What the hell are the Labels thinking?
33thirdcom
2,049 Posts
Ok so the Majors are scrambling trying to figure out digital music. However again this article shows that they just don't get the fact that the ALBUM format is dying, especially with the online audience. They still don't understand that they need to manage their content output better with online audiences sicne they gave up their ownership of the digital format. Apple iTunes Albums 
Comments
The saddest thing about digital music is the death of the "album". Personally, I'm more interested in albums then singles, live shows or even the artists. It's such a rare and beautiful thing when a collection of songs can be packaged together to puts you in a mood or makes you think about things in a different way.
http://www.savethealbum.com/
If say, def jam puts an album out, but the link on the def jam site and the bands webpage for five/ten bucks.
that's what i would do.
The current focus off on online music listeners on songs versus albums is simply a case of operant conditioning. People are responding to the lack of reinforcement of buying albums, because they suck ass so badly. Just like pigeons and rats, human beings respond predictably to contigencies. When they are rewarded for buying albums (with high-quality music arranged with some degree of coherence and flow), they will, uh, buy albums. Ultimately, labels have to release the music that the people want to hear, then they will buy (why do I Shadow's speech to Denzel Washington's character in "Mo Better Blues" in my mind?).
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
Is the idea of a record Label suspect as well?
I agree with that somewhat- but i do think there have been quality "albums" released in the last 5 years that people are ignoring because they just want the single for their ipod. It's another way of listening to music and i accept that. But it's killing the album- maybe I just need to move on.
I read an article, I think it was in the New York Times, making the claim that "The CD is Dead, Long Live The CD", and then a link to another article about some group signed by Universal for... two tracks. If the songs are successful, it *may* lead into an album deal, but the goal is to be able to make money through touring and merchandise. Remember when merchandise was very low on the list? Now it's become as cool as Jimi Hendrix golf tees and Marleywear.
I should not complain, because if I had two hit songs I'm sure I would be in full support of Crut beach towels and Crut hubcaps, but having a two song deal... in a way it cuts the losses for a major label, but "two songs" is basically two singles, the only thing that has changed is the technology. Two singles means "milk it for all its worth while you can", not unlike that "I'm In Love With A Stripper" guy. A major label can do things that most indies can't, but the knowledge to do those things and reach those goals aren't a secret to anyone. I'll see a Jake One credit on a CD and go "damn, all it takes is one person to see his name and he'll be on another album, maybe one day doing a soundtrack", and it continues.
But one can easily become a success as an indie, if one has the money/budget to do so, and of course the will to go through the process again. It's grueling, but it can be fun.
Labels have lost so much, when they didn't listen to the public. Columbia Records stopped releasing singles for their artists because they wanted people to buy the album. Some fans went out of their way to buy the import single, which pissed off the U.S. division. When MP3's started becoming popular, it avoided buying the domestic single, the import, and the full album. I remember reading Billboard and an interview with a record company exec, who spoke anonymously and said "we're lost, and we blew it."
I agree.
In a very real sense, the way young people are listening to and purchasing music is making everybody question again the way music is consumed. This is obvious to everybody BUT the big labels, who are defending their fortress of ownership by pouring boiling hot oil over the heads of various infringers.
Singles were based off of the requirements for format, namely 45s. The singles used to drive album sales. Then came the blockbuster concept album with no single, however you define its entrance. Let's say standard points of entry of Miles in jazz or Pink Floyd in rock. So began the multi-LP sets and stretching the length of albums from 35 or 40 minutes.
Albums will cease to be quite the slice of life you live with for years, and how they are arranged will be more wide-open, one of many artistic decisions.
I like watching the dude from Decemberists talking about the Pogues' "rum sodomy and the lash" but I do not think "the album" is in jeopardy. But the way it is encountered and consumed will be redefined forever.
I had the idea a while back of doing a podcast series called "7 days" which would be 7 24 hour-long podcasts of free jazz. Then I realized it would make me go insane and may make me hate music. But it is a beautiful idea. you know?
In any case, it's high time for artists to question what benefits a label should be bringing to the table vs. what they actually are. This has been a struggle since the beginning of time really.
I think that's pretty much it right there.
nah. people didnt stop listening to music, they just stopped paying for it. labels are probably pretty much done though.
Is it pretty much the same situation with Indie labels? I have a feeling it hasn't affected that market quite as much as the majors. is this true?
Sure. That, plus the fact that I can record a five-part polyphony on my home computer, loop it, slap on some vocal effects, and BOOM!, I have a completed song to be labeled under "lo-fi" and "art-like." Shoot a press photo with a long knit scarf, a six-month-old full beard, and a tee-shirt emblazoned with the likeness of Brian Eno, and I'm in.
Anyone with either set of genitals, any skin color, and a 10-year old computer can do this.
Shit - I'll invent and post a mouth-horn song in a day or so when I get the time. It'll be a terrible thing brimming with "Independent Spirit."
Really? From what I heard, the numbers the Dreamgirls soundtrack had to sell to reach number one in the US are about a tenth of what it would have took to reach no 1, say, ten years ago. Record stores close every day.
You're totally right about the volumes compared to say ten years ago but over the last five years the majors have done very well, despite the incessant bleating. There are fewer big selling artists but many more mid-selling artists which make up the difference.
I'm negotiating a deal like this with one of the majors right now. I honestly think it's bullshit. Basically it's for artists who cling to the (FALSE) notion that if you get with a big label they'll do all of the work of blowing you up. In these instances, the label is essentially saying "we'll take a chance on you, but not much of one" and by accepting the situation, the artist is essentially saying "I'm too lazy/lackign in resources to do all of this stuff that I could do on my own to promote myself and I'm willing to obligate myself to your label that doesn't believe in me strongly enough to commit to releasing my album as long as you'll make me some posters an maintain my myspace page". Foolish, foolish, foolish.
I've been saying this for years. A download shopping cart shouldn't be that hard to figure out. Charge $5-$10 per album, include all your album artwork, lyrics, etc. in digital format (throw in wallpapers, videos, etc. as an option for an extra buck or two), and let people download it. While I love albums, I'd buy a lot of music that way, if made available.
Those are good points.
On the other hand, in that situation, I imagine the artist is not getting a huge advance that the label would have to recoup with their soul, which is usually what happens.
If only it were that simple. Unfortunately...
1. They're also selling a less expensive product, and even with the absence of manufacturing costs, etc. they're still setting you up to recoup all of their promo costs including 50% of radio promo (which is ducats), and since you're counting on sales from a product that retails for 99cents or whatever to make your money back you still find yourself in the hole. Plus...
2. In the event that the label does elect to do the full album, these "single agreements" lock you in at really substandard advances and royalty rates. Attempts to negotiate these upward before singing will result in the following two tried and true excuses:
a. "If you're succesful, we're always open to renegotiation". (but never stated in the agreement at what sales goals or other benchmark, they'll be open to such renegotiation and of course no statement about what degree they're willing to renegotiate when it's time).
b. "In today's soft market we're taking a significant financial risk even spending these sorts of promo dollars". In a way this is true, because 99% of artists signed are a financial loss for the company. BUTBUTBUT, that's only the case because of a system that the labels themselves put in place to make it impossible for independent labels to compete with them on an equal footing, ie. you have to spend hundreds of thousands at radio and retail to even have a CHANCE of cutting through the glut of bullshite that gets released on the weekly.
The single deals are a growing part of the business model and a semi-sensible response to the fact that no one buys albums and that most artists have no more than two good songs in em. However, it's a pretty lackluster response compared to the novel idea of doing away with price fixing at retail, cutting out all of the bullshit at radio, and only signing artists who actually have talent. That said I live on Earth and not Candyland and I hold no sort of misguided notion that these labels would ever follow my suggestions. Hopefully they'll go out of business, but more than likely not...They'll just find new ways to screw artists.
The problem is the entire industry model was structured to drive the majority of the profits to the labels (and a few really big artists) and to push the majority of costs onto the little guys (listeners and most artists). And then we had the radio stations who for the most part are glorified marketing machines for the majors.
It was a broken system that needed to be shaken up in a fundamental way, and that's what we're witnessing.
I've always thought the music experience is purely about the relationship between the artist and their audience. Everyone else just gets in the way of that relationship. The more you can cut out the layers in between and focus on putting our good music and building your audience, the better!
The pendulum is swinging towards music as a commodity... all types of entertainment have been commodified. Eventully it'll swing in the other direction where people will be fed up with too much choice and too much crap out there (shitty songs, idiotic movies etc) and will be willing to pay something for their entertainment, which is better than paying $0.
Apple just introduced a new iTunes feature called "Complete My Album". Basically, if you've purchased a song from a given album (in the past 6 months) you can purchase the rest of the album at a discounted price (the price is reduced by 99 cents per song that you've purchased).
For the first 3 months, they are removing the "past 6 months" limitation so you can complete any album you've ever purchased.
So at least there is some attempt, on Apple's part, to preserve the concept of the album.
This deserves it's own thread.......wait a minute....
So they 'allow' you to buy the rest of the song on the album but don't charge you again for the ones you've already bought? They're all heart.