Is there some kind of arrangement if you're not actually signed up to a record label? I've always wondered this.
Either you start your own label or use an aggregator such as Tunecore.
You pay them (Tunecore in this case) a flat fee ($9.99 for a single, $49.99 album) and they handle getting your music up on iTunes and distribute the royalties back to you.
Ok Peter Townhend is not nice to blame the one who buys the music. Also iTunes has helped stop Piracy. So Peter Townhend sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The internet is the biggest and best talent scout there ever was.
Come on Pete, it's the 21st century now. Quit pining for the good old days. At least the days that were good for you. Lots of other artists from the last 50 years don't have 75 mil in the bank. Why don't you use some of that to do the things you expect Apple to do? How about an old musicians home for those who didn't get the breaks you did?
I think you're all jumping on ol' Pete a little too quickly. I am no expert here but I think that what Pete is saying (in part) is that now that iTunes has become a major force within the music industry it needs to take on certain responsibilities above and beyond. Its ultimately about the music, after all and if iTunes could help the smaller upcoming musicians getting heard it is exactly the kind of things iTunes should do. It owes its existence to all the musicians out there and as such could play a bigger part as a conduit for the struggling artist. It doesn't really matter what the iTunes's scope was or is. What matters is that it is perhaps harder than ever for new bands to be 'discovered' and iTunes could play a positive role by changing this.
Maybe Ping could be the beginnings to something like this. Something deeper than just straight sales. I am not sure but I think that Pete is trying to speak on behalf of the budding artist and as such I support him.
He also neglects to mention that with iTunes, the artist keeps 70% while with a typical label they get a much smaller percentage.
Uh... no.
Assuming Apple takes 30 cents of every song, you seem to think the artist gets the rest. Guess again. The labels are still taking a big chunk of that.
If the artists negotiated directly with Apple, THEN they'd get the 70 percent. Guarantee very few artists do that. Which is sad, honestly. Imagine if Mr. Townshend did that... he'd be making a LOT more than he is now. But my guess is, he doesn't own the publishing rights nor the masters to most of the Who catalog.
And I thought he was going to rant about having to leave iTunes open on my computer to enjoy my content throughout the house and how un-energy efficient that is. Bummer.
Don't blame the fans, look at your middleman - they are taking too much.
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.
This this THIS. Have you seen the breakdown on how much of $1 spent on music actually goes to the musicians? Last I saw it was around 7 cents, MAYBE. But Townsend thinks Apple is the problem and not the music publishers??? Dude did too many drugs...fried his logic centers.
I think that what Pete is saying (in part) is that now that iTunes has become a major force within the music industry it needs to take on certain responsibilities above and beyond.
Perhaps that's what he meant to say, and I agree with a couple of his more constructive suggestions. But if you reread his quote, that's not the main gist of what he ended up saying, especially when he called Apple a "vampire". The overall takeaway was "Apple's taking too much of my money" and the rest will be lost to most people's ears. He needs a publicist (or if he has one, she likely ate her hat when she saw what he said without running it by her first. )
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.
Are you implying that only tangible things may be stolen, i.e. someone has to "lose" something for theft to occur? That's very narrow-minded. What about services then? Can you steal cable? The cable service didn't go anywhere.
In reality, people do lose something: money. When you pirate a song, the owner loses the potential revenue. That's very real, and is theft by all accounts, theft being defined as taking something that doesn't belong to you, and causing harm to the original owner.
Huh? Pete doesn't have any problem selling his music on iTunes. I would have loved to see Pete cross swords with Steve Jobs. Perhaps they did and Pete is just holding a grudge. There's no mention of it in the book, although they do go into quite a bit of detail about Jobs dealings with the major record labels. Two things Steve would not give on were 1) 99 cents per song (un-bundled albums) 2) absolutely NO royalty on iPod sales! After the Napster debacle I could see how some of the artists are still sore. Jobs was offering them a better deal than what they were getting (nothing), but certainly nowhere near as good as they had it back in the good ole days...
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.
Townsend clearly is an idiot. But really, "who" cares?
What a load re 'talent scouts'. Bite me, Townboy. A musician can record his/her own work and go straight to market on the cheap, if they've got any ambition at all.
This guy's either doing too many drugs, or not the right ones.
Sounds like Townshend is a digital dinosaur. He seems to think that things would be just like they used to be if it weren't for iTunes, but they would probably be worse. In most cases, if people weren't buying music on iTunes, they'd be stealing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffhrsn
"Analog" dinosaur to be precise.
Really? Sounds like neither of you read very carefully. He actually spoke rather articulately about the evolution of music, the eventual collapse of the current music industry and how Apple should step into the breach. It pays to read thoroughly.
He also neglects to mention that with iTunes, the artist keeps 70% while with a typical label they get a much smaller percentage.
That's not true.
The person or party with the rights to put the song up on iTunes gets 70%. If it was the artist they get it but if it was a label (which is often the case with the major names like The Who) the label gets the 70% and the artist gets whatever cut was worked out in their contract
And with iTunes it was still alive and well for quite some time. Because those that will pirate will pirate and come up with clever logic to make it 'okay'
Limewire was shut down by a lawsuit, not by iTunes
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.
Pete you are totally clueless about the way the music business operated in the old days and the way it operates today. You thought you were getting a great deal when you were actually getting f**ked.
1. When large act audited record labels, they ALWAYS found heaps of money because of shoddy accounting. This is no longer the case with iTunes.
2. Record labels had zero customer service i.e. they did not have a direct relationship with the artists fans and they didn?t empower fans to have relationships with each other. Itunes does
3. Record labels did not have the flexibility to offer music with a quick turn around and in various ways. Itunes does. Fans love choice and speed.
4. Labels could not guarentee every artists record in every record store in the world. Itunes distribution covers the world...more distribution points equals more sales.
5. Record labels had packaging that was bad for the environment. iTunes does not.
6. Record labels were extorted by record retailers and regularly got screwed. iTunes pays everyone 100%, a 100% of the time and does not charge for price and positioning.
7. Record labels often stopped selling artists when they didn?t sell enough records to warrant pressing more because of cost. iTunes does to discriminate so every artist is not fall victim to this.
8. Record labels had close to 10 years to figure out a digital solution and they didn?t do it. iTunes figured it out, unfortunately record labels screwed over artists by giving them poor royalty rates on digital sales.
Pete is a clueless old man whose bands music is sold on iTunes because he didn?t have a decent contract with his record label to force them not to. His solo stuff is not sold so his fans are left to try and figure out how to get, most likely in a format they detest.
Comments
... the Who and Pete Townhend. They suck.
Really?! Try again without your head up your @$$!
Is there some kind of arrangement if you're not actually signed up to a record label? I've always wondered this.
Either you start your own label or use an aggregator such as Tunecore.
You pay them (Tunecore in this case) a flat fee ($9.99 for a single, $49.99 album) and they handle getting your music up on iTunes and distribute the royalties back to you.
Really?! Try again without your head up your @$$!
Ok Peter Townhend is not nice to blame the one who buys the music. Also iTunes has helped stop Piracy. So Peter Townhend sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Come on Pete, it's the 21st century now. Quit pining for the good old days. At least the days that were good for you. Lots of other artists from the last 50 years don't have 75 mil in the bank. Why don't you use some of that to do the things you expect Apple to do? How about an old musicians home for those who didn't get the breaks you did?
Townsend is just an out of touch, cranky old queen! And I don't mean "queen" in a derogotory sense...
Maybe Ping could be the beginnings to something like this. Something deeper than just straight sales. I am not sure but I think that Pete is trying to speak on behalf of the budding artist and as such I support him.
He also neglects to mention that with iTunes, the artist keeps 70% while with a typical label they get a much smaller percentage.
Uh... no.
Assuming Apple takes 30 cents of every song, you seem to think the artist gets the rest. Guess again. The labels are still taking a big chunk of that.
If the artists negotiated directly with Apple, THEN they'd get the 70 percent. Guarantee very few artists do that. Which is sad, honestly. Imagine if Mr. Townshend did that... he'd be making a LOT more than he is now. But my guess is, he doesn't own the publishing rights nor the masters to most of the Who catalog.
Don't blame the fans, look at your middleman - they are taking too much.
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.
This this THIS. Have you seen the breakdown on how much of $1 spent on music actually goes to the musicians? Last I saw it was around 7 cents, MAYBE. But Townsend thinks Apple is the problem and not the music publishers??? Dude did too many drugs...fried his logic centers.
I think that what Pete is saying (in part) is that now that iTunes has become a major force within the music industry it needs to take on certain responsibilities above and beyond.
Perhaps that's what he meant to say, and I agree with a couple of his more constructive suggestions. But if you reread his quote, that's not the main gist of what he ended up saying, especially when he called Apple a "vampire". The overall takeaway was "Apple's taking too much of my money" and the rest will be lost to most people's ears. He needs a publicist (or if he has one, she likely ate her hat when she saw what he said without running it by her first.
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.
Are you implying that only tangible things may be stolen, i.e. someone has to "lose" something for theft to occur? That's very narrow-minded. What about services then? Can you steal cable? The cable service didn't go anywhere.
In reality, people do lose something: money. When you pirate a song, the owner loses the potential revenue. That's very real, and is theft by all accounts, theft being defined as taking something that doesn't belong to you, and causing harm to the original owner.
Pull up your grumpy pants, old man. Your belt buckle just fell below your navel.
gc
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.
Townsend clearly is an idiot. But really, "who" cares?
What a load re 'talent scouts'. Bite me, Townboy. A musician can record his/her own work and go straight to market on the cheap, if they've got any ambition at all.
This guy's either doing too many drugs, or not the right ones.
Sounds like Townshend is a digital dinosaur. He seems to think that things would be just like they used to be if it weren't for iTunes, but they would probably be worse. In most cases, if people weren't buying music on iTunes, they'd be stealing it.
"Analog" dinosaur to be precise.
Really? Sounds like neither of you read very carefully. He actually spoke rather articulately about the evolution of music, the eventual collapse of the current music industry and how Apple should step into the breach. It pays to read thoroughly.
He also neglects to mention that with iTunes, the artist keeps 70% while with a typical label they get a much smaller percentage.
That's not true.
The person or party with the rights to put the song up on iTunes gets 70%. If it was the artist they get it but if it was a label (which is often the case with the major names like The Who) the label gets the 70% and the artist gets whatever cut was worked out in their contract
No one loses something when a song is illegally copied, .
No one except the retailer that should have made the said,the label etc that should have gotten their cut.
Without iTunes, Limewire would be alive and well.
.
And with iTunes it was still alive and well for quite some time. Because those that will pirate will pirate and come up with clever logic to make it 'okay'
Limewire was shut down by a lawsuit, not by iTunes
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.
Pete you are totally clueless about the way the music business operated in the old days and the way it operates today. You thought you were getting a great deal when you were actually getting f**ked.
1. When large act audited record labels, they ALWAYS found heaps of money because of shoddy accounting. This is no longer the case with iTunes.
2. Record labels had zero customer service i.e. they did not have a direct relationship with the artists fans and they didn?t empower fans to have relationships with each other. Itunes does
3. Record labels did not have the flexibility to offer music with a quick turn around and in various ways. Itunes does. Fans love choice and speed.
4. Labels could not guarentee every artists record in every record store in the world. Itunes distribution covers the world...more distribution points equals more sales.
5. Record labels had packaging that was bad for the environment. iTunes does not.
6. Record labels were extorted by record retailers and regularly got screwed. iTunes pays everyone 100%, a 100% of the time and does not charge for price and positioning.
7. Record labels often stopped selling artists when they didn?t sell enough records to warrant pressing more because of cost. iTunes does to discriminate so every artist is not fall victim to this.
8. Record labels had close to 10 years to figure out a digital solution and they didn?t do it. iTunes figured it out, unfortunately record labels screwed over artists by giving them poor royalty rates on digital sales.
Pete is a clueless old man whose bands music is sold on iTunes because he didn?t have a decent contract with his record label to force them not to. His solo stuff is not sold so his fans are left to try and figure out how to get, most likely in a format they detest.