Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Music Execs put Gun to thier own heads ...Threaten to pull Plug on iTunes.
- Thread starter jiggie2g
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What is it about this planet and greed?? money, money, money, Gas, Food, MUSIC!! Music should be free. I hate turning on the T.V and hearing these stupid "Artists" complain they cant afford a new car this week. Or Cribs on MtV I dont like paying for these peoples car collections, or beach houses, and $5,000 gift bags and crap like that.
Jobs hit it dead center when he broke it down in an interview last week. iTMS has sold 500 million tracks. If the record companies get 2/3 of the price per track it equates to 330+million bones with ZERO DISTRIBUTION COSTS and a vast percentage of the population hasn't even entered the digital music arena yet.
Some people piss n' moan about $10/album being too high considering you don't get liner notes and what-not. Imagine how many more tracks they'd sell if they actually allowed the price to drop to say $0.69 per track.
As an example, I decided to "KISS-ify" my library last weekend in order to give my workouts a boost. I only bought 4 songs (which to some audiophiles is 4 too many) plus a fistful of miscellaneous metal tracks. I can assure you I wouldn't have pulled the trigger so easily if those tracks were a buck thirty, buck forty or buck fifty.
In actuality, I probably wouldn't have bought a single track.
Let them hang themselves.
Some people piss n' moan about $10/album being too high considering you don't get liner notes and what-not. Imagine how many more tracks they'd sell if they actually allowed the price to drop to say $0.69 per track.
As an example, I decided to "KISS-ify" my library last weekend in order to give my workouts a boost. I only bought 4 songs (which to some audiophiles is 4 too many) plus a fistful of miscellaneous metal tracks. I can assure you I wouldn't have pulled the trigger so easily if those tracks were a buck thirty, buck forty or buck fifty.
In actuality, I probably wouldn't have bought a single track.
Let them hang themselves.
Spock said:
well honestly we buy into the glamour of it (when i say we I mean the huge hordes of people who buy and listen to pop/top 40). People have lost interest in going out and researching and discovering music because according to the media blitzkrieg, generated pop icons are what we should listen to. So people buy into the entire glamour of the pop icon and we MAKE these pop icons who they are. it's our $ that makes them rich and it's our demented idea of happiness that makes the record companies create and mold people in to whiny little primadonas. Don't shout at the record companies. Shout at the system that promotes mass culture because it's easier to produce and make $ off of.
I have lived in the NYC area pretty much my entire life and I've been a music junky since like 13 or so (I'm 23 now). Over the last 10 years I've seen the classic R&B station turn into a rap/hip-hop station the soul/jackson 5 style station turn into a rap/hip-hop station, the oldies station turn into a light rock station, several new pop stations come up, the hard rock station doesn't play hard rock anymore - it plays stuff like "oh look what you've done," by Jet and other pop-rock kind of stuff,
There's a simple recipe for making a pop star and making pop music, so there's no incentive to risk it with new/alternative music. Pop is easy money... all you have to do is convince people that it's all there is.
It's the same BS with chain stores massacring small independent stores. Wal-Mart etc. TV with cable homogeneity.
There's been a real shift from the 80s and pop art where people embraced pop culture as a sort of amusing segment of their lives, to now where most people never get a glimpse outside of that bubble.
Ten years is pretty much within everyone here's lifetime - the world has really changed.
People think the world is what they see, but what they don't understand is that big mindless bacteria of corporations are controlling and beaming in pretty much all the things you see and hear. Or maybe it just takes too much work to think about the complexities of the world and it's easier to just buy into "the matrix".
So how does this relate to ITMS? Record companies are dying corporations. They are going to crawl and scratch with dollars and cents jingle-jangling inside their heads. They are going to do anything they can to fulfill their undying lust for cash. Eventually they will die, but expect more attempts at mind bending as they try to twist the rules of logic so that it funnels $ back into their pockets.
I've heard some things about how apple is ripping off the artist. And to say all artists are rich primadonas looking to get a new car every month is untrue. There are many smaller groups who just make a decent living and many still smaller groups who are scrounging to get by. Things don't change easily, but I'm hoping that maybe the open format of the internet will liberate people to some extent from listening to the same BS. Apple can't maintain it's ipod/itunes monopoly forever. Not too many people are deeply invested in the ITMS so when a real alternative does sprout up I think the market share will even out some. This competition will keep Apple and it's competitors from manipulating their power and will force them to give back to musicians a fair cut. It also may force apple to open up the ipod to other formats... but I think steve's hard-headedness/perfectionist tendencies may make it hard for him to accept this (IE seemless ipod/itms integration!)
The internet is liberating people to go out and see new things very easily. No web address is any harder to type in than any other. But I guess it's gonna take a while for the entire structure of the pop culture icon to break down a bit and become more, just a part of people's lives and not an all-enveloping thing.
I don't know... maybe things have always been this way and I'm just deceiving myself. Sorry for such a rant. I hope I made some kind of sense and didn't make too many dangerous generalizations.
Edit: Holy s*** that was long. Man, the odds of anyone reading through all that are pretty low.
Onizuka said:
Please.. if you don't work in the music recording industry, don't comment on what your take on album pricing should be and shouldn't be. $10 an album? I agree that $23.. $19/album is expensive.. but you think $10 an album is expensive? That's like myself saying "Oh hell no, I don't think a laser resurfacing should be $3000.. I won't pay more than $300"
I graduated from medical school, so I know what the procedure would cost, taking into factors such as equipment cost, insurance costs, salary paid to nurses, etc etc. Similarly, when you talk about an album.. do you have any idea how much it costs to produce an album? I am all for the 99 c/song iTunes pricing.. thats perfect. Any lower, and it would seriously hurt the music industry. The music record labels get the fat chunk of the profits.. leaving recording engineers and producers with a little bit (yes producers are rich but remember.. this is a volume business.. )
Having said that, I would pirate music myself if the record companies got greedy.. but my point is, the next time you think what an album should be priced at, try making one yourself.. and then let me know what you think an album should cost.
You know if it werent for iTunes then I'd still be out there on Kazaa or sharaza getting songs for it because to me paying the 13-18 bucks a CD and having only 3-4 songs that I actually like and listen to is a WASTE. 99 cents a song I think is reasonable given that if I like 3 or 4 from one group then want to buy another 1 or 2 from another group entirely then I can do that and not waste money on music I dont want or like.
The RIAA and MPAA are a bunch of crooks pure and simple and I'd GLADLY kick their CEO's in the balls. Apparently they arent making money fast enough to pay their big salaries and afford all those expensive homes, yachts, and vacations.
F*ck them we all as consumers have the power to put them out of business and if thats the way it ends up for them I wont feel sorry.
The RIAA and MPAA are a bunch of crooks pure and simple and I'd GLADLY kick their CEO's in the balls. Apparently they arent making money fast enough to pay their big salaries and afford all those expensive homes, yachts, and vacations.
F*ck them we all as consumers have the power to put them out of business and if thats the way it ends up for them I wont feel sorry.
maxterpiece said:
Yeah, I pretty much skipped it 3 times before I bit the bullet and read it.
I pretty much agree w/yer sentiments. People complain about the N'Sync's and Briteny's of the music world, but if people didn't their albums left and right they wouldn't exist. When people complain about paying $18 for an album w/one good song I always wonder why they don't listen to better bands and shop places w/cheaper prices. It's like eating at fast food places every day and blaming McDonalds or Wendy's or Burger King for making you fat even though you refuse to eat any place else. If yer so lazy and weak that marketing and hype will compel you to pay $18 for an album w/only one good song then you deserve to lose your money.
I have no problems paying $14 or $15 for an album (or $25-$30 for an import or special edition), but, then again, I don't listen to crappy music.
Lethal
70,000 people booed Ashley Simpson,
her fans on her own website abandoned her
and yet
she still sells albums. (millions)
Who the hell is buying this crap?
her fans on her own website abandoned her
and yet
she still sells albums. (millions)
Who the hell is buying this crap?
LethalWolfe said:
Ah, I was wondering when the music elitists would come out of the woodwork on this one. "Crappy music" would be what, music that you don't like? Music that is mainstream?
I don't believe in an objective standard of value in music (or other art). I do believe that some artists are more talented and work harder at their music than others, but that doesn't mean what they ultimately produce will be more pleasing to my ear, which as far as my goals are concerned, is all that matters.
Disclaimer: the following may be seen as offensive. I don't mean it that way. But this thread really surprises me, in light of what I've seen on macrumors on this topic before, and I'm hoping someone can shed some light on their thinking.
Back on topic, I find it interesting that the sentiments on this board when iTMS first came out were, "Great! Now that we have this option, anyone who illegally downloads music is a pirate, a thief, and god knows what else because the musicians are artists and we're not entitled to the fruits of their labor without paying what they ask." And now, when the spectre of a $.30, .40, or .50 price increase looms, the general sentiment here is, "F 'em. I can always use Limewire."
So I guess we can now answer the old question of what your principles are worth: about $.40.
And just for the record - I'm not holding myself out as some kind of moral superior. In fact, I've obtained music in ways that skirt with the borders of legality many times, and will undoubtably do so again. I feel no guilt about it, and I could (and have, on this board) explain why I don't, but that's a whole other discussion. I also purchase a lot of music legally, again, for the record. My point isn't that I'm better than you - just that IF you believe that Limewire etc. is stealing, then it's stealing wether the tracks on iTMS cost $.99, $.49, $1.40, or $10 each.
So by all means, fire up limewire when they raise the iTMS prices. Just don't pretend that this is some kind of moral issue to you when it's clearly about the bottom line.
I read the whole thing and I thought it was well said. I have a performance/composition degree from a major music conservatory, and the trash that passes as music these days makes my skin crawl. So many people with real musical talent are working in book stores and coffee shops, while people adulate these no-talent pop icons as "musicians" and elevate them above the status of mere mortals. In all honesty, a price increase on the iTMS probably wouldn't affect the music I listen to (I purchase mostly classical and movie soundtrack albums), but I am morally opposed to the record labels rasing the price on certain tracks without any real justification to do so (outside of greed). I hope Steve continues to stand his ground, and I hope the iTMS will help the general population to see that there is real music out there beyond thge latest 16 yr old pop icon.maxterpiece said:
Music_Producer said:
I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it's not some secret mystery how much it actually costs to produce a product versus how much they charge for it. We've seen it here with Apple products. So to say that they should only charge something like $10 an album is a pretty fair statement, actually. Just because the artists themselves only get a small percentage doesn't tell me it's OK to pay more- it tells me the record companies have got to change.
Lacero said:You know what's going to happen eventually, right?
1. Piracy goes up, since any online music store that charges more than 99¢ won't gain the traction that iTMS was able to pull off. Digital music downloads will stall.
2. Some bands or less well-known musicians will dump their labels, and sell directly from iTMS at or below 99¢. Music downloads pick-up.
3. iTMS will become the clearinghouse for music downloads. Apple's future looks bright.
4. Music labels will beg to rejoin the iTMS, but this time, on Steve Job's terms, ie: labels get 2¢, the musicians get 49¢ and iTMS gets the rest (ok, that was a bit of a stretch)
5. The music labels and the greedy music industry as we know it disappears.
I'm surprised it hasn't happened already!
If iTMS grows much bigger, it has the potential to render the RIAA redundant (ok, even more so). Artists sell through an "agent" that takes say, a 5c cut on each single, artist gets 60c. As opposed to around 10c now.
No wonder the RIAA are worried.
QCassidy352 said:
Nothing elitist about it, yer just misunderstanding that part of my post. By "crappy music" I meant bands/musicians (in whatever genre) that, especially by popular opinion, only have "1 good song on an album." If you can only manage to have 1 good song out of 10-15 then that's a crappy album, IMO. And if people pay $18 for a crappy album just so they can have that 1 song that's their problem.
However, if you choose to listen to good bands/musicians (in whatever genre of music you like) that have many good songs on an album you'll never, ever complain about paying $18 for an album w/only 1 good song ever again.
Buy music you like is my point. I don't understand people who buy something they don't like then complain about buying it.
Lethal
LethalWolfe said:
Ah, you're right, I did misunderstand you; sorry. I agree with you, in that case.
iTunes music label?
I think it may not be too long before we see an iTunes music label... although then Apple records would really be unhappy.
I think it may not be too long before we see an iTunes music label... although then Apple records would really be unhappy.
whooleytoo said:
With much of the population learning of artists through the radio, and the record labels illegaly controlling the radio through payola, I don't think they have to worry about being completely bypassed for a long time.
decksnap said:
There's a huge difference in margins for professional services versus consumer/prosumer products. In fact, you cannot compare the two. An album is not 'manufactured' in a studio ..you're probably thinking about the actual CD and case manufacturing, assembly, shrink wrapping, etc and distribution. I am talking about the actual production costs, studio renting costs, engineers, assistants, producers, studio session players, mixing engineers, mastering engineers, mastering studio costs, etc etc. A good studio costs anywhere from $500-$1000/hour. Remember that albums take months to produce.. plus marketing costs.. etc.
Like I said before, if you're not in the profession, you simply cannot fathom how much money is involved in making an album. Its this attitude of people that has led to downloading music in the first place.. the "Oh this stupid album probably cost like 50 cents to make.. i mean geez, just patch in a mic, have some guys play the drums and guitars and bam.. an album..ahh..i aint paying 20 bux for it.. i'll just download it from kazaa"..
There are studio engineers who have years of experience and are now out of jobs.. its sad that people only concentrate on the 'artist' ..especially the flashy ones. There are a lot of people involved in the whole process..
The same logic applies to downloading movies too. You could very well say that "Oh damn, tom cruise has a lot of money anyway.. i aint buying his dvd, i'll just download it"..
I'm all for fair pricing, and not too fond of record execs either. Artists, producers, etc.. always have an unfriendly vibe towards record companies.. but its these record companies that pool in hundreds of thousands.. if not millions of dollars into making the artist succeed in the first place.
Record companies are like banks.. they 'invest' in an artist by supplying the necessary finances.. and obviously they expect a return back. I don't see you arguing "Hey I want to pay 1% apr for a 30 yr fixed loan on my mortgage" with your bank..
The day someone takes your job by working for free.. or $2/hour .. and you hear "Oh no big deal.. you didn't work in an important field anyway.. i mean.. what did you do?" is when you will realize that drastic price fluctuation will invariably affect any industry.. for the worse.
Personal experience
Let me share a little story.. this was back in 2001 when I created a dance/electronica track in my home.. on a crappy 8 track digital recorder. I didn't think of it as that great or whatever, but I used to take it to nightclubs.. and the djs used to play it. After a month or so, I was surprised that people actually started asking for the name of the song, and where they could buy it. So there I was, thinking of forming an independent record label.. and selling it for cheap .. as a 'single'..yes I was very poor back then.. existing on a very modest allowance!! I thought .. "hey great! Maybe from the money I get, I can buy more gear and make some more music.. and better quality too (sonically)"
One of the djs secretly recorded the tune (with a portable DAT player I suppose) and by the next week my song was all over Napster (i dont think kazaa existed back then) Do you know how it feels to actually see your song, being downloaded by millions of people? For FREE?
Just because it was downloaded by so many people, a record company that had previously contacted me for this tune, dropped the deal .. stating that "by now, too many people already have it" Darn cabbies were playing the song in their cars..I just gave up making any more music..it was that disheartening. If I could only have strangled each and every person that downloaded that song.. thats how I felt! And thats how I feel about the whole downloading thing.
Let me share a little story.. this was back in 2001 when I created a dance/electronica track in my home.. on a crappy 8 track digital recorder. I didn't think of it as that great or whatever, but I used to take it to nightclubs.. and the djs used to play it. After a month or so, I was surprised that people actually started asking for the name of the song, and where they could buy it. So there I was, thinking of forming an independent record label.. and selling it for cheap .. as a 'single'..yes I was very poor back then.. existing on a very modest allowance!! I thought .. "hey great! Maybe from the money I get, I can buy more gear and make some more music.. and better quality too (sonically)"
One of the djs secretly recorded the tune (with a portable DAT player I suppose) and by the next week my song was all over Napster (i dont think kazaa existed back then) Do you know how it feels to actually see your song, being downloaded by millions of people? For FREE?
Just because it was downloaded by so many people, a record company that had previously contacted me for this tune, dropped the deal .. stating that "by now, too many people already have it" Darn cabbies were playing the song in their cars..I just gave up making any more music..it was that disheartening. If I could only have strangled each and every person that downloaded that song.. thats how I felt! And thats how I feel about the whole downloading thing.
Music Producer
First off, i don't agree that the solution is to start pirating music. My reply is simply on the topic at hand, why I don't feel (like others) that paying more then $0.99 per song is in my budget.
Regardless of how many jobs are on the line, The music industry is a "consumer" driven entity. Costs in that market can and do become affected by the population buying those goods or services. The consumers don't care about ROI for marketing musicians, expense reports, or the current cost of living for the production team. They want to buy their music, listen to it, and move on to the next item on their shopping list.
I too come from an industry that gain's profit from what consumers feel is an adequate price for services. I took a LARGE pay cut in 2000 (like Many others in IT consulting), and am just now starting to make as much money as I did in 1999.
Do I have a grudge with society? Not now, but I was mighty angry when I took my pay cut. It took about a year before I realized that "society" was right, and became ok with it. Our production costs were somewhat exotic in some ways, yet dead on correct in others. I guarantee that many (NOT all) people indirectly or directly associated with large record companies (employees of that company, associated studios, producers, and production teams) are paid quite well, and even with a pay cut (caused by leveling or less profit) would be living just fine, and would not be moving to a homeless shelter.
I live near a studio owned by a relatively famous musician. Having family working for the city, I know about how much the building costs to run a month. That includes how much they pay in taxes, how much they pay for utilities and other things. Granted this building is bought and paid for, but without giving out the specifics, they make enough money to pay for 6 months worth of electricity, in about 50 hours of rented studio time. 50 hours pays THAT much, and this is only a studio in Minnesota, I can't imagine the price of a similar studio in LA? Is that price fair? I have absolutely no idea, but I am sure they could afford less.
Like in the case of Airlines (sorry MacDawg and others), Automotive manufacturers, and other similar consumer driven industries, the pubic is in charge. Like those the fate of the music industry, and what money they will receive, is in the hands of the people paying for it.
Perhaps Apple is in the wrong, but it was the RECORD COMPANIES that agreed to sign the contracts, THUS waking people up to the option of buying online music, and reduced costs. People got instant gratification downloading "legal" music, and record companies got a taste of quick profit, with less marketing work and little to no "post" production costs for those same dollars previous to iTunes. If the record companies thought that people interested in 1 or 2 songs from the album would buy ALL songs from the album, they must be living in a cave (one of the arguments the record companies are using against the iTunes model).
There may be a HUGE difference in cost between prosumer and professional music production, but if the person buying said prosumer music is happy with it, it doesn't matter. They made a decision and put their money in the pot that produced the product they were after.
On a personal note,
I personally prefer to buy my big name music form 2nd hand CD stores. It wasn't until iTunes that record companies started seeing my money go directly to them. If iTunes goes away, I will go back to buying from Cheapo or other 2nd hand music companies. Mostly ALL of my music is 100% legal, and only one of the ways I was purchasing music actually benefitted the record companies directly. If those record companies take that away from me, I will go back to buying their products from the used market. Unlike used cars or computers, I won't be going to them for replacement parts, or accessories, thus they will rarely be seeing my money, as I am fine waiting until someone else is done with their CD.
I am one of surely 1000's of people like this. A consumer speaking out not by writing, protesting, or pirating. I am simply taking my business elsewhere.
First off, i don't agree that the solution is to start pirating music. My reply is simply on the topic at hand, why I don't feel (like others) that paying more then $0.99 per song is in my budget.
Regardless of how many jobs are on the line, The music industry is a "consumer" driven entity. Costs in that market can and do become affected by the population buying those goods or services. The consumers don't care about ROI for marketing musicians, expense reports, or the current cost of living for the production team. They want to buy their music, listen to it, and move on to the next item on their shopping list.
I too come from an industry that gain's profit from what consumers feel is an adequate price for services. I took a LARGE pay cut in 2000 (like Many others in IT consulting), and am just now starting to make as much money as I did in 1999.
Do I have a grudge with society? Not now, but I was mighty angry when I took my pay cut. It took about a year before I realized that "society" was right, and became ok with it. Our production costs were somewhat exotic in some ways, yet dead on correct in others. I guarantee that many (NOT all) people indirectly or directly associated with large record companies (employees of that company, associated studios, producers, and production teams) are paid quite well, and even with a pay cut (caused by leveling or less profit) would be living just fine, and would not be moving to a homeless shelter.
I live near a studio owned by a relatively famous musician. Having family working for the city, I know about how much the building costs to run a month. That includes how much they pay in taxes, how much they pay for utilities and other things. Granted this building is bought and paid for, but without giving out the specifics, they make enough money to pay for 6 months worth of electricity, in about 50 hours of rented studio time. 50 hours pays THAT much, and this is only a studio in Minnesota, I can't imagine the price of a similar studio in LA? Is that price fair? I have absolutely no idea, but I am sure they could afford less.
Like in the case of Airlines (sorry MacDawg and others), Automotive manufacturers, and other similar consumer driven industries, the pubic is in charge. Like those the fate of the music industry, and what money they will receive, is in the hands of the people paying for it.
Perhaps Apple is in the wrong, but it was the RECORD COMPANIES that agreed to sign the contracts, THUS waking people up to the option of buying online music, and reduced costs. People got instant gratification downloading "legal" music, and record companies got a taste of quick profit, with less marketing work and little to no "post" production costs for those same dollars previous to iTunes. If the record companies thought that people interested in 1 or 2 songs from the album would buy ALL songs from the album, they must be living in a cave (one of the arguments the record companies are using against the iTunes model).
There may be a HUGE difference in cost between prosumer and professional music production, but if the person buying said prosumer music is happy with it, it doesn't matter. They made a decision and put their money in the pot that produced the product they were after.
On a personal note,
I personally prefer to buy my big name music form 2nd hand CD stores. It wasn't until iTunes that record companies started seeing my money go directly to them. If iTunes goes away, I will go back to buying from Cheapo or other 2nd hand music companies. Mostly ALL of my music is 100% legal, and only one of the ways I was purchasing music actually benefitted the record companies directly. If those record companies take that away from me, I will go back to buying their products from the used market. Unlike used cars or computers, I won't be going to them for replacement parts, or accessories, thus they will rarely be seeing my money, as I am fine waiting until someone else is done with their CD.
I am one of surely 1000's of people like this. A consumer speaking out not by writing, protesting, or pirating. I am simply taking my business elsewhere.