Some Bands Say No to iTunes

[amnesiac1984]

Re: Re: Re: Whole Album

Originally posted by Squire
The bands mentioned are professional musicians. They should be past the "big step" of having other people listen to their music. I can understand an artist refusing to allow a portion of a song to be played somewhere for the reasons mentioned. However, not wanting the album sold in "bits" for fear of damaging the artistic nature of the album? I say it's a crock. Those bands don't produce rock operas.

I think you missed my point, and I think just cos they are "professionals" doesn't mean they don't feel a little shy, they are constantly worrying about what ppl think. If they don't then they are just arrogant bastards.

What I mean is that an album lets a listener here the bands more "interesting" stuff and give it a chance. Have you noticed how many albums have grown on you? You start off skipping tracks you don't like which end up, a few months later, being your favourite tracks on the album. Music require patience and the one song purchase system doesn't promote patience. And as an artist I know that works I am most proud of are the ones that take the most listens by my friends and the ones that i think are okay but not very interesting are instantly loved by my mates. (Check my web-site and see the tunes "Sun is blue" vs "Don't play with matches")

In iTMS peeps would here the samples and just not buy some tracks, both the artist and the fan can loose out in this situation.

Totally agree with the second part. It's amazing how pop stars can just be made, like any other marketable product. The first part...I dunno. I guess I haven't taken my philosophical pills yet today. Actually, I think I do get your drift. Musicians who are TRUE music lovers and have absolutely NO interest in the almighty buck, should be honoured to have their music heard in any forum. Is that what you mean? I'm sure those types are few and far between but you saw a couple of bands speak out on Napster's behalf (i.e Dave Matthews Band, Foo Fighters). I have to respect that. (Although it's undoubtedly an easier position to take after you've made a few of those unimportant almighty bucks.)

Anyway, music is good.

Squire

Agreed, they should be honoured, and I think they should be honoured with good audiences at live performances as much as any bucks. Add Radiohead to your friends of Napster list, bassist Colin Greenwood appeared on UK BBC news stating the usefulness of napster for live bootlegs, meaning the fans will be able to sing along to tunes at gigs before they've been released in studio form. Also, with a band like radiohead where live tracks are often very different from studio versions (recent stuff especially) it gives the fan better material.

Anyway I rant


Peace bro!

amnesiac

 

[iJon]

Re: Losers...

Originally posted by serpicolugnut
If any of these "artists" (and I use that term quite loosely) ever actually put out an album that was worthy of being listened to from start to finish, I might respect their dissent. But they haven't.

It all comes down to economics. They obviously feel threatened that someone can buy 1 song and their take would only be about 10 cents. They would rather alienate that customer and gamble that they will opt for the entire album.

These acts need a kick in the arse. None of them are producing the modern day equivilent of Sgt. Pepper. Jeesh. Get over yourselves.

whats the point of bashing music. some people like certain kinds, others dont. its not about what music they put out, its how they are putting it out, and itunes isnt one of the ways. i like linkin park, we dont have to go around bashing people's music in this thread, it will just lead to trouble.

iJon

 

[XForge]

Originally posted by Porshuh944turbo
I force myself sometimes to listen to new CD's through from a to z before I start pcking tracks, but even then, it's not the same feel. I don't get the entirety of the project from the artist.

Some albums are meant to be heard from beginning to end; others are merely a collection of songs. I mean, if you pull one or two songs out of any of Pink Floyd's major works (Dark Side of the Moon, The Wall), you're literally taking a song out of context.

On the other hand you can pretty much pull a song off any of Weezer's works and you won't be doing any damage to the artists' intent...

Apparently before the Beatles released Rubber Soul, an album was just a place to put a single or two and a bunch of other stuff nobody really wanted to hear anyway. Then Rubber Soul came out and every track was Top-40-worthy, and people thought differently about albums after that.

 

[Pablo]

Re: THIS IS SUCH A LOAD OF CRAP!!

Originally posted by merge

I hate Metallica...
It is funny how the bands with too much money are such little bi#ches about their songs... but the bands with no money just want to be heard...

It's funny how Metallica just wanted to be heard when they were a garage/small bar band and encouraged bootlegging and swapping of their tapes, but now that they've reached a certain level of popularity, shun those same fans who made them what they were.

 

[Bear]

Re: Re: Re: Whole Album

Originally posted by Squire
The bands mentioned are professional musicians. They should be past the "big step" of having other people listen to their music. I can understand an artist refusing to allow a portion of a song to be played somewhere for the reasons mentioned. However, not wanting the album sold in "bits" for fear of damaging the artistic nature of the album? I say it's a crock. Those bands don't produce rock operas.
...

And Tommy as a rock opera still has lots of tracks that stand alone well.

 

[billyboy]

I can see the individual singles sales would maybe ruin the impact of work by the better artists whose albums include a certain amount of experimentation within their recognised style - Im listening to Bowie at the moment and he is full of surprising twists in material, (probably to the point that its hard to say what the overall style is )- But at the end of the day, quality sells, and if the off- the-wall-tracks that would have a big impact appearing in the middle of a stylised album are good outside the context of the 30 second sample time frame, the public will get to hear about it eventually and will probably buy more material, even the whole album.

As has been said, artists need to be a bit lateral nowadays. Why not make a 30 second sample for iTunes of them explaining why they feel we should buy their album in its entirety as a complete work of art. The hotch potch rip off merchants should just keep their mouths shut and be grateful for every cent they get from any sort of sale be it a single or two of worth. ITMS is a great opportunity for a cut of something.

 

[Spock]

Would the bands prefer that I use Limewire to download the single tracks I want?? At least they are making money using the store.

 

[Pablo]

Re: they're both right and wrong

Originally posted by Foxer
However, in the long run, I am worried that "albums" could die out. Many of my favorite songs are "burried" deep in albums, and one can wonder if I would have ever heard them if I wasn't compelled to buy them by the economics of the industry.

In my opinion, this is the best thing that could possibly happen to the recording industry.

Get the 'industry' out of the music. Seperate the artist from the companies. The artist can write their own songs (and own the rights to their own music), or purchase/license other people's songs, either directly with the songwriter or through a company which acts as an agency. Let the artist have the choice.

The artist can contract with a company (be it one of the big record companies like Universal, or any company of their own choosing) to handle production, marketing, etc. With the evolution of the internet, they can do much of this themselves.

The artist, either through their own website or through services such as iTMS can make tracks available to the public directly. With this process, they don't need to release entire albums, but rather can release individual tracks more frequently.

The best thing about it is they are able to keep 100% of the profits. They operate their own business (through a manager if they choose) and have expenses (marketing, production, whatever), and the profit goes to them rather than the RIAA.

Granted, this helps popular/established artists more, but it's clear that the market has drastically changed, and the RIAA clearly does not have the artists' best interests in mind but rather their own. It's time for the artists to change with the market, even if it means they leave the RIAA behind.

The sooner we can get the industry out of music, the better the quality/service will be.

 

[soggywulf]

Re: Re: THIS IS SUCH A LOAD OF CRAP!!

Originally posted by Pablo
It's funny how Metallica just wanted to be heard when they were a garage/small bar band and encouraged bootlegging and swapping of their tapes, but now that they've reached a certain level of popularity, shun those same fans who made them what they were.

EXACTLY. Absolutely agreed. Who would have thought the band that wrote Seek and Destroy would turn into a bunch of greedy corporate suit types. Screw Metallica.

 

[jaison13]

the problem with itunes MS

there are a few but the one that kills me is that almost every album i'd like to buy, especially the greatest hits ones, are all partial albums. so you'd have to but it one track at a time and it would cost more than $9.99 and you don't even get the full CD.

why is greenday on that list?? i bought some greenday on the iTMS

 

[gunb0y]

Meh, the itunes store will probably be shut down a year from now anyways.

The Beatles have something to say about apple distributing music when they agreed not to be involved in the music industry.

 

[pgwalsh]

I can respect that some artists consider the entire album a piece shi.....er, music...

I'm still not going to buy everyone's album.

They should sell singles like they already do on cd. That way those of us that like some of the popular songs will buy the single. Those of us that want to hear more will buy the album. Sell all the different version of singles too.

Someone may have already mentioned this, but I'm too lazy right now to read through all the posts.

Have a great 4th....

 

[Foxer]

Originally posted by gunb0y
The Beatles have something to say about apple distributing music when they agreed not to be involved in the music industry.

I would hope that the folks at Apple (Computer) made sure that this wouldn't be a conflict.

Speaking of The Beatles, I would count them as worthy of the title "artist" as any of the internet music holdouts (Chili Peppers, Lincoln Park, Metallica, Madonna). However, until Sgt. Pepper in 1967, all of their English albums were chopped up an repakaged in the US. The catalog is entirely different. A UK Beatles fan has an entirely different notion of what is on Rubber Soul or Help! than an American fan.

The catalogs were synced in the late '80's when their CD's were finally released, but prior to that they were very, very different.

And yet, The Beatles didn't seem to care too much that thier "works" were being chopped up to maximize profit.

 

[iJon]

Originally posted by gunb0y
Meh, the itunes store will probably be shut down a year from now anyways.

The Beatles have something to say about apple distributing music when they agreed not to be involved in the music industry.

why do you think it will be shut down, im sure if they had something to say it would have already been said. im sure apple took all legal actions necessary to make sure this wouldnt blow up in their face when they launched it. i think apple will grow the iTMS into the online standard for buying music.

iJon

 

[P-Worm]

Whoa, Metallica doesn't want to be part of the music store? What a shock!

P-Worm

 

[RIP]

Exactly!

Pink Floyd's The Wall and pretty much anything else they did is a perfect example. As a fan of Floys, it's annoying when I hear a song from that album on the radio. It's so incomplete.

Today you get Brittany, who would be more than happy to sell just one song.

These other "musicians" think too much of themselves.

Originally posted by Porshuh944turbo
I can see this... I mean, when you used to have a tape deck.. you'd listen to the album through and trhough side to side.. now with cd's we lose that "album" feeling and just go straight to the track we want.. most people just listen to the same songs you can hear on the radio.... THAT is the loss....

I force myself sometimes to listen to new CD's through from a to z before I start pcking tracks, but even then, it's not the same feel. I don't get the entirety of the project from the artist.

music has changed so much.....

 

[applekid]

A while back one of the users talked to the lead members of Linkin Park who said they had no problem with online music purchasing, so I'm more inclined to think it's the managers saying they need to retain their "Artistic Reasons

I find that somewhat odd. Linkin Park was (or maybe the managers @ WB) sharing fake MP3s of songs on the Meteora CD before it was released. All you would get is the band members talking and this same conversation would loop.

It's funny, ABCNews had a similar story on TV. They were saying how people download songs, yet the people buy CDs are the one's that like the feel of holding something tangible.

I like how the only angry people (the one's saying, "go to hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!," using obscenities for no reason [it makes you sound unintelligent]) this forum are the people that aren't pure fans or actually doesn't listen to their music. So shut up. You probably support your favorite bands in anyway you can (i.e.: goto concerts, buy CDs, buy what you can on iTunes stores, etc.). The article wasn't about them so your opinions are mostly useless and biased. Really, I had enough of this bashing. I'm with iJon, we all have our own tastes, but it seems most of the negative opinions are from hatred of a band or genre, not because of what you think should be done with music in general. Or maybe you're just complaining because you're lazy. I doubt the nearest music store is farther than 5 miles, unless you live on the country side or you haven't found one.

whats the point of bashing music. some people like certain kinds, others dont. its not about what music they put out, its how they are putting it out, and itunes isnt one of the ways. i like linkin park, we dont have to go around bashing people's music in this thread, it will just lead to trouble.

iJon

I am a fan of most of these bands that were in this article... Minus the new Metallica CD. That song on the radio sucked horribly and a few of my hardcore friends were more than disappointed.

Heck, I bought a lot of the above named bands' CDs, and I listen to them all the way through. All of these bands don't only sell their songs. You can hear it online, you can hear it on the radio, you can hear it/watch it through music videos. It's funny how Californiacation by RHCP was once on the iTMS. I'm serious. It was sometime in mid-June and it was only there for about 3 days. I think a lot of those bands would benefit if their CDs were on iTMS. Linkin Park, for example, has tons of media on their website and lost of stuff on their CD. There's so much exclusive stuff they could add, it would work to their advantage.

I find Billboard a little skewed (I heard Metallica was @ 900K last week, yet it hasn't hit Platinum/1 Million this week... riiiiiiiiight. Even though I don't them want to succeed ), but I think at the end of it all, it's the Billboard charts and record execs. I really doubt iTMS contributes to the Billboard charts. Most of the songs are singles, but even if an album is sold, I doubt it counts. And I think record execs are counting on Billboard charts to figure out popularity. Looking at the top 5, only one of the CDs is on iTMS. Must have a reason... Their other albums/songs are online (for some of them).

 

[neesley]

Hmm...

I wonder if Mahler complained about people not listening to every movement of his symphonys...

Or if Miles moaned about his audience not listening to Bitches Brew from start to finish...

Seems to me that many great "creative artists" don't give a hoot about who listens to their music and how they listen to it.

Who cares about these tired sounding bands? Flashes in the pan...

 

[Ambrose Chapel]

Originally posted by Foxer
And yet, The Beatles didn't seem to care too much that thier "works" were being chopped up to maximize profit.

Actually they did; I think they were just powerless to stop it. The title, "Beatles for Sale" reflects this, and the original cover of the the US only "Yesterday...and Today" was a picture of smiling happy Beatles dressed as butchers and covered in meat and chopped up baby dolls. Capitol pulled it I think. If you can track one down now they are worth a lot. My parents have that album but it's the edited cover, the Fab 4 in a packing trunk or something.

 

[slffl]

Well who cares about the others, but Linkin Park! What are you thinking? You're starting to act like Metallica. I've been waiting for you to get on Itunes Music Store so I could purchase your music because there is no way I'm paying $15 for a $.10 plastic disc and have all that profit go to the record label instead of you.

Some people don't care about what artistic crap you were trying to convey when you made the album. Some just want one song (not me, I like all of them). However, they are either going to purchase the one song or not at all and download the one song .mp3 instead.

Oh well, your loss.

 

[macguymike]

Originally posted by Pants
I wouldnt put it past Metallica! These are just sad old men living on past glories. Their last few offerings have been a joke - theres not even a single on the last one!

That's not true. "St. Anger" is the name of the single (cacophonous and weak though it may be ).

And personally, I've enjoyed Load and Reload as well as S&M.

That said, I won't be purchasing the St. Anger album and I do think these bands are missing out by not participating. I don't like the Chilli Peppers enough, for example, to buy an album but I love their singles. And there's no way I'd buy the new Marilyn Manson but I did download "mOBSCENE". Same goes for Candlebox's "Far Behind." And so on.

 

[Pants]

Originally posted by macguymike
That's not true. "St. Anger" is the name of the single (cacophonous and weak though it may be ).

errr....yes it *is* a single, in that is released here as one and has been pushed on the saturday morning pop music shows here in the UK. But c'mon, lets be honest, its utter toss!!! Its not worthy of being called a single - its laughably bad (which is no doubt why its being pushed to gullible Timberlake fans as being 'edgy')

No, if I download a track that is good (that "woo!" factor), then I'm likely to buy the album. Concept albums on vinyl used to be in the order of 45 minutes - but now 'concept' albums stretch to the full 80 odd minutes of tedium...

 

[plastree]

iTunes Audio Problem

The only problem I have with the iTunes music store is iTunes itself. I cannot understand why there has to be a gap in the audio between consecutive tracks. That little gap ruins the continuity between songs on a continuous-mix cd. NIN's The Fragile is a perfect example of an amazing continuous-mix album who's integrity get's maddeningly compromised whenever the next track ensues. This same issue applies to my iPod as well.

How friggin hard can it be to cache the next song in a playlist and butt it up sample to sample with the previous track? And no, the crossfading option is not an acceptable alternative. As a musician, I would definitely be bothered by this limitation if my albums were for sale at the iTunes music store. I'd still sell them there, though.

 

[d00d]

Personally, I'm a big fan of Linkin Park. For all those that can't appreciate their musicality, I feel sorry for you. Even my roommate at college (music major with a full scholarship, will probably attend NEC, lover almost entirely of jazz) thinks that Linkin Park is great and their music is incredibly complex. I'm disappointed that they won't be on the iTMS but it's their loss. I loved listening to my brother's copy of Hybrid Theory and bought Meteora as a result (great album but way too short). I was going to buy a copy of Hybrid Theory on iTMS, but since it's not available, I'm not going to buy it at all.

As for Metallica, they used to be good, not my favorite band, but they were ok. Recent albums have been horrible IMHO. They're getting old and instead of stopping while still relatively in their prime, they're going to continue until they lose all of their fans' respect. Even DJs are having a hard time selling their new single. About the best thing I've heard a DJ say about it is "Some fans sorta like it." First they picked on Napster for robbing them of money. Personally, I disagreed but at least I could respect their position. Well, except for their declaration that they were doing it for small bands to protect them. That was pretending to be noble to hide their greed. Now they can get their stuff distributed online and collect royalties, but that's not good enough! The whole reason they didn't want their stuff distributed online was addressed, so they had to change their reasoning. That's when I lost respect for them. There are two Metallica's as far as I'm concerned, then and now. Then Metallica makes great music, is concerned about their fans, and just wants to be heard. Now Metallica makes horrible music, gouges and abuses their fans, and cares only about money.

 

[MrMacMan]

God damn greedy people!

I mean if they were so greedy they should have said yes, but you were forced to buy the album only, like others have done!!