Springfield Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 I think that this is a valid question. Napster: Enabled everyone with a 56k connection the ability to download music for free. They didn't pay a dime for it. The artists didn't get paid anything when a song was downloaded via Napster. Everyone's CD players were loaded with as many mix-tapes as they could carry. iTunes: Enabled everyone with a WiFi connection the ability to download any song they wanted. They paid for it. The artists, labels and Apple got paid. All radio stations and most "paid" iPods are filled with songs that get played on radio stations 24/7 leading to less diversity. That's why I ask ES. We all know that Napster was bad. Is iTunes just as bad when it comes to music diversity. Are new artists limited because their music isn't featured in iTunes. Are new artists making less money because nobody will go out and buy a CD because people can just download the song they want at home for $1.99? I think that there is a strong argument that iTunes was even worse for music than Napster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toe Jam Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 Napster. I like that scene in The Social Network that kind of sums it up.. "You lost" "In court. Ever try to buy a Tower Records Eduardo?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted May 7, 2011 Author Share Posted May 7, 2011 Napster.I like that scene in The Social Network that kind of sums it up.. "You lost" "In court. Ever try to buy a Tower Records Eduardo?" They lost... in court... because what they were doing was illegal. What everyone was doing was illegal. Does that mean that iTunes hasn't hurt the music industry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportjunkie07 Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 i have little sympathy for the music industry when they whine about a lack of money. they have so many means to pull money from their fans. i dont think Napster was bad for the industry. i cant put my finger on it, but i have never liked itunes, just not a fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 iTunes. Napster was created just down the street from my freshman dorm so I rep Napster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 Split 50/50/ Napster was worst, but you hit the nail on the head with Itunes. Unless you really love music, you will not discover any non-mainstream talent on your own. Whatever is on the radio will get the most sales. That is how people like Lil Wayne and Lady Gaga get all the luxuries while artist like Jay Electronica and Ellie Goulding (Google them) are making better music and receiving less praise. I am okay though, I don't listen to too much secular music anymore. :halo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackest Eyes Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 I have no idea how one can even consider saying iTunes was worse for music. Making a small amount of money for a single song is way better than making ZERO money from someone pirating an entire album. Napster made pirating "cool." At least when a person purchases a license for a song from iTunes, they are supporting the music industry rather than destroying it. I am sure we will have some pro-pirating folks come in here and saying why it is justified. When so many bands stream albums ahead of release dates, there are minute and a half previews on iTunes, incredibly inexpensive online radio services like Spotify, Rdio, MOG (just to name a few) you can preview albums and songs before you buy them. Then I am sure someone is going to come in and say that they download music from artists, but it is okay because they go to these particular bands concerts and buy merchandise there. While I am sure that is greatly appreciated by the artist, I would venture to say that a vast majority of them would be pretty frustrated if they found out that you jacked their music but you loved their shirts. These people make MUSIC to make money. They are not in the clothing business. Merchandise is a necessary evil to even make a buck off touring. I'm also sure someone will say that its okay that they pirate stuff because they are rare, high quality rips. If you are so concerned about quality, buy some good gear, a nice turntable, CD player, converters and speakers and have a ball. Your pirating is not justified because you like rare, high quality rips. Give me a break. Buy a freaking LP. Pure analog. Doesn't get more real than that. If an LP isn't available, buy a CD, the next best thing. Again, Napster was far far worse for the music industry than iTunes. In fact, I would argue the fact that iTunes and streaming radio services have helped save the music industry in a way. ---------- Post added May-7th-2011 at 12:59 AM ---------- Split 50/50/ Napster was worst, but you hit the nail on the head with Itunes. Unless you really love music, you will not discover any non-mainstream talent on your own. Whatever is on the radio will get the most sales. That is how people like Lil Wayne and Lady Gaga get all the luxuries while artist like Jay Electronica and Ellie Goulding (Google them) are making better music and receiving less praise.I am okay though, I don't listen to too much secular music anymore. :halo: Ellie Goulding has a crapload of awesome reviews on the iTunes Store and she actually had an exclusive iTunes release if i remember correctly. They have definitely helped promote her a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 iTunes rules. All the ****es that download songs illegally are the worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 i reject your premise wholeheartedly. the destruction of the music industry as it existed is a net win for the world and society and indeed music. when i was in a band, half our songs were pro-Napster. all of our music was and is available for free. the fact is, career musicians are worthless. nobody can truly write if they don't have a day job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 Blackest Eyes - the majority of music being downloaded is not from bands equivalent to The Clash in the middle of writing London Calling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackest Eyes Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 Blackest Eyes - the majority of music being downloaded is not from bands equivalent to The Clash in the middle of writing London Calling. So downloading music from an artist that is on the top 100 billboard is justified because they make more money? That is a horrible argument. They deserve to be paid for their success just like anyone else. I don't even know how someone can justify that reasoning. ---------- Post added May-7th-2011 at 01:24 AM ---------- i reject your premise wholeheartedly. the destruction of the music industry as it existed is a net win for the world and society and indeed music. when i was in a band, half our songs were pro-Napster. all of our music was and is available for free. the fact is, career musicians are worthless. nobody can truly write if they don't have a day job. Seriously? What do you do for society that is so much better than making music? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 So downloading music from an artist that is on the top 100 billboard is justified because they make more money? That is a horrible argument. They deserve to be paid for their success just like anyone else. I don't even know how someone can justify that reasoning. Now I meant to clear this up. I don't justify stealing copyrighted work period but I don't have sympathy when 50 Cent is "robbed of a good life" because a lot of his music is downloaded. I have Rhapsody for example - I get my music legally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 So downloading music from an artist that is on the top 100 billboard is justified because they make more money? That is a horrible argument. They deserve to be paid for their success just like anyone else. I don't even know how someone can justify that reasoning. hahha this is such nonsense. who says they deserve to be paid? do the originators of internet memes deserve to be paid? they get millions of eyeballs and millions of imitators but virtually none of them have been able to parlay that into a career. giving a musician a living wage from their music DESTROYS that musicians perspective, and kills any potential future greatness from that musician. i don't expect anyone dumb enough to think megastar arena rock bands have something artistically to contribute to society to agree with that, but it's the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted May 7, 2011 Author Share Posted May 7, 2011 I will start by saying that I have the highest level of respect for you Blackest Eyes. I respect you as a musician and your opinion relating to the subject. I realize that you are an outspoken against pirating music. I fail to see how iTunes has any real positive effect on up and coming artists. I'm not saying that Napster really had any effect either, but I fail to see how iTunes really helps progression of the art. iTunes (Apple) wants to make the most money than it can, like any other music. Therefore, they will push whatever artists that will bring in the largest amount of cash for the share holders. Just like every single record label out there. Sure, they may push an "unknown" every once in a while, but it is only because that unknown has already garnered some sort of viral reputation and they will further indulge on the benefits by promoting them. Apple is no different than any other record label or business out there. Furthermore... many, many people will go to iTunes to find music. Sure it is music that they man not have heard before, but it's music that the record labels are pushing. The populous is playing right into the record label's hands. Apple is happy because profits are up. Record labels are happy because the people are buying their music. The teenagers on their parents credit cards choose the Apple top 100. Overall, record sales are down. People aren't paying $13 any more because they can just buy the song they heard on the radio for $1.99 and end it at that. They have no exposure to the rest of the artist/band. They don't care either, because they are just teenagers. So, instead of a band making money for the whole album, they make money off of one song... that's it. Not only does this lead to artists making less money, but it leads to them putting out singles instead of complete albums. Apple has completely changed the way that music does business. If you are a teenager, things are good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportjunkie07 Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 hahha this is such nonsense. who says they deserve to be paid? do the originators of internet memes deserve to be paid? they get millions of eyeballs and millions of imitators but virtually none of them have been able to parlay that into a career. giving a musician a living wage from their music DESTROYS that musicians perspective, and kills any potential future greatness from that musician. i don't expect anyone dumb enough to think megastar arena rock bands have something artistically to contribute to society to agree with that, but it's the truth. i agree, mainstream music kills music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackest Eyes Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 Now I meant to clear this up. I don't justify stealing copyrighted work period but I don't have sympathy when 50 Cent is "robbed of a good life" because a lot of his music is downloaded. I have Rhapsody for example - I get my music legally. He isn't robbed of a good life. There are more people than just the artist involved in making records and those people feel the pain just as much, if not more than the artists do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 He isn't robbed of a good life. There are more people than just the artist involved in making records and those people feel the pain just as much, if not more than the artists do. Yeah I know, there are the people in the studio among other places. We've tried calculating this stuff in economics. Which is why I said I don't justify stealing copyrighted material. Springfield said you're musician. Do you release albums? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 since about the 1950's, the american music industry has warped this entire country's perspective of what music is and should be. these larger-than-life lies of idiots fueled by suits who smelled profit, selling nothing more than an image. it's garbage. i'd prefer bands reverted to an earlier state -- a local phenomena centered around live entertainment. the bigger the music industry got, the less geography mattered. local culture contributed in huge ways to various scenes, and those differences diminished over time until an identical clone of any arbitray generic rock cover band could be found in any bar from new orleans to san francisco to DC to chicago. i don't really see the value in rewarding that. people will always create music. you can't stop people from doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackest Eyes Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 I will start by saying that I have the highest level of respect for you Blackest Eyes. I respect you as a musician and your opinion relating to the subject. I realize that you are an outspoken against pirating music.I fail to see how iTunes has any real positive effect on up and coming artists. I'm not saying that Napster really had any effect either, but I fail to see how iTunes really helps progression of the art. iTunes (Apple) wants to make the most money than it can, like any other music. Therefore, they will push whatever artists that will bring in the largest amount of cash for the share holders. Just like every single record label out there. Sure, they may push an "unknown" every once in a while, but it is only because that unknown has already garnered some sort of viral reputation and they will further indulge on the benefits by promoting them. Apple is no different than any other record label or business out there. Furthermore... many, many people will go to iTunes to find music. Sure it is music that they man not have heard before, but it's music that the record labels are pushing. The populous is playing right into the record label's hands. Apple is happy because profits are up. Record labels are happy because the people are buying their music. The teenagers on their parents credit cards choose the Apple top 100. Overall, record sales are down. People aren't paying $13 any more because they can just buy the song they heard on the radio for $1.99 and end it at that. They have no exposure to the rest of the artist/band. They don't care either, because they are just teenagers. So, instead of a band making money for the whole album, they make money off of one song... that's it. Not only does this lead to artists making less money, but it leads to them putting out singles instead of complete albums. Apple has completely changed the way that music does business. If you are a teenager, things are good. If Apple were concerned about making money, the revenue split would be 30 (music biz) / 70 (Apple) instead of the 70 (music biz) / 30 (Apple) like it is right now. Apple gets a percentage for being the distribution medium for the content, which makes sense as they are providing the service and employees who support the service being provided. I am sure there are promotional deals that record labels have in place with Apple. I would offer to find out but I don't know anyone in Apple that works in that part of corporate. The only way that iTunes really claims to help find music for folks is with Ping, which is a similar concept to Last.fm, Pandora, Rdio, Spotify, MOG, etc. They find similar artists and allow you to explore from there. For up and coming artists, iTunes provides an easy to access area for people to purchase their music. I don't know how a lot of people find out about new music, honestly. My way is through internet radio, concerts, friends & CD sleeves. Only having iTunes as a source of exploring music is the fault of the listener. If they have access to iTunes, they have access to the Internet. If they can't search for things on their own that is their loss for being lazy and needing everything spoon fed to them. When something is purchased through iTunes, it does give recommendations or similar artists and from there people can explore. Sure on the iTunes Top 100, it is mostly pop artists but it is popular music. Most of it is bad but most people have terrible taste in music. Honestly, I would argue that MTV originally started the downfall of everything because of the music video. Remember TRL? That show was all the rage back in the day to see what band would be at the number 1 slot. Then from there people would pirate that single from Napster instead of buying the album. At least with iTunes there is a legitimate way to own a license to that one single. While I completely see and understand where you are coming from in regard to albums, I don't think iTunes is to blame. There are a ton of people we could blame and I am not even sure who should get the majority of it. Record labels decided to make singles super important to promote albums. Then music videos are made to promote these songs. MTV (back in the day at least) promoted the videos. iTunes is now a distribution medium for that single, which is usually released early to promote the album. If anyone should get the majority of the blame, it should be the record labels for putting so much of an emphasis on singles. IMO, singles are useless. An album, to me, is about the whole experience one may have from listening to that album. You don't just listen to one track off Dark Side of the Moon and get the same feeling as when you listen to that album straight through. An awesome column from one of my favorite artists is HERE. I share a lot of his views on many of the subjects. Definitely worth reading if you've got time. Ultimately, I still feel that Napster was worse for music in the long haul just because it has promoted poor morals among consumers. While iTunes is not perfect, iTunes provides a good method for artists to distribute content securely, easily, legally and make a couple cents. ---------- Post added May-7th-2011 at 02:06 AM ---------- Yeah I know, there are the people in the studio among other places. We've tried calculating this stuff in economics. Which is why I said I don't justify stealing copyrighted material.Springfield said you're musician. Do you release albums? I have played music all my life and I went to school for music production, which at times seems like a mistake because this industry is so incredibly difficult to get into. Should've been an entertainment lawyer instead haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 ProTools is the devil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Pablo Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 I hate iTunes for a number of reasons: 1. It legitimized compressed digital music files. A lot of people on here probably don't care, but I do. It's essentially the argument of lo-fi vs. hi-fi- the former gives you a different sound and experience with each listen. Not to mention that there is greater depth to CDs and other analog formats because they don't cut off sound at certain dB thresholds. People are essentially paying more for less with regards to digital music, unless they're buying lossless files. 2. It acts as a gateway. Rather than exploring for sounds that are foreign, people are immediately inundated with crap that sounds like something they may have purchased earlier. Just the interface of iTunes, itself, is a reflection of Apple's interests along with the major record execs. 3. It created another hand to snatch money away from artists. How much of that $1.99 actually goes to compensate the artist after the record companies AND Apple get their cut? 4. It destroys the album. This could arguably factor against Napster, too. Artists should have some license with regards to how their music is heard. Sometimes song #3 only makes sense if it comes after song #4... An album like Dark Side of the Moon would have never happened if there had been iTunes in the 1970s. 5. It infringes on our privacy. Signing up for iTunes is like allowing Apple and the record companies to peer into our souls. They are allowed to look at everything on our computers to compile data. Just why is iTunes helper always running in the background even though iTunes itself is not? I'm a bit uncomfortable with that. Therefore, iTunes is the devil and should be destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeaconBlue Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 I haven't downloaded any music at all since the death of the original napster. Not one single solitary Kb. Probably never will either. The "Music Industry" and it's henchmen the RIAA would have you beleive they did it for the good of the artits out there. I beleive that nothing could be farther from the truth. I think its was about choice and about how controling access to those choices can maximize profits for the labels. You see if you control all or most of the conduits through which individuals can recieve exposure to new or differnt music then you can pretty much to buy what you want them to buy. If all you know about music is what you hear in heavy rotation on a myriad of nearly identical radio stations , as an average music listener when you arrive at a music store or log on to itunes what are you going to lay down your coin for? The record labels for as long as I can remember have made a killing on you not being adventurous with your $$ and buying just what they tell you to. Napster changed all that. Good music rose to the top. If something was good people talked about it and because it was free you would download it and so what if it wasn't a band that was in any record companies marketing plan. If it was good and you liked it you would make sure you saw them when they came to town, you'd buy their tee shirt and maybe even go out and lay down $20 for their cd even if you knew theyde only maybe see 10 cents out of that just in hopes that itd encourage them to make more. I guess that messed up the gravy train for all the big producers and record execs so napster had to go. So I bid a fond farewell to napster and developed a firm opinion that the record labels anf RIAA should roast in hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toe Jam Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 I use Zune Pass. All you can eat buffet for $15 a month. I think the subscription model is the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rdskn4Lyf21 Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 You mean for the labels? **** 'em. Both avenues have helped me to find bands that I wouldn't have found otherwise. I support them more directly by buying merch and going to their shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 Between Pandora and Youtube, if you have the right software, you don't even need to actually download music anymore. I also agree w/everything Rdskn4lly21 said, and have said the same thing in many past similar threads. Shutting down Napster was about controlling the supply and limiting consumer's access to what the major record labels think we should be listening to. Look, we can argue the merits of mp3s/downloading/file-sharing etc etc, but the fact is, anytime technology comes along that will challenge the current business-model, which is a model that maximizes the profits for the RIAA, while being a bad deal for the artists, the RIAA will use their power to crush it. It is no different than AT&T starting up bandwidth capping to discourage consumers from using services like netflix and amazon on-demand, and, instead paying for their high-priced satellite packages. Instead of recognizing that technology is passing them by and creating a batter business model to compete, they decided to just gouge the customer base into submission, and considering in most cities across the country you are stuck with either AT&T or Comcast(who is just as bad) the customer base is at the mercy of these companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.