If they want airplay of "individual songs" then why do artists complain about spliting up albums in the first place?
It's pretty simple, isn't it?
As I've said, they can't get airtime for an entire album. Broadcast is centered on songs, not albums. Artists have no choice there. People no longer have the ability to listen to long pieces of music, that's one of the reason Classical has been dying, Jazz as well.
But, they want to sell an entire album because they get royalties per song.
If most albums have only two or three good songs, as is usually thought to be the case, then artists will only get the royalties from those two or three songs that sell as singles.
But, if people are forced to buy an entire album, then they get royalties from all ten, or so, songs on the album.
Even if they sell less albums, they still come out ahead.
And, since the goal of every artist is to make as much money as possible (despite the BS some of them spout), the sale of albums is their goal.
Quote:
Physical CDs are sold as split up into tracks. Why should iTS albums be any different. My point is that there should be consistency in the incessant bitching of the artists before they have a leg to stand on.
Consistency isn't important to their argument. Bling is.
Have any of you idiots ever listened to a concept album?
Pink Floyd's The Wall
Queensryche's Operation Mindcrime
My Chemical Romance's The Black Parade
Just like a movie, there will be some stand-out exciting moments (songs as opposed to movie scenes) and then there will be less interesting moments that are there to move the narrative along. The opening track to Operation Mindcrime isn't even an actual song, yet it sets up the 15 tracks to follow. Without it, the album loses quite a bit of meaning.
But you don't see them offering to sell you only the exciting moments of a film do you?
Sorry, but I think the artists should be free to distribute their art in whatever form they want not have it dictated to them by Apple or the "experts" commenting on this site. If the consumer doesn't like the way it is offered, they simply won't buy it.
And could everyone please skip the BS arguments that if it's not on iTunes people will just skip to the P2P networks to find it? A load of crap. If P2P is their inclination, they're skipping straight to that instead and using iTunes as a last resort.
Hey, fellow idiot, I have to of those albums. That doesn't mean that I want all of these albums. I really don't care if an album is themed or not. usually, most of it is crap. That goes double for most themed albums. One good idea, many bad songs.
Music is not like a movie. you can enjoy a song by itself without caring about the rest of the album.
And they do sell out-takes from Tv shows and movies. They also sell greatest hits albums. Artists don't seem to mind, if their older work is broken up, as long as they can make more money over it.
From what I understand, Versizon is only catching up with the market as it is over here in Britain. If you go into Carphone Warehouse to buy a phone, more often than not (in my experience anyway) the phone comes without a lock of any kind and without an modification to the OS. Of course there are exceptions, e.g. the iPhone (although O2 haven't changed the OS) and the SE V range, which are commissioned specifically for Vodafone.
Verison is reacting to the sale of the 700 MHz spectrum. Google petitioned for "open" spectrum. The cell providers petitioned for "closed" spectrum. Verison had a lawsuit that tried to prevent the sale as open frequencies. They've given up on that, and now figure that what they are doing will stave off more official rules.
Why can't you allow that an artist might have some artistic intent other than that each song should stand on it's own and work equally well regardless of content. Shouldn't the artist's intent have some value in figuring out how the work is going to be put out. Yes, most albums are crap beyond the first couple of songs. But a lot of people put a lot of work and thought into how an album of songs fit together. Some songs work best in context and serve to set up other songs. The album is a 40 years old plus format and people still want to express themselves through it.
You can't say to artists that we think this album is deserving to be sold only as an album, but that this other one is not.
It has to be all, or nothing. Right now, it's up to the customer to choose whether to pay (usually) less for an entire album than the total for all of the songs separately, or just buy the songs, one at a time.
Thats; how it should be.
There are very few pieces of music that are more themed than movie music, but, even there, over the years, you could buy the title song, or others.
Same thing has been true for show music.
In fact, it was only with the takeover of CD's that selling singles of popular music ended. Until then, the 45 was more popular than the album.
Quote:
When Apple starts to dictate how an artist can put out his or her music in this way then it is no better than the idiot record labels. Why can't some songs be designated as singles and others as album only. That would easily take care of both the artists' need for the integrity of the whole and the casual fans need to buy only one or two songs.
One person's "artist intent" is another person's attempt to use two or three good songs to subsidize nine or ten weak ones.
The iTunes model is a powerful incentive for musicians to record stronger material across their entire album. Filler tracks won't sell. If they happen to record a concept album with strong tracks throughout, then the customer will decide for themselves that it's worth buying. Insulting your customer by claiming that they're "destroying your canvas" is, uh, really nice.
It always cracks me up when musicians refer to themselves as "artists". In the visual arts, once a work is completed, its interpretation and legacy belongs to the audience. Radiohead or Jay-Z might try to tell me that I can only listen to their albums in their entirety, but Picasso didn't stipulate that you have to view Guernica exactly 15 feet away from the canvas at a 32 degree angle, nor did Leonardo write a manuscript entitled "How To Interpret Mona Lisa".
Seems like Apple is in a lonely corner trying to defend the sale of individual album tracks. If the record labels and the "artists" clamoring for these restrictions win out, then there will be a tremendous incentive for every other artist and label to follow suit and force digital download customers into the "all or nothing" mode.
One person's "artist intent" is another person's attempt to use two or three good songs to subsidize nine or ten weak ones.
The iTunes model is a powerful incentive for musicians to record stronger material across their entire album. Filler tracks won't sell. If they happen to record a concept album with strong tracks throughout, then the customer will decide for themselves that it's worth buying. Insulting your customer by claiming that they're "destroying your canvas" is, uh, really nice.
It always cracks me up when musicians refer to themselves as "artists". In the visual arts, once a work is completed, its interpretation and legacy belongs to the audience. Radiohead or Jay-Z might try to tell me that I can only listen to their albums in their entirety, but Picasso didn't stipulate that you have to view Guernica exactly 15 feet away from the canvas at a 32 degree angle, nor did Leonardo write a manuscript entitled "How To Interpret Mona Lisa".
Seems like Apple is in a lonely corner trying to defend the sale of individual album tracks. If the record labels and the "artists" clamoring for these restrictions win out, then there will be a tremendous incentive for every other artist and label to follow suit and force digital download customers into the "all or nothing" mode.
Musicians are artists. Commercial artists. Same as designers, filmmakers, etc. Anything that requires an artistic element, creativity and the fact that you get paid for it.
One person's "artist intent" is another person's attempt to use two or three good songs to subsidize nine or ten weak ones.
The iTunes model is a powerful incentive for musicians to record stronger material across their entire album. Filler tracks won't sell. If they happen to record a concept album with strong tracks throughout, then the customer will decide for themselves that it's worth buying. Insulting your customer by claiming that they're "destroying your canvas" is, uh, really nice.
It always cracks me up when musicians refer to themselves as "artists". In the visual arts, once a work is completed, its interpretation and legacy belongs to the audience. Radiohead or Jay-Z might try to tell me that I can only listen to their albums in their entirety, but Picasso didn't stipulate that you have to view Guernica exactly 15 feet away from the canvas at a 32 degree angle, nor did Leonardo write a manuscript entitled "How To Interpret Mona Lisa".
Seems like Apple is in a lonely corner trying to defend the sale of individual album tracks. If the record labels and the "artists" clamoring for these restrictions win out, then there will be a tremendous incentive for every other artist and label to follow suit and force digital download customers into the "all or nothing" mode.
I am not defending this particular JD guy here nor disagreeing with Apple, simply continuing the larger discussion.
You are not entirely correct, there are plenty of works of art with multiple elements created and intended by the artist to be experienced in totality. You simply mention a few that are not. Examples that do, range from novels, plays, classical music, stately gardens... the list is endless.
Why does it crack you up that musicians refer to themselves as artists? You lost me there.
Musicians are artists. Commercial artists. Same as designers, filmmakers, etc. Anything that requires an artistic element, creativity and the fact that you get paid for it.
Agreed except for your last point .. getting paid is not a prerequisite to being an artist although many wish it were i bet
Aren't there albums on iTS that aren't offered as separate tracks? I know it happens, the question is whether Apple is giving certain bands special treatment that you have to be preselected to get into. I can imagine that they don't want just anyone to get that treatment because that cuts into iTunes' main selling point - buying individual tracks. Buying whole albums through iTS isn't that cost effective compared to CDs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
I've always said that the fugly unnecessary iMac revision was done to improve it's Greenpeace rating. Thanks Apple for giving us a lemon instead of a real new iMac.
What is the energy required to process aluminum vs. that required to make & process plastic? I doubt the new design is to please Greenpeace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
The problem is that we all know and apple knows only 1 or 2 songs on an album are any good and we rather pay for what we want. But the Record industry is use to collecting $12 to $15 per album of 9 to 12 songs which they financed the productions and the cost of making a CD is like $0.10 per. So they are use to collecting $11 to $14 profit off each album allowing them to quickly pay off the investment they made in studio time and advertising.
Are you saying the retailers don't make money on an album? I think the gross income to the label on a CD is about $8
What is the energy required to process aluminum vs. that required to make & process plastic? I doubt the new design is to please Greenpeace.
Aluminum is recycled at a much higher rate though. I think I heard Discovery Channel say that 98% of all processed aluminum is recycled. I would say that is a lot higher than plastics.
Plus, the total amount of energy required is not always the best factor to look at. If the power came from a nuclear facility, then it is more clean than say from certain coal fired plants. However, nuclear would cost more per unit in most cases compared to coal plants.
Just depends on how GP decide's to look at the situation. It is a paradox in some cases and I can not see how they can say one is better when you look at the total picture. Your example alone proves this statement, it is too complex to base it on one or many viewpoints. You would almost have to have infinite measuring points to which to say what is better.
I would guess GP goes for the recyclability of products and their longterm effect on the environment since most stuff gets chunked in the ground at landfills.
I want to say I am not a tree hugger nor do I like GP but I am for doing what we can within reason to be good earth stewards
Why does it crack you up that musicians refer to themselves as artists? You lost me there.
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.
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
True dat!! Dupri the greedy f***!!
How would he like it if he went to buy his diamond gold necklace and the seller told him - "Sir, I understand you only like that one necklace but to get that one you'll have to buy this entire set of 15 necklaces! They're not sold individually." He could probably afford all 15 but the idiot will get the point!!
Have any of you idiots ever listened to a concept album?
Pink Floyd's The Wall
Queensryche's Operation Mindcrime
My Chemical Romance's The Black Parade
And yet songs from these albums are played out of context on the radio, right? Why aren't the artists complaining about that? Seems like it's more of a money issue than an Art issue to me.
Sure, the artist wants people to hear the whole as a cohesive work. But that doesn't mean that individual songs can't be listened to and enjoyed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
People no longer have the ability to listen to long pieces of music, that's one of the reason Classical has been dying, Jazz as well.
I don't buy that. There is plenty of classical and jazz music that is short, people just aren't as interested in the styles as much any more, same as polka or bluegrass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Aren't there albums on iTS that aren't offered as separate tracks? I know it happens, the question is whether Apple is giving certain bands special treatment that you have to be preselected to get into.
It's done purely on length. Anything over I believe 8 minutes is automatically "album only".
I think it was just worded poorly, I think it's a description of commercial artists, not artists in general.
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.
Aluminum is recycled at a much higher rate though. I think I heard Discovery Channel say that 98% of all processed aluminum is recycled. I would say that is a lot higher than plastics.
Plus, the total amount of energy required is not always the best factor to look at. If the power came from a nuclear facility, then it is more clean than say from certain coal fired plants. However, nuclear would cost more per unit in most cases compared to coal plants.
Just depends on how GP decide's to look at the situation. It is a paradox in some cases and I can not see how they can say one is better when you look at the total picture. Your example alone proves this statement, it is too complex to base it on one or many viewpoints. You would almost have to have infinite measuring points to which to say what is better.
I would guess GP goes for the recyclability of products and their longterm effect on the environment since most stuff gets chunked in the ground at landfills.
I want to say I am not a tree hugger nor do I like GP but I am for doing what we can within reason to be good earth stewards
It isn't just the energy, of course.
It's also the byproducts. it's the transport of the raw materials to the plants, and the transport to point of sale. The amount of packaging the product needs. It's also what the product was made from (what raw materials), and how it might have been obtained. If metal, was it strip mined? And of course, as was mentioned, the recycling.
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.
I've been trying to make that point (mostly ignored). I'll expand upon it.
The artist retains some control over how the work is presented, but loses some, depending on just what the work is. When it comes to music, once the final product is produced, the artist loses almost all legal control (not counting illegal P2P up and downloading).
About the only thing they retain is the royalty structure upon sale, and public play.
But, if they demanded that an entire album be broadcast, they would lose almost all air play, and airplay is the main method of presenting their work to the (hopefully, for them) buying public.
To then insist on only having the entire album be up for sale is hypocrisy, pure and simple.
People don't always hear the entire work. In fact, unless they DO buy the album, they may NEVER hear the entire work, only what they hear on the radio.
So, how can the artist insist that their work MUST be sold as a piece? Most people have never heard it that way.
And I don't believe that the individual songs aren't being written AS individual songs, as they must be played that way for broadcast.
A very good example of this is that the very people complaining the most are benefiting from music videos they make of their work. But just what are these videos of? ONE song. Not the entire album. Sometimes, if they are doing very well with the album, they MIGHT, very rarely, if the album does tell a story, be able to make a movie out of it, or a short. But, that's rare.
So, why do they seem to have no problem presenting one song in a music video?
Because that's been shown to sell music. No artistic integrity there.
And yet songs from these albums are played out of context on the radio, right? Why aren't the artists complaining about that? Seems like it's more of a money issue than an Art issue to me.
Sure, the artist wants people to hear the whole as a cohesive work. But that doesn't mean that individual songs can't be listened to and enjoyed.
I don't buy that. There is plenty of classical and jazz music that is short, people just aren't as interested in the styles as much any more, same as polka or bluegrass.
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.
You can't say to artists that we think this album is deserving to be sold only as an album, but that this other one is not.
It has to be all, or nothing. Right now, it's up to the customer to choose whether to pay (usually) less for an entire album than the total for all of the songs separately, or just buy the songs, one at a time.
Thats; how it should be.
There are very few pieces of music that are more themed than movie music, but, even there, over the years, you could buy the title song, or others.
Same thing has been true for show music.
In fact, it was only with the takeover of CD's that selling singles of popular music ended. Until then, the 45 was more popular than the album.
Again, you miss the point.
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.
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.
Comments
I think the people at Microsoft would call foul on this one, especially in the EU.
If they want airplay of "individual songs" then why do artists complain about spliting up albums in the first place?
It's pretty simple, isn't it?
As I've said, they can't get airtime for an entire album. Broadcast is centered on songs, not albums. Artists have no choice there. People no longer have the ability to listen to long pieces of music, that's one of the reason Classical has been dying, Jazz as well.
But, they want to sell an entire album because they get royalties per song.
If most albums have only two or three good songs, as is usually thought to be the case, then artists will only get the royalties from those two or three songs that sell as singles.
But, if people are forced to buy an entire album, then they get royalties from all ten, or so, songs on the album.
Even if they sell less albums, they still come out ahead.
And, since the goal of every artist is to make as much money as possible (despite the BS some of them spout), the sale of albums is their goal.
Physical CDs are sold as split up into tracks. Why should iTS albums be any different. My point is that there should be consistency in the incessant bitching of the artists before they have a leg to stand on.
Consistency isn't important to their argument. Bling is.
Have any of you idiots ever listened to a concept album?
Pink Floyd's The Wall
Queensryche's Operation Mindcrime
My Chemical Romance's The Black Parade
Just like a movie, there will be some stand-out exciting moments (songs as opposed to movie scenes) and then there will be less interesting moments that are there to move the narrative along. The opening track to Operation Mindcrime isn't even an actual song, yet it sets up the 15 tracks to follow. Without it, the album loses quite a bit of meaning.
But you don't see them offering to sell you only the exciting moments of a film do you?
Sorry, but I think the artists should be free to distribute their art in whatever form they want not have it dictated to them by Apple or the "experts" commenting on this site. If the consumer doesn't like the way it is offered, they simply won't buy it.
And could everyone please skip the BS arguments that if it's not on iTunes people will just skip to the P2P networks to find it? A load of crap. If P2P is their inclination, they're skipping straight to that instead and using iTunes as a last resort.
Hey, fellow idiot, I have to of those albums. That doesn't mean that I want all of these albums. I really don't care if an album is themed or not. usually, most of it is crap. That goes double for most themed albums. One good idea, many bad songs.
Music is not like a movie. you can enjoy a song by itself without caring about the rest of the album.
And they do sell out-takes from Tv shows and movies. They also sell greatest hits albums. Artists don't seem to mind, if their older work is broken up, as long as they can make more money over it.
Artists are just as hypocritical as anyone else.
From what I understand, Versizon is only catching up with the market as it is over here in Britain. If you go into Carphone Warehouse to buy a phone, more often than not (in my experience anyway) the phone comes without a lock of any kind and without an modification to the OS. Of course there are exceptions, e.g. the iPhone (although O2 haven't changed the OS) and the SE V range, which are commissioned specifically for Vodafone.
Verison is reacting to the sale of the 700 MHz spectrum. Google petitioned for "open" spectrum. The cell providers petitioned for "closed" spectrum. Verison had a lawsuit that tried to prevent the sale as open frequencies. They've given up on that, and now figure that what they are doing will stave off more official rules.
nothing directly to do with you do over there.
Why can't you allow that an artist might have some artistic intent other than that each song should stand on it's own and work equally well regardless of content. Shouldn't the artist's intent have some value in figuring out how the work is going to be put out. Yes, most albums are crap beyond the first couple of songs. But a lot of people put a lot of work and thought into how an album of songs fit together. Some songs work best in context and serve to set up other songs. The album is a 40 years old plus format and people still want to express themselves through it.
You can't say to artists that we think this album is deserving to be sold only as an album, but that this other one is not.
It has to be all, or nothing. Right now, it's up to the customer to choose whether to pay (usually) less for an entire album than the total for all of the songs separately, or just buy the songs, one at a time.
Thats; how it should be.
There are very few pieces of music that are more themed than movie music, but, even there, over the years, you could buy the title song, or others.
Same thing has been true for show music.
In fact, it was only with the takeover of CD's that selling singles of popular music ended. Until then, the 45 was more popular than the album.
When Apple starts to dictate how an artist can put out his or her music in this way then it is no better than the idiot record labels. Why can't some songs be designated as singles and others as album only. That would easily take care of both the artists' need for the integrity of the whole and the casual fans need to buy only one or two songs.
And Apple might sell more albums that way.
Again, you miss the point.
The iTunes model is a powerful incentive for musicians to record stronger material across their entire album. Filler tracks won't sell. If they happen to record a concept album with strong tracks throughout, then the customer will decide for themselves that it's worth buying. Insulting your customer by claiming that they're "destroying your canvas" is, uh, really nice.
It always cracks me up when musicians refer to themselves as "artists". In the visual arts, once a work is completed, its interpretation and legacy belongs to the audience. Radiohead or Jay-Z might try to tell me that I can only listen to their albums in their entirety, but Picasso didn't stipulate that you have to view Guernica exactly 15 feet away from the canvas at a 32 degree angle, nor did Leonardo write a manuscript entitled "How To Interpret Mona Lisa".
Seems like Apple is in a lonely corner trying to defend the sale of individual album tracks. If the record labels and the "artists" clamoring for these restrictions win out, then there will be a tremendous incentive for every other artist and label to follow suit and force digital download customers into the "all or nothing" mode.
One person's "artist intent" is another person's attempt to use two or three good songs to subsidize nine or ten weak ones.
The iTunes model is a powerful incentive for musicians to record stronger material across their entire album. Filler tracks won't sell. If they happen to record a concept album with strong tracks throughout, then the customer will decide for themselves that it's worth buying. Insulting your customer by claiming that they're "destroying your canvas" is, uh, really nice.
It always cracks me up when musicians refer to themselves as "artists". In the visual arts, once a work is completed, its interpretation and legacy belongs to the audience. Radiohead or Jay-Z might try to tell me that I can only listen to their albums in their entirety, but Picasso didn't stipulate that you have to view Guernica exactly 15 feet away from the canvas at a 32 degree angle, nor did Leonardo write a manuscript entitled "How To Interpret Mona Lisa".
Seems like Apple is in a lonely corner trying to defend the sale of individual album tracks. If the record labels and the "artists" clamoring for these restrictions win out, then there will be a tremendous incentive for every other artist and label to follow suit and force digital download customers into the "all or nothing" mode.
Musicians are artists. Commercial artists. Same as designers, filmmakers, etc. Anything that requires an artistic element, creativity and the fact that you get paid for it.
One person's "artist intent" is another person's attempt to use two or three good songs to subsidize nine or ten weak ones.
The iTunes model is a powerful incentive for musicians to record stronger material across their entire album. Filler tracks won't sell. If they happen to record a concept album with strong tracks throughout, then the customer will decide for themselves that it's worth buying. Insulting your customer by claiming that they're "destroying your canvas" is, uh, really nice.
It always cracks me up when musicians refer to themselves as "artists". In the visual arts, once a work is completed, its interpretation and legacy belongs to the audience. Radiohead or Jay-Z might try to tell me that I can only listen to their albums in their entirety, but Picasso didn't stipulate that you have to view Guernica exactly 15 feet away from the canvas at a 32 degree angle, nor did Leonardo write a manuscript entitled "How To Interpret Mona Lisa".
Seems like Apple is in a lonely corner trying to defend the sale of individual album tracks. If the record labels and the "artists" clamoring for these restrictions win out, then there will be a tremendous incentive for every other artist and label to follow suit and force digital download customers into the "all or nothing" mode.
I am not defending this particular JD guy here nor disagreeing with Apple, simply continuing the larger discussion.
You are not entirely correct, there are plenty of works of art with multiple elements created and intended by the artist to be experienced in totality. You simply mention a few that are not. Examples that do, range from novels, plays, classical music, stately gardens... the list is endless.
Why does it crack you up that musicians refer to themselves as artists? You lost me there.
Musicians are artists. Commercial artists. Same as designers, filmmakers, etc. Anything that requires an artistic element, creativity and the fact that you get paid for it.
Agreed except for your last point .. getting paid is not a prerequisite to being an artist although many wish it were i bet
I've always said that the fugly unnecessary iMac revision was done to improve it's Greenpeace rating. Thanks Apple for giving us a lemon instead of a real new iMac.
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 problem is that we all know and apple knows only 1 or 2 songs on an album are any good and we rather pay for what we want. But the Record industry is use to collecting $12 to $15 per album of 9 to 12 songs which they financed the productions and the cost of making a CD is like $0.10 per. So they are use to collecting $11 to $14 profit off each album allowing them to quickly pay off the investment they made in studio time and advertising.
Are you saying the retailers don't make money on an album? I think the gross income to the label on a CD is about $8
Agreed except for your last point .. getting paid is not a prerequisite to being an artist although many wish it were i bet
I think it was just worded poorly, I think it's a description of commercial artists, not artists in general.
What is the energy required to process aluminum vs. that required to make & process plastic? I doubt the new design is to please Greenpeace.
Aluminum is recycled at a much higher rate though. I think I heard Discovery Channel say that 98% of all processed aluminum is recycled. I would say that is a lot higher than plastics.
Plus, the total amount of energy required is not always the best factor to look at. If the power came from a nuclear facility, then it is more clean than say from certain coal fired plants. However, nuclear would cost more per unit in most cases compared to coal plants.
Just depends on how GP decide's to look at the situation. It is a paradox in some cases and I can not see how they can say one is better when you look at the total picture. Your example alone proves this statement, it is too complex to base it on one or many viewpoints. You would almost have to have infinite measuring points to which to say what is better.
I would guess GP goes for the recyclability of products and their longterm effect on the environment since most stuff gets chunked in the ground at landfills.
I want to say I am not a tree hugger nor do I like GP but I am for doing what we can within reason to be good earth stewards
Why does it crack you up that musicians refer to themselves as artists? You lost me there.
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.
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
True dat!! Dupri the greedy f***!!
How would he like it if he went to buy his diamond gold necklace and the seller told him - "Sir, I understand you only like that one necklace but to get that one you'll have to buy this entire set of 15 necklaces! They're not sold individually." He could probably afford all 15 but the idiot will get the point!!
Have any of you idiots ever listened to a concept album?
Pink Floyd's The Wall
Queensryche's Operation Mindcrime
My Chemical Romance's The Black Parade
And yet songs from these albums are played out of context on the radio, right? Why aren't the artists complaining about that? Seems like it's more of a money issue than an Art issue to me.
Sure, the artist wants people to hear the whole as a cohesive work. But that doesn't mean that individual songs can't be listened to and enjoyed.
People no longer have the ability to listen to long pieces of music, that's one of the reason Classical has been dying, Jazz as well.
I don't buy that. There is plenty of classical and jazz music that is short, people just aren't as interested in the styles as much any more, same as polka or bluegrass.
Aren't there albums on iTS that aren't offered as separate tracks? I know it happens, the question is whether Apple is giving certain bands special treatment that you have to be preselected to get into.
It's done purely on length. Anything over I believe 8 minutes is automatically "album only".
I think it was just worded poorly, I think it's a description of commercial artists, not artists in general.
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.
Aluminum is recycled at a much higher rate though. I think I heard Discovery Channel say that 98% of all processed aluminum is recycled. I would say that is a lot higher than plastics.
Plus, the total amount of energy required is not always the best factor to look at. If the power came from a nuclear facility, then it is more clean than say from certain coal fired plants. However, nuclear would cost more per unit in most cases compared to coal plants.
Just depends on how GP decide's to look at the situation. It is a paradox in some cases and I can not see how they can say one is better when you look at the total picture. Your example alone proves this statement, it is too complex to base it on one or many viewpoints. You would almost have to have infinite measuring points to which to say what is better.
I would guess GP goes for the recyclability of products and their longterm effect on the environment since most stuff gets chunked in the ground at landfills.
I want to say I am not a tree hugger nor do I like GP but I am for doing what we can within reason to be good earth stewards
It isn't just the energy, of course.
It's also the byproducts. it's the transport of the raw materials to the plants, and the transport to point of sale. The amount of packaging the product needs. It's also what the product was made from (what raw materials), and how it might have been obtained. If metal, was it strip mined? And of course, as was mentioned, the recycling.
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.
I've been trying to make that point (mostly ignored). I'll expand upon it.
The artist retains some control over how the work is presented, but loses some, depending on just what the work is. When it comes to music, once the final product is produced, the artist loses almost all legal control (not counting illegal P2P up and downloading).
About the only thing they retain is the royalty structure upon sale, and public play.
But, if they demanded that an entire album be broadcast, they would lose almost all air play, and airplay is the main method of presenting their work to the (hopefully, for them) buying public.
To then insist on only having the entire album be up for sale is hypocrisy, pure and simple.
People don't always hear the entire work. In fact, unless they DO buy the album, they may NEVER hear the entire work, only what they hear on the radio.
So, how can the artist insist that their work MUST be sold as a piece? Most people have never heard it that way.
And I don't believe that the individual songs aren't being written AS individual songs, as they must be played that way for broadcast.
A very good example of this is that the very people complaining the most are benefiting from music videos they make of their work. But just what are these videos of? ONE song. Not the entire album. Sometimes, if they are doing very well with the album, they MIGHT, very rarely, if the album does tell a story, be able to make a movie out of it, or a short. But, that's rare.
So, why do they seem to have no problem presenting one song in a music video?
Because that's been shown to sell music. No artistic integrity there.
It's all absurd. Just greed.
And yet songs from these albums are played out of context on the radio, right? Why aren't the artists complaining about that? Seems like it's more of a money issue than an Art issue to me.
Sure, the artist wants people to hear the whole as a cohesive work. But that doesn't mean that individual songs can't be listened to and enjoyed.
I don't buy that. There is plenty of classical and jazz music that is short, people just aren't as interested in the styles as much any more, same as polka or bluegrass.
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.
You can't say to artists that we think this album is deserving to be sold only as an album, but that this other one is not.
It has to be all, or nothing. Right now, it's up to the customer to choose whether to pay (usually) less for an entire album than the total for all of the songs separately, or just buy the songs, one at a time.
Thats; how it should be.
There are very few pieces of music that are more themed than movie music, but, even there, over the years, you could buy the title song, or others.
Same thing has been true for show music.
In fact, it was only with the takeover of CD's that selling singles of popular music ended. Until then, the 45 was more popular than the album.
Again, you miss the point.
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.
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.