Death of Albums?

[TheDragon]

Well, it's simple economics, really.

You can pay $15.99-$17.99 for 10 to 12 tracks, only maybe 3 of which you will actually listen to. OR, you can download the ones you actually want for $0.99 a piece, and save yourself $11-$14 in the process.

If you want me to buy an album, quit making crap albums.

(I'm just saying that from the public perspective. Personally, I don't buy very much "new" music these days.)

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by TheDragon

Well, it's simple economics, really.

You can pay $15.99-$17.99 for 10 to 12 tracks, only maybe 3 of which you will actually listen to. OR, you can download the ones you actually want for $0.99 a piece, and save yourself $11-$14 in the process.

If you want me to buy an album, quit making crap albums.

(I'm just saying that from the public perspective. Personally, I don't buy very much "new" music these days.)

Thats the thing.

A lot of artists know they only have a few commercially viable songs, so they hold back on them and release them on future albums... meanwhile, the record companies supply them other songs. It's a rip off.

This is what makes independent musicians so much more accountable. As well, when the albums are not mass produced and become rare, they are much more sought after.

I can't remember the last album that I could actually listen to from start to finish without wanting to skip songs. Pearl Jam "Ten" comes to mind.

[mattyk19]

The fact is, times are always changing and the record labels need to adapt. I've put out three albums in my time and still have no issue with people downloading songs. Exposure is exposure. It makes no sense to think that this is a new problem. People have always wanted to take part in the hot single from some new hot band. Rarely do they actually buy the album unless absolutely driven by the song. Compilation mixes by friends used to be huge in the 80's and 90's for good reason. I would assume that most artists want their album to be heard in it's entirety, but most passing fads want as much money as possible in a short period of time. That's the seperation in the audience. There is no lack of music enthusiasts. The proper "fan" will hear the song, buy the single, check out the album clips and if they really like it - will buy the album.

I see this as an opportunity to give the art pieces (looking at the entire album as one collective piece) a more dedicated audience. It will fizzle out the album sales of diposable pop stars. After a while you wont see a Britney Spears fan with a Radiohead album. You'll see the one song on their iPod.

Looking at this negatively will show a decrease in album sales as a whole. Looking at this postively (the only way if you want to be part of an ever changing world) shows that the purchased album will be appreciated that much more. The singles will continue to be disposable songs played on any Top 40 station.

And hopefully the most pleasing part of all this is that after a while the charts will show album sales as an actual reflection on the best efforts out there, not the passing fad, that's what the top 40 should be for.

Record lables hate all of this because the 13 year olds with disposable money are able to get better bang for their buck buy buying the best song from all of their favorite plastic hero's for the price of one Justin Timberlake album.

The BBKing fan, or Beatles fan will buy the entire album.

And the touchy subject of Lars Ulrich making such a fuss a few years back about all of this is sort of displeasing. Most of the songwriters out there get, at the very MOST, %4 of the album sale. Royalties and touring is where the artist gets paid. Sure, the argument could be made that Lars' %4 (%1 after being divided by 4 songwriters) could amount to a lot in a short period of time. But I would guess that he would have made a lot more buy making each individual up for sale on iTunes.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by troutman

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

Prince failed because he was just wierd and eclectic. He did what he did out of spite of Warner Bros. when he himself had lost touch with the kind of music that made him popular. It's funny, just like in Purple Rain when his manager tells him: "nobody gets your music but you".

Prince's one flaw is that he's eccentric and he doesn't care about making his audience happy enough at times. There are live shows he has where he doesn't even play at all or he plays really wierd stuff that nobody knows...and people walk out and demand refunds. The NPG Music club was a really odd endeavor online and he really never had a great song released through it.

Prince, if he was who he was in his heyday, and not clouded by his newfound religious zeal and eccentricities, wouldn't need the big companies to market him. I think young artists today are capable of knowing what appeals, especially with the internet. The power of youtube these days is rivalling that of a big music label for marketing somebody. There are many great muscians that realize this. Sadly, many more great musicians who are idiots who don't and have their labels force internet sites to remove their content...and thusly nobody ever hears or sees them or even cares anymore. They've become irrelevant due to greed.

The pleasure of making music should be in sharing them with others, and hoping people enjoy your music and like you and what you've created. A lot of artists have completely forgotten that.

[mattyk19]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Prince failed because he was just wierd and eclectic. He did what he did out of spite of Warner Bros. when he himself had lost touch with the kind of music that made him popular. It's funny, just like in Purple Rain when his manager tells him: "nobody gets your music but you".

Prince's one flaw is that he's eccentric and he doesn't care about making his audience happy enough at times. There are live shows he has where he doesn't even play at all or he plays really wierd stuff that nobody knows...and people walk out and demand refunds. The NPG Music club was a really odd endeavor online and he really never had a great song released through it.

Prince, if he was who he was in his heyday, and not clouded by his newfound religious zeal and eccentricities, wouldn't need the big companies to market him. I think young artists today are capable of knowing what appeals, especially with the internet. The power of youtube these days is rivalling that of a big music label for marketing somebody. There are many great muscians that realize this. Sadly, many more great musicians who are idiots who don't and have their labels force internet sites to remove their content...and thusly nobody ever hears or sees them or even cares anymore. They've become irrelevant due to greed.

The pleasure of making music should be in sharing them with others, and hoping people enjoy your music and like you and what you've created. A lot of artists have completely forgotten that.

Well said. Although I agree with most of what you've said, some artists don't create for their fans, or care to appeal to them at all as much as they have an itchy need to express something inside them musically, that's a different issue. Neither is wrong, but it seperates entertainment from engagment. It's the ones that create for entertainment that should be hurt by this, not the ones that are "connecting" with a attentive audience.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by troutman

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

Granted, but I think at least a portion of that failure was that Prince's disagreement with Warner music and his subsequent changing his name to the symbol. He didn't release anything that generated much publicity for almost 6 years before he attempted his experiment, so I'm sure that would have hurt him.

I'm not sure artists will ever be able to totally cut ties with some sort of publicity mechanism, but I think there will be something different than happens now. Instead of labels "discovering" and artist and keeping them contractually obligated for a few ablums, some sort of service will emerge to promote an artist produced piece of work.

The biggest issue is how will people find the music. Sites like Amie Street will form, many will fail, but a some point someone will hit upon the right balance between what people are looking for, what they are willing to pay, and what the artists are willing to accept.

I can see smaller sites specializing in specific genres popping up, and those sites will foster the up and coming artists. Those artists may outgrow those sites eventually, and graduate to a broader service.

In any respect, unless the major labels discover that the tighter they squeeze the more business they lose between their fingers they will see their sales continue to shrink.

[kevman]

I guess it's just me but I buy more CD's now then ever. With Itunes free downloads, recomendations and podcasts I've been introduced to all sort of new music that I enjoy and then I go out and buy the actual hard CD to add to my collection. There are alot of quality ALBUMS out there you just don't hear about them because the radio is too busy hyping the singles...

edit: Places like Itunes arn't always cheaper either. The new Modest Mouse CD is $10 at HMV, compared to $14 on Itunes, and includes over 60mins of quality music, not a bad purchase in my mind at all...

[Bobblehead]

Another couple of things not brought up in the original NYT article: Fewer "Mom & Pop" stores, and people not buying older albums anymore.

I've read that a huge portion of independent music stores have disappeared. The Walmart/Best Buy places have made the margins so tight that the independent retailer can't compete. While that has driven the price down it also means that smaller bands won't get the shelf space. Those big box places will only stock known sellers and are less apt to recommend an unknown band - they just don't have the knowledge.

Also, for years people like me were replacing our tapes and vinyl. Well, I've replaced about as much as I am going to. And other stuff that I would replace i can't find in stores. I was in HMV on the weekend. I checked for a few CDs I would like and they didn't have a single one. I know I can get it online through Amazon or something, but that isn't the point. I was waiting for my wife, was browsing, there was stuff I would have purchased but it wasn't in stock. That was a lost sale right there.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by kevman

edit: Places like Itunes arn't always cheaper either. The new Modest Mouse CD is $10 at HMV, compared to $14 on Itunes, and includes over 60mins of quality music, not a bad purchase in my mind at all...

10 bucks? Excellent.

Speaking of record company gouging, I saw a commercial this weekend for the 5th (I think) version of the Doors greatest hits. "Re-mastered" this time. So 5 different versions of the the greatest hits and according to Amazon, there are 4 different Doors box sets. One of them has 12 cds so it costs like $160. Funny thing though -- they only put out 6 albums, so the song list on this ridiculous box set is quite repetitive. Roadhouse Blues is such a great song that it is repeated 10 times.

[gottabekd]

I tend to buy good albums, and will continue to do so. I assume there will always be a market for music fans like me. The "singles" market makes more sense for pop music. Is there really a point in Britney Spears et. al releasing an album of 12 tracks when only 3 will have music videos and get radio airplay? Probably not, because people who listen to pop radio only want the singles.

[Inferno]

I've found that although I may only like a few songs on an album at first I eventually warm up to most if not all of them so buying the CD isnt much of a waste for me as it is for some people.

[Burninator]

I prefer to have whole albums over the singles. The singles are usually the ones that are played on the radio have a music video etc. But when you buy the whole album there is usually a hidden gem or two on there that will never get played on the radio.

With a good album the songs will flow together and the album will have a certain mood to it. I never listen to my music on random or make a play list. I almost always listen to the album in the order the band wanted to have it played. Good bands will put lots of thought into what order the songs go into. Songs will complement other songs. The album will go different directions as the songs progress. A lot of "commercial" bands will lack this. As each song can be found on any of their records in any order.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by gottabekd

Is there really a point in Britney Spears et. al releasing an album of 12 tracks when only 3 will have music videos and get radio airplay?

Yes there is a point -- they charge for all that filler.

[gottabekd]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yes there is a point -- they charge for all that filler.

Yes, and consumers are realizing it. If record companies are making less and less money promoting pop artists, that can only be a good thing, can't it? Or will they just seek out more and more aspiring 'artists', give them a spin through the machine, milk out 2 or 3 singles, then dispose of them?

Another random music comment: Even from good albums, radio rarely plays more than one 'hit' song at a time. Is this to blame for people becoming less interested in albums? I don't know the forces involved, i.e. if radio stations only play one single from an album at a time because they are directed to do so by the record companies, or it they do it because they are too lazy to handle more than 40 songs in their rotation at a time.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by gottabekd

Another random music comment: Even from good albums, radio rarely plays more than one 'hit' song at a time. Is this to blame for people becoming less interested in albums? I don't know the forces involved, i.e. if radio stations only play one single from an album at a time because they are directed to do so by the record companies, or it they do it because they are too lazy to handle more than 40 songs in their rotation at a time.

A lot of artists release singles before the album gets released to build anticipation. Generally a second single will be released with the album. In talking with tthe music manager at CJay a while ago, they get the singles sent to them by the record company as the singles come out. I'm sure they get full albums as well, but for the most part, it's directed.

As a side note, they only actually play a portion of the singles that are sent to them... that's why they only have 40 songs in their rotation.

[J pold]

Count me in the group that really feels no sympathy for the artist or the labels most CD’s are not worth purchasing, they over charged us for so long now its there turn to feel the heat IMO reduce the prices of CD’s and put forth a full effort into recording and people will buy

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by rubecube

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

Me too.

90% of the time I end up liking the songs that have never seen the raido more than the hits.

That's not to say that most albums aren't all filler like mentioned above, but I tend not to like that sort of music anyway. The stuff I buy tends to be solid from start to finish.

[Winsor_Pilates]

I love albums and will always prefer albums>singles

having said that, I don't think most top 40 listeners have the attention span for a full album of music. Plus most of the albums they would buy, are not albums at all. Just a few singles and a bunch of fillers.

Most bands have forgotten that an "album" is more then just a collection of songs.