iTunes Song Count?

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by Edot, Dec 8, 2003.

  1. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Location:
    NJ
    #1
    I looked at the Just Added page on the iTMS and saw that about 2100 albums/songs were uploaded in 4 weeks. Taking about 12 songs average for each listing that totals about 25000 songs per month! They should be at around 435,000 about now. I could easily see them at 1,000,000 by this time next year. I can imagine after the Pepsi promotion, AOL gets going, (and McDonalds? International?) they will see more artists singing up and the rate added per week go up.
     
  2. macrumors 68020

    howard

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    #2
    i hope they start getting the bigger artists that they are lacking.

    (to bad they may never get the beatles)

    and also would like artist who refuse to have there songs unless its only downloadable by album get on there...like radiohead and a few others.

    if they got all those guys they'd be doing great, and now with the little indies coming in...yay!!
     
  3. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Location:
    NJ
    #3
    I understand the artists' argument about the album being part of the music, but that is the point of the music store, and if they let one person do it, everyone would do it to increase sales, and then it would be like the current method of buying CDs. If the artist really wanted it to be one continuous listening experience why did they break it up into tracks in the first place?
     
  4. macrumors 68020

    howard

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    #4
    good point
     
  5. macrumors 65816

    oldschool

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    #5
    If an album needs to be listened to as a whole, then people will buy the whole album.

    If I were to buy a Pink Floyd Album, I wouldn't just buy a single track, for example. If the music is worth it, people will spend the money.
     
  6. macrumors 68020

    howard

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    #6
    its true that it would practically be a sin to buy only half of a pink floyd album. but what i want the most is everything on itunes! and if that means people buying just "comfortable numb" on the wall or just paranoid android on ok computer than fine... but i suppose its they're album and they can choose how they want to give it to you. it would just be nice if everyone flowed along smoothly with technology and stopped trying to fight it.

    it would be nice if stevie jobs would let artists decide that if they just want there album downloaded and not individual songs that they can do that. both the artists and jobs have valid points for doing what there doing... but it would be nice if they could work something out
     
  7. macrumors 68000

    Gymnut

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    Location:
    Hawaii
    #7
    Give me Metallica! But yeah really they are lacking some better known artists.
     
  8. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    houston
    #8
    oh they will get the beatles..just give it a little time. if you want to speed it along send school buses by michael jacksons house. He keeps settling out of these suits (the civil aspects anyway) and will be BROKE soon forcing him to sell the beatles catalog or more likely turn it over to Sony cause he owes them A$$ loads of money, then sony will toss them at steve like a frisbee :p
     
  9. macrumors 68020

    howard

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    #9
    haha that would be great


    its really funny how someone can own someone elses songs...strange

    do you know exactly what michael owns and what he doesn't? is it him that gets to decide?

    i konw that paul mccartney has been trying to buy back the songs for a long time
     
  10. macrumors 65816

    oldschool

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    #10
    hahaha poor paulie got screwed...and i'm glad...he's a big a**hole


    Michael Jackson is much smarter than he leads people to believe.
     
  11. macrumors 68020

    bennetsaysargh

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #11
    that's funny!:p:p:p
    also, i just want to say, the beatles aren't on any online music store. they don't want to be. im not sure if jacko could even pout them on iTMS if he wanted to. please correct me if i'm wrong.
     
  12. macrumors 68040

    MattG

    Joined:
    May 27, 2003
    Location:
    Fletcher, NC
    #12
    I have noticed big improvements since it opened. During the first few months, most of the stuff I'd search for wasn't available. Now, pretty much everything I search for is there, or at least partial albums.
     
  13. macrumors 68020

    bennetsaysargh

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #13
    i really wish blondie was on the store. i love blondie, but everywhere i see a greatest hits, it's about 12 songs, and it's about 15 dollars. i can't justify that purchase.
     
  14. macrumors 6502a

    dukemeiser

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Location:
    Iowa
    #14
    I think that would have negative affects on the iTMS. I'm actually glad they didn't agree to the store!
     
  15. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Location:
    Baltimore
    #15
    8-year-olds dude, 8-year-olds.
     
  16. macrumors demi-god

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #16

    So people can easily navigate thru the song (same reason DVDs have chapters). If your favorite part of the song was in the middle do you really want to have to remember the time and then fast forward/rewind to get there?


    Lethal
     
  17. macrumors 68020

    bennetsaysargh

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #17
    that and there's an overall feel to an album some artists want. I'm sure if apple just let album only be on, a bunch of people would be on, but that would contradict their whole 99¢ a song and only buying the songs you want.

    if CDs didn't have tracks, how would they release a single to promote the album?
    fast forward ahead to 17 minutes and 34 seconds?:p
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    billyboy

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Location:
    In my head
    #18
    Album only department

    Why not accept the album only artists but put them in their own sub section
     
  19. macrumors 68020

    bennetsaysargh

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #19
    Re: Album only department

    but that would contradict their whole 99¢ a song and only buying the songs you want. they won't budge unless a miracle comes along and says,
    whoop di dee! i'm a miracle!
     
  20. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    houston
    #20
    i agree, if you are so worried about your work being purchased as an album and not just your ONE good single...put out a CD that isnt crap. Too often you get a quick CD cranked out to supposrt an artists one or two good songs. i like not having to get the crap just because i like a single song. That being said, most of my purchases have actually been albums from artists that in my opinion would have to release a CD a month for 5 years to crank out a truely CRAPPY song (Dido, Tori Amos, Sarah McLachlan.

    On another note..i think you are right..the beatles would still have to consent to the songs being sold..sorta (ok, and we may be down to just A beatle soon anyway). But usually the copyright on the music still belongs to the artist and the copyright on a given PERFORMANCE belongs to the studio/label...though often a built in consent is given to the label to release the songs..now, like JLo there is a BIG BUTT..these are permission to sell/distribute on a given album/compilation. The artist would still likely have to consent to the release of the songs individually (unless it was already a single in which case a right has been granted for singular distribution)

    ok...sorry, i had my copyright final on monday so the spewing cant be controlled:p
     

Share This Page