The Album is Dead...
There once was a time when the release date of an album was exciting. For our favorite artists we knew when the last album came out and when the next album was due. If you loved the artist you bought it. If you didn't you either bought the single or you listened to the album with your friends and then decided.
As the price of records and then CDs increased year by year, spending 20 bucks for a CD became a purchase you needed to be sure of rather than a no brainer or impulse buy.
Then free became an option.
Then aggregating almost unlimited free music on a PC and then an IPOD became easy.
So here we are in 2008 and the only given in the music industry is that CD sales have and will fall. And fall. And fall.
Reading last weeks billboard, something interesting popped out at me. The song Low Rider by Flo Rida sold 467,000 units in a single week. There were 27 digital singles that sold more than 100k units in that week. The obvious trend continues that people are ready, willing and able to buy singles of songs they like.
So the question arises, why don't artists serialize the release of songs ? Why not create a "season" of release of songs, much like the fall TV season and promise fans that Flo Rida is going to release a new single every week or 2 weeks for the next 10 weeks ?
Sure, its not easy to come up with a great song every 2 weeks. But isn't that exactly the same problem you have with an album ? Maybe thats not the "creative process" for certain artists. That's a problem for them.
What we do know is that music fans will spend 99c and that its easier to ask them for 99c a week than it is to get 9.99 at one time from them for 10 songs.
Serializing the release of music also allows for the marketing arms to be in constant touch with sales and radio outlets. Rather than having to initiate marketing plans and hope to reinvigorate the interest in an artist, it becomes a digital tour that never ends.
If an artist commits to release music on a weekly or bi weekly basis, then consumers can make a commitment knowing they are going to get something new and hopefully exciting for their 99c. If the commitment is strong enough its feasible that artists could sell subscriptions to their serialized releases. My guess is that consumers will feel better about subscribing to an artist and getting a song a week or every 2 than dropping 10 dollars at a time for an album.
In reality thats exactly how I buy my music right now. I dont do it by artist. I go to iTunes and I go through the top 10 lists and listen to samples and thats how I determine what music I'm going to buy.
If there was an option when I bought a single to subscribe to an RSS feed that would send me a sample of that artists song when they released a single, I would add that RSS feed to my browser. Add a 1 click to buy, and chances are I'm going to buy a lot more music.
Is this idea so great I'm going to start a music label ? No chance. I wouldn't get in the music industry if you paid me. However, as a customer and a buyer of music, if I knew that my favorite artists were releasing music weekly, I would certainly check by every week or listen to what was in my RSS aggregator to see what new stuff they had for me.
Consumser are buying music 1 track at a time. I think people will pay 99c to get a single rather than steal it. I think people would rather steal a full album rather than pay 10 dollars or more for it.
Labels need to make the effort to get artists to deliver in a manner that realizes these perspectives.
The album is dead.
Mark Cuban co-founded Broadcast.com in 1992 and is currently the owner of the Dallas Mavericks.




The album concept allows the artist to follow a theme and its songs being recorded at approximately the same time will have a cohesive feeling. Maybe we've become so overstimulated that we can't sit and concentrate to our music for more that 3 minutes at a time. It's just background noise now.
Being an internet pioneer I'm sure you'd love to see your vision come true Mark, and sadly it probably will.
Patrick
The last two CDs I (just) bought on Amazon.com were $12.97 and $9.99.
CDs offer superior sound quality , compared to compressed digital music.
Currently, those who only purchase individual songs, rather than entire albums, are missing many lesser known gems, and are missing the cohesive experience of an entire album.
Um. What?
You need to check your facts, or at least your science. CDs ARE compressed digital music and you can buy CD-quality music from iTunes. Digital is digital, dude. It's all about the sampling. You could get higher quality than CD by buying vinyl, assuming of course you have a pristine copy and the right equipment (including your own hearing) to hear the difference.
And while there are certainly albums the provided a "cohesive experience" out there, most are simply filled with one or two good songs couched by a bunch of crap.
The audience for recorded music is fragmented, just as the output of the industry is. While there will always be a market for singles - and now a market for single tracks - that is the lowest common denominator; the Big Mac market. It's music for people who don't really listen to music. People who "go to iTunes and (...) go through the top 10 lists and listen to samples and (to) determine what music (they're) going to buy. People like you. Fortunately, you're not the entire audience. Some people still love music.
The concept of a "season" of releases might work for those who view music as ephemeral brain filler - but for many artists it simply would not work. Not every song is a single. This isn't TV, where each episode has to fit the same template, do the same job and leave you wanting more.
A collection of songs can have its own texture - its own peaks and troughs. Moments of quiet reflection followed by an anthemic pay off. The classic albums are complete works, not mere song compilations.
While I believe this system could prove profitable to the music industry and flavor-of-the month entertainers who simply perform songs written by a professional, I think it would further limit the possible exposure of real artists. Imagine if this serialization system was applied to other forms of art, such as painting: I'm sure it would lessen the impact and (intangible) value it offers; in fact, I'd go as far as saying it would cheapen it.
Even if you take the art out of the music and consider songs a product; I'm not sure this system would work. Consumers with so many (instant gratification) options are unlikely to tie themselves into a subscription service for a product they have not yet received, nor would they be sure of the quality of the product (e.g., I have quite a few "fav" artists on my list that have released HORRIBLE songs).
Furthermore, I can see the serializing of music being akin to the issues game publishers currently create when they rush the developers to finish a product. Instead of a completed product, you receive a hurried one and unlike games, you can't really patch a song. In addition to this, you have (great and potential) projects that will never see the light of day, simply because they do not fit into the publisher's bottom line.
No, I would definitely be against this idea - not because it can't be profitable, the system is already in place to serve the bottom line. Rather, I'm against the idea because it encourages the further cheapening of the art aspect of music into something relatively empty and meaningless.
The other silly statement you make is that CD's cost $20.00. Where are these people who pay $20.00 for a CD shopping? Does the CD come with a joint or some other drug?
Even when they're not on sale, most CD's are available for $15.00 or less. Many are on sale the first week for 10-13 dollars (which is less than I paid for a CD in 1987, even if you don't adjust for inflation).
No, the problem is that radio long ago gave up on albums. MTV long ago gave up on music, and kids today have other things they care about.
You also claim that people are willing to plop down a buck for a single, as opposed to buying a CD. What you gloss over is that more money is made on CDs (much more) than on downloads and that most people that pay for music get it on CD. Personally, I think anyone who settles for a crappy lossy audio file isn't really that interested in music to begin with (or at the very least only listens to music on a DAP with bad earbud headphones)
Finally, your idea of subscribing to an artist won't work. Most willing to subscribe to an artist are the same people who will run out and buy that artists CD. I like U2. I may not love every album, but I buy the album no matter what. I'm the target for subscribing to an artist, and I'm already buying the CD.
My brother is ok with U2, but he's not going to subscribe to some U2 channel for a song 2x a month. He might do that for Pink Floyd, but he'd buy the album, so we're back to square one.
I occasionally like a Madonna song. There's no way I'd subscribe to her....she's too hit and miss.
Of course, as others have pointed out, even with pop/rock/country music there have been a lot of talented performers/songwriters that have very artistically crafted a collection of connected/related music. While I can see the argument that digital distribution greatly expedites the ability to purchase songs more selectively, I'd really hate to see the artistry involved with the creation of albums be lost.
Releasing music as "seasons" is brilliant. Very HBO.
However, I disagree, respectfully, with your assessment of the state of the album and, frankly, I'm hell-bent on its emphatic rebirth :-): www.outlandosmusic.com/blog
On an unrelated note, this is my first visit to your blog, sir. As such, I must take this opportunity to implore you to purchase the Chicago Cubs. I know the final decision isn't up to you, but of all the candidates, you have the most passion for the sport. I really hope you get a fair chance to purchase the team. If you end up the chosen suitor, you'll make a ton of Cub fans happy.
LoserPoet
http://shooterslounge.blogspot.com/