or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple's "Cocktail" may spur whole album sales in iTunes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's "Cocktail" may spur whole album sales in iTunes - Page 3

post #81 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Could you provide a link for those numbers?

This is a list of albums released in the USA during 2009 by month. There is also a list for Great Britain.

As you can see, the numbers are far smaller than the doubtful ones you gave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...leased_in_2008

Certainly, several websites quote the source http://www.soundscan.com/about.html but I found the quotes here

The list in your link appears to be simply one compiled by wiki users as the 2009 version shows as incomplete and requests additions.

A quick search shows that 2 of my favourite albums, both by established artists, Grace Jones' 'Hurricane' released in 2008 and Iggy Pop's recent 'Preliminaires' are both missing from the Wiki listings.
post #82 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephenbw View Post

Well there were 105,000 albums released in the US in 2008; four times as many as in 2000, so using your formulation that makes 10,500 or around 200 per week 'good' and worth buying and taking the time to listen to as 'albums'

Here in the UK we weed out most of the crap and only release 30,000

I think your numbers are a bit off.

About 1000 albums were released in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...leased_in_2008

Which still mean 100 full albums worth buying. And that would be if you like every time of music created by man.

I would say most people like 1/10 of music styles.

So maybe 10 albums a year are worth buying?
Forgo Looking At The Past As A Judge; Instead Be a Student.
Reply
Forgo Looking At The Past As A Judge; Instead Be a Student.
Reply
post #83 of 119
This cocktail idea sounds like a waste of an attempt to get you to buy something you really don't want. I have no objection to them making it. I just hope they don't try and force it on us.


I fear them now locking hit songs to the buy full album only section.
They do that now with albums, you have to buy the full one to get one or two songs, what if they do this with hit songs now.

Watch their sales drop and blame everyone else.
Forgo Looking At The Past As A Judge; Instead Be a Student.
Reply
Forgo Looking At The Past As A Judge; Instead Be a Student.
Reply
post #84 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionGrey View Post

I think your numbers are a bit off.

About 1000 albums were released in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...leased_in_2008

Which still mean 100 full albums worth buying. And that would be if you like every time of music created by man.

I would say most people like 1/10 of music styles.

So maybe 10 albums a year are worth buying?

See my reply above.

That list on Wiki is worse than useless, I can find dozens of omissions simply comparing it with Amazon.com, and it doesn't appear to include digital only releases.

Amazon UK lists 1240 albums released in the UK in the last 30 days alone, so I don't see how 1000 in the whole of 2008 in the USA is a realistic figure.
post #85 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

Remember, many musical artists write a great album's worth of material, then create one catchy song that will get played on the radio to sell the album. If that's the only song you buy, then you're really missing out on what the artists have to offer or say.

Many musical artists write a great album's worth of material? Do you work for the RIAA?

Finding an album where nearly every single song is good is an exception, not the norm. When record companies realized that mediocre groups were selling more single 45s than albums, they started the march toward killing the single and forcing everyone to buy entire albums, even from mediocre groups. Profits soared as a result.

Now that iTunes has brought back the ability to pick and choose songs, it seems the record companies are intent on repeating history and, as usual, ignoring what customers want.
post #86 of 119
Some artists/bands create album oriented projects (namely Tool - who will not sell through iTunes because they don't want their art sold one off, but rather as a complete piece of work, ie, an album). Call me old, but I agree.

If the entire industry continues to trend towards single sales, it cheapens the artform. Pop music now is already bad enough. The generation today already has an attention span of a minute. Whenever I check the iTunes top 25 lists, I'm always ambivelant towards what I see.

For all of you youngsters on here who do not like the idea, I would argue that without the entire album for sale, would a Dark Side of the Moon or Sgt. Peppers be possible today? No.

If you can't afford a $10 album, you need to put your iPod/iPhone on craigslist.

Oh, BTW, pirating is theft. It cheats artists out of doing what they do best, provide us with music.

Damn I'm gett'n old.
post #87 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx View Post

The Apple Cocktail project is for the Apple Tablet on September 2009, as "The Financial Times" reports. SO, THIS IS NOT A MERE RUMOR:...

Not to dampen the enthusiasm too much but yeah this is totally in the rumour, or "might happen" category.

The FT article has been locked now (presumably because they are getting hits), but the gist of it is hat it's an article about "cocktail" and not about the tablet. There is only one paragraph that mentions the tablet and the first mention says something like "trying to put out before Christmas" and the second uses the word "may." The exact wording of the first mention makes it kind of definitive but the second mention kind of takes that off.

The important thing is that the FT article is about Cocktail and only mentions the tablet tangentially.

The September/October event is always about iPods, so if it is a glorified giant iPod then it makes sense to release it then and talk about it then. Most are hoping this is an actual useable tablet computer though which would put it in the "Mac" category and releasing it in the Spring with the new Macs would make more sense.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #88 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmoeser View Post

Stay with the current model. At least you're getting some money. Make it hard and expensive and file sharing will go back through the roof.
I would consider buying a whole album if it meant they would automatically include the song lyrics in the song files.
Why they don't now is just beyond me.
(I know it's because publishers own rights to the words, but don't most record companies own the publishing rights in most cases? Just another grab for cash)

In fact when your playing music (in the ipod app) you either get the album artwork (cover only) or a generic music symbol. IF you swipe left2right you go back into the library. Why not be able to swipe up and down for album artwork (lyrics also) and if none at least a spectrum analyzer or something besides a stupid music symbol. They could add interactive content right into the artwork.

I agree with most people here. I'm not going to pay for the songs I don't listen to. It seems the record labels are trying hard to stay in the past. Maybe because the future won't need them.
[center] "Hey look, it's in the center. I am SO cool!"[/center]
Reply
[center] "Hey look, it's in the center. I am SO cool!"[/center]
Reply
post #89 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

The September/October event is always about iPods, so if it is a glorified giant iPod then it makes sense to release it then and talk about it then. Most are hoping this is an actual useable tablet computer though which would put it in the "Mac" category and releasing it in the Spring with the new Macs would make more sense.

It's in the mobile hand held division.
[center] "Hey look, it's in the center. I am SO cool!"[/center]
Reply
[center] "Hey look, it's in the center. I am SO cool!"[/center]
Reply
post #90 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logical View Post

Some artists/bands create album oriented projects (namely Tool - who will not sell through iTunes because they don't want their art sold one off, but rather as a complete piece of work, ie, an album). Call me old, but I agree.

If the entire industry continues to trend towards single sales, it cheapens the artform.

For all of you youngsters on here who do not like the idea, I would argue that without the entire album for sale, would a Dark Side of the Moon or Sgt. Peppers be possible today? No.

It depends o the album SIR. Some albums have a theme, MOST do not. I think we call those concept albums. Personally I'll go buy the CD if I want the whole album (better SQ). I don't think it makes a lot of sense to 1. Produce crap in the first place 2. Think people want your crap 3. Change the rules when they don't.
[center] "Hey look, it's in the center. I am SO cool!"[/center]
Reply
[center] "Hey look, it's in the center. I am SO cool!"[/center]
Reply
post #91 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajectory View Post


Now that iTunes has brought back the ability to pick and choose songs, it seems the record companies are intent on repeating history and, as usual, ignoring what customers want.

iTunes hasn't brought back anything, prior to digital downloads we were never able to pick and choose which album tracks we bought. The album was released and it was up to the artist and the record label as to which tracks were released as singles. Often this was a compromise between what the artist wanted and what the label thought would sell.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Logical View Post

Some artists/bands create album oriented projects (namely Tool - who will not sell through iTunes because they don't want their art sold one off, but rather as a complete piece of work, ie, an album). Call me old, but I agree.

If the entire industry continues to trend towards single sales, it cheapens the artform. Pop music now is already bad enough. The generation today already has an attention span of a minute. Whenever I check the iTunes top 25 lists, I'm always ambivelant towards what I see.

For all of you youngsters on here who do not like the idea, I would argue that without the entire album for sale, would a Dark Side of the Moon or Sgt. Peppers be possible today? No.

If you can't afford a $10 album, you need to put your iPod/iPhone on craigslist.

Oh, BTW, pirating is theft. It cheats artists out of doing what they do best, provide us with music.

Damn I'm gett'n old.

I agree with every word
post #92 of 119
Don't see this plan working unless the music labels also stop padding cd's with lousy tracks that nobody wants to hear. They've been getting away with murder for decades and, from this angle, are getting exactly what they deserve now that consumers have the option to cherry-pick the good songs and leave the rest. Let them sell what's worth buying; then sales will go up. Duh???
post #93 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by alansky View Post

Don't see this plan working unless the music labels also stop padding cd's with lousy tracks that nobody wants to hear. They've been getting away with murder for decades and, from this angle, are getting exactly what they deserve now that consumers have the option to cherry-pick the good songs and leave the rest. Let them sell what's worth buying; then sales will go up. Duh???

Prior to CDs albums on vinyl lasted between 30 and 40 minutes. Because CDs can hold 70 minutes of music many artists and labels feel that they have to fill this space, and sadly there are customers who agree and complain on Amazon and iTunes if an album is 'only' 30 or 40 minutes long. This, in some cases inevitably leads to padding a CD with tracks which would previously have been left off a vinyl album.

However as the real terms cost of a 70 minute CD today is less than the cost of a 40 minute album 30 years ago, I am tolerant of the fact that some of the tracks may not be up to standard.
post #94 of 119
maybe bands choose bad songs, but a lot of times i'll read how a band will start out with 50 or so songs in the studio, record 20-30 and then choose around 10 to be on the album.
post #95 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephenbw View Post

See my reply above.

That list on Wiki is worse than useless, I can find dozens of omissions simply comparing it with Amazon.com, and it doesn't appear to include digital only releases.

Amazon UK lists 1240 albums released in the UK in the last 30 days alone, so I don't see how 1000 in the whole of 2008 in the USA is a realistic figure.


I looked at amazon too, ( http://www.amazon.com/s/qid=12487270...0090727&page=1 )
and they are showing 8,870 albums in the last 30 days.
Looking at some of the items its every piece of crap imaginable.


But regardless of the number the point still stands. Most cd's have a few good songs and many bad ones, and not many albums are worth buying.
Forgo Looking At The Past As A Judge; Instead Be a Student.
Reply
Forgo Looking At The Past As A Judge; Instead Be a Student.
Reply
post #96 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

(much crap snipped)
Again this is simply BS to deep to walk. First I reject completely the idea that artist are producing great albums. This simply isn't the case anymore.

As to what the artist have to say or offer, come on man when was the last time a new album came out that had anything of value to say.

The "psychology of music" that quickly sums up what your problem is. You are reading way to much into the current music industry. It's all about soulless bastards trying to screw little Jill & Joe out of as much money as possible. No other industry in America offers so little for so much these days. The industry has become the modern day analog to the hooker.

Dave

Wow, you are one bitter dude. You might as well just stop listening to music entirely if it's that bad.

Fortunately, there are a lot of people here who agree with me. A few who don't. If you're in the latter camp, that's your loss, not mine. Guess I'll just leave it at that.
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #97 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephenbw View Post

Certainly, several websites quote the source http://www.soundscan.com/about.html but I found the quotes here

The list in your link appears to be simply one compiled by wiki users as the 2009 version shows as incomplete and requests additions.

A quick search shows that 2 of my favourite albums, both by established artists, Grace Jones' 'Hurricane' released in 2008 and Iggy Pop's recent 'Preliminaires' are both missing from the Wiki listings.

I would be very curious as to what exactly is meant by "album" there. When I was involved with the industry, as recently as 5 years ago, there was no more than a very small fraction of that number of albums released.

I wonder if they're talking about self released albums as well. That would account for why so few actually sold over 1,000 copies in the first year (or ever).

Also, a very large of albums released are not "new", but re-releases.

When I consider the numbers, I'm thinking about new releases (new material, or old material that was re-recorded), and albums that were released by real commercial, or public financed entities, not someone who made a vanity recording because they couldn't get a contract.
post #98 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by m2002brian View Post

It's in the mobile hand held division.

I think only Microsoft talks about "divisions" in that way.

The thing that would really tell you when it's being released is the name. If it begins with an "i" then it's much more likely to be released with the iPods, if it begins with a "Mac" then more likely in the Spring. Nothing is written in stone however and Apple seems to favour releasing truly new devices with that year's "Mac" event.

I still think all things point to Spring 2010 and the FT article is a thin gruel of a rumour, but nothing is certain till it's announced. We could also be talking about two different products really. No one knows.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #99 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

Remember, many musical artists write a great album's worth of material, then create one catchy song that will get played on the radio to sell the album. If that's the only song you buy, then you're really missing out on what the artists have to offer or say.

All this said, I do not want to see sales restricted to album-only! I just wish people had a more thorough understanding of the psychology of music.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajectory View Post

Many musical artists write a great album's worth of material? Do you work for the RIAA?

wtf kind of stupid comment is that?

If 100,000 albums are released every year in the U.S. alone, and only 5% of them are great, that's 5,000 albums each and every year. You don't call that "many"? That doesn't count the UK and other countries. How many albums do you buy in a year? There's more than enough good music out there, you just have to look around and not be sucked into the crap that gets marketed at you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajectory View Post

Finding an album where nearly every single song is good is an exception, not the norm.

Did I anywhere say that nearly every single song on an album has to be good?

But a good, or great album will have at least a handful of quality tracks. And they are not likely the catchy shit that the producers/distributors/marketers waved in front of your face.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajectory View Post

Now that iTunes has brought back the ability to pick and choose songs, it seems the record companies are intent on repeating history and, as usual, ignoring what customers want.

I don't believe for a minute that we will lose the ability to buy individual tracks. And note that I said I do NOT want to see sales restricted to album-only. I do think that adding some incentives for people to buy entire albums is fine, and a good way to let people understand that some of the best music does take time to grow on you. If, like wizard69, you can't get past the fact that albums can be a mixed bag of quality, and as adults we get to apply our own filters over time, bummer for you.

One thing that you "independent thinkers" out there seem to be forgetting:

When you buy the one "good track" and ignore the rest, so often you are actually buying the one *catchy* track that the producers/marketers forced onto the album, and marketed the hell out of to make you buy. You're exactly the kind of sheep the music industry (not the musicians) love.
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #100 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

I don't care what they do...if I only like 2 or 3 songs out of the album I'm only gonna buy the 2 or 3 songs. I refuse to waste money on an entire album and then only listen to a couple songs.

Same here. I've been burned before buying a CD and only getting one (or two extra good songs if I was lucky), I'm done buying CD's, albums, etc unless I know there are a fair number of good songs on them.
post #101 of 119
Think of this pitch this way:

Steve Jobs: "Book and Music industry. You are getting commoditized because you have no differentiated platform for extending/re-inventing your product for the online age. We just so happen to have a set of tools that have proven compelling to the tune of 1.5B downloads, field-tested across 65K apps and with a current footprint of 46M devices."

Music/Book Industry: "There is no way we can re-create that value proposition, and we already see the writing on the wall with Amazon. If they are successful, they will be telling us how much money we can make or worse, go direct to writers and musicians, and design us out of the equation. How do we get started?"

This is the consummate 1+1=3 for a segment that is otherwise facing a 1+1=<2 future.

For more fodder on this one, check out:

Old Media, New Media and Where the Rubber Meets the Road
http://bit.ly/zwTw8

Cheers,

Mark
post #102 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by m2002brian View Post

In fact when your playing music (in the ipod app) you either get the album artwork (cover only) or a generic music symbol. IF you swipe left2right you go back into the library. Why not be able to swipe up and down for album artwork (lyrics also) and if none at least a spectrum analyzer or something besides a stupid music symbol. They could add interactive content right into the artwork.

I agree with most people here. I'm not going to pay for the songs I don't listen to. It seems the record labels are trying hard to stay in the past. Maybe because the future won't need them.

Some time ago, I bought an app from the App Store from The Presidents of the United States. It has art work, the music can be streamed. New work comes into the program from time to time. Music and writing that never made it into their albums is available etc.

Pretty nice. If "Cocktail" is similar to what this is, it will be very good indeed. I don't know if it will be though.

The company that did this has done a lot of others. If you don't like streaming, then you won't like it, but otherwise, the $2.99 is a real bargain:

http://www.nutsie.com/iphone
post #103 of 119
Who the heck has time to sit around and listen to an entire album? It is not a few extras that will bring that back, but a climate of intellectual snobbery. And that kind of climate, if it ever does come back, will be in rich times not lean.
post #104 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Who the heck has time to sit around and listen to an entire album? It is not a few extras that will bring that back, but a climate of intellectual snobbery. And that kind of climate, if it ever does come back, will be in rich times not lean.

I prefer to listen to an entire album. I don't always do it, but I usually do. I listen to classical and jazz as well. You pretty much are required to listen to an album all the way through with much of that. Operas as well. At least one Act at a time.

I don't understand the not having the time these days.

We still have 24 hours in the day as I recall. I doubt that people are any busier these days then they were in the past. Some will never have time for entertainment, but that's their problem, and doesn't affect most people.

The problem is with attention span. People aren't willing to organize their time to allow this.
post #105 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I would be very curious as to what exactly is meant by "album" there. When I was involved with the industry, as recently as 5 years ago, there was no more than a very small fraction of that number of albums released.

I wonder if they're talking about self released albums as well. That would account for why so few actually sold over 1,000 copies in the first year (or ever).

Also, a very large of albums released are not "new", but re-releases.

When I consider the numbers, I'm thinking about new releases (new material, or old material that was re-recorded), and albums that were released by real commercial, or public financed entities, not someone who made a vanity recording because they couldn't get a contract.

Well as MissionGrey realised in post 95 when he checked Amazon US http://www.amazon.com/s/qid=12487270...0090727&page=1 8870 commercial albums were released in the last 30 days, which if it is a representative 30 days works out at 106,440 over a year which is remarkably similar to the figure I quoted earlier.

Yes, some will be re-releases, but so what? Many of them will not have been previously available on CD and will be 'new' to many people. I recently bought The Flying Lizards 'Fourth Wall' album from iTunes. It was originally released in 1981 and hasn't been available for over 25 years. Apart from the 7" single 'Hands2Take' which I have all but worn out, the album is completely new to me and will be to many who buy it.

As I said earlier that Wiki list is laughable, a quick comparison with Amazon shows numerous mainstream albums missing from it. The source I quoted appear to know what they are talking about and this would in fact tally with the much smaller number of releases you experienced 5 years ago when only around 25% of the current number were released.

Quote:
According to Nielsen Soundscan, a total of 105,000, new full-length albums were released in 2008, a fourfold gain from the earlier 2000s.

Quote:
Nielsen SoundScan is an information system that tracks sales of music and music video products throughout the United States and Canada. Sales data from point-of-sale cash registers is collected weekly from over 14,000 retail, mass merchant and non-traditional (on-line stores, venues, etc.) outlets. Weekly data is compiled and made available every Wednesday. Nielsen SoundScan is the sales source for the Billboard music charts.

I too prefer to listen to an entire album, and you are right in saying that almost everyone has the time, if they choose, to do so. I no longer read as many novels as I used to, not because my time has got shorter but because I now spend more of my free time on my iMac or watching TV or DVDs; none of which I had when I was an avid reader.

Speaking of novels, a thought has occurred to me. I wonder if those who believe they have a right to buy individual tracks, and to hell with the artists intention, also believe that we should be able to buy individual chapters from novels or specific scenes from movies?
post #106 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephenbw View Post

Well as MissionGrey realised in post 95 when he checked Amazon US http://www.amazon.com/s/qid=12487270...0090727&page=1 8870 commercial albums were released in the last 30 days, which if it is a representative 30 days works out at 106,440 over a year which is remarkably similar to the figure I quoted earlier.

Yes, some will be re-releases, but so what? Many of them will not have been previously available on CD and will be 'new' to many people. I recently bought The Flying Lizards 'Fourth Wall' album from iTunes. It was originally released in 1981 and hasn't been available for over 25 years. Apart from the 7" single 'Hands2Take' which I have all but worn out, the album is completely new to me and will be to many who buy it.

As I said earlier that Wiki list is laughable, a quick comparison with Amazon shows numerous mainstream albums missing from it. The source I quoted appear to know what they are talking about and this would in fact tally with the much smaller number of releases you experienced 5 years ago when only around 25% of the current number were released.





I too prefer to listen to an entire album, and you are right in saying that almost everyone has the time, if they choose, to do so. I no longer read as many novels as I used to, not because my time has got shorter but because I now spend more of my free time on my iMac or watching TV or DVDs; none of which I had when I was an avid reader.

Speaking of novels, a thought has occurred to me. I wonder if those who believe they have a right to buy individual tracks, and to hell with the artists intention, also believe that we should be able to buy individual chapters from novels or specific scenes from movies?

If these are all commercial releases, then it's amazing. I would guess that a large percentage are re-releases though.

Even so, it's difficult to imagine that many releases in one year. The number has certainly shot up recently.

To what end I wonder? You don't make money on albums that sell less than 1,000, even if they are old, out of copyright works with old artwork, as I suspect much of this is.
post #107 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephenbw View Post

Speaking of novels, a thought has occurred to me. I wonder if those who believe they have a right to buy individual tracks, and to hell with the artists intention, also believe that we should be able to buy individual chapters from novels or specific scenes from movies?

When was the last time you bought a single song from an album and, upon listening to it, the song made no sense at all because you couldn't hear it in context with the other tracks?

I always buy entire albums from my favorite artists, because I trust their talent and ability to produce more than just one or two catchy hits. But that is an exception. Most of the time I will get 2-3 songs from an album because I just don't like the rest. It all comes down to personal taste.

Besides, artists who want to force everyone to buy their entire album do have that option in the iTunes Store with "Album Only" songs.
post #108 of 119
Does Tubular Bells Part One cost .99 on iTunes? And it's only half of a song!
post #109 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajectory View Post

When was the last time you bought a single song from an album and, upon listening to it, the song made no sense at all because you couldn't hear it in context with the other tracks?

I always buy entire albums from my favorite artists, because I trust their talent and ability to produce more than just one or two catchy hits. But that is an exception. Most of the time I will get 2-3 songs from an album because I just don't like the rest. It all comes down to personal taste.

Besides, artists who want to force everyone to buy their entire album do have that option in the iTunes Store with "Album Only" songs.

Never, because I only buy single songs that are or were released as 'singles'.

However I can think of many albums that whilst individual tracks may appear to 'make sense' alone, together with the other tracks on the album the effect of the whole is far greater than the sum of its parts. Lou Reed's Berlin, Iggy Pop's Avenue B, Kate Bush's Aerial, The Art of Noise's Seduction of Claude Debussy spring to mind as albums that only work satisfactorily as complete albums as do many albums by Brian Eno, Davids Bowie & Sylvian, Yello, Holger Czukay, Janet Jackson, Sparks, Michael Nyman, Paul Simon, Donna Summer, The Pet Shop Boys, Johnny Cash, Leonard Cohen, Joni Mitchell and Prince; to name a few.

Nobody has ever been 'forced' to buy an entire album, you always have a choice. It is my understanding that the 'Album Only' tracks on iTunes are primarily down to the length of the track
post #110 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by mazzy View Post

Does Tubular Bells Part One cost .99 on iTunes? And it's only half of a song!

it is 26 minutes long so is an 'Album Only' track.

And on that note I'm off to bed
post #111 of 119
I think it should be up to the artist & label whether they wish to sell their "product" on a per song or per album basis. Yes there are some releases that should be a full album intact in my opinion however why don't they then encourage you to buy it by charge 5 or 6 bucks total for the full album. If fact keep single songs at .99 or 1.29 and charge $6. for the album. That would give you more incentive to upgrade.

I am old enough to remember paying 88 or 99 cents for 45 singles. Albums at that time were 2.99 or 3.99 and NOT ten times the cost of a single. Granted there were two sides but the B sides in many cases were throw away tracks UNTIL Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields forever. Probably one of the first double A side singles. Although they did have many others: We Can work it Out/Day Tripper, Rain/Paperback Rider and so on.
post #112 of 119
Plz, Apple, dont make me buy the entire iPod product line just to get a Nano.


There are very few that should come in album form, like Pink Floyd The Wall, Cibo Matto Viva La Woman, Aimee Mann The Forgotten Arm or musicals and operas.
post #113 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajectory View Post

... Finding an album where nearly every single song is good is an exception, not the norm. ...

I keep hearing this sentiment but it makes no sense to me.

Almost no musician or group puts out more than one album a year, usually less than one a year. If said artist is so lame that they cannot even put together ten good songs in a whole YEAR, then they just aren't that good.

So, if an album *doesn't* have at least ten good songs on it (i.e.- it's all good or the majority is good), then why should I listen to it at all? The group is obviously shite if they can't even do that. I think the whole idea that a group or a musician is "so good" that they have a song worth buying, but are somehow not good enough to write a whole album in a year or mores' time is just bull.

Most of my town's local bands can put out an entire album and it's all "good" in the context of their work if you happen to like their work. How can even a bar band ever get a gig if they can't play at least ten good songs? Even if they are covers they have to be good or they'd never get hired.

I think this is true of almost any band that has any real talent. The only bands I can think of or ever heard of that can't are popular "acts" like Britney or Madonna and some of the more trashy rap stuff and that ain't "art" at all, that's just commercialism.

If someone doesn't like a band enough to listen to more than one of their songs, how can they say that they even like or appreciate their music? How can anyone can like only one song from a band but not like the rest of their stuff, unless you either have no appreciation for music at all or unless the band is actually shite and your "like" equates to "it makes me tap my foot."
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #114 of 119
Well, I'm glad they're looking at different ways of packaging music.

We don't need to be restricted to the new way (singles) or old way - 10-15 songs in a specific order with some cover art and perhaps other add-ins like Lyrics. The idea of opening a mosaic of information, lyrics, web links, & songs is interesting.

I personally used to buy an album if I liked 3 songs on it - now I'd just buy the 3 songs. I was surprised when songs came out at $1 each, I'd expected songs to be $3.50 each or $9 for the album (as an example).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

The way I took it immediately after reading the article was that "Cocktail" as the name implied was not the typical hard copy of a current album with a few digital ad-ons.

What I assumed was that is was a custom digital remaster that one could personally create, e.g., song selection(s), cover art, lyrics, artists' bios, recording history, etc., but not necessarily having to buy all the songs in the 'original' album at once. But, of course, the option to 'complete' it at will anytime in the future.

Interesting thought!

I wonder if we could "package" a cocktail ourselves and send it to others, for them to then fill in the blanks buy paying for applicable songs.

The other areas I can see some scope in is Music Videos. Why not giveaway the music video to anyone who buys an album? Or when someone loads a CD into iTunes offer a very small upgrade fee to get the music videos? Within the "cocktail idea"
post #115 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by mazzy View Post

I think it should be up to the artist & label whether they wish to sell their "product" on a per song or per album basis. Yes there are some releases that should be a full album intact in my opinion however why don't they then encourage you to buy it by charge 5 or 6 bucks total for the full album. If fact keep single songs at .99 or 1.29 and charge $6. for the album. That would give you more incentive to upgrade.

I am old enough to remember paying 88 or 99 cents for 45 singles. Albums at that time were 2.99 or 3.99 and NOT ten times the cost of a single. Granted there were two sides but the B sides in many cases were throw away tracks UNTIL Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields forever. Probably one of the first double A side singles. Although they did have many others: We Can work it Out/Day Tripper, Rain/Paperback Rider and so on.

I agree that it should be up to the artist as to how their art is packaged and sold, and then it is up to us whether or not we choose to buy it.

But if you were paying 3.99 for an album in 1967 why do you think you should only be charged 5.99 now? Have wages and prices in the US only increased by 50% in the intervening 42 years?

Here in the UK, £3.99 was 25% of my weekly income back in 1974, today £7.99; the cost of an iTunes album, is less than 2%, and I often find it even cheaper to buy the CD from Amazon.
post #116 of 119
The inflation calculator is a very useful web page. It goes through 2008 now, but shortly after 2009 is finished, it will be updated to include it:

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
post #117 of 119
Thanks for the inflation calculator, it is very interesting to see that $3.99 in 1967 = $25.46 in 2008.

Even more interesting is that in the UK £3.99 in 1967 is a staggering £54.76 today. So paying £8.98 for a new cd is even more of a bargain than I thought

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/histori...ion-calculator
post #118 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephenbw View Post

Thanks for the inflation calculator, it is very interesting to see that $3.99 in 1967 = $25.46 in 2008.

Even more interesting is that in the UK £3.99 in 1967 is a staggering £54.76 today. So paying £8.98 for a new cd is even more of a bargain than I thought

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/histori...ion-calculator

People don't realize how much of an effect inflation really has. They also don't realize how much of a bargain many thing are today, especially music.
post #119 of 119
Quote:
Wizard69 said: Sadly I think this is BS. It may have had some significance when albums actually had more than one good song on them but that day has long past. Frankly I don't think musicians & song writers have the intelligences and social connectedness to produce good works to fill an album. Certainly not what would be considered mainstream artist.

Part of this is that the cult of the band has really died. Groups don't stay together long enough to develop a strong following for one. More so though is that I believe society no longer idealizes band members knowing that they really don't desreve to be put on a pedstal anymore than the next guy. I mean really how many people would want their kids to be the next Rap singer, Brittany Spears or any of the other countless fabrications. At this point all you really see in the modern day bands is greed and disfunction. People like their music but the are also aware that the industry has become a money game and has lost it's soul.

Wow. Thanks for the most ignorant comment I've ever seen. Do you see how one single example (your bitter experience) does NOT imply the same for the whole population? You must have failed math over and over in school, not to mention this shows how little common sense you have.

Did someone in the music industry ruin your life? Are you a failed musician?

And what does "living in the past" have anything to do with the topic? Just felt like you should add that in there to show that guy how his experience is BS? If anyone is living in the past it is you, who fails to find new music. You should be a politician, they are good at arguing without the use of logic.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple's "Cocktail" may spur whole album sales in iTunes