Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (10 total)
photo
PoliticalRockChick
Sick of the bible & hypocrites
01:57 AM on 12/20/2009
All of them are filthy rich already, so I don't see why they should object. At the end of the day, it's regular artist like myself who grinds hard in the studio, who may never become like the Beatles or Tool, that needs to distribute their music on Itunes. Itunes is somewhat of a god send for those who have difficult times getting record deals or those who are sick and tired of going through record companies screwing them over. There are times I can't afford to make an album and I just did a song, and I want to distribute it to the world. What's wrong with that. Now I do think Itunes should give the artist the choice if they want to distribute their music as an album or singles.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
opprobrious
More speech. Less Flagging.
03:21 AM on 12/20/2009
And you've made you own point. They're so filty rich they don't need iTunes.
01:34 AM on 12/20/2009
It's pretty funny that an "artist" like Kid Rock doesn't want his music on iTunes.
01:28 AM on 12/20/2009
iTunes is about 10 percent more expensive than other downloads -- check the prices at Amazon for a comparison.

Agreed about vinyl LPs having the best sonics, but if it's a new song chances are it's being played in MP3 anyway. As for AC/DC, didn't these guys release exclusively with Walmart? Now there's moral high ground for you...
12:19 AM on 12/20/2009
oh.. and for those spending more time talking about the Kid Rock or Def Lepard

This video gives an example of what tool puts into their music....

tool fibernachi sequence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS7CZIJVxFY
12:07 AM on 12/20/2009
I wish Tool would at least give us some Live music on Itunes...

tool released 3 songs on guitar hero III.. and that is a start...
One of the best progressive rock bands ever..!!!
photo
hypnotoad72
Freedom = real democracy = living wages
09:43 PM on 12/19/2009
AC/DC, god bless 'em, killed music long before iTunes started selling it.

Apart from the Beatles, I couldn't care less for the music acts.

And even then, I let iTunes import my discs. I don't need to quadruple-dip. (And seeing the prices for the albums-with-stupid-gimmick-t-shirts-for-too-much-money, I couldn't care less about the Beatles anymore either...)
09:41 PM on 12/19/2009
Who cares?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:27 PM on 12/19/2009
I care. I'm bummed about some of the holdouts, especially AC/DC and Don Henley.
01:37 AM on 12/20/2009
I'm bummed about Aerosmith not having their entire catalog on iTunes.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TimLB
09:01 PM on 12/19/2009
Old guard.

If these artists don't make their tracks available the contemporary way, fans will find ways to get them in contemporary media - usually for free. Kid Rock's been very outspoken about downloading/file sharing, yet he doesn't utilize contemporary means to distribute/release his music. iTunes is the #1 music retailer, eh? What else can he possibly expect?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
moonflowerjewelry
Buy American made, no excuses.
08:11 PM on 12/19/2009
interesting... many comments down below on how to download for free... last time I checked, music was made by people who DESERVE to get paid for their creativity and hard work... call me a commie, but i think the pyramid is inverted and the artists should get paid well, and the corporate executives not so much. downloading for free is stealing, think of those artists you really like, you are stealing from THEM...
07:42 PM on 12/19/2009
There are a few people who really don't dig the Beatles. Besides, the ones who do already own eleventy-million copies of each Beatles song in 5 or 6 media a piece, so what's the problem?
photo
hypnotoad72
Freedom = real democracy = living wages
09:44 PM on 12/19/2009
LOL!!

Too true.

Well, not entirely. I'm content with the red- and blue- set compilations that came out in the mid-1990s. The sound quality is phenomenal as well; how they could eclipse those restorations would be an amazing feat...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MaxPowerXP
04:27 AM on 12/20/2009
They came out long before that; either way, you'd have to have ears of tin to notice no difference between the old shovelware Beatles CDs and the remasters
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:33 PM on 12/19/2009
Interesting that the posters here address themselves exclusively to what are to me peripheral issues in the digital/download arena - I really mean no offense, but I expect the reason for that is that's it's already too late come to grips with the main issue - sound quality - and today's listeners simply don't have the ear training or taste to know what's been lost. The richest experience of music, sonically speaking, is in live performance - prodigious artistic and engineering effort has been invested in making recordings of music approximate that experience. Among the various recording media, nothing surpasses the richness of ambiance afforded by direct recording to virgin vinyl, which while factually correct - is extremely impractical on a cost per unit basis. Next would be magnetic recording tape - but tape stretches and degrades. Next is mass-pressed vinyl recordings - which are MUCH better sounding (for technical AND psycho-acoustic reasons) than digital CD's. The vast majority of digital downloads are mp3's - and they have the LEAST musical information on them - that is to say, they flat-out suck, musically speaking. But hey - if you can't tell the difference...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:39 PM on 12/20/2009
Laughing out loud at this nonsense: "nothing surpasses the richness of ambiance afforded by direct recording to virgin vinyl."
07:23 PM on 12/19/2009
Let's get to the root. Why does anyone write a song, play a song, record a song? If it's to make money, get the hell out of the music business. As an artist, do what you can and let it go. Not everyone is going to like all your music or even understand it. If they like one song on an album that's at least one song you will make money from. I could not have the songs I do if I had to buy whole albums. Could not afford it. I want the song I want and nothing else. If I had to download an entire album, I would end up deleting all the songs except the one I wanted in the first place. So where's the joy of creating and giving? Isn't that what matters most?

It's NOT the ordinary people who are ripping you off, musicians. It's the record companys and that whole leechy structure. But we, out here, waiting for your next creation, isn't that who you are writing and playing for? Why screw us? Hey, dudes where's the love? Write and play it with love and let the dang thing go! Let it go into the ears and heart and soul of those who are meant to hear it. Let us make it our own. We do that anyway! If we don't make it our own, you are out of luck cause no one's buying it. Can the egos! We are not the enemy.
07:01 PM on 12/19/2009
kid rock?

really?

who lost out to kid rock?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kitten645
11:53 PM on 12/19/2009
LOL...so true.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ralphee
05:25 PM on 12/19/2009
death to the filler tracks make the whole album good any people will buy
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Rob Horton
a proud Aspie Southern Liberal
05:22 PM on 12/19/2009
At the risk of showing my age, who the heck is Tool?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:00 PM on 12/19/2009
they just are...
07:02 PM on 12/19/2009
here ya go...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hglVqACd1C8
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GQB
12:09 PM on 12/20/2009
Wait a minute... Its fine for them to take a single cut and turn it into a video, but if we want a single cut, we're "destroying their 'artistic integrity'"?
Give me a break. What a pack of hypocrites.