Nothing about iTunes' store has ever enticed me to buy music there. Cluttered, incomplete and just not a fun experience. Tastes like Wal-mart. Anyone heard of Bleep?
I disagree with you that this isn't a mass migration from the giant. With the emergence of the "free music" movement, I think that a lot of artists will try to appeal to their niche markets in more intimate and scarce methods a la their own web stores. Moving away from big conglomerate entities is going to be the next shift, especially as the power of sharing and Web 2.0 comes into play in the coming months.
kaidez
· 1 year ago
Gejius, I respect your opinion but I gotta side with Coolfer on this one. Yes, iTunes has shifted over to "conglomerate" status and that ticks people off. Yes, the "free music" movement has legs because "free" is cheaper than $.99. And yes, indie artists now have more power and control over their sales than any other time in recent memory.
But it's the last paragraph of this post that has a point that's missed on many MANY people: that "The strength of Apple and the iPod" is strong. It was Diamond that brought the mp3 player to public conscious, it was Napster demonstrated the power of file sharing to all of us, and it was a ton of other guyss tried to sell music online. But it was only Apple that put all of those three characteristics under one roof, making it easier for the average run-of-the-mill consumer to hop on the portable music bandwagon. That Apple converged these various digital music elements and made the whole thing easy, therefore attractive, to the average consumer is Coolfer's underlying point. Web 2.0 technology may do it in the future, but it would be in the VERY distant future and not the coming months. Out-of-the-gate successes that change how we do things (like iTunes and Napster) simply don't happen everyday.
iTunes might have a Walmart feel, but remember how many people shop at Walmart on a daily basis and don't wast time thinking about how cluttered and incomplete it is.
J
· 1 year ago
I have to say Glenn if you take iTunes out of the equation, people would be more mandated to buy full albums, labels wouldn't be so handcuffed by one service to always deliver individual downloads. There is a lot of truth in what Guy is saying about iTunes eliminating album sales. Sure tindividual song sales may increase an artists overall bottom line and I'm not really here to argue the merits of having iTunes vs. not having iTunes. But it seems to me there is truth to the idea that iTunes is responsible for the death, devaluation, whatever of the full length.
UrbanMusicBiz
· 1 year ago
I, too, have to side with Coolfer on this one. A few bands dropping out opting out of iTunes isn't that big of a deal. Apple came in and shifted the music industry's environment with a huge technological change, and until/unless the music industry can create another shift to put the ball back in their court, Apple, iTunes, and the iPod will continue to dictate the economics of recorded music product.
As for the death of the album, why are we still so attached to the LP format? The single ruled in the 50's and 60's, long before Stevie Wonder, Pink Floyd, and the Beatles made the LP format popular with "concept albums". Why are we looking to "mandate" people to buy full length albums. It's time to embrace the new music economy, create deals that take advantage of the low costs for recording singles, and rebuild the industry.
Hoodgrown Magazine
· 1 year ago
One thing that people seem to leave out of these conversations is that iTunes has an "Album Only" option for lablels (major labels) that only want to sell music this way.
Dfactor
· 1 year ago
Hey, what's holding back McCartney/Starr/Apple from doing Beatles on iTunes? What;s the latest there? But really, doesn't everyone who needs/wants Beatles music have it already? Geez, I still play my Beatles '65 vinyl. Sheesh.
All Comments
I disagree with you that this isn't a mass migration from the giant. With the emergence of the "free music" movement, I think that a lot of artists will try to appeal to their niche markets in more intimate and scarce methods a la their own web stores. Moving away from big conglomerate entities is going to be the next shift, especially as the power of sharing and Web 2.0 comes into play in the coming months.
But it's the last paragraph of this post that has a point that's missed on many MANY people: that "The strength of Apple and the iPod" is strong. It was Diamond that brought the mp3 player to public conscious, it was Napster demonstrated the power of file sharing to all of us, and it was a ton of other guyss tried to sell music online. But it was only Apple that put all of those three characteristics under one roof, making it easier for the average run-of-the-mill consumer to hop on the portable music bandwagon. That Apple converged these various digital music elements and made the whole thing easy, therefore attractive, to the average consumer is Coolfer's underlying point. Web 2.0 technology may do it in the future, but it would be in the VERY distant future and not the coming months. Out-of-the-gate successes that change how we do things (like iTunes and Napster) simply don't happen everyday.
iTunes might have a Walmart feel, but remember how many people shop at Walmart on a daily basis and don't wast time thinking about how cluttered and incomplete it is.
As for the death of the album, why are we still so attached to the LP format? The single ruled in the 50's and 60's, long before Stevie Wonder, Pink Floyd, and the Beatles made the LP format popular with "concept albums". Why are we looking to "mandate" people to buy full length albums. It's time to embrace the new music economy, create deals that take advantage of the low costs for recording singles, and rebuild the industry.