Comments on: The Album is Dead...

Mark Cuban wonders if artists should embrace the television metaphor, and start selling a season's worth of songs under a subscription basis.

[Shig2k1]

Nice idea, but it still doesn't remove the "free" option... ultimately, there will always be people who pirate music.

[pdskep]

The article should be titled 'music is dead'. Music has become a commodity that's bought and sold with little interest in its artistic value. This has almost always been true to an extent, but never has the quality of the music suffered so. I partially blame the mp3 and download revolution for this development. What's easy, plentiful and cheap to get no longer has value so why put forth any effort. We'll end up with 'artists' releasing 30 second ring tones and any sense of meaning will be stripped for a funky beat we can answer our phone to. If your artist can only manage one or two worthwhile songs, maybe he/she isn't worth listening to.

The album concept allows the artist to follow a theme and its songs being recorded at approximately the same time will have a cohesive feeling. Maybe we've become so overstimulated that we can't sit and concentrate to our music for more that 3 minutes at a time. It's just background noise now.

Being an internet pioneer I'm sure you'd love to see your vision come true Mark, and sadly it probably will.

Patrick

[john55440]

"spending 20 bucks for a CD"

The last two CDs I (just) bought on Amazon.com were $12.97 and $9.99.

CDs offer superior sound quality , compared to compressed digital music.

Currently, those who only purchase individual songs, rather than entire albums, are missing many lesser known gems, and are missing the cohesive experience of an entire album.

[KCL]

"CDs offer superior sound quality , compared to compressed digital music."

Um. What?

You need to check your facts, or at least your science. CDs ARE compressed digital music and you can buy CD-quality music from iTunes. Digital is digital, dude. It's all about the sampling. You could get higher quality than CD by buying vinyl, assuming of course you have a pristine copy and the right equipment (including your own hearing) to hear the difference.

And while there are certainly albums the provided a "cohesive experience" out there, most are simply filled with one or two good songs couched by a bunch of crap.

[OStrolphant]

I disagree with KCL. a song at over 1000kbps is not all THAT compressed, especially when purchased music is in the 128-192kbps range. Digital is not digital. I can listen to digital XM radio at 96kbps or DVD audio at far superior rates. both being digital and both living in different planes of existence. I think KCL needs to check his facts because them are not right. John is right.

[KenanFarrell]

Interesting idea, Mr. Cuban. This could work for new music but there's a world of music out there already recorded waiting to be discovered by new listeners. Since taking History of Rock at IU, I've learned about hundreds of classic rock, blues and country artists. I want to hear the great past albums, not just "greatest hits" compilations put together by some record label exec. Maybe it's not albums or music that is dying, but rather the music listener.

In 2003 I discovered a songwriting/performance club in Edinburgh called Out of the Bedroom - over the course of seven months I performed regular three song spots at the club and released ten limited edition 3 track CD singles. Eight of the lead tracks were then collected for an album released in the eighth month - I sold loads of CD singles and then people bough the album too - just to make up the set...

[Mr Twain]

This blog fails to recognise that not all recorded output is meant to be "product".

The audience for recorded music is fragmented, just as the output of the industry is. While there will always be a market for singles - and now a market for single tracks - that is the lowest common denominator; the Big Mac market. It's music for people who don't really listen to music. People who "go to iTunes and (...) go through the top 10 lists and listen to samples and (to) determine what music (they're) going to buy. People like you. Fortunately, you're not the entire audience. Some people still love music.

The concept of a "season" of releases might work for those who view music as ephemeral brain filler - but for many artists it simply would not work. Not every song is a single. This isn't TV, where each episode has to fit the same template, do the same job and leave you wanting more.

A collection of songs can have its own texture - its own peaks and troughs. Moments of quiet reflection followed by an anthemic pay off. The classic albums are complete works, not mere song compilations.

[cnetabdul]

This also assumes that the current formats and business models are as good as it gets. Theoretically an album can be released as one song and carry a higher price, or maybe 99cents is too high, maybe a band can make money on just 50 cents (they don't get a lot through old media..ie.. the physical album) A band only need a devoted following and some creativity.

[Peter Hilgendorf]

No it isn't.

[James98765]

From an entertainment point-of-view I agree with you. Overall however, serializing new releases has serious pitfalls. True music is about art (as in, a form of creation/expression) and to "serialize" it like this would make it into a (purely) commercial venture. Mind you, I'm not addressing the already highly glamorized and marketed entertainers that are pushed by MTV and radio; I'm talking about true songwriters/singers (artists, not performers).

While I believe this system could prove profitable to the music industry and flavor-of-the month entertainers who simply perform songs written by a professional, I think it would further limit the possible exposure of real artists. Imagine if this serialization system was applied to other forms of art, such as painting: I'm sure it would lessen the impact and (intangible) value it offers; in fact, I'd go as far as saying it would cheapen it.

Even if you take the art out of the music and consider songs a product; I'm not sure this system would work. Consumers with so many (instant gratification) options are unlikely to tie themselves into a subscription service for a product they have not yet received, nor would they be sure of the quality of the product (e.g., I have quite a few "fav" artists on my list that have released HORRIBLE songs).

Furthermore, I can see the serializing of music being akin to the issues game publishers currently create when they rush the developers to finish a product. Instead of a completed product, you receive a hurried one and unlike games, you can't really patch a song. In addition to this, you have (great and potential) projects that will never see the light of day, simply because they do not fit into the publisher's bottom line.

No, I would definitely be against this idea - not because it can't be profitable, the system is already in place to serve the bottom line. Rather, I'm against the idea because it encourages the further cheapening of the art aspect of music into something relatively empty and meaningless.

[notgonnatellya]

Mark, the album may be dead, but the cause is not due to increased prices. There's a fallacy that CD's are much more expensive than it was when albums ruled, but that's only true if you don't account for inflation. If you do that, you quickly discover than CD's cost LESS than a record did at any point in the last 40 years.

The other silly statement you make is that CD's cost $20.00. Where are these people who pay $20.00 for a CD shopping? Does the CD come with a joint or some other drug?

Even when they're not on sale, most CD's are available for $15.00 or less. Many are on sale the first week for 10-13 dollars (which is less than I paid for a CD in 1987, even if you don't adjust for inflation).

No, the problem is that radio long ago gave up on albums. MTV long ago gave up on music, and kids today have other things they care about.

You also claim that people are willing to plop down a buck for a single, as opposed to buying a CD. What you gloss over is that more money is made on CDs (much more) than on downloads and that most people that pay for music get it on CD. Personally, I think anyone who settles for a crappy lossy audio file isn't really that interested in music to begin with (or at the very least only listens to music on a DAP with bad earbud headphones)

Finally, your idea of subscribing to an artist won't work. Most willing to subscribe to an artist are the same people who will run out and buy that artists CD. I like U2. I may not love every album, but I buy the album no matter what. I'm the target for subscribing to an artist, and I'm already buying the CD.

My brother is ok with U2, but he's not going to subscribe to some U2 channel for a song 2x a month. He might do that for Pink Floyd, but he'd buy the album, so we're back to square one.

I occasionally like a Madonna song. There's no way I'd subscribe to her....she's too hit and miss.

[jgraebner]

Another important point to note here is that the album is certainly still the best approach to selling certain genres of music. Selling pop music as individual tracks makes sense. Selling classical music, Broadway cast recordings, film scores, many types of jazz recordings, etc. that way would be way less effective.

Of course, as others have pointed out, even with pop/rock/country music there have been a lot of talented performers/songwriters that have very artistically crafted a collection of connected/related music. While I can see the argument that digital distribution greatly expedites the ability to purchase songs more selectively, I'd really hate to see the artistry involved with the creation of albums be lost.

[outlandosmusic]

Hi Marc,

Releasing music as "seasons" is brilliant. Very HBO.

However, I disagree, respectfully, with your assessment of the state of the album and, frankly, I'm hell-bent on its emphatic rebirth :-): www.outlandosmusic.com/blog

[jaggerbush]

Hi Mark, We are busy with an animation film about The magnificent 7 elephants in Africa. Do you want to contact us? [e-mail]

[LoserPoet]

I would have to agree that the album is dead. I remember when I used to wait eagerly for each release from my favorite bands, making a point to purchase said album on the day it came out. This year I've watched several albums come out and haven't felt any interest in purchasing any of them. I still listen to albums, as lately hard bop jazz has become my obsession. Albums of old seem to be more cohesive statements whereas today's music seems to be mainly a collection of songs with no inherent theme thrown onto a CD. A lot of artists seem to feel that they must fill every minute of space on said CD as well, leading to much more throwaway junk than in any other period of music.

On an unrelated note, this is my first visit to your blog, sir. As such, I must take this opportunity to implore you to purchase the Chicago Cubs. I know the final decision isn't up to you, but of all the candidates, you have the most passion for the sport. I really hope you get a fair chance to purchase the team. If you end up the chosen suitor, you'll make a ton of Cub fans happy.

LoserPoet
http://shooterslounge.blogspot.com/