I wish I could tell you why I feel so awfully ambivalent about my iPod. I’ve taken to calling it a “glorified walkman,” but that’s just a cheap shot; it doesn’t come close to articulating my lukewarm feelings. Back when the Cubs were still playing well, I thought I just wanted the thing to have a radio, but that would merely make it a glorified AM/FM walkman. No, there’s something else, and I’m not sure I can summon it up.
I guess I expected that having this thing (along with the iBook and iTunes and the Chicken iNuggets) would cause me to slap my head in the same V-8 style I used when I first started downloading mp3s (legally) at work. But just as in my twenties, with my handful of failed attempts to graduate from alcohol to pot, I’m left here shaking my head. It’s kind of cool in kind of the same way…but what’s the point, really?
It’s anticlimactic, and for weeks now I’ve been unable to put my finger on why. Mp3s, as flawed as they are, have revolutionized the mobility of music. And in their wake, any music geek such as I will open the floodgates to a current of songs old and new–the likes of which I haven’t been submerged in since college. This in itself is cause to celebrate, as I’ve already said in these, erm, pages. Now assuming (unsafely, in my opinion, but let’s just go with it) that having these compressed little files is the same to me as having a proper CD or album…
But there I’ve given myself away. Calling an uncompressed CD cut a “proper” version of a song is a sure way to show my age, eh? And that’s what I really think this is all about, why I’m not enthralled with the iPod and the rest of it: my age and the irreversible, undeniable way it informs my understanding of music. It’s one thing to be, thanks to new technology, suddenly exposed to a lot of music. It’s another thing entirely to expect that same technology to organize your music in any way similar to the Gutenberg-old idea of record spines peering out from the shelves.
Which is not to say I don’t enjoy my iPod, that I’m not impressed with its ability to carry around 90 albums (I’ve got the mini) at a time. And I don’t want to knock iTunes completely; as a data organization system, it’s terribly efficient and outrageously pretty.
But that’s just it. No matter how sexy the interface, no matter how deviously swapped or stolen, we’re talking, here, about files and data. And with files and data, with naked digital bits you title and sort on a screen, there seems to be a hazy layer of anonymity between you and whatever comes out of the speakers.
And as the store component of iTunes demonstrates, the ease of buying these things is strictly a consumer perk, not an aesthetic one. Indeed, the line between checking a band out and buying their product has practically disappeared, since the line between the files at a download store like iTunes and the files on your hard drive is merely two or three clicks thin. My God, man! Before I buy your album, is it too much to ask for dinner and a movie first?
But seriously. I think what I’m getting at here (aside from a gob-smacking culture-wide willingness to stomach a HUGE plummet in audio quality–but that’s another rant), is a disappearing thing-ness to music appreciation. And I know we’re getting into a slippery area here, that it’s easy to denounce any object as product, any worshipping of that object as consumerism. But in my short lifetime I can honestly say I’ve experienced CDs, records and cassettes as so much more. Whether we acquire them in a brick-and-mortar or slip them to each other at parties, whether they’re stacked on the edge of our desk as we’re working late at night or they’re held in our laps as we read the lyrics–they’re things that matter. And in a way they cease to matter if they’re not…well…things.