AC/DC’s Angus Young on snubbing iTunes: “We don’t make singles, we make albums”

The amusing comments are those that considered AC/DC’s thinking old fashioned and not fit for the modern age: “AC/DC have been away too long. They don’t realise how much the music industry has changed. iTunes is very powerful and has control over sales figures.” Yes, that must explain why they are only second the Beatles in back catalogue sales and Back in Black is set to overtake Jacko’s Thriller as the best selling album of all time. But AC/DC are a well established act and have the fan base to make this work. The question is how would new bands go about circumventing iTunes and making sales. You need a solid fan based before it will work. Now if you presented your stunning oeuvre on iTunes, spruced up and remastered, with never-before-heard tracks and the like, I’m sure I’d be sending my credit card into maximum overdrive. And I bet millions of like-minded music fans would do the same. Given we only had the back catalogue remastered a few years ago, it is unlikely to happen again. And why can’t AC/DC release gems from the vault via their website? Why even have iTunes in the mix? What I’d like to see during AC/DC’s swing around the world are some of the shows released online for download. I’d be happy to pay 10 quid for a good recording of a great show. Especially if they move the set list around. I’m surprised more bands do not do this. Maybe there are some logistical/financial reasons involved that I’m not aware of that make this not such a good idea. But I’d like to hear from a record label as to why they do not do this. Pearl Jam release their live shows online to download as does Metallica. And you get a mp3 and FLAC option. iTunes is just one way to distribute music over the Internet. Most of the arguments Angus has incited has missed all this. A canny band will see some fine opportunities to make money by Internet distribution and you don’t need iTunes at all. Which is the real story.

Angus is right

the man is right.

Ya, AC/DC doesn't exactly have the most comprehensive albums. Though all their songs do sound the same

He can do that because his band is well known and well liked enough to do that.

It's like an old rich person giving their opinion....they can do it because they are old (respect) and rich (because people don't want to hurt their chances of getting money). But new bands that are starting off cannot be so picky.

I don't think Kid Rock is all that desired really.

IMO his music is quite mediocre, but that's besides the point I guess.

I prefer the whole album for the most part, because the album in it's entirety may be better than a few songs alone. I know there have been songs that I didn't quite like until I played the entire album.

I love you Angus, but the future is what it is. Bon is dead, the past is over.

I think I'm with Angus on this one.

For years artists could get away with having a couple decent songs on an album, and the rest was filler. CD singles weren't that accessable to the general public.

A solid, complete album by a good band was thoroughly appreciated because 99% of people bought the album, not the single.

With iTunes, unless you're a dedicated music fan/snob/collector/completist, you're not likely to splurge for the whole thing if all you want is Katy Perry's I Kissed A Girl single.

The focus is too often on the one hit, and it seems to make a full album of hits is a thing of the past.

It's true people don't enjoy the albums anymore they just buy songs. I want the whole album.

but Wal-mart...eh.