PDA

View Full Version : Music Labels Wary of Apple?


MacBytes
May 4, 2004, 10:49 PM
Category: Apple Software
Link: Music majors wary of Apple\'s online dominance. (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20040504234949)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

J-Squire
May 4, 2004, 10:57 PM
This is the most backwards opinion I've ever heard!
The record companies are scared that Apple will succeed? What a load of rubbish. They NEED apple to succeed in order that they don't lose millions of dollars revenue from illegal downloads.

I would imagine the record companies have a large say in which artists are promoted. For example, I doubt Apple gets to choose which song the give away for free each week. I would imagine that is dictated by the record companies.

winmacguy
May 4, 2004, 11:48 PM
soooo its ok to be dominated by MS but not by Apple..... interesting way of thinking really :confused: :eek:

Edit:

Actually on second thoughts, all the other MP3 player providers on the market have all got a equal choice interms of promoting their music players it is just the customers who are voicing their opinions with their feet and wallets as to which music player they prefer and there for which music service they would eventually prefer to use. Apple just so happens to have designed and created the best portable device on the market and beaten its competitiors to the punch so now everybody else is seriously worried.

vollspacken
May 5, 2004, 05:24 AM
the music industry is so full of *****, it's unbelievable..!!! :mad:

vSpacken

dukemeiser
May 5, 2004, 05:48 AM
Ah the corruption of the recording industry. This may be why their were rumors about raising the price on songs. It would kill Apple's domination.

Stella
May 5, 2004, 06:33 AM
Labels obviously want online music stores to fail then... is it Apple's fault they are the company that puts out a decent music store?!!!!

Well, if record companies don't delivery what the customer wants, then piracy will only continue.

wordmunger
May 5, 2004, 07:16 AM
The labels are obviously colluding in Europe--they are getting together to control the music market. They've formed some sort of agreement with each other not to sign with Apple until they all agree to terms. This is, of course, illegal, monopolistic behavior.

Let's hope the E.U. can get its act together and sue the recording industry to force them to act competitively: e.g. sign the deal that's best for each individual company, not gang up together to drive prices up and competition out.

shamino
May 5, 2004, 10:03 AM
The record labels are upset because Apple is selling lots of songs and they're getting lots of profit.

If this isn't clear-cut proof that the RIAA is only interested in power, and couldn't care less about anything else, I don't know what is.

JeffTL
May 5, 2004, 10:20 AM
If more bigtime artists take the Jimmy Buffett route and go independent, the record companies as we know them today will simply not be able to survive.

This is, as far as I can see, a fact.

It therefore makes sense that they now are fearing the influence of the online music stores; it appears as if anyone whose sales are worth the megabytes can get on iTunes -- from any cooperating label, including of course independent labels.

If a successful and profitable musician's contract comes up and he or she is considering going independent, the record company has two options:
a) let them go, killing the goose that laid the golden egg
b) Offering a raise, which may or may not be persuasive, and costs money if it is.


The reason that the RIAA members fear online music distribution is very simple:
It makes it possible for independent music to be highly successful.

gwangung
May 5, 2004, 10:23 AM
If more bigtime artists take the Jimmy Buffett route and go independent, the record companies as we know them today will simply not be able to survive.

This is, as far as I can see, a fact.

It therefore makes sense that they now are fearing the influence of the online music stores; it appears as if anyone whose sales are worth the megabytes can get on iTunes -- from any cooperating label, including of course independent labels.

If a successful and profitable musician's contract comes up and he or she is considering going independent, the record company has two options:
a) let them go, killing the goose that laid the golden egg
b) Offering a raise, which may or may not be persuasive, and costs money if it is.


The reason that the RIAA members fear online music distribution is very simple:
It makes it possible for independent music to be highly successful.


Ding! DIng! Ding!

Somebody gets it! Or, more accurately, the option of online music makes it easier for big name acts to make more money and cut the labels out of the equation (because you won't get that clout without major help of the labels). And bigger name acts, I believe, is where the labels pin their hopes of generating revenue...

Stella
May 5, 2004, 01:05 PM
Apple do not make a lot of profit for iTunes... the profit they made was very small..
The record labels are upset because Apple is selling lots of songs and they're getting lots of profit.

If this isn't clear-cut proof that the RIAA is only interested in power, and couldn't care less about anything else, I don't know what is.

dombi
May 5, 2004, 02:59 PM
The EU should definitely look into this. It is starting to sound like some Microsoft business tactic. They are not trying to do what is best for internet music companies and the users. Their decision is biased, and only supports their own good.

Jerry Spoon
May 5, 2004, 03:00 PM
I think SHAMINO was referring to the labels making lots of profit, not Apple, versus what they would have made if people had simply illegally downloaded many of the songs.

Apple do not make a lot of profit for iTunes... the profit they made was very small..

Awimoway
May 5, 2004, 03:16 PM
I wish this story had led on MacRumors.com. The most salient point, to my mind, is that it's not Apple's fault foreign iTMS is taking so long. Apple does indeed tend to treat non-American users as second-class customers, but it's not always for lack of trying.

MacRumors
May 5, 2004, 03:17 PM
According to the Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/story.jsp?story=518205), licensing issues may not be the only thing holding back iTunes Europe.

The article claims that the five main record labels are become scared of Apple and it's success in the digital music arena. One source compares it to the rise of MTV:

"The big fear is that Apple will become like an online MTV - where the record labels gave away their content, in the form of videos, without getting control of it"

Freg3000
May 5, 2004, 03:21 PM
What? The record labels get over 50% of the money from the iTMS. They are actually getting paid....unlike music videos.

I hate these morons, they don't get it. The alternative to the iTMS is not some other more record label friendly service where people pay outrageous prices for huge restrictions......it is Kazaa and illegal filing sharing.

Their options are to take it or leave what Apple is offering them-and they best take it.

PlaceofDis
May 5, 2004, 03:22 PM
this is ridiculous i mean seriously this is just stupid, if they use iTunes then they can sell more records, isnt that what they want?? But instead they are dragging their feet because they dont want it to end up like MTV? i dont understand how they give away their stuff to iTunes

SiliconAddict
May 5, 2004, 03:22 PM
And yet watch what happens when MS comes into the mix. They will be all over them. What a load of crap.

appleface
May 5, 2004, 03:23 PM
According to the Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/story.jsp?story=518205), licensing issues may not be the only thing holding back iTunes Europe.

The article claims that the five main record labels are become scared of Apple and it's success in the digital music arena. One source compares it to the rise of MTV:

can anyone back this up with inside info from a record company?

bitfactory
May 5, 2004, 03:24 PM
further confirmation on the suckage of record labels.

musicpyrite
May 5, 2004, 03:24 PM
And yet watch what happens when MS comes into the mix. They will be all over them. What a load of crap.


Totally agree, just like billy boy wants to impose a 'tax' on email, some how M$ will profit from that.

It will be a cold day in hell before I go along with that!

croasmun
May 5, 2004, 03:25 PM
OK, not really, but isn't it a little freaky that dongmin just posted this in another forum:

I like the fact that Apple is adding new features to increase sales. The 3.3 million per week is a 172 mil a year pace--not bad. Things will only get better as more songs are added, more ipods are sold, and more people make iTMS their main media center. Could iTMS become the MTV of the digital music era?

pennymonger
May 5, 2004, 03:31 PM
Does iTunes "dictate which stars or records succeed or fail by deciding which to promote on its site," as the articles states? :confused:

deepkid
May 5, 2004, 03:31 PM
According to the Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/story.jsp?story=518205), licensing issues may not be the only thing holding back iTunes Europe.

The article claims that the five main record labels are become scared of Apple and it's success in the digital music arena. One source compares it to the rise of MTV:

I'm not so certain that this is the same. Back when MTV and the likes were showing videos, I don't believe that they were paying the record labels in order to do so. The labels and artists probably regarded the airplay free marketing.

By contrast, speculation is that the labels are receiving the majority of revenues generated by online download music services today.

It would be interesting to take a peek at the renewal agreement between iTMS and the major labels to see if some controls were put in place by the labels in an attempt to further their agenda. But what's even more interesting is that we have the likes of Steve Jobs who negotiated this renewal and the outcome might not be as lopsided as some suspect.

MacDawg
May 5, 2004, 03:34 PM
File sharing nets them zero $$ and they sue their potential consumers

ITMS brings in revenue and they are scared of it because of control (and in this case what control?)

The record labels don't have a digital solution, which is clearly what many consumers want... and yet they want to force them to buy the CDs which many will not

Will the artists eventually bypass the labels and go straight to the consumer digitally through an online distributor? Maybe that is their fear

synthetickittie
May 5, 2004, 03:39 PM
File sharing nets them zero $$ and they sue their potential consumers

ITMS brings in revenue and they are scared of it because of control (and in this case what control?)

The record labels don't have a digital solution, which is clearly what many consumers want... and yet they want to force them to buy the CDs which many will not

Will the artists eventually bypass the labels and go straight to the consumer digitally through an online distributor? Maybe that is their fear

they still would need money from their label to pay for promotion(just being in a store doesnt mean anyone in the world is gonna know who you are) and it still costs tons for studio time.

jrober
May 5, 2004, 03:49 PM
I have just read the indie' article and thought it made a lot of sense. Record companies have not been good at spotting trends and being nimble. Look at all those expensive "Stars" they've offloaded recently.

I think this is incredibly short sighted of them. If they are worried then they should organise their catalogue now and get all music sites to offer their songs. Do it first, do it before the competition and then the sales are yours and you are not limited by one link to the customer.

Now get back to finding decent bands (Like Franz Ferdinand) and singers and bringing them to the public. Spend your money on A&R not Sue Grabbit & Runne.

e-coli
May 5, 2004, 03:49 PM
They're finally realizing, soon, if Apple continues with their success, that artists won't need to have a major label behind them. They can release straight to the iTMS. The major labels are going down, and they see this.

Exciting for Apple and for artists. Bad for pork-barrel record companies. ;)

they still would need money from their label to pay for promotion(just being in a store doesnt mean anyone in the world is gonna know who you are) and it still costs tons for studio time.

PLENTY of artists have done extremely well without a major label. They paid for everything themselves, and did it grass roots. Dave Matthews and The White Stripes being two patent examples.

If your music is good, word gets around quickly.

And studio time isn't that expensive. Well, it is if you're taking a crappy band with little talent and making them sound highly polished doing things they could never do live. But then again, who would do such a thing. :rolleyes: ;)

rundevilrun
May 5, 2004, 03:50 PM
Does iTunes "dictate which stars or records succeed or fail by deciding which to promote on its site," as the articles states? :confused:

What could happen is the iMixes that users create may increase the popularity of certain groups not in the record companies marketing plans. In other words musicians could become popular based on "talent." God forbid that should happen! :D

davecuse
May 5, 2004, 03:58 PM
What could happen is the iMixes that users create may increase the popularity of certain groups not in the record companies marketing plans. In other words musicians could become popular based on "talent." God forbid that should happen! :D

Exactly, iTMS couldn't be more of a polar opposite of MTV! Honestly, MTV doesn't even play music anymore, all they do is air shows like "I Want a Celebrity Face". They try to push crap on teenagers who think it's cool. The new features in 4.5 totally blow this whole argument out of the water in my opinion.

Edit: Got the name of the show wrong

morkintosh
May 5, 2004, 03:59 PM
For example, I doubt Apple gets to choose which song the give away for free each week. I would imagine that is dictated by the record companies.

Think again ... keep in mind that there isn't just one record company that has content in iTunes. Like MTV (which was a very good analogy) once the content is licensed, Apple may do what they like with it (so long as it doesn't violate the distribution agreement). That Foo Fighters song was paid for long ago, if Apple wants to distribute it for free that is their loss, not Blockbuster Entertainment's

iriejedi
May 5, 2004, 04:04 PM
Well - IF I was a musician - (AND TRUST ME I'M NOT) - I'd post my song with iTunes and never use a record lable again (GREEDY ARROGANT PIGS). People want my album they down load and burn it.

iTunes is the first major step towards making independant music (and some of it is quit good) available to the masses.

Heck our KFOG (stream at KFOG.com) has in house acoustic performances and then in like 24 hours you can buy it on iTunes - NOW THAT is progress!
:p
AIRHEADS - one of the great films of our time!

Iriejedi :eek:

the music industry is so full of *****, it's unbelievable..!!! :mad:

vSpacken

PlaceofDis
May 5, 2004, 04:05 PM
i know the record companies are afraid that the artists that they want to push wont be pushed, but shouldnt they acknowledge that people are going to choose what they want to listen to anyways?

ebunton
May 5, 2004, 04:06 PM
Ding! DIng! Ding!

Somebody gets it! Or, more accurately, the option of online music makes it easier for big name acts to make more money and cut the labels out of the equation (because you won't get that clout without major help of the labels). And bigger name acts, I believe, is where the labels pin their hopes of generating revenue...

You are correct. This should point out to the big record labels that they need to change the way they've operated their businesses to keep in the game against this new low-cost channel for smaller independent artists. They certainly should not, however, create enemies out of online music stores such as iTunes.

Recording companies should definitely be wary of Apple: Not because Apple is posing a danger to them by undermining the well-established business models of the recording industry, but because Apple is a case study that is showing them day-after-day that the big labels must go back to basics and change the way their business works.

gemio17
May 5, 2004, 04:06 PM
Not to be a geek, but I guess it's too late for that....anyway, I wouldn't know about 80% of the music I am currently listening to if not for the iTMS. Most of it I've heard about or listened to according to what people who bought a song I bought bought -make sense? (that feature on the top right) or by going through the just added/new release sections every tues. I have discovered so many great indie and alternative bands this way and am more than happy to get away from the mainstream crap that's being forced upon me every which way. If not for iTunes I wouldn't be spending much $ on music at all- I'm sure my credit card could use the break, but since my first iPod (1st gen 5gb) I have been 100% more into music and what's going on and coming out. Isn't that a good thing? If they mess with the pricing or permissions too much it'll probably totally turn me off and I'll go back to taking my chances with p2p. Isn't that a situation that the record idiots want to avoid? Why are they such d&*k's?

animemaster
May 5, 2004, 04:06 PM
No wonder why the record industry is so far behind the times. They're scared. They need to open up their very little eyes, and realize that this is a do or die situation here. It's really coming down to it. I hate to break it to them, but this sueing, it's not going to help. The only real way of stopping them is to help the companies that are selling online, whether it's the ITMS, or others. It's all fun and games till your caught in the act. You know what they say, what goes around, comes around.
And, compared to the amount of songs that Apple is selling, it's extremely impressive. I'd like to see numbers of how many albums are being sold before the ITMS, and how many are now being sold via ITMS. What is also impressive, is that even though the itms has 700,000 songs, there are well over 1 billion songs available to downloaders who choose to do things the illegal way. People are affraid of the unknown. You're only as bold as your first step. Apparently, the music industry crawls.

Dippo
May 5, 2004, 04:11 PM
I say just let the Record Labels die!

They can kick and scream all they want as they are dragged down into the abyss.

gwangung
May 5, 2004, 04:13 PM
You are correct. This should point out to the big record labels that they need to change the way they've operated their businesses to keep in the game against this new low-cost channel for smaller independent artists. They certainly should not, however, create enemies out of online music stores such as iTunes.

Recording companies should definitely be wary of Apple: Not because Apple is posing a danger to them by undermining the well-established business models of the recording industry, but because Apple is a case study that is showing them day-after-day that the big labels must go back to basics and change the way their business works.

You know something REALLY stupid? What would stop a big name act from negotiating their next contract so that all online rights revert to them? Given the success of itMS, that is something that would certainly come up...andthey could then turn around and deal with Apple to sell their music online. AND THIS COULD HAPPEN WHETHER OR NOT THE LABELS TRY TO SHUT DOWN THE iTMS.

crees!
May 5, 2004, 04:17 PM
Simply stated: These record labels are just the biggest babies ever on Earth.

iMeowbot
May 5, 2004, 04:21 PM
The EU should definitely look into this.

Funny you should mention that...

EU calls royalties groups a cartel (http://www.iht.com/articles/518181.html)
The European Commission on Monday accused music-royalty groups in 16 countries of behaving like a cartel and effectively carving up the Internet music market along national boundaries, thereby making it difficult for online music services to do business in Europe.

hulugu
May 5, 2004, 04:24 PM
Does iTunes "dictate which stars or records succeed or fail by deciding which to promote on its site," as the articles states? :confused:

I think they're bitching about the front page to the store, where certain new releases get credence over others since they show only the first three, as does the staff favorites.

I always thought that MTV was good for the music business and helped usher in a whole new way of promoting stars that became mostly MTV's business rather than the direct machinations of the record label. I don't understand record companies at all.

wordmunger
May 5, 2004, 04:26 PM
Funny you should mention that...

EU calls royalties groups a cartel (http://www.iht.com/articles/518181.html)

Yes, this is *exactly* the point. This has been discussed previously (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70351) on Macrumors. It's collusion, it's illegal, and it's part of why Apple couldn't open the iTMS in one European country at a time, even if it wanted to. I suspect the sandbagging in Europe also has a lot to do with why we don't see an Aussie store, a Canada store, etc., etc.

deepkid
May 5, 2004, 04:27 PM
they still would need money from their label to pay for promotion(just being in a store doesnt mean anyone in the world is gonna know who you are) and it still costs tons for studio time.

Not anymore, considering the way that the majority of pop acts record their material these days. Perhaps 15 years ago it was best to record in a commercial studio, but with all of the technological advances making professional home recording possible and affordable, it is no longer a requirement to log long hours in a third party studio.

I recorded and mastered 3 albums and a truckload of singles in my own studio and the quality suits a commercial release.

With that being said, I truly hope tha we'll see more artists recording in their own studios and finding alternative and liberal ways to bring it directly to the consumer.

minstryoffunk
May 5, 2004, 04:30 PM
PLENTY of artists have done extremely well without a major label. They paid for everything themselves, and did it grass roots. Dave Matthews and The White Stripes being two patent examples.

If your music is good, word gets around quickly.

And studio time isn't that expensive. Well, it is if you're taking a crappy band with little talent and making them sound highly polished doing things they could never do live. But then again, who would do such a thing. :rolleyes: ;)

Dave Matthews' debut was in '92 or '94 on RCA. RCA is not an indie label. Established artists can do this (Morrissey, Prince, DMB). However, emerging acts can't. I'm sure everyone has seen the Behind the Music on TLC. They were platinum sellers, but were bankrupt. Granted, I'm not a fan, but thats how major acts get started. They eventually have to pay for everything. The White Stripes were around for a number of years on Sympathy For the Record Industry before they broke out.

It would be nice to see direct-to-iTMS success stories, but they're a long way off.

This is just another example of the major label system being a corrupt industry that feels threatened and doesn't know what to do about it.

agentmouthwash
May 5, 2004, 04:34 PM
record labels should shut the ******* up and be happy that people like me aren't downloading illegal music anymore.

itunes is the best thing that happened to music since the CD.

Wonder Boy
May 5, 2004, 04:37 PM
hahahahahahahaha bunch of idiots.

reborn77
May 5, 2004, 04:49 PM
I can see it now... iTMS Awards! ;)

I just hope the record companies can do nothing to stop iTMS and the other online music stores. :mad:

Power to the people! :D

robotrenegade
May 5, 2004, 04:49 PM
This is the most backwards opinion I've ever heard!
The record companies are scared that Apple will succeed? What a load of rubbish. They NEED apple to succeed in order that they don't lose millions of dollars revenue from illegal downloads.

I would imagine the record companies have a large say in which artists are promoted. For example, I doubt Apple gets to choose which song the give away for free each week. I would imagine that is dictated by the record companies.

What you're saying is "rubbish". I own a record label and its hard to sell something. If 10 bands are pushed, and itunes is the only way to hear about bands then you have to like it and buy it because it looks to others as the only new **** out. And this doesn't happen to everyone but the truth 90 of the ppl that bought the new 50 is because of MTVs push. If a big label put's out a new crappy one hit wonder band or even another 50 cent CD, if apple doesn't like the cd then they will wont do any ads on the itunes store for it. Stars are made by the PRESS!!! and nothing else. I don't care how big or small you are.

arqsagi
May 5, 2004, 04:50 PM
Think about it iTunes or all of the download music store are just a small part of the music business, I dont think the labels are going to loose money by making their albums available for online shopping instead of steeling, but in a long future things can change.

I Think looking somewere else that apple choose wich artist to feature on their pages, on staff pick or the big banners on top but thing some old and new features are more important like most downloaded song and album, imixes, "customer who buy this also buy....".

The record companies must thing better when doing a new album, not to choose 2 hits and some other songs to fill an album, and they should promote iTMS also, is money for they and their artist, so how about to mention "new record now available on CD and iTunes Music Store (itunes.com)" this way they will promote themselves.

Macmaniac
May 5, 2004, 05:07 PM
Remember when Steve Jobs cited that quote about how the Music Industry is full of gangsters and what not. Can't remember the exact quote, but Apple seems to running into that part now.

mvc
May 5, 2004, 05:08 PM
The trouble with being a record "label" is implicit in the name, You have no business if there is no physical object to stick the label on. :cool:

BornAgainMac
May 5, 2004, 05:08 PM
Well - IF I was a musician - (AND TRUST ME I'M NOT) - I'd post my song with iTunes and never use a record lable again (GREEDY ARROGANT PIGS). People want my album they down load and burn it.

iTunes is the first major step towards making independant music (and some of it is quit good) available to the masses.

Heck our KFOG (stream at KFOG.com) has in house acoustic performances and then in like 24 hours you can buy it on iTunes - NOW THAT is progress!
:p
AIRHEADS - one of the great films of our time!

Iriejedi :eek:

A agree with that. It would be nice if greedy record labels were eliminated. It would be interesting if a future Garageband version allowed you to sell your music on a future iTunes version. This would test the waters for the main stream artists to sell their music on iTunes. It will eventually happen 5 or 10 years from now.

XForge
May 5, 2004, 05:10 PM
Heaven forfend the public should have access to the music produced by musical artists.

Sailfish
May 5, 2004, 05:15 PM
That's ok, while the labels are dragging their *ss worried about Apple taking over Europe, Europeans are downloading from that 6.8Ę a MB, any bitrate any format, from that Russian site.

The RIAA and Microsoft are two evil peas in the same pod. The harder they grip the more slips through their fingers.

pkradd
May 5, 2004, 05:26 PM
The author, Mr. Charles Arthur doesn't even offer any substantiation or names of those "labels" who are afraid of licensing their songs to iTMS. He's full of baloney. Bad reporting, which seems to be everywhere on the internet.

Also labels do not license songs. They license recordings (of songs). Duh. (Songs are licensed to labels/artists to record by the copyright holders of the music).

Also, in response to Sailfish. The RIAA does not license songs and does not determine what record labels record, what artists labels sign or what Apple or any other download website sells. The RIAA is an organization put together by the various labels to make sure that labels and artists get paid for their work. They try to stop illegal copying of songs and stop those people who thumb their noses at intellectual property rights of others. M$ also has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. Grow up or better yet educate yourself on the facts.

Porchland
May 5, 2004, 05:30 PM
At first glance, I thought the news was just a negotiating tactic to get a more favorable deal with Apple. But after reading a lot of these posts and thinking about what the record labels actually DO as a core business, the record labels are in deep doo doo.

First, take the example of an upstart band. I'll use Lucero (a great indie group from Memphis) as a perfect example. Lucero starts on a small regional label called Madjack Records for their first two CDs then switches to the somewhat larger Tiger Style.

The band tours nonstop, they have a great web site (lucerofamily.net), and all three of their albums are on iTMS. If the band continues to grow its fan base and wants to continue maintaining creative control of their music, does it hurt them to stay with a mid-major label? No.

So you could take from this example that iTMS is liberating smaller bands and smaller labels from needing the big five.

Second, the major labels are going to get hit from the top. Wait until Radiohead or U2 or Wilco or whoever actually signs a record deal with APPLE. Apple owns the rights to market and distribute the next "album." Apple and the band can broker ancillary rights deals with Rhapsody or whoever else they want to be able to sell the tracks.

So if iTMS smacks the labels from the bottom with the smaller bands and from the top with the bigger bands, who needs the big five record labels? Um, you know.

Once the labels have become further devalued and Apple has built a critical mass of its own exclusive content, Apple can go out and buy one of the big five on the cheap to lock itself in as a major talent draw.

Then a movie studio to provide content for what will then be known as the iMedia Store. Then, of course, world domination.

iMeowbot
May 5, 2004, 05:38 PM
Also labels do not license songs. They license recordings (of songs). Duh. (Songs are licensed to labels/artists to record by the copyright holders of the music).

The distinction really doesn't matter as far as making the recordings people want available. No one wants to pay for their favorite songs as performed by a wedding band. Given contract terms, performers aren't free to simply re-record the same stuff for a different company, so labels do have absolute control in real life.

Brother Michael
May 5, 2004, 05:39 PM
I feel that biggest point here is that the RIAA and other Major Labels are afraid of Apple as a whole.

It is now possible purchase the equipment needed to make a studio quality album in your basement for the cost of one session in a studio (maybe more maybe less but not by much though). With the fact that Apple now includes the software to make this possible for a relatively cheap cost (Garageband being the easiest as it is included in iLife), has them terrifiied out of their minds.

The Revolution has come. It started years ago when Napster was luanched. The public now knows that they can get their name out there. I have not started listening to independent artists...yet. I plan on though this summer catching up in that market to support their (and soon my) struggle to produce albums without a label.

The record industry is losing control. They know that, you know that, I know that. Soon their won't be any. The more they tighten their grip the more people will resist them.

Always remember their are other ways of screwing the music industry besides downloading music online. There is always the option of borrowing a CD from a friend, and ripping it, copying it, whatever.

The end has come for them. It is still a long road we have to travel on and the fight has only just begun, but it has come...they will pay.

Mike

fatfish
May 5, 2004, 06:04 PM
There have been anumber of posts suggesting that Apple cut out the labels and deal directly with the artist. This is not going to happen, Apple have signed a deal with Apple Corp (Beatles label) not to do this.

Also whilst I agree the reported fear of Apple by the major labels appears moronic, I firstly have to ask myself if it is true. There is very little, if any, supportive evidence that this report is fact.

Finally, maybe, just maybe, the hold up is not based on the labels shortsightedness in realising where Apple are going, instead maybe they realise exactly where Apple are going with iTMS and can see quite clearly that iTMS is the future. And maybe having realised this, they are taking their time to produce a deal that will last long into the future.

JonGraves
May 5, 2004, 06:08 PM
While I hate the fact that an art form I love is under the control of such a bunch of a$$ holes, I can also understand why they are in panic mode. The Major's business plan has been to use revenue from established artists to subsidise their R&D of new artists. If established acts start to leave for online services this whole house of cards comes down. Time for a new business plan!

MS will be treated differently than Apple in this space because their DRM will be set up to benefit the labels and not the consumer. Apple's FairPlay is (IMHO) a pretty good compromise between protecting the copyright holder and giving the consumer some degree of freedom.

Jon

Stridder44
May 5, 2004, 06:53 PM
Yeeeah....maybe if the idiots in the RIAA used all those millions of $$ they're sueing people with took that money and put it to better use, they might start making profits again, and then they wouldn't be loosing so much money!

It's so lame, they complain about loosing millions all the time, but they're spending millions by sueing hundreds of people like it's going to solve a problem or something! *sigh*

JonYo
May 5, 2004, 06:54 PM
It is now possible purchase the equipment needed to make a studio quality album in your basement for the cost of one session in a studio (maybe more maybe less but not by much though). With the fact that Apple now includes the software to make this possible for a relatively cheap cost (Garageband being the easiest as it is included in iLife), has them terrifiied out of their minds.


While it's true that the cost for high quality home recording has come way down in the last few years with the advent of computer based digital recording, it sitll costs quite a bit of money to record a really exception album. Extremely high quality microphones and preamps can't be replaced, and can be very expensive. Also, no matter how much gear you have, have a space to record in that has proper acoustics is absolutely necessary when recording anything with with a microphone. A lot of artists who deal in primarily electornic intrumentation can get really professions results with a computer, but as soon as a microphone is invovled, and it almost always is since vocals feature prominently in most genres of music, the quality of gear and acoustic space are going to influence the end prduct very directly. Another thing people forget is the behind the scenes talent. Part of what makes big studios cost big money is the talent and (probably even more importantly) experience of the engineers doing the recording and mixing, and later, mastering.

Garageband? A fun toy. Nothing wrong with it, but saying that people are going to be cutting professional sounding albums with it is like saying professional painters are ok with doing paint by nubmers. Big name stuff like Logic Pro is used in profession recording studios as well as in home studios (I have it, it goes for about $1000 currently), but like I said, you still need high quality I/O (mics, preamps, acoustic environment) and engineering talent to make really great sounding stuff.

Another thing that takes tons of money is big time promotion. While it's possible for a less well known artist to gain popularity and visibility through really hardcore touring and such, you simply CAN'T be a world wide star without a huge amount of money behind you.

In the current business model, that money comes from the big labels that we all hate so much for quietly telling us what to like and not like all these years. It's obvious that the distribution and manufacturing costs could be brought down to almost nothing if online music content sales starts overshadowing physical product sales (CDs), but while the cost of CREATING the content is coming down as well through new high end low cost home studio grear, it's at nowhere near the level of the change in cost of the distribution/manufacturing side. And promotion costs haven't changed at all, assuming you keep promoting the same way. (That's a separate discussion!)

I'm not saying any of this to defned record labels or try to justify their existence more or anything like that. I jsut want people to be clear that the reduced cost of manufacturing and distribution that online music sales brings to the table is not necessarily mirrored by reduced costs for content CREATION, promotion, etc. Those areas of the music industry are changing as well, but it's a separate track from sales.

dukemeiser
May 5, 2004, 07:45 PM
I guess it doesn't hurt my feelings if European have to get their music form p2p networks. If that's what the labels want, that's what they get.

Thor74
May 5, 2004, 07:48 PM
Until a few of these "sources" are a bit more clear. This rumor has no backbone. For all we know some mac faithful guys at pub in the UK talked about what could be holding up Apple in Europe adn those are the "sources". Not worried yet... :cool:

singletrack
May 5, 2004, 07:59 PM
The author, Mr. Charles Arthur doesn't even offer any substantiation or names of those "labels" who are afraid of licensing their songs to iTMS. He's full of baloney. Bad reporting, which seems to be everywhere on the internet.

To quote the article...

"The five main record labels..."

My emphasis on 'the'. I presume he means the top five. It's also fairly common to not quote off the record sources in journalism. The Independent is a fairly well respected print broadsheet btw in the UK, not just some tech blogging website.


Also, in response to Sailfish. The RIAA does not license songs and does not determine what record labels record, what artists labels sign or what Apple or any other download website sells. The RIAA is an organization put together by the various labels to make sure that labels and artists get paid for their work. They try to stop illegal copying of songs and stop those people who thumb their noses at intellectual property rights of others. M$ also has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. Grow up or better yet educate yourself on the facts.

Although I'd bet on some collusion between the European labels and their American counterparts, the RIAA has nothing to do with the European recording industry and it's artists. It's even less relevant than you cite.

iLilana
May 5, 2004, 08:55 PM
MTV was invented as a launching point for artists. A way for them to be seen and used for exposure to (in a way) advertise the bands product. Now this industry is totally backward. The artist/label (mostly the label) is now getting paid to advertise their own product on radio, television. If the radio stations were smart... there would be a complete commercial revolution. Payola should be the way things work.. well thats too far. At least the stations should NOT have to pay for playing music. That way the artist is responsible for advertising their own product.
Blood sucking bastards!

~Shard~
May 5, 2004, 09:50 PM
Hmm, so the record companies DON'T want Apple to succeed - therefore, since they don't want legal downloads to be available to willing, paying customers, they must be fine with everyone just using P2P networks to illegally download them for free. Kay, fine then, f#$% 'em... :cool:

ClimbingTheLog
May 5, 2004, 09:57 PM
There have been anumber of posts suggesting that Apple cut out the labels and deal directly with the artist. This is not going to happen, Apple have signed a deal with Apple Corp (Beatles label) not to do this.

We're talking about Steve Jobs as the music mogul. If the play turns out right and people prefer to download music and CD stores go away and the RIAA becomes obsolete and there's a whole new business model around music -

Apple gets all the profit in the industry - keeping the full $0.99 minus what it gives to the artist (I'm guessing they'll go halvsies). The artists would absolutely love to get $5 per album.

At that point, Apple can buy Apple Corp for a massive premium with a month's profits and be done with this silly agreement.

iLilana
May 5, 2004, 09:59 PM
While it's true that the cost for high quality home recording has come way down in the last few years with the advent of computer based digital recording, it sitll costs quite a bit of money to record a really exception album. Extremely high quality microphones and preamps can't be replaced, and can be very expensive. Also, no matter how much gear you have, have a space to record in that has proper acoustics is absolutely necessary when recording anything with with a microphone. A lot of artists who deal in primarily electornic intrumentation can get really professions results with a computer, but as soon as a microphone is invovled, and it almost always is since vocals feature prominently in most genres of music, the quality of gear and acoustic space are going to influence the end prduct very directly. Another thing people forget is the behind the scenes talent. Part of what makes big studios cost big money is the talent and (probably even more importantly) experience of the engineers doing the recording and mixing, and later, mastering.

Garageband? A fun toy. Nothing wrong with it, but saying that people are going to be cutting professional sounding albums with it is like saying professional painters are ok with doing paint by nubmers. Big name stuff like Logic Pro is used in profession recording studios as well as in home studios (I have it, it goes for about $1000 currently), but like I said, you still need high quality I/O (mics, preamps, acoustic environment) and engineering talent to make really great sounding stuff.

Another thing that takes tons of money is big time promotion. While it's possible for a less well known artist to gain popularity and visibility through really hardcore touring and such, you simply CAN'T be a world wide star without a huge amount of money behind you.

In the current business model, that money comes from the big labels that we all hate so much for quietly telling us what to like and not like all these years. It's obvious that the distribution and manufacturing costs could be brought down to almost nothing if online music content sales starts overshadowing physical product sales (CDs), but while the cost of CREATING the content is coming down as well through new high end low cost home studio grear, it's at nowhere near the level of the change in cost of the distribution/manufacturing side. And promotion costs haven't changed at all, assuming you keep promoting the same way. (That's a separate discussion!)

I'm not saying any of this to defned record labels or try to justify their existence more or anything like that. I jsut want people to be clear that the reduced cost of manufacturing and distribution that online music sales brings to the table is not necessarily mirrored by reduced costs for content CREATION, promotion, etc. Those areas of the music industry are changing as well, but it's a separate track from sales.


overproduction is an industry hazard. creating monsters like britany spears and micheal bolton or even clay atkin. I'm tired of being programmed to think "perfect sound = perfect recording". Sometimes perfect can be a Robert Johnson record. Thank goodness for technology which is creating a new industry business model. Purely out of necessity. Then maybe the big 5 will finally not be force feeding me crap. My music may be bad and poorly produced... but at least its got what I want. Complete control.

There are no rules anymore.


long live lo-fi

Borg3of5
May 5, 2004, 10:02 PM
This is just confirmation that record companies want to gouge people for money, and really do not care about artists. Since Apple is having such a great response to 99 cents a song, this must mean that companies are afraid that the MP3 market is really lucrative. What would be great is to see, is to take the middleman out of the equation, and have artists work directly with content providers, i.e. iTMS.

Can you see the Ozzy Osborne in a commercial? :eek:
Or Cher? :p
Or Madonna? :)

~Shard~
May 5, 2004, 10:18 PM
What would be great is to see, is to take the middleman out of the equation, and have artists work directly with content providers, i.e. iTMS.

Can you see the Ozzy Osborne in a commercial? :eek:
Or Cher? :p
Or Madonna? :)

Perhaps, but in the real world that will never happen I hope you realize.

iLilana
May 5, 2004, 10:24 PM
Perhaps, but in the real world that will never happen I hope you realize.

not with that attitude.

joelc
May 5, 2004, 11:20 PM
...but not everyone has that kind of name recognition. There is absolutely no way for an artist to get on the radio if they do not have a deal with a major label. New artists need promotion. The radio may be terrible, but it's popular. You sell albums (and the hit) by getting a hit on the top 40 stations. There's an incredible series of pieces at salon.com about media consolidation (esp. Clear Channel) and the record industry. Check that out sometime.

I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if someone brought this up...


If more bigtime artists take the Jimmy Buffett route and go independent, the record companies as we know them today will simply not be able to survive.

This is, as far as I can see, a fact.

It therefore makes sense that they now are fearing the influence of the online music stores; it appears as if anyone whose sales are worth the megabytes can get on iTunes -- from any cooperating label, including of course independent labels.

If a successful and profitable musician's contract comes up and he or she is considering going independent, the record company has two options:
a) let them go, killing the goose that laid the golden egg
b) Offering a raise, which may or may not be persuasive, and costs money if it is.


The reason that the RIAA members fear online music distribution is very simple:
It makes it possible for independent music to be highly successful.

coolsoldier
May 5, 2004, 11:24 PM
Small Note: To all of the people saying the RIAA is afraid of iTMS -- The RIAA is an American organization (Hence the last "A"). The European labels are the ones mentioned in the story -- I'm pretty sure they have a separate trade group.

Record labels are like investment groups -- they provide the capital to get an artist off the ground. With a single outlet for music sales, making music available is an all-or-nothing thing. Apple doesn't list releases except through labels, so the record labels shouldn't be concerned with losing sales to artists who distribute their own recordings, but I think they're justified in being afraid of being overtaken by smaller/upstart labels. Because once a song is in the iTMS, with music videos, staff favorites, iMixes, also-bought, and so on, there's no real advantage to being with a major label vs. being with a minor one.

doogle
May 5, 2004, 11:24 PM
Apple: spin off iTunes as a separate entity that is a music label as well - avoid perhaps the Apple Music lawsuit. Sign up artists directly, cut out the recording industry altogether and start publishing albums/music/videos that are made for the mediums of net and iPod.
If they are fearful of you controlling the market then do like M$ and do it.

MikeBike
May 5, 2004, 11:26 PM
This is the most backwards opinion I've ever heard!
The record companies are scared that Apple will succeed? What a load of rubbish. They NEED apple to succeed in order that they don't lose millions of dollars revenue from illegal downloads.

I would imagine the record companies have a large say in which artists are promoted. For example, I doubt Apple gets to choose which song the give away for free each week. I would imagine that is dictated by the record companies.

Completely agree.
Bad misinformed journalistic SPECULATION.
( Which we here are all experts at! )
The records companies are AFRAID to make money by selling music in a Protected Format.

The record companies LOVE MTV.
Anything to sell music works for them.

The only thing I can add is ITUNES is a WAKE UP call to these execs.
90-90% percent of the songs downloaded are NOT the POP music genre
they care about, so ITUNES is hardly MTV.
But, it points out that what the labels are pushing IS NOT what we are BUYING!

doogle
May 5, 2004, 11:40 PM
Apple: spin off iTunes as a separate entity that is a music label as well - avoid perhaps the Apple Music lawsuit. Sign up artists directly, cut out the recording industry altogether and start publishing albums/music/videos that are made for the mediums of net and iPod.
If they are fearful of you controlling the market then do like M$ and do it.

yup they are talking about it (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2004/tc2004055_8689_tc056.htm) and some joker laughed at me for suggesting it a few months back. Be careful it might just happen.
iPod.com/iTunes.com here we come?

~Shard~
May 6, 2004, 12:00 AM
not with that attitude.

Hey, I'm all for it - I'm just trying to be a little realistic. The way the music industry is right now, how blind and antiquated they are, and with all the other factors at play, I just don't see it happening. Trust me, I'd love it if it would though!

hchaput
May 6, 2004, 12:19 AM
The article referenced is worthless. No named sources. Only a reference to "industry insiders," which could be the girl behind the register at Tower for all we know, and "a source familiar with the issues," which could be anybody who listens to music.

My question: Are the "big five" in Europe the same "big five" in the US? If so, why are they worried about iTunes Europe and not iTunes USA? (If not, there's no story.)

There's been a lot of FUD surrounding iTunes, and expect more as its success continues. The story is crap. It's hardly a rumor. I'm surprised it made it onto the front page of this site.

SeaFox
May 6, 2004, 01:49 AM
Totally agree, just like billy boy wants to impose a 'tax' on email, some how M$ will profit from that.


I might be crazy but I think you're right.

Microsoft might profit from an email tax since they own Hotmail one of the largest providers of web-based email. :rolleyes:

nsb3000
May 6, 2004, 02:02 AM
Does iTunes "dictate which stars or records succeed or fail by deciding which to promote on its site," as the articles states? :confused:

The point is, they could. I am sure the decisions that Apple makes about which albums to put on the front page make a tremendous difference in terms of which songs sell well and which ones don't. As the ITMS become more dominant, these decisions could start to have a impact on what songs are popular in general, and that is the kind of the influence the record industry is (apparently) cautious about delegating to apple, or anyone else that matter. They would rather there by multiple competing distributors.

Matthť
May 6, 2004, 03:45 AM
they are scared as hell that eventually the apple-loving musicians (which artists doesn't create his music on a mac?) will be free to sell their songs through iTunes WITHOUT being signed to a major
the whole purpose of the existence of majors - distribution - is very much in question
just look at what smaller labels are doing -> http://www.bleep.com
bleep refused the itunes store because of quality issues and royalties
on bleep, artists get 50% after costs of each song sold
personally, i think it's a matter of time before all music is sold this way and majors will be kaput
let's hope so

NOV
May 6, 2004, 04:20 AM
There have been anumber of posts suggesting that Apple cut out the labels and deal directly with the artist. This is not going to happen, Apple have signed a deal with Apple Corp (Beatles label) not to do this.


They could probably overcome this by creating a 'new' company called iTunes, blurring the link with Apple.

Analog Kid
May 6, 2004, 04:21 AM
overproduction is an industry hazard. creating monsters like britany spears and micheal bolton or even clay atkin. I'm tired of being programmed to think "perfect sound = perfect recording". Sometimes perfect can be a Robert Johnson record. Thank goodness for technology which is creating a new industry business model. Purely out of necessity. Then maybe the big 5 will finally not be force feeding me crap. My music may be bad and poorly produced... but at least its got what I want. Complete control.

There are no rules anymore.


long live lo-fi
Amen.

I'd hate it if mediocre artists had to work for a living just because they didn't have big money behind them and putting them on Big Mac giveaways... :rolleyes:

Analog Kid
May 6, 2004, 04:24 AM
I just can't get Ice Age out of my head... I read stuff like this and all I can think of is that nervous little squirrel trying to protect his nut.

Sabenth
May 6, 2004, 04:27 AM
Let it be known now that the recording industry is like a bank..... What you put in they double there income off you. As an artist your not going to get anywear near the cash flow you dream of ..


Hell if you want to make money setup your own website and broadcast and let the world know that your out there it dont cost anything for word of mouth dose it www.myband.com and i dont know if thats for real just put it in as an exsample ..

As for europe its gona get harder now that theres now 23 new countires to work with ... :(

johngordon
May 6, 2004, 04:30 AM
Not to be a geek, but I guess it's too late for that....anyway, I wouldn't know about 80% of the music I am currently listening to if not for the iTMS. Most of it I've heard about or listened to according to what people who bought a song I bought bought -make sense? (that feature on the top right) or by going through the just added/new release sections every tues. I have discovered so many great indie and alternative bands this way and am more than happy to get away from the mainstream crap that's being forced upon me every which way. If not for iTunes I wouldn't be spending much $ on music at all- I'm sure my credit card could use the break, but since my first iPod (1st gen 5gb) I have been 100% more into music and what's going on and coming out. Isn't that a good thing? If they mess with the pricing or permissions too much it'll probably totally turn me off and I'll go back to taking my chances with p2p. Isn't that a situation that the record idiots want to avoid? Why are they such d&*k's?

i know exactly what you mean. was just looking at the i-mixes last night, and the idea, once again, is brilliant in its simplicity. look through there, see mixes with the sorts of stuff I like on, and spot some stuff there that i don't have or don't know, and immediately i'm interested in a *well, if they like what i like, and they like that too, then i might like that track i've never heard of* - and for only 99c i can download it and have a listen. (well, I can't, because i'm in the uk, but you get the point.)

also - since i've had the powerbook, i've been using i-tunes like i never used media player - because its so damned good. and i've found that in the last couple of months i've bought more cds than i have in the last couple of years probably - partly because there's a lot of good music about at the minute, and partly because the whole i-tunes / i-pod thing has really lured me back into it.

Iain

billyboy
May 6, 2004, 04:34 AM
iTMS is a store, just like Amazon.com is a store. For a music industry to be frightened of any outlet that sells millions of units of your product is a bit bizarre. Apple are surely only putting up for sale all and any decently produced music that they can get their hands on in order to attract people to their site - the lure to iPods. Apple must surely be at liberty to set out their store however they see best, and take account of the needs and expectations of customers, suppliers, and programmers/site designers.

But on the supply side, the music industry is setting all the rules (with a little guidance on DRM from Steve Jobs) The big five model at the moment means the big five can dictate pricing. ie Apple are playing by the financing rules of the music industry, sending them, is it 70%? royalties on all sales etc. Likewise the big five control the artists who are tied to contracts, so however much an artist thinks it is neat to go straight to an iTunes shop front, they cant go independent till they are out of contract etc.

But the fear for the music industry must be in terms of changes from within the music industry. ie If artists see the value of changing their ways dealing with labels and eventually go independent to get more control of their music, and see the iTMS as a good outlet for their own music, so be it, Apple will offer their store as a platform, but the iTMS will just sell music from sources that reflect changes made by artists and execs within the music industry.

On the surface at the moment it can't be in Apple's interest to actively change the way record industry works, nor even make incy wincy rumour noises about signing bands up, else they will instantly lose all the music from the big five and be stripped down to an independent label music store. So iTMS will stay a bit of a puppet to the big five, ie nothing to be afraid of - unless of course the stats show that the independents song sales are strong enough to keep iPods sales strong, then who knows what Steve Jobs has up his sleeve for the next revolution in how music is sold.

denm316
May 6, 2004, 05:59 AM
This is ridiculous, the RIAA cries and complains that they are trying to give people alternative choices rather then downloading illegally, now they want to take away the best choice given.

If they screw up iTunes, by either takin it away or by raising prices, I will be right back to Limeiwre without a second thought.

e-coli
May 6, 2004, 06:31 AM
Dave Matthews' debut was in '92 or '94 on RCA. RCA is not an indie label.

Actually, Dave Matthews Band's first album, Remember Two Things, was self-released in 1993, and was reissued by RCA in 1997.

Check Amazon. ;)

whooleytoo
May 6, 2004, 06:42 AM
I'm not surprised the big labels are worried. Apple made some very smart decisions when iTMS was launched that took quite a lot of power out of their hands.

- Equal pricing: By varying the price, lables can 'nudge' listeners in the direction they wish. Equal pricing not just makes the store simpler, it makes all songs equal 'citizens'.

- No advertising in iTMS: similarly, labels have no way of pushing their favourite artist.

- Liberal iPod DRM rules: Makes iPod the best option for playing back purchased music, and thus (though it's an ugly term) locks in listeners to the iTMS format.

- Multi year deal: Allows iTMS to build up momentum before the deal needs to be renewed.

So it's no wonder they're scared, imagine if Starbucks sold 70% of all coffee, how much control and power they would have over the coffee producers. (Bad example, Starbucks probably do! :p )

csimmons
May 6, 2004, 06:47 AM
can anyone back this up with inside info from a record company?

One of my closest friends is the head of Product Management at Universal Music (one of the "Big 5") here in Germany, and she basically confirms this way of thinking, afterwhich I proceded to tell her what an ass backwards way of thinking this is.

The music industry as we know it deserves to die.

Colonel Panik
May 6, 2004, 07:05 AM
There have been anumber of posts suggesting that Apple cut out the labels and deal directly with the artist. This is not going to happen, Apple have signed a deal with Apple Corp (Beatles label) not to do this.

Also whilst I agree the reported fear of Apple by the major labels appears moronic, I firstly have to ask myself if it is true. There is very little, if any, supportive evidence that this report is fact.

He He, just wait until Apple (our Apple) buys Apple (Beatle's Apple). Then they can sign up artists...

Although, at that point the record labels would complain that Apple is favouring it's own artists...

fixyourthinking
May 6, 2004, 07:11 AM
The record labels are upset because Apple is selling lots of songs and they're getting lots of profit.

If this isn't clear-cut proof that the RIAA is only interested in power, and couldn't care less about anything else, I don't know what is.

Don't get the RIAA (recording industry association of america) confused with an EU body.

But I agree - it is all about power. It's been said a 1000 ways to Sunday already on this board - but MTV makes MEGASTARS out of people by showing videos. Apple is in it's own right creating fame and fortune for those that would HAVE NEVER HAD IT - like the "she bangs" guy from American Idol.

Beyonce Knowles is wealthy beyond imagination on her own - but after looking at the statistics the other day (as the most downloaded artist on itunes) and receiving a personal take of $520,000 NET ACTUAL DOLLARS in her pocket (off of 3.4 million of her songs downloaded) from the iTunes Music Store - what the heck are these "governing bodies" worried about? I think they fear that the artists are getting too much again.

Windowlicker
May 6, 2004, 07:27 AM
It is now possible purchase the equipment needed to make a studio quality album in your basement for the cost of one session in a studio (maybe more maybe less but not by much though). With the fact that Apple now includes the software to make this possible for a relatively cheap cost (Garageband being the easiest as it is included in iLife), has them terrifiied out of their minds.

Pretty much true, yes. but don't you think you should change the Garageband to Logic or something like that? I have to admitt I have only briefly tested the garageband, but it seems to me like it's more just for playing around with and making some nice little projects (for a home made movie for example), but if you want professional sound, you're gonna need something else. ...with the exception that if the music includes mainly guitar, bass, drums (and a singer), you can always use garageband as a sequencer, which might result in a very nice sounding song.

joemama
May 6, 2004, 07:36 AM
He He, just wait until Apple (our Apple) buys Apple (Beatle's Apple). Then they can sign up artists...

Although, at that point the record labels would complain that Apple is favouring it's own artists...

...Kind of like how we (on this forum) complain about M$ shipping Internet Explorer and Media Player with evey copy of windoze......

PretendPCuser
May 6, 2004, 07:52 AM
hu*LLLOOOOOO!!!

Record companies. You dumb*ss greedy sons of Thor!! 70 Million songs. You got paid. Would you rather that be 70 million songs on Kazaa?

"But we won't ever be able to make the profit margins we were making selling overpriced CDs for umpteen years."

No. You won't. And that's what consumers have said time after time about you. You're ripping everyone off. Including the artists. Period.

Oh, i see. (read the article). They don't want to be "put over a barrel" like MTV did. Well, you didn't learn your lesson then about innovating and using technology. Older execs were too busy counting their $$ and screwing the customer.

So, in a sense, what they are saying is, "We don't want to be the b1tch, much like we've made the consumer and artists our b1tches. WAAAAAA!!!"

I'm not crying for them.

Please, someone stop me before I get going.... ;)

mustang_dvs
May 6, 2004, 07:52 AM
I, my friends, have inside information that explains everything...

A source close to the head of Sony Records told me that the Big Five understand things much better than us beer-swilling plebeians and are acting in our best interests, much like our founding fathers, when they created the electoral college system - if they give us the ultimate decision-making authority, we will doom ourselves.

You see, they understand that brain-dead manufactured pop like Brittney Spears, Nick/Aaron Carter and Beyonce are a stain on the fabric of society just crying out for a good squirt of OxyClean, but they also understand that they and their legacy are the key to the future of humanity. You see, they know that sometime in the future, a race of huge green aliens will attempt to conquer Earth in search of a rare flower/power source/cultural icon/(untranslated Japanese idiomatic phrase). Although the human race will have developed giant transforming robots, our true hope will be the music of a pop-singer, who with sounds the aliens have never heard before, disarm, befriend and shrink them.

Even now, rumor has it, that much of Columbia Music's revenue for the last five years has gone into researching and rebuilding a giant alien spaceship that crashed in the south Pacific and TimeWarner-AOL has taken a serious hit on the bottom line because it has been applying some of that research into turning fighter jets into transforming fighting robots.

So you see - the high cost of music is justified by the music industry's investment in the keys to humanity's survival.


[/sarcasm]

PretendPCuser
May 6, 2004, 07:56 AM
Too funny!!! Glad somebody did some investigative reporting and came back with the real scoop!!! Good job!

I, my friends, have inside information that explains everything...
[/sarcasm]

PretendPCuser
May 6, 2004, 08:09 AM
Okay, here's a philosophy for you.

Y'know how there are millions of "Setup your own store on the internet" dealies now, where in about an hour you can have a site setup ready to do business on the web?

What if Apple followed suit and allowed any band that is unsigned to set up a store in a particular corner of iTMS and sell their own music. I guess that's what MP3.com's model was kind of like (haven't been there in years). Granted, the artists have to promote their own music and band, but it's a bit more grassroots and the artists themselves get more of the revenue.

It'd be almost like the minor leagues of music. If iTunes had a small section of top unsigned bands, record labels could choose to court certain ones and the musicians would have the option to say "Naw, we're doing well on iTunes. We don't need your 'deal'."

prutz11
May 6, 2004, 08:26 AM
The article claims that the five main record labels are become scared of Apple and it's success in the digital music arena. One source compares it to the rise of MTV:

Isn't MTV controlled by the labels? I thought they got to put videos in the running for TRL?

thatwendigo
May 6, 2004, 08:27 AM
...but not everyone has that kind of name recognition. There is absolutely no way for an artist to get on the radio if they do not have a deal with a major label. New artists need promotion. The radio may be terrible, but it's popular. You sell albums (and the hit) by getting a hit on the top 40 stations. There's an incredible series of pieces at salon.com about media consolidation (esp. Clear Channel) and the record industry. Check that out sometime.

There's a single reason why this is true, I hope you realize, and it's the one that's trembling because a technological freight train is about to pile it into the ground. Without the record industry to be buying all their airtime for their chosen few, independent artists would have more of a chance than they do now.

Of course there can't be name recognition... as long as the industry still holds the purse strings.

Trimix
May 6, 2004, 08:31 AM
the music industry is so full of *****, it's unbelievable..!!! :mad:

vSpacken

it is not the music industry, it is the independent - that paper su***

jaw04005
May 6, 2004, 09:12 AM
My U.S. Senator (or more likely her staff) sent me an email this morning stating...

"Due to widespread confusion over copyright infringement in the digital
age, I am troubled by the Recording Industry Association of America's
(RIAA) efforts to prosecute the thousands of Americans who currently
utilize peer-to-peer file sharing software. Many citizens lawfully
purchase DVDs, CDs, or other media clips and take advantage of the
Internet to share their personal property with friends or family."

This is the fourth email I have received from her office regarding the RIAA. Not all pollitians believe what the RIAA is doing is fair, and their is legislation moving through Congress (slowly) to limit the power of the DMCA. We will see if it actually goes through.

whooleytoo
May 6, 2004, 09:15 AM
...but not everyone has that kind of name recognition. There is absolutely no way for an artist to get on the radio if they do not have a deal with a major label. New artists need promotion. The radio may be terrible, but it's popular. You sell albums (and the hit) by getting a hit on the top 40 stations. There's an incredible series of pieces at salon.com about media consolidation (esp. Clear Channel) and the record industry. Check that out sometime.

But perhaps iTunes may change that.

Perhaps now, people will start finding music more through browsing iTunes genres, "people who bought this also bought.." links and iMixes. The process of finding music on iTMS, buying it, and listening to it is a lot more convenient than hearing a song on radio, trying to find it's name, then going looking for the album on the internet or in a shop.

abc123
May 6, 2004, 09:29 AM
Record companies need to open up their eyes and realise a couple of facts.

1. Suing customers isnít good for business. Illegal music downloading is becoming a form of civil disobedience. Everyone knows someone who knows someone who got done for file sharing, record companies are the enemy and you donít do business with the devil.

2. Downloading music is an alternative to buying records and cds. Up until now the average person has been ripped off so badly when it comes to music. As a fan of a band Iíd love to own every song I can get my hands on, I am interested in the choice of cover art and enjoy flipping though the insert, reading linear notes, lyrics and the bandís thank yous. However, as a fan of general music, in reality I might only be interested in a few tracks from a large number of different artists. This is where I believe the record companies problem with itunes really lies. When you buy a cd usually you get about 10-15 tracks, the few standouts that attracted you to the product, some that are average and then a few that were just thrown in to boost the total number and make paying AU$30 for the finished product seem like okay value. Itunes lets consumers pay only for the decent tracks or the ones that they want, so now when you hear a song that you really enjoy and want to listen to more you donít have to splash out and spend a lot of money on an entire album, you can spent a tiny 99 cents. I donít know exactly how much a cd costs in America, letís say it is $15, the difference between 99c and $15 is a significant amount. Even if you buy the four or however many stand out tracks there are on the album the record company is still out of pocket.

They should be grateful that they were able to get away with it for so long. People are sick of it and now that we've seen online music stores like itunes we know that we don't have to put up with it any longer. It is either get on board with itunes or watch the peer to peer file sharing networks grow even larger.

Piker
May 6, 2004, 10:06 AM
Why would record companies possibly be afraid of this revolution? Apple is distributing the music produced by these companies with almost NO production cost (no cd's, cases, inserts, printing, etc.) and for only a slightly lower cost per song than it costs to go to the store and buy the album. Were they hoping they could get MORE money for songs online? Thinking about the pure greed and evil of these record companies and executives just makes me want to start punching things, preferrably them. Would they rather people just continue to steal from them, so they can continue to sue children and proliferate their negative public image even more? Somebody finally comes along and does online music sales the right way, where everybody wins, and these freaks still aren't happy. Maybe Apple should start a record company. That way the musicians, who oh-by-the-way mostly all hate their record companies anyway, could jump ship and have a viable non-satanic option that would probably be more lucrative for them, more satisfying for their fans, and move the industry forward instead of holding it back because of some ridiculous inate fear that there might not be quite enough money coming in to feed the record company pigs.

Okay, steam is coming out of my ears, need to calm down. Thinking about a Powerbook G5.....aaahhhhh.

-Piker

AlanAudio
May 6, 2004, 03:12 PM
It's now entirely obvious that the Labels aren't going to play fair and are set on a course to simultaneously disadvantage their artists, their customers and Apple.

That's three pretty formidable enemies to pick on and few organisations are able to simultaneously fight on so many fronts with any hope of success.

If they labels don't play nicely, then why should Apple ?

I hope that Steve Jobs has an alternative strategy that will achieve the same outcome, but will also be hugely unpalatable to the labels.

They had a chance to act intelligently but, as always, they chose to resist it.

Bhennies
May 6, 2004, 05:58 PM
The record labels must be masochistic, because they continue to shoot themselves in the foot. Idiots.

billyboy
May 7, 2004, 04:13 AM
But perhaps iTunes may change that.

Perhaps now, people will start finding music more through browsing iTunes genres,.... is a lot more convenient than hearing a song on radio, trying to find it's name, then going looking for the album on the internet or in a shop.

You can find and buy tracks playing on the radio via iTunes music store. Look under the radio section

rspress
May 7, 2004, 08:01 PM
This is the most backwards opinion I've ever heard!
The record companies are scared that Apple will succeed? What a load of rubbish. They NEED apple to succeed in order that they don't lose millions of dollars revenue from illegal downloads.

I would imagine the record companies have a large say in which artists are promoted. For example, I doubt Apple gets to choose which song the give away for free each week. I would imagine that is dictated by the record companies.

I have been telling people this on other forums for a long time now. The record companies never wanted online sales to work. Subscriptions with heavy DRM and total control is what they wanted. Apples free and easy DRM and the fact you don't have to keep paying month after month scared the labels but it being Apple they figured it would not last long and they can say they tired it and it did not work.

Of course this makes no business sense but then again they are going after P2P sharing instead of the real pirates who copy the discs, label and all and sell them on the street and to stores as well. The RIAA once said that 1 in 6 discs in a store is a pirate copy. They are only going after the easy money and consider any thing that is not under their total control unacceptable... whether there is a real threat or not.

I have not downloaded a music file via P2P since the iTMS store opened but if they continue to raise the price and increase the DRM to scare of customers then I will go back to P2P....it only takes a second to launch the program.

hulugu
May 8, 2004, 11:30 PM
I have not downloaded a music file via P2P since the iTMS store opened but if they continue to raise the price and increase the DRM to scare of customers then I will go back to P2P....it only takes a second to launch the program.

I'm going back to p2p and the local used-CD store if the iTunes model disappears, I refuse to buy into a subscription model and iTunes DRM is just fair-enough for me to put up with it, anything more difficult or based around Windows Media Player and I'm gone as a customer for digitally based music.