- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
... it's about himself and his lack of discipline when it comes to music. He's upset that the iPod has removed the artificial barriers that he used for support. Now he's faced with having to deal with his own bad habits, instead of having them obscured by clunky tech.
Really. Before the iPod, how many people had libraries that consisted of more than 500 regularly played tracks? I suspect that the number was radically less. People had albums they wore out playing. So are people really spending less time focusing on the music, or is just that, having access to far more, the percentage is less?
All of the author's complaints could be solved by being a tad more aware and a tad more proactive. The real imperfections in the iPod lie -- pardon the heresy -- in its design, not its social powers. Though adequate when launched, the interface is radically unpowered for today, when people really are carrying around their entire music library. One cannot write enough exorciating its flat-directory playlists (a mind-boggling "feature", as iTunes correctly offers a hierarchy option, that the iPod -- despite claims of being so seamlessly integrated -- flattens and throws away). And of course, the lack of a queue ("on the go" playlists are not a true substitute) is staggering -- and will be preserved forever, due to the same "We're perfect" orthodox zealotry that has fossilized the one-button mouse and inflected double-click Hell on mankind.
Perfect? Far from it -- but not because it's "too hard" to find and appreciate new music.
