Mysterious ways: Apple’s musical journey from U2 to indie cool—and back

Why you’ve heard of Feist instead of Willy Moon, and why it’s unlikely to change.

Read the whole story

 

[Uxorious]

I feel like there was a major music industry insider who joined the Apple team recently, but I can't remember the details. I guess I'll have to check it out to see if they might be influencing music marketing, because nothing Beats insider influence...

 

[potato_hawk]

Just a minor note, the band is called Tokyo Police Club, not Tokyo Police Band.

 

[Lucretius]

Thanks for the Nathan for You callback...

 

[Nrbelex]

Don't forget that Apple is in the process of building a massive internal ad agency: http://adage.com/article/agency-news/ap ... me/293605/

A lot of these changes can be chalked up to who was in charge of the company's overall marketing strategy at the time. Ditching TBWA could also help explain Apple's recent return to familiar, big names.

 

[killing_time]

was introduced to Daft Punk, Fiest and CSS via iPod commercials.
but music is less of a focus now with the decline of the mp3 player.

would love to see the smaller bands come back though, anything but U2.

 

[NathanMattise]

potato_hawk[/url]":a09zlawr]Just a minor note, the band is called Tokyo Police Club, not Tokyo Police Band.

Updated, not sure where that got changed along the line but I'm handing in my music card ASAP. (Thanks for the catch!)

 

[WaveRunner]

$100 million for a U2 album? Wow they got ripped. Tell me they get to at least make that back in iTunes sales? The album isn't even that good. You could have got a Jackson for $20 million and 85% of the backend, back when people actually bought music!

 

[NathanMattise]

Lucretius[/url]":3mlqkrqz]Thanks for the Nathan for You callback...

Nathan Fielder (or at least some writer/producer with Nathan For You) reads (or at least once stumbled upon through Google) Ars!

 

[loombot]

Is this really about Apple? Maybe it's about the music? Every story is not about Apple, guys.

 

[tombraun]

loombot[/url]":r1msgx27]Is this really about Apple? Maybe it's about the music? Every story is not about Apple, guys.

Agree that this story reflects changes in the music industry more than changes at Apple, but the Apple angle is still a really interesting way to explore it.

 

[Frosty Grin]

The thing is, Feist is an outstanding artist. I bought that album of hers shortly after the release, and it basically took a 30 second preview on iTunes to get me really interested. Not all artists are like that. So it probably isn't a good baseline for the promotional effectiveness of Apple's ads.

 

[Mydrrin]

Originally the focus on the iPods was about the music and what you can do with it, with hip cool young bands. iPods are now in decline and the new thing with new possibilities is with the iPhone and what you can do with it. Everyone know it plays music, but how does it differentiate from the others? Thats how you sell. Now they also need everyone to come to the music store, which means big names. It's pretty simple objectives to the advertising.

 

[arcadium]

Nrbelex[/url]":1ccpy7p8]Don't forget that Apple is in the process of building a massive internal ad agency: http://adage.com/article/agency-news/ap ... me/293605/

A lot of these changes can be chalked up to who was in charge of the company's overall marketing strategy at the time. Ditching TBWA could also help explain Apple's recent return to familiar, big names.

It's been a while since Apple has released a truly great ad (maybe the iPad Air pencil ad was the last really good one that I remember). This may have a lot to do with it.

I think creating an internal ad agency may be a really bad idea for Apple. The agency will be constrained by Apple's internal image of itself, and will not be able to bring an outsider perspective. It's this separation from the outside that leads to Apple thinking partnering with U2 in 2014 is actually a good idea (and I say this as a U2 fan, but their latest releases have been little more than forgettable tripe).

 

[sheyingshi]

Well sure, it's the nature of the idea as it grew up. The original iPod was a revelation, I didn't have to cary around a bunch of CD's or cassettes, but it was a music player first, last and always. Now it's evolved into this general computer kind of thing that music is only one small part of. So, bottom line, you want to make money from it, build apps, not songs.

 

[The Quick & The Read]

Top notch article.

In an era where tech blogs are falling over themselves to break the same news, review the same games, and cover the same products ad nauseum, I enjoyed reading an original.

 

[jameskatt2]

z0phi3l[/url]":3h2m05fr]The answer is money, Apple is all about making money, there isn't as much money in "indie" bands, simpla really

No, not really that simple.

The problems include:
1. The music industry shifted to streaming music instead of owning music.
2. Apps have come to dominate sales on iTunes vs. sales of music.
3. Apple is trying to figure out how to SAVE the music industry.
4. YouTube. Young people simply download MP3s from YouTube FOR FREE. YouTube supports music piracy enormously.
5. Music Piracy - lead by YouTube.

Saving the music industry means placing a priority on A-List artists and maintaining their income high enough that lower-rung artists have hope they can make it too.

YouTube is an enormous danger to the music industry. Practically any song can be obtained through YouTube by downloading the audio portion of any video.

If a band placed their music video on YouTube, they should realize that it is like giving their music away. Consumers can simply download the MP3 from their video and get the music for FREE. Kids do this all the time.

 

[TheMerricat]

I think this boils down more to the fact that Apple has moved away from being the company that sells iPods to being the company that sells iPhones.

iPods played music. Apple was a brand famous for being 'hipster'. It was a natural call for them to go less mainstream and more indie with their ad choices.

iPhones do so much more than play music. Apple is no longer the 'hipster' company. And having a big name attached to your ad often imparts more of an impact than 'discovering' a new indie sensation.

 

[Netguru]

z0phi3l[/url]":365yt55h]The answer is money, Apple is all about making money, there isn't as much money in "indie" bands, simpla really

I agree. Apple does one thing really well and that's make money. Follow the money and you will find Apple there holding the bag. It's really just that simple IMHO.

 

[pinkunicorn]

TheMerricat[/url]":7em4uj71]I think this boils down more to the fact that Apple has moved away from being the company that sells iPods to being the company that sells iPhones.

iPods played music. Apple was a brand famous for being 'hipster'. It was a natural call for them to go less mainstream and more indie with their ad choices.

iPhones do so much more than play music. Apple is no longer the 'hipster' company. And having a big name attached to your ad often imparts more of an impact than 'discovering' a new indie sensation.

Ah those were the days, when the hispter subculture was all about worn-out clothes and white earbuds.
Now in their search for ... whatever that is ... they're taking the derailleurs and brakes off their bikes.
Worst subculture ever.

 

[Iconoclysm]

z0phi3l[/url]":1p3p5ene]The answer is money, Apple is all about making money, there isn't as much money in "indie" bands, simpla really

Sure, except that indie bands cost less money................

 

[CRandyHill]

Enjoyed, but don't understand point of this article. The big movement is the decline in online music sales. That's a huge deal, who iTunes promotes is a tiny deal.

And Apple can't promote independent music, just independent bands, which means by picking 1 or 2 it's akwsys ignoring effectively as many independent bands as when it partners with U2.

 

[Entegy]

The silhouetted dancer ads are still my favourite ads.

Here in Montreal, Atwater metro station is pretty much an Apple ad. It was cool to see the silhouetted ads rolling into the station. Now it's just plain white, boring iDevice ads. The change was inevitable due to the focus on iDevices over music of course.

However, Apple's been advertising there so much I'm a little surprised there's no Apple store in the attached Alexis-Nihon mall. Roll into Atwater>see iDevice ad>go to Apple store.

 

[Evo_7]

z0phi3l[/url]":1zr9qot6]The answer is money, Apple is all about making money, there isn't as much money in "indie" bands, simpla really

Not exactly correct "logic", Apple hugely benefited from the doubling up of introducing new songs that were indie and the download numbers they generated. The shifts could now be closer to how they may be differentiating or diversifying their model; rather than solely rely on the downloads the attempt is to be an incoming distributor themselves.

While not in the same arena as Netflix or Hulu in creating new content per se, it does allow them to introduce content that was initially in the hands of other distributors and be a starting off point for them in music. Not exactly revolutionary but makes it easier for apple to become a music provider once you utilize their service.

 

[charleski]

If anyone needed an Apple-bump, surely it was legend David Bowie releasing his first album in 10 years.

I can only imagine that you don't read The Guardian, which was wall-to-wall Bowie Jan-Mar 2013 (despite giving the album 3 stars).

 

[killing_time]

Iconoclysm[/url]":b3imqjgy]

z0phi3l[/url]":b3imqjgy]The answer is money, Apple is all about making money, there isn't as much money in "indie" bands, simpla really

Sure, except that indie bands cost less money................

and they made tons of money with that formula already so its not like it was a bad lesson from the past.

 

[sphenodont]

Though it can be difficult to pinpoint one particular “big break” when bands are doing so many things simultaneously, Wright does recognize the enormity of that iTunes opportunity.

That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[mike8675309]

Perhaps the difference now is that the music shown in those commercials where they succeeded for the bands had a sound that worked for a larger amount of people. If you listened to the top 40 type of music at the time each of those commercials came out, how many of those indie bands were playing something quite different vs just playing something similar to what was already on the chart?

Thus perhaps whoever was finding the bands before knew what they were doing, and the more recently picks were not.

One other data point. I just picked up the deadmau5 album 4x4=5 off google play music all access for two reasons. It was something different then what I already had but sounded good. And google had it for free. (they've had free albums I didn't have an interest in, so free was not the only factor)

 

[happymellon]

Another opinion could be that of the change of Apple leadership. I know that Jobs had effectively stepped down quite a while before it was official but I found the iPhone 6 underwhelming, and with the past couple of OSX release were disappointing, and even Yosemite it just feels like a new gloss, although it is nice that Spotlight received a bit of attention.

From the article, it brings up the idea that Jobs thought that iPods could lead in to Mac sales. But it feels these days that Macs are something they can fill the store with, not something that they care about.
Could it really be down to Tom Cook not really being the kind of guy that Apple needs? After reading that Apple pay is getting worse in terms of support from stores, that sounds like a Microsoft move under Balmer rather than an Apple under Jobs. Apple is doing well at the moment, but it appeared to be doing well with increasing profits in 1989...

 

[BobsYourUncleBob]

I really appreciated the scope of this piece & the perspectives with which it was framed. It provides a concise distillation of those shifts in the music industry that many of us are aware of, but not inclined to ponder or analyze too deeply (at least speaking for myself).

As part of an increasingly curmudgeonly demographic I could, & I will, ruminate about how desperately little contemporary musical content is actually "worth listening to". While I'm hardly unique in categorizing a certain sphere of entertainment as not being worth the bother in any eventuality, & then allocating my time & resources to those performers I do find appealing, stylistic preference is not the issue.

Despite my tastes/opinions (or anyone else's) the music "industry" intentionally maintains a vast dearth of expertly produced master recordings that can be reliably & affordably reproduced by the consumer. This is typically referred to as the "Loudness Wars" or "Over-compressed Dynamic Range" or a couple of other search tags.

What is desperately needed is a technological push for the audio equivalent of "4K visuals". If today's uneducated "Young 'Uns" had the opportunity to be schooled in how an excellent audio presentation can be truly "transformational" on a number of levels (& not just in Avenger movies), I have to believe that there is opportunity to be leveraged for content creators & promoters.

Neil Young is swinging for broad acknowledgement of the problem through his Pono player & storefront program; Jack White is renown for pushing the vinyl format; there are numerous "high-rez" digital storefronts for sourcing digital downloads; there exists a veritable cornucopia of simply "stupid expensive" audiophile hardware manufacturers.

Meanwhile, Apple continues their predictable pattern of exclusionary tactics (the old "tried & true tricks") by introducing yet another "proprietary headphone connector" & is exploring development of yet another "proprietary digital audio format" (and in partnership with U2 no less)!

Yet it all begins with competently produced, professionally engineered master recordings, followed by some solid DAC/AMP configuration & topped off with well engineered speakers/headphones/IEMs. Ultimately what is needed is a collaborative, yet concerted push.

My well wishes go out to the "Neil Young School" of cross-platform, standards based, non-proprietary audio formatting & fully inter-compatible non-proprietary hardware; carried from in-studio timpani through to the targeted tympanic membrane.

Nothing will ever make Ariana Grande, Kanye Kardashian, Iggy Azalea, (or fill in the blank) worth listening to. The standards based approach behind such a concerted tech push, however, holds the promise of dramatically better user listening experience without relinquishing ones ownership & control to a single hipster entity, or alternatively, to struggle with Audiophile Income Angst that is induced by $40,000 component cabling (components not included)!

EDIT: I just noticed, Nathan, that you hail from The Land Of Gris-Gris. It's a fairly safe bet that no recorded reproduction will ever match the live experience inside Tipitina's, at The Jazz & Heritage Festival or even just street-side for that matter. Nothing beats live & in person, but in the realms of technology & business best practices, we can certainly do one heck of a whole lot better than we have so far.

 

[harteman]

Word of mouth from friends with taste trumps corporations telling whats what.

Fuck the king.

 

[Deleted member 441963]

For now, it's clear music is no longer Apple's hot, hot anything. Instead, the company has apparently found what it's looking for in big-name bands like U2.

Nasty, Nathan. Not undeserved, but nasty nevertheless. And I like it.

(I have the vinyl first editions of Boy, October, and War, but haven't heard anything but random fragments of songs of innocence.)

 

[The Ugly]

burne_[/url]":358rnhvh]

For now, it's clear music is no longer Apple's hot, hot anything. Instead, the company has apparently found what it's looking for in big-name bands like U2.

Nasty, Nathan. Not undeserved, but nasty nevertheless. And I like it.

(I have the vinyl first editions of Boy, October, and War, but haven't heard anything but random fragments of songs of innocence.)

was wondering who would quote this first hahahaha

 

[Static and Noise]

This article reminded me of Shonen Knife. Most of you haven't heard of them, but that's fine. They're a Japanese indie band that Microsoft used in a commercial in... 1998 I think? That's way before Apple started using indie band to boost their credibility. I was a fan of them from, like, 1990. And it blew my mind that they were suddenly in a Microsoft commercial.

 

[Bernardo Verda]

Or maybe, it's just demographics?

The audience (and, for that matter, the Apple fan-base) is getting older.

- - -

(And, what BobsYourUncleBob said)

 

[Langdon]

loombot[/url]":1e698nyi]Is this really about Apple? Maybe it's about the music? Every story is not about Apple, guys.

Agreed. The demographic who was buying the "indie" music a 7-10 years ago no longer leans to the same tastes. Today that same age group skews heavily to EDM music which isn't really as conducive towards many commercials.

On top of that people today discover new music through social media and apps like Spotify which wasn't as pervasive back in the era this article is talking about so competition to introduce new artists to the masses is far greater than it was then.

 

[Abhi Beckert]

z0phi3l[/url]":x0227dht]The answer is money, Apple is all about making money, there isn't as much money in "indie" bands, simpla really

You've got it backwards.

An indie band would fall over themselves to accept an offer of 5 million dollars, so Apple can use their song in a 3 month ad campaign. A popular band would want far more money than that.

 

[Abhi Beckert]

Langdon[/url]":x0o6wve1]

loombot[/url]":x0o6wve1]Is this really about Apple? Maybe it's about the music? Every story is not about Apple, guys.

Agreed. The demographic who was buying the "indie" music a 7-10 years ago no longer leans to the same tastes. Today that same age group skews heavily to EDM music which isn't really as conducive towards many commercials.

On top of that people today discover new music through social media and apps like Spotify which wasn't as pervasive back in the era this article is talking about so competition to introduce new artists to the masses is far greater than it was then.

I'm in the age group that used to prefer "indie" bands.

In my opinion the music industry become more competitive. I want to listen to music that was recorded in one of the best recording studios in the world.

I might love your song, but if the recording isn't as good as a millionaire musician's recording would be, then I'm going to listen to the millionaire's music. I don't give a shit about being cool or hip, all I care about is what the music sounds like, and recording a good song requires a big budget.

The only indie music I can remember truly enjoying in the last few years was produced by Triple J, a government funded radio station who has some budget set aside for finding no-name musicians and hiring a proper recording studio for them (as well as providing tons of free publicity). They've "unearthed" over 100,000 tracks 1995. Here's a sample: https://www.triplejunearthed.com/jukebo ... st/3133111