Apple's cyber sellout; Verizon's open promise; third NYC flagship

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 84
    straskstrask Posts: 107member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Silencio View Post


    I am perhaps being a bit harsh on certain major label, mainstream musicians who posit themselves as "artists", but whose "art" is akin to a three year old scrawling on a wall with a crayon, but I shouldn't let that distract from my main point: any artist cedes control over the interpretation of their work once they release it for public consumption.



    Unlike novels or movies, there already is a strong precedent for listening to individual songs outside the context of a larger body of songs: it's called the radio, or a 7" single, or a track on a compilation, &c.



    And most stately gardens are large enough that you can't view them in their entirety from one vantage point on the ground, are they? I've seen a few magnificent examples in person, but at ground level they often feel more like songs on an album that can be taken either individually or as part of a complete work.



    Nobody was talking about interpretation. The question is context. Some songs work really well in the context of an album. Some work really well on their own. In a well paced, well written album these can go hand in hand to create a whole that is greater than the some of its parts. And in many cases, the best songs on an album are not the singles. The singles are merely the ones that appear to be best upon the first listen.



    And as far as 7" singles are concerned, again, yes they were released but not for every song. Do we really want to live in a world of nothing but singles and sound bites?
  • Reply 62 of 84
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Is it too late to point out that "Cyber Monday" is just marketing hype? The last few years it was hyped, it turned out that several other days had higher sales, but without the lame hype and a lame name to go with it.
  • Reply 63 of 84
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Commercial art is a very specific catagory. It's "work for hire", and as such isn't even owned by the artist.



    Otherwise, artists are artists. That doesn't mean that they are GOOD artists. 99% of everything is junk. I forget which writer said that, it might have been Clarke.



    Close, another SF writer said that. It is now called Sturgeon's Law:

    http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/s/SturgeonsLaw.html
  • Reply 64 of 84
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I have several thousand albums, mostly classical and jazz. There are very little two to three minute vignettes. I do agree that fewer people are willing to take the time to understand more complex musical forms, but length is a big part of it. Everything these days is on MTV time. Switch around quickly. Get bored fast.



    While pop songs tend to be shorter, there are plenty that are over three minutes. There are plenty of jazz songs that are in the same range of lengths as pop songs. And while shorter material is less common with classical music, there is still plenty out there, especially when you include things like movie soundtracks. Arias, piano pieces, sections of ballets, piano pieces, even many movements from Mozart symphonies are pop song length. Look up Vivaldi for example, and out of the 150 best selling songs, all but six are under five minutes. Even with the shorter "pops" thrown in, these kinds of music aren't that popular. And that decline has been going on steadily for decades, along with most other forms of music that aren't rock and roll, even if the songs tend to be the same length.



    I'm sure that having pieces that are 20+ minutes just for one movement doesn't help with audiences who aren't that interested, but there's no way length is remotely close to a factor as that people simply aren't interested in the style and instrumentations.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by strask View Post


    Do we really want to live in a world of nothing but singles and sound bites?



    iTunes sells both albums and singles. And radio plays almost exclusively singles, for many people that's how they hear most of their music. With the primary music broadcast system being virtually all singles for DECADES, how can the notion that iTunes of all things will be the thing that plunges us into "a world of nothing but sound bites" be taken seriously?
  • Reply 65 of 84
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post




    What is the energy required to process aluminum vs. that required to make & process plastic? I doubt the new design is to please Greenpeace.




    The screen is glass, moron- biodegradable. And hard plastic is not readily recylable either; metal is easier to recycle. It was a rush job to get the company "Al Gore' - friendly. Greenpeace gave Apple a terrible rating last year. And therefore you got an "new" iMac without a new processor or design, etc.

    The article even states the new iMac is more Greenpeace friendly!
  • Reply 66 of 84
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by strask View Post


    I miss the point? First of all, I never said that I or you or Apple should dictate to an artist how his or her music be sold. I said that artists should be allowed to determine that.



    Sorry. I got that part mixed up with someone else's comment.



    Quote:

    But why should the customer be the only one who determines? What an odd world to live in. Now for the most part, I love the fact that I can buy one or two songs. I am a huge fan of that model. But if an artist wants to try something different, what is the big deal? Most likely sales will suffer for it. do you think it is unreasonable for artists to have the option to sell some songs individually but others only as part of a whole?



    I have some pieces of blown glass at my house that are part of a set. The artist insisted they be sold that way. Apple won't make it's operating system available for other computer manufacturers, even though it wouldn't be difficult to do so. Why is that justified?



    The thing is is that very few artists would ever make the choice to sell their work this way. Their management would most likely counsel against it, since it would most likely hurt sales. And some artists might be afraid of alienating their fans by forcing crap down their throats.



    Yes, popular stand alone themes have often been extracted from movies and shows. Of this I am well aware. But after the stand alone tracks, you have to buy the album.



    It's because the album is not the sacred thing these artists are promoting. It's also because they are not telling the truth about it either. It just comes down to how they think they will make more money.



    One reason why we haven't seen singles from the mid eighties on is because the singles CD never was popular, because it was priced too high. It cost about a third of the price of an album. But, before that, singles were the lifeblood of the industry.



    Things move in circles, now, they are back.
  • Reply 67 of 84
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by strask View Post


    Nobody was talking about interpretation. The question is context. Some songs work really well in the context of an album. Some work really well on their own. In a well paced, well written album these can go hand in hand to create a whole that is greater than the some of its parts. And in many cases, the best songs on an album are not the singles. The singles are merely the ones that appear to be best upon the first listen.



    And as far as 7" singles are concerned, again, yes they were released but not for every song. Do we really want to live in a world of nothing but singles and sound bites?



    While I agree that it can be so, the part that's important here is that these very same artists allow their work to be "broken up" for the purpose of airplay, ads, and music videos. Considering that, their complaints aren't that believable.



    It's not just a soundbite. You're also forgetting that you aren't required to buy the single. Often, the album is cheaper than all the singles together.



    If people really want an album, they can buy it on iTunes.
  • Reply 68 of 84
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Close, another SF writer said that. It is now called Sturgeon's Law:

    http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/s/SturgeonsLaw.html



    I can never remember. Thanks.
  • Reply 69 of 84
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post


    While pop songs tend to be shorter, there are plenty that are over three minutes. There are plenty of jazz songs that are in the same range of lengths as pop songs. And while shorter material is less common with classical music, there is still plenty out there, especially when you include things like movie soundtracks. Arias, piano pieces, sections of ballets, piano pieces, even many movements from Mozart symphonies are pop song length. Look up Vivaldi for example, and out of the 150 best selling songs, all but six are under five minutes. Even with the shorter "pops" thrown in, these kinds of music aren't that popular. And that decline has been going on steadily for decades, along with most other forms of music that aren't rock and roll, even if the songs tend to be the same length.



    Unless you're looking at a specific genre, such as early Classical symphonies, which Mozart himself was responsible for lengthening, or some short Back organ pieces, there is a matter of picking through the music to find really short selections. It isn't a matter of pulling your favorite composer and listening to his best three, or even five minute piece. Unless you're listening to lieder, but then, those ARE songs.



    Quote:

    I'm sure that having pieces that are 20+ minutes just for one movement doesn't help with audiences who aren't that interested, but there's no way length is remotely close to a factor as that people simply aren't interested in the style and instrumentations.



    But, it is an important part. One can't separate the length from what the music is. This is also one reason why people don't want to buy, and pay for albums. they only like a small bit of them. I know people who only like part of the "Spring " movement of Vivaldi's "The Seasons", because that short part was taken for the song "April Showers" or whatever the name of that song is.



    I also remember very well when I was younger, that we would often only play certain songs from an album, if we bought that, instead of the singles we preferred. Unfortunately, many of my audiophile friends still do that, playing inly the part of an album that they think sounds best. If they could buy just that part (uncompressed, of course) they would do so.



    Quote:

    iTunes sells both albums and singles. And radio plays almost exclusively singles, for many people that's how they hear most of their music. With the primary music broadcast system being virtually all singles for DECADES, how can the notion that iTunes of all things will be the thing that plunges us into "a world of nothing but sound bites" be taken seriously?



    This is what I've been saying as well. That's why it's nonsense.
  • Reply 70 of 84
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    The screen is glass, moron- biodegradable. And hard plastic is not readily recylable either; metal is easier to recycle. It was a rush job to get the company "Al Gore' - friendly. Greenpeace gave Apple a terrible rating last year. And therefore you got an "new" iMac without a new processor or design, etc.

    The article even states the new iMac is more Greenpeace friendly!



    What's with the "Moron" bit?.



    Don't you know that the LCD is NOT glass? Neither is the backlight, which contains mercury.



    He's talking about the case. The glass was already mentioned.
  • Reply 71 of 84
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    The screen is glass, moron- biodegradable. And hard plastic is not readily recylable either; metal is easier to recycle.



    You think the glass is biodegradable, and you call me a moron?



    The glass is also completely superfluous, it didn't need to be there at all because it's still an ordinary LCD panel behind it.



    Quote:

    It was a rush job to get the company "Al Gore' - friendly. Greenpeace gave Apple a terrible rating last year. And therefore you got an "new" iMac without a new processor or design, etc. The article even states the new iMac is more Greenpeace friendly!



    But that doesn't mean that it was made specifically to appease Greenpeace. iMacs were already pretty efficient, among the most efficient in the desktop class because it used more expensive, higher efficiency parts. We don't know if the Apple board cares what Greenpeace says. The new design is supposed to be compliant with the new Energy Star guidelines, the old models weren't.
  • Reply 72 of 84
    pt123pt123 Posts: 696member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mklos View Post


    If I only want tracks 2, 5, and 8, then why should I be made to buy the whole CD? For a $13 CD with 13 songs on it, thats a waste of $10. Its just free money in his pocket basically. Just another way to screw the customer so he can have his tricked out Cadillac with 25" chrome rims and a $10,000 diamond gold necklace (Not to sound politically incorrect). Because everyone deserves one of those....



    Since you put things this way, why can't I buy iPhoto without having to buy iDVD, iMovie, iGarageband? Seems like a waste of money to buy all those other apps when all I want is iPhoto.
  • Reply 73 of 84
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JustBrady View Post


    No Kidding! Dupri really shows how completely stupid he is. I wonder if he has ever had to buy his own computer. I also wonder if he has used a computer. News flash, you can buy stuff separately. What a moron.



    Also, these artists better stop making crappy tracks to fill albums, because we have a choice now, thanks to Jobs revolutionary idea. If you don't make a great album, I don't have to buy the entire thing. There are many whole albums I have bought off iTunes. Yea, those albums from TALENTED ARTISTS!!!



    Exactly. For some reason, the music industry has decided to go to war with its customers. Apple has stepped in and taken the side of the consumer (well their own side as well, but responding to what consumers want.) Hmm, I wonder who will win, the companies that are suing their own customers or the company that is giving their customers what they want?
  • Reply 74 of 84
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by elroth View Post


    I have no problem with an artist not allowing his songs to be sold as single tracks. If he believes it's a work of art that has to go together, so be it. If the Beatles say that side 2 of Abbey Road must be sold together, that's fine with me too. Leave it to the artist how he wants to sell his music (and leave it to the music stores whether they want to carry it).



    But Dupri is pretty whacked out here. Hey JD - don't sell your stuff on iTunes - it's your choice. But don't tell Apple how to run its business - Apple's not telling you how to run yours.



    If you're really so pure, why do you let radio stations play just one song at a time from an album, instead of the whole album straight through? That's defacing your art, isn't it?



    I defer to the artist - even if their "art" is crap to the rest of us, it's still their vision. If they want to give up the sales they can make on individual tracks, let them. It's pretty funny when they get all preachy and mad at Apple, though. They're really criticizing their fans for not liking all their songs.



    excellent post
  • Reply 75 of 84
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pt123 View Post


    Since you put things this way, why can't I buy iPhoto without having to buy iDVD, iMovie, iGarageband? Seems like a waste of money to buy all those other apps when all I want is iPhoto.



    So who's saying that Apple is right here? Perhaps they should offer each one for $29.95, and the entire package for $79.95.



    Though, of course, you do get them for FREE when you buy a new machine.
  • Reply 76 of 84
    straskstrask Posts: 107member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    While I agree that it can be so, the part that's important here is that these very same artists allow their work to be "broken up" for the purpose of airplay, ads, and music videos. Considering that, their complaints aren't that believable.



    It's not just a soundbite. You're also forgetting that you aren't required to buy the single. Often, the album is cheaper than all the singles together.



    If people really want an album, they can buy it on iTunes.



    I'm disagreeing with almost nothing you're saying except that I think that artists should have the right to make some decisions as to how their work is packaged and sold. I probably give some musicians a bit more than credit than you regarding their integrity but that doesn't mean I always like the results. But I do know that writers will write fewer of what we used to call album tracks if they think that no one will ever hear them in context or purchase them because they don't pass the 30 second test.



    Also, I don't think the the ability to extract a song or two from an album is mutually exclusive from the ability to create a collection of songs that works as a whole. And that doesn't need to be a concept album.
  • Reply 77 of 84
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by strask View Post


    I'm disagreeing with almost nothing you're saying except that I think that artists should have the right to make some decisions as to how their work is packaged and sold. I probably give some musicians a bit more than credit than you regarding their integrity but that doesn't mean I always like the results. But I do know that writers will write fewer of what we used to call album tracks if they think that no one will ever hear them in context or purchase them because they don't pass the 30 second test.



    Also, I don't think the the ability to extract a song or two from an album is mutually exclusive from the ability to create a collection of songs that works as a whole. And that doesn't need to be a concept album.



    The main point that I and others are making is that if an artist can see the purpose of only having their more popular tracks from their "concept" albums aired ad nauseam, for the purpose of selling their work, and, they also are only too happy to then make a music video of the same popular tracks, and even sell them for commercials, then they have no right to object to those who only want to buy those tracks. They are helping to create that very same single song purchase concept.



    If they feel so strongly about their "art" then they shouldn't be breaking it up in the first place. You can't create a demand for something, then tell potential customers they can't have it.
  • Reply 78 of 84
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    The music industry and the so called "artists" did this to themselves. They destroyed the culture of buying whole albums. 20 years ago I would have only wanted the whole album I would not have imagined buying only singles.



    As I look back through my CD collection. The albums pre-90's average around 8 to 10 tracks. Generally all of the songs are really good. There are some albums where every song was a hit. Into the 90's the albums average 15 to 20 tracks and only 2 or 3 songs are any good.



    Today we don't want to buy the entire album with 10 crappy songs. We only want the 2 or 3 songs we like.
  • Reply 79 of 84
    I don't get it. Why doesn't Jay-Z just sell his album as "Album Only" with no individual tracks?



    I think that this the "splitting up the album" argument is just an excuse to sell the physical thing and get $13.99 per album at Best Buy instead of the $9.99 on iTunes. It's not about some artistic bull-shit about splitting the album up, it's about straight up dough. Jay-Z is all about his bread, all about his dough.
  • Reply 80 of 84
    Why is it that the music industry is up in arms about illegal downloading and iTunes having "too much control" and stifling creativity when there is an industry out there that has probably been hit much harder by internet downloading and does little to no griping about it? I'm talking about the porn industry. When is the last time you read a blog from a porn industry exec about how he misses the good ol' days when they could force you to buy their entire feature length "film"? Yeah... I. for one, have never heard that kinda crap from a porn exec.



    So if the porn industry is alright, why is the music industry crying like babies?



    Food for thought...



    Note: Im not saying porn is awesome or whatever. All I'm saying is, I know lots of people who buy music in some form. I don't know anybody that buys porn.
Sign In or Register to comment.