Last time I looked, the ONLY King Crimson song available on iTunes was an edited version of “Court of the Crimson King,” from the Children of Men soundtrack
It’s actually called Low and the artist is Flo Rida featuring T-Pain. It’s on iTunes 
I have to say, I got a kick out of AC/DC’s reasoning:
Yes, because the music industry is all about the love and not the cash.
Well I think that particular line is silly, but their point about not wanting to break their albums up into individual songs is a valid one.
Interesting that both Garth Brooks and Kid Rock say that they don’t agree with the prices for all the songs being the same. I translate that in my head to mean that they feel their output should command a premium over lesser known musicians, but I could just be projecting.
I also find it interesting that they feel as iTunes is killing the music business, but I don’t really get that either. Without iTunes, Amazon downloads, and the other successful services, it seems that the artists would be losing more royalties to piracy.
The only argument that I bought was that it fragments the artist’s vision or intent when songs are sold individually.
Yes, the deep meaning that pervades their albums would be shattered if people bought individual songs. :dubious:
I’ve seen it suggested that iTunes and the record companies would do better with demand pricing: obscure songs would sell for, say, 69 cents; average songs would sell for 99; and hits would sell for $1.29. The prices would change as the popularity increases. (Amie Street used to do this – new music by unknown groups was free – but it looks like Amazon bought them and dropped this policy).
I will check it out. Thanks for the lead.
iTunes already has a tiered pricing system exactly like how you describe here. The latest hits hits by the likes Jay-Z and Lady Gaga sell for $1.29; songs by midrange artists from decades past, the Night Rangers and Cinderellas of the world, sell for 99 cents; and the obscure filler tracks from artists no one has ever heard of go for 69 cents.
I’m not the biggest AC/DC fan in the world, but some of my favorite are best listened to as a single collection. No, each individual song would not be ruined forever if listened to out of order, but I can see the angle.
I do miss the good old days laying on my friend, Scott’s, bed and listening to “Dark Side of the Moon” from cover to cover. It was incredible, even without the recommended gonja accompaniment. I also miss album covers and liner notes and marketing gimmicks like Elvis’ Moody Blue album, which was a beautiful clear blue. Won’t get that in the digital world.
Sadly, all have gone the way of the DoDo.
But fighting the digital era is akin to resolving to stand firm against a tsunami. You may be able to survive the first onslaught, maybe even the second, but eventually you’re going to drown. So AC/DC can either join the parade or stand on the sidelines and hope that the rest of the world will suddenly embrace their vision of the light. I got news for them: They ain’t.
I also like Rhapsody. Reasons: For $10 a month, I can listen to all of the music available without buying individual albums or tracks. Yeah, I know it’s DRM, unless I choose to pay for it. But I can play and download songs to my iPhone. (There are also apps for Android and Blackberry.) And instead of forcing me to use a program on my PC, I can listen to and buy songs from within my web browser.
Wow, well now I feel dumb I think I’ve searched for that song like 6 times. Thanks for the tip!
Def Leppard is more appropriately in the “no longer on iTunes” group. I bought a number of their songs on iTunes in the past year or two, but you’re right, they are no longer on there at all.
The whole “we don’t want to sell our songs individually” isn’t even an issue - iTunes has a way to make every song album-only, which means you have to buy the whole thing and none of the songs are available by themselves. Kate Bush didn’t want the second disc of her album Aerial to be broken up, so it is only sold as a full album.
If AC/DC/Kid Rock/anyone really didn’t want to sell individual tracks, but still wanted to make money from digital music (and if people are buying the hideously overpriced Beatles digital box set, they’ll buy anything, regardless of value for money/whether they can buy individual songs) then they could easily just go down the album-only route.
Yep. He was on the local Detroit radio show recently. He not only said that Itunes is not his style and he does not care if anyone bootlegs his music, but that he does not care about some guy that is imitating him and charging money to see performances. Kid Rock said, “Hey, if that dude found a way to make money off me, God bless him.”
I hate his music, but he is far from being a douchebag. He’s kinda cool.
I don’t get it. Most of the bands I listen to have open taping policies–free to tape/trade as long as it’s not for commercial gain–so I should get the mentality.
But if he’s free with his music, why won’t he release it to iTunes so that people can get it if they want it–and are willing to pay for the conveinence of getting it delivered?
Quat am I missing?
I bought “I Just Want to Be Your Everything” back in '05 myself. This just prompted me to play it again. I don’t even have the excuse of a preteen crush–I don’t know why like it!
I just checked, and searching “Andy Gibb” as the artist returns just “I Just Want to Be Your Everything”, from the “Charlie’s Angels” soundtrack. Nothing else. What I really want is “Shadow Dancing”,
I just checked. For some reason, it is listed under the Bee Gees (under the Mythology album). Just search “Shadow Dancing.” I know Andy sang with them on a few tours, however he never officially joined the band. But it’s definitely his voice of the song.