When Apple kicks off its annual Worldwide Developers Conference on June 2, it could use the keynote as an opportunity to formally introduce its two newest executives: Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre of Beats Electronics.
Details of the rumored plans come from people familiar with the Beats acquisition talks who <a href="http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/legal-and-management/6084792/apple-wwdc-jimmy-iovine-dr-dre-executive-appointments-jobs">spoke with</a> <em>Bloomberg</em>. Those unnamed sources indicated that both Dre, whose real name is Andre Young, and Iovine are expected to take executive roles at Apple, and with WWDC less than a month away, the keynote could be an ideal for the company to showcase its two newest recruits.
If this happens as rumored, the stage and audience could be as filled with optimistic energy and excitement since Jobs was up there. None of the current crop Cs compare to Jobs for stage presence.
What hasn't yet been mentioned is that this is not just about image - it's about an already branded avenue to streaming and it's a way to diversify the hardware accessory line. Margins on accessories are far higher than computers and phones for both the manufacturer and especially, the retailer. Ask any electronics retailer what they make their money on and they'll tell you extended warranties, cables, batteries, headphones and the like. Used to be printer ink as well, but except in business, people aren't using printers as much these days. I suspect the margins are quite high on Beats' overpriced headphones and Apple could probably use their own manufacturing and operations expertise as well as their purchasing power with vendors to lower the cost further.
Now one can certainly argue that for the money they're purportedly spending on the acquisition, Apple could have developed their own, perhaps superior line of headphones (and a whole lot of other stuff besides), but like it or not, Beats is a very successful brand who claims to have owned 51% of the premium headphone market in 2012. I probably would never buy anything in their current product line, but I'm an old white man who would stick with my Sennheisers (or perhaps the Bowers and Wilkins, which from a quality standpoint, might have been a better target for Apple).
The downside of the acquisition is the cost and what this does to the mantra that Apple no longer knows how to innovate. This will give ammunition to the critics who will say that Apple had to buy their way into this market.
Big question for me is whether Apple keeps the Beats brand or changes the products to Apple branding.
I can't imagine Dr. Dre being an Apple exec for very long, at least not in a role that requires him to have a regular presence in an Apple office with a mandate to produce something or generate revenue. He's got all these other projects that he would be working on outside of Apple. It would be like hiring a famous actor.
I'd like to see Iovine up there 80% of the time. The image of a Apple could be improved, if you will, with the quirky Iovine presenting Apple's products going forward. I cringe every time I see the dorky Cook or Schiller with his Mom jeans and big gut sticking out use the word "cool." They (Cook, Schiler et al) have absolutely ZERO enthusiasm when announcing products and services. Things need to change. It's not a huge factor, but it is. People loved Jobs' personality and stage presence. It meant a lot to the company. These 2 50-year olds that they're bringing in have more personality in their big toes than Apple's entire executive team has. Dre is a risk, though, with his history and rap lyrics, so maybe he should sit in the shadows off-stage. His drunken "I'm a billionaire" announcement shows he still poses a risk as a face of Apple.
Imagine this, a bunch of non-musicians making money creating what they call music. Boy, this society is messed up. I'll watch DDWC, but I'll be cringing if they bring those two schmucks on stage and they actually start speaking.
Imagine this, non-musicians whose ignorance compels them to post on the internet and define what is and isn't music based on their own personal preference. That almost never happens...
Knowing what I know about Apple, they'll probably trim down the line up of headphones to only a few models (some with colors) and then HOPEFULLY improving them so they don't sound like crap. I don't know if they'll change the name from Beats to Apple since Beats has a big name that's recognizable.
As far as their website, they might be adding some or all of their programmers to the iTunes staff.
That's about all they really have.
Beats was successful at branding and creating headphones as a fashion, which is really what they are. but it helped kick start others to get their marketing act together to compete and then a few new players have come into play, but a lot of them go for the higher end market that Beats doesn't go after. Beats stops at around $450 a pair of headphones, but there are a bunch of brands with headphones reaching the $3000+ price point for those that want the high priced stuff.
I just think Dr. Dre was more of an investor and figure head and not much more than that, he certainly wasn't sitting in front of a CAD station designing the things, that's for sure.
Beats will be huge in the car. Just think if Apple tried to sell Apple-branded speakers in the living room or the car. Won't work.
It's been rumored that Beats had revenue of 1.4b dollars in 2013. $3b doesn't sound too bad when you look at that figure, does it? Their head phones probably sell for 10 times the cost of materials. Maybe Apple's margins can get back up to 40% with Beats;)
Imagine this, non-musicians whose ignorance compels them to post on the internet and define what is and isn't music based on their own personal preference. That almost never happens...
Well, i've studied and played music since I began in 1969. I've played professionally and have been in some studios and fairly decent sized concerts, but it was more of a side line hobby than my normal method of generating income. I had a lot of fun and have run into some fairly famous people that I've either shared the same stage or have jammed with, so i think I'm a little more qualified than your average Joe Blow off the street corner. I wouldn't say I'm the best musician in the world by any stretch of imagination, but I can hold my own in certain circumstances.
I personally think that fundamentally music should be played by experienced and trained musicians (whether self taught or have gone through some form of training and preparing themselves to actually proficient enough). What has happened and Iovine mentioned this is that a LOT of these large record labels aren't making half the money they used to and I think part of it is that they just aren't getting quality music out there that people are willing to buy. Kids are stealing the music more and more and maybe because they don't respect the people making it.
The trend nowadays is putting out the old classic albums from the 50's, 60's, 70's on 24 Bit, SACD, DSD formats as well as repressing high grade vinyl because they are finally getting them to sound a LOT better than 16 Bit Redbook or MP3 file formats. So the market is fragmenting quite a bit. But most of the POPULAR music is really very fad based and I'm not really sure how many of these songs still be worth listening to 40 years from now. How many rap songs get turned into a jazz standard? That's what a lot of popular music would sometimes turn into. I don't think we're going to hear the top jazz players doing a remake of Still D.R.E. where the musicians are playing the vocal line. The thing is, there really isn't a melody line. That's the problem. No melody, no real music.
I personally think that fundamentally music should be played by experienced and trained musicians (whether self taught or have gone through some form of training and preparing themselves to actually proficient enough).
I understand completely. However, what's your definition of an instrument? And would you also ignore the role of sound engineers in the music-making process? The more you learn about music, and the more things you attempt in the production process, the more you realize you don't know.
Andre Young (aka Dr. Dre) has been around the music business for a very long time and been involved in many roles. Production, post-production, etc. To dismiss him as a non-musician requires a fairly narrow perspective on things.
I understand completely. However, what's your definition of an instrument? And would you also ignore the role of sound engineers in the music-making process? The more you learn about music, and the more things you attempt in the production process, the more you realize you don't know.
Andre Young (aka Dr. Dre) has been around the music business for a very long time and been involved in many roles. Production, post-production, etc. To dismiss him as a non-musician requires a fairly narrow perspective on things.
An instrument or a musical instrument? And what's your definition of a musician and someone qualified to play a musical instrument as a profession? I know of plenty of master percussionists that would use found objects, but they have studied and practiced traditional forms of music either from a private instructor, through a formalized process, etc. But they are MUSICIANS. Some ass wipe using a turntable screwing up perfectly good albums to create a scratching noise? That's BARELY qualified to be a musical instrument. Some are good at it, but it's more of a fad that's lasted entirely longer than it should because ignorant people are impressed by people doing it. It's more of a gimmick than a real instrument in my book. Playing a drum machine? Those were SUPPOSED to be used primarily as a means to practice or for songwriting and not really meant to replace drummers, even though they have in some circumstances. Some use them in ADDITION to real musicians.
Production and post production isn't PLAYING an instrument, it's just during the process of making or finishing the product, but that doesn't mean it's really music. It's being marketed that way and it makes money, but it's certainly shouldn't be taken as anything serious on any level. To think that it should be listened to with any seriousness is kind of being a lazy person that doesn't want to REALLY study music that's been around and solidified into REAL HONEST music.
Why are you dismissing everything else? Is it too difficult to study a real instrument and create something that actually uses REAL musicians, has REAL melody, harmony, etc.? Is that too difficult to do? Anyone can learn how to program a sequencer to come up with something that's just as good as any of these guys. It just takes getting used to a software program and knowing the most basic level of rhythm, but the software does most of the work.
Software and synthesizers in the hands of a REAL musician is so much different than someone that doesn't have any serious musical training.
What sucks is the level of musicianship for a lot of these so-called "artists" is not really there. It's a shame when you look at an album and there's not one single musician playing an actual musical instrument during the production. It shows that there are too many musically ignorant kids getting manipulated by the media and society into thinking this stuff you THINK is music. Sorry, you are going to have a tough time convincing a musician that this stuff should replace REAL music created by musicians. It only teaches kids that they don't have to study music to make money in the music industry. This type of mentality would NOT work 30+ years ago. Heck, a LONG time ago, they wouldn't even hire a studio musician unless you read music. Does Dr. Dre know how to read music as a producer? He should. Most of the REAL legendary producers like George Martin, Quincy Jones, and others that have produced legendary classic albums in pop music DEFINITELY know how to read music and those guys CAN play instruments and they know many different styles of music. I look up to them, but Dr. Dre I dismiss as some scam artist that just happened to market his crap to ignorant children.
I understand completely. However, what's your definition of an instrument? And would you also ignore the role of sound engineers in the music-making process? The more you learn about music, and the more things you attempt in the production process, the more you realize you don't know.
Andre Young (aka Dr. Dre) has been around the music business for a very long time and been involved in many roles. Production, post-production, etc. To dismiss him as a non-musician requires a fairly narrow perspective on things.
Try to sing the melody line to a rap song. That's one test one can do. If there isn't a melody line, then a lot of songwriters wouldn't consider that a song. Oh, BTW, back a long time ago, anyone that used a drum machine they considered that more of a demo song that wasn't releasable. Some have produced decent songs using drum machines instead of a real drummer. Heck even Phil Collins did that on his first solo album, but what is Phil Collins? A FREAKING TRAINED DRUMMER. So at least he knows what he's doing, but he didn't use a drum machine for every song he recorded. Jan Hammer used sequenced drum tracks for his Miami Vice soundtracks, but he's an accomplished classically trained pianist, and he just so happens to be a seriously killer drummer that's played and recorded some insanely great albums over the years with the best drummers in the business, but since he had to pump out music for the TV series, he was under a time constraint and using synths replace drums was a lot easier for him to do. He did everything himself played, wrote, engineered and produced it all. But then again, that guy was a SERIOUS classically trained jazz musician that has played with lots of seriously great musicians over the years., so he's MORE than qualified.
Try to sing the melody line to a rap song. That's one test one can do. If there isn't a melody line, then a lot of songwriters wouldn't consider that a song. Oh, BTW, back a long time ago, anyone that used a drum machine they considered that more of a demo song that wasn't releasable. Some have produced decent songs using drum machines instead of a real drummer. Heck even Phil Collins did that on his first solo album, but what is Phil Collins? A FREAKING TRAINED DRUMMER. So at least he knows what he's doing, but he didn't use a drum machine for every song he recorded. Jan Hammer used sequenced drum tracks for his Miami Vice soundtracks, but he's an accomplished classically trained pianist, and he just so happens to be a seriously killer drummer that's played and recorded some insanely great albums over the years with the best drummers in the business, but since he had to pump out music for the TV series, he was under a time constraint and using synths replace drums was a lot easier for him to do. He did everything himself played, wrote, engineered and produced it all. But then again, that guy was a SERIOUS classically trained jazz musician that has played with lots of seriously great musicians over the years., so he's MORE than qualified.
You'd be happy to learn that a lot of his beats are actually classical music beats that were sampled and drums added or whatever changes he made. YouTube dr Dre samples
There are many great musicians who never had any formal training whatsoever. Paul McCartney for one (who also never knew how to read music). Far too many early jazz and blues musicians to list (Muddy Waters, for example). I really despise the largely white, upper-class, high-brow definition of what music should be and how it has been used throughout time to keep talented musicians from the lower classes in their place.
As well, read a bit about the sound engineers who worked with the Beatles (notably George Martin) who helped shape their simple arrangements and sound into something unique and magical. Sound engineering and arranging are a vital part of shaping raw talent into something great.
Look, you're grasping hard to argue that great music comes from a scientific formula: formal training + melody + ... = great music. And I'm arguing that talking about music that way is like dancing about architecture.
EDIT: Just realized you and I both used George Martin as examples in different ways. Too funny...
I always thought beats was an overly hyped over priced fad - and wearing their headphones meant here's a sucker. But if apple wants their staff, I guess that makes sense, but why dilute your brand with a no name brand that's associated with zero value, all status? Many people think that of apple now, this would just confirm it for a lot of on the fencers.
You need to get out and see more of the real world. Your view of this is in the extreme, tiny, minority. Your opinion is the typical knee-jerk reaction to popular brands. It’s the classic “only stupid people buy...” whatever you deem unworthy meme. Anything that doesn’t conform to your view is explained as the stupidity of the masses. The arrogance comes shining through. In short it’s the nerd ‘phile’ manifesto that only you know what is worth buying and priced appropriately. You are patently wrong when you assert that ‘many’ view Apple as a status brand with no value. The only people who think that are the ones in your minority ilk. You see your kind ranting and raving on c|net all day long when a positive article about Apple appears. And it’s very funny.
Beats will be huge in the car. Just think if Apple tried to sell Apple-branded speakers in the living room or the car. Won't work.
It's been rumored that Beats had revenue of 1.4b dollars in 2013. $3b doesn't sound too bad when you look at that figure, does it? Their head phones probably sell for 10 times the cost of materials. Maybe Apple's margins can get back up to 40% with Beats;)
Beats will be huge in the car? I don't know about that. The most popular names used in most cars is Harmon because they bought out Blaupunkt, Infinity, JBL, etc. and they mfg a lot the drivers. But the trend lately is for the high end cars, they are putting seriously more expensive car audio systems by companies like Focal, B&O, Meridian, Bermester, and a bunch of companies that make more seriously expensive and better sounding audio and home theater systems because they leverage what they know about home audio and home theater into REALLY good sounding car audio systems. Beats doesn't even have a CLUE in comparison. If you are going to spend $60K or more on a car and they are most likely going to have Harmon, or any of these other brands instead. Beats only signed up Chrystler, which doesn't make cars that exceed the $35K mark (for the most part). Harmon pretty much owns the auto industry, along with Carion and Panasonic. Beats is a VERY small player, but I guess the car mfg that want to associate their brand with ghetto rap artists might go for Beats. But I highly doubt you'll see Mercedes, BMW, Jaguar, Audi, Ferrari, etc. using Beats car speakers. I don't think they want to destroy their brand that way.
Remember, Beats caters to kids between the ages of 13 and 25 is their big demographic. People that spend a lot of money on cars want the same electronics in their stereo and home theater system and they don't use Beats.
I don't look at the gross revenues to determine the worth of a company, I would look at their earnings. I read that Beats Music division loses money and there seeking at least hundred million a couple of months ago. I think their is more value in the name in terms of the brand's worth, the headphone portion might be worth a couple of billion if they are at $1.4 Bil in sales with at least 10% to 20% net profit in that side of the business. There's a lot that one has to look at to determine what the company is actually worth in terms of a buyout. If Apple sells a pair of headphones and they normally make 30% gross profit, now they'll make more like 50% to 70% gross profit if they now own the company. That's probably worth while. But knowing Apple, they'll probably trim down the product line just like they do with all of their products. Since they know what the big sellers and profit making models are, they'll trim the fat for sure. I don't know if Apple is going to build in the functionality of an iPod inside. I think that might not be a wise idea. It might make the product too heavy, too bulky and too expensive.
Comments
... can't innovate, my ass!
What hasn't yet been mentioned is that this is not just about image - it's about an already branded avenue to streaming and it's a way to diversify the hardware accessory line. Margins on accessories are far higher than computers and phones for both the manufacturer and especially, the retailer. Ask any electronics retailer what they make their money on and they'll tell you extended warranties, cables, batteries, headphones and the like. Used to be printer ink as well, but except in business, people aren't using printers as much these days. I suspect the margins are quite high on Beats' overpriced headphones and Apple could probably use their own manufacturing and operations expertise as well as their purchasing power with vendors to lower the cost further.
Now one can certainly argue that for the money they're purportedly spending on the acquisition, Apple could have developed their own, perhaps superior line of headphones (and a whole lot of other stuff besides), but like it or not, Beats is a very successful brand who claims to have owned 51% of the premium headphone market in 2012. I probably would never buy anything in their current product line, but I'm an old white man who would stick with my Sennheisers (or perhaps the Bowers and Wilkins, which from a quality standpoint, might have been a better target for Apple).
The downside of the acquisition is the cost and what this does to the mantra that Apple no longer knows how to innovate. This will give ammunition to the critics who will say that Apple had to buy their way into this market.
Big question for me is whether Apple keeps the Beats brand or changes the products to Apple branding.
I can't imagine Dr. Dre being an Apple exec for very long, at least not in a role that requires him to have a regular presence in an Apple office with a mandate to produce something or generate revenue. He's got all these other projects that he would be working on outside of Apple. It would be like hiring a famous actor.
Imagine this, a bunch of non-musicians making money creating what they call music. Boy, this society is messed up. I'll watch DDWC, but I'll be cringing if they bring those two schmucks on stage and they actually start speaking.
Imagine this, non-musicians whose ignorance compels them to post on the internet and define what is and isn't music based on their own personal preference. That almost never happens...
Beats will be huge in the car. Just think if Apple tried to sell Apple-branded speakers in the living room or the car. Won't work.
It's been rumored that Beats had revenue of 1.4b dollars in 2013. $3b doesn't sound too bad when you look at that figure, does it? Their head phones probably sell for 10 times the cost of materials. Maybe Apple's margins can get back up to 40% with Beats;)
Rumour: Dr. Dre to replace Tim Cook as Apple CEO.
What BS.
After [I]TouchID login [/I]...
"Siri, I'm going cruising with Kevin, Juliana, and Jose to celebrate our graduation -- please setup an alt rock playlist"
Siri: "I created 2 iBeats playlists and downloaded them to your iPhone -- so you can listen on CarPlay, AirPlay, or the iPhone"
Thank you Siri"
Siri: "I included a few of Juliana's favorites as her birthday is coming soon -- along with some of your personal audio from iCloud"
"Wow, Well done ... wish I'd thought of that!"
Siri: "Just doing my job"
Hit [I]Preview Play[/I] to play highlight segments from the playlist.
Boom!
Imagine this, non-musicians whose ignorance compels them to post on the internet and define what is and isn't music based on their own personal preference. That almost never happens...
Well, i've studied and played music since I began in 1969. I've played professionally and have been in some studios and fairly decent sized concerts, but it was more of a side line hobby than my normal method of generating income. I had a lot of fun and have run into some fairly famous people that I've either shared the same stage or have jammed with, so i think I'm a little more qualified than your average Joe Blow off the street corner. I wouldn't say I'm the best musician in the world by any stretch of imagination, but I can hold my own in certain circumstances.
I personally think that fundamentally music should be played by experienced and trained musicians (whether self taught or have gone through some form of training and preparing themselves to actually proficient enough). What has happened and Iovine mentioned this is that a LOT of these large record labels aren't making half the money they used to and I think part of it is that they just aren't getting quality music out there that people are willing to buy. Kids are stealing the music more and more and maybe because they don't respect the people making it.
The trend nowadays is putting out the old classic albums from the 50's, 60's, 70's on 24 Bit, SACD, DSD formats as well as repressing high grade vinyl because they are finally getting them to sound a LOT better than 16 Bit Redbook or MP3 file formats. So the market is fragmenting quite a bit. But most of the POPULAR music is really very fad based and I'm not really sure how many of these songs still be worth listening to 40 years from now. How many rap songs get turned into a jazz standard? That's what a lot of popular music would sometimes turn into. I don't think we're going to hear the top jazz players doing a remake of Still D.R.E. where the musicians are playing the vocal line. The thing is, there really isn't a melody line. That's the problem. No melody, no real music.
I personally think that fundamentally music should be played by experienced and trained musicians (whether self taught or have gone through some form of training and preparing themselves to actually proficient enough).
I understand completely. However, what's your definition of an instrument? And would you also ignore the role of sound engineers in the music-making process? The more you learn about music, and the more things you attempt in the production process, the more you realize you don't know.
Andre Young (aka Dr. Dre) has been around the music business for a very long time and been involved in many roles. Production, post-production, etc. To dismiss him as a non-musician requires a fairly narrow perspective on things.
What BS.
Yeah, Dr. Dre's used Apple products, SURE, he's qualified. eyes rolling /s
And what's the bets they bring cans of Heineken on stage.
A pour-out-the-beer-and-drop-the-mic moment?
... can't innovate, my ass!
Can't innovate... does this computer make my ass look big?
I understand completely. However, what's your definition of an instrument? And would you also ignore the role of sound engineers in the music-making process? The more you learn about music, and the more things you attempt in the production process, the more you realize you don't know.
Andre Young (aka Dr. Dre) has been around the music business for a very long time and been involved in many roles. Production, post-production, etc. To dismiss him as a non-musician requires a fairly narrow perspective on things.
An instrument or a musical instrument? And what's your definition of a musician and someone qualified to play a musical instrument as a profession? I know of plenty of master percussionists that would use found objects, but they have studied and practiced traditional forms of music either from a private instructor, through a formalized process, etc. But they are MUSICIANS. Some ass wipe using a turntable screwing up perfectly good albums to create a scratching noise? That's BARELY qualified to be a musical instrument. Some are good at it, but it's more of a fad that's lasted entirely longer than it should because ignorant people are impressed by people doing it. It's more of a gimmick than a real instrument in my book. Playing a drum machine? Those were SUPPOSED to be used primarily as a means to practice or for songwriting and not really meant to replace drummers, even though they have in some circumstances. Some use them in ADDITION to real musicians.
Production and post production isn't PLAYING an instrument, it's just during the process of making or finishing the product, but that doesn't mean it's really music. It's being marketed that way and it makes money, but it's certainly shouldn't be taken as anything serious on any level. To think that it should be listened to with any seriousness is kind of being a lazy person that doesn't want to REALLY study music that's been around and solidified into REAL HONEST music.
Why are you dismissing everything else? Is it too difficult to study a real instrument and create something that actually uses REAL musicians, has REAL melody, harmony, etc.? Is that too difficult to do? Anyone can learn how to program a sequencer to come up with something that's just as good as any of these guys. It just takes getting used to a software program and knowing the most basic level of rhythm, but the software does most of the work.
Software and synthesizers in the hands of a REAL musician is so much different than someone that doesn't have any serious musical training.
What sucks is the level of musicianship for a lot of these so-called "artists" is not really there. It's a shame when you look at an album and there's not one single musician playing an actual musical instrument during the production. It shows that there are too many musically ignorant kids getting manipulated by the media and society into thinking this stuff you THINK is music. Sorry, you are going to have a tough time convincing a musician that this stuff should replace REAL music created by musicians. It only teaches kids that they don't have to study music to make money in the music industry. This type of mentality would NOT work 30+ years ago. Heck, a LONG time ago, they wouldn't even hire a studio musician unless you read music. Does Dr. Dre know how to read music as a producer? He should. Most of the REAL legendary producers like George Martin, Quincy Jones, and others that have produced legendary classic albums in pop music DEFINITELY know how to read music and those guys CAN play instruments and they know many different styles of music. I look up to them, but Dr. Dre I dismiss as some scam artist that just happened to market his crap to ignorant children.
I understand completely. However, what's your definition of an instrument? And would you also ignore the role of sound engineers in the music-making process? The more you learn about music, and the more things you attempt in the production process, the more you realize you don't know.
Andre Young (aka Dr. Dre) has been around the music business for a very long time and been involved in many roles. Production, post-production, etc. To dismiss him as a non-musician requires a fairly narrow perspective on things.
Try to sing the melody line to a rap song. That's one test one can do. If there isn't a melody line, then a lot of songwriters wouldn't consider that a song. Oh, BTW, back a long time ago, anyone that used a drum machine they considered that more of a demo song that wasn't releasable. Some have produced decent songs using drum machines instead of a real drummer. Heck even Phil Collins did that on his first solo album, but what is Phil Collins? A FREAKING TRAINED DRUMMER. So at least he knows what he's doing, but he didn't use a drum machine for every song he recorded. Jan Hammer used sequenced drum tracks for his Miami Vice soundtracks, but he's an accomplished classically trained pianist, and he just so happens to be a seriously killer drummer that's played and recorded some insanely great albums over the years with the best drummers in the business, but since he had to pump out music for the TV series, he was under a time constraint and using synths replace drums was a lot easier for him to do. He did everything himself played, wrote, engineered and produced it all. But then again, that guy was a SERIOUS classically trained jazz musician that has played with lots of seriously great musicians over the years., so he's MORE than qualified.
You'd be happy to learn that a lot of his beats are actually classical music beats that were sampled and drums added or whatever changes he made. YouTube dr Dre samples
. . .
There are many great musicians who never had any formal training whatsoever. Paul McCartney for one (who also never knew how to read music). Far too many early jazz and blues musicians to list (Muddy Waters, for example). I really despise the largely white, upper-class, high-brow definition of what music should be and how it has been used throughout time to keep talented musicians from the lower classes in their place.
As well, read a bit about the sound engineers who worked with the Beatles (notably George Martin) who helped shape their simple arrangements and sound into something unique and magical. Sound engineering and arranging are a vital part of shaping raw talent into something great.
Look, you're grasping hard to argue that great music comes from a scientific formula: formal training + melody + ... = great music. And I'm arguing that talking about music that way is like dancing about architecture.
EDIT: Just realized you and I both used George Martin as examples in different ways. Too funny...
I always thought beats was an overly hyped over priced fad - and wearing their headphones meant here's a sucker. But if apple wants their staff, I guess that makes sense, but why dilute your brand with a no name brand that's associated with zero value, all status? Many people think that of apple now, this would just confirm it for a lot of on the fencers.
You need to get out and see more of the real world. Your view of this is in the extreme, tiny, minority. Your opinion is the typical knee-jerk reaction to popular brands. It’s the classic “only stupid people buy...” whatever you deem unworthy meme. Anything that doesn’t conform to your view is explained as the stupidity of the masses. The arrogance comes shining through. In short it’s the nerd ‘phile’ manifesto that only you know what is worth buying and priced appropriately. You are patently wrong when you assert that ‘many’ view Apple as a status brand with no value. The only people who think that are the ones in your minority ilk. You see your kind ranting and raving on c|net all day long when a positive article about Apple appears. And it’s very funny.
Beats will be huge in the car. Just think if Apple tried to sell Apple-branded speakers in the living room or the car. Won't work.
It's been rumored that Beats had revenue of 1.4b dollars in 2013. $3b doesn't sound too bad when you look at that figure, does it? Their head phones probably sell for 10 times the cost of materials. Maybe Apple's margins can get back up to 40% with Beats;)
Beats will be huge in the car? I don't know about that. The most popular names used in most cars is Harmon because they bought out Blaupunkt, Infinity, JBL, etc. and they mfg a lot the drivers. But the trend lately is for the high end cars, they are putting seriously more expensive car audio systems by companies like Focal, B&O, Meridian, Bermester, and a bunch of companies that make more seriously expensive and better sounding audio and home theater systems because they leverage what they know about home audio and home theater into REALLY good sounding car audio systems. Beats doesn't even have a CLUE in comparison. If you are going to spend $60K or more on a car and they are most likely going to have Harmon, or any of these other brands instead. Beats only signed up Chrystler, which doesn't make cars that exceed the $35K mark (for the most part). Harmon pretty much owns the auto industry, along with Carion and Panasonic. Beats is a VERY small player, but I guess the car mfg that want to associate their brand with ghetto rap artists might go for Beats. But I highly doubt you'll see Mercedes, BMW, Jaguar, Audi, Ferrari, etc. using Beats car speakers. I don't think they want to destroy their brand that way.
Remember, Beats caters to kids between the ages of 13 and 25 is their big demographic. People that spend a lot of money on cars want the same electronics in their stereo and home theater system and they don't use Beats.
I don't look at the gross revenues to determine the worth of a company, I would look at their earnings. I read that Beats Music division loses money and there seeking at least hundred million a couple of months ago. I think their is more value in the name in terms of the brand's worth, the headphone portion might be worth a couple of billion if they are at $1.4 Bil in sales with at least 10% to 20% net profit in that side of the business. There's a lot that one has to look at to determine what the company is actually worth in terms of a buyout. If Apple sells a pair of headphones and they normally make 30% gross profit, now they'll make more like 50% to 70% gross profit if they now own the company. That's probably worth while. But knowing Apple, they'll probably trim down the product line just like they do with all of their products. Since they know what the big sellers and profit making models are, they'll trim the fat for sure. I don't know if Apple is going to build in the functionality of an iPod inside. I think that might not be a wise idea. It might make the product too heavy, too bulky and too expensive.
Cook = Ballmer
RIP Apple.