Do you like Apple's new music distribution idea?

Yojimbo · 07-08-2003, 01:20 PM

Move/merge/delete this if this has already been discussed on CGR...

So what do you all think of Apple's music distribution thingy, iTunes, where you can download songs (legally) for .99 cents each? Metallica, Red Hot CHilli Peppers, Linkin Park, and others think it's a bad idea because they think consumers won't download an entire album and thus, the consumers won't be able to partake of the entire body of work.

Well, my response is no crap, Sherlock. Consumers shouldn't have to pay for crappy songs, which, in most cases, make up 80% of the album. I see this as a good thing for the industry. Bands won't feel as much pressure to work on crappity-crap songs in order to justify releasing an entire album, and consumers no longer have to hit the skip button on their CD player as much.

***BillSPrestonEsq*** · 07-08-2003, 01:22 PM

me no like. me think it apple marketing scheme. me think me hate apple computer. me think similar services have been tried and tanked.

Yojimbo · 07-08-2003, 01:27 PM

Well they've sold 5 mil already. I think it's definitely the better alternative to the RIAA unleashing litigation hell on file-sharing.

Nate · 07-08-2003, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ¿Goodness

Move/merge/delete this if this has already been discussed on CGR...

I'm going to move it to the Music Business/Music Technology forum.

Quote:

So what do you all think of Apple's music distribution thingy, iTunes, where you can download songs (legally) for .99 cents each? Metallica, Red Hot CHilli Peppers, Linkin Park, and others think it's a bad idea because they think consumers won't download an entire album and thus, the consumers won't be able to partake of the entire body of work.

Well, my response is no crap, Sherlock. Consumers shouldn't have to pay for crappy songs, which, in most cases, make up 80% of the album. I see this as a good thing for the industry. Bands won't feel as much pressure to work on crappity-crap songs in order to justify releasing an entire album, and consumers no longer have to hit the skip button on their CD player as much.

I agree with you. (wow... how strange!!)

I think Apple has made a daring move here. Lots of other companys/organizations/websites have tried subscription/paid download services and most have fared miserably. I think that Apple has the reputation and the consumer reach to make this sort of thing work.

If the industry will (for once in their miserable existence) SUPPORT technological advances in music distribution, this could be a really good thing. It is obvious that the general trend in music consumers is towards online/digital distribution. The industry needs to embrace this trend.

I respect Apple for what they are doing, and I think it could be a very good thing... but only time will tell.

In His love,
Nate

Yojimbo · 07-08-2003, 01:39 PM

Dang it. Now no one is going to read this. You moved up to the top of my "Disagree" list.

Danny · 07-14-2003, 09:06 PM

Well I wouldn't have read it wherever you had originally posted, but I am now.

I think it's a good idea, and for pop bands like Linkin Park and Metallica (or at least, what Metallica has become), who release basically just an album full of singles, this is definitely a good idea. But for more pretentious, artsy bands like Tool and Radiohead, I could see the concern in buying songs apart from the context of the entire album.

I tend to lean toward the idea though. A lot of the MP3's I have on my hard drive are single songs from an album or band that I wouldn't be willing to buy the album for.

What format are the songs in? MP3? Can you download them in higher bitrates than 128kbps? That's a big deal for me... I hate 128k MP3s. My ears are too sensitive.

Shredcheddar · 07-20-2003, 11:44 AM

Actually, the quality is great. They're ACC format. You're getting CD quality here.. I listened to some and used the music store at a local Apple dealer.. it's great stuff.

Zooropa · 09-12-2003, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N1ghthawk

But for more pretentious, artsy bands like Tool and Radiohead, I could see the concern in buying songs apart from the context of the entire album.

But the thing is that about 90% of the people who listen to Tool and Radiohead would never just buy one song and leave it be. They are the type of music fans that crave on the complete context. I just can't see a random casual music fan thinking, "yeah, I'll just buy 'Everything In Its Right Place' for 99 cents and ignore the rest of Kid A." So this is not an issue for art rock at all. You won't be seeing any bands like Radiohead or Tool complaining about this. However, single oriented bands like Metallica, Linkin Park and so on I can definately see having a problem with it. Basically, the more casual fans a band has, the bigger a problem that is for them.

Danny · 09-12-2003, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zooropa

But the thing is that about 90% of the people who listen to Tool and Radiohead would never just buy one song and leave it be. They are the type of music fans that crave on the complete context. I just can't see a random casual music fan thinking, "yeah, I'll just buy 'Everything In Its Right Place' for 99 cents and ignore the rest of Kid A." So this is not an issue for art rock at all. You won't be seeing any bands like Radiohead or Tool complaining about this. However, single oriented bands like Metallica, Linkin Park and so on I can definately see having a problem with it. Basically, the more casual fans a band has, the bigger a problem that is for them.

Good point. So basically, Lars and Chester are BSing us when they talk about crap like album context; they just want to milk the fans for all they're worth.

Zooropa · 09-12-2003, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N1ghthawk

Good point. So basically, Lars and Chester are BSing us when they talk about crap like album context; they just want to milk the fans for all they're worth.

Basically, yeah. I mean, Linkin Park albums do have a context, but I would be willing to wager that the majority of their fans do not care about that context. They just want the kick-ass singles.

Visirale · 09-14-2003, 02:32 PM

I heard on CNN this morning that the RIAA is considering suing iTunes... what is the world coming to?

Visirale · 09-14-2003, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Visirale

I heard on CNN this morning that the RIAA is considering suing iTunes... what is the world coming to?

Opps... this is what is actually happening...

Apple -v- Apple
Apple Corps - The Beatles' official record label - says Apple computers' online music store iTunes, which charges people to download music from the internet, is improperly using the Beatles symbol.

Owned by Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and the widows of John Lennon and George Harrison, Apple Corps has begun legal proceedings seeking damages and an injunction to enforce the terms of an agreement between the two.

In a report by the Britain's BBC here, "Over a decade ago, Apple signed an agreement with Apple Corps, a business controlled by the Beatles and their heirs, which specified the rights each company would have to use the Apple trademark," said Katie Cotton, Apple Computers' vp of worldwide communications.

"Unfortunately, Apple and Apple Corps now have differing interpretations of this agreement and will need to ask a court to resolve this dispute."

georgeo · 09-15-2003, 07:34 AM

the itunes store has sold 10 million songs

burningtr33 · 04-14-2010, 02:07 AM

Wow i cant believe this thread existed. I guess we all know if it worked or not

crazymoose · 04-14-2010, 06:18 AM

Oh, here I thought (well, faintly hoped) that maybe apple was finally going to stop making it so difficult to actually use the music that I legally bought from them in perfectly legal ways. But alas, it remains stupidly annoying.

I bet this might get closed, but still, it's kinda interesting to see what people thought about this.