Sign In
Register
Help
Why does the headline has to be "Radiohead shuns iTunes..."? Why can't it be "Radiohead shuns Amazon MP3..."? How sensationalistic can you get...
First the whining about the iPhone and now this.
Radiohead shuns iTunes, sells new album online direct
MultiQuote
#44
daniel2828_MW 
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 41
- Joined: 18-February 05
Posted 02 October 2007 - 12:57 AM
Quote:
Issa (the artist formerly known as Jane Siberry)
Issa (the artist formerly known as Jane Siberry)
Oh, please. When will these people ever stop getting over themselves?
#45
DarrenForbes
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 106
- Joined: 18-April 07
Posted 02 October 2007 - 02:03 AM
Selective quoting (hardly fair because I can ignore any good points you make):
so again, the article is nothing but a PR piece that gets it wrong on all accounts.
Except for the use of the term 'top selling'. The one term you initially (and apparently sarcastically) attacked from the article.
If you have a problem with the iTunes of the title then I feel you should have been open about this from the start.
There is a good discussion to be had about iTunes, the iTunes store, iPod sales and weather Apple is a major media distributors but I seem to have spent a lot of time just trying to justify a phrase used in the articles so the chance has passed. I'm not really sure what it has to do with this particular article.
To summarise; the news content of the articles (small as it is) was "band that sells a lot of records tries to sell in a way other bands of similar sales statistics have not yet tried.". Wouldn't really be news unless that band had big sales so giving an impression of high sales seems justified.
Let's talk about iTunes, the store and sales on another thread when the opportunity arises on another thread. Time for school now.
so again, the article is nothing but a PR piece that gets it wrong on all accounts.
Except for the use of the term 'top selling'. The one term you initially (and apparently sarcastically) attacked from the article.
If you have a problem with the iTunes of the title then I feel you should have been open about this from the start.
There is a good discussion to be had about iTunes, the iTunes store, iPod sales and weather Apple is a major media distributors but I seem to have spent a lot of time just trying to justify a phrase used in the articles so the chance has passed. I'm not really sure what it has to do with this particular article.
To summarise; the news content of the articles (small as it is) was "band that sells a lot of records tries to sell in a way other bands of similar sales statistics have not yet tried.". Wouldn't really be news unless that band had big sales so giving an impression of high sales seems justified.
Let's talk about iTunes, the store and sales on another thread when the opportunity arises on another thread. Time for school now.
#46
macFanDave
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 777
- Joined: 04-March 04
Posted 02 October 2007 - 06:56 AM
Actually, it's the "pay what you want" pricing structure that iTunes (or any other download service, I'd bet) cannot handle.
It's a risk that a well-established, successful band can take, but as a PR stunt, not many are going to be able to follow.
Let's say their "base" pays what a normal album costs. Radiohead will be way ahead than if they got their piece of cheese tossed to them by their label.
Then you've got the cheap bastards like me that use the "I'd buy that for a dollar" motto. Even then, the band is probably getting something like their cut from a label.
Finally, there are those who will just take it for free. Is there harm done? Yes, a little short-term financial harm, but this ploy can get more people to listen to their music which may end up in future sales of their older stuff and concert attendance (and perhaps purchases of Radiohead lunchboxes and snow globes.) As someone once put it, for an artist or author, piracy isn't death, anonymity is!
I'm not sure that I understand why they would forego iTunes. It's very convenient and they'd make lots of money off it, but I wouldn't be surprised if the record companies have forbidden Apple to do business with certian artists like Radiohead and Prince.
It's a risk that a well-established, successful band can take, but as a PR stunt, not many are going to be able to follow.
Let's say their "base" pays what a normal album costs. Radiohead will be way ahead than if they got their piece of cheese tossed to them by their label.
Then you've got the cheap bastards like me that use the "I'd buy that for a dollar" motto. Even then, the band is probably getting something like their cut from a label.
Finally, there are those who will just take it for free. Is there harm done? Yes, a little short-term financial harm, but this ploy can get more people to listen to their music which may end up in future sales of their older stuff and concert attendance (and perhaps purchases of Radiohead lunchboxes and snow globes.) As someone once put it, for an artist or author, piracy isn't death, anonymity is!
I'm not sure that I understand why they would forego iTunes. It's very convenient and they'd make lots of money off it, but I wouldn't be surprised if the record companies have forbidden Apple to do business with certian artists like Radiohead and Prince.
#48
fribhey
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 821
- Joined: 21-May 04
Posted 02 October 2007 - 08:32 AM
Quote:
Why does the headline has to be "Radiohead shuns iTunes..."? Why can't it be "Radiohead shuns Amazon MP3..."? How sensationalistic can you get...
First the whining about the iPhone and now this.
Why does the headline has to be "Radiohead shuns iTunes..."? Why can't it be "Radiohead shuns Amazon MP3..."? How sensationalistic can you get...
First the whining about the iPhone and now this.
actually, they have music on amazon mp3 sold as complete albums, not single songs... which is why they are not in itunes store...
BUT the headline should really read "Radiohead shuns the music industry"
