The Album, a Commodity in Disfavor (Downloading individual songs replacing album purchases)

[Ignacio Upton]

Source: The New York Times

March 26, 2007

By JEFF LEEDS

LOS ANGELES, March 25 — Now that the three young women in Candy Hill, a glossy rap and R&B trio, have signed a record contract, they are hoping for stardom. On the schedule: shooting a music video and visiting radio stations to talk up their music.

But the women do not have a CD to promote. Universal/Republic Records, their label, signed Candy Hill to record two songs, not a complete album.

To the regret of music labels everywhere, she is right: fans are buying fewer and fewer full albums. In the shift from CDs to digital music, buyers can now pick the individual songs they like without having to pay upward of $10 for an album.

Last year, digital singles outsold plastic CD’s for the first time. So far this year, sales of digital songs have risen 54 percent, to roughly 189 million units, according to data from Nielsen SoundScan. Digital album sales are rising at a slightly faster pace, but buyers of digital music are purchasing singles over albums by a margin of 19 to 1.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/26/business/media/26music.html

---

Serves the RIAA right. Consumers are tired of having to pay $15-$20 for an album that only has two good songs. No online model will help the RIAA recoup their profits, whether that model is LimeWire or itunes. The record labels brought this on themselves by refusing to adapt in the mid-'90s when they were warned about file sharing.

[msongs]

1. thank gosh you can get even with those evil songwriters/artists who provide you with

something you really want and cannot create yourself. those slimy bastards :-0

Msongs
www.msongs.com

[Firespirit]

27. Um...

The resentment isn't toward the singers and songwriters. It's toward the recording industry. When you buy a $20 CD, you are paying for the packaging and the marketing, not the songs themselves. (OK, technically you're paying for both, but the bulk of the cost is for the incidentals.) Fans for whom this is important can still buy the entire CD.

I'd say that online music stores are for the people who do support the singers and songwriters. I am a total iTunes whore and have purchased over 150 tracks from the store. Some of these are in albums, which have cost from $6.99 upwards to $12.99 in my specific case. Others are individual tracks when I'm not interested in the entire CD. You get a digital copy of the album cover with these purchases and can burn them to CDs yourself. I want the music. If I like an artist or album well enough, I'll buy merchandise separately to indicate that, as I have done for a few artists.

What's wrong with that? :shrug:

[Patsy Stone]

29. Well:

1) What is the benefit for an artist to outlay all costs associated with recording, promoting, touring and distribution? How much would a track have to cost to make it worthwhile for the artist to see a profit?

2) How do new concept albums survive if this reverts to a "single" based industry?

3) Are you willing to accept whatever quality the final recording is, since it's now based on the artist's financial ability to pay for talented studio technicians?

I'm just thinking that in the great rush to give the finger to the perceived evil that is the record label, this thread missed the point that this will simply dilute the quality of music, both in it's artistic form as well as the technical form. Just because you can buy one song at a time, doesn't mean you should.

There will no longer be a collective knowledge of any album. Everyone will have only the two tracks they like and never hear the way the artist intended the album to sound.

For more thoughts, see my post below regarding how The Wall would never exist under this Brave New World.

[Firespirit]

30. I did, and I'm not sure I agree

You underestimate the strength and loyalty of the "alternative" fan base--and by that I mean true alternative music, of all genres, not overmarketed emo-pop like Fall Out Boy and the like. That base can be counted on to demand more music, and full albums, from the artists whose music they like. It's the free market in action, and I do think that it would work.

Those artists with truly good music develop a following. Hardcore music fans are not the type to be satisfied with one or two songs from a good artist. My current favorite band, in fact, is one that I was introduced to by a single track. I liked it and ended up buying most of their discography.

[Patsy Stone]

31. Nah, I didn't underestimate.

But I think you may have overestimated the amount of people, in relation to the rest of America, who look for different and unique types of music.

The labels, in another, perhaps smaller and leaner form, will continue to exist. They will still profit from those who choose to sign with them in order to get distribution and marketing and a payment up front based on a demo. This will be the music of the masses, for the most part, because it's easy, because it will have a huge marketing machine behind it, and because most people don't really care what they listen to if it has a beat they can dance to or make love to.

Look, the real problem with this scenario is that it requires the artist to bear all of the burden. If the label doesn't want to buy your whole album the burden is now on you to get it out there and make it heard, raise enough money at a bake sale to pay for a trip to Japan. It may force some to release their album one track at a time. They're are free to do that now; just don't sign.

Thus, if this is truly the future of music, the only one who suffers is the artist with a great vision, no money, and nothing to do but post their stuff on the internet. Not much different than today, only I think it will occur in greater numbers.

[DemBones DemBones]

35. Exactly. Although it's not only artists who will suffer, it's also

music lovers who are not plugged into whatever the music industry wants them to be plugged into.

Do people realize that labels advance musicians money to record an album but the musicians have to pay the label back out of their album sales! This applies to EPs, whatever.

So, yes, most of the cost of an album goes to the label, the packager, the retailer, etc. Most of the cost of your food doesn't go to the farmer, either, but nobody advocates stealing food.

If you download instead of buying albums, you're reducing the small amount the musicians earn per album but even worse you're not helping the album "chart." If you like a band, buy their albums and help them chart. Fans can also help by calling radio stations and requesting that they play certain musicians' work.

If you care about music, support the musicians you care about.

[Zhade]

43. You're operating under the old paradigm.

"1) What is the benefit for an artist to outlay all costs associated with recording, promoting, touring and distribution? How much would a track have to cost to make it worthwhile for the artist to see a profit?"

Considering that production costs have significantly reduced thanks to technology, combined with the ability to promote online for free and no greedy taskmaster labels means it's not NEARLY as hard to make a profit via distribution methods like iTunes as you seem to think.


"2) How do new concept albums survive if this reverts to a "single" based industry?"

Easy answer? Don't suck. Make ALL of the songs good, not the couple you hope will land you a deal for a forgettable record.


"3) Are you willing to accept whatever quality the final recording is, since it's now based on the artist's financial ability to pay for talented studio technicians?"

See above. You're thinking about the old methods of production. Not nearly as expensive these days.

[Patsy Stone]

54. Anyone is free to do that now

Record an album, put it out on your own label, Bob's Records, for tax purposes, and promote yourself to the hilt with no help from anyone. Or, release one track at a time, as you write each one. No one's stopping that -- I hope lots of people do it.

I also hope those people who want to create albums, not just singles, are prepared to suffer the disappointment that after all the time and effort they put out they realized a mere pittance of their outlay in return. I recorded 12 songs I thought were perfect together, and people only liked track 4 and 12. Now, they're faced with a dilemma: should they go into debt to pay the bills and finance the time and effort required for a second try at recording?

This time, maybe you find you can only afford to record five tracks because you couldn't find a baby sitter for a week and you had to put off the time and still pay the bills. Boy, I sure hope they're the right five tracks. What if it's a waste? What if I lose my house to my dream? Gee, but I'm sure glad I chose not to sign with a label.

--

2) How do new concept albums survive if this reverts to a "single" based industry?"

Easy answer? Don't suck. Make ALL of the songs good, not the couple you hope will land you a deal for a forgettable record.

--

First of all, you are not the arbiter of what sucks. What is "good"? And by concept album, I mean albums where each track may not stand alone, but it is necessary to proceed to the following track. Are you willing to pay to down load a few 1:15 tracks of blaring alarm clocks or screaming birds? Or are you going to skip it because the next track's "the good one".

Next, sometimes, I know it's a stretch, but sometimes it's fun to get an album by your favorite artist, listen to it, and laugh with your friends after (or during) that some of the tracks really suck.

Tell me, if you can still download the two tracks you want at a dollar each, what do you care about whether or not the artist signed with a label?

[murloc]

59. Sure he is

"First of all, you are not the arbiter of what sucks. What is "good"?"

Actually. He is the arbiter of what sucks. So am I. So are you.

Thats what is great and right about the ability to purchase per song. Buy what you like, leave what you don't.

[Patsy Stone]

61. I don't believe I said

anywhere that the opportunity to download whatever you choose, long form or short form, is a bad thing.

The post above decided that everything should be "good". Well, we all know that's subjective. Perhaps I should have said "sole" arbiter. This thread was about how the album is being replaced by the single. A backwards trend in the music industry in my opinion.

I am only arguing for the right of the album to continue to exist. Sometimes, as a poster said, a song grows on you after you listen to it in context for a while, even if you didn't like it when you first heard it. If you never downloaded it in the first place, it can't have a chance to grow on you. You will be missing the point the artist tried to convey, and missing a personal experience, and that's a shame.

[murloc]

69. fair enough, but I think the album will be a blip in history

During the history of music, its only been a few decades where music has been "bundled" together in a form where people are required to buy or accept the undesireable along with the desireable.

Ultimately, the alblum is simply another marketing device dreamed up by the record industry who, by and large uses and abuses the artist who provide the product. The technology of the LP saw its rise and the technology of the Internet will see its demise.

While there have been excellent uses of the album format, largely its a corporate bundling and marketing technique that the music industry has sold the artist on. Other industries do it to. If you want CSPAN, you gotta buy CNN and Fox news. If you want Air conditioning in your car, you gotta buy power windows.

I understand and I think I agree with your points regarding the artistic experience. However music is an art form that has been with us since we first learned to bang sticks together and will be with us as we march into our eventual extinction. Indeed it proably was our first art form and will proably be our last.

All during this time inbetween good music and good art will survive the ages, irregardless of what marketing tool is used to deliver it to us.

[Zhade]

42. When did you gain the ability to read minds?

What, do you think YOU'RE the only one who can make music?

LOL!

[murloc]

57. I don't mind paying for music

But I do hate buying music I don't like.

The current model forces people to buy a whole CD of songs they may or may not like, just so that they get the one or 2 that they like.

I'm sure the music industry will adapt. There is still a huge market for music and that is not likely to change.

Likely the good songs will get more expensive, and the "album" fillers will get cheaper.

[Lance_Boyle]

2. 'upward of $10 for an album'

WTF album-length CD are they getting for $10? I don't think I've ever seen a CD outside of the bargain bin for less than $15.

[BadGimp]

3. the music industry disintermediation continues

disintermediation :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disintermediation

The record labels have for decades controlled the channels and hence the product sales while suppressing the desires of the consumer. They forced the LP / 8 Track and Casssette down our throats.

Apple comes along and cleans up the online download business with iTunes and viola, consumers get to choose again.

Of course Apple will get disintermediated soon enough as well. $.99 is too damn much for most songs. Google and Overture/Yahoo showed what happens to commodities when you let the market set the price. Their pay-per-click advertising sales systems have revolutionized how businesses advertise. High value offerings rise to their sustainable levels and the crap gets less expensive on it's own. Right now Apple and the record companies are keeping the price of songs artificially inflated.

I suscribe to Napster.com which lets me download an unlimited number of songs (based on player capacity), listen to them as often and for as long as I like, as long as I pay a meager $14.95 a month. When new songs come out I like I merely request it from the Napster application and it is automatically downloaded and installed on my player. I have over 500 songs on my player now.

I still buy CDs btw. Several a month to be exact.

Long live the internet.

[Ignacio Upton]

4. It took the original Napster and other p2p programs just to force Apple

into putting out itunes. Unfortunately, the "legit" services suck, in terms of choice (at least you can get any song ever written at LimeWire or BitTorrent) and portability (lack of DRM...and on the newr Napster, you have to double pay if you actually want to keep your songs. In essence the RIAA making you rent their music, not buy.)

I think that there will be an equilibrium point, where people are paying $5-$15 per month for unlimited downloads that they can keep, and without DRM. This will involve people paying that money to their ISP as part of a blanket licensing system.

[fishwax]

13. have you ever tried emusic of audio lunchbox? Legit services with no DRM

You download in MP3 format, so you can use them on any MP3 player (or burn them to disc) and there is no DRM to deal with. Because of that, of course, they carry mostly indie music--you can't find most big label bands there. But still, the music is yours to do with as you like, and even if you should cancel your service you still keep the songs. 10-15 bucks a month gets you 30 songs a month, so it's less than half the per-song cost of itunes even at the most basic plan.

I used emusic for a couple of years and highly recommend it. I haven't tried audiolunchbox, but I'm thinking about buying a one-year subscription soon.

[juno jones]

14. I love e-music!

I had the service for about a year and still have close to two hundred albums I downloaded. It's a great service if you like indie, electronic, world beat or modern jazz. There's even a few rebellious mainstreamers over there like Ian Anderson/Jethro Tull. Some old classics too. Definitely recommended. The pop single thing is stupid, but it was always aimed at 15-year-olds anyway...

[GOTV]

23. I've used e-Music. My only gripe was....

.... you get a set number of songs per month to download but if you don't actually download them that month - you lose them.

I had a couple months where I was busy, or couldn't find anything I wanted and I felt like I was ripped off when the credits disappeared. Of course technically I was not ripped off, I knew that would happen if I jet the deadline pass. Still I felt like I wasn't getting downloads I had paid for.

If they'd change that I'd sign back up in a second.

[alarimer]

33. I use them

A much better deal than the "music rental" services. Even though I no longer have access to as much music as I did when I used Napster or Urge, I was getting a little uneasy about what I was actually paying for. Now I simply pay a monthly fee and get a certain number of downloads. And I buy the cds (actually I buy the digital versions) that I must have that are not available on Emusic.

[alfredo]

6. iTV could do the same for/to the movie industry and TV.

Time will tell.

[Firespirit]

28. 8 track and cassette

You are damn right about that.

The first CD was "Born in the U.S.A." in 1984 (think that date is right) and the medium was perfected before that. Yet the industry continued to shove the comparably unreliable, easily-damaged and destroyed magnetic tape media down people's throats. Most likely with the full knowledge that in less than a decade, they'd be pushing CDs and people would have to replace their music collection because it was literally falling apart.

Nobody will ever convince me that it wasn't deliberate.

[youngdem]

5. They wouldn't be going out of favor if they weren't overpriced shit

New music is outrageously priced for overproduced, no talent, gentrified bullshit. I can get whatever I need online anyway at discounted prices. I will start buying albums again when they get below $10 per and an appreciable piece of that actually gets to the artist. Until then, I will continue to shaft the music company any chance I get. They have destroyed music.

[MADem]

8. Yep, the marketed junk, anyway. It's all modified, modulated, and it's hard to tell

if the so-called "artists" can even SING, half the time.

Of course, I am an old fart. My favorite singers are dead, most of 'em.

[AndyTiedye]

7. Maybe They Should Try Putting Out Albums With ALL GOOD TRACKS

[Hardrada]

11. I know of a lot of these

But they are all classical. Or jazz.

[DemBones DemBones]

37. That is such a lame argument.

Who defines what ALL GOOD TRACKS means? You? Do you think everyone will agree with you about what ALL GOOD TRACKS means?

If you go out to eat, and you have a great steak, delicious salad, but a few of your French fries are underdone, are you justified in walking out without paying for the meal? You can bet the police will not think so.

Back in the olden days, when there was no internet to steal music from, we bought albums we thought we'd like. Most albums had songs we liked better than others but usually the ones we didn't much like "grew on us" after we listened to the album a couple of times. Sometimes we bought an album we didn't much like. That's life. But usually we had heard enough songs on the radio to know what we liked. With all the FREE downloads online, I think people have plenty of help deciding what bands they like.

And don't tell me albums are too expensive today. Relative to other prices, albums were plenty expensive when I was in high school and college. I vividly remember buying Bob Dylan's "Blonde on Blonde" double album in my college's bookstore in the fall of 1966 along with 15-20 books I was required to buy for my courses (we had to buy a lot of novels in addition to some textbooks). Cost of 15-20 books? $20. Cost of Dylan album? $7. I couldn't really afford that $7 but I did without something else because I wanted the album, which is still one of the best albums ever.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

60. We also bought singles, but there hasn't been too much of that available until recently

again with downloadable music files. This is where the record industry screwed us over. Most popular music albums DO only have 2-3 songs that you really want, but in the old days you could get a 45 single.

In the CD era singles were essentially phased out and you had to get a 15 dollar CD for 2 songs.

If there had been more, cheaper, singles options people might not have turned so quickly and completely to piracy. I don't condone it but there is a problem of choice.

I see nothing wrong with pop artists providing individual songs, since that is what most people want of them. If someone makes a quality album like R.E.M.'s "Murmur" etc., I'll be buying that too.

But if someone's a one hit pop wonder with a catchy tune and a crappy album of filler, it would be better to have an option to buy their single rather than pay for the whole crappy album.

[walldude]

63. While you make good points, you are missing a few things

"Back in the olden days, when there was no internet to steal music from, we bought albums we thought we'd like." True, to an extent, but I also remember recording music off the radio with my cassette player, not much different than downloading. Hell I remember radio stations promoting when they were going to play full albums so you could have your cassette deck ready.

And don't tell me albums are too expensive today. Ok I won't, but what I would say is that the way the money is divided is ludicrous. The people who create the music get 5%, while the rest goes to record companies and retailers. In the future smart musicians will be writing, recording, marketing and distributing their music to consumers all by themselves. They will be making 3 times as much money while still offering their music for much less than what you are paying now.

Who defines what ALL GOOD TRACKS means? You? Do you think everyone will agree with you about what ALL GOOD TRACKS means? While it's true that there are different tastes out there, the difference is Blonde on Blonde vs the latest from Britney, Christine or Fergie. I think you and I and the poster you were responding to, not to mention anyone over 30 years old would say that every single track on Blonde on Blonde is good. Beyond good. Some more are any Floyd post Meddle and pre DSOT, Zeppelin I-IV, Paranoid, Machine Head, Axis Bold As Love, any Beatles, Joe's Garage, I could do this for days, but you get the point, there are albums that cannot be denied. That kind of shit is few and far between these days. And don't even get me started on having to re-buy albums every time a new format is developed. Album, 8-track, cassette, CD, MP3, now even DVD albums. I have more freakin copies of Dark Side Of The Moon then I know what to do with.

[walldude]

40. Thank you... my thoughts exactly

In this day of corporate sponsored "Idols" it's all about the show, the red carpet and the rehab. Never about the music. Timberlake, Spears, Fergie, Nickleback, I could go on all day about the current crop of crap, and don't even get me started on the garbage Disney is spewing out to my kids.
I bought one album last year. Tool's 10,000 Days. I would have downloaded it, but they went the extra mile, songs, musicianship, not to mention the best packaging since the heyday of Pink Floyd, they deserved my money so they got it.

[Nevernose]

9. Maybe Candy Hill just doesn't have more than 2 good songs?

Maybe they're more corporate pop shit, shoveled down our throats ad infinitum, ad nauseum? And maybe even those two songs aren't even especially good, but fit well into some mid-level management asshole's computerized profile of what people want to hear?

The worst part is, everybody knows that it doesn't have to be good. Quality is no impediment to sales numbers.

[Patsy Stone]

10. This is bad

bad, bad, bad.

This swings the music business back to the age of the 45.

Is this the death of the "deep track"? How could Dark Side of the Moon survive this type of music market?

I don't feel good about this.

I also don't see how paying artists for one or two songs benefits the artist more than the contract for one album. It's not likely that the labels will pay more for less, so even with the label's money-grubbing ways, it seems the artist still loses. My .02

[torrentprime]

12. No

Because people would have and still would gladly pay for an actual good album like DSotM. Today, when people can sample tracks in the store and online, the consumer is empowered to choose what they buy, when before they bought on faith.

What's funny is that the recording companies live in the same world as the rest of us, with modern knowledge and technology, but they chose to use that knowledge to manufacture pop bands, and fake hits, and to use marketing and psychology to sell it, all in order to pad their bottom line better (and there's nothing wrong with that, really). But at the same time, technology marched on, and the consumer now has more options and knows more about the crap they put out; we can sample more, and share opinions, and find smaller bands that fit our taste better. So essentially, the smarter consumer came at the worst time for them: right when we could see their empty talent shelves.

Anyone read The Long Tail yet? :)

[stlsaxman]

17. The Artists also have more options.

Musicians are asking themselves "why should i give away all the rights to my work to have a record company pay exorbitant amounts on a recording and then turn around and bill me for it, along with that "advance", before it's released.

Anyone read "The Problem With Music" by Steve Albini? http://negativland.com/albini.html

As Robert Fripp has said "If the record company makes a mistake, the artist pays. If the management makes a mistake, the artist pays. If the artist makes a mistake, the artist pays." True true.

[Patsy Stone]

44. I don't understand.

Do you think now that we can download stuff the labels aren't going to continue to produce what you think is crap music and people won't continue to buy it because they have no taste?

DSotM will continue to exist because it started its existence in its complete, perfect form. I fear many albums will no longer get the chance to exist in their perfect form.

[Zhade]

46. Fanfuckingtastic post.

Indeed.

[walldude]

58. Great post and Welcome to DU

Record companies had a chance to realize that their biggest audience grew up in a world where they don't need to go to a store to get music. They chose to ignore that fact at their own peril. Pretty soon the need for "record companies" will be a thing of the past, artists will write, record, market and package their own works and get paid what they should have been getting paid all along. Plus I won't have to listen to another Fergie song as long as I live...

[B3Nut]

19. Also, if albums disappear

how are we audiophiles going to get lossless music? None of the online vendors seem interested in anything but compressed mp3 or AAC files, and if I'm laying out cash I want non-compressed audio, which is why I buy CD's and vinyl records. Hell, even 45's often came with a cool sleeve with art. :)

I don't see the classical, jazz, or prog worlds going away from the album...those genres are largely all about the album. I could care less about Gwen Stinkfani or Kelly Crapson or Twitney Smears or whatever the current manufactured phony pop tart is at the moment...I never buy their vapid racket anyway. ;) John McLaughlin could fart and make a more profound musical statement than those bozos... :D

Todd in Cheesecurdistan, old enough to remember buying 45's at the record store

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

64. People were making and selling 45's before, during and after "Dark Side". I'm not

sure how a singles market for pop music excludes quality albums being made. Pop music has always been a single song driven business since its beginnings, it's just that the CD era introduced an artificial, record industry made anomaly where the ability to buy single songs was largely eliminated.

If you take a one hit-ish wonder like Limp Bizkit, I'd bet most people would have been perfectly happy to buy one or two hit songs off of them, but they pretty much had to buy a full album from them, padding Bizkit's and the record label's bottom line but not helping the consumer.

[Patsy Stone]

67. Believe me

there are plenty of artists from whom one song is plenty. :)

Of course 45s and pop singles co-existed with the album. And there are still CD singles, btw.

This is a fear of the album not having the chance to get out into society in its entirety if the industry eventually moves to being able to download individual tracks. There might be your version of Dark Side of the Moon, and my version.

Worse, with no real marketing and no money, the next Dark Side of the Moon might not get out as widely as it should.

[MadHound]

15. A real shame too, since there are many albums that are well done throughout,

And taking them in snippets just doesn't do them justice. Yes, Rick Wakeman, Pink Floyd, Grateful Dead, Allman Brothers, all of these and hundreds of others have had thematic albums, and when you chop them up, you ruin both the whole album and the individual parts, the songs.

And very every album that has only one or two good songs on it, I've found a couple where it was the material that didn't get airplay that was the best.

[jelly]

16. I suppose a hierarchy of musical talents may emerge: those with mere singles, and those with albums.

Those putting out albums would be those who have presented such quality material to their labels that they are signed on for more than just a couple singles.

Over time, the strategy may reduce the number of albums on the market containing only 1-2 good songs: musicians would be encouraged to make every single song on the album good, in hopes that they will end up falling into that special category that is artists with albums. In this scenario, we might actually be able to look for not less, but MORE well-thought-out concept albums to hit the market.

Another consideration is live shows. Musicians need lots of filler material to play at concerts. Personally, I like having at least a passing familiarity with many more songs than just the singles prior to enjoying concert that I paid beaucoup bucks to attend. Therefore, concert attendance could decline if the market reverted to a singles-based phenomenon. The online downloading paradigm shift ensures that in the future concerts will remain an important component of the musician's revenue -- since musicians may continue to lose revenue from illegal downloads, concerts will be more important than ever.

[torrentprime]

18. No one is suggesting that albums be outlawed :)

And those that create complete albums will have a chance to compete for our money, but the important (and good!) change here is that albums will no longer be the default option for both label/artist and consumer. Artists will actually have to work to create an entire album that people want, not just one heavily-marketed single that forces the entire album to be bought. Consumers will have to listen to other tracks (as they do on iTunes now) to see which complete albums they want. If they go only for the single, they'll miss the rest. Choice!

[Patsy Stone]

20. What's so good about that?

In fact, this completely entices artists to do no more than they need to do to sell a song. They are not even going to write things they have no chance to sell, IMO.

If Pink Floyd was an unknown artist today, and found the money somwhere to create The Wall (since the label, under this model, will no longer pay for the studio time) and brings it to a label to distribute, the label could say (theoretically) we'll take Comfortably Numb and Another Brick in the Wall (Pt. 1) the rest, well, we're just not interested -- it's not commercial enough.

How then does the public have the opportunity to hear the album as the artist intended? Would the artist then post the whole album for sale on the website and hope that people download Mother and all the little incidental tracks?

This album, and others, will now never become part of the cultural landscape, because no one will hear it in its entirety.

[Zhade]

48. "They are not even going to write things they have no chance to sell,"

Then they're not artists, they're hucksters looking to make a buck.

[Patsy Stone]

56. I meant in a commercially viable way to support themselves

this will stiffle creativity.

[Zhade]

49. No offense, but this has already been explained - iTunes, or similar sources.

You can preview songs for free. Production is not anywhere as expensive as it used to be.

[torrentprime]

68. Your logic

assumes that artists only creates songs to sell them. I assume that you believe that some artists actually record for the craft of it? Isn't that why they spent 2 years making demo CDs in their garage?

Your Pink Floyd example assumes a) that the label controls what PF records and b) that the artist has no way to release material otherwise. If the label only wants songs #2 and #6, then the group can seek other channels through which to release its music.

I think we've already seen, in today's market and music culture, exactly how far we got relying on the good graces of the recording companies to preserve high quality music.

[jelly]

21. "albums will no longer be the default option for both label/artist and consumer"

Well put; I agree that that would be the key change.

[Patsy Stone]

22. IOW

Back to the 45.

Which didn't work for the artist, as it provided no outlet for songs with no commercial potential. The point in the creation of the LP was to provide the opportunity to try things in a long form. It was an evolution, not a demand by the labels. And tell me, do classical composers now just focus on one part of the symphony? The most commercial part?

[Zhade]

52. What part of "online didn't exist then" eludes you?

NT!

[Patsy Stone]

66. What part of

"I'm talking about the philosophical existence of an album as a cultural moment, shared in its entirety, the same for everybody," eludes you?

This is not about the ability to download albums, this is about the question of how an album can continue to enter the public consciousness, in its entirety, if the ability to download individual tracks gives people the ability to make their own version of the album.

[Javaman]

24. And here we go, back to the old sun record days....

When graff was ripe and payola the norm.

One hit wonders ripped off and the near star exploited.

Weeeeee!!! ain't repeating history fun!!

It's been happening (never went away), but expect it to make a roaring comeback.

Don't get me wrong, I get my mp3's off of iTunes, but I just see this situation becoming very harmful to the artists.

[Ignacio Upton]

25. The internet will make the big labels irrelevant

It's not that expensive to record songs, and by simply uploading your music online, you don't have to go through costly shipping and distribution fees.

[Javaman]

26. good point. :) nt

[DemBones DemBones]

38. It's not that expensive to record songs?

Talk to some real musicians and get back to us.

[Forkboy]

47. Depends on what you consider a "real" musician.

I'm assuming you consider yourself to be one by the back patting.

Not every artist or band has to record in a fancy studio anymore to get some quality sound.What's pleasing and real to your ear may not be what's pleasing and real to other people's ears.It may not be what you consider to be "real" music,but oh well.

And now people don't have to wait for some tin-eared record label blowhard to decide who is and isn't going to be this year's thing.The power is in the artist's hands more and more.Downloading music illegally isn't the right thing,but it's totally forced a change in the way music is made and delivered,and in the long run that will be far better for the artists.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

50. Who do you think YOU are to determine who are "real musicians"?

Mighty high opinion of yourself, eh?

[toddaa]

32. I'm an old fart who still buys albums

Granted, I don't listen to music that lends itself to hit singles, but I like the whole package. In fact I miss the days of the big 12" vinyl and the fold out album cover that CD packaging still can't replace. There are artists out their who still understand the album as a complete package.

Nonetheless, FUCK THE RIAA.

[dysfunctional press]

34. same here.

nt

[MilesColtrane]

36. Let's take this to the logical end point.

Say a million people are interested in the latest release by the Plastic Jagoffs, but they really think the 2nd verse and the guitar solo suck.

Since companies are all about maximizing profit margins, the Big 5 can just run each release past a focus group, make a couple of cheap snips and begin selling the .99 version and the "people's request mix" .69 version.

Or, the latest BackSync Boys release is doing OK but the fourth member, Timmy isn't polling as well as the other three...
Now, they can just make him disappear through the magic of Pro Tools.

[DemBones DemBones]

39. The logical end point is that there will be no music

except the music produced by the bands the big labels want to promote. No bands touring except the big label bands, charging hundreds if not thousands per ticket, even for the nosebleed seats.

Great solution. :sarcasm:

[Zhade]

51. Yeah, that's what the technophobes at the RIAA said.

You're both still wrong.

[Forkboy]

55. The underground scene is the strongest I've ever seen it.

A wider variety and diversity of music is thriving,and it's easier for the both the artist and the fan to connect without the interference of label execs,handlers and money-men.The band's money!

With all the bands and musicians I've seen,spoken too,met,and even hung out with,I can't think of one that thinks the way the recording industry is setup works for them.Not one.

Like I said above,things aren't perfect now,but it's a damn sight better than it has been for all involved except the leeches that make a buck off of YOUR talent.

[Zhade]

41. Once again, to quote Futuristic Sex Robotz:

Fuck the mpaa!
FUCK the RIAA!

[WinkyDink]

45. I know people without computers. I find this dl'ing trend dismaying.

Another example of the fragmentation of society into individual unshared cultural moments.

[Patsy Stone]

62. Amen.

I've been trying to make that point all night.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

65. How have individual songs even been ranked on the charts the last 15 years or so, since there have

been so little sales of singles since CD's, prior to online digital music purchases?

[Celeborn Skywalker]

70. Good!

Fuck the RIAA, it does serve them right. Fuckin' greedy ass bastards.