It's kind of confusing. I know that Mike Shinoda once said "Download That Shit" when asked about (free) downloading. I also read that Linkin Park was originally against the iTunes Music Store. One weird thing is that Linkin Park Albums are available through the MSN music store; Meteora and Hybrid Theory are consistently in the top 20 (Which is weird; can someone give an explaination?). Numb/Encore is also available on the MSN online music store, but not Collision Course. Meanwhile, on iTunes, Numb/Encore and DOYS/Lying From You are available. 'Collision Course' Isn't. 'Points of Authority' is available because it's in the Little Nicky Soundtrack. For a while, the single for 'Somewhere I Belong' was available but it isn't any longer. Strangely enough (some people might want it), Grey Daze's album "...No Sun Today" is available. Even weirder, when Collision Course debuted at #1, it also debuted at #2 on the internet albums chart. I've also seen thumbnails for 'Meteora' on online ads for Napster.
Linkin Park is against iTunes because it rips off artists. Think about it. a dollar for a song, how much money does the artist get? And anyways, do you think Linkin Park actually has a say in whether or not their songs are available online? That's Warner's decision (could also be another reason why LP is threatening to leave), not theirs. Mike told us to download that shit, but Joe also reminded us that they need food to eat too, so buy something.
if you bought a full album off iTunes, its the same they'd get if you bought the CD. The reason they're against the iTMS, is because they once stated something along the lines of how their songs weren't meant to be heard individually and were a part of an album, or something like that.
if you bought a full album off iTunes, its the same they'd get if you bought the CD. The reason they're against the iTMS, is because they once stated something along the lines of how their songs weren't meant to be heard individually and were a part of an album, or something like that. [/b][/quote] I was reading something on www.downhillbattle.com or something. For ever .99 cent song, the artist gets like 11 cents.
if you bought a full album off iTunes, its the same they'd get if you bought the CD. The reason they're against the iTMS, is because they once stated something along the lines of how their songs weren't meant to be heard individually and were a part of an album, or something like that. [/b][/quote] Well they do sell their albums on MSN; songs are not sold individually.
I was reading something on www.downhillbattle.com or something. For ever .99 cent song, the artist gets like 11 cents. [/b][/quote] Yeah, downhillbattle is where I get a lot of my info, and I contribute to their causes a lot. With iTunes, money goes to the labels and the artists, BUT Apple gets some as well.
if you bought a full album off iTunes, its the same they'd get if you bought the CD. The reason they're against the iTMS, is because they once stated something along the lines of how their songs weren't meant to be heard individually and were a part of an album, or something like that. [/b][/quote] Then why release singles?
Singles chosen verses individual album songs differ. If you think about it, you don't see bands releasing interludes as singles, do you? A single promotes the album. It might defeat the purpose of the whole idea of "album experience" but usually singles are just those toe-tappers that whom ever chooses the singles believes will get people to buy the album. But more on topic, I think artists would much rather say "download my music" because usually artists want their music to be listened to worldwide, etc. The more popular you are, I would think probability of sold out concerts would be higher, which I believe is where artists make the larger portion of their money? But then the label and RIAA and people are now going to stop it and say "No, you must pay for that." So whether or not a band (member) says to download their music with ease, it won't be their decision in the end (like stated already in this thread).
Apple gets a few cents from the sale which goes for server and bandwidth costs. Apple breaks even wiht the iTunes Music Store, they don't lose money or make money (at least no significant amounts). The only incentive for them, is it may encourage people to purchase an iPod, and once they buy an iPod and like Apple's product, they may purchase a Mac later.
Singles chosen verses individual album songs differ. If you think about it, you don't see bands releasing interludes as singles, do you? A single promotes the album. It might defeat the purpose of the whole idea of "album experience" but usually singles are just those toe-tappers that whom ever chooses the singles believes will get people to buy the album. But more on topic, I think artists would much rather say "download my music" because usually artists want their music to be listened to worldwide, etc. The more popular you are, I would think probability of sold out concerts would be higher, which I believe is where artists make the larger portion of their money? But then the label and RIAA and people are now going to stop it and say "No, you must pay for that." So whether or not a band (member) says to download their music with ease, it won't be their decision in the end (like stated already in this thread). [/b][/quote] Well said.
I asked is Linkin Park for or against bootlegin? Chester said "nah we really don't give a shit, it helps our stuff get around so it's cool" So that explains LP's stand but as the kid said above its Warners' stance. Why do you think they want to put bootleggin into effect to get out of there contract with Warner.