[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I'm not sure that people are quite the mindless zombies that you'd like them to be.

I'm pretty sure they are. The worldwide market share Windows has agrees with me.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Not really. 'Tis a very brave artiste/label who chooses to not be available on iTS.

Brave? I have other words for it, but it's their (financial) loss.

I'm very glad that there is an iTunes Music Store, I have a few artists whose CDs have been sold out and there was a snowball's chance in hell that they'll have the CDs reprinted. Fortunately, quite a few of them can be found in the iTunes Music Store. I still prefer buying CDs, but I'd rather buy the music somehow than not at all. (Otherwise, I'd be forced to download them).

Originally Posted by Doofy 

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 Apple's rules and as a consumer, I like them
I don't want to have to buy the whole album if only two or three songs are any good. That's also a problem of the artists: if they can't make enough good songs, then either live with the fact that only a fraction of your songs are bought (less sales in total) or make better songs.

Back in the CD age, especially in the 90s, the record companies forced down quite a few bad albums down the consumer's throats where a few good songs had to suffice to sell the whole album.

BTW, artists can mark songs that are not sold separately and you have to buy the whole album to get that song.

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. 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.

I disagree, the iTunes Music Store is a big chance for smaller labels and artists, because it does not work like the traditional market. Small people can make good sales also because they don't need to invest a lot of money and work into the distribution of their work.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

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

Exactly.
You had immediate access to a vast library of songs that you could try and listen to. You could discover new artists and music, because you weren't forced to buy first.

My music library exploded during that time. Of course, I downloaded a lot of trash, too, but hey, you just delete it.

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.

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

Exactly.
I'm glad there is an accepted, easy to use, legal alternative. I don't use P2P software anymore, because the legal alternative is (in most respects) better. Plus, I like supporting artists that make good music.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

BTW, artists can mark songs that are not sold separately and you have to buy the whole album to get that song.

Again, I believe this decision is up to the iTS, not the artiste/label.
If it was up to the artiste, this thread wouldn't exist, would it?

I'll butt out now. My argument's obviously falling on deaf ears.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Again, I believe this decision is up to the iTS, not the artiste/label.
If it was up to the artiste, this thread wouldn't exist, would it?

I don't think you can mark all songs to be downloaded only with the album, I think only one (or a few, although I remember seeing only one at a time).

Originally Posted by Doofy 

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).

Napster made this popular, not UseNet. UseNet was used by nerds, Napster was used by everybody, including girlfriends

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'll butt out now. My argument's obviously falling on deaf ears.

Oh, we hear you; we just disagree.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I don't think you can mark all songs to be downloaded only with the album, I think only one (or a few, although I remember seeing only one at a time).

Again, the artiste/label has no say in this. It's up to iTS. If it were up to the artiste, this thread wouldn't exist.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Napster made this popular, not UseNet. UseNet was used by nerds, Napster was used by everybody, including girlfriends

Don't be silly. Most girlfriends don't know how to poke a hole in their firewall to allow P2P through.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Again, I believe this decision is up to the iTS, not the artiste/label.
If it was up to the artiste, this thread wouldn't exist, would it?

I'll butt out now. My argument's obviously falling on deaf ears.

Whose ears are deaf? You're not hearing us, either. I don't head down to Dillard's and buy a five pack of dress shirts only to toss four of them for the one I wanted. Why? Because each design is different and they let me pick and choose the ones I want. It's not likely for me to like all five designs. Same thing with music. You're selling a 12 pack, but odds are that I only like 3 of the things in it. You would expect that I would do what I could to push towards only buying the three. It's in my financial interest, and that's how capitalism works.

At some point, you have to realize that you need to sell what customers want to buy. You can't sit around complaining that you're somehow getting screwed by the change in customer tastes. Do you think that Ford/GM have a right to sit around and act all high and mighty about the lack of customer interest in massive SUVs? No, you simply expect Ford/GM to adapt to the new market and sell what customers want.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Again, the artiste/label has no say in this. It's up to iTS. If it were up to the artiste, this thread wouldn't exist.

Probably.
What consumers appreciate is that they can buy most songs separately. That this user centrism is not universally loved by artists is clear. But that's why the iTunes Music Store has the acceptance it has now: the consumer's wishes were taken into account.

Just keep in mind that the iTunes Music Store was not the first online music store, but all early online music stores that were designed by major record labels (essentially) with their interests in mind have failed. That's just a statement of fact, the market has spoken. Other modern online music stores (say Amazon's MP3 online store) offer features very similar to iTMS: no or very unobtrusive DRM (Amazon offers mp3 files with no DRM whatsoever), ease of use and the ability to buy single songs.

The music industry has paid big time for trying to sustain an obsolete business model. When the (affordable) car came along, of course the horse buggy industry was thrown into a deep crisis. It has resisted to adaptation to new technologies and I think we owe SJ big time for coercing/seducing the majors into the iTunes Music Store `experiment' (they were allowed to withdraw their content after one year).

[Doofy]

Yeah, whatever guys. If you think that the artistes producing the type of music that you want to listen to (i.e. not Heidi Montag) can sustain a career using a singles-based rather than album-based sales model, then all the best. Enjoy your forthcoming inescapable stream of Girlicious-type pap.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yeah, whatever guys. If you think that the artistes producing the type of music that you want to listen to (i.e. not Heidi Montag) can sustain a career using a singles-based rather than album-based sales model, then all the best. Enjoy your forthcoming inescapable stream of Girlicious-type pap.

If they stop making music, so be it. But, buying $18 albums for two or three songs doesn't cut it. If that puts everyone at an impasse, then enjoy your job at Dunder Mifflin, because I'll just go on listening to the music I already have.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Jim Paradise 

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

Interesting things happen when the subject at hand hits closer to home.

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. 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.

I find this an incredibly unlikely argument from you. You're complaining that those with the most money to advertise can dominate the free-market? Say it ain't so!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

then enjoy your job at Dunder Mifflin

Why would I be wanting to buy "Dunder Mifflin"?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

I find this an incredibly unlikely argument from you. You're complaining that those with the most money to advertise can dominate the free-market? Say it ain't so!

Love free markets. Hate corporatism and the results of designed market forces interacting with the sheeple.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Love free markets. Hate corporatism and the results of designed market forces interacting with the sheeple.

Designed market forces? Is that a fancy term for advertising campaigns?

[Dakar V]

On a barely related tangent, iTunes does have some interesting side-effects, like a 10 year-old B-side hitting the Top 50 for a week or two thanks to being in a movie trailer.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Love free markets. Hate corporatism and the results of designed market forces interacting with the sheeple.

Wasn't the major-label dominated music market, the flood of boy bands and mediocre music a product of corporatism?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Designed market forces? Is that a fancy term for advertising campaigns?

It's a fancy term for "you're not really listening to what you choose, but to what we choose". The vast majority of the general public has no taste whatsoever beyond that which we give them and will follow their fellow lemmings off the cliff if we tell them to. Most "taste" in popular music derives from peer pressure and the need to fit in with your fellow lemmings.

I believe the process is called "viral marketing" or something like that these days.

Also works in politics.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Wasn't the major-label dominated music market, the flood of boy bands and mediocre music a product of corporatism?

Major label: Before Internet, the only way of getting things done in a reasonably large manner. I can't tell ya the hours I wasted pouring through the directories trying to get stuff done because of no major backend support. Division of labour and all that jazz.

Boy bands: That's a result of 12-year-old girls having more pocket money. As a result of modern feminine empowerment seeping down the ranks ("Girl Power!"), these days they're hit with "who they want to be" rather than "who they want to marry". Hence Miss Montag.

Mediocre music: There's always been bands who aren't Manowar.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's a fancy term for "you're not really listening to what you choose, but to what we choose". The vast majority of the general public has no taste whatsoever beyond that which we give them and will follow their fellow lemmings off the cliff if we tell them to. Most "taste" in popular music derives from peer pressure and the need to fit in with your fellow lemmings.

I'll take that to mean my statement was passably accurate.

I don't disgree with the fact that the corporations do their best to control the message (and FM Radio stations and MTV are their tool), but since the Napster era, they've been noticeably undercut, and options like the iTS, and services like last.fm have helped change how you choose music.

Let's say you are right Doofy, and iTS is doing more harm than good to artists. Firstly, I'd say this is the fault of how the industry and the corporations work – not iTS. Second, I'd theorize that even if iTS isn't the ultimate answer, it's the gateway to leading us to what a better option will be. If the iTS were eliminated, we'd just be back in 90s. That's not progress.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Major label: Before Internet, the only way of getting things done in a reasonably large manner. I can't tell ya the hours I wasted pouring through the directories trying to get stuff done because of no major backend support. Division of labour and all that jazz.

Right. So all players had to live by their rules.
Now other players (e. g. Apple and Amazon) got into the drivers' seat and the majors are losing their grip on some parts of the market. Fortunately for the consumer, the new players are more consumer centric. Again, the solutions proposed by the traditional music industry have all failed miserably.

I've read from small artists that they appreciate the iTMS, too, because they don't necessarily have to go via a major label to get their music into the hands of the people. Of course, this is revenue lost for the major labels, because in part, the old division of labor breaks down.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Mediocre music: There's always been bands who aren't Manowar.

Manowar?
You mean the bunch of guys in make-up and leather costumes?

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

a result of modern feminine empowerment seeping down the ranks ("Girl Power!")

That's the second feminism reference I've read from you today. Did an "empowered" girl piss you off in the last 24 hours?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

I'll take that to mean my statement was passably accurate.

It's much more subtle than just plain advertising though. It goes right through to product design. I can't tell you how many times I've sat in a studio and the decision to pop a certain sound in there was made because "it'll blow their minds when they're Eed off their faces on that dance floor".

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Let's say you are right Doofy, and iTS is doing more harm than good to artists. Firstly, I'd say this is the fault of how the industry and the corporations work – not iTS. Second, I'd theorize that even if iTS isn't the ultimate answer, it's the gateway to leading us to what a better option will be. If the iTS were eliminated, we'd just be back in 90s. That's not progress.

Don't get me wrong - uploading your crap to the iTS sure beats trolling around eastern Europe checking pressing plants out. I simply think they should offer more options to the artiste/label - like the ability to not split albums. But then, Apple's never been one for letting you do things your way instead of their way, have they? Else we'd have the option of black anodised Mac Pros and a preference pane for "I want a fsking orange/pink/green/red theme without buying a haxieish app".

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Fortunately for the consumer, the new players are more consumer centric.

Unfortunately for the consumer, the new model favours artistes with a singles-market slant. Most of whom are pap.

At this end of the sales chain, you pretty much need album sales if you want to make it your profession (rather than something you do in your free time whilst between house viewings).

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I've read from small artists that they appreciate the iTMS, too, because they don't necessarily have to go via a major label to get their music into the hands of the people. Of course, this is revenue lost for the major labels, because in part, the old division of labor breaks down.

Yes. This is a good thing - the majors pretty much all suck. Especially the Arses and Retards departments. But that small artiste needs those album sales. You can't survive off singles sales. Just not possible.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Manowar?
You mean the bunch of guys in make-up and leather costumes?

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

That's the second feminism reference I've read from you today. Did an "empowered" girl piss you off in the last 24 hours?

Umm. No. Even "empowered" chicks turn into subservient little blossoms when in the presence of the Doof.

Two mentions not intentional. Just the way the cookie crumbled. <shrug>

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Whose ears are deaf?

Well, yours if you're happy listening to audio files with lossy compression applied to them.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's much more subtle than just plain advertising though. It goes right through to product design. I can't tell you how many times I've sat in a studio and the decision to pop a certain sound in there was made because "it'll blow their minds when they're Eed off their faces on that dance floor".

I'm not familiar with term Eed.
Isn't product design a good thing? Why would I not want an extra sound that would blow my mind? Or this more of an argument about artistic integrity?

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Don't get me wrong - uploading your crap to the iTS sure beats trolling around eastern Europe checking pressing plants out. I simply think they should offer more options to the artiste/label - like the ability to not split albums.

The labels have had the option to do anything they wanted for decades. I imagine if Apple hadn't forced their hand at the get go, we probably wouldn't even have an option for buying singles. As it is now, I notice a lot more bundled singles and album-only singles than 5 years ago – and I visit the iTS a fraction of what I did when I was in college.

Sorry, the labels had their options and their power for quite a while. It's amazing what kind of things have happened (DRM free tracks on Amazon) since they found out what it's like to be under an oppressive thumb like their own.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

At this end of the sales chain, you pretty much need album sales if you want to make it your profession (rather than something you do in your free time whilst between house viewings).
...
Yes. This is a good thing - the majors pretty much all suck. Especially the Arses and Retards departments. But that small artiste needs those album sales. You can't survive off singles sales. Just not possible.

As far as I understand (and I have only read things about the innards of the music industry and heard stories from my sister who was in intern for one of the honchos at a major label), most of the artists don't see that much money from the (album) sales. So being able to be (moderately) successful without being signed by a major label is, money-wise, beneficial for the artist. I mean, this is one of the things that upset me the most. The music industry has been whining about how bad things are and that us regulars pirating music means that Britney can't afford her second Gulfstream anymore. But if you'd ask them how much an average artists sees per album, you won't get much of an answer. The unofficial numbers I've seen were about 2-3 € per 12 € CD for a non-super star (please correct me on this if you can). If you can cut the major out of the equation, this would mean that more money of each CD/song sold reaches the pocket of the artist (which I think is great, I want to support artists, not labels).

I can definitely see that in other ways, the lives of musicians got harder (sales of single songs), but in other ways, it also got better. They'll adapt (because they have to).

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You say that like it's a bad thing.

If I want to see guys in leather wearing make-up in Munich, I go to Christopher Streets Day

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

I'm not familiar with term Eed.

I assume E refers to Ecstasy and Eed = being on E.

[zro]

Eed = on MDMA

I gotta go with the people who say make a whole album worth buying or STFU.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by zro 

Eed = on MDMA

I gotta go with the people who say make a whole album worth buying or STFU.

I still had to look up MDMA, but in the end it's exactly what I expected.

Was ecstasy really that hard to type? Who the hell refers to it as MDMA?

Originally Posted by zro 

I gotta go with the people who say make a whole album worth buying or STFU.

In the end, with bands I really enjoy I end buying their singles because I want their b-sides as well. (Assuming they're not on iTS)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

I'm not familiar with term Eed.

Eed up = off one's titties on Methylenedioxymethamphetamine.

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Isn't product design a good thing? Why would I not want an extra sound that would blow my mind? Or this more of an argument about artistic integrity?

It's more about creating the fashion which says which sounds will blow your mind. When it comes down to it, it's rather like the fashion industry - but a bit more subtle.

Artistic integrity? Screw that... ....you leave that at the door if you wanna work in my studio.
The correct place to acquire "artistic integrity" is on the back of one's fully paid-for yacht whilst gently bobbing about in the Med.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's more about creating the fashion which says which sounds will blow your mind. When it comes down to it, it's rather like the fashion industry - but a bit more subtle.

I think your scenario is plausible and accurate – but I also think it's atypical. The ravers (for lack of a better term) don't exactly represent the typical music consumer mindset – or do you think they do?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

I think your scenario is plausible and accurate – but I also think it's atypical. The ravers (for lack of a better term) don't exactly represent the typical music consumer mindset – or do you think they do?

Rave is mainstream here in Europe. However, the same techniques apply to any popular music*. Heck, just check out the sample loops in R&B/rap - you expect to hear them incorporated into a song a certain way because that's what your ear has been trained to anticipate.

(* Maybe not Primus)

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Rave is mainstream here in Europe.

Ah yes, I had forgotten about that. German House FTW. I didn't realize its longevity.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

However, the same techniques apply to any popular music*. Heck, just check out the sample loops in R&B/rap - you expect to hear them incorporated into a song a certain way because that's what your ear has been trained to anticipate.

Ugh, Hip hop. Not that I was ever big on it, but I completely wrote it off* after I heard the song that sampled Tainted Love and didn't even try to incorporate it into the flow of the song.

Also, hip hop producers aren't training us, they're just too yellow-bellied and uncreative to break from a "winning" formula.

*I lied. I picked up Daydreamin' by Lupe Fiasco, but unless sampling late 60s pop becomes a trend, I think this is the exception

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Ah yes, I had forgotten about that. German House FTW. I didn't realize its longevity.

It's like hip hop in the US. Damn thing just won't go away!!

[Oisín]

Einz, zwei, Polizei
drei, vier, Grenadier,
fünf, sechs, alte Hex
sieben, acht, gute Nacht

[Jim Paradise]

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. 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.

"Don't tell me how I can spend my money."

[Visnaut]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Unfortunately for the consumer, the new model favours artistes with a singles-market slant. Most of whom are pap.

Most mass-market music artists have always been "pap". Whether their music is sold as an album or as a single hasn't really changed that fact. You of all artistes should know that.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

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.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

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

First of all, I think that's a contradiction. If people have been copying a song or two forever, then iTunes didn't start the trend. So in reality, what iTunes has done is monetize the convenience of home taping, or copying your friends' CD. You should be thankful that it's largely easier nowadays for me to purchase one of your tracks off of iTunes than it is to download your entire entire album off of usenet or a torrent.

You complain of mass marketing unjustly influencing what the "sheeple" buy; I posit that the music labels are unjustly influencing artists to think that iTunes and the consumer are the enemy, and that labels actually care about musicians.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Einz, zwei, Polizei
drei, vier, Grenadier,
fünf, sechs, alte Hex
sieben, acht, gute Nacht

Techno is not house.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Visnaut 

You should be thankful that it's largely easier nowadays for me to purchase one of your tracks off of iTunes than it is to download your entire entire album off of usenet or a torrent.

I don't really care either way, since I get my money from elsewhere. I'm in it for the boobies.

My comments in this thread aren't related to personal gain - they're about how I see the music industry going and my anticipated lack of half-decent music available on the market due to the new sales methodology. It's going to get a whole lot harder for decent album-based musicians to make a living. To me it's just another case of the computer industry borgifying everything it gets its hands on.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's much more subtle than just plain advertising though. It goes right through to product design. I can't tell you how many times I've sat in a studio and the decision to pop a certain sound in there was made because "it'll blow their minds when they're Eed off their faces on that dance floor".

You make it sound like this is something new???

In varying context, that precise sentiment has been driving popular music at least since Sinatra's heyday (despite all his disparaging comments about pop music since the Beatles). Song writing, song selection, production decisions, etc. have been (percieved-)market-driven ever since the early days of mass-marketing.

How many Christian albums did Elvis record simply because there was a huge untapped market in the Bible belt that would *never* have bought an "Elvis the Pelvis" album if he hadn't recorded "He Touched Me" and "His Hand in Mine" and "How Great Thou Art" (all of which were recorded ONLY to make his other albums acceptable to a religiously conservative market).

"We need the guys to do a three-part harmony on the chorus! The girls'll go crazy!"

"Let's do that flanging thing and sudden pan shifts - that'll blow their heads off when they're tripped out on acid!"

And of course, every genre has its market-specific elements that aren't included for quality, but to meet audience expectations.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by analogika 

You make it sound like this is something new??

Read it again. This is not part of my complaint about the new way of doing things - it's explaining to someone how our end of the process works. I didn't say that the process is a new process.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Techno is not house.

No, but I couldn’t think of any equally eminently quotable German house lyrics.

(Besides, I’d argue Eins, zwei, Polizei is neither house nor techno, but pure and simple dance-pop)

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

I think your scenario is plausible and accurate – but I also think it's atypical. The ravers (for lack of a better term) don't exactly represent the typical music consumer mindset – or do you think they do?

They've been chart material for the past ten years, so I'd say "yes".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_(band)

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Rave is mainstream here in Europe. However, the same techniques apply to any popular music*.

(* Maybe not Primus)

um, Primus is about as "popular music" as Zappa. (Though Zappa did chart a couple of times.)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by analogika 

um, Primus is about as "popular music" as Zappa. (Though Zappa did chart a couple of times.)

/watches as Primus joke flies over Germany and lands in Prague.

[Rumor]

Those damn blue collared tweakers are running this here board.

[- - e r i k - -]

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.

+1 Insightful

Doofy wins the Anal C***-Award™ of the thread. UseNet schmusenet. I was downloading songs of f*cking Hotline way before Napster.

Napster is when p2p and music sharing reached critical mass, and when the masses (ie not the dorks who created mixtapes for their friends - undersigned included) realised that single tracks gained preference over albums.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Again, I believe this decision is up to the iTS, not the artiste/label.

Wrong.

This is most certainly up to the label.

This is one of the limitations LABELS put on iTunes to enter into their distribution agreement, not the other way around.

If it was up to Apple, there would be no such limitation.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Doofy wins the Anal C***-Award™ of the thread.

Surely you mean:

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Doofy wins the "Actually Being In The Music Business And Not Just An Ex-Boyfriend Of The Ex-Keyboard Player In A One-Hit-Wonder-Band Award™" of the thread.