MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

How about they just offer better music? Most of the music coming out recently hasn't been that good. There's been a few bright spots, but not many.

Nov 29, 07 - 09:03 am Comment from: MacSmiley

Articles keep on forgetting to mention that the music industry, for more than a decade, rode high on a wave of people re-buying on CD the same music they had on vinyl discs. Only so many people were going to re-buy remastered CDs they had already bought, as well.

With that wave fallen, the music industry has nothing to fall back on anymore.

... and this time around, people are just ripping the CDs to iPods and hard drives... the music they already re-bought once.

P2P is the scapegoat the music industry is using for their own failure to produce good NEW music and to sell CDs at a reasonable cost.

Nov 29, 07 - 09:04 am Comment from: JadisOne

No surprises here. Soon Warner Music will be acquired by someone.

I agree with DakRoland. "Music" today is mostly crap, I'll stick to just replaying my "oldies".

Nov 29, 07 - 09:14 am Comment from: hagar57

Time to add "beleaguered" to Warner Music Group.
Muahaha!

Would it be out of the question for Apple to buy Warner Music? They only have a $1.7B market cap.

Nov 29, 07 - 09:19 am Comment from: silverhawk

Time for Warner Music board of directors to fire the Middlebronfman and the senior management. Too much emphasis on hip-hop/gangsta "music." Look at iTunes top songs. Absolutely nothing of interest on most of that list.

I am mistaken. Their market cap is only $1.07B.

Seems to me they could have Avoided this years ago by moving to the Dell Supply chain management model. On demand CD burning machines in record stores could have been instituted. This would not necessarily have been a cheaper alternative but it might have held the profit picture up at a lower pitch point for a longer term rather than preprinting a bunch of junk that you end up dumping i the Wal-Mart sale bin for $2.00 a pop. The music industry needs a lesson in basic price elasticity. By piling on irrelevant costs (such as make them pay for a non wearing media) they killed the golden goose too early in the game.

Nov 29, 07 - 09:26 am Comment from: HolyMackerel

MacSmiley:

I totally agree they no longer have a multi-pronged business model, but they also lack the foresight to build on the ones right in front of them.

There are plenty of good bands here in the UK, but we hear of them first via word of mouth, P2P and social networking sites, not via the label-controlled radio stations. Concerts here are real sellouts costing a fortune, plus they make a heap on merchandising. With record stores becoming rarer due to Walmart and our changing buying habits, the labels better move into the concerts, merchandising and promotion business soon or be left outside the stage door.

Warner and NBC need to embrace, not fight, the Apple glow since it may not last forever, but it has helped many companies in the past few years (ATT, O2, Orange, Creative). Sure, sell to other, but keep the complaining in the boardroom as you could the profits.

Nov 29, 07 - 09:31 am Comment from: hagar57

"the music industry, for more than a decade, rode high on a wave of people re-buying on CD the same music they had on vinyl discs"
So true! But here, too, the industry screws the consumer. Many of the "Best Of" albums are compilations of second rate life gigs, not the original recordings. Sadly, that is true for many iTMS offerings, too.

There is a way out, though. Using my Griffin iMic and Final Vinyl, I have preserved a great number of my old treasures for the digital age. The gentle scratching sounds from the turntable strangely fit the old music. Ole Blues Eyes or Satchmo without the noise just doesn't sound right.

MDNs view of subscription services is narrow and shortsighted. Everyone thinks of the buy vs subscription models as mutally exclusive. But Apple is clever enough to make it succeed by offering it as an enhancement to iTunes.

For example: Let me rent unlimited for $15 bucks a month so I can find music to buy. The subscription could even accumulate credits to purchase albums every month or so.... I guarantee you will get more money out of people that way.

I HATE buying stuff I'm not familiar with to find out it is crap. I feel used and annoyed I wasted the money. Even more so if you later decide to delete the songs you'll never listen to again. With a subscription service, I could try it out and if I liked it I would buy it.

Nov 29, 07 - 09:51 am Comment from: John Gee

I know MDN says the album is an artificial artistic construct, or something, but it certainly is convenient to put all your tunes on one piece of media. I wouldn't say that the album is nothing but a ploy for money. It made sense for an artist, and for the consumer.

Now, it is feasible to get your music more conveniently. Would keep going to the store for one single from an artist?...no way! I'd pick up their album. Now, sometimes, I'd find an EP, or a cheaper-than-full-album alternative, and yes, sometimes, I'd be "forced" to get the whole album for the 4 songs on the radio. But a whole album is interesting sometimes. And, it represents a whole set of emotions, not just the pop, upbeat, happy ones.

I rambled. anyone agree?

One of the problems is Apple has them in a death squeeze, forcing the sale of individual songs and dictating the pricing.

Apple needs to open up a little more to helping this group save their respective necks, unless Apple is going to become the place to find and market new music. In that case, they take on the role of the music companies. If Apple doesn't have long term aspirations here, and I'm not sure they do, then helping the music co's survive by allowing various pricing points will go a long way to keeping ahead of the comeptition, i.e. Micro$oft, Sony and Walmart who would like nothing more than to kill Apple.

Nov 29, 07 - 10:01 am Comment from: stormy

MusicisMyGirlfriend:

You can preview music on iTunes before you buy! Just click and listen to the preview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ5iHaV0dP4

...the other way to increase profits is to cut costs....I suspect there is a whole layer within the traditional label business model that isn't needed anymore or can be reduced significantly. they keep looking at ways to keep that model and cost structure alive, when it is shrinking before their eyes....and another area of their business is growing at a 25% rate...

time to let go of the buggy whip makers....

to Stormy:
I'm no 2-pump-chump.
I want my previews to last more than 30 seconds.

Nov 29, 07 - 10:29 am Comment from: DRM sucks

The album or LP was, in fact, an artificial construct. Some artists simply conform to it (filler tracks), some artists utilize it to define a moment in their artistic growth, some artists use it to create a unified work (not just prog rock, either).

Download stores do not preclude the last two, which are artistically driven. Download stores do diminish the ability of labels to leverage the artificial construct/filler version for profit.

Instead of bemoaning the death of the LP, artists and labels should be enjoying the freedom from the constraints of the LP.
Well, artists should be enjoying the freedom. Labels should be scrambling to finally figure out what the consumers want in order to maximize their profits (I'm talking to you, Dupri).

Nov 29, 07 - 10:29 am Comment from: ron

@John Gee. I rambled. anyone agree?

NO!

Nov 29, 07 - 10:30 am Comment from: mcdeans

@ zox

'I agree with DakRoland. "Music" today is mostly crap, I'll stick to just replaying my "oldies".'

Couldn't disagree more. My car CD stack is full of great new bands I've found in the past year. Every generation bemoans that music has become crap, but it just means you've become too old, dude!

i am 27 and i think much of today's music is crap, because today much of an artist's success is related to the image created for them through advertising and MTV. for instance, how many people will be listening to brittney spears for her musical talent in 20 years? to the contrary, people are still listening to Led Zeppelin and Hendrix decades later because they actually had talent.

Nov 29, 07 - 10:41 am Comment from: me

Apple has billions and billions in CASH.

Once the music producers slump enough, Apple will buy their catalogs and spin off a new Media Production and Promotion unit to supply artists with a very real but previously highly overvalued service.

Reality is that any artist starting off now needs about $3000 in hardware and software to master their own digital media and promote it on the Web. All the artist needs are talented people to run the software and do the promotion.

Record industry used to hold the keys to getting an album made and the word out. Now Blogs and Google make that less valuable and no longer a barrier to entry.

So if we're not going to be buying the filler any more, maybe 99c for a single song is a little too cheap. The good songs are worth more, the not-so-good... less.

And just as Mr. Jobs paved the way for digital music revenues to be billions instead of zero, he created a program for tracks to be more than 99c -- iTunes plus.

So what did the brilliant music industry that had been crying about digital music prices do? They gave DRM-free tracks to amazon for the OLD price of 99c, forcing iTunes to lower the price on iTunes plus.

Oh and they have this really brilliant idea of bundling a subscription service with the non-ipods. Right... Apple has a 70% share with products priced slightly higher (or a lot higher if you consider the Zune brown sewage blow out). But once the alternatives cost MORE, ipod is doomed.

So clueless.

When reading the interview with the head of UMG yesterday, I saw a CEO who basically said he didn't like the job description--he just wanted to look for great acts. No wonder Steve Jobs has pwned him. (A term I'm sure he does not understand.)

And they want to turn to MS!

If MS ran the iTS, the record companies would be getting the 30c share, not the 70c share. In fact, MS would begin the discussion with the idea that the music should be free to them like it is to radio; then start their own label. If the day ever comes when Apple stumbles and MS takes over, they'll start remembering these as the good old days.

Frigtards.

Am I the only one who thinks it's no coincidence that CD sales started to slump just as DVD sales started to boom? Seems to me that, with CD and DVD prices not so far apart, consumers have decided DVDs offer more bang for their entertainment buck.

Nov 29, 07 - 11:18 am Comment from: macaholic

A good example of an artist doing it their own way, and maintaining control of the product and the money is Sarah Atereth. She formed her own label to produce and sell her album. Available on iTunes and on her own website http://www.thesarah.com. One of the few independent artists charting in top ten on Billboard.

Nov 29, 07 - 11:21 am Comment from: smackman

Here is what I don't understand. If you take iTunes, Amazon, and other download services and sold other items directed toward the fans of an artist wouldn't that make up the difference?

Here is an example: Let's say I'm a huge Dave Mathews fan (because, well I am) and the label I buy the music from via iTunes also offered a special package in which there were exclusive video interviews, special album art, and maybee a special pass to do a meet and great after a show (limited availabilty, while supplies last). And lets say the charged another $10 for that package. (maybe some other cool merchendise thrown it too) then as a big fan I would love to get that stuff for an extra $10.

Correct me if I'm wrong but in this senario are not iTunes and Amazon places where they could potentialy make MORE pofit then physical media?

@Chaz

You are being a little ignorant here. Apple wants to set pricing across the board:

a) At a price point that people will pay instead of going to a bit torrent site
b) So it is much less confusing for the customer.

Keep in mind, labels don't have the high mark-ups they need on physical CDs (such as the costs for the CD itself, artwork, shipping, packaging, inventory, etc.. Inventory itself is very, very costly). Basically, if margins are 40% on a wholesale album price of (Walmart pays a distribution company $7.00 for an album. The distribution company may make 30% or let's say $2 per album. The label sells to the distribution company for $5.00 and has a 40% margin included. Let's say the label makes $2 with the other $3 going to the cost of the CD, artwork, marketing, operating expenses etc..) At $5.00 on a 10 song album, the label makes revenue of $0.50 per song and a profit of $0.20/song. On iTunes Apple gets about $0.20 per song while the labels get $0.80 or $8.00 per album. The big difference is that the overhead for digital music is 1/50 the cost for physical CDs. The labels pocket almost all revenue from iTunes.

The REAL battle, is that because people aren't re-purchasing their music but instead just ripping their CD's, AND they can but just one or two songs from an album, physical sales are down and the industry has little or no plan or idea how to handle the situation. As well, they think that they should just raise digital download prices and people will still pay. Unfortunately, anything over $0.99 per song will simply result in people sharing music via P2P. That results in the re-emergence of DRM. DRM costs money and alienates hardware crippling the growth of music.

Labels are lost with little good direction, scared, and greedy. Not a good combination.

Nov 29, 07 - 11:28 am Comment from: MacDailyNews Webmaster

We've long advocated Apple adding a subscription model if it makes financial sense. One such example:

"Now, for the limited amount of people for which a music subscription service would be welcome, we say, by all means, Apple should offer it - if it makes business sense (i.e. development and operational costs are less than profit potential)."

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/13418/

Hey MacSmiley, what do you mean twice? Some grizzled old folk have endured Albums, 8 track, cassette, CDs, and in some cases DVDs of live concert performances. And how many have went through VHS, LaserDisc, DVD, and are now starting on Blu-Ray or HD? The upgrade/ rebuy cycle is the only reason that the evil twin **AAs are pushing new formats.

In the case of cassettes, how many people have purchased multiple copies of a cassette after the sound deteriorated after being played so much?

We have MORE than paid the price for the opportunity of listening to our favorite song, or yes, even album.

Even software companies are reasonable to replace media if it becomes damaged if you can provide proof of purchase, or registration, or a serial number. Back in the day, many would even let you side grade if you switched platforms. Just try taking a scratched album, or worn out cassette and ask to trade up to a CD..... OK, you can, for the full retail price of the CD.

Unreal, MW = fear As in what the labels are feeling How does MDN do it? Telepathic AI?

Right on.

CD: $18 for one hour (or much less) of audio
DVD: $18-25 for 2-3 hours of movie plus add ons (outtakes, commentaries....)

But let's not forget what else is going on here.

Music is born of creativity. You can't contractually obligate a musician to create good music. It doesn't work that way. Handel produced The Messiah in one day but only wrote one other piece that year.

Expecting artists to churn out a steady stream of excellent music is unrealistic - and it's symptomatic of the label's greed.

Nov 29, 07 - 12:00 pm Comment from: Demon

I've hard on the labels (all the labels Major and Minor (aka so called Indie)) for their constant pushing of crap like Brittney and JayZ and the rest of the no talent crowd down the throats of the music buying public, while great independent artists like Gypsy Soul, Jen Bye, The Demon Brothers, Gatja, Soul Driver, Vertigo Road and the list goes on and on, just keep doing their thing and releasing great music.

There is one newer band that that is breaking the Brittney and Gangster Rapper model. Evanescence is a Goth type band that kids world wide have fallen in love with their music. Their Label is Wind-up Records, while I believe all Labels do a disservice to the artists they sign. It is refreshing to see a label promote someone with talent and artistry in their work and not just the lip syncing bubble head Brittney look alike. If you never seen Evanescence perform I highly recommend buying one of their Live Videos from iTunes.

All record labels still stink in my opinion but in reading about Wind-up I think they have smarts to know who is buttering their bread. And, they don't seem to be interested in tell the retailers how to retail.

A few years ago PBS broadcasted a nice piece on how the CD killed the music by bringing in a ton of money with people replacing their LP collections with CD's, which brought the labels untold wealth, which in turn attracted all the blood-sucking suits. The suits took over music, with their big egos & small minds taking over the creative side, and that's how we have such crappy music today.

Perhaps as the money leaves the labels, the looser suits will as well, and creativity will return. That's at least my happy thought for the day.

Sorry to burst some bubbles, but the vast majority of music put out today is recycled crap.

If I hear G-C-Em-D one more time in some retarded new 'hit' I think I'm going to puke.
It's in song after song after song after song and it's in every last genre from rap to worship music.

I *was* buying music regularly but most creativity has dried up, so I'm back to repurchasing all the older stuff on CDs.

Nov 29, 07 - 12:27 pm Comment from: blucaso

Well, in fact, those of you who don't seem to know music history prior to, say 1950 have forgotten how the album developed in the first place. The album in concept really goes back to the idea of a symphony or other piece of classical work that is more than one "song".

When music first appeared on Victrolas, Gramaphones, and other players, you could fit 2-1/2 to 3 minutes on a 10 inch disc, and about 4-1/2 minutes on a 12-inch disc. This was long enough for a waltz, or a short movement, but not for entire works.

So the concept of the "album" was invented. They would take 4 or 5 discs (8 or 10 sides each with a movement) and bundle them in an album (like a photo album, with each page being a paper sleeve holding an individual record). This is why we call it an album in the first place!

So not to totally disagree with MDN's previous take about albums being artificial constructs to sell music, because in many ways most albums are just that. BUT there has, for hundreds of years, been a "long-form" conceptual music unit, the symphony.

But just as in the classical days, there were songs, there were "suites", and there were symphonies. Not every song belonged to a larger construct. And even then, many people prefer to hear their favorite movement, not the whole symphony. The "single", as it were.

Now the record companies of course got greedy, realizing quickly that "albums" were much more profitable to sell than singles, even in the bulky days of 78 RPMs. Because to sell a single, you have to have a good song. To sell a whole album... you still only have to have one good song, and some good artwork or name recognition of the artist.

Today's albums are sometimes valid conceptual pieces, sometimes a collection of songs, and sometimes a couple of hits and a bunch of filler. But as always, the consumer will ultimately decide what they want to pay for.

The record companies have been crying foul at every turn - they decried radio when stations started playing records over the air, insisting that if people could just listen to their music for free it would kill record sales. (Of course, after embracing the notion that radio might actually PROMOTE record sales, they did a 180-degree about face and started paying DJ's under the table to play their records that weren't quite good enough but they needed to sell)

They complained that cassette tapes would kill them, because everyone would just record their albums and pass them around. They fought viciously to keep cassettes out of consumer hands. The RIAA demanded (and eventually got) a fee from every blank cassette sold. They fought viciously against the mini-disc, fearing the "cassette" with full digital quality. They wanted to keep it out of consumer hands (pros only, please!) or at least cripple it in some way (eventually the copy-protect was enabled, meaning you couldn't copy one mini-disc to another).

The CD-R was an even bigger threat, as the consumer was essentially able to make the same product at the same quality as the record companies. When the prices of CD-R's came down to under $1, it really showed the true nature of the business. If the material cost was, say $1, how much of that $15 or $18 CD is going to the artist? Pennies, you say? Then where is the other $13-16 going? Consumers became cognizant (possibly for the first time) of the business side of things. Transparency in the model exposed their greed.

Finally, with the advent of easily available high-speed internet, the record companies cried foul again. As always, instead of finding a way to embrace new technology, compete, and make money from new ideas, they have showed the same reaction as they have throughout the last 100 years. "This is bad, how can we stop it?"

But you can't put the genie back in the bottle. And dinosaurs no longer roam the earth. Get used to it, Middlebronfman. You and your ilk are on the endangered species list. Your place in the food chain is no longer necessary. Evolve or die. Frankly, most of us don't care. I'd rather save the penguins any day.

Maybe if they sold music that was worth listening to, more people would buy it. Even most of the older bands who have made great music in the past (like Smashing Pumpkins) have been releasing crap lately. Is it because of label intervention maybe?

Nov 29, 07 - 12:54 pm Comment from: NewtonsApple

Nicely put, blucaso. Right on.

Nov 29, 07 - 12:56 pm Comment from: bobchr

Here's something those lazy executives aren't thinking of...how about using Itunes to promote your product actively rather than passively. You own the rights to thousands of bands. How did concert bands survive before you guys came along? What if you used ITunes to not only promote local concerts but also sell video's of those concerts as well? I may only pay $10 for a sound only album but I might be willing to pay $15 for video reproduction of a live concert and guess what since most concerts are a compilation of a band's or artist's most popular stuff you're selling would add more value to the consumer. There were people who used to live to tour with the Grateful dead. I'm sure there are people out there that would buy a video compilation of the stones last 5 concerts. The record execs seem to be more willing to be the band shuffling the deck chairs as the Titanic sinks rather than come up with creative ideas and producing real talent. Maybe this its why American Idol has been so popular over the last few years. Light bulb anyone???

I agree with MusicIsMyGirlfriend.

It is difficult to explore new music with iTunes. Often I purchase a song to find that I don't like it. 30 second snippets is not enough to check out a song. A subscription service would fix that. Or maybe some other way.

@Danno Bonano

Don't think I'm being ignorant. You've got "vendors" doing unnatural things to try to break Apple. Truth be told, the whole music thing is still in it's infancy. If you don't think so, take a look at M$ sitting there trying to muscle in. They see Billions of players to be sold.

I'd much rather they work all ends of the pipe line, Musicians, Music Producers, Customers to build a formidable base. Some of the lessons everyone is talking about will not be learned just by saying so. Let the Music Distributors set some prices higher, see if the songs sell or people steal it. You are seeing unnatural acts because they don't believe what Apple is saying.

Remember MS was really good at making nice throughout the chain until they acheived dominance. Man they schmoozed IBM to it's death. It's a lesson I learned, and I hope Apple takes note also.

Nov 29, 07 - 07:38 pm Comment from: LorD1776

Unnatural acts. Like Meatloaf?

You can't totaly blame the record companies for crap music. It's up to the artist to write the music.

Nov 30, 07 - 07:02 pm Comment from: toby

I'm either going to buy a high quality DRM-Free single or I am going to steal a high quality DRM-Free single.


The record companies can decide which one I will do.




But the days of having me over the barrel, while nailing me like I'm the Homecoming Queen, are over. Tough sh*t if you don't like it.