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: The Artist is Boss - hahahahaha

Originally posted by tveric
In art, the artist is boss. That's it. Like it or not.

Are you out of your mind, or just deluded by your own choice of profession? Your boss is the one that pays you. Even if you don't subscribe to that simple definition that applies to 99% of the world, at the MOST, an artist could maybe be their own boss - if they're truly independent, and don't mind starving for their "art".

They don't want to contribute to the death of the album format? Wrong strategy, boys. They could make their album available online along with the singles and some people would buy the album. They're making nothing available, so what will people do? You ever try to download an entire album via Limewire or Kazaa? Way too much effort. People will keep downloading Metallica singles, and "artists" are kidding themselves if they think the RIAA is EVER going to be able to put that genie back in the bottle.
Click to expand...

Art should be the focus. A painter paints a picture and a gallery hangs the picture then sells it. The gallery gets a commision. 15-20% maximum for each item. Even if they took 30-40% it leaves
well over half for the artist. A song is a painting be it crappy or not so that leaves the choice up to the buyer. I can however go to the library and look at these paintings in a book for free. I can even borrow the book to show friends this painting. I can even download the picture to my computer so long as I don't try to use it commercially. The library will even let me photocopy the page from the book.

I can't however download a single song from an artists album (from a pay site mind you)? This is absolutely ridiculous. If they prefer it to be a 'whole' album then they should list the songs on the album as one track and encode it as such when mastering it.

This is not an 'art' control issue. I don't even blame them for being greedy.


I would go to jail before supporting the big lable funded RIAA ever again. While these few artists enjoy the control they have, they are still supporting an industry thats corrupt from the bottom up. They may have large amounts of money but they. These artists don't represent reform. They represent the exception to the rule.
 
Re: you are missing the point

Originally posted by herocero
i love macrumors. i love the forums. i love the discussions, so please don't flame me too bad with this response.

after reading the front page of this thread, it is blatantly obvious that probably 95% of you are not musical artists nor understand some basic concepts in this story.

singles are great. with all the usual crap on the radio, it's nice to know that those albums full of filler can be avoided. but if you like a band enough or you want to take the journey they intended you the listener to take, then don't be a whiny nancy and buy the CD. the truth is no one but the artist should decide how their music should be distributed. notice how this came from q prime, a major player management co. if this were really about money, this statement would come straight from elektra or sony music or their label/big 5 distributor. if i'm lucky to put out my own CD, i would like to be in their position and release my own music however i want to.
Click to expand...

Have any of the artists listed released material as a single? Did any of those singles originate from an album? If so they are talking complete and utter sh..e and they can Pog Mo Thon.:D
 
content control

The only time I remember an album being played on the radio as a whole was back in the 70's and early 80's when FM stations banned disco and would plop on a Grateful Dead LP like Anthem Of The Sun or Led Zepplin LPs, Pink Floyd, MC5, Hawkwind, ELP, JethroTull. They would put the album on and have the second side on que at the other turntable so we could get a feel of the 'concept' album. Roger Waters was like that with his stuff as well even in the late 80's but the record companies fought it. Classical work, Chillout/ambient/newage work Like KLF's Chillout or the Art Of Noise Or Vangelis, Brian Eno (who can produce a mean single as well BTW)

Some of those artists' albums are concept art. Dookie, however is far from a concept album and sold because of 3 singles. For a group to say they won't let you DL singles the promote the product with 3 to 4 singles is hipocracy. Where are the guys from Consolidated and Disposable Heros of Hiphopracy? Where is there platform on this? Metallica's early work may qualify as concept but I think that may only apply to one album. Metallica stuff is shown on MTV and Much Music as a video single. That in itself disqualifies it. Plus its crap. Lincoln Park... don't make me laugh. Radiohead may be the closest Pop group to provide concept ideas but they still make videos and push singles.

Here's the irony.. Trance music is the closest thing to concept work these days and the artists sell most of it as singles for the DJ's to use.

Get the middleman out of the picture and give the artist complete control. We don't need the labels anymore.
 
Re: Re: Who cares?

Originally posted by Blah64
__________________
When Bill Gates' kids grow up, they will use Apple products.

------------------------------

Don't you know they already do?!?! At least the older one that's in school already. Out of concern for the kids' privacy I won't mention the name of the school, but my kid almost went there and I guarantee you they all use Macs!! That may change with the huge donations this year for new construction, but I have to say I laugh whenever I think about it. :p

Edit: whoops, a little off-topic, sorry. But there isn't really a way to on-topic respond to someone's signature....
Click to expand...

Actually, I think Gates likes Macs. If Apple didn't exist he would have to invent it, since the hallmark of MicroSoft software is NIH (not invented here).
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: you are missing the point

tveric said:

Are you out of your mind, or just deluded by your own choice of profession? Your boss is the one that pays you. Even if you don't subscribe to that simple definition that applies to 99% of the world, at the MOST, an artist could maybe be their own boss - if they're truly independent, and don't mind starving for their "art".
Click to expand...

I'm certanly not out of my mind :) Selling something you create makes you the boss. You create what you want, how you want, and it's up to people to buy if if they want...

Now, I agree that most music sold in big quantities now is made specifically to meet ceirtain market conditions, so that it sells as much as possible, but Not all the music made is like this, and even the music that it is, may have a degree of compromise.

Ah! And not all artists depend on their art for a living :) Lots of artists that don't want to compromise their art have other means of making a living...

iLiana said:

I can't however download a single song from an artists album (from a pay site mind you)? This is absolutely ridiculous. If they prefer it to be a 'whole' album then they should list the songs on the album as one track and encode it as such when mastering it.

This is not an 'art' control issue. I don't even blame them for being greedy.


I would go to jail before supporting the big lable funded RIAA ever again. While these few artists enjoy the control they have, they are still supporting an industry thats corrupt from the bottom up. They may have large amounts of money but they. These artists don't represent reform. They represent the exception to the rule.
Click to expand...

I think by now most bands offer some sort of preview download in their sites. The problem is that they are not sure you'll buy the album if you choose which tracks to preview :) so they choose the singles that they think will make the most sells for the album. I like the concept of the iMusic shop. It's a bold step, and artists should drop their fears and jump right into it.

And about the industry you're right. I choose not to buy from these big labels. All the music I'm buying is from smaller independent labels these days. Lot's of them local, and others from around the world.

Now, if Apple would let bands without a label sell their music on their store.... :)
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: you are missing the point

Originally posted by mattmack
This idea has already been breached by Stephen King sorry
Click to expand...

__________________

The wisest way to get exposure for the artist's "non-singles" is to make them available with a narrative track wherein the artists tell us more about why they feel as they do about the piece - something analogous to the "director's commentary" track in a DVD film. I love these tracks and willingly pay for them. They might also make a short documentary for each album that is offered for free or at cost :
this would get the interest of virtually all willing buyers. The rest who are just not interested can only be put off by strong-arm techniques like trash-bunddling.

What could these artists possibly hope to gain by irritating and insulting the non-buyer ?

They will succeed only in accelerating the evolution of bigger and better p2p engines: like cryptoglyph transfers , distributed systems, etc.

Taking away CHOICE is virtually always
a WRONG MOVE.

---gooddog
 
Re: The Artist is Boss - hahahahaha

Originally posted by tveric
That's certainly not a definition applicable to Metallica, being the corporate whores that they've evolved into. Their record company is most definitely their boss...
Click to expand...


Are you refering to Elektra? Whom Metallica successfully sued in 1994 to renegocate their contract because their then current contract was f**king them outta royalties.


Lethal
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: you are missing the point

Originally posted by Uragon
I agree with you. I doubt if da vinci is willing to accept $0.99 for Mona Lisa's lips only.

____________________


This argument is brought up often in these debates.

This argument fails immediately.

It fails because the Mona Lisa would have ceased to exist , as a whole , if it had been sold piecemeal. The world would have been deprived of it as a whole.

The reproducible nature of digitized art is of an entirely distinct character : the art piece as-a-whole remains intact for all those WHO WISH to purchase and enjoy.

The two situations are simply not comparable items.

--------

Similarly, the "theft" analogy to p2p downloading must be considerably modified : they are not exactly the same, albeit there is more in common here than in the case above.

A thief who steals an apple deprives the vendor of the apple. Data, by contrast, is DUPLICATED : the vendor retains the original apple. There is , however, a diminution of the vendor's ability to sell
what is made available for free.

Also, a downloader who would not otherwise have bought the song is NOT depriving the vendor of anything.

It is when the downloader posts that song for others and THOSE AMONG THEM who WOULD HAVE purchased opt to get the free version, that the theft has been perpetrated - by the downloader from the WOULD-HAVE-BOUGHT category.

The poster is merely an accessory to the theft .


[ I once calculated the price of 15 ancient oldies I wanted at over $600- all were out of production albums; many were "Best Of" collections with no artistic theme. There was NO WAY that I would buy these. And I did not for several years.
Then I discovered Napster. I would have paid a buck a song gladly for these dinosaurs that no one buys anymore. But the LABELS chose to play rough with me.

They lost. ]



This latter case belongs in the category of unfair business practices (on the part of the downloader who shares) and is more akin to the methods employed by Microsoft, MacDonald's , and other corporate giants when they put small companies out of business by dumping cheap or bundling for free , an equivalent item....

...sauce for the goose.


---gooddog
Click to expand...
 
I was a long-time Metallica fan up until the black album. That was probably the last album of theirs worth listening to all the way through. And I can't see any of their albums (except maybe ...And Justice For All) to be an "artistic vision"... there was no story persay (like with Pink Floyd albums, or even Queensryche's Operation Mindcrime or Empires).

Since the black album however, Metallica lost their own vision. They became more consumed with Metallica as a corporation than as an outlet for their music. Their song quality began to slip on albums like Load and Reload had their moments, but as a whole, could have easily been smashed together into one CD.

Now, their latest effort, St. Anger, is a large collection of crap that is more suitable to torture Al-Quada prisoners than to listen to in my iPod. The reviews are horrible - look anywhere. I downloaded St Anger a week before it came out in stores - and by having this option, I saved myself $$$ by not having to buy this tripe, and then deleted the tracks after trying to stomach them for a few days.

The point of all this rambling is that bands need to get back into making QUALITY music, and not just putting out crap that they think their fans will buy, just because they've bought all the other albums.

Thats why the Apple Music Store is so great - singles for one hit wonders, or albums with filler, whole albums for the worthwhile albums, and 30-second previews for artists I've never heard of before.
 
Re: content control

Originally posted by iLilana
The only time I remember an album being played on the radio as a whole was back in the 70's and early 80's when FM stations banned disco and would plop on a Grateful Dead LP like Anthem Of The Sun or Led Zepplin LPs, Pink Floyd, MC5, Hawkwind, ELP, JethroTull. They would put the album on and have the second side on que at the other turntable so we could get a feel of the 'concept' album. Roger Waters was like that with his stuff as well even in the late 80's but the record companies fought it. Classical work, Chillout/ambient/newage work Like KLF's Chillout or the Art Of Noise Or Vangelis, Brian Eno (who can produce a mean single as well BTW)

Click to expand...

I agree. A little off-topic but isn't it cool how the final track on disc #2 of "The Wall" is continued on track #1 of disc #1? Now THOSE guys could call that whole album one large creative effort.

Squire
 
Re: Re: Re: Who cares?

When Bill Gates' kids grow up, they will use Apple products.

------------------------------

Don't you know they already do?!?! At least the older one that's in school already. Out of concern for the kids' privacy I won't mention the name of the school, but my kid almost went there and I guarantee you they all use Macs!! That may change with the huge donations this year for new construction, but I have to say I laugh whenever I think about it.

Edit: whoops, a little off-topic, sorry. But there isn't really a way to on-topic respond to someone's signature....
------------------------------

Originally posted by Potus
Actually, I think Gates likes Macs. If Apple didn't exist he would have to invent it, since the hallmark of MicroSoft software is NIH (not invented here).
Click to expand...

------------------------------

Hmmm. Apple has a lot of NIH as well. A LOT.

But I've heard some 2nd hand (not 3rd or 4th hand) stories of stuff Gates has said in recent years about people using Macs. It's not pretty. He truly wants to rule the computing world, and it may only be the anti-trust issues that have kept him from taking a strong stance and squishing Apple like they did Netscape.

okay, now we're really getting OT, but I still love the fact that Gates' kid uses Macs in school! :)
 
Simply wrong argument

This argument is absolut nonsense, because the music store does exactly this for some CDs. You must purchase the complete album and it is not possible do download only tracks.

So it seems that the music store is configurable in exactly this way.

See MACWORLD July 2003.

Cheers
CMDRLAFORGE
 
The Album isn't the work though

To me, an artist who doesn't offer singles is using a flawed argument to support pure greed.

The "works" in question are the songs themselves, not the "collective work" called the album. Artists, however, get this notion into their head that the "album" is the work. Well, hate to burst your bubble, but that is a collection of individual works (songs), thus it is a "collective work". See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#103

So, they can offer an album as a "collective work" and I might buy it... IF I like all the songs (which, based upon the schlock that has been put out the last few years, has been very few albums... John Mayer's latest being a notable exception, and yeah, Linkin Park has an exception as well... but that is completely my opinion).

But, artist can take their pick... they can offer me individual works along with their collective work ("the album"). If I don't like almost every song on the album, I won't buy it. So they either get nothing or a buck or two depending upon the number of individual works that they've put out in a certain time period that I like. This artist notion that the album represents "a body of work" proves that it is pure greed. Only in the corrupt music business does an artist have a "body of work" where you can't select individual works. Tom Clancy doesn't require me to buy five of his novels if I only want one! A painter doesn't require me to buy 10 of his paintings if I only want one for the mantle... so this "body of work" argument is bunch of crap!

I'm OK with not having a license to the one song I like if I don't have to buy the album. Frankly, I don't see these artists offering me credit for the albums I bought pre-file sharing where I like only 2 of the songs.

-A
 
I think this is wonderful news. The less people listen to outstandingly ****ty bands like Red Hot Chili Peppers, Metallica, Green Day and Linkin Park, the better off we'll be. :D
 
This makes no sense. Try to buy Don McLean's American Pie as a single on iTMS. You can't. You have to buy the whole album. How is Don McLean able to get away with something the RHCP's can't?
 
Originally posted by QuiteSure
This makes no sense. Try to buy Don McLean's American Pie as a single on iTMS. You can't. You have to buy the whole album. How is Don McLean able to get away with something the RHCP's can't?
Click to expand...

Because American Pie is longer than 7 min. The way it is set up, you can make people buy the whole album to get songs that are longer than 7min. If the Beatles were on there, You wouldn't have to buy Rubber Soul to get Taxman, but you would have to buy (if they set it up like that)the White Album to get Revoloution #9, because it is over 7 min long. If the RHCP mad a song longer than 7min, they could (although they wouldn't have to) specify that you could only get it by buying the whole album.

I do appreciate Meatloaf, becuase even though "I would do anything for love, but I won't do that" is 12 min long, it was still available as a 99cent download. cool.
 
Originally posted by Tequila Grandma
I think this is wonderful news. The less people listen to outstandingly ****ty bands like Red Hot Chili Peppers, Metallica, Green Day and Linkin Park, the better off we'll be. :D
Click to expand...

Green Day is really good live...
 
Plain and simple....

Music industry is a law all to itself look at what happend to Napster. It was shut down because it fed a demand that the Industry couldnt controll. In shutting it down the demand went though the roof for downloading music.. Bands like Metalica green day and such like feel they can take controll over what is pushed and isnt pushed. To say that one bands songs can be sold for 99cent and so called Metalica songs wont is uptoo the artists and the record lable do metalica have there own lable by now..... If so they decied on how things work.. Apple is offering a service if metalica and bands dont like it then good for apple not bending the rules...
 
Metallica loves blaming things like kazaa and napster on their slumping record sales in the last few years. Bands like this need to wake up and realize something: maybe your CD sales are down because your music SUCKS. The last few albums released by Metallica are terrible (including St. Anger... horrible album, glad I didn't buy it). Of course, it's much easier to blame everyone and everything BUT themselves. And now because of it, they are refusing to allow iTunes to sell their songs online individually. And there's a really simple reason why... duh, because they KNOW all of their songs suck, except for maybe a couple of songs. So instead of admitting they don't have any talent, they force consumers to buy their whole album of crap.

Bands like Good Charlotte and Three Doors Down, now those are some real musicians. Every song on their albums are kickass. Bands like RHCP and Metallica need to take note and stop scapegoating online music stores.
 
It doesn't make sense, even greed-wise. More like having sticks up their you-know-whats. Seriously, if they think their work isn't good enough for people to want to buy en masse-in toto CDs, then why wouldn't they at least want to make some money from singles? Most people probably won't buy anything now.

No one is going to say, "Well, I wanted that song, I guess I'll just have to buy the whole CD."
 
Haven't read the entire thread, but I thought I'd add my 3 cents anyway ('cuz 2 cents isn't enough :p ):

Topic: Some Bands Say No to iTunes
Click to expand...

Then f***'em. They're like the music industry itself --- slow to catch up with modern times. They have been slow to catch up because an established business practice that has worked for soooo many years has little incentive to change the way we purchase/get music.
Before any large-scale change, there is always chaos. There is always a messy period where things are trashed, broken, stolen, etc... People break laws because it is a sign that our system doesn't work. The people/companies/groups that don't adapt are the ones who aren't around anymore once a new model is established. If Metallica doesn't like it, then people will continue to steal their music instead of buying it. They're dinosaurs.
 
Re: Re: content control

Originally posted by Squire
I agree. A little off-topic but isn't it cool how the final track on disc #2 of "The Wall" is continued on track #1 of disc #1? Now THOSE guys could call that whole album one large creative effort.

Squire
Click to expand...
I agree Pink Floyd was an awesomely creative force. off topic but oh well
 
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