Bon Jovi, in an interview with the Sunday Times:

Steve Jobs is personally responsible for killing the music business.

He’s an angry rich rocker. Jobs, he says, has RUINED MUSIC FOR EVERYONE, the bastard.

Kids today have missed the whole experience of putting the headphones on, turning it up to 10, holding the jacket, closing their eyes and getting lost in an album; and the beauty of taking your allowance money and making a decision based on the jacket, not knowing what the record sounded like, and looking at a couple of still pictures and imagining it.

Yeah, you tell them, super-rich rock guy! After all, we all have wonderful memories of buying a shitty album based on the jacket, and that’s way better than being able to preview whatever you want, whenever you want, to make your purchasing decision based on the quality of the music. ONLY IDIOTS DO THAT KIND OF THING.

And, man, albums, eh? I’m really gutted that people will lose the ‘album’ experience, instead cherry picking the best songs. After all, this never used to happen at all (if you ignore, say, the entire singles market), and there’s no way whatsoever any band could ever persuade someone to buy an entire album these days (apart from by making every track worth buying, rather than shitting out an album with two decent tracks and eight lumps of turgid filler—BUT THAT WAY LIES MADNESS). And let’s also ignore the way in which Apple legitimised the download market, getting quite a few people to pay for downloads, rather than grabbing them from Limewire and Napster, because, as Bon Jovi says, JOBS HAS KILLED MUSIC. Never forget this as you go to iTunes, Amazon or 7digital to preview the tracks you’re interested in and then buy precisely what you want, with significantly more freedom than people had in previous decades. Just remember, as you click ‘buy’ on the one good track from Has Been Band’s new album (also grabbing a dozen tracks from a fantastic indie band you’d never have heard of without huge access to digital previews) that Steve Jobs has killed music for everyone.

Whether you’re religious or not, I hope you’ll join me in a silent prayer, to remember ‘music’ (which is now dead, apparently) and common sense (which followed it the second Bon Jovi opened his stupid rich rocker mouth).

GarageBand was recently released for iPad. It costs three quid in the UK (five dollars in the US), and brings some of the desktop recording studio to Apple’s tablet. In typical Apple style, it ramps up the shiny shiny and it makes creativity (of sorts) very easy, thereby blinding various publications into giving it their highest rating.

Or does it?

OR DOES IT? (Etc.)

I’m a bit of a GarageBand for Mac fan-boy, and I’ve been writing and recording songs since I was in my teens, which means for over a few years now (if ‘a few’ means ‘about 20’, which IT OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT AND MY HAIR ISN’T GOING GREY). I think it’s a great application that too many people dismiss as a toy. While on the surface, GarageBand is a case of dragging loops to make a ‘song’ and either 1) playing around and having fun or; 2) deluding yourself into thinking you’re going to get a number-one hit single with Loopy Looping Loops, GarageBand has depth. You can record guitars and vocals, and you can capture live performances through software instruments, and then edit them to your heart’s content. I’m not going to pretend that GarageBand is Logic, nor even Logic Express, but it’s a perfectly good Logic Express Express, and I know several bands who’ve used the application for everything but mastering, so it’s clearly capable.

This absolutely isn’t the case with GarageBand for iPad, which is, in its current incarnation, too often a toy. Now, there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with this, and I’ve a feeling it’s going to go down extremely well with many people. The app looks great, mostly (although not always) works very nicely, and enables you to make a nice noise without much effort, just like the Mac version. The problem for me is that GarageBand for iPad then slams on the brakes and screeches to a halt. Surprised musicians in the passenger seat are left there with whiplash, saying “hang on a bit—can’t we go any further?”, but Apple merely opens the door and tells them to bugger off, leaving them stranded at a sign pointing to NanoStudioville and BeatMaker Town. What’s interesting, though, is that it would take relatively little effort to turn the application into a tool with enough depth to appeal to and be useful for a much wider audience.

In interface and usability terms (at least for relative newcomers), GarageBand gets almost everything right. On creating a new song, you then get to choose between a number of instrument types: keyboard, drums, live guitar and microphone. There’s also a sampler (record a sound and play it using the keyboard) and four ‘smart’ instruments (drums, bass, guitar, keyboard), which are effectively a means of creating your own auto-accompanyment, by dragging drums to a grid or prodding chord markers to make guitars strum. (If you’ve ever seen the now comically overpriced Band for iPhone, the smart instruments are similar to its ‘funky drummer’ and ’12 bar blues’ sections, but much nicer and far more flexible.)

The smart instruments are undoubtedly where most users will first head, and in combination with Apple’s (slightly small) selection of built-in loops, it’s pretty easy to create an eight-bar mini-song. It’s very unlikely you’ll feel ripped off, since the product is a lot of fun, and it’s also an app that showcases precisely why Apple believes the ten-inch screen is optimal for a tablet—many of GarageBand’s elements would be fiddly at best on the likes of a Galaxy Tab.

It’s when you start wanting to create something a bit more customised, a bit more you, that GarageBand for iPad’s limitations become clearer. One of the most evident is the amount of time it takes to audition instruments, and this can’t be done live while a song plays (unlike in NanoStudio), meaning it takes a while to work your way through instruments. Most of the other shortcomings centre around editing. Fire up a software instrument and you can play a virtual keyboard to enter song data into the iPad. Usefully, you can overdub, in order to get more complex tunes down with less effort, or to work up drum patterns. What you then can’t do is make any changes to your performance. At most, you can crop and copy audio regions and correct dodgy timing by assigning quantising to a track. But you can’t double-tap on an audio region and then edit the underlying MIDI data—for that, you must export your track to GarageBand for Mac, although you cannot then transfer it back to the iPad. The lack of pattern and note editing also makes it impossible to ‘rescue’ manual drum tracks. Apple has made a lot of the iPad’s accelerometer being used to define instrument expression—in other words, hit a virtual instrument harder and it plays louder. In practice, this feature simply isn’t accurate nor consistent—at least on an iPad 1—meaning it’s best disabled. Cleverly, Apple doesn’t enable you to disable the accelerometer when working with drum instruments, meaning you end up with drum tracks that are all over the place and you don’t have any way of correcting them later. Bizarrely, it’s also not possible to delete or rearrange tracks in the track viewer—at most, you can assign a new instrument to a track. (@daveinthecloud notes on Twitter you tap a selected track’s instrument icon to access Delete and can tag-drag to rearrange. I therefore suggest that this isn’t optimal and that Apple should state these controls are available when you tap the (?) icon.)

Slamming my own brakes on, it’s worth remembering that this is GarageBand for iPad 1.0. This is not a mature app, but Apple’s next attempt to figure out what it’s tablet’s good for. As Marco Arment says in Moving on from iPad ‘office productivity’ apps, the tablet’s proven sub-optimal for office-oriented productivity, and so GarageBand and iMovie could be the company testing the water, to see how its device fares for casual media creation. Certainly, while a lot of thought’s (rightly) gone into the virtual instrument interfaces, the track interface feels half-baked, like Apple simply didn’t have time to think things through. And given that both NanoStudio and BeatMaker offer superior editing to GarageBand—and on the smaller screen of the iPhone—I remain hopeful that GarageBand will follow suit. Even then, I think it’s unlikely I’d use it for full songs, but it would be an obvious choice to kick things off with, due to its compatibility with the desktop version. It’s also worth noting that if you’re a guitarist, GarageBand for iPad’s toolset will cause you fewer problems, since it’s fine for recording live audio and making basic crops and copies. (The set of amps and stomp-boxes is also excellent, especially for a product that’s so inexpensive.) You’ll likely have to make do with loops or smart drums for drumbeats, but otherwise you may find this the best app you’ve ever bought.

For others, though, GarageBand for iPad is in the main what many people inaccurately call its desktop cousin: a toy. Make no mistake: it’s a great toy, one that is highly recommended and that is most definitely worth its low price-tag. What GarageBand for iPad currently struggles at is in being a tool for musicians (bar guitarists), but given that the app is currently selling like hot cakes, I can’t imagine things staying this way for long.

Good grief. Adobe’s unleashed a ten-minute moan about Apple (YouTube), blaming Apple for having the audacity to not sit in the 1990s and continue driving its company into a wall, reversing, driving it into a wall, reversing, driving it into a wall, reversing— (That’s enough of that — Ed)

The video starts in innocent enough fashion, saying how fab it is to credit Adobe’s programmers on the Photoshop splash screen. Then, approximately all of Adobe’s programmers spend most of their screen-time bitching about Apple.

Russell Williams:

At the WWDC, Apple announced that they were not going to do a 64-bit version of Carbon. Carbon is the programming environment on the Mac. They introduced this other framework, called Cocoa.

Yeah, that Cocoa API that was introduced in 2007 at WWDC, and not, in fact, at the very beginning of Mac OS X (based in part on frameworks from NeXTSTEP/OpenStep). Man, there’s no way Adobe could have realised that was the direction Apple was headed in, apart from Apple having said that from the beginning and stating that Carbon was really a ‘bridge’ for temporary backwards compatibility.

John Penn II:

They yanked the carpet out from under the entire industry at that conference.

Aside, you know, from Apple having said for the previous six years or so that developers should be moving applications to Cocoa. In reality, then, Apple yanked the carpet out from people who’d been going “LALALALALA! I CAN’T HEAR YOU” for over half a decade.

Really, the entire whine-fest is summed up best by Seetharaman Narayanan:

It is not practical to rewrite Photoshop.

In other words, the application had 20 years of built-up crud that needed sorting, streamlining and rewriting. It pretty much sums up too much of Adobe these days. Instead of innovating, it adds crap on top of crap. Instead of working with operating systems, it fights against them. And on the sheer horror of a rewrite: given the choice, it’d presumably still be churning out a PowerPC version for the Mac and running it under Rosetta (and then saying Apple “pulled the carpet out from under the entire industry” when the Rosettaless Lion yomped on in).

Every 18 months, I keep hoping the Adobe of old will return, the one that was full of fire and creativity. I keep hoping that Photoshop in particular will be streamlined and Mac-like on the Mac and Windows-like on Windows. But it’s like watching that great band you loved in the 1980s; you always check out the new album, but you only need to listen to the first couple of tracks to get that sinking feeling and realise you can never go back.

Hat tip: Peter Cohen

Duncan Wilcox tweets:

I get that GarageBand has the best UI of any iPad app ever built. Laid back music? Sure. It’d just never be music creation device of choice.

I disagree with this, not because there will suddenly be loads of bands using iPad GarageBand to create a new album (there will be one or two, purely for the gimmick, hoping to propel themselves into the day’s news), but because your ‘device of choice’ depends on your circumstances and way of working.

I’ve been writing and recording music since the 1990s, using the Project Noise moniker for well over a decade. I have a new, comically delayed album in the works, for which I’ve mostly used GarageBand to record and produce. (Despite what some people might think, GarageBand is a powerful piece of software, akin to Logic Express Lite, and it’s great if you avoid loops and concentrate on recorded audio and MIDI.) However, GarageBand is on my work Mac, which is inevitably used for work purposes. Distractions are many, and while I’ve spent something like two years tinkering with my new album, I haven’t written much new material on the Mac in that time.

Enter NanoStudio. Blip Interactive’s mini recording studio for the iPhone was a revelation. I’ve always been the person who got the idea for a song while walking along a street or watching TV, not while sitting in front of the Mac. Hundreds of songs have been lost to poor memory over the years, and scribbling down a beat or trying to sing a tune into a dictaphone really isn’t optimal. NanoStudio, on the other hand, enables you, through its fantastic interface, to rapidly get a song sketch down. You can overlay drums, bass, samples and synth lines, using live playing and pattern writing, and the entire lot can later be spat out in various formats. I’ve noticed that even when I’m at home, the iPhone (with NanoStudio) has become my ‘creation device of choice’, because I’m more relaxed and creative when lying on the sofa, noodling around with a focused app, than I am sitting bolt upright in front of my office Mac.

This is where I see GarageBand for iPad fitting into my musical creativity. NanoStudio already works brilliantly in 2x mode on the iPad, and GarageBand offers an additional means of getting ideas down. To that end, I’ll be shocked if the iPad doesn’t become my ‘creation device of choice’ for music. It will be where I work on and evolve riffs, creating song stubs that can then be developed and fully produced back on the Mac. To that end, I’m echoing Steve Jobs’s thoughts, in that the Mac becomes the workhorse—the ‘truck’ of music creation, primarily for weighty tasks and production. But the iPad is where the creative spark will happen, and this will increasingly be the case across all kinds of artistic and expressive fields, not just music.

Gary Marshall on the iPad 2:

What Apple gets—and what I think a lot of firms don’t—is that most people, the kind of people who are currently buying iOS devices and apps in extraordinary quantities, don’t care about specifications any more than they want to think about how their lunchtime sausages are made.

Geeks forget this. Many in the tech press also forget this. People care about the experience, not the innards of a device.

I wrote along similar lines on TechRadar:

For example, instead of boasting about the cameras in the iPad 2, Apple concentrated on demoing FaceTime and Photo Booth. The company then showcased practical applications of footage taken by the new rear camera by revealing the revised iMovie – an update to the $4.99/£2.99 app.

iMovie is now universal and on the iPad has an interface resembling the desktop release. And as if to drive the point home regarding what Apple really cares about (clue: it’s not gigahertz and gigabytes – it’s enabling creativity), GarageBand for iPad was unleashed, boasting an interface in many ways superior to that of the Mac version.

The point is that technology and specs are all fine, but they only really mean something if you can employ them. It’s no good having a quad-core tablet with 8GB of RAM if the only software available is a slightly knackered version of Solitaire.

This is what every other company in the tech space needs to understand. The killer feature of the iPad 2 launch wasn’t its RAM or its chip-speed; it wasn’t the megapixels in the camera sensor, nor even the tablet’s form; the killer feature of the iPad 2 is that you can do a ton of fun stuff with it.