While I agree with you in principle, RHCP and Metallica are well-known for putting out quality albums, which include radio-worthy songs, so I can see their point. After all, I don't see them selling (US) singles (at least on Amazon) either. Also what about artists that don't put out songs at all, like DJ Shadow? If a group wants to only allow me to buy a whole album, a song, a half-song, whatever, its their music and as such is their call. I don't see anyone complaining that you have to buy the whole book/movie/article/newspaper/etc just because you only like one chapter/scene/paragraph/article/etc.

-Posted by Eric on July 3, 2003 02:04 PM

I totally hear ya on the DJ Shadow thing, and I'd argue that he doesn't create "singles" and as such has a beeter argument for not wanting to "contribute to the demise of the album format"

I listen to a lot of Fax Records music, and none of that stuff can be taken as a single. MOST/MUCH of the Chili's and Metalica's stuff can be and is (eg, "Under the Bridge"), and I find that 'demise' comment to be pretty smarmy (but their record guy said that, so who knows what the truth is).

Saying that the iTunes biz model is contributing to the demise of the album is just totally bassakwards. Kiss Radio is way more culpable.

Also, truth be told, I used to skate to Metalica and drink Bush beer to the Chili Peppers, and I've seen both of them perform too :) These days it's FSOL and a pair of headphones for me.

-Posted by Dan on July 3, 2003 02:26 PM

two sides really: the beatles "sg. peppers lonely hearts club band" was the first concept album, and really shines most when heard from the beginning to the end. it was a new way to look at the record as a whole instead of a collection of songs or tracks. it changed the industry, and some bands (eg. pink floyd) did albums that were true masterpieces of the album art form. so there is more to this than just the desire to sell mediocre songs alongside with the hits.



the other side: well, it's over. since cd ripping and mp3 and burning, the album as a way to look at music is over, and artists should get used to it and find ways to make an art form out of what is coming. someone will understand it, and (re)define the art form just like the beatles did (well, maybe you don't have to understand it and can make it by accident, but who cares).

so, i say: artists, get over it. the album is dead. look beyond.

-Posted by peter on July 3, 2003 03:31 PM

peter wrote exactly what I was going to write in regards to releasing albums that are truly meant to be heard in sequence. Sure, some bands still put a lot of effort into tracking albums so that the album itself is an experience (The Flaming Lips come to mind) most artists just release singles that happen to come on a single album.

I think it's the artist's right to decide how their album is distributed, but if you're not producing true albums, but are instead producing a container of singles, then you're just using this as an easy cop out.

-Posted by scH on July 3, 2003 03:49 PM

yes yes--how about putting out an *album* that's meant to be heard as an album (instead of an album fulla singles). if these cats that are griping did that, then i'd agree that someone's contributing to the "demise of the album format". C'mon, they're putting out records that are nothing more than hit-bait. Unfortunately, this (hit-bait albums) is the result of the record company's direction (although i'd gather that groups like metallica and RHCP should have enough pull these days to have creative control over their work).

i want to be that cat that has stuff out on iTunes that *only* sounds "just right" when you hear it in the context of the whole album.

while we're on the subject :D - my album was meant to be heard from beginning to end. ;)

-Posted by jon on July 4, 2003 05:11 PM

Dan sums it up really well: we pay for value.

-Posted by Quinn MacDonald on July 6, 2003 10:49 PM

There is more discussion here. My favorite snippet is...

If you want people to buy the album you've got to create economic incentives. Sell tracks for $.99 as Apple is doing, but then sell the whole album for $5.00.

-Posted by Dan on July 8, 2003 03:32 PM

If you ask me, the entire 'album format' is inferior anyways. I mean, if record companies got the clue that an EP with 7 good songs on it for half the price would sell better than an album with 7 good songs and 7 shitty songs, I'm sure they would see a change in things. However, artists and labels have only one vision: get signed to a label, make an album with 14 tracks, make a music video for two singles.

The record industry is blaming internet downloading for a drop in record sales when they should be blaming themselves for being too afraid to try something new, especally cooperating with the downloaders. I will pay $18.99 for an album of an artist that I think deserves the money, but if the artist came out with a shitty album, or they are a one hit wonder, I'd rather just pay .99 for their song.

And furthermore, I think of downloading like this: if you like the song but know you will never buy the album, and you will probably get tired of the song itself soon, just get your own little free version, a.k.a. TAPING OFF THE RADIO. People have been doing it for years.

-Posted by Emily on July 11, 2003 10:36 AM

100% agreed.

-Posted by Dan on July 11, 2003 10:43 AM

TAPING OFF THE RADIO. People have been doing it for years.

of course the obvious difference is that you're getting a pretty much exact copy of the album song, minus possible static, and any DJ interference.

someone did take a little time putting it together, so regardless of whether you'll tire of it or not, it's just a Good Idea to let the artist know by giving them a little something.

-Posted by jon on July 19, 2003 11:10 PM