What was worse for music, Napster or iTunes?

[Busch1724]

I think what they've both done is put less emphasis on a cohesive album with a vision. So what's the point of buying a CD when there are only two are three hit singles you can get off iTunes? That's what they both contributed. People don't experience an artists vision anymore, they consume it. There are a few old school people like Kid Rock who won't put releases on iTunes and the like, and actually put together great albums/CDs. There aren't many left though. Now don't get me wrong, there are bands/artists that do put out a great release from 1st song to last song, but it is much rarer these days.

---------- Post added May-7th-2011 at 10:35 AM ----------

Realistically speaking, I don't know why artists do it the way the 40s, 50s, and some of the 60s went. Just release singles every few months and don't put out an album until you have a compilation to release after 10 hits or so.

[dockeryfan]

iTunes is an absolute disaster of a program. I hate it like poison.

[Destino]

Neither. Record companies attempting to take the art of music and turning it into a factory killed music. They started hiring the best writers to crank out "hit songs" and then looking for marketable people to give them to. Radio stations went from places where people discovered new music thanks to talented DJs to little more than the store front of the record company star manufacturing business. They played what they were told to play in a rotation.

All of this combined put the record companies in the driver's seat like never before. New acts now needed them to provide the music and the air play. Total control of the creation and delivery of music. CD prices exploded while the quality of the album weakened with many taking not that every album seemed to follow the same 2-3 decent song formula. Even the prices of singles exploded and that hurt record stores being that singles there main source of foot traffic. Singles were eventually scaled back and with that the writing was on the wall for record stores.

Then came the mp3. Most people know what that is but what they don't realize is that it was the first music delivery format that the record companies didn't control. They controlled the record, the cassette, and the CD. The mp3 was from the tech world and completely outside of their grasp. There was no manufacturing required and any computer could create it.

So of course they embraced this new technology right? Wrong. They went Kodak and gambled against technology and badly hurt themselves in the process. If anything Steve Jobs saved their asses with iTunes. They tried and failed miserably to "get" technology. While they were failing and whining Jobs' platform was making millions. The problem is that their manufacturing system was dependent on control and Apple had stolen control of delivery and along with it a chunk of their profit and some control.

If radio stations could be liberated music would be better today than it has ever been. We'd know of new artists faster than before and they'd be back in control of the art form. In time is shall be.

[Burgold]

Napster by far. It thinned the profit margins and made it much harder for producers to take a "risk" on anything new. They began moving towards safer and safer projects because they were more afraid of losing money thus leading to the greater homogeninization of mainstream music.

The music producers have always been villains to a degree, but the theft of intellectual property and the ease of stealing perfect copies has really harmed their business and the hopes of new artists looking to get signed.

I do agree that the transition to Itunes is saving the music industry and while it kills the concept of an "album" (which saddens me) it does allow for greater exposure to artists. More, producers and artists have a means of making money which allows them to take risks on more novel acts and chance losing money or givng the audience something spectacular.

[Blackest Eyes]

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

1. Can't blame iTunes for compressed media. iTunes & iPods came after the first mp3 players. The record companies are the ones to blame for mp3's. At the time they had the choice to make SACD or MP3. Guess what they chose. I'm totally with you though about quality. I refuse to buy mp3s because of quality. CD's only for me.

2. As I said in an earlier post, the profit sharing is 70% for the label to be distributed amongst whomever and then 30% for Apple. Im not sure how the 70% gets divided but in a traditional album, the best deal I ever knew of was the Dave Matthews Band and they got something like 13%, which is unheard of.

3. iTunes does not infringe on your privacy. IT looks through your music collection when you ACCEPT the terms and conditions so it can help you find new music and/or create Genius playlists. Apple is not looking through your entire computer.

Napster by far. It thinned the profit margins and made it much harder for producers to take a "risk" on anything new. They began moving towards safer and safer projects because they were more afraid of losing money thus leading to the greater homogeninization of mainstream music.

The music producers have always been villains to a degree, but the theft of intellectual property and the ease of stealing perfect copies has really harmed their business and the hopes of new artists looking to get signed.

I do agree that the transition to Itunes is saving the music industry and while it kills the concept of an "album" (which saddens me) it does allow for greater exposure to artists. More, producers and artists have a means of making money which allows them to take risks on more novel acts and chance losing money or givng the audience something spectacular.

I totally agree.

I really just dont get the hate for iTunes because it is just a distribution medium. The same goes for Amazon, Rhapsody, the new Best Buy owned Napster, eMusic, etc. They are all distribution outlets whose purpose is to sell music and make money. If you really want to talk about jacked up, Amazon doing what they do best and undercutting everyone with mp3s. New releases are something like 69 cents now. Totally insane. I seriously hope Amazon is taking the hit there because under the iTunes model, that is pretty much what the artist would be making. I would be interested to see the profit sharing there.

As far as the death of an album goes, I agree and disagree. If everyone uses pop music as a reference, the answer will always be the same. Pop music is about being manufactured. I doubt those artists care about an entire album. It's the little guys who are putting out albums. That is where the focus is, not the single. If people don't want to explore for new music, they shouldn't complain about whats available or popular.

---------- Post added May-7th-2011 at 11:44 AM ----------

If radio stations could be liberated music would be better today than it has ever been. We'd know of new artists faster than before and they'd be back in control of the art form. In time is shall be.

Online radio is amazing. I've named a few throughout the thread and all of them are great services for discovering new artists. They are cheap to. A subscription to MOG is $4.99 per month. Last.FM is free and Pandora is free for 40 hours.

The problem I have with these radio services is that artists make practically crumbs from them.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/

Pretty insane.

[D'Pablo]

1. Can't blame iTunes for compressed media. iTunes & iPods came after the first mp3 players. The record companies are the ones to blame for mp3's. At the time they had the choice to make SACD or MP3. Guess what they chose. I'm totally with you though about quality. I refuse to buy mp3s because of quality. CD's only for me.

2. As I said in an earlier post, the profit sharing is 70% for the label to be distributed amongst whomever and then 30% for Apple. Im not sure how the 70% gets divided but in a traditional album, the best deal I ever knew of was the Dave Matthews Band and they got something like 13%, which is unheard of.

3. iTunes does not infringe on your privacy. IT looks through your music collection when you ACCEPT the terms and conditions so it can help you find new music and/or create Genius playlists. Apple is not looking through your entire computer.

1. I once had a RIO 32MB mp3 player from 1998, so I know Apple wasn't the first. What I said was that Apple legitimized the format... Napster allowed people to share music, but a lot of it sounded terrible because of encoding, technology, human error, etc... For a lot of people, mp3s and digital music were akin to taped radio recordings. However, by making mp3s a commodity to be bought and sold, Apple made these worse quality recordings a legitimate format. That isn't to say digital music can't eventually vie with CDs in terms of quality (they already can), but, as of right now, Apple recognizes that MP3 and its own proprietary M4P encoding don't take up a lot of space, thereby reducing its server costs.

2. 30% is a lot of money and it does mean that artists receive less, especially considering consumers have the option of buying an individual song at a $1 versus an entire album at roughly $10.

3.Regarding the EULA for iTunes... First, it's mostly boilerplate that most users don't read or understand, and a lot of judges are mindful of how sophisticated the end user is. Secondly, it gives Apple license to do a lot more than they purport to do. Have you read it? In case you haven't, here it is:

"Consent to Use of Data. You agree that Apple and its subsidiaries may collect and use technical and related information, including but not limited to technical information about your computer, system and application software, and peripherals, that is gathered periodically to facilitate the provision of software updates, product support and other services to you (if any) related to the Apple Software and to verify compliance with the terms of this License. Apple may use this information, as long as it is in a form that does not personally identify you, to improve our products or to provide services or technologies to you."

Based on case law, the term "does not personally identify you" is used very loosely, so bear that in mind. Also, it states that "Apple may use this information, as long as..." meaning that the information they receive could be very personal, but it's okay so long as when they choose to use it, they disguise your identity. This clause is basically included to justify having iTunes helper running perpetually in the background of our computers to collect user information. Yes, consumers have a choice to agree to it, but how many households have a shared computer? How many kids are binding themselves AND their family members to this agreement? For that matter, what about iPod and iPhone users who have really no choice but to use iTunes after their purchases?

4. Whether or not you agree, iTunes reduces diversity in music tastes through its interface. I'm looking at my girlfriend's iTunes window right now and it is showing her new releases that are of artists she has previously expressed interest in, and that does not even account for the "Recommendations for You" section that is prominently featured. The rest of it is featured artists and videos that are presumably the brainchild of some Apple or record company exec. At least in a record store, I might stumble onto something that just completely strikes me off guard and purchase it. Hell, that's how I got into Dick Dale and his ridiculous tan. In the iTunes world, everything is so very deliberate. It is marketing taken to its extreme.

[Shredmojo]

I dont know how many bands I became fans of through Napster, and the other P2P programs.. Infact, most of my CD collection is from bands I orignally downloaded illegal music from. But thats the important thing, I buy their CDs. Napster did more to help artist than hurt them.

Wanna pull the downloading free music is stealing ? My former band has a CD(EP) for sale on iTunes, each track is $.99.

You know how much we get paid for each track sold? average of $.02

Just thought I'd say this info!

[skinfan2k]

when did songs cost 1.29!

[Bang]

Neither. Record companies attempting to take the art of music and turning it into a factory killed music. They started hiring the best writers to crank out "hit songs" and then looking for marketable people to give them to. Radio stations went from places where people discovered new music thanks to talented DJs to little more than the store front of the record company star manufacturing business. They played what they were told to play in a rotation.

All of this combined put the record companies in the driver's seat like never before. New acts now needed them to provide the music and the air play. Total control of the creation and delivery of music. CD prices exploded while the quality of the album weakened with many taking not that every album seemed to follow the same 2-3 decent song formula. Even the prices of singles exploded and that hurt record stores being that singles there main source of foot traffic. Singles were eventually scaled back and with that the writing was on the wall for record stores.

Then came the mp3. Most people know what that is but what they don't realize is that it was the first music delivery format that the record companies didn't control. They controlled the record, the cassette, and the CD. The mp3 was from the tech world and completely outside of their grasp. There was no manufacturing required and any computer could create it.

So of course they embraced this new technology right? Wrong. They went Kodak and gambled against technology and badly hurt themselves in the process. If anything Steve Jobs saved their asses with iTunes. They tried and failed miserably to "get" technology. While they were failing and whining Jobs' platform was making millions. The problem is that their manufacturing system was dependent on control and Apple had stolen control of delivery and along with it a chunk of their profit and some control.

If radio stations could be liberated music would be better today than it has ever been. We'd know of new artists faster than before and they'd be back in control of the art form. In time is shall be.

I agree with this.

Also, Internet radio is soon to be everywhere. you can already stream it to your phone, which can USB to your car stereo...

The shackles are coming off.

~Bang

[Blackest Eyes]

4. Whether or not you agree' date=' iTunes reduces diversity in music tastes through its interface. I'm looking at my girlfriend's iTunes window right now and it is showing her new releases that are of artists she has previously expressed interest in, and that does not even account for the "Recommendations for You" section that is prominently featured. The rest of it is featured artists and videos that are presumably the brainchild of some Apple or record company exec. At least in a record store, I might stumble onto something that just completely strikes me off guard and purchase it. Hell, that's how I got into Dick Dale and his ridiculous tan. In the iTunes world, everything is so very deliberate. It is marketing taken to its extreme.[/quote']

How is this different than having the exact same artists shoved in listeners ears over and over on the radio? With iTunes the user has to interact and make a choice on what to interact with.

Maybe I am beyond naive but in looking at the iTunes store window almost all the artists listed here look incredibly random and maybe one or two interest me. As far as reducing diversity, in my "Recommendations for you" window, I have a wind ensemble, Lori Andrews, Ke$ha, K-Ci & JoJo, Patty Loveless, Sleeping with Sirens, Bill Evans, Kenny Barron, Gary Allan, Emmylou Harris, Mary Beth Maziarz and Miss May I listed. I have bought ONE album from ONE of those artists through iTunes and that is Bill Evans. This list has jazz, classical, pop, rock, metal, country and R&B. What about that list lacks musical diversity?

As far as the advertised bands that show up in the little scrolling thing at the top of the iTunes Store, I see it as the exact type of thing Best Buy and Circuit City used to do with their new release sections. They have a limited number of releases in a special, highly decorated area, which attracts buyers. How is that different than what iTunes does in that section? I would be willing to bet that labels pay more money for more prominent advertising inside of iTunes just like vendors pay for specially placed end caps in retail stores.. Makes sense to me.

Just as a test, I searched for a band I like, Amon Amarth. iTunes recommends I check out some bands I currently listen to and some that I don't but that are similar. I fail to see how iTunes reduces diversity in music. When I search for a metal band, like Amon Amarth, it should tell me that I need to buy the newest Ellie Goulding CD? That is ridiculous. If I bought a Dr. Dre album and iTunes suggested that I check out the first Slayer album I would **** a brick and think that the system is broken. Others would too.

Maybe I am just missing the point completely and I should shut up?

[Shredmojo]

FWIW, Amazon is the same price as iTunes, but actually has great recommendations..and you can use any MP3 player

[AsburySkinsFan]

Napster was worse, stealing is stealing, and what's so bad about paying 99 cents for a song? At least we don't have to pay $20 for a cd that only has one song worth listening to on it.

I don't see iTunes as bad for music at all, instead what it does is allow people to get access to music they might not otherwise be exposed to, or to get those obscure cd's that they can't find in their local music store. Sure it's a feeding trough for what's featured, but then the radio driven music market was no different prior to iTunes, you got what some record company wanted you to hear, not because some artist wanted you to hear their music. This is the blessing and the curse of the music marketplace in which most music that you hear is determined by some guy in a music industry promotion office rather than an artist driven industry, at least with iTunes the marketplace is opened to a greater degree.

BTW, I usually use amazon.com rather than iTunes for my music, 1) because I get an mp3 that I can listen to on any player, not just my iPhone. 2) they have a great selection and don't force music on you. 3) I can pay with my paypal and get cash back.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I'm not sure what Itunes has done that's so bad. It's the only real way to seel records at the moment. If anything, it's just taken us back to the era when singles were more important than albums.

Napster annihilated the music industry.

---------- Post added May-8th-2011 at 11:23 AM ----------

Neither. Record companies attempting to take the art of music and turning it into a factory killed music. They started hiring the best writers to crank out "hit songs" and then looking for marketable people to give them to

The record companies have been run that way since sound was invented. When was it ever treated like art?

Radio stations went from places where people discovered new music thanks to talented DJs to little more than the store front of the record company star manufacturing business. They played what they were told to play in a rotation.

Eh....radio stations have always sucked. In the old days, you simply had to distribute the payola around a wider market. The federal lawas of the 90s made this easier by allowing large corporations to own most stations. I agree that is a problem.

All of this combined put the record companies in the driver's seat like never before. New acts now needed them to provide the music and the air play. Total control of the creation and delivery of music. CD prices exploded while the quality of the album weakened with many taking not that every album seemed to follow the same 2-3 decent song formula. Even the prices of singles exploded and that hurt record stores being that singles there main source of foot traffic. Singles were eventually scaled back and with that the writing was on the wall for record stores.

Then came the mp3. Most people know what that is but what they don't realize is that it was the first music delivery format that the record companies didn't control. They controlled the record, the cassette, and the CD. The mp3 was from the tech world and completely outside of their grasp. There was no manufacturing required and any computer could create it.

So of course they embraced this new technology right? Wrong. They went Kodak and gambled against technology and badly hurt themselves in the process. If anything Steve Jobs saved their asses with iTunes. They tried and failed miserably to "get" technology. While they were failing and whining Jobs' platform was making millions. The problem is that their manufacturing system was dependent on control and Apple had stolen control of delivery and along with it a chunk of their profit and some control.

If radio stations could be liberated music would be better today than it has ever been. We'd know of new artists faster than before and they'd be back in control of the art form. In time is shall be.

This part I largely agree with.

[RiggosMohawk]

As a non-top 40 music listener, my music world would be bleak without itunes. I'd be left with traveling into Philly to the only big alt scene music store left, fingers crossed hoping they have what I want. Or, I can find it instantly on itunes, pay $3 less, and have it right now. I can then also sample similar artists, or just browse, or instantly check out a reco from a friend. If I really dig it, I'll order the CD from amazon.

For some reason I just don't have economic sympathy for the outdated record store owner. There's no money to be made in caryying physical stock of CDs and albums that aren't hot sellers. Technology has evolved and that method of music purchase just seems really OBE now.

[Prosperity]

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.

they were both great for music, but iTunes fees are exorbitant

[Blackest Eyes]

they were both great for music, but iTunes fees are exorbitant

And how was napster great for music? What iTunes fees are exorbitant? $1.29 is expensive?

[AsburySkinsFan]

If anything' date=' it's just taken us back to the era when singles were more important than albums.[/quote']

This is exactly my point, everyone including the artists themselves act like the music industry has always been about full albums rather than continuously releasing new singles all the time. Seriously, if they want us to hear more of their music then stop releasing 1 or 2 songs per album and repeating them until everyone is sick of them.

---------- Post added May-8th-2011 at 06:26 PM ----------

And how was napster great for music? What iTunes fees are exorbitant? $1.29 is expensive?

Just go to amazon.com, most songs there are 99 cents plus you can put them on your iPhone or any other mp3 device.

[Spartacus87]

I'm not sure what Itunes has done that's so bad. It's the only real way to seel records at the moment. If anything' date=' it's just taken us back to the era when singles were more important than albums.

Napster annihilated the music industry.

The record companies have been run that way since sound was invented. When was it ever treated like art?[/quote']

This is another one of those music threads where a few people act like manufactured pop music only became hugely popular with acts like Britney Spears and Lady GaGa. Even though music, as an industry, has almost always been largely marketed towards screaming teenage girls for profit.

I would say Napster was worse. I don't quite understand the people saying iTunes.

Napster broke the doors down on internet file-sharing. You didn't have to go to some weird underground forum or understand how to use any complicated torrent sharing programs. Napster streamlined the whole thing for everyone. And in turn, Napster opened up a Pandora's box that the music industry wasn't prepared to handle, or didn't want to realize was coming yet, or possibly some combination of both.

The only real downsides to any of this have been:

1- The whole thing has just re-emphasized the idea of producing singles for artists, rather than full albums. Not exactly a foreign concept for the music industry, since they did things like this back in the 50s and 60s as well, but it's just come around full circle a little bit using a new distribution method.

2- File sharing, as a whole, whether it's via Napster, iTunes, Amazon, Limewire, whatever, has broken down the idea of local record stores, communities where people could hang out, listen to albums in person, and share and discuss music. Trading music has become a bit less personal than it used to be. But on the flip side, there are an increasingly wide variety of music streaming websites tailored to different tastes, so exploring for new acts isn't impossible, it's just in a different venue now.

All iTunes has done is establish itself as the signature brand when it comes to purchasing music online. Somebody was going to do it, it just ended up being Apple who capitalized early on.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I've given up trying to disprove this notion that what you hear on classic rock stations is actually what the radio sounded like in 1972. Everyone is convinced that it was an era of great music made by noble artists with pure intentions and that there was no such thing as The Osmonds or Bobby Sherman.

[MattFancy]

Why use iTunes when you can get the same songs from Amazon for cheaper?

[Sticksboi05]

I've given up trying to disprove this notion that what you hear on classic rock stations is actually what the radio sounded like in 1972. Everyone is convinced that it was an era of great music made by noble artists with pure intentions and that there was no such thing as The Osmonds or Bobby Sherman.

Patridge Family. Disco Duck.

[skinsfan07]

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.

Best response in this thread. Mainstream music isn't music IMO.

[Blackest Eyes]

This is exactly my point, everyone including the artists themselves act like the music industry has always been about full albums rather than continuously releasing new singles all the time. Seriously, if they want us to hear more of their music then stop releasing 1 or 2 songs per album and repeating them until everyone is sick of them.

---------- Post added May-8th-2011 at 06:26 PM ----------

Just go to amazon.com, most songs there are 99 cents plus you can put them on your iPhone or any other mp3 device.

I wouldn't say that $1.29 is exorbitant, though. Sure it is a little more than what Amazon charges but undercutting the competitor is what Amazon does. Amazon is kind of shady though...starting to offer the Cloud storage thing without even discussing the idea with the record companies. Allowing people to upload their stolen mp3's is pretty weak.

I would argue that Amazon has devalued what people want to pay for music. $5.99 for the newest Grace Potter album on Amazon mp3 store. About $9 for the CD and $7.99 on iTunes.

In this entire debate, why is Amazon not being discussed as being a problem like iTunes? It seems everyone likes them because of their price and the fact that the mp3 files can be stored on any device that can read an mp3? By the logic in the OP, doesn't this fit in the argument?

[Springfield]

By the logic in the OP, doesn't this fit in the argument?

I think it absolutely does.

I was looking over the post from back on page two regarding how much artists get paid for all of the various formats available. http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/

It would seem to me that an artist should rather sell albums (either download or CD). Individual tracks, artists are only making $.09, where as with CD's and digital album downloads they are making $1.00 and $.94 respectively. If an artist sells 1,000,000 tracks (iTunes or Amazon), they'll only make $90,000. However if the same artist is able to sell 1,000,000 CD's or album downloads, they'll make $1,000,000 and $940,000 respectively. Still seems like the money for the artist lies in album sales. And of course, if you are getting paid off of LastFM or Pandora royalties, you'll make something like $75 for 1,000,000 plays. Might as well be stealing music.

So, iTunes/Amazon/Raphsody/whatever else has seriously cut profits for the artist. Sure it's not stealing, but they are making a fraction of what they normally would and it's much more widespread that Napster.

[Blackest Eyes]

I think it absolutely does.

I was looking over the post from back on page two regarding how much artists get paid for all of the various formats available. http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/

It would seem to me that an artist should rather sell albums (either download or CD). Individual tracks, artists are only making $.09, where as with CD's and digital album downloads they are making $1.00 and $.94 respectively. If an artist sells 1,000,000 tracks (iTunes or Amazon), they'll only make $90,000. However if the same artist is able to sell 1,000,000 CD's or album downloads, they'll make $1,000,000 and $940,000 respectively. Still seems like the money for the artist lies in album sales. And of course, if you are getting paid off of LastFM or Pandora royalties, you'll make something like $75 for 1,000,000 plays. Might as well be stealing music.

So, iTunes/Amazon/Raphsody/whatever else has seriously cut profits for the artist. Sure it's not stealing, but they are making a fraction of what they normally would and it's much more widespread that Napster.

Singles are pushed so heavily now that no one wants to buy an album because as a whole, albums tend to be mediocre. Maybe the problem is that the top artists right now aren't all that good and the albums they release aren't all that good except for a couple of tracks. So ultimately, do we put blame on the artists for failing to write a good album or do we blame the record labels for not developing artists and failing to put more of an emphasis on the experience of an album?

I say blame the labels because artists certainly don't get into the business for the money. Pop artists, after their first album, probably lose interest in making music but I'd say many lesser known bands are in the business for the love of music, not money.