Black U2 iPod?

[krossfyter]

Thanks. But, I still don't think you get it... OVER 1.5 BILLION in 15 years... that's 150 MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR! Many, many millions of people still LOVE the Stones. Why on Earth should they "hang it up"? Just 'cause you think so... please.

150 MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR (YEAR!!) is not fading away by any stretch of the imagination. If you had any logic, I might listen, but you give no reason for your "belief".

PS... that's 12.5 MILLION PER MONTH! Fade away, my @S$

you can still be non creative (live off your past creativity) and still sell like a madman... look at kiss.

should this be a reason not to quit or fade away?



what this becomes or turns into is "novelty".


rollingstones shouldnt be novel. they should be progressive.
and to me if a band isnt... they should hang it up.
thats my preference. f*ck the money.

 

[myapplseedshurt]

Interesting theory - parts of it may come true in some form. I didn't realize that BEP has since been removed from iTMS - I find this surprising, as "Hey Mama" was used in an iPod video and they were featured heavily in the new iMac video along with "Let's Get Retarded". Interesting, maybe something's afoot...

I just went to iTMS, and pulled up all BEP's stuff.... no conspiracy theories here....

 

[asif786]

I just went to iTMS, and pulled up all BEP's stuff.... no conspiracy theories here....

Like I said, Steve's men in white coats came and put it all back

There's so many possibilities for this music event on the 26th now that it's crazy. new flash ipod, u2 ipod, apple record label, new itms countries..

Gonna be a cool week methinks.

 

[JGowan]

you can still be non creative (live off your past creativity) and still sell like a madman... look at kiss.

should this be a reason not to quit or fade away?

what this becomes or turns into is "novelty".

rollingstones shouldnt be novel. they should be progressive.
and to me if a band isnt... they should hang it up.
thats my preference. f*ck the money.

No. No. No.

#1: Personally, for the record, I have NO Stones tracks in an iTunes collection of over 20,000 tracks -- I don't really care for them. But, that doesn't mean I don't recognize that MANY MILLIONS of people think they are awesome. As long as The Stones are making millions happy and they are enjoying themselves (and seriously "banking") then they should do what they do.

#2: Please don't compare KISS with THE STONES. Not the same. KISS only WISHES they were half the band and making a mere fraction of the money that The Stones are making.

#3: Novelty VS Progressive. Again,... that's YOUR opinion. I don't think it's your place to tell THE STONES what they SHOULD be. Obviously they are filling a huge "need" for millions of people that would defend their choice for liking THE STONES to the death.

You talk about progressive. Really GOOD music doesn't have to be so-called "progressive", with the artist constantly trying to change his sound. Many wish THE BEATLES were around to play their old songs. ELVIS would be having screaming fans there to hear him sing his old music. THE DOORS would have the Welcome Mat in front of them. The older you get, you'll see that music sometimes doesn't have to be anything other than what it is. For many Stones fans, their music simply reminds them of a wonderful time in their life when they were younger and "life was good"... what's wrong with that?

#4: You say "F*ck the money"... I say that the MONEY IS THE PROOF that you are wrong. If the band truly was an embarrasement and their music wasn't good, people would stop going to see them and buying their stuff. The very fact that they are making SO MUCH CASH is a huge indicator that they are doing something right. Music is SO SUBJECTIVE - so for you to say "this one can stay and that one should go" is ridiculous.

I don't like most COUNTRY, RAP, most OPERA, most ALTERNATIVE, PUNK, most FOLK, HIP HOP, most METAL or HILLBILLY SWING -- But...

... I realize that Music is a personal choice so I'm not going to Damn all of the bands that play this music and think they should all just fall off the planet or go back to sacking groceries at the local QuickieMart. How freaking boring would the world be if most music was the same or if One person could delegate who got to make it?

#5: Live and Let Live. If you don't like the music, just change the dial.

 

[mhouse]

I Don't Get It

I'm confused by the comments that Apple *can't* release a flash-based iPod for 99 or 149.

Wasn't the drive in the mini something like 300 bucks when it first came out? I remember stories of people buying them to break them open and get the drive out of them. And yet Apple was able to sell the mini for 249.What am I missing?

I think the more relevant question is...will Apple *choose* to do it? I think that the whole digital music game could be locked up if they did. But who knows? Apple has been reluctant to aggressively pursue their advantages in the past.

 

[MacinDoc]

I'm confused by the comments that Apple *can't* release a flash-based iPod for 99 or 149.

Wasn't the drive in the mini something like 300 bucks when it first came out? I remember stories of people buying them to break them open and get the drive out of them. And yet Apple was able to sell the mini for 249.What am I missing?

I think the more relevant question is...will Apple *choose* to do it? I think that the whole digital music game could be locked up if they did. But who knows? Apple has been reluctant to aggressively pursue their advantages in the past.

Apple certainly didn't pay $300 for the drives, because they were purchased in bulk. Apple's large order for these may have even contributed to their high initial cost by severely restricting their supply...

Apple will never sell iPods at a loss, because the hardware is where the real money is made in the music download business right now. iTunes is really a vehicle to sell more iPods.

Now, I do think Apple might introduce a $149 iPod, but it would have < 1 GB of Flash at that price.

Back on topic, considering that this special edition iPod is supposed to come with U2 tunes pre-loaded, I suspect it will be a slightly more expensive version of the 40 GB model.

 

[Rantipole]

Back on topic, considering that this special edition iPod is supposed to come with U2 tunes pre-loaded, I suspect it will be a slightly more expensive version of the 40 GB model.

Yes, I read somewhere that it will be $30 more than a non-U2 iPod.

 

[liketom]

yuk not too sure about this one lol

 

[krossfyter]

No. No. No.

#1: Personally, for the record, I have NO Stones tracks in an iTunes collection of over 20,000 tracks -- I don't really care for them. But, that doesn't mean I don't recognize that MANY MILLIONS of people think they are awesome. As long as The Stones are making millions happy and they are enjoying themselves (and seriously "banking") then they should do what they do.

#2: Please don't compare KISS with THE STONES. Not the same. KISS only WISHES they were half the band and making a mere fraction of the money that The Stones are making.

#3: Novelty VS Progressive. Again,... that's YOUR opinion. I don't think it's your place to tell THE STONES what they SHOULD be. Obviously they are filling a huge "need" for millions of people that would defend their choice for liking THE STONES to the death.

You talk about progressive. Really GOOD music doesn't have to be so-called "progressive", with the artist constantly trying to change his sound. Many wish THE BEATLES were around to play their old songs. ELVIS would be having screaming fans there to hear him sing his old music. THE DOORS would have the Welcome Mat in front of them. The older you get, you'll see that music sometimes doesn't have to be anything other than what it is. For many Stones fans, their music simply reminds them of a wonderful time in their life when they were younger and "life was good"... what's wrong with that?

#4: You say "F*ck the money"... I say that the MONEY IS THE PROOF that you are wrong. If the band truly was an embarrasement and their music wasn't good, people would stop going to see them and buying their stuff. The very fact that they are making SO MUCH CASH is a huge indicator that they are doing something right. Music is SO SUBJECTIVE - so for you to say "this one can stay and that one should go" is ridiculous.

I don't like most COUNTRY, RAP, most OPERA, most ALTERNATIVE, PUNK, most FOLK, HIP HOP, most METAL or HILLBILLY SWING -- But...

... I realize that Music is a personal choice so I'm not going to Damn all of the bands that play this music and think they should all just fall off the planet or go back to sacking groceries at the local QuickieMart. How freaking boring would the world be if most music was the same or if One person could delegate who got to make it?

#5: Live and Let Live. If you don't like the music, just change the dial.

i think we just have to agree to disagree generally speaking.

im not saying that just because my opinion says the stones should hang it up meana that i should be so inclined to tell them what to do. according to my opinion about bands and artists they should hang it up... according to my philosophy.... but by no means am i trying to dictate thier musical life. they have every right to keep on doing what they are doing regardless of public opinion or whatnot.

also... you seem to make the correlation that just because they make so much damn money thats proof they should not stop and that that makes thier music good. i really beg to differ here. money doesnt make the music.. and it shouldnt. good music can be made without huge profit. most good music that comes out is underground and raw at first and the musicians are starving. i mean if we went with your idea of money making the music better then hell brittney spears is making good music. not trying to equate spears with the stones just trying to get the point across to you about the money issue.

look if the stones do hang it up... they still will sell. people will still have thier music to listen to for thier entire lives.. just like the beatles. it doesnt take anything away from the stones or the fan base. you can still listen to thier music regardless if they arent touring or making tour money or money from the new albums they put out. you said "The older you get, you'll see that music sometimes doesn't have to be anything other than what it is. For many Stones fans, their music simply reminds them of a wonderful time in their life when they were younger and "life was good"... what's wrong with that?"

nothing is wrong with that.... that can still happen even if the stones hang it up. so i dont see your point... its not like i was trying to take thier appreciation away from the fan base.


also... true really good music doesnt have to be progressive. if i said really good music has to be progressive i can only do this from a subjective standpoint and not an objective one. this is an opinion... personal.


to me if u2 wasnt progressive in my eyes and most of thier music sounded like it did on the october or achtung albums over and over then i personally think they should drop it. but they dont do that... they continuiously tweak thier sound to be relavent and progressive like no other band. thats why people complain about thier new stuff because it doesnt sound like thier old stuff. i dont see much of that going on with the stones... because the stones stick with the same formula (which is fine for them). u2 seems to have this never ending pool of creativity that they reach into... thats phenominal. because of this they arent novel (like the stones are too me).... because of this to me they should keep on going untill that pool dries up. thats my opinion... and i dare not dictate it on anyone... but i can share my opinion like i did with the stones. you dont hold to this philosophy... and i dont expect you to.. you are your own person... but just because you dont agree with me doesnt mean i cant have my own opinion. this is all opinion based.... i think you are thinking im saying it as if its fact or absolute.


yes the stones are a damned good band... one of the best bands of all time... going down like that.... so dont get me wrong.... but just because this is so doesnt mean i cant have my opinion that they should call it quits.

i also think kiss and aerosmith should hang it up to for the same reasons. lol


the only old band i think should keep on going because they continue to be progressive and relevant and not novel is RUSH.

 

[Ugg]

you can still be non creative (live off your past creativity) and still sell like a madman... look at kiss.

should this be a reason not to quit or fade away?

what this becomes or turns into is "novelty".
rollingstones shouldnt be novel. they should be progressive.
and to me if a band isnt... they should hang it up.
thats my preference. f*ck the money.

What bothers me about your statement is your belief that anyone, musician, painter, writer; or more simply put, human being, should just shrivel up and die because the peak of their productivity has passed. It just seems wrong when applied to artists and horrifying when applied to people in general. The staying power of the Stones is incredible, not only that they continue to make music but they have stayed together as a group for so long. I think that is admirable if not progressive per your definition.

By placing music and musicians on a gilded pedestal you are telling people that if music doesn't attain the standards you've set then it ceases to be music. I don't buy it but neither will I buy U2 because they have, IMMHO, sold out in a way the Stones never have. Just my dos centavos.

 

[krossfyter]

What bothers me about your statement is your belief that anyone, musician, painter, writer; or more simply put, human being, should just shrivel up and die because the peak of their productivity has passed. It just seems wrong when applied to artists and horrifying when applied to people in general. The staying power of the Stones is incredible, not only that they continue to make music but they have stayed together as a group for so long. I think that is admirable if not progressive per your definition.

By placing music and musicians on a gilded pedestal you are telling people that if music doesn't attain the standards you've set then it ceases to be music. I don't buy it but neither will I buy U2 because they have, IMMHO, sold out in a way the Stones never have. Just my dos centavos.

seems like your inacting your hate and disdain for u2 on me and my opinion. untill you can seperate the two i dont think we can have a good discussion. i hope im wrong.

i said it was my opinion. i'll let your opinion of u2 stand and who am i to try and convience you otherwise? same for you... let my opinion of the stones stand.

im an artist myself so i am in no way pontificating. if i ever become novel... im going to hang it up too. its my opinion let it be.

 

[Giantred]

im an artist myself so i am in no way pontificating. if i ever become novel... im going to hang it up too. its my opinion let it be.

.....We are gonna have to quote you on that one !

Corey

 

[Ugg]

seems like your inacting your hate and disdain for u2 on me and my opinion. untill you can seperate the two i dont think we can have a good discussion. i hope im wrong.

i said it was my opinion. i'll let your opinion of u2 stand and who am i to try and convience you otherwise? same for you... let my opinion of the stones stand.

im an artist myself so i am in no way pontificating. if i ever become novel... im going to hang it up too. its my opinion let it be.

You are wrong, U2 had a powerful impact on me during a certain period of my life. I no longer find their music to my liking and it seems, IMO, that they are geared towards the commercial as opposed to the artistic.

My issue isn't with U2 and the Stones, it's about some insane notion that musicians and artists in general should always be progressive and that when they reach some point where you or some so-called critic no longer thinks they are "progressive" then they should hang it up.

I thought artistic expression was extremely personal? Should someone who is no longer progressive be told to stop expressing himself because that expression is no longer viewed as relevant? Isn't that directly opposed to the whole idea of artistic expression? While I think the idea of ART is way too broad these days, I think that expressing oneself artistically, whether or not one receives critical or popular acclaim is a wonderful idea and more people should engage in it. However, when people like you decide that artistic expression is only valid within certain parameters then you are denying that individual the opportunity to express whatever it was that he wanted to express. Critical or popular acclaim are irrelevant to the "true" artist, what's important is the self-expression.

I make no claims about the Stones or U2's desires or needs but they are doing what any artist wants to do, create something special, who are you to judge much less tell them to hang it up? Do I smell burning books?

It's perfectly acceptable to say you don't like something it's something else to tell another human being that their expression is novel and therefore irrelevant.

 

[krossfyter]

You are wrong, U2 had a powerful impact on me during a certain period of my life. I no longer find their music to my liking and it seems, IMO, that they are geared towards the commercial as opposed to the artistic.

your opinion. not mine. i respect yours... respect mine. for all i care you could say they should call it quits too. you wont see me here trying to change your opinion. i may post with reasons why they shouldnt but ill leave it at that. see my point? i hope so.

My issue isn't with U2 and the Stones, it's about some insane notion that musicians and artists in general should always be progressive and that when they reach some point where you or some so-called critic no longer thinks they are "progressive" then they should hang it up.

I thought artistic expression was extremely personal? Should someone who is no longer progressive be told to stop expressing himself because that expression is no longer viewed as relevant? Isn't that directly opposed to the whole idea of artistic expression? While I think the idea of ART is way too broad these days, I think that expressing oneself artistically, whether or not one receives critical or popular acclaim is a wonderful idea and more people should engage in it. However, when people like you decide that artistic expression is only valid within certain parameters then you are denying that individual the opportunity to express whatever it was that he wanted to express. Critical or popular acclaim are irrelevant to the "true" artist, what's important is the self-expression.

I make no claims about the Stones or U2's desires or needs but they are doing what any artist wants to do, create something special, who are you to judge much less tell them to hang it up? Do I smell burning books?

i am someone with an opinion as are you. your post is completly opinionated and there isnt any ounce of objectivism in it... fine with me. see my point? i hope. respect mine as i respect yours. we may not agree but that isnt the point.

It's perfectly acceptable to say you don't like something it's something else to tell another human being that their expression is novel and therefore irrelevant.

again... magic word "opinion".

in case i havent made this clear to you...this is a subjective issue.

thanks for playing.

 

[krossfyter]

.....We are gonna have to quote you on that one !

Corey

remember me. write that sh*t down. im not in this world for the money. if i feel im not progressive anymore... im out. whats the use? i feel my art shouldnt be dependent on capatalism strictly... i feel it should come from a person who isnt geared toward making money. because thats a sell out to me.


again... opinion. my own.

 

[Ugg]

remember me. write that sh*t down. im not in this world for the money. if i feel im not progressive anymore... im out. whats the use? i feel my art shouldnt be dependent on capatalism strictly... i feel it should come from a person who isnt geared toward making money. because thats a sell out to me.


again... opinion. my own.

Ahhhh, so what it's all about is self-analysis and each artist should be the arbiter of his own progressiveness or lack thereof. So, if only you can decide whether or not your "art" is progressive or not, why are you judging other artists so harshly? We all are entitled to our own opinions but in your own words only you can judge yourself.

Art has always been about self-expression first and survival second. History is littered with artists who sold their works or did work that they didn't want to do in order to feed themselves and their families. Does that invalidate their work? Would you like to see the eradication of all art that was "capitalistic" ?

Ideals are wonderful and I'm glad that you have them but idealism can't feed you, nor put a roof over your head or clothes on your back.

 

[krossfyter]

Ahhhh, so what it's all about is self-analysis and each artist should be the arbiter of his own progressiveness or lack thereof. So, if only you can decide whether or not your "art" is progressive or not, why are you judging other artists so harshly? We all are entitled to our own opinions but in your own words only you can judge yourself.

Art has always been about self-expression first and survival second. History is littered with artists who sold their works or did work that they didn't want to do in order to feed themselves and their families. Does that invalidate their work? Would you like to see the eradication of all art that was "capitalistic" ?

Ideals are wonderful and I'm glad that you have them but idealism can't feed you, nor put a roof over your head or clothes on your back.

paul robeson

 

[krossfyter]

Ahhhh, so what it's all about is self-analysis and each artist should be the arbiter of his own progressiveness or lack thereof. So, if only you can decide whether or not your "art" is progressive or not, why are you judging other artists so harshly? We all are entitled to our own opinions but in your own words only you can judge yourself.

i can hold an opinion can't I? That doesnt mean that said opinion has to be followed by the subject i am holding one about. They are subject to thier own opinions. I hope this is clear to you.

Art has always been about self-expression first and survival second. History is littered with artists who sold their works or did work that they didn't want to do in order to feed themselves and their families. Does that invalidate their work? Would you like to see the eradication of all art that was "capitalistic" ?

doesnt invalidate thier work at all... i never said that. what i question is whether that work is progressive or not. most of the time it isnt because its what the mainstream wants and the mainstream wants stuff they know. most of the artists who did work progressively got recongnized for it later. case in point.... picassos painting "Les Damoiselles d'Avignon (1907)" was rejected by the mainstream untill ten years after he made it. It became the first pivotal piece of cubism. Now if Picasso held to the "Cannon" of the time ... painting Matisse like works and focused on money he wouldnt have painted Les Damoiselles d'Avignon... and one wonders where art would be right now. People argue that Braque would have done it eventually but even he wasnt focused on money and the mainstream at the time.

Ideals are wonderful and I'm glad that you have them but idealism can't feed you, nor put a roof over your head or clothes on your back.

thats the problem. capatalism doesnt have a social conscience. and the negative effects of such we are seeing a lot today. its a monster that doesnt give a sh*t about you or me just the almighty dollar. while it can create some positive things it has done a lot of harm and its this harm thats caused by it that we have to step back and try to fix.

thats a whole other topic anyways.... i know you dont agree i dont expect you too... we will go in cirlces.... please just let me have my opinion and you can have yours. if you can't respect my opinion then we cant discuss this in a civil fashion.

 

[Ugg]

doesnt invalidate thier work at all... i never said that. what i question is whether that work is progressive or not. most of the time it isnt because its what the mainstream wants and the mainstream wants stuff they know. most of the artists who did work progressively got recongnized for it later. case in point.... picassos painting "Les Damoiselles d'Avignon (1907)" was rejected by the mainstream untill ten years after he made it. It became the first pivotal piece of cubism. Now if Picasso held to the "Cannon" of the time ... painting Matisse like works and focused on money he wouldnt have painted Les Damoiselles d'Avignon... and one wonders where art would be right now. People argue that Braque would have done it eventually but even he wasnt focused on money and the mainstream at the time.

thats the problem. capatalism doesnt have a social conscience. and the negative effects of such we are seeing a lot today. its a monster that doesnt give a sh*t about you or me just the almighty dollar. while it can create some positive things it has done a lot of harm and its this harm thats caused by it that we have to step back and try to fix.

thats a whole other topic anyways.... i know you dont agree i dont expect you too... we will go in cirlces.... please just let me have my opinion and you can have yours. if you can't respect my opinion then we cant discuss this in a civil fashion.

I'm not sure why you brought up Paul Robeson?

Ah, the old, "the public doesn't know what's best for it" argument. Sounds like you'd be better off in a fin de siecle salon in Paris than 21st century America.

I know it's a moot point but if Picasso hadn't painted Les Damoiselles d'Avignon then he should have burned his paintbrush? Without this particular painting the art world would have simply taken another turn whether it would have been progressive enough is of course anyone's guess, but ART would not have ended. To say that the history of art hangs on the ability of a single artist to paint a single painting seems histrionic and full of 20/20 hindsight.

It seems you're more interested in the overthrow of capItalism than you are in the progression of art itself. While I agree that capitalism isn't interested necessarily, anyway, in the promotion and progression of art it is interested in the rewards. Just because it's a push pull relationship as opposed to pull push.....

Capitalism has always been at the centre of art. Even the cave painters probably persuaded someone in their tribe to feed them while they painted their buffalo on the wall but you can be sure that those offering the food had something to do with the subject matter. In previous centuries progressiveness in art could take decades if not centuries to appear. I find it simplistic for current day art critics to expect an artist to continually progress along someone unknown path when there are so many forms of progression available.

I've a friend who was a college librarian and an amateur watercolorist. She finally took the plunge, quit her job and spent a year in Ireland painting. It was another two years before she achieved any critical acclaim but for her the progression was to take the risk and it was through that risk taking that she received her financial rewards. I'm sure you'll disagree when I say her Irish landscapes were quite progressive but you put art on a pedestal when art is but a form of individual expression. I know of few artists who are able to fully commit to their ART unless they take some kind of risk or commit to some commercial venture.

Let's face it, capitalism supports artists just as socialism, communism and tribalism does. In the end it is stupid to talk about the destruction or creation of art via -isms, it has always been the artist that creates not the social milieu.

 

[krossfyter]

look all im saying is that i value progressive art. and most of the time progressive art is being kicked in the ass by our capitalist system because the system wants whats been done before.. what people know... what people are used to. thats all. no im not advocating for any system to be the best for art... i dont know what system it would be. true... capatalism has helped art but it also has hurt it.
i think you think im some commie or something which im not. all i am is a person who values progressive art over novel art. and i want the system to be better tuned to accepting it. not sure how it would do that... not sure if thats possible. i think you are misunderstanding me. i mean how many times can i say "thats my opinion and i respect yours" and keep on getting sh*t for having an opinion. im not sure what you are trying to do but i really dont feel you are respecting my opinion because you keep trying to find fault with it (which is worthless) or knocking it.

i can do the same to you with your opinion but i choose not to because its pointless... who am i to change your mind? you have yours, let me have mind. lets agree to disagree and let it go. nothing is accomplished other then a circular argument that needs sleep.

so in the end I say rollingstone should hang it up. thats my opinion and no ones allowed to change it.


your opinion is U2 sux ass now and no ones allowed to change that but you.


notice how am not taking issue with your opinion like you are with mine. whos respecting who?

 

[hulugu]

Interesting points from both Ugg and Krossfyter, I would like to interject.

First, trading cave paintings for some meat would not be Capitalism, but rather a pre-capital barter, you need money for Capitalism to work.
Second, Capitalism is an amoral system, capable of great beauty and also a craven rapaciousness at the same time.
However, art has always been at the close-hand of the patron, whether king, priest, pope, or extraordinarily rich, and thus the artists of everything from the Parthenon to Versailles, from Michaelangelo's David to the works of Salvador Dali have been paid for in some way. This is important, but within the last two centuries, the patrons of the arts have become multitude, what was once done by the pope is now done by thousands, and therefore art moves in several directions at once, in different mileus faster than ever before.
Art can coexist, and even thrive in Capitalism, but it is also in danger as market-forces make ever-greater demands on the 'sale' of art; sometimes art doesn't matter, it becomes product.
Capitalism, is like any other idea or technology, a dual-edged sword or a tiger whose tail we've grasped firmly with now way to let go.

 

[krossfyter]

worthy interjection hulugu. thanks. thanks for not taking issue with my opinion. thanks for letting it be.

 

[liketom]

so rumors are rife for the colour screen iPod maybe
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/10017655.htm?1c

 

[FelixDerKater]

They were just talking about the U2 iPod on CNN, saying that they were watching Apple Computer today in expectation of an announcement.

 

[tsaxer]

so rumors are rife for the colour screen iPod maybe
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/10017655.htm?1c

Thanks for going back on topic, but the link requires registration, what's the gist of it?