An interesting Apple iTunes site I found...

[ZildjianKX]

I thought this should go in general instead of the music section... since people mostly talk about actual music there and not Apple's business models... Feel free to move the topic mods.

http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/victory.html

http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/

Not sure if this site has been mentioned before...

I've been reading up a lot on the RIAA and this came up in a google search. I'd be interested in hearing anyone's feedback.

 

[Awimoway]

Wow. Seems like I'd heard of this before (maybe one can find it by doing a search of MacBytes stories). Some thought it might be financed by a competing company who wants to take iTMS down a couple notched. It does look awfully slick to be the work of a freelance disgruntled nutjob.

 

[krossfyter]

everyone wants a piece of the action. hah

 

[iAlan]

I am no expert, but I gotta say that a lot of what is being said on that page just doesn't make sense? Bottom line, with file sharing artists get zero. With iTunes they get something. A no-brainer really. Also, if indi artists get a higher cut than artists on the big labels, well good for them. They may not sell as many albums/singles, but at least they are treated well!

We all have different taste in music and I think the iTunes Music Store has a good variety. The iTunes Music Store may not be perfect (first generation ideas sometimes aren't) but it is a big step in the right direction.

 

[Awimoway]

Exactly. The site seems contradictory and nonsensical. On the one hand it says P2P is superior and on the other it says artists are being ripped off. Or, more to the point, that artists are being ripped off just as much as they always were by thhe recording industry. Well, so what? So basically he's pissed off at Mac for not revolutionizing the way artists get paid? Steve Jeobs is still right to say that iTMS is a revolutionary change in the music biz. But the revolution has nothing to with how artists are paid. It has everything to do with how music is marketed and purchased. The album is being decentralized and the hit single emphasized. Personally, I think it's better. People who like jam-type bands will not, but they had their day in the sun for a long time now.


Anyway, that's why I think the author just has some personal vendetta or private agenda. I don't debate valid criticism of Apple--I'm no blind fanboy. But this site is just idiotic. If it's not run by a corporate competitor, my guess would be that it was created by a disgruntled musician with an axe to grind against the music industry as a whole.

 

[ZildjianKX]

Well, I think its a little unfair to call the site idiotic, especially since they raise a lot of valid points.

After doing a lot of research it's really true that record sales and online music sales really don't benefit the artist at all, it just feeds the corporate machine that runs the industry. The only benefit that album sales provide is making the bands popular so they make real money on concerts and merchandising. Even the radio stations we listen to have been bribed, errr.. paid to play songs.

Eventually I hope we get to a system where there is no RIAA or labels and artists strictly release music themselves to online music stores. This way the quality of music of albums as a whole will increase since each song has to be good, or otherwise people won't pay download the track (assuming we're not forced to download entire albums). If the music industry really changes and radio somehow goes by "most popular downloads" we won't get all the pre-fabricated crap stuck on our radio like boy bands and Britney Spears. You really don't see the creative genius that you did in the 50s, 60s, and 70s due to how the music industry has changed.

The only fault with the article I posted is that I don't think Apple could go straight to the artists but would have to go their label like they did. It is unfair to advertise that ITMS benefits the artists financially other then them re-earning their costs spent on making the album. Appe pretty much makes the amount of money that would otherwise be spent on the stamping of the CDs, and the artists make the same.

Here is an interesting read if anyone is interested: (from the producer of Nirvana and many other bands)

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

 

[Awimoway]

Why is it, then, that Apple isn't even making a profit on the store? That's not a rhetorical question. I really don't know.

 

[ZildjianKX]

Originally posted by Awimoway
Why is it, then, that Apple isn't even making a profit on the store? That's not a rhetorical question. I really don't know.

It probably cost them a ton to set it up, plus they're probably hoping that it gets to the point (especially after the deal with Pepsi) that the music store will sell iPods. People will be like, "Wow, I won free song. This store is pretty cool. I'm going to go spent $500 on a 40 gig iPod."

Or perhaps Apple is in it for the long haul, and they realize it will take them awhile to turn a profit, like amazon.com was when they took their business online.

 

[1macker1]

They make some good points. Alot of time was spent on that page. I wonder what Apple would have to say about it.

 

[ethernet76]

Originally posted by ZildjianKX
Well, I think its a little unfair to call the site idiotic, especially since they raise a lot of valid points.

After doing a lot of research it's really true that record sales and online music sales really don't benefit the artist at all, it just feeds the corporate machine that runs the industry. The only benefit that album sales provide is making the bands popular so they make real money on concerts and merchandising. Even the radio stations we listen to have been bribed, errr.. paid to play songs.

Eventually I hope we get to a system where there is no RIAA or labels and artists strictly release music themselves to online music stores. This way the quality of music of albums as a whole will increase since each song has to be good, or otherwise people won't pay download the track (assuming we're not forced to download entire albums). If the music industry really changes and radio somehow goes by "most popular downloads" we won't get all the pre-fabricated crap stuck on our radio like boy bands and Britney Spears. You really don't see the creative genius that you did in the 50s, 60s, and 70s due to how the music industry has changed.

edit: This doesn't mean I like the system, the RIAA blows, but iTunes is better than kazaa to the artists.

The only fault with the article I posted is that I don't think Apple could go straight to the artists but would have to go their label like they did. It is unfair to advertise that ITMS benefits the artists financially other then them re-earning their costs spent on making the album. Appe pretty much makes the amount of money that would otherwise be spent on the stamping of the CDs, and the artists make the same.

Here is an interesting read if anyone is interested: (from the producer of Nirvana and many other bands)

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

The problem with the part where artists release their own music is that we'll be stuck with a few highly known bands and little variety. You want to know what a large cut of that music label money goes to? Up and coming artists. Let's say I sign with Sony. They came and heard me at the bar i played, they liked me. They invest a certain amount into artists for equipment, studio time, and living. This sum isn't any amount to balk at. A full set of decent equipment for a band costs around 10,000, and that's just studio recording. An artists easily spends over 1500 for a guitar and amp combo. Now include pedals, bass, ryhthm guitar (same price as lead guitar, 1500), drum set, mics, you're talking a lot of money.

I don't feel bad for artists at all. You tell me that I'm going to make 50,000 a year doing what i love? Artists sign their own contracts, there are plent of indie labels out there, artists may sign with whomever they please.

As for price crap. If i can buy an album at best buy for 9.99 why does that same album raise in price 6 months later when the artist becomes more popular? Example, John Mayer - Room for Squares. I paid 10 in Jan, in April when No Such Thing became popular it was 13.99.

 

[ZildjianKX]

Originally posted by ethernet76
The problem with the part where artists release their own music is that we'll be stuck with a few highly known bands and little variety. You want to know what a large cut of that music label money goes to? Up and coming artists. Let's say I sign with Sony. They came and heard me at the bar i played, they liked me. They invest a certain amount into artists for equipment, studio time, and living. This sum isn't any amount to balk at. A full set of decent equipment for a band costs around 10,000, and that's just studio recording. An artists easily spends over 1500 for a guitar and amp combo. Now include pedals, bass, ryhthm guitar (same price as lead guitar, 1500), drum set, mics, you're talking a lot of money.

I don't feel bad for artists at all. You tell me that I'm going to make 50,000 a year doing what i love? Artists sign their own contracts, there are plent of indie labels out there, artists may sign with whomever they please.

As for price crap. If i can buy an album at best buy for 9.99 why does that same album raise in price 6 months later when the artist becomes more popular? Example, John Mayer - Room for Squares. I paid 10 in Jan, in April when No Such Thing became popular it was 13.99.

Oh, I totally agree.

Only thing is that they usually charge musicians for the amount they invest in them, and they have to pay it back later.

I'm not complaining, it just seems prices could be a lot lower...

Honestly all CDs should cost $10 or less, they only cost $2.20 to manufacture total, and I'm sure they would sell a lot more.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

As savethehumans.com once said, "Teenager seeks ideology that legitimizes music piracy. Would prefer conclusions that renounce private property and legitimize theft in general."

 

[TrenchMouth]

listen to your new iTunesNapster album on a real stereo, it won't have the same nuance, punch, and presence that a CD has. A burned copy of a real CD will always sound better than a burned iTunesNapster album.

??? Does this guy really want us to download AIFF or WAV files?

I think there are a few major flaws in this sites argument, but at the same time i think its good that someone is trying to bring problems like these into light. i dont personally agree with this site, but if it were not around then the record labels might get the idea that we dont care about how they treat artists.

i still think that Jobs had it right in his RollingStone interview. does anyone out there really think that artists diserve as much money as they get just to put out an album? what can $2million do for a good artist that $1million cant?

 

[rlhubley]

Here are a few short points from a music student hoping to eventually earn my income through music.

1. The site knocks the amount of money artists get for their tunes from the iTMS. Well, this is not apple's fault. The record industry pays the artists about the same per album. If you want the artist to get more of the money, then the artist needs a better record contract. So, the artist can go to a smaller label that may offer him a higher percentage or royalties right? Sure, but then they won't have near the amount of money for promotion, tour support, or the distribution deals that the big guys have. This equates to lower sales in general. A large percentage of fewer dollars is, well, you get the point. Another option is that the artist support all of themselves. By this I mean, they create their own label, record the music in their home-made studio, pay for the packaging, shipping and distribution, and then support their own tours and promotion. By far the most lucrative option for artists. However, this requires one small detail, the artist must have a BIG STACK O' CASH TO FINANCE ALL OF THIS!

2. The site mentions the quality of sound, well actually knocks it. Let's all get honest here. The average person simply won't be able to tell a difference. The iTMS is intended for the average person, not the audiophile who can only bear listening to absolute top-quality playback possible. Therefore, this loss is acceptable to most people. And for those of us that can tell a difference, we are willing to sacrifice it to some level for the EXTREME portability of aac compression.

3. The sight spends point 1 talking about getting more $$ to the artists, then supports Kazzaa and other file sharing programs that truly do STEAL from the artists. (you choose your morals and decide if you want to obey the copywright law, fine your choice. But, it is BLATANTLY stealing!!)

4. As for sending the artists cash directly. I am willing to bet that any major-label signed artist is bound by contract to the way they can receive income from there music(which is usually actually owned by the record label).

Sorry for the rant, but this site seems to be full of crap and contstant hypocrosy.

 

[agreenster]

The artist getting a little money from iTunes and their record labels is better than getting ZIP from Kazaa downloads.


Period.