Please Self-Release Me, Let Me Go

another bunch of words of wisdom from my favourite music writer ( and B S detector) Bob Lefsetz
as quoted in full from his Feb 3 email

"ALBUMS  vs SINGLES


There was a space in my bookcase where I kept my cash, waiting for four bucks to accumulate...then I went and bought an album, which I played again and again until I knew every cut, until I accumulated enough money to buy another, when I repeated the process.  You see, music was scarce.

Now it's plentiful.

Albums didn't always rule.  Actually, I was one of the few people addicted to the long player back in the early sixties, most people bought singles.  Why buy the album?  You really only wanted the hit.  But somewhere in the Beatles' ascendance, that changed.  Maybe with the single-less "Rubber Soul", certainly with "Sgt. Pepper".  The album was a statement.  Suddenly everyone was buying albums, listening to FM radio to find out what to purchase, to experiment with.  And then when these acts came to town, you went to see them.  Tickets were cheaper, it was little more expensive than seeing a movie...but that's a whole 'nother issue.  No, it's not.  Let's ask that question, what makes someone go to the show?

Assuming it's not a has-been, not a classic rock act, what motivates the average person to overpay to go to the extravaganza?  The hit.  People didn't know much more than the Spice Girls' "Wannabe", they were caught up in the hoopla.  And hoopla still exists, especially if you're like GaGa and put together a string of hits, but how about everybody else?  How many people can have that many hits?  How many can have hits at all?

The listening experience is completely different from the sixties.  Today, there's too much choice.  I'm not starving for music at home, I've got a plethora of services, but anyone can listen to everything via MySpace/YouTube/LaLa.  What are they going to listen to?  Are they going to listen to the album?

Ever marvel at how a youngster multitasks, appears not to be overwhelmed by media?  That's because kids today are only interested in great.  They'll dig deep on something that fascinates them, otherwise they're just interested in the headlines.

There's too much information.  And the way today's youngsters deal with it is to separate the wheat from the chaff.  They're interested in the hit single, but they're not about to pay ten plus bucks for an album and play it over and over again to get it, that paradigm is THROUGH!

Really, don't see the album/single debate from the perspective of the artist, certainly don't look at it from the perspective of the record label, look at it from the perspective of the listener.

The listener wants great music.  He's building a library, a playlist, it's akin to the early sixties, when singles ruled.  Why buy the album?  What are the odds the rest of the tracks are great?  Very low.  Furthermore, the album's not a deal.  At least in the sixties there was an economic incentive to purchase the long player, that doesn't exist in the digital world.  Maybe if the album were five bucks instead of ten plus.  But then people still wouldn't listen to anything but the hit anyway.

In other words, the game we've been playing has died.  Almost completely.  And it's only going to get worse.  And if you're playing the old way and bitching, you're missing the point.

If you're satisfied with the audience you've got and you want to satiate this small coterie with a collection of ten tracks, be my guest.  But those not fans will ignore your long player, they don't care, it's too much music to penetrate, they're not convinced it's worth dedicating the TIME, if a single cut bubbles to the surface they're interested, but they're not going on a fruitless hunt.

So, if you're making an album as an economic vehicle, a product that can blow up and rain coin into your pocketbook, you're screwed, it just doesn't happen like that anymore, because almost no one has got the time to listen to anything but your best work.

A head-scratcher, I know.  I'll give you an example.

I love One eskimO's "Kandi".  I've listened to it at least fifty times, the same way we wore out singles in the days of yore.  But have I played the entire album?  Oh, I gave it a shot.  But it doesn't sound anything like "Kandi".  What I mean is it doesn't have that sly R&B sound, and with thousands of other cuts on my iPod, I gravitate to them.  In other words, our collections today are not albums, but a playlist of singles.

Now this has huge impact on the business, everything from acts to labels to concert promoters.

Acts are going to inherently make less money, after all, people want less of their music.  And those who are interested in a complete album are very few.  Those days of ten million people buying the album just to get the single are done, they died with Napster, they're never coming back, the cherry-picking world of iTunes rules.  If you want to last, you've got to super-serve a small coterie of fans.  Don't tour the world, don't go for world domination, just satisfy your fans, because a fan will come see you live, will buy your merch.

Record labels...  Suddenly, they've lost most of their revenue, and it's never coming back.  You may be selling many more of one, but no one cares about the other nine cuts on the album.  You shouldn't even make them, shouldn't even bother.  Maximize revenue from the single.  And scale back, knowing that the glory days are done.

Concert promoters?  Who's going to come see the acts?  In quantity?

That's one reason festivals rule.  You get to graze.  Most of these acts can play to very few solo, aggregate them and people get to sample, immediately giving a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down.  Your festival appearance is crucial, you must kill, this is where you convince people to come see you again, but odds are most people won't.

But none of this is bad for music.  In the aggregate, people are listening to more music than ever before.  It's just that rather than being limited to three networks, there are five hundred channels.  Rather than being limited to what's in the theatre, they've got Netflix.

And when the CD dies?  And no matter what you read, it's on its way out, there's not going to be anywhere to buy it, sure there will be some indie stores, but so many of those have died, people will start wondering why you ever aggregated ten tracks together, the same way a kid today doesn't understand an 8-track or a cassette.  Once the physical format dies, the whole construct is kaput.

So what's a new act to do?

First question its dedication.  Do you want to play in this new world?  Where a few beat-infused tracks can get airplay on Top Forty and succeed but people don't have to listen to Top Forty?  Are you willing to work really hard for far less, knowing that mass success is not in the offing?

If so, woodshed until you create that one listen track.  That's your main hope of your music spreading.  A cut so good people will tell others about it.  Will put it in their playlist and keep it in rotation.  Then you've got to come up with another.  And another.

And chances are, you can't.

Which is why you read about scenes in Brooklyn and the bands never reach ubiquity, because the average joe just doesn't care, doesn't get it.  But people like Owl City's "Fireflies".  As for the rest of the album, do you even need it?

This isn't about Apple.  This isn't about the labels.  It's not about the acts.  It's about the audience.  We've got incredible sh*t detectors.  More music at our fingertips than we can ever listen to.  And believe me, we want to listen.  But only to what's great.  Can you blame us?

redorchid wrote: Wonderful post!! And I have to agree 100% with the author. It may sound odd coming from another independent artist but what Dean mentioned up front is the brutal truth of the industry. You really need to cover all your basis in order to go anywhere. Unfortunately a product does not end when it is created, it is how its delivered. I am learning a lot myself, specially the internet ways which is new to me. In process you do some dumb f**k things  but its all part of learning and a step forward. It is also clear from his post that he is not against indie bands, the point is that to be recognized with the best you need to deliver the same or close enough quality. Nothing wrong with that.. Now in support of such bands, there is the other side to it i.e. the lack of means, finances and support structure to deliver this product.  So what do you do? The question they need to ask is why are they creating music in the first place. And I am pretty confident most do it for pleasure and love of it, the monetary gains if any may come later, specially for a prog artist otherwise you would be busy making radio friendly hits and dream to be another Nickleback. Let's face it, the money from sales would probably not even cover the most basic equipment cost, forget about living a decent living. The moment you start otherwise, you are all messed up...seriously.

Well put, and to that I would add that some of us like to stay busy and will play creative stuff for less money and/or less creative stuff for more money, or sometimes something in between or any combination of the two. Likewise there is no garuntee that playing something creative is definitely going to mean no money, sometimes you can have it both ways.

What I personally find almost impossible to do is play something I really don't like just for money, I'd rather do some other work entirely. Likewise I also find it impossible to work in a musical situation where certain standards aren't being met, I just can't do it.

Edited by Easy Money - February 03 2010 at 13:18

Certif1ed wrote: Easy Money wrote: Textbook wrote: Rubbish. I know from my own experience in rap that persistence counts more than talent. Trash rappers who won't take no for an answer end up signed a lot more than interesting ones who are laid-back about it. Well, from my own experience good demos always got me better gigs than bad demos. Otherwise, why even bother making a good demo since making a bad one is so much easier.     What constitutes "good", and what constitutes "bad"?

Both words can be found in the dictionary in case there is any confusion.

>

Edited by stefolof - August 26 2015 at 06:53

Ok Lets try this

>

Edited by stefolof - August 26 2015 at 07:01

Atavachron wrote: ^ I would say that personal taste can define what group one finds themself in

It's probably a combination of both, and quite age-dependant too as to which has the greater effect.

^ I would say that personal taste can define what group one finds themself in

Epignosis wrote: I've got to disagree. People are morons.  They flock to lots of things that are terrible.  The music industry kind of depends on this.

Actually they don't, but that is neither here nor there. We're not "people" or morons and Prog don't work like that.

>

Edited by stefolof - August 26 2015 at 07:00