who sells the average CD for $17? only special editions and double CD sets go for that much.
with itunes i have to make sure to back everything up or beg support to download everything again. and I can rip CD's with Apple Lossless format, mp3's sound like crap
or, you could buy a portable hard drive, backup your entire music collection in about 3 hours (5 if you have a lot of music) and not have to take up half a room storing CDs. Your hard drive dies, your music restoration process takes up about 4 hours. If your hard drive dies and you have to re-rip 10,000 albums, your restoration process takes something like 10 months.
Additionally, I've never met a single person who can tell the difference between lossless and greater than around 320 kbps mp3. I've never met a person who could tell the difference between 256 kbps and lossless without training and listening to specific pieces that are very hard for mp3 (ie lots of bass below 50 Hz, very hard transients, lots of frequenices going on at the same time, etc). Even a hardcore audiophile, listening to jazz can't A/B 256 kbps and lossless with more than 52% accuracy in any test I've ever seen.
I know a guy who can hear the difference between rechargeable and non-rechargeable batteries in musical equipment. He readily admits that mp3 encoding today is good enough that for 99.9% of the music out there, its completely transparent.
Contrast this with the pop teenie bopper culture that seems to be so much of the modern music seen. These are not mature worldly musicians with challeging thoughts at all. They are barely out of diapers and have nothing to offer in their music.
I think it has been this way for a long time. You just grew up is all. I personally never listened to the Monkees as opposed to the Beatles, Let the teenies have there music. I'm sad that you are so discouraged by today's music. I hope you are not trying to find anything worthwhile on an FM station. I invite you to check out Radio Paradise on iTunes internet radio (Alternative) or the rp iphone app - Great Stuff. There you will find a lot of interesting and beautiful new, and old music.
While I agree that most music today (especially from the major labels) is crap, the fact is that the industry (and this includes small independent labels as well) cannot exist solely on single-track sales. Singles worked well in the pre-Beatles 60s when artists went into the studio and recorded two songs in a few hours and released the single in the next week or two. Today, artists fool around for a year, recording and mixing in six different studios with different producers, etc. It's simply not economically feasible and the industry will not survive. Furthermore, music genres have fragmented to such an extent that even popular artists don't sell that many units anymore. That's why labels want to manage and share the artist's concert and merchandising revenue --because there's still money there.
You can talk all you want about how you hate the big labels and how they rip off artists or that CD prices are too high (they're actually less expensive, including inflation, than albums were in the 1960s), but the recording industry really won't survive at all. Between 2007 and 2008, the U.S. industry dropped from $10.37 billion in sales to $8.48 billion (at list prices). In 1999, it was $14.585 billion. At the rate of current decline, there would essentially be no industry left by 2013 (although I suppose if the big labels disappeared, it would provide opportunities for others to take its place). Sales of online tracks are simply not making up for the loss of album sales.
In the late 60s and 70s, when free-form and progressive rock radio came of age, singles were considered the province of 12-year-old girls and albums were considered to be for people who considered the music seriously, much as it had always been for classical, show music and jazz. (Soul labels like Stax and Motown were exceptions - singles were still the main artistic expression until Marvin Gaye and Michael Jackson started releasing concept albums.)
Also, for a culture that is obsessed with trivia and the lives of artists, it has always surprised me that album notes have become considered unimportant. I used to obsess over those notes to identify the studio musicians and writers. I think it's only a positive thing that there's more of a step in this direction. Maybe music will get better when we care less about who artists are dating and their behavior in public and more about who they're recording with.
Musician Al Kooper (early electric Dylan sessions, Blues Project; Blood, Sweat & Tears, Lyrnd Skynrd producer, Rekooperators, etc.) recently put up 50 tracks of his old solo material on iTunes and wanted to include an extensive booklet. He claims Apple wouldn't let him, although I see a booklet is available, so maybe Apple wouldn't let him do the extensive booklet that he originally wanted or perhaps they finally relented. However - you only get the booklet if you buy the "album". I think that's a marketing mistake - it seems to me that if you buy a single and get the booklet, it might generate tremendous interest in buying a lot more tracks.
Of course, reading liner notes won't work on small iPod screens or if you're "doing something else" while listening - I mainly listen while bike riding. But if one can read eBooks on an iPhone or iPod Touch (as many are proposing), they can read liner notes as well.
As for my own buying habits, I still tend to buy CDs. If the artist can't put out an album with a lot of good tracks, I'm generally not interested in that artist anyway. The CD gives me a physical backup, high quality uncompressed audio and the booklet, although I will admit to not being thrilled with all the physical space it takes up). And I've always been a sucker for well-produced boxed sets, especially when Rhino was in its heyday (now it's just a house label), although it's been a long time since I've found anything worth buying.
But I guess I'm a bit old fashioned: I still have 700 vinyl LPs sitting in my living room.
As for the tablet, there's a publishing industry report that Apple has had discussions with publishers about it. My guess is a 10" screen. Movies should certainly look great compared to an iPhone, but why should it be any better than watching on a Mac?
People that buy individual tracks aren't into music but the ones to blame for that are the record companies. The huge shift to one-hit-wonders over the past 25 years rather than talent developement over a lengthy contract is to blame. For these kids they know no other model. They're force fed the mainstream fodder on their lousy terrestrial FM station, MTV (do they show videos anymore?) in a video game, movie or commercial. They go out and buy it and listen to it until the next one comes along. As someone earlier mentioned, they don't make time to listen to music because they like it, rather it's something they do while doing other things.
True fans of music continue to buy CD's, vinyl, or download entire albums because they love music. PERIOD.
I certainly love this idea. Yes there are singles bands as the crappy American Idol has shown but for me there is nothing like a wonderful full on artists album creation. Having said that. I choose the CD or LP every time over a digital version.
Can't wait for the remastered Mono and Stereo Beatles boxes coming out soon. The mono version is limited to 10,000 and was printed in Japan with the mini full on LP replicas. It is SO cool and the mixes are the way they albums or originally created.
While I agree that most music today (especially from the major labels) is crap, the fact is that the industry (and this includes small independent labels as well) cannot exist solely on single-track sales. Singles worked well in the pre-Beatles 60s when artists went into the studio and recorded two songs in a few hours and released the single in the next week or two. Today, artists fool around for a year, recording and mixing in six different studios with different producers, etc. It's simply not economically feasible and the industry will not survive. Furthermore, music genres have fragmented to such an extent that even popular artists don't sell that many units anymore. That's why labels want to manage and share the artist's concert and merchandising revenue --because there's still money there.
You can talk all you want about how you hate the big labels and how they rip off artists or that CD prices are too high (they're actually less expensive, including inflation, than albums were in the 1960s), but the recording industry really won't survive at all. Between 2007 and 2008, the U.S. industry dropped from $10.37 billion in sales to $8.48 billion (at list prices). In 1999, it was $14.585 billion. At the rate of current decline, there would essentially be no industry left by 2013 (although I suppose if the big labels disappeared, it would provide opportunities for others to take its place). Sales of online tracks are simply not making up for the loss of album sales.
In the late 60s and 70s, when free-form and progressive rock radio came of age, singles were considered the province of 12-year-old girls and albums were considered to be for people who considered the music seriously, much as it had always been for classical, show music and jazz. (Soul labels like Stax and Motown were exceptions - singles were still the main artistic expression until Marvin Gaye and Michael Jackson started releasing concept albums.)
Also, for a culture that is obsessed with trivia and the lives of artists, it has always surprised me that album notes have become considered unimportant. I used to obsess over those notes to identify the studio musicians and writers. I think it's only a positive thing that there's more of a step in this direction. Maybe music will get better when we care less about who artists are dating and their behavior in public and more about who they're recording with.
Musician Al Kooper (early electric Dylan sessions, Blues Project; Blood, Sweat & Tears, Lyrnd Skynrd producer, Rekooperators, etc.) recently put up 50 tracks of his old solo material on iTunes and wanted to include an extensive booklet. He claims Apple wouldn't let him, although I see a booklet is available, so maybe Apple wouldn't let him do the extensive booklet that he originally wanted or perhaps they finally relented. However - you only get the booklet if you buy the "album". I think that's a marketing mistake - it seems to me that if you buy a single and get the booklet, it might generate tremendous interest in buying a lot more tracks.
Of course, reading liner notes won't work on small iPod screens or if you're "doing something else" while listening - I mainly listen while bike riding. But if one can read eBooks on an iPhone or iPod Touch (as many are proposing), they can read liner notes as well.
As for my own buying habits, I still tend to buy CDs. If the artist can't put out an album with a lot of good tracks, I'm generally not interested in that artist anyway. The CD gives me a physical backup, high quality uncompressed audio and the booklet, although I will admit to not being thrilled with all the physical space it takes up). And I've always been a sucker for well-produced boxed sets, especially when Rhino was in its heyday (now it's just a house label), although it's been a long time since I've found anything worth buying.
But I guess I'm a bit old fashioned: I still have 700 vinyl LPs sitting in my living room.
As for the tablet, there's a publishing industry report that Apple has had discussions with publishers about it. My guess is a 10" screen. Movies should certainly look great compared to an iPhone, but why should it be any better than watching on a Mac?
the lead guy from Foo Fighters recorded the entire first album in his basement playing all instruments. i guess he was bored after Kurt Kobain died.
I certainly love this idea. Yes there are singles bands as the crappy American Idol has shown but for me there is nothing like a wonderful full on artists album creation. Having said that. I choose the CD or LP every time over a digital version.
Can't wait for the remastered Mono and Stereo Beatles boxes coming out soon. The mono version is limited to 10,000 and was printed in Japan with the mini full on LP replicas. It is SO cool and the mixes are the way they albums or originally created.
Beatles downloads? Not for me.
But many will want them.
i'm not as big a fan as my wife, but the top 6 contestants are usually more talented than most of the music i listen to. last season when that guy sang with Kiss, he sounded a lot better than Gene Simmons in his prime
Anyone who is really interested in music, who knows much about music, who is interested in the artists that produce it, or who is an artist themselves ... buys albums. This is not the largest group of music buyers by far, in fact it's probably a minority nowadays, but it's the core music lovers. I would also argue that this group buys a disproportionately large amount of music relative to the general population. They are the industry's "sweet spot" and are worth accommodating for that reason.
Maybe I am spoiled (have the great Amoeba Record Store in San Francisco) and pay attention and read music mags, but in my opinion there is SO much great music released now. So MANY great albums. It's just that you never hear them. Audiences are fragmented and hardly listen to radio like they once did. Playlist are very limited. Even MTV hardly plays music videos anymore.
I'm 54 and college radio is still the only real place where I go to find new tunes. Also sites like Pitchfork.
I just don't see how Apple's tablet is going to succeed where all other tablets have failed. Especially once we factor in Apple's pricing. An overpriced gadget with no clear niche or purpose.
Anyone?
Same way as Apple always reinvents products like phone, music player and personal computer. Its time for a tablet revolution.
Maybe I am spoiled (have the great Amoeba Record Store in San Francisco) and pay attention and read music mags, but in my opinion there is SO much great music released now. So MANY great albums. It's just that you never hear them. Audiences are fragmented and hardly listen to radio like they once did. Playlist are very limited. Even MTV hardly plays music videos anymore.
I'm 54 and college radio is still the only real place where I go to find new tunes. Also sites like Pitchfork.
Oh well.
I don't think radio is the answer nor television. The answer is social networking like twitter, myspace, facebook etc. Is where people discover new bands and singers. iTunes actually let me discover so many new amazing albums just by clicking on 'Listeners also bough"
I don't know why iTunes doesn't have a 'Get Lyrics' feature in the same way as 'Get Album Artwork'.
My iMac has been using iTunesLyricsLocator to add the lyrics to my entire iTunes library for the last hour, so I'm still waiting to find out how comprehensive and accurate it has been.
Its a copyright issue. You don't automatically get the soundtrack with a purchase of a movie right? Or getting actual book with purchase of audiobook.
Same way here. Lyrics are written copyrighted material.
Maybe I am spoiled (have the great Amoeba Record Store in San Francisco) and pay attention and read music mags, but in my opinion there is SO much great music released now. So MANY great albums.
OK. Please recommend a couple of good jazz fusion bands/albums, and a couple of Zepplin-esqe.
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
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.
Its a copyright issue. You don't automatically get the soundtrack with a purchase of a movie right? Or getting actual book with purchase of audiobook.
Same way here. Lyrics are written copyrighted material.
Still, I think it's amusing and sad that the lyrics are performed to music for the already paid license fee, but they want even more money for a text version of the same lyrics even if it's sold with the song.
Getting the lyrics with the music used to be one of those things that was pretty much expected, the norm rather than an exception. Culturally, I don't think it compares well with the sound track being sold separately.
Ever since I started buying single tracks off iTunes, I've become much more experimental with my music listening. I'll buy one-off tracks on a whim or a track I like from an artist I don't normally listen to. It's opened up a world of diversity in my music library and I'm sure I spend a lot more than before when buying an album was a real decision. That's also why I dislike the variable pricing - before, I had already pre-decided that I was happy with the price - now I stop and think about it.
I appreciate that the record labels' speciality is in selecting the artists to promote but, when it comes to distribution, they should shut up and listen to Steve.
Listening to a whole album that has been carefully put together can be pretty special, but I think the fault lies with the record companies. They have abused the album too many times by filling out with bad songs and when you've been stung a few times it can put you off ( risk aversion, I think it's called in investing, where you hate your losses more than you love your gains ). They need to learn to market the album experience, and only when it's real, not try to force the issue or trick us.
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.
Comments
who sells the average CD for $17? only special editions and double CD sets go for that much.
with itunes i have to make sure to back everything up or beg support to download everything again. and I can rip CD's with Apple Lossless format, mp3's sound like crap
or, you could buy a portable hard drive, backup your entire music collection in about 3 hours (5 if you have a lot of music) and not have to take up half a room storing CDs. Your hard drive dies, your music restoration process takes up about 4 hours. If your hard drive dies and you have to re-rip 10,000 albums, your restoration process takes something like 10 months.
Additionally, I've never met a single person who can tell the difference between lossless and greater than around 320 kbps mp3. I've never met a person who could tell the difference between 256 kbps and lossless without training and listening to specific pieces that are very hard for mp3 (ie lots of bass below 50 Hz, very hard transients, lots of frequenices going on at the same time, etc). Even a hardcore audiophile, listening to jazz can't A/B 256 kbps and lossless with more than 52% accuracy in any test I've ever seen.
I know a guy who can hear the difference between rechargeable and non-rechargeable batteries in musical equipment. He readily admits that mp3 encoding today is good enough that for 99.9% of the music out there, its completely transparent.
Contrast this with the pop teenie bopper culture that seems to be so much of the modern music seen. These are not mature worldly musicians with challeging thoughts at all. They are barely out of diapers and have nothing to offer in their music.
I think it has been this way for a long time. You just grew up is all. I personally never listened to the Monkees as opposed to the Beatles, Let the teenies have there music. I'm sad that you are so discouraged by today's music. I hope you are not trying to find anything worthwhile on an FM station. I invite you to check out Radio Paradise on iTunes internet radio (Alternative) or the rp iphone app - Great Stuff. There you will find a lot of interesting and beautiful new, and old music.
You can talk all you want about how you hate the big labels and how they rip off artists or that CD prices are too high (they're actually less expensive, including inflation, than albums were in the 1960s), but the recording industry really won't survive at all. Between 2007 and 2008, the U.S. industry dropped from $10.37 billion in sales to $8.48 billion (at list prices). In 1999, it was $14.585 billion. At the rate of current decline, there would essentially be no industry left by 2013 (although I suppose if the big labels disappeared, it would provide opportunities for others to take its place). Sales of online tracks are simply not making up for the loss of album sales.
In the late 60s and 70s, when free-form and progressive rock radio came of age, singles were considered the province of 12-year-old girls and albums were considered to be for people who considered the music seriously, much as it had always been for classical, show music and jazz. (Soul labels like Stax and Motown were exceptions - singles were still the main artistic expression until Marvin Gaye and Michael Jackson started releasing concept albums.)
Also, for a culture that is obsessed with trivia and the lives of artists, it has always surprised me that album notes have become considered unimportant. I used to obsess over those notes to identify the studio musicians and writers. I think it's only a positive thing that there's more of a step in this direction. Maybe music will get better when we care less about who artists are dating and their behavior in public and more about who they're recording with.
Musician Al Kooper (early electric Dylan sessions, Blues Project; Blood, Sweat & Tears, Lyrnd Skynrd producer, Rekooperators, etc.) recently put up 50 tracks of his old solo material on iTunes and wanted to include an extensive booklet. He claims Apple wouldn't let him, although I see a booklet is available, so maybe Apple wouldn't let him do the extensive booklet that he originally wanted or perhaps they finally relented. However - you only get the booklet if you buy the "album". I think that's a marketing mistake - it seems to me that if you buy a single and get the booklet, it might generate tremendous interest in buying a lot more tracks.
Of course, reading liner notes won't work on small iPod screens or if you're "doing something else" while listening - I mainly listen while bike riding. But if one can read eBooks on an iPhone or iPod Touch (as many are proposing), they can read liner notes as well.
As for my own buying habits, I still tend to buy CDs. If the artist can't put out an album with a lot of good tracks, I'm generally not interested in that artist anyway. The CD gives me a physical backup, high quality uncompressed audio and the booklet, although I will admit to not being thrilled with all the physical space it takes up). And I've always been a sucker for well-produced boxed sets, especially when Rhino was in its heyday (now it's just a house label), although it's been a long time since I've found anything worth buying.
But I guess I'm a bit old fashioned: I still have 700 vinyl LPs sitting in my living room.
As for the tablet, there's a publishing industry report that Apple has had discussions with publishers about it. My guess is a 10" screen. Movies should certainly look great compared to an iPhone, but why should it be any better than watching on a Mac?
True fans of music continue to buy CD's, vinyl, or download entire albums because they love music. PERIOD.
Bill
Can't wait for the remastered Mono and Stereo Beatles boxes coming out soon. The mono version is limited to 10,000 and was printed in Japan with the mini full on LP replicas. It is SO cool and the mixes are the way they albums or originally created.
Beatles downloads? Not for me.
But many will want them.
While I agree that most music today (especially from the major labels) is crap, the fact is that the industry (and this includes small independent labels as well) cannot exist solely on single-track sales. Singles worked well in the pre-Beatles 60s when artists went into the studio and recorded two songs in a few hours and released the single in the next week or two. Today, artists fool around for a year, recording and mixing in six different studios with different producers, etc. It's simply not economically feasible and the industry will not survive. Furthermore, music genres have fragmented to such an extent that even popular artists don't sell that many units anymore. That's why labels want to manage and share the artist's concert and merchandising revenue --because there's still money there.
You can talk all you want about how you hate the big labels and how they rip off artists or that CD prices are too high (they're actually less expensive, including inflation, than albums were in the 1960s), but the recording industry really won't survive at all. Between 2007 and 2008, the U.S. industry dropped from $10.37 billion in sales to $8.48 billion (at list prices). In 1999, it was $14.585 billion. At the rate of current decline, there would essentially be no industry left by 2013 (although I suppose if the big labels disappeared, it would provide opportunities for others to take its place). Sales of online tracks are simply not making up for the loss of album sales.
In the late 60s and 70s, when free-form and progressive rock radio came of age, singles were considered the province of 12-year-old girls and albums were considered to be for people who considered the music seriously, much as it had always been for classical, show music and jazz. (Soul labels like Stax and Motown were exceptions - singles were still the main artistic expression until Marvin Gaye and Michael Jackson started releasing concept albums.)
Also, for a culture that is obsessed with trivia and the lives of artists, it has always surprised me that album notes have become considered unimportant. I used to obsess over those notes to identify the studio musicians and writers. I think it's only a positive thing that there's more of a step in this direction. Maybe music will get better when we care less about who artists are dating and their behavior in public and more about who they're recording with.
Musician Al Kooper (early electric Dylan sessions, Blues Project; Blood, Sweat & Tears, Lyrnd Skynrd producer, Rekooperators, etc.) recently put up 50 tracks of his old solo material on iTunes and wanted to include an extensive booklet. He claims Apple wouldn't let him, although I see a booklet is available, so maybe Apple wouldn't let him do the extensive booklet that he originally wanted or perhaps they finally relented. However - you only get the booklet if you buy the "album". I think that's a marketing mistake - it seems to me that if you buy a single and get the booklet, it might generate tremendous interest in buying a lot more tracks.
Of course, reading liner notes won't work on small iPod screens or if you're "doing something else" while listening - I mainly listen while bike riding. But if one can read eBooks on an iPhone or iPod Touch (as many are proposing), they can read liner notes as well.
As for my own buying habits, I still tend to buy CDs. If the artist can't put out an album with a lot of good tracks, I'm generally not interested in that artist anyway. The CD gives me a physical backup, high quality uncompressed audio and the booklet, although I will admit to not being thrilled with all the physical space it takes up). And I've always been a sucker for well-produced boxed sets, especially when Rhino was in its heyday (now it's just a house label), although it's been a long time since I've found anything worth buying.
But I guess I'm a bit old fashioned: I still have 700 vinyl LPs sitting in my living room.
As for the tablet, there's a publishing industry report that Apple has had discussions with publishers about it. My guess is a 10" screen. Movies should certainly look great compared to an iPhone, but why should it be any better than watching on a Mac?
the lead guy from Foo Fighters recorded the entire first album in his basement playing all instruments. i guess he was bored after Kurt Kobain died.
I certainly love this idea. Yes there are singles bands as the crappy American Idol has shown but for me there is nothing like a wonderful full on artists album creation. Having said that. I choose the CD or LP every time over a digital version.
Can't wait for the remastered Mono and Stereo Beatles boxes coming out soon. The mono version is limited to 10,000 and was printed in Japan with the mini full on LP replicas. It is SO cool and the mixes are the way they albums or originally created.
Beatles downloads? Not for me.
But many will want them.
i'm not as big a fan as my wife, but the top 6 contestants are usually more talented than most of the music i listen to. last season when that guy sang with Kiss, he sounded a lot better than Gene Simmons in his prime
Anyone who is really interested in music, who knows much about music, who is interested in the artists that produce it, or who is an artist themselves ... buys albums. This is not the largest group of music buyers by far, in fact it's probably a minority nowadays, but it's the core music lovers. I would also argue that this group buys a disproportionately large amount of music relative to the general population. They are the industry's "sweet spot" and are worth accommodating for that reason.
or that said people are audiophiles.
I'm 54 and college radio is still the only real place where I go to find new tunes. Also sites like Pitchfork.
Oh well.
I just don't see how Apple's tablet is going to succeed where all other tablets have failed. Especially once we factor in Apple's pricing. An overpriced gadget with no clear niche or purpose.
Anyone?
Same way as Apple always reinvents products like phone, music player and personal computer. Its time for a tablet revolution.
Maybe I am spoiled (have the great Amoeba Record Store in San Francisco) and pay attention and read music mags, but in my opinion there is SO much great music released now. So MANY great albums. It's just that you never hear them. Audiences are fragmented and hardly listen to radio like they once did. Playlist are very limited. Even MTV hardly plays music videos anymore.
I'm 54 and college radio is still the only real place where I go to find new tunes. Also sites like Pitchfork.
Oh well.
I don't think radio is the answer nor television. The answer is social networking like twitter, myspace, facebook etc. Is where people discover new bands and singers. iTunes actually let me discover so many new amazing albums just by clicking on 'Listeners also bough"
One way to get people to buy whole albums is to stop putting out 1 hit song + 9 tracks of crap.
It's not just the label. Any band that does that is not worth listening to anyway.
i still don't get why the heck lyrics are a big deal. THEY'RE***!!!! why the hell doesn't every iTunes download already include the damn lyrics.
EDIT: Please watch your language.
It's easy; just don't buy any music made in the last 15 years.
Seconded.
I don't know why iTunes doesn't have a 'Get Lyrics' feature in the same way as 'Get Album Artwork'.
My iMac has been using iTunesLyricsLocator to add the lyrics to my entire iTunes library for the last hour, so I'm still waiting to find out how comprehensive and accurate it has been.
Its a copyright issue. You don't automatically get the soundtrack with a purchase of a movie right? Or getting actual book with purchase of audiobook.
Same way here. Lyrics are written copyrighted material.
Maybe I am spoiled (have the great Amoeba Record Store in San Francisco) and pay attention and read music mags, but in my opinion there is SO much great music released now. So MANY great albums.
OK. Please recommend a couple of good jazz fusion bands/albums, and a couple of Zepplin-esqe.
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
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
Its a copyright issue. You don't automatically get the soundtrack with a purchase of a movie right? Or getting actual book with purchase of audiobook.
Same way here. Lyrics are written copyrighted material.
Still, I think it's amusing and sad that the lyrics are performed to music for the already paid license fee, but they want even more money for a text version of the same lyrics even if it's sold with the song.
Getting the lyrics with the music used to be one of those things that was pretty much expected, the norm rather than an exception. Culturally, I don't think it compares well with the sound track being sold separately.
I appreciate that the record labels' speciality is in selecting the artists to promote but, when it comes to distribution, they should shut up and listen to Steve.
Listening to a whole album that has been carefully put together can be pretty special, but I think the fault lies with the record companies. They have abused the album too many times by filling out with bad songs and when you've been stung a few times it can put you off ( risk aversion, I think it's called in investing, where you hate your losses more than you love your gains ). They need to learn to market the album experience, and only when it's real, not try to force the issue or trick us.
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.