It doesn’t seem that long ago since Radiohead did what was once unimaginable – release an album without being signed to a major record company. On the long march to digital ubiquity as the means of music delivery Radiohead avoided the tar pit that seems to be major label thinking and came out clear winners. Yes, they resorted later to releasing the album as a good old CD into regular retail distribution but they were pioneers and were soon followed with great success by Nine Inch Nails and to lesser success by many others. Both these bands had an understanding of what their fans wanted [price level choice, quality and special packaging] and both bands understood the power of the internet for marketing purposes and direct reach. [NB: Although I believe that the digital music file will rule the day, vinyl still has a role to play and I'll get to that later.]
The most interesting part of this experiment [which at the time, I would argue it was] was not only that it was wildly successful but it laid the groundwork for what I have coined the end of the organizing principle. In other words I suggest that we are now seeing the end of the album-length work as the permanent work, the everlasting body of work that represents the pinnacle of an artists’ creativity. I am fully expecting to hear the howls of derision over this but bear with me.
Radiohead
If you were honest how many albums do you own that demand to be listened to from beginning to end? AV Club recently came up with a list of 25, some of which I agree with and Rolling Stone, Spin and other mags regularly post their lists of the “all time greatest albums” whether its 100 or 50 or less. My band Gang Of Four’s album Entertainment!
We live in an era of MP3 players, streaming internet radio, web apps – not to mention the iTunes music application and its ability to shuffle your entire digital music collection – now the cloud and almost-mobile ubiquity, the list goes on; in what part of digital music culture does an album-length piece of work now reside?
I’ll answer that question – I believe it has no place in a digital future.
The original organizing principle of music was of course hand written, composed. It then moved along to sheet music and with that came revenue from sales to the musical public and by so doing helped to move revenue income beyond just ticket sales to the opera or orchestra performances. This wasn’t enough though. It was as if music was demanding to be organized and soon enough inventors jumped in to the fray and began organizing music recording and playback – at first on tin foil.
“From the earliest phonographs in 1877, courtesy of Mr. Thomas A. Edison, the cylinder was the preferred geometric form for a sound recording. The first records were made on strips of tinfoil, the predecessor of household aluminum foil, wrapped around a 4-inch diameter drum. The drum was hand-cranked at about 60 revolutions per minute (RPM) and the phonographic apparatus made sound impressions upon the foil. The expected lifetime of a foil recording was short because after a few playbacks the sound impressions were either worn down or the foil had ripped.” [Source: Tinfoil.com]
And then along came the wax cylinder which turned out to be too fragile for popular use. Music lovers had to wait until 1930 which was when RCA Victor launched the first commercially available vinyl long-playing record, marketed as “Program Transcription” discs. These revolutionary discs were designed for playback at 33â…“ rpm and pressed on a 30 cm diameter flexible plastic disc. [Source: Wikipedia]
Technically then, we can say that 1930 was the year that the organizing principle for the length of a popular music album was implemented, and with the advent of that organizing principle it is worth noting that musical artists had no control over the length of time their masterpiece would run; they were at the mercy of contemporary technology. Album length, roughly 35 minutes over two sides of vinyl, was simply a decision made by technologists who did not consult artists. [The gatefold sleeve containing double and triple albums became the norm later for rock bands with more to say - for better or worse.]
If musicians and bands were not part of this decision in the first place then why would they complain of what modern technology now brings – their craft has been unchained from early technological limitations and they now have endless amounts of time and bandwidth to spread their creative message far and wide; along with unfettered artistic control.
The Browser is The New iPod.
On March 24th I attended the Leadership Music Digital Summit in Nashville as a speaker. That morning I heard the keynote speech by Rio Caraeff, EVP eLABS at the Universal Music Group. The stand out phrase from him that resonated with me was “the browser is the new iPod.”
The Byrds – Photo Ed Caraeff
He spoke of lamenting the loss of the experiential and tactile nature of recorded music; he missed the tactile experience of music delivered in its vinyl and cardboard form [his father was the famous album sleeve art director, Ed Caraeff.] The digital file, he argued, had stripped the experience from the music; listening to music was now a flat and unemotional activity compared with holding a well-designed sleeve filled with images, lyrics and artwork. Because of this flat experience he predicted that there would be no future for selling recorded music directly to music fans.
He mentioned one area of success for Universal; the advent of the video game. An all-encompassing experiential medium that included more than just the games – the games came with a community of like-minded people and music. They also generate millions of dollars especially through the subscription fees that are required for online gaming activity.
Welcome to the Cloud
With his phrase ‘The browser is the new iPod’ Caraeff alludes to the ubiquitous access that we have to music. The browser is no longer limited to laptop or desktop computers – mobile devices have browsers too and in the case of the iPhone the music apps have been wildly successful. 4G promises to expand music delivery to mobile users even farther. Very soon there will be even less reason to ‘own’ music as it will be easily available at our fingertips everywhere. The cloud is the perfect place for storing your music collection. All of the above condemns the album to the trash can of history, it also suggest that online music subscription services may finally gain the upper hand.
So what are musicians to do?
First they must put nostalgia, tradition and the old business models and paradigms far behind them. They must, as Umair Haque argues with regard to any business – provide something of value. Haque also pushes the concept of ‘ideals’ – “because they are what ensure the value we are creating is authentic, deep, meaningful value — not just the shabby, threadbare illusion of value.” [Ideals were sorely lacking when the labels sold CDs full of filler for $18.99.]
Humans are subconsciously moved by the emotion of music, it provides a link to their ancestry and to their tribes, it stirs not only positive but sometimes negative feelings linked to moments in time and is often steeped in nostalgia and memories. No other art form is ‘consumed’ as broadly and passionately as music on a daily basis around the world.
How music was delivered used to be in the hands of the few – bands, concert promoters, record companies and their retail distribution companies, radio, and video shows such as MTV. In tech-speak this system embraced ‘push’ – we the mighty and powerful will “provide you” [at a price determined by "us"] with access to our treasures when “we” feel like it. These days that system is rapidly breaking down as music fans now ‘pull’ what “they” want to listen to.
Control has moved from the few to the millions of many. Dull labels and dull bands offering dull, flat, non-experiential product – e.g. a CD, will go the way of the CD as it goes the way of the Dodo. Consider what Cirque Du Soleil provides as an experience compared to Barnum and Bailey‘s circus. Or Burning Man compared to your average music festival. Even the Las Vegas Beatles-themed show ‘Across The Universe’ wipes the floor with most rock concerts these days.
Music fans are no longer patiently waiting for their favorite bands to deliver new music according to the old customary cycle – album, press release, video, radio, tour. No, the fan base has to be regularly and consistently engaged. Some Ideas:
• First, communicate openly and ask your fans what they want from you
• Listen to what they have to say. Really listen
• Provide unique content such as early demos of new songs
• Never under estimate the power of a free MP3
• Forget completely the idea of an organizing principle. Invent a new one
• Use social media wisely. Twitter and Facebook Pages are best, MySpace is too cluttered
• Don’t push messages to your fans, have a two way interaction with them
• Invite them to share, join, support and build goodwill with you
• Scrap your web site and start a blog
• Remember to forget everything you know about the CD “business”
• Start to monetize the experience around your music
• Remember – the browser is the new iPod
And finally I leave you with one organizing principle that works as a tactile and experiential format and gives great pleasure – the vinyl album. Having said that I do not want to contradict any part of this article as I do not suggest using vinyl as a format for delivering an album-length piece of work. I do suggest using vinyl for the physical manifestation of your demos, out takes, live tracks etc, and always accompany it with a coupon for free download of any related digital product.
Related Links:
My Love of Vinyl Records
The End of the CD and CD Retailers
Puddlegum – Top 5 Reasons Why Vinyl Will Outlive CDs
David Byrne Tells The Record Labels to Embrace The MP3
How Killing the CD Single Killed the Recording Industry
How Bands Can Make More Money By Not Pricing Their Merchandize at Shows
For me 30 minutes of epic music, will always be better than 3 minutes.
April 1st, 2009 at 2:42 pmI’m torn, I do love listening to a great lp but they are to far and few in-between and the old dj in me loves great song and I’m always making playlist or letting the ipod go random. Though lately I’ve found some great new albums that I can listen to from beginning to end but I do refuse to buy cd’s It’s either vinyl with free digital download or download from Amazon, itunes or some other source. And I do love the free mp3 singles just down loaded the new Maccabees single from their site, http://www.themaccabees.co.uk/
April 1st, 2009 at 3:16 pmVinyl coupled with MP3 is the deal now. If it is a release I am totally stoked for; Animal Collective’s Merriweather Post Pavillion is a good example, then I am more than happy to buy the vinyl, provided it is packaged with a download coupon. Otherwise, it is MP3 albums from Amazon or preferably directly from the artist. I can’t see myself just buying singles – maybe that time will come for me, just not there yet.
April 1st, 2009 at 3:34 pmTerrific insights. With the CD, artists are still constrained by the technology when it comes to the “organizing principle.” I’d love to see an artist run with this idea and create a three, four or five song compilation that makes sense together. And why not take it to its further extreme and be willing to extend well beyond the limitation of a single or two-set CD. That would be more challenging with respect to making it hang together as a coherent piece of work. But what the heck.
April 1st, 2009 at 3:39 pmDave, great article. I’ve been reading many stories like this, there seems to be a lot of them out there right now. I have this converstaion with band mates, freinds and was just talking to someone at Jackpot Records today (the store, not the studio). It’s true I haven’t bought an album from any band (other than local bands at their shows) in a long time. I listen to a lot of stuff pasivly on line for free. When I’m really in the mood to hear something personal that has stood the test of time I still put one one of my hand full of favorite CD or listen to the I pod where I’d put those same albums.
As songwriter in a band it’s a lot to think about. Other similar articles I’ve read have left me a little beside my self. The consensus from most people I talk to is that they still want to have that album for bands they really like, something physical to put on their shelf. I fully believe things are rapidly changing in the music world. Reading pieces like this give me and others a lot to digest.
I was taking to a well known and recently sucessful Portland singer songwriter last week that didn’t know what Twitter was. Like all things, there’s the leading edge and there’s the rest of the world that’s not aware that things are changing.
It’s exciting in many ways, it’s also a pain in the ass, but more than anything it simply is what it is so it’s good to be aware of what’s happening out there. All the best, Tom
April 1st, 2009 at 3:44 pmThis is all quite fascinating at an anthropological level- that is to say one can appreciate the practicality of employing an analytical approach to the relationship between medium and art. Inamuch as the previous statement is true, you’re clearly hitting the nail on the head, Dave- and we’d all be wise to heed your advise if we want to make a living as musicians. But one has to ask, what is the implication of this kind of thinking on the art? Cyclical rejections of old forms are nothing new in western art music, of course, and often some of the best work comes from the moments of purest indignation- so to that end is is probably good that artist move away from a format which has probably run it’s course (not that many artists who’ve been making albums have bothered to become students of the form). But should musicians really be worried about the commercial implications of their formal choices? My answer to this question is, only if that choice is all or part of an exposition which relies on this concern to communicate effectivley. In short, artists should make art first, then figure out how to sell it. Ultimately, for me anyway, the lasting value of the work flows from the discipline and passion of it’s making, which sometimes does and sometimes does not include concern for, or even knowledge of, the larger context of distribution into which the work will flow. Of course, this is coming from a guy who hasn’t yet had commercial success in rock music, and has had to stoop so low as to work in architecture. The shame…
I know this argument is as old as the hills, but I think it’s valuable to continue askng ourselves this as the music business sails over this precipice- we should be talking as much about the art as the business. Actually, I suppose I’ve just argued that we shouldn’t be talkng at all- rather we should be playing and listening…
Thanks for another insightful piece.
Daniel Meyers
April 1st, 2009 at 6:31 pmGreat Post.
I agree with Hilsy – there should be no “right” amount of time for music to be organized in. If its a 3 second blast or a 3 hour opus, its all about how well the artist pulls it off. There’s still a lot to be said for a good 40 minute excursion, but that can be one timeframe among many.
What I will argue for, however, is that artists should not sacrifice coherence for quantity of content. Yes yes, make all those videos and release your old demos, put it out on vinyl or 8 track or release it in 23 languages… just as long as it all makes a statement that is understandable. I like lots of content as much as the next person, but I want something that I can take in as a whole as well. I don’t want to be led along with a string of musical bread crumbs.
Furthermore, as artists focus on directly reaching out to people, I hope musicians properly focus on expressing their ideas, as opposed to exposing their lives to their listeners. Again, some people like “getting to know” what a musician is like. I far prefer to just be wowed by whatever crazy concept or project or sound their coming up with. I want them to dig into that, not their own “regular” personal life. Maybe thats what people really want and I’m out of touch, but it seems unfulfilling and vapid to me. I know enough real people in my real life. I want you to be interesting and weird and artistic… and I’ll know it through your art first.
April 1st, 2009 at 6:52 pmDaniel – I don’t think there’s anything wrong with discussing the business and monetization of music as much as people do today. Nobody is going to stop talking about the art. However, what they need to do is recognize that, now more than ever, the marketing of music is PART of the art. – - – - – - – - – What does the music industry look like now? Falling sales due to a new media revolution and increased competition…. looks like every other failing industry nowadays (Newspapers, Airlines, GM). If we had more connections in washington, we would have been bailed out by now! The biggest obstacle to keeping good music coming is artists getting paid. There are no distribution challenges, no networking obstacles, no lack of creativity, no lack of manpower, no lack of resources, no lack of interested listeners, no lack of relevance. Its best of times and the worst of times: musicians are arguably more creative now than ever in history, but they can’t make a buck for it. Incorporating music into social media (or whatever cooky scheme the blogging heads come up with next week) is an essential experiment to keep music solvent. Its also darned interesting. – - – - – - – - So I say stay capitalist! There will always, always be good music. It will, now, always be available in the cloud. The question is, if the artist can’t figure out how to enterprise and support themselves… will they make a sound?
April 2nd, 2009 at 7:30 amGlad to see you finally get this yanked out of your head, Dave.
I’ve been on the MP3 tip for years now, but I still listen to “albums.” For now, even if it’s not a product of the technology, it’s still a construct in the minds of the music buyer/listener.
Anyway, here’s my initial take: http://roychristopher.com/the-disintegration-of-the-compact-disc
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:11 amSeveral artists like Janelle Monae and mc chris are releasing a series of concept EPs. I think this is genius because each release is cheaper than a whole album, but in the end will be more numerous and thus make more money!
April 2nd, 2009 at 1:19 pmI agree that the music industry is changing. I am a part of the problem. Most people are broke these days and don’t want to pay for something they can get for free and if one can have something now as opposed to later we will almost always choose to have it as soon as possible.
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:06 pmRecords are products, music is a product and I suppose almost as important as image or promotion. The music industry is indeed an industry and a business. I understand.
But I feel like the further away from records we get the cheaper the experience becomes.
My generation is addicted to information and notoriously short on attention and as much as I like downloading music and as valid a thing, as much of a true reality the shift from tangible artifact to digital signal is- I must say that I don’t like the way things are shaping up.
sure, I can find almost any record I could ever have wanted to listen to online and a lot of the time for free, but I feel like the music’s connection to the computer or ipod or what have you fosters a disconnection from the true experience of listening to and or being able to appreciate music and tends to devalue the experience not least by it’s inherant assosciation to the computer.
The changes have been quite democratizing, yes- and I’m glad that I can show people my music and hear theirs for free all around the world 24/7, but how many times have you skipped a song just off hand because of one chord you didn’t find pleasing? when was the last time you listened to a full record and really tried to grasp what was being presented? It’s hard because everything these days is so fast an easy, but I miss reading liner notes and looking at record sleeves and getting enveloped in the music that I hear.
this seems much harder when the music, however good- is coming out of my computer… the look is uniform, the art; however stunning is still just another picture online… it’s like ebooks or something- how many people would perfer ebooks and pdfs to actual paper books? I’m sure there are some… but still…
it’s just not the same… I mean, I’ll listen to bands on myspace, but I can’t sit there for 20 minutes looking at someone’s myspace page… it’s just not engaging… it’s maybe too mutable and subject to change. constant evolution is what we’re dealing with and that’s fine but less seems to be concrete now.
I love having a computer, downloading, finding new music, researching old music and whatever, but what’s killing me inside is this association to the computer that is growing and taking me farther from the music itself and the ideas expressed into just average mundanity…
I like hearing full records, man… it just seems that I’m so bombarded with information and music I’ll never have time to hear it all or develop a healthy relationship to the music that I’m consuming… why even listen to a full song, you know? to hell with it… my way right away…
I dunno… sorry about the longand incohrant rant…
I’m sure that I’ll figure it out but I can’t help but feel like I’m not alone in feeling this way.
I mean yeah, records and cds and tapes are dead- the future is now… but there were certain aspects of the past that will be missed whether people percieve what’s being lost or not…
kindof like how much sweeter mixtapes are than cds or people just dumping a ton of stuff on your hard drive…
it’s just too impersonal…
whatever…
good article. ; )
love,
alex.
Thanks for that, Dave. It’s nice to see a well thought-out post on this subject.
That being said, people still like a collection of songs. I think EPs will probably be on the rise in the next few years. It’s a nice middle-ground that can be distributed digital-only or in physical format (or both, obviously). Shorter production time as well, so there’s less time between releases.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:13 amfunny, I ONLY deal in full length albums, if I only have a few songs from an artist I likely just won’t ever listen to them, if I’m loading up the iphone then it only gets albums that are solid in their entirety, at the very least 4-5 songs I’ll listen to regularly. I never put single tracks on my mp3 players.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:27 pmJustin- You of course make an excellent practical point. Charles Ives was an insurance executive, after all. I’m not carrying around a little red book here- I myself participate in a rather aggressive capitalist enterprise daily, and I see no reason that artists of all kinds should be prevented or prevent themselves from promoting their work if that is their choice. And while I agree that the intermingling of music and marketing has produced some interesting results (and Dave points a few of them out here), there not ALL interesting, and frankly the idea isn’t really either. Was In Rainbows ABOUT the way it was sold? Do you genuinely find the IDEA of “incorporating music into social media” (whatever that is) as artistically significant as, say, Romanticism? 12 Tone Music? Punk? My main reason to object, or at least raise a cautionary flag- is that to me art is about the expression of the human condition. For some people this will mean integrating ideas of economy and commerce into their work- that’s great. For some this will mean subverting, ignoring, or aggressively and willfully destroying ideas of economy and commerce- that is also great. There are a lot of facets to the human experience, and not all of them are commercially friendly. Making art with the intention of selling it can, and often is, allowing a tyranny of the audience- ultimately society suffers as a result, because experience is homogenized and dulled to make work broadly palatable. This seems pretty obvious, but I think you may be missing this essential point. We all need to eat, and for some of us that means diversification- in my case built art has turned out to be a lot more lucrative than the sonic variety- and there is truly no shame in making a living at something besides music. I’m sure Mr. Ives would agree. I’ve rambled a bit here- sorry. Chalk it up to another of the lest desirable facets of the digital world- poor editing!
_Daniel Meyers
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:05 pm[...] Could the end of the music album as an organizing principle finally be a full-blown reality? Dave Allen asks “In what part of digital music culture does [...]
April 4th, 2009 at 7:19 amI’m still very much about having a lossless file which you can only get from a CD these days except in the most rare of circumstances. It’s 2009; can we have lossless downloads already if we buy a vinyl album? I enjoy the album as a physical metaphor of the “product” but vinyl (cut from digital) is not a step up in quality and mp3′s are a step down. Thos leaves me with CD’s as my default purchase option but It might be vinyl also but ONLY because it’s rare, charming and has nice artwork.
April 4th, 2009 at 9:31 am@Menomenation
April 4th, 2009 at 10:15 amActually I’ve noticed that almost every vinyl album I’ve bought has had the option to download lossless files. And you can’t compare a CD to vinyl re quality. Music recorded on analog 16 track machine, and not dumbed down to 44.1khz to accommodate transfer to crappy CD, pressed direct to a metal mother from 1/2″ tape and then pressed to vinyl which comes with MP3 and Lossless files, is the future I look forward to..or rather a reversion to the past…
[...] me to write that I can’t help thinking Steven Wilson is talking about my article, ‘The End of the Album as The Organizing Principle‘ when he sarcastically writes about ‘industry experts’ here – “Reports that [...]
April 4th, 2009 at 2:01 pmDaniel, I have to politely disagree with you. Today, music IS about marketing. You asked if in Rainbows was “about” the way it was sold. Well, my answer is…YES! It was! No, obviously the songs and musical content had nothing to do with “choose your own price.” But the significance of that album (and I do mean this in the artistic sense) was largely about how it was a wake-up call to the relationship between people and music. 20 years from now, you WILL remember how in rainbows was sold, and not just because it was marketed “differently,” but because the way it was marketed was IMPORTANT to your understanding of who or what Radiohead was and what they were all about. Doing what they did made people think about their art differently, because it represented something modern and relevant.
Is all this just as significant as Romanacism, or Punk? Yes! It is! What I meant to describe with the “Incorporating music into social media” example was basically the whole shebang about how much the internet has changed how we listen to music. Actually, the internet has changed everything. And using the internet creatively as a medium to get your music out there CAN BE a very accurate reflection of the human condition. Here we are, wired up and communicating on a blog. We don’t even know who each other are. Crazy huh? But thats just a slice of life nowadays, and music is reflecting that. Music is no longer just recorded sound. It is simply the central piece of a modern musician’s portfolio. Todays musicians need to embrace a multimedia approach to doing things… but not just as a competitive tool. Thats limp and half hearted. Musicians should be GLAD that there are so many additional opportunities for them to present their art to people in new and creative ways. Marketing is practically a musical instrument now, and given the democratic state of the internet, forward-thinking musicians should be very excited by this. Music is marketing. Marketing is art. And an artist should never turn down an opportunity to further express themselves. People keep waxing poetic about how the industry is changing and how its all big and mysterious… well, I say wake up! The change is here, and it is nothing less than the fact that music is now Ubiquitous to our lifestyle. There has never been a better time to care about music, ever. The internet is a giant music-appreciation machine that we created for ourselves, and we all should be very very very happy to dive in and try and use this fascinating thing – the most significant artifact of TODAYS HUMAN CONDITION – to express music.
April 4th, 2009 at 2:10 pmYears ago, we had “playlists.” They were called (still are, i think) cassette tapes. Still got my old Teac in the basement tight in a dustfree bag.
Back in the day, I had roommates who were futuristic in their use of albums. But can’t say I was too happy when they took that new Gang of Four short-play album out of its yellow jacket and flung it like a frisbee at the green line train clackity-clacking its way past the open window.
April 4th, 2009 at 8:42 pmArcade Fire kicking the tires of the organizing principle while offering up tiered pricing. Miroir Noir
April 5th, 2009 at 7:24 am@sauerkraut
April 5th, 2009 at 7:26 amCassettes yes, I used to make tons of mixtapes and still have a bunch too. Gang of Four 12″ met an untimely end then?
Sorry this is long. Putting off writing a WW story.
I think that the album still has a place in popular culture because it’s the litmus test to find out if an artist is really worth following or not. No, not every album is going to be an O.K. Computer or Graceland or Prince Among Thieves, but fans still use albums to decide how much enthusiasm they should invest in an artist. You can freak out over a single, but I don’t think a single (or even two singles) gets butts in the seats when an artist tours through town. We all have our specific tastes, and to any of us, 90% of what we hear is white noise, 10% gets us excited and maybe 5% resonates with us enough to make us fans. I think that people are always going to want to make connections with their favorite artists, and that means listening to more than just the singles. It means reading liner notes, looking at artwork and hearing what an artist can do when they’re not limited by three or four minutes for a single.
I don’t think that any artist ought to be limited (in either direction) by the 70 or 80 minutes a cd can get them, and that’s a neat part of the digital thing, but when you’re really a fan of a specific artist, you want more than just a few minutes or the same song on repeat, and to me, 45 minutes of a pretty good band winds up being enough to quench my initial thirst. I like live sets that last about that long, too. I think it’s more than just the oppressive album format, it’s sort of a natural thing. Spoon’s Girls Can Tell is like 36 minutes and it’s a perfect 36 minutes that I can still throw on to this day and enjoy it front to back. I know I’m old guard, but I know an awful lot of web-savvy people who feel the same way about their favorite bands’ albums.
You see more interest in straight-up singles in the hip-hop world than you do in indie rock, but i think that’s because a) so much of hip-hop is co-opted and the consumer knows full well that the album won’t live up to the single anyway, and b) the hip-hop mentality is to pack a disc to the brim, which usually means unnecessary filler and skits. I’ve been railing on the culture of never-ending rap albums for years but no one listens to me. Put your 12 best songs on a disc instead of releasing an unnecessary double-album with 36 bullshit songs and 12 good ones and maybe hip-hop fans will start buying full albums again.
I don’t know why I’m still blabbing, but there are ideas here that I agreed with and a couple that I really don’t:
“First, communicate openly and ask your fans what they want from you/ Listen to what they have to say. Really listen”
Most of my favorite records wouldn’t exist under this credo. Fans usually think they want more of the same, and I think that’s often what they’d ask for. Not many people would have asked Bob Dylan to go electric—they wanted him to write a hundred variations on “Blowing in the Wind.” Whereas everyone wanted more of the Blue Album from Weezer, and we got like four consecutive albums of half-hearted bullshit.
Then again, in both those cases, the artist had more commercial success when they stayed on the straight and narrow path. Metallica is a blueprint for moneymaking (and despite all the napster stuff, reasonably good at communicating with their fans), and they haven’t done anything original in 20-some years. They know exactly what the fans want, and they regurgitate it to them until their fans are no longer functioning members of society. Good for the band’s bottom line, sure, but I think when you give the people what they want, you rob them of what they haven’t experienced yet. Great artists need to be willing to say “fuck what you want, this is where I’m taking you.” That’s when the the art progresses. That’s when Kanye hangs out with Daft Punk and Lil’ Wayne picks up a guitar, too. And shit, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, but it’s something the arist wants to try, and they have to be willing to let the fans sort out whether the experiment worked or not. That’s when the fans should come into the equation, in my opinion. They are the critics. Not the writers or the band managers.
And the juxtaposition between “Invite them to share, join, support and build goodwill with you” and “start to monetize the experience around your music” is troubling to me.
Yes, artists need to make money, and yes artists should be respectful of their fans. But I really believe that—unless you’re fleecing 13-year-old girls with a shirtless emo band—the fans can smell a ruse. If you start off answering MySpace comments and hanging out at merch tables and keeping a blog when you’re a blossoming artist, then retreat when the money comes, you might still make money but you’ll lose your soul. You’re either D.I.Y. for life or you’re destined to be forgotten.
I really do get that music is a commercial endeavor. I just think that, if your artistic goals come after your social networking and fanbase-building goals, everyone suffers. Especially your friendly local music critic.
However, the call for inventing your own new organizing principle is well-recieved on my end. If R. Kelly had serialized “In the Closet” as a series of 7-inches, I’d have been the first in line to get each week/month/whatever. Ok, bad example, but yeah: Blow up the album if you like, just don’t assume that a single is going to give you a career in music, especially in this day and age.
The world needs real, thoughtful artists—in every genre, even the ones that don’t exist yet—more now than ever. But I don’t think you have to kiss fans’ asses and go crazy on Twitter if you make great music. Because if you make great music, someone will take it upon themselves to be more bloggy about your art than you could ever be.
April 6th, 2009 at 1:50 am[...] son blogue, David Allen propose ces idées pour favoriser l’engagement de vos fans envers votre groupe [...]
April 7th, 2009 at 5:24 am[...] The end of the music album as the organizing principle Post from pampelmoose.com. [...]
April 9th, 2009 at 9:51 amFirst of all – KUDOS to ALEX above! He gives me enormous hope!!!
Re: Dave’s article – My question is ultimately this: Why is it not possible for all choices to be available? It seems to me that the more possibilities offered to artists and consumers leads to a need to proclaim one new method as “better” than another. I don’t see why.
There are pros and cons and everyone must weigh their choices by basically asking themselves: what is it I really WANT?
There is no reason that an artist cannot choose to only make a single recording meant to be enjoyed as a 3 minute piece and also choose to want to create a larger effort that allows different pieces to segue together into an encompassing work. It’s like stating that books are dead because there are chapters.
I don’t agree with the popular notion that “labels are bad” and everything they do is crap. The sad fact is that they give the masses of people what they want, as do TV, films, book & news publishers, etc. The numbers do not lie. Most people do not pay to see a well thought out documentary of substantive content, pay to read deeply intellectual books, factual important news or pay to buy music that is thought provoking out-of-the-norm art.
I didn’t say NO ONE buys it – just not MOST. Nowadays.
People have to be introduced to new tastes through repetition and generally the stuff that becomes considered great is the same stuff that most people thought was at first “weird” and took several listens and a lot of promotion to become popularly accepted.
What is wrong at labels (and generally everywhere) is the consolidation of labels into giant corporate conglomerates that are driven by bankers & EBITDA. Labels were created by and run by artists & producers until this fiasco in the 90s allowed for their demise. They used to foster & cultivate artists and let them grow into their own. Now the demand is for immediate numbers, not great art.
And the public seems to have learned to have no patience or loyalty to wait for an artist’s next project beyond a second release. As Alex points out, the more it is seen as a disposable, cheap freebie, the more it is perceived as valueless. Now we are told that the solution is to pay subscription fees to hear things, never own anything and be completely dependent on some conglomerate somewhere streaming content to me – oh and we get to endure ads. This is progress?
I do not want to be dependent on some entity for me to hear what I pay for. I want to hear it when I want anywhere I want and have it to come across when I think I’ve long forgotten it. And I certainly don’t want to see or hear ads – ever.
I quite love and admire NIN and Radiohead, but I also find it bizarrely disingenuous that they are touted as cases in point in successful free download ventures. The truth is that had they not become massively famous via their past label deals, no one would know who they are and millions of people wouldn’t care about their downloads or buying tickets en masse to see them in concert.
I do not understand the thrill that so many great young artists are getting from toiling to make great new music only to give it all away for free and think that somehow they can magically earn a living from this or be able to sustain their art.
How are people supposed to find them? Just randomly searching the web? In an ocean of artists?
As Justin sadly points out – art has become marketing. We seem to care more about the buzz, hype, spin and flashy splash page than we do about the depth of the product. Pretty much the same way we care more about the marketing of the food we eat rather than its quality. We pretty much woof down our food, rarely savoring it – much the same way we now seem to treat our art.
I think we need to find a way to get back to the original ideas of labels that were good and blend those with the new freedoms now available. Labels & publishers need to find a way to relax some of their existing regulatory issues to allow for experimentation and make a more accessible path for fans to participate & new artists to gain entry into their existing marketing, promotion, sales & royalty structures.
This seems like a much quicker way for everyone to achieve what they really want.
JMHO
April 14th, 2009 at 5:59 pm[...] the slow demise of the compact disc, the music industry’s last physical organizing principle, I thought it appropriate to ask some people inside and on the margins of that industry how the [...]
April 18th, 2009 at 8:29 am[...] Read more from Dave Allen here at his Pampelmoose Blog These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
May 1st, 2009 at 1:53 pm[...] Related post: The End of the Music Album as Organizing Principle [...]
July 20th, 2009 at 7:10 amThe possibilities are exciting.
At my Steam Powered Studio (www.steampoweredstudio.com) I have two major releases in progress. One is the “found” recordings of an early 1970′s bluegrass fiddle player and his various bands- 36 or more tracks. This would be an uncomfortable release in any physical format, so I am going to post a few at a time over a period of months. The other project is the release of previously unreleased material from a local singer/songwriter. This material is very uneven, some recorded professionally, some not so professionally, and it would not have sat well on an album. As I release each track, I discuss the source of the recording and the progression of the songwriters development. It’s the sort of long-term project that has no real precedent in the age of physical copies.
If we want to, we can still release songs in clumps. We can make those clumps any size we like.
December 29th, 2009 at 10:16 amSo … when do you register your copyright in this brave new world of unshackled musicians? Do you pay the fee for each song you complete in realtime? Or do you wait until you have a collection of songs?
I hope the copyright office catches up with the reality of the situation someday … to be honest, the fear of losing my copyright protection holds me back from releasing songs on my site.
December 29th, 2009 at 5:57 pm[...] web – “The future does not fit in the containers of the past.” It is no different for bands. The organizing principle of recorded music is now in the hands of musicians, not technologists, not record labels. Consider this or perhaps [...]
December 29th, 2009 at 7:57 pm[...] The End of The Music Album as The Organizing Principle | pampelmoose Dave Allen of Gang of Four'… (tags: musicindustry web2.0 mp3 media) [...]
June 10th, 2010 at 5:02 am[...] Dear Musicians Please be Brilliant or Get Out of the Way [...]
October 17th, 2011 at 9:54 am“Provide unique content such as early demos of new songs”
Why? What for??
“Invite them to share, join, support and build goodwill with you”
If they like what they hear, they will share join and support without annoying invitations.
October 20th, 2011 at 11:50 am