Whither The Album…Please
This weekend in the course of a discussion of piracy, copyright, intellectual property and the future of content creation with my brother-in-law (and by conversation, I mean: “I talked at him for 20 minutes after which he said something very poignant I hadn’t thought of yet”) we together came to an interesting idea.
Copyright, I lectured, was intended to provide content authors with protection of an idea for a “limited” (c.f. The Constitution) period of time to encourage creative work. That is, to ensure one could be the exclusive financial benefactor of your creation for a limited period of time, after which it would pass into public domain for the good of culture, and to force the creator to move on to other work and continue creating. Read your Lessig for detail on this.
I had also belabored the difference between creation and copy in a physical vs. digital world—read your Negroponte for more on that—which lead to a discussion of the fact that the production of a an entire album of music used to be necessary because no one would buy an cassette, album, or CD with just one track on it for a price agreeable to consumers and producers.
At which point he offered, “Why does it make sense to create an album for months or years, sell it, and then ‘Do Nothing’ for a long time.” Of course, “Do Nothing” isn’t meant literally, but the brilliance of the statement is still opening to me 48 hours later.
The album is a construct forced upon us by the old way of selling music. There’s got to be a better way. Barriers to entry are falling fast–you can make a pretty damn good song in a few hours using Garageband, and distribute it for a fraction of a minutia of the cost. Some people are already looking for a different model, but no one is doing this: What if instead of buying an album every 18 months, I could “subscribe” to artists for $20 or $50 bucks a year, which got me tons of premium content—blogs, music, videos, interviews, documentaries, whatever—all delivered digitally all the time. Every month a few songs, a few videos, some articles, etc.
If 20,000 fans who would buy a CD for $10 or $15 could convert (and who knows if they would) to 10,000 fans who would “subscribe” for $20 a year, well, that’s a more engaged (read: evangelizing) fan with more content to enjoy (and share), and an artist that can capitalize on a smaller fan base (with higher margins) and churn out more types of content (Shakespeare didn’t only write plays). And what if you had 50,000 fans? Or a million?
I only claim participatory credit for this idea. And it may be crazy—I can’t decide if this is just a “fan club” or not—but sometimes crazy ideas work.
2. February 2009 at 15:54
I’ve heard of a German band that uses a subscription program something like this: Einstürzende Neubauten. (Say that ten times fast.)
http://www.neubauten.org/en-bio.html
2. February 2009 at 16:01
-Bill Mallonee did this for a while. Fans, including me, got tired of the content. It turns out the album format has a huge benefit: it requires thoughtful editing.
-I would also argue that very few artists have the time to produce that much content, because touring continues to be a huge part of how artist connect to fans, and generate new fans.
-Also, “you can make a pretty damn good song in a few hours using Garageband”– but you can’t make a great record. I think we are seeing standards fall on the quality of recorded music. My most recent LP sounds MUCH better than my most recent EP for this reason. I’m proud of the EP, and it has its charm, but if all recordings were done at that level, I think it would continue the trend we’re seeing where music is more and more disposable.
2. February 2009 at 17:01
@matthew
I will concede that an album can afford more nuance and development than 12 songs released separately, but I would argue that the reality is that 99% of music is listened to at the “song” level so most of that nuance is lost on most “customers.”
The difference between a song done in garageband at short order and a song worked on over weeks will continue to erode given time and talent. Compare the difference between an amateur and pro today vs. 10 years ago.
As far as consistent quality and time to produce, you’re right, of course. But producing a short story and a novel are different feats and I would argue a band that can’t produce at that level is not fundamentally different from a band that can’t produce a good album once a year. They’re both in the wrong business or operating under the wrong model.
Obviously, you are the one with a successful music career
so I’m probably more wrong that I care to admit, and I am not arguing that this is the only way to “sell” music. But I think it does address some of the problems facing the music industry and leverage some opportunities.