Apple is working on a new digital music format(time.com)
time.com
Apple is working on a new digital music format
http://time.com/3393297/u2-apple-new-digital-format/
78 comments
Well-put sir, thank you for this.
This is the band with the most sociopathhic manager since Peter Grant, who has been trying to push DRM before: http://devrandom.net/~zeruch/wordpress/?page_id=507 (disclosure, the link is my own write up of a speech by Paul McGuinness at a Medem conf)
Here's something I've always wanted: A consumer music file format that preserves all of the underlying tracks ('stems') so that they can be adjusted while you listen to the song.
Imagine listening to a recording and going "ooh, that bassline", and then turning up the bassist and turning down everything else to hear it better. Or easily "remixing" while you listen by eg. applying a filter to only the drums. You could even save presets to listen to "your" mix of the song again. Maybe this only appeals to hardcore music fans, but I know it's something I'd love to play with.
Of course it would have to be supported by major user-friendly software like iTunes, and would have to implement a nice interface for interacting with a tracks. But I've always thought Apple was very well positioned to take this on, if they wanted to.
Imagine listening to a recording and going "ooh, that bassline", and then turning up the bassist and turning down everything else to hear it better. Or easily "remixing" while you listen by eg. applying a filter to only the drums. You could even save presets to listen to "your" mix of the song again. Maybe this only appeals to hardcore music fans, but I know it's something I'd love to play with.
Of course it would have to be supported by major user-friendly software like iTunes, and would have to implement a nice interface for interacting with a tracks. But I've always thought Apple was very well positioned to take this on, if they wanted to.
There are tons of formats like that. Midi, old tracker ones (s3m, xm, mod).
But very few artists are willing to publish the "source code" of their work.
But very few artists are willing to publish the "source code" of their work.
What about rock bands and other recording music with their instruments rather than through samplers ?
I'm pretty sure they are recorded separately in a studio. At least the high end bands.
Just yesterday I was investigating music/production startups, and one of the few ideas I came across that seemed halfway-interesting was Splice[0]. On the producer side they have plugins for a few DAWs that enable easier collaboration and version tracking and so forth. But what comes of that (and why it's relevant to your comment) is a Soundcloud-ish embeddable web player that breaks out all the tracks/stems into a timeline beneath the main player interface.
It's pretty interesting, although I don't know how much of an opportunity is there, for some of the same reasons mentioned in the other replies. Musicians and producers can be incredibly reticent about this stuff.
[0]http://splice.com
It's pretty interesting, although I don't know how much of an opportunity is there, for some of the same reasons mentioned in the other replies. Musicians and producers can be incredibly reticent about this stuff.
[0]http://splice.com
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 same thing goes for headphones. It's better to get something more or less neutral in the sound to listen music in the way is supposed to sound, not distorting it adding crazy bass.
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 same thing goes for headphones. It's better to get something more or less neutral in the sound to listen music in the way is supposed to sound, not distorting it adding crazy bass.
As someone who spent a number of years mixing records professionally, I can definitely attest to the fact that even talented musicians are usually pretty terrible at mixing. It's a subtle art, and it takes a lot of experience/practice to do even remotely well.
But I think the larger point is that most artists and labels would hate this. To a singer, having someone hear your soloed vocal track is like being seen naked.
I think most artists view their records as being a single work of art. The song, arrangement, equipment, mixing, and mastering are all part of something bigger. Artists don't really want people to be able to break that apart. It's not meant to be experienced that way.
But I think the larger point is that most artists and labels would hate this. To a singer, having someone hear your soloed vocal track is like being seen naked.
I think most artists view their records as being a single work of art. The song, arrangement, equipment, mixing, and mastering are all part of something bigger. Artists don't really want people to be able to break that apart. It's not meant to be experienced that way.
> 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 or eating food that doesn't match was a good idea?
Some people might even make it sound better, but you're advocating we take that opportunity away from them without giving them the benefit of the doubt.
> 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 or eating food that doesn't match was a good idea?
Some people might even make it sound better, but you're advocating we take that opportunity away from them without giving them the benefit of the doubt.
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.
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.
Doesn't matter who's better at what. If consumers want to make smiley faces with their EQ let them. It's all about customization. Ask Metallica about how great their sound engineers were when they basically neutered their album.
People buy Beats because they like the way they sound (or because their idols use them). Even if you may think it's the same as ultra boost.
It's not about what sounds good, it's about what you think sounds good.
People buy Beats because they like the way they sound (or because their idols use them). Even if you may think it's the same as ultra boost.
It's not about what sounds good, it's about what you think sounds good.
I'd agree with you if those audio engineers hadn't participated in the loudness war for the three last decades.
For what it's worth, most engineers want absolutely nothing to do with the loudness wars. These are people who've made a career on developing their ears, and the harmonic distortion from limiting the fuck out of a recording sounds even worse to them than it does to the general public.
The problem is that record labels have bought into the idea that a record needs to be outrageously loud in order to compete on radio. And the labels are the ones paying the mastering engineers.
The problem is that record labels have bought into the idea that a record needs to be outrageously loud in order to compete on radio. And the labels are the ones paying the mastering engineers.
It might not be for simply listening to the music, but for a moment 'hey this bassline kicks ass, I want to hear it alone to study it'
People often comment on the lack of bass in my headphone choices - I describe it as 'clinical' and much prefer studio-style response.
This could be interesting. Especially for artists using the Apple toolchain, namely Logic. It seems like a lot of stuff could then be duplicated on the desktop / mobile to give interested listeners control over various song elements.
I don't know how many people would actually be interested in that, though. It would be targeting a segment of music listeners that are extremely engaged with their music. I don't know if that market is really big enough to overcome the growing preference for streaming services.
I don't know how many people would actually be interested in that, though. It would be targeting a segment of music listeners that are extremely engaged with their music. I don't know if that market is really big enough to overcome the growing preference for streaming services.
I would love this, but the file sizes would be insane. We'd be talking hundreds of megabytes (possibly gigabytes?) per song. Unless each track was MP3 encoded first, but I'd imagine you'd have trouble mixing tracks together from lossy sources.
Insane ? A standard DVD is 4.7 gigabytes. That would be 6 tracks and it would be ideal for any rock band and we haven't yet compressed the thing with loss (not technically true but you get the point.
I don't know about electronic music though.
I don't know about electronic music though.
I imagine this being greeted with fury and lawsuits from the artists. I remember a company in Utah that made family-friendly cuts of popular movies being sued for the modifications.
I believe Ogg has support for this, but who publishes oggs?
That would be awesome...
If it's going to be a proprietary DRM-locked file format - just don't bother, Apple.
I doubt they're talking about a new encoding format or anything like that. If I had to guess, I would be thinking more about something like the recentish NiN album that came with Garageband files so that you could remix the music yourself. Or which provides synchronised lyrics embedded in the music, or something like that.
Not to mention sales of music downloads are tanking through the floor. Consumption is predominantly streaming now, and that's the way people like it.
I simply don't see any static, local file format succeeding regardless of DRM-encumbrance. It's simply less useful to mainstream users than the streaming equivalent.
The battle isn't about which format your files should be in, it's about whether or not you have any files at all.
I simply don't see any static, local file format succeeding regardless of DRM-encumbrance. It's simply less useful to mainstream users than the streaming equivalent.
The battle isn't about which format your files should be in, it's about whether or not you have any files at all.
That and/or "high definition", "above CD quality" digital audio.
There's a lot of noise in the digital music industry about high quality audio at present. U2 may be following in Neil Young's PONO footsteps.
There may be doubt whether high quality audio can deliver what it promises - i.e. an improvement over MP3 320 that is noticeable to normal people's ears. But the Pono kickstarter proves beyond any doubt that there's money it it: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1003614822/ponomusic-wh...
There's a lot of noise in the digital music industry about high quality audio at present. U2 may be following in Neil Young's PONO footsteps.
There may be doubt whether high quality audio can deliver what it promises - i.e. an improvement over MP3 320 that is noticeable to normal people's ears. But the Pono kickstarter proves beyond any doubt that there's money it it: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1003614822/ponomusic-wh...
The recording industry have tried the "above CD quality" thing to get people to re-buy their music several times before. Each time it flopped, and I fail to see why this time will be different.
I don't disagree. To generalise a lot:
The older members of the music-listening public are more likely to be audiophiles and have more money to throw at kickstarters from classic rockers. They are a bit slower to adopt new technologies, but are now fairly well on board with iPods and MP3s. However their ears aren't always high definition any more.
The younger members of the music-listening public don't really bother so much with the concept of "owning" music. It's like fresh air – so long at it's streaming at you, it's good and who cares about owning it.
No mass market for buying high-definition audio downloads is to be found in either category.
The older members of the music-listening public are more likely to be audiophiles and have more money to throw at kickstarters from classic rockers. They are a bit slower to adopt new technologies, but are now fairly well on board with iPods and MP3s. However their ears aren't always high definition any more.
The younger members of the music-listening public don't really bother so much with the concept of "owning" music. It's like fresh air – so long at it's streaming at you, it's good and who cares about owning it.
No mass market for buying high-definition audio downloads is to be found in either category.
From TFA, it sounds like they might finally understand the dynamics of piracy and drm:
"Bono tells TIME he hopes that a new digital music format in the works will prove so irresistibly exciting to music fans that it will tempt them again into buying music"
Stopping piracy isn't accomplished by punishing users, its done by making legitimacy easier/more appealing in the first place.
However, if it's truly irresistibly exciting, but $1.29 per song, that implies DRM, as one can safely assume the exciting aspect is not the act of purchasing the music.
"Bono tells TIME he hopes that a new digital music format in the works will prove so irresistibly exciting to music fans that it will tempt them again into buying music"
Stopping piracy isn't accomplished by punishing users, its done by making legitimacy easier/more appealing in the first place.
However, if it's truly irresistibly exciting, but $1.29 per song, that implies DRM, as one can safely assume the exciting aspect is not the act of purchasing the music.
Why would it be? iTunes tracks started transitioning to DRM-free 7 years ago - as far as I can see from some quick research they were one of if not the first music store offering DRM free music from any of the major labels, and absolutely gave immense weight to the DRM-free push before many of the current competing services even existed.
So, if your comment is going to follow the typical apple bashing, history ignoring model, just don't bother.
So, if your comment is going to follow the typical apple bashing, history ignoring model, just don't bother.
I would bet money that it will be.
Some potential ideas
- pay per listen, local cache
- embedded lyrics, photos
- extra sound bytes (exclusive to track owners)
- optional videos
- asynchronous Comms with the band: FAQs. News, interviews, etc
There are many things you can do that link purchased content with other content. Adding lyrics that appear in realtime would also be handy.
My ideas are now patented. Pay me 5% of all future sales please... Isn't that how patents work? State the obvious and rake in cash for doing very little?
There are many things you can do that link purchased content with other content. Adding lyrics that appear in realtime would also be handy.
My ideas are now patented. Pay me 5% of all future sales please... Isn't that how patents work? State the obvious and rake in cash for doing very little?
I'm pretty sure mp3/aac can already store lyrics in the metadata. Most of the songs on my iPod have lyrics with them that show up while playing, though they don't sync with the music, it's just the full text. And these are songs from other sources like Bandcamp or CDs, so it's not some iTunes/Apple specific feature.
Hmm, I distincly remember my iPhone 3G supporting lyrics embedded into MP3 and AAC audio files... isn't that the case anymore?
Embedded lyrics please
Whatever it becomes it's going to have iTunes lock-in. So glad I never bought into that walled garden.
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 the music industry. Artists are getting completely screwed by labels and must tour by necessity to make money. In fact, with the huge growth in the festival industry, small acts (and large acts of old) can make significant chunks of money they otherwise wouldn't. 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. A new digital format isn't going to change that.
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 the music industry. Artists are getting completely screwed by labels and must tour by necessity to make money. In fact, with the huge growth in the festival industry, small acts (and large acts of old) can make significant chunks of money they otherwise wouldn't. 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. A new digital format isn't going to change that.
> 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?
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.
Great, another proprietary format.
While I want everything to be open and interoperable, I personally work in a startup that aims to make profit. So I also understand the commercial reasons of proprietary technologies.
So, I am torn, what should be proprietary and what should be open?
While I want everything to be open and interoperable, I personally work in a startup that aims to make profit. So I also understand the commercial reasons of proprietary technologies.
So, I am torn, what should be proprietary and what should be open?
Formats should never be proprietary. That's just holding user data hostage.
Really, nothing should be proprietary, or at least not proprietary forever.Take note of Id Software's approach of open-sourcing their engines X years after release of the accompanying game.
If we keep releasing proprietary systems, nothing will be archived or usable in the future, if the source is never released. Hundreds of video games are going to be inaccessible in the future due to DRM servers, or proprietary backends.
I mean, I can ramble on forever, but it's pretty clear that non-free[1] software is bad for the future of people and society. Snowden proved RMS right.
[1]: Free as in freedom: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html (You can still charge money for free software or related services. Not everyone can run their own Google, even if they open sourced it all. But that's a whole 'nother set or arguments.)
Really, nothing should be proprietary, or at least not proprietary forever.Take note of Id Software's approach of open-sourcing their engines X years after release of the accompanying game.
If we keep releasing proprietary systems, nothing will be archived or usable in the future, if the source is never released. Hundreds of video games are going to be inaccessible in the future due to DRM servers, or proprietary backends.
I mean, I can ramble on forever, but it's pretty clear that non-free[1] software is bad for the future of people and society. Snowden proved RMS right.
[1]: Free as in freedom: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html (You can still charge money for free software or related services. Not everyone can run their own Google, even if they open sourced it all. But that's a whole 'nother set or arguments.)
Open: anything required to survive.
Prop: anything optional to survive.
There's no chance whatsoever that this is a new DRM-encumbered format[1]. None. So some people need to take a breath.
(And there's almost as little chance that it is going to matter any more than the Apple/Bandai Pippin @WORLD.)
If Apple is actually involved in a more significant way than grudgingly acting as fluffer to Bono's fantasies of heroically saving a nonsensical[2] industry that briefly emerged as an artifact of technological limitations of the previous century, I would guess it is some kind of super-metadata-laden format that includes art/video/interview/extras, maybe including built-in remixability or something, that is designed (but unlikely) to entice users to buy even more DRM-free $1.29 songs than they already do in MP3/AAC.
[1]: http://macdailynews.com/2007/02/06/apple_ceo_steve_jobs_post... (Was astonished that Apple doesn't still host this, btw. But it's not gonna change.)
[2]: “Cole Porter wouldn’t have sold T-shirts. Cole Porter wasn’t coming to a stadium near you.” Right. So he would have sold his songs to somebody who was -- or else not made much money from it. So what. There are homeless drummers in SF better than Cole Porter, and no new media format is going to change any of that, nor should it.
(And there's almost as little chance that it is going to matter any more than the Apple/Bandai Pippin @WORLD.)
If Apple is actually involved in a more significant way than grudgingly acting as fluffer to Bono's fantasies of heroically saving a nonsensical[2] industry that briefly emerged as an artifact of technological limitations of the previous century, I would guess it is some kind of super-metadata-laden format that includes art/video/interview/extras, maybe including built-in remixability or something, that is designed (but unlikely) to entice users to buy even more DRM-free $1.29 songs than they already do in MP3/AAC.
[1]: http://macdailynews.com/2007/02/06/apple_ceo_steve_jobs_post... (Was astonished that Apple doesn't still host this, btw. But it's not gonna change.)
[2]: “Cole Porter wouldn’t have sold T-shirts. Cole Porter wasn’t coming to a stadium near you.” Right. So he would have sold his songs to somebody who was -- or else not made much money from it. So what. There are homeless drummers in SF better than Cole Porter, and no new media format is going to change any of that, nor should it.
Apple should buy Pono, Neil Young & Jon Hamm's music "high-resolution" 24-bit 192kHz audio company and have Neil play some real Rock & Roll at Apple events.
I'm a huge Neil Young fan, but Pono is bound to fail. Throughout the evolution of widely adopted audio formats, the sound quality has always decreased. The average listener doesn't care about fidelity. They can't tell the difference. They care about convenience.
Cassette tapes were better than vinyl records, because they were more portable. CDs were better than tapes, because you could skip tracks. Mp3s were better than CDs, because you could fit thousands of them in your pocket. But at each step of that progression, the sound got worse.
Young's testimonials are from professional musicians, the extremely small subset of the public that actually cares about the quality of the sound. These are not the people he needs to convince. This is obviously aimed at the general public, who have proven time and time again that convenience is king.
The vast majority of people can't tell the difference between an 16-bit, 44.1kHz, 192kbps mp3 and a 24-bit, 192kHz, losslessly compressed file.
Cassette tapes were better than vinyl records, because they were more portable. CDs were better than tapes, because you could skip tracks. Mp3s were better than CDs, because you could fit thousands of them in your pocket. But at each step of that progression, the sound got worse.
Young's testimonials are from professional musicians, the extremely small subset of the public that actually cares about the quality of the sound. These are not the people he needs to convince. This is obviously aimed at the general public, who have proven time and time again that convenience is king.
The vast majority of people can't tell the difference between an 16-bit, 44.1kHz, 192kbps mp3 and a 24-bit, 192kHz, losslessly compressed file.
>The vast majority of people can't tell the difference between an 16-bit, 44.1kHz, 192kbps mp3 and a 24-bit, 192kHz, losslessly compressed file.
I don't think the vast majority of people could either tell the difference or care about the difference between much larger compression gaps than that.
I received three free months of Sirius radio when I purchased a certified used car. After a few minutes of flipping through the channels, I couldn't understand why anyone would want to listen to such highly compressed music with tons of artifacts, yet lots of people pay for subscriptions.
I don't think the vast majority of people could either tell the difference or care about the difference between much larger compression gaps than that.
I received three free months of Sirius radio when I purchased a certified used car. After a few minutes of flipping through the channels, I couldn't understand why anyone would want to listen to such highly compressed music with tons of artifacts, yet lots of people pay for subscriptions.
The sound got worse when going from tapes to CDs?
Neil Young was born in 1945 and has been rocking since 1960
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Young
If his ears can still tell the difference between "high-resolution" audio and MP3 320, then it is a miracle of geriatric audiological medicine. Seriously, medicine should get on that, there's something unknown to science going on there.
If his ears can still tell the difference between "high-resolution" audio and MP3 320, then it is a miracle of geriatric audiological medicine. Seriously, medicine should get on that, there's something unknown to science going on there.
I liked the new U2 album, but the amount of compression used was absurd. A new high-resolution format won't be able to fix poor decisions made in the mastering booth.
I am fully supportive of the idea that musicians and songwriters should get compensated for their work in proportion with its popluarity. Just because people love to make music, that doesn't mean they don't want to save for retirement, buy a house, send kids to college, maybe do some investing, etc. If you pirate an album you like, instead of buying it, you're taking advantage of those artists.
[steps off soapbox]
That said, I have a hard time seeing how a new digital music format is going to affect piracy at all. AAC is already technically superior to MP3, but everyone still trades MP3s.
And I really hope this is not a veiled reference to a new DRM format.
[steps off soapbox]
That said, I have a hard time seeing how a new digital music format is going to affect piracy at all. AAC is already technically superior to MP3, but everyone still trades MP3s.
And I really hope this is not a veiled reference to a new DRM format.
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 label (correct) but does this mean that the musician said his recorded music is free? (incorrect!)
We have disgust for software piracy here (particularly if it something we have written), yet the same disgust DOES not translate to music or musicians. It is wrong.
I think it is an attitude that needs to change. And the argument that "if I like it, I'll buy it" is wrong too; do we all pirate Microsoft Office and decide if we'll buy it after using it for a while? I don't! I buy Office if I need Office / enjoy using Office (not likely with that daft ribbon interface!).
We have disgust for software piracy here (particularly if it something we have written), yet the same disgust DOES not translate to music or musicians. It is wrong.
I think it is an attitude that needs to change. And the argument that "if I like it, I'll buy it" is wrong too; do we all pirate Microsoft Office and decide if we'll buy it after using it for a while? I don't! I buy Office if I need Office / enjoy using Office (not likely with that daft ribbon interface!).
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 recordings. The only exceptions are "manufactured" pop stars, like Miley Cyrus or Ariana Grande, who get big contracts right away through high-powered connections and nepotism.
And yes, the record "fat cats" earnings are perfectly relevant in this situation. They are exploiting musician's work to become wealthy, and by supporting them, you are implicitly supporting their actions. If you want to support a band, go see their shows and buy their merchandise.
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 recordings. The only exceptions are "manufactured" pop stars, like Miley Cyrus or Ariana Grande, who get big contracts right away through high-powered connections and nepotism.
And yes, the record "fat cats" earnings are perfectly relevant in this situation. They are exploiting musician's work to become wealthy, and by supporting them, you are implicitly supporting their actions. If you want to support a band, go see their shows and buy their merchandise.
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.
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, and they are harmed by a music culture which values artists purely based on the number of units of recordings they can move. It is not a simple binary choice between making things bad for the artists or good for the artists by pirating music or not. I personally think that piracy is the catalyst that will effect a tremendous and positive shift in the music industry, where the artistic qualities of the music and, importantly, the performance of music, take primacy over moving enough album units to hit the quarterly sales goal. Maybe the resulting industry will have a lower overall profitability, but maybe that's not entirely a bad thing, since most of the profits the recording industry has made were based on unethical business practices. The idea that this will spell the end of music because musicians won't be able to make a living is absurd and betrays your lack of vision and historical perspective
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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?
Musician weighing in:
Musicians and bands had been making a living for thousands of years before the recording industry was invented, and they will continue to do so for thousands of years after the recording industry has crumbled to the ground (mostly due to their own greed and stupidity). While the recording industry certainly allowed some musicians to become filthy rich, that was mostly through exposure. Musicians have never made very much from the sale of recordings alone, and have always relied on touring and merchandise for the majority of their revenue. Today, even very popular bands, the ones that get the juicy contracts, are making pennies on the dollar on the recordings they produce (and before this gets brought up, so are the engineers and producers, most of the money goes to marketing and distribution, and then a big chunk to the various executives and agents). The situation is much worse for smaller and rising acts.
The truth of the situation is that the recording industry and their distributors have been exploiting the labor of hard-working musicians for the last 100 years. Many of the old blues men from our earliest popular recordings were never even paid, although men that they never even met grew rich from selling their work. The recording industry has been selling the same snake oil to us sense then, just packaged differently according to the musical tastes of the time. There will always be a collectors market for physical recordings, but it is time that we acknowledge that digital content can be delivered for essentially zero marginal cost, and that free knowledge and art have cultural benefits that drastically outweigh any financial gains that may be made by restricting access to them. (And if you are someone that can only be swayed by economics, I would argue that by encouraging innovation and free exchange of ideas, you will reap greater economic benefits overall, even though certain industries may suffer initially.) Moreover, as an artist, by sharing my music for free, I feel that I am being much more honest and forthright with my audience and that am able to reach far more people than I would otherwise.
The only people really exploiting artists are recording industry executives. If you buy an album you like, instead of pirating it, you're taking advantage of those artists. Go see them play live or buy a fucking t-shirt instead.
Musicians and bands had been making a living for thousands of years before the recording industry was invented, and they will continue to do so for thousands of years after the recording industry has crumbled to the ground (mostly due to their own greed and stupidity). While the recording industry certainly allowed some musicians to become filthy rich, that was mostly through exposure. Musicians have never made very much from the sale of recordings alone, and have always relied on touring and merchandise for the majority of their revenue. Today, even very popular bands, the ones that get the juicy contracts, are making pennies on the dollar on the recordings they produce (and before this gets brought up, so are the engineers and producers, most of the money goes to marketing and distribution, and then a big chunk to the various executives and agents). The situation is much worse for smaller and rising acts.
The truth of the situation is that the recording industry and their distributors have been exploiting the labor of hard-working musicians for the last 100 years. Many of the old blues men from our earliest popular recordings were never even paid, although men that they never even met grew rich from selling their work. The recording industry has been selling the same snake oil to us sense then, just packaged differently according to the musical tastes of the time. There will always be a collectors market for physical recordings, but it is time that we acknowledge that digital content can be delivered for essentially zero marginal cost, and that free knowledge and art have cultural benefits that drastically outweigh any financial gains that may be made by restricting access to them. (And if you are someone that can only be swayed by economics, I would argue that by encouraging innovation and free exchange of ideas, you will reap greater economic benefits overall, even though certain industries may suffer initially.) Moreover, as an artist, by sharing my music for free, I feel that I am being much more honest and forthright with my audience and that am able to reach far more people than I would otherwise.
The only people really exploiting artists are recording industry executives. If you buy an album you like, instead of pirating it, you're taking advantage of those artists. Go see them play live or buy a fucking t-shirt instead.
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 taking home their gate, so seeing them in person isn't helping either.
2) The artist is signed to a limited or ethical deal. If this is the case, then they have a good relationship with their label, and pirating music will hurt them either directly (lost royalties) or indirectly (hurting the label and forcing succesful bands to sign with a major).
I'm sure you play music, but I think your sense of the industry is incomplete or not up to date.
"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 taking home their gate, so seeing them in person isn't helping either.
2) The artist is signed to a limited or ethical deal. If this is the case, then they have a good relationship with their label, and pirating music will hurt them either directly (lost royalties) or indirectly (hurting the label and forcing succesful bands to sign with a major).
I'm sure you play music, but I think your sense of the industry is incomplete or not up to date.
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-fixing and exploitative contracts from the beginning, and supporting them does not, in any way, equal helping artists.
Although I'd prefer not to dredge this into a petty back-and-forth ad hominem contest, it may be your sense of the industry that is incomplete. Many smaller labels are turning to free digital releases, treating these as a form of cheap and highly effective advertising, and still selling enough physical recordings and merchandise to make a profit, all while giving a larger portion of the revenues to artists. By presenting the situation as false dichotomy between "stealing from artists" or not, you ignore the fact that there may be a better model for the industry as a whole, with more equitable sharing of profits, and you also ignore the incalculable social benefits of free and open access to information and artistic works. In the real world, moral choices are complex, and often you are presented with the choice between two bad things, supporting a fundamentally corrupt and exploitative recording industry that is expropriating profits through collusion and unethical business practices or possibly taking some money away from some people.
Although I'd prefer not to dredge this into a petty back-and-forth ad hominem contest, it may be your sense of the industry that is incomplete. Many smaller labels are turning to free digital releases, treating these as a form of cheap and highly effective advertising, and still selling enough physical recordings and merchandise to make a profit, all while giving a larger portion of the revenues to artists. By presenting the situation as false dichotomy between "stealing from artists" or not, you ignore the fact that there may be a better model for the industry as a whole, with more equitable sharing of profits, and you also ignore the incalculable social benefits of free and open access to information and artistic works. In the real world, moral choices are complex, and often you are presented with the choice between two bad things, supporting a fundamentally corrupt and exploitative recording industry that is expropriating profits through collusion and unethical business practices or possibly taking some money away from some people.
> 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.
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.
The way Bono talks about it it really sounds like bringing back DRM, since he's focused on career songwriters in his little quote. Maybe improving the way albums and additional metadata are bundled for the non-audio content. Hopefully the audio files themselves will remain as-is.
One thing that disappoints me is the way folders have stayed un-typed in OSes. I've always wished that the Reiser concept of "a file that contains files" had caught on, as that would be much more appropriate for packing metadata and other information unrelated to the main audio stream into an audio file container.
One thing that disappoints me is the way folders have stayed un-typed in OSes. I've always wished that the Reiser concept of "a file that contains files" had caught on, as that would be much more appropriate for packing metadata and other information unrelated to the main audio stream into an audio file container.
"a file that contains files"
How does this differ from a ZIP file? (Keep in mind all modern OSes support treating ZIP files like directories.)
How does this differ from a ZIP file? (Keep in mind all modern OSes support treating ZIP files like directories.)
First, because folders are far more performant for accessing child objects. That's mostly an implementation detail, but a big one - there are tremendous optimizations made on the filesystem that are not accessible for something like ZIP. Particularly relevant to bulk searching/listing - the intent in ReiserFS is that ID3, EXIF tags and the like would move into sub-files.
Second (and this is more a problem in Windows where the 3-letter extension is more important) the OS needs to know which tools it can associate with which type. If a file is a .zip, then it's a .zip and it can use zip tools. If it's not a .zip, it can use the file's own tools (like if it's some kind of music archive). But not both.
Second (and this is more a problem in Windows where the 3-letter extension is more important) the OS needs to know which tools it can associate with which type. If a file is a .zip, then it's a .zip and it can use zip tools. If it's not a .zip, it can use the file's own tools (like if it's some kind of music archive). But not both.
the intent in ReiserFS is that ID3, EXIF tags and the like would move into sub-files.
The problem with this is the concept of "files with subfiles" is not a thing outside of ReiserFS. Sure, if people used ReiserFS, they'd have this feature, but how would you transport such files between machines? You'd have to serialize them somehow: this is exactly what ZIP is.
(Remember HFS resource forks? Me neither. They suffered from exactly the same issue: ambiguous transport semantics.)
Optimizations around such things are exactly that – optimizations – and should not affect the semantics of the objects involved. The proper way to approach this is to decouple data storage from indexing from file semantics. Hence a better approach would be to permit access to contents of ZIPs using FUSE (on Linux) or what-have-you, and index the contents in a database like Spotlight (on OS X).
If a file is a .zip, then it's a .zip and it can use zip tools. If it's not a .zip, it can use the file's own tools (like if it's some kind of music archive). But not both.
Ignoring that OOXML (.docx etc.) already takes this approach (zipped XML files), the problem of allowing multiple different programs to access the same type of file is a minor enhancement to the OS. (I'm pretty sure you already can configure Windows to allow .docx to "Open With..." a ZIP program.) Supporting files-which-are-also-folders requires breaking quite a few more assumptions in OSes.
The problem with this is the concept of "files with subfiles" is not a thing outside of ReiserFS. Sure, if people used ReiserFS, they'd have this feature, but how would you transport such files between machines? You'd have to serialize them somehow: this is exactly what ZIP is.
(Remember HFS resource forks? Me neither. They suffered from exactly the same issue: ambiguous transport semantics.)
Optimizations around such things are exactly that – optimizations – and should not affect the semantics of the objects involved. The proper way to approach this is to decouple data storage from indexing from file semantics. Hence a better approach would be to permit access to contents of ZIPs using FUSE (on Linux) or what-have-you, and index the contents in a database like Spotlight (on OS X).
If a file is a .zip, then it's a .zip and it can use zip tools. If it's not a .zip, it can use the file's own tools (like if it's some kind of music archive). But not both.
Ignoring that OOXML (.docx etc.) already takes this approach (zipped XML files), the problem of allowing multiple different programs to access the same type of file is a minor enhancement to the OS. (I'm pretty sure you already can configure Windows to allow .docx to "Open With..." a ZIP program.) Supporting files-which-are-also-folders requires breaking quite a few more assumptions in OSes.
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 just find it odd.
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 just find it odd.
It seems like a misguided attempt by an out of touch group of 50-something marketing managers to be hip/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.
This might be proprietary, but Apple's other major codec is open.[1] Hopefully this will be as well.
[1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless
[1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless
It was proprietary was most of it's existence and was not opened until 2011, which in turn was likely as a result of everyone using FLAC instead.
I have no doubt this new codec will be proprietary, and only if it fails to gain any traction is there a chance of it becoming open.
I have no doubt this new codec will be proprietary, and only if it fails to gain any traction is there a chance of it becoming open.
hockeybias: you are shadowbanned and have been for the last 5 years
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.
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.
I'm betting on Freemium DRM. Listen to the crummy version for free, or plug the file into a totalitarian DRM system to pay for and decrypt the good version.
Given the big deal Apple made about dropping DRM, I doubt that. It'll probably be something to support extended content. iTunes has some packages that come with video, PDF, etc. content as well as the music already.
Bono, I will tell you a secret. It's the good music that's irresistible, not some DRM garbage which you don't even have the balls to discuss.