greedy other wise they would join iTMS which, apparently, lets bands make bank compared to what they are pulling in on "old school" CD sales alone. ;)


Lethal

[Docrjm]

Stating that they only want to sell albums for creative reasons is complete and utter BS. In Aus HMV online sells cd singles from St. Anger. where does the holier than thou creative ****e emanate from??
See the attached link if you doubt,
http://www.hmv.com.au/v4/search/advanced_search.asp?sort=&view=&format=CD+Single&artist=metallica&title=&song=&Department=All&released_from=1930&released_to=2003&availability=All&price_less_than=500

[Docrjm]

See metallica these artists are also talking about creative ****e. Again on HMV aus you can buy singles , what is their prob with iTMS. Their creative heads are obviously so far up wherever that they can no longer smell the coffee.

http://www.hmv.com.au/v4/search/advanced_search.asp?sort=&view=&format=CD+Single&artist=red+hot+chilli+peppers&title=&song=&Department=All&released_from=1930&released_to=2003&availability=All&price_less_than=500

[eromitlab]

this article was the last straw for me... I'm only commenting on it now because of a rather heated discussion with a friend who still is a big fan of Craptallica (he's also a PC user, so don't hold it against him ;) ).

The whole representitive body of work tripe is complete horse-****e, since these same bands, and their respective management and record labels send out huge payola checks to make sure that one or two (rarely) songs from an album are on an hourly rotation in many station's playlists. The other fact has been echoed numerous times throughout the comments, in that a good deal of income from their record sales come from singles... which are probably the same songs that consumers are hearing on the radio.

The problems lies therein, that these bands and their "handlers" should be pushing for airplay of an entire album throughout a daily or weekly playlist, instead of one or two songs. If they want to cry about iTMS not selling entire albums... well, that's sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

As a classical musician, it makes me bitter that I spend more than three-quarters of my life perfecting and honing my talents, and will make in one lifetime what they might pick up from one night in some podunk arena. But, at least I'll die old, happy and secure... these people will probably never make it to old age, and will spend whatever they make before they realize what happened.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by eromitlab
this article was the last straw for me... I'm only commenting on it now because of a rather heated discussion with a friend who still is a big fan of Craptallica (he's also a PC user, so don't hold it against him ;) ).

The whole representitive body of work tripe is complete horse-****e, since these same bands, and their respective management and record labels send out huge payola checks to make sure that one or two (rarely) songs from an album are on an hourly rotation in many station's playlists. The other fact has been echoed numerous times throughout the comments, in that a good deal of income from their record sales come from singles... which are probably the same songs that consumers are hearing on the radio.

The problems lies therein, that these bands and their "handlers" should be pushing for airplay of an entire album throughout a daily or weekly playlist, instead of one or two songs. If they want to cry about iTMS not selling entire albums... well, that's sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

As a classical musician, it makes me bitter that I spend more than three-quarters of my life perfecting and honing my talents, and will make in one lifetime what they might pick up from one night in some podunk arena. But, at least I'll die old, happy and secure... these people will probably never make it to old age, and will spend whatever they make before they realize what happened.


Well, at least you aren't denying your bitterness. ;)


Lethal

[try again...]

Originally posted by Nawlins
The following is a list of bands I like. I would like someone to let me know how many of these bands are not on the iTunes Music Store. I do not currently own a Mac, but am planning to own one soon:
........
One other question - is it possible to rip songs from Cd's into the .AAC format? Thanks

Well, of the top of my head, here are the ones that I know are on iTunes:
Nirvana
Rage Against The Machine
Sum 41
System of A Down
Pearl Jam
(I 'm sure more are too.)
And you can rip to AAC


BTW-I swear that I've seen International Superhits! and Green Day's newer album on iMS at some time