[Rumor]

Album-loving artists blame iTunes for changed music tastes

Buying the tracks you like versus a whole album which may mostly be crap, is a better method of purchasing music in my opinion. However, some artists do not agree.

Then again, the first "artist" is Kid Rock. Who the hell cares about Kid Rock?

Since June, Rock has sold 1.7 million copies of his Rock 'n' Roll Jesus album, and sales have grown steadily in 19 of the last 22 weeks. Levitan says that, if the album was sold the iTunes way, most of those sales would have merely shown up as 99¢ downloads of the hit single from the album, All Summer Long. If the rest of the album was actually good enough to attract fans, then perhaps this wouldn't be so much of a concern; artists worry that many fans will never even sample enough other material from an album to find out if it's good or not.

Exactly my point. Often, a lot of musicians only have a couple of good songs, and the rest are crap.

[::maroma::]

That is just ridiculous. Who are they to tell us how to listen to music? How I listen to music is my business not theirs. If they want to shove crap down our throats then don't offer any digital downloads at all and force us to go to the music stores to buy a physical CD. And then see how much money they'll make.

This isn't about art at all, its about money. These artists are concerned about making money from full album sales instead of $.99 single downloads. Like you said, iTunes isn't at fault here, its the "artists" who make one decent song and 10 pieces doo doo that they feel they should be compensated for making. No one pays me for taking a dump every morning, so why should I pay them for theirs?

[Laminar]

Oftentimes I have to hear a song several times before I'll even like it. Some of my very favorite music right now I didn't like when I first heard it. The iTunes model of selling individual songs works well for popular or immediately catchy songs, but oftentimes listening to a 30 second clip tells very little about the song for me. That's why I never buy stuff from iTunes, save for the occasionally "cruising" CD of ridiculous hip-hop music.

[Big Mac]

If they dislike the option so much, they can choose only to sell the full album on iTunes, right? Or they can choose to piss people off by not selling downloads at all so that people resort to "free" options.

[Dakar V]

Tell Kid Rock that Dakar is moved by his plight.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

That is just ridiculous. Who are they to tell us how to listen to music?

I can respect an artist's principle on how their music is presented. However, I feel no sympathy if they complain about the economic impacts of such a decision. Prioritize, people.

[ort888]

I think the problem is that most Kid Rock fans don't own computers.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If they dislike the option so much, they can choose only to sell the full album on iTunes, right? Or they can choose to piss people off by not selling downloads at all so that people resort to "free" options.

I thought the whole point of the article was that, unlike some other stores, like Amazon’s online store, the iTunes Music Store doesn’t give that option.

I don’t see Mr. Rock’s point, though. He’s complaining that people only bought the hit singles on the iTMS. So, what’s so different out there in the Real World, where people have the choice (just like they do in the iTMS) between buying the album and buying the single?

Oh, that’s right—in the Real World, the single sells for $8, not 99¢, so he makes more money than by selling them on the iTMS. (Even figuring in all the overhead that goes to record labels, et al., $8 in a record store should give more money to the artist than 99¢ on the iTMS, shouldn’t it?)

Originally Posted by Dakar V

I can respect an artist's principle on how their music is presented.

To a point. That point, for me, is somewhere around where they stop saying, “This album is supposed to be experienced as a whole; please listen to it as such, for the experience” and start saying, “This album is supposed to be experienced as a whole; therefore, we’re going to prevent you from buying it any other way”.

If they’re that desperate to keep tracks together, they can just do what Mike Oldfield did with Amarok and make the entire album one long song. And sell it on the iTMS for 99¢.

[Big Mac]

Oh, I thought iTunes did offer at least some artists the option to sell full albums. I can see how some artists would be bothered by the iTunes model. Most albums have a lot of filler tracks, but there are exceptions; buying only the single means a person will not be exposed to the rest of the possibly worthwhile content available. But if you don't like iTunes, don't sell there. No one's forcing anyone to do so.

[turtle777]

I almost never buy single tracks.

Actually, I only bought ONE single iTunes track ever.

So yeah, I guess I'm the perfect customer

-t

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Oftentimes I have to hear a song several times before I'll even like it. Some of my very favorite music right now I didn't like when I first heard it. The iTunes model of selling individual songs works well for popular or immediately catchy songs, but oftentimes listening to a 30 second clip tells very little about the song for me. That's why I never buy stuff from iTunes, save for the occasionally "cruising" CD of ridiculous hip-hop music.

There's been a few times where I bought a single as soon as it came out... then a second... and then I regret wasting a few bucks when I pick up the CD. Thankfully, having stopped listening to radio and television, new music tends to filter to me after a few singles have already been released, so now I know which route I'm heading from the get-go.

I agree though, those 30 second clips are worthless for new music. I find them most handy when I'm searching for a song I'm not quite sure of the title for.

[64stang06]

Here I was expecting Metallica to complain already. Kid Rock who?

[Doofy]

I'm with Kid on this. iTMS needs to die already.

Heck, look how polluted your minds have become already - with only one of you realising that "iTunes" is an application and you actually buy songs from "iTMS".

[Oisín]

Heck, look how polluted your minds have become already - with only one of you realising that "iTunes" is an application and you actually buy songs from "iTMS".

I think I was just the only one not too lazy to type it out, rather.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'm with Kid on this. iTMS needs to die already.

Heck, look how polluted your minds have become already - with only one of you realising that "iTunes" is an application and you actually buy songs from "iTMS".

Originally Posted by Oisín 

I think I was just the only one not too lazy to type it out, rather.

You two are no better, the iTMS no longer exists, it's been replaced by the iTS.

[Oisín]

Heh, right you are. Oopsies.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

You two are no better, the iTMS no longer exists, it's been replaced by the iTS.

How should I know? Real men buy real CDs.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

How should I know? Real men buy real CDs.

Hey, you thought knew enough to try and correct us on iTMS.

BTW, wholly original comeback.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

How should I know? Real men buy real CDs LPs.

Fixed.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Hey, you thought knew enough to try and correct us on iTMS.

And then I was out-geeked. I bow to your superior geekiness.

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

BTW, wholly original comeback.

Consistency. That's what it's all about.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And then I was out-geeked. I bow to your superior geekiness.

I can live with that.

But you know you've done well when you've caught Oisín.

[mduell]

If they think the album should be listened to as a whole, make it a single track.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

I can live with that.

But you know you've done well when you've caught Oisín.

I am going to choose to interpret that as a roundabout way of saying I’m a good catch.

Thanks!

[Gankdawg]

I stopped buying CDs a long time ago but over the last 2-3 years have been buying music again -- in the form of singles from the iTS. Screw buying a whole CD that only has one or two good songs.

[wallinbl]

There's a phrase that was born exactly for this situation: put up or shut up. Put up with the fact that you need to provide a product that people want to buy (perhaps it is just a song instead of a whole album) or just shut up. I'll bet that artists started whining when the phonograph came out and they could be recorded and played any time, even when the artist wasn't being paid to perform. That seems to have turned out okay for them.

[Doofy]

In other news, I popped along to the Apple store the other day and tried to buy a Mac Pro without OS X on it (hey, it'll run Windows, right?). But they made me buy it with OS X - I couldn't just buy the part I wanted.

The word "hypocrisy" springs to mind.

[smacintush]

Yes, let's all have sympathy for the wealthy rock stars. "Oh boo-hoo we are suffering because of that dastardly purchasing freedom!"

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

In other news, I popped along to the Apple store the other day and tried to buy a Mac Pro without OS X on it (hey, it'll run Windows, right?). But they made me buy it with OS X - I couldn't just buy the part I wanted.

The word "hypocrisy" springs to mind.

Those record companies are free to NOT sell their stuff through iTS if they don't want to…and they were free to never sign on in the first place.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Those record companies are free to NOT sell their stuff through iTS if they don't want to…

Not really. 'Tis a very brave artiste/label who chooses to not be available on iTS.
It's somewhat forced... ...a little like the concept of the forthcoming "voluntary" ID here - you can choose to not have it, but then you won't be able to open a bank account, find a job, get health care, etc.. Same kind of thing with the iTS.

[alligator]

People do not like change. Everything changes, even the record business. If you don't like change, get off my planet.

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

In other news, I popped along to the Apple store the other day and tried to buy a Mac Pro without OS X on it (hey, it'll run Windows, right?). But they made me buy it with OS X - I couldn't just buy the part I wanted.

The word "hypocrisy" springs to mind.

Are you able to go into a Dell store and buy a Dell computer without any OS on it? I realize that there are no Dell stores, but what about any other computer seller? Can you buy any computer at all these days without an OS on it? (aside from building it yourself or buying it from Joe Schmoe's Wacky Computer Outlet)

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Not really. 'Tis a very brave artiste/label who chooses to not be available on iTS.
It's somewhat forced... ...a little like the concept of the forthcoming "voluntary" ID here - you can choose to not have it, but then you won't be able to open a bank account, find a job, get health care, etc.. Same kind of thing with the iTS.

It's still their choice. Give people what they actually want, or don't sell sh*t.

It's pretty stupid to whine and moan because people are buying things the way they want to. It's also pretty stupid to blame iTS for creating a trend when it's success is precisely because of the people's disinterest in paying for overpriced crap CD's.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

But you know you've done well when you've caught Oisín.

You are a god.

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

There's been a few times where I bought a single as soon as it came out... then a second... and then I regret wasting a few bucks when I pick up the CD.

At least with iTunes they'll put what you paid for individual tracks towards the cost of buying the whole album.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Oh, I thought iTunes did offer at least some artists the option to sell full albums.

Artists do have the option of making tracks "Album Only." I encountered this when trying to buy a track from The Transporter 2 soundtrack - the one good song was Album Only, so I just didn't buy any of them.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

Are you able to go into a Dell store and buy a Dell computer without any OS on it?

No. But then Dell aren't running a music store. The point was that Apple don't allow artistes to sell only the whole album while they themselves generally won't sell you anything less than the whole caboodle.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Artists do have the option of making tracks "Album Only."

I believe this is at the discretion of the store, not the artiste/label.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

It's still their choice. Give people what they actually want, or don't sell sh*t.

It's pretty stupid to whine and moan because people are buying things the way they want to.

As I said in a thread just before the iTMS opened, this will lead to problems. Just because the punter can buy things the way he wants to it doesn't mean that that particular way is sustainable from the artistes' end.

This is what you guys are failing to understand because most of you are at the throwaway customer end of the chain and don't realise how much time and money is required to make an up-to-scratch recorded product. I mean, feck, I've just spent $100k on a little project studio in my spare bedroom - think I'm going to get that back off single sales in a climate driven by fickle 12-year-old girls?

Originally Posted by smacintush 

It's also pretty stupid to blame iTS for creating a trend when it's success is precisely because of the people's disinterest in paying for overpriced crap CD's.

iTS did actually create the trend. If you were whining about CD prices before that then you're cheap (since US CDs were, what, a quarter of the price of the ones here) and you might as well grab 'em off UseNet.

[Jim Paradise]

The ultimate libertarian on this board complaining about consumers spending their money how they want. Ironic? Perhaps.

[Oisín]

Did Doofy just use the word ‘artiste’?

Twice?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Jim Paradise 

The ultimate libertarian on this board complaining about consumers spending their money how they want. Ironic? Perhaps.

The problem is that most consumers spending in this way aren't, in fact, spending how they want. They're spending in whatever way the label with the most advertising bucks is telling them to spend. Essentially, the result of all this is a more singles-dominated market which will bring you more and more Heidi Montags and less and less Radioheads. You'll get more corporatism, not less.

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Did Doofy just use the word ‘artiste’?

Twice?

Yes. I'm a professional.

[wallinbl]

Doof,

I've spent more on music via iTunes (songs and albums) than I had on CDs in quite some time. Reality was that I just wouldn't be buying music anymore if not for iTunes. That's true of a number of adults I know. Perhaps it's unfortunate that the teens are buying through iTunes, but iTunes is picking up people that weren't otherwise buying.

$18 for a CD that may or may not let me rip the songs onto an MP3 player just isn't a good deal for me. The reality is that I don't even want the disc - I don't want to store it.

("iTunes" is representative of both the application and the collection of stores it fronts)

[zykron]

Why bother listening to anybody? Has everyone forgotten about iTunes radio? I find stations that play stuff that I might like, then hear THE ONE song that really catches my interest.

So, how should that make me buy an album?

Even if the rest of the album has 10000x better songs from front to back, I won't care, because I won't notice... and so I'll just grab the one song that I hear and like a lot, and that's it.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

Are you able to go into a Dell store and buy a Dell computer without any OS on it?

Yes; desktops, laptops, or servers.

[Jawbone54]

Nobody wants to agree with Kid Rock. Neither do I.

While the nostalgic side of me wants to buy nothing but physical CDs that I can stack up, listen to, and show off to guests, the realistic side realizes that I'm not going to roll out $10-15 to pick up the album unless I know the whole thing is good.

Also, I play everything through my iPhone/iPod. When I'm in my car, I plug up through my auxiliary port. When I'm in my house, I have it plugged up to a dockable system (gift from my students).

iTunes and the iPod have changed the music business (I win the Obvious Statement of the Year Award™). Who carries around massive cases full of CDs anymore when they can have 160 GB worth of music in their pocket? And who are the people using iTunes and iPods the most? Young adults and college/high school students. And are they going to drop $15 on a CD when they've already become accustomed to paying nothing thanks to Napster/Limewire/Torrents? The iTunes Store is pretty much the only web-based, legitimate music business model (Amazon's doesn't count).

The music industry (and Kid Rock) need to be thankful people are paying for the songs at all.

Now if only they'd make ALL songs available in iTunes Plus.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by mduell 

If they think the album should be listened to as a whole, make it a single track.

And/or stop referring to them as separate songs. They could call them movements instead.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The problem is that most consumers spending in this way aren't, in fact, spending how they want. They're spending in whatever way the label with the most advertising bucks is telling them to spend.

I'm not sure that people are quite the mindless zombies that you'd like them to be. The iTS isn't popular ONLY because it's well-advertised. It was a model that fit the music paradigm change of the time.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

iTS did actually create the trend.

No, it actually didn't. Napster started it and they were the direct result of consumer dissatisfaction.

It was the rise of P2P that blurred the image of an "album" an sharpened the idea of possessing individual songs.

iTS is so successful because it legitimized and monetized what online music lovers were already used to and had a preference for.

If you were whining about CD prices before that then you're cheap (since US CDs were, what, a quarter of the price of the ones here) and you might as well grab 'em off UseNet.

Wow, I didn't realize that a CD was $50-$70 USD over there, that sucks ass, but what relevance does the prices of CD's over there have to me at all?

[Wiskedjak]

Artists are starting to realize that they need to actually *work* on the other eight songs of an album? Too bad. The music industry changed the day Napster was released; anyone who doesn't realize or who fights against that change will be forgotten when the walls finally crumble.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

no, it actually didn't. Napster started it and they were the direct result of consumer dissatisfaction.

It was the rise of p2p that blurred the image of an "album" an sharpened the idea of possessing individual songs.

Its is so successful because it legitimized and monetized what online music lovers were already used to and had a preference for.

qft

[zro]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Nobody wants to agree with Kid Rock. Neither do I.

While the nostalgic side of me wants to buy nothing but physical CDs that I can stack up, listen to, and show off to guests... [snip]

Huh... I have several LPs, 12"s and 7"s I consider showoff material, but not one CD. They're just lifeless to me while vinyl isn't. My oldest CD is 13 years (my first! ) while my oldest vinyl will be 60 next year. One is a treasure, one is my first CD.

I love the a la carte iTunes purchases. I'd bet every 1-hit wonder that has ever existed does, too. I love some of Stevie Wonder's tunes, but not enough of them to buy several albums worth of material for what I do. A la carte to the rescue!

Though I will buy a whole album through iTunes if I want the whole album and can't find a disc for no more than 50% over the iTS price elsewhere.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

No, it actually didn't. Napster started it and they were the direct result of consumer dissatisfaction.

Sorry, no. Napster didn't start anything - UseNet started it - and it sure as hell wasn't to do with "customer dissatisfaction" (unless that's what they're calling freeloading these days).

Originally Posted by smacintush 

It was the rise of P2P that blurred the image of an "album" an sharpened the idea of possessing individual songs.

P2P was no different than taping a song or two "for your mates". Everyone's been doing it forever.