MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Yeah, heard this MDN rant before. I still like my album collection.

albumfan,

Having heard MDN explain this all before doesn't make it any less true.

I faced with the choice of being a listener or a consumer, I'd take the former any day. This "artificial contruct" blather has gotten terribly stale. If you insist on considering music a commodity, fine, then vote with your change purse. Just don't assume that everybody else has the same priorities.

Dec 07, 07 - 06:29 pm Comment from: Grigori

"Perhaps Radiohead realized that the album is an artificial construct designed by the music cartels to create bundles laced with filler for which they can overcharge fans?"

Yawny yawn yawn. Same ol' same ol', MDN. And hey "Prince", love your albums, particularly 1999.

The album is an "artificial construct."

All you need to be able to do look back at history. Singles came first and the idea of the "album" bundle can later.

MDN is right.

Grigori,

Do you want MDN to change their beliefs on the subject just to keep you entertained?

I agree with MDN: I want choice and don't want to be forced to buy full albums. I'll buy good albums when I want, not when coked up music execs force me to only buy albums.

Thank you, Grigori.

MDN's take is a bit off. I don't mind Radiohead bundling, and the idea of them selling "singles" does sound cheap.

On the other hand, one-hit wonders ought to be refused to bundle their filler. Radiohead is not filler, however.

Who needs to listen to Radiohead, or a girl dressed like a guy (prince)..?? iTunes has ABBA nothing more is needed.

There are a handful of cases where a legitimate claim can be made that the album is a single piece of art. We all know those cases and you can count them on the fingers of two hands. However, even in the most persuasive case -- "Tommy" by The Who -- the band performs individual songs (saw them in concert just a few months ago) and, back when, the radio stations played individual songs. If it is ok to do that, then why is it a problem to sell the individual songs? I am backing Apple on this one -- Radiohead needs to join the 21st century.

That said, the real breakthrough -- one for which Apple might bend, is the negotiations directly with the artist. If Apple gets a deal directly with Radiohead, it could send a powerful message to the record labels -- your days are numbered. As far as I am concerned, it can't happen soon enough. It is hard to believe how out-of-touch Universal, Warner and the rest are.

The iTunes Store has had "only with album" tracks all the time - the negotiations will probably just be about which and how many of those...

This article captures the way that the internet (iTunes, new pipes, whatnot) is displacing old media (NBC, or Universal, or whatnot). It's going to happen.

Consumers and artists get better deals. Media companies get bankrupted. Hold your hats.

I blogged this point on pwnership.com.

Dec 07, 07 - 06:54 pm Comment from: Toasty

I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this subject. Since Radiohead is in charge of their own product not a "Music Cartel" it would stand to reason they should be able to sell their own product how they see fit. There is a different between "Band of the Day" and Radiohead in the respect that they are artists and consider themselves such. Most highly produced/marketed bands are required to "fill" the albums with whatever to sell the package and fulfill their contract. Radiohead believes they are producing and releasing an piece of art. So I fully understand their reasoning behind wanting to sell the album as a whole. I think the idea of what's filler depends on 2 things. Intention of the producer to add poorly written and ill thought out content in order to boost the selling tracks of the album and the consumers opinion of said tracks. Simply stating that ALL albums contain one or 2 good songs and then the rest being filler is pretty ignorant. I'm not saying MDN has said exactly this, but it sure comes across that way. I doubt folks feel that way about Pet Sounds, American Idiot, Dark Side of the Moon to name a few. Fact is when I go to the store to get eggs. I don't just pick one out of the carton. When I buy a chess set I don't just buy the Queen and the Rooks. That said. I'm sure you will see an "album only" tag on quite a few songs if it's added to iTunes. And I honestly wont complain. Just because a consumer demands something to be a certain way, doesn't mean it should or will be.

MDN, You sound like a bunch of morons. The album is an "artificial construction" the same way anything else is that has been invented. Stop. There are plenty of artists who view albums as complete pieces of work, it doesn't make them "fake" or music industry puppets, in fact it is bands who actually have integrity and take their music as "art" do this. I agree with most your takes, but with this you sound stupid.

Dec 07, 07 - 06:56 pm Comment from: Brau

I'm actually a bit sorry to see Radiohead's attempt at self promotion/distribution has failed, as it had the potential to herald a new era that would cut out the labels/middlemen entirely. Unfortunately, so many musicians belabor under the delusion that all their songs are great, and therefore seek to bundle their music, while the consumer knows what they like and just wants to buy the best content. iTunes should give Radiohead the right to bundle their sales if they want. It won't hurt iTunes, but instead will only hurt Radiohead's music sales.

Jon: There are plenty of artists who view albums as complete pieces of work, it doesn't make them "fake" or music industry puppets

No, but if only one or two tracks actually appeal to the customer, why force him to pay for the rest as well, even though he won't ever listen to those?

Grigori is on the money. The album was actually a way to get recorde muysic into people's homes when the grammophone was invented, not a record label construct. Record labels exploited the format, sure, but if all you are listening to is top 40 pap than you are missing the whole point. I'm sorry, but you guys are so wrong on this one, I don't even know where to begin. You are obviously not die hard music lovers.

Dec 07, 07 - 07:01 pm Comment from: skeeter

MDN, your "artificial construct designed by the music cartels to create bundles laced with filler for which they can overcharge fans" bit is not only, yup, stale and terribly misguided, but it's also dangerous. I'd hate to see this narrow-minded, black-and-white, fallacious anti-album sentiment catch on. I mean, sheesh, I'm all for singles culture too, but why must that come at the expense and vilification of the album? Does it really have to be one or the other? Your appreciation and comprehension of music is poorly developed and, given the size of your soapbox, makes you ill-qualified to make such hefty pronouncements. You're not entirely off-base, but your argument could be seriously tempered.

Yeah, in pop music, indeed, the single came before the album. But if you go back way further, composers have always composed complete works that consisted of smaller movements, and so on. Even the "song" in the classical "song cycle" is intended to be presented as part of a unified whole. Bottom line? The artist has every right to present its work however it sees fit. If that means selling you an entire album, fine. If it means selling you singles, great. And if you don't agree to the artist's terms, then you have every right to move on.

way at the bottom post . . . .

all this makes me think of is Green Day's last album where there were only 9 tracks, but some are 8 and 9 minutes long and are clearly three songs all wrapped into one song.

All these 'artists' that say that their album is a single piece of work that needs to stay that way, until I see another White Album or The Wall, get over it.

@everyone - isn't the point that the distance between artist and audience is shrinking, and that creates more flexibility even for an artist who wants to sell in bulk. This matter is settled the classic way - what sells best. For the artist to figure that out, he needs enough control to experiment.

@brau - it might be the opposite. Radiohead skimmed all the high-margin sales, and now Mr. Head will see what either iTunes or old media can do through their respective distribution channels.

Dec 07, 07 - 07:24 pm Comment from: Brau

"@brau - it might be the opposite. Radiohead skimmed all the high-margin sales, and now Mr. Head will see what either iTunes or old media can do through their respective distribution channels."

Good point, but those who have polled the amounts paid have come to the (unfortunate) conclusion that Radiohead was likely to be making less than $6 USD per album sale. These numbers were based only on voluntary admissions but it seems greed was still paramount and many chose not to pay at all, based on the selfish premise that they could get it for free over P2P.

Dec 07, 07 - 07:32 pm Comment from: James

Skeeter and tom Reeves-exactly! You took the words right out of my mouth.

Dec 07, 07 - 07:37 pm Comment from: tomreeves

@james - you can have them back if you'd like.

Dec 07, 07 - 07:41 pm Comment from: effwerd

I think Radiohead has a point. All their songs do sound alike, like one cohesive redundancy.

just because "singles came first, albums later" doesn't mean that artists didn't capitalize on the idea of a theme for an album. Just think back.. Bach et al wrote big pieces, meant to be performed from start to finish. Sure.. you may like one movement more than others.. and some movements you may not like at all, but that doesn't mean it wasn't written to be heard from beginning to end.

While I agree that a lot of albums are junk with tons of filler, I would disagree with the notion that they all are, or that artists aren't capable of writing an album's worth of really, really good stuff.

The White Album by The Beatles springs to mind.. hard to listen to just one track without the next one... or putting it in shuffle.

Same with Joe Jackson's "Blaze of Glory". Both were written from start to finish, and meant to be performed AND heard that way.

So, if Bach, and The Beatles can do it, why would MDN think Radiohead can't?

Those who think MDN thinks ALL albums are bundles or that Radiohead can't make albums worth buying as whole albums obviously cannot read.

Read MDN's take again. Slowly, this time.

Dec 07, 07 - 07:47 pm Comment from: effwerd

You are obviously not die hard music lovers.

Please. Save the elitist snobbery for something that matters.

I'm actually a bit sorry to see Radiohead's attempt at self promotion/distribution has failed

This experiment may have fallen short of expectations but it's only because they let the consumer set the price. Face it, internet denizens are cheap motherfsckers.

Dec 07, 07 - 07:51 pm Comment from: toby

Does the Music Industry really think that people buy iPods BECAUSE of iTunes and not the other way around?


All that Apple has done is make buying music easy. Really really really easy.


As for Radiohead, listen, if they are getting 90% of the gross of their record sales, then selling hit songs at 99 cents and hit albums at 9.99....


Well then they can become far richer than having a Record deal where the opposite is true...Umm why do you think there's these super large, heavily Lawyered Record Labels?

Dec 07, 07 - 07:54 pm Comment from: Grigori

Let's take it a step further, MDNers: ALL recorded music is an artificial construct; certainly, all music that is not completely a one-take live recording is artificial. All those weird sounds they get through multi-tracking and studio effects are just crass, commercially-driven attempts by label fatcats to get you to buy lame music that can't stand on its own without audio trickery.

Discuss amongst yourselves; we'll break for tea in a couple of hours.

Dec 07, 07 - 07:58 pm Comment from: jjjj

If an artist really wants you to hear every song in the way he intended it tracked, then one only need look at the release of Prince's Lovesexy as a model. It is 1 long track. Still that way on iTMS today.

It's nonsense to assume that just because most pop (or "children's) music is a collection of separate songs, that all albums must be the same. There are classical albums, Folk and traditional albums many live albums, etc etc.

Dec 07, 07 - 08:11 pm Comment from: Brau

"I think Radiohead has a point. All their songs do sound alike, like one cohesive redundancy."

Glad to hear I'm not the only one to notice this. To my ears if I've heard one Radiohead song I've heard them all. Only the chord progression changes. They sound aurally monotonous to me, just like most other indistinct rock bands.

I guess Radiohead realized that if you offer something for free, and just ask people to contribute what they think it's worth, you won't make very much money.

I like to buy individual songs which I like, but also I buy albums from artists I like. I think iTunes works perfectly: I can buy a couple of songs, but if I buy an album, I may receive bonus tracks and I usually get the songs for an average price less than $0.99 per song.

What Radiohead discovered is that artists still need good distributors for their wares. Slapping your songs on a website (and a poorly designed one at that) is no substitute for proper marketing. Look at all of the free press they received for offering their album on a "pay what you like" basis, yet it must not have been successful (or the costs of operating the website, accepting credit cards, etc. was too much) because they're shuttering the experiment.

This shows the viability and strength of iTunes and that it is the new music marketing tool.

I'm not a Radiohead fan, but I bought the album anyway just to support DRM-free music.

The ideas of 'Playlist' has actually been around a lot more than album. Radio, TV, Magazines, Newspapers are all 'Playlists' of media created by different individuals.

Don't see the Album concept anywhere else except music do we?

"the album is an artificial construct designed by the music cartels to create bundles laced with filler"

This is such a load of BS, it's hard to believe that the above statement is serious. Makes as much sense as saying a novel is a construct designed by publishing cartels to create bundles laced with filler. Pull your head out of your ass MDN!

I don't like the music business nearly as much as I don't like bad editorial.

Dec 07, 07 - 10:06 pm Comment from: skeeter

@ Grigori: Here here! Or, I should say, hear hear!

Look, folks. It's amusing to me that the not-so-subtle implication in this announcement from MDN and quite a few others - evident in far too many posts here - is that this "experiment" was a failure. comScore's fiercely-disputed<a>-by-Radiohead <a href="">figures run from 10/1-29, so I'll make some conservative assumptions about the big picture.

Let's suppose 1.5 million people worldwide downloaded the album. And let's suppose that out of all those people, among both those who freeloaded and those paid, the average price paid was $3. And let's say - wild estimate - infrastructure winds up costing, oh, $200,000, which is a number based on absolutely nothing, and the recording cost, oh, $300,000. So with no middleman, no label to pay back and deduct everything under the sun, Radiohead's made $4m. That's take-home $$$. I'd call it a success.

Dec 07, 07 - 10:08 pm Comment from: skeeter

oops. I forgot to put in those URL's.

mehhhh... look 'em up. they're out there.

"I guess Radiohead realized that if you offer something for free, and just ask people to contribute what they think it's worth, you won't make very much money."

I have no sympathy for Radiohead. It's just possible that what they earned represents the true market value of their work.

It's been a while since I read anything about it, but if memory serves correctly, an average band (if they were lucky) gets about $2 from the sale of a $18 -$20 album. As was already pointed out, Radiohead's average take was just less than $6 per album.

Since they did this without "benefit" of a label, if you subtract all the overhead a label adds to the cost of a typical album, Radiohead did extraordinarily well. Did they, or anyone, honestly expect that listeners would be willing to pay typical full album price for a band generated album with little overhead?

Please tell me they weren't that naive.

This reminds me of the situation faced by naive home sellers who try to sell their homes without a real estate agent...they expect to make that much more money (the agent commission) when they sell their home.

No...

It doesn't work because potential home buyers expect to pay that much less (the agent commission) for the asking price of a home.

Dec 07, 07 - 11:41 pm Comment from: DogGone

I paid 6 bucks for the In Rainbows album. Unfortunately there wasn't much on it. Kid A was the last album of theirs that I really enjoyed. The quality / thought into the albums have gone down since then.

I still prefer to buy albums but increasingly am getting disappointed because the good songs a few and far between. A band can have maybe one or two good albums and then the rest are full of crap.

I'm beginning to think that buying individual songs are better. I still prefer the ability to rip at different rates which is a problem when downloading songs.

Dec 08, 07 - 12:18 am Comment from: MikeK

@Skeeter I agree with you 100%.

@DogGone. I disagree about Kid A being the last good Radiohead album.. Radiohead have evolved more than ever into an "albums" band.. They no longer construct pop songs like "Creep," "High and Dry," "Fake Plastic Trees," and "Karma Police." Instead their albums have evolved into a continuous piece of progressive pop. On first listen "In Rainbows" was not an immediate love, but it is definitely a grower.

MDN your opinions of music and art are highly skewed. An artist has the right to sell whatever they want, just as you have the right to purchase or pass on whatever you want. It should not be mandatory for an artist to disect an album by selling it in pieces if it was intended to be a complete statement and listened to as a whole. Stick to giving on opinions of what you know best, Apple products, not music.

Dec 08, 07 - 12:19 am Comment from: American

radiohead. The name sound faluting if you ask me. Never heard of them. I don't get why people here are so against albums. I think albums are what makes music great. Why get one song when you can get ten? Dorian day, now that's a sweet songbrid. I cansing along to that. Can't say the same for todays music. The other day my niece played the most awful stuff from some Russian band, the Tatoos. Those two young woman were kissing and doing all kinds of immoral things. Russians is gone messed up from communism.

Dec 08, 07 - 12:21 am Comment from: American

I meant to write Doris Day there, sorry sris and thank you'd

Dec 08, 07 - 12:23 am Comment from: TowerTone

i got some free radiohead one time,
but then she got sirius.....

Dec 08, 07 - 12:32 am Comment from: TowerTone

we modulated frequently,
until the amplitude of static
brought a new voice

Dec 08, 07 - 01:06 am Comment from: Grigori

@ American
Dorian Day's funnier.

The album is an artificial construct defined by the limitations of technology in the 1950s. LPs could only hold around 40 to 50 minutes worth of music. The recording cartels didn't really have anything to do with it but it became the de facto "standard" for music groups to produce 40 - 50 mins worth of music and then somehow label it as "art."
When the CD came along it allowed groups to record 75 mins of music without even flipping the disk—another technological limitation, BTW, which ruins the "artistic vision" of so many works of art.
Finally Radiohead can decide whether or not it wants to sell a full "album" or individual trax. That is their right as an "artist."
But it is Apple's right to only sell tracks or albums or both. If Apple doesn't want to market Radiohead under Radiohead's terms, it is their right.

Regardless of the various positions about album sales vs singles sales, I think the reason Radiohead's experiment went south was because the buying experience was poorly executed. It was like someone who doesn't know how to design a website designed the virtual store. They didn't even have automatic currency conversion and instead provided a link to another site for that. Then, after figuring out how much you wanted to pay, the process was so painful, I opted to wait and see if they'd make the experience better. Looks like that's what they're doing. I don't think anyone can argue that iTunes doesn't provide an easy way to buy the music you want.

Skeeter: actually, it is 'hear hear'. There is no 'here here'. Or maybe you meant it that way, and I just didn't get it.

Dec 08, 07 - 05:52 am Comment from: UltraVisitor

"The album is an artificial construct." -MDM

All music is an artificial construct. Everything "made or produced by human beings" is artificial by definition. Your argument here means nothing.

Selling singles is great for pop music. But anyone who takes music seriously listens to albums. It is a much broader and deeper medium then 3-5 minute radio-friendly singles.

"If an artist really intends for their work to be heard and purchased in full, then eliminate separate tracks." -MDN

And if an author meant for a book to be read in it's entirety, why not eliminate chapters and just sell thousands of uninterrupted words? If the director intended you to watch the whole movie, why not sell DVDs without chapters?

[I added the metaphor about DVDs realizing that MDN editors, who don't appreciate music albums as a legitimate art medium, likely don't appreciate full books either.]

The iTunes store is great because it offers consumers a choice. The MTV generation can get their hit-singles without filler tracks, and more serious music lovers can get their full albums.