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."

Comments

fools

[Neophytus]

Artist representatives say a singles-oriented model means a significant hit to the bottom line. Instead of divvying the spoils of a $12-$18 CD sale, labels, artists and songwriters are vying for nickels and dimes from 99 cent downloads.

As the article earlier today demonstrated, artists do not get a good share of the 'spoils' from a $12 CD, and they are very naieve if they think their current contracts are giving them a good deal. 12%, albiet in the form of 12 cents, is a step up from the status quo.

Re:fools

[Anonymous Coward]

They may be receiving more in terms of per track sales; however, I think the real problem here is if every Joe Downloader will find tracks 2,3,6, and 8 "good" on the album and disregard the rest. They'll have spent only $4 then for music and even at a greater per track revenue, they could be losing money on an album. Some could argue, "Then just make a great album so we'll want to buy all the tracks!" but what's "great" is so relative and single track downloads almost creates a pop-only market. If the song isn't a "hit," no one wants it. And the perpetuation of the pop market is a horrible one for quality music. F*#$'n American Idol! It also hurts the artist since the return of sales is how an artist pays for all the money the label hemorrhaged to make the artist "market viable" (e.g. spending $20k for a stupid website).

Single track downloads should be free for singles (with some compensation for the infrastructure costs -- joining a mail list, filling out a product form, watching a Pepsi Flash commercial, etc.) and you should be able to purchase albums-only as payable downloads in my opinion. The musicians have a right to be afraid of this, I think.

Re:fools

[MsGeek]

I posted something addressing both issues in the same article...here's the link. Basically the executive summary is that the album is not being killed by iTunes. The practice of putting one or two good songs on a CD's worth of filler has killed the concept of the album way deader than Steve Jobs could ever manage.

Re:fools

[brianvan]

No, it's not Britney Spears who needs to be afraid, it is indeed Radiohead.

Britney is (well, more appropriately, WAS) a massive marketing/publicity generating celebrity, who makes money off of being famous. Britney's music has almost nothing to do with artistry as far as music goes... she's a performer and she makes money off of performing. Her songs were not composed by her with a pad and paper and guitar in her bedroom, they were written by a hot songwriter, produced by a hot producer, music performed by experienced studio musicians, and sung by a hot recording artist / celebrity image. It's all MARKETING. Music for the people. There is some traces of artistry there on individual levels, but generally the whole thing is for making money and it's music by committee. Don't forget, the record execs have their meeting where they decide whether the album is good enough to release and if not, they send you back to the studio.

The point? For Britney, success is money and publicity. 99 cent singles contribute to this and don't detract from any secondary goals. Why would they sell singles for all these years if they hurt the companies and these kind of artists, their biggest money makers?

Now, Radiohead, on the other hand...

Radiohead is the type of band that makes an album, writes songs for the sake of writing music and expressing feelings. For a band like Radiohead, the album is a unit of expression. Radio airplay and singles don't really mean much... they're nice for promotion, but they don't mean as much on their own as does the whole album. Also, since Radiohead doesn't compose individual songs for the sake of promotion and celebrity, they won't make too much money going that route.

It's not entirely black and white like that - yea, Radiohead might write a song that might be radio friendly, and Britney might write a song on her own about some terrible thing she felt that will never make it to radio... but the point is, Radiohead wants to sell their albums as units of works of art. They don't mind singles as long as the albums are for sale. And Britney doesn't care about albums, because if she didn't have to sing 9 "other" songs on a 12 song album, she'd rather not.

Enter the possibility that the record companies may no longer wish to sell albums because 99 cent singles are making all the money. This is plausible for no other reason other than if 99 cent electronic singles are a huge hit, as we have been trying to get them to do that for SIX YEARS now, then they would obviously pour all their resources into that, albums be damned. Radiohead is then phased out and Britney is completely in. (or the next Britney, anyway)

Re:fools

[phong3d]

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?

That wouldn't be surprising at all. If you go rent (or own) David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive" aside from the always-welcome hot lesbian action, the DVD has no chapter stops, you can only play it straight through (or FF a lot). Lynch explained he did it that way so you'd be forced to experience the entire storyline the way he set it out in order to figure out the puzzle/nightmare.

If DVD audio really takes off, I'd be willing to bet you'll see either new (or re-issued) "concept albums" that will only have one "track" and force the listener to sit through the whole thing.

economics of it are better

[usurper_ii]

I think in the end they are going to find that while a band might sell 500 thousand albums at $15.00-plus, they might sell 2 million of that one good song for .99 cents...and 1 million of that other song on the album that was pretty good. And then the die hard fans are still going to buy the whole thing, so they will make money off of the rest of the "filler," too.

Go that way really fast, if something gets in your way, turn.

Usurper_ii

Re:Typical......

[Thrakkerzog]

I wouldn't call Radiohead a "big crap artist".

They have some of the most loyal fans out there. If Hail to the Thief had been on the iTunes Music Store, I would have bought it there. It's not, so I ended up going to best buy to pick it up.

I say let 'em do what they want.

[visualight]

If Madonna wants to insist that her music is only available as an album then let her have her way as long as she can't force every artist to do the same thing. If she's truly an artist then million dollar mansions aren't of primary importance to her and the resulting loss of income shouldn't bother her.

If, however she's in it for the money, then she's a business, and as a business she has customers to satisfy. If she can't or won't supply what her customers want they'll move elsewhere.

The only way this could matter is if a few top names are able to control the entire industry with regards to single song downloads. That is, Madonna knows she'll lose customers if she doesn't allow single downloads so, out of spite, she somehow is able to end single downloads altogether.

Albums are already a thing of the past!

[farrellj]

Name the last album you listend to that had a theme, thematic or musical, through the whole album...soundtacks don't count!

The music industry has worked hard to kill songs that tell stories...song that make you think. With no songs that tell a story, the songwriting paradign that comes to us from the dawn of time, through the Celtic Bards and Troubadors, and into our time, there is no need for albums...for albums are for stories that are longer than one song.

And with the death of the album, the record companies are maybe hoping to reduce recording costs by just having their "made" artists (N'Sync, Spears, Idol stars, etc.) go in and record a new song whenever their demographics department thinks that a new song by that artist will be successful.

And if you want a really cynical view of ths music industry, hunt down a book called _Little Heros_ by Norman Spinrad, borderline cyberpunk, and some good Erisian in-jokes.

ttyl
Farrell

They Have Had 40 Years to Make Us Want Albums

[smack.addict]

Artists have had 40 years to do something creative with albums. Instead, they have used it as a forum for pawning off a handful of good songs with a mass of shitty songs they could not otherwise sell. In the 40 years of the LP format, I think there are only 4 that have used the format itself as an art:

• Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, The Beatles
• The Beatles, The Beatles (the white album
• The Final Cut, Pink Floyd
• Pornography, The Cure

I am sure others exist, and I am sure people can bring up lists of their own favorites. My point is more that out of the hundreds and hundreds of CDs and LPs I own, I only consider 4 to be artistically harmed by pulling them apart. That's just sad.

Here is something even sadder.

I have ripped all of mine and my wife's CDs onto a server in my house. That is 22 GB of music.

I then went through and rated all of the songs I liked. Of the 22 GB of music, I consider only 7 GB worth listening to in the quirkiest of moods. That is 15 GB I consider complete worthless crap.

Now, it is true you can dismiss some of the crap as "what the hell was I thinking back then" or "what relative thought I listened to this shit" or "why does my wife like heavy metal". That accounts for 2-3 GB.

Under a charitable view of things, this suggests that 12 out of every 19 songs released is considered crap by an artist's own fans! And they want to keep forcing me to pay for this shit?

No more buying albums for me. No thanks. I will preview each new song on the Apple Music Store. If it is any good, I will buy it. If I like the band, I will preview it several times. This will also prevent me from buying crap like REM's Up.

Re:Work of Art

[kardar]

As a musician, I have always felt that it's not even the whole song that leaves the impression on the listener. Certainly any musician wishes to leave some sort of impression on the listener, maybe impart a certain message to the listener. Really, all it takes is one vibe. You can have many cool vibes in one song, typical song being 5 minutes (pop music).

Those vibes add up in the forms of choruses, verses, and catchy melodies. You could call it a "hit" if you want, but that's not every musician's goal. It's not as simple as having a nice album to put on your wall. I don't think that's it.

It shouldn't matter if the listener hears the song on the radio, or from a passing car, or in some other temporary, incomplete setting. One vibe, one chorus, one chord, one sound should be enough to get the message across.

I find it hard to believe that any artist would find that it takes an entire album for a listener to derive something positive and beneficial, or just cool and funky, or upbeat and exciting, or slow and introspective. It should only take 5 seconds of music from a passing car to share a good vibe through music.

I am not sure that insisting that people buy the whole album is all it's cracked up to be. It's probably best to make sure that anyone who wants the album can buy it just as easily as they can the single (i.e. have a link next to the single that says "buy album" or something similar).

The thought that music that you make will be heard by millions of people around the world should be enough to realize that one song is all that you really need to take that first step on the path towards expressing yourself. Certainly, people buying your work hardly qualifies as something that stands in your way!

I would rather have millions and millions of people listen to part of one song than hundreds of thousands of people listen to a whole album. Better yet, there shouldn't be any reason to not have both, unless you are just in it for the money, or the fame, or the luxuries, etc...

It's an imperfect world - as an artist, I prefer to concentrate on the good parts - knowing that music you create is going to be heard by lots and lots of people you will probably never meet is REALLY COOL - it's better to step back and just let it happen (in my opinion). The minute you get eccentric and strange you lose a certain connection, and the music becomes less meaningful than it has the potential to be.

Re:Typical......

[cheekyal]

Saying that Radiohead 'sucks from now' just because they prefer their output to be seen as a collection of songs rather than randomly selected songs seems to be quite vacuous to me. It also implies a distinct lack of musical appreciation, as you are rating the band on their statements and opinion rather than their music. Surely if you like the music, what the band says (within reason) is unimportant. If you like the songs, then how can you say the band sucks because they want you to buy their album? It makes no sense. If, of course, you don't like the songs, then fair comment, and in your opinion Radiohead 'suck' anyway, regardless of what they say or do.

Re:Name Some Albums Where All Music Is Good

[Savatte]

Pink Floyd - The Wall, Dark Side Of The Moon, Wish You Were Here

Led Zeppelin - I, II, IV

The Doors - The Doors, L.A. Woman

The White Stripes - White Blood Cells, Elephant

Beatles - Sgt. Peppers, Revolver, The White Album, Abbey Road

Pearl Jam - Ten, VS

Boston - Boston

Vanilla Ice - Mind Blowin (yes, really!)

Metallica - the black album

Re:Typical......

[sql*kitten]

Now, for Linkin Park, these guys have no room to bitch. They got noticed by UPLOADING SONGS IN DIGITAL FORMAT and posting on other bands' web forums asking their fans to try out their music. And now their bitching about the same-style format that got them where they are today. What a whiny bunch of prats.

Nothing new under the sun, my friend. How do you think Metallica built a cult following back in the day? Through the bootleg scene... they positively encouraged fans to tape live shows and trade the tapes. Hell, I was there.

Now Metallica are coasting along on past glories... from the Black Album onwards, everything they've done has been complete rubbish. James Hetfield tells the old-skool fans to fuck off, and Lars Ulrich, that petulant little runt, whines that bootleggers are stealing the bread from his mouth. That's what he does, he doesn't complain or rant, or even bitch, he just whines.

On principle, I'm gonna download me some Metallica. I won't listen to it, but I'll just keep it there on my HD, so I can smirk whenever I read them and their whining every time this topic comes up. Figure I'll do my best to get copies to anyone who wants 'em, if anyone does.

KID A had filler, and so did Amnesiac

[mekkab]

I'm sorry, I love radiohead as much as the next guy, but I remixed my own Kid A and Amnesiac album. I found KID A to be laden with fluff.

Once you combine the best of one with the best of the other, you get the album that I would want to buy. If they can't understand that, then I can't be bothered spending money on "Hail to the theif"- due to "artistic difference between me and the band."

It's already dead.

[Kwil]

The latest Blur CD, Think Tank is, like many techno CD's, seamless. All the songs are meant to flow into each other with no breaks.

That is.. until you put the thing into your computer. Whereupon the Digital Restrictions Management loads it's little mickey mouse player (mickey mouse both for its power and the DRM associations) to play the CD for you.. ..except.. the damn player inserts 1 second pauses between tracks. Since the album is supposed to be seamless, these pauses are jarring to say the least.

So what I want to know is, how come we don't hear about Madonna, Linkin Park, etc., bitching about how DRM players are "killing the art" of the album?