#1
Unless of course you're bands who where famous before iTunes was invented (AC/DC who isn't on iTunes)

I mean if people can't buy the one or three songs off the album they like then they probably will just pirate them rather than buying the whole album, but I just dislike the whole idea of iTunes because it seems like it makes the whole music industry dependent on it.

It's like if all the footage in the world was on youtube, and we where all competing for views or subs, idk I just don't like the idea of it.

I was thinking I might sell higher quality versions of the songs on the bands website (when I form my next band) and maybe cheaper than it'd be on itunes, and make the people create a log in so if they already bought the song on that account then they can just redownload it if it got deleted.

However, I bet a bunch of people are going to just be like "Up! Not on iTunes, I just one this one song so I'll just pirate it." without realizing they can just buy it on the website. It seems kind of unnecessary, but artistically I don't like the idea of my music being dependent on some program. Although it'll probably just end up doing the same thing but with no pay out on pirate bay.
#2
Personally, my current policy on my solo project is that I sell the physical copies, and put the downloads up for free anyway. If people are going to buy your music, they'll buy it, and pirates are gonnna pirate. I don't have a problem with places like mediafire, it's where I get most of my downloads, but I still prefer to buy a physical copy so I try to convey that mentality to people interested in my music.

Long story short: yes, I think you definitely can afford to not be on iTunes
#3
Quote by chriscobonham
Personally, my current policy on my solo project is that I sell the physical copies, and put the downloads up for free anyway. If people are going to buy your music, they'll buy it, and pirates are gonnna pirate. I don't have a problem with places like mediafire, it's where I get most of my downloads, but I still prefer to buy a physical copy so I try to convey that mentality to people interested in my music.

Long story short: yes, I think you definitely can afford to not be on iTunes


I agree with this guy.

(I'm not at the level where I have any projects yet, but whatever)

If I download an album and like it enough, I normally end up buying a real copy, 'cos I like owning them and sleevenotes are sometimes funny and cool.
Sing me to sleep.
#5
Quote by zomgguitarz1234
Unless of course you're bands who where famous before iTunes was invented (AC/DC who isn't on iTunes)

I mean if people can't buy the one or three songs off the album they like then they probably will just pirate them rather than buying the whole album, but I just dislike the whole idea of iTunes because it seems like it makes the whole music industry dependent on it.

When I was a teenager we used to buy music on 45 rpm "singles" even though they generally had a "B" side. Bands like Led Zeppelin sometimes had "B" sides that were not released on any albums or different versions of songs. Most albums purchased were "concept" albums like Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon or The Who's Tommy.

Having to buy full albums only really existed for a 25 year period which included 8 track, cassette and CDs since hard unit costs were almost identical for a single song as for a full album's worth.

As for pirating, that has always existed at some level, not as widespread as today but I still have music on reel to reel mono tapes that I recorded off of friends' record players.

To me, iTunes is no different then having WalMart as a retailer selling your product, unless you have an exclusive promotion with them. The fact that I need iTunes ('free' software), iPod or some other compatible product to listen to it (actually, I can play the songs on other software but why bother) is no different than when you needed a cassette tape player that was stereo and had Dolby sound processing. All the manufacturers had to pay a license fee for the Dolby process for each machine produced.

Quote by zomgguitarz1234
It's like if all the footage in the world was on youtube, and we where all competing for views or subs, idk I just don't like the idea of it.

YouTube doesn't charge you money, I do get paid for original music used as soundtrack on YouTube plays through my PRO same as if it was broadcast on commercial or cable television/radio. I still go to the theatre to watch movies, film festivals, etc.

Quote by zomgguitarz1234
I was thinking I might sell higher quality versions of the songs on the bands website (when I form my next band) and maybe cheaper than it'd be on itunes, and make the people create a log in so if they already bought the song on that account then they can just redownload it if it got deleted.

So you are going to set up a payment infrastructure? You going to use PayPal, another proprietary software that you pay to use and some potential customers refuse to use? You are going to maintain this upload service and deal with your host about band width issues? Maybe you could set up your own server and then find out what happens if your ISP decides to up your home connection to a commercial service level and the monthly costs involved.

You have now entered the realm of maintaining a reliable, working server 24/7 with financial transaction capability. There are fixed monthly costs involved with this whether you sell anything or not.

Quote by zomgguitarz1234
However, I bet a bunch of people are going to just be like "Up! Not on iTunes, I just one this one song so I'll just pirate it." without realizing they can just buy it on the website. It seems kind of unnecessary, but artistically I don't like the idea of my music being dependent on some program. Although it'll probably just end up doing the same thing but with no pay out on pirate bay.

Pirating is entrenched in our society, it is not going away anytime soon and is considered as a "no damage" crime or even as a protest against the greed of Corporations. There is nothing we can do about it at this time.

What does the distribution of your product have to do with the artistic significance of your music. If you burn to CD, press to vinyl, copy to tape, etc does not in any way impact your masterpiece. I am aware of the iTunes quality issues arguments, but most people listen to music through earbuds anyways.

In my life, disc records went from 78 to 45 to 33 rpm. The stylus went from mono to stereo. We went through the travesty called 8 Track, then cassette, then digital cassette with Dolby Sound processing, and then onto CD. Compact disk players changed dramatically from single purpose units to something that could play multiple formats over the years. Now I purchase almost all my music from digital retailers, it is just more convenient.

I personally like iTunes, I can buy a local band's album or single immediately upon release. I don't have to track someone down to get a copy. Musicians are also notoriously bad business people who have a propensity of giving away their album for free (worse actually, at a cost to themselves). I can also find music rereleased that I thought was long lost and forgotten such as "The Strangers" on iTunes.

Quote by zomgguitarz1234
I'm talking about where you take your music career as a life style and not a hobby.

So you will not use a distribution method of your product because "you don't like it". Your choice, there is no one telling you to do this. If your business plan works, great, just remember Mom used to say "Don't cut off your nose despite your face". I just find that the more availability of your product, the better.
Last edited by Quintex at Nov 3, 2011,
#6
Quote by Quintex
When I was a teenager we used to buy music on 45 rpm "singles" even though they generally had a "B" side. Bands like Led Zeppelin sometimes had "B" sides that were not released on any albums or different versions of songs. Most albums purchased were "concept" albums like Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon or The Who's Tommy.

Having to buy full albums only really existed for a 25 year period which included 8 track, cassette and CDs since hard unit costs were almost identical for a single song as for a full album's worth.

As for pirating, that has always existed at some level, not as widespread as today but I still have music on reel to reel mono tapes that I recorded off of friends' record players.

To me, iTunes is no different then having WalMart as a retailer selling your product, unless you have an exclusive promotion with them. The fact that I need iTunes ('free' software), iPod or some other compatible product to listen to it (actually, I can play the songs on other software but why bother) is no different than when you needed a cassette tape player that was stereo and had Dolby sound processing. All the manufacturers had to pay a license fee for the Dolby process for each machine produced.


YouTube doesn't charge you money, I do get paid for original music used as soundtrack on YouTube plays through my PRO same as if it was broadcast on commercial or cable television/radio. I still go to the theatre to watch movies, film festivals, etc.


So you are going to set up a payment infrastructure? You going to use PayPal, another proprietary software that you pay to use and some potential customers refuse to use? You are going to maintain this upload service and deal with your host about band width issues? Maybe you could set up your own server and then find out what happens if your ISP decides to up your home connection to a commercial service level and the monthly costs involved.

You have now entered the realm of maintaining a reliable, working server 24/7 with financial transaction capability. There are fixed monthly costs involved with this whether you sell anything or not.


Pirating is entrenched in our society, it is not going away anytime soon and is considered as a "no damage" crime or even as a protest against the greed of Corporations. There is nothing we can do about it at this time.

What does the distribution of your product have to do with the artistic significance of your music. If you burn to CD, press to vinyl, copy to tape, etc does not in any way impact your masterpiece. I am aware of the iTunes quality issues arguments, but most people listen to music through earbuds anyways.

In my life, disc records went from 78 to 45 to 33 rpm. The stylus went from mono to stereo. We went through the travesty called 8 Track, then cassette, then digital cassette with Dolby Sound processing, and then onto CD. Compact disk players changed dramatically from single purpose units to something that could play multiple formats over the years. Now I purchase almost all my music from digital retailers, it is just more convenient.

I personally like iTunes, I can buy a local band's album or single immediately upon release. I don't have to track someone down to get a copy. Musicians are also notoriously bad business people who have a propensity of giving away their album for free (worse actually, at a cost to themselves). I can also find music rereleased that I thought was long lost and forgotten such as "The Strangers" on iTunes.


So you will not use a distribution method of your product because "you don't like it". Your choice, there is no one telling you to do this. If your business plan works, great, just remember Mom used to say "Don't cut off your nose despite your face". I just find that the more availability of your product, the better.


I just get the feeling that iTunes basically 'owns' all the music in the world except for few artists who don't put their songs on there, and I got the youtube comparison because now whenever someone tries to measure how popular a album is they do it by how many sales it has on iTunes like how people fight over views and subs on youtube. It seems like you're making music for iTunes, rather than selling it on iTunes.

I also was saying to sell music via website, not for quality issues, but because I still get the feeling that music is basically 'owned' by iTunes and I don't like the idea of that, and yeah I realize that from a commercial perspective you can't really not use iTunes because it does own the music industry now.

My reasons for being a little bias against iTunes is similar to why AC/DC doesn't sell on iTunes. They claim artistically they want their albums to be sold as a whole, for me I just don't like how iTunes monopolizes music (other than people who pirate it, and the very few who buy CD's).
#7
Why would you ever make it harder for people who want to give you money to give you money?
#8
In my life, disc records went from 78 to 45 to 33 rpm


and I thought I was gettin' old

but yes.. Move with the times...

Now instead of CD's.. Saw a band that instead of selling CD's they sold a keychain that had a 1 gig DataStick with their band logo on it, filled with their album. Novel Idea since even my CD's now are ripped to my computer so I can get them to my MP3 Player... When I asked about the cost, they told me that it was $300.00 cheaper to get their music put on the datasticks versus CD... AND the customer has a flash drive to use once the music is on their computer if they wish, with the bands Logo on it... Off topic I know, but...

Quintex is right. No way of marketing or selling your product is going to be perfect, but I-tunes has made it pretty easy for anyone to record something and sell it... Yes, it propietary, but it certainly beats doing it yourself, and a band in New Zealand can sell there music to me in Po-Dunk Georgia with the click of a mouse, and you can't beat the travel time.
I Play Guitar
Some Like it
Some don't
I don't care
Beats Workin'
OLD GUYS RULE!!!!
#9
Quote by zomgguitarz1234
I just get the feeling that iTunes basically 'owns' all the music in the world except for few artists who don't put their songs on there, and I got the youtube comparison because now whenever someone tries to measure how popular a album is they do it by how many sales it has on iTunes like how people fight over views and subs on youtube. It seems like you're making music for iTunes, rather than selling it on iTunes.

I also was saying to sell music via website, not for quality issues, but because I still get the feeling that music is basically 'owned' by iTunes and I don't like the idea of that, and yeah I realize that from a commercial perspective you can't really not use iTunes because it does own the music industry now.

My reasons for being a little bias against iTunes is similar to why AC/DC doesn't sell on iTunes. They claim artistically they want their albums to be sold as a whole, for me I just don't like how iTunes monopolizes music (other than people who pirate it, and the very few who buy CD's).

I don't see iTunes as being anything more than a distribution method of product. In fact I feel like it is a more level playing field than the old record distribution method. I remember fighting for "space" in retail stores, they didn't want anything in inventory that didn't move fast and in huge volumes. iTunes on the other hand can list pretty much anything since its inventory costs are negligible. Twenty years ago a local band had pretty much zero chance of being sold outside of actual shows. I also remember buying "K-Tel" records which were a compilation of the hits of 60 days ago where for an insanely low price you got 15+ radio cuts of top 50 hits. You would never see a Led Zeppelin, Elton John or other top album seller on those hit compilations because they could sell enough full albums on their own.

Today I can go to CD Baby and be listed on several resellers almost overnight, this is something I couldn't dream of even ten years ago. iTunes is just one of these distribution methods.

As for iTunes "owning" the industry because it ties in with its own player and the iPod and iPhone families of players. Is this somehow different than CD formats ... do you feel that you are held hostage by these technologies? I can buy a piece of music and play it on a free piece of software or buy a CD that can only be played on equipment that is working on a paid license to Sony and/or Philips. I believe you also pay them fee (built into you physical production costs) just to make your CDs.

As for being rated by iTunes sales? This is a real count of sales, not units shipped to retailers. Is this any different than RIAA ratings and the Billboard top lists, probably a crap load more accurate. Also, there has to be some kind of measurement of your popularity for you to get gigs that pay, the promoter or venue needs this before they will invest in putting on a show.

AC/DC (more likely their management) wants to sell physical product to maximize income. Back in Black is a collection of catchy tunes, now look on your MP3 player and tell me which ones you bothered to rip. They also have or had a distribution contract with WalMart, now tell me that gives AC/DC integrity.

As for artistic integrity, that is doing what you feel comfortable with since you are the only person that ultimately it matters to. If you think that selling your music as a product rather than art lessens its value, then that is that. Only you can decide.
Last edited by Quintex at Nov 3, 2011,
#10
Quote by zomgguitarz1234
I just get the feeling that iTunes basically 'owns' all the music in the world except for few artists who don't put their songs on there, and I got the youtube comparison because now whenever someone tries to measure how popular a album is they do it by how many sales it has on iTunes like how people fight over views and subs on youtube. It seems like you're making music for iTunes, rather than selling it on iTunes.


This doesn't make any sense to me at all.

I've also never been in a meaningful discussion which relied on iTunes sales specifically or Youtube hits specifically to measure the popularity of an artist. Maybe you've got a circle of friends that does that, and maybe it shows up in pointless musical arguments, but so what?



My reasons for being a little bias against iTunes is similar to why AC/DC doesn't sell on iTunes. They claim artistically they want their albums to be sold as a whole, for me I just don't like how iTunes monopolizes music (other than people who pirate it, and the very few who buy CD's).


The reality? AC/DC wants you to have to pay $10 to buy a copy of "You Shook Me" They know that given a choice between cherry-picking a few songs and buying an album, most people will cherry pick the songs because AC/DC albums are not particularly meaningful as albums.

It'd be something else entirely if, say, Pink Floyd was trying to defend the artistic integrity of "Dark Side of the Moon" or "The Wall." (This is not, by the way, a "Pink Floyd is better than AC/DC" argument. I listen to more AC/DC than I do PF.) PF has often written albums that were greater than the sum of their individual songs. AC/DC has had great singles and a lot of filler.

iTunes isn't monopolizing anything except the exclusive sessions they organize and produce. There are other very successful digital outlets, like Amazon.com. It feels like you're throwing around words like "monopolize" and "own" without any sense of what they mean. Was Tower Records monopolizing record distribution when it was most successful physical record store around? The notion is ludicrous.
#11
last.fm

that's all
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
#12
Well I know I'd put my music up on iTunes, I don't see why I shouldn't. It advertises me to more people, which means I can potentially make more money. I never illegally buy music. I get it on iTunes or I buy a cd in a store. I enjoy both but having a physical copy of a cd is something I usually enjoy. However, iTunes is good because there is a lot of good stuff on there I enjoy that I can't find in most stores in my area.

I think you can do fine without iTunes, but if it's only going to be beneficial, I don't see why you wouldn't do it anyway.
Quote by willT08
Quote by HowSoonisNow
How was Confucius death metal?
You've clearly never read any Confuscius.

As I wait on the edge of the earth,
I can see the walls being torn down again
Only to be rebuilt in another name,
On a different day
#13
Take a look at indabamusic.com, if you become a pro or platinum member there (50 or 100 bucks a year I think, someone bought me a membership as a gift last year), they put your music on iTunes and their own online store (with an option to sell physical copies!). Their online store gives you 100% royalties (iTunes only gives 70%), they have quite literally the best tech support and customer service I've ever seen, and they even have an option to split royalties with someone else should you wish, for example if you made an album and a couple of songs featured some other artist, you can set it to automatically deposit whatever percent of the royalties to their account. Worth checking out if you want an alternative/additional online sales option to iTunes.
#14
Quote by godisasniper
Their online store gives you 100% royalties (iTunes only gives 70%)


Right.

Consider that for a minute.

You pay then $100 for the membership. With iTunes you will have paid iTunes a commission of $100 on your sales once you've sold $334 worth of music.

So yes, it's a better deal if you're selling a decent amount of music. But I suspect most of the people using it are not selling ton of music, making it a reasonable question as to whether it's actually a better deal for them.
#15
I would never put my music on itunes, they take a stupid amount of the profit from musicians. I'd rather sell what few cds I do at shows and give away my music online than feed itunes.
#16
Quote by L.A.P.D.
I would never put my music on itunes, they take a stupid amount of the profit from musicians. I'd rather sell what few cds I do at shows and give away my music online than feed itunes.


This cracks me up. Let's talk about digital infrastructure.

Lets see you build the capacity to let users download thousands of songs at a cost of around 30 cents per song.

Curious what you think the typical retail markup in a brick-and-mortal store is?

And curious if you have the slightest idea how much digital infrastructure costs?
#17
Quote by L.A.P.D.
I would never put my music on itunes, they take a stupid amount of the profit from musicians. I'd rather sell what few cds I do at shows and give away my music online than feed itunes.


I would never play at a venue, they use musicians to sell drinks and the musicians don't get 100% of the ticket profits! I'd rather play in my backyard for the neighborhood cats than let someone else let me use their venue to sell merchandise, promote myself, and even cover the cost of noise permits and licensing for me.

The audacity of these big corporations just makes me sick!
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.