“The Who’s Pete Townshend says Apple Inc.’s iTunes is a ‘digital vampire’ that profits from music without supporting the artists who create it,” The Associated Press reports.
“Townshend says that faced with the Internet’s demolition of copyright protection, iTunes should help artists by giving space to allow them to stream their music, and pay smaller artists directly rather than through a third party aggregator,” AP reports.
“Townshend asked if there was any reason iTunes ‘can’t provide some aspect of these services to the artists whose work it bleeds like a digital vampire’ to make money,” AP reports.
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Without iTunes – iTunes Store, to be exact – there would be no music business. Unless he was massively misquoted, Pete Townshend should brush up on his facts before opening his mouth again. Apple not offering a streaming service currently hardly makes them a “digital vampire.” Besides those who torrent, the real vampires are the often unnecessary middlemen (the music labels) standing between Apple and the artists with their greasy palms ever extended for their too-large cut. As is typical, these artists who complain about the oh-so-evil iTunes generally aren’t the world’s greatest businesspeople, nor do they seem to really understand how the music business works. You’d think someone like Pete Townshend would have a firmer grasp of things by now.
As for his “pay smaller artists directly rather than through a third party aggregator” idea: Yes! Yes! Yes! If he’s talking about artists going directly to Apple’s iTunes Store without a music label, but it seems that smaller acts would need the labels more than established acts who already have fans. It can be done, but even someone like Lights had a record deal before establishing her own personal label.
Pete? Pete Who?
Wow… clever.
I purchase more music today vie iTunes and eMusic.com than I ever purchased in the days if vinyl and CDs… And a lot of it is repurchased classic rock that I used to own… and the rest is new indie stuff I discover out in the world, then locate vie either of the above mentioned music online retailers. During that in between period I was happily loading up on shared music via file sharing (Kazaa, etc.) because of the immediacy of delivery and huge selection usually available if you looked hard enough. So, the bottom line for me as a consumer is: once I had a fair, efficient and well-stocked music inventory to choose from at fair, ala carte prices, I never swapped or stole music again. Thanks to Apple and Steve Jobs creating the path to legitimate online distribution at a critical mass, musicians had a way to get my money… once again. So, Mr. Townsend, I have no earthly idea why you would refer to iTunes as a vampire (or any other music distributor, like eMusic.) Especially in light of the fact I just bought most of the old Who catalog again (remastered) because the price was right, it was convenient, and I was happy to send you (or ‘Who’ever owns the musical rights these days, which may be your biggest problem…) money for the rights to own something you did 40 years ago… So, quit bitching… Seriously!
Unless the whole “vampire” thing was a dumb Halloween joke.
Well said!
Met the new boss
Same as the old boss
hahahahahaa
Oh the vitriol, knee caps, and humor from all kinds of people! I love it!
He should crawl back under his rock and stay there…I have ZERO respect for a PEDOPHILE!
Freakin pervert…
Ungrateful twat.
At least Pete didn’t say the rubbish Neil Young did.
I listened to his lecture live on the radio this evening, and what he was basically saying is that new music, musicians and musical genres had an invaluable showcase on radio shows like that presented by the late DJ John Peel (RIP).
Peely would play anything and everything if he thought it might be groundbreaking, interesting, or ‘the next big thing’, and championed many musical styles, artists and genres loooong before they became popular world wide.
And as such, by being played on the radio it was easy for records of radio plays to be kept and the artists (many new and financially struggling) could be payed a royalty quickly and easily, and receive a larger percentage of the profits than they would from a music outlet like iTunes (which takes 30% of the profits from music sales).
Unlike the John Peel radio show did, iTunes does little to break new music, doesn’t put any money into discovering new bands, AnR or taking a risk on what might be ‘the next big thing’. Townsend said he wished they would, but couldn’t see it happening.
I didn’t think he came across very well in his arguments, but could see the gist of what he was saying.
You might be able to listen to it in the US, you might not – the link is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b016k4d0
Why should Apple/iTunes do anything to break new music or discover new bands? Does Play.com or Amazon.co.uk? You, like Peter Townshend, seem to be mistaking Apple/iTunes for a recording company, they are a shop, not EMI or Sony.
Pete was basically ranting because he doesn’t understand the world today… he’s old and confused.
“I hope I die before I get old (Talkin’ ’bout my generation)”… there’s one lyric he wrote that didn’t come true
I can’t believe how many posts there are without mentioning that Napster killed the music industry and Apple revived it and made it possible to have artist get paid again.
Any artist can self promote by going on tour or paying others to advertise them but it all costs money. iTunes has to store, distribute, collect money and pay it out to the right people. Does Townsend think they should just shut down? Should iTunes do all that for free just because ‘fat cat’ Townsend can’t buy another castle this year? Can’t afford a newer jet?
Napster didn’t kill the music industry, nothing killed the music industry it’s thriving out there, apart from the few legacy business who don’t want to innovate!
I can understand Pete Townshend’s anger but it’s misdirected. This age of computers has devalued music tremendously. Any garage band can pump out a new CD every week. There are 18,000,000 tunes to choose from at the iTunes Store. 17,900,000 of them are garbage.
Just because Apple has found a way to make money on the music when the artists can’t, doesn’t mean they’ve done anything wrong.
Any savvy, modern professional musician knows that the money isn’t in the music sales; it’s in the tours and merchandising.
And Pete Townshend is an undead rock-and-roller.
You are thinking of The Rolling Stones, particularly Keith.
Didn’t die… got old.
I must be the only one who thinks Pete has a point.
Pete thinks he should be paid for work he did 30 years ago. Boo hoo.
The iTS is just a conduit for distribution. Peter needs to go blame to the content owners. It is the content owners/copyright holders that are preventing the flow of freedom within the industry so they can pocket the big gains.
MJ
What an idiot. Look at the profit share that Apple gets from digital downloads. It’s minuscule. What? 1%? 2%? That’s “bloodsucking”?
You’re the idiot here. You don’t even know what the percentage iTunes take. They do nothing other than provide and interface that’s locked in to every Mac and run their business in an aggressive fashion and take 30%.
Seriously get a clue.
I suppose you think that interface and overall infrastructure called iTunes was done at no cost? I’d be careful tossing that idiot term around… there’s a huge difference between a cut of revenue and profit, last time I checked.
Yet more erudite commentary from the readers of MDN I see.
I’m an artist, making music and I have my own company. Still I can’t get my music published on iTunes. Why? Because Apple has a rule that says I need be a music label to apply = My company need to represent more than ten bands to be eligible for distribution in iTunes.
I’ve told Apple several times this is the opposite of what their original goal was: to help artist. But they are not helping artists. They are only supporting labels.
How is it that people like Alex Goot get on ITunes, then? What about all the indie music that is on the site? I see it all the time.
They go through a middle-hand that manages several artists. May not be a “label” in the old definition but still a second lilk in the supply chain that takes away fro the profit and ownership.
Who cares what a self important pedophile thinks anyway?
It strikes me as a little hypocritical for Pete Townshend to complain about ITunes. I am sure that he has made beaucoup bucks from ITunes. If he wants to donate all that he has made off of the “vampire” and set up a foundation for starving artists, then good for him. But for him to bite the hand that feeds him is not right. Apple found a new way of making more music available to more people for a reasonable price. And people liked it. It is called capitalism and free markets. If Pete does not like that, he is living in the wrong country.
Would Pete prefer to return to the days of Napster and Limewire as the main download sources? And get zero money?
WHO is Pete Townsend?
…uhhh, that “WHO” thing is getting lame. Nothing like a day late and a dollar short, as they say.
MDN: “As is typical, these artists who complain about the oh-so-evil iTunes generally aren’t the world’s greatest businesspeople, nor do they seem to really understand how the music business works.”
That’s the reason the artists need the labels, isn’t it? Apple isn’t going to promote, label, sponsor tours, or any of the business necessary to promoting mass media art.
MDN hates the labels, but they’re an enormous part of how music gets “big.” If you don’t want/need national or worldwide acts, then by all means cut the labels out.
Pete’s got it wrong when he likens iTunes to record/publishing companies. It’s actually the 21st century version of a record store. And unless my memory deceives me, record stores never provided the type of services he’s talking about. Those were the responsibilty of the labels and publsihing companies. And as they still exist, why shouldn’t they continue to provide those services?
I’m afraid Pete just comes across as an old, out of touch, faded rock star who doesn’t actually understand how the music industry has evolved.
It’s ‘Stockholm Syndrome‘ for old era music artists. We’ve heard the same inane gibberish from Jon Bonjovi, Ted Nugent, ad nauseam.
I’ll never forget legitimate musicians defending the RIAA’s attacks against Internet radio. The hearings were like watching ‘Night of the Living Dead’ with the RIAA and their pet musicians demanding the right to eat the flesh of the living. Grotesque.
To quote Sir Paul McCartney: “[T]he major record labels are having major problems. They’re a little puzzled as to what’s happening. . . . [T]he major labels these days are like dinosaurs sitting around discussing the asteroid.”
MAJOR RECORD LABELS AND THE RIAA: DINOSAURS IN A DIGITAL AGE?
The analogy to a record store is dead on. It is just another way to deliver the product. You hit the nail on the head. ITunes is just a better business model for today and Pete may be lamenting the fact that someone else is making money in the industry and he is not making as much as he thinks he should.
The last time Pete Townsend put his foot in his mouth he was apologizing for the kiddy porn police found on his computer. It was ‘research’ material so he could better fight kiddy porn psychopaths. Oops. Kind of reminds me of senility, not that there’s anything wrong with it.