Popdose: Dw. Dunphy On… The End of the Album
Ravenscaur
· 1 year ago
A powerful entry, distopic if not Orwellian. Not sure I can say anything other than 'well said'. Prognostics rampant, on a field of dolor.
MarlboroTestMonkey7
· 1 year ago
Dw., I believe that such move, which seems perfectly reasonable and founded in real facts, would also lead to the downsizing and probable dissapperance of the big labels. How can they carry on with such dead weight? The model is spent. Maybe only promoting one hit wonders as you said, but that's all. I hope that this all leads to a self mananged-promoted artist, who sells his/her songs thru a homepage and sustains a fanbase via touring. The album wouldn't need to dissappear, but could be assembled -as it is now- by the fan, the one who keeps the fire burning.
What the new system needs to work is a way to democratically promote all artists, something that would serve as a pointer to the goods: The Internet. The day everybody has access to it, the model will be complete.
Ok, enough world changing. Back to work.
DwDunphy
· 1 year ago
The labels will thrive with a minimal amount of downsizing through the benefit of two new media outlets: ringtones and commercial licensing. These two markets will easily buoy the topheavy music corporations as they become commercial soundtrack providers versus album providers.
1Py_Korry1
· 1 year ago
Well, if we take the long view ... it seems with popular music, the waxing and waning of singles vs albums is something that is cyclical. Right now with years of music fans paying for shitty albums with only a couple of good songs, coupled with technological advances, music fans found the (almost) free alternative to overpriced CDs: P2P file sharing. With mp3 players and the ability to essentially make monster mix tapes, we collectively developed A.D.D. when it came to listening to one album at a time. And when it comes to our individualized playlists, they can be the most random collection of songs that sound really odd next to each other. The randomness of iPod playlist "mixes" has spilled over to the radio industry where many music directors are trying to "mirror" iPod playlists with random plays. In short, I think the music industry is just responding (late) to a trend that started a long time ago.
1Py_Korry1
· 1 year ago
Oh, and great post!
JonCummings
· 1 year ago
This is a great, well-thought-out piece full of ideas the labels really should be thinking about, even if they're not now. I think your predictions are part of what's going to happen, if not the whole thing. I believe that, at some point down the road, even iTunes is going to have to adjust because, in the age of streaming media and endless downloadable possibilities, paying for individual tracks is going to cease being an attractive option for a lot of people.
I believe that while individual-track or -album sales will continue on some level, subscription-based services are going to become more popular. This will alleviate some of the labels' risk, because if they can develop an industry-wide model based on x-number of consumers paying, say, $10-$25 a month for access to huge volumes of downloadable music, the labels will be able to base their A&R and release decisions on a stable revenue stream.
Additionally, such a model will enable at least some well-established acts to exert their creative muscles on an album-length level, even if new artists are signed based on an assumption that every track released under an initial contract should be single-quality. I honestly can't imagine a world in which U2 or Springsteen or Radiohead or Dylan or Leonard Cohen (you get the idea) couldn't pursue their muses across a dozen tracks released simultaneously; however, that doesn't mean that even Mariah or Madonna need to be putting out full-length efforts if they (or Timbaland) don't have the material to justify it.
This is a fascinating subject that should be/hopefully is under intense discussion in boardrooms around Manhattan and Hollywood. We should kick it around amongst ourselves for awhile, too...
The artificial construct that is The Album is all-but-dead commercially. The sooner the record companies realise this, the sooner we may be able to enter a new golden age of pop music. Bring on a period of musical Darwinism!
JonCummings' subscription-based model also seems likely to be given a run-out before too much longer, though I fear that model may flounder if it the music is tied to a particular device. While someone might gladly pay $20 a month to access a library of music, would they be quite so prepared to pay three times that amount just to have that library access across their computer, their MP3 player AND their mobile phone?
Because that's the way music execs seem to think: "We've been able to re-sell the same catalogues over and over again for decades so why won't it work now?" Sometimes I wonder whether the suits actually understand digitisation at all.
This has the potential to be a hugely exciting few years in pop music, yet nobody in the industry seems to recognise the need to try new things NOW before the entire industry collapses under the weight of all those 1s and 0s flying back and forth across the web.
eric
· 1 year ago
Isn't it early to write the epitaph for the album when the bulk of sales are still CD albums? Yes, trends are moving in the direction of the single, but trees don't grow to the sky. Trends at some point level out or even reverse.
The subscription idea doesn't appeal to me at all, unless the cost is quite low. I already have enough music to keep me entertained for the rest of my life. It doesn't stop me from buying new albums, but that's just the point. People like to own, not rent. (Even if they stole it, haha.)
TruthMinister
· 1 year ago
Eric, as Dw. says, albums will still exist - both originals and compilations - but the album's 50-year dominance as the most important format in which we buy music is over.
Similarly the CD will - slowly - be replaced by digital format, particularly now bandwidth and storage are so much cheaper, in the same way that the vinyl record and then the tape cassette both faded away over a period of time. Most of the 20-somethings I work with don't buy CDs now - they go straight to iTunes or - more pertinently - less legal sources.
I'm with you on subscriptions - I'd be surprised if that model becomes popular - for the very reason you gave that people like to own what they buy.
JonCummings
· 1 year ago
As the mentioner of the subscription-based model, let me be clear that I don't think the current subscription services are worthwhile at all--they're too incomplete in their offerings, they're not DRM-free, there's too much hassle getting music onto various devices, and you don't get to keep the music if you stop subscribing. All those problems need to be solved before a subscription model works for me.
The model I'm thinking about is not a streaming, pay-your-bill-or-lose-it model. I'm thinking of a model that is more like a cable video-on-demand system writ large, with everybody having a TiVo.
Let's say there's an iTunes-like website that offers the entire vast universe of music content. Maybe you could pay $10 a month to stream that content, or maybe to download files that must be renewed every month when you pay your bill. OR you could pay $20 a month, and purchase the ability to download permanent files of anything and everything you want, DRM-free. After that, it's yours to keep. If you have the time, bandwidth and wherewithal to download every single recording known to man, then have at it. But if you want more stuff next month, you'll have to pay your bill--or perhaps you can still purchase songs individually, but under my fantasyland subscription model there won't be much incentive to do that for anyone who's got $20 a month.
What I envision is a business model in which many millions of people commit to spending relatively small amounts of money, on a sliding scale, for access to temporary or permanent copies of...everything. It seems to me that such a model could fund a thriving recording industry, though it would probably be one very much unlike what we have now.
How to get there, I don't know. How artists will get their content onto the database and how they'll get paid, I don't know. (Maybe artists will get paid by the sale--a song that's downloaded a million times will be worth much more than your brother Ed's upload that sells five copies to your mom.) Who (if anyone) will serve as a gatekeeper for such a system, I don't know.
It's music-collecting Utopia, my friends! (maybe...)
niksoerum
· 1 year ago
Something like the thing you are describing already exists. emusic.com offers a limited number of downloads each month, for a subscription fee. The more expensive subscription the more tracks are allowed each month. Furthermore, the price pr. track are lowest for the most expensive subscriptions. The thing is that you get to keep the tracks you download. At the moment there are 3 available subscription plans: A: 30 songs/month , 12,99 euro/month B: 50 songs/month , 16,99 euro/month C: 75 songs/month , 20,99 euro/month
Not said that this is Utopia, but its a step towards it. And with this huge competition going on, I'm sure that the available offers will continue to improve for the consumers.
Russ
· 1 year ago
The heyday of the album was in the vinyl age, and albums seldom surpassed the 35-minute mark. Albums grew to the 70-minute mark because the CD could physically hold that much without an increase in manufacturing costs, NOT because the music itself was so good that 35 mintues just wasn't enough. I curtailed my CD purchasing before the age of Napster for just this very reason. Consumers couldn't switch to the "singles" mode fast enough - it's always been the labels limiting the supply of singles that had been their advantage. Except for the late 60's early 70's where singles were "uncool", singles have always been the preference for most consumers. And that was more of an American phenomenon anyway; there was a time when singles and albums were considered distinct products - the idea of singles being "taken from the album" was seen as a ripoff.
Read music history and you'll notice the drop in record sales in the 70's coincided with the effort to kill the single - roughly the same time when new bands stoppped being signed to "initial single" contracts - think of all the 70's rock bands like Queen, Blur Oyster Cult, Steely Dan, etc. whose first major label release is a single-only track.
I don't think the major-label album is dead, but you will be seeing contracts structured such that albums won't be green-lighted if the single tanks.
All Comments
I hope that this all leads to a self mananged-promoted artist, who sells his/her songs thru a homepage and sustains a fanbase via touring. The album wouldn't need to dissappear, but could be assembled -as it is now- by the fan, the one who keeps the fire burning.
What the new system needs to work is a way to democratically promote all artists, something that would serve as a pointer to the goods: The Internet. The day everybody has access to it, the model will be complete.
Ok, enough world changing. Back to work.
I believe that while individual-track or -album sales will continue on some level, subscription-based services are going to become more popular. This will alleviate some of the labels' risk, because if they can develop an industry-wide model based on x-number of consumers paying, say, $10-$25 a month for access to huge volumes of downloadable music, the labels will be able to base their A&R and release decisions on a stable revenue stream.
Additionally, such a model will enable at least some well-established acts to exert their creative muscles on an album-length level, even if new artists are signed based on an assumption that every track released under an initial contract should be single-quality. I honestly can't imagine a world in which U2 or Springsteen or Radiohead or Dylan or Leonard Cohen (you get the idea) couldn't pursue their muses across a dozen tracks released simultaneously; however, that doesn't mean that even Mariah or Madonna need to be putting out full-length efforts if they (or Timbaland) don't have the material to justify it.
This is a fascinating subject that should be/hopefully is under intense discussion in boardrooms around Manhattan and Hollywood. We should kick it around amongst ourselves for awhile, too...
The artificial construct that is The Album is all-but-dead commercially. The sooner the record companies realise this, the sooner we may be able to enter a new golden age of pop music. Bring on a period of musical Darwinism!
JonCummings' subscription-based model also seems likely to be given a run-out before too much longer, though I fear that model may flounder if it the music is tied to a particular device. While someone might gladly pay $20 a month to access a library of music, would they be quite so prepared to pay three times that amount just to have that library access across their computer, their MP3 player AND their mobile phone?
Because that's the way music execs seem to think: "We've been able to re-sell the same catalogues over and over again for decades so why won't it work now?" Sometimes I wonder whether the suits actually understand digitisation at all.
This has the potential to be a hugely exciting few years in pop music, yet nobody in the industry seems to recognise the need to try new things NOW before the entire industry collapses under the weight of all those 1s and 0s flying back and forth across the web.
The subscription idea doesn't appeal to me at all, unless the cost is quite low. I already have enough music to keep me entertained for the rest of my life. It doesn't stop me from buying new albums, but that's just the point. People like to own, not rent. (Even if they stole it, haha.)
Similarly the CD will - slowly - be replaced by digital format, particularly now bandwidth and storage are so much cheaper, in the same way that the vinyl record and then the tape cassette both faded away over a period of time. Most of the 20-somethings I work with don't buy CDs now - they go straight to iTunes or - more pertinently - less legal sources.
I'm with you on subscriptions - I'd be surprised if that model becomes popular - for the very reason you gave that people like to own what they buy.
The model I'm thinking about is not a streaming, pay-your-bill-or-lose-it model. I'm thinking of a model that is more like a cable video-on-demand system writ large, with everybody having a TiVo.
Let's say there's an iTunes-like website that offers the entire vast universe of music content. Maybe you could pay $10 a month to stream that content, or maybe to download files that must be renewed every month when you pay your bill. OR you could pay $20 a month, and purchase the ability to download permanent files of anything and everything you want, DRM-free. After that, it's yours to keep. If you have the time, bandwidth and wherewithal to download every single recording known to man, then have at it. But if you want more stuff next month, you'll have to pay your bill--or perhaps you can still purchase songs individually, but under my fantasyland subscription model there won't be much incentive to do that for anyone who's got $20 a month.
What I envision is a business model in which many millions of people commit to spending relatively small amounts of money, on a sliding scale, for access to temporary or permanent copies of...everything. It seems to me that such a model could fund a thriving recording industry, though it would probably be one very much unlike what we have now.
How to get there, I don't know. How artists will get their content onto the database and how they'll get paid, I don't know. (Maybe artists will get paid by the sale--a song that's downloaded a million times will be worth much more than your brother Ed's upload that sells five copies to your mom.) Who (if anyone) will serve as a gatekeeper for such a system, I don't know.
It's music-collecting Utopia, my friends! (maybe...)
At the moment there are 3 available subscription plans:
A: 30 songs/month , 12,99 euro/month
B: 50 songs/month , 16,99 euro/month
C: 75 songs/month , 20,99 euro/month
Not said that this is Utopia, but its a step towards it. And with this huge competition going on, I'm sure that the available offers will continue to improve for the consumers.
Read music history and you'll notice the drop in record sales in the 70's coincided with the effort to kill the single - roughly the same time when new bands stoppped being signed to "initial single" contracts - think of all the 70's rock bands like Queen, Blur Oyster Cult, Steely Dan, etc. whose first major label release is a single-only track.
I don't think the major-label album is dead, but you will be seeing contracts structured such that albums won't be green-lighted if the single tanks.