Slashdot Mirror
Artists Protesting Single-Song Downloads
prostoalex writes "The 99 cent downloads are stirring some discussion in the music community. Linkin Park, Radiohead, Madonna, Jewel and Green Day are protesting music stores' policy of single-song downloads and introduce some stipulations, requiring their work to be sold as albums. "The fear among artists is that the work of art they put together, the album, will become a thing of the past," says attorney Fred Goldring, whose firm represents Will Smith and Alanis Morissette."
These people make me want to PUKE.
Ian
Artists should be protesting this by making albums that don't consist of 85% trash and 15% hit singles.
Hmm. Good idea, isn't it?
they'll just get them off kazaa. Maybe the artists should focus less on forcing people to buy their entire album and more on producing albums that people want to buy.
The fear among artists is that the means of selling a bundle of crap with one good song, the album, will become a thing of the past.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Sometimes I could agree with that, in which case surely fans would buy that 'art' complete.
But how, in any way, are Madonna's songs more than some stucatto 3 minute pop tunes - do they combine in the album to create art greater than their constituant parts?
Or perhaps some discount could be given for downloadinging the songs seperately if there was a lack of demand. An artist loves the art - so making money from the catchy song and giving away the 'filler' that may complete their albumtastic circle is perfectly acceptable.
This system rewards good music and consumer choice. I mean we all know this scenario quite well: You buy a cd and find that maybe three songs are good and the rest suck. Now why should we pay for stuff we don't want. Artists are lazy because they feel as long as they make one or two good songs the rest can be garbage and we still, those that purchase the cds, have to buy everything. As for the artists, they need to realize that they will make more money this way cause they could produce and sell song by song instead of trying to put up a bunch of songs together to make a cd. They also get to know exactly what songs are working and what are not by the amount each is downloaded.
Definitely, that's probably a hell of a lot more than they made off of the industry despised $.99 cassette singles back in the day. If anything, it would seem like this could potentially make them (larger artists) more money. Since most of popular artists still sell millions regardless of totally free P2P and the economy, it would seem as if this would be nothing but gravy on top of what they normally make. Truthfully all than anyone can do on this right now is speculate until the numbers stablize.
Concept albums seem to be pretty rare these days so as many others have said, it's hard to think of this as anything other than "We want you to pay for the bullshit too!"
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
Lately albums have been looking as a way to get rid of crap not able to stand on itself as singels. Often when i buy a record i only want 2 or three songs out of the whole album. Frankly, they push some very crappy stuff alongside the hits.
Ofcourse some artists are afraid because they will have the pressure to release good stuff and not some b-side crap as landfill in the albums.
HTTP/1.1 400
I think the last concept album I heard was back in the late eighties/early nineties with Queensryches "Operation Mindcrime".
i've listened to Linkin Parks CD's - but they don't have any sort of "Flow" I can figure out.
I think RIAA might of sent the bands some funky numbers to scare them into talking out.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Let me get this straight:
You bitch and moan because your work is being pirated via CD burners, napster and P2P networks.
Fans screams for a legitimate way to purchase and download your music online with any crappy restrictions
Someone comes with a solution to both problems and you still bitch? C'mon! You want to sell an album, fine, make an album's worth of material and sell for less than $16.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
Translation:
The fear among artists is that the songs on their albums that SUCK will no longer be purchased by the consumer, meaning that they will have to write better "music" if they want to sell their music. These people don't put their own albums together, the producer does that. It also opens up the music industry to more competition, seeing as an artist no longer needs a WHOLE ALBUM in order to distribute music.
Only good can come of this, capitalism at its best!
--Dormous
The only reason I've used p2p networks is because while I'm willing to pay for one or two songs that I like, I'm not willing to pay for the 10 other songs on the CD I don't like.
In other words, since you can't get exactly what you want by paying for it, you'll steal it instead. This type of piss poor excuse really annoys me. Look, no one is forcing you to buy these albums. If you don't think its worth the price they're asking, then don't buy it. And if you do feel the need to steal it, don't try and hide behind some bullshit excuse.
If they don't want to sell singles - fine. I suggest that they also will get no sales of their over-hyped, filler full album.
If they are true artists they should realise that artists don't make money until they're dead - or in the case of music, not at all.
If they are truely commercial, then why do they give their stuff away for free (for the end listener anyway - it costs them to advertise) on the radio? Why don't they face the commercial realiaty that music just isn't worth anything anymore?
Who devalued the music to next to worthlessness? They did -by their own greedy hands. They devalue it by radio play. They devalue it by "copy protections", by letting the RIAA screw them over so they don't actually get any money from sales, by not playing their own musicical instruments, by not singing their own songs and by not composing their own tunes.
If people don't hear music for free, then they don't buy music. You've got to give it away to charge for it!!!
Let the reality sink in - they're a dead industry.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
"...work of art they put together, the album, will become a thing of the past," says attorney Fred Goldring, whose firm represents Will Smith and Alanis Morissette"
I really would not consider Will Smiths or Alanis Morrisettes albums to be works of art, they are just a collection of songs flung together to fill out the CD. I think they are really worried that people won't bother to buy the albumn because people aren't stupid and wont pay for songs they don't like.
Radiohead on the other hand are a band who may actually employ some kind of quality control and make a proper albumn. In this case they have nothing to worry about because people who appreciate that will still buy their albumn.
In a nutshell it seems to me that 'artists' who sell albumns with 1 hit and 11 filler songs are worried the public won't be forced to buy the 11 crap songs. This seems to me like a good deal for the public.
I find it odd that artists are bringing up the excuse that they don't like people keeping individual songs, out of the context of the complete album. What do they think radio stations do?
The other factor which needs mentioning is that the album format itself is still quite new. Until the mid-60s, all music was sold in single format--and early LPs were simply compilations of older singles. The 70s was the time of the concept album, but this obviously isn't the norm anymore. It's been a while since 'The Lamb lies down on Broadway'.
It would help if artists called a spade a spade and admitted it's about the money. They have a point, as we are cutting into their bread and butter. But then again, any artist with the sort of clout to make this an issue, and who has enough money that they can risk attacking their own fans, will have a hard time generating sympathy.
Ken:> http://keneckert.byus.net
They complain when we don't pay for their music, then they complain that we do pay for their music. I wish they'd just make up their minds on how they want to exploit us, and just exploit us already!
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
The album existed because of the medium of the vinyl record. It had two physical sides, and if it wasn't filled up it was a huge waste. The cassette tape was similar in its two sidedness, but you could put a different amount of tape in the cartridge to reduce waste. CDs are a dime a dozen and you can even get little cds if you want. mp3s take up no "physical" space even though they have to be put on some physical storage device.
If you want to sell me an album of a bunch of your new songs, you're going to have to change a few things. First, all the songs better be damn good. None of this 1 hit on the cd business. For years artists have sold albums to people just trying to get the 1 hit, well it wont work anymore. Also, you have to put a lot of songs on that album. None of this 10 song shit. You better damn well have 80 minutes of audio on there. I'll buy the cd if it's worth the money.
What cds are worth the money? Well, pick any great old album, it's cd form is worth money. Like Queen's A Night at the Opera. But new stuff? The White Stripes suprised me a lot by being a new popular band that has music I really like. They just released new Led Zeppelin (best band ever) dvds and cds of live stuff. Andrew WK also put out an awesome album, I even went to see him live it was so good. And of course there are cds from other countries, like Super Eurobeat and such.
So yeah, I'll buy a cd if it's worth the price. The real reason I don't buy much music anymore is lack of quality product. So if you've got one song, and you don't want to sell me that one song for like 50 cents, guess what? If there's a demand and no legal supply, a black market is created.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
I honestly see this as a good thing. It's evolution. It's moving forward. And, ideally, it could benefit everyone involved. Down with the album (unless you're making a real album, and not a simple compilation of singles - read: most 'albums' released today).
Imagine this scenario. Instead of releasing a new 'album' every year, or every couple of years, or whatnot, artists would instead have the option of releasing each song as they record it. They would no longer be pressured to create filler for the album by the demands of the public - "I want a full CD worth of music, because that's what I paying for." - as well as the demands of the label - "We need to appease the public demand for a full album. Therefore, you will fill the album, crap or no crap, I don't care." Instead, they could take the time to craft real songs (I've giving artists benefit of the doubt here and assuming that they would actually like to create meaningful works of art).
Furthermore, if the artist has the one, all-encompassing goal of making money, this model would allow them to tailor each song to the buyers desires based upon the feedback from the previous release. The modern album is somewhat of a gamble in this sense simply because (ignoring test audiences) there is no real knowledge of what the public wants and expects from a particular artist (take Metallica's new album, which sounds *very* different from anything they've released previously, and which was a gamble to release simply because of this unknown reception).
To push the idea a few steps further, and incorporate the whole 'best of' method, the artist would then be able to take 15-18 of these singles that were released over a certain period of time, and release the album with all of those tracks on it. In other words, the public would be able to download lower-than-perfect copies of these singles for $1/ song, and then if they wanted a full quality 'album' (complication disc, really) they'd buy it when the artist released it.
Just an idea. Feel free to pick it apart (for instance, I'm not sure exactly how this is better or more financially sound than the current model - it's just a different way of doing things).
Ack!
n other words, since you can't get exactly what you want by paying for it, you'll steal it instead.
But from the artist's perspective this is the market they are dealing with. So ignore the whole "justification" of the download and look at the reasons why it is done. Then, as an artist, ask yourself if there is some product these people would be willing to buy.
Detach yourself from the situation and you can get a much more objective view.
Today's music market has been flooded with a lot of groups that are purely meant to be pop-music fodder for 2-4 years, then burn off for the next crop.
The era of masterpiece albums has been over for quite a while, save for the work of a small minority of today's active artists.
That's not to say that there weren't the ol' 1-2 good songs + 10 tracks of filler crap on albums in earlier years. There's just more of them now.
Before the mainstream-"Joe Sixpack"-Internet era (1996-present), people used to buy the select "good" tracks via vinyl/8-track/cassette/CD singles, and get a few extra remixes and b-sides thrown in for good measure. (It's my theory that B-sides have moved from these "singles" to the main albums these days!)
Bands these days should seriously consider what they put on albums. Artists of the past used to record 30 or more songs, then select a solid set of 13 good ones and tie them together as an album (how do you think they can release "newly-discovered" songs even after they are dead?).
Today's artists also need push their labels to rethink how they do business as digital media files overtake the industry.
Personally, I look forward to when iTunes will become available for non-Macintosh computers. Only then will the RIAA be stuck with warehouses full of blank silver CDs and plastic jewel cases.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
Of course it is a matter of opinion, but here are mine:
Beatles - Revolver
Bowie - Ziggy Stardust
U2 - Achtung Baby
Beach Boys - Pet Sounds
Ween - Chocolate and Cheese
Hendrix - Are You Experienced?
A couple of Zep albums, particularly 2 and houses of the holy.
Nearly anything by Miles Davis
Illegal Copying is illegal. Larceny - the unlawful and intentional taking of another personâ(TM)s property with the intent to deprive that person of said property permanently - is illegal. They are both bad. They are different offenses though. The RIAA has never charged any of the file sharers with theft. If they did, they would probably get laughed out of the courthouse.
Yes you can make a leap and say that since nobody bought the album that a potential sale, i.e. money, is lost. Unfortunately there is no way to truly quantify a lost sale in this matter since you can not assume that the downloader would have bought the album in the first place therefore you can't assume that any real money was lost. For every 10 downloaded albums there are potentially 10 lost sales but there are potentially 10 non-sales as well.
Also the fact that many people have beem downloading individual songs that haven't been for sale that way until recently has made determining any monetary loss (a very important part of determining the severity of a theft - or copyright infringement for that matter - charge) a very interesting matter. Think about the fact that the RIAA charge those college students the maximum amount - like 150 grand - for each work of art (which is ridiculous because of the fact that the "work of art" could be a 20 second interlude) and you could never get away with that prosecuting the theft of CDs.
But of course you don't get charged with copyright infringement when stealing CD's. You could steal a blank CD with a 15.99 retail price and get hit with the same charge as stealing top 10 "hit" album.
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
is always more complicated than that, though.
I live in a world where one in six Americans steal music -- but apparently Apple users alone are willing to pay to download 500,000 tracks a week. I also live in a world where the recording industry routinely degrades the rule of law by successfully prosecuting against file indexing software or advocating legislation of vigilante justice. In this world, artists signed to major labels can sell a million records without making a dime, while artists with their own labels make a nice profit with one tenth the sales.
When you start using a simple definition of right and wrong, it almost seems like you're living somewhere else. I agree with your moral argument, but I'm just not sure it makes sense to apply it this way.
What would make more sense to me is to say, "I see that this consumer is willing to pay for something that they can get for free. I also see that they are not willing to pay for the product I currently offer. Perhaps I should provide the service they want." This abandons the level of morality, and lives pretty much in the practical -- but as far as I'm concerned, morality went out the window long ago.
How dare you ask Madonna to pause in the middle of making her "art" to actually go and play music.
The problem is when people start trying to earn their money they realize that they never deserved it in the first place!
Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
U2's Joshua Tree is a much better album than Achtung Baby in my opinion.
And Zep -- The First 6 albums could blow most anything away, but IV is better than the two you list. It is generally considered one of the greatest albums of all time.
They call themselves artists, but should be called "factories." Most of the product ("music") is formula, worthless crap intended to fill a CD so that you overpay for 1 or two good songs.
That is not how an artist operates. Bands/Soloists with actual skill have nothing to fear... people will buy many of their songs. Bad groups do have something to fear... the days of hijacking your wallet for a single song are over.
These bad musicians are putting their thumb on the scale when measuring out the flour, ripping you off. They're short-changing their customers, and when we cry foul at their behavior, they turn it around and blame us--as if we are doing something wrong by pointing out that what they're trying to sell is is not what we want.
NOTE TO MUSICIANS: it is your perrogative to create an album that is your own personal expression, etc. Enjoy doing so. It is my perrogative to consider most of your expression to be crap and have only one small part of it worth buying.
Forcing music on yuo is not how a true artist operates. But that's no suprise, since most of the current whiner are not true artists, and music is not art. Beethoven, Vivaldi, Bach, Mozart, Brahms, Verdi.... they were true artists, and it shows because their music is still cherished over a hundred years after their deaths. Think people will give a whit about Green Day or Madanna in 100 years? How about 10? It's crap.
Artists? Get real. They're bad musicians that want top payment for crap using an antiquated distribution channel as a means to enforce you pay for product you don't want.
Maybe if artists wrote better music, they would sell more songs.
hmmm....
The thing is, most artists who should be afraid of singles downloads are the bad ones, who have only 2-3 decent tracks on an album. I'm surprised to see Radiohead opposed to this, as their albums are always really good both as a whole and track-per-track, and each album has such a definite feel to it that you can't go by just buying one single, you need the album. So they're pretty safe, imho. For the likes of Britney Spears or such, though... be afraid, be very afraid >:-)
Daniel
Carpe Diem
I agree with you that good albums by bands who do make cohesive and coherent choices about the songs and styling in an album are best listened to as a whole.
However I don't think a lot of the artists mentioned in this protest fall into the category of people who attempt to do this with albums - Will Smith ??
I don't think the ability to buy $0.99 singles will stop people buying the whole album, if the album is a work of art they feel they would get some value or satisfaction from owning.
Being as no-one is going to come to that conclusion when considering Will Smiths or Madonnas albums then they will lose money. But bands like Radiohead who obviously do care about the music will not lose money because people will still buy the album.
Most modern artists don't seem to understand the concept of a coherent album versus a collection of unrelated songs. Sales of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon and The Beatles Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band were not threatened by sales of 45s (for the youngsters: low-priced, 7", 45RPM records which typically had one song per side and were packaged in a cheap paper sleeve). They were actual albums rather than collections containing two hit songs and a bunch of filler material. Even when an album was not a "concept", everyone involved knew that the it was all about value: If the buyer liked a lot of the music on the album, he/she would buy the album. But if there was only one or two songs on the album that were appealing, the buyer would opt for 45s.
And the record companies don't understand that they need to add value to the albums. What happened to the days when you could buy an album and get a 12" x 12" multi-page color book inside? Where are the free enclosed 24" x 36" posters? Now one is lucky to get the lyrics printed in 5 point fonts in tiny square booklets. Sorry, but when you used CDs as an excuse to double the price while taking away all of the value-added extras, you slit your own throats.
It's simply that time has erased the majority of that shit from our memories.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Jewel sells singles collected on a CD for $18.00.
St. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is an ALBUM and work of art.
Modonna sells remixes of Erotica and a few singles collected on a CD for $18.00.
The Who's Tommy is an ALBUM and work of art.
I'm sick of buying filler. There are very few Albums in the world.
It may be foolish, but it's their music.
Digital distribution has the potential to eliminate most of the middlemen, allowing artists to efficiently distribute thier work directly to the audience.
But there is no reason to believe that doing so will make artists more responsive to the market. It will probably enable them to pursue their own artistic visions more.
Which will predicatably result in more artists:
Eventually artists will realize that the album was never a true cohesive work (with a few exceptions where it had been truly worked on). It was always more of an arbitrary size for delivery.
In this transitional period artists are left with the worst of both worlds. They still have to delay release and/or push out a song that wasn't quite ready in order to have "an album", but suddenly they risk their fans not hearing all the tracks the artist really wanted them to hear.
Well, it's transitional, and the latter problem was already created by radio.
In the meantime, remember that an artists control over their own material is one monopoly that most everyone should be wiling to support. Done right the shift to digital distribution should be about increasing their control, not about ending it.
The only time the artists could get away with this is with bonafide concept albums. The classic examples are Pink Floyd's The Wall and Dark Side of The Moon, both conceptualized to be listened as a whole unit and not sliced into singles. I personally hate every time I hear "Money" in a fake classics radio station (or worse, "Another Brick in the Wall II").
This is of course personal taste. Business wise, if I am an artist I would rather get my cut of a 99-cent download than NOT get my cut of a retail CD or a bundled download.
Pedro
----
The Insomniac Coder
CD's I own with no filler:
V - Spock's Beard
Awake - Dream Theater
Songs In The Key Of Life - Stevie Wonder
Remedy Lane - Pain of Salvation
Passion and Warfare - Steve Vai
Liquid Tension Experiment 1 - Liquid Tension Experiment
Nompkertompf - Mike Keneally
and anything by Frank Zappa...
\\ Mitch
As for the big monoplies who CONTROL what we hear on the airwaves, I don't really care what happens to them (Thank the maker for the WWW giving us options, and music stores that let us listen before we buy). But that is probably an attitude that is causing many problems. I hear and see mostly animosity toward the industry from the consumer side. Does anyone know of a "music lovers" group that is voicing the opinions and NEEDS of the consumer to the artists and labels in a welcoming way???
Like many, I think that the future model includes the full length album. The truely creative artists take us on a trip through musical wonderland with albums of music by NOT taking the cookie cutter approach to trying to write "hit songs" on every track. For music lovers, that is a great thing...
But many people have different music tastes where they only like one or two songs on each album. They probably won't pay $12 for the whole album, but would pay the $2 for the two songs they like. I don't buy music this way but I see others that do. Aren't having both options open to consumers going to make more money for the artists and labels?
Axigrav
P.S. My fear: POP music already has little variation from hit song to hit song within each music genre (I know, I know -- with 11 notes and octaves how many possibilities are there...). If they end up thinking that they have to taylor to selling on a single song basis there could be even less variation from song to song and artist to artist. That would be boring!
You mean the Alanis Morissette that's featured in Apples iTunes Music Store promotional video (round 4:35) and who can't praise it high enough? Seems like the spokesperson of the firm are more concerned about it than the artists...
Donate free food here
Nobody wants to pay $20 for one good song, and 10 or 11 fillers. That is a big reason a growing number of us Don't buy CDs. Besides, popular music is not art, it is just a business. Classical music was art. These "artists" need to understand that the fans are their customers. If we only want one or two songs, sell us one or two songs, or we may not by any of your music at all. There is an old saying that the customer is always right. The popular music racket is one of many that seem to have forgotten this.
How ya like dat?
Yes, but we're the consumers. Oil companies might want to sell us each a tanker truck of fuel at a time but the consumer is only interested in buying one tank of gas at a time.
It doesn't really matter what the artist wants. If the consumer is in the market for single tracks, single tracks are what are going to be offered.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
I'm not sure what my point was...oh yeah: Maybe, just maybe, it's about the integrity of their artwork, and not about the cut they're getting.
-- Who am I? How did I get here? My God, what have I done?!
...whose albums are to be listened to AS ALBUMS... consider Pink Floyd, Tool, Nine Inch Nails, Radiohead, Smashing Pumpkins (Adore flowed together)... many artists have to butcher songs to release them on the radio because people absolutely need a hit single. It's really sad that that whole radio mentality has to be perpetuated. I'm not saying that some albums aren't full of filler shit, but if you're unsure, go into a damned store and listen to the CD first. If you know that an album is far more as a whole, then don't degrade the artist by downloading the hit single for $2 a pop.
If an Oil company tries to sell you a tanker truck at a time, you'll cross the street and buy a few gallons from the other oil company.
Oil companies trying to sell you a tanker truck at a time would only be a problem if they colluded, and refused to compete.
There are sufficiently few oil companies that this can be a concern, and historically has been on other issues.
The thought of musicians colluding successfully to deny their music to consumers is just so far fetched as to be laughable. If they were capable of doing so they wouldn't have needed digital distribution to fire the distributors in the first place.
If a writer wants to produce novels, nobody demands that he sells it a chapter at a time. If a musician thinks of an album as a complete work, they should be allowed to sell it that way. The real issue is when the marketing channel determines how works can be presented. For example, it makes it hard for writers to sell short stories.
Marketing forces may indeed make it hard for musicians to sell "opus length" compositions that contain multiple songs. But it's still their decision.
I kinda sorta see what you're saying. But I really do have to take issue with some of this prattle.
Right away, I have to disagree, not just because Radiohead is up there, but because there are countless artists who don't give a lick for verse-chorus-verse structure with danceable melodies. some have even gotten very famous. Now this does apply Madonna, Linkin Park, and about 90% of the other "musicians" that flood our ears and eyes every goddamned day of our lives, but witness Frank Zappa, Mr. Bungle, Igor Stravinsky, Sun Ra, Milk Cult, and many many others that create music that both challenges and excites for reasons other than making one want to shake one's booty.
I pulled this quote out because I think if it stands on its own it reveals its own ridiculousness. If i can tell everything about a song from one vibe, one chord, etc., that's not the kind of song I want to waste precious time of my life listening to, examining, possibly remembering.
If that car has a boomin system and you're not already listening to something yourself. Its not about making your audience dance, ok? I mean, sure, maybe you just want people to get up and have a good time, and that's great entertainment, but not all musicians are simply entertainers. a lot of music is meant to recreate moods and feelings, and express in sound emotion and experience in ways unheard of. Example, "Violence ^5" on Mike Patton's "Adult Themes for Voice."
Many times these structured, honed sound waves are parts of a larger composition. Like sections in a Beethoven symphony, each track is a part of a larger whole that is meant to be taken in as that whole. Frank Zappa's Civilization Phase III is a good example of that. Sure, its a "CD" and there are "tracks." But it is an opera, with a storyline and development. It requires the whole album to be taken in the correct context.
Would you like to be able to buy just the action sequences from The Matrix Reloaded and not have to pay for any of the garbage filler that ruined an otherwise great piece of eye candy? I sure as hell would. But we can't. So why should we be allowed to pick apart the aural creation of someone who wishes it to be heard as a whole?
They split albums into tracks to make it easier for us to pick up where we left off, but it should be up to the artist as to how they get distributed. Singles were a different market. That was only one or 2 tracks from an album.
Unless you were Michael Jackson circa "Thriller", then it was your whole album. But that just illustrates another point. Make an album good enough, and EVERY SONG WILL HAVE SINGLE POTENTIAL! You hear that Madonna? No more "Take A Bow."
Ugh. Would you rather have millions of people only know 5 minutes of any one of Bach's compositions? And being "in it" to have millions of people clutch one song and ignore the entire rest of your catalog, especially if you
Given the fact that the average pop music act has an average life expectancy in the limelight of a year or two at best, I think they should be looking at this kind of information seriously. And currently, I think the best source of that information is going to be single-file download services where the user can preview the entire album before picking the wheat from the chaff.
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
The main thing that's changed from those days is the democratization of the consumer base (you don't have to hire your own chamber orchestra to get good music), and the increased power of the middle-men.
We are the 198 proof..
Surely, most classical music handed down to us is High Art, but you don't appear to have read much about the lives of classical composers... Mozart and Vivaldi, for example, spent their lives composing for other people, and their livelihoods (as with many others) hinged on their music's popularity. As great as they may have been, they ended up buried in the same poor people's cemetery in Austria, without even a marked grave, because the tides of popular appreciation ahd turned, and noone would subsidize their genius anymore (maybe that's what we need nowadays --- more mecenes?).
The market for music hasn't changes, it's just grown to more layers of the population.
Oh and lastly, as a music-lover myself, I rather resent your objectification of music : I find it of striking obviousness that were we to dictate our "customers'" first-degree wishes to artists, we would get bad music - which is what happens when music executives tailor a joke performer to the market (hello, ricky and britney.)
No "customer" would have asked for "Dark Side of the Moon". And it is the best sold (concept) album of our time, but more importantly a work of genius.
I can think of plenty of "works of art" in which I didn't love every song on it after the first, second, or even tenth listen. Some songs just take longer to 'click' with various people, for all sorts of reasons. Maybe you don't like the music style they are attempting. Maybe you aren't yet familiar with what it is parodying, or what it is an homage of.
The same thing is true of books, art, films. Sometimes parts of a piece of art take a while to appreciate and digest, but if it is surrounded by art you find more approachable (maybe the rest of the film is very funny, or you really like the first few chapters of the book), you will oftentimes give it a fair chance to grow on you.
That is what this potential new singles industry could destroy, and that is what at least the better artists are complaining about. If singles are what sells, this time with no (sometimes very innovative) B sides even, all music essentially becomes pop music.
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
This is totally off topic buuttt... Listen closer next time. Amnesiac much like Hail To The Theif is was just a bunch of good Radiohead songs thrown together IMO. The Bends had cohesion, OK Computer had cohesion, but Kid A was perhaps the most cohesive album I own. Sit back with some headphones at about 3 AM when it's nice, dark, and quiet, and give that album a listen. The thing gives me chills because of it's stripped down beauty, yet it has so much depth.
-Alex
Popular songs are usually between 2 and 6 minutes, partly because of techological limitations of the 78 and the 45 RPM disk, but also because that duration fits nicely with human attention span and has become part of the culture. Albums are typically a bit under an hour long, because of the limitations of the 33 RPM LP record, and the design of the audio CD which specifically was intended to replicate the LP. There is no fundamental artistic reason for that length at all, and the cultural influences for that duration are not strong. For myself, I usually find an hour listening to any artist a bit too long, even if the work is consistently interesting.
Nothing prevents anyone from creating tracks and albums of any other length using digital technology. This offers more, not less, room for artistic exprssion and integrity.
The fact that economies of scale allow very efficient distribution of 6 minute tunes (3 cheers for iTunes!!!) doesn't prevent you from using similar mechanisms to sell your 6 hour magnum opus. Of course, it doesn't force me to seek, pay for or listen to such a thing, but it certainly gives the artist the freedom to offer it. If artists think there is demand for these things, and the standard download sites don't support them, it will cost next to nothing to set up alternative distribution mechanisms.
I wonder if there isn't a more mercenary interest than artistic integrity behind these "artists" gripes. Obviously a lot of albums are mostly tedious filler. "Artists" who line up behind this complaint are apparently declaring themselves to be profiting from such filler. I would avoid any album by anyone supporting this argument on that basis alone.
iTunes does sell whole albums, by the way. I haven't bought any, though. I find the ability to buy individual songs vastly more appealing, and my music purchasing has rebounded from nearly zero as a result of the easy sample/easy download/easy pay features of iTunes.
mt
It's not just the Labels that have forgotten...its everybody. The reason why is because the 'customer' has become the 'consumer' in many cases, and in their eyes, the 'consumer' isn't always right, they are just someone who is slowing down the process of other 'consumers' throwing their money at the company and are replaceable.
The companies that will ultimately succeed in the long run treat people as customers. Look at Apple for instance. Classic example of listening to your customers.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Sure, an album could be argued to be art. But let me interpret that art as I choose. If I wish to view Edouard Manet's paintings with 3D glasses on I am certainly free to do so. Am I viewing the work of art as Manet intended? Probably not. Yet I am viewing it. Maybe I'm getting something out of it.
What's next with these stupid artists?? Special CDs that will ONLY play in the order they specify? You MUST listen to tracks 1-14 in order or the CD won't play?
pfffft!
I'm sure Madonna is classified as some sort of art. Now, I may not think much of her style of art. I downloaded a track--"what the fuck do you think you're doing?"--I'm sorry--that's just juvenile. I am sure that there are some people who "get" this kind of art but truly it is lost on me.
Musicians, no. But there are only 5 big record companies, and they collude *all the time*.
Random is the New Order.
And what, you think musicians live lavish lifestyles with women and booze and drugs? Think again, man. You might want to play the role of poor starving artist, but you need to know that 99% of the musicians you speak of are dirt poor. Only a very, VERY small percentage are able to avoid day jobs. Most of them are so damn poor that they work in photomats and coffee shops to make rent. I have yet to meet a real musician that didn't have to sacrifice nearly everything to pursue that dream.
And you know, even some of your favorite radio bands are dead broke. I would argue that *most* of the artists that move you are, in fact, pretty damn broke.
I'm not giving you a hard time here... but to imply that musicians have it better than any other struggling artist is both narrow minded and ludicrous.
And yeah, I know the life of a writer is difficult. I also know a little bit about the life of a musician. The only difference I can find between that and living as a musician? Well, let's see. Musician's have more shit to haul around and it's generally a lot heavier. That's about it.
Anyway, I think you guys are missing the point. This isn't necessarily a financial issue. Taking a single song out of an album will remove a piece of the story from its context. At least that could be said for some artists. Would you be so keen to chop your books into chapters to be sold invididually? Of course not! That idea is just plain silly. Why should it be okay for music? Just because you may not see the story in the song list doesn't mean it isn't there.
On a side note: it's a strange day indeed when you meet a writer that doesn't have much to say.
Anyway, that's my Sunday ramble..
--
mcp.kaaos
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
These "artists" are suddenly running up against the reality that their egos are much larger than their fan base. Most major label artists, the groups/singers/performers/whatevers that are known worldwide and heard endlessly on Top 40 stations, are not artists in the sense we might consider perhaps classical composers or even modern trailblazers like Elvis, Bob Dylan or Grandmaster Flash. They are simply hit machines. The music they make is not particularly unique or revolutionary. Rather, it's just noise for people to dance to at clubs, blast out of their 8000 watt car stereos or hear in the background at the gym or office. Their music will not be remembered on anything other than "Now that's what I call one-hit-wonders vol. LXVII"-type compilations.
As such, people don't want their albums. They buy them when there's no other way to get the hits they hear on the radio. Nobody will identify that sixth track on Shakira's latest album, but they will remember the one in the Pepsi commercials (if she's so lucky). The only substantitive difference between the two is the fact that the song is widely identifiable; the quality is not particularly great in either case. People don't want the albums, they want the hits. This is the reason for the massive appeal of the apple music store and P2P mp3 sharing beyond a few geeks looking to find some obscure Front 242 or Cure B-side.
And this runs straight up against the millionaire "artists" who conceive themselves as visionaries and look to their worldwide appeal as proof that they are, indeed, somehow different than their peers. As if the rise of Linkin Park from the engorged field of "rap-rock" crossovers had something to do intrinsically with their band's music, attitude or aptitude rather than the pure dumb luck of having caught the eye of a major label with the presence of mind to hype the hell out of them.
The artists in question are having to deal with the unpleasant fact that their visions of themselves as pioneers, saviors or rebels do not quite gel with the views of their customers, who see them merely as soundtracks -- soundtracks that get old and need to be changed, like everything else.
B
"I'm payin' taxes, but what am I buyin'?" -- James Brown
International Superhits by Greenday
The Immaculate Collection by Madonna
The Best of Motorhead[Metal-Is] by Motorhead
(unfortunately, I was unable to find "Best Of" albums by Linkin Park (most likely either haven't been around long enough or don't have enough decent material to make a "Best Of" album)or Jewel (Personal opinion, but I NEVER, EVER want to hear what one would consider to be the "Best Of" Jewel).
The point remains that virtually every artist I've ever seen has been perfectly willing to put out a "Best Of" album when enough dollars/euros/insert your favorite local currency here are waved under their nose. I've heard one band say no because "Best Of" albums always seem to be the last gasp of a group/artist that has one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.
You don't want your work broken into singles, fine. Just be honest with yourself (and your listeners) and admit that the reason has absolutely noting to do with art.
Karma: Chameleon - mostly influenced by bad '80s New Wave music
"the album" ... it's merely a way to deliver multiple songs, and few of them are a coherent musical concept. If they would put out an album stuffed with good songs instead of taking one or two songs they hope is Billboard chart-topper material and padding it out to fill an overpriced CD ... they wouldn't have to worry, would they. But the usual CD by the usual mega-hit artiste is the musical equivalent of that WunderFluf white bread. Nothing but air.
Before LP albums became the accepted way to release music, artists and recording companies were doing well with 45 singles. They would produce the album only AFTER there was enough commercially popular to make it worthwhile.
Sure, they're "artistically opposed" to selling singles for 99 cents.. but they have no problem selling singles for $12.99.
Linkin Park
Radiohead
Madonna
Jewel
Green Day
I'm artistically opposed to purchasing anything by these bands.
And none of them are famous or making millions. A few may be making some money but you won't hear about it unless you hang around there and download and listen to a lot of rubbish.
Word of mouth is great but impractical as the sole source of info on new music. And other ways of getting music in front of people cost money. Record companies may be bastards and get overpaid but they perform a service. They filter out the real crap. They get it wrong both ways occasionally but to some extent its a personal taste. I don't like n'sync but millions do and I'm not going to call them retarded because I don't like their music. I like bonnie prince billy and I don't care if you do or not.
The exception to this is the small record company but they never expect to sell millions of records. The Sleater-Kinneys of the record business are the exception not the new rule. I don't think you would have heard about Radiohead if you relied on word of mouth on the Internet.
As for commodity, people go the the record shop with money to spend. I suspect they will spend it rather than take it home. So there will be some brand substitution going on. It's not like you go out each week to buy a Madonna record and 'gosh, no new madonna record this week. i guess i'll just go home and listen to the old one again.'
Won't they see the new Norah Jones record and say' gosh she looks just like madonna only more pretty, more younger and more sexy and i heard her nice new song on the radio so i'll buy that'.
I know what I'm talking about man. I'm hip to all the latest teen lingo. Word.
you asked: "Would you be so keen to chop your books into chapters to be sold invididually?"
.... usually breaks down to something like 1 or 2% profit. their major bank is touring.
yes, if i wrote a good book i dont see where the pain/problem is ? people buy chapter one read it , and if they like it they buy the rest. simple. its no damn different than a borders or barnes and noble setup. except i can do it at home butt naked with a bowl of lime jello.
No, if i wrote a piece of crap. or some fluff novel. Because people would buy chapter one and not buy anything else cause my book sucks.
now on to a previous point, the average musician clocks 3-6% of the retail price of a CD, then they payback the label for studio time advertising etc
i dont know crap about book publishing except the "elite" of that genre of art are not hurting. J.K. rawling and steven king make just as much (if not more) than radiohead and madonna. i also assume that authors make alot of money when their books are licensed for movies, toys etc. so this is different how ?
the reason the afformentioned pop-artists are whining is because they can no longer drive album sales (2% of $20 is $.40) from one catchy single which generate more money per sale (as opposed to the $.12 they are making per downloaded song.).
nary an album in the past decade has been a "story" or a work of art. its usually a collection of songs written by different people that vaugely sound the same. and thats only because its the same group of half-asses making the "music".
excuse me for my speeling in advance.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
The only thing the online trend is going to threaten is greatest hits discs. There will be less reason for them to exist.
Musicians should be happy that people are at least PAYING for their singles on the net and not downloading them off of file sharing programs for FREE. If people like what they hear, they'll check out the album.
Yet another argument in favor of having DVD ripping and user controlled playback controls discussed in a current /. article.
It's my DVD. I paid for it. And I'll d@mn well play it back any way I want to!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Here is where they're coming from.
A very good example.
You're going to buy chicken from the butcher. You just want the breast. He wants to get rid of the whole chicken. It's up to him if he wants to sell you just the best part or the whole thing. Now if he wants to cut that best part out and sell it for a bit more than it's percentage in weight... if I were the butcher I would do it. But, it depends on the butcher.
Some people just wanna get rid of that whole chicken. The smart ones might sell that breast for a premium. You as the consumer decide if that breast is tender enough to buy the entire package.
Wow. Does this make any sense?