Digital Media

Did we like music more back when we had to pay for it in bulk?

That's essentially the question writer Nick Carr asks in yet another provocative post on his Rough Type blog. "Slanted and Enchanted" revels in the one-hit wonder but also asks if we are losing something by dumping albums for tracks.

I've suggested that artists may find new ways to more deeply engage their fans by focusing on singles rather than albums, but there's something to Carr's logic:

(Credit: iTransistor)

Today, we're quick to dismiss those ancient days of "scarcity" and to celebrate our current "abundance," but scarcity had something going for it: it encouraged a deep engagement in listening to a particular piece of music, across the expanse of an album, and it also encouraged, in the artist, an interest in rewarding that engagement. I would like to get back the money I spent on records in my youth, but I would not give up the experience that money bought me.

It's the deep, attentive engagement that the Web is draining away, as we fill our iTunes library with tens of thousands of "tracks" at little or no cost. What the Web tells us, over and over again, is that breadth destroys depth. Just hit Shuffle.

There is some truth to this, but I'm not sure it matters as much as Carr implies. For every Blonde Redhead ("Dr. Strangeluv" is a wonderful track) that I casually buy and then will probably forget, there's also the Band of Horses or Arcade Fire that I increasingly find myself deeper and deeper into, track by 99-cent track.

I'm simply not ready to invest in an album yet. But I've already spent the equivalent of an album, tasting around the edges of both bands, getting myself ready to hit the "Complete my album" button in iTunes.

The singles culture, in other words, is making it easier for me to experiment with a band, to "date it," if you will, before I "marry it." It's also letting me go very broad with bands that I already like: to pay the band to experiment. (I've never met a Radiohead /Thom Yorke or Morrissey single that I wouldn't buy, though the quality of the tracks varies wildly.)

I've never believed in albums as a complete "oeuvre" in the way that some artists insist they must be. Albums have long felt like a way for the music industry and artists to sneak in weak songs and get the consumer to pay for them. When was the last time you felt that every song on an album was equally great?

Yes, some like Pink Floyd's "The Wall" or Queensryche's "Operation: Mindcrime" are definitely meant to be listened to as a complete piece, but most albums don't fit this "rock opera" genre, and the singles world, while potentially shallow, is also a great way to enrich one's experience with a band.

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.

Apparently, the digital download didn't kill the album after all.

Can Apple revamp the album format?

(Credit: Polydor/Jimi Hendrix: Bold As Love)

The four largest recording companies and Apple reportedly have plans to create what they hope is the next-generation album. Driving the efforts is the hope that music can once again deliver fat profits, instead of the scrawny margins earned on 99 cent downloads.

On Sunday evening, the Financial Times reported that Apple plans to entice customers to accept packaged music by throwing in "photos, lyric sheets and liner notes" and also enable consumers "to play songs directly from the interactive book without clicking back into Apple's iTunes software."

A music industry source told me the labels are working on their own interactive album format and they will offer it to Amazon and other music services. Apple and the labels are shooting to release their album versions in the fall.

Critics will undoubtedly say such plans are folly. For nearly a decade, digital technology has enabled music consumers to bust the CD into pieces and obtain only the songs they wanted. Even music industry execs have acknowledged that for too long, fans were forced to pay on the order of $15 to obtain 12 or so songs of which only two might be any good.

Whatever the next-gen album is, it can't be a vehicle that forces unwanted music on fans for premium prices.

But the music industry's dilemma was sized up candidly earlier this year by David Ring, executive vice president of business development for Universal Music Group's digital arm.

"If what we're trying to do is one-by-one downloads...that's not a business that can grow," Ring told EconMusic Conference attendees. "It won't be healthy for the industry."

What that means is that there's too little money in selling individual songs. The ailing music industry appears to be looking for ways to give people music and then entice them to dig deeper into their wallets for extras.

Earlier this month, EMI began selling the "digital 45" to mark the 60th anniversary of the vinyl 45 single. A 45 was a vinyl record that was smaller in size than the standard album and typically featured two songs, one tune on the A-side and another song on the B-side. To create a similar effect, EMI began bundling hit singles with B-sides in a download format.

When it comes to boosting margins, the labels have already achieved some success.

Last January, in an unprecedented move, iTunes maker Apple announced that it would allow the recording industry to charge something other than the traditional 99 cents per song.

Perhaps Apple and the labels can come up with content combos that people will find valuable. But the danger here is in trying to force the packages on consumers and possibly alienating them even more, which could send them sailing into new piracy waters.

When news broke late Sunday that Apple has plans to create the next-generation music album, some in the record industry were steamed.

The Financial Times reported that Apple was working on a plan code-named "Cocktail" that involves the creation of "new type of interactive album material, including photos, lyric sheets and liner notes that allow users to click through to items that they find most interesting." That's nearly identical to a plan that executives from some of the four largest music labels pitched Apple about 18 months ago, said a music industry source who requested anonymity.

Even as the music industry cooperates with Apple's efforts, what has some insiders upset is that Apple rejected the labels' plan. By seizing credit, Apple is being "disingenuous," said the source. He added that Apple's attempt to develop a proprietary technology around the new interactive album is an example of the company once again falling back on "the walled garden approach."

What he was referring to was how users of Apple's iPod were prevented from playing songs wrapped in digital rights management made by competitors. That effectively blocked anybody but Apple's iTunes from selling music files to iPod owners. Now, most download stores sell songs in the MP3 format and these DRM-free tunes can play on iPods and iPhones.

Apple representatives did not respond to an interview request.

But Apple's refusal to participate in the labels' plan didn't mean they gave up. The largest recording companies have continued to develop software that will help them release their own version of a new interactive album. Apple will have Cocktail, but Amazon and all the other competing services will get access to the labels' version, which will offer more content than Apple's, said the music industry source.

Apple plans to have Cocktail ready to launch by September, according to the Financial Times, and that's when the labels hope to have their version ready as well, said the source.

Both Apple and the top recording companies appear to be pursuing the same goal: rejuvenating the album, which was the benchmark sales unit that helped the music business generate billions of dollars over the past half-century. Up until the digital download turned the music industry on its head, the album was the standard means for music distribution. Even after the switch from vinyl to the CD, the album format was preserved, as most CDs featured about a dozen tracks.

Record industry execs have long said that there's no way to grow the business by selling single-song tracks. But the big labels have an uphill fight--many consumers may well resent any attempt to force them into paying a premium for packages that include unwanted tracks.

The case brought by rapper Eminem's former production company against Universal Music Group could have handed music artists a larger share of digital sales.

But a federal jury voted unanimously in favor of Universal Music and other defendants in the case, including rapper-producer Dr. Dre's record label, Aftermath Records, according to an Associated Press report.

Richard Busch, lawyer for plaintiff F.B.T. Productions told the AP that his clients--brothers Mark and Jeff Bass--were disappointed and were considering an appeal.

At the core of the case was F.B.T.'s argument that digital albums were different than physical sales. Artists are compensated on a royalty structure for traditional CD sales. When a CD is sold at a retail store, say at a Wal-Mart Stores outlet, the artist receives about 16 cents. The music publisher gets 9.1 cents.

Things like breakage are deducted from the artist's cut. As other bands, such as Cheap Trick and The Allman Brothers have argued, there isn't any breakage in digital music and such charges are unfair.

Some musicians want compensation for downloads to be structured like licensing fees they receive when their music is used for movies, TV shows, ringtones or commercials. In those cases, artists and labels split equally what's left after publishers takes their 9.1 cents.

Universal lawyers successfully argued that digital sales should be handled the same way as physical sales and that the royalty rate was fair.

Universal Music representative Peter Lofrumento told CNET News that the label "was pleased with the jury's verdict."

Stephan Jenkins, center, says albums aren't for everybody.

(Credit: 3eb.com)

Stephan Jenkins, lead singer of the band Third Eye Blind, digital music fan, and former beau of Charlize Theron, wants to clear up a few things. He wants people to know that contrary to what some have been saying about him, he doesn't hate the album format.

On Monday, Jenkins gave the keynote address at the SanFran MusicTech Summit. He said he was in favor of releasing singles and suggested that this would help avoid "album filler," the term used to describe the placing of so-so tracks on albums in order to meet the required number of songs.

"I don't think (the album) is necessary or useful," Jenkins told the audience. "The album is an arbitrary concept. It's not something that has to exist."

A few days ago, Jenkins said in an e-mail that he wants an opportunity to expand on his comments.

"Albums are the most vital and compelling art form," Jenkins said in his e-mail. "I spent my childhood with headphones and liner notes, finding my identity through albums, and I have invested my adult life making them." But Jenkins didn't back down from his earlier statements. "Albums were also created so that record executives could make cash."

Last week, AC/DC members said iTunes could potentially kill the music industry while explaining why they refused to sell individual songs at such sites. I disagreed and wrote that it was wrong for the music industry to force consumers to buy albums. That was what they did before digital technology armed consumers with the power to buy only the songs they liked. Like Jenkins, I'm not an album hater.

I'm opposed to being forced to buy an album when all I want is one or two songs. When it comes to music, isn't that one of the most important benefits of the digital revolution?

Here's another thing I thought was interesting about what Jenkins said: He believes that an act's Web site can supply the cohesive artistic package that albums once delivered: "All I am saying is the Web site can now be your album," Jenkins wrote, "an ongoing ever-changing one that grows and changes and reflects your creative impulses as you have them. Grab the moment of a song and share it the night you finished it."

Below is Jenkins message in its entirety.

First, to the person putting me down for having a speech impediment: I spent six years in special (education) trying to learn to talk while people like you scalded me. Do you know what a drag it is to be named Stephan when you can't pronounce the letter "S?" You are just mean. I bet you watch Fox News! Onto albums: to me, albums are the most vital and compelling art form. I spent my childhood with headphones and liner notes, finding my identity through albums, and I have invested my adult life making them. My whole identity is invested in the art form of the album.

I still buy albums and I still intend to continue making albums. I prefer them to singles and mix tapes and playlists. I still put vinyl on my turntable and freak out about how good icky thump sounds on 16 track tape heads. However, the album was created by the limitations of vinyl--about 45 minutes and then expanded to the CD--about 80 minutes. Artists like the Beatles, the Beach Boys, and Pink Floyd made cohesive pieces of art from these limitations. Great! Albums were also created so that record executives could make cash.

Stephan Jenkins of Third Eye Blind

(Credit: Greg Sandoval/CNET Networks)

Albums require huge time commitments and budgets and then lots of promotion and album cycles and of course key tracks and hit singles, and payola, and getting signed and getting dropped, and 360 deals, and a very few people at the top of corporations who are interested in quarterly statements and ameliorate risk and who know what's best for your band. All I am saying is the Web site can now be your album, an ongoing ever-changing one that grows and changes and reflects your creative impulses as you have them. Grab the moment of a song and share it the night you finished it. Make art that you have for it and post it, then go play some shows and record some more.

How fluid and creatively freeing? And the best part is, you don't have to get permission form a boss in order to do it. Yay! This all seems so much more democratic to me. Fewer people will become billionaires this way, but more people will make a living making music. The good old days are here.

And while we are at it I think the hit single is arcane as well. The songs that have resonated the longest with 3EB's audience sometimes haven't even been on our albums (see "slow motion"). Oil paintings require oil paint in order to exist, it's true. Music can exist and thrive in all kinds of formats--not just albums or singles. Maybe your best canvas is a Web site. Maybe an album, per se, is not necessary or even useful for you. Just a thought. Still friends?

Finally, this is not an us against them argument. Majors continue to support hugely entertaining albums and I have worked with a lot of people at majors (like WEA) who care passionately about music. They are not going away and neither is the album. I'm saying that choices are exploding. Albums are not the only way and perhaps not even the most creative and effective way. Then again, they may be the way for you. I hope you have the choice and I hope you continue to find yourselves and each other through music.

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.

You can find AC/DC's new album on the band's Web site or Wal-Mart but not at iTunes.

(Credit: Acdc.com)

AC/DC, the iconic Australian rock band, has been talking to reporters as part of the promotion of its upcoming album. The group has also used the opportunity to take swipes at Apple.

The band refuses to offer music at iTunes because it isn't interested in selling individual songs. The only places to acquire the album, Black Ice, is at Wal-Mart Stores or on the band's Web site. In an interview with Reuters, lead singer Brian Johnson said the band is trying to protect the album format.

"Maybe I'm just being old-fashioned, but this iTunes, God bless 'em, it's going to kill music if they're not careful," Johnson, 61, told Reuters. "It's a...monster, this thing. It just worries me. And I'm sure they're just doing it all in the interest of making as much...cash as possible. Let's put it this way, it's certainly not for the...love, let's get that out of the way, right away."

Angus Young, who co-founded the band with brother Malcolm, told The New York Times last week: "It's like an artist who does a painting. If he thinks it's a great piece of work, he protects it. It's the same thing: this is our work."

I want to give AC/DC, one of the best-selling rock & roll bands of all time, the benefit of the doubt. I want to believe they really do consider their work art and that the forthcoming album, which debuts October 20, will reflect a legitimate attempt to deliver a hit with every track.

This kind of good-faith effort from the music industry wasn't always guaranteed, remember? I'll get back to that.

First, I couldn't care less if the band doesn't like iTunes. Plenty of people don't. Other artists, such as Kid Rock, choose not to distribute via the country's largest music retailer. It's their music--they can do what they want with it. What offends me about AC/DC's comments is that in the band members' attack on iTunes, they completely ignore history.

Johnson implied that iTunes is all about money and thus this commercialization is hurting music. Let me state the obvious: plenty of people profited off of music long before iTunes was formed, including AC/DC. What, is Wal-Mart donating Black Ice profits to charity?

If iTunes is such a threat to the music industry, you couldn't tell by listening to Doug Morris, CEO of Universal Music Group, the largest of the four top recording companies. Billboard asked him recently who he thought was the smartest person in music. He named Apple CEO Steve Jobs.

"When you look at the whole picture, we make a lot of money through iTunes," Morris said. "We consider (Jobs) a friend...I talk to him about once a month. I like him very much. I have dinner with him occasionally, and he's the kind of guy we'll be talking about 100 years from now. He's a brilliant guy."

As for albums, there's nothing sacred about this format--at least not to consumers. Angus should look around. Hardly anyone in the music business advocates for albums anymore. That's because digital technology has rendered the album obsolete. Consumers are free to buy tracks they like and aren't forced to shell out money for those they don't. Years ago, after the rise of CDs, if a fan liked a song, he or she had little choice but to buy the entire album.

The truth is the album was anti-consumer.

I stopped buying music in the early 1990s after reading a Rolling Stone interview where Kurt Cobain suggested that this wasn't an accident. Nirvana's legendary frontman implied that music labels would take a band's best tracks and scatter them over multiple albums to squeeze more money out of consumers. In the two years I've covered digital music, I've had the opportunity to ask a number of music executives about this.

Not one has ever denied it.

This was obviously a poor way to treat customers, and it's not a stretch to suggest this is why many people felt justified in downloading songs off Napster in the late 1990s, and why so many continue to pirate music to this day.

By requiring Black Ice be sold as an album, AC/DC is trying to cram it down the throats of fans. Why not offer the music on iTunes and be confident that the individual songs will sell themselves?