MP3's and digital music in general have changed the landscape of the music business more thoroughly than perhaps any other technological development. Sure, the formats music has been sold in have changed numerous times throughout the years, but never has the change in format resulted in such a dramatic shift in the way people listen to and buy music.The ability of consumers to purchase music on a per-track basis has in some ways made concepts such as 'singles', 'EPs', and 'albums' a bit antiquated. So how will this effect the way musicians release their music? The Denver Post has an interesting article on this very topic. They're predicting that as people buy more individual tracks and less full-length albums, the incentive for artists to release music in the traditional album format will evaporate and we may see the shorter EP become the standard format for many artists.
I'm a bit conflicted about this, if, indeed, it comes to pass. On the one hand, more frequent releases from artists certainly helps on a promotional level, as there is always going to be press around the artist. Perhaps it may encourage artists to experiment and take risks more often if they know their next release is only 3-4 months away, making it easier to do a bit of 'corrective steering' if they lose the audience.
On the other hand, I feel like music in general would be worse off without the album as a format. Sure, shorter, more frequent releases might benefit the consumer, but does it benefit the art? There are countless albums that I can't imagine NOT listening to from start to finish. These aren't merely a random collection of songs, they are artfully arranged so as to be more than just the sum of their parts. A great album is its own universe that you can escape to for an hour or so. The impact of a song can be amplified depending on what precedes it or follows it. Indeed, just as songs are structured to have emotional and energetic peaks and valleys, a great album shares a similar structure that can't be experienced in bite sized morsels.
But times change, and you either adapt or die. The fact is, people are buying their music differently than fans in the past have, and that can't help but alter the way it is sold. It'd be nice to see more artists working to make the album more appealing to consumers by making as much effort as possible to ensure every song is a good one, but we may have already passed the tipping point. The truth is, no one truly knows where all of this is going to end up. It's exciting and terrifying all at the same time. But we as musicians need to keep open minds and listen to what the fans want. It might be at odds with what we personally believe, but if we approach changes like this as challenges to be conquered, instead of trying to convince consumers that they're "wrong", we might find out this business can be salvaged after all.
What do you think? How do you buy your music these days? If you make your own music, would you be open to releasing multiple EPs instead of full length albums or is the album format too important to just let it die?
Posts
8 comments:
I'm no expert, but to me the "album as an art form" has seemed dead for a long time. Like 10 years, at least. I mean, even when it was more valid, it only happened once every 5 years or so anyway that a cohesive album was released that was *amazingly* good. I can think of very few albums that I can listen to all the way through, even by my favorite bands, and it seems like even fewer of those were *meant* to be. Anyway, that's my take on it. I might be too picky *shrug*
I'm surprised at this article, as it reaches a similar conclusion to what I did a while ago - if any discs are to be really sold anymore, it's to be in some kind of abbreviated format. Of course, there will be exceptions, But I think the market will show 0 tolerance of things like double albums unless the ENTIRE thing sounds inspired and/or cohesive in some way. It has to justify the time spent listening to it. There's just too much music - quality music - to be had to waste time with any filler at all. In that sense, quality is almost strangling the market.
Another way to look at it is this - the advances in technology have made making quality music recordings in general much easier for even the common working class person with a very restricted budget. They may not have TIME or money to do an entire album (of listenable quality), but record 2 or 3 songs in a year that are totally inspired and maybe even genius. Why ruin them with 5 crappy songs written in 3 weeks just to fill a disc so it can be called an "album"? The market could soon be inundated with small releases like this, if it hasn't been already. Certainly it isn't all great, but imagine finding 30 new artists per year that speak to you, as opposed to 3? Does anyone want that many full album CD's with potentially crappy songs on them? In this case, I would embrace small releases - tidy, affordable, and no worries about quality.
Back when I bought only CDs, I'd say one-third to half of them were Maxi-singles or EPs. This might represent perhaps a tiny fraction of the market that is interested in buying anything more than one or two releases a year, an only by their favorite bands. And to be honest, this is more like how I've been the last few years. SO maybe quality "listening time" isn't an issue for the majority. But if the releases were smaller, it might not be so much for the minority, either.
If I ever release a disc, I doubt it will be a full CD length album. Partly because I never seem to finish anything LOL, but partly because...I wouldn't want to do that to people...?
The other thing is this, and I think I've posted this elsewhere - If releasing an album as an art form is the aim, then measures must be taken to ensure things are heard as an album. I'm guessing a majority of people are too spoiled or tempted by the skip button to listen to an album all the way through, if they can easily jump around. So - what if the album was all one long track...;) (At the very least, it would boost the sale of singles - HAHA)
(Good god, this post became a novel...NO WONDER I never finish recording anything...)
I think EPs are great for breakout artists for the simple facts that they are quicker to make and cost less to the consumer. People will be more likely to indulge in your music if they feel it's worth the money... and lets face it, in most people's minds if it costs less, its better value. I don't think the shortened listening time affects much in a consumer's mind these days.
That said... full-length albums are great. It's all too easy to hate music after a few hours of 'shuffle'.
I'm one of those who still love the full-length album, so I'd be more than happy for CDs to stick around.
Of course, my purchasing habits have changed in recent years. No longer will I buy an album on the basis of one good track (and discover it was the only decent track on the album!). Instead, I'll listen to the album first, or as much of it as possible (samples, myspace, or whatever) and I'll buy it only if I like it.
I've only ever bought a handful of individual tracks, it's not something I've gotten into.
Tangentially, I've always thought there must be a deep art or science to arranging a group of songs into an album, but I can't really find anyone who's written about or had an in-depth forum discussion about it anywhere. Anyone here have any leads?
As an independent artists who makes little to no money off of my one single released on itunes, I have to say this:
I don't see this as a negative situation at all. The low attention spans of music listeners today is inspiring to me, because it means you have to make every song kick them in the face with awesomeness or you give up. Go big or go home.
I believe the album will become something that is firmly grounded in a concept or a story, and not just a collection of "heres some random shit I threw together".
If it is to be that, then I think short EPs or singles are the way to go.
With that said, for the album to succeed as a format in the digital age you have to control distribution, and you have to separate fans from listeners.
Listeners might hear your song on the radio and download it on iTunes/amazon/wherever - fans consume all the possible media they can find about you and want more at all times (a good thing).
So when it comes to getting people to listen to your album as a whole, I would look at what Billy Corgan is doing now with his latest Smashing Pumpkins album Teargarden by Kaleidyscope.
We can't forget that Corgan was the first to ever distribute an album for free online - Machina II was given out on vinyl and then he encouraged the owners of the 25 copies to release the album for free online.
Teargarden by Kaleidyscope is a 44 song concept album - how the hell would anyone be able to sit through that entire thing?
each song is being released for free on the internet one at a time, and every time 4 songs are released they will be put together into an EP, which will finally culminate into a box set at the end.
This is incredibly interesting to look at because it makes people HAVE to listen to the album in order (or nearly in order depending on when they get into it), and it also makes each and every song stand on its own, as each song comes with its own artwork and tells a piece of a story, which can only be conveyed or finished by listening to the entire record.
By controlling his distribution, he is making fans/listeners have to pay attention and piece together the story one chapter at a time, rather than being handed the thousand page book and saying "alright guys have fun!". Most people would skim or never pick up the book.
I am a firm believer that the album will survive, it just needs to come out a different way. I think Billy Corgan's method is probably the best demonstration we've seen so far.
Check out celldweller's "wish upon a black star". It's a full album but it's being released episodically as two song EPs. To me this seems like a decent compromise between the two formats. You get the cohesion of an album with the flexibility and release schedule of an EP.
One part of the traditional "album" (especially some of my favorites from the late 80s and early 90s) that I think has completely died is the concept of small intro/outro/transition tracks on a record. A huge example of this would be De La Soul's breakthrough 1989 album "Three Feet High And Rising", which sports well over 20 tracks but probably only about 12 actual songs. I really liked little things like that because it created a total setting for the album's music.
Two years ago, I made an album during the RPM Challenge (sort of like NaNoWriMo for musicians) that had a 1-minute intro track, a 1-minute outro track, and a 1-minute transition track about 70% through the record, along with 7 songs for a total of 10 tracks. I put it up for free on last.fm and was surprised (and slightly frustrated) that the majority of people who would come to listen would only listen to one of the 1-minute tracks, probably because of their short length. They weren't really getting to hear the music I had made, just the little added stuff I had in there to enhance the actual songs! It's a mistake I haven't repeated since.
In a way it's kind of a lot of hubub about nothing. What we consider an EP these days is often longer than a full length was 20 years ago,a nd way longer than 30 years ago. I remember buying vinyl in the early 80's and being chuffed that there were 6-7 songs on it. The CD brought album inflation, as people set out to max out their 74 minutes (or, later, 80). Hell, my first record had 14 tracks on it.
These days I'd rather relase 8 quality tracks every year than a 14-track album with 4 filler tracks every two years.
Post a Comment