Slashdot Mirror
Record Labels Struggle With the Album's Demise
Supplying yet more evidence, if more were needed, of the dire straits the music business increasingly finds itself in — reader cphilo sends us a NYTimes article about the death of the album as the mainstay of profit, and the record labels' struggle to adopt to the new realities. The article notes the trend of the labels signing artists for a single song, maybe two, and a ring tone.
Oh wait...
I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
The reason why sales are down on albums is cause they were always inflated in the past. They used to sell CD singles at full price (lets say $10), the album that would follow later in time (also priced at $10) with a total sale of $20. Now you can buy the single for a $1 and if you want the full CD for $10, with a difference of $9, thats where alot of the profit has been lost. Those are just made up numbers but it gets the point across.
It seems to me that they went out of their way to kill the album. You can select almost any album from the Big Four[Sony BMG, EMI, Universal, Warner] these days and pick out which 2-3 songs they will release on radio and make videos for, and which 10 are utter crap just there to fill the CD.
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
Over exposed, radio played acts are the only ones who need to sign two song contracts and make it into the top twenty. I still enjoy entire albums, from REAL artists. Of course, I'm a fan of concept albums... Maybe if more musicians made their albums one cohesive piece of art we wouldn't have these problems. Oh wait, our short attention span guarantee that we would.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
Yeah they are in Dire Straights. They need to Rush and abandon their Cheap Tricks and keep their Doors open to a new Genesis, or get crushed under the Rolling Stones of progress. One day when you mention the RIAA, your buddy will respond, "The Who?"
Who'd pay $10 - $15 for a CD of third rate material with effects and dynamic range compression 'compensating' for lack of artist talent?
That sounds pretty cool, I would! But.. I'm afraid of viruses. CD-s are scary...
With all songs costing about the same, there's no reason to buy the album.
If the "hit" costs $8 and you like 3 other songs for $1 each, you'll gladly pay $10 for the album.
If record stores want to make money, put the album out for purchase before releasing singles, and price the album and individual tracks at whatever the market will bear.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I'll just start by saying that I'm a musician and a music lover and that an album that is put together as a piece of art is a beautiful thing - but just like any art that's put together for commercial purposes, an album that's designed as a vehicle for a few singles and some filler songs isn't.
Not every artist has the ability to release 50-70 minutes of truly compelling art, and most of the buying public is more than happy to listen to singles. Conversely, some artists seem to be constricted by the 78 minute limit of CDs.
It would be a good thing if the music industry was flexible enough to let artists release what they wanted (or wanted to sell) in whatever format (in terms of single/EP/album) as opposed to this 2-years = new full-length album mentality, some artists might like to release a single every few months, while some release an EP every year and others an album every few years.
"damnit, trolley I want in your signature." - Elburrito
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
The music industry used to be BUILT on the sales of singles. It really wasn't until the mid-to-late 80s that they started focusing on trying to sell entire albums.
It was the CD that did it. The "coolness" of CDs made everyone kind-of forget about singles, and how handy they were. And they were more expensive, which the record companies obviously loved. Yeah, they did/do sell CD singles, but it's obvious that they don't want anyone to buy them. They're overpriced, and there aren't many of them available.
But at this point, CDs are NOT cool. They're old and busted, and dull. And they're STILL expensive. More expensive.
The record companies just can't give it up, though. They had this 20-year-run of making WAY more money than they had any right to (thanks to the CD revolution), but now it's over, and they're trying to freeze the clock.
What do you expect, they raised the prices when they brought out CDs with the promise that once the technology get efficient the price would come down. Then later. They kept raising the price (even for older tunes, try to buy something good form a pop band in the 80s, usually still $17).
So people are limited to choose either:
- an inflated new album price ($17+)
- a reasonable priced album if bought used ($10 or less, but no added profit to music biz)
- buying only the (good) songs people want on-line ($2 to $4 depending on artist, sometimes only $1)
- Of course this is very limited people have to have the right computer, OS, listening devices, etc.
- tape off the air ($0, low quality) digitize etc.
- piracy ($0 low karma)
The obvious would be to actually make the albums more affordable, but that seems way beyond the concept of the music industry.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
I'm kind of tired of hearing these discourses on old business models, thinkoftheartists, and other old school crap. Sure, perhaps that doesn't make a lot of sense point blank, but lets face it, the CD and DVD and now other media types give artists and the **AA member businesses the method to create art that is truly worth $18. The fact that they don't get it is reason enough for them to slowly die off.
Has anyone else caught wind of the NIN viral marketing that they are doing right now for a new album? They "GET IT" with how to use the new media and Internet. If the **AA actually got it we would not be having news stories like this. The **AA is losing, they are luddites of the new age, they are consciously killing themselves. If they would simply get on with it, create content that people would want to pay for, we could all rest easier.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
I rarely listen to one entire album. In most, there are a few good songs I like and I'll add those to my playlist, in addition to particular songs from others.
For the one night wonders, maybe - but not for *real* musicians.
Take banks like Jethro Tull or Pink Floyd for example. Listening to one song doesn't really mean anything, you have to listen to entire albums to make sense of things.
Hell, I was just at a G3 concert last night - Joe Satriani, John Petrucci (with Mike Portnoy from Dream Theater) and Paul Gilbert. It was a good three hours of excellent guitar and good music. If you heard any of Satriani's or Steve Vai's albums, you'd realize that listening to the whole thing is very different from listening to just one song.
Now, I really do not know about other genres such as pop/hip-hop/rap/R&B but as far as I know, there are still some good musicians out there whose entire albums are a joy to listen to.
Hell, that's why good bands still have folks buying their music. It's not because I cannot download their songs online, but it's because they make good music and I'd like to support them, even if they are small, local bands.
In fact, the last band that I linked to, Eddie from Ohio, is not signed up with any record label and yet do really well. Shows you what quality can achieve.
Then again, I probably do not make a very good sample of the typical CD-buying demographic.
I personally love albums. Even if it's not a "concept" record, it still displays a moderate range of ideas, if it's not a shit band, and can be fun to just put on and lie around and listen to.
But what I HATE more than anything are all these "indie" bands making epic prog-rock or quiet folk albums of boring, repetitive music as a reaction to the death of the album. Dear sweet lord, I know that the idea of singles isn't that great, but an entire album without any single songs on it is even worse.
I'm looking at you, Mars Volta. And you two, Bright Eyes. Putting people to sleep is not entertainment or art.
I think it's the advertising that stymies people.
You're right: actually producing a fairly good "album" (which, in today's world, means a few songs, sometimes related in some way, generally involving the same principal musicians) really isn't that hard, if you have talent. It's a few thousand dollar ordeal at most, and you could probably do a passable job -- equal to professional job a few decades ago -- with equipment most people have plus a few hundred bucks. (Again, assuming talent. But there are a lot of talented amateurs out there.)
But where I've seen band after band falter, is in the advertising and promotion. It's getting the songs and the name of the band out to potential listeners in the first place -- that's the one place where the labels still have an advantage over most independent efforts. They pick a few bands that they think match what people want to hear, and promote them aggressively, pushing them on the radio, on MTV, on shows like Saturday Night Live, and get the songs into advertisements and movies where they get exposure.
Online and 'viral' marketing have helped some bands, but viral marketing is tough to "do" effectively. There's no real recipe that you can run through and have it work. In contrast, as the 90's "manufactured pop" demonstrated, you can get people to listen to anything if you just promote the living hell out of it, day in and day out.
In time, I think the labels are going to fade, but it's going to take a long time and they're not going to go quietly. Technology -- cheap DAW software, CD burners, and inexpensive ADC interfaces -- have lowered the barrier to entry involved in actually recording music. But letting people know that you exist as a band, and getting your songs out to the people who might want to pay for it (or come to a concert, buy a t-shirt, etc.), is still tough, and the labels have some advantages left.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Can't say I pity the RIAA: I used to buy CDs for $11 a piece and kept thinking that the prices would surely come down (market forces, supply and demand, right?) At $17 I think not just twice, but five times about buying a disc because it's obviously been a planned rip-off all these years.
Along comes the internet and a new way of getting the word out and distributing music. Does the RIAA take advantage of lower (read: "nil") media costs? Do they dance with joy at all the chance of ridiculously low advertisement costs? Do they use P2P as a kind-of word of mouth mechanism? No, they sue us. Really f---ing bright idea, that, and then they wonder why I vote with my money and buy absofriggenlutely *nothing* anymore from any artist associated with the RIAA? Sheesh!
Not sure what the IAA stands for but I know the 'R' stands for 'Retarded'.
--Udo.
Some people like bands that do concept albums, some people don't.
They're two entirely different styles of music. It's like the difference between a symphony written for full orchestra and something written for a four-part chamber ensemble. I don't think that many people would really argue that the orchestral piece is inherently 'superior,' in any sort of quantifiable way besides personal taste, to the chamber piece, they're just different. (And, more to the point, many composers have written for both.) It's as bizarre as saying that novelists are inherently "better" writers than essayists, because they produce longer stories. It doesn't make sense.
The three- to four-minute "song" has proved to be an incredibly popular format for popular music over the last century, and I don't think you can chalk that up entirely to the machinations of the RIAA (which, let's face it, was a pretty benign organization until fairly recently) or the "music industry." Probably a lot of credit goes to radio, but if people really hated individual songs, there's no way they'd be as popular as they are.
It's a format people enjoy, and there's nothing inherently better or worse about it than a long album. To be honest, I'd argue that an artist that could communicate effectively in either format was probably better at their trade than one who's mostly restricted themselves to either 70-minute concept albums or 3-minute ditties, but it's really an academic point.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Not a politically correct thing to ask - but has anyone else ever wondered if the labels deliberately promote genres of music that are less appealing to the majority of file sharers ie. white young men?
It's the only explanation I can think of for R&B
One of these days I'm moving to Theory - everything works there
Bingo. For a large portion of the population, and probably for a majority of the dollars being spent on music, a song's quality is a function of the frequency with which they're hearing it and the places they're hearing it from. Being a part of a niche market is no good because few people go out of their way to find good music, they wait for it to come to them.
On the other hand the blunt force trauma method of assaulting the listener via repetitive radio plays, television promos, etc, conveys to the listener that this is "the new song" from "the new band", and instantly adds a level of perceived quality to the music because certainly it is impossible that everybody would be going crazy about this new band unless they were pretty good...right? And if this unknown band was any good they'd be heard on a mainstream source by now...right?
No one gives a second thought that a musician might not want to alter their art to suit the "lowest common denominator" market that popular music must appeal to. Luckily we are quickly moving to a system where good music can find you on the Internet even if you're hardly trying, and the public will inadvertently relieve the RIAA of its stranglehold and abusive domination of not an industry, but a form of art and human expression.
audioLibre - freedom of music
First, if your standard for new, good albums is really that low, you have probably been listening to nothing but what the major labels try to shove down your throat. There are plenty of new concept albums out there, and even more that lack an overarching story or theme but still stand out as fantastic works when taken as a whole. You can certainly find dozens of new albums that are more than just a couple good songs and some filler. You just have to look elsewhere than the latest Justin Timberlake or Gwen Stephani disc.
But mainly I wanted to comment on your statements about marketing. It seems that bands can make a decent living without advertising, but they have to have something pretty unique. Then with a little time and some well placed live shows, they tend to develop a following with no major advertising of their own. I know the last five or six new bands I've found have all been through word of mouth. Sure, they're not as big as top 40 bands, but they have a devoted fan base that's far less fickle than the masses that like someone simply because they're the "next new thing".
Maybe it's the music snob in me, but I tend to think that the only bands that really need marketing to survive are those that aren't much good to begin with, or want to be bigger, faster than good music will get you on its own. In the first case the marketing is counterproductive (blocks air-time and brain space that could be used by better bands), and in the second it seems like all the advertisement does is turn a band with potential into a one-hit-wonder that goes on to release a couple mediocre follow-ups and then implode. Even a great band can never match the insane expectations set by a marketing-driven surge of popularity, because 3/4 of the crowd will move on to the next new face, and the label will push for a repeat instead of letting the music mature.
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
I disagree. A British punk group named Koopa has made top 40 and is going to release a cd without being signed. Them doing it shows that mass production of CDs isn't the only way of releasing an album. I'd argue that a download/burn at home method is less expensive (and easier on the environment- no fuel spent shipping) anyway.
I'll believe in corporations having personhood when Texas executes one... - advocate_one
Buried in the article was an interesting idea from the record companies themselves: instead of being the channel, they'd morph into more of a fan club model.
That's a great idea, but they should go one step further.
The main problem for record companies is that the record company, for the most part, is not the brand - the artist is. The artist is what's promoted, etc. What would be better, from the record company point of view, is if they had a whole bunch of sub-labels, all of which have their own genre/style/sound/whatever.
Then, you'd know that you like the stuff coming out of a label, because all their stuff was the style you like.
It used to be like this in the old days, where a label like Blue Note would have a whole lot of good jazz, or Elektra Nonesuch had good classical. I knew people that would buy everything that EN put out.
Combine that with a subscription service (or music club, cd-by-mail thing I guess) and suddenly you not only have a business model, you have a core group of consumers that are committed to your label - not your artitst. That subscriber base is a guaranteed revenue stream that you can use to hunt down more stuff that your subscribers want.
Will it lead to the homogenization of the music industry? Who cares? It's already freaking homogenized!
It might make smaller players more viable because as a botique subscription music company you have a guaranteed revenue stream with no distribution overhead (except for the overhead you want). You can budget, plan, and not worry as much about the next payroll.
Ideally you'd have a third-party doing the fulfillment, so all you have to do is find acts that your subscribers might like.
It's interesting to think about, but finding that much talent would be difficult. No matter what people say, there isn't that much talent out there.
+Raider of the lost BBS
Yes, it is the music snob in you. To use an irrefutable example, just look at The Beatles. Just because they were marketed out the ass and probably thrust into the spotlight a little early doesn't make them a poor band. What it did do is expose them to a larger audience. Most people in the US wouldn't have known about The Beatles without marketing, no matter how good they were. Look at a band like The Kinks, who weren't marketed in the US and have almost no name recognition among average people here, even if they were just as good as The Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Who, etc. So yes, good bands will probably survive and endure without marketing, but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing. Most of the great artists of all time were over-marketed. To stay with the British theme, the bands I listed above probably wouldn't have even formed if it wasn't for American blues and rock and roll being sold to them by the record companies. Just because the record companies try and push complete shit a lot of the time doesn't mean that the concept of marketing and selling music itself is bad.
The record companies are suffering because their business plans and practices are increasingly short sighted. It used to be that artists were treated as long term investments, being signed for multi album deals, whereas now artists get deals for a song or two. It's another turn in the downward spiral of disposable culture that Hollywood has sold us, and the cycles keep getting shorter.
It's horribly inefficient to operate this way. Instead of going to the grocery store once a week to buy everything you need for the coming week, you make a separate trip for every single item you need. To be even more extreme, go from buying a sack of rice every week, to a cup of rice every day, to a grain of rice every minute. Spend all your time buying rice, and you'll have no time to eat it, and starve.
(Never mind that you can starve anyway by eating nothing but rice, but I digress.)
As someone who was there (I was nine when Please Please me came out) I saw just what they did. Sure, the first two albums were effectively boy band albums but once you get to Rubber Soul and Revolver then they're far, far more than that. It's also difficult from this perspective to understnd the impact of Sgt Pepper, an album you cannot, under any circumstances write off as a 'boy band' album. Suddenly popular music was being treated with respect, reviews in the London Times for example, and the musicians treated as artists.
Whatever you think of their sound they were as ground breaking as Elvis or Sinatra and without them you wouldn't have the music you have today.
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
This is precisely why places like Youtube are full of talentless, amateurish rubbish. The recording industry has, over the years, obliterated any incentive for talent by its corrupt methods. Only half-arsed tunesmiths with "connections" and mediocre musicians are getting work in the music industry, by and large - their work is tweaked, retouched, and canned. If you could taste it, it would taste like imitation Spam. People with real musical talent are frequently not in the business at all. Those that have had some nurturing are not using their abilities in public (no money in it). Instead they are holding day jobs and playing musical instruments/having their jam sessions at home in the evenings to relax.
As a result, the recording industry can't find talent (because it killed it off) and is stuck with ring tones and other crap.
If we kill off their business model (fingers crossed), then maybe people will once again appreciate the value of live performances and music will become an event, an experience, not merely the auditory equivalent of fast food.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
Well, at least Piero Scaruffi (a well known musical critic) seems to disagree with you:
Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for a good reason. They could not figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). THat phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Fours'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia". Not to mention later and far greater British musicians. Not to mention the American musicians who created what the Beatles later sold to the masses.
The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time to read a page about such a trivial band.
(Note that I do not agree completely with this, but at least it shows that the status of the Beatles as artistic geniuses is at least debatable)
-- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize
This argument has become something of a meme in the popular culture. People take for granted that "every album that comes out has only 2 good songs on it, and the rest suck/are filler" without even thinking about it or giving the album a chance and being able to speak with some authority on it. Or perhaps listening to some music critic trash the album and never giving it a chance yourself. As a fan of music in general I am tired of hearing it. It's nothing more than a thinly veiled insult at pop music, often lobbed by Gen X-ers (can I still use that term?) like myself looking back at the music we enjoyed growing up as being somehow better or different. As if back in "my day" we didn't have nearly the same amount of so-called overproduced crap as there is today. Like many people, I grew up listening to pop and then moved on as my tastes expanded.
I guess my point is that if you like a song by a particular artist a lot, you should give their album and/or their wider catalog a good hard look before you decide the other songs are crap. Buy the album, and sit down and give the entire thing a listen. Several times. Not skipping any songs. See what grows on you, if anything. I have listened to full albums by one hit wonders - some of which were actually pretty good, even to the point of lamenting the fact that they were never given a chance. Don't call an album "45 minutes of filler" just because the record companies want you to believe that. They don't want you to enjoy all twelve songs on the album because that means you will savor it a bit longer before buying again. The artist probably takes a different view.
Don't misunderstand, I agree that there is plenty of crap out there written and produced by people without a lot of talent. But there is a lot of legitimately good music out there that never gets a chance because of this old tired argument. Decide for yourself whether the music is any good, not what other people think or want you to believe. How many of us have "guilty pleasures" that we never admit to liking in front of our friends?