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

Band members say iTunes is just about the money and that they want to protect the album format. Hey Angus, what about protecting consumers?

[farker1]

Hey Greg, I've got an idea - you could cut up your articles and sell them word by word. I'm sure they would sell pretty well like that. After all, just like songs, they don't require any context.

[4schler]

"As for albums, there's nothing sacred about this format--at least not to consumers."

I resent that remark. I'm well aware that most people are happy to buy their 10 favorite singles at any given time on iTunes, but I, like Johnson, feel that the art of the album is lost on iTunes. I would much rather listen through a whole album and perhaps not like some of the songs as much as others - for me, it's about the consummate experience. If the music industry keeps heading the way of iTunes, there won't be a single 'top albums' chart in 15 years - the pop music industry will literally only revolve around singular hits... and that's sad.

if i'm going to listen to Beethoven's 9th, i'm going to listen to the whole damn thing - not just the hallelujah chorus. Same goes for the Foo Fighters' "The Colour and the Shape" - i'm not just going to listen to 'Everlong' - i'm going to listen to the whole damn album, if i can help it. because, while each song on that album is great because each of them was meticulously crafted and perfected, it's not any single song that makes that album great. it's EVERY song. this is why AC/DC is withholding the album from iTunes - they're not really worried about iTunes' business philosophy so much as they're worried about iTunes' musical philosophy.

really what it boils down to is people are becoming less and less conscious of the music they hear. notice i said 'hear' and not 'listen to,' and I, for one, am glad that bands like AC/DC are fighting that mentality through the ways they release their music - doing as much as they can to get people to listen to the whole album as a piece of work instead of one song that they heard on the radio or on TV or that their friends like. i'm glad that AC/DC is doing everything they can to force people to think about their music. even if people end up not liking most (or any) of their new album, they're at least thinking about it rather than simply consuming - and that's all that really matters to any true artist anyway.

[voo.doo]

ACDCs primary argument seems to be that they want to fans to experience their work as album and not as individual tracks. This is an artistic choice.

Your dismissal of the album and the tracks it contains as an artistic choice completely overlooks the existence of many sucsefful concept albums.

Cobains claim that labels take a band's best tracks and scatter them over multiple albums to squeeze more money out of consumers assumes
1) That the label has more then one albums worth of the artists songs in the can
2) That the label know what will be the most popular tracks ahead of time
3) The artist has no control over what tracks go on an album

That sounds like a bit of stretch to me.

[JPS2008]

It's been mentioned here already but it bears repeating. iTunes already has the capability to sell albums only (ie no singles). It sucks for the consumer but it is an option that some record companies/artists do use.

Given this fact, I have a hard time understanding why journalist after journalist continue to repeat this mantra by some artists that not being able to sell albums only is a valid reason why they're not on iTunes. It's NOT a valid reason because it's simply not true. Hopefully whoever the next person is who interviews these artists will have done some research and won't simply regurgitate their false premises.

PS, I'm a consumer who hates the album-only option. If I truly want to buy most every song on the album, I'll go out and buy the physical CD because I still prefer to have a physical backup and it avoids the DRM crap. If I'm only interested in one or two songs, I won't make a purchase if I can't buy the songs individually. The record companies didn't gain anything, they only succeeded in losing a potential sale.

[tundraboy]

Style tip Greg: If you say 'you could care less', then that means you still care a little bit (i.e. there's still room for you to care less than you actually do). I think you meant to say that you're at rock bottom in the caring department in which case the appropriate expression is 'you COULDN'T care less'.

Yeah, I'm being picky. . .

[PKGuy323]

I have no problem with them wanting to sell it as an album. Some iTunes offerings require you buy the albums to get all the songs.

HOWEVER, they need to leave it at that. Do NOT bash iTunes because it is a successful marketplace for consumers to buy what they choose to VS getting ripped off $20 on a 12 track CD with only 1-2 songs on it. This shows poor judgment on behalf of a record company, but, meh, whatever. Go ahead and burn that bridge, AC/DC!

You can look at it as either leave the album intact for the sake of artistry and risk losing money, OR make music that consumers will want to buy per-track and eventually get all of them because they are good enough to put up money for.

A whole lot of real geniuses here are talking about how stupid AC/DC is for going this route...

Don't you think that Wal*Mart gave them a HUGE pile of cash to do this? AC/DC is one of the top-selling bands of all time. Getting an exclusive would cost big bucks.

I don't fault these guys at all. In fact, they've been my favorite band for about 20 years. They're just doing the same thing they've always said they would do.

"So if you've got the money, we've got the sound
You put it up and we'll put it down
If you got the dollar, we got the song"

[LunaticSX]

"And I'm sure they're just doing it all in the interest of making as much...cash as possible."

Actually the original point behind iTunes music downloads was in the interest of ensuring that DRM'ed Windows Media files weren't the only legal downloads of music available, which would have locked out Apple's iPods and Macs (or at a minimum forced Apple to kowtow to Microsoft in order to license WMA).

As it is, Apple only makes a small fraction of their revenues off of music (and other media) downloads. Their real profits come from selling hardware, like iPods, Macs, iPhones, etc. Those products, surprisingly, are not locked to only playing Apple media, they can also play MP3s ripped off CDs or downloaded from Amazon, eMusic, etc.

Now as soon as the record labels other than EMI get the sticks out of their ***** and allow iTunes to sell DRM-free versions of ALL of their music, we'll finally be in one big, happy DRM-free music world. There's no chance there would have been even a HOPE for this if Microsoft had their way and DRM'ed WMA had become the industry standard.

[vmlenigma]

AH thank GOD, I cant stand ROCK or HEAVY metal to begin with, and the last thing I want is some OLD rocker staring down at me on my Monitor while I open up Itunes , telling me to buy their music while wearing spandex on old loose sagging skin....thanks AC/DC for the boycott

[jimonlinedotcom]

I don't listen to their music, but I think it's interesting that last week, Kid Rock said he was boycotting iTunes and this week AC/DC is bemoaning the download site. Does someone smell conspiracy here or are artists just trying to take control of their product? In fact, the music industry has had to make changes over the control issue, so why shouldn't the distributors? If these musical millionaires want their property sold in a certain way, it shouldn't be up to the distributors to say ... it's up to the artist.

[birdwalker]

What's up with this obsession that CNet reporters have with Apple! From iPod to iPhone to iTune to whatever they make, you guys defends them religiously and cultishly.

Your quote of Doug Morris is not a good one. Him and others like him are industry vultures and not directly representing music industry. This industry, like many others, has many entities from artists to agents to distributors.

Just be fair and give AC/DC a break. They have played a mojor role in creating and shaping Rock music.

[kelmon]

AC/DC, as the owners of their music, are free to decide how they want to distribute their music and if that doesn't include iTunes then that's their choice. However, as a customer I choose to buy my music via iTunes because it is convenient and allows me to buy what I want. In this respect I choose not to buy AC/DC's music. If they don't mind this then that's fine with me but it does seem a strange decision to make.

[fhinner]

Well let me first say I'm a fan, big fan of AC/DC. Frankly I have everything they ever came out with on Record (as much as you can get), all CDs (US, European and Asia versions) and I have ripped it to MP3s so I get it on my iPhone.

Commerce is a funny thing, in the case of black ice I have already pre-ordered the extended deluxe and standard CD. Just for my pleasure I appreciate the iTunes downloads as it is fast and if you get my drift a lot better for the environment.

So I really question that a real fan is not downloading the whole album. What means the album is not dead. I also have to say the quality of AC/DCs music normally justifies to buy the whole album. Even that I love the guys dearly, so here is my advise tell me solution not problems. Meaning if you just want to sell albums put it on iTunes and cut the contract in a way that you can only download the album. Others have done it, so why not go that route. Just don't limit the options.

On the other hand I agree with the general argument. If you are confident in the quality you have nothing ot be afraid of and actually can sell more it you allow the folks that don't want the whole album to download just a couple of songs.
Franz

[SactoGuy018]

Here's an interesting question: will AC/DC allow their album to be sold over the Amazon MP3 Download store? If they do, that subverts the argument with iTunes since the Amazon MP3 downloader program automatically puts the music into the iTunes Music Playlist for easy copying to an iPod.

[sadchild]

i agree that the idea of an album is important. take 'the wall' by pink floyd or 'operation mindcrime' by queensryche. these are meant to be listened to from start to finish. you can just pick a few songs you like that if you want but idea of creating a full story or setting a tone through multiple songs is definitely still important when there is a single concept or message to be conveyed through a group of songs, whether it's a story, mood, etc.

that being said, itunes is not killing that. itunes is saying 'just want the 45? ok'. and ac/dc are the LAST band that should be talking about the importance of using a number of songs to create a work of art. their songs are not only the most simplistic rock songs musically but you could take any 10 songs of theirs from the last 30 years, shove them together and people wouldn't know they were recorded years apart from each other. and every song is either about sex or rock and roll. gee, what a contribution to the art of music.

[mpitogo]

AC/DC who are they? Are they relevant anymore?

[trevorbsmith]

You miss the obvious point that reveals Mr. Johnson's comments to be misinformed at best and purposefully false at worst:

An artist can sell a group of songs only as an entire "album" on iTunes.

[Groucho6]

Bang on?great reporting. As for AC/DC, I lost enough of my hearing to them in the late 70s. I'll take iTunes over them any day. LOL

[dwpbike]

and you are full of it. you can't remember life before led zeppelin? your logic holds for rolling stone's albums. ac/dc is selling a package, not a sound byte.

[Fletch4]

I think the obsolescence of the album is a shame. If the future of music is random, scattered digital files, then I'll just say no thanks and stick to buying vinyl. Yes, record labels still make vinyl--at least the ones that are interested in quality, adventurous music, not the major labels peddling vapid pop music.

Greg, you lose all credibility by saying you stopped buying music in the early '90s. Is that really something you are proud of?

Also, the claim that labels force artists to spread their "good" songs across multiple albums is bogus. This might be the case for a handful of pop acts with an army of songwriters at their disposal, but I find it hard to believe label execs were cherry-picking Nirvana songs and saying, "this one's too good for this record, let's wait and put it on the next one."