kaupmees wrote: 
did you try apple community support forum?
you can ask a question of the community or search the forums.

 swell_sailor wrote: 
But THANK YOU!

That's the kind of stuff I was hoping for.

 swell_sailor wrote: 
No. Will look closely. Unfortunately, I am mostly Windows-based. No AppleScript.

 kaupmees wrote: 
Have you looked here?

That's what I was afraid of.

Any guidelines on approaches to merging iTunes libraries from different versions and different computers? I would like to retain the most-recent-played date, the play counts, and the ratings, but I have old iTunes libraries from different incarnations of my existence. I've got a difficult solution planned out, but am hoping for a more straightforward one.

 black321 wrote: 
And in many many cases, worse. Howie Klein founded San Francisco's 415 Records and went on to head up Sire Records, then became president of Reprise (Warner Brothers) Records. We had this discussion when Hüsker Dü went from indie SST to major WB, they refused much of WB's financial support (which would all have been charged to the band to be deducted from sales receipts before they got anything)... tour support (hotels, transportation, roadies, printing & promotion costs, etc) all continued on a shoestring, but IIRC they still took a pretty big hit because of the costs to manufacture and distribute a major label LP. Other artists who take the full package from a label then have their album peak at #130 never recover the startup costs and if they don't have a touring act that can pay the bills, ... well it's bad.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 



Looking more like a hollow argument from Pete. Nowadays, an artist doesnt need the "resources" of a big studio, as they can record an album in their own bedroom with just a few thousand $ worth of equipment. So, bottom-line is the record companies were no better than apple - ha!

My friend Howie takes on Pete's nonsense, with numbers. I wasn't aware of how much the artist keeps, thought it was 50/50.

• If you are an artist that needs a label for every other function besides recording, you can try to get one, and the business will decide if someone will want to commit to you like that.  It is now your choice, not a requirement. 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 



Yes I agree. It seemed record companies in the past where "helpful" to the larger acts, or acts that eventually made it, but probably destroyed even more emerging acts that didnt make it. It seems to me that today's means of distribution might foster a more favorable environment for smaller acts to get their name out there, and allow them to recoup some profit through a better attended tour? It just seems like there are more small to mid-sized acts touring these days.

 black321 wrote: 
Some record companies have a slightly more notorious track record than you're allowing here. "Stealing" songwriter credits, "loaning" bands money for promotion, tours etc that they can never hope to recoup... all in the name of never actually having to cut a check to their artists...

 Pearhead wrote: 



So you dont think there is any point to the fact that, despite their other failings, 30-40 years ago record companies did provide some support - marketing, production, engineering... - while apple simply acts as a wholesaler for a musician's music, at siginficant margins and that ultimately supports further growth of their own hardware?

 Pearhead wrote: 
Hey Pear, didn't realize you were a fellow Palmetto state Sandlapper!

 Pearhead wrote: 
Pete has been bitchin amd moanin about his entire career, his life with The Who, etc. Doesn't sound like a happy guy.

 black321 wrote: 
Much as I admire Pete's talent, ingenuity, and contributions to the musical universe to date, on this subject he's pitifully dead nuts misdirected, clearly ignorant, and oddly confused.

For one who was never a stranger to beyond bleeding edge creativity and technology...sadly his "expert" commentary and arrow sling here is waned and laughable with black pot kettle contradictions.  A poor yet proper testament to his relatively aged soul and unfamiliar grip on the body of the new music business.  

Vampires?.....Apple?  Hmmm...Easy buzz word targets?  You admit possible wealth soured convenience— but  your uninformed generalized attack stinks of  long term (psst. label contract) memory failure.   

Shit Pete....c'mon, Who Are You?

For God's sake with your indie buddies beside you, Goog up a real backstreet dig. industry rag next time you're pressed at an event.  Nutin' much has changed since you put twang to tape (as far as greasy palms go) but at least you'll be a bit more informed on what goes where and lot less lazy on who to hate on so much.    

Pete Townshend calls Apple 'a vampire'

Pete Townshend said "a creative person would prefer their music to be stolen and enjoyed than ignored"

The Who guitarist Pete Townshend has urged Apple's iTunes to use its power to help new bands instead of "bleeding" artists like a "digital vampire".

Townshend made the comments in BBC 6 Music's inaugural John Peel Lecture, named in honour of the legendary DJ.

He also argued against unauthorised file-sharing, saying the internet was "destroying copyright as we know it".

"The word 'sharing' surely means giving away something you have earned, or made, or paid for?" he said.

The rock legend listed eight services that record labels and music publishers have traditionally provided to artists, such as editorial guidance and "creative nurture".
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

"Is there really any good reason why, just because iTunes exists in the wild west internet land of Facebook and Twitter, it can't provide some aspect of these services to the artists whose work it bleeds like a digital vampire, like a digital Northern Rock, for its enormous commission?" he asked.

Apple should employ 20 talent scouts "from the dying record business" to give guidance to new acts and provide financial and marketing support to the best ones, he added.

ITunes accounts for more than 75% of all legal downloads. An Apple spokesman declined to comment on Townshend's remarks.

The guitarist also said that people who downloaded his music without paying for it "may as well come and steal my son's bike while they're at it".

If someone "pretends that something I have created should be available to them free... I wonder what has gone wrong with human morality and social justice", he said.

But he also told listeners: "It's tricky to argue for the innate value of copyright from a position of good fortune, as I do. I've done all right."
Creative dilemma

And he added: "A creative person would prefer their music to be stolen and enjoyed than ignored. This is the dilemma for every creative soul: he or she would prefer to starve and be heard than to eat well and be ignored."

The guitarist praised John Peel, who died in 2004, for his dedication to listening to the music he was sent by up-and-coming acts.

"Sometimes he played some records that no-one else would ever have played, and that would never be played on radio again," he said.

"But he listened, and he played a selection of records in the course of each week that his listeners knew - partly because the selection was sometimes so insane - proved he was genuinely engaged in his work as an almost unconditional conduit between creative musicians like me to the radio audience."

The talk, held as part of the Radio Festival, will become an annual event given by a different music figure every year.

Held at The Lowry theatre in Salford, it is intended to be the music industry's equivalent of the annual MacTaggart Lecture, which is given by a leading media executive at the Edinburgh International Television Festival every August.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
iTunes went with a tiered pricing where the hot stuff like your Lady Gaga is a buck-twennynine. Also Florence + Machine, stuff like that. Normal catalog stuff is 99¢ and allegedly there's a lower price, like 69¢ but I don't see that often... for oldies I guess.
 
Come to think of it, I'm not sure I've ever seen that tier price. If Luke the Drifter doesn't qualify for a budget price, I don't know what does. 
 
edit: here's a list of indie crap that's 69¢ 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 

I pay .99 cents a song plug they periodically offer some cool tunes for free. Is itunes less than that? I only purchase music by the song.

 mzpro5 wrote: 

That's kinda how I feel about it.

If I'm going to settle for an mp3 then there still other ways to get them. 

Plus I simply will not pay for anything that comes VBR. 

 sirdroseph wrote: 
Circuital - My Morning Jacket $7.99 iTunes • $7.99 Amazon 
 
 
Just the first example I thought of of something RPish that's not a current release etc.
 
Go ahead and let Amazon sell you some loss leaders as long as you can.