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

[Bedouin X]

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!"

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

[TedCheshireAcad]

Maybe if artists wrote better music, they would sell more songs.

hmmm....

Re:fools

[KDan]

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

Re:fools

[cait56]

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:

• creating works that are not blandly dictated by marketing types, and therefore hopefully more intesting.
• firmly believing that their entire album is worth listenting to.

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.

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

[macdaddy357]

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.

Re:fools

[letxa2000]

It may be foolish, but it's their music.

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.

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

[cait56]

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.

Re:fools

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Madonna

"Art"

smirk...

Re:fools

[ottothecow]

even if you listen to crappy music, maybe the artist wrote a few good songs that you like but wouldnt get radio play, you would NEVER have heard them if you hadnt bought the cd because you would only grab up the radio singles

I listen to music from good artists in my opinion (well...who doesnt) and I find the use of singles downloads is great to see if I like the album. Usually I will hear a few songs, maybe listen to something from another album if I am not familiar with teh group and then purchase the disk. I do this with p2p because its free, if I had access to the apple music store I would gladly pay 99cents a track to sample an album but ONLY IF I could subtract the 99cents (or maybe 2 songs worth) from the price of the cd. There is no reason to pay for the tracks twice which is why I use p2p

Re:fools

[Graff]

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.

True but this doesn't count the fact that even though you may lose sales on the album itself you probably would not have gotten those sales in the first place! Those people who are just buying a track or two were probably not going to buy the entire album but since the tracks are available as singles they bought them.

Overall choice is a good thing. If you make good songs then people will probably buy all the tracks on an album. Those people who only want 1 or 2 tracks on an album probably would not have bought the entire album so you can count those sales as extra gravy on top of your usual album sales. Sure you will lose a few whole album sales to singles but I'm willing to bet that a decent artist will make more money than they will lose.

Re:fools

[bwcbwc]

Actually, classical music, in its native time period, was business as well. Most composers (Mozart, Haydn, etc.) were writing their works on commission as spec'ed by a wealthy patron. The composers and musicians whose works have survived to the present had the business power of Madonna, Elvis and the Beatles to dictate more of their endeavors. The composers we rarely heard of were often the Britney Spears of their day, writing music that was fashionable for one season and making as much money as they could during their 15 minutes of fame.

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.

Re:fools

[Lord_Dweomer]

"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."

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.

Re:fools

[what the dumple is]

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.

Re:fools

[Drakonian]

The thought of musicians colluding successfully to deny their music to consumers is just so far fetched as to be laughable.

Musicians, no. But there are only 5 big record companies, and they collude *all the time*.

Re:fools

[cyril3]

Go to mp3.com or whatever. Artists are givng away music or selling it track by track all the time and have been for a few years now.

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.

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.

Re:fools

[hankaholic]

I disagree. I like Radiohead, and would probably not buy their singles -- even classic Pink Floyd albums, while rich with hit singles, are better appreciated as a musical whole, and I'd gladly shell out $10 to appreciate the work as a whole, and to own the physical media.

Interestingly enough, have you ever thought about just why they're called "albums"?

When the "recording industry" first started, individual songs were sold on 45's. People would buy books (similar to picture albums) in which they would store their records. Some enterprising blues artist came up with the idea of making songs which went together as a greater work, meant to fill such an album.

The recording industry _has_ survived the trade of single songs.

This is like reading a story saying that the recording industry doesn't want to return to a vinyl format (or cassette tape, or whatever), because they think it'll be bad for sales. The recording industry has not only survived the sale of single songs, it started that way, whether those in charge have any idea or not.

The way I see this developing, is this: single-spitting "pop artists" will earn their $0.99 per track, because that's what they produce best.

Those who can produce albums which really, REALLY make sense as albums will still sell what they produce best -- albums.

Re:fools

[Thing 1]

Enter the possibility that the record companies may no longer wish to sell albums because 99 cent singles are making all the money.

This also raises the possibility that artists can start generating money in a couple days (time it takes to conceive and record a single track) instead of a couple months (for a full album, much of which may be filler).

I agree that it creates something of a competitive problem, but looking at the good points, it could be beneficial for artists and consumers alike: they can start generating income faster, and we can pick-and-choose the music that we want.

Typical......

[bishopi]

Note that it's the usual "big" artists, who routinely ship out crap CDs with 2 decent songs, 10 fillers, and a greatest hits album every 18 months.

These people make me want to PUKE.

Ian

Re:Typical......

[Anonymous Coward]

You are SO right ...

But let's not compare a Radiohead album with a Green Day album :)

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.

Re:Typical......

[macrom]

Bingo. If an artist puts out an album full of quality songs, then they don't have to worry about people only downloading a song or two from their latest release.

On another note : singles have been available for...well, probably for the duration of the recording industry. They just weren't $.99 unless you found them on sale. Now that you can get them on the cheap, big rich rock stars don't like that.

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.

One last thing for these artists : radio stations. They don't play your whole fucking album once an hour; why should I be forced to buy your whole album just because I hear the one song I like? Guys, keep biting the hand that feeds you because I already reach into my wallet less and less these days to buy music, especially from people who dictate to their customers how they should buy and listen to what they pay for.

Re:Typical......

[provolt]

Note that it's the usual "big" artists, who routinely ship out crap CDs with 2 decent songs, 10 fillers, and a greatest hits album every 18 months.

You obviously haven't listened to the lastest Madonna or Jewel albums. There isn't a single good song on them. It's all filler.

Re:Typical......

[Anonymous Coward]

Linkin Park has "many popular singles" because they keep releasing the same exact song over and over again.

Re:Typical......

[alangmead]

There is a difference between a record publisher releasing singles of an artist album, and releasing the whole album piecemeal.

Singles are carefully chosen, and their release carefully timed, to cause an increase in sales of the corresponding album.

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:Typical......

[jeffkjo1]

There are definitely some artists (or there used to be) that produce the album as a whole, rather than as a collection of songs. For example, the Beatle's Sgt. Pepper's as well as Pink Floyd made a point of that.

Agreed, but if I, for some reason, only want a copy of the Beatles "Fixing a Hole", and I want to BUY IT LEGALLY, why should I be required to buy the whole album? These artists are shooting themselves in the foot. People WANT TO BUY their material, maybe not all of it, and they are saying "No, you can only buy it the way I WANT you to."

This will only serve to drive fans away from the legal services and back onto Kazaa.

Re:Typical......

[Anonymous Coward]

So far, this isn't any artists. This is artists' attorneys. And these are artists' attorneys who are willing to say they represent multiple parties (artists) when discussing a topic. Normally, attorneys do not disclose multiple parties being represented -- they act to represent one client at a time. That means, these are the corporately-appointed attorneys who say what the music companies tell them to. Then they say they represent multiple big stars to the public, and have the public on its own incorrectly infer these artists are behind the whining. Instead, it is the music companies behind this -- seeking any way to discredit the movement to a new business model which ultimately means these artists, any artists, do not need the old music companies and their huge cut of sales.

Re:Typical......

[Karl Cocknozzle]

"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.

Radiohead may not be the problem, but the two "artists" whose rep was quoted in the header--Alanis Morissette and Will Smith--definitely are. Both represent the epitome of "manufactured" music...

The truth is, for real "artists" in the world (like Radiohead) having their album offerred one track at a time isn't a real problem because their real fans will still spring for the whole pre-packaged disc (or at least buy all 10-15 tracks on the iTunes store.)

The only people whose sales will diminish now that consumers have the choice of not buying the cruddy "filler" tracks are the manufactured stars we see today like Brittney Spears, Will Smith, and Alanis Morissette. Radiohead is just afraid of change... Their records will never be part of the "filler songs" problem. If anything they prove just the opposite: That the real fans (ie. you) will make your best effort to buy the whole thing in the most convenient form, and failing that, will still buy the CD at a retail location.

Re:Typical......

[Lysol]

I've listened to Radiohead for a *long* time and to see them jumping on the bandwagon with Madonna and the likes has bummed me out.

Look, yah, they probably get paid less, but if they're such artists then they should realize that people will still buy the cd for the art. Why should, for arts sake, it be any different if I downloaded the entire album vs. song by song? Or is it the whole 'you-get-the-cd-art' argument? Regardless, this specific issues doesn't really seem about art but obviously more about money.

And frankly, I hold people's art and opinions and thoughts all together. If someone made a totally political song and then went out and did the opposite, I'd think that's pretty lame. I'm not gonna necessairly write Radiohead off as a suck band now, but this statement will definitely call into question how I veiw them and their art.

I think the single song download has to stay alive - it's a way to keep artists in check. If an artist is really a kick ass artist, then everything they put out should be interesting. But if they're so-so, then why put up with the crap you don't like? This, if anything, should help the artist since labels want them to pump out as much crap as possible so they can sell as much and profit as much. The individual tune will let the 'consumer'/fan/whatever hold the power to actually say what they will and will not buy.

It's common knowledge the record industry is one step short of a crime syndicate (others may disagree). If artists are bitching about not making enough money, then disband and reband under a different name with an indie or some other label that will give you a bigger cut - bands do it all the time. There are plenty of people who still love the art and still make money and still have integrity. When the likes of Madonna and Linkin Park start whining about cash, then that's when my 'fuck-off' light goes on... *shrugs*

Re:Typical......

[manly_15]

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.

I'll admit it - I actually bought the special edition cd/dvd version of Linkin Park's latest CD, Meteora. If you watch the interviews, or just look at the design of the packaging, you will realize that LP tried (and IMHO succeded) to create a single work of art. Musically, the only way to properly listen to the CD is to listen to the whole thing at once. You just don't get as much out of their music if you listen to them as as singles. So give LP a break - if more artists thought this way about CD's then perhaps it would be worth the 20$ for the complete work.

Re:Typical......

[adamfranco]

Of the bands listed in the article, Radiohead is the only one who consistantly puts out albums as a "coherent work of art". All of their albums (at least since the Bends in 1995) have had a very definate theme that pervades all of the tracks on each album. Sort of equivallent to a symphony: most people only any one movement to any of Beathoven's symphonies, but whole symphony is really nessisary to apreciate the work.

Now I'm not saying that I should be prevented from downloading just one Radiohead song, -- they're quite helpful for seeing if the album is worth getting -- but Radiohead is somewhat justified in trying to keep their albums together as a single-work.

The advent of digital distribution could be a great thing for music in general. Pop-stars that only put out one hit per album can sell many more copies of that hit at $0.99 since customers won't have to balk at paying $17 for one song. Groups that really do put together coherent albums (of arbitrary length) can price those "artistic units" acordingly. Pretty much everybody wins. No more crap filler that is or needs to be produced.

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.

If people can't download single tracks legally...

[danny256]

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.

Translate-o-matic

[base3]

The fear among artists is that the work of art they put together, the album, will become a thing of the past

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.

This is complete BS

[coolmacdude]

Apple already reported that over half the songs sold so far on the iTMS were in album format. Aside from that, these people are missing the whole point of this service. That is the ability to preview which songs you like on an album and choose which ones to buy. If there is a CD that has one or two good songs and the rest are crap, do you think I'm going to spend $17 for two songs? No! But with the iTMS, the record labels make 1 or 2 dollars. If they go back to album only, they will make $0 from me.

Work of Art

[Uber Banker]

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.

Re:Work of Art

[GoofyBoy]

Why not just make the songs available in one big non-dividable format?

On one hand, they are ok with radio/videos broadcasting single songs (over and over and over again). On the other hand they want their music heard combined as a single piece of art.

On one hand they will sell cd/tape/tiny 6 inch plastic records of singles. On the other hand they have a problem selling the same song in a electronic format.

On one hand they will mix and match songs from multiple albums when they play in a live concert. On the other hand they act like the album must be heard in one sitting.

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:Work of Art

[Waffle Iron]

An album is not a work of art. It's an implementation detail. Before LP records, all music was released as singles (78 rpm and/or 45 rpm). Once the LP was introduced, songs were bundled together into albums. This was not because of "art", it was because it was cheaper per track to put ten songs on one disk with the new technology.

Now, technology shifts again, and electronic distribution makes the cost per track of singles similar to albums.

Anyway, who ever said that all artists always want to create a piece of "art" exactly 70 minutes long? Most music will be distributed as singles because most songs do fine as standalone works. Some artists will occasionally release a "concept" album that would work better bundled. The length of such a work will now be able to vary from a few minutes to many hours. This is no big deal.

Re:Work of Art

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Of course you've never listened to Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of The Moon". The experience you get from listening to the entire album is definitely different from listening to just one song from the album. I could go on...

Re:Work of Art

[faaaz]

"It should only take 5 seconds of music from a passing car to share a good vibe through music."

That's like saying a good book should be instantly appreciated after reading only one sentence.

Don't ge me wrong, some songs work like this and others don't. I tend to enjoy the others. People are different.

An example is a long trance track, I tend to enjoy those that build to a climax, or breakpoint. Those can't be appreciated in portions. Comparable to thematic classical pieces by Vivaldi.

And I wouldn't dare to listen to just one track from Tubular Bells {I,II}

Re:Work of Art

[fermion]

In my mind the art of the album is a smokescreen. I believe some artists work to make an album a wonderful listening experience from one beginning to end. They put in touches that can only be enjoyed at high fidelity. They interlace the songs and vary the emotion to create a moving experience. I will even stipulate that most of the listed artist work to do create such an effect.

I also believe that a true artist creates works that can and should be enjoyed as a subset. One does not have to listen to the entire performance of Swan Lake to be moved by oft played love theme. One can enjoy a photograph of a Kandinsky painting, even though it is difficult to appreciate the colors and textures.

Which is to say that the current protest is still about money. Look at the artists. They are all reasonable good. I own stuff from most of them. However, most of these artist are either at the end of their career, with no new blockbusters, or looking toward a time when they have no more block busters. How will they make money. Well, traditionally, they would put out over priced boxed sets, which the retail chains can sell, and do cross promotions for comeback tours and the like. The die hard fan will buy the boxed set just out of loyalty, and the casual fan might buy the boxed set because they never bought the original albums.

But what happens now? All but the most die hard fan is not going to buy the boxed set because they already have created the box set themselves. The low level fan is totally lost because they have already downloaded the 12 songs they like for $12, and certainly are not going to spend $20 to just to get the 3 more songs they hate. This is bad for the artist and label. They did not sell the albums up front. They cannot sell the compilations now. It screws up the business model.

The best example I have seen of this is on Apple with the song American Pie. Don McLean knows on which side his bread is buttered, and therefore does not sell this song alone. You can buy any other song on the album as single, but not this one. It makes good business sense to do this, but don't insult our intelligence by claiming artistic integrity.

Re:Work of Art

[Jad LaFields]

Quick comment: While what you say about singles is true for most artists, one specific example is Radiohead actually. They decided that their album Kid A should be only taken as a whole, and so AFAIK they did not release any singles and refused to allow radio stations to play only a single track off the album (despite being a very popular, high-selling band that I'm sure a number of radio stations would love to be able to play). So I'm willing to chalk their no-one-song downloads as less of whining hypocrasy and more of a extension on their established beliefs.

They are lazy

[crea5e]

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.

Re:They are lazy

[Bedouin X]

Exactly, ultimately they have to realize that the wheels are falling off of the Gravy Train and the bar has been raised as a result of consumer demand. These guys about face every minute. One second it's all about the fans, the next second it's all about the art. It can't be all about both at the same time so if they were smart they'd just accept the happy medium - which this a la carte download system appears to be nearing - and try to exploit it to their own benefit.

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

the solution is simple....

[katalyst]

let the user download the WHOLE album for 99cents. :D

Because 14 of 15 songs suck?

[miffo.swe]

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.

Concept albums

[the_Bionic_lemming]

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.

Re:Concept albums

[Jeremy Erwin]

Concept albums were killed off by the "shuffle tracks" function on a CD player. Some artists (Prince, perhaps) have responded by making one track albums.

It would be nice if a intelligent shuffle routine could be devised-- so , for instance, the 5 parts of a violin concerto could be heard, as a unit-- without disrupting the listener's ability to hear just one movement, if he so chooses.

Bitch and moan

[christurkel]

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.

Fear among Artists: Translation

[Dormous]

"The fear among artists is that the work of art they put together, the album, will become a thing of the past."

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

Do like the artists of old did...

[Anonymous Coward]

earn your money doing live concert tours. Half of these idiototic, "so called" musicians, like Will Smith do not even play musical instruments. Go to a Will Smith show and watch him run around on stage rapping to pre-recorded music tracks from a cd player behind the stage is not exactly my idea of entertainment.

Would you rather spend $ 40.00 go to watch talented artists like Rush or Dream Theatre, or the talentless Karaoke artists like Eminem or Will Smith ?

Proabably if your old enough to remember what good music is all about.

I agree

[TinoMNYY24]

I just wanted to post my two cents in here, mostly because I don't want to be forced to moderate this discussion. I think most people on SlashDot will agree that the current trend that the music industry is taking is very stupid. From ridiculous "copy protection" that destroys computers and CD drives to prosecuting music fans, to now trying to continue forcing customers to buy 10 shitty songs along with the 1 that they want...the music industry in general is isolating their true fans. The people that they could make money from are the hardcore music fans. People who mass-download shit off P2P networks, find artists that they enjoy, and support them. When I download music by a rare artist that I heard was good, I try to find a way to send them money without going through the label. If they have a website, I paypal money to their contact address, or I click their donate link if the have one. If there isn't any way to give them money, I buy their new album when it comes out. There's no way to get fans if no one hears your music. Clear Channel radio won't play anything that no one knows about, and no one wants to pay $20 for music that they don't know they will like or not.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), Letter to Josiah Quincy, Sept. 11, 1773.

Well????

[SerpentMage]

Ok I am going to say that artists actually get half decent deals.

First getting 12 cents on the dollar is not bad when you consider the going rate for book authors. Authors traditionally get anywhere 5% to 20% from what the publishers get, which is traditionally 40% to 60% of the retail price. And guess what happens to royalities to foreign countries and book clubs... You guessed it, DOWN THE TUBES.

In other words artists get about 20% to 30% royalities. So if you do not mind, I am going to cry some crodile tears right now!

Re:Well????

[SerpentMage]

1) The copyright may be in the name of the author, but if you look at the contracts the publisher has exclusive rights to print and dictate how the book is printed. A writer can buy the plates and then do what they may. The writer has NO flexibility. I give you an example. I know a writer who used to write for WROX. WROX went belly up and his rights to his books went belly up as well. Result? Other companies scooped up the books and can print the titles without paying a DAMM cent to the writer? Why because bankruptcy law allows it.

2) I was comparing apples with oranges. The 12 cents was calculated on the dollar. A writer does not typically calculate on the dollar, but on the amounts that the publishing house receives. Therefore subtracting from the article the amount that the seller and middle person receives you get about 20% to 30% royality rate for the artist.

When I saw those stats the artist is not that badly off!

"Work of Art" vs. Filler

[wherley]

Put together a "Work of Art" and I'll buy it complete!
Push out 1 hit + 9 filler songs and you don't deserve to argue this line!

For example, you would be a fool to buy singles off these "Works of Art":

Alan Parsons _I Robot_
Van Morrison _Hard Nose to the Highway_
Lucinda Williams _World Without Tears_
Jennifer Warnes - _Famous Blue Raincoat_

Re:"Work of Art" vs. Filler

[DeadScreenSky]

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.

Re:Of Course

[Psiren]

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.

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.

Re:I say let 'em do what they want.

[bryanthompson]

good point. musicians are businessmen, not artists.

Those that are real artists put out quality stuff becuase they want to, so they make more money by default. Plus, consumers like to support these types of artists more.

the problem is, we started accepting pop-culture garbage which was created for the only purpose of selling. How many popular bands do you hear on the radio that actually started in a garage, playing for proms and birthdays? Not too many.

Most of the crap out there is reprocessed garbage, and they know it. I think that's why they don't people buying one song at a time.

The shift from feeding the customers garbage to actually listening to what the customer wants and providing it is a huge step; one that they dont' want to take.

No Single, No Sale

[nattt]

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.

Utter nonsense

[CmdrGravy]

"...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.

Maybe the artists are right!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, I have a pretty "off the wall" idea here. Maybe, just maybe, the artists are right for once.

Most of my favourite bands aren't really "single makers". With the likes of Pink Floyd and Radiohead the albums themselves are much more than the sum of their parts. Taking out individual singles doesn't fit in with their style of music making.

I don't agree with the commercial arguments but artistically I think they're right. So shoot me.

Albums themselves are oddities

[Moldy-Rutabaga]

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

I'm really out of the loop...

[MungoBBQ]

Am I the only one who read the sentence "The 99 cent downloads are stirring some discussion in the music community." and thought that "99 cent" was some new hip-hop artist I hadn't heard of?

Name Some Albums Where All Music Is Good

[webword]

As a very serious exercise, try to name albums where every track is good or great. Off the top of my head, I can only name a few from my own collection. I did a quick review of my 120 CDs and only 6 of the CDs fit this description. That's only 5% of the total.

By the way, what albums of yours fit this description? What are some "perfect" albums that are good from start to finish? I'm always looking for good stuff, especially hard rock and heavy metal! ;-)

Re:Name Some Albums Where All Music Is Good

[finkployd]

Pink Floyd:
Another Brick in the Wall
Dark Side of the Moon

The Who:
Tommy

The Beatles:
Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band

These are albums meant to be listented to in their entirety. They are true works or art. Even if you do not particularly like this type of music (I personally never liked Tommy), you have to appreciate the amount of work and attention to detail that obviously went into every song to make it fit with the whole.

Finkployd

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:Name Some Albums Where All Music Is Good

[bobm17ch]

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...

Re:Name Some Albums Where All Music Is Good

[Enry]

I don't buy a CD unless:

1) The artist is a known quantity (Seal, Radiohead, Enigma, Faith No More, Paul Oakenfold)
2) Heard two songs from said CD and liked it.

If I want singles, I go grab the 'best of'. Too bad I don't listen to the radio much anymore, but it's pretty rare for a radio station to play more than two songs off a CD.

Re:Name Some Albums Where All Music Is Good

[Animixer]

Ok, here's a few more (no repeats from parent):

Steely Dan - Pretzel Logic, Aja
Jean Michel Jarre - Oxygene
Peter Gabriel - Us
Dire Straits - Money for Nothing
Dave Brubeck Quartet - Time Out
Rush - Moving Pictures
Fleetwood Mac - Rumours
Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young - So Far
U2 - The Joshua Tree

Re:Name Some Albums Where All Music Is Good

[Marlor]

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

If I was going to pay to download the White Album, I'd skip downloading Revolution 9. Everyone I know skips that self-indulgent "sound-collage" when playing the CD anyway. Even the White Album has at least one song that isn't up to par.

However, I agree that you can't listen to Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" or "The Wall" properly if you skip any tracks.

Re:Name Some Albums Where All Music Is Good

[OgGreeb]

The real question is: which albums would suffer if the tracks were played in reverse order, or in random order. The albums which can't survive this test should be sold as a unit, perhaps as a 50MB single track for $8...

Work of Art - Albums as a

[StringBlade]

The only album that jumps straight to my mind as a work of art that is not complete unless it's whole is Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. Each song flows into the next creating an essentially unbreakable hour-long song. None of these artists do anything remotely close to that and I can't agree that these albums they talk of are a singular work of art. Mostly they are poorly arranged collections of small works of art (such as a private home gallery).

Re:Work of Art - Albums as a

[izzylobo]

There are some others - Queensryche's "Operation Mindcrime", ELO's "Time", and Styx's "Mr. Roboto" spring to mind, and there are others as well (perhaps Sting's "Ten Summoner's Tales") that while not directly linked, are thematically linked in some fashion or another, such that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Nonetheless, it is certainly true that the average album is a collection of songs, rather than a coherent whole - while there may be planning and thought that goes into designing the album (we need a ballad, a couple of rockin' tunes, some dance-y stuff, and an experimental piece...) it's not like the entire album is sculpted towards any theme other than "sell the album", in general - and in many cases, it's more "fill the album with sixty-seventy minutes of music, so the fans don't feel cheated.

But, well, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Re:Work of Art - Albums as a

[The-Bus]

Here's a few others, all very recent albums.

Mr. Lif's I Phantom and Prince Paul's Prince Among Thieves : Both concept albums (the latter being an opera), which can be sampled as single songs, but can't be enjoyed as a full album. I Phantom has recurring characters and storylines throughout and the final two songs are about the apocalypse which ultimately destroys everyone that was described earlier in the album.

Beck's Sea Change is Beck's break-up album, and the album moves through different views and feelings he has until the final song, where he realizes what he did and how he got to where he is ("I never thought I'd live / Till the ugly truth / Showed me what it did").

Air's City Reading is a group of three westerns read by their author, Alessandro Baricco, over backing music by Air. Again, no single song really does it justice.

Then there's just tons of albums that are very good where every song is amazing, but these are all concept albums where it doesn't make sense to have only one song. Bottom line: You don't need to make a concept album. Make an album with good songs and no filler and we will buy the entire album.

Re:Make better albums?

[Angry White Guy]

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!

Because the album IS dead

[Apreche]

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.

SUPPORT FREEDOM OF MUSIC.

[garcia]

Instead of paying please support your artists that allow the free taping/trading of their music (either via P2P or other methods).

Bonnaroo BitTorrents are here

Check out FurthurNET

Also check etree

Amazingly enough The Grateful Dead (The OtherOnes and now The Dead), Phish, and Neil Young/Crazyhorse) allow the free taping/trading of their music and look how popular they are and how long they have been around.

I want to see the day when we are still listening to Alanis 40 years from now while she's on tour.

Re:SUPPORT FREEDOM OF MUSIC.

[rocjoe71]

Yeah, but those band have to play 100-150 concerts a year in front of 2-3 million fans (some of whom will follow them around the entire country) just to pull down a measely 80-90 million dollars.

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!

Death to Albums

[agentkhaki]

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).

Re:Of Course

[jkabbe]

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.

Linkin Park talking about being cheated?

[weave]

It's ironic that Linkin Park is in on this "protest." Their two latest CDs are only half an album anyway. 35 minutes each. Each song is only about 3 minutes. So 99 cents a piece is a good deal for them. In fact, I was able to put both of their latest CDs onto one 80 minute CD-R (uncompressed, normal CD audio format).

Hey, but at least I got a playable Mac and PC version of Warcraft 3 demo on the CD, so the record labels at least didn't let all of the CD go to waste. But when I saw that, my first thought was, ah, any room left for any actual music? Yeah, a whopping 35 minutes worth.

Low quality album + Digital comb = singles market

[Vandil X]

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.

Hold on now......

[spj524]

Artists don't sit around and contemplate over 2 songs they think are "good" then go out and make "filler" for the rest of the CD. These guys are ego driven. They have a montage of people telling them, "Oh man that was great! Thatâ(TM)s going to be a hit!" on every song! The label decides what song is so catchy that you will immediately run out and buy the CD. Thatâ(TM)s why you only hear 1 song come out.

And I agree with the artists. You wouldnâ(TM)t cut just they eyes out of the Mona Lisa and framed them just because thatâ(TM)s all thatâ(TM)s all you liked. A CD is a compilation of their âartâ(TM) even if parts of the art suck.

I would also agree that these should take a back seat to this argument. Letâ(TM)s get this âNew Industryâ(TM) up and rolling to SAVE the music industry. Then you can worry about what you sell on a CD. Hopefully this ânew industryâ(TM) will encourage more artists and better artists â" ones who can make a full 74 minutes worth listening to.

Seth

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

Re:Albums are already a thing of the past!

[FrostedWheat]

N'Sync, Spears, Idol stars, etc.

You misspelled 'idiot'.

Re:Albums are already a thing of the past!

[LordKronos]

Name the last album you listened to that had a theme
Coincidentally, 3 out of 5 CD's in my car right now are concept albums.
Dream Theater - Metropolis Part 2: Scenes from a Memory
Iron Maiden - Seventh Son of a Seventh Son
Queensryche - Operation: Mindcrime

Out of over 300 CD's the only other concepts I think I have are Spock's Beard - Snow and Pink Floyd - The Wall. You could possibly also count Dream Theater - 6 Degrees of Inner Turbulence. Its a 2CD set with one of the CD's being a large concept song.

I'm sure there are a few more that aren't really concepts but seem to have a general reoccurring theme. Rush - Vapor Trails seems to have a general theme about dealing with loss (Neil Peart's only daughter died in car accident, then his wife died of cancer less than 1 year later) and pulling yourself back up onto your feet. Dream Theater - Falling Into Infinity seems to have a recurring theme (though not in every song)about them being fed up with being controlled by the record companies.

Then of course, I guess you could also say Kid Rock's CD's have a recurring them of talking about himself, and seeing if he can remember to say his own name in every song.

Artists Apparently Against Anti-Trust Laws

[Ada_Rules]

In the US, there are anti-trust laws that say that you can not (under specific rules) force people to buy one less desireable product in order to get a more "desireable" product. It is called bundling and in some cases it is a violation of anti-trust law.

This is one of the area's that Microsoft was getting in trouble for with bundling the browser with the OS since in order to get the "desireable" product (cough...windows) you HAD to buy (bundled) the Browser.

So, apparently the artists are in favor of Big Money/Anti-competative/Corporate rip-offs...As long as it is in the name of art.

You know, I think strip mining is an important artistic commentary on our world today..I think I will try to bring it back in the name of Art.

At least Madonna and Alanis Morissette will be on my side.

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.

Obligatory Copyright Infringement != Larceny Post

[Bedouin X]

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.

morality ...

[Heisenbug]

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.

Work of art?

[aliens]

They're being very stupid on this one. They say they don't want their "art" to be chopped up and hence ruined. So what about shuffle on my CD player you want that taken away too?

These people make me sick, glad I didn't goto that mess of a radiohead show here in NY a few weeks ago.

Can you imagine a painter sitting in a gallery and whenever someone came in and looked at his painting from a different angle than he wanted; he'd come running over crying like a bitch and force you to stand, 85.5degrees from center, clamp open your eyelids so you can't not look at any of it and keep you there for 1:15?

I'm done buying any music from the RIAA sponsored pukes. Before I was iffy, but now I'm certain I can find better, free as in expression, and cheap as in price bands to listen to.

I know why artists are pissed...

[telstar]

With tracks being sold one-by-one the can no longer do that hidden track gimmick that got old in '83.
Personally, I'm just curious what the the track-by-track pricing scheme would be for an album like "NIN-Broken" where they've got about 90 tracks of silence. Do those go for 99cents too?

Music "ARTISTS"?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I see their point

[CmdrGravy]

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.

What about music and value added?

[fmaxwell]

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.

Re:Of Course

[jkabbe]

Indeed, there is definately a market out there. Whats I was ranting about was people trying to hide behind some dumb excuse, rather than just admit they were stealing it because they could.

If you look around the bulletin boards and ask around you will see that many people who used to download are now using the iTMS because it meets their needs.

Many people want to pay but simply didn't like the payment options available.

Does that justify stealing? No. But it's not dumb. And it's not stealing "just because they could." If it were, these people would just have continued to steal.

There is a market. The artists just need to find it! Apple's iTMS is a good start.

There was plenty of shit in the 70s too

[Chuck Chunder]

It's simply that time has erased the majority of that shit from our memories.

Dark Side of the Moon

[pq]

Even if there isn't any such thing as the "dark side" of the oon, this Pink Floyd album is one of the all time great albums.

Also, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart Club Band - another set of songs conceived as an album, almost perfect.

Dark Side of the Moon is an ALBUM and work of art.

[Picass0]

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.

Albums Are Dead, It's The Download Age.

[jodo]

Art is lead by technology. In the field of recorded music, the album came to the front when the lp (long playing) format was invented. Eight track, cassette, cd and dvd followed. But prior to the lp we had a golden age of singles. Which fit into the jukebox format, a critical element of the past. And throughout all of this radio played single cuts almost exclusively.
Now we are in the download age. Pick a track. Singles by definition.
It will no longer make economic sense to commit to the investment it takes to produce a 10 song album. (they used to be twelve)
Now the smart money producers will take a project in for two or three cuts based on the one song they think is a hit. Just like in the old days. No need for an album because albums are not what is selling.
I think this will produce better stuff to listen to. And more product too. This is good for artists and songwriters. There will be more diversity and opportunity.Because of technology advances recording is itself becoming almost trivial and affordable to the masses. Of course the greedy-scaly hand of the RIAA oligopoly must be released from the throat of our culture for all to truly benefit.

Concept albums

[pvera]

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.

In Other News:

[iCEBaLM]

Linkin Park, Radiohead, Madonna, Jewel and Green Day are protesting music listeners policy of single-song listening.

Billie Joe Armstrong, the lead singer for Green Day was quoted as saying: "We made all of those songs on our album and arrainged them in an order. You should listen to them from the first track to the last, that's how we intended them to be listened to. Listening to just one track in the middle is classified a derivative work and we will sue you fools! Now pass the bong Tre."

Or is it simply....

[JackJudge]

...the case that the labels will start to realise most artists can only put three or four decent tracks on an album and the rest is filler material ? I know I know, there's exceptions to this, but let's face it, 90% of the stuff churned out by today's manufactured bands is crap. I think it's more a case of the artists running scared that instead of signing a mega-bucks 3 album deal, which is gonna be mostly them treading water in the studio, it might set a precendent where they get paid purely by commission on how popular individual songs are. Hey who knows, the Top 40 might have relevance again!

Solution

[SemperUbi]

1. Make an album available for $0.99/track initially.
2. Monitor sales of each track for a few weeks.

After this initial period:

3. 'Popular' tracks (over some threshold # of sales/week) would retain the 99 cent price.
4. Less popular tracks could be downloaded at 25 cents each (or whatever) by any user purchasing one of the more popular tracks.
5. Users choosing to download an entire album would get an additional discount, and free downloads of whatever cover art or text the artists wanted to make available.

Some variant of this system would ensure that the whole-album format would survive. What won't survive are the ridiculously high profit margins.

Major Artists Respond Out Of Fear...

[Axigrav]

Major Artists respond out of fear because generally they are making a good and many times wealthy living on the "old" model of the music business. The more people hear them the more likely they go to the concerts where the real money is made. They are all used to the model -- is has worked for them for decades. It would be easier for artists and the major labels to just keep using that model. The problem is that their customers want a different model. They just don't know how to give us what we want while not loosing the bank. WE NEED TO LET THE ARTISTS KNOW THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEM!

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!

Alanis Morissette?

[Halo1]

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...

Albums seen as a whole

[xWeston]

I can see why some music artists would feel this way. personally I dont know if i like an artist/album unless i listen to it all of the way through because I view albums as one piece of work with a bunch of seperate parts.

People that only listen to the radio for their music might never even hear another song except for the single off of an album and I think that would be hard for me to do. I like listening to albums all the way through from Track 1 to Track End, not on shuffle or repeat.

There are themes among other things that are woven into the songs, and the arrangement of them is picked for a reason (although for some bands it is probably just marketing).

What we really need

[nexus987]

What we really need is a way to just buy parts of songs. Like the chorus or the verse. Hell, I'd just like to buy the first four measures of a couple of songs. That's worth probably $.05 or $.10, right?

NOW! That's what I call MAKING MONEY!

[The Monster]

How much does Boobney or N*STINK get out of one of those compilation CDs with the songs that the Top 40 stations have played to death for the previous 6 months? My guess is 'damned little'. The record companies participate in those for the same reason they have always sold singles:

The single is an ad for the album.

I'd bet that only the top 1% selling artists have the clout to get a provision in their contracts forbidding the sale of one song without the rest of the album to protect the 'integrity of the work'.

Well what???

[stankulp]

"In other words artists get about 20% to 30% royalities. So if you do not mind, I am going to cry some crodile tears right now!"

No, they don't.

The contract may state that, but it also states all the "expenses" that come out of the percentage.

Courtney Love did the math a few years ago, and it hasn't changed.

Re:Here's one I've used

[Likes Microsoft]

I'm one of the old school suckers. I'm certainly capable of using online to purchase tracks, and then burning to a CD for listening in my car. I love albums, though. I just bought the new Radiohead album without even sampling one track, because I know I love their albums.

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.

I can name quite a few artists...

[kypper]

...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.

Gotta take issue with this real quick ...

[thedbp]

I kinda sorta see what you're saying. But I really do have to take issue with some of this prattle.

all it takes is one vibe. Those vibes add up in the forms of choruses, verses, and catchy melodies.

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.

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 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.

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.

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."

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...

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

There's only one peach with the hole in the middle

[marmoset]

I discovered my love of music at a fairly young age. I don't know if my family was any more musical than any other typical family of non-musicians living in the Detroit area in the late 60s/early 70s, but many of my earliest memories are of songs we'd hear on the radio while on weekend trips, shopping excursions and camping outings. I have vague memories of being in love with songs like "Tears Of A Clown" and "Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye" and "Love Will Keep Us Together" and "Silly Love Songs", though at that early date (around 5-7 years old) I couldn't have told you who performed them or even have done much more than hum the chorus for you. I can remember the very first single I ever purchased, though. I liked a song by Joe Tex called I Gotcha, which research shows was a hit in 1972, which means I was about 5 years old, and that sounds about right. I can't remember whether Mom gave me money to buy it or whether she just asked me to pick out a 45 while we were at the store. In any even, I know for sure that it was the first non-"kids record" I ever owned myself. I have vague memories of playing my older sister's records, but nothing really specific from that early on.

My first "real" album purchase didn't happen until years later: Parliament's Mothership Connection. Even after I bought my first albums, though, for years my musical purchases overwhelmingly came in the form of 45 RPM, 7-inch singles. American singles of the time were very distinctive looking. Unlike European singles, which replicated the small center holes of 12-inch albums, U.S. singles sported a large center hole. This meant that you usually needed some sort of adapter to play them on a standard turntable. The little plastic adapters were somewhat fragile and impractical, but they sure are a wonderfully iconic element of a bygone age, aren't they?

The prevalence of singles among my early purchases was largely practical. I got a small allowance, which if I remember started out at 25 cents a week, then escalated through 50 cents a week, a dollar a week, and finally $5 a week by the time I entered middle school. When I first started buying singles regularly, they went for about 99 cents to $1.25 apiece. That got you a (usually edited) single mix and a b-side, some of which were purest filler and some of which were fascinating. It would probably seem alien to a music buyer younger than, oh 25 or so, but up until the mid 1980s or so record stores would stock hundreds or even thousands of 7-inch singles, with the top sellers proudly displayed on the walls. Singles were a huge part of the music business, and a lot of record stores devoted just as much space to singles as they did to albums.

My music buying took off in earnest when I turned 12 and got my first paper route. I discovered many artists via 45s during this period, many of which I would come to love and by many many albums by in subsequent years. Some early 45's I bought were by Kraftwerk, XTC, the Police, the B-52s, Devo, Gary Numan, and Yellow Magic Orchestra. I mention this not to try to buld up any cred points, but to point out that the easy, cheap availability of music by these artists made it possible for me to try new things musically without a lot of risk. Albums were a formidable $5-$7 apiece, and $7 bought a lot of M&Ms and Hot Wheels. A kid with a paper route just didn't have a lot of dosh to blow on any full-length album that wasn't a sure thing. For a while, the record industry was fine with this. They'd made a mint on bands like the Beach Boys in the 1960s, who were practically hit single machines, releasing multimillion selling single after single, which would eventually get compiled onto albums almost as an afterthought. Of course, as bands like the Beatles (and eventually the Beach Boys themselves) gained more artistic control they began to deliver albums that stood as coherent statements, but for a long

I will NOT buy a CD album anymore

[pabtro]

Yesterday I purchased the last CD from Radiohead. Besides the perceived musical involution, I noticed that I *could not* play the CD in my computer ("files needed to be modified first"). I now, this isn't new, but this is the first time for me. I think this is the last time I buy a music CD. Downloaded music is much better; it saves space, it it cheap, I get what I want and I can play the music everywhere.

Re:Well???? ( A quick lesson in publishing)

[skribble]

$0.12 per $1 isn't bad (in fact it's quite good). That said I don't think you really know what you are talking about. First I'm quite sure that just like book publishing, Musicians royalties are based off the price the price which the publisher sells the product, not retail. (And these prices are crazy, some sales channels pay more per unit then others... etc.)

From a book publishing POV (which I have quite a bit of experience), a large percentage of books published *loose money*! Most authors never earn out their advances, and often publishers don't recoup thier editorial and printing expenses. The publisher only makes money off of a very few best sellers. This of course has the effect of the few best selling authors occasionally making a fuss about how they get ripped off by the publishers.

Now the average author, often complains that they didn't make much money for the work involved (which is unfortunately often the case), 9/10 times here the authors still make more money then the publisher (infact they are usually the only one's who make any money). This is how the business works. There's no telling what will sell and for what reason, there are literally millions of great authors and great books that never ever sell. Why? Well if can figure that one out ahead of time then there's a future for you in publishing! If you are Steven King you can get 40% Royalties and Millions of dollars in advances, because a publihser can be pretty sure to make something off of it, everyone else needs to play the game, otherwise nobody *could* play the game.

That aside... there is one really hugh difference traditionally between Books and Music. With book publishing the author usually walks away with all of thier royalties (if they earn them out to begin with) minus a small reserve against returns (which ultimately the author gets back, if they remember to ask for it!). Any book marketing and publicity done by the publisher is paid for by the publisher. Most editorial and printing costs are paid for by the publishier too. In music almost everything is charged back against the royalties, and the marketing dollars that music publishers spend with artists money for "promotion" is crazy high, and in most cases eats up royalties and makes it impossible for the artists to get any.

BTW I don't feel sorry Artists, they should know what they are getting in to before the do it. They get to live doing what they love, and while they might all live like superstars the quality musicians get bye. Most of the big complainers are lucky to be where they are (Cortney Love, please!)

Of course the issue above isn't about any of that, it's about the musicians wanting to have a say in how thier art is conveyed. I think they should, the money thing aside, at the end of the day they created something, and they should have some say in how it's used. If they feel thier music should only be played as an album... well, whatever, they have that right (of course then turning around and releasing a bunch of singles and videos doesn't do much for there "artistic credibility", but oh well, hypocrisy or ignorance isn't a crime (though maybe it should be))

Re:Well???? ( A quick lesson in publishing)

[SerpentMage]

Not much to say, except that I basically agree with you...

I write as well and finally I found a publisher I like....

I was annoyed by the musicians whining constantly about this, that or the other thing. They should live the life of a writer sometime and see how it is! Poor mostly!

They should be EMBRACING this!

[Winterblink]

As "artists", looking at what songs are downloaded more than others can be invaluable feedback on what kind of music you're creating is popular. How often do these people get the kind of feedback from their loving labels that tells them out of fifteen songs on their last album users thought songs one, four and eight are their most popular? And that say songs fourteen and fifteen were the least popular? I mean technically they could look at that and say "Whoa, if we did an album that sounded like those two songs it's going to not sell as well, or get such crummy reviews we'd be out of the biz."

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.

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."

Re:KID A had filler, and so did Amnesiac

[owlicks58]

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.

Re:KID A had filler, and so did Amnesiac

[Arti]

I felt the same way about A Tale of Two Cities and Robotech. But once I combined still frames of cuttings from Dickens with the giant robot action of Robotech I found a deeper meaning and a more enjoyable reading/watching experience.

If Dickens can't understand that then he has no business serialising his works in newspapers and making it easy for people like me to cut out and recombine half a chapter at a time.

Classical music not a business?

[3riol]

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.

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?

180 degrees away from truth

[uncadonna]

Obviously, digital distribution improves the artist's ability to create longer works, and absolutely does not limit it in any way.

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.

Re:Well???? ( A quick lesson in publishing)

[mcpkaaos]

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

dealing with an unpleasant truth

[bob dobalina]

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.

Their arguments are not supported by their actions

[ValentineMSmith]

If the reason behind not wishing to sell singles is that these works were designed as an album, and were not meant to be sold seperately, then would someone pray tell me the reason behind the existance of:

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.

If it were REALLY a work of art ...

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

""The fear among artists is that the work of art they put together, the album, will become a thing of the past,""

"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.

hypocrites

[prockcore]

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.

I didn't even read the article but...

[neoevans]

...I don't think I had to. It's pretty obvious these so-called "artists" are only interested in one thing, money.
I've seen big-ticket artists' albums go for up to $35 in stores, for a measly 15-song CD and I think these rich-ass bastards like it that way. Someone must have told them that if only 5 of the songs on the release are any good, they stand to lose that $30 worth of "filler" tracks they recorded as an after-thought over a weekend to get the album released on time.
I mean, Radiohead is one of my favorite bands, but they release 3 albums a year!

Why?

What happened anyways? 50 Years ago being a musician wasn't the height of society, and now they get more respect, privelage, and money than any other profession!

I seriously think this whole digital music revolution is nothing more than the long overdue wake-up call for everyone in the music industry who thought this was going to last forever.

Re:Well???? ( A quick lesson in publishing)

[1lus10n]

you asked: "Would you be so keen to chop your books into chapters to be sold invididually?"

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 .... usually breaks down to something like 1 or 2% profit. their major bank is touring.

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.

What about the present?

[wfrp01]

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.

I didn't realize that Will Smith's albums were even a thing of the present.

The only victim

[redtail1]

The only thing the online trend is going to threaten is greatest hits discs. There will be less reason for them to exist.

Easy solution

[unix0rn]

Two ways these "artists" can solve the problems they face with single son downloads:
1. Stop making 1 or 2 creative songs and then stuffing the rest of the album with filler noise.
2. Try their hand at "rock operas": Each song on the album is part of a story and theme centric. Getting just one song wouldn't make alot of sense since it is just one part of the album.

Of course, this will be effective in weeding out the real talent from the zero talent and that would send alot of "stars" back to flipping burgers...

Re:single vs full

[spike it]

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.

78s in fact

[HughsOnFirst]

'When the "recording industry" first started, individual songs were sold on 45's. People would buy books (similar to picture albums) in which they would store their records. '

Umm, 78s in fact. I have a few 78 "albums" myself.

Back in the days of the 78s, the really good ones only had one side with music on it. The other side had a trademark covering it.

Re:fools -- David Lynch especially

[Nom du Keyboard]

If you go rent (or own) David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive"...the DVD has no chapter stops, you can only play it straight through

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!

The Devils Advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

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?