From Hitsmagazine-

Tony Brummel Says iTunes Is the Enemy

February 15, 2006>> With the much-anticipated Hawthorne Heights
album, a potential #1 debut, streeting on Feb. 28, Victory Records' Tony Brummel, always an outspoken dude, felt it was time to explain his unwillingness to make any of his label 's music available in the iTunes Music Store. The following guest editorial represents Tony's opinions and his only.

My thoughts on iTunes from the beginning (and why we are not in business> with them):>>

1) Apple/iTunes do not care about independent labels or, for that matter, the record industry. Without the music industry, their site and their iPods are useless. Why did the major labels bend over and super serve Steve Jobs free content without negotiating a % of each iPod sale, variable pricing of singles (if the labels CHOOSE to make one available from an album) and other say in how the content is sold? Has anyone looked into any stock option kickbacks here? Since when do record companies give their content away without extracting an advance? If the major record companies wanted to take a stand they would PULL their content. But, if they all pulled their content in unison, Apple would claim collusion. I say, pull it anyway. The defective hard drives are making people deaf as it is.

2) I absolutely believe that allowing people to cherry-pick the tracks they want from each
album cannibalizes full-length album sales and is ultimately detrimental to the artists who created the music.

3) If only 4% of this business is iTunes, who cares? Focus on the 96% which is
traditional retail. Traditional retail supports music 1,000 times more than iTunes does. If someone does not want to leave theirhouse, they can go to our webstore, Amazon or the hundreds of other online sites that sell music. For the very casual consumer. there
are digital consumption models that will work when and if properly deployed. People are using iTunes> because they like the iPod. When Dell or Samsung makes a better device,iTunes will lose relevancy.

4) It is important for people to experience the entire album. Not just a track(s). The artist went into the studio and created a body of work. If you were buying a painting from Picasso, would you have said, "Look Pablo. I like this painting man. But I only like that corner part with the tree and the guy's finger. How about you chop off that corner and I give you $1 instead of $10 for the painting? Is that cool? I really do not care about the
rest of what you were trying to convey in that piece of work." The artwork, the lyrics, the sequencing of the album typically tell a very important story. It is a work of art! If people are being conditioned to not listen to albums in this way, they are nullifying the entire musical experience,at least in our genre as a rock label. As the owner of a label, my favorite tracks are never the singles! Often, it is the most esoteric songs on the
album that have the most depth and meaning (musically and lyrically), and you typically are not exposed to that song until you have played the album through 15-20 times. Great songs take time to sink in and you have to be exposed to them in order to
make that happen.

iTunes makes music disposable. It makes it a faceless impulse item.It steals its soul. Aside from all of the above, I have and will never sign a deal with any company that tells me, "The deal is non-negotiable. Go to our site, download the Agreement, sign it and
fax it to us. Everyone is paid the same amount (really.) and has the same terms. Regardless, we will not insert or include any Most Favored Nations language in the Agreement to back this up."

I think Tony Brummel is going over the top here with his prognosis that iTunes makes music "disposable" and "steals its soul".

iTunes is trying to make money selling music just like other commercial perveyors are, but in this case the real money for Apple is in selling iPods. Big deal. Folks should be free to buy iPods and songs from iTunes if they so desire. And they should be free to buy individual tracks instead of the entire album if that is their choice. Of course, people should also be free to buy the entire album. More freedom is a good thing, even if iTunes is not necessarily the best deal for everybody when it comes to acquiring music.

He's wrong on point two, and it shows how he thinks. He doesnt want people cherry picking tracks because he wants to sell his whole album.
I'm the consumer, I'm right: I don't want whole albums, I want songs. Fuck albums. Their are only 2 or 3 artists that I would buy a whole album from with the expectation that I'll like it all.
You need to allow consumers to either buy the whole album or buy tracks. Otherwise you'll lose money because only true fans will buy whole albums. You want to get the fringe fans, who are only willing to buy a track or two. People are smarter than they were before, they're not willing to blow a lotta money on an album consisting of mostly worthles shit with one good tune. At least not now, in the days of p2p.

I disagree with him. I think of the word album as a gaollon , or a gross or a bushel. An album's worth of tunes. BFD.

If it was supposed to be thematic, like a symphony, it should be one 60 minute soong, with 10 movements, or something.

...or like Dark Side of the Moon!

or Wish You Were Here

or Animals

or The Wall

or The Final Cut

Not sure what business you run - do you give "free content" to retailers? Apple pays $.65 to $.70 a track for the $.99 track they sell - lower margins than retailers. Apple's itunes does not require YOU to design, print, and pay to manufacturer and ship to them a physical product that they might return or ask for credit - all you have to do is deliver a digital file. Cheaper or more expensive than creating a CD?

As for ipod sales, what's next? You going to ask headphone companies for a cut? Stero makers? Car decks? why draw the line there? why not ask the car manufacturers to pay you something because people have to drive to the stores to buy your CD's. itunes runs with or without a store. If the itunes stores shut down tomorrow - you think people will immediately rush back into the stores to buy 500 CD's?

How about just making better music? Or is it easier just to blame someone?

The digital online business was about a $50 million business before Apple entered and is now a $1.5 BILLION dollar business - that's essentially FOUND money that was disappearing into the p2p invisible hand but that's not good enough for you?

You actually sound like you work for Sony - complaining that the ipod is "defective" and that Creative & Samsung will somehow supplant the ipod - that's fine but don't try to cloud the issues with outright falsehoods - "free content" - it's a business, grow up, it's the 21st century - get with the program. THe days of you doling out payola to get airplay on some powerhouse free form Fm, station is over.

ALL music is disposable - because of GUYS like you - who sold music to us as the soundtrack to our lives? Who licenses music to be played EVERYWHERE from phone holds to elevators to TV ads - it was YOU. You made music disposable.

As for individual tracks - don't tell me you have bought or single (in any form) or that you listen to every LP/CD from front to back with no interruptions?

Or as a label, you have NEVER distributed or sold compilation or promo discs of individual tracks? Or that it's "horrible" to sell tracks but when it comes to soundtracks, promos or those NOW, THAT'S MUSIC CD's, I don't see any resistence there? So, it's okay? And what are those priced? FREE or at about $.99 a track?

I'm not claiming the ipod, itunes is perfect or perfect for anyone but your arguments are all wrong and not based on any facts.

I admit the Floyd LP's are/were great and are worth listening from front to back but you've named 5 LP's in the last 30 years of music - out of how many released in that time, a million? 2 million? Even the Beatles - you listen to YELLOW SUBMARINE or their last LP all the way through each time, you don't skip over Octopuses Garden?

You have a lot of sour grapes. Instead of looking at problems and coming up with solutions and when new markets are created, you just decide to bomoan some lost past - GET OVER IT. If you can't handle it, get out of the business and let someone who is ready to face the 21 century.

this is a tough argument to take sides on. I totally understand what the point of the OP is, but on the flip side I also understand how the general market really works. I think iTuens is great for music because it still allows artists to generate some revenue doing what the love (and allows investment to occur). However, I think people who are true deeply loyal to a particular artist will go out of their way to download the entire album, so that they can experience the whole body of work.

Obviously, all concept albums should really be purchased as an entire package. If it's just a compilation, which most artists tend to do these days, I don't see that much harm in iTunes (wayyyyy more benefits than risks in my personal opinion).

jbelkin,

I don’t know whom that rant was target toward but I don’t disagree with most of your points. I was simply adding to Larry’s description of what a “thematic” album is. I think the “Tony Brummel” article is complete bunk!

“How about you chop off that corner and I give you $1 instead of $10 for the painting?”

That statement doesn’t hold water when speaking to most albums these days simply because artists so infrequently actually write albums any more like my example of Dark Side of the Moon and the other examples sited here!

However, I will take issue with this:

“ALL music is disposable - because of GUYS like you - who sold music to us as the soundtrack to our lives? Who licenses music to be played EVERYWHERE from phone holds to elevators to TV ads - it was YOU. You made music disposable.”

Guys like WHO?

I would suggest that it’s those in charge of the rights to this music (meaning the greedy record label executives) who made these songs available to anyone with the highest bid rather than the actual artists themselves.

Perhaps I simply misunderstood what you had to say here?

Brummel has been beating this (iTunes) horse for sometime, but he seems to be against anything but traditional retail. His wailing and gnashing of teeth would apply to any internet music store. iTMS already allows the sale of tracks to be limited the purchase of the entire album. Is there any doubt that he is trying to preserve the $oul of music or that he is doing the artists on his label a disservice? Personally, I never listened to or purchased as much music in the past 20 years as I have since the arrival of the iTMS. The issue is exposure and broadcast media is mostly a miss, and while the better music stores are great, I rarely have time to browse. So Brummel has to demonize others to justify the fact that I will not be exposed to Victory content. With millions of other tracks to consider I can't say that I miss em--only that I never knew them.

The iPod gives the consumer what they want -- a compact, user-friendly digital music player so they can listen to the music they select anywhere. As for iTunes, they're no different than any other digital download service. The consumer wants the freedom to acquire individual tracks because many albums have only 1 or 2 decent tracks. "Dark Side of the Moon" is an exception.

Digital music downloading and file-sharing (whether sanctioned or not) is the future of music distribution. To insist that music can only be sold bundled as albums is just not a tenable position. It's not what the consumer wants. Artists had better listen to their fans, and not the music label execs, if they want to prosper.

"How about you chop off that corner and I give you $1 instead of $10 for the painting?"

This is a poor, poor analogy. A better one would be asking to purchase a single, complete painting that is part of a series of 10 which is on display together in a gallery. In this way, Picasso has to decide whether or not to sell the single painting for $100,000 instead of the whole set for $1 million.

Of course, this doesn't quite fit either, because neither iTunes, nor the labels are selling the ORIGINALS...the are selling copies.

To make this analogy even more accurate, we would have to ask whether Picasso would be willing to sell a PRINT of a single painting for $1 or force the purchaser to buy prints of the entire series for $10. Obviously Brummel only wants to sell the sets.

Of course, as many of you have pointed out, there aren't many artists who put together albums that can rightfully be considered an unbreakable set of tunes. Most of todays "artists" don't even write their own music and the songs put together on their album may be put together from multiple sources.

I disagree with all of Brummel's points and consider him a fool.

Peripheral issue (thematic albums), but how about the rock opera "Tommy" by The Who?
Or, "Days of Future Passed" by The Moody Blues?
I mention these only to reinforce what someone else has already said, almost always even the greatest albums (okay, we'll let the quintessential Pink Floyd stand in a league all their own), have at least one tune that you'd just as soon do without (or maybe you do skip over that one). Those two first albums I mentioned aren't exceptions to that usual rule, either.
Oh, and I don't mean to berate those who have something against the Moody Blues. It's a time-worn fact there are some folks who don't appreciate them at all. But even they can't deny the fact that the "Days . . ." rock/orchestra concept album was a super success as well as an innovative stroke of genius.

Well, I can't help myself. I can't neglect to mention how even when I play "Blind Faith", I practically igonore the "Do What You Like" cut.
So, yes, back to the main topic. I agree that it isn't reasonable to expect music buyers to forego their frequent penchant for purchasing singles. The albums we've been talking about . . .are exceptions, and sorry to say, there are precious few offerings in the present that can hold a candle to those. For the most part, that's even all the more reason to want to do some picking and choosing.
Uh, the last time I checked, (rule #1) applies: the customer is always right.
If, however, some people have special agendas for minimizing that rule or even denying that it has primary validity, what chance do they have to prevail in the long run?
How about it, Tony?

(Heh, heh, I don't REALLY "igonore" anything.)

P.S. When I say precious few albums in the present time are worthy to be compared to the best of the past, I AM including all albums of which I have any knowledge (RIAA-enslaved as well as indie).
Sorry if my honesty steps on anyone's toes.
But, remember, I'm not talking about singles, but
being in a coveted category of a select few: top-notch albums of all time. That's what you call privileged company, for sure.

If and when the iPod becomes a distant memory, history will note that the profits from the device financed the revolution in legal music downloads. Brummel should also realize that portable devices such as the evil iPod are primarily used away from home. Some of us don't even own one. Music, podcasts and streaming internet audio in my house are played on living room and bedroom sound systems via wireless network or from headphone equiped laptops. Same for music purchased on CDs. Easy, fast, appropriate for the occasion and commercial free. Kids home from college can play their stuff. Friends can take turns sharing favorite tracks from their laptops. Of course we musically ignornant, soulless consumers should be able to buy individual tracks.

Of course we musically ignornant, soulless consumers should be able to buy individual tracks. How else could I afford to assemble the next Valentine's CD for my wife or a "music for a lapsed Catholic" CD for a co-worker?

"almost always even the greatest albums... have at least one tune that you'd just as soon do without"

And usually that's the "single" -- the song that radio overplayed so much you never want to hear it again.

genomegk, I agree. Being able to easily assemble personalized collections is one of the big attractions of digital music. Most of my libraries on my iPod are compilations that I've created. Albums are dead.

I really hope that albums are not dead. Sometimes, rarely these days, when I have the time I really enjoy listening to a whole album. I just wish that someone that I enjoy would make an “album” rather than a compilation!

Fine. But why call it an album? Call it a "work of sound". Albums are for old photos, dead leaves and insects. The terminology of the past belongs in the past.

How about "creative compilation of musical sounds"?
[groan]

"Albums are for old photos, dead leaves and insects." ...and sifting seeds.

Without iTunes, it'd have been impossible for me to get the 1/2 of the Trans-siberan Orchestra songs that are worth listening to.

fans should have the right to cherry pick from an albumn, forcing anyone to buy filler for the one song they want is just as stupid as selling "singles" (the real victims of the internet, who buys singles anymore?) that were priced half as much as the entire albumn.

times change, adapt or fade away.

Reason #1: "Without the music industry, their site and their iPods are useless." I don't believe that's nessesarily true. You don't have to be in the music industry to make good music, and God knows I can put my music on IPods. "Has anyone looked into any stock option kickbacks here? Since when do record companies give their content away without extracting an advance?" Once Again, It's all about Money and how much more you can make.

Reason #2: "I absolutely believe that allowing people to cherry-pick the tracks they want from each album cannibalizes full-length album sales and is ultimately detrimental to the artists who created the music." So now he's an artist speaking for his fellow people eh? It's not about what the consumer wants, but what the corporate entity believes it's artists want. These are diffrent times we're in. The music industry is the only one that I know of where the customer is always wrong, and it's because of people like this man.

Reason #3: "Traditional retail supports music 1,000 times more than iTunes does." I tunes is growing and will continue to grow while traditional retail is begining to dwindel. in time these stats will change dramaticly. "If someone does not want to leave theirhouse, they can go to our webstore, Amazon or the hundreds of other online sites that sell music." Again, these are diffrent times, a digital age where the consumer has more of a say in what they want and what they don't want. If the consumer likes going to Itunes and purchasing individual songs, rather then go to Amazon and purchase the album, then they will do so. "When Dell or Samsung makes a better device,iTunes will lose relevancy." That's when Apple will need to adapt to it's competitors. Yet, like Mc Donalds and Coca Cola, it will still take pride in being the first to do it.

Reason #4: "It is important for people to experience the entire album. Not just a track(s). The artist went into the studio and created a body of work." I agree with this to a certain extent, an album IS an experiance but as I said, It's what the consumer wants. What Might be an experiance to me may be a waste of time to others, thus they'd rather skip the bullshit and get to the good stuff. "If people are being conditioned to not listen to albums in this way, they are nullifying the entire musical experience,at least in our genre as a rock label." Nowadays people are being conditioned to pay their taxes using H&R Block, and Turbo Tax instead of waiting in the mail for the paperwork, spending countless hours doing thier taxes, mailing it off and waiting months to get thier tax return. Does that nullify thier experiance of paying taxes? Does using Windows Word nullify the experiance of using a typewriter or writing by hand? this statement actually pisses me off! I bet you anything he uses technology to make his life easier and doesn't complain about nullifying experiances when it benifits him, SHAME!

It goes for the rest of his statement. I don't use Itunes for my own reasons, and I have albums that in whole give out an experiance, but this guy's whole statement practicly rapes the innocent reasons of my own and at the same time contridicts himself. I don't respond to too much but this one really got to me. Sinai's "times change, adapt or fade away." practicly says this whole thing for me.

You're right on the mark.

I respectfully disagree. I can't justify paying a dollar a track for a DRM infested lossy file, which is imho, lower quality then those mp3s produced by my group.

We produce drm free tracks that literally are mp3s, and will play on anything. No limits. Apple's ipod requires special software to even let you store music on it. I'll stick with my vanilla mp3 player, you plug it into your box via usb, it mounts as a hard drive, drag/drop your stuff to it, and your done.

if only all things were created like this.

Oh, I truly agree about a dollar a track being too costly when the quality of those DRM-infested files is less than 320 bitrate, and you're so limited with portability.
To that extent, Apple iTunes DOES suck, as does most other digital music offered for sale.

But the main thing we were critiquing were the other points made by Tony that many of us have pretty much poked holes into.

"you're so limited with portability" was meant in the sense of "a person is so limited with portability".

(I wonder if this site has a chance of arranging for the use of an edit button.)

"I have and will never sign a deal with any company that tells me, "The deal is non-negotiable. Go to our site, download the Agreement, sign it and fax it to us. Everyone is paid the same amount (really.)"

In the end, it just boils to money. For the right kick back that he assumes others are getting, Brummel will deal. Interesting insider perspective. Presumably the practice is so common in the industry, Brummel can't imagine payola is not part of the iTunes deal for some labels. He just wants a piece of the action.