Music execs upset on iTMS

[vwcruisn]

ok... to all the greedy musicians that wont allow singles to be sold.. don't sign up... and people will just keep stealing your music...

you think theyd jump at the opportunity to get paid for something thats gonna happen anyway

 

[LethalWolfe]

Re: explains the foo

Originally posted by psxndc
I recently went to the taping of the Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn where the Foo Fighters performed. I thought they were amazing live. After the show, I thought "Hey, I like what I've heard on the radio by them. I'll check the iTMS to see if I can get the album or at least some singles."

No such luck. I entered in an artist request for them and picked the album from Best Buy and I am pretty disappointed with my decision. My fiancee likes it, but I only like about half the songs, if that. And I don't feel that it has a flow to it that constitutes a "whole album only" experience. They're a bunch of individual songs on the same record. It's not like the album is Operation Mindcrime (anyone? anyone?) or a tool album: meant to be a cohesive experience

Given my disappointment, it is unlikely I will buy another Foo Figthers album. I'm not mad or anything, I just don't like their stuff enough to spend another $15 on it. I'd buy singles, but not albums. If they'd rather get $0 instead of say $5, well, I guess that's their decision.

As for Madonna (and Metallica as someone posted their preference for them) she/they will never, EVER, see another cent from me. And I bought every Metallica album up to the black one. Anyone that disrespects their fans, or anyone else, like they have deserves to flicker out as an artist. File sharing got you down? Fine. Try this:

"Dear file sharers, I am glad you enjoy my music, but please understand it is my livelihood. If you don't agree with the existing pricing structure, that is unfortunate, but please do not steal the music. May I suggest putting your energy towards proposing a new pricing structure, one that you feel is fair to both consumers, artists, and any others whose livelihoods depend on the music business? Again, thank you for being a fan. But please work within the existing system, or be an agent of change of that system, as long as it follows the letter of the law"

Stealing music is wrong, no matter how you slice it. But telling people doing it "What the **** do you think you're doing?" through an mp3 only makes you look immature, and it certainly doesn't stop them. And metallica.... cripes. Sueing your fans? gg. I was one. No longer. And no amount of apologizing will ever change that. Could I go get the album off p2p and "stick it to them"? Sure. But I'd rather be Metallica-free than sink to their level.

-p

I think it's funny the Foo Fighters are holding out 'cause when the whole Napster/Metallica thing was goin' one Dave Gruel (?) was bashing Metallica on talk shows and what not. I guess Dave doesn't mind if you download all the Foo Fighters trax for free but if you want to pay for them by God you will buy the whole album...

Speaking of Metallica. They didn't sue their fans. They tracked downloads and complied a list of like 300,000 Napster users that downloaded studio versions of Metallica songs in a given time period and presented that list to Shawn Fanning (and his lawyers I'm assuming). Metallica did that because when they presented their original cease & desist order to Fanning he said that just because Metallica songs were on the network it didn't mean they were being downloaded.


Lethal

 

[shadowfax]

Re: Re: explains the foo

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Speaking of Metallica. They didn't sue their fans. They tracked downloads and complied a list of like 300,000 Napster users that downloaded studio versions of Metallica songs in a given time period and presented that list to Shawn Fanning (and his lawyers I'm assuming). Metallica did that because when they presented their original cease & desist order to Fanning he said that just because Metallica songs were on the network it didn't mean they were being downloaded.


Lethal

i believe they then had those users banned from napster though, isn't that right? i seem to remember a good friend of mine having that happen a few years back.

at the end of the day, whatever the case, metallica are a bunch of ****s; i am glad i pirated their good stuff just to spite them, and by the sound of their latest single, i am never going to be tempted to buy or even listen to any of their music ever.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Re: Re: Re: explains the foo

Originally posted by Shadowfax
i believe they then had those users banned from napster though, isn't that right? i seem to remember a good friend of mine having that happen a few years back.

at the end of the day, whatever the case, metallica are a bunch of ****s; i am glad i pirated their good stuff just to spite them, and by the sound of their latest single, i am never going to be tempted to buy or even listen to any of their music ever.

I think you might be right. I'm honesty not sure though. What I am sure of though is that Napster was the target of the suit, not the users on the network.

To each their own but I'm not going to waste my hate on Metallica because Shawn Fanning repeatedly refused to obey copyright law.


Lethal

 

[shadowfax]

Re: Re: Re: Re: explains the foo

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
To each their own but I'm not going to waste my hate on Metallica because Shawn Fanning repeatedly refused to obey copyright law.

are you referring to the napster incident or something else. eitherr way, how do you mean?

 

[LethalWolfe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: explains the foo

Originally posted by Shadowfax
are you referring to the napster incident or something else. eitherr way, how do you mean?

I'm refering to Napster. Metallica served Fanning (the dude behind Napster) w/a cease and desit order for allowing distribution of their studio songs w/o permission (which is violation of copyright law). Fannying basically said just because the songs are on the network doesn't mean people are downloading them. That's when Metallica tracked the downloads and presented Fanning w/the list of users and downloads that I mentioned previously. Those users were banned but all it took was a simple re-insall and signing up w/a different user name to get past the ban. So obviously the ban didn't work. Around this time Dr. Dre started tracking downloads of his songs on Napster. Napster refused to install any sort of filtering software over the network to keep people from downloading specific songs/artists and said all they would due was ban offending accounts. Which obvioulsy was an empty gesture since getting around the ban was so easy. Of course after this Napster was eventually shut down.

The reason I don't feel at all for Fanning is because he decided not to work w/artists whose only request was for their music to be blocked/banned from being traded on Napster (which is clearly w/in their rights as copyright holders of said music). It's all about respect IMO and Fanning clearly decided not to respect other people's property. Now, if Fanning had tried to work w/the artists sueing Napster but still got shut down in the end I would have some sympathy for the guy. But he didn't so I don't. Maybe he really believed he would win. Maybe he didn't want to appear to be a "sell out" to all his users. Maybe he knew he would lose but wanted to become an internet martyr. I honestly don't know. But he decided to mess w/the bull and he got the horns.


Lethal

EDIT: I'm officalling apologizing to pretentious for hijacking this thread. Sry.

 

[d46799]

Madonna can kiss my buttski

 

[Dunepilot]

Album bands

Originally posted by alset

I support artists who don't want their work picked apart. I like the idea that a record is presented as a whole. Then again, if my copy of Pink Floyd's The Wall gets a skip on one song, that's the only one I want to buy. I can't justify replacing the whole album for one track.

There really are no winners with this one, as far as I can see.

As for the artists who have a full album available, minus one track, I won't buy a single song. I'm tired of finding records that have 13 songs ready to buy, but just one has been left out. I thought those final tracks were still coming, when iTMS was brand new. Now I figure that artists like Sticky Fingaz (20 track partial) are just trying to get every cent they can, and I won't play ball.

I quite agree - any band worth its salt takes its time over not just compiling an album, but composing it so that it works as a unified whole. The Beatles set that precedent with their short songs leading you between the classics.

So, thinking about bands who have always written albums the correct way, I looked up Faith No More on the iMS. Needless to say, there's only Album of the Year available and that is in an incomplete form. It's very irritating to see the album 'discount' being confounded on releases like this that demand to be listened to as a whole album.

Also, why does the iMS think people would be willing to pay the full album price for the Nine Inch Nails singles? Seems a little unreasonable to me.

 

[evilelvis]

Smokescreen

Without the digital bogeyman, music artists would have to deal with the fact that they are putting out sub-par material. Now they can blame slumping sales on piracy.

If people only download singles it proves that the rest of the album is just filler, especially if you have a chance to preview it before you buy.

I think artists like Madonna are afraid that record companies will realise they only have a handful of good songs.

 

[chewbaccapits]

"But many big-time artists - including Madonna, the Foo Fighters and the Dave Matthews Band - still balk at making their music available to Apple because of the computer maker's demand that the artists allow single tracks to be sold in addition to albums. "

All the more reason to PERSUE indie-bands...The Foos and Madonna will see how good the service is, after a while! Stay up STEVE!...Don't back down.

 

[springscansing]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
metallica has discovered the ULTIMATE solution to internet piracy: making really really bad music. kudos to them. i hope my favorite bands don't follow suit.

Sing it sister.. er.. brother.

**** those guitar playing bitches!

 

[scribbleed]

Is it the artist or the agent's fault?

I would have thought Jobs' agreement with the studios is that the studios must provide at least an X% of their music to iTMS.

 

[DougAdams]

History

Fifty years and longer ago, pop artists would record two tracks at a time. These were called "Sides", because one could be etched to either Side of a recorded Disk (called a "Record"). Buyers would by two Sides at a time. As more Records by an artist were produced, they would be collected into Albums, very much like Photograph albums or scrapbooks (classical music required this primitive "long-form"). These Albums contained pockets to hold each Record. These pocketed Albums would be produced by the record company. When the 7" Record replaced the 10" Record, and technology enabled the Long Playing 12" Record (LPs), collections of Singles were produced and still called "Albums". For example, the Beatles produced Singles, which were assembled into Album LPs and sold by the record company. Producing an entire album by a pop music artist is a relatively new phenomenon, popularized by early concept Albums (Beatles, Mothers of Invention, Pink Floyd, et al).

 

[solvs]

You guys have made some interesting points. I'm kinda shocked that the Foo Fighters would be doing this. And yeah, you'd think getting some compensation through legal means would be better than people just using p2ps and the "artist" getting nothing. Instead of getting a few cents for a song, they want a few cents for an album, and wind up with no one buying anything. I think this is a perfect opportunity for the real artists to get out there and show their stuff. I think the age of albums with 1 or 2 good songs, and a bunch of filler crap, is over.

No more $5 singles, either.

 

[Wonder Boy]

Re: explains the foo

Originally posted by psxndc

Given my disappointment, it is unlikely I will buy another Foo Figthers album. I'm not mad or anything, I just don't like their stuff enough to spend another $15 on it. I'd buy singles, but not albums. If they'd rather get $0 instead of say $5, well, I guess that's their decision.


-p

Dude!!! Rethink this! The Colour and the Shape is an amazing album, but I believe their first is the best. As a Foo Fan from the start . Nirvana is my favorite band (sniff sniff), and I have noticed a progressive change in the Foo. I did not buy their most recent album because it got away from the style of the first 2 CD's. Their third CD is good, but it's different.Don't judge the Foo on the most recent release. Get Foo Fighters and you'll see that buying it is was worth it.

 

[majesticsock]

I don't believe in the "save the album" argument for not letting consumers download individual tracks. When it is time for the album to become extinct, people will stop buying it. Obviously, since about 1/2 of all iTMS purchases are albums, people still enjoy them.
What those big name bands are worried about are people who hear the single on the radio/mtv and go out and buy the whole cd instead of a single. Why else would they try to hold back change unless it benefited them in some way?

 

[rjwill246]

Originally posted by majesticsock
I don't believe in the "save the album" argument for not letting consumers download individual tracks. When it is time for the album to become extinct, people will stop buying it. Obviously, since about 1/2 of all iTMS purchases are albums, people still enjoy them.
What those big name bands are worried about are people who hear the single on the radio/mtv and go out and buy the whole cd instead of a single. Why else would they try to hold back change unless it benefited them in some way?

None of the 'BIG' artists wants to have only 99c singles downloaded when they could sell the whole album- either from the Music Store or from regular retail. They would argue that the album is a 'holistic whole' and that the songs compliment each other.. riiighhht! That hasn't happened since Lord knows when. I still think SJ should put the albums online at the artists' requests and then watch them NOT sell. It would prove a point and stop the argument, weak as it is. The likely truth behind the opposition is fear of the internet and having the music stolen. But it is is more 'professional' to claim that the artistic integrity of the work (whole album) is being undermined by having it bought piecemeal.

 

[yzedf]

To sell by the song is better than by the entire album, in most cases. 99cents per song vs 9.99 (and up) per album. This is all about choice. The music industry is not keen on choice, and more and more the artists themselves aren't either. It is nice to see the iTMS bringing this issue out of the shadows of "ownership rights" and into the "mainstream conciousness." Not that iTMS usage is mainstream yet... but it might be.

 

[thirdwaver]

Ironic

I think it's ironic that some of the artists most opposed to single song sales are the artists with the most good single songs! Whatever your feelings about Madonna, it would be difficult to argue that she was a one hit wonder.

The fact is, the world is changing. The Internet has closed some avenues and opened up new ones. I'm growing tired of hearing these whining artists who want the world to stay the same. Waaaa.

Wake up recording industry! Consumers want to buy songs not albums. If you succeed in strong-arming Apple into removing song purchases, you will find out that consumers will go right back to doing what they were doing all along... Stealing music.

These record company executives should tell these multi-millionaires to shut up and concentrate on making good music instead of trying to stick us for $12 with one good song and nine songs of "creative" crap that the artist wants to record because he's been stoned once too many times.

Just my two pennies.

Sean

 

[maxterpiece]

albums

I agree that a lot of albums are stuffed with bad material, but in the end, as Napster proved, artists have a right to present their work in whatever format they choose. If a painter explained to you that he wouldn't sell a single painting, only a set of x paintings because he felt that part of what he was trying to express was lost when the paintings were separated, you wouldn't argue. You wouldn't say, "but those other paintings are kind of boring and poorly done. I really only want this one." The same thing goes for these musicians. They have a right to sell their music in whatever format they see fit. We can speculate all we want about whether it is about $ or whatever. And if their music sucks and they only have 1 or 2 good tracks, their album probably won't sell as well as other albums - no one will want to fork over $10 for 2 songs when they can pay $2 for any 2 other songs - and their desire for money will force them to either make better music, and/or start selling their music as singles.

 

[thirdwaver]

Re: albums

Originally posted by maxterpiece
You wouldn't say, "but those other paintings are kind of boring and poorly done. I really only want this one." The same thing goes for these musicians. They have a right to sell their music in whatever format they see fit.

Actually, I would tell the artist that the others are boring and poorly done. And the way I tell the artist that is by casting my consumer vote.

I agree with you that Artists have the right to choose... with two points...

1) A person should still be able to sample each song before choosing the buy the album. To use your analogy, the "Tower Records" method is like paying over 9 times the cost of a single painting for the painting on display at the gallery, but getting 8 additional paintings site unseen.

2) If a person only likes only one song, the album won't sell and the person will still go steal it. Hence we go back to the same ol thing.

The record companies have got to realize that technology has them by the short hairs. They make a fairly substantial investment in their signed artists. If those artists insist on dumb business strategies, I would assume that someone in the record company would pull their head out of a dark place and give them an economics lesson.

I do agree that the decision ultimately rests between the record company and the artist and Apple should allow these artists to piss off their fans if the artists want that bad enough.

Sean