Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Adele's New Album Won't Be Available on Apple Music

I wonder why, since Taylor was happy with how Apple changed their policy.

Also people are calling it greed - no, it's not greedy to say "Here I made a thing please pay what I charge for it". It's not greed to only sell something in a certain place because you can get more money from it, it's common sense. People don't have a supreme "right" to all music just because they pay 5/10 quid a month for Spotify or Apple Music.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacTech68, CombatCaptured, milo and 3 others
Then I won't listen to it.

It's 2015, I pay a monthly fee for streaming. I don't "buy" music anymore. Artists get paid based on how much I listen to their music.

Since the two new songs I have heard from her new album are no where near as good as her previous album - I wouldn't listen to them anyway.

I just don't need any individual artist enough to care about buying whole albums anymore. There is plenty of other music out there...

Adele is not the only nice voice in the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AleXXXa
I sorta like Adele but my wife loves her music. Will my wife buy the album? Nope, because we have Apple music. If it's not on Apple music then you aren't going to get a dime from us.

Artist see very little money from album sales anyways. Its the labels that make money from albums and digital sales. Most artist make their money from touring so this sounds like Adele's label forced her to go the more profitable route.

Still won't buy any singles or albums though. I can wait.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jstuts5797, Cisco_Kid and bilibug
Hmm. Guess I won't be listening to her new album.

TBH, I have her last album, and I even put a couple of her songs in one of my favorite mix playlists. I usually skip them whenever they come on. I haven't taken the time to remove it from the playlist. For me, her voice was pretty decent when she was new. But now it just feels kind of loud and obnoxious.
 
starbird said:
Taylor Swift already did. And you are right, they will come around. Thing is, I bet it would only impact 1-2% of sales. If that.
Click to expand...
It's been a huge difference for swift. She had the only multi platinum release of the year, because of how she released it. She was also able to protect her income from being diluted by streaming services giving her product away but not paying equal value. That's like taking a job for $100,000 but another employee decides that want to present your work to the boss and get half or more of your salary.
 
Musicians like her can easily cope with and get the most out of streaming sales, contrary to lesser known musicians. Pretentious attitude.
 
Flunkyturtle said:
Exactly, it's just executive greed. Get with the times that this is how we want music now, or have you album likely torrented instead.
Click to expand...
No it's not. I don't blame her. It costs a LOT of money to make an album and unless artists get paid they can't make a living out of music. We should take a look at ourselves as we want everything for free- I've never downloaded music on torrents Scots stealing - streaming services are an attempt to make it better for artists but unless people can make a living no more music-
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gasu E. and milo
I think this has way less to do with Adele herself and more with the label she is signed to.
By now she has a huge fan base and has come a very long way since Hometown Glory was released as a free download on iTunes Music Store in 2007. Record labels are going to milk singer's till it turns into cheese.

I'm actually past my "grace period" and pay for the Apple Music subscription, Adele might not be up my street save for the occasional mood, but seeing high-profile artists releases not available is somewhat discouraging.
Oh, and I like to listen to some of the more alternative artists every once in a while, but what Apple is serving in my "For You" section is mostly like listening to a vietnamese cat getting his intestines pulled out through its ears - they really need to work on those algorithms, Spotify seemed to work much better in that department.

Also - my cellular provider has Tidal Premium on offer for free for 2 years... Hm... The app is terrible but seems to me the competition is getting fierce.
 
The album will still sell like gangbusters, physical or digital copies. As a Spotify Premium subscriber I'll just have to resort to going on YouTube and listen to the album there. If I like the new album and I want to support her I'll go to her live concert. No CDs or MP3's for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AleXXXa and mel823
I chose not to renew my Apple Music subscription after this month and have instead gone with Spotify after its annoyances got to me for the last time. An album I had previously downloaded for offline listening was now missing two songs (Sam Smith) because they were locked now, even though they weren't before. I also didn't like how it took over my whole music library, adding its own album art and form of DRM to it. I prefer Spotify's separate app that contains all of your music.

I was planning on getting a physical copy of Adele's new album anyway since I'm a big fan, but this is yet another reason to not go with music subscription services.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AleXXXa
penajmz said:
Greedy. This is just to force people to buy the full album instead of just streaming it. My guess is this will also force lots of people to pirate it.
Click to expand...
Music execs are not used to retailers coming back with a counter offer.
 
Well, I can confirm that it doesn't apply to Beats 1. Was listening to it just a few minutes ago and then just read this. On further news, someone is listening to Beats 1.
 
kentsydney said:
.... It costs a LOT of money to make an album and unless artists get paid they can't make a living out of music. We should take a look at ourselves as we want everything for free- I've never downloaded music on torrents Scots stealing - streaming services are an attempt to make it better for artists but unless people can make a living no more music-
Click to expand...

Blame the music companies and their refusal to respect the artist. 40-50 years ago, it was expensive to record, master, cut, press, package, distribute, promote, etc. music due to the physical nature of creating the record/cd, and the lack or high cost of mass TV/radio/print advertising opportunities. Despite the massive cost saving benefits of modern digital media (any idea how much a 24 track reel of tape used to cost?), production techniques (just autotune that bad note or fake those strings on a software sampler) and distribution (Hello, iTunes/Amazon/etc.), the royalty model for artists has not significantly changed, with the majority of profits still going to the corporate distributor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jstuts5797 and cmdrmac
People think consumers will be forced to buy more product than they want. The truth is you cant no matter what macrumors users tell you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back