Some Bands Say No to iTunes

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Who cares?

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

>"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

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.....

Bad excuses from bands I like

"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?

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....

Click to expand...

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

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

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.

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...

Wha?

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).

Ummm...

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!

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.

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

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.

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

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...]

creative" concerns?

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?)

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?

Click to expand...

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..

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

New metallica music

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

Re: Wha?

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?

Click to expand...

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....)

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.

What about radio?

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.