Bon Jovi Vs Steve Jobs

choiceweb0pen0

http://entertainment.msn.com/news/article.aspx?news=635420&affid=100055&silentchk=1&wa=wsignin1.0

According to an old man who doesn't want to sound like an old man, the big bad iTunes killed music. Zzzzz.

thomnottom

I heard about this because Mike Doughty already blasted him. Bon Jovi has annoyed me for years whenever he opens his mouth. I still remember him trying to become an actor because music was something "anyone could make in a garage." So much ego for someone whose primary songwriting consists of the word "whoa."

jonahpwll

I meant to comment on this earlier.

First of all, I am one of those people who liked to buy vinyl albums (and later, cds) from the brick & mortar and kick back and listen to them as soon as I got home, reading the liner notes, looking at the picture, a multi-sensory experience. But for every other person I knew who was like that, there were ten others who didn't really care for buying albums, who didn't just sit back and listen to music... for them it was something to play in the background or on the car stereo, and they were more than happy just to have top forty radio playing on the stereo... radio stations that often played the type of music that rarely stretched out or expanded boundaries, instead programmed to play mass market music... music like Bon Jovi's.

Also, as I've stated on other threads, I'm sick of wasting money on albums that I only barely wind up liking and sit on my shelf unlikely to ever be played again. Thank god for the internet and my ability to get (mostly) full listens to albums before buying, so I don't have to waste my money by buying an album "based on the jacket, not knowing what the record sounded like, and looking at a couple of still pictures and imagining it." This doesn't hurt musicians who make complete albums with talented and/or inventive music; it only hurts musicians who craft one single song and fill an album up with mediocrity... musicians like Bon Jovi.

Jobs is a product of the internet; Bon Jovi is a product of homogenized top forty music. I'm not saying iTunes is some savior angel or anything, but if Steve Jobs gets into a duel with Bon Jovi, I think I'm gonna be giving Jobs my spare bullets.

cafreema

I already loved Mike Doughty. Have loved him since Soul Coughing.

Anyone who will call Jon Bon Jovi "Dudeman" gets loved even more.

Craig

choiceweb0pen0

Yep I thought Bon Jovi Sounded like a big label shill. It sort of like Metallica getting angry at music piracy.

BTW I usually do buy whole albums, MP3 or otherwise. None by Bon Jovi though.

amclark2

Since this is fight club, I'm going to place myself on the Bon Jovi side. Haven't really listened to him since high school, but I think he's got a point. And he was the single biggest touring act of last year, making millions in an overall terrible year for touring and every other sort of music sale, so it's not fair to write him off as a whiner. Seems to me he's saying in a better year he wouldn't be the biggest thing out there; that would go to some new kid. And a lot of people agreed with him because the one area of music sales that was up last year was vinyl. I think there is something missing from the music experience when the vast majority of people buy just hot singles or ringtones. That album experience is not what it was. It's also totally unfair for any of us to use our experience; we're all weirdo outsider obsessives; not normal, and not teenagers by a long shot. Sorry but its true. Now maybe it's not all Steve Jobs' fault. But he'll gladly take credit for the whole thing, so why not blame too? [/oldguyrant]

jk666

Jobs provided the one place where people will pay for digital music which is a good thing.

Artists got used to making albums with a couple radio friendly songs and a lot of filler then sitting back and letting the $17.99 roll in for each CD sold. Jobs caught onto that and sold songs individually so now the artist only sells $1.98 worth of music from that album. Had they lowered the price of CDs earlier they may have been ok.

Bad Thoughts

There were MP3 stores before iTunes. I don't give Jobs much credit for breaking down music's fourth wall, just making it sexier to allow record companies to restrict what is your own.

choiceweb0pen0

Maybe big box retailers should share some of the blame for putting local records stores out of business. Even in my small Ohio town, the local music stores in the 80's and 90's were chain stores in the local mall. I remember buying the soundtrack to Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas even with the movie had no chance of being shown at our local theater.

Katrina

haha, I never read Doughty's site before. This is priceless
(And ps, who could de-stem-and-seed weed, or sniff drugs, off an iPhone?)

The labels did it to themselves. First, it was top 40 on AM radio and you could by singles of songs you liked. Then FM started playing whole albums, at least at first they seemed to be mostly albums. There were tons of "album hours" and special shows centered around full albums on FM stations. DJs played what they wanted and the cool DJs picked ones where the whole album was good. At least I remember it that way. So you'd go buy the whole vinyl album, even though it cost more than one single from AM. THe record companies decided to go with albums since it was such a good FM format. It got harder & harder to find singles.

Then FM changed and it was pretty much all singles, and no more albums. I can't think of the last time I heard an entire album played on FM - probably 30 years ago? I was still OK buying vinyl albums and getting a few dud songs - I think they were around $8, and maybe $12-$15 if it was a double album. Then came CDs and everything was $18. CD singles were hard to find and almost as expensive as an album.

Might as well blame the folks who came up with the mp3 format.

Germanprof

Another factor in here (to reference another thread) is the actual design of the software. I've been working my way towards switching from manual to automatic syncing of my iPod touch, and in the process discovering that it's actually quite difficult and laborious to get smart playlists to sync whole whole albums across (it's possible but you have to put in some research and effort to set it up right). All of the easy, default options in iTunes push you towards playlists of single tracks. So the playback side of the software is far from a neutral tool in this discussion - it's heavily weighted towards consumption of single tracks.

kargatron

I find it useful to remember that radio is as old as popular music (not at all coincidentally), and "shuffle" in that sense has been the default for the entire lifetime of popular music. "Albums" came later, and could, in some (not all of course) senses be seen as the "anomalous" mode. Default album lengths, too, came primarily from format considerations rather than some carefully considered human-optimal art-project length. I just note this stuff in the context that albums aren't "holy" in how many people view and experience them.

Germanprof

What "default" means there depends, however, on how one experiences radio. For me (and of course I may be unusual) radio has always been a way of hearing trailers for the main event (= hearing the album from which the radio track is taken), not a primary listening vehicle.

kargatron

Oh, sure, individuals vary widely - I meant it in the broad social/industry sense. From the 1920-1950, for example, exactly zero people listened to radio as a way of "hearing trailers for the main (album) event".

Bad Thoughts

Popular music as in something produced for mass consumption is, yes, not much older than radio itself, but even in the previous century there was popular music that was, in many ways, bundled in the context of performance, most notable revues. Audiences did not stand up after each song to change venues.

thomnottom

@amclark2 - Here's an open letter to Mr. Jovi from the husband of a fan. The writer points out that without the iPod and iTunes, most people wouldn't be dusting off old records as easily as they do and bands like Bon Jovi would not be able to make $147mil on a tour. And if his complaint is that people are not listening to his new music because they can't fall in love with it like back in that "magical day", he's missing the reality that his new music sucks and that's why people want to hear 25 year old hits.

Besides, how can a musician who made millions of dollars last year claim that the music industry has been killed?

For the record, I frequently disagree with Doughty on these issues considering he's gone off about the fact that he can't believe anyone still buys albums. He claims he hasn't bought a complete album in over 5 years. But he's still a cool guy, even if he doesn't like most of his Soul Coughing stuff anymore...

amclark2

@thom - that was my point though. Bon Jovi knows he's not selling recordings much, and almost has to know he'd be making less in the music market of 20 years ago - the guy doesn't strike me as an idiot. To me it sounds like a guy who's making an absolute killing off the current sucky music market saying "hey, it's nice and all, but in a well structured music market I wouldn't be making quite so much money." Just skimming the open letter shows the same thing - the guys wife has everything Bon Jovi's ever done on her ipod. The ipod, itunes, $300.00 concert ticket world is great for Bon Jovi, but in a lot of ways, for a lot of people, it kindof sucks. Who better to criticize the system than the guy who's profitting most from it? I read him as saying that hardworking Jersey boys like him or Springsteen before him don't stand a chance in this modern market. And for a great example look at Titus Andronicus. They had a great year last year, but nothing at all like Bon Jovi 20 years ago, or Springsteen 30 years ago. If Titus Andronicus complained, everybody would write them off as winers. I think Bon Jovi's making a valid criticism that last year should have been Titus Andronicus's year, not his.

as far as singles and albums, the term "album" comes, I believe, from a group of '78s, bound together in a book or album, of a given performance, and so albums were not new to 33 1/3 lp's. Also didn't old radio have a lot more live concerts, which would run for an hour or more? For example Duke Ellington did a lot of concert broadcasts.

amclark2

Has anybody read the actual article? I'm finding it funny that the full article is only available if you subscribe to the Sunday Times; They're not letting Steve Jobs kill them now are they? But apparrently all the commenters out there are all basing everything on the MSN excerpt. I'm curious about the context.

thomnottom

I'm trying to find it, but yeah... paywall.

greg

@amclark2 - and that too is actually quite pertinent. The Murdoch group are the only newspaper publishers in the UK who charge to access newspapers online. I don't read the Sunday Times but if I am able to get a copy from a colleague I'll scan it in to try to put up here. Over here there is a big debate between newspaper owners and Apple about access costs, via Apps, for newspapers on the ipad. We can remember only a few months ago all the hype when Beatles material went on itunes. Yet, as has been shown in the ipod thread I put up here on Saturday, Apple claim they do not make any real money from itunes. But I agree the contexct of the remarks are crucial.

amclark2

The New York Times just announced they're moving to a paid model after having been free till now.

cafreema

Crap. Hopefully other papers realize the NYT is one of only three U.S. newspapers that could survive a paid model.

Craig

greg

Is it part of the Murdoch empire? I have a feeling it is. In the uK there has been a very poor uptake to the paywall, especially with plenty of good alternatives available freely. But Murdoch is a very powerful player in the media in Britain - he is planning to take over the remainder of BSkyB (satellite pay TV)that he does not own, and has had permission from both the EU and the British goverment. It has becomne quite political, as he changed allegiance politically for our last election, and has now got what he wanted. There are moves to cut down the power of the BBC website by some in government. The availability of the BBC is keeping the rest of the news sites from charging - if that goes, Mudoch may have the last laugh as other newspapers find the cost tooo high to be free.There are certainbly parallels here with music.

amclark2

Murdoch owns the NY Post, and the Wall Street Journal, but not the New York Times (yet).

choiceweb0pen0

The New York Times has tried the pay thing before, though it was more limited. I think it was called Times Select or something.

greg

A colleague said he'd bring in the Sunday Times Magazine with the article. When he does I'll try to get the relevant part copied onto here - it shouldn't be too difficult