Death of Albums?

[troutman]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/26/bu...rssnyt&emc=rss

To the regret of music labels everywhere, she is right: fans are buying fewer and fewer full albums. In the shift from CDs to digital music, buyers can now pick the individual songs they like without having to pay upward of $10 for an album.

Last year, digital singles outsold plastic CD’s for the first time. So far this year, sales of digital songs have risen 54 percent, to roughly 189 million units, according to data from Nielsen SoundScan. Digital album sales are rising at a slightly faster pace, but buyers of digital music are purchasing singles over albums by a margin of 19 to 1.

Because of this shift in listener preferences — a trend reflected everywhere from blogs posting select MP3s to reviews of singles in Rolling Stone — record labels are coming to grips with the loss of the album as their main product and chief moneymaker.

http://woxy.lala.com/boards/showthre...8&page=1&pp=20

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't blame digital music as much as I blame the artists and record companies. It seems that it is rare for an album to worth buying these days. There seems to usually be one or two good songs on a CD, and then a bunch of filler. They save any other good songs for future albums. Long before downloading became popular, I was already sick of having to pay $20 bucks for 1 or 2 good songs, and 10 crappy ones.

(Of course, there are exceptions, but they seem to be rare)

[rubecube]

Weird. I refuse to buy single as I much prefer an entire album.

[Bobblehead]

I look at how many CDs I have which I purchased on teh strength of a couple good songs, only to find out I didn't like the rest of the album, and I'm not surprised.

Then again, back in the vinyl days you used to be able to buy singles. They tried to duplicate that with CDs but that was a failure. Perhaps we are reverting back to how thing were before the CD revolution.

Some albums need to be heard as an album - Pink Floyd immediately comes to mind. But I'd be willing to say that the majority of albums can be sliced and diced any way the public wants to without any 'harm' to the music. And no performer who has ever released a greatest hits compilation can argue otherwise.

[JohnnyB]

It would be very sad to lose the album as a complete piece of work to a music industry and market driven towards the production and purchase of singles.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I don't know if we're "losing albums" so much as albums are no longer the focal point of the music industry.

What I think will happen is you will see artists go from using their tour to promote an album, to using an album to promote a tour. I think you're going to see a revival of tours, shows, and performances.

Take a look at bands like the Rolling Stones, who put out an album now solely for an excuse to tour, and generally greatest hits albums. Kenny Chesney made I believe it was $76 million touring in the US last year. How much do you think either made of CD sales? Would it be in the same ballpark?

I like to listen to music, but I really enjoy being entertained by a crowd, and performers so much more. It'd be a kin to listening to a Flames game on the radio or being in the Saddledome. Granted it'd be horrible if the games weren't broadcast, but I'd prefer to be there in person.

In a day and age where everyone (quality standards aside) can record on their computer, or at least has greater access to finding professional recording studios through online networks, such as CP (*cough*want recording time*cough*PM Daradon with*cough*The Perfect Machine*cough*), that we didn't have 10 years ago.

So the difference now becomes who can perform at the greatest level, and perform well enough to have people come out and see you for the experiance.

I love what Pearl Jam does, and records every concert, then gives the concert goer a chance to purchase a CD of their night seeing them.

With the decline in albums you'll see more marketing to the person rather than the album itself.

There will always be a place in the industry for albums, demos, getting your foot in the door, or promotion of your band. But I do think we're in a transitionary stage from CDs being the cash cow of the music industry to going back to concerts being the money maker.

Thoughts?

[TurnedTheCorner]

The music industry has been driven towards the production of singles for a long time - but a few singles used to be enough rationale to buy an album. It seems most people no longer find this to be the case.

I buy the odd single online, but the vast majority of my purchases are CDs, followed by "digital" albums. Given this, it's pretty easy to understand the overall trend - there are tons of artists I wouldn't mind owning a song or two from. But for most of the artists I really enjoy, I already own their albums/CDs. Thus it's far easier for me to find a song or two I like than an artist or two I haven't heard where I want to get their back catalogue.

I would still much rather have that disc in my collection than have a backed up purchased playlist from my iPod.

EDIT: With regards to concert grosses vs. album/CD sales - are the revenues split the same way? Anyone know?

[Hack&Lube]

The number of albums where I truely like all the songs enough to love the entire album, I can count on my hands.

9/10, I will only like 1 song on the entire album. The industry has to realize that music has to be good enough to sell on it's own, not packaged with other things.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

The number of albums where I truely like all the songs enough to love the entire album, I can count on my hands.

9/10, I will only like 1 song on the entire album. The industry has to realize that music has to be good enough to sell on it's own, not packaged with other things.

Although, I will say that there are a number of albums I didn't like when I first bought it, but going back to it I've found a number of gems (STP - Glide off of #4 for example).

When I listened to most of my music on tape I think the whole album received more attention. It was too much of a PITA to fast forward through songs or find specific songs. Do this day there are a number of songs that, when they come on the radio, I half expect the next song to come on the radio right after.

With CDs it is almost too easy to just play a few songs, but you still had to purchase the entire album. MP3s and playlists make it even easier to just play certain songs as well as eliminating the requirement to purchase the entire album to get those songs.

The way music is 'consumed' is evolving, and nothing the big music cartels can do will turn back the clock to the way it was. The Sony/BMI/etc of the world need to evolve faster than they have so far since, as MQS mentioned, it has become easier and easier for artists to do 90% of the production themselves and there are more and more options for distribution of their music, cutting out the music cartels entirely. If that type of distribution model gains critical mass then the big publishers will be in big trouble. The writing is on the wall. They need to adapt of fall.

[FireFly]

I agree with the poster who said basically the only ones to blame are the artists themselves. It's a rare event when an entire album is worth purchasing.

It actually makes me wonder how many of the albums being purchased are compilations or sound tracks. At least with a compliation CD you know what you're getting as they're likely all the top singles from a number of artists. As well, if you really like a soundtrack, you've heard it all before you purchase the disk.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

What's the big deal. Buying singles (called 45's) used to be the popular choice of the day in the 50's and 60's. People buying LP's (long playing) were the exception, not the rule. A "record" in the 50's and 60's WAS the 45, not the LP. It's just another cycle. The record industry will have to react and reduce the price of the "album" to entice buyers to pick up all the music from that particular release. I see this as a good thing. 45's used to cost you a buck, and the album cost you three or four. Which were you going to buy? When the recording industry reacts by bringing their over-priced product back into line with where prices should be (especially with electronic distribution reducing costs dramatically and leading to massive profits) people will begin to purchase whole albums again. Supply and demand.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

The way music is 'consumed' is evolving, and nothing the big music cartels can do will turn back the clock to the way it was. The Sony/BMI/etc of the world need to evolve faster than they have so far since, as MQS mentioned, it has become easier and easier for artists to do 90% of the production themselves and there are more and more options for distribution of their music, cutting out the music cartels entirely. If that type of distribution model gains critical mass then the big publishers will be in big trouble. The writing is on the wall. They need to adapt of fall.

Oh yeah, I eagerly await the day when most artists are all self-produced (so easy with just a computer and some low-cost hardware these days) and self promoted. Cut out the big music companies period.

[Barnes]

I agree Bobblehead. I think this would have happened years before had music labels allowed legal online distribution rather than focusing on suing companies like Napster.

They promised us that music would be cheaper when CDs became popular. That never happened.

[Ford Prefect]

I think it depends on what you listen to. Mainstream, chart oriented artists tend to produce albums that consist of two or three hits and the rest are throw-aways. So I can see artists that produce fast-foot chart music, and fans of artists like that, preferring the singles approach. If you listen to stuff that isn't mainstream I think albums are going to stick around. I somehow just can't see guys like Tom Waits, Roger Waters, Joe Purdy, Elliott Smith, Iron & Wine, Mojo Nixon, Ry Cooder, etc, etc., doing nothing but releasing singles.

[Barnes]

One pretty cool thing I heard on the radio last week, Nine Inch Nails will release their new album in GarageBand format so that their songs can be remixed by Mac users and resubmitted to the band's website.

Pretty innovative.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Oh yeah, I eagerly await the day when most artists are all self-produced (so easy with just a computer and some low-cost hardware these days) and self promoted. Cut out the big music companies period.

Prince tried that, then went back to the big label. Hard to match the big companies for distribution and marketing.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

I think it depends on what you listen to. Mainstream, chart oriented artists tend to produce albums that consist of two or three hits and the rest are throw-aways. So I can see artists that produce fast-foot chart music, and fans of artists like that, preferring the singles approach. If you listen to stuff that isn't mainstream I think albums are going to stick around. I somehow just can't see guys like Tom Waits, Roger Waters, Joe Purdy, Elliott Smith, Iron & Wine, Mojo Nixon, Ry Cooder, etc, etc., doing nothing but releasing singles.

Elliot Smith isn't going to be releasing anything in the next while. The guy is dead.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Elliot Smith isn't going to be releasing anything in the next while. The guy is dead.

Didn't know that ... pity. He isn't exactly a fave of mine (obviously, since I'm not aware of his biographical info) but I enjoy his stuff.

[Weiser Wonder]

Yeah there's no big deal here. This mostly deals with commercial music like Nickelback, Britney Spears where the album is just a bloated single. Albums that are one continuing piece of art such as the Arcade Fire's new release will not be affected. There will always be a market for both.

[ricoFlame]

i can't even remember teh last album i bought, but i've never once bought an individual song. i guess i just mooch music off of other people's cd's. seems to work.