Townsend has become what he used to sing about...he really should do a little research on what Apple has done in saving digital music in an age of piracy before spewing out this bilge.
Not the kind of research he was doing, viewing child porn on the internet.
Just in time for Halloween, artist Pete Townshend of The Who has branded Apple's music business a "digital vampire," suggesting that iTunes profits from music without giving popular artists all the benefits they enjoyed under the record labels and music publishers.
A new enemy - YAY!
Who does he think he is? The Who stole everything from the Beatles, and now he whines about Apple?
Maybe he should spend his time innovating instead of complaining!
He's just jealous!
If he wasn't so lazy, then maybe people would buy his music and he wouldn't complain to Apple!
His music sucks. So therefore everything he says is wrong.
iTunes offers a venue for sales, which is all it's supposed to do. Cassettes and CDs initially afforded a kind of hardware DRM, but later that DRM was broken by machines that did easy copies. So then we had digital downloads that had DRM and now the DRM is no longer used. iTunes seems to me that it's just a different incarnation of the old cycles. They can't complain about iTunes having gotten good deals; WallMart gets those. They did make the albums get unbundled into singles, and I'm sure that hurt. Pink Floyd always make albums that seemed like a complete work of art you needed to buy without breaking, but most other artists didn't. I love AC/DC, for instance, but they're some of the worst about 1 good song per album (and sometimes they reuse one of those songs).
First, people aren't stealing - they are committing copyright infringement. There is a big difference. No one loses something when a song is illegally copied, which is required for theft. Not to say that copyright infringement isn't bad, it is - it just isn't stealing.
Pete Townsend, I am afraid you just don't understand - so please spend your rock God capital on reworking the record company, not the fans - or Apple and iTunes.
Taking something that doesn't belong to you qualifies as stealing in my book.
Considering that I've lived quite comfortably over the last 35 years on less than 2 million dollars he should be able to live the rest of his life on 75 million easy and just give his past music away for free. Maybe he is thinking about the little guy who has only made $9k through iTunes only distribution. However, judging by how he worded his comments makes me wonder.
Regarding the talent scout, he might be arguing that with the ability for an artist to distribute directly through iTunes and no where else they then don't have a good way to get national notice and large concert gigs. If that is his argument it fails to justify why the iTunes only artist can't present their art to "talent scouts" the same way a pre-itunes artist would have. Surely iTunes doesn't preclude a talent scout from listening to their work or hiring a diamond in the rough for a national tour. If anything it should make talent scouting easier. Can talent scouts and big labels not sign a deal to get part of the iTunes profits post signing, assuming they put up money for higher quality productions?
He really doesn't understand the function of iTunes. Does he hate Wal Mart for the same reasons? I mean, all they do is put some cds in the front bin with a poster, which is no different iTunes featuring them via an email or front page.
Its kind of disturbing how someone who has made millions doesn't understand the basic business model in which he made his millions.
Most people do pay for their music now. Without iTunes, Limewire would be alive and well.
You should thank Apple. Bottom line is when an album comes out, many times it has 1 or 2 good songs. More if it's a great band. But if an album had 1 or 2 good songs I would pay the .99 for each. Otherwise, if I had to buy the whole album for 2 songs, I would burn the disc from someone.
So, you would get my $2.00 or nothing at all. Greedy SOB. Why should I have to pay $12 for 10 crappy songs and 2 good ones? Trent Resnor can shut the hell up as well.
It's called America, Peter. Go back tot he UK if you don't like it.
If Mr. Townsend doesn't like iTunes then he should talk to his label about not putting their catalogue on iTunes. His beef should be with his publisher, not Apple.
I think we just discovered that talent does not equal brains. Although there is past evidence to suggest he's not very bright - yeah, really don't need to buy child porn to know that it exists. Idiot.
Most people do pay for their music now. Without iTunes, Limewire would be alive and well.
You should thank Apple. Bottom line is when an album comes out, many times it has 1 or 2 good songs. More if it's a great band. But if an album had 1 or 2 good songs I would pay the .99 for each. Otherwise, if I had to buy the whole album for 2 songs, I would burn the disc from someone.
So, you would get my $2.00 or nothing at all. Greedy SOB. Why should I have to pay $12 for 10 crappy songs and 2 good ones? Trent Resnor can shut the hell up as well.
It's called America, Peter. Go back tot he UK if you don't like it.
Got to chime in (first time). I don't really get this - I've always bought the album 'cause it it is a part of the experience discovering new song with the artist you like. They might not be as good as the song(s) that the label chooses to release as a single, but it is the package that counts. I guess no one has the patience or time anymore to actually sit down and just listen so a full album. For me skipping out on songs from an album is like choosing what scenes you don't want to see in a movie. I guess you don't fast forward in every movie you see. Except for porn...
I'm not telling you not to just buy the songs you like...just that the package and experience that the album offers to let you hear new songs surprise you is lost. And as it goes for Pete's food metafore I would put it like this: Go into a restaurant you don't ask the waiter to skip the potatoes, gravy or what not because you don't want to pay for it. If you don't like you leave it on the plate but you will pay the same price anyway.
Mr. Townsend, you are a Creative Vampire. The reason you can't hear any of todays cutting edge artists on the major radio stations is because greedy corporate dinosaur bands like The Who, The Rolling Stones, etc... have fixed the game so that instead of radio being the raw creative stage for bringing new bands into the public eye like it was when they were coming up into a 24 hour oldies best of list of all of their outdated tired music. It's because of Pete and his millionaire buddies that awesome bands like Brian Jonestown Massacre, Radiohead, Flaming Lips, Goldfrapp, Beck and hundreds of other worthy bands will never get the ear of the masses...
What he doesn't mention though is that with an iTunes album sale the artist gets almost as much as with a physical album: namely ninety four cents for iTunes compared to ninety nine cents for the physical media.
What the artist is upset about, especially one like Townsend from the old days when Artists actually made money on music sales, is that iTunes has made it possible to buy only the songs you want. Consequently, album sales have suffered. Not all artists give you a full album of good songs. The Who might be an exception (couldn't tell you as I haven't listened to an album in a while). At the end of the day, iTunes brought a lot of paying customers to the mix.
Townsend's real grievance should be with services like Spotify where the artist only makes .00016 cents a stream. Services like Pandora and Rhapsody are slightly better with .0091 cents a stream. An artist would have to have his song streamed 563 times on Spotify to make the same .09 cents he'd make with one iTunes song sale.
People should also consider that the artist before getting paid has to pay back any advancement to the labels. So, initially the artist gets nothing from music sales. Further, the labels keep the accounting on sales, so often times the artists get screwed because it is easy for the labels to cheat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Whine, whine, whine.
No explanation of why Apple should be "employing talents scouts, giving space to allow bands to stream their music and paying smaller artists directly rather than through a third party aggregator,"
He also neglects to mention that with iTunes, the artist keeps 70% while with a typical label they get a much smaller percentage.
Comments
Not the kind of research he was doing, viewing child porn on the internet.
Just in time for Halloween, artist Pete Townshend of The Who has branded Apple's music business a "digital vampire," suggesting that iTunes profits from music without giving popular artists all the benefits they enjoyed under the record labels and music publishers.
A new enemy - YAY!
Who does he think he is? The Who stole everything from the Beatles, and now he whines about Apple?
Maybe he should spend his time innovating instead of complaining!
He's just jealous!
If he wasn't so lazy, then maybe people would buy his music and he wouldn't complain to Apple!
His music sucks. So therefore everything he says is wrong.
When's the last WHO concert they gave?
late 2010 I believe
First, people aren't stealing - they are committing copyright infringement. There is a big difference. No one loses something when a song is illegally copied, which is required for theft. Not to say that copyright infringement isn't bad, it is - it just isn't stealing.
Pete Townsend, I am afraid you just don't understand - so please spend your rock God capital on reworking the record company, not the fans - or Apple and iTunes.
Taking something that doesn't belong to you qualifies as stealing in my book.
But agree about Pete Townsend... He is an idiot.
Regarding the talent scout, he might be arguing that with the ability for an artist to distribute directly through iTunes and no where else they then don't have a good way to get national notice and large concert gigs. If that is his argument it fails to justify why the iTunes only artist can't present their art to "talent scouts" the same way a pre-itunes artist would have. Surely iTunes doesn't preclude a talent scout from listening to their work or hiring a diamond in the rough for a national tour. If anything it should make talent scouting easier. Can talent scouts and big labels not sign a deal to get part of the iTunes profits post signing, assuming they put up money for higher quality productions?
Its kind of disturbing how someone who has made millions doesn't understand the basic business model in which he made his millions.
Most people do pay for their music now. Without iTunes, Limewire would be alive and well.
You should thank Apple. Bottom line is when an album comes out, many times it has 1 or 2 good songs. More if it's a great band. But if an album had 1 or 2 good songs I would pay the .99 for each. Otherwise, if I had to buy the whole album for 2 songs, I would burn the disc from someone.
So, you would get my $2.00 or nothing at all. Greedy SOB. Why should I have to pay $12 for 10 crappy songs and 2 good ones? Trent Resnor can shut the hell up as well.
It's called America, Peter. Go back tot he UK if you don't like it.
"is worth an estimated $75 million."Greedy SOB
Most people do pay for their music now. Without iTunes, Limewire would be alive and well.
You should thank Apple. Bottom line is when an album comes out, many times it has 1 or 2 good songs. More if it's a great band. But if an album had 1 or 2 good songs I would pay the .99 for each. Otherwise, if I had to buy the whole album for 2 songs, I would burn the disc from someone.
So, you would get my $2.00 or nothing at all. Greedy SOB. Why should I have to pay $12 for 10 crappy songs and 2 good ones? Trent Resnor can shut the hell up as well.
It's called America, Peter. Go back tot he UK if you don't like it.
Got to chime in (first time). I don't really get this - I've always bought the album 'cause it it is a part of the experience discovering new song with the artist you like. They might not be as good as the song(s) that the label chooses to release as a single, but it is the package that counts. I guess no one has the patience or time anymore to actually sit down and just listen so a full album. For me skipping out on songs from an album is like choosing what scenes you don't want to see in a movie. I guess you don't fast forward in every movie you see. Except for porn...
I'm not telling you not to just buy the songs you like...just that the package and experience that the album offers to let you hear new songs surprise you is lost. And as it goes for Pete's food metafore I would put it like this: Go into a restaurant you don't ask the waiter to skip the potatoes, gravy or what not because you don't want to pay for it. If you don't like you leave it on the plate but you will pay the same price anyway.
Apple should replace the services formerly offered to musicians by the music business before it largely collapsed.
This is the meat of his comment. Just change tenses of the last half.
Someone needs to take on the role, but I disagree it should be Apple.
Moreover, I don't think the labels have had talent scouts for 20+ years. Music has been fairly formulaic in their recruiting and promotion strategy.
What he doesn't mention though is that with an iTunes album sale the artist gets almost as much as with a physical album: namely ninety four cents for iTunes compared to ninety nine cents for the physical media.
What the artist is upset about, especially one like Townsend from the old days when Artists actually made money on music sales, is that iTunes has made it possible to buy only the songs you want. Consequently, album sales have suffered. Not all artists give you a full album of good songs. The Who might be an exception (couldn't tell you as I haven't listened to an album in a while). At the end of the day, iTunes brought a lot of paying customers to the mix.
Townsend's real grievance should be with services like Spotify where the artist only makes .00016 cents a stream. Services like Pandora and Rhapsody are slightly better with .0091 cents a stream. An artist would have to have his song streamed 563 times on Spotify to make the same .09 cents he'd make with one iTunes song sale.
People should also consider that the artist before getting paid has to pay back any advancement to the labels. So, initially the artist gets nothing from music sales. Further, the labels keep the accounting on sales, so often times the artists get screwed because it is easy for the labels to cheat.
Whine, whine, whine.
No explanation of why Apple should be "employing talents scouts, giving space to allow bands to stream their music and paying smaller artists directly rather than through a third party aggregator,"
He also neglects to mention that with iTunes, the artist keeps 70% while with a typical label they get a much smaller percentage.