Why EMusic no longer gets it (and Apple is getting closer)

UPDATE 2003-10-09: EMusic just radically changed their terms of service in such a way that invalidates the points made my original article. I'm updating this version to reflect the new terms.

I've been an Emusic subscriber since 2000... I think their monthly service, at $9.99 has been one of the best deals in existence for the music fan who wants access to music by a huge quantity of good (if not necessarily well-known) artists.

Anyway, as for my friends and I, we couldn't care less about major labels versus indie, and I suggest that we are a large majority. I personally prefer it when the majority agrees with me; it makes life easier.

I didn't mean to say anything other than what I did when I said "we're the ones fueling the engine of commerce." To explicate: Apple chose to use their limited resources to contract for music by the major labels 'cause me and my pals are the largest bloc of voters where dollars are votes. Yay, us! I hope they continue in that vein.

I hope they spend about 1 minute of effort tracking down indie music for every 9 minutes they spend on major label music. Luckily for indie fans, that 1 minute will probably be quite productive. Indies won't be demanding stiff terms, and it's not much skin off Apple's teeth to put up more files. Plus, Apple's marketers can then promote their large catalog.

Anyway, I don't blithely dismiss non-mainstream tastes. I thoughtfully dismiss non-mainstream tastes. And, actually, that's not really true: I just dislike when minority tastes gain disproportionate influence because of that minority's passionate activism. Such activism only works because of our damnable penchant to root for the underdog.

PS - I use a Mac only because it’s better. I reject any gratuitous anti-establishment associations that anyone tries to attach to me because of it.

NSLog: "Someone published an article called Why eMusic Gets It as a
direct comparison between eMusic and the iTunes Music Store (iMusic for
the purpose of a funnier title). Point by point, let's have a look at
the issues raised."

In any case, I must again politely disagree. The big five don't control anywhere near 90% of the music out there. Perhaps 90% of the *sales*, which is why I'll certainly agree that it was wise to bring them on board before anyone else. Quantity and diversity (and even quality, but let's not go there) are a different story.

I'm glad I read this discussion -- it made me think more critically about ITMS, and it provided me with details on the eMusic service, which I'm now seriously considering as an alternative.

But the fact remains that right now, the music that most people buy, listen to, and download is that same 90% of music controlled by "the big five." Apple would have been stupid to ignore that! They did the right thing.

I am a Mac user. I've got a blog with its own domain name referring to a Cocoa printf-wannabe, but I'm blithely dismissing nobody.

Michael, I can see what you meant to say with the comment about "driving commerce", but the problem is that it's the other way around: the reason Apple has the major labels on their service is because it's the biggest bang for their buck. With the exception of a few artists like the Beatles, they have all the popular groups that make up some overwhelming portion of the sales in the music business. Your statement was inaccurate: my CD collection of about 300 CDs dwarfs that of most of my friends', which indicates that I'm at least making a splash in the fuel tank of commerce (ugh, pushing that metaphor a little too far) -- and yet I would be able to find only about 5% of those artists on ITMS. Generally, people who listen to indie bands, electronic artists, jazz music, and other such non-mainstream styles are committed to music (you have to be, or else you wouldn't be able to find the music) and willing to spend more money on their music collections.

I suppose it isn't worth arguing, because it's going to come down to a pissing match, but it does seem strange to me that as someone who is a mac user, who runs a blog with its own domain name, and whose blog is an obscure programming reference, you would be willing to so blithely dismiss the value of non-mainstream tastes (musically and OS-wise).

One more thing, what do you mean by this? If I buy a CD, I'm supporting capitalism and commerce, regardless of who I buy it from. In fact, if I buy it from a local artist, it could be argued that I'm actually fueling commerce even more than if I bought it from Wal-Mart, because the money will get turned around and sent back into the local economy, rather than getting collected in a far away place.

Also, I really don't think I'm looking down my nose at anyone else's taste, I'm just saying that my tastes are different from yours. Thats all good! People should have different taste, it keeps things diverse. My point is just that ITMS doesn't represent my tastes, and the tastes of many others (the numbers of who aren't very apparent at first glance, as I discussed in my last post). If it represents your tastes, then thats great, because you now have more choices at your disposal.

I admit that a little anti-pop-culture snobbery exists, but I don't think I'm perpetuating that. I'd prefer if you not toss the accusations around so much, in fear of creating a sort of anti-anti-pop-culture snobbery, which would be very unfortunate.

The other possibility is that you were being sarcastic and that I'm just looking silly right about now.