This flatters both a) musicians (and by extension writers, other artists, etc.) and b) everyone who cares about the arts, any art.
Apple, Amazon and their fellow tech lords don’t despise us. They’re utterly indifferent. They don’t care. What’s more, it rarely, if ever, occurs to them that that that might even be an option.
They don’t despise people who can do things they can’t, appreciate things they don’t or who have simply made life choices they didn’t. That would entail some level of respect and resentment.
Nor is there likely much guilt about unfairly profiting off other’s work that leads to anger (it’s not a case of ‘we hate those we exploit.’) They evidently think entirely in terms of product, processes (of distribution, consumption, monetizing, etc), consumers and long term strategies.
Not only are the actual individuals who create & cultivate art beneath contempt (being despised), they’re usually beneath even perfunctory notice.
The banality of business. The musicians and artists, no matter how amazing, have always just been product-producers to the businessfolk - witness the parade of musicians hoodwinked time and time again by predatory contracts over the years. This is the same old story with the twist that modern technology has effectively locked us all into subscriptions rather than having agency to buy what we choose. Having all the world’s music on demand in our pocket comes with a cost and, at some point, we are going to pay.
All I am seeing here is that Apple, while spreading the ability to listen to classical music, is trying to reduce royalty costs, not the costs paid to the performers but to the record companies. That they push their own version of classical music isn’t really that problematic.
There’s a lot of sanctimony here, from self declared artists, about the importance of creativity in art, as if that is the only way to creativity. Not only is technology as or more important than art, it is essential to it. Unless you are an a cappella singer.
“There’s a lot of sanctimony here, from self declared artists, about the importance of creativity in art, as if that is the only way to creativity. Not only is technology as or more important than art, it is essential to it.”
A provocative take. And a very strong, if inadvertent, argument for guitarist Marc Ribot’s “Music wants to free? How come computers don’t want to be?” sentiments.
Once we accept our tech overlords as the great romantic creative forces of our age the next step should be making their products, services, subscriptions and hardware as incredibly cheap and close to free for everyone as they’ve made such non-essentials to “creativity” as music.
I was stating Marc Ribot’s argument. I literally cited him. You’re welcome to google Ribot’s takes, interviews and quotes.
You seem to have a real desire to go ad hominem here, Nolan.
There are a lot of reasons that might not be prudent (including, but not limited to, your smug overbearing autism spectrum tech-bro mindset and an inadvertently comic avatar that looks looks like it was created by an aging pedophile with a taste for underage boys), but it’s your choice, Nolan. Perhaps there’s a logic to it that escapes me.
I’m in LA where Taylor Swift just did six sold out stadium shows. The city had a kinetic circus feeling that was palpable. There’s a used bookstore with an incredible music section I frequent regularly and swear that section was bristling with female teenagers that week looking for books on songwriting and I talked to a few of them. The Eras show had had a radical impact on them. That’s the aspect of Swift that self-appointed male music gatekeepers don’t understand about her. Music isn’t just notes on a page or tritone substitutions. For a generation that seems to me rejecting the failed models that preceded them or are searching for models to live their lives differently, musicians often offer that model. I know some prominent female musicians who have told me one of the hardest parts is this sudden responsibility to young female fans who look to them as guides of how to be in the world. We could all learn something there
I think the comments here and in the article are unnecessarily vitriolic towards Apple, who albeit is a trillion dollar corporation, but has plainly proven over decades that their business model is based on delivering genuine value to customers, a handful of caveats and misdirections withstanding.
Theory #1 is the obvious motive for Apple and the least riskiest approach. Apple does not take overt risks and are known to be slow to move. I do not see them making any deliberate pursuits towards AI-generated music until that market has been well proven out. Today, AI music still amounts to novelty meme content that shows up on your feed occasionally.
They have been cornering the classical music market since they bought Primephonic, the niche classical music streaming service, in August 2021. Clearly they are just trying to buy into the classical music industry by buying a reputable classical music label. It doesn't need to be fancy or even profitable - just well run, with hard-earned experience among its staff and ownership. Whats valuable to Apple here is the access to knowledge and experience of working within the classical music industry, and being exposed to every step between artist to listener.
What is likely here is that Apple is making a bet towards niche streaming services for music (and probably other forms of content) as the way to profitability. One giant music app with all artists and all tracks is starting to seem like a nebulous and herculean approach that never quite satisfies the user. However - a niche streaming app dedicated to classical music? That would invite die-hard classical fans and casual ethusiasts alike and is much more likely to retain users over time. And to build a successful niche app that satisfies the die-hard classical music listener, you need deep knowledge and expertise. That's why they bought BIS.
Another good insight. Didn't Apple announce (or release) a classical music app rather recently? Classical music lovers have been complaining about the limits of iTunes and the Music app for decades now. Apple didn't buy Beats just for its brilliant headset design. It bought Beats for its expertise in aspects of the music business.
This fits with Apple history. Apple bought SoundJam and hired its designers to turn it into iTunes. SoundJam was the pre-eminent music software if your listening choice was a Rio or similar MP3 box. From the first, Apple bought in outside expertise in music to produce the iPod. They've been doing it since.
Yes, Apple released the Apple Music Classical app which makes it easy to search classical music by composer, musician, instrument, etc... Mr. Gioia asks, “how many music fans searching for Beethoven or Mozart on streaming are picky about conductors and orchestras?” It makes no sense that Apple would release this app in conjunction with a strategy of using little-known artists. It doesn’t fit in with “streaming is bad, corporations are evil” narrative.
The Apple Classical app shows an Editor’s Choice as the first pick when searching for works or composers. For Beethoven’s fifth it’s neither Berlin Philharmonic nor Minneapolis Symphony it is surprisingly Simon Bolivar Philharmonic of Venezuela, so maybe Ted is partly right that they plan on reducing their costs by defaulting to lower royalty recommendations.
The Simon Bolivar Symphony Orchestra has recorded 4 albums for Deutsche Grammophon. Their conductor, Gustavo Dudamel, also leads the Los Angeles Philharmonic and will become the music and artistic director of the New York Philharmonic in 2026. The conductor and orchestra have been persecuted for protesting the authoritarian government of Venezuela. This is not to say that money is not a factor, but they seem to be a quality orchestra deserving of recognition.
Apple has been dealing with the "classical music industry" for as long as the iTunes store has existed. At various times, they've had special deals with classical specialty labels like Deutsche Grammophon (who used to sell downloads exclusively through iTunes) and with orchestras like the New York Philharmonic, the Vienna Philharmonic, etc. They've been in the classical space, as a distributor of downloads, for a long time now. They didn't need to buy a classical label to get experience with that side of the business.
The only new expertise they get from buying BIS is how to actually make new classical recordings: doing deals with conductors, orchestras and music publishers on the program for a recording; actually making the recordings; and then manufacturing and selling the CDs or SACDs (yes, BIS still records in DSD and releases a number of new SACD recordings each year). And inventory management, I guess, since BIS famously never deleted a title from its catalog, and would sell you any CD they'd ever published.
The problem is... why would Apple care about any of that? I really don't think they're interested in operating their own classical record label, in the sense of making new recordings and selling them on CD (or even making them available for download). It makes far more sense that Apple wants exclusive, royalty-free access to the BIS catalog (and probably the catalogs of not-yet-acquired classical labels), and will shut down the rest of BIS's business. Which sucks.
RE: Making deals with conductors, orchestras, publishers ... I think actually Apple does care a lot about that. One of the big problems with the incumbent streaming industry is that artists are severely underpaid. Apple taking ownership of a label allows them unfettered access to existing systems of compensation for artists, and gives them the know-how to improve it. I think they are probably considering sustainable compensation for artists as a priority to this next generation streaming app. I think anyone who is building a new streaming app today will probably prioritizing this.
Exclusive royalty-free access to the BIS catalog is just a cherry on top IMO. And if they shut down the rest of the BIS business, I'm sure it will be for the better. Out with the old, in with the new.
Though who side with power are always suspect to me.
Apple will never care about you and your needs. Their goal is money and they will deny us water, energy and food if serves their bottom line. Why would music not be the same?
Yooo, it’s the Minnesota Orchestra not the “Minnesota Symphony.” (It hasn’t been called a Symphony since its days as the Minneapolis Symphony, decades ago). Also, Osmo Vanska is an incredibly sensitive conductor; his recordings with the Minnesota Orchestra of his countryman Sibelius’s symphonies are transcendent. (However, I haven’t heard his Beethoven.)
Just had to set the record straight on my hometown orchestra. I probably feel as strongly about the Minnesota Orchestra as some people feel about the Twins or the Vikings.
Woops, I just called it the Minnesota Symphony in my comment. I will consider myself corrected. AND, you are making a point I made there: they are probably pretty good, and few of the billions of streaming customers will be able to tell the difference.
Which is not to say I'm ok with this trend, just that it means I want no part of streaming services.
I immediately felt protective of our hometown orchestra as well! 😊
Their Sibelius and Mahler cycles under Vänskä are indeed, “transcendent.” BBC Music Magazine recently said about their new recording of Mahler 9: “This is one of those listening experiences where the world afterwards is a different place.”
Apple rarely makes public comments about acquisitions. They buy a small company every 3-4 weeks on average, generally only employing a few people, primarily for their staff, who become employees at Apple.
It’s a pretty big jump from a minor acquisition to “Apple is going to destroy music”.
Some of those Safeway generics are quite good. We use a lot of them, and they are just as good as national brands, especially for things like vinegars, oils, cleaning products and a variety of food products.
It's rather obvious that it is different with music and other performing arts.
Yes exactly. Was going to say the same thing - not only grocery stores and their generic/white label knock offs, but same for CVS/Walgreens stores and OTC pharma products, other CPG products, and Amazon’s “Amazon Basics” which basically rip off the most lucrative 3rd party successes in their marketplace.
Only makes sense that low-margin music steaming would follow a similar race to the bottom.
And BTW - have you tried finding a good copy of a classic novel or other out of copyright version of any book on Amazon lately? There are typically a dozen versions, all slightly different, some full of typos, and unfortunately few or none high quality.
I find them on Abe.com, which is owned by Amazon, and is an aggregator for used book sellers. I use it the same way I do Amazon - I look there first, but depending on what I find, check out other options.
Think of it! Books have gone the way of every other product moving through Amazon. You wade through their offerings to find something kinda good — almost never what you actually want.
I think you’re bloody right. But also, when you mentioned “pervasive blandness and stagnation” on the culture, Taylor Swift popped unbidden in my brain. Besides her sophomoric lyrics and amateur vocals (which have acted like a narcotic on lazy listeners), what could be more stagnant than re-recording all your old stuff just to gain revenue? A true artist - especially a wealthy one - would say, “It sucks that my masters were sold, but just wait until you see what I do next - I’ve moved on from that old work!” But I’ll read your open letter with an open mind.
I don't get the whole Taylor Swift phenomenon either. Her music really isn't that good. I think I read she was rerecording her old music because other's had control of it or the rights to it, something like that, and she was getting control of her music.
That's a good insight. There's low value "fill" music perhaps a few cuts above "lorem ipsum" text, and then there's real music by real artists. Muzak made music ubiquitous, but it didn't destroy music. The market for "fill" music, elevator music, is still there, but it is cheaply produced and of acknowledged low quality. No one records the music in elevators or supermarket aisles. There is still a real market for listening music. If nothing else, the sales of vinyl and the powerful fandom of artists like Taylor Swift show that people are still willing to pay money for music. It's just that the technology has made it harder.
Streaming provides elevator music for everyone at a modest price. Maybe it needs to get even crappier - lower bit rates, more low quality covers - to fix things. Lower production cost could make providing elevator music more profitable but its sheer crappiness could reopen a niche for a higher quality option.
That niche would offer more expensive music, but it would pay more to the artists. I can imagine several possibilities - a return to music store purchases, sites like Bandcamp or direct artist sales, selling cartridges or other artifacts, a more precise BMI/ASCAP pay to play system. Odds are any solution will be more complex and possibly something new. I'm not a big music person, but I can't imagine a world without music.
Hold on there! Muzak got me through the 80’s while sitting in a sea of desks stuffed with amoral business people — mellifluous sounds of Gluck’s Dance of the Blessed Spirits, sappy and sufficiently soporific...
The music ideas themselves are in the public domain and are free to perform; nevertheless, the effort and expense of recording a piece is greater than nothing and must be distributed amongst the parties involved. Having thus invested, said parties have a right to seek a return, typically by selling limited copies of the recordings. They’re not selling PD music, they’re selling their contribution of PD music performance.
The purchase price is so small by Apple standards that there is the distinct possibility that there is no strategy (or meaning) behind the purchase at all. I used to do work for a corporate R&D center that existed as a favor to an aging key exec. When he retired, they shut it down.
Or like the many many tech patents they buy and never use. They own it and do whatever they like with it. I see it like owning a book. For a long time I had a 'thing' about books like they were more than a bound stack of paper covered in words. At some point I got over it and started to do with the books as I please, tore out pages, wrote in them 😱, threw them away, etc. The participation with the arts and its output is the same. The arts are not holy or sacred (or they are and then everything is). We need to bring the level of significance down (a lot, 😉).
Kind of like a modern day Olivia de Havilland. OdH sued the studios and won her freedom from perpetual contract in 1944. That was the beginning of the end for the old studio system. You can argue about the creative value of what followed, but it was definitely a kick in the ass.
Have to say it’s slightly odd/obtuse not to mention that Apple recently launched a rapturously received classical music app, with all the UX improvements and catalogue accuracy you’ve been calling for for years.
Great article. One caveat:
“Theory #2: Apple despises music and musicians.”
This flatters both a) musicians (and by extension writers, other artists, etc.) and b) everyone who cares about the arts, any art.
Apple, Amazon and their fellow tech lords don’t despise us. They’re utterly indifferent. They don’t care. What’s more, it rarely, if ever, occurs to them that that that might even be an option.
They don’t despise people who can do things they can’t, appreciate things they don’t or who have simply made life choices they didn’t. That would entail some level of respect and resentment.
Nor is there likely much guilt about unfairly profiting off other’s work that leads to anger (it’s not a case of ‘we hate those we exploit.’) They evidently think entirely in terms of product, processes (of distribution, consumption, monetizing, etc), consumers and long term strategies.
Not only are the actual individuals who create & cultivate art beneath contempt (being despised), they’re usually beneath even perfunctory notice.
I think you make an important distinction that I agree with: indifference is much worse than being despised!
The banality of business. The musicians and artists, no matter how amazing, have always just been product-producers to the businessfolk - witness the parade of musicians hoodwinked time and time again by predatory contracts over the years. This is the same old story with the twist that modern technology has effectively locked us all into subscriptions rather than having agency to buy what we choose. Having all the world’s music on demand in our pocket comes with a cost and, at some point, we are going to pay.
As a poet and songwriter, I could not agree more.
All I am seeing here is that Apple, while spreading the ability to listen to classical music, is trying to reduce royalty costs, not the costs paid to the performers but to the record companies. That they push their own version of classical music isn’t really that problematic.
There’s a lot of sanctimony here, from self declared artists, about the importance of creativity in art, as if that is the only way to creativity. Not only is technology as or more important than art, it is essential to it. Unless you are an a cappella singer.
“There’s a lot of sanctimony here, from self declared artists, about the importance of creativity in art, as if that is the only way to creativity. Not only is technology as or more important than art, it is essential to it.”
A provocative take. And a very strong, if inadvertent, argument for guitarist Marc Ribot’s “Music wants to free? How come computers don’t want to be?” sentiments.
Once we accept our tech overlords as the great romantic creative forces of our age the next step should be making their products, services, subscriptions and hardware as incredibly cheap and close to free for everyone as they’ve made such non-essentials to “creativity” as music.
The phrase is “information wants to be free” and that includes software. This is not a sentiment i agree with.
The reason why this post is particularly misguided is because it was Apple that killed off the napster era, and in doing so that particular sentiment.
See: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204002304576629463753783594
In any case Ted is merely throwing red meat to the luddites here, actual artists often use Apple software to produce their output. See
https://www.engadget.com/2020-01-27-billie-eilish-grammy-2020-bedroom-studio-logic-pro-x.html
I doubt if there’s much talent in this commentary section, a few thwarted artists shouting at techs, a few old men shaking their fists at clouds.
I was stating Marc Ribot’s argument. I literally cited him. You’re welcome to google Ribot’s takes, interviews and quotes.
You seem to have a real desire to go ad hominem here, Nolan.
There are a lot of reasons that might not be prudent (including, but not limited to, your smug overbearing autism spectrum tech-bro mindset and an inadvertently comic avatar that looks looks like it was created by an aging pedophile with a taste for underage boys), but it’s your choice, Nolan. Perhaps there’s a logic to it that escapes me.
touché
I’m in LA where Taylor Swift just did six sold out stadium shows. The city had a kinetic circus feeling that was palpable. There’s a used bookstore with an incredible music section I frequent regularly and swear that section was bristling with female teenagers that week looking for books on songwriting and I talked to a few of them. The Eras show had had a radical impact on them. That’s the aspect of Swift that self-appointed male music gatekeepers don’t understand about her. Music isn’t just notes on a page or tritone substitutions. For a generation that seems to me rejecting the failed models that preceded them or are searching for models to live their lives differently, musicians often offer that model. I know some prominent female musicians who have told me one of the hardest parts is this sudden responsibility to young female fans who look to them as guides of how to be in the world. We could all learn something there
I think the comments here and in the article are unnecessarily vitriolic towards Apple, who albeit is a trillion dollar corporation, but has plainly proven over decades that their business model is based on delivering genuine value to customers, a handful of caveats and misdirections withstanding.
Theory #1 is the obvious motive for Apple and the least riskiest approach. Apple does not take overt risks and are known to be slow to move. I do not see them making any deliberate pursuits towards AI-generated music until that market has been well proven out. Today, AI music still amounts to novelty meme content that shows up on your feed occasionally.
They have been cornering the classical music market since they bought Primephonic, the niche classical music streaming service, in August 2021. Clearly they are just trying to buy into the classical music industry by buying a reputable classical music label. It doesn't need to be fancy or even profitable - just well run, with hard-earned experience among its staff and ownership. Whats valuable to Apple here is the access to knowledge and experience of working within the classical music industry, and being exposed to every step between artist to listener.
What is likely here is that Apple is making a bet towards niche streaming services for music (and probably other forms of content) as the way to profitability. One giant music app with all artists and all tracks is starting to seem like a nebulous and herculean approach that never quite satisfies the user. However - a niche streaming app dedicated to classical music? That would invite die-hard classical fans and casual ethusiasts alike and is much more likely to retain users over time. And to build a successful niche app that satisfies the die-hard classical music listener, you need deep knowledge and expertise. That's why they bought BIS.
Another good insight. Didn't Apple announce (or release) a classical music app rather recently? Classical music lovers have been complaining about the limits of iTunes and the Music app for decades now. Apple didn't buy Beats just for its brilliant headset design. It bought Beats for its expertise in aspects of the music business.
This fits with Apple history. Apple bought SoundJam and hired its designers to turn it into iTunes. SoundJam was the pre-eminent music software if your listening choice was a Rio or similar MP3 box. From the first, Apple bought in outside expertise in music to produce the iPod. They've been doing it since.
Yes, Apple released the Apple Music Classical app which makes it easy to search classical music by composer, musician, instrument, etc... Mr. Gioia asks, “how many music fans searching for Beethoven or Mozart on streaming are picky about conductors and orchestras?” It makes no sense that Apple would release this app in conjunction with a strategy of using little-known artists. It doesn’t fit in with “streaming is bad, corporations are evil” narrative.
The Apple Classical app shows an Editor’s Choice as the first pick when searching for works or composers. For Beethoven’s fifth it’s neither Berlin Philharmonic nor Minneapolis Symphony it is surprisingly Simon Bolivar Philharmonic of Venezuela, so maybe Ted is partly right that they plan on reducing their costs by defaulting to lower royalty recommendations.
The Simon Bolivar Symphony Orchestra has recorded 4 albums for Deutsche Grammophon. Their conductor, Gustavo Dudamel, also leads the Los Angeles Philharmonic and will become the music and artistic director of the New York Philharmonic in 2026. The conductor and orchestra have been persecuted for protesting the authoritarian government of Venezuela. This is not to say that money is not a factor, but they seem to be a quality orchestra deserving of recognition.
Apple has been dealing with the "classical music industry" for as long as the iTunes store has existed. At various times, they've had special deals with classical specialty labels like Deutsche Grammophon (who used to sell downloads exclusively through iTunes) and with orchestras like the New York Philharmonic, the Vienna Philharmonic, etc. They've been in the classical space, as a distributor of downloads, for a long time now. They didn't need to buy a classical label to get experience with that side of the business.
The only new expertise they get from buying BIS is how to actually make new classical recordings: doing deals with conductors, orchestras and music publishers on the program for a recording; actually making the recordings; and then manufacturing and selling the CDs or SACDs (yes, BIS still records in DSD and releases a number of new SACD recordings each year). And inventory management, I guess, since BIS famously never deleted a title from its catalog, and would sell you any CD they'd ever published.
The problem is... why would Apple care about any of that? I really don't think they're interested in operating their own classical record label, in the sense of making new recordings and selling them on CD (or even making them available for download). It makes far more sense that Apple wants exclusive, royalty-free access to the BIS catalog (and probably the catalogs of not-yet-acquired classical labels), and will shut down the rest of BIS's business. Which sucks.
RE: Making deals with conductors, orchestras, publishers ... I think actually Apple does care a lot about that. One of the big problems with the incumbent streaming industry is that artists are severely underpaid. Apple taking ownership of a label allows them unfettered access to existing systems of compensation for artists, and gives them the know-how to improve it. I think they are probably considering sustainable compensation for artists as a priority to this next generation streaming app. I think anyone who is building a new streaming app today will probably prioritizing this.
Exclusive royalty-free access to the BIS catalog is just a cherry on top IMO. And if they shut down the rest of the BIS business, I'm sure it will be for the better. Out with the old, in with the new.
Though who side with power are always suspect to me.
Apple will never care about you and your needs. Their goal is money and they will deny us water, energy and food if serves their bottom line. Why would music not be the same?
Yooo, it’s the Minnesota Orchestra not the “Minnesota Symphony.” (It hasn’t been called a Symphony since its days as the Minneapolis Symphony, decades ago). Also, Osmo Vanska is an incredibly sensitive conductor; his recordings with the Minnesota Orchestra of his countryman Sibelius’s symphonies are transcendent. (However, I haven’t heard his Beethoven.)
Just had to set the record straight on my hometown orchestra. I probably feel as strongly about the Minnesota Orchestra as some people feel about the Twins or the Vikings.
Woops, I just called it the Minnesota Symphony in my comment. I will consider myself corrected. AND, you are making a point I made there: they are probably pretty good, and few of the billions of streaming customers will be able to tell the difference.
Which is not to say I'm ok with this trend, just that it means I want no part of streaming services.
I immediately felt protective of our hometown orchestra as well! 😊
Their Sibelius and Mahler cycles under Vänskä are indeed, “transcendent.” BBC Music Magazine recently said about their new recording of Mahler 9: “This is one of those listening experiences where the world afterwards is a different place.”
https://bringmethenews.com/life/high-praise-for-minnesota-orchestras-carnegie-hall-concert
Apple rarely makes public comments about acquisitions. They buy a small company every 3-4 weeks on average, generally only employing a few people, primarily for their staff, who become employees at Apple.
It’s a pretty big jump from a minor acquisition to “Apple is going to destroy music”.
Agreed. There’s clearly a vast misunderstanding of how corporations the size and scale of Apple function foe M&A.
Yeah, this could be as simple as wanting a regular way to test various recording methods to enhance their headphones/airpods
It's like Safeway offering a store brand, right next to the national brands and with similar packaging.
In case anyone misses the point, it also says "Compare to <national brand> " right on it.
Some of those Safeway generics are quite good. We use a lot of them, and they are just as good as national brands, especially for things like vinegars, oils, cleaning products and a variety of food products.
It's rather obvious that it is different with music and other performing arts.
True, and a lot of them are made by the same factories, with just the label changed.
Yes exactly. Was going to say the same thing - not only grocery stores and their generic/white label knock offs, but same for CVS/Walgreens stores and OTC pharma products, other CPG products, and Amazon’s “Amazon Basics” which basically rip off the most lucrative 3rd party successes in their marketplace.
Only makes sense that low-margin music steaming would follow a similar race to the bottom.
And BTW - have you tried finding a good copy of a classic novel or other out of copyright version of any book on Amazon lately? There are typically a dozen versions, all slightly different, some full of typos, and unfortunately few or none high quality.
I find them on Abe.com, which is owned by Amazon, and is an aggregator for used book sellers. I use it the same way I do Amazon - I look there first, but depending on what I find, check out other options.
Think of it! Books have gone the way of every other product moving through Amazon. You wade through their offerings to find something kinda good — almost never what you actually want.
I have, and yes, you're absolutely rigfht. Thank goodness for World of Books and used bookstores in towns and cities.
I think you’re bloody right. But also, when you mentioned “pervasive blandness and stagnation” on the culture, Taylor Swift popped unbidden in my brain. Besides her sophomoric lyrics and amateur vocals (which have acted like a narcotic on lazy listeners), what could be more stagnant than re-recording all your old stuff just to gain revenue? A true artist - especially a wealthy one - would say, “It sucks that my masters were sold, but just wait until you see what I do next - I’ve moved on from that old work!” But I’ll read your open letter with an open mind.
I don't know, I think re-recording was A) easy money, so why not? and B) a great F U to the people who were lording her old stuff...
I don't get the whole Taylor Swift phenomenon either. Her music really isn't that good. I think I read she was rerecording her old music because other's had control of it or the rights to it, something like that, and she was getting control of her music.
Apple doesn't like or hate music and musicians. Apple likes money.
Surprisingly, it seems possible for Apple to make money from from liking music & musicians.
Example, Garageband. Comes free on iPhones & Macs.
I know this is off topic - Verve Records logo is being used (I think) on the new dockers shirt. (sorry for the off topic).
https://us.dockers.com/collections/mens-new-arrivals/products/graphic-tee-slim-fit-a11030195?utm_kibo=01FD0ST3994PCC4F79DD28SYTR&_kx=zJIdnaa6P5BhbJuQXB5cyA5DBEtndjtbzXMjhVzcMPU%3D.T5BMx8
So streaming services are turning into Muzak.
Lol?
That's a good insight. There's low value "fill" music perhaps a few cuts above "lorem ipsum" text, and then there's real music by real artists. Muzak made music ubiquitous, but it didn't destroy music. The market for "fill" music, elevator music, is still there, but it is cheaply produced and of acknowledged low quality. No one records the music in elevators or supermarket aisles. There is still a real market for listening music. If nothing else, the sales of vinyl and the powerful fandom of artists like Taylor Swift show that people are still willing to pay money for music. It's just that the technology has made it harder.
Streaming provides elevator music for everyone at a modest price. Maybe it needs to get even crappier - lower bit rates, more low quality covers - to fix things. Lower production cost could make providing elevator music more profitable but its sheer crappiness could reopen a niche for a higher quality option.
That niche would offer more expensive music, but it would pay more to the artists. I can imagine several possibilities - a return to music store purchases, sites like Bandcamp or direct artist sales, selling cartridges or other artifacts, a more precise BMI/ASCAP pay to play system. Odds are any solution will be more complex and possibly something new. I'm not a big music person, but I can't imagine a world without music.
Hold on there! Muzak got me through the 80’s while sitting in a sea of desks stuffed with amoral business people — mellifluous sounds of Gluck’s Dance of the Blessed Spirits, sappy and sufficiently soporific...
Classical music should remain free and accessible to all. Here is a playlist I listen to while writing: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-be-a-classic
The music ideas themselves are in the public domain and are free to perform; nevertheless, the effort and expense of recording a piece is greater than nothing and must be distributed amongst the parties involved. Having thus invested, said parties have a right to seek a return, typically by selling limited copies of the recordings. They’re not selling PD music, they’re selling their contribution of PD music performance.
The purchase price is so small by Apple standards that there is the distinct possibility that there is no strategy (or meaning) behind the purchase at all. I used to do work for a corporate R&D center that existed as a favor to an aging key exec. When he retired, they shut it down.
Or like the many many tech patents they buy and never use. They own it and do whatever they like with it. I see it like owning a book. For a long time I had a 'thing' about books like they were more than a bound stack of paper covered in words. At some point I got over it and started to do with the books as I please, tore out pages, wrote in them 😱, threw them away, etc. The participation with the arts and its output is the same. The arts are not holy or sacred (or they are and then everything is). We need to bring the level of significance down (a lot, 😉).
The last two words say it all and the more I read, the more I get why.... Taylor Swift.
You have to love her solution to her ex manager & publishing fiasco.
Have you seen her NPR Tiny Desk Concert? She is so engaging and SO good!
And the demographics of her followers? They will be with her a long, long time to come.
She may be the solution to a lot of the ills of the music business.
Kind of like a modern day Olivia de Havilland. OdH sued the studios and won her freedom from perpetual contract in 1944. That was the beginning of the end for the old studio system. You can argue about the creative value of what followed, but it was definitely a kick in the ass.
I just assumed they wanted to legally own a bunch of classical recordings for AI training purposes.
Not surprising you mention Queen Tay at the end. Swiftie Supporter here!
Have to say it’s slightly odd/obtuse not to mention that Apple recently launched a rapturously received classical music app, with all the UX improvements and catalogue accuracy you’ve been calling for for years.