Without belabouring the point, selling music on a 'per song' basis would be beneficial to all parties involved.
Artists would not feel compelled to put out crap just to sell a 'full' album and get their good stuff out there.
Consumers would be able to pick and choose what they wanted to listen to with ease, so that the person who only like ONE song done by Bob Dillon would not be forced to buy 15 tracks of incoherant babling to get the one he liked.
Even the RIAA would benefit. Being able to focus on the song, rather than the album, they would be able to diversify. No need to push an artist upon the public just to sell an album. If a song fails, no biggie, the artist has several others that may be doing well. People, being able to pick music they want to purchase, will be encouraged to look into other varieties of music, and purchase them too, bringing greater income to the 'empire'.
Right now, and this has been stated before, no one in their right mind want to 'experiment' with music they haven't heard before if they have to spend $15-$18 just to find out if they like the music.
Selling by song allows the consumer less risk in experimenting with a broader range of music. Heck, this alone takes weight off the RIAA. No more do they have to spend billions of dollars pushing artists (who as often as not, produce crap) upon the masses. Now they can simply say, here is our selection, enjoy the bounty, and relax as people come to them looking for the familiar, and the new.
It's really too bad that the smart people who post here have little to say in how things will turn out.
Note: This is an extremely long topic, so I cannot claim to have checked thoroughly to verify that this hasn't been brought up already, and if so, I apologise for my redundancy. Otherwise, read on...
It wasn't that long ago that the internet was big in everyone's minds, and the ideas of how this 'new' technology could be applied were coming fast and furious. One of the much touted ideas (I recall seeing several commercials from different companies demonstrating how this might work) was that of "TV-on-demand". The idea behind this being of course, that you could watch whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted, by simply requesting it.
You don't hear much about this idea recently. Possibly the networks/corporations don't want to take credit for an idea which has found realisation in a solution provided by the consumers.
It's a natural desire to have a show that is normally unavailable, or somehow inconvenient to be viewed at the time of broadcast, made available at a time convenient.
The networks and their sponsors may complain about the legalities of the issue, but what really eats them is that the consumers beat them to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Without belabouring the point, selling music on a 'per song' basis would be beneficial to all parties involved.
Artists would not feel compelled to put out crap just to sell a 'full' album and get their good stuff out there.
Consumers would be able to pick and choose what they wanted to listen to with ease, so that the person who only like ONE song done by Bob Dillon would not be forced to buy 15 tracks of incoherant babling to get the one he liked.
Even the RIAA would benefit. Being able to focus on the song, rather than the album, they would be able to diversify. No need to push an artist upon the public just to sell an album. If a song fails, no biggie, the artist has several others that may be doing well. People, being able to pick music they want to purchase, will be encouraged to look into other varieties of music, and purchase them too, bringing greater income to the 'empire'.
Right now, and this has been stated before, no one in their right mind want to 'experiment' with music they haven't heard before if they have to spend $15-$18 just to find out if they like the music.
Selling by song allows the consumer less risk in experimenting with a broader range of music. Heck, this alone takes weight off the RIAA. No more do they have to spend billions of dollars pushing artists (who as often as not, produce crap) upon the masses. Now they can simply say, here is our selection, enjoy the bounty, and relax as people come to them looking for the familiar, and the new.
It's really too bad that the smart people who post here have little to say in how things will turn out.
Note: This is an extremely long topic, so I cannot claim to have checked thoroughly to verify that this hasn't been brought up already, and if so, I apologise for my redundancy. Otherwise, read on...
It wasn't that long ago that the internet was big in everyone's minds, and the ideas of how this 'new' technology could be applied were coming fast and furious. One of the much touted ideas (I recall seeing several commercials from different companies demonstrating how this might work) was that of "TV-on-demand". The idea behind this being of course, that you could watch whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted, by simply requesting it.
You don't hear much about this idea recently. Possibly the networks/corporations don't want to take credit for an idea which has found realisation in a solution provided by the consumers.
It's a natural desire to have a show that is normally unavailable, or somehow inconvenient to be viewed at the time of broadcast, made available at a time convenient.
The networks and their sponsors may complain about the legalities of the issue, but what really eats them is that the consumers beat them to it.