Apple Facing iTunes Rebellion?

[HardOCP News]

Last week the world's largest music corporation notified Apple that it will not renew its annual contract to sell music through iTunes. Representatives for both Universal and Apple declined to comment.

Universal said that it would market music to Apple at will, a move that could allow Universal to remove its songs from the iTunes service on short notice if the two sides do not agree on pricing or other terms in the future, these executives said.

 

[TechLarry]

Apple needs to stand strong. If they give in to this strong-arming, it will start an avalanche and we'll all be the worse for it.

 

[RoBo]

Maybe the boss got a iPhone, decided it was crap and now hate apple.

 

[goodcooper]

people are calling for a boycott of universal over this....



which is funny because generally boycotts never work.... BUT, in the sector of music, where just about every money-maker album released under a Universal label is freely available on the nearest p2p.... boycotting is easy...


jobs is right, these people want to promote piracy....


plus sony/bmg has already signed thier contract.... it is gonna suck for itunes users, but apple should totally hold out... steve jobs should go on and ask fans (that use itunes) to send letters to thier favorite Universal artists.... i gotta feeling they'd crumble.... 200million dollars worth of sales they are going to be giving up, and after it hits the news they bigwigs at Universal might rethink thier strongarm tactics

 

[FLECOM]

i agree with the above posters, apple needs to hold their ground for the good of the future of eDistribution of music... these people keep wanting to go back into their shell and hope people will pay $24 for a CD for the rest of eternity, not going to happen people...

 

[InorganicMatter]

I guarantee this is what happened: with the DRM rebellion over at Apple recently, Universal wants the ability to jerk all their songs out of iTunes if this DRM-free music scheme goes too far.

 

[nilepez]

I guarantee this is what happened: with the DRM rebellion over at Apple recently, Universal wants the ability to jerk all their songs out of iTunes if this DRM-free music scheme goes too far.

Or maybe it's because artists aren't happy with the $$$ they make from iTunes (and other file stores).

One need look no further than Radiohead. A year or so back, they pulled their albums from online shops, because they made less than from a comparable CD.

I suspect that works differently for artists like the Beatles, who have (or will) likely strong armed both the label (EMI in this case) and iTunes.

I personally think that prices on songs are probably too low, while albums downloads are too high (given that I can often buy a CD for 10 -11 bucks).

 

[[Spectre]]

Or maybe it's because artists aren't happy with the $$$ they make from iTunes (and other file stores).

One need look no further than Radiohead. A year or so back, they pulled their albums from online shops, because they made less than from a comparable CD.

I suspect that works differently for artists like the Beatles, who have (or will) likely strong armed both the label (EMI in this case) and iTunes.

I personally think that prices on songs are probably too low, while albums downloads are too high (given that I can often buy a CD for 10 -11 bucks).

I don't really understand that. With online outlets they can reach a customer base that would not normally reach thereby making more money. I don't know how music contracts work but it seems highly unlikely that their royalty rates are negotiated with each retailer. That would mean that the problem is not the retailor but their contract...which they or their representative negotiated.

 

[jlundy]

If Universal pulls out of the iTunes store...

Will iTunes customers be able to gain access to previously 'purchased' tracks from the Universal label?


P.S. I'm not an iTunes customer and would never spend money on DRM'd files.

P.P.S. The RIAA and the labels they represent cannot die fast enough.

 

[FLECOM]

If Universal pulls out of the iTunes store...

Will iTunes customers be able to gain access to previously 'purchased' tracks from the Universal label?


P.S. I'm not an iTunes customer and would never spend money on DRM'd files.

P.P.S. The RIAA and the labels they represent cannot die fast enough.

well when you buy music on itunes it actually gets downloaded into your library on you hard drive... and you own it (not like those x dollar/month unlimited until you stop paying things) they cant take the music away after you bought it (although im sure the labels would love to...)

 

[Adisharr]

Universal is digging their own grave with moves like this.

 

[MrE]

iTunes and the iTunes Music Store is the #3 grossing music distribution giant behind #1 Walmart and #2 Target. Can Universal really afford to cut off their own foot in hopes of charging more per song? I don't think so, and their stock holders will let Universal know how they feel about this. The music industry as a whole need a great deal of positive PR to help their tarnished image to Joe Consumer. EMI did it right with DRM free.

I will say this for Universal, they only ended their "long term" contracts, and not their day to day contract. If anything, this gives them some wiggle room but does not kill their current online catalog from being de-listed in iTunes. From a consumer stand point, nothing changes. It only affects future relations with Apple / Universal on how and when they get new content and for how much. Time to grab the popcorn and watch how this one falls out.

 

[DeFex]

what are record companies for?

what if artists just decided themselves where the music was going to go and hired an ad agency to promote themselves.

then the record companies would have no reason to exist. i think they probably know that.

 

[Nasty_Savage]

Apple should release their own label so people can upload their songs right to i Tunes and cut out the 'middle man' record companies

 

[goodcooper]

Apple should release their own label so people can upload their songs right to i Tunes and cut out the 'middle man' record companies

yea!

they could call it Apple Records....




oh wait....

 

[FLECOM]

yea!

they could call it Apple Records....




oh wait....

lol

nice obscure reference.... you get an eCookie... or would it be iCookie? lol

 

[MrE]

yea!

they could call it Apple Records....




oh wait....[/quote

Yup, and the entire Beatles collection will finally end up on iTunes. haha. Good reference.

 

[dderidex]

There was an interesting comment posted to that article:

NYT Article Left Out..
Reader post by: ZuneChannel
Posted on: July 2, 2007, 8:47 AM PDT
Story: Apple faces a rebellion over iTunes
...the main reason why this is happening in the first place, i.e., that the agreement between MSFT-ZUNE and Universal calling for a per-unit royalty, made Universal realize that their original deal with AAPL was a charity case - not business.

Gene from ZuneChannel.com

 

[nilepez]

I don't really understand that. With online outlets they can reach a customer base that would not normally reach thereby making more money. I don't know how music contracts work but it seems highly unlikely that their royalty rates are negotiated with each retailer. That would mean that the problem is not the retailor but their contract...which they or their representative negotiated.

I didn't say it was with just iTunes. I specifically said "and other file stores."

Many (most?) artists are able to pull their albums (or prevent labels from allowing the sites from selling the albums/songs in the first place).

Now if U2, Madonna and the Beatles want the same payment/album (or at least a similar amount), then the labels will get almost nothing. Some of these bands are making as much $3.00 to $4.00/album. The total take from an iTunes is $5.00.

Nevermind that many probably aren't buying full albums. Say what you want, but without adjusting for inflation, file sellers are selling singles for less than they sold for 20 (perhaps even 30) years ago.

There's a reason bands like The Beatles held out for as long as they have. There's a reason Radiohead pulled their catalog, and it's not because prices are too high.

I can't say how the market differs and aside from the fact that you can't buy CD Singles, I don't get the allure of buying files. I'd rather get a CD, and encode it myself. I get to choose the format and I can change players without having to buy the file again or do a lossy to lossy conversion. But obviously people who buy lossy files don't care about audio quality.

 

[[Spectre]]

That is all fine and good but it still boils down to their negotiated royalty rate. The problem is not the music stores pricing but the royalties they have negotiated.

 

[nilepez]

That is all fine and good but it still boils down to their negotiated royalty rate. The problem is not the music stores pricing but the royalties they have negotiated.

Royalties are limited by the price that the label gets.

If I get $4.00/CD and the label gets $5.00 for each album iTunes sells (let's assume it's the same for every file seller), it's obvious that I'm not going to get $4.00. I might get 1/2 that amount.

As a result, I won't allow my albums to be sold on iTunes. The label wants prices set higher for certain artists, because those artists demand more for their product.

 

[Ockie]

I didn't say it was with just iTunes. I specifically said "and other file stores."

Many (most?) artists are able to pull their albums (or prevent labels from allowing the sites from selling the albums/songs in the first place).

Now if U2, Madonna and the Beatles want the same payment/album (or at least a similar amount), then the labels will get almost nothing. Some of these bands are making as much $3.00 to $4.00/album. The total take from an iTunes is $5.00.

Nevermind that many probably aren't buying full albums. Say what you want, but without adjusting for inflation, file sellers are selling singles for less than they sold for 20 (perhaps even 30) years ago.

There's a reason bands like The Beatles held out for as long as they have. There's a reason Radiohead pulled their catalog, and it's not because prices are too high.

I can't say how the market differs and aside from the fact that you can't buy CD Singles, I don't get the allure of buying files. I'd rather get a CD, and encode it myself. I get to choose the format and I can change players without having to buy the file again or do a lossy to lossy conversion. But obviously people who buy lossy files don't care about audio quality.

A person may not be likley to buy an entire itunes album, however, how many people would buy individual songs vs as a regular audio store selling full cds?

1,000 people might be buying one song on itunes vs where one or perhaps even 5 people might have bought an album at the store. 99cents is far less than 14dollars. With one song per sale, your sales are much greater than that of albums, perhaps 20 fold that.

Keep in mind, that some singles can be purchased from the store, in which, the artist makes the same money as if he would have from itunes, however, the consumer in the end got screwed as the recording industry sits with the remaining change.

Also, another thing to think about, you make it sound like the artists are being screwed by itunes... however, you mentioned yourself that they only recieve up to $5 for an album... tell me... where does the remaining amount go to? Also, since there is no physical meduim or cd or anything in between other than a few megs of download... why does the artists get paid nearly the same as a cd? Interesting hhnmmmmm?

Songs are selling for much more than they did say 30-40 years ago when you factor in inflation. Also, cd's are cheaper than cassettes, logistics has gotten much cheaper, reproduction, distribution, and sales has gotten cheaper. Albums should be cheaper! Heck with edistribution there is almost no cost per song.

 

[nilepez]

A person may not be likley to buy an entire itunes album, however, how many people would buy individual songs vs as a regular audio store selling full cds?

1,000 people might be buying one song on itunes vs where one or perhaps even 5 people might have bought an album at the store. 99cents is far less than 14dollars. With one song per sale, your sales are much greater than that of albums, perhaps 20 fold that.

Most current albums regularly go on sale for less than $13.00.

I'm not sure what you're saying about about singles sales being greater than albums.

Keep in mind, that some singles can be purchased from the store, in which, the artist makes the same money as if he would have from itunes, however, the consumer in the end got screwed as the recording industry sits with the remaining change.

I don't know that that is true, but buying a CD single gives you 1 song and a bside (which is generally some track(s) designed to entice diehard fans to buy the song they already own). iTunes allows you to pick ANY song you like, and it may not be a single at all. You know, the kind of tracks that you typically buy an album to get.

Also, another thing to think about, you make it sound like the artists are being screwed by itunes... however, you mentioned yourself that they only recieve up to $5 for an album... tell me... where does the remaining amount go to? Also, since there is no physical meduim or cd or anything in between other than a few megs of download... why does the artists get paid nearly the same as a cd? Interesting hhnmmmmm?

CD's cost about a buck, maybe 2, to make (including artwork and other packaging). Promotion costs don't really change simply because iTunes is selling it. OTOH, iTunes makes more on an album (and I use albums, because physical singles are almost non-existant).

Songs are selling for much more than they did say 30-40 years ago when you factor in inflation. Also, cd's are cheaper than cassettes, logistics has gotten much cheaper, reproduction, distribution, and sales has gotten cheaper. Albums should be cheaper! Heck with edistribution there is almost no cost per song.

HUH? Are joking? 30 years ago, retail on an album in a Sam Goody (now Musicland or FYE...whatever is in the mall) was $7.99. Plug that into an inflation calculator an an album would cost almost $30.00.

Singles were a buck (maybe more). As for distribution, etc, what's that have to do with what talent wants for their product? Furthermore, how is it that you figure that distribution is the main cost? Promotion? Do you honestly think that iTunes bandwidth costs as much as the talent, promotion, studio costs, producer, engineer and Bob Ludwig's mastering?

Now if you want to argue talent is overpaid, that's fine, but that's a very different argument than has been put forth over the last 5 or 6 years.

 

[Ockie]

Most current albums regularly go on sale for less than $13.00.

You are using sales in your estimates? Also depends on which region you live in.

I'm not sure what you're saying about about singles sales being greater than albums.

10,000 people may download a single track from an album
100 people may only purchase the entire album

It's always about economics. Cheaper things sells in far greater numbers than more expensive things.


Lets use myself as an example, the last album I bought for myself was Weird Al Yankovic's album back when Amish Paradise came out... thats what... 11 years ago (1996). Since then I have not bought a single album... I use the radio or XM for my listening needs.

Anyways, I do however have singles songs downloaded from itunes... over 200 of them to be correct. I will never ever buy an album, and I have proven this myself based on my lack of purchases in the past decade.


Now let me ask you this, if itunes is so bad, do you think that selling 1 album to a person as myself every say 11 years (although I dont intend to buy in the future either..)... or selling 200+ individual songs since itunes came out?


Many are in the same boat as I am and many people find it much more reasonable to download via itunes or some edistributor 1 song vs purchasing the entire album.

I don't know that that is true, but buying a CD single gives you 1 song and a bside (which is generally some track(s) designed to entice diehard fans to buy the song they already own).

If you dont' know if it's true, then why did you make the point by providing itunes vs traditional revenue.

Also, from the singles tracks I did buy prior to the Weird Al album... had no "enticement" tracks on it, so I can't comment on that. However, I can comment on that edistributors such as itunes offers their music selection based on album, thus you are exposed to the entire album and you can "preview" songs via that album... how's that for "enticement"? Also, keep in mind, justifying a "advertisement" as an "enticement" to me is ridiculous and no one should have to feel justified becuase the plastic copy has an ad on it... in fact, you should pay less for that!

iTunes allows you to pick ANY song you like, and it may not be a single at all. You know, the kind of tracks that you typically buy an album to get.

Yes, and this yet another reason why single sales are such a great thing. People like me do NOT want the entire album... so why sell them garbage? If people can't find what they want, they will get what they want, may it be via piracy or not.

CD's cost about a buck, maybe 2, to make (including artwork and other packaging). Promotion costs don't really change simply because iTunes is selling it. OTOH, iTunes makes more on an album (and I use albums, because physical singles are almost non-existant).

If you think it's two bucks or even a single dollar, you are mistaking. We live in an economy where Starbucks sells a cup at an expense of 2 cents Big Mac combo comes in at a whole 20 cents.

Keep in mind, a lot of their operational float costs are related to other devices of promotions, such as concerts, events, promotional products, radios, interviews, etc etc etc.

Here is a quote of the costs to record companies to produce a cd that you will find on the shelf:

Major labels pay approximately $.50 to $.55 per CD. Independent labels that order more than 100,000 CDs a year pay approximately $.65 per CD. Labels that buy less than 10,000 CDs a year pay approximately $1.20 per CD. These costs include the printing of 4-page package inserts and tray cards.

HUH? Are joking? 30 years ago, retail on an album in a Sam Goody (now Musicland or FYE...whatever is in the mall) was $7.99. Plug that into an inflation calculator an an album would cost almost $30.00.

Are you counting the actual cost per song or the cost including the price of media at that point in time? Media back then accounted for a large portion of the price back then not to mention the included cost to get the media up on the shelf in the plastic casing and the additional volume required for shipping with a far smaller demand.

Singles were a buck (maybe more). As for distribution, etc, what's that have to do with what talent wants for their product? Furthermore, how is it that you figure that distribution is the main cost? Promotion? Do you honestly think that iTunes bandwidth costs as much as the talent, promotion, studio costs, producer, engineer and Bob Ludwig's mastering?

Distribution has everything to do with it, if you want to argue the price of large clunky media vs todays methods of quick and effective distribution systems, lower cost methods, and much smaller profile media... you should be prepared to deal with the added costs. Simply flaunting a price out expecting everyone to swallow aint going to cut it.

Now if you want to argue talent is overpaid, that's fine, but that's a very different argument than has been put forth over the last 5 or 6 years.

And yes, talent is overpaid, but the RIAA and recording industries are even more overpaid.

 

[nilepez]

You are using sales in your estimates? Also depends on which region you live in.

There are online sellers that sell them for under 14 bucks SHIPPED. Honestly ockie, you haven't bought an album in 10 years, you're really not a factor.

10,000 people may download a single track from an album
100 people may only purchase the entire album

1. digital downloads are about double that of albums.
2. Even there was actually a 100:1 advantage, you're assuming that none of those 10,000 downloads didn't canibalize an album sale.

If it's just a single, that's one thing. once you start picking album tracks, it's a lost sale.

It's always about economics. Cheaper things sells in far greater numbers than more expensive things.

It's about what something is worth. If Eminem wants 40 cents for each song downloaded, and apple want's 50 cents, Universal isn't going to let them sell it for a buck.

Anyways, I do however have singles songs downloaded from itunes... over 200 of them to be correct. I will never ever buy an album, and I have proven this myself based on my lack of purchases in the past decade.

Whoot. If I'm a label, I probably made a whopping $40.00 to $50.00.

Now let me ask you this, if itunes is so bad, do you think that selling 1 album to a person as myself every say 11 years (although I dont intend to buy in the future either..)... or selling 200+ individual songs since itunes came out?

because they also lose sales to people who actually buy albums. Hell, the reason people say albums suck is because they don't listen to albums. I've bought enough to know they're not all made up of filler, though I suppose if you only buy music that's heard on top-20 that might be the case.

If you dont' know if it's true, then why did you make the point by providing itunes vs traditional revenue.

it was versus. I made an assumption. If I didn't make that assumption, then I'm assuming all sales are through iTunes, which is, in fact, the same assumption.

They're all pretty much a buck a song, so it's reasonable to assume they're making a similar split with the labels.

Also, from the singles tracks I did buy prior to the Weird Al album... had no "enticement" tracks on it, so I can't comment on that. However, I can comment on that edistributors
such as itunes offers their music selection based on album, thus you are exposed to the entire album and you can "preview" songs via that album... how's that for "enticement"?

And how is that's different from every etailer that sells CDs? They all have previews of songs that you can listen to....in most cases they get them from allmusic.

[quote
Also, keep in mind, justifying a "advertisement" as an "enticement" to me is ridiculous and no one should have to feel justified becuase the plastic copy has an ad on it... in fact, you should pay less for that!
[/quote]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes, and this yet another reason why single sales are such a great thing. People like me do NOT want the entire album... so why sell them garbage? If people can't find what they want, they will get what they want, may it be via piracy or not.

I didn't say they shouldn't sell them to you. I said they're justified in charging you more. A buck is too little, when it obviously cannibalizes CD sales.

If you think it's two bucks or even a single dollar, you are mistaking. We live in an economy where Starbucks sells a cup at an expense of 2 cents Big Mac combo comes in at a whole 20 cents.

The cost of a CD is NOT just the CD. It's the CD, Case, and Artwork as well as promotion. What, you thought you heard that song on the radio, because the DJ or PD discovered it? It doesn't work that way. Someone had to push that record on the radio station, and they probably had to give someone some cash (illegal as it might be) too (even if it was the greatest song ever, written by God himself).

What's more, the price of the CD or song (whatever) has to cover not only that song, but the cost of all the artists that may flop. Every artist that records requires money and most of them will never make it, even if they're a very talented artist (perhaps especially if they're talented).

Are you counting the actual cost per song or the cost including the price of media at that point in time? Media back then accounted for a large portion of the price back then not to mention the included cost to get the media up on the shelf in the plastic casing and the additional volume required for shipping with a far smaller demand.

There was more demand 25 or 30 years ago, not less. Hell, there was more demand 10 years ago (even if you count those itunes like sales).

Distribution has everything to do with it, if you want to argue the price of large clunky media vs todays methods of quick and effective distribution systems, lower cost methods, and much smaller profile media... you should be prepared to deal with the added costs. Simply flaunting a price out expecting everyone to swallow aint going to cut it.

And that's why CD's are so cheap. In non-adjusted dollars, they're cheaper today than they were 20 years ago, which CDs were generally $15.00. Adjust for inflation, and they're much less.

 

[dderidex]

There was more demand 25 or 30 years ago, not less. Hell, there was more demand 10 years ago (even if you count those itunes like sales).

That's an interesting statement to make.

Do you have a citation to back it up? I find it hard to believe the 'demand for music' has declined over time.

Have tastes changed in format of music? Likely. Availability of illegal methods to acquire music? Certainly. Preferences drifted in delivery method? Without question.

But I think you'd have a very hard time convincing anyone that ACTUAL DEMAND for music has declined.

Personally, I think $0.99 is a fair price to pay for a lossy, compressed-audio file. You keep comparing iTunes sales to CD sales, and you probably shouldn't be. Rather, compare to the radio experience, as that is the closest analogy to the iTunes media. It's unquestionably-lower-than-CD quality, you have no physical media the content is delivered on, no liner notes/etc. And I think that comparison is more fair.

Now, if the recording industry jacked up the prices radios must pay for a song (which I assure you is much less than $0.99 over its lifetime), and you would see the requisite increase in commercial advertising on the stations (and this includes satellite radio), I suspect you'd see demand for full albums (and iTunes downloads) increase further.

The problem is that - with the current glut of land-based and satellite radio stations (and, to be fair, methods of pirating music) - FAR too much music is available 'free' to the end-user.

 

[TMan1876]

What about all the people that wouldn't buy an entire album for $12.99, but will buy the one track that they like for $.99?

 

[Ockie]

Whoot. If I'm a label, I probably made a whopping $40.00 to $50.00.

$40-$50 that you wouldn't have had before or otherwise

There was more demand 25 or 30 years ago, not less. Hell, there was more demand 10 years ago (even if you count those itunes like sales).

Source?

And that's why CD's are so cheap. In non-adjusted dollars, they're cheaper today than they were 20 years ago, which CDs were generally $15.00. Adjust for inflation, and they're much less.

Source? IIRC, CD's 20 years ago were VERY expensive and was a HUGE portion of the cost of the album @ $15. 20 Years ago, I wouldn't be surprised if the cost to produce a CD, artwork, and inserts with prints was close to $4 a album vs where it's $.55 now.

 

[nilepez]

$40-$50 that you wouldn't have had before or otherwise

Perhaps, but every album sale they lose, because someone just bought a single instead, requires them to sell at least 9 more singles. The other downside is that singles do nothing to develop artists.

Source?

Music sales have been on a decline for well over a decade (and it's been documented since the mid-90's), and they were declining to some before that. However, with the advent of everyone having CD players, people started rebuying all kinds of albums they already had on vinyl or cassette. And the labels had a brief reprieve when the Boy bands became hot in the late 90's. What's changed is that in the past several years, sales have been in a complete free fall. Whether that's because of piracy, bad music, because people are less interested in music, or a combination of all of those, is a matter of much debate.

I think the audiences are too fixated on singles, but then I havne't been interested in singles since I was 12 or 13. I think labels are short sighted and have dropped some great bands after they released great albums, simply because they didn't have super sales.

Can you imagine what would have happened to a Pink Floyd if they'd been dropped beecause of lackluster sales? Fleetwood Mac released roughly 10 prior to Fleetwood Mac. Of those, only one cracked the top 40 and half cracked the top 100. They had no hit singles. I doubt the labels would wait 6 or 7 years for the 11th album that went #1.

Then again, with audiences so fixated on hit singles, maybe there's no point in developing artists.

Source? IIRC, CD's 20 years ago were VERY expensive and was a HUGE portion of the cost of the album @ $15. 20 Years ago, I wouldn't be surprised if the cost to produce a CD, artwork, and inserts with prints was close to $4 a album vs where it's $.55 now.

My source is me. I've been buying CD's since the mid-80's, and I remember paying 13.99 to 14.99 for CD's. I'm not sure if they were that cheap in '85, but they definitely were by late 86/early 87. If you went to the mall, you'd pay a buck or 2 more....I rarely did.

Media costs are irrelevant. They may have dropped, but royalties for big artists have gone up dramatically, while sales have dropped.

 

[Ockie]

Perhaps, but every album sale they lose, because someone just bought a single instead, requires them to sell at least 9 more singles. The other downside is that singles do nothing to develop artists.

So selling crap songs just for one good song develops the artist? How about making more good singles and have better development because they know finally how to make a good song?

Music sales have been on a decline for well over a decade (and it's been documented since the mid-90's), and they were declining to some before that. However, with the advent of everyone having CD players, people started rebuying all kinds of albums they already had on vinyl or cassette. And the labels had a brief reprieve when the Boy bands became hot in the late 90's. What's changed is that in the past several years, sales have been in a complete free fall. Whether that's because of piracy, bad music, because people are less interested in music, or a combination of all of those, is a matter of much debate.

I think the audiences are too fixated on singles, but then I havne't been interested in singles since I was 12 or 13. I think labels are short sighted and have dropped some great bands after they released great albums, simply because they didn't have super sales.

Can you imagine what would have happened to a Pink Floyd if they'd been dropped beecause of lackluster sales? Fleetwood Mac released roughly 10 prior to Fleetwood Mac. Of those, only one cracked the top 40 and half cracked the top 100. They had no hit singles. I doubt the labels would wait 6 or 7 years for the 11th album that went #1.

Then again, with audiences so fixated on hit singles, maybe there's no point in developing artists.

Source?

Even with current sales, there will be artists.... just take a look at how many wants to be one on American Idol for instance... there will always be somone.

My source is me. I've been buying CD's since the mid-80's, and I remember paying 13.99 to 14.99 for CD's. I'm not sure if they were that cheap in '85, but they definitely were by late 86/early 87. If you went to the mall, you'd pay a buck or 2 more....I rarely did.

Media costs are irrelevant. They may have dropped, but royalties for big artists have gone up dramatically, while sales have dropped.

Source?

Media costs are not irrelevant, especially when you are to argue the price of music on a medium, now and then.

 

[NeoNemesis]

I will NEVER buy a CD again, right now I use itunes to get my music but if the recording companies pull their music from legal online distributors I will not hesitate to turn to piracy.

 

[nilepez]

I will NEVER buy a CD again, right now I use itunes to get my music but if the recording companies pull their music from legal online distributors I will not hesitate to turn to piracy.

Hey, if you only listen to music on ear buds or on a crappy stereo, then low quality sound files are for you. Some of us actually listen to music on decent stereo systems.

So selling crap songs just for one good song develops the artist? How about making more good singles and have better development because they know finally how to make a good song?

Ockie, i suspect the stuff that you consider good, I consider crap. You like singles. There are good singles, but for the most part, I think the best tracks on albums are NOT singles.

The problem is people who like singles want everysong on an album to sound like they've heard it 10,000,000 times on the radio. Go listen to those crappy album tracks as many times as you listened the the good single on the radio and get back to me.

Source?

for what? you quoted 200 words and several sentences.

Even with current sales, there will be artists.... just take a look at how many wants to be one on American Idol for instance... there will always be somone.

Ok, the fact that you consider AM Idol a place to develop artists shows we have very different opinions on music. First of all most of them only sell for one album and some don't even do well the first go round, despite 13 week of prime time promotion. In the end American Idol is a TV show and it's about TV Ratings, not developing great long lasting artists. If they do, that's great, but it doesn't matter if they don't.

Media costs are not irrelevant, especially when you are to argue the price of music on a medium, now and then.

Ockie if medium costs dropped 1.50 and royalties jumped by that much or more then it's a wash at best. Bottom line is that prices are LOWER today than they were 20 years ago.

Again, if you're going by the cost of the medium, then shouldn't you be complaining that Vista doesn't sell for under $10.00? DVDs are about as cheap as CDs.