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

[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

[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

[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.

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......

[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......

[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......

[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......

[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.

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

[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.

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

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

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: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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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...

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?

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.

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

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))

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."

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?

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.

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.

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...