His main point is that APple does not act like the specialised venture capitalists ( record labels ) did in the past by nurturing new talent. Thats true, but it is not iTunes obvious business. That said a new band tab on the iTunes store might not go amiss, and could be crowd sourced using ping.
iTunes is a retailer not a record label. If they tried to sign new bands directly the record labels would all complain.
iTunes has helped to bring the cost of music down whilst limiting the amount of piracy. I can remember the days when the average CD was £15 and everyone was complaining about how they just couldn't afford to buy many CDs anymore. So what many people did was buy the CD and then tape it for all your mates. That was greedy record labels in collusion with record shops keeping prices artificially high. Now most albums on iTunes are about £8 and piracy has fallen.
If Pete is so worried about new bands coming through then maybe he should set up his own record label, spend some of his vast wealth and promote these bands.
Pete you are totally clueless about the way the music business operated in the old days and the way it operates today. You thought you were getting a great deal when you were actually getting f**ked.
1. When large act audited record labels, they ALWAYS found heaps of money because of shoddy accounting. This is no longer the case with iTunes.
2. Record labels had zero customer service i.e. they did not have a direct relationship with the artists fans and they didn’t empower fans to have relationships with each other. Itunes does
3. Record labels did not have the flexibility to offer music with a quick turn around and in various ways. Itunes does. Fans love choice and speed.
4. Labels could not guarentee every artists record in every record store in the world. Itunes distribution covers the world...more distribution points equals more sales.
5. Record labels had packaging that was bad for the environment. iTunes does not.
6. Record labels were extorted by record retailers and regularly got screwed. iTunes pays everyone 100%, a 100% of the time and does not charge for price and positioning.
7. Record labels often stopped selling artists when they didn’t sell enough records to warrant pressing more because of cost. iTunes does to discriminate so every artist is not fall victim to this.
8. Record labels had close to 10 years to figure out a digital solution and they didn’t do it. iTunes figured it out, unfortunately record labels screwed over artists by giving them poor royalty rates on digital sales.
Pete is a clueless old man whose bands music is sold on iTunes because he didn’t have a decent contract with his record label to force them not to. His solo stuff is not sold so his fans are left to try and figure out how to get, most likely in a format they detest.
The funny thing is that the 'fix' is 100% within Pete's ability to fix (along with his partners, of course). If he thinks that Apple is short-changing the industry, then he doesn't have to let iTunes carry The Who music. Problem solved.
But iTunes happens to be full of The Who. I guess he wants to take Apple's money more badly than he wants to do something about the system.
In reality, even Pete's main arguments are meaningless. He wants Apple to do more to 'talent scout' new artists. In reality, the new system makes that unnecessary. Apple makes it cheap for ANYONE to record a song and sell it - no need for a talent scout. If you're any good, you can become successful. I have two friends who have recorded music and put it on iTunes even though neither of them was ever able to get an agent interested. Then there are the extreme stories like Rebecca Black. She became famous not because of iTunes but rather YouTube, but the principle is the same.
To be fair, I think a couple of years back, the artists went after more royalties from digital sales, because they were getting smaller royalties for it. I believe it was denied. Artists get a pittance from the record company for sales, unless they're a major act with a special deal. I'm sure The Who was one of those acts that got a special deal, but that probably only applied to the pre-digital era, and they probably got shafted when the age of digital downloads came. I'm only guessing about that part. Who knows? They certainly didn't foresee digital download sales of music in 1969 and probably didn't have provisions for it in their contract.
What Townsend fails to see, is that before iTunes, people were stealing music by the truckload from places like Napster. iTunes made music downloading successful and legal. It gave artists and the record companies money they weren't getting at all under Napster days. Besides, if you look at what you pay under iTunes, it's just about what you'd pay for a CD at the store, only with iTunes, you have the ability to choose only the songs you want, instead of a whole CD full of garbage for one song. I guess they need to write and develop more good songs and less throw aways?
Another point, how much does Walmart or other outlets make from CD sales? Surely they make a decent profit to support selling them at all? I'm sure Apple's 30% take isn't as rich as he's making it out to be. Besides, the rights owners all have the power to deny any artists' tunes to be sold on iTunes if they deem the outlet isn't fruitful enough.
Here we go again... How about going and bitching to your label instead of complaining about Apple? Apple is a retailer. They are really no different than any other retailer (other than pioneering the most successful online music store). They don't control how much money is given to the artists, that is a function of the artist's contract with the label.
Other retailers are the same way, whether it be Amazon, Walmart or someone else. The retailers don't pay the artists, they pay the labels, and the labels pay the artists. Direct your diatribe where it belongs.
Of course there is now the opportunity for any artist to be their own "label" and sell directly with iTunes instead of being beholden to a 'third party' label. If you want control over your own destiny, maybe you should go that route.
2) The food analogy is pretty bad considering the commonality and success of the fast food restaurant industries dollar menu.
You didn't do a much better job with it. The reason the dollar menus work is because people often order higher priced items. Franchise owners have fought against having them.
He should be lucky anyone still buys his music at all! The Who haven't had any hits in years. Anyone who is just discovering the Who at this point could easily find used Who CDs for next-to-nothing at any used record store/pawn shop/flea market or just rip their parents'/grandparents' copy. (Not to mention their songs are overplayed on "classic rock" radio to the point that I find it hard to believe anyone would want to buy a copy for their own personal listening.)
I think it's a matter of him not seeing the royalty checks he's been spoiled by due to the irrelevance of, dwindling interest in, and simple over-saturation of his music more so than music piracy or Apple supposedly ripping him off or any other (minor) issues of the digital music age.
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.
I don't disagree in principle, but there is a vast difference between a traditional record label and digital distribution. iTunes doesn't put artists under contract, produce their work, design their album covers, do A&R, promotion, marketing, etc. In exchange for all that, artists got a bigger slice of the pie. Labels still exist and they perform those services. All Apple does is distribute.
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.
Nonsense. Why should Apple be responsible for sending out talent scouts? Do you expect Walmart to do that? Best Buy? Apple is simply the retailer - just as Walmart and Best Buy are.
The labels are still involved, so there's no reason why the labels can't continue to do what Townsend wants them to do. For that matter, I think their cut of revenues is even greater with iTunes than with something like a big box retailer, so they have even more incentive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
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.
You're missing the fact that iTunes already does all those things. Ten years ago, it was nearly impossible to get a recording contract and your chances of getting your music out there was close to zero. With iTunes, virtually ANYONE with a little talent (or even no talent) can get their music published. It then becomes up to the market to decide if they are successful or not. Essentially, iTunes makes the concept of a talent scouts irrelevant. You don't need a talent scout when everyone can get their music published and then succeed or fail on the basis of their own abilities.
Ping helps, as well, but it doesn't fundamentally change the picture. Once iTunes (and to an equal extent, YouTube) became popular, the traditional music industry where the labels and talent scouts were gatekeepers ended. Look at Rebecca Black. She didn't need a talent scout. In fact, a talent scout would probably have passed her by. Personally, I don't think she's very talented, but the market has decided what they want.
Food is finite. There is not only a finite amount of food, but it has a short shelf life where it can go away if not consumed. Once someone eats or destroys food - it is GONE. Food also requires real physical cradle to grave products, physical tangible products that must be made and shipped and sold.
Digital music is nothing at all like food. It is made once and can be reused indefinitely, and when one person consumes it there is still an infinite supply left for anyone else who wants it.
I have never bought a single Pete Townsend product on iTunes or from a brick&mortar store - but I have spent a ton of money on music, both analog and digital. You know what has killed that?
Pandora. Spotify.
I don't buy music anymore. I just stream it. Now that I can say "Hey, I want to hear Lily Allen" and type "Lily Allen" into my Pandora and hear Lily Allen - wham, I have no need to buy a CD or a digital download. I just listen to what I want when I want.
No one except the retailer that should have made the said,the label etc that should have gotten their cut.
Not to mention the artist. The artists are oft forgotten because we think of all of them being well to do like Madonna or U2. But most artists need every fraction of a sale to scrape together a sustainable living in order to keep writing music, to keep singing, etc.
Not to mention the artist. The artists are oft forgotten because we think of all of them being well to do like Madonna or U2. But most artists need every fraction of a sale to scrape together a sustainable living in order to keep writing music, to keep singing, etc.
And Apple doesn't make it any harder for the artists to get by. If anything, Apple HELPS the struggling, young artists in 2 ways:
1. By helping to shift pirates into music buyers.
2. By offering an artist who wants to do his own work the ability to get published without a label - and keep 70% of the retail price.
At the same time, Townshend also blamed customers for not paying more, saying, "It would be better if music lovers treated music like food, and paid for every helping, rather than only when it suited them," adding, "why can't music lovers just pay for music rather than steal it?"
What the hell is this crap he's spewing? How is it stealing? Please tell me. I still pay everytime i download a song.
Here's an idea Pete, how about not charging $200+ for concert tickets? Until then, STFU with your "stealing"
So when do music labels send out talent scouts? I played semi-professionally for 15 years and NEVER ran across one. I did, far too often, hear the horror stories of the large labels putting the shaft to up and coming artists. Signing them to a contract with an 'advance' that was noting more than a loan that the band was responsible for paying back. Promising promotion, advertising, album placement, only to half-deliver and then claim ownership to everything that the song writers didn't nail down. Before dropping them the minute the 'next big thing' came along. This is the 'model industry' that Pete is in favor of?
I much prefer the iTunes system where any individual with talent and a computer can compose, record, self-publish and make available for distribution their work, all without having to lick the boots of a no-talent executive.
I'm guessing that Pete has hit that point where no one has said 'no' to him in so long that he now believes anything he says is gospel. But then again, this was the man who at the height of their fame claimed that the Beatles music was crap, so anything he has said since the early 1960s should be taken with several grains of salt...
Comments
everyone has an opinion, people like to pick & choose if itunes charged more for songs its simple, people would steal it.
Ps anyone else remember that he got busted a few years ago for having kiddy porn...
Oh, for Pete's sake.
Oh, yeah
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...n-peel-lecture
His main point is that APple does not act like the specialised venture capitalists ( record labels ) did in the past by nurturing new talent. Thats true, but it is not iTunes obvious business. That said a new band tab on the iTunes store might not go amiss, and could be crowd sourced using ping.
iTunes is a retailer not a record label. If they tried to sign new bands directly the record labels would all complain.
iTunes has helped to bring the cost of music down whilst limiting the amount of piracy. I can remember the days when the average CD was £15 and everyone was complaining about how they just couldn't afford to buy many CDs anymore. So what many people did was buy the CD and then tape it for all your mates. That was greedy record labels in collusion with record shops keeping prices artificially high. Now most albums on iTunes are about £8 and piracy has fallen.
If Pete is so worried about new bands coming through then maybe he should set up his own record label, spend some of his vast wealth and promote these bands.
Pete you are totally clueless about the way the music business operated in the old days and the way it operates today. You thought you were getting a great deal when you were actually getting f**ked.
1. When large act audited record labels, they ALWAYS found heaps of money because of shoddy accounting. This is no longer the case with iTunes.
2. Record labels had zero customer service i.e. they did not have a direct relationship with the artists fans and they didn’t empower fans to have relationships with each other. Itunes does
3. Record labels did not have the flexibility to offer music with a quick turn around and in various ways. Itunes does. Fans love choice and speed.
4. Labels could not guarentee every artists record in every record store in the world. Itunes distribution covers the world...more distribution points equals more sales.
5. Record labels had packaging that was bad for the environment. iTunes does not.
6. Record labels were extorted by record retailers and regularly got screwed. iTunes pays everyone 100%, a 100% of the time and does not charge for price and positioning.
7. Record labels often stopped selling artists when they didn’t sell enough records to warrant pressing more because of cost. iTunes does to discriminate so every artist is not fall victim to this.
8. Record labels had close to 10 years to figure out a digital solution and they didn’t do it. iTunes figured it out, unfortunately record labels screwed over artists by giving them poor royalty rates on digital sales.
Pete is a clueless old man whose bands music is sold on iTunes because he didn’t have a decent contract with his record label to force them not to. His solo stuff is not sold so his fans are left to try and figure out how to get, most likely in a format they detest.
The funny thing is that the 'fix' is 100% within Pete's ability to fix (along with his partners, of course). If he thinks that Apple is short-changing the industry, then he doesn't have to let iTunes carry The Who music. Problem solved.
But iTunes happens to be full of The Who. I guess he wants to take Apple's money more badly than he wants to do something about the system.
In reality, even Pete's main arguments are meaningless. He wants Apple to do more to 'talent scout' new artists. In reality, the new system makes that unnecessary. Apple makes it cheap for ANYONE to record a song and sell it - no need for a talent scout. If you're any good, you can become successful. I have two friends who have recorded music and put it on iTunes even though neither of them was ever able to get an agent interested. Then there are the extreme stories like Rebecca Black. She became famous not because of iTunes but rather YouTube, but the principle is the same.
The industry has changed.
What Townsend fails to see, is that before iTunes, people were stealing music by the truckload from places like Napster. iTunes made music downloading successful and legal. It gave artists and the record companies money they weren't getting at all under Napster days. Besides, if you look at what you pay under iTunes, it's just about what you'd pay for a CD at the store, only with iTunes, you have the ability to choose only the songs you want, instead of a whole CD full of garbage for one song. I guess they need to write and develop more good songs and less throw aways?
Another point, how much does Walmart or other outlets make from CD sales? Surely they make a decent profit to support selling them at all? I'm sure Apple's 30% take isn't as rich as he's making it out to be. Besides, the rights owners all have the power to deny any artists' tunes to be sold on iTunes if they deem the outlet isn't fruitful enough.
1) iTunes get 8-11% per sold song.
2) iTunes saved the music industry. It have made millions buy music instead of "stealing" it.
I dont understand why so many are idiots. Its ok for a store to mark up prices 30%+. But if Apple does the same, they are Vampires.
Pete Townshend is a total music legend! but a little out of touch with the modern age.
everyone has an opinion, people like to pick & choose if itunes charged more for songs its simple, people would steal it.
Ps anyone else remember that he got busted a few years ago for having kiddy porn...
So I guess that rumor of a Who remake of the Billy J. Kramer & The Dakotas' hit 'Little Children' isn't likely
BTW He claimed he was doing research for a book he was writing because he was abused. Not sure if it is out yet.
Pete is such an idiot.
1) iTunes get 8-11% per sold song.
2) iTunes saved the music industry. It have made millions buy music instead of "stealing" it.
I dont understand why so many are idiots. Its ok for a store to mark up prices 30%+. But if Apple does the same, they are Vampires.
I think he is just a poor old PC user/ Mac hater who hasn't come to grips with the fact Apple Rules yet
Other retailers are the same way, whether it be Amazon, Walmart or someone else. The retailers don't pay the artists, they pay the labels, and the labels pay the artists. Direct your diatribe where it belongs.
Of course there is now the opportunity for any artist to be their own "label" and sell directly with iTunes instead of being beholden to a 'third party' label. If you want control over your own destiny, maybe you should go that route.
2) The food analogy is pretty bad considering the commonality and success of the fast food restaurant industries dollar menu.
You didn't do a much better job with it. The reason the dollar menus work is because people often order higher priced items. Franchise owners have fought against having them.
I think it's a matter of him not seeing the royalty checks he's been spoiled by due to the irrelevance of, dwindling interest in, and simple over-saturation of his music more so than music piracy or Apple supposedly ripping him off or any other (minor) issues of the digital music age.
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.
I don't disagree in principle, but there is a vast difference between a traditional record label and digital distribution. iTunes doesn't put artists under contract, produce their work, design their album covers, do A&R, promotion, marketing, etc. In exchange for all that, artists got a bigger slice of the pie. Labels still exist and they perform those services. All Apple does is distribute.
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.
Nonsense. Why should Apple be responsible for sending out talent scouts? Do you expect Walmart to do that? Best Buy? Apple is simply the retailer - just as Walmart and Best Buy are.
The labels are still involved, so there's no reason why the labels can't continue to do what Townsend wants them to do. For that matter, I think their cut of revenues is even greater with iTunes than with something like a big box retailer, so they have even more incentive.
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.
You're missing the fact that iTunes already does all those things. Ten years ago, it was nearly impossible to get a recording contract and your chances of getting your music out there was close to zero. With iTunes, virtually ANYONE with a little talent (or even no talent) can get their music published. It then becomes up to the market to decide if they are successful or not. Essentially, iTunes makes the concept of a talent scouts irrelevant. You don't need a talent scout when everyone can get their music published and then succeed or fail on the basis of their own abilities.
Ping helps, as well, but it doesn't fundamentally change the picture. Once iTunes (and to an equal extent, YouTube) became popular, the traditional music industry where the labels and talent scouts were gatekeepers ended. Look at Rebecca Black. She didn't need a talent scout. In fact, a talent scout would probably have passed her by. Personally, I don't think she's very talented, but the market has decided what they want.
Digital music is nothing at all like food. It is made once and can be reused indefinitely, and when one person consumes it there is still an infinite supply left for anyone else who wants it.
I have never bought a single Pete Townsend product on iTunes or from a brick&mortar store - but I have spent a ton of money on music, both analog and digital. You know what has killed that?
Pandora. Spotify.
I don't buy music anymore. I just stream it. Now that I can say "Hey, I want to hear Lily Allen" and type "Lily Allen" into my Pandora and hear Lily Allen - wham, I have no need to buy a CD or a digital download. I just listen to what I want when I want.
No one except the retailer that should have made the said,the label etc that should have gotten their cut.
Not to mention the artist. The artists are oft forgotten because we think of all of them being well to do like Madonna or U2. But most artists need every fraction of a sale to scrape together a sustainable living in order to keep writing music, to keep singing, etc.
Not to mention the artist. The artists are oft forgotten because we think of all of them being well to do like Madonna or U2. But most artists need every fraction of a sale to scrape together a sustainable living in order to keep writing music, to keep singing, etc.
And Apple doesn't make it any harder for the artists to get by. If anything, Apple HELPS the struggling, young artists in 2 ways:
1. By helping to shift pirates into music buyers.
2. By offering an artist who wants to do his own work the ability to get published without a label - and keep 70% of the retail price.
At the same time, Townshend also blamed customers for not paying more, saying, "It would be better if music lovers treated music like food, and paid for every helping, rather than only when it suited them," adding, "why can't music lovers just pay for music rather than steal it?"
What the hell is this crap he's spewing? How is it stealing? Please tell me. I still pay everytime i download a song.
Here's an idea Pete, how about not charging $200+ for concert tickets? Until then, STFU with your "stealing"
Here's an idea Pete, how about not charging $200+ for concert tickets? Until then, STFU with your "stealing"
When did they start doing that? when I saw The Who a couple of years ago it was around 50 euro
I much prefer the iTunes system where any individual with talent and a computer can compose, record, self-publish and make available for distribution their work, all without having to lick the boots of a no-talent executive.
I'm guessing that Pete has hit that point where no one has said 'no' to him in so long that he now believes anything he says is gospel. But then again, this was the man who at the height of their fame claimed that the Beatles music was crap, so anything he has said since the early 1960s should be taken with several grains of salt...