Log in

No account? Create an account

$19.95 a month for Music, 13 more channels of...

« previous entry | next entry »
Sep. 5th, 2007 | 12:43 pm

I've been seeing the comments from Rick Rubin pop up all over
the web about the iPod.

"The iPod will be obsolete, but there would be a Walkman-like device"

In a way I agree with him. Paying for a service and having access to
everything is nice.

But what I do not see is how in this model do artists, especially new
artists, make money?

I can not see the music industry giving the artists much of a cut of
this stream, and I certainly don't see them doing a weighted system
that encourages some bands to take a larger portion of the pie.
Looking at $19.95 I see how the labels make money, but the artist?

If I am a new artist why do I want to be a part of this network.
Exposure? Easy access to my music so more people know about me and
come buy t-shirts and listen to me live?

If that is the case why wouldn't the artist just upload all of the
tracks and give them away. Encourage niche radio stations.

The labels can afford to just live off their catalogues. Just publish
what they have and extend it with small bits and pieces here and
there. This would be much cheaper then the system they have today.

To do any of this the labels will have to have a combined system to
sell, since no one is going to want to subscribe to a dozen systems
just to hear their favorite bands. Their bickering over the "single"
pipe will take a while. Especially since they aren't going to want to
give any one company control of the channel.

The music industry makes less and less sense everyday.

Link | Leave a comment |

Comments {5}


I don't agree with him

from: crimethnk
date: Sep. 8th, 2007 03:41 pm (UTC)

I do NOT want a subscription service. Maybe it would be nice to have it to supplement my other music, but I would rarely use it, and wouldn't pay much for it. Maybe $5 a month, $10 tops. No, I want to purchase music and own my copies, period, which is why I still primarily buy CDs. There are few people who are bigger technophiles than me, espcially when it comes to audio. I have three iPods, I stream my music via a server to every room of my house ... and I DO NOT WANT a subscription service.

I will not rent the music I buy.

And as to convenience, some people may find it more convenient. I would not. I get a CD, rip it to lossless, put the CD in a box in the garage, and I am done. I have backups run every night, and I have a perl script that converts it to 128 kbps AAC and copies it to my other computer for syncing to the iPod. My process is already clean and convenient, though not recommended for everyone. :-) Also, as a very Type A borderline-OCD-in-certain-areas person, I would find it really frustrating to organize a system with so much fluidity. I want to know which songs will be where when I want them. Managing podcasts have posed a challenge to my fragile sensibilities, but I think I've mostly got that worked out.

Also, I dunno, as a recording artist myself, who gives away his songs on MP3 ... I see no problems with giving it away AND putting it on subscription services and iTunes Music Store. Let people get it however they want to get it; if you get paid for it, fine, if not, fine.

Reply | Thread