Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

Apple Music Debuts Eminem's New Music Video, Announces Dr. Dre's Beats 1 Radio Show

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
51,479
13,106



In late June, it was revealed that Apple had rounded up celebrity partners to host radio shows on its Beats 1 programming schedule, including Elton John, Pharrell and Dr. Dre. Today, the company announced that Dre's show, The Pharmacy, will premiere Saturday, July 4 at 3 PM PST and will broadcast every week thereafter at the same time.


The hour-long show will be co-hosted by Dre and Eddie Francis and feature recording artists Wyann Vaughn and DJ Pooh with music from DJ Jus Incredible, according to Billboard. Apple debuted the premiere date with a trailer for the program on Twitter.

Additionally, Apple Music today exclusively debuted the new music video for Eminem's latest single, "Phenomenal", promoting the event with a tease on the service's Instagram. The 7-minute video, which is referred to as a "music film" by Apple, features cameos from actors John Malkovich and Randall Park, Dr. Dre and both the iPhone 6 and Apple Watch. Previously, Eminem was the subject of the first Beats 1 guest interview with DJ Zane Lowe.

The Cupertino company has been trying to secure a wealth of exclusive content for Apple Music in hopes of luring customers to its service rather than competing music streaming services. Most recently, Pharrell's new single "Freedom" has been exclusive to the service as well as Dre's album The Chronic. It's likely Apple will continue to leverage its music industry contacts for future exclusives in the coming weeks and months.

Article Link: Apple Music Debuts Eminem's New Music Video, Announces Dr. Dre's Beats 1 Radio Show
 

JungeQuex

macrumors regular
Sep 16, 2014
136
313
I'm pretty sure that the focus with Apple music won't be so consumer-based as it will be artist-based.

In other words, I think that Apple will attempt to form their own "label," sign artists, then revenue share directly with them on sales as opposed to some company giving the artist cents per song. Imagine something around the 70/30 model in favor of artists.

After music is well established, expect Apple studios or some other film-related thing. Think Amazon studios, except done correctly and Apple certainly has deep enough pockets to make it happen.

In other words, I think Apple is trying to turn the entire entertainment industry on its head.
 
Comment

Izauze

macrumors 6502
Oct 13, 2013
397
237
Pretty lame that Apple is charging you $1.99 to watch a freaking music video. A music video that is essentially a 7-minute ad for Apple Watch, iPhone and Apple Music -- not to mention Eminem's album.
 
Comment

ipedro

macrumors 603
Nov 30, 2004
5,444
6,550
Toronto, ON
Apple Music is kicking some serious ass. Between the awesome Beats 1, music exclusives and tight Siri integration allowing you to ask for any song you can think of and have it immediately play, there's nothing like Apple Music out there. Spotify looks like a clunky Discman to the iPod.
Apple has truly found the successor to the aging iTunes.
 
Comment

ipedro

macrumors 603
Nov 30, 2004
5,444
6,550
Toronto, ON
I'm pretty sure that the focus with Apple music won't be so consumer-based as it will be artist-based.

In other words, I think that Apple will attempt to form their own "label," sign artists, then revenue share directly with them on sales as opposed to some company giving the artist cents per song. Imagine something around the 70/30 model in favor of artists.

After music is well established, expect Apple studios or some other film-related thing. Think Amazon studios, except done correctly and Apple certainly has deep enough pockets to make it happen.

In other words, I think Apple is trying to turn the entire entertainment industry on its head.

That's exactly what they're doing. Apple Music is being set up like the App Store but for musicians. If you're an unsigned bedroom musician, you can produce music in GarageBand and share it directly to Apple Music through Connect. Now, imagine an artist's bedroom jam going viral. People can share to Facebook and Twitter from Connect. Apple can then add that new viral track into Apple Music streaming and the bedroom artist gets paid. Why in the world would they want to sign with a label and pay another middleman?
Apple makes and sells the hardware and software to produce music. Now they've introduced a way for artists to get paid for it too.
 
Comment

Pagemakers

macrumors 68030
Mar 28, 2008
2,660
1,004
Manchester UK
Apple Music is kicking some serious ass. Between the awesome Beats 1, music exclusives and tight Siri integration allowing you to ask for any song you can think of and have it immediately play, there's nothing like Apple Music out there. Spotify looks like a clunky Discman to the iPod.
Apple has truly found the successor to the aging iTunes.
Your post is light hearted right?

Tight integration? Siri only plays 5% of the music I ask even though the music exists in Apple Music and Siri confirms "now playing...." and nothing actually happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Comment

ToroidalZeus

macrumors 68020
Dec 8, 2009
2,300
871
Comment

OS X Dude

macrumors 6502a
Jun 30, 2007
989
245
UK
It's a bit... corporate. I can't imagine the Eminem from 15-odd years ago ever agreeing to incorporate products and brands so heavily into his videos. Same with Dre, I suppose. I guess people mellow as they get older and they have to drop the anger to a degree.
 
Comment

nameischarles

macrumors regular
Jun 16, 2014
136
153
how come Pharrell Williams "Freedom" is on Spotify? or was it exclusive for the 1st day launch of Apple Music only?
 
Comment

CEmajr

macrumors 601
Dec 18, 2012
4,383
1,146
Charlotte, NC
I'll give credit where it's due, so far Beats 1 is pretty decent for a radio station and I hadn't listened to an actual radio station in nearly 10 years regularly. It will only continue to get better with more offerings like Dre's Show.
 
Comment

psylence2k

macrumors 6502
Nov 16, 2012
414
152
I'm pretty sure that the focus with Apple music won't be so consumer-based as it will be artist-based.

In other words, I think that Apple will attempt to form their own "label," sign artists, then revenue share directly with them on sales as opposed to some company giving the artist cents per song. Imagine something around the 70/30 model in favor of artists.

After music is well established, expect Apple studios or some other film-related thing. Think Amazon studios, except done correctly and Apple certainly has deep enough pockets to make it happen.

In other words, I think Apple is trying to turn the entire entertainment industry on its head.

Well ultimately that would be consumer based because the end goal would be to get that music to the Itunes/Apple Music marketplace for the millions of consumers to consume.

I really dont know if Apple is interested in making a label where they give the same 70/30 split they're already giving. Labels are attractive to artists because they give multi- million dollar budget advances and dedicated promotional teams to promote your music not only on Itunes but on radio, billboards, buses, record stores, and other physical avenues as well as social media. That's the reason why they dont give you that 70/30 split because they want to make back all the money they invested in you plus still turn a profit. Do you think Apple is gonna want to exclusively sign artists and start giving out millions of dollars for studio, production, recording, manufacturing, promotion, marketing, and advertising ? I dont know what Apple really gets out of that versus just continuing to allow the major and indie labels to continue to take care of all that.

I mean Apple is a tech company run by tech minded people. I may be wrong but I dont know if I see what the allure is for them wanting to start a real record label in the traditional sense of giving advances, budgets, and having to hire employees to run it. Like what would be the advantage versus the model they have now ? Everyone knows the music industry relative to other entertainment industries and especially tech industries isn't really that profitable right now and that's with labels taking MUCH more than 70%. I may be wrong but I just dont see the advantage of Apple starting a full on record label that operates more hands on than what they are doing now. Their passion, expertise, and bread and butter is in creating new tech and at times simply providing a marketplace for additional content that goes with that tech. I just dont see what the allure and benefits are with wanting to start and run an actual label.

That's exactly what they're doing. Apple Music is being set up like the App Store but for musicians. If you're an unsigned bedroom musician, you can produce music in GarageBand and share it directly to Apple Music through Connect. Now, imagine an artist's bedroom jam going viral. People can share to Facebook and Twitter from Connect. Apple can then add that new viral track into Apple Music streaming and the bedroom artist gets paid. Why in the world would they want to sign with a label and pay another middleman?
Apple makes and sells the hardware and software to produce music. Now they've introduced a way for artists to get paid for it too.


Hasn't Itunes already been doing this for years though ? Unsigned bedroom artists have already been able to upload their music on Itunes and sell it after they create it on Garage Band or whatever software they choose as well as promote through all the major streams of social media. The only real thing different here is Connect which is just a revised version of a failed Ping which I may be wrong but I dont think is gonna eclipse Twitter, Youtube, Instagram, and Facebook as the main avenues for promotion. It will just be one extra spot on the totem pole of social media promotion but one of the smaller lesser used spots relative to those other social media giants.

This "new way " for artists to get paid has existed for a while now through Itunes. I dont see what the difference is now ? Unsigned artist have been going viral through Myspace, Youtube, Itunes, etc for almost a decade. Most of the biggest ones still end up signing to a major though because majors are corporate machines designed to put millions of dollars of promotion and a whole team of individuals dedicated to working each aspect of promotion in every market. For some reason unsigned artists still want that because the vast majority consumers are still receptive to that model even though the alternate indie bedroom viral route has been widely available for over 10 years now.
 
Comment

dearfriendx

macrumors 6502
Jun 3, 2011
356
282
San Diego, CA
Hasn't Itunes already been doing this for years though ? Unsigned bedroom artists have already been able to upload their music on Itunes and sell it after they create it on Garage Band or whatever software they choose as well as promote through all the major streams of social media...

...This "new way " for artists to get paid has existed for a while now through Itunes. I dont see what the difference is now ? Unsigned artist have been going viral through Myspace, Youtube, Itunes, etc for almost a decade...


Incorrect. Unsigned, small time indie artists cannot upload directly and sell directly through Apple's iTunes. To work directly through Apple, without first going through an aggregator, you need to meet certain requirements like: Have at least 20 albums in your catalog, have UPCs/EANs/JANs for everything you're going to distribute, along with ISRCs for all songs you're planning to sell.

It's impossible for a "bedroom artist" to meet those requirements, so they go through an Apple-approved aggregator like TuneCore or CDBaby.

Under TuneCore, it costs $10 a year per single/ringtone to distribute. $50 for an album to be displayed on the iTunes Store every year. You get 100% royalties, so after Apple's cut you're left with 70 cents per song and $7 per album.

Under CDBaby, it costs $15 (one time) per song/ringtone. $60 (one time) per album. You get 91% royalties, so about 60 cents per song and $6.50 per album.


---The new thing people are mentioning is perhaps Apple will not require aggregators that take away from some artists. Perhaps the fees will be less. Also, bedroom artists not signing to a label either will basically make a bunch of profit as opposed to signing and being pressured to tour endlessly to make the label back their money they put into them. It's more of a direct-to-consumer way of business. No middleman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Canyonero
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.