I wonder if we'll see a move towards studios producing albums with ONLY singles - i.e., a four song EP where all four songs are planned singles on the album. If people only buy the "hits", maybe music production will shift towards that way of thinking.
It is; a couple weeks ago one of the studios announced a plan to do just that. The idea being to release clusters of songs a couple times a year...
I don't understand people that only buy those hit songs that make it to the radio. That same album often has plenty of other songs that are just as good or even better! Talking about posers following whatever is hip. :lol:
My experience buying CDs in recent years has been the opposite... One or two songs that get played on the radio are good, the rest are terrible! A decade back, the other songs on most CDs were at least decent, if not good. A lot more CDs had multiple hit songs on them, whereas now "one hit wonders" pop up all of the time.
I buy a lot fewer CDs these days simply because the content isn't as good and I feel like I have wasted my money when I buy a CD, not because of the shift toward downloadable music.
I don't understand people that only buy those hit songs that make it to the radio. That same album often has plenty of other songs that are just as good or even better! Talking about posers following whatever is hip. :lol:
My experience buying CDs in recent years has been the opposite... One or two songs that get played on the radio are good, the rest are terrible! A decade back, the other songs on most CDs were at least decent, if not good. A lot more CDs had multiple hit songs on them, whereas now "one hit wonders" pop up all of the time.
I don't know if fewer CDs today have mostly good songs. One-hit wonders have always been around.
However, I agree with the basic point. For those of us who get most of our music by listening to the radio, the first problem is that we only hear what the stations we like play. Yes, I could spend hours browsing the Internet listening to clips of music, but I prefer to spend my time on the Internet doing other things.
The second problem (at least for me) is that I usually won't buy a CD unless it has three songs that I really like. So if I don't hear three songs on the radio that I like, I won't buy the CD. Yes, I could try to find the album on Amazon and listen to clips of the rest of the songs, but many radio stations don't tell you the artist, much less the album, of every song they play. I could search the Internet for the lyrics (and have done that), but that's only if I remember to do it when I arrive where I'm going (I listen to the radio mostly in my car).
There are exceptions to my three-song rule, of course:
If I really love a song, I might consider buying the CD just for that, but I try to resist that impulse.
If the CD is on sale at a really good price (under $10), I might buy the CD if it only has one song that I like.
If the CD is by an artist I really like, I might buy it without hearing any songs -- at least until they disappoint me.
For the most part, though, I stick to the three-song rule.
They're possibly trying to protect the infrastructure they've built and nurtured. Disruptive technology has a way of total change that really upsets everyone involved in an industry they have invested a fair amount in.
__________________
Baka. Soku. Zan. - The justice behind the dysORDer.
Heavy Metal albums are either entirely awesome or entirely suck, with an extremely rare song as the exception.
Maybe that's because all the songs sound alike. :lol:
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Beatty
Just to make a random list of Heavy Metal bands with at least 90% kick ass songs/albums: Apocalyptica, Dope, Kittie, Korn, Marilyn Manson, Metallica (Pre-Load Album), Nine Inch Nails, Pantera, Rammstein, Slayer (Extremely Heavy Metal), and System of a Down.
To use a couple of your examples, I have System of a Down's "Toxicity", but I certainly don't recall liking almost every song on it (but I haven't listened to it in a while). The same is true of NiN's latest album, which I bought for my daughter and we listened to in the car -- I didn't care for most of the songs ("The Hand That Feeds" is good and one other that I can't remember). Of course, I'm not a heavy metal fan boy, but I do like some of the songs; I'm more into alternative -- Blink 182, Sum 41, etc. -- and metal rap -- Linkin Park, Kid Rock and so on.
I think most genres follow Sturgeon's Law -- 90% of everything is dreck. :-D
It's true, someone may not buy an entire album at once as often as they might buy singles from a variety of albums. But once they buy ten or more singles from a huge selection of artists from the same big record company, they've purchased the equivelant of an album and so the record companies are going to profit just the same and perhaps more as it would be more profitable for someone to buy, say, twelve singles at 99 cents a piece, rather than an album with twelve songs for $9.99.
I completley agree. If I ever found an online system I could live with, I would buy much more total music by being able to pick and choose than I ever have under the CD system. I think there are a lot of people out there who would do the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pony99CA
[However, I agree with the basic point. For those of us who get most of our music by listening to the radio, the first problem is that we only hear what the stations we like play. Yes, I could spend hours browsing the Internet listening to clips of music, but I prefer to spend my time on the Internet doing other things.
This is where I think they're all still missing the boat in failing to see the opportunities of this new market paradigm. Right now, you have to go around and click on songs to trial them. That means you can't be doing something else at the same time. With radio, you listen to whatever they give you and you notice the ones you like and then go buy them. So why don't the online services provide customized Internet radio. You would log in and they would use your existing purchases to profile the type of music you enjoy. (You could also, perhaps directly affect it through your account settings.) Then let it stream entire songs to you as you work on your computer. When you hear a song you like, you have a little icon that you can click on to put it in your review box. Later, you can go back and listen to those again before making a purchase.
Right now, you have to go around and click on songs to trial them. That means you can't be doing something else at the same time. With radio, you listen to whatever they give you and you notice the ones you like and then go buy them. So why don't the online services provide customized Internet radio. You would log in and they would use your existing purchases to profile the type of music you enjoy. (You could also, perhaps directly affect it through your account settings.) Then let it stream entire songs to you as you work on your computer. When you hear a song you like, you have a little icon that you can click on to put it in your review box. Later, you can go back and listen to those again before making a purchase.
That's a great idea, but there will probably be a couple of issues.
First, you know somebody would likely figure out a way to capture the audio and strip any DRM.
Second, I wonder if each label would want their own station. Maybe not, as they don't seem to have a problem (in general) having their music available along with other labels' songs on services like iTunes and Napster and the labels don't each have their own download service (or do they?). But there's a difference between searching for music, where the user is in control, and having a station play the music, where the station is in control.
Music Buying Habits
Linear Mode
