Artists Upset About Cherry Picking on iTunes

[PowerPlayoffs06]

..

[OilKiller]

Well, being 41 (today) I guess I'm old school. I much prefer to purchase entire albums over a single tune or a couple of tunes. I like to listen to the artist's "vision" of the entire collection, over a single track, so I never have bothered with a service like iTunes.

[ericschand]

Originally Posted by PowerPlayoffs06

Rock said at the time that iTunes was representative of the "old system," where distributors and record labels take money instead of giving it to artists.

That's the important line. Many music contracts are written such that the
artist gets nothing for single sales, the distributor or record label gets it.
Similar to how Columbia House works; ever wonder why it's so cheap?
The CDs sold are considered "promotional material" so the artist gets no
renumeration on them.

On an album the artist(s) get something, it may not amount to more than
pennies, but they get something out of it.

He's not saying iTunes isn't a good idea, he's saying he gets nothing out of
it financially and he would rather have people buy the album so he does.
Seems other artists feel the same. So they are willing to take the iTunes
loss and try the "traditional" method. Good luck with that.

ers

[JayP]

Originally Posted by PowerPlayoffs06

I think this is just common sense. Of course consumers are going to purchase only the songs they like. Why pay $20 for a full album that's 3/4 full of crap when you can pay $3 or $4 for the few songs that are actually worth listening to?

If artists gave a damn anymore, and produced albums that were largely worth listening to in their entirety, fans would buy albums instead of singles. How many people have ever thought, "I really like this song, but I'm not buying the whole CD just for the one track?"

How did you determine that musicians all of a sudden decided to write 2-3 good tracks and then just fill the rest of the CD up with crap?

It has more to do with radio stations jamming hit singles down the listeners throats over and over again. I don't listen to the radio, but at work I know stations like Vibe play the same 10 songs on a continuous loop all day. During normal work hours you can easily hear one song 5-6 times. When they do this the listener will be so attached to that one song that by the time they listen to the rest of the CD they declare it crap (regardless of quality) since they don't have the same personal attachment to it.

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by OilKiller

Well, being 41 (today) I guess I'm old school. I much prefer to purchase entire albums over a single tune or a couple of tunes. I like to listen to the artist's "vision" of the entire collection, over a single track, so I never have bothered with a service like iTunes.

Happy birthday man.

[Boblobla]

I found this hysterical:

for some artists (we don't necessarily include Kid Rock in this category), there's the artistic vision realized only in the full-album experience

This is true though, a few artists that spring to mind are Tool, NIN, Pink Floyd.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by PowerPlayoffs06

I think this is just common sense. Of course consumers are going to purchase only the songs they like. Why pay $20 for a full album that's 3/4 full of crap when you can pay $3 or $4 for the few songs that are actually worth listening to?

If artists gave a damn anymore, and produced albums that were largely worth listening to in their entirety, fans would buy albums instead of singles. How many people have ever thought, "I really like this song, but I'm not buying the whole CD just for the one track?"

I think they should be thankful how many people actually pay the 99 cents for singles instead of just downloading it from a P2P, not trying to boycott the services that make them some money, if not as much as in the olden days when fans had no choice but to fork out for a whole album if they wanted the few good tracks on it.

Wow, I don't think I have ever disagreed with a statement made on a forum more than this. I have probably close to $1000 albums and I can listen to almost all of them from beginning to end. What type of music do you like that you are so jaded that you think 75% of the music you get on a CD is crap?

They should be grateful that people are no longer stealing their music? I don't care how great you feel sticking it to the man, downloading from P2P is stealing. I love listening to an album and having a collection of music, not a collection of hits. I bet you only buy the greatest hits CDs because then you know all the songs because you heard them on the radio.

[PowerPlayoffs06]

..

[Bobblehead]

Some albums have a few weak songs, some have a few good songs. Some albums are a complete vision (like many Pink Floyd albums) and should only be sold as a whole unit. Others are a collection of songs with no unifying theme, why shouldn't someone be able to cherry pick what they like off of it?

Anyone who has more than a dozen CDs will have one CD where they only like a song or two off of it. I know I have lots of CDs I purchased on the strength of a song or two only to discover too late that those are the only songs I like.

If artists aren't getting anything from singles sales, how is that the fault of the music buyer? How about the artist negotiate a better contract? Why is this iTunes fault?

Originally Posted by JayP

It has more to do with radio stations jamming hit singles down the listeners throats over and over again. I don't listen to the radio, but at work I know stations like Vibe play the same 10 songs on a continuous loop all day. During normal work hours you can easily hear one song 5-6 times. When they do this the listener will be so attached to that one song that by the time they listen to the rest of the CD they declare it crap (regardless of quality) since they don't have the same personal attachment to it.

So it is the fault of the radio stations and the the people who actually buy the music?

[PowerPlayoffs06]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

Wow, I don't think I have ever disagreed with a statement made on a forum more than this. I have probably close to $1000 albums and I can listen to almost all of them from beginning to end. What type of music do you like that you are so jaded that you think 75% of the music you get on a CD is crap?

They should be grateful that people are no longer stealing their music? I don't care how great you feel sticking it to the man, downloading from P2P is stealing. I love listening to an album and having a collection of music, not a collection of hits. I bet you only buy the greatest hits CDs because then you know all the songs because you heard them on the radio.

Wouldn't you be grateful of people went from stealing your product to buying it so you're actually making something off it? I didn't advocate downloading the music, just said that making something is better than making nothing.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Anyone who has more than a dozen CDs will have one CD where they only like a song or two off of it. I know I have lots of CDs I purchased on the strength of a song or two only to discover too late that those are the only songs I like.

You should start buying music from places that let you listen to the album before you buy it. I LOVE Play Entertainment for this. I can ask them to open up any album and I can listen to it and if I don't like it they will just throw it on their demo wall and let me find something that I do like. Admittedly it has only happened once that I have listened to the album and not liked it, but I was impressed at the no pressure sales. I can't go into that freaking store without leaving with a few new CDs.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by PowerPlayoffs06

Wouldn't you be grateful of people went from stealing your product to buying it so you're actually making something off it? I didn't advocate downloading the music, just said that making something is better than making nothing.

If that is not how I wanted my art to be distributed, I would not be grateful. Like it was mentioned in the article, there are albums that are meant to be listened to as a whole. It would be like taking a little piece of a painting you liked, cutting it out of the larger painting and just buying that. Do you think that artist would be happy with your choice?

[MaxPower]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Some albums have a few weak songs, some have a few good songs. Some albums are a complete vision (like many Pink Floyd albums) and should only be sold as a whole unit. Others are a collection of songs with no unifying theme, why shouldn't someone be able to cherry pick what they like off of it?

Anyone who has more than a dozen CDs will have one CD where they only like a song or two off of it. I know I have lots of CDs I purchased on the strength of a song or two only to discover too late that those are the only songs I like.

If artists aren't getting anything from singles sales, how is that the fault of the music buyer? How about the artist negotiate a better contract? Why is this iTunes fault?



So it is the fault of the radio stations and the the people who actually buy the music?

I agree with this 100%. And if someone wants to talk about the "total music experience" or some other BS, I'll loan, nay, GIVE you the Chumbawamba CD I bought in high school after hearing the "Tubthumping" single. Who was protecting my rights when that dog turd of an album was put on sale?

[troutman]

Kid Rock is lucky he ever made one cent.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by MaxPower

I agree with this 100%. And if someone wants to talk about the "total music experience" or some other BS, I'll loan, nay, GIVE you the Chumbawamba CD I bought in high school after hearing the "Tubthumping" single. Who was protecting my rights when that dog turd of an album was put on sale?

We were talking about music, and not giant steamy turds that barf out a single that gets played to death on the radio. If someone doesn't think that some music is better heard on an album I will loan, nay, GIVE you any of my Tool albums (other than Opiate, doesnt really apply to that).

[Igottago]

Although it would hold more water if it was someone other than Kid Rock making this arguement, he is right.

Most genuine musicians dont make hit singles, they make albums, that they deem to be a complete artistic vision, and songs aren't necessarily independent of eachother.

So in that case, yes its probably not fair that people can just get the one song they like and bypass the rest of the album.

At least in the day when record companies released singles, there was a select one or two songs that the consumer could purchase as a single.

I'll be happy when I can go see a comedy at the movie theatre, pay to view the funny scenes that were in the trailer, and then bypass the rest of the film...for maybe $2 or something. Seems fair.

[PowerPlayoffs06]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

If that is not how I wanted my art to be distributed, I would not be grateful. Like it was mentioned in the article, there are albums that are meant to be listened to as a whole. It would be like taking a little piece of a painting you liked, cutting it out of the larger painting and just buying that. Do you think that artist would be happy with your choice?

There's a vast difference between an album like The Wall or Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd, The Human Equation by Ayreon, Tommy by The Who and your generic pop album. The former are all musical tales, meant to be listened to as a whole that tells an epic story; the latter is just a compolation of various songs that have little if anything to do with eachother.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

.... I bet you only buy the greatest hits CDs because then you know all the songs ....

well, yes .... so? should we feel shame because we like the hit music they make and not the other tracks?

like what you want, and i will like what i want.

Bring on the Hillary, Britney and Miley!
'
edit: and I like Kid Rock as well ... sheeesh, some of you guys are too snobbish to enjoy simple pleasures.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by ericschand

That's the important line. Many music contracts are written such that the
artist gets nothing for single sales, the distributor or record label gets it.
Similar to how Columbia House works; ever wonder why it's so cheap?
The CDs sold are considered "promotional material" so the artist gets no
renumeration on them.

On an album the artist(s) get something, it may not amount to more than
pennies, but they get something out of it.

He's not saying iTunes isn't a good idea, he's saying he gets nothing out of
it financially and he would rather have people buy the album so he does.
Seems other artists feel the same. So they are willing to take the iTunes
loss and try the "traditional" method. Good luck with that.

ers

That's an interesting insight. To me, it seemed evident that consumers interested in digital music were clamoring for an a la carte system. In the days of Napster, I would guess that it was far more likely for users to pick and choose a few songs from artists rather than downloading the entire album. Maybe in the years that followed other communities with more discriminating members cropped up (oink) and full album downloads became more popular.

So along comes iTunes. You can buy entire albums or pick and choose a few songs you like. It seems to cater to both groups of downloaders (although the oinkers are probably peeved about the compression rates and unavailability of non-DRM lossless tracks). And now you see that the labels have still found a way, assuming everything ers said is true, to hose over the artists.

I agree that when you look at Kid Rock's statements more deeply, it seems to be a condenmnation of record labels importing the "old system" into the new digital distribution age than it is a jab at iTunes.

[Clarkey]

I find that I enjoy songs the most when they are set in the context of the rest of the album. Most albums have a theme or mood about them that can only be fully appreciated if you listen to all the songs together in the order the artist chose to put them in. I don't have any individual singles on my ipod, just full albums.