Glove Slap
Administrator
Sweetheart
Downloading ༺༒༻ Possibilities
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 29,481
Staff
|
Post by Glove Slap on Nov 17, 2013 11:54:52 GMT -5
I can't imagine albums dying out for good. Tours are one of the biggest money-makers for an artist and I can't imagine artists going on tour with merely a collection of new singles. Bingo. It's becoming more important (once again) for artists to have a strong touring potential. That means sending them out on the road as soon as possible. If one wants to build them up as a potential headlining act asap, a big part of that is material. It's not even a question of consistent quality (i.e. having the majority of album tracks be as strong as the singles), it's having enough songs to make a long enough set. A way to increase the chances of people buying your tickets is to have more material out there for them to check out, which still adds validity to the album format. There are people who may not pay to buy your album, but instead they may illegally download it and use the money to buy your concert ticket. In the era of 360 deals, it is crucial that labels try to get this group of buyers. And yes, record labels are partially, although not completely, responsible for the state of the industry today, but that's been covered many many times over.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2013 12:04:52 GMT -5
Do you really need to have entire albums of material out to tour though? If you can build a fanbase and release several "singles" a year, you'd still have a lot of material out. Justin Bieber has been putting out a new song every week, and they're all selling well. His fans definitely know those songs, even if they were never put on an actual album. Artists were touring prior to the 60s when the idea of the album became popular. I just don't see why releasing full albums is necessary in order to go on tour.
|
|
Glove Slap
Administrator
Sweetheart
Downloading ༺༒༻ Possibilities
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 29,481
Staff
|
Post by Glove Slap on Nov 17, 2013 12:11:25 GMT -5
How long would you consider a normal set to be though? 12 songs? 15 songs? 18 songs?
If you make an album, you can pretty much go on tour asap (assuming you have some new material at the time you start touring).
Not saying that you can't go on tour with just singles, you definitely can, but it would likely take longer to accumulate enough material to make a setlist that enough people were familiar with. Alternatively, you can just release a few EPs a year and make a more consistent stream of material.
The Justin Bieber example is interesting, and certainly valid, however he already had built himself an audience prior to doing this. A schedule like that may not really have anywhere the same impact for a newer act.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2013 12:17:56 GMT -5
How long would you consider a normal set to be though? 12 songs? 15 songs? 18 songs? If you make an album, you can pretty much go on tour asap (assuming you have some new material at the time you start touring). Not saying that you can't go on tour with just singles, you definitely can, but it would likely take longer to accumulate enough material to make a setlist that enough people were familiar with. Alternatively, you can just release a few EPs a year and make a more consistent stream of material. The Justin Bieber example is interesting, and certainly valid, however he already had built himself an audience prior to doing this. A schedule like that may not really have anywhere the same impact for a newer act. How many brand new acts are huge touring draws though? I don't think putting out a 12-track album and immediately going on tour performing all 12 songs is going to make an act more of a touring draw than someone who releases a dozen different "singles" over the course of a year (and throws a couple of covers on their setlist, like a lot of new acts do). In fact, I think there's an argument to be made that the latter could actually help to generate more hype. A model that focuses on releasing singles and EPs rather than full-length albums will reduce the costs associated with recording and producing entire albums (especially when most pop acts albums aren't selling all that well these days), while keeping the material a lot fresher. An act can have 4-5 fully-promoted "lead singles" in a year rather than digging through the same album for single after single over the course of a year or so. I also think it makes a lot more sense with the shift to digital and streaming than it would have 10-20-30 years ago.
|
|
mluv
Gold Member
Joined: September 2013
Posts: 540
|
Post by mluv on Nov 17, 2013 12:41:33 GMT -5
There are thousands of acts that tour whose music will never be heard on the radio or become big hits. There are tons of acts that radio will absolutely refuse to play without payola so they have zero chances of getting a hit. Those acts have an incentive to make albums. Your show has better energy if your fans are familiar with your work instead of just listening to one or two hit songs. Like someone who commented in that article stated there are big time touring bands like Pearl Jam and Radiohead who tour based on their total body of work and albums and not based on a hit single.
Albums still make more money than singles. It would take the sale of over 3 million singles to equal the 280,000 starting album sale for a Miley or a Katy. And in truth, both of those artists probably have sold over 3 million singles in addition to selling their album so why exactly would anyone in the record business try to cut off both of those revenue streams. There's no reason to do that now. Yes people are buying less albums but they're also buying less singles. People are just not spending as much on music in general but cutting off revenue streams from album sales now seems premature. Some independent labels have claimed to make a profit if an album sells as little as 5000 records. They do this by cutting some of that promotion cost that a Miley or Katy have. But both of those want to be stars more than just musicians and that's not everyone's dream in the music industry.
And keep in mind the majority of artists make Nothing from their album and itune sales as it all gets funneled back to the label and to production costs. For most artists, where they make their money is in touring and tshirt and other product sales so this whole debate is not about making artists whole but about propping up the music biz model as of right now.
|
|
RadioBeatz
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2013
Posts: 1,212
|
Post by RadioBeatz on Nov 17, 2013 13:27:24 GMT -5
What a horrible, biased, lack-of-argument article, who's this short-sighted man?
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Nov 17, 2013 17:01:55 GMT -5
I think the concept of an album should be abandoned altogether and people just release singles. For one thing, the other good songs on an album will be less tainted by the "first" single doing poorly. Second people will buy exactly the amount of product they want and the record company can focus on getting as much consumption in as short a time as possible. Its less of an investment to invest in a single vs. an album. I don't claim to know much about how labels make their money but, if this were true, I'm sure many labels would've started doing this a long time ago. You can't honestly think you're the only person in the world to come to that conclusion. Albums make a truck load of cash up front but there is a huge up front investment involved in addition to marketing and distribution costs. Labels benefit from people buying the singles and then buying the albums in some cases people end up purchasing the songs twice. With only a faction of the artists actually turning a profit. I think they should be more judicious with their bucks.
|
|
charismatic
Platinum Member
Banned
"Show the world we are one"
Joined: August 2012
Posts: 1,392
|
Post by charismatic on Nov 17, 2013 20:14:54 GMT -5
In my opinion, when an album is good is going to sell well eventually.
But I think the real reason why albums sales are dropping is because we are now in the digital era, where we can listen to albums and new music online for free. Back in the day, there was no Spotify, Youtube, Pandora or Itunes radio etc, so it was easier to sell albums like hot cakes.
But labels and artists can also make a good profit from singles. The key is to release good singles that can smash worldwide.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Nov 17, 2013 20:49:08 GMT -5
O'rly? Tell that to the zillions of artists whove released good albums that didnt sell.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Nov 17, 2013 20:50:59 GMT -5
There are thousands of acts that tour whose music will never be heard on the radio or become big hits. There are tons of acts that radio will absolutely refuse to play without payola so they have zero chances of getting a hit. Those acts have an incentive to make albums. Your show has better energy if your fans are familiar with your work instead of just listening to one or two hit songs. Like someone who commented in that article stated there are big time touring bands like Pearl Jam and Radiohead who tour based on their total body of work and albums and not based on a hit single. Albums still make more money than singles. It would take the sale of over 3 million singles to equal the 280,000 starting album sale for a Miley or a Katy. And in truth, both of those artists probably have sold over 3 million singles in addition to selling their album so why exactly would anyone in the record business try to cut off both of those revenue streams. There's no reason to do that now. Yes people are buying less albums but they're also buying less singles. People are just not spending as much on music in general but cutting off revenue streams from album sales now seems premature. Some independent labels have claimed to make a profit if an album sells as little as 5000 records. They do this by cutting some of that promotion cost that a Miley or Katy have. But both of those want to be stars more than just musicians and that's not everyone's dream in the music industry. And keep in mind the majority of artists make Nothing from their album and itune sales as it all gets funneled back to the label and to production costs. For most artists, where they make their money is in touring and tshirt and other product sales so this whole debate is not about making artists whole but about propping up the music biz model as of right now. Well youve certainly made the case for going the singles route rather than wasting precious time & resources on a full length album.
|
|
ILLUSION
5x Platinum Member
Dupe
"casually cruel in the name of being honest"
Joined: October 2012
Posts: 5,944
|
Post by ILLUSION on Nov 17, 2013 21:27:27 GMT -5
The title of this article should be changed to "‘Prism’ a Good Example of How POP Albums WHOSE MAIN FOCUS IS SCORING RADIO SINGLE SUCCESS Don’t Work Anymore"
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Nov 17, 2013 22:11:23 GMT -5
^ Except that its not nearly as radio friendly as her last two albums.
You could add Gaga to the list most artists arent selling what they were previously. Album sales get worse and worse.
|
|
mluv
Gold Member
Joined: September 2013
Posts: 540
|
Post by mluv on Nov 17, 2013 22:12:08 GMT -5
There are thousands of acts that tour whose music will never be heard on the radio or become big hits. There are tons of acts that radio will absolutely refuse to play without payola so they have zero chances of getting a hit. Those acts have an incentive to make albums. Your show has better energy if your fans are familiar with your work instead of just listening to one or two hit songs. Like someone who commented in that article stated there are big time touring bands like Pearl Jam and Radiohead who tour based on their total body of work and albums and not based on a hit single. Albums still make more money than singles. It would take the sale of over 3 million singles to equal the 280,000 starting album sale for a Miley or a Katy. And in truth, both of those artists probably have sold over 3 million singles in addition to selling their album so why exactly would anyone in the record business try to cut off both of those revenue streams. There's no reason to do that now. Yes people are buying less albums but they're also buying less singles. People are just not spending as much on music in general but cutting off revenue streams from album sales now seems premature. Some independent labels have claimed to make a profit if an album sells as little as 5000 records. They do this by cutting some of that promotion cost that a Miley or Katy have. But both of those want to be stars more than just musicians and that's not everyone's dream in the music industry. And keep in mind the majority of artists make Nothing from their album and itune sales as it all gets funneled back to the label and to production costs. For most artists, where they make their money is in touring and tshirt and other product sales so this whole debate is not about making artists whole but about propping up the music biz model as of right now. Well youve certainly made the case for going the singles route rather than wasting precious time & resources on a full length album. I certainly don't think I did at all. I pointed out successful acts that don't have a lot of hit singles and that the labels make more money off of smaller sales of albums than they do off of larger sales of singles. There's nothing in that post that supports the singles route. Whether an album is generating less money or more money now is pretty much irrelevant to most musicians on a major label as the label is the ones getting all the money from sales. But the album is the tool for the musician to get people to come to their show. You're not going to get people to fork out money to see your show if you don't have a body of work like on an album. Most up and coming artists also will point out that no one in the music business is even interested in talking to you until you've put out at least one ep or album on your own. Lots of labels don't take you seriously until then. You also need a body of work to convince places to book you for shows. Having a hit single is great but there's only a minority of artists that can achieve that anyways and do it in a consistent way to make a living off of that. I do believe at one point maybe in the 60's the single was king but that was also the time of a lot of part time musicians as well as that wasn't enough for people to make a living out of on its own. You can try to push a whole bunch of singles out there a la Bieber but as has been pointed out for each single he's put out Bieber has seen diminishing returns. Flooding the market with too many singles just seems to lead to boredom after a while.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Nov 17, 2013 22:27:45 GMT -5
Well youve certainly made the case for going the singles route rather than wasting precious time & resources on a full length album. I certainly don't think I did at all. I pointed out successful acts that don't have a lot of hit singles and that the labels make more money off of smaller sales of albums than they do off of larger sales of singles. There's nothing in that post that supports the singles route. Whether an album is generating less money or more money now is pretty much irrelevant to most musicians on a major label as the label is the ones getting all the money from sales. But the album is the tool for the musician to get people to come to their show. You're not going to get people to fork out money to see your show if you don't have a body of work like on an album. Most up and coming artists also will point out that no one in the music business is even interested in talking to you until you've put out at least one ep or album on your own. Lots of labels don't take you seriously until then. You also need a body of work to convince places to book you for shows. Having a hit single is great but there's only a minority of artists that can achieve that anyways and do it in a consistent way to make a living off of that. I do believe at one point maybe in the 60's the single was king but that was also the time of a lot of part time musicians as well as that wasn't enough for people to make a living out of on its own. You can try to push a whole bunch of singles out there a la Bieber but as has been pointed out for each single he's put out Bieber has seen diminishing returns. Flooding the market with too many singles just seems to lead to boredom after a while. Justin Bieber is releasing a new single week after week. Not 8 singles over the course of 2 years. There is a difference. I think the record companies need to find a way to make money for both the artist and label by doing the smallest thing they can....start with a single. Sure albums bring in lots of up front cash, but they also require lots of upfront investment as well. Record companies need to take a more agile approach to their business. Breakdown the album into its smallest component the single/song and focus on recording and selling it and making a profit for everyone involved and start from there. The record companies trained the public into thinking the artist will make money from the tour. How about focusing the conversation around artists making money from all of their work...rather than hoping their hard work in the studio will pay off in the future while on tour? The goal should be to get to a place where an artist can make a reasonable living from each song they record and release... The business model needs to change if the recording industry is going to stay vibrant and alive.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2013 22:30:36 GMT -5
I certainly don't think I did at all. I pointed out successful acts that don't have a lot of hit singles and that the labels make more money off of smaller sales of albums than they do off of larger sales of singles. There's nothing in that post that supports the singles route. Whether an album is generating less money or more money now is pretty much irrelevant to most musicians on a major label as the label is the ones getting all the money from sales. But the album is the tool for the musician to get people to come to their show. You're not going to get people to fork out money to see your show if you don't have a body of work like on an album. Most up and coming artists also will point out that no one in the music business is even interested in talking to you until you've put out at least one ep or album on your own. Lots of labels don't take you seriously until then. You also need a body of work to convince places to book you for shows. Having a hit single is great but there's only a minority of artists that can achieve that anyways and do it in a consistent way to make a living off of that. I do believe at one point maybe in the 60's the single was king but that was also the time of a lot of part time musicians as well as that wasn't enough for people to make a living out of on its own. You can try to push a whole bunch of singles out there a la Bieber but as has been pointed out for each single he's put out Bieber has seen diminishing returns. Flooding the market with too many singles just seems to lead to boredom after a while. Justin Bieber is releasing a new single week after week. This. Plus they're not actually promoting any of them. They're just throwing a new single up each week and then moving on to the next. Diminishing returns is to be expected unless he releases one with another major artist or something to make it more novel and exciting. That's not the same as someone releasing a bunch of stand-alone singles that are actually being promoted as radio/video/etc. (whatever we call it these days) singles.
|
|
imbondz
2x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2006
Posts: 2,588
|
Post by imbondz on Nov 19, 2013 12:30:15 GMT -5
the Bieber thing isn't working is it? None of the songs have any staying power on their own. not sure what the point is.
|
|
Enigma.
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 13,597
|
Post by Enigma. on Nov 19, 2013 12:54:28 GMT -5
And they're not singles from my point of view, they're just tracks available.
|
|
Lozzy
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2010
Posts: 49,237
|
Post by Lozzy on Nov 19, 2013 13:32:07 GMT -5
the Bieber thing isn't working is it? None of the songs have any staying power on their own. not sure what the point is. It's working perfectly fine. The songs aren't traditional promoted radio singles; they're weekly releases for his fans. That means it's not expected for them to have lengthy runs; it's expected that his existing fanbase will buy the new song every Monday, and anything else is icing on the cake. Since all 7 releases to date have gone top 3 on iTunes US and top 10 on iTunes UK, they have fulfilled their purpose.
|
|
mluv
Gold Member
Joined: September 2013
Posts: 540
|
Post by mluv on Nov 19, 2013 13:52:58 GMT -5
If he never planned to put these in an album nor to promote them, then these were probably just some throwaway singles for Justin Bieber that he probably wrote a long time ago. I guess it's successful because it made some money for the record company. But it does seem kind of pointless to me. But then again I don't get the Bieber phenom anyways. TMZ runs constant stories about him with prostitutes, denigrating countries flags, throwing parties with naked women etc. Maybe these releases are to counteract the impression that Bieber does nothing but party all the time by showing that he's still finding the time to produce music.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Nov 19, 2013 14:07:17 GMT -5
Not every single has to be painted with the same brush. Every "single" doesn't have a purpose of having a long shelf-life, hitting #1 or whatever other strict criteria people may have for them. Sometimes the only purpose of a single is to simply have it out there to test the waters.
|
|
imbondz
2x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2006
Posts: 2,588
|
Post by imbondz on Nov 19, 2013 20:52:18 GMT -5
these aren't throw away singles though. they're very produced, and some are pretty good imo.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2013 22:06:32 GMT -5
I think there are several different reasons aren't selling well anymore:
1. Spotify, Youtube, Pandora, and of course torrent sites and the the like. On the flip side, people are able to discover new music and put their own product out there with all the different options. 2. I think the demand now is 'instant' in that artists can put new material out literally whenever they want, and however they want. I think consumers have become greedy, too, in the sense that if something is put out there to them, they want it right away. 3. Going off the above point, artists don't seem to spend much time promoting songs/singles as they used to; people will remember the songs for as long as they're out, and then move on to the next song released. 4. Artists/labels seem more intent than ever on copying what's being done by fellow artists, and therefore the consumers have nothing new to get excited about. Luke Bryan exploded with "frat boy country" and now everywhere you look the males are copying that trend. Same goes for those artists creating the same album/song/sound over and over for fear of losing their audience. IMO, much of the reason so many artists have lost a huge chunk of their audience (s) is because the music is either too similar to what they've done before, or it's simply a carbon copy of what their peers are putting out there.
I think the reason Adele was so successful was because everything about her was unique; her image, her voice, her personality, and her refreshing, honest approach to her music. People move on when the same old image becomes predictable, and I think if more artists were willing to be themselves instead of following trends and releasing disposable material every few months, the public might actually be willing to put down their hard-earned money to buy it.
Artists and those inside the industry are so quick to blame piracy, streaming services, and everything in between, instead of being willing to take responsibility for their own product. 99% of the mainstream albums out today are albums chocked with filler and maybe 2-3 great songs. Back in the day, artists didn't have to worry about streaming and piracy, but they also put blood, sweat, and tears into the album, and didn't just throw it out there for sake of having a product out there.
The labels/artists can spend all the time they want complaining, but that's not going to do anything. Either artists need to start releasing better music, or record companies need to stop complaining, and try to figure out how stay ahead of the game.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Nov 20, 2013 8:38:08 GMT -5
I agree with your points except #4, which I think has always been a thing. Labels have always jumped on trends. When something successful happens, they want to try to replicate it. The boyband eras, teen pop singers. After Britney and the Backstreet Boys, there were dozens to follow.
With Adele, she was unique for the time.
Otherwise, I agree that trying to make a quick buck, the instant demands of listeners and displacing blame are larger factors than most people think.
|
|
mluv
Gold Member
Joined: September 2013
Posts: 540
|
Post by mluv on Nov 20, 2013 9:27:26 GMT -5
It also should be pointed out that the artists cited in the article, Katy Perry and Miley, are actually not doing that badly. By next week Katy's album will probably be Gold. It's not all about the first week sales. Madonna sold over 300,000 initially but didn't go on to sell as many albums in the long run.
|
|