Rumor places Jay-Z and Apple in record label deal

[AppleInsider]

Hip-hop mogul Jay-Z may be on the verge of launching a new record label in concert with Apple Inc. where music releases would take place on the iPod maker's iTunes download service, according to rumors published this week by one blog site.

Citing a "high-up person attached to Jay," the Boy Genius Report claims the five-time Grammy award winning artist is "totally into" Apple's iTunes distribution model and "really wants this to happen."

Jay-Z, whose real name is Shawn Corey Carter, is the former president and CEO of the widely successful Def Jam Records, having just recently stepped down from the label when his contract expired on December 31, 2007.

"I’ve been incredibly fortunate to have served as President of such a culturally-defining label as Def Jam over the last three years," the 38-year old rapper said in a statement published last month. "But now it’s time for me to take on new challenges."

Though earlier reports had suggested that Jay-Z would be making a transition to the urban division of Sony Records, the Boy Genius Report claims instead that it has "just about confirmed" he'll be teaming with Apple on an unprecedented digital label venture.

Apple last February settled a long-running legal dispute with The Beatles' record label, Apple Corps, which appears to have cleared the iTunes operator of any restrictions that would have prevented it from delving further into the music business.

Under the terms of that settlement, Apple received the rights to all trademarks relating to "Apple" and agreed to license those marks back Apple Corps for their continued use.

It should be noted, however, that rumors of a Jay-Z's partnership with Apple come less than two months after the rapper issued a statement sternly opposing the company's iTunes distribution model. In it, he explained that his new album, American Gangster, would not be made available on the Apple download service due to the Cupertino-based company's policy of allowing iTunes shoppers to purchase individual songs rather than restricting sales to full albums.

"As movies are not sold scene by scene, this collection will not be sold as individual singles," he said.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[melgross]

Interesting, we'll see.

would this be DRM'd, I wonder? The story doesn't mention.

[ifiredmyboss.com]

Jay-Z not selling songs on itunes - Dang it.
Oh wait I thought it might actually be an "artist" I gave a rip about hearing.. Never mind

[melgross]

You're missing the point. It's not about what you care about. He's a pretty popular music personality. If he does a deal directly with Apple, and it succeeds, others would likely follow. It's even possible that there are some musicians who you do like who would consider this, if it's successful.

[Bageljoey]

Originally Posted by ifiredmyboss.com

Jay-Z not selling songs on itunes - Dang it.
Oh wait I thought it might actually be an "artist" I gave a rip about hearing.. Never mind

To me, the interesting thing in this story is not Jay-Z's music, but the idea of a new record label teamed with and possibly based on Apple and iTunes.

That would be something new and it would definately be interesting to see how that played out--regardless of whether you were interested in the music or not.

[mrjoec123]

I've always thought that Apple running its own label was the next logical extension of the iTunes Universe. If there are no legal restrictions, why not? They sign enough good artists, offer them fair terms, and we could see a true music revolution here.

Of course, this would only anger the establishment even more, prompting more labels to threaten leaving iTunes. But I honestly don't see how the major labels can survive without iTunes in the long run. CDs are going away very soon. Unless someone finally comes along and gives Apple real competition (Amazon, maybe?), but even then the labels need some sort of legal digital distribution to survive. And that means giving up the fat profits of over-priced CDs and ending the senseless billion-dollar promotions of garbage music like Britney Spears.

It'll be interesting to see how this all pans out.

[melgross]

I don't see an Apple label. I do see small labels, and even possibly individual artists, such as Radiohead, signing up for distribution on iTunes. A record label does far more than distribution. I can't see Apple wanting to get involved in any of that.

[Tracker]

If Apple is successful with Jay-Z and get's more Artist to sign up that will indeed shake up the industry.

It can be done like someone said, if they give the artist a good chunk of change everyone wins (well except for the big fat labels).

Guess we will see.

[vinney57]

Originally Posted by melgross

I don't see an Apple label. I do see small labels, and even possibly individual artists, such as Radiohead, signing up for distribution on iTunes. A record label does far more than distribution. I can't see Apple wanting to get involved in any of that.

Agreed. The rationale for record companies as distributors is fast disappearing; the other stuff that they do is out-sourced and freelanced to a great extent and there is no reason that a small label couldn't tap that resource, as many already do. Its the 'strategic' middle management of the labels that will be vulnerable since they function solely to maintain the corporation rather than develop talent; and they spend an awful lot of money doing it.

None of this is rocket science; it's been on the cards since Day One of the iTunes store. What's interesting is how carefully Apple manage each stage of development depending on the prevailing business conditions. Quite masterful in my opinion.

[quinney]

Originally Posted by vinney57

Agreed. The rationale for record companies as distributors is fast disappearing; the other stuff that they do is out-sourced and freelanced to a great extent and there is no reason that a small label couldn't tap that resource, as many already do. Its the 'strategic' middle management of the labels that will be vulnerable since they function solely to maintain the corporation rather than develop talent; and they spend an awful lot of money doing it.

None of this is rocket science; it's been on the cards since Day One of the iTunes store. What's interesting is how carefully Apple manage each stage of development depending on the prevailing business conditions. Quite masterful in my opinion.

well said, sir

[bradwjensen]

But if artists start selling their music only on iTunes then Apple best start also selling LOSSLESS files or all they'll be doing is degrading music even more. And they should be reasonably priced in LOSSLESS compared to the price of all the Printing, Pressing, Packaging and Shipping costs of CD's.

[SpamSandwich]

Apple would be smart to get into controlling more of the content and artist dealmaking aspect of their music offerings. I can see them eventually even offering to buy live streamed music acts over iTunes... maybe even selling event tickets through iTunes.

[ecking]

I don't know if I buy this, at all. All I could see Jay-Z and Jobs doing is butting heads.

[nmcphers]

Originally Posted by bradwjensen

But if artists start selling their music only on iTunes then Apple best start also selling LOSSLESS files or all they'll be doing is degrading music even more. And they should be reasonably priced in LOSSLESS compared to the price of all the Printing, Pressing, Packaging and Shipping costs of CD's.

What would be the average size of a lossless song?

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by melgross

You're missing the point. It's not about what you care about. He's a pretty popular music personality. If he does a deal directly with Apple, and it succeeds, others would likely follow. It's even possible that there are some musicians who you do like who would consider this, if it's successful.

To me this seems the natural order of things. Apple can offer the artists more and direct compensation for their work, including payments for music video purchases which as often excluded, the label headed under Jay-Z can correlate with distributors regarding physical media sales, and Apple can have exclusive first rights to arists' works.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by nmcphers

What would be the average size of a lossless song?

Assume between 800-1200kbps, with around 1000kbps being the average for me. When you look at 256kbps AAC, which I can't distinguish from "CD quality", then you see there is a huge difference in size with no real gain.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by solipsism

Assume between 800-1200kbps, with around 1000kbps being the average for me. When you look at 256kbps AAC, which I can't distinguish from "CD quality", then you see there is a huge difference in size with no real gain.

I can hear it quite readily on my system. Lossless would work fine, 256 does not.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Bageljoey

To me, the interesting thing in this story is not Jay-Z's music, but the idea of a new record label teamed with and possibly based on Apple and iTunes.

That would be something new and it would definately be interesting to see how that played out--regardless of whether you were interested in the music or not.

Yoko Ono must be furious!

[Bageljoey]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Yoko Ono must be furious!

Because...

(Help me out Teck, that one went over my head.)

[inditube]

The Jigga man knows his sh!t everything he touches turns into g0ld.HOVA HOVA HOVA HOVA.

[pairof9s]

Originally Posted by inditube

The Jigga man knows his sh!t everything he touches turns into g0ld.HOVA HOVA HOVA HOVA.

You young people...I just love your colorful sayings. Makes this old woman want to phup yo shiz!!


/

[tmedia1]

I've always thought artists should sell directly to their audience without the overhead of a record company.

[trevorlsciact]

I'll say what I said before. so Jay-Z, in that case you won't be releasing singles?

(and to spell it out to avoid confusion)

Oh wait, you are? I've never seen a movie that sold some scenes separately, in order to generate publicity and sales. I must say you confuse me Jay-Z.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Bageljoey

Because...

(Help me out Teck, that one went over my head.)

As in the lawsuit that was settled with Apple Corps (the Beatles music label) versus Apple Computer (now Inc) where it was ruled that Apple was not directly involved in the music business i.e. iTunes and now they would be!
There was an agreement years ago with Apple records that Apple could use the name as long as they stayed out of the music business. Here it's all spelled out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_C...Apple_Computer

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by teckstud

As in the lawsuit that was settled with Apple Corps (the Beatles music label) versus Apple Computer (now Inc) where it was ruled that Apple was not directly involved in the music business i.e. iTunes and now they would be!
There was an agreement years ago with Apple records that Apple could use the name as long as they stayed out of the music business. Here it's all spelled out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_C...Apple_Computer

I assume, If Apple creates a subsidiary company using a different name they would avoid the the confusion described in the lawsuit.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by solipsism

I assume, If Apple creates a subsidiary company using a different name they would avoid the the confusion described in the lawsuit.

There is no confusion now.

By the terms of the new agreements, APPLE (our Apple) owns these trademarks, and actually licenses them out to Apple Corps (their Apple) on a need to need basis. Apple (ours) is now allowed to go into the music business if they want to.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...bel_logos.html

[inditube]

are you a poker player pairof9s?