Apple’s iTunes is a ‘digital vampire’, living on musicians
You’ve got to love old rockers. Pete Townshend comes across a bit like today’s Mr Bonkers, blaming iTunes for not offering everything a record label does, and instead acting like an uncaring shop. That’s probably because iTunes is, in fact, an uncaring shop and not a record label.
The interview is summarised on Mac Observer (hat tip: Adam Banks, and full transcript on MusicWeek) and it’s quite illuminating:
Mr. Townshend, the leader of iconic rock ban The Who, argued that once upon a time, the music industry as a whole (including publishing and record labels) used to offer eight different forms of support to artists, including editorial guidance, financial support, creative nurture, manufacturing, publishing, marketing, distribution, and payment of royalties.
He said that if you look at artists who distribute through iTunes, they get only the last two forms of support, distribution and payment of royalties.
Because iTunes isn’t a record label.
“Now is there really any good reason why,” he asked, “just because iTunes exists in the wild west internet land of Facebook and Twitter, it can’t provide some aspect of these services to the artists whose work it bleeds like a digital vampire [UK bank] Northern Rock for its enormous commission?”
Because iTunes isn’t a record label. As for it bleeding artists’ work like a digital vampire, iTunes is one of the main reasons why anyone pays for digital music at all. It wasn’t the first of its kind, but it rapidly embedded itself in the collective consciousness of device and Mac/PC owners, and it made it natural to spend a few quid on a digital album download, rather than go hunting for a torrent, which would be much closer to Townshend’s digital vampire.
Townshend goes on to say Apple should employ A&R people to guide artists, and so perhaps he isn’t misunderstanding what the iTunes Store is, but is instead arguing that Apple should be assisting artists due to the label ecosystem crashing and burning in slow motion. I suspect he suggests Apple because of its clout, since he doesn’t make the same demands of Amazon, WalMart or Tesco.
The thing is, Apple’s never really had much truck with creating media—it just provides the platforms on which people can create and sell—and so there’s no proof it’d even be any good at being a record label. In iOS gaming, Apple’s made a single game—Texas Hold’em—and it simply lets devs get on with it, rather than interfering. To that end, I can’t see Apple going all ‘record label’ in the music space, nor really why it should. It’s providing an outlet—an easy way for people to buy. And you can bet if Apple did pump resources into helping music artists, it’d alienate people working in other fields, lacking such support, and probably also piss off remaining record labels, too, potentially making things worse for many musicians.
Townshend continues to offer suggestions:
He would also like to see Apple choose 500 worthy artists a year and provide them with free Macs and the training to use them when creating music. Those artists could be identified by the above-mentioned A&R folks, who should then follow the progress of those artists throughout the year.
So, Apple should not only provide advice, but also free hardware. What about their own radio station?
“Yes Apple, give artists some streaming bandwidth,” he said. “It will sting, but do it. You will get even more aluminum solid state LURVE for doing so.”
How about groupies and drugs?
…
OK, so there is some kind of line.
Still, Townshend does come up with at least one nugget of solid-gold sense:
The biggest change that he advocated during his speech was that Apple stop requiring independent bands to go through third party aggregators to be in the iTunes Store. He believes Apple should pay these artists directly so that more of the money from their music downloads gets to them. He acknowledged that some of the third party aggregators offer some label-like services, but argued that most are just middlemen sitting between the artists and iTunes.
This is the one thing that’s always surprised me a little about the iTunes Store. You can make and upload your own game, and, unless I’m mistaken, you can self-publish a book. But music? Too bad. You have to pay a third-party service a buck or more per track, for each store you want a presence on. And that isn’t a particularly modern, ‘Apple’ way of thinking.
Right now I’m downloading the entire back catalogue of The Who from one of these new-fangled “torrents”. Don’t worry, though: I’m not a pirate, I’m just doing it as research for a book — so that’s OK, right, Pete?
Yeah, I know this is *ad hominem*, but some people, I think it’s alright not to pay attention to the words coming out of their mouths. “Digital vampires,” how are yeh.
Is Townshend still doing a lot of drugs then??
I’ve never heard such a willful confusion of roles and responsibilities of the parties in music creation and distribution. If Apple wanted to be a record label, they have the cash to just go out and buy Sony BMG, or Universal. That’s not their game.
Townshend really makes a spectacular effort to sound like a dinosaur when he talks about the “wild west internet land of Facebook and Twitter”. If bands these days don’t have a presence on one or both of those channels then they’re fighting with one hand behind their back. As for illegal file sharing, that horse had bolted long before the record labels realized and if it wasn’t for simple, cheap, convenient services like iTunes, it would be a bigger problem today than it is. Does no-one remember the launch of the iTunes Store where Jobs actually recognized that it was competing with “free” but trusted that people generally wanted to be honest and do the right thing as long as it was reasonably priced and reasonably easy to use. The record companies, and presumably Townshend, wouldn’t have gone down that route if they hadn’t been led by the nose by Apple.
It is a little odd that you can’t self publish on iTunes, but I suspect that’s just because it would be so much harder to deal with all the indie producers. There’s always places like Bandcamp for people who want to be truly independent. I don’t really get why Townshend is trying to propagate old-school roles like A&R men – aren’t they just another layer between the artist and the consumer? Why does he think they provide a useful service but a distributor who can get you onto iTunes doesn’t?
John Peel would be rolling in his grave to hear this speech. I’m sure Peel, and probably Townshend used to tape stuff from the radio. Peel was all about finding new stuff and one way to do that is to be given a track by a friend. Many discoveries that way lead to people buying tracks or albums and who knows, maybe becoming life long fans. Apparently the millionaires like Townshend believe that we should just be told what to buy by big labels and their A&R machines.
I’m all for what the article is asking for, but we also must remember that they started a innovative revolution that has given us a level playing field in this digital age of the record industry, let us not forget that and be appreciative of such a great contribution to and for us Independent Artists.
Yes I will agree that there has to be better compensation to us, and that is working it’s self out, maybe not has fast we would like, but let’s face it, when has anything as bureaucratic as our industry ever not been as so going to make changes.
Who am I? The “Silver Conductor” on Facebook, Twitter and:
http://www.thesilverconductor.com
Simply putting it, we need:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2LVsiP5oyQ
GadgetGav wrote: “It is a little odd that you can’t self publish on iTunes, but I suspect that’s just because it would be so much harder to deal with all the indie producers.”
It’s the same with iBooks. I think you’re right, I think it’s that Apple just can’t be arsed with the extra hassle.