Kid Rock, The Beatles, AC/DC and Garth Brooks would make for a bizarre and unlikely concert line up, yet they share something in common: they are the last men standing as far as making their music available on iTunes. In the case of Kid Rock, he is apparently refusing to put those albums over which he has control onto iTunes as a matter of principle. According to the BBC the Rock 'n' Roll Jesus, real name Robert Ritchie, is holding firm simply because performers are not getting paid their fair dues for material downloaded from the market leading Apple music store.
Not that being absent from iTunes is holding back his career, after all his last album went to number one in the US charts without the help of Apple. That said, his new 'All Summer Long' single has appeared on iTunes in Europe. When it comes to albums he reckons that the actual cost to him of not being available for download on iTunes, in terms of album sales, is something in the region of 20 percent.
"I will be on iTunes eventually because I can't avoid it" Kid Rock told the BBC, adding that "the Internet was an opportunity for everyone to be treated fairly, for the consumer to get a fair price, for the artist to be paid fairly, for the record companies to make some money."
The trouble was the music industry didn't see it like that and continued to try and milk consumer and artist for as long as possible.
Which is probably why, a couple of years back, Rock admits he told his record company that he would not make a stand against illegal downloads. In fact, he says that he told them they had been stealing from artists for years so he told fans "download it illegally, I don't care. I want you to hear my music so I can play live."
These days he is a little more reserved, admitting that he doesn't agree with illegal downloading but arguing that the playing field should be levelled. By which he means that if they steal his music they should steal all music, apparently.
This is a somewhat spurious argument of course, after all nobody is suggesting you should walk into Wal-Mart and walk out with whatever CDs you want simply because you think music should be free.
I'm a hacker turned writer and consultant, specialising in IT security. I've been a freelance word punk for over 20 years and along the way I have seen 23 of my books published, produced and presented programmes for TV and radio, picked up a bunch of awards and continue being a contributing editor with PC Pro - the best selling IT magazine in the UK .
Garth Brooks is a brilliant musician and composer. Just because you don't like his style of music doesn't give you any rights to slander him and call him names, kiddo.
Garth has an exclusive arrangement with Walmart, which has its own online store.
This is a sad thing for his international fanbase (which may be larger than his US base) as it means his work is now unavailable to all of us living outside the United States.
The rights to the Beatles' music rest with Apple music, who just settled a major legal dispute with Apple computing a few months ago. I doubt they'll be available through iTunes any time soon.
Now that's funny. Duckman posting a positive comment! Now that, my friends, is newsworthy. Garth Brooks a brilliant musician and composer. OMG, that is funny. You should take that act on the road. Hey, you could team up with Barf and be his comic relief.
Garth Brooks could make so much more money AND maybe even be relevant again if he got on iTunes. I buy ALL my music on iTunes now, and often if I am just 'in the mood' for a song, I will buy it on a whim. How many people have been up late at night, thinking about a song they just remembered they really loved, and bought it instantly on iTunes because it was on their mind? I know I have many times. Why would I want to litter the earth with a physical CD that takes up space and resources, and may get scratched and need to be thrown in the trash, when I can have all my music taking up NO space in my home except for my hard drive? I am sorry Garth, but if you were on iTunes I would have spent my hard earned money on your music a long time ago. And I can guarantee that there are many more people who feel the same way. Time to get out of the stone ages and into 2010; we are never going back to CD's...they have become obsolete, like the 8-track. Move on.
The problem, of course, is that these "artists" make albums (CD's) with one or two decent songs on them and the rest is dogfood. They want to sell the CD at $16.00 and get rich while you listen to the dog food and say "why the f&@k did I buy this crap. I want to buy ONLY the decent songs and not the dog food. The songs are worth about $1.00 for a download. I have found Garth Brooks material readily available for download at about $0.47 per song on several Russian websites (MP-3 format). The problem is that they have a $ 10.00 minimum to open an "account" for you to download. Seems like EVBERYBODY is a scum bucket cheater ! ! ! - If anyone knows where I can buy Garth Broooks "Beaches Of Cheyenne" for about $1 , please drop me an email: [snipped] Thanks !