Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple is working on a new digital music format

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–79 of 79 posts

Re: Apple is working on a new digital music format

#71

Post by Mandatum »

bequanna wrote: post #70

I am having a tough time understanding this whole Apple + U2 'partnership' (or whatever it is). It seems like a misguided attempt by an out of touch group of 50-something marketing managers to be hip/relevant. Hell, I'm almost 30 and few of my friends have any interest in U2. I just asked my 21 year old cousin and she can't name a single U2 song. Maybe some of my contemporaries think this is interesting or cool, I ju…

    It seems like a misguided attempt by an out of touch group of 50-something marketing managers to be hip/relevant.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Apple circa 2004 nailed marketing. It seems recently they've stopped 'evolving' and are looking to past concepts that have worked, but no longer relevant.

Beats was cool because Dre is a legend and a celebrity. I hope Apple starts using some of Beats' marketing people for their own brand.

Re: Apple is working on a new digital music format

#72

Post by snowwrestler »

MeadowTheory wrote: post #64
snowwrestler wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that piracy hurts big labels is laughable. They long ago read the writing on the wall and started signing new acts to 360 deals that give them a cut of every revenue stream. "Buy a fucking t-shirt"? There are two possibilities. 1) The artist is signed to an exploitative label deal. If this is the case, the artist is not seeing any more money from that t-shirt than they do from an album sale. Nor are they tak…

So, you think that, because the major record labels have stepped up their game and started exploiting musicians further and through different channels, the right thing to do is keep feeding them cash? Give me a break. Your critique is targeted only at the issue as it pertains to artists working for major record labels. My whole point is that the recording industry was controlled an unstable monopoly based on price-fi…

> So, you think that, because the major record labels have stepped up their game and started exploiting musicians further and through different channels, the right thing to do is keep feeding them cash?

No. You're putting words in my mouth, and are seemingly incapable of understanding that the works of small, struggling, middle class bands--the kind who have always treated each other well--ALSO get pirated, and that those declining revenues have an impact on their lives.

Bands and labels that are small, indie, and love their audiences are not fighting piracy because they don't want to demonize or create conflict with their fans. Their fans reward them for that by taking money out of their pockets by getting their albums for free from a pirate site instead of paying the actual artists.

And worst of all, they think they're doing the artists a favor by doing it!

Of course bands and labels are releasing music for free now. What other choice do they have?? You can't fight a tsunami. They are making do with less because they have to. That doesn't mean it's objectively a good thing for the industry or the artists.

You're not alone. There is this amazingly powerful Stockholm syndrome where young artists have been convinced by people way outside the music industry (primarily technology) to argue vociferously against their own self-interest.

It's one thing to choose to give away your music for free as marketing--that's always been legal and always will be. And it's not a new or innovative idea...the radio has been doing it for 50 years.

It's another thing if you're trying to sell albums, and the albums are really popular, but you're still not making enough to do basic middle-class things like buy a house, take a vacation, have kids, save for college, etc. Meanwhile, everyone else in the ecosystem gets rich: ISPs, electronics manufacturers, software producers, websites that run ads, etc. Music labels are not the only companies who can exploit musicians.

Re: Apple is working on a new digital music format

#73

Post by snowwrestler »

MeadowTheory wrote: post #68
snowwrestler wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, because studio time, publishing CDs, booking tour dates, and promoting it all is free. Before an artist earns money from album sales, they have to pay for all that stuff. When album sales drop, either the artists get less of all those things, or they have to pay for them from other revenue sources. Either way it's not good for them. The idea that album revenues never did anything for anyone makes no sense.

Most artists tour for years before signing to a major label, during which time they most likely book all their own shows, do their own promotion (with maybe a tiny bit of help from the venue). They have often released albums on a smaller indie label first, usually recorded on studio time for which they themselves paid. There are many artists that have made a living doing things like this for years and even decades, a…

Bands don't do these things themselves. When they're starting out they don't know how, and when they start to catch on, it's a waste of their time. The small labels do a lot more than you think. And album sales have been an important part of financing all that. As album revenue has declined, something had to give. Labels are doing less these days, which makes it harder for new and small bands to succeed.

Piracy makes for great exposure. You can't eat exposure though. At some point a band has to make money if it's going to make a living, and piracy has made a big dent in that, even for small labels.

Re: Apple is working on a new digital music format

#74

Post by 72deluxe »

MeadowTheory wrote: post #50
72deluxe wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right - it seems popular even on HN where people make a living that musicians are exempt from earning a living through recording and selling music. Wrapped in daft phrases like "music wants to be free", it seems fashionable to engage in copyright infringement for music, and I think it stinks. Arguments that record labels ("fat cats") get a cut of the earnings are not relevant - the musician signed with the lab…

No, no, no. Emphatically no. I am speaking a musician here: by the time you are earning an appreciable amount of money from album sales, you are no longer just "making a living". Most musicians that support themselves through music do it by touring and selling merchandise (including physical recordings), and musicians that get famous have usually been doing this for years before they start making money off of recordi…

But does the fact that the band tours and does merchandise separate to recordings mean that I can engage in copyright infringement? I think not - do you?

Re: Apple is working on a new digital music format

#75

Post by 72deluxe »

MeadowTheory wrote: post #68
snowwrestler wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, because studio time, publishing CDs, booking tour dates, and promoting it all is free. Before an artist earns money from album sales, they have to pay for all that stuff. When album sales drop, either the artists get less of all those things, or they have to pay for them from other revenue sources. Either way it's not good for them. The idea that album revenues never did anything for anyone makes no sense.

Most artists tour for years before signing to a major label, during which time they most likely book all their own shows, do their own promotion (with maybe a tiny bit of help from the venue). They have often released albums on a smaller indie label first, usually recorded on studio time for which they themselves paid. There are many artists that have made a living doing things like this for years and even decades, a…

"most of the profits the recording industry has made were based on unethical business practices" ---- Citation needed...?

As a musician who happens to work as a software developer in the live audio industry, I would disagree that the music culture harms musicians. I have plenty of recording gear myself and have recorded and mixed the bands I have played in (as a hobby) but I am not blind to the fact that a mixing engineer will likely make a better job of the mix than I will. (Some will disagree - listen to Paul McCartney's Memory Almost Full for an excellent example of how mixing and mastering can destroy and utterly flatten a record).

However, if I were to ever be signed to a record label (a choice that I would have had to make, not by coercion) and sold records, I would be happy if people came to see me live. I would also be happy for people to buy my records - NOT pirate them. My time is not free. The mixing engineer's time is not free. The sound engineer's time is not free. The mastering engineer's time is not free. Do you think it is?

I would NOT be happy for people to be pirating my album. Why would you think that I would be?

I listen to bands that seem not to be touring the UK at the moment and haven't for some years. Does this mean that I can pirate their albums?

I listen to bands that are on small labels. Are the labels benefitted by me pirating the music they sell?

Are the bands benefitted by pirating the music they sell?

How do I listen to a band's music after seeing them live and going home?

All of the "fat cat" arguments are irrelevant - if the band/label have stated that you can buy the album (yes BUY the album), why do you feel entitled for the music for 0.00?

If a software house states that you can have their software for a fee (yes BUY the software), why do you feel entitled to the software for 0.00?

If a supermarket states that you can have their produce for a fee (yes BUY the produce), why do you feel entitled to the produce for 0.00? Do you only buy from "indie" food store because you object to some "fat cat" earning from you buying from a supermarket? Does the capitalist nature of food retail offend you? Does it entitle you to food for nothing from the supermarket?

If anything, piracy has had the effect of sky-rocketing ticket prices to see bands live. And this isn't the "BIG" names either in the pop genre. This is rock/prog/jazz artists.

I think it is INCREDIBLY naive to believe that piracy will suddenly make people choose "better" music (with "better" being entirely subjective). I think some jazz is pretty great, but do you see people going out and buying jazz? No? There's no money in jazz apparently. I like some prog rock. What about prog rock? No? According to you, people should be changing music tastes because of piracy... but I haven't seen it - have you? Has pop music plummeted in popularity? Is there something I have missed?

Do you really see music getting better? Production values might be (hurray for higher sampling rates, headroom and bit depths) but are we entering an era of incredible music changing the face of the world? No?

Apparently a huge shift in the (subjective) quality music is coming because of piracy. I will wait to see it.

Re: Apple is working on a new digital music format

#76

Post by jaimebuelta »

ihsw wrote: post #41
jaimebuelta wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds cool, but it will be a disaster. Does anyone remember the "ultra boost" button on the old Walkman to raise the bass to insane levels? Or all the equalizer voodoo, where people will "tune" moving levels and buttons forming shapes? The sad truth is that audio engineers are way better than anyone else in mixing the music and making it shine. The better approach is not to mess with that and just trust them. The…

> The sad truth is that fashion designers are way better than anyone else in designing clothing and making it shine. The better approach is not to mess with that and just trust them. > The sad truth is that chefs are way better than anyone else in creating a delicious menu and making it shine. The better approach is not to mess with that and just trust them. Who ever said that keeping people from dressing hideously o…

I don't think that people should be forbidden of playing with equalizers or even making their own recordings and mix. At the moment there are lots of tools that allow this.

But releasing a format for music that works around the idea of "do your own mix", that's a different issue.

If some artist wants to do it, hey, that's totally fine. What I'm skeptic about is that it's the future of music.

Re: Apple is working on a new digital music format

#77

Post by shaggy »

tzs wrote: post #67
shaggy wrote: post #28

Above CD quality has been tried many times. Currently, the service with the most to offer in terms of catalog is https://www.hdtracks.com/faq . You do have to re-buy albums you might already own, but the choices are ever expanding and include a lot of great stuff. The point in the article about the new format helping lesser known artists really shows just how little U2 and Bono actually get about the current state of…

> To Bono's point, Cole Porter could tour and make lots of money doing it today. He may not have wanted to, but it'd be possible Was Cole Porter a performer? What I see after a bit of searching indicates he was a songwriter/composer, so what would be the attraction of a Cole Porter tour?

He was not a performer. He was a songwriter and composer mostly for Broadway and he was a great one. The draw would be something like "an evening with Cole Porter and his music" or "Cole Porter and his Broadway orchestra play his hits". You can imagine the marketing around hearing the music live, standing on its own. That kind of stuff makes money today, and lots of it.

Re: Apple is working on a new digital music format

#78

Post by mbesto »

adamnemecek wrote: post #60
mbesto wrote: post #29

Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/927/

Can we please stop linking to this whenever there's a discussions about a new standard? There are other reasons for creating a new standard besides unification of the current standards.

Why? The conclusion is always the same. I'm genuinely curious as to what these "other reasons" are.

Re: Apple is working on a new digital music format

#79

Post by adamnemecek »

mbesto wrote: post #78
adamnemecek wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we please stop linking to this whenever there's a discussions about a new standard? There are other reasons for creating a new standard besides unification of the current standards.

Why? The conclusion is always the same. I'm genuinely curious as to what these "other reasons" are.

There is literally 1 billion possible reasons why that could be. Smaller size. Higher bitrate. Simpler format. Faster/more power efficient decoding. More than 2 audio channels. Separation of single tracks within a song (so that e.g. you can mute vocals). These just off the top of my head.
Post reply on HN