Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Apple

Steve Jobs Awarded Posthumous Grammy 176

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the unreleased-jobs-dubstep-record-out-next-week dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Recognizing Steve Jobs's immense contribution to music, he was the recipient of the Grammy Trustees Award at the Grammy's this past Sunday. The award is handed out annually to 'individuals who, during their careers in music, have made significant contributions, other than performance, to the field of recording.'" Eddy Cue, head of iTunes, accepted the Grammy in place of Jobs.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Steve Jobs Awarded Posthumous Grammy

Comments Filter:
  • Sigh (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Wolfling1 (1808594)
    What a crock. Did we expect any better from the music industry?
    • Re:Sigh (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @12:08PM (#39046107) Journal
      Its really amazing that they actually gave it to him. The RIAA sort of hates him for making their product more reasonably priced. I pay less now for an album ( on amazon, but itunes if you like) than I did 20 years ago, not accounting for inflation.
      • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

        by poena.dare (306891)

        Today: "Yeah, Steve screwed us, but at least he didn't post the video on YouTube."

        2050: "The MPAA and RIAA led the fight to make media cheaper and more accessible worldwide."

        Come to think of it, the survivors of the Confederate States of America went through the same mental gymnastics.

        • Re:Sigh (Score:5, Informative)

          by ackthpt (218170) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @12:23PM (#39046327) Homepage Journal

          Today: "Yeah, Steve screwed us, but at least he didn't post the video on YouTube."

          2050: "The MPAA and RIAA led the fight to make media cheaper and more accessible worldwide."

          Come to think of it, the survivors of the Confederate States of America went through the same mental gymnastics.

          iTunes really was a saviour for the music industry, stupidly they clung to the belief their old business model was the only way. Now that they're all rolling in bigger piles of money than before, they want to hold the Kill Switch on our internet because every single one of is is either a Pirate or Pirate in Potentia.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by msheekhah (903443)
            They cut out massive costs for manufacturing and wound up making more on iTunes than they margin they made on CD's. Of course they'd love him.
            • by ackthpt (218170)

              They cut out massive costs for manufacturing and wound up making more on iTunes than they margin they made on CD's. Of course they'd love him.

              Manufacturing, distributions, logistics, returns, etc. A lot of cost removed, but the time to market is also greatly reduced. Cut an album, master it and publish it online.

        • Re:Sigh (Score:4, Informative)

          by jeffmeden (135043) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @12:40PM (#39046589) Homepage Journal

          Today: "Yeah, Steve screwed us, but at least he didn't post the video on YouTube."

          2050: "The MPAA and RIAA led the fight to make media cheaper and more accessible worldwide."

          Come to think of it, the survivors of the Confederate States of America went through the same mental gymnastics.

          This is OT but one hilarious example is the town of Enterprise, AL which lauded the efforts of the Boll Weevil for providing the shift away from cotton (a troublesome and often low-value crop) toward more diverse crops including peanuts. Mind you, George Washington Carver is generally credited with the popularization of peanut farming across the south in the early 20th century. Oh, he's black? Nope, he had nothing to do with it, it was the pest that destroyed several years of cotton harvests that did it... Better thank that little bug!

      • Not only that but you can buy the song you want instead of the whole album in most cases. Twenty years ago you had to buy the whole album if a single was not released. Of course there are some songs that are restricted to the album but the vast majority can be purchased as singles. Also independent artists have a global distribution channel that they didn't have before.
      • by jeffmeden (135043)

        Its really amazing that they actually gave it to him. The RIAA sort of hates him for making their product more reasonably priced. I pay less now for an album ( on amazon, but itunes if you like) than I did 20 years ago, not accounting for inflation.

        The Planet Money radio show (also a podcast) has had a lot of content lately about where money comes/goes in the music industry. Did you know, for example, that in 2011 Katy Perry's content (her "Teenage Dream" cd and associated singles) netted the recording studio that holds the contract about $8 million (out of about $45 million in sales) and sales via iTunes netted Apple, Inc about $8 million (from about $25M in sales)... So yes, they love him and they hate him, he won just as much profit from the work

        • by ackthpt (218170)

          Its really amazing that they actually gave it to him. The RIAA sort of hates him for making their product more reasonably priced. I pay less now for an album ( on amazon, but itunes if you like) than I did 20 years ago, not accounting for inflation.

          The Planet Money radio show (also a podcast) has had a lot of content lately about where money comes/goes in the music industry. Did you know, for example, that in 2011 Katy Perry's content (her "Teenage Dream" cd and associated singles) netted the recording studio that holds the contract about $8 million (out of about $45 million in sales) and sales via iTunes netted Apple, Inc about $8 million (from about $25M in sales)... So yes, they love him and they hate him, he won just as much profit from the work, by having a glorified web site to sell it on, as the recording studio did that put the whole thing together. The bottom line is though, that without iTunes in place those downloads could have very well not profited the recording industry *at all*...

          Someone is overlooking something, somewhere. The sale of physical recordings passes through distributors, transportation & logisitics and then to the retailer. All of them got a cut, so iTunes simply removed the physical and time to market aspects. One copy becomes n copies when downloaded .. no need to forcast and take a risk on how many pressings are needed, etc.

          • by jeffmeden (135043)

            The point was that it must severely chap the ass of the record executives who have to sit there and think "We could be sitting on twice as much profit right now if we only had the foresight to be the ones with a web site to sell music downloads on"... Of course, iTunes distribution is only a part of the iThing ecosystem (which is a big part of what drives sales) so it's not entirely a 1:1 comparison, but it does point out how little the recording industry really has control over any more (and they are very

            • by Algae_94 (2017070)
              Yes, but the quoted figure for the the labels is $8 million out of $45 million. That's $37 million that went to "Other than labels" A lot more than the $8 million iTunes takes is left out of their pockets. They don't even take a majority of the money.
      • by mattack2 (1165421)

        I pay less now for an album ( on amazon, but itunes if you like) than I did 20 years ago

        Then you were paying too much for your albums. While I couldn't get *EVERY* CD there, I got the vast vast majority of my music collection from BMG, averaging between $5-6 per CD, even including their ridiculous "shipping" charges. I just waited for the regularly occurring "sales", and bought CDs only then. (I got a much smaller proportion from Columbia House, but even they were cheaper than buying every CD at $18.99

    • Wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Picass0 (147474) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @12:19PM (#39046259) Homepage Journal

      The istore may not have been the first digital music store but they have made the biggest impact in changing the business model. You can thank Apple for being able to buy the one decent song on a CD for an affordable price.

      The iPod also has made it easier for people to have all of their favorites at their fingertips. Before that there were some crappy, poorly designed mp3 players by creative and that's about it. Your other option before ipod were walkman style cassette players.

      It's easy to be cynical about the music business, but in this case recognition is deserved.

      • I wonder if they'll say TPB made the biggest impact in changing the business model? Back, so long ago when the ipod came out Archos were making much better spec units with ogg and other bits. But they just don't have the marketing or designer wank Apple can muster. I've just had a look at their website and apples stuff looks so much better. I'm sure Archos are all a bit better spec and cheaper - but who cares. Both still better than creative and that's about it.
      • >The iPod also has made it easier for people to have all of their favorites at their fingertips. Before that there were some crappy, poorly designed mp3 players by creative and that's about it. Your other option before ipod were walkman style cassette players.

        Ummm you missed portable cd players which I've used since 1992. Tape players were already on way out but they chugged along the portable cd players untill cd burners were affordable.

        • by Picass0 (147474)

          -- "Ummm you missed portable cd players which I've used since 1992."

          True. I'm officially an old person when I type walkman and reflexively follow it with "cassette player". I had intended to type CD player. But it was still a pain to lug all the CDs around. :)

          Also I remember owning lots of one-hit wonder CDs I regretted buying about five minutes after walking out of the music store.

      • by hitmark (640295)

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_audio_player [wikipedia.org]

        Seems there was quite the selection.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You are dead wrong about the iPod and its predecessors. I despise the iPod and blame its popularity for the death of simple drag-and-drop, file/folder interfaces on mp3 players. Instead of just being able to scroll through my files like it's a hard disk, I have to contend with forced categories and mp3s getting lost because of mislabeling and on and on. Not all of us want to be treated like children by our music players.

      • by Darinbob (1142669)

        Then why give the award to the individual Steve Jobs instead of the actual Apple employees who thought up, designed, and created the store?

    • Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gstoddart (321705) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @12:23PM (#39046325) Homepage

      What a crock. Did we expect any better from the music industry?

      Like Steve Jobs and Apple or not ... but if you can't see that iTunes totally changed how a huge number of people get and access their music, it's probably because you refuse to.

      iTunes was the first widespread way that people could legally buy (or rip) digital music, and quickly managed to sell billions of songs. And the iPod radically changed how people accessed their music -- yes, there had been MP3 players, but in terms of making it widely usable by non-tech people. nothing else made quite the same impact. And, the iTunes software itself gives a nice, consistent way of dealing with this stuff. And, it also lets yo handle other media types through the exact same interface, and doesn't even require you to know what an MP3 is to use it.

      Other than Napster (which got shut down because it was largely being used to pirate songs), name me one way you can get digital music that has had anywhere near the impact of iTunes?

      And, yes, I will admit I've had iPods and iTunes since about 2001. But my mother-in-law is making noises about getting an iPod -- because even she understands what it is and what it's for. Do you think she'd know WTF a Zune is? I highly doubt it. And, at the time I chose to go the iPod/iTunes route, Windows Media Player was absolute crap -- I haven't touched it since, so I have no idea what it's like now.

      Sure, there are players out there which have some features that a few hard-core geeks want ... but quite honestly, I have only ever known one person who needed Ogg Vorbis support and I can't think of any other features that might be missing from the iPod. (Well, I hear people whine you can't easily copy songs off the iPod, but that's because Apple didn't want to get sued by the music industry, and because iTunes keeps extra information about songs in its database)

      I can see exactly why they gave him this award. I mean, if Paris Hilton could use an iPod, how hard could it be? Geeks don't like easy to use devices, but the rest of the consumer world does.

      • Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)

        by GaratNW (978516) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @12:50PM (#39046751)
        This.

        I am not particularly fond of Apple as a company. Their strong arm tactics drive me crazy, and the slavish fan base constantly going on about the innovation they supposedly do (with their devices). But...

        The true innovation that Apple has done though had nothing to do with their devices, but the platforms they created when they figured out how to handle the iTunes store, the App store, and those annoying walled gardens we all love to love and love to hate. For all the bad, it really has changed how people think about software and media distribution, and opened up opportunities to a lot of people, when the old distribution channels were only open to the chosen few.

        Their devices are not innovative, they are just the most polished and accessible devices pretty much available. No wonder they are so love/hate on Slashdot, but the rest of the world loves em. Combined with one of the most effective distribution channels ever made, it's a pretty remarkable combo for consumers.
        • Re:Sigh (Score:5, Informative)

          by joh (27088) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @01:14PM (#39047179)

          Their devices are not innovative, they are just the most polished and accessible devices pretty much available. No wonder they are so love/hate on Slashdot, but the rest of the world loves em. Combined with one of the most effective distribution channels ever made, it's a pretty remarkable combo for consumers.

          I think that many people just confuse "invention" and "innovation":

          Wikipedia: "Innovation is the creation of better or more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are accepted by markets, governments, and society. Innovation differs from invention in that innovation refers to the use of a new idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself."

          Apple might not have invented very much, but Apple surely has innovated a lot, also with devices.

          • by GaratNW (978516)
            Wish I could mod up in the same thread, that language clarification is very helpful. I will remember it in the future, as I think it's an important distinction to make.
        • Innovation: "the creation of better or more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are accepted by markets, governments, and society"

          The original iPod was most definitely innovative. Marketing aside, three technical reasons why it succeeded:
          - Firewire, so transferring 5GB of data would take minutes, not hours. AFAIK no other player was using even USB2 yet.
          - smallest (physical) HDD available at the time.
          - uncomplicated user interface driven by scroll wheel with minimal buttons

          Ev

      • by sqldr (838964)

        Like Steve Jobs and Apple or not ... but if you can't see that iTunes totally changed how a huge number of people get and access their music, it's probably because you refuse to.

        Changing the way a car showroom looks doesn't involve contributing to cars.

        • Re:Sigh (Score:4, Interesting)

          by gstoddart (321705) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @01:29PM (#39047433) Homepage

          Changing the way a car showroom looks doesn't involve contributing to cars.

          Being the first to come up with a wide spread model for having a car showroom, and having any commercial success with it, however, does. I don't believe there were any "car showrooms" before that.

          I honestly can't name a single digital music store which existed before iTunes. And I doubt that anything which predated iTunes still exists. Apple also managed to get the big labels to sign up when everyone was trying to figure out how to shut down Napster et al.

          As I said, before the iPod there were MP3 players ... but the overall impact of iPods and iTunes vastly outstrips any of those. Most of them aren't even in business any more.

          I'll be the first to admit that Apple doesn't invent technology out of the blue that nobody has ever seen ... but what they do is to provide a much better integrated platform that non-technical people can use without fear. It just works, and doesn't do any of that weird technology stuff that people don't want to get involved with.

          Name me a single player/software combination that has had nearly as much impact on the market. Because I can't think of any ... the Zune was, comparatively, a joke.

          Other than the idiot who got the Zune logo tattooed on his arm and later regretted it, I honestly don't know a single person who has owned one of them. Creative products disappeared a long time ago as far as I know. My wife's old Sony player which used proprietary formats and software wasn't wide-spread. Sure, you can buy cheap ass USB players that you can drag files onto and play, but you're stuck with Media Player or whatever. It certainly doesn't offer you a store or a nice interface.

          Apple has sold something like 300 million iPods to date ... who is in second place? The answer, nobody cares enough to find out.

          • by sqldr (838964)

            I honestly can't name a single digital music store which existed before iTunes

            I cannot name a single good song which got written because of itunes.

            • by gstoddart (321705)

              I cannot name a single good song which got written because of itunes.

              And, nobody is saying that iTunes caused good music to come into existence. The award is for the impact iTunes had on the music industry -- the iTunes store has sold 10 billion songs and, for many people, is likely the only digital music store they've ever used or heard of. Old people who barely use computers know what an iPod is and what iTunes is. My 65+ year old mother in law knows what it is and is pondering an iPod. If you can get

      • by hitmark (640295)

        This most likely because unlike other devices that basically relied on appearing as a USB storage device, the iPod needed to go via iTunes for just about everything. Seems this and the AAC wrapper was enough to get RIAA to play ball. I guess they thought it would make the task of transferring those files elsewhere difficult.

      • >but if you can't see that iTunes totally changed how a huge number of people get and access their music, it's probably because you refuse to.

        Not sure where you grew up but even in my semi secluded city there was a lot of music discovery and trading though cassette tapes. Usually with in days everyone in my school had a tape copy of any new album that was released. The only thing that iTunes changes was you could spend your money from a chair in front of your computer. but long before that there was tons

      • name me one way you can get digital music that has had anywhere near the impact of iTunes

        BitTorrent.

    • I know, right?

      Netflix ought to send some representatives down to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to make sure they get their honorary Oscar next year.

    • by sqldr (838964)

      What a crock. Did we expect any better from the music industry?

      I think the key word there is "industry". That said, the music industry's contribution to music has only ever been negative.

    • Oh wait ... that's that computer company manager, right?

      Now who the fuck is Eddy Cue?

    • by Darinbob (1142669)

      More CEO worship, as if the 60,000 Apple employees don't actually count since Steve did the actual work.

  • Uh, what? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AngryDeuce (2205124) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @12:11PM (#39046143)

    Steve Jobs contribution to music? What the hell has he done that's relevant to the Grammy's at all?

    When's the Vatican going to beatify him? Saint Steve, bringer of attractive electronic devices...it's a miracle!!!!! Quick, start busing cripples to Cupertino! Behold the power of STEVE!!!!

    • by Sloppy (14984)

      I would have thought it's obvious: No Apple Music, no Beatles. No Beatles, no Sgt Pepper, diminished role for Abbey Road Studios, it kinda snowballs from there.

      You could say they're recognizing the wrong guy, and that they should have instead recognized Wozniak. But after his murder by John Hinckley, any such recognition would be posthum-- hey waitaminute, you're right!! WTF?!

  • by VortexCortex (1117377) <VortexCortexNO@S ... t-retrograde.com> on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @12:13PM (#39046169)

    What about Bit-Torrent, Napster, Limewire, etc? I've got no doubt they've done more to spread the joy of music, especially those who couldn't afford it...

    • Hold on there Cowboy. The music industry just isn't interested in people who can't afford music. Sharing? That's communism. Setting up an online store where teenagers can run their parent's credit cards without any hassle? That friend, is capitalism, and that's what this award is celebrating.

    • by halcyon1234 (834388) <halcyon1234@hotmail.com> on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @01:14PM (#39047177) Journal

      What about Bit-Torrent, Napster, Limewire, etc? I've got no doubt they've done more to spread the joy of music, especially those who couldn't afford it...

      They already had a copy of the award three days before the Grammys

    • The award was for non-performance benefits to the music industry (coded as "field of recording").

      Yes music sharing has been around for a while but it taught the industry nothing. Even though that's mostly because they refused to learn...

      Jobs/Apple gets the award because they managed to beat it into the industries thick skill that they should WANT to distribute music digitally.

      It's more like a "thanks for the intervention" award.

  • Did I miss it? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by yourlord (473099)

    Did I miss the Steve Jobs Christmas album or something?

    He didn't have anything to do with making music. He helped create the first wildly successful internet based digital media sales/distribution system.. But replace the music files with porn movies and the premise is the same.. He was selling access to files in a repository.. It had nothing to do with making music.

    This is just another group trying to rape his image for publicity.

    • by Sez Zero (586611) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @12:25PM (#39046353) Journal

      Did I miss the Steve Jobs Christmas album or something?

      Yup, my favorite was Turtlenecks and Mistletoe but I really didn't care for Ye Old Yule Log of Personally-Identifiable Location.

      This was a Grammy Trustees Award, not a Grammy Award. The Trustees Award goes out to “individuals who, during their careers in music, have made significant contributions, other than performance, to the field of recording.”

  • And this makes me wonder what slashdotters are supposed to do now?

    --
    Apple: paywalling the internet

  • And to think, Apple (under Jobs' first stint as CEO) taunted record companies with just one note [zot.org].

    And for people who just don't get it... Grammys are awarded for contributions to the business of music as well as the art. Love it or hate it, iTunes was instrumental (lol) in forcing the record companies to adopt the digital downloads business model.

  • No one who has anything to do with itunes has any business accepting awards for anything.

    • by gstoddart (321705)

      No one who has anything to do with itunes has any business accepting awards for anything.

      Why, exactly? Or do you have nothing more to add than "because I said so"?

      Have you sold millions of audio devices? Billions of songs? Made a product that's a household name? Genuinely changed how people buy and play their music? Have you ever even used iTunes? Or is this just the standard Slashdot pissing and moaning?

      I bet you could walk into a retirement home, and ask for a show of hands who knows what an iPod is

  • This was also the same Grammys that just 3 years ago said they were the victim of Chris Brown beating the crap out of Rihanna.

    Parse that sentence again.

    Yeah, fuck the grammys.

    Although it's not just iTunes. Garage Band, Logic Pro and OSX's stellar audio performance and FireWire support probably also helped immensely.

  • Steve was seen leaving with Whitney Houston.......

  • This is not Slashdot level news.
  • Quit giving shit to people who really don't deserve it.

  • by sdguero (1112795) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @12:53PM (#39046793)
    These awards organizations are so politicized it no longer matters what their mission statements are. It's a popularity contest, namely in that they will give an award to whoever will make them the most popular, regardless of how much it tarnishes the organization.

    Pathetic.
    • Rich people needs regular massages on the ego... For them it is not enough to be rich, they also want to be "worshiped" even though they are bastards.
  • Seems they get no love for introducing music and bedroom radio stations at your finger tips to the masses.

  • Seriously (Score:2, Insightful)

    Can we let this asshole die already?

The world is no nursery. - Sigmund Freud

Working...