So while we already knew that AC/DC was taking its tracks elsewhere, we never knew exactly why. Last year, in an unprecedented move, the band took all its marbles and went straight into the arms of Verizon (WTF?).
It raises the question: despite iTunes’s vast success, why would AC/DC continue to spurn Apple? Don’t they like making money?
Apparently, it’s because of the music, according to Angus Young, the lead guitarist for AC/DC told The Telegraph: “We don’t make singles, we make albums,” adding:
“We believe the songs on any of our albums belong together. If we were on iTunes, we know a certain percentage of people would only download two or three songs from the album. We don’t think that represents us musically.”
So there you go, folks. Clearly every other band on iTunes is a sellout and is compromising their artistic integrity. Riiiiight. And Verizon is all about the artist.
Yeah, and AC/DC is all about the art.
So they'd rather not sell a single album vs. millions and millions of downloads of "dirty deeds" and "back in black"? Dumb. Just dumb.
Doesnt that say people do not want to buy an album with just one good song and rest of it is crap.
I love AC/DC, but frankly, some of their album filler songs are less than stellar.
Yeah, it's all about twelve 3 chord songs tied together. Otherwise people would only need to buy one to have virtually the entire cd! Don't flame me, AC/DC fans, I actually like the band.
Funny, I've seen plenty of "album only" distributions on iTunes
I'm not buying it. They could have made it where you could only buy the album, not the individual songs. I have bought a couple from iTunes that were like that.
I'm not buying it. They could have made it where you could only buy the album, not the individual songs. I have bought a couple from iTunes that were like that.
You're gonna take a 60-year-old guy in velvet shorts seriously?
Funny, but they don't seem to have a problem with their singles being played on the radio. Hmmmmmmm.
I agree completely with Angus.
It's their choice. No big deal. Besides, I think they're rich enough to where money isn't really an issue. Don't read too much into this decision. I'm no fan, but if they choose to sell their music elsewhere and in different formats, so be it.
Firstly, to Mr. Farivar - I would like to take issue with the last paragraph. It seems like AC/DC is only asserting their albums are unsuited to single-song distribution - in no way do they reference any other artist or (un)said artists' integrity.
Secondly, to krye, I do not think it's dumb that they chose to aim for artistic integrity rather than sales. (Whether Verizon was a good choice is another matter...) Is it not easy to construe such a decision as for the good of their fans? Valuing sales over artistic strength is a rather common criticism of most popular artists, and I think that AC/DC should be applauded for not grabbing for the cash when they though it was bad for their work.
Now, um, Verizon?!? WTF, mate?
I agree with AC/DC as well, they have been around long enough to know that they don't need to make money. The guys are loaded. Most bands nowadays make it big wait for the money to start rolling in and stop, all in the name of money. But AC/DC are still going strong because of the love they have for proper music.
I agree with Bill. Also the band will not lose any cash by not going the iTunes route. If people want the songs they wont give up just because its not available on iTunes. thats like saying if a physical album is exclusive to HMV and you're a Zavvi shopper you will refuse to go into HMV to buy it... ridiculous! BTW I've heard the entire album and it's the best work they've done in a decade.
I really don't think AC/DC has a problem with money... They're probably doing just fine in that area... This gives them the ability to take liberties when it comes to how they distribute their music.. and in the end, it is their music ;-)
and for THOSE ABOUT TO ROCK... I SALUTE YOU...
AC/DC rocks. Why wouldn't you want the whole albulm. I don't follow people not buying an albulm for a single song. Dirty deeds and back in black are both good enough to pay 10 bucks for the albulm. Get a life and suck it up and pay the money. Hail to the best rock band ever.
uhhhhh.... theres tons of albums out there with tracks that can't be purchased unless the album is purchased.
fail.
what freakin' idiots...
Some people just try too hard to be different.
They clearly have no understanding of they customers or any business sense.
I wish they go broke for this...
Absolute morons
ACDC is #2 in album sold(back catalog) since 2003 7million, just behind the beatles(8million). Back in black album, is selling mad recently 2 straight weeks number 1 on the billboard pop charts. So dont mess with the mighty acdc, and being an acdc fan I love all their stuff.
As others have already pointed out about album only sales clearly being available on iTunes, and without commenting on the quality of AC/DC's music, their reasoning for not being on iTunes is either ignorant, just plain stupid, or...???
Which leads me to wonder about two things. 1) If the band is really that ignorant or stupid, what does that say about their music? 2) If the band is neither ignorant nor stupid, what is their REAL reason for not being on iTunes?
You question thier quality of music? Have you ever seen how many albulms they have put out? Did you know most of thier concerts have been sold out in minutes ( breaking a record in vancouver I was lucky to get 2 )They have been rockin since the early 70s how dare you question the Rock Gods. If ac/dc doesn't want thier stuff on Itunes fine, Itunes sucks anyway.
I'm kinda old, but we used to buy things called 45s - two songs, one on each side. You could get 'em for less than a buck. I couldn't afford whole albums.
I wonder if AC/DC wants a feature so that people can't use the shuffle feature on their iPods, too?
You know what? I totally agree with AC/DC. Making Albums is a dying art as the industry move every so rapidly to singles and digital downloads, and I have to give them a hand for at least standing up for something they believe in.
I went out to iTunes looking for the old Bon Scott song "Rocker"... not on iTunes, so didn't buy.
Album only would've been the way to go. What about the convenience of the fans?
ATTENTION stupid people and teens who weren't alive in the early 1990s. Downloads did NOT kill the album. Compact Discs did. When you put a record on, you listened. You didn't skip six tracks and play your favorite on repeat. Once the CD became dominant, I noticed a LOT more one-hit wonders who would put together an album with nine filler tracks and the "HIT SINGLE" that would be on the sticker.
Fine. Sell it only in stores. See how long it takes for me to download a copy... wait for it... HEY! I have the album! Uh-oh! Half of it sucks. What shall I do? DEEEELEEEETE!!!!!
Here's to your continuing integrity in a world that you've lost touch with.
Either the band is misinformed, and/or this bit of PR is boilerplate from before iTunes offered album only downloads. I seem to recall this objection from AC/DC (and others) way back at the beginning of iTunes, and this rerun looks like Verizon using the same quote for free advertising. I agree with Angus in principle, but I am from an older generation. If you start saying the kids are listening to your music wrong, you come off sounding like their parents. Singles have been around forever, and promotion requires incentive to the consumer.