Oooo, talk about your artistic temperaments. For music-lovin' plebs like us, the iTunes Music Store represents a minor revolution in the way that we can discover, purchase, and enjoy music, but apparently to artistes the likes of Linkin Park and Metallica, the iTMS represents no less a destructive force than an insidious corruption of their unique and creative vision. Why? Because it allows uncultured shmoes like us to purchase songs one at a time, instead of buying the whole album. Truly, the muses themselves do weep at such a transgression.

That's why, according to a Reuters article, you won't find any music by Linkin Park, Metallica, Green Day, or the Red Hot Chili Peppers showing up on the iTMS anytime soon: Apple requires that each song offered on its service be available for purchase individually for 99 cents, and reportedly the above artists "would rather not contribute to the demise of the album format." Never mind that over 40% of the songs sold via Apple's music service were sold as part of complete albums; according to these guys, consumers have to protected from their own ignorance: listen to each song in the context in which it was envisioned, or don't listen to it at all.

Which is, of course, hypocrisy at its most laughable. We're going to give each of these bands the total benefit of the doubt, here, and assume that they aren't just occasionally noticing that they have ten new songs and throwing 'em on a disc willy-nilly: we are going to grant that they really are conceiving each album as a complete work of art. (You may well choose to be less kind.) But if these guys are so deathly opposed to people hearing their songs out of the context of the whole, why does Green Day have a greatest hits album called International Superhits!? Why do the Chili Peppers have one called What Hits!? And what about non-downloadable individual song releases, like Metallica's CD single of "One"? Heck, for that matter, if access to single songs is such an affront to their high-falutin' artistic vision, why aren't these bands blocking their songs from radio airplay, unless the stations agree to play the entire album in its entirety?

Don't get us wrong, here; we're not anti-album by any stretch of the imagination. Some of the greatest music in human history was conceived and executed as a complete album, and we're not suggesting that, say, David Bowie's The Rise And Fall of Ziggy Stardust And The Spiders From Mars be disassembled and sold purely as unconnected parts. But at the same time we don't see the harm in somebody being allowed to buy and enjoy just "Suffragette City" if he or she so desires. Offer it both ways; if the album is good (relatively speaking), people will buy it. Apple's own iTMS sales statistics back that up. If, on the other hand, there's only one good song and the rest is lame filler, well, the sales will probably reflect that situation.

Which is probably, to be perfectly pessimistic about this whole issue, exactly why single song downloads scare certain people in the recording industry even more so than the concept of karma does: if consumers are allowed to pay a buck for one good song instead of fifteen bucks for one good song and nine crappy ones, the entire system collapses under the weight of its own crapulence and a whole lot of rich, evil people in suits might actually have to get real jobs for a change. Metallica's management company can claim it's more of a "creative issue than a financial issue" all it wants, but if you ask us, the whole thing smells of trying to prop up an age-old machine designed to maximize the production of filthy lucre and has next to nothing to do with the actual creation of music. ("The artists? Who are they?")

That's why we're just a leetle bit suspicious that we're not hearing these alleged protests from the musicians themselves, but rather from their management companies. Not that the bands can't be evil money-grubbing corporate sellouts, of course, but hey, we always try to be optimistic about something.

Wow, if we had even the slightest doubt that Apple is shifting into overdrive to try to bolster its .Mac subscriptions, we sure don't anymore. We've already mentioned the pyramidal "we'll pay you to sign up your friends and relatives" scheme, in which the act of persuading your loved ones to part with $99.95 nets you a cool $19.99. If you're the persuasive type who can sell a can of moose repellent to a jungle-dwelling Orang Asli tribesman, we can envision that promotion causing a little strife between you and your cash-strapped circle of friends, but hey, twenty bucks is twenty bucks; remember, there's only one Andrew Jackson, but you can always make new friends to exploit.

Anyway, on top of that, faithful viewer Dan Hamilton notes that Apple is offering a choice of renewal bonuses for members who stick it out for another year. Bonus Number One is a free copy of The Sims, that wacky people-simulator just perfect for megalomaniacal .Mac subscribers with God complexes who happen to enjoy "comic mischief," "mature sexual themes," and "mild violence." (And hey, who doesn't?) Or, if you're more the "addictive personality" type, why not opt for what's behind Door Number Two? Why, it's a free copy of NeverRest-- er, EverQuest, that massively-multiplayer online fantasy game that's wrecked more marriages than alcoholism and compulsive gambling combined! Fire it up and kiss your life goodbye!

Bonus Number Three? Twenty bucks. And you know our position on that. (Okay, technically it's twenty bucks off any Apple Store purchase of $20 or more, but that's close enough. Plus, you can earn AtAT Frequent Dumbass points by applying your $20 credit to a $49.95 purchase of either The Sims or EverQuest!)

But Apple's not just going after renewals, of course. MacMinute notes that Apple's "Every Mac Needs .Mac" promo, which offers $30 off a one-year .Mac subscription with the purchase of any new Macintosh, was originally supposed to expire last April; when April rolled around, Apple extended the deadline to the end of June. And now that June has come and gone, guess what? It's been extended once again to September 27th. Whew! We haven't seen that much pushing forward since Pizza Day in the junior high lunch line.

So, if you're not a .Mac subscriber, you should become one, and if you are one already, Apple wants you to become one again. Is it worth it, you ask? Well, it depends on whom you ask. But we have a sneaking suspicion that if Apple can't rake in as many subscribers as it wants to with all these promos, it'll take the "Every Mac Needs .Mac" slogan and make it terrifyingly literal. ".Mac: Now Allows Your Power Mac G5 To Start Up!"

Curse this twenty-second attention span! And more to the point, curse anyone who tries to tell us anything important in greater-than-twenty-second chunks, which is an act so futile it ranks right up there with trying to eat an entire 1977 Chrysler Cordoba without ketchup. (But mmmmmm, fine Corinthian leather!)

See, faithful viewer David Poves pointed out a Pioneer Press article about Apple's retail push which we had read last week-- or, at least, we read part of it, before we got distracted by a dog with a puffy tail. (To be fair, it's a pretty long article. We're talking minutes, here.) Apparently we stopped reading it before we got to the good stuff, because we completely missed this quote from analyst Charles Wolf of Needham & Co. about how popular Apple's retail stores are becoming with mall owners: "Mall developers have begun to court Apple, offering the company preferred locations in their malls as well as sweetened deals."

"Sweetened deals"? What's that, like, free all-you-can-eat Cinnabons whenever Phil Schiller's in town? (Mmmmmmm, fine Corinthian leather!) Whatever. The point is that Apple's retail stores are now beloved among two demographics: Mac users, and mall developers. (Granted, even combined, that still makes for one pretty teensy niche, but every little bit helps, right?) Mac users love 'em because they provide the best Mac retail shopping experience bar none, by a factor of about eight gazillion-- e.g. to the best of our knowledge, no one has yet been set on fire by an Apple store employee for expressing a desire to buy a Mac, which was an all-too-frequent experience back in the Best Buy/Sears days. And now mall developers love the stores, too, because they bring in droves of Mac users.

So now that Apple's got a little clout with the mall owners, we expect that new Apple retail stores opening in, say, 2005 will have some extra little perks-- like a primo location right next to the Orange Julius stand, free Victoria's Secret loitering privileges for the staff, and maybe-- just maybe-- a store discount at Sunglass Hut. Dare to dream!