|
|
So, Warner is going to start a label that abandons the physical world altogether. I'm not sure as to where I stand on this one right as of now.
On the one hand, I've bought way too many albums that were 80% dreck. Sometimes, I got a pleasant surprise; most of the time, though, I got used to finding the fast forward button in the dark. The idea of being able to buy only what I want without having to suffer through a bunch of filler has it's appeal. On the other hand, there's something to be said about listening to a song in the context of what the artist intended, taking the emotional ride from tune to tune.
Glenn has a few thoughts on the subject as well:
The album is still a defining artistic statement and the de facto measure of an artist’s career. Any musician worth his/her salt has put out a good album. Not a good single. Not a good MP3 download. A good album. Do I expect future artists to think so little of themselves that they aim to release singles or three-song EPs? Not at all. The album format is still what matters. Egos will demand albums. Fortunes are made on albums. Better than the single or EP, the album portrays all a band’s strengths, moods, conflicts and thoughts. If a band is one-dimensional and shallow then by all means let’s relegate it to a career of one-offs. If a band is genuinely good it shouldn’t stop at an EP, it needs to offer more to listeners.
Granted, there are plenty of bad albums, and there are many more that are merely mediocre. In the old days — pre-digital era — consumers were strong-armed into buying the entire album. But as Lou Reed sang, “These are different times.” People can choose not to pay and find just about anything on P2P networks (if they want to roll the RIAA dice) or they can buy a la carte at online stores. In fact, in a time when buyers can preview online (band websites, MTV.com, VH1.com, MySpace.com) and often at retailers (listening post, new digital kiosks) there’s no excuse for buying bad albums because there shouldn’t be any surprise.
But buyer beware: Buying three or four tracks may encourage the mediocre to keep recording. Here’s my theory on the sub-album model of the e-label: The downside of the digital revolution is that it will eventually provide a business model that will support mediocre artists who don’t have the goods to make a good album. You see, good bands make good albums while mediocre bands make three good songs and a ringtone. Buying albums will foster long term artist development and more worthwhile music. The three-song-and-a-ringtone model encourages labels to seek a quick return on a flavor of the month. It won’t weed out the weaker artists, and it will ruin the process of natural evolution that previously ended the careers all but the stronger artists.
One of the reasons why I can't quite decide where to fall on this one is that I'm in the process of starting my own label (for the upcoming album). Holding on to the idea of the album does have more appeal from the business side of the fence, but I suspect that the single will be rising in acension, dragging album sales along with it (rather than the supremecy of the album in the world today). But I could be wrong.
Posted by Casper at August 31, 2005 10:29 PM