or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Pete Townshend of The Who calls Apple's iTunes a "digital vampire"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pete Townshend of The Who calls Apple's iTunes a "digital vampire" - Page 2

post #41 of 108
The artist does not keep seventy percent. With a ninety nine cent download, the artist gets about nine cents, and the label fifty three cents.

What he doesn't mention though is that with an iTunes album sale the artist gets almost as much as with a physical album: namely ninety four cents for iTunes compared to ninety nine cents for the physical media.

What the artist is upset about, especially one like Townsend from the old days when Artists actually made money on music sales, is that iTunes has made it possible to buy only the songs you want. Consequently, album sales have suffered. Not all artists give you a full album of good songs. The Who might be an exception (couldn't tell you as I haven't listened to an album in a while). At the end of the day, iTunes brought a lot of paying customers to the mix.

Townsend's real grievance should be with services like Spotify where the artist only makes .00016 cents a stream. Services like Pandora and Rhapsody are slightly better with .0091 cents a stream. An artist would have to have his song streamed 563 times on Spotify to make the same .09 cents he'd make with one iTunes song sale.

People should also consider that the artist before getting paid has to pay back any advancement to the labels. So, initially the artist gets nothing from music sales. Further, the labels keep the accounting on sales, so often times the artists get screwed because it is easy for the labels to cheat.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Whine, whine, whine.

No explanation of why Apple should be "employing talents scouts, giving space to allow bands to stream their music and paying smaller artists directly rather than through a third party aggregator,"

He also neglects to mention that with iTunes, the artist keeps 70% while with a typical label they get a much smaller percentage.
post #42 of 108
And this is EXACTLY why Hollywood will NEVER give Apple the vast film/video libraries and why an ATV will never work unless it goes beyond the iTunes jail cell.
post #43 of 108
Yes, we don't want to confuse the two. With copyright infringement the penalty is much higher. In fact you could go punch the little old lady who lives next to you in the face and you would probably pay less in damages then you would for illegally downloading songs if the labels decided to come after you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stynkfysh View Post

First, people aren't stealing - they are committing copyright infringement. There is a big difference.
post #44 of 108
That's what Pete Townshend said?

Really?

Gee, I wonder if he was using a Macintosh to do his -- ahh .... "research" on ....

*ahem*
"Technology Alone Is Not Enough -- Married With The Liberal Arts & The Humanities,
It Yields Us The Results That Make Our Hearts Sing." - Steven P. Jobs
Reply
"Technology Alone Is Not Enough -- Married With The Liberal Arts & The Humanities,
It Yields Us The Results That Make Our Hearts Sing." - Steven P. Jobs
Reply
post #45 of 108
Before jumping on Townsend, some of you should read his speech a bit more carefully. While he did call out iTunes for being a digital vampire, he was also suggesting Apple should play a more active role in removing the record labels as middleman. This is not just about whining. He had some good thoughts about evolution of the music industry in the internet age. Shame on those of you making criticisms without reading thoroughly.
post #46 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Analogaurus?
Vinyloraptor?
Eight-tracktiopod?

Thats all I got.

That's a good list. Drumasaurus? Any farther back and it would be CDiacaran age.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maccherry View Post

Hey, the record labels should have told Apple to go straight to hell with their ala carte business model. But no! They hoped on board the yellow submarine like they always do. The record labels are notorious for allowing the tech industry to dictate what medium their music should go on.

This is sarcasm, right? Very good, it threw me for a loop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by santaclas View Post

Got to chime in (first time). I don't really get this - I've always bought the album 'cause it it is a part of the experience discovering new song with the artist you like. They might not be as good as the song(s) that the label chooses to release as a single, but it is the package that counts. I guess no one has the patience or time anymore to actually sit down and just listen so a full album.

In a sense, I agree, there are often other good songs on an album. It seems unfair to not offer any way to listen to them before committing to the whole album though. They run the two singles ragged on the radio, and the rest of the songs on the album are anyone's guess unless you buy it, can borrow it. Even the thirty second samples aren't really enough, it would be nice to listen to the whole thing some how. I understand the reticence because of copying concerns, but if someone's going to copy a song, they'll go and do an illegal download. I do the samples, if I hear something promising in more than half the songs, then I'll hope for the best and get the whole album.

Quote:
For me skipping out on songs from an album is like choosing what scenes you don't want to see in a movie. I guess you don't fast forward in every movie you see.

That argument really only works for concept albums, which is a rare beast and went extinct long before iTunes was an idea. Most albums have a collection of relatively unrelated songs, also evidenced by concert tours where set lists are often rearranged at will. If it were really like skipping parts of a movie, then rearranging songs wouldn't make sense because you have a sequence of events in a movie, the third act cannot be understood well without watching the first and second. Rarely in an album is the whole album a single, connected story, like a novel. It's more like a collection of short stories, skipping story #5 often has no impact on enjoying story #11.

Quote:
I'm not telling you not to just buy the songs you like...just that the package and experience that the album offers to let you hear new songs surprise you is lost. And as it goes for Pete's food metafore I would put it like this: Go into a restaurant you don't ask the waiter to skip the potatoes, gravy or what not because you don't want to pay for it. If you don't like you leave it on the plate but you will pay the same price anyway.

That metaphor falls apart because most restaurants let you choose your sides. Which is not too unlike like burning your own mix CD with tracks from anywhere and everywhere, or buying รก la carte and making your own playlist. Still flawed metaphors. But definitely far better than a musician saying that people should pay money every time they hear a song.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

The artist does not keep seventy percent. With a ninety nine cent download, the artist gets about nine cents, and the label fifty three cents.

I think he meant if the artist had a direct deal with iTunes, but I don't know if or how many have such a deal.
post #47 of 108
Poor pete. He must need the money. Lets start a pete townhend fund so he can afford to eat!!!!
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
post #48 of 108
Pete yells at kids to "Get off my lawn" and "Stop being so loud". He could not be reached for comment due to it being 'Nap Time'.
post #49 of 108
"It would be better"

Better for whom, Pete?

"if music lovers treated music like food, and paid for every helping",

One shudders to imagine those long-ago family dinners in the Townsend household, where Pete's rabid, insatiable fear of not getting enough originated.

"rather than only when it suited them"

Yes dear. We should pay when it suits you. Which is always. How are you enjoying life with the 1%, Petey?

"Townshend has matured from rockstar to businessman"

"Matured?" Some of us are old enough to remember when a younger Townsend would have called that "selling out" and spat on what he's become.

"demolition of established copyright protections"

Ah, the establishment The road from artist to "stop worrying and love the bomb" is surprisingly short in addition to being paved with gold.

Can we stop admiring the insatiable greed of the egregiously rich and start calling them what they are? The word "hoarders" strikes me as useful. No matter how much they have, they want more. Putting the label "worth an estimated $75 million" on Townsend's insanity doesn't change the fact that he's no different than some pathetic wreck living in a trailer filled with 20,000 back issues of people magazine. He's neither admirable nor sane.
post #50 of 108
I was reading some comments here and allot is true especially the fact that if anything iTunes actually helped out the music business. I don't the amount of people that actually buy music now instead of downloading. If you ask me the music business is probably better off then it was before and all that because of iTunes.
post #51 of 108
What a moron. iTunes has done more for music and the culture of music than Pete Townsend, or any other similarly-minded dumbass.
post #52 of 108
He's out of touch. So we should stop buying his music. Boycott the Who and Pete Townhend. They suck.
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
post #53 of 108
Boo Who!
post #54 of 108
Well, what can you expect from a guy who got famous by smashing his instrument?
Now, there is respect for art!
What kind of vampire is it that profits from selling his art to hawk headlights?
Not an enlightened one! (ooh, sorry).
It was precisely to respect artists and avoid piracy, and because subscription and play-control services were so unwieldy and unpopular, that iTunes got its shot.
But who, I ask you, would seriously like to go back to those days?
Who???
post #55 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

He also neglects to mention that with iTunes, the artist keeps 70% while with a typical label they get a much smaller percentage.

Not even close. Apple doesn't deal directly with artists. They deal with labels/publishers.
Apple keeps 30%.
The label/publisher gets 70%.
The artist gets whatever the contract between artist/label specifies, which is not going to be all of the 70%, even if the label is owned by the artist. The label will get some portion.
post #56 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

Not even close. Apple doesn't deal directly with artists. They deal with labels/publishers.
Apple keeps 30%.
The label/publisher gets 70%.
The artist gets whatever the contract between artist/label specifies, which is not going to be all of the 70%, even if the label is owned by the artist. The label will get some portion.

I wish I was on the receiving end of the iTunes market. If Pete wants to he can trade places with me. I will take his income and enjoy the money made by people buying my songs on iTunes.
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
post #57 of 108
Poor old man... Must've been the drugs.

I've found that, the best way to make money as a music artist is to go live. If you can't perform live then... You know the rest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jr1882 View Post

It's called America, Peter. Go back tot he UK if you don't like it.

Hey! We don't want him either!

Quote:
Originally Posted by iKol

And this is EXACTLY why Hollywood will NEVER give Apple the vast film/video libraries and why an ATV will never work unless it goes beyond the iTunes jail cell.

Because some guy from The Who has got Pirate Bay confused with iTunes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA

Not even close. Apple doesn't deal directly with artists. They deal with labels/publishers.
Apple keeps 30%.
The label/publisher gets 70%.
The artist gets whatever the contract between artist/label specifies, which is not going to be all of the 70%, even if the label is owned by the artist. The label will get some portion.

Is there some kind of arrangement if you're not actually signed up to a record label? I've always wondered this.
post #58 of 108
Pete, WHO are you?
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #59 of 108
So the UK doesn't want him and we don't want him. Maybe he should go to Syria. They will help him. Help him how? I don't know. One can only imagine.
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
post #60 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by stynkfysh View Post

First, people aren't stealing - they are committing copyright infringement. There is a big difference. No one loses something when a song is illegally copied, which is required for theft. Not to say that copyright infringement isn't bad, it is - it just isn't stealing.

Second, the recording industry has had a hell of a time adjusting to the fact that they aren't nearly as needed as they once were. The encoding and distribution of an MP3 song is practically free compared to the old days when a record, tape, or CD had to be manufactured and shipped all over the world. Yet, they still want the same profit.

So Pete Townsend - while you are highly respected as a musician, you are missing that it is the record companies are demanding too high of profit relative to their importance in the music distribution process, which I am guessing results in less income for artists. Don't blame the fans, look at your middleman - they are taking too much.

Seems to me that an investor could go out, find talent, promote said talent, and distribute the music for far less than what is even charged on iTunes today, with the artists making more money than they do today, and with a smart investor making good returns.

Lady Gaga's latest album premiered on Amazon for $1. Amazon sells MP3's without copy protection and her album could have easily been distributed by friends after only 1 person bought it. But you know what? Amazon's huge data services couldn't handle the load of people wanting to buy the album, and many MANY people bought it.

There is a price out there people want to pay for an album or song, the music industry just doesn't want to go down to where it is. They had their day in the sun when distribution was hard - but now it is easy and they have failed to adjust to the times and technology.

Pete Townsend, I am afraid you just don't understand - so please spend your rock God capital on reworking the record company, not the fans - or Apple and iTunes.

If Pete reads any one of these replies, I hope it's this one, you hit the nail on the head, man!
post #61 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrogusto View Post

Sounds like Townshend is a digital dinosaur...

"Analog" dinosaur to be precise.
post #62 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerk36 View Post

... the Who and Pete Townhend. They suck.

Really?! Try again without your head up your @$$!
post #63 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGJ View Post

Is there some kind of arrangement if you're not actually signed up to a record label? I've always wondered this.

Either you start your own label or use an aggregator such as Tunecore.
You pay them (Tunecore in this case) a flat fee ($9.99 for a single, $49.99 album) and they handle getting your music up on iTunes and distribute the royalties back to you.
post #64 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffhrsn View Post

Really?! Try again without your head up your @$$!

Ok Peter Townhend is not nice to blame the one who buys the music. Also iTunes has helped stop Piracy. So Peter Townhend sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
post #65 of 108
The internet is the biggest and best talent scout there ever was.

Come on Pete, it's the 21st century now. Quit pining for the good old days. At least the days that were good for you. Lots of other artists from the last 50 years don't have 75 mil in the bank. Why don't you use some of that to do the things you expect Apple to do? How about an old musicians home for those who didn't get the breaks you did?
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #66 of 108
Jobs' showed "easy," (Read: iTunes) sometimes trumps "free," (Read: BitTorrent)

Townsend is just an out of touch, cranky old queen! And I don't mean "queen" in a derogotory sense...
post #67 of 108
I think you're all jumping on ol' Pete a little too quickly. I am no expert here but I think that what Pete is saying (in part) is that now that iTunes has become a major force within the music industry it needs to take on certain responsibilities above and beyond. Its ultimately about the music, after all and if iTunes could help the smaller upcoming musicians getting heard it is exactly the kind of things iTunes should do. It owes its existence to all the musicians out there and as such could play a bigger part as a conduit for the struggling artist. It doesn't really matter what the iTunes's scope was or is. What matters is that it is perhaps harder than ever for new bands to be 'discovered' and iTunes could play a positive role by changing this.

Maybe Ping could be the beginnings to something like this. Something deeper than just straight sales. I am not sure but I think that Pete is trying to speak on behalf of the budding artist and as such I support him.
post #68 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

He also neglects to mention that with iTunes, the artist keeps 70% while with a typical label they get a much smaller percentage.

Uh... no.

Assuming Apple takes 30 cents of every song, you seem to think the artist gets the rest. Guess again. The labels are still taking a big chunk of that.

If the artists negotiated directly with Apple, THEN they'd get the 70 percent. Guarantee very few artists do that. Which is sad, honestly. Imagine if Mr. Townshend did that... he'd be making a LOT more than he is now. But my guess is, he doesn't own the publishing rights nor the masters to most of the Who catalog.
post #69 of 108
And I thought he was going to rant about having to leave iTunes open on my computer to enjoy my content throughout the house and how un-energy efficient that is. Bummer.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #70 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by stynkfysh View Post

Don't blame the fans, look at your middleman - they are taking too much.

Pete Townsend, I am afraid you just don't understand - so please spend your rock God capital on reworking the record company, not the fans - or Apple and iTunes.

This this THIS. Have you seen the breakdown on how much of $1 spent on music actually goes to the musicians? Last I saw it was around 7 cents, MAYBE. But Townsend thinks Apple is the problem and not the music publishers??? Dude did too many drugs...fried his logic centers.
post #71 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

I think that what Pete is saying (in part) is that now that iTunes has become a major force within the music industry it needs to take on certain responsibilities above and beyond.

Perhaps that's what he meant to say, and I agree with a couple of his more constructive suggestions. But if you reread his quote, that's not the main gist of what he ended up saying, especially when he called Apple a "vampire". The overall takeaway was "Apple's taking too much of my money" and the rest will be lost to most people's ears. He needs a publicist (or if he has one, she likely ate her hat when she saw what he said without running it by her first. )
post #72 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by stynkfysh View Post

First, people aren't stealing - they are committing copyright infringement. There is a big difference. No one loses something when a song is illegally copied, which is required for theft. Not to say that copyright infringement isn't bad, it is - it just isn't stealing.

Are you implying that only tangible things may be stolen, i.e. someone has to "lose" something for theft to occur? That's very narrow-minded. What about services then? Can you steal cable? The cable service didn't go anywhere.

In reality, people do lose something: money. When you pirate a song, the owner loses the potential revenue. That's very real, and is theft by all accounts, theft being defined as taking something that doesn't belong to you, and causing harm to the original owner.
post #73 of 108
Hey Pete!

Pull up your grumpy pants, old man. Your belt buckle just fell below your navel.


gc
post #74 of 108
Huh? Pete doesn't have any problem selling his music on iTunes. I would have loved to see Pete cross swords with Steve Jobs. Perhaps they did and Pete is just holding a grudge. There's no mention of it in the book, although they do go into quite a bit of detail about Jobs dealings with the major record labels. Two things Steve would not give on were 1) 99 cents per song (un-bundled albums) 2) absolutely NO royalty on iPod sales! After the Napster debacle I could see how some of the artists are still sore. Jobs was offering them a better deal than what they were getting (nothing), but certainly nowhere near as good as they had it back in the good ole days...
post #75 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Whine, whine, whine.

No explanation of why Apple should be "employing talents scouts, giving space to allow bands to stream their music and paying smaller artists directly rather than through a third party aggregator,"

He also neglects to mention that with iTunes, the artist keeps 70% while with a typical label they get a much smaller percentage.

Townsend clearly is an idiot. But really, "who" cares?

What a load re 'talent scouts'. Bite me, Townboy. A musician can record his/her own work and go straight to market on the cheap, if they've got any ambition at all.

This guy's either doing too many drugs, or not the right ones.
post #76 of 108
Itunes is not bleeding the artist. This WHO guy has not really done his research. But he is an old timer. That Super Bowl show Suxed!
post #77 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrogusto View Post

Sounds like Townshend is a digital dinosaur. He seems to think that things would be just like they used to be if it weren't for iTunes, but they would probably be worse. In most cases, if people weren't buying music on iTunes, they'd be stealing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffhrsn View Post

"Analog" dinosaur to be precise.

Really? Sounds like neither of you read very carefully. He actually spoke rather articulately about the evolution of music, the eventual collapse of the current music industry and how Apple should step into the breach. It pays to read thoroughly.
post #78 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

He also neglects to mention that with iTunes, the artist keeps 70% while with a typical label they get a much smaller percentage.

That's not true.

The person or party with the rights to put the song up on iTunes gets 70%. If it was the artist they get it but if it was a label (which is often the case with the major names like The Who) the label gets the 70% and the artist gets whatever cut was worked out in their contract
post #79 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by stynkfysh View Post

No one loses something when a song is illegally copied, .


No one except the retailer that should have made the said,the label etc that should have gotten their cut.
post #80 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by jr1882 View Post

Without iTunes, Limewire would be alive and well.
.

And with iTunes it was still alive and well for quite some time. Because those that will pirate will pirate and come up with clever logic to make it 'okay'

Limewire was shut down by a lawsuit, not by iTunes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Pete Townshend of The Who calls Apple's iTunes a "digital vampire"