|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Nov 7, 2010 13:39:12 GMT -5
The fact is, people are gonna have to get used to albums selling less. i also think if the music was better quality today, it would sell more ... I'll say it for the 1,000th time. Quality is subjective. Saying there is no good music out there is a cop out.....and it really doesn't solve the real business issue of people finding alternative entertainment sources easily and the fact that attention span for an album simply isn't there. People aren't interested in albums nowadays. It's a singles market now and the quicker people realize that the quicker record companies can start maximizing the profits related to doing business this way. |
|
grandelf
Gold Member
Joined: August 2010
Posts: 818 
|
Post by grandelf on Nov 8, 2010 4:32:07 GMT -5
The fact is, people are gonna have to get used to albums selling less. i also think if the music was better quality today, it would sell more ... I'll say it for the 1,000th time. Quality is subjective. Saying there is no good music out there is a cop out.....and it really doesn't solve the real business issue of people finding alternative entertainment sources easily and the fact that attention span for an album simply isn't there. People aren't interested in albums nowadays. It's a singles market now and the quicker people realize that the quicker record companies can start maximizing the profits related to doing business this way. Agreed, but record labels are too greedy to realize. I doubt Warner will survive for example, they don't have any more reliable acts. And yes, quality is subjective, I just can't believe someone could say ALL of those megaselling albums in the 90s were "great", even though they were sold on the back of 1-3 singles and for the buyers it was just more convenient to buy an album CD than a single CD (not to mention when the single wasn't even available). Another issue is that it's only hardcore fans who keep on insisting an album defines 'art' even though for the average pop act it's a mishmash of songs written, recorded and produced by/with different people and most of the time several songs are just there to fill 50-60-70 minutes. Sure, there were a few commercially successful acts like Prince who had their own vision and could fill up an album but he's a rare exception. Most of the time when someone speaks up for the importance of an album, it's because they want the most possible amount of new songs from their fav act and afraid to face the possibility that it's going to be a lot less. But that's not paying the bills in the industry, how many albums were released in 2010 and how many of them managed to sell exceptionally? Not even sure you need two hands to count the latter! |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2010 11:21:19 GMT -5
I guess when there's a vision behind an album, people realize that and are willing to pay the extra bucks. I agree with you that performers more focused on catchy singles should find new ways of releasing their songs, but particulary musical artists who're trying to express theirselves through multifaceted pieces of work, will fail to do so by sticking to the same pattern. I think that e.g. songs recorded by Amy Winehouse wouldn't have been as effective as standalone tracks because it's the well arranged theme of the "Back To Black" album and the coherent output that makes the album such an adventure. Without a concept, she, Ronson and Remi probably wouldn't have written and produced all of these masterpieces or at least not in this way. Post #8,888  |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2010 14:28:03 GMT -5
Its not like artists would be denied permission to record albums with a "vision". Theres no reason an artist couldnt capture that "vision" in 8 tracks though. If there "vision" takes 15 tracks then so be it. Its just that artists more concerned with recording a bunch of hits would probably benefit more from shorter albums. Artists who are more concerned with an artistic vision than having hits could release material independently and release 30 songs if they want. Its not so cut and dry.
|
|
Wolfy
6x Platinum Member
She Wolf
Joined: December 2004
Posts: 6,001
|
Post by Wolfy on Nov 9, 2010 5:34:42 GMT -5
Madonna & Shakira are going in the right direction. They are using their albums as promo for their tours, since they know that touring is where the real money is made nowadays (for bigger acts). Their Live Nation deals are mostly for touring, the albums are now used more like tour promo.
|
|
Wolfy
6x Platinum Member
She Wolf
Joined: December 2004
Posts: 6,001
|
Post by Wolfy on Nov 9, 2010 17:16:52 GMT -5
That's likely the direction music artists are going. They can make more money by making contracts with companies to use their music. For instance, Shakira signed a deal with ABC, which got her on all their shows, including desperate housewives & dancing with the stars (they used Loca during the intro for Latino week). They also gave away the She Wolf mp3 for free. They are looking for other ways to make money off the music. What matters most is getting your music out there for people to hear, that can be accomplished by more traditional ways, like radio and music sales, or by more modern ways, like the internet (myspace, facebook, youtube, etc) and selling your music to TV shows, commercials, etc. Combine that revenue with touring revenue and the artists are still making a lot of money. They just need to look past making money off album sales.
|
|
