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

Green Day and Red Hot Chili Peppers on iTMS

Not to be cynical...but...

I have to believe the RHCPs refusal to allow their album catalog on the iTMS has everything to do with their (label) knowing that a Greatest Hits package was to be released.

If their whole catalog had already been available, the iTMS crowd would already have downloaded the "Greatest Hits." It was not so much the RHCPs protecting the integrity and art of their albums, but protecting the sales of their Greatest Hits. How else can they explain the existence of a "Greatest Hits" if, in fact, hearing their albums in their entirety is so essential to their art? Sorry guys, can't have it both ways. Expect to see the rest of their catalog to quietly show up after sales of the "Greatest Hits" has leveled off, and the RHCPs to happily take in their chunk of all the little 99c that trickle in from sales of their (gasp) disassembled albums.

Bands are going to have to come up with some creative ways of selling greatest hits packages in the future as digital music sales become bigger, since anyone can now purchase and create a personal greatest hits playlist for any band, any time. Notice that R.E.M.'s recently released package comes with a bonus disc if you buy the CDs, that has alternate takes, live versions, and other obscurities. These tracks are not for sale (yet) on the iTMS.

Oh...and Green Day has been avaialble since June. Even at the time of the original article stating Green Day was not an iTMS player, their albums were there!
 
Green Day

Strangely, Green Day has been on ITunes since day one. I remember distinctly downloading 2 songs on the Greatest Hits album on the first day, because I didn't want to buy the whole thing.

Also, RHCP had Californication up for about one day a few months ago. I downloaded it, but then it disappeared.

Interestingly, I heard on the radio this morning that Napster-slayers Metallica are now selling their music as downloads through BuyMusic, but only as albums.
 
Re: Not to be cynical...but...

Originally posted by blybug
I have to believe the RHCPs refusal to allow their album catalog on the iTMS has everything to do with their (label) knowing that a Greatest Hits package was to be released.

If their whole catalog had already been available, the iTMS crowd would already have downloaded the "Greatest Hits."
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me, and actually, I hope you're right. RHCPs has a lot of great stuff out there that I'd like to have, but I don't want to invest in cd's if ITMS will have it in the future. I thought they would offer their music up to Apple sooner or later.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: can anyone else confirm this?

Originally posted by arn
He gets the 20 million figure from Steve Jobs' Rolling Stones interview. (This number was also echoed by Peter Lowe at the iHolywood Forum's Music 2.0 conference. )

The interview took place sometime before it was published. It is dated on Dec 3rd. So, unless the Rolling Stone guy was writing it with Steve in his office and typed it straight to the website... the interview took place at an unspecified time before Dec 3rd.

Point is, it's just made up numbers without a date on that figure. This blogger (incorrectly) assumes these numbers apply to "this week" (Dec 8th).

As of November 6th - 17 million songs sold (according to the blog)

It's only 4 weeks ago... so we can do some calcuations depending on the actual date of the 20million number.

Assume 20 million songs were sold as of the following dates, and you get these numbers:

Nov 13 => 428,571 songs a day
Nov 20 => 214,285 songs a day
Nov 27 => 142,857 songs a day
Dec 3 => 111,111 songs a day

So, it's certainly not December 3rd. It takes some time to write an article. And... the 20 million figure may not have been "fresh" right when steve was interviewed.

The point is, it's all speculation... just because someone can draw a pretty graph doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.

(a better guess would place it between 142,000-214,000/songs/day. but again, it's just a guess)

arn
Click to expand...


Arn is right. Look people, it's Christmas. Why would you go out and buy music when someone might wrap it for you and put it under the tree? Downloads should be down before christmas. The week after Christmas, I would not be surprised if there were a Million dowloads a week. People will be using their gift certificates.

If you think Apple isn't selling loads of gift certificates right now, you're crazy.

edit: 111,111 songs a day is nothing to scoff at. That's roughly over 10,000 albums. You think Amazon.com is matching those sales figures?
 
It's because all the cheap windows users have stolen all their music already.

Their reaction is:

"Pay 99¢ a song, $9.99 a album? NEVER!"

"I could build my own band for that price, use toilet paper for sheet music and..."

: )
 
Same point

I think on TechTV they were talking about how downloads on file-sharing services was down.

To which my bro replied: "Yeah, cause everyone all ready has all the music that they want and the new stuff that's coming out just sucks."

Personally, i'm happy to see RHCP on iTunes. The more music on there the better.

And yes, after Christmas, i'm sure the Gift Certificate users will cause a nice spike. THat's what i'm hoping for.

And if Apple is listening, i'd like a gift certificate in my stocking for being an early supporter of iTunes. How about a freebie? Five songs? C'mon, i spent over $150! :) That would be some good press and good holiday cheer from Apple.
 
Chili Peppers are nice, but guess what? Metallica. They re now on buymusic.com and a few other website music stores and music math. Amazingly they are not on Napster or iTunes. IF Metallica joined the store. . . .

Not many artists left, and I agree . . . bring on my musical hero, Dave Matthews with his band. They got the violynist's solo album. :/
 
Originally posted by mrdeep
I demand Madonna, Radiohead, (flac too, but thats another issue).
Click to expand...

Radiohead? Why? I can't imagine downloading single Radiohead songs, unless they were B-sides or other rarities. It's not like there's a lot of useless fluff on a Radiohead album.

Madonna? Why? Just, Why?

:)
 
Originally posted by Trowaman
Chili Peppers are nice, but guess what? Metallica. They re now on buymusic.com and a few other website music stores and music math. Amazingly they are not on Napster or iTunes. IF Metallica joined the store. . . .

Not many artists left, and I agree . . . bring on my musical hero, Dave Matthews with his band. They got the violynist's solo album. :/
Click to expand...
personally, i think metallica can go sit on their music. after the crap they have pulled with their fans on napster, and after their latest CD, which was utter bullsh**, i don't care if they ever get on iTunes. we don't need their stink. if they want to agree to the terms, whatever, but i wouldn't go out of my way, or even particularly wish, for a band like that to be on itunes.
 
Originally posted by tny
Radiohead? Why? I can't imagine downloading single Radiohead songs, unless they were B-sides or other rarities. It's not like there's a lot of useless fluff on a Radiohead album.

Madonna? Why? Just, Why?

:)
Click to expand...
you know, you would be able to buy radiohead albums just as soon as buy the songs individually. i can't imagine the punk losers that would buy a single song from them... probably a bunch of fake fans wanting "creep" or something... but just the same, i really wish they were on iTunes, just because i think they belong there.
 
Holdouts

I think any holdout bands are being ridiculous. They claim they don't want their albums parted out because they are part of a whole work. I understand that an album can be a whole, but not all of them, and every band releases singles off that "whole". iTunes is not parting out the "whole" albums much more than the bands are already doing. I think they could at least allow the singles they've already released to be in the store.
 
it's just amazing to me, that things are finally turning around from the free-for-all of napster and the like. why wouldn't you give your fans/customers the option of getting something legally online?!

as for the individual song versus album debate, i as a consumer think it's great! how many times have you gotten a cd and there are one or two good songs and the rest sucks? make good music and we'll happily buy the whole cd.

finally to metallica, f#%k you! between the egos of lars and james i'm personally surprised you're still alive and making music. i appreciate the hard work you do and the fact that you've been so prolific, but get a grip and quit acting like god's gift.
 
Holdout's guide to the iTMS
1: Pad all songs over 7 minutes
2: All songs over 7 minutes can only be purchased as part of an album.

...or just take Steve's word for it that half of all iTMS songs are sold in albums, and remember that your snobby attitude isn't stopping people from downloading single tracks from Kazaa.
 
Yes! I was happy to grab the two NEW tracks off the Chili Pepper greatest hits on iTunes. As I already have most of thier stuff on CD/imported into my library, it was nice to have the legal option to go grab those two songs and not have to buy a whole CD etc.

ALL THOSE WAITING TO DOOM SALES VOLUME: It is interesting to see the fall in numbers, however, I think the real test will be to see what those numbers look like for the first 3 months of 2004.

REMEMBER Apple did something (imho is) very smart with iTunes GIFT CERTIFICATES. Early 2004 numbers may indicate whether people take thier gift certificates and xmas dough and start buying more music! If they stay down into March, then I'd be concerned...
 
Originally posted by SeaFox
They're both mediocre. Who cares?
Click to expand...

Green Day is just bad. And i don't really care for much of the Peppers stuff, but Californication is a phenomenal album.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: can anyone else confirm this?

Originally posted by arn
He gets the 20 million figure from Steve Jobs' Rolling Stones interview. (This number was also echoed by Peter Lowe at the iHolywood Forum's Music 2.0 conference. )

The interview took place sometime before it was published. It is dated on Dec 3rd. So, unless the Rolling Stone guy was writing it with Steve in his office and typed it straight to the website... the interview took place at an unspecified time before Dec 3rd.

Point is, it's just made up numbers without a date on that figure. This blogger (incorrectly) assumes these numbers apply to "this week" (Dec 8th).

As of November 6th - 17 million songs sold (according to the blog)

It's only 4 weeks ago... so we can do some calcuations depending on the actual date of the 20million number.

Assume 20 million songs were sold as of the following dates, and you get these numbers:

Nov 13 => 428,571 songs a day
Nov 20 => 214,285 songs a day
Nov 27 => 142,857 songs a day
Dec 3 => 111,111 songs a day

So, it's certainly not December 3rd. It takes some time to write an article. And... the 20 million figure may not have been "fresh" right when steve was interviewed.

The point is, it's all speculation... just because someone can draw a pretty graph doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.

(a better guess would place it between 142,000-214,000/songs/day. but again, it's just a guess)

arn
Click to expand...
Thanks Arn , I just wanted to get it cleared up since it didnt sound to promising when I was reading it.
 
pay for file sharing?

Profit-Friendly File-Sharing
12/12/2003 12:04 PM - Sue Zeidler - Reuters
The world's largest software and music companies, together with a broad alliance of companies, are set to work together in a bid to transform Internet file sharing from a haven for piracy into a potential profit centre.

Microsoft and Universal Music, a unit of Vivendi Universal are members of the Content Reference Forum, formed in March to develop a universal way to distribute digital content.

The group has issued an initial set of technology specifications in a bid to create a system in which users would share customized Internet links, called "content references," instead of swapping song or film files directly.

Michael Miron, president of the Content Reference Forum, said the links could work on existing file-sharing networks, which are now frequently used for illegal copying.

For example, if a user wanted a song in an MP3 format from a friend who has it in a different file format, the links would serve as a sort of middleman that would help locate that specific content in the appropriate form.

Pricing for content could be set dynamically, based on demand for specific files and file types, for example, or a company's decision to offer a promotional rate to the first users to download a particular song or video.

Even before Napster revolutionized the distribution of music in 1999 by making it easy for fans to swap music over the Internet, various companies have been grappling with ideas for how to profit from such delivery.

The original Napster, which let people share unlimited numbers of music files for free, was shut down as a result of copyright infringement litigation in 2001.

Napster recently relaunched with a legal subscription and download format, becoming one of several record industry-backed commercial online services like Apple Computer's iTunes, MusicNet, MusicNow and MusicMatch and Rhapsody that are seeking to lure customers away from free Napster-like sites.

But while these services are finding varying degrees of success, consumers still cannot easily get the content they want, in the format and with other preferences they choose, said Miron, who is also chief executive of digital rights management firm ContentGuard Holdings.

"The vision of the forum is for consumers to enjoy as well as redistribute content with commercial terms beneficial to all members of the value chain," he said.

Other members of the forum are chipmaker ARM Holdings, digital security company Macrovision, Japanese telecommunications giant Nippon Telegraph and Telephone and Web-commerce company VeriSign.

"We expect there may be additional interest from companies in joining the group and in participating in writing the standards," said Miron.

iTunes does this already -for free.
 
Originally posted by jholzner
Well, I'm glad to hear that your musical opinion should be the gold standard by which things should be judeged before anything is added to the iTMS. Music snobs are so annoying.
Click to expand...

It's not the fact they were added to the iTMS, but that it's that big a deal. There's gotta be one or two Green Day tracks I like, and maybe some RHCP (Under the Bridge, of corse, being one). I have Californication, and it's only half and half to me. The rappy rock songs (which all sound the same) clash with the slower songs (like Porcelin).

If Apple want to add them I have no problem. But it's not like elvis coming back from the dead to release an exculsive iTMS album or anything.
 
I got the Chili CD with the extra DVD just to get the videos and the new songs.
Part of it for me is also getting the artwork, I know most don't care about covers anymore, but I am a music snob and I do want my covers etc.
:)
 
Same here, I'm a designer and feel a bit sad when I think of all the album sleeves we won't see in the future.
 
Any addition to iTMS big or small is a great thing, choices are a valuable thing :). Hope too see other bands see the "light" and put there songs on iTMS. :p
 
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