Singles vs. Albums

This came out of the "Moments to Remember" post and I wanted it have its own home.

There is an article (Link to be provided later) that suggests that musicians fear having their albums torn apart by those who want to pay for a download only a couple of singles. John and I, as staunch single supporters believe that this a good thing since most albums we have to buy (to maintain out top ten list collection) are one or two good tracks sould with 17 songs worth of crap.

Sean, correctly I think, argues that album-oriented musicians will still sell the whole album because the good is there. I agree but I think that the crux of this argument is whether the album should continue to exist at all. The only reason we have the thing is because of marketing conditions surrounding vinyl. The two formats from the 60s (the 33 and the 45) were both the product of vigorous pushes by record companies that had patents on the technology, much the same way DVDs are manufactured today. This is OK for a while, but now music (masquerading as information, according to Sean) can be transferred WITHOUT any cost of creation. That's the reason no one can really push this, because now the only money record companies will make is off of the talent that they posses and in this world of narrowcasting, there is no way to make a lot of money on anybody. And they'll still have to make videos for MTV, and they'll still have to sponsor bloated concert tours pushing more money into ClearChannel's pocket.

But this is the true revolution. If Usher finishes a song, why shouldn't he make it for sale that night? Why wait until you have 13 tracks? Isn't the release date of an album meaningless. I hope that songs will eventually replace albums completely. If someone has an artistic vision for an entire album (people like Beck and Tori Amos) by all means continue to release it. But why should greedy record companies that release two or more versions of the same album (to get more money out of those who buy early) get rewarded for HOLDING back material. More discussion, doubtless will occur in the comments so stay tuned.

Comments

[Sean]

I think you're on target, and I agree that instant turnaround would be an interesting innovation on the part of the artist. The question remains, however, about how exactly you make Beyonce a star absent that system. Without album release dates as events (and single release dates can be events, too, but there's a more-is-less problem) and the album revenue stream, just how do you get the video on the air, the artist in Rolling Stone, the payola to the radio station? Someone who wants Ani DiFranco to have equal popular footing with Justin Timberlake might cheer at that democratization, but that doesn't strike me as your position. Teenagers aren't finding the latest Timbaland production under a stone and self-disseminating it. Artists' prominent cultural position is manufactured. Without the manufacturers, would we have popular music? Is it safe to forsake Clive Davis because we're so sure that another Alan Freed will come to the surface? (And it's not like Freed was finding the music under rocks, either.)

That said, I'm not sure it's fair to say that album-length works are a technological byproduct of the album as a delivery medium. Was the under-five-minute song ever a discrete unit before the advent of recorded music? I can only think of operas, concerts and religious services. I guess there were pub music and slave songs, which maybe didn't have that progression from melody J to melody K, but I think the album (or an album-length recording) is more in keeping with the way that music has always been delivered to people than a single. And JM doesn't argue for the abolition of albums, citing Beck and Tori Amos, but for him they're the exception to the rule. That's where we differ, I think; singles strike me as the aberration from historical trends. Which doesn't mean I don't love 'em, but I think JM would ultimately like to see albumlessness n 50 years, and I think that will prove antithetical to how a lot of artists prefer to create and, ultimately, how we prefer to listen to music.

[JmSR]

Sean, your point on how we listen to music is well taken. I'll admit that as a listener, I tend to listen only to music in an order that I choose, but that is a function of how involved in my music I am. Most people put on an album and don't think twice about, so I agree 'album as delivery vehicle' is there.

But, with the next generation buying a burning their own CDs, the idea of album and even album marketing will be changing a lot. I think that release events may be for singles rather than albums. Especially among flavor-of-the-month bands with disposable singles (what Dave Marsh called elephant trash)

As a matter of fact singles lovers were so dissident that the minute singles were declared dead, Apple launched its 99 cent service. (You may think singles died in the early 90s with the rise of the CD, but really it was about 2001.)

I guess Sean, what I'm purporting is a return to the 50s and 60s artist paradigm. Singles are released by artists and then collected onto greatest hits albums. Concept albums still exist (remember Sgt. Pepper's and Revolver had NO singles released). Certain albums produce single. "Johnny's Greatest Hits" by Johnny Mathis was the biggest album ever in longevity until "Dark Side of The Moon". Why? It was the only album that had many of his songs.

It was a glorious time and it could be glorious again. As a matter of fact, the artists of that time released single after single just to stay in the public mind. This is done today but there is just more crap filler.

[John Sams]

What I love is that bands like Metallica and the Beastie Boys (neither of whom I disrespect) are so picky about how people listen to their songs, that they will complain until they are blue in the face about song downloading. Is there that big a difference between downloading and radio? I can't remember the last time that a radio station played the entire album. The way things have always worked is that somebody hears a single, and decides that they like the band enough to own an album. There are quite a few bands that I own several CD's of, having bought my first for a single song. We buy an album having gotten the taste of what it would be like from a single or from airplay. What Metallica is apparently looking for (sorry to pick on them, but Lars has been the vocal one)is a stagnant fan base, where no one who isn't predisposed to buying the album, buys the album. The radio, therefore singles, therefore downloads, are a promotional tool. Some artists just aren't "quick" enough to realize that.