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.
Rare and Exclusive iTunes?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Such a thing will not happen until the sales of digital music well and truly outpace CD sales. Right now purchased downloads are just a fraction of overall music sales, and a major act like Pearl Jam or Wilco would have to be insane to give up the major bulk of their revenues by only offering the digital option.Porchland said:
With that said, the more songs on the iTMS, the better. In print, out of print, major label, obscure indie, whatever. It's just stupid what you can't get through normal outlets...Columbia House is just about ready to set collection people on me because I haven't found anything on their service worth buying in three years to fulfill my membership agreement! But they don't HAVE anything I want.....
Yeah that would be nice. What I really hate is when ALL THE SONGS ARE THERE and they still insist it's a partial album. Grrr! I've reported this to Apple when I've stumbled across it, and weeks later they're still reported as partial albums.nagromme said:
Some of the music they will dig out of old vaults and dusty file cabinets may not be that good. In other words, there were reaons that some recordings never made it to market before. But nobody will mind much, because we'll find lots of treasure among the trash.
iBook said:
For established acts, there is no reason for Apple to become a "label" -- all it has to do is offer iTMS space for individual acts, without requiring that said acts be on a label. In other words, if Wilco wants to ditch their record company and negotiate directly with Apple regarding iTMS, that would allow them to go label-less without Apple becoming a label themselves.
Porchland said:
I doubt we'll see Apple as a label. Distributing the final product is much different than financing it's creation (including marketing, touring, videos, etc.,.).
pkr
There will still be marketing costs. There will always be marketing costs. You can't just make something, put it on a shelf (or server in this case) and expect it to sell. You have to let people know it's there.
Lethal
LethalWolfe said:
marketing is more than advertising.
marketing is the entire process of making a good and getting it to the consumer. including: product conception, design, advertising, sales...
with re all the discussion about Apple being a label.
Apple would have to position itself as a marketing service as well as a computer company... so really, iTMS would be a subsidiary company, like Filemaker is. That might skirt the issues with the Beatles Corp, since Apple wouldn't be the label, they would own the label. Anyway, I think Apple could definitely form such a label around the distribution channel that they have, I don't think they'd exactly crush the big 5 but they could definitely become the big 6th, for independent-type artists who embrace the new format and concept.
Unfortunately, if that happened, the big 5 would cut the contracts, and iTMS would only distribute it's own content.
paul
Apple would have to position itself as a marketing service as well as a computer company... so really, iTMS would be a subsidiary company, like Filemaker is. That might skirt the issues with the Beatles Corp, since Apple wouldn't be the label, they would own the label. Anyway, I think Apple could definitely form such a label around the distribution channel that they have, I don't think they'd exactly crush the big 5 but they could definitely become the big 6th, for independent-type artists who embrace the new format and concept.
Unfortunately, if that happened, the big 5 would cut the contracts, and iTMS would only distribute it's own content.
paul
rueyeet said:
I'm not talking about Apple signing up acts to make them exclusive to iTMS. I'm talking about Apple signing up acts to get first-look rights. Apple could still license the album to a label for physical (CD) distribution or (God forbid) to Napster, PressPlay, etc. The point is that Apple would control the content, i.e., control who gets its it and on what terms.
Ha! Out of print music. With the useless distribution system that they have now-a-days it's hard to even get currently released CDs in stores, unless it's the record companies' promotion babies, like Spears and co. Take Les Hommes second CD for example. I've searched for that for months. It's a current release. But it's not available in the stores. But it's available in other ways. As soon as I come across the CD, I'll buy it. Bah!
I wish Apple all the success in the world when it comes to re-defining the music distribution model.
I wish Apple all the success in the world when it comes to re-defining the music distribution model.
What IS a record label?
As someone who's done marketing advertising for the labels, and who has an abiding interest in music, I feel it's time that artists start asking themselves what a record label IS, exactly. The primary raison d'etre for the labels over the years has been placement and distribution muscle. This is what the individual artist could not replicate on his/her/their own. That is to say: traditionally, there is a FIXED amount of shelf space in record stores and a FIXED amount of time (especially 'prime' time) available on radio stations. The labels muscled their acts, as best they could, into those limited space/time slots. Once they were filled, smaller players (indies) had no way to get in the game. (Indies would have had no chance at all except for marketplace demands borne out by competition - some acts were sufficiently compelling that they found their own way into the public eye - um, ear.) What ITMS and internet radio do is to effectively erase those limits - and the primary need for the artist/label relationship.
Until a decisive majority make their buying choices online, physical space and traditional radio will still hold sway, and so will the labels. But we can all see which way the wind is blowing. At some point, and probably sooner rather than later, artists will actually have a VIABLE option to dump their labels and enlist their OWN marketers/PR people to handle the other aspects of their publicity needs. Unlike the labels, these people can be fired for non-performance.
When (not if) this movement toward self-promo becomes a trend, artists who OPT to affiliate with labels will see better deals and better performance from them.
Happy to discuss this further with anyone interested: Hoboken1@aol.com
As someone who's done marketing advertising for the labels, and who has an abiding interest in music, I feel it's time that artists start asking themselves what a record label IS, exactly. The primary raison d'etre for the labels over the years has been placement and distribution muscle. This is what the individual artist could not replicate on his/her/their own. That is to say: traditionally, there is a FIXED amount of shelf space in record stores and a FIXED amount of time (especially 'prime' time) available on radio stations. The labels muscled their acts, as best they could, into those limited space/time slots. Once they were filled, smaller players (indies) had no way to get in the game. (Indies would have had no chance at all except for marketplace demands borne out by competition - some acts were sufficiently compelling that they found their own way into the public eye - um, ear.) What ITMS and internet radio do is to effectively erase those limits - and the primary need for the artist/label relationship.
Until a decisive majority make their buying choices online, physical space and traditional radio will still hold sway, and so will the labels. But we can all see which way the wind is blowing. At some point, and probably sooner rather than later, artists will actually have a VIABLE option to dump their labels and enlist their OWN marketers/PR people to handle the other aspects of their publicity needs. Unlike the labels, these people can be fired for non-performance.
When (not if) this movement toward self-promo becomes a trend, artists who OPT to affiliate with labels will see better deals and better performance from them.
Happy to discuss this further with anyone interested: Hoboken1@aol.com
jtfaria said:
I think that you've hit the nail on the head with that post. I couldn't agree more.
Sometimes I feel that I would be justified in downloading music for free (after my bandwidth expenses and my hard disk expenses), and sending the artist 10 in an envelope.
The reason? Take one example, Neil Young. I don't hear him on the radio. I don't see him advertised on TV. Here's an internationally acclaimed musical genius who even played at Woodstock, and who can tell me that they've heard one of his songs on the radio in the last year? And it's the same with promotions in music stores. They don't exist. So the idea that when you buy music, you are somehow paying the music executives for work that they've done in promoting the artist is, for me, not true. My CD collection is almost exclusively built from friends recommendations, bootleg tapes, overheard at someone else's home, or the recommendations of the bands themselves.
And yet I see no-talent 'stars' on TV, dripping with gold and expensive toys, and they've had one hit. They didn't get their money from record sales... They got it from record company promotions.
I believe that artists should be handsomly rewarded for their talent, but I don't think that it happens that way in the music industry any more.
Here's one I bet they never get a hold of. I've been trying for years.
Ken Nordine, "Word Jazz", "Son of Word Jazz", and (can't remember title) the original 3 albums were on the Delta label and produced in the late 1950's 56-58 I think. I have seen a compilation released but it doesn't even come close to the good stuff.
If anyone out there knows of what I speak, Think "Junk Man" and don't leave go of my hand..............
Ken Nordine, "Word Jazz", "Son of Word Jazz", and (can't remember title) the original 3 albums were on the Delta label and produced in the late 1950's 56-58 I think. I have seen a compilation released but it doesn't even come close to the good stuff.
If anyone out there knows of what I speak, Think "Junk Man" and don't leave go of my hand..............