Music Labels Wary of Apple?
- Thread starter MacBytes
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
BornAgainMac
macrumors 604
iriejedi said:Well - IF I was a musician - (AND TRUST ME I'M NOT) - I'd post my song with iTunes and never use a record lable again (GREEDY ARROGANT PIGS). People want my album they down load and burn it.
iTunes is the first major step towards making independant music (and some of it is quit good) available to the masses.
Heck our KFOG (stream at KFOG.com) has in house acoustic performances and then in like 24 hours you can buy it on iTunes - NOW THAT is progress!
AIRHEADS - one of the great films of our time!
Iriejedi
A agree with that. It would be nice if greedy record labels were eliminated. It would be interesting if a future Garageband version allowed you to sell your music on a future iTunes version. This would test the waters for the main stream artists to sell their music on iTunes. It will eventually happen 5 or 10 years from now.
That's ok, while the labels are dragging their *ss worried about Apple taking over Europe, Europeans are downloading from that 6.8¢ a MB, any bitrate any format, from that Russian site.
The RIAA and Microsoft are two evil peas in the same pod. The harder they grip the more slips through their fingers.
The RIAA and Microsoft are two evil peas in the same pod. The harder they grip the more slips through their fingers.
Baloney
The author, Mr. Charles Arthur doesn't even offer any substantiation or names of those "labels" who are afraid of licensing their songs to iTMS. He's full of baloney. Bad reporting, which seems to be everywhere on the internet.
Also labels do not license songs. They license recordings (of songs). Duh. (Songs are licensed to labels/artists to record by the copyright holders of the music).
Also, in response to Sailfish. The RIAA does not license songs and does not determine what record labels record, what artists labels sign or what Apple or any other download website sells. The RIAA is an organization put together by the various labels to make sure that labels and artists get paid for their work. They try to stop illegal copying of songs and stop those people who thumb their noses at intellectual property rights of others. M$ also has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. Grow up or better yet educate yourself on the facts.
The author, Mr. Charles Arthur doesn't even offer any substantiation or names of those "labels" who are afraid of licensing their songs to iTMS. He's full of baloney. Bad reporting, which seems to be everywhere on the internet.
Also labels do not license songs. They license recordings (of songs). Duh. (Songs are licensed to labels/artists to record by the copyright holders of the music).
Also, in response to Sailfish. The RIAA does not license songs and does not determine what record labels record, what artists labels sign or what Apple or any other download website sells. The RIAA is an organization put together by the various labels to make sure that labels and artists get paid for their work. They try to stop illegal copying of songs and stop those people who thumb their noses at intellectual property rights of others. M$ also has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. Grow up or better yet educate yourself on the facts.
Porchland
macrumors 65816
Apple should sign Wilco
At first glance, I thought the news was just a negotiating tactic to get a more favorable deal with Apple. But after reading a lot of these posts and thinking about what the record labels actually DO as a core business, the record labels are in deep doo doo.
First, take the example of an upstart band. I'll use Lucero (a great indie group from Memphis) as a perfect example. Lucero starts on a small regional label called Madjack Records for their first two CDs then switches to the somewhat larger Tiger Style.
The band tours nonstop, they have a great web site (lucerofamily.net), and all three of their albums are on iTMS. If the band continues to grow its fan base and wants to continue maintaining creative control of their music, does it hurt them to stay with a mid-major label? No.
So you could take from this example that iTMS is liberating smaller bands and smaller labels from needing the big five.
Second, the major labels are going to get hit from the top. Wait until Radiohead or U2 or Wilco or whoever actually signs a record deal with APPLE. Apple owns the rights to market and distribute the next "album." Apple and the band can broker ancillary rights deals with Rhapsody or whoever else they want to be able to sell the tracks.
So if iTMS smacks the labels from the bottom with the smaller bands and from the top with the bigger bands, who needs the big five record labels? Um, you know.
Once the labels have become further devalued and Apple has built a critical mass of its own exclusive content, Apple can go out and buy one of the big five on the cheap to lock itself in as a major talent draw.
Then a movie studio to provide content for what will then be known as the iMedia Store. Then, of course, world domination.
At first glance, I thought the news was just a negotiating tactic to get a more favorable deal with Apple. But after reading a lot of these posts and thinking about what the record labels actually DO as a core business, the record labels are in deep doo doo.
First, take the example of an upstart band. I'll use Lucero (a great indie group from Memphis) as a perfect example. Lucero starts on a small regional label called Madjack Records for their first two CDs then switches to the somewhat larger Tiger Style.
The band tours nonstop, they have a great web site (lucerofamily.net), and all three of their albums are on iTMS. If the band continues to grow its fan base and wants to continue maintaining creative control of their music, does it hurt them to stay with a mid-major label? No.
So you could take from this example that iTMS is liberating smaller bands and smaller labels from needing the big five.
Second, the major labels are going to get hit from the top. Wait until Radiohead or U2 or Wilco or whoever actually signs a record deal with APPLE. Apple owns the rights to market and distribute the next "album." Apple and the band can broker ancillary rights deals with Rhapsody or whoever else they want to be able to sell the tracks.
So if iTMS smacks the labels from the bottom with the smaller bands and from the top with the bigger bands, who needs the big five record labels? Um, you know.
Once the labels have become further devalued and Apple has built a critical mass of its own exclusive content, Apple can go out and buy one of the big five on the cheap to lock itself in as a major talent draw.
Then a movie studio to provide content for what will then be known as the iMedia Store. Then, of course, world domination.
iMeowbot
macrumors G3
pkradd said:
The distinction really doesn't matter as far as making the recordings people want available. No one wants to pay for their favorite songs as performed by a wedding band. Given contract terms, performers aren't free to simply re-record the same stuff for a different company, so labels do have absolute control in real life.
Brother Michael
macrumors 6502a
I feel that biggest point here is that the RIAA and other Major Labels are afraid of Apple as a whole.
It is now possible purchase the equipment needed to make a studio quality album in your basement for the cost of one session in a studio (maybe more maybe less but not by much though). With the fact that Apple now includes the software to make this possible for a relatively cheap cost (Garageband being the easiest as it is included in iLife), has them terrifiied out of their minds.
The Revolution has come. It started years ago when Napster was luanched. The public now knows that they can get their name out there. I have not started listening to independent artists...yet. I plan on though this summer catching up in that market to support their (and soon my) struggle to produce albums without a label.
The record industry is losing control. They know that, you know that, I know that. Soon their won't be any. The more they tighten their grip the more people will resist them.
Always remember their are other ways of screwing the music industry besides downloading music online. There is always the option of borrowing a CD from a friend, and ripping it, copying it, whatever.
The end has come for them. It is still a long road we have to travel on and the fight has only just begun, but it has come...they will pay.
Mike
It is now possible purchase the equipment needed to make a studio quality album in your basement for the cost of one session in a studio (maybe more maybe less but not by much though). With the fact that Apple now includes the software to make this possible for a relatively cheap cost (Garageband being the easiest as it is included in iLife), has them terrifiied out of their minds.
The Revolution has come. It started years ago when Napster was luanched. The public now knows that they can get their name out there. I have not started listening to independent artists...yet. I plan on though this summer catching up in that market to support their (and soon my) struggle to produce albums without a label.
The record industry is losing control. They know that, you know that, I know that. Soon their won't be any. The more they tighten their grip the more people will resist them.
Always remember their are other ways of screwing the music industry besides downloading music online. There is always the option of borrowing a CD from a friend, and ripping it, copying it, whatever.
The end has come for them. It is still a long road we have to travel on and the fight has only just begun, but it has come...they will pay.
Mike
fatfish
macrumors 6502
What some posters have forgotten
There have been anumber of posts suggesting that Apple cut out the labels and deal directly with the artist. This is not going to happen, Apple have signed a deal with Apple Corp (Beatles label) not to do this.
Also whilst I agree the reported fear of Apple by the major labels appears moronic, I firstly have to ask myself if it is true. There is very little, if any, supportive evidence that this report is fact.
Finally, maybe, just maybe, the hold up is not based on the labels shortsightedness in realising where Apple are going, instead maybe they realise exactly where Apple are going with iTMS and can see quite clearly that iTMS is the future. And maybe having realised this, they are taking their time to produce a deal that will last long into the future.
There have been anumber of posts suggesting that Apple cut out the labels and deal directly with the artist. This is not going to happen, Apple have signed a deal with Apple Corp (Beatles label) not to do this.
Also whilst I agree the reported fear of Apple by the major labels appears moronic, I firstly have to ask myself if it is true. There is very little, if any, supportive evidence that this report is fact.
Finally, maybe, just maybe, the hold up is not based on the labels shortsightedness in realising where Apple are going, instead maybe they realise exactly where Apple are going with iTMS and can see quite clearly that iTMS is the future. And maybe having realised this, they are taking their time to produce a deal that will last long into the future.
While I hate the fact that an art form I love is under the control of such a bunch of a$$ holes, I can also understand why they are in panic mode. The Major's business plan has been to use revenue from established artists to subsidise their R&D of new artists. If established acts start to leave for online services this whole house of cards comes down. Time for a new business plan!
MS will be treated differently than Apple in this space because their DRM will be set up to benefit the labels and not the consumer. Apple's FairPlay is (IMHO) a pretty good compromise between protecting the copyright holder and giving the consumer some degree of freedom.
Jon
MS will be treated differently than Apple in this space because their DRM will be set up to benefit the labels and not the consumer. Apple's FairPlay is (IMHO) a pretty good compromise between protecting the copyright holder and giving the consumer some degree of freedom.
Jon
Stridder44
macrumors 68040
Yeeeah....maybe if the idiots in the RIAA used all those millions of $$ they're sueing people with took that money and put it to better use, they might start making profits again, and then they wouldn't be loosing so much money!
It's so lame, they complain about loosing millions all the time, but they're spending millions by sueing hundreds of people like it's going to solve a problem or something! *sigh*
It's so lame, they complain about loosing millions all the time, but they're spending millions by sueing hundreds of people like it's going to solve a problem or something! *sigh*
Recording exceptions music still costs $
While it's true that the cost for high quality home recording has come way down in the last few years with the advent of computer based digital recording, it sitll costs quite a bit of money to record a really exception album. Extremely high quality microphones and preamps can't be replaced, and can be very expensive. Also, no matter how much gear you have, have a space to record in that has proper acoustics is absolutely necessary when recording anything with with a microphone. A lot of artists who deal in primarily electornic intrumentation can get really professions results with a computer, but as soon as a microphone is invovled, and it almost always is since vocals feature prominently in most genres of music, the quality of gear and acoustic space are going to influence the end prduct very directly. Another thing people forget is the behind the scenes talent. Part of what makes big studios cost big money is the talent and (probably even more importantly) experience of the engineers doing the recording and mixing, and later, mastering.
Garageband? A fun toy. Nothing wrong with it, but saying that people are going to be cutting professional sounding albums with it is like saying professional painters are ok with doing paint by nubmers. Big name stuff like Logic Pro is used in profession recording studios as well as in home studios (I have it, it goes for about $1000 currently), but like I said, you still need high quality I/O (mics, preamps, acoustic environment) and engineering talent to make really great sounding stuff.
Another thing that takes tons of money is big time promotion. While it's possible for a less well known artist to gain popularity and visibility through really hardcore touring and such, you simply CAN'T be a world wide star without a huge amount of money behind you.
In the current business model, that money comes from the big labels that we all hate so much for quietly telling us what to like and not like all these years. It's obvious that the distribution and manufacturing costs could be brought down to almost nothing if online music content sales starts overshadowing physical product sales (CDs), but while the cost of CREATING the content is coming down as well through new high end low cost home studio grear, it's at nowhere near the level of the change in cost of the distribution/manufacturing side. And promotion costs haven't changed at all, assuming you keep promoting the same way. (That's a separate discussion!)
I'm not saying any of this to defned record labels or try to justify their existence more or anything like that. I jsut want people to be clear that the reduced cost of manufacturing and distribution that online music sales brings to the table is not necessarily mirrored by reduced costs for content CREATION, promotion, etc. Those areas of the music industry are changing as well, but it's a separate track from sales.
Brother Michael said:
While it's true that the cost for high quality home recording has come way down in the last few years with the advent of computer based digital recording, it sitll costs quite a bit of money to record a really exception album. Extremely high quality microphones and preamps can't be replaced, and can be very expensive. Also, no matter how much gear you have, have a space to record in that has proper acoustics is absolutely necessary when recording anything with with a microphone. A lot of artists who deal in primarily electornic intrumentation can get really professions results with a computer, but as soon as a microphone is invovled, and it almost always is since vocals feature prominently in most genres of music, the quality of gear and acoustic space are going to influence the end prduct very directly. Another thing people forget is the behind the scenes talent. Part of what makes big studios cost big money is the talent and (probably even more importantly) experience of the engineers doing the recording and mixing, and later, mastering.
Garageband? A fun toy. Nothing wrong with it, but saying that people are going to be cutting professional sounding albums with it is like saying professional painters are ok with doing paint by nubmers. Big name stuff like Logic Pro is used in profession recording studios as well as in home studios (I have it, it goes for about $1000 currently), but like I said, you still need high quality I/O (mics, preamps, acoustic environment) and engineering talent to make really great sounding stuff.
Another thing that takes tons of money is big time promotion. While it's possible for a less well known artist to gain popularity and visibility through really hardcore touring and such, you simply CAN'T be a world wide star without a huge amount of money behind you.
In the current business model, that money comes from the big labels that we all hate so much for quietly telling us what to like and not like all these years. It's obvious that the distribution and manufacturing costs could be brought down to almost nothing if online music content sales starts overshadowing physical product sales (CDs), but while the cost of CREATING the content is coming down as well through new high end low cost home studio grear, it's at nowhere near the level of the change in cost of the distribution/manufacturing side. And promotion costs haven't changed at all, assuming you keep promoting the same way. (That's a separate discussion!)
I'm not saying any of this to defned record labels or try to justify their existence more or anything like that. I jsut want people to be clear that the reduced cost of manufacturing and distribution that online music sales brings to the table is not necessarily mirrored by reduced costs for content CREATION, promotion, etc. Those areas of the music industry are changing as well, but it's a separate track from sales.
dukemeiser
macrumors 6502a
I guess it doesn't hurt my feelings if European have to get their music form p2p networks. If that's what the labels want, that's what they get.
singletrack
macrumors regular
pkradd said:
To quote the article...
"The five main record labels..."
My emphasis on 'the'. I presume he means the top five. It's also fairly common to not quote off the record sources in journalism. The Independent is a fairly well respected print broadsheet btw in the UK, not just some tech blogging website.
pkradd said:
Although I'd bet on some collusion between the European labels and their American counterparts, the RIAA has nothing to do with the European recording industry and it's artists. It's even less relevant than you cite.
iLilana
macrumors 6502a
I hate the record labels so much ..it hurts!
MTV was invented as a launching point for artists. A way for them to be seen and used for exposure to (in a way) advertise the bands product. Now this industry is totally backward. The artist/label (mostly the label) is now getting paid to advertise their own product on radio, television. If the radio stations were smart... there would be a complete commercial revolution. Payola should be the way things work.. well thats too far. At least the stations should NOT have to pay for playing music. That way the artist is responsible for advertising their own product.
Blood sucking bastards!
MTV was invented as a launching point for artists. A way for them to be seen and used for exposure to (in a way) advertise the bands product. Now this industry is totally backward. The artist/label (mostly the label) is now getting paid to advertise their own product on radio, television. If the radio stations were smart... there would be a complete commercial revolution. Payola should be the way things work.. well thats too far. At least the stations should NOT have to pay for playing music. That way the artist is responsible for advertising their own product.
Blood sucking bastards!
ClimbingTheLog
macrumors 6502a
fatfish said:
We're talking about Steve Jobs as the music mogul. If the play turns out right and people prefer to download music and CD stores go away and the RIAA becomes obsolete and there's a whole new business model around music -
Apple gets all the profit in the industry - keeping the full $0.99 minus what it gives to the artist (I'm guessing they'll go halvsies). The artists would absolutely love to get $5 per album.
At that point, Apple can buy Apple Corp for a massive premium with a month's profits and be done with this silly agreement.
iLilana
macrumors 6502a
JonYo said:
overproduction is an industry hazard. creating monsters like britany spears and micheal bolton or even clay atkin. I'm tired of being programmed to think "perfect sound = perfect recording". Sometimes perfect can be a Robert Johnson record. Thank goodness for technology which is creating a new industry business model. Purely out of necessity. Then maybe the big 5 will finally not be force feeding me crap. My music may be bad and poorly produced... but at least its got what I want. Complete control.
There are no rules anymore.
long live lo-fi
Borg3of5
macrumors member
Of course!
This is just confirmation that record companies want to gouge people for money, and really do not care about artists. Since Apple is having such a great response to 99 cents a song, this must mean that companies are afraid that the MP3 market is really lucrative. What would be great is to see, is to take the middleman out of the equation, and have artists work directly with content providers, i.e. iTMS.
Can you see the Ozzy Osborne in a commercial?
Or Cher?
Or Madonna?
This is just confirmation that record companies want to gouge people for money, and really do not care about artists. Since Apple is having such a great response to 99 cents a song, this must mean that companies are afraid that the MP3 market is really lucrative. What would be great is to see, is to take the middleman out of the equation, and have artists work directly with content providers, i.e. iTMS.
Can you see the Ozzy Osborne in a commercial?
Or Cher?
Or Madonna?
~Shard~
macrumors P6
Borg3of5 said:What would be great is to see, is to take the middleman out of the equation, and have artists work directly with content providers, i.e. iTMS.
Can you see the Ozzy Osborne in a commercial?
Or Cher?
Or Madonna?
Perhaps, but in the real world that will never happen I hope you realize.
That's all well and good for Jimmy Buffett...
...but not everyone has that kind of name recognition. There is absolutely no way for an artist to get on the radio if they do not have a deal with a major label. New artists need promotion. The radio may be terrible, but it's popular. You sell albums (and the hit) by getting a hit on the top 40 stations. There's an incredible series of pieces at salon.com about media consolidation (esp. Clear Channel) and the record industry. Check that out sometime.
I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if someone brought this up...
...but not everyone has that kind of name recognition. There is absolutely no way for an artist to get on the radio if they do not have a deal with a major label. New artists need promotion. The radio may be terrible, but it's popular. You sell albums (and the hit) by getting a hit on the top 40 stations. There's an incredible series of pieces at salon.com about media consolidation (esp. Clear Channel) and the record industry. Check that out sometime.
I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if someone brought this up...
JeffTL said:
coolsoldier
macrumors 6502
Small Note: To all of the people saying the RIAA is afraid of iTMS -- The RIAA is an American organization (Hence the last "A"). The European labels are the ones mentioned in the story -- I'm pretty sure they have a separate trade group.
Record labels are like investment groups -- they provide the capital to get an artist off the ground. With a single outlet for music sales, making music available is an all-or-nothing thing. Apple doesn't list releases except through labels, so the record labels shouldn't be concerned with losing sales to artists who distribute their own recordings, but I think they're justified in being afraid of being overtaken by smaller/upstart labels. Because once a song is in the iTMS, with music videos, staff favorites, iMixes, also-bought, and so on, there's no real advantage to being with a major label vs. being with a minor one.
Record labels are like investment groups -- they provide the capital to get an artist off the ground. With a single outlet for music sales, making music available is an all-or-nothing thing. Apple doesn't list releases except through labels, so the record labels shouldn't be concerned with losing sales to artists who distribute their own recordings, but I think they're justified in being afraid of being overtaken by smaller/upstart labels. Because once a song is in the iTMS, with music videos, staff favorites, iMixes, also-bought, and so on, there's no real advantage to being with a major label vs. being with a minor one.
doogle
macrumors regular
Apple: spin off iTunes as a separate entity that is a music label as well - avoid perhaps the Apple Music lawsuit. Sign up artists directly, cut out the recording industry altogether and start publishing albums/music/videos that are made for the mediums of net and iPod.
If they are fearful of you controlling the market then do like M$ and do it.
If they are fearful of you controlling the market then do like M$ and do it.