There once was a time when the release date of an album was exciting. For our favorite artists we knew when the last album came out and when the next album was due. If you loved the artist you bought it. If you didn't you either bought the single or you listened to the album with your friends and then decided.
As the price of records and then CDs increased year by year, spending 20 bucks for a CD became a purchase you needed to be sure of rather than a no brainer or impulse buy.
Then free became an option.
Then aggregating almost unlimited free music on a PC and then an IPOD became easy.
So here we are in 2008 and the only given in the music industry is that CD sales have and will fall. And fall. And fall.
Reading last weeks billboard, something interesting popped out at me. The song Low Rider by Flo Rida sold 467,000 units in a single week. There were 27 digital singles that sold more than 100k units in that week. The obvious trend continues that people are ready, willing and able to buy singles of songs they like.
So the question arises, why don't artists serialize the release of songs ? Why not create a "season" of release of songs, much like the fall TV season and promise fans that Flo Rida is going to release a new single every week or 2 weeks for the next 10 weeks ?
Sure, its not easy to come up with a great song every 2 weeks. But isnt that exactly the same problem you have with an album ? Maybe thats not the "creative process" for certain artists. That's a problem for them.
What we do know is that music fans will spend 99c and that its easier to ask them for 99c a week than it is to get 9.99 at one time from them for 10 songs.
Serializing the release of music also allows for the marketing arms to be in constant touch with sales and radio outlets. Rather than having to initiate marketing plans and hope to reinvigorate the interest in an artist, it becomes a digital tour that never ends.
If an artist commits to release music on a weekly or bi weekly basis, then consumers can make a commitment knowing they are going to get something new and hopefully exciting for their 99c. If the commitment is strong enough its feasible that artists could sell subscriptions to their serialized releases. My guess is that consumers will feel better about subscribing to an artist and getting a song a week or every 2 than dropping 10 dollars at a time for an album.
In reality thats exactly how I buy my music right now. I dont do it by artist. I go to ITunes and I go through the top 10 lists and listen to samples and thats how I determine what music im going to buy.
If there was an option when I bought a single to subscribe to an RSS feed that would send me a sample of that artists song when they released a single, I would add that RSS feed to my browser. Add a 1 click to buy, and chances are Im going to buy a lot more music.
Is this idea so great Im going to start a music label ? No chance. I wouldnt get in the music industry if you paid me. However, as a customer and a buyer of music , if I knew that my favorite artists were releasing music weekly, i would certainly check by every week or listen to what was in my RSS aggregator to see what new stuff they had for me.
Consumser are buying music 1 track at a time. I think people will pay 99c to get a single rather than steal it. I think people would rather steal a full album rather than pay 10 dollars or more for it.
Labels need to make the effort to get artists to deliver in a manner that realizes these perspectives.
The album is dead
The Album is Dead...
Recent Posts
- The Internet Hammer and the everything Nail (7/04/2008)
- Ruh Roh - Porn could sink Youtube in Viacom case.... (7/03/2008)
- NBC vs Fanboys vs Sports Talk Radio vs The Olympics (6/29/2008)
Reader Comments
(Page 3)42. 1- iTunes did offer RSS feeds for new singles/albums posted to the iTunes store. You could select genre(s) and how many posts you wanted to receive at one time (25 to 100). I subscribed to this for quite a while and discovered many new bands. I'm not sure its still operational -- it died for me at one point and I've haven't checked into it again.
2- There is still some value in the CD as a product to bands with regards to touring. In fact, touring for most bands (other than the reunion acts) tends to revolve around the latest release -- band releases a CD, band hits the road.
The tour is the promotion of the CD. If you haven't bought the CD before attending the show, the goal is to convince you to buy one once the show is over. I'm simplifying here, but I think you see my point.
I'm not sure how a serial release schedule would fit into this model. I guess if you planned to serialize 10-12 songs over 6-9 months you could hit the road at the 4-5 month mark. It would take some adjustment... maybe the band could sell .99 cards at the shows redeemable for downloading the song(s) from iTunes.
Posted at 10:08PM on Jan 18th 2008 by Gene Wicker JR
43. I think if you look at serialization as one would with a novel, where the musical artist is serving up the songs as chapters in that novel (i.e. the album), then yes, this seems like a potentially viable option for artists. But it has to be for artists who already have a rabid fan base. New and emerging artists might get some small buzz out of the tactic, but the established artists are the ones who can say: "I've thrown off the yokes of commercial oppression and can now deliver unto you the fan my music when it is hot and fresh off the griddle, newly mixed and mastered. My label doesn't dictate when you get to hear songs from me anymore. Enjoy it all. I'll see you all on tour!"
It won't work for every artist, but I could see how it could work for prolific artists like Ryan Adams or Elvis Costello, or for hip-hop artists who are always keeping up with their fans and participating in underground mix tapes. It could also ba an alternative to straight album releases, where, for example, an artist like Toby Keith, who cuts a lot of material he writes or co-writes, could devote to recording and releasing music he likes from other songwriters, or for live versions of songs, acoustic mixes, whatever. For classic artists like Stevie Wonder, who have huge vaults of unreleased material, this would be a great way for fans to hear and digest that material without being overwhelmed by a massive, multi-CD box set. He could annotate liner notes for each release.
So, yes, this is a legitimate distirbution option, but someone's got to step up as Radiohead did with their model and execute a serialization strategy. Someone's got to signal the herd of other artists what direction to go in. I think Bruce Springsteen is an ideal candidate. He could forget about always crafting a great studio record with a particular ensemble and just focus on songs.
My two cents.
Posted at 10:44PM on Jan 18th 2008 by Peter Kohan
44. One more thing - this tactic can't be expected to supplant the way singles are released in the U.S. The big radio conglomerates are constructed so singles take months to build and peak on their airplay before the label then goes to the next single. So what happens online via serialization may or may not impact what goes on at radio (what the future of radio is going to be is another topic altogether - not touching that here).
Posted at 10:54PM on Jan 18th 2008 by Peter Kohan
45. I certainly agree that singles are taking over. The only caveat to a complete takeover, however, is that studio time is expensive and artists have to get into a "mode" to record. Because the transition from their definition of normal to the studio is difficult, some artists may feel it is more efficient to bang out a slew of sings while they are doing the studio thing.
So does the record company/artist shelve 4-8 songs so that can keep pecking at the market? I know that with my blog it works better to stagger the release of non-newsy stuff than to launch it all on Friday, for instance.
Posted at 11:59PM on Jan 18th 2008 by Dana McCall
46. First...
Mark, if you would like to speak about any of this, feel free to shoot me an email.
Secondly...
Any concept beyond giving artists complete control of their work... is not going to work.
Someone mentioned:
"Personally I would like to see the labels and RIAA vanish completely, and see a new industry emerge of Concert Production companies that work directly with the bands for putting tours together. Bands could then write, record and distribute music on their own (digitally), and then when the demand is there, put a tour together."
It is already happening with Madonna's new deal. However, in traditional label deals where the artist keeps their tour revenue, in this new business model, the artist is still going to lose. Concerts cost a lot to put on... and guess where the concert production companies are going to make that money?
The artist.
Now you have an area of revenue where someone else is taking from... that the labels did not have their hands in.
What most do not realize is how the industry works. You can speculate from the outside looking in... but there is so much that the average person does not know that what is often suggested truly never makes sense.
1. It costs to record music - unless you can record it yourself - which is very doable with technological advancements, but the average musician simply is not good enough to compete in the area of recording engineers who mix major label music. So the consumer is going to notice this immediately.
I for one notice the quality of a recording and the mix.
Also, production.
An artist may have a great voice, can write, etc, but are unable to make “hit” records. And you need hits to garner the attention that is going to allow you to make a living in the music industry. Production costs - if someone is good, they are going to charge for being good.
I see it everyday online. Someone has a home “studio,” they write, record, and post their music online daily yet it is “average.”
They may have a voice and ability, but they are not a songwriter or great arranger.
This is the stuff that costs and the majors supply it.
2. It costs to have your music heard. Like it or not, radio and video outlets are run ($$$$$) by the majors. Independent artists simply cannot compete. What good is it to record an album or a song without a way for the masses to hear it?
Your album (or single) is simply going to sit on the shelf (or on servers) because most people are not even going to know that it exists. Which is what happens to 99% of those out there making music.
Now, you can argue the point that you do not listen to radio or watch MTV, BET, or VH1 and that you dig and find the artists that you support on your own (by scouring the Internet)... but ask how many records those artists, bands, and groups have sold. How many units have they SoundScan?
The question is not can it be done but how? How can the independent artist get booked on Leno or Letterman to get that exposure? How can millions hear their songs and not simply a few thousand? Because it takes a large number of listeners to convert a sale on any level.
MySpace? Saturated.
It can be done.
There is still a lot of money to be made in music (perhaps not to a billionaire, but you can still make millions in this day and age of free downloads and declining CD sales).
Yes, the major label model is dead and gone, but guess what is going to happen next if someone does not step forward and admit that the [truly talented] artists deserve that largest piece of the pie?
A company such as Apple is going to become a label (they are already in talks with a major artist to do so).
And then Microsoft is going to join in...
Then Google.
And while Sony/BMG, Universal / Warner (etc) will no longer exist... the above are going to own the artist and pay them pennies on the dollar once again with insane recouping structures.
And all because the artists did not step up and take over.
The record companies care nothing about music... they care about money.
I have worked in the industry for the last 16 years as both an artist and executive at the major label level. And it will only change when someone with power and influence can offer an alternative.
Mark can do it...
But as stated... he does not wish to.
And not many others are going to forgo money in place of what is right.
I have the answer.
But artists just are not ready.
Posted at 12:30AM on Jan 19th 2008 by Anonymous
47. Your ominous conclusion- the album is dead- can be said about most things that used to be fun and unique and exciting about the entertainment industry and pretty much about life in general.
The internet has done away with all mystery, all titilation is gone. Now, gimme a new song every week and maybe i'll buy it, but i won't be buying your album. It's like blackmail. It scares me, truly. I used to enjoy waiting for a new album from a favorite artist and I'm going to keep it that way. Even if Queen Latifah is in every single commercial, and Philip Seymour Whoever is in every single movie, i am holding on to the notion that people are actors, singers, performers, humans. They are NOT BRANDS- regardless of what their handlers tell them. And no, you can't take away my albums, current or future.
Posted at 12:59AM on Jan 19th 2008 by Tim E
48. The reason for the decline in sales is not solely on the digital single but more in the branding,packaging and presentation of the product and the lack of creativity and accountability. I look at CD's like Kanye West and Josh Groban. Yes while there are a lot of digital sales, the physical sales were still there. The difference is that these are quality cds. Where as other artist may have that "super single", the other 12 tracks (Do you remember when albums consistantly had 16 to 18 tracks?)are horrible or as generic as your favorite grocery store's generic version of corn flakes. So the consumer has no confidence in the artist's ability to deliver a quality album. In addition the yes men "known as A&R's", find the cookie cutter crew and say "this is new and innovative". Furthermore the industry is becoming to top heavy with people who couldn't tell you what the streets were saying if the were homeless Southwest Atlanta. I compare the music industry to every other software and entertainment industry and noticed another difference. Branding runs through the hand of every department. Unlike the lotto if everyone plays the same number you decrease your chances of winning a piece of the pie. But if everyone chips in with their expertise the chances of winning increase.... But enough with the color comments... Plain and simple the music industry needs to stop making excuses and start making quality records in BULK!
Posted at 1:05AM on Jan 19th 2008 by Pschool
49. It is time the music industry figures out a new business model. As is, they seem intent on trying to sue to keep the old model in place.
I think it’s a great idea. At Indie Music Strategies we talk about releasing EP’s with just 5 songs on every six months or so.
http://indiemusicstrategies.blogspot.com/
50. It's great to see a viable business model for the future of the music industry. I've had a hard time believing the doomsayers who predict the music industry will just disappear, but the record labels have been staggeringly resistant to change so far. Let's hope they adjust, and fast. Your ideas are a great place to start.
51. I would make it monthly -- more in line with the price of a cd and also with the number of tracks on a cd/album.
i was working for rollingstone.com in the late 90s when napster hit, man was that a trip... which is why i think the subscription model overall is the best... the fun we had within the company challenging one another to find songs on the early napster was a trip.. one of the early best finds was superbowl shuffle (rollingstone.com was run out of chicago in 1999)... eventually the cto outlawed napster on the companies computers due to security concerns. great post mark.
Posted at 9:53AM on Jan 19th 2008 by David J. Miller
52. I think that music, like most things, appeals to different people in different ways.
The album is not dead as long as your favorite band is still putting out great albums. For me there are plenty of artists who still do; for instance, Collective Soul is a band I will buy a new album from without hearing a single note from one song. Loreena McKennitt is another one. But most of the albums I like are from artists with limited commercial success who are not heavily promoted on a major record label.
For these artists, their music is their gift and they would make music for just enough money to make ends meet because that is their purpose in life. Sadly, many do just that.
But there are also artists who put out one or two good songs per album and, like many here have already pointed out, the rest of the album is filler. That "filler" model just does not sell albums any more with the advance of technology. You would think the record labels would eventually realize that fact instead of trying to hold on to old methods and means. But large bureaucratic industries move very slow.
There is a world of great music (and albums) out there that is under the radar because of the way the labels work, so the problem is that you have to go find it for yourself and not rely on the radio or your neighborhood music store to tell you what is good. I subscribe to an on-demand streaming radio site where you can play full songs and full albums from most any artist, and I have found tons of new artists who I really enjoy, and I end up buying more music than I would have otherwise by relying on conventional methods to find new, and in some cases, decade old music. I spend endless hours doing this because I just love great music of all genres. I also watch a lot of HDTV and have even found some new artists from the live Farm Aid and Bonnaroo concerts. That stuff is great!
So, to relate it back to sports, since not everyone wants to buy season tickets to see the Mavericks -- the team offers single game tickets and multi-game packs, along with special promotions and deals to try to market itself in a way that appeals to more people on a broader scale. But not everyone wants to pay to see the game, and might still be considered a huge Mavs fan that just chooses to watch each and every game on TV for "free". But eventually those people who just watch on TV may go to a game in a future season, or buy a team jersey, or in some other way spend money with the NBA. The business model is open to different levels of fans. There are casual sports fans, and then there is the sports fan who buys the entire franchise
-- with a lot of degrees of fan-dom in between.
The same goes for music fans. Why the RIAA cannot recognize that and build an intelligent business model is just plain silly.
53. RE: Post 47's point #2 - apparently you've never read "The Long Tail."
Indie artists who aren't superstars can make money in many ways other than the traditional model of hump a single at big radio for 3-6 months at a cost of $200K. Radio is such a closed game artists have been pursuing other exploitation opportunities: licensing for film, TV, and ads, creating music for specific niches, etc... But, mainly, any artist who also tours and performs can recoup the costs on a self-funded recording much faster than the major label artist who recorded on a large budget and has to recoup tons of marketing and promotion expenses.
Posted at 12:08PM on Jan 19th 2008 by Peter Kohan
54. @Peter Kohan
Nope... never read "The Long Tail."
(Never even heard of it actually)
However, I have sold over 35+ million albums at both the major and independent level (over 150k of albums that I have personally financed independently and 34+ million *U.S. numbers only & sold not shipped* for artists that I have signed as an A&R representative and executive)
I have also gotten artists placement on shows such as Grey's Anatomy, CSI, commercials such as XM Satellite Radio, JCPenney, Old Navy, Zales, etc. So you are basically preaching to someone who truly was one of the first to get indie artists placed in such spots so that they could make a living doing what they love.
"But, mainly, any artist who also tours and performs can recoup the costs on a self-funded recording much faster than the major label artist who recorded on a large budget and has to recoup tons of marketing and promotion expenses."
My question to you is...
Have you actually done the above yourself... or merely read about doing so? Because there is a huge difference between reading and doing.
(And yes... I know who you are)
I can do 25k regionally (and within months) with little to no tour support for an artist. So an artist touring for a year and selling that much... something is wrong with what they are doing.
Posted at 8:37PM on Jan 19th 2008 by Anonymous
55. Hi Mark and freinds,
We have a thread going at the Velvet Rope discussing your idea:
http://www.velvetrope.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=477383&page=1#Post477383
Posted at 8:40PM on Jan 19th 2008 by DrBrisket
56. Another great idea. I remember your idea about selling an investment in a person's home to investors. I read an article in Forbes a month or so ago about that very thing. Again, you are ahead of the curve.
Posted at 1:17AM on Jan 20th 2008 by bill ross
57. Hello Mr. Cuban. I just wanted to comment after reading your comments in the Seattle Times about the Sonics possibly relocating to Oklahoma City.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2004134983_soniglance20.html
If the Sonics would have had YOU as their owner for the last 10 years or so, I guarantee there would have been a much larger outcry by the fans. Instead, the Sonics organization has been in a tailspin ever since management signed Jim McIlvane to a horrible contract.
This was followed by the firing of fan favorite George Karl after a successful run of winning seasons, letting Nate McMillan walk to Portland after a 50 win season, allowing Wally Walker to make decisions for the team for way too long (his entire tenure, actually), etc.
Seattle supports it's sports teams as long as it seems that management is competent. The team doesn't necessarily have to be winning. But we have to believe that they're interested in heading in that direction. No Sonic fan (that I've ever spoken with) has felt that ownership and/or management have been interested in winning since their trip to the finals to face the Bulls. Even current ownership doesn't seem interested in winning in Seattle. The only things his actions have shown Seattleites is that he wants to take the team out of Seattle.
And just when we finally see the light at the end of the tunnel (hiring a smart GM like Sam Presti, landing a bona fide superstar in Kevin Durant in the draft, having six 1st round picks over the next 3 years, etc), the team threatens to leave Seattle, even after Seattle taxpayers voted in favor of renovating Key Arena to the Sonics specifications (for $75 million) in 1994.
As a child, one of my fondest memories was as a 10-year-old watching the Sonics win it all. After 41 years in Seattle, it would be a shame if Seattle lost it's oldest sports franchise.
Your head coach must have fond memories of playing in Seattle. Great stories about fans in Seattle. I don't know. I just don't think that it's fair to place the blame on the fans in this matter. We've done everything asked of us over the years to keep our teams in Seattle. All of them have threatened to leave. Thankfully Ken Griffey, Jr. saved the Mariners from leaving. Thankfully Paul Allen (owner of the Trailblazers) kept the Seahawks from moving. Can you imagine the Seahawks playing home games anywhere other than Qwest Field?
If you (or someone as competent and passionate as you are about winning) had been our owner for the last ten years, there wouldn't be this discussion about moving. Anyways, thanks for listening.
58. I'm glad you are posting about the decline of the album - b/c it is so dead.
Posted at 9:55AM on Jan 20th 2008 by David Mackey
59. I'm sad that cd sales are dropping. mp3's and other compression formats sound like shit. The quality of the recordings are bad to start now throw in the reduced file size and it's just scratching noise.
I'm in the minority here. So I'm keeping a few of my cd's and records. Yes records! until someone decides that stripping 70% of the data from a recording is a bad idea.
Take Care
Posted at 11:20AM on Jan 20th 2008 by Phil Chin
60. I am very torn between this philosophy of buying one track at a time.
On the pop level I totally understand it.I believe that singles should be made available as separate tracks.However could you imagine buying an album like "Kind of Blue" one track at a time.Could you buy the White Album one track at a time? I believe some of this has got to lie with the talent and the level of songwriting and performance that is out there,It is very thin from a commercial standpoint.A great musical statement is worth listening to and buying for the artistic statement.The key is finding the artists who have the talent to make a cohesive album of 10 great songs.They're out there-The heard just needs to be thined
Peace, jason
Posted at 12:18PM on Jan 20th 2008 by jason Miles
41. This doesn't work for one reason...most albums SUCK! Artists and labels are bending people over by releasing hyped CDs that only include 1-2 good songs. Now the artists and labels are getting bent over by people stealing their music. If they release one song at a time, they might have $2 worth of sales for every 10 songs. Then again maybe this would prompt the talent and label to raise their overall game.
Posted at 9:14PM on Jan 18th 2008 by Ken