Third Eye Blind vocalist: Albums unnecessary in digital age

Stephan Jenkins, Third Eye Blind's lead singer wants to release individual songs first and albums later.

(Credit: Greg Sandoval/CNET Networks)

SAN FRANCISCO--Stephan Jenkins, lead singer of alternative band Third Eye Blind, is the latest person to agree that the album format is better off dead.

Jenkins, whose band is known for such hits as "Semi-Charmed Life," "Jumper" and "How's it Going to Be," gave the keynote address at the SanFran MusicTech Summit on Monday.

"I don't think it's necessary or useful," Jenkins told several hundred conference attendees. "The album is an arbitrary concept. It's not something that has to exist."

It's important to note that Jenkins wasn't speaking at all about the controversy triggered by remarks made last week by AC/DC. The Australian rockers slammed iTunes in several interviews and suggested that selling individual songs was bad for artists, music, and fans.

I disagreed and wrote the album was, at least in its CD stage, anticonsumer. The album boosted individual transactions and forced consumers to pay a premium for songs they didn't want. A lot of people, mostly music industry insiders and AC/DC fans, e-mailed me to dispute this. They argued that bands couldn't know which songs were hits in advance and it was preposterous to suggest that.

Well if I'm misinformed, so was Kurt Cobain and so is Jenkins. In his speech, he mentioned that he disliked "album filler." This is a term used to describe the practice of loading albums with so-so quality in order to meet the required number of songs for an album. "Everything I do, I mean it," Jenkins said.

Jenkins made another point when said he believes it's better for creative purposes to release individual songs online and then bundle them later if you want.

"Here's what's really attractive to me," Jenkins told the crowd, "we live in the excitement of that song. Let's go record it. And then we upload it and it's for sale for $1 the next day."

Jenkins is putting his money where his mouth is. He said Third Eye Blind plans to release three songs on November 18.

[Tom Krazit]

Albums used to be works of art in-and-of themselves, and there's no reason why some artists might continue to think that way. Artists shouldn't have to engage in album filler if they don't have to, but to suggest that albums themselves are dead because songwriters like Stephen Jenkins can't or don't want to write enough good music to fill an album doesn't seem entirely right either.

[atcrawford]

I agree that artists should have the ability to release albums if they wish. However, I don't think it is fair to imply that some songwriters are just not willing/capable of putting together enough good music to make an album when they want to release songs on a per song basis. I would love to get an awesome song here and there than have to wait years for an album full of good music.

[Tom Krazit]

Yeah, that was maybe a bit harsh. I only meant to say that just because some artists would prefer to release singles doesn't mean the album is dead.

[GotAMD]

I enjoy having an entire album's worth of music AND I don't like filler. Albums can create a mood and flow together in ways that random singles can never do. I find that I get a lot of enjoyment from some lesser-known songs in albums and I feel like al la carte does not encourage this discovery as much. In any case, I'm all for letting people try any and all methods of distribution that they feel like trying. You can't say 'x' does or doesn't work better than 'y' until you've tried them both. I suspect the answer here is that single-track distribution would work better for some and albums work better for others.

[Dylan_Wisor]

"Well if I'm misinformed, so was Kurt Cobain..."
Kind of a low blow there, Greg.

I see nothing wrong with the current system that's in place on iTunes (for the most part).
Albums are released, and you can buy the tracks in any combination you like. The album isn't "dead" by any means.

But seriously, Third Eye Blind? Are there any RESPECTABLE artists echoing this sentiment?

[Everlovin G]

Tom Krazit: "Albums used to be works of art in-and-of themselves..."

Yes, and automobiles "used to" have wooden wheels, street lights "used to" be illuminated by burning whale blubber/oil, slavery "used to" be an accepted form of ownership and politicians "used to" seek office with the intention of serving their respective constituencies instead of themselves and/or lobbyists.

     Tom Krazit: "...but to suggest that albums themselves are dead because songwriters like Stephen Jenkins
can't or don't want to write enough good music to fill an album doesn't seem entirely right either."

There are, admittedly, seminal works that were 'important' in their entirety as musical album creations, i.e. (IMnsHO), "Sgt. Peppers," "******* Brew," "London Calling," "Saturday Night Fever," "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway" and "Nevermind," to name but a few; however, there is a far, far greater number of albums that weren't 'important' as complete bodies of work, producing one-hit wonders, if anything, like Harvest's "Dancing in the Moonlight," or Karl Douglas's "Kung Fu Fighting," for example.

     ( oh, that I had all of THAT money back! <grin> )

In fact (again, IMnsHO), album sales being promoted over singles was, in a way, a form of 'taxation without representation', whereby we, the loyal music listening/buying public were 'forced' to pay for music we didn't want, or like, as we could only discover in retrospect, in order to support record label greed and a throw-everything/anything-up-on-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks production 'philosophy'.

In closing, anyone who doesn't see that, like it or not, the 'album format' is ALREADY DEAD, please email me; I've got some killer wooden wheels I'd like to sell you for your ride!

[ThreeMilesNorth]

This is still a lame article/argument. You still won't accept that some artists produce albums as arts... quoting Cobain is lame, too, because you are misusing his quotes. Third Eye Blind? Who are they?

Albums like "The Walls" or Neil Young's "Greendale"--real piece of art here--- this what AC/DC are talking about. Remember, that in a better part of the world, people still buy cassettes and CDs, and iTunes is non-existent.

[Penguinisto]

@Tom: Yep - sometimes an album is pretty much required for the full experience. Dream Theater (e.g. Images and Words, Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence), Queensryche (e.g. Operation Mindcrime), Enigma (most of their discography) and numerous others use an album format to tell a story, with each song supplying a piece of that story.

OTOH, Yep - sometimes a singer or a band just can't seem to get up enough creativity to make a complete album that's worth a damn. Obvious album filler degrades my opinion of the singer or band immensely, to the point where bothering with future purchases from an artist is in question. I suspect that most adults feel the same way...

/P

[SteveMcQwark]

I disagree that albums are unnecessary. Any impression otherwise is simply due to a misunderstanding of what consists an album. A collection of independent songs isn't an album, its a collection. An, as I see it, is like a story, and each track is chapter. These albums flow together, and each individual piece, while it may be enjoyable on its own, lacks meaning when taken out of context. A good example of this is The Dark Side of the Moon (Pink Floyd, but that's obvious) The album itself is a unit, which is evident from the recurring themes that are used. An album by this definition has every reason to exist, and I can see why an artist wouldn't want to have their art split up, just as an author wouldn't want their books to be sold per chapter. However, I do agree that the compilation of songs that are completely unrelated is dead as it is only useful as a way of selling people more than they actually want, rarely is there an album where every song is loved equally. In the modern age, without the constraints of the cost of physical media, there is absolutely no reason to do this, except for a bulk discount over individual song purchase.

[Imalittleteapot]

If the album format is that important to them they can just wrap it up in one big MP3 and sell that on iTunes. Right?

[onlyauser]

There is no right or wrong in this case. I think the artist and their promoters should go with the marketing scheme they prefer for the project or product. Some great songs would mean much less without the support of a great album theme and story and some songs are better of left to stand alone. If it works it is good.

[Sam Papelbon]

considering an overwhelming majority of albums these days aren't concept albums, i think mr jenkins has a point.

i think maybe what he meant to say is that the idea of selling a cd of music, or a cassette, or an LP, or any format of fixed length is dead. if people want to release a group of songs which fit together as a concept, they can still do so. in fact by ditching physical media, they could release a whole day's worth of songs as an 'album' if they wanted. or if they only wanted to release fewer songs, they could do that as well.

i have a problem with the concept of 'filler', though. i'm sure it exists, but i don't think it's as common as many people think. with the exception of the american idol-type 'market over music' type 'artists', i give musicians the benefit of the doubt that they put real effort into all songs they produce. i feel that 99+% of the songs on albums that you never hear on the radio are only considered 'filler' because the record label didn't think it was marketable enough as a single. i've listened to plenty of albums that are only known for 1 or 2 songs that were pressed as singles, and came away with other songs as my favorites.

this subjectivity that is forced upon us by the record labels can be greatly diminished by adopting the non-album model. and in no way does it restrict bands from making concept albums if they so desire. in fact it would make concept albums better since the artists wouldn't have to restrict their creativity to fit within a certain time limit.

[Dylan_Wisor]

On the contrary, most modern albums are filler.I remember a Playboy interview with Chad Kroeger from Nickelback where he was saying albums that have one or two songs worth listening to are responsible for a large part of music piracy.

After all, why should I spend $12 on Extreme Behavior when all I want is Lips of an Angel? (REALLY bad example, but you get the idea.) Some of the more mainstream rock acts are beginning to understand this. That's why Nickelback (All the Right Reasons), Staind (Break the Cycle), Skillet (Comatose), and Coldplay (Viva La Vida) are popular. Whether you like their style of music or not, they know how to put together albums.

[sbmeirow]

I think what pi$$e$-off many groups is that Apple demands that items are sold in a specific way. The owner of the media should have final say how it is packaged, not Apple!!!!!!!! If a group wants to sells individual songs, then let them. If a group only wants to sell a group of songs as an album,then let them. This is Apple$ fault for being a$$hole$!

[Dylan_Wisor]

It's up to the artist whether to sell individual tracks or as Album Only.

Judging by your use of punctuation though, I didn't expect you to know that.

[sbmeirow]

Hey Third Eye Blind...sounds more like you are kissing Apple$ a$$ and promoting your 3 new songs than anything else to me.

I agree with the concept of buying only one song at a time from Third Eye Blind, because most of your songs suck. I would bet that most of the population couldn't name 3 of your most popular songs, and likely most couldn't even remember the name of 1 of your songs.

When it comes to AC-DC, it makes better sense on some albumns to buy the entire albumn since there are so many great songs on it, for example Back In Black (all great songs and 42 million albumns sold); and other albumns have a lot of great songs such as Highway to Hell and Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap so just as well get the entire albumn.

I know that Third Eye Blind, nor most groups, will never create an albumn as remotely close as popular as Black in Black!

[iConquered]

The problem with many modern albums across various genres, is that cohesion lacks any presence. I've noticed a burgeoning trend, in which many songs are disassociated in tone/mood and sound. Most albums are worth a few singles and a lot of use of your music players skip button. Selling an album on iTunes is not the death of music.

The idea of the single has existed long before iTunes. To suggest that iTunes is contributing to the downfall of the "album" concept, is ludicrous. I'd rather Angus Young just admit that he is a luddite, rather than to extend this audacious and gross affront to common sense, as being some form of artistic integrity. I respect an artists choice to do what they will, but do not construct such falsely opaque logic and expect people to believe it.

[Imalittleteapot]

It's not for AC/DC to decide that the death of the album (and they say this while promoting a new album?, hmmmm) will be the death of music and it isn't for Stephan Jenkins to decide that albums are better off dead. They're both wasting their breath. It's not their place to begin with.

The death of the album would be the death of an artistic medium, that's true, but with current technology the artist has every right to be a starving artist that pops out albums in their basement if that's what they wish. When it comes to money their only concern should be the market and what the consumer wants. If the consumers want albums give them albums. If they want singles give them singles. If they want ring tones then do that. If they want a free stuffed teddy bear with every AC/CD album then make it happen or go home.

Don't worry so much about what you want to sell someone. Attempt to market it, but if they still don't want it then find out what they do want. Many consumers don't know what they want. A lot of sales people have confused this for they have to tell the customer what they want. They're two different things however. It's their job to make a sale, not the sale. It's the sales person job to simply flash shiny objects in front of the consumer until they figure out which shiny object the customer wants. It isn't to insist on one specific shinny object like an album. If the customer no longer wants the album then off to the landfill it should go.

So, in the end AC/CD and Third Eye Blind's opinion isn't even relevant. The only opinion that matters is that of whomever opens up their wallet first.

[BlueCollarBrain]

I don't see why this is an either/or issue. Some artists excelled at making albums. Pink Floyd , The Who, The Kinks..many older artists. Younger artists that grew up in the digital age often do not seem to be as into it (with some exceptions) and they create their art in the way that works for them.

Personally I like both mediums and would hope we do not see an end to either.

[dgharrison1]

I agree with the coment that albums use to be a work of art. I use to love going to the record store and purchasing albums. Listeninf to it end to end. Reading all the liner notes.Back then, they did not use " filler". Artist who were truly talented made every song count. I'm very into the the digital download too and enjoy taking my music everywhere. But as far as releasing one or two song and putting them on the web. That's just lack of creativity and laziness on the artist side.

[jw55]

Of course the album is an arbitrary concept - so is the novel, but I don't think the existence of Cliff Notes made actually reading "War and Peace" unnecessary. I agree that for too many of today's musicians the album is a waste of time. Not because the format is flawed, but because the musicians themselves are not creating work that is worth 40 minutes of the listener's time. I've never heard of Third Eye Blind so I can't comment on the value of their music, but I can say that there are still many artists in many different genres for whom the album in still an artistically valid format.

[jasonburg]

Exactly, jw55. It's not an either-or situation and digital downloads are not more going to make the album obsolete any more than the Kindle is going to make books obsolete. Different users/consumers will patronize the medium of their choice and different artists will deliver product in the medium of their choice. Just because Stephan Jenkins doesn't want to make albums anymore doesn't mean there aren't still plenty of us who want to buy them. (Not that I would ever buy a Third Eye Blind album, but that's another story...) For more on this topic see dailyvault.blogspot.com.

[Dr_Zinj]

The general album concept IS anticonsumer by forcing the customer to buy things they don't want or need in order for them to get the single item the want. As such, the cost of the good purchased greatly exceeds the value received. Anyone who doesn't userstand that FACT is ignorant of economics and not competent to discourse on the subject; or is knowledgeable about it, is biased, and lying through their teeth about it. Which describes a large number of AC/DC fans and most of teh music industry.

This does exclude theme albums, for the most part, such as Sgt Pepper's by the Beatles, Paradise Theature by Styx, It's a Kind of Magic by Queen, etc. which are actually more of an entire opera than a collection of disparate songs. Even then, many people could easily cut out portions of the albums as not necessary to move the "story" forward.

No band will ever "know" which songs are hits in advance. But it's as dishonest of them to bundle their past year's products together and force people to buy the entire pig pen just to fine one pearl as it is for Microsoft to force buyers of their operating system to pay higher prices for hundreds of applications they neither want, nor will use.

[cnetfan1000000]

I'd have to agree that if you only have a few hits in you, then singles are the way to go.

Third Eye Blind can't really compete with AC/DC, and Third Eye Blind's ratio of good songs to filler is much higher than AC/DCs. (Off the top of my head I'd say 75% to AC/DC's 25%.)

To belittle the album model is just ridiculous. I seem to remember that Led Zeppelin was against singles. Surely they've sold more albums than at least most 1 hit wonders. Imagine only buying "Money" and forgoing the rest of "Dark Side of the Moon". If people cherry picked "Melissa" instead of buying "Eat a Peach", listeners would never be exposed to "Mountain Jam". They might not even realize that they are missing out on something that could change their world. How about the way "Eruption" runs into "You Really Got Me" or the way "We Will Rock You" runs into "We Are the Champions"? Or Side 2 of "Abbey Road"? Or Pink Floyd in general. Can't really do that with singles.

I don't like filler, and the answer to me doesn't seem to be to lower the bar. How about learning to play your instrument extraordinarily well and/or learn to write compelling songs?

I do admit that AC/DC does tend to put some filler on their albums, but overall their style is unique and the guitar and vocals are definitely extraordinaire, which compensate for the filler.

[Squashman2]

Let me take you back to the early 90's for a bit.
Queensryche - Operation Mind Crime.
Anybody believe there was filler on that album.

[still_like_music]

The idea of selling songs one at a time is not new. Does anyone remember the 45? It had a A side and a B side (so actually you bought two songs at a time). At that time in history, it took time to record, press, and distribute the 45 (and standard albums 33 1/3 rpm) to the local record store for sale.

Nowadays, a recording can be done and distributed within hours for sale.

[still_like_music]

The idea of selling songs one at a time is not new. Does anyone remember the 45? It had a A side and a B side (so actually you bought two songs at a time). At that time in history, it took time to record, press, and distribute the 45 (and standard albums 33 1/3 rpm) to the local record store for sale.

Nowadays, a recording can be done and distributed within hours for sale.