The Death of the Full-Length Album
The future of music is heading towards its past. With digital downloads gaining in popularity every year, more and more people purchase fewer albums and purchase more single songs on the internet. There are many debates over this subject that revolve around the “what came first the chicken or the egg”. Did musicians as a whole stop making great albums which ultimately led people to only want the two or three songs that were good, or did people’s short-attention span stop giving albums enough of a listen to really get the other non-accessible songs? I believe it is a combination of both, but regardless the full length album will eventually take the way of the dinosaurs.
When musicians first started recording music for distribution they would record 2-3 songs and send them to a radio station, i.e. Elvis and etc. Two of my favorite bands, The Smashing Pumpkins and Muse, have recently announced they will no longer release albums but release 2-3 songs at a time on the internet. It is where the past meets the future and very interesting how things tend to go in cycles.
This is bitter sweet for me since I believe my favorite albums are great because they captured a theme or a general feeling of a moment in time. These 2-3 songs released will in no way have the same impact as a full length album, but it will ultimately result in more releases through out a 2 year period. Generally a band will release one album every two years and would probably release 2-3 song blocks every couple of months, which is typically a net gain in songs.
So at the end of the day we lose some and gain some. Ultimately, I want more great music and I am excited about what the future will bring as the music industry continues to evolve.
Tags: full album, Music, singles, small releases
March 25th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
I’m an album guy myself and I would like to believe that most of the bands that i listen to would rather put out entire albums. As far as the Smashing Pumpkins releasing song by song, I could care less because of the fact that Zeitgeist really only had 2-3 good songs. They are probably still bitter about not getting the special release date of 7-7-07. With limited release, they would be able to do whatever they want….and in the end, Radiohead probably would have already tried it.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I was an album guy, but I can only blame the record industry (including the musicians) for the “fall of the album.” Inflated record prices, and crappy music are to blame for the most part. I remember waiting years for a band to release a new album, giving them time to tour, write, and record between each release. Now, you can buy a new Hannah Montana album every month. While she might not set a record for individual album sales, I can guarantee that she has made more money on recorded music than the pop stars of our generation. At least we can now download the few good songs that each band releases. And as for the classic bands that record a good album, I will still buy the whole thing, but I will still buy it off of iTunes!
March 25th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Radiohead would have already tried what? Although I like Radiohead (ok computer & the bends), I think it is crap how they get all this praise/credit for releasing their album on their website. They actually probably made a lot more money for releasing their album on the internet as opposed to going through a record company, which they ultimately did anyway. All the music magazines wrote a bunch of articles about this supposed revolution. This release would have failed miserably if Radiohead was not so huge… therefore no other band could really do this. It was more of a smart business decision than a “revolution”.
So, revolution MY ASS! Btw… Hannah Montana is awesome.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Really interesting post especially making the comparisons to older musicians releasing singles etc. We talked a bit about this before already but it is really hard to find albums of Woody Guthrie and old time blues artist from back in the early 1900’s. Obviously technology was a factor but so was distrabution. Now it is very easy to distribute a few songs. Maybe bands dont’ have to have long recording sessions. Just pump out however many songs the energy allows and put out the little EP and be done. Maybe some bands who have let out subpar albums will benifit from this. Perhaps they will be beter in creative spurts instead of feeling like they have to get at least 12 good tracks done in a studio.
Many metal bands pimp out EP’s for years until they get enough buzz to get picked up by a “Major” metal label (ie relapse, victory, etc). It is cheaper for them and they can sell it easier at shows. Bands can take advantage of that grass roots effort.
Like others have mentioned i think there will still be a time and a place for albums. Take Jazz for instance even when others were putting out just single songs ther wer still jazz sessions. Where the artist go in and have a feel and just go for it. It will probalby be more rare and tha really disapoints me. There are still artist out there that make a good album.
Prime example for me was the national’s album boxer last year. Some of those songs are really good on their own but many of them i like more because of their placement on the album. It has a feel and a flow to it that i can appreciate.
The record industry should love it because pop stars that produce good albums are few and far between. It is usually about selling a single and maybe two and the rest is filler crap. This should be right up their ally.
I could ramble on and on. I do see positives as well as negatives with it.
March 26th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Sorry to jump in and jump the topic back a bit….but I don’t think you can really blame anyone for the “demise” of the record industry.
It’s not that the record labels all of the sudden got “greedy” over the past decade and started pumping out sh*t for music.
They’ve always done that!
They’ve always pushed genres to their limits. Once a new sound hits commercially (let’s say Limp Bizkit) and it’s proven to make some cash, they find every single band they can and try to get as much money out of the genre as possible (i.e. Crazy Town). You could easily fill in these names with Motley Crue and Winger…Backstreet Boys and O-Town…Hootie and the Blowfish and Edwin McCain…Michael Jackson and Eddie Murphy (j/k).
The real shift came from the consumers. Technology offered the ability to purchase (or steal with the advent of Napster) individual songs. This allowed people to take the TOP 40 wherever they went without shelling out full price for an album that basically sucked, but had one good song (first thing that comes to mind is that the rembrants actually had an album released based on the success of the Freinds theme song!). People basically threw up the proverbial middle finger at the record industry and said, “F-YOU! I might want the crap you produce, but I’m not going to pay for ALL of the crap anymore!”
Thus started the end of an era. Gone are the days of the record labels basically throwing a bunch of sh*t on the wall of our ears just to see what sticks, and then pumping it out knowing that we’ll gobble up everything. Welcome are the times that you can buy your entire music collection in little “single serving” increments (Tyler Durden would be pissed!)
But just to make sure you don’t get all of your panties in a wad, SoItGoes had a great point about EPs. You still have genre-pockets in the music world that have continued to thrive putting out EPs (even still putting things out on 7″!!! vinyl rules!) such as punk and metal. And, despite the tremendous ease of distributing music to fans via a website, digital download or itunes, independent artists have continued to produce hard copies of their albums for people to buy. True, while digital downloaded albums are still offered, when you play a show as an artist it’s best to give the audience the ability to have your music right there. [–how long will it be before you go to a show and purchase a band’s album on a branded USB drive? Ha - that’s a great idea, anyone want to start a business? –]That way they walk out of the venue with your music and can help spread the word. This is a valuable piece of the record/music industry often overlooked.
So I don’t think the album will be going away. I honestly think that the Smashing Pumpkins and such are just showing how massively lazy and pretentious they are for doing something like this. [I’d normally expect something like this to come from those Pearl Jam jerks (j/k)].
March 26th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
[…] story about equity and the need to understand globalization goes both ways.undiscoveredfrontier.comThe Death of the Full-Length AlbumThe future of music is heading towards its past. With digital downloads gaining in popularity every […]
March 26th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
I only partially agree with scruffd0g when he says you can not blame anybody for the fall of the record industry. To be specific, I do not think that music as a product has fallen off. I think only that the traditional business model, of record labels deciding on what the consumer are going to listen to, as in demise. This demise is mostly caused by a shift in technology/distribution, but also the record companies and the consumer demand.
The most exciting part of this discussion is that ultimately the consumer will have all the POWER in this new music product model.
When I say that albums will go the way of the dinosaur, I refer to the album in the traditional sense. I do not think the majortiy of bands will release grouping of songs of 10-18 tracks on CDs through record companies in the distant future. To scruffd0g’s point it will be something like a flash drive or portable devise that you can pick up songs at Target or any other retail store at. There will always be vynil, but no bigger or less than now.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I don’t know what scruffd0g is talking about…O-Town is the real deal
March 26th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Topic killer….i pretty much agree with Chadinator’s last point….except for one thing:
“To be specific, I do not think that music as a product has fallen off. I think only that the traditional business model, of record labels deciding on what the consumer are going to listen to, as in demise.”
More specifically “of record labels deciding on what the consumer are going to listen to.” I’m not really sure this is or ever has been the case….well, since the whole payolla thing got shut down.
Listeners drive what radio stations play. That’s what pays the bills. When they play things that suck, people turn the channel and go away. The problem with this is that there are tons of people out there with really sh*tty music taste, which means you’re stuck listing to sh*t because of a few million morons.
MP3s, Podcasts, and satellite radio to some degree are the exception here because they put out whatever they want and YOU FIND THEM. So, yeah, they’re telling you what to listen to, but you could always change the channel or find something else to listen to as well.
I think it’s more of an argument of “Does life immitate art, or art immitate life” discussion. “Do the record companies keep putting out sh*t to force us to buy anything, or do people really have sh*tty musical taste that allows the record industry to produce sh*t and make money.”
March 26th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
The masses have shitty music taste. It’s a fact.
If they all listened to me and just listened to what i recomend the world would be a much better place… just kidding… sort of.
There have already been bands that have released albums by USB drives. Radiohead had a “box set” come out that had all of their songs on a usb drive. I’m sure other bands have done it too that is the one that jumped out at me though.
The nice thing about having a cd at a show for people to buy is you catch impulse buys. Any band worth it’s weight in gold is good live.. in fact probably better live then on the album. You want to have something there for the people to buy. I’m of course speaking to more of the up and coming bands here. Established bands i’m sure still want this, but there is a reason when you go to see a band in a little club they remind you that you can get a copy of their latest cd in the back at the overpriced tshirt/hoodie stand.
So maybe they have flash drives they sell or maybe with the inreased connectivity of hot spots with wifi mp3 players (besides zune and some iphones/touch ipods etc) come with online capabilities. If you want the album or songs while your at the show you buy them before you leave online. Maybe they have specials where if you jump on it up to one hour after the show you are at you get it at a slight discount or something.
Kind of going off on a different tangent there though.. sorry.
FYI scruffdog- those pearl jam jerks are coming to columbia june 16th. We are going to be tailgating all day before the show you should come check the jerks out and see that the old men can still rock
(for the record i am refering to pearl jam as old … not me)
May 6th, 2008 at 7:25 am
The below Courtney Love speach does a great job shedding light on this situation. It is really sad to hear how much musicians get screwed.
http://www.smashingpumpkins.com/membernews_3774
May 6th, 2008 at 9:32 am
I’m making my way through the article it is pretty long, but i’ve read all the way through the sponsorship part so far and she just proves that artist don’t care if you “steal” there records because they dont’ make shit off of the record as it is. They are used to not making money on records so as she says why not give it away and make it easier for anyone anywhere to hear your music then come see you live etc…..
Record companies have had a cush life for a long time. They need to change the business model or they will be put out of business.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
A couple of things come to mind when I read this speach and looked at the last 2 comments:
1. True, it might not be an ideal situation for artists in the current system…but did any of them actually think to read and understand what they were signing? Seems like a bit of foresight and a few questions could have prevented people from getting screwed.
2. I don’t think that any of “us” (zombiechatter members) will actually benefit or be harmed by a changing record industry. We’re all tech saavy. We know how to find new music and get a hold of it. Our only concern would be that people still make music for us to reach and that they figure out how to make some $$ along the way.
3. There is a huge benefit to artists that tour and promote themselves to “succeed” at a national level even if they don’t make a lot of $ from doing it. They can still re-coup a lot of $ touring. This works great for bands. Not so much for Toni Braxton or TLC. It’s tough for them to pull off a show at Smith’s.