Congratulations Slave and Catrin!!!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by dtb

That has to be the tune to something else, right?

Burgerpedia says Aura Lee

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive

I happened to see a Carlo Mencia bit the other day that was pretty funny (and I rarely find him funny) about mainstream rap and the overuse of the *n* word by everyone except Eminem and how he acts all tough and cool but he knows the rules and you'd never catch him saying that word, though it is probably said around him constantly. You probably had to be there (as with most stand up), but it was kind of funny to hear him impersonate [air quotes]Slim Shadey[/air quotes] being all:

"my wife is a slut and I tied that bitch up and I threw her in the trunk and drove her off a bridge" "what? no I can't possibly say THAT"

He's crazy, but he ain't insane.

TM

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Wal Mart. The record is pretty remarkable in terms of commercial appeal. The sound on the thing is flawless and somehow the singer is once again able to stretch into those super-high ranges he had on Back in Black.

The song titles and lyrics are predictably idiotic, but as always, the riffs are infectious and the drum/bass click as well as Charlie Watts and Bill Wyman ever did.

I think Radiohead and the Beatles also refuse to do Itunes.

It's not a bad business model. Currently AC/DC and the Beatles are two of the top five selling bands in history, worldwide. Makes sense for certain groups. I couldn't imagine buying Abbey Road or OK Computer in bits and pieces. And I never liked the way the Zeppelin boxed set scattered bits of I and II over various discs. The songs on those records had a unique sound and stood together on albums much better than they stand apart as singles.

I think it's a business model that only works for ancient bands that have a fan base that buys CDs.

You might not be able to buy Radiohead on iTunes, but you can certainly (legitimately) get Radiohead online.

[1436]

What is the problem with iTunes from the band's perspective? Do they not pay the bands enough? Do they ask for too much control?

FWIW, I downloaded SOC this morning based on the discussion here and would have gotten the new AC/DC album as well if it were on iTunes. But I doubt I will trek to wallieworld just for one album, so I'll likely rip a friends copy after they buy it. Why doesn't AC/DC want my money?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by 1436

What is the problem with iTunes from the band's perspective? Do they not pay the bands enough? Do they ask for too much control?

I believe AC/DC has some exclusive with Verizon at least for this album. But more generally, some bands apparently want to sell only albums, not individual songs, and iTunes seems to discourage that (although there appear to be exceptions or, for Led Zeppelin, allowed to make one song "album only", but allow the others as singles).

Looks like AC/DC feels the same way.

ETA: Or read RT's post a couple pages up making the same point, but earlier.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And I never liked the way the Zeppelin boxed set scattered bits of I and II over various discs. The songs on those records had a unique sound and stood together on albums much better than they stand apart as singles.

One of my many rainy day projects is to go into the iTunes song information and reorder the tracks on the boxed sets into their original albums.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I guess it depends on your definition of "strong presence." They don't move the units the crap does. I just wish they got some more shine.

TM

Sure, me too. But I see hip hop now as basically mirroring all pop music. There is a bunch a derivative, soulless crap that is in the Top 40 and sells a ton, and there is a bunch of stuff that is more critically acclaimed stuff that (for the most part) does not sell well but it much more to my liking. Just for fun, I went to Billboard.com and clicked on "Hot Rap Tracks." The Top 6 are by 1) T.I., 2) Lil Wayne Featuring Bobby Valentino & Kidd Kidd, 3) T.I. Featuring Rihanna, 4) The Game Featuring Lil Wayne, 5) Lil Wayne Featuring T-Pain, 6) Jay-Z & T.I. Featuring Kanye West & Lil Wayne. Other than Jay-Z and Kanye, I seriously know almost nothing about any of these artists, although I seem that they all seem to be friends, which is nice. I am just as likely to listen to this slice of the hip hop market as I am to listen to the latest Pink, Britney Spears, or Rihanna, which are in the top ten of the general Billboard Top 100.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by pernsky no account

A big holler of Hippity-hop to you, old gent!

Querry: on that web site entry you corrrecty site aforesaidgoing, I had a bit of beef. when that site notes that "one of his songs become a white person wedding staple, Ms. Fat Booty", I am concerned. While this was my wedding song for my first bethrothal, i have not heard it again, although I do frequently hear "Miss New Booty" by Bubba Sparxxx at many of the white guy weddings I attend. Clarification?

Good day, fine sir! I've read your post and am as yet uncertain about the nature of the clarification you seek. Do forgive me if seem a bit dim today. I've been reading Billboard.com.

[1436]

So AC/DC says they want to sell albums, not singles. That seems easy and it makes little sense that iTunes would deny this sort of control to acts that can sell enough to make it worthwhile. Set a bar and grant the power to any who make it over that bar. If the market doesn't want to pay for whole albums then the band suffers too.

But, Kid Rock complains that the royalty is not high enough. He points out that iTunes doesn't have all of the promotional expenses that a normal label does, so the royalty should be more than the royalty from a CD sale. Also a valid point, but nobody else can get his music on my ipod as a impulse purchase. (To be clear, there is no way Kid Rock would ever make it on in any case, but without iTunes it is even more unpossible.)

Both of these issues seem relatively minor. Is Apple really so stubborn that they can't get this sort of shit together?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by 1436

But, Kid Rock complains that the royalty is not high enough. He points out that iTunes doesn't have all of the promotional expenses that a normal label does, so the royalty should be more than the royalty from a CD sale.

If you've stated Kid Rock's argument correctly, then he is a socialist, or at least French. If Apple can get music to consumers for a lower cost, then shouldn't they be entitled to profit from those cost savings? If we operated on his principle, then iTunes would never have been developed, since they'd just pass along all their savings to artists.

[1436]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

If you've stated Kid Rock's argument correctly, then he is a socialist, or at least French. If Apple can get music to consumers for a lower cost, then shouldn't they be entitled to profit from those cost savings? If we operated on his principle, then iTunes would never have been developed, since they'd just pass along all their savings to artists.

I saw a picture of him in a scarf with donkeys on it. I don't know if the donkeys, or the scarf, were French, though.

I think that was a fair paraphrase of his argument from the article you posted.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by 1436

I saw a picture of him in a scarf with donkeys on it. I don't know if the donkeys, or the scarf, were French, though.

That scarf is popular with welfare-staters, I hear.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

I've watched this clip many times and I just don't see how it's not the referee tackling the quarterback.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFhJGPf8j14

TM

[pernsky no account]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Good day, fine sir! I've read your post and am as yet uncertain about the nature of the clarification you seek. Do forgive me if seem a bit dim today. I've been reading Billboard.com.

Exactly, Guv'ner! Point well taken and please accept my humblest foregiveness.

New topic, of the worlds are colliding varietale. Scratch that, new querry of a sort. So a client sends me an email today.....let me clarify, in reality the client is a corporation, a quasi-fictional person at law, if you will, and those "persons" don't have opposable thumbs or other accentuating digits to allow them to hit the "send" button to dispurse the email. The source of the email was actually a flesh and blood human employee of the client aka corporate entity. Full disclosure: middle level employee to be exact, and I say this, because I know what you are thinking, that this person, employee, must be the CEO of the client aka corporate entity, given my corner office statii, but, in fairness, out of a sense of social justice and equity, which is what I am all about, on special occassions, for a premium billing rate adjustment, I deal with the hoi polloi ("proles" in Paigowworld, sniff), if you will. Anywhom, in short, as I digress, the email read:

"Last nite, I dreamted that you shaved your head, and the look was off the hizzle. Everyone in the dream loved it."

Two questions:

A. Is this a come on?

II. If so, does the implicit reference to others in the dream indicate group sex could be at hand (and foot, and other apendage)?

Serious advice appreciated!

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by 1436

So AC/DC says they want to sell albums, not singles. That seems easy and it makes little sense that iTunes would deny this sort of control to acts that can sell enough to make it worthwhile. Set a bar and grant the power to any who make it over that bar. If the market doesn't want to pay for whole albums then the band suffers too.

But, Kid Rock complains that the royalty is not high enough. He points out that iTunes doesn't have all of the promotional expenses that a normal label does, so the royalty should be more than the royalty from a CD sale. Also a valid point, but nobody else can get his music on my ipod as a impulse purchase. (To be clear, there is no way Kid Rock would ever make it on in any case, but without iTunes it is even more unpossible.)

Both of these issues seem relatively minor. Is Apple really so stubborn that they can't get this sort of shit together?

Well, it also makes little sense that AC/DC wouldn't explore other online avenues. iTunes isn't the only place that you can buy music online. Amazon is pretty competitive and doesn't have the restrictive software. And Radiohead, noted by Sebby to be more album oriented than singles oriented, doesn't sell on iTunes, but their most recent album was released on their website and did really well.

I think AC/DC is just stuck in the past, but they can get away with it because their fans are used to buying CDs.