Bon Jovi vs. Steve Jobs

I heard an interesting blurb on the radio this morning about Bon Jovi accusing Steve Jobs of "killing music". I didn't actually read the original article because that would require a subscription, but a Google search of the topic brings up various sources that paint a pretty decent picture of the situation.
As interesting a topic this may be from all perspectives, I'm interested in discussing what these implications mean for the active participant and the remixer. On one hand, I understand Jovi's suggestion that being able to download music and take it with us everywhere we go on iPods has changed how we listen to music, but I'm not sure that his claim that we no longer put the time aside dedicated solely to listening to our new musical investment has changed the 'magicalness' of the musical experience holds water. I think the act of remix may prove a bit of a counter to his claim. Although the way we listen to music may have changed, in order to be able to remix and interpret music, there still needs to be active participation. The ease by which people may now remix and the vastly growing number of remixes out there, regardless of medium, would suggest that there is still a pretty decent amount of active participation. By no means am I suggesting that Steve Jobs has been the sole provider of this opportunity, but I certainly don't think that his empire has impeded this at all, either. The only thing is, that these modes of participation have changed, and this is what Bon Jovi seems to have a problem with. They have changed in the past, and they will continue to change well into the future.
I'm curious to know if anyone else has any thoughts about what iTunes and iPods have done for music. Has the way that we interact with our music changed so much that we are totally disconnected from what we're consuming? Or have these modes given us new ways of sharing and obtaining? Have they given us the potential to remix or have access to new music that we may have never otherwise had the opportunity to be exposed to? Is music really dead?

Tabulous Keyboards

A while back I came across a blog where the creator observed that the 'tab' key on the standard Mac keyboard looked a lot like the word 'fab' due to the similarities between the 'f' and 't' in the font that is used. He suggested then for a novelty key replacement be sold so that the consumer may substitute their 'tab' key out for a 'fab' key at their will.
Knowing that the tab key actually read 'fab' would be a clever kind of inside joke between you and anyone observant enough to look close enough at a keyboard to notice one misplaced three millimeter tall letter. This would also be a means of remixing the otherwise very standard and common Qwerty keyboard. The observer and creator of the blog found a new way to participate with and change an aspect of culture that is otherwise taken for granted and overlooked, offering it new meaning and attention. It reminded me of the statement made in one of the articles that we read in class that stated that "without the ability to remix we simply cannot be human because culture becomes a passive rather than participatory interaction with the external world." As simple as it may seem to swap out a key on our keyboards, it is still a form of remix.
Remixes don't have to be huge undertakings created with the intent of having the world see, hear or experience it. A simple little remix of something, anything, is what I believe makes us 'human'. Ideally, culture asks that we be active participants, but active participation doesn't have be to a giant undertaking. Participating may be done with something as simple as re-inventing our keyboards.