iTunes Music festival upgrades with new interface

The long-running iTunes music festival - an event which mostly exists so the music industry can be gently reminded who is in charge here - is being rebranded this year as the Apple Music festival.

Amongst the acts: Florence and One Direction. 1D playing the Roundhouse is an interesting way to create the maximum number of upset excluded fans in one go.

In which Taylor Swift has a point, and wins the day

You'll have read this elesewhere, by now, but Taylor Swift's gentle-but-firm open letter to Apple (alright, open Tumblog) does gently nail Apple and leave them hung out looking like greedy butt-danglers:

I’m sure you are aware that Apple Music will be offering a free 3 month trial to anyone who signs up for the service. I’m not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company.

The historically generous company which, for example, could have quite happily offered a discount on iMacs to educational institutions but chose instead to create a lower-spec model.

But could a flattering approach, even from Taylor Swift, work?

Actually, yes. It worked:

Now Apple says it will pay artists for music streamed during trial periods.
"We hear you @taylorswift13 and indie artists. Love, Apple," tweeted executive Eddy @Cue.

Of course, it's not so much the candy coating of Swift's letter that worked. It was the greed-shaming of putting right in the front of people the idea that it was musicians and songwriters who were actually paying for that three month free trial, not the cash-rich Apple.

Being shamed by a popstar. Thank god that can still happen - but it's still shabby it took Taylor Swift for Apple to understand they were pulling a shit move.

Shirley Manson isn't impressed by streaming

You know who's not excited about streaming music? Shirley Manson, tha's who:

"Now you get music for free. If people understood the economics of streaming they would be a little more sympathetic to an artist's plight," she explained.

Manson added that part of the blame lies with the record companies, who don't suffer in the same way that their artists do.

"It's a crime spree. I don't think people understand that record companies still continue to make enormous amounts of money. They strike the deals with the streaming companies," she said.

Well, yes, they do. While muscling to the front making it difficult for individuals to work directly with streaming services to get a larger share of the (face it) small royalty on offer per single play.

"It's a f**king racket," Manson added, before expressing optimism that a fairer system will emerge. "It's early days though and I do think it will be changed."

Maybe.

Although Tidal is dying on its arse, because its solution was to charge listeners more, rather than divvy up the take more fairly.

Which means hopes of a better world means either the tech companies, or the record labels, decide that they should give a bit more of their chunk to the artists.

The history of the tech and music industries suggest that Manson might be waiting for a long time for the sunny uplands.

No Siriprises: Apple launch streaming service

"Oh come on, you guys. Even though it's about a million years since we bought Dre's ugly headphone company to get their streaming technology, and we've been signing up DJs all over the place, couldn't you at least pretend that our new Apple streaming service is some sort of a surprise?"

Yes, after years of Spotify being posited as an iTunes killer, effectively with Apple Music, iTunes is going to try and kill Spotify.

We'll just sit here and wait for the first "have you seen the tiny royalties Apple Music are paying" stories which, with the service launching at the end of June, we're expecting some time round early September.

Apple are hoping that nobody reminds them about the can't fail music service Ping right now.