|
|
Joined:
May 2012
Posts: 10
| I hope this is an appropriate post. (Apologies for it's length.)
I'm a music fan, not a musician. When it comes to my favorite artists, I'm happy to purchase a new album unheard because I know I like majority of what they do. And I want a physical CD, not just a digital download. I'm going to be really bummed when I can no longer buy CDs.
For other artists/new discoveries, I prefer to hear an album and then purchase if I like enough of what's on it. Depending on how much I like it, I may want a CD or a digital download may suffice. When I really only like a song here and there, I appreciate the option of buying digital singles.
Some artists, Garth Brooks being an example, have spoken out against single buying stating that it makes it impossible for artists to make a living. I can understand the logic here but, as a music buyer, I've noticed a change, over my lifetime, in how albums are produced. When I was very young, an album by the Eagles, or Billy Joel, or the Bee Gees was full of songs any of which could be "hit" songs. There wasn't anything you'd think of as "filler". Nowadays, albums seem to be rushed out (I assume by the label execs) as soon as an artist has recorded one or two "radio hits". I don't doubt that artists do their utmost to put out an entire album they are proud of but it seems to me, from a layman's listener perspective, that often sufficient time isn't allowed to write or find the very best possible material for a cohesive album. And there certainly isn't time for artists to develop and organically acquire a following. If they don't have mega hits out of the box, they get dropped from their labels.
I read an article some years ago, and I wish I'd thought to save it, in which early album sales for greats like the Eagles and Billy Joel were adjusted to compare with what an artist is required to sell in this era. The article concluded that these greats would most likely have been dropped from their labels, if things were run then like they are now.
As most of you are actually musicians, I'm curious how you folks feel about this. Taking your musician hat off for a moment, if you can, how do you feel about this as listeners/buyers?
|
|
| |
|
Joined:
October 2009
Posts: 133
Location: Ohio | I disagree with you to a certain extent regarding filler. It may be true with certain pop artists who do not write there own music. I believe that most songwriters try to create something meaningful with each song they write. Sometimes they make a whole bunch of songs that seam to strike a chord with listeners on a single album and sometimes its spread out across several. Take Pink Floyd for example. There are certain albums were I love every song, Wish you were Here, for example and other albums I cant get into at all. I don't think that means that they worked any more or less hard on Wish, I just believe that everything was perfectly in balance to allow Wish to be the amazing album that it is.
As for changes in the industry, I think that in a lot of ways it is better and more democratic today. If I release a song and get turned down by every label, I can still self publish, release it on youtube etc. Once I have a million hits, the labels have to take notice. But in the end, I still don't need them. I can release an entire album electronically and market it myself online and through live performances without any assistance from a label. Amazing artists like the Beatles and The Doors did not have that luxury, they needed the labels as much as the labels needed them. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2005
Posts: 11840
Location: closely held secret | The labels are dead, they just don't seem to know it yet. All a quality singer/songwriter/musician needs these days is good marketing.
On the other hand, while digital music has made it much easier to create your own music, it's also made it much harder to make any money at it. In the old days there weren't that many of us that had, say, a quality r2r to copy a friends vinyl. Now everyone has a computer, and ripping/copying a CD is child's play that takes minutes. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2006
Posts: 5881
Location: Colorado Rocky Mountains | The music distribution industry continues to change rapidly as it tries to maintain pace with and its own space within the changes technology has created in recording and the recording industry. I can't even speculate where it will be 10 years from now. As a listener and retail consumer, and admittedly very much at the low end of the tech scale, I still prefer to buy CDs because their sound quality remains markedly better than downloaded mp3 files. I also prefer to listen to music on relatively good quality home sound systems and speakers. To this day, I have never even owned an mp3 player. I listen to a very extensive collection of songs in mp3 format on my office computer (how I came by an mp3 library of Billboard's top 100 songs for every year since 1956, its top 30 songs for years 1950-1955, and another 300 top selling songs before 1950 is another story), but the quality of these recordings isn't much different than an average FM station to my ears. They're good enough for an individual office computer or my garage, but not for my good home sound systems. Of course, therein lies the very problem. With so many mp3 files being duplicated and exchanged among users who don't care about quality and without regard to the legal rights and interests of artists, writers and producers, the industry cannot protect its principals. I still remember when 8-track tapes first came out. Instead of (or in addition to) buying production 8-track tapes by a given artist, the record store owner would make me a "custom" 8-track tape of songs I would personally select, with sometimes double or triple the number of songs available on a production tape. I have no idea if or how royalties were being paid for the production of those custom tapes, but to a 16 year old on a limited budget, I sure didn't give it any thought. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2002
Posts: 8307
Location: Tennessee | When I first experienced music, it was on these little discs called 45's. There was one song on the front, and one on the back. You bought these, and if you really liked the band, you might buy their album, which was usually a compilation of their singles, the b-sides, and some filler songs. We always had a boatload of singles around compared to albums. It was the way people broke into music then ... if your single caught fire, you might get an album out of it.
When FM radio became a real play, Album Oriented Rock (AOR) turned the industry on its head by forcing bands to develop a body of work, and it was cemented in place by Pet Sounds and Sgt. Pepper's ... but singles continued to hold their own in terms of radio play and production. But the record companies got greedy and tried to kill off singles, and in turn all of the one-hit-wonders and pop machines that lived off this.
The world of digital music open back up the market to singles. It took the big labels by surprise who were slow to adapt to the pushback from the market. It has been a healthy development in terms of creativity and exploring new things. It's a great way fro new acts to break into the mainstream. Really good bands still put out albums and their fans will continue to buy the albums because they're good and listenable all the way through.
Singles are great because, quite frankly, some artists only have one or two good songs in them and you only have to pay for those.
And yet the pendulum continues to swing. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 10583
Location: NJ | I too started with 45's so singles are important but the disturbing trend is that many young people just want the singles and not anything else from the artist. reminds me of the old 50's shows where there were 8 acts and they all performed 4 songs each.
mp3's are horrible anyone with the hearing of heller keller can figure that out. unfortunately I am in the minority and hopefully mp3's will evolve into something that is worth listening to.
I also prefer cd's well actually vinyl and I miss the days of cover art and credits etc. What is fascinating is that so much of the music on AOR fm were great tracks very little filler. I think that is missing from today's industry. the quality is just not there. paint some makeup on a guy or girl put them in funny clothes teach them to dance and give them a catchy tune and they are a star. Ask them to do anything else and they fall flat.
there are tons of good musicians and music out there you have to search for it. You tube, facebook, reverbnation and myspace all level the playing field. I wonder about what gets played on the triple A station WXPN in philly For years it broke local and upcoming artists but now it is a vehicle to promote the concerts they put on.
me I'm just going out and bringing the music to the people |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7224
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | If you are buying new music, and limiting yourself to buying only cd's (assuming in stores or amazon and such), you are indeed missing out on MOST of the new music out there. DiskMaker stamps more titles than the entire "music industry" combined strictly for the indie artists. Those CD's are of course mostly only available at those bands shows and websites. The majority of musicians put their stuff online. New artists and Old Artists (I just called Shirley Manson and Butch Vig old tee hee) release their Albums on iTunes and may or may not even release a CD.
The ONLY people really making CD's for distribution in stores is the record industry. Some others, but mostly the record industry, and for them, every aspect of that CD is to maximize sales/profit either directly or indirectly through marketing campaigns contained on the CD. (extras, info on web signups etc..). Replace the term "record industry" with "music distribution network" because that is essentially what they are now.
Artists in general no longer rely on Album Sales from labels for income. Touring, Promotion and entrepreneurship is where it comes from. If they release their own album on iTunes and elsewhere, than that is part of their income as it's actual income. Record Industry album sales mostly go to the record industry people that created the album with a small portion to the artist for their contribution.
I would assume Garth means buying whole CD's online as in buying the Album on iTunes vs just a song from the Album.
Personally... I listen to songs, not albums. Don't have a real "home system" as such, and other than a couple of people from back easy, don't know anyone who does. I may sample the songs of an album before download, but I only download the tunes that interest me, rarely the whole album for new artists... but sometimes.. I will get the entire new Garbage album, not a miss on there.
|
|
| |
|
Joined:
May 2012
Posts: 10
| aaronharmon - 2012-05-09 12:29 PM
I disagree with you to a certain extent regarding filler. It may be true with certain pop artists who do not write there own music.
Yes, my experience with "filler" has been with artists of the pop and country genres who do not write their own music, or much of it.
When you do release an album yourself online, do you require purchasers to buy the entire album, or is plucking singles here and there okay with you? |
|
| |
|
Joined:
May 2012
Posts: 10
| Waskel@Work - 2012-05-09 12:40 PM
On the other hand, while digital music has made it much easier to create your own music, it's also made it much harder to make any money at it. In the old days there weren't that many of us that had, say, a quality r2r to copy a friends vinyl. Now everyone has a computer, and ripping/copying a CD is child's play that takes minutes.
I have, in the past, occasionally made a mix CD as a little gift for a relative or friend. I'm given to understand now that this is technically illegal and I must admit that rubs me the wrong way. I've never been in the habit of just copying albums for people or having them do it for me. If I like an album, I buy it. But I was raised by parents who enjoyed their "album collection" and I've always viewed my music the same way. I can understand it being a problem when thousands of people are taking a copy instead of buying the music themselves. But then again, I've also purchased a few albums I ordinarily wouldn't have because friends recommended them and sent me an mp3 or two to try out. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
May 2012
Posts: 10
| boltonb - 2012-05-09 12:57 PM
As a listener and retail consumer, and admittedly very much at the low end of the tech scale, I still prefer to buy CDs because their sound quality remains markedly better than downloaded mp3 files. I also prefer to listen to music on relatively good quality home sound systems and speakers. To this day, I have never even owned an mp3 player. I listen to a very extensive collection of songs in mp3 format on my office computer (how I came by an mp3 library of Billboard's top 100 songs for every year since 1956, its top 30 songs for years 1950-1955, and another 300 top selling songs before 1950 is another story), but the quality of these recordings isn't much different than an average FM station to my ears. They're good enough for an individual office computer or my garage, but not for my good home sound systems.
I also like to put in a CD connected to decent speakers when I really want to just listen to music (or headphones, in the case of a first listen to a new album...my little "ritual", along with reading all the lyrics and liners notes and such). I'm not high tech by any means, but I do also have a little set of Altec Lansings on my computer which sound pretty good. If I just want music on while I'm busy around the house, I usually let my iTunes playlist shuffle. I do appreciate being able to take my iPod along when I'm away from home.
When I was I was growing up, Dad only let us play actual LPs when we were going to sit down and really listen (and we were well-trained in how to properly handle and clean them). For music around the house, we put in cassettes recorded from the LPs. My parents' old record collection is still nearly pristine. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
May 2012
Posts: 10
| stonebobbo - 2012-05-09 2:00 PM
The world of digital music open back up the market to singles. It took the big labels by surprise who were slow to adapt to the pushback from the market. It has been a healthy development in terms of creativity and exploring new things. It's a great way fro new acts to break into the mainstream. Really good bands still put out albums and their fans will continue to buy the albums because they're good and listenable all the way through.
alpep - 2012-05-09 2:23 PM
there are tons of good musicians and music out there you have to search for it. You tube, facebook, reverbnation and myspace all level the playing field. I wonder about what gets played on the triple A station WXPN in philly For years it broke local and upcoming artists but now it is a vehicle to promote the concerts they put on.
I also appreciate more exposure to new music via the internet, especially given that conglomerates own the local radio stations and control the playlists. I can't call up a local DJ and get him/her to play an officially-released single by a new artist, even when the DJ themselves like the song, if it hasn't been added to the approved playlist. Anymore, there's a lot on the radio (I mainly listen to country where radio is concerned) that I'm just not interested in. To be fair, I do hear something I want to buy from time to time, but it's usually just the one song, or a few from that artist.
Yay! I quoted two different people in one reply and it worked! 
Edited by Tiggs 2012-05-09 4:10 PM
|
|
| |
|
Joined:
May 2012
Posts: 10
| mileskb - 2012-05-09 2:45 PM
If you are buying new music, and limiting yourself to buying only cd's (assuming in stores or amazon and such), you are indeed missing out on MOST of the new music out there. DiskMaker stamps more titles than the entire "music industry" combined strictly for the indie artists. Those CD's are of course mostly only available at those bands shows and websites. The majority of musicians put their stuff online. New artists and Old Artists (I just called Shirley Manson and Butch Vig old tee hee) release their Albums on iTunes and may or may not even release a CD.
Artists in general no longer rely on Album Sales from labels for income. Touring, Promotion and entrepreneurship is where it comes from. If they release their own album on iTunes and elsewhere, than that is part of their income as it's actual income. Record Industry album sales mostly go to the record industry people that created the album with a small portion to the artist for their contribution.
I would assume Garth means buying whole CD's online as in buying the Album on iTunes vs just a song from the Album.
I have purchased albums on iTunes when I couldn't get, or didn't feel the need for, a CD. I was under the impression that artists don't get much money from iTunes purchases, but it sounds like that isn't the case if they release themselves rather than through a label. If I understood Garth correctly, and I think he was referring to artists on labels, he felt the labels allowing digital purchases of just the single(s) from an album meant the artist basically makes nothing, only a cent, or maybe a few, per song sold. He wants to see full digital album purchases required to ensure the artists see enough profits to be able to make a living.
I've just seen a new thing at Amazon, at least new to me, where an artist has put out a digital album which can be purchased in mp3 form for one price and, for a higher price, you can buy it as a physical CD, ostensibly with all the normal artwork and packaging...but the physical CDs are made on demand when purchased. No idea how this works out quality-wise, but I thought it was interesting. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2010
Posts: 823
Location: sitting at my computer | alpep - 2012-05-09 3:23 PM hopefully mp3's will evolve... Of course there will be a replacement to mp3s. That's how the music industry gets us to keep repurchasing all our favorite songs AGAIN! Gramophone cylinders... vinyl records... 8-track cartridges... 1/4" cassettes... compact discs... mp3s... honestly, can Omicron Persei 5 cosmic crystals be that far off??? |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2008
Posts: 400
Location: Northwest Arkansas | You can buy CD quality online. Plus, you can buy singles off the album. You can also listen like Amazon but there's a place called HDTracks.com that sells new, old, classics, classical, etc. at CD quality. You can download FLAC files that sound exactly like a purchased CD. They're called Hi-Res tracks. I'm not advertising, just telling you there is a place to get hi-quality. It still costs the same as a CD, though. The artist only makes, on the average, about 16 cents per CD. A&R gets all the money. But they also spend a lot too. I worked in Nashville during the 90's. The real money is made at concerts, for sure. T-shirts and CD's. You gotta work a lot harder to get a deal now. Since American Idol started the market has gotten flooded with wannabe's.
Edited by AdamasW597 2012-05-09 9:40 PM
|
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2010
Posts: 1227
Location: Connersville, Indiana | Tiggs, I have a reverbnation page where all my music is free to download and listen to, even the 9 new songs recorded for my next cd Guitar Mann. Once the cd is finished I will print enough cd's to sell around here and to friends, but I will continue to leave the songs on reverbnation for free. I'm don't write and record to make money, all I try and do is if I can touch one person with one song my job is done and I'm happy. I know thats not the norm, thats just the way I am. I could set up my reverbnation page to sell each new song as a single mp3 once the cd is done but thats not what i'm going to do. So If you want to listen to some music and maybe find a song you really enjoy so you can download it visit my reverbnation page listed below, or here
www.reverbnation.com/kitmann
I hope you find a song you enjoy.
Kit |
|
| |
Album Buying vs Singles
