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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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???
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
Comments
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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