Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Some Bands Say No to iTunes

Re: Re: Whole Album

Originally posted by amnesiac1984
[off topic]
I always laugh when people find Radiohead depressing. Because you can not really get any further from the truth. Just cos a song is slow doesn't mean its depressing. I mean if you bother to listen to the lyrics or understand what the songs are about you'd realise that its anything but. Radiohead's sound is intimate and reflective and innovative. If you find it depressing then you can't have much of an idea of what they are about. Depressing songs are usually about life being crap and not being able to deal with things, the general message from radiohead is more like a commentary on how to improve things in life.
Click to expand...

I find your whole post funny. My brother got me the new radiohead album, and I too thought it was depressing. Not the lyrics, but the music. It is draggy and murky and thom yorkes whiny - wailish vocals.
NIrvana and Korn, although not favs of mine, don't always have that depressing sound. The reason "creep" was radioheads biggest (and my favorite) single was because the music wasn't depressing.

Further in your post, you claim that POP music isn't music. What exactly is radiohead if not pop? Pop is short for popular. Last time I checked, they were pretty popular. Be careful flinging around statements like that. Just because you don't like a certian type of music dosent make it "Not music".... Don't be condecending. There is nothing wrong with a little Nsync now and then. Sometimes its good to listen to something that isn't so serious.

Just my $1.05, including tax.
 
what really gets me about this is how narcissistic these bands are being. their respective albums might be wonderful, or they may be trash. but that's up to each listener to decide. to believe that an album should only be had in its entirety and that this is the only way i should listen to it is absurd. i'll be deciding on the quality of their music for myself, thank you.

(and as others have said, don't want to sell me a song? i'll go download it. no loss to me.)

-dg
 
If the artist claims that their album is a work of art, then when we go see whoever that artist is, we should hear the album in its entirety, not a random selection of songs...

After reading everything here, I am starting to think, as well as some others are, that this could possibly a management decision because I am sure that none of the mentioned artists approach their live shows with the feeling that they have to stay true to the album. I really find it hard to believe that Green Day sees each album as a work of art, especially when some of their earlier albums regurgitate songs from their pre label days.

I think what we are seeing is a back lash from signals sales, why buy them. singles go for up towards 7 or 8 bucks now and come with one song remixed 3 times and maybe if were lucky some random track that was left off the album fir some reason. The ITMS is the best thing for the artist, it opens up all new possibilities, no need to make a full album anymore, they could release songs when ever, however... at least that is how I see the future.
 
Originally posted by beefcake
Abbey Road is an album, a Linkin Park cd is one or two popular tracks surrounded by noise.
Click to expand...

This is a good point. Abbey road (especially side 2) is an album. Most of the songs run together and fit together awesomely. Disagree? Try listning to it on random on a CD player. Its jarring.

Beatles For Sale, while a great album, is basically a collection of songs. Good songs, but still, individual songs.

I really can't understand greendays point on this. They put out (and I own) a greatest hits collection.
 
The Red Hot Chili Peppers, Metallica, Green Day and Linkin Park are bands that are all washed up... I used to love the RHCP but that last album didn't sit well with me... I give it a listen from time to time... but the problem is that I skip through tracks, not because I can, but because certain tracks aren't really worth my time... IMHO I think if artists want people to buy and enjoy their whole album, they should stop recording the 1-3 good songs and a handful of filler songs... instead they should just record all good songs. That's why I love the iTunes music store... I can filter out the crap...

...people enjoy music for the listening experience... not because a particular band chanced upon recording a tune...

To hell with The Red Hot Chili Peppers, Metallica, Green Day and Linkin Park... oh, and I never liked Linkin Park anyway... I liked lincoln logs though:)
 
Hey now, I'm sure the artists do have creative concerns . . . about getting money. Or maybe they're concerned that now people won't have to pay for the songs they put on their albums that everyone knows suck.

The idea that people can legally buy any single should IMPROVE artists. People are always looking at everything with a negative view, looking at how it hurts them, instead of how they can use it to improve themselves. The idea that songs can be bought as singles should get artists to make each song good. Why bother spending any time on a song that you know will barely sell, if at all, right? Also, it should push them to actually make the songs in the album go together and sound the best when they are listened to together. Yes, this will be harder at first, not being able to crank out bad filler songs, but having to face something hard and rising to the challange will make you better in the end.

Too many people are too concerned with bringing others down instead of bringing themselves up.
 
What a bunch of washed up idiots. Like many have said, the whole "album" issue doesn't hold much water with CDs, single releases, best of albums, radio, etc. There are just so many reasons why that is just crap!

The bands are the ones losing out. Let's face it, none of them are really just getting in to their prime - they all (in my opinion) are on the downward side from their peak in terms of mass audience listening. They will soon enter the "oldies" category which my teenage cousin already ascribes to Metallica. Can't say I blame her because I listened to them back in the 80's. These bands all need to take some marketing lessons and learn that younger generations are going this route ( old Napster, Kazaa et. al) to get music. The Apple music store is a LEGAL way to get paid (read again Metallica - LEGAL, no more wasting your money in court for years of legal battles to shut the others down). I personally don't see why Apple shouldn't let album only sales be made. It would be a great test to see how much an artisit could make by offering album only sales vs. both album and singles.

They also need to look at how the public response has been to the sale of singles and the pricing. Apple's music store has done well and I read an article the other day about another online subscription service that offers a $0.79 burn to cd option and since offering that price sales have really gone up. Wake up to what will be the future - like it or not. It will either be paid or stolen if that option is not available.
 
Originally posted by maka
I think there are two very different interests here...

First, there are "artists" that want to sell you a whole album because there's one good song on it, and the rest are just for filling. They have no confidence on their music, so they want to make sure people buy the whole album.

Second, there are artists that really work on the whole album as a complete piece. I can think of the albums of Mr. Bungle as an example. Most of the tracks even overlap eachother, so it would be difficult to sell them as songs...

Now... I don't know to which of the two these bands belong :) I think RHCP may belong to the second, though...
Click to expand...

if they don't wanna agree with iTMS because they want to sell a whole album everytime, that means they have no confidence in their own music. if they are indeed that good, they don't need to worry. people will buy their album.
 
When Apple computer became Apple computer they signed an agreement not to get involved with the music industry because the beatles didn't want their music label to be associated with it. Apple had to settle with them in (i think, not sure) the early 90's for persuing music orientated hardware/software. I read an article on it a while ago so most likely my facts are grossly mistaken. But the jist of it was that The Beatles lawyers are getting ready to fight Apple again.

Anyways. I just would like to say that i like Linkin Park but the radio overplays them so i grow to hate songs. Since i don't have a credit card i can't buy anything from the music store, but of course i want it to succeed.

It baffles me how the recording companies and (some) artists are so out of tune with whats going on. They are desperately clinging to the past and don't seem to realize that everyone has moved on. Music sharing isn't a piece of software, its an idea. You can't kill an idea in the courtroom. The only way to get rid of it is to create a better idea. To me thats what the iTunes music store is.

To quote my Dad:
"Once you put an idea into the wild there's no way to make it dissapear."

I think the music industry needs to understand that.
 
It's not the artists fault or Apple's.

It's the corporate music world. They (corporate) are the ones that tell the radio stations what to play. They decide what people hear one song at a time. If anyone is to blame is the corporate music industry. Once again, trying to get their way. :mad:

PS - Metallica and RHCP were good back in the day. They suck terrible skank a** today. I wish they would turn over and rott like yesterdays garbage because that's what their music sounds like. (coming from an honest fellow musician)
 
Radiohead etc...

There is no offense to anyone that likes any of the bands mentioned here. I would have to agree that Radiohead is depressing and whiny, which is fine because it appeals to that section of the generation, depressed whiny kids that don't particularly like the hand dealt to them. Nirvana on the other hand, while yes Mr. Cobain was obviously depressed (heroin doesn't help), the music I find was more "angry" than anything else. The same can be said for NIN. Trent comes across as the tortured kid from high school, but he's definitely angry! Al from Ministry is just angry at society, the government and all the sheeople that allow it to go on without any question.

I do agree that Apple needs to fix the caching problem in iTunes where there is NO break in between songs, if so desired in the prefs. I mean come on guys, my CD player does that with shuffle. And yes I've even submitted feedback to incorporate a linking function in iTunes that would allow you to link certain songs together (even on shuffle playback) so that the continuity is maintained. Hearing Pink Floyd's Brain Damage w/o Eclipse when in shuffle mode drives me nuts.

I employ you all to encourage Apple to include this feature in the next revision of iTunes. It would be a relatively simple modification to the code and would be a joy to us all. Musicians regardless of talent have always been pretentious about their "art" and that won't change. Going back to the PF references, for the most part anything that Syd Barrett touched was garbage, with a few exceptions. Yes it was his idea, his band, but it became a truly monumental band when David took over. Guitar playing ability has a lot to do with it, but so does song writing and the give of being able to sing.

Artistic differences aside, they all have something in common, $$$. The whole point of being a pro musician is to do something you love and make money while you do it. Oh and girls! Anyone that says different is either a liar or insane. Happy 4th everyone and remember to ALWAYS question authority! It's your right and duty of living in a "free" society.
 
Re: creative" concerns?

Originally posted by melo
I just can't stand that they are calling this creative concerns (is the phrase for real?)
Click to expand...

it sounds almost like if they don't sell whole album, they can't create music.
and guess why?
because their "creativity" are spent in filling music.
 
First: I apologize in advance for anything I say that will make it painfully clear that I have not read all 95 (currently) posts in this thread. :)

Beyond the fact that this "albums only" stance makes no business sense simply because it prevents these bands from making singles money off people who would never buy a full album from them, I just think it's a wee bit ironic that the bands they cite are not usually known for creating albums that are united works of art. Their albums aren't even really thematic, much less "concept" albums that would truly suffer from cherry-picking preferred songs.

More ironic still is the fact that NIN's Trent Reznor, who has made at least one full-blown "concept" album, and who also objects to the loss of the album format, nevertheless allows his stuff to be sold on the iTMS. Now there's a guy who knows what side his bread is buttered on, as they say.

I think that people who like a band well enough will still buy albums, and that people who know they don't like enough of a given band's work to ever buy a complete album should be able to pick and choose. The record companies have simply made it too expensive to buy music just to see if you like it.

Which is why I wish the iTMS had longer previews! I'm thinking of instituting a policy of borrowing CD's from friends to see if I want to buy them or buy singles from Apple.
 
It's the artist's choice and they obviously don't have faith in the format. They must know of the rampancy of online trading and downloading, so I really don't understand what they're making a stand against.

If I want to buy a Metallica song (ha, ha), I'd head to the iTunes Store first and if it wasn't there, I'd grab it with Acquisition or whatever. There's no way I'd rush over to plunk down $16 at Tower for it unless I wanted to buy the full album.

The days of making me buy the full album are over. If it's worth it, I will, but chances are it won't be.
 
One more thing...

Why doesn't the music industry just go back to it's roots? Release singles until the band gains enough popularity and warrants the issuance of an actual album. This would not only be cheaper, but would resolve many issues. This would get rid of the whole 3 album issue with bands. If you can't release 3 consecutively charting singles then why should they help you make an album? And frankly who would want to buy on with one hit and 12 filler songs?

I believe Elvis sold more singles than he did actual LP's and correct me if I'm wrong, but he was successful, right? Beatles For Sale was a great concept so that fans could get all the singles in one spot. This was the whole reason for the LP in the first place. To hear more from a band or artist that you wanted to. Just another thought.
 
What I don't like about the iTMS is that the (economic) incentives for you to buy the whole album are not there. There are even albums that costs "more" to buy the whole thing instead of music by music. If these groups wants fans to buy the whole cd, all they have to do is to decrease the price of buy the whole album option!!!
 
Originally posted by Porshuh944turbo
Thing is.. they don't HAVE to do this! it's their choice yo.. so leave it alone..

they can't control HOW you listen to your CD... but they CAN control how they SELL their music.. leave it alone
Click to expand...


true

I think there is more going on than what we hear. Apple has provided an equal sales platform for all artists. This may be a strategic way to initiate contract renegotiations with the labels. When all of the production costs of cd's are eliminated from an album sale there is a large amount of profit. Very LARGE. The only thing about these bands are that they had some pretty swanky contracts to begin with.

If they were really smart, all bands would jump contracts in a mass move to eliminate labels and develope an artist coalition for fair payment practices. Not to be confused with the corrupt RIAA. the ACFPP would need autonamy from large corporations and provide leverage for signing with online retailers such as AIMS or pressplay etc.

Then I would buy music again.

The main obstacle is the glitter that the labels dangle in front of the artists eyes. While indie and garage artists get smarter, they also get hungry (for food and rent etc) in the lean days and the label provides them with a creative window but this is a gamble that 80-90% of artists loose. For whatever reason. Now, some of these artists have 100000 cd's printed and 5000 sold. That would be a loosing venture for all and the label usually has many financial outs to clear them of this debt including tax writeoffs and contract clauses that specify all costs be paid by the artists. There are classic contract examples for the curious out on the web. Some bands have in the past posted their contract on their website to illustrate the doubletalk legal speak actually used to swindle the simple minded and legally inexperienced.

not that I am legally experienced , but I did learn from an almost very big mistake.
 
I don't think any of these bands owe anyone anything and thus are free to do what they want with their 'creative endeavors.'

That being said, I personally find the decision asinine and retro-active. Their loss.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Eh, "sosumi."

hehehe
 
WHAT DUDE

Last time I heard it was called show BUSINESS not show ART.

Idiots. The first casualties of the media revoution!

DIE DIE DIE
 
Originally posted by Pants
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!!!
Click to expand...

Which is why I called it cacophonous and weak. ;)

It's still a single. Just like, y'know, the latest "music" from [insert random rap artist or pop singer here].

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...
Click to expand...

Not sure how we got on the topic of concept albums here but I personally enjoy them, even long ones. One of my favorite is Dream Theater's "Scenes From A Memory". However, I do usually prefer to have songs that don't require me to listen to the whole album to appreciate (like "Home" on SFaM).

And I agree, if I like the music enough after buying a song, I'll buy the album. However, US$15 is too much to pay for the music usually when I only end up listening to about 40% of the album.

Of course there are also other things to consider like album art and liner notes and having the album in your hands and ready to pop into your car CD player. Which makes me think that even $.99 is too much to pay for one downloaded song.
 
Originally posted by cc bcc
I don't get it, they release single-cd's all the time..
Click to expand...

As a musician, I can understand these musicians' point of view. What I really can't ascertain is whether or not this is the truth and that they are in fact greedy.
I just wanted to say that I agree with the idea that an album is a representation of an artist's current stage of development.
Also, why can't Apple just let them sell their music by album only and let the consumers continue to decide what they want to buy or not want to buy?
 
Originally posted by cliffardo2001
Also, why can't Apple just let them sell their music by album only and let the consumers continue to decide what they want to buy or not want to buy?
Click to expand...

Apple could let them, but there's no way I'd pay full album price these days for a single. That's ripping me off. Give me the option to buy it and I'll play fair. Take away that option and I'll still get the single.

Weird way to make a stand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back