AC/DC's iTunes boycott is on Highway to Hell

You can find AC/DC's new album on the band's Web site or Wal-Mart but not at iTunes.

(Credit: Acdc.com)

AC/DC, the iconic Australian rock band, has been talking to reporters as part of the promotion of its upcoming album. The group has also used the opportunity to take swipes at Apple.

The band refuses to offer music at iTunes because it isn't interested in selling individual songs. The only places to acquire the album, Black Ice, is at Wal-Mart Stores or on the band's Web site. In an interview with Reuters, lead singer Brian Johnson said the band is trying to protect the album format.

"Maybe I'm just being old-fashioned, but this iTunes, God bless 'em, it's going to kill music if they're not careful," Johnson, 61, told Reuters. "It's a...monster, this thing. It just worries me. And I'm sure they're just doing it all in the interest of making as much...cash as possible. Let's put it this way, it's certainly not for the...love, let's get that out of the way, right away."

Angus Young, who co-founded the band with brother Malcolm, told The New York Times last week: "It's like an artist who does a painting. If he thinks it's a great piece of work, he protects it. It's the same thing: this is our work."

I want to give AC/DC, one of the best-selling rock & roll bands of all time, the benefit of the doubt. I want to believe they really do consider their work art and that the forthcoming album, which debuts October 20, will reflect a legitimate attempt to deliver a hit with every track.

This kind of good-faith effort from the music industry wasn't always guaranteed, remember? I'll get back to that.

First, I couldn't care less if the band doesn't like iTunes. Plenty of people don't. Other artists, such as Kid Rock, choose not to distribute via the country's largest music retailer. It's their music--they can do what they want with it. What offends me about AC/DC's comments is that in the band members' attack on iTunes, they completely ignore history.

Johnson implied that iTunes is all about money and thus this commercialization is hurting music. Let me state the obvious: plenty of people profited off of music long before iTunes was formed, including AC/DC. What, is Wal-Mart donating Black Ice profits to charity?

If iTunes is such a threat to the music industry, you couldn't tell by listening to Doug Morris, CEO of Universal Music Group, the largest of the four top recording companies. Billboard asked him recently who he thought was the smartest person in music. He named Apple CEO Steve Jobs.

"When you look at the whole picture, we make a lot of money through iTunes," Morris said. "We consider (Jobs) a friend...I talk to him about once a month. I like him very much. I have dinner with him occasionally, and he's the kind of guy we'll be talking about 100 years from now. He's a brilliant guy."

As for albums, there's nothing sacred about this format--at least not to consumers. Angus should look around. Hardly anyone in the music business advocates for albums anymore. That's because digital technology has rendered the album obsolete. Consumers are free to buy tracks they like and aren't forced to shell out money for those they don't. Years ago, after the rise of CDs, if a fan liked a song, he or she had little choice but to buy the entire album.

The truth is the album was anti-consumer.

I stopped buying music in the early 1990s after reading a Rolling Stone interview where Kurt Cobain suggested that this wasn't an accident. Nirvana's legendary frontman implied that music labels would take a band's best tracks and scatter them over multiple albums to squeeze more money out of consumers. In the two years I've covered digital music, I've had the opportunity to ask a number of music executives about this.

Not one has ever denied it.

This was obviously a poor way to treat customers, and it's not a stretch to suggest this is why many people felt justified in downloading songs off Napster in the late 1990s, and why so many continue to pirate music to this day.

By requiring Black Ice be sold as an album, AC/DC is trying to cram it down the throats of fans. Why not offer the music on iTunes and be confident that the individual songs will sell themselves?

[jag0]

That's great...I downloaded close to all of their albums years ago via torrent so this isn't really an issue. These aging musicians needs to wake and get with the 21st century...digital distribution is the future whether they like it or not...people will find a way to get the music (legal or illegal.)

[davidmcelroy_dotmac]

Can these guys really be as stupid as this makes them appear? Do they honestly think that the people who've bought their albums over the years have all been listening to it as one body of work, as they want them to? Personally, I'm a fan of entire albums, so that's what I buy, whether at the iTunes store or elsewhere. But most people are just interested in whatever singles they want. They don't have the patience for entire albums, listened to in the order that the band wants. For those people, they'll listen to whatever they want -- after they've ripped the album to MP3, of course. If they're stupid enough to think that not selling singles is going to keep people from experiencing their music any other way than as entire albums, somebody needs to explain P2P to them. Their stubbornness is only hurting their sales and inconveniencing their fans. Of course, I don't care one way or the other, because I can't remember the last time I heard an AC/DC song I was interested in.

[skillingssucks]

What do you expect; Johnson is a sixty-one year-old man now?

[Slowrider5]

Words are just words. The proof is in the pudding. Do a little research - I quote from one of many current articles:

"In the eight years since their last studio album Stiff Upper Lip, AC/DC's back-catalogue has defied music industry trends by increasing in sales, and increasingly to teenagers bored by today's beige rock bands.

AC/DC have also defied trends by refusing to sell their music online, unwilling to let downloaders pick and choose individual tracks from their albums.

But their vast back-catalogue is also going against the tide by increasing in sales, often to teens bored by today's beige rock bands. "

Numbers don't lie.

[kibs7814]

I think blogging is destroying journalism. This story is a top 3 link under CNET's news.com right now and it's a tale of how one fanboi has been offended by AC/DC for being old-fashioned.

[Synthmeister]

So, does AC/DC force radio stations to play their complete albums with no interruptions?

There are many albums on iTunes that are only available as complete albums, why doesn't AC/DC do the same thing?

If AC/DC wants to limit iTunes exposure and they are still making gobs of money, more power to them. But if they think that that approach proves their music is "art" then they are delusional.

[J_Ames2009]

Synth, you are dead on dude. I have to admit, as someone who grew up on 70s and 80s and 90s rock, I'm getting embarrassed by the stupidity of my old faves. Metallica started it with Lars and his moronic tyrade against his fans all to help his wallet. Now we have all of these bafoons who think their albums are such precious works of art that they *HAVE* to be listened to as a whole. Gimme a break. I've got albums that I've had for 20 years and I have only listened to a 2 or 3 tracks off of them at best..because 90% of most albums suck. It's filler music. AC/DC are rich old farts who just want to get richer. They aren't concerned with Apple making money, just themselves in spite of the fans. Steven Jobs is a genius and thank God for his innovation. The dinosaurs that refuse to adopt digitally delivered music should just bow out gracefully and enjoy their millions until they croak. AC/DC, Tool, Kid Rock, etc. I won't buy your CDs come hell or high water. And eventually, the people that are willing to will either fade away or succumb to the new age.

[sandonet]

I'm not an ACDC basher Slowrider5, but how can distributing exclusively on a CD stop piracy? Someone just uploads a digital copy to the Web and it's there for anyone to pilfer. By refusing to sell online, ACDC is preventing digital music fans, the kind that pay, from obtaining the music legally.

[William Crow]

I agree with Angus.

[AlternateRoute]

iTunes have their own version of the 'album' con. Although most songs can be bought individually, some can be bought if you buy the whole album. There is no technical reason for this and it is purely to make extra money. It is a practice that should be stopped.

[sandonet]

Kibs7814,

You should do more research. I am not a fanboi. I've written plenty of critical stories about Apple. I've included a few. Also, I think it's important to note, as I did in the story, that it's okay not to like iTunes. I just take issue with AC/DC's reasons, which I believe are anti consumer. Sorry you didn't like the piece.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10055021-93.html?tag=mncol
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10004255-93.html?tag=mncol
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-9989823-93.html?tag=mncol

[DarkHawke]

Let's be straight here; who doesn't have more than a few albums of any variety that has one to three songs you just don't listen to? Hell, back in the vinyl days, I'd walk over to the turntable and skip tracks manually if I felt so inclined! Nowadays, whether you're ripping CDs or downloading from iTunes, do you just forget about a cut or two that doesn't suit you, or do you not add the entirety of an "album" to your favored playlists? Lots of "artists" barely have two really good tracks per album, the rest being either sub-par or obvious filler.

Props to AC/DC for still being relevant and popular in this century, but it seems like they're trying to cover both their bottom line and artistic arses simultaneously. If all you can get is the full album, that's more cash for them, whether or not each and every track on the album is worth the money. If everything on the album is WORTHY of purchase, they won't have to worry about that, now will they? A group or artist that's dedicated to putting out only quality work has nothing to fear from our modern age of buffet-style music purchasing.

In fact, I've wondered how this new age of music buying might affect how artists release their tunes in the future. Could tomorrow's "one-hit wonder" truly be that, without eight or nine other insignificant songs per album to weigh him/her/them down? At the least, food for thought.

[nomadsmg]

One point about selling or buying the entire CD is that I think many of us have heard a song and been less then enthused about. But after hearing it a few times, it sort of grows on you, you find yourself suddenly getting the idea or message behind that song and suddenly you?re a fan of it. By selling only in the album format, they are making you give a chance to all the other songs that don?t immediately fit your preconceived notions of what you like.

Kind of like some young children that will only eat one or two foods, you keep putting other foods in front of them. One day they find themselves trying something else, liking it and then loving it.

AC/DC has put out an artistic meal; perhaps they want you to at least try it at least once as the chief has prepared it, before you start to change the recipe. They?ve been in the industry since we all used to make our own ?mix tapes? , so the cutting and pasting their CD?s is nothing new. Nor do I hear them screaming piracy about us loading them onto our MP3 Players.

Just a my thought s on the subject, I?ve been listing to the XM Radio AC/DC channel and the taste of their new stuff given there really ROCKS so far.

[DarkHawke]

Some very good points, but I still mind them making the decision for me in this day and age. There are some artists that when they have a new release, I don't hesitate to buy the entire album because I know I'll like everything on it. There are others of whom I like one or two of their songs, but the rest is obvious crap. Then there are in-between artists, who put out a lot of stuff I like, but even on a "greatest hits" album, I don't agree with their selection. Now that we have been given the ability to pick and choose what we want, why give it up? I don't agree with the idea that an artist can insist that you have to take everything that they put out, even if they insist "it's good for you!" We crossed the Rubicon on that notion years ago. 'Sides, if I really enjoy the stuff I do pick out, might I not go back to see if what I left behind is good too?

[Fishdoc12]

They had me till I heard they were selling it through Walmart. I am anti-Walmart and for that reason alone, I will not buy their album. I know they are selling it through their website but that is not good enough.

[iBuzz]

Where is it written that a musician's creative output be delivered with 10-14 songs at one time? The only reason we have the album format is because the media format of vinyl records and CDs were designed to hold that many songs, and that's what had to be sold, so that's what musicians were asked to produce.

Considering the work of many artists over the past few decades and that most albums only contained a handful of good songs, it's obvious that their natural creative output cycle does not match that 10-14 song requirement. Isn't it much better for an artist to release creative content as it comes naturally? I'd much rather hear a good 4 or 5 songs from an artist at a time rather than having to suffer through all of the album filler that they were obviously being forced to create. Given that the record stores of yesterday were set up to sell albums, it was very difficult for an artist to get their label to release a 4-song EP instead of a 12-song album. But with the web as the new music distribution medium, it frees up the artist to release only what they want. This is wonderful for music and gives it a great future. AC/DC has it backwards. It was actually the forced album format that had been killing music for the past two decades.

[Dylan_Wisor]

I certainly see where they're coming from (my music collection is made entirely from complete albums, including the complete AC/DC discography). But Greg's point is still valid: there's no reason to ignore the fans who would rather download their music. If they were doing it for the "love" as he put it, they would give the listener what they want, regardless of whether that's the entire Back In Black album or just the title track.

[gsmiller88]

Talk about a bit of irony. They won't sell it on iTunes, but they're going to sell it exclusively at the tyrant of all department stores Walmart?!

[benjwah]

Who cares what ACDC think? They're rock musicians, not industrial prophets. If I heard a minor 7th in an ACDC album I'd throw it in the trash, because it's not what they do.
Of course what they say is stupid: You try drinking and doing drugs for 30 years and then coming up with a coherent argument that stands up under the slightest scrutiny.
As for Sandoval's comment that music executives spread good tracks over multiple albums, that's idiotic. Bands decide which tracks go on their albums, at least decent ones do. It doesn't make sense on any level.
Brian Johnson and Angus have years of debauchery behind them, what's Greg Sandoval's excuse for arguing the unreasonable?

[kelway1]

@benwah: Angus made the comments. He is a teetotaler and has never touched a drug. Your point is therefore moot.

[scadamy]

I appreciate the band's right to choose how they distribute their music, but choosing Wal-Mart, whose overall practices are amazingly damaging to just about every economy in which they reside, is really short-sighted. Check out http://walmartwatch.com/ and http://wakeupwalmart.com/.

[ewelch]

Someone needs to clue-in this scratchy-throated dope that Apple does allow them to sell album-only songs.

Try buying American Pie without getting the whole album.

[daedbird]

My only problem with AC/DC's idea is that they neglect that for as long as there were albums, there have been singles. In record, tape, and CD form. People have been always buying the hits off of songs. For me, if its an established band I could count on, I usually buy the album, and save money than buying individual tracks - which is great on iTunes because they allow you to upgrade within a month.

I equate this more to one of my fav bands - Pearl Jam. They stopped making videos, and lost visibility, causing their sales to diminish.....Who really thinks much of ACDC right now anyway, except this fight with iTunes, which makes you wonder if this more about publicity.

[rbgiudice]

Well it's their music and they have this right. I'm a huge fan of them and I have all of their albums, and I'll buy this one too. I'm not feeling ripped off because they're not putting in iTunes for sale. I don't think any real AC/DC fan will feel offended by this. Who really like their music will buy the album.