My friend Melissa says that it's strange and wrong to buy just one song and not the complete album (well, she prefers to go to the store and buy the actual CD--she's old-school like that, or in her words, "that's how she wagon-wheels"). Because she is such a music person (she knows every song ever made, the individuals and their backgrounds, and even why they made certain songs!), I figured that I was different. I don't necessarily buy CDs, and would rather go through and buy a single rather than a bunch of songs that I am not going to care for. In other words, I have a problem with paying $15.00 for a CD when I only like one song on the CD. Now, there are certain artists that I will buy the CD for, just on principle--NKOTB, Gin Blossoms, Josh Groban, etc. But I have a really eclectic taste in music--I may like one song from an artist and hate the rest. In the time before iTunes, I would have just not bought the CD at all. ITunes has given me the freedom not only to just pick a few songs that I like, but it allows me to hear other songs from independent artists (which I find I enjoy more and more) than you get in a retail store. But I thought I was different. I thought that I was unusual in this because Melissa is so adamant about gathering every song possible to her. It's nice to know that other people are just as selective as I. Check out this blog that was on Yahoo. Apparently, certain record labels do not want iTunes to sell their music because they are not getting enough money. Personally, I don't care how much it costs as long as I can get just one or two songs--so, if they would take the cost of the CD and divide it up into how ever many songs there are on the CD, I wouldn't mind paying that. This blog is a rant against the labels, but I find it as an afirmation that I am not the only one out there. Here is the entirety:
Not Selling On iTunes
Posted Thu Aug 28, 2008 1:14pm PDT by Bob Lefsetz in The Lefsetz Letter
Isn't this how the labels got in trouble to begin with? By making customers buy an entire, overpriced CD to get the single, the only track they wanted, often times the only good track on the album?
Pulling acts from iTunes is akin to winning the pennant but refusing to play in the World Series because the TV network and its advertisers would be unjustly enriched. Like being the world champion but not going to the Olympics because these same entities would profit and China's image would be burnished at the athlete's expense. Is that what we're going to see next? Michael Phelps suing China for a percentage of its gross national product? Since he focused the world's eyes upon the country?
iTunes was not launched as the definitive future of music acquisition but as an alternative to theft. Pulling music from iTunes just incentivizes people to steal, to learn new techniques for stealing. At the height of the original Napster grandmothers were downloading. The key is to develop a reasonable alternative that makes stealing not worth it. Raising the price is not a solution.
That's what labels want to do, raise prices at the iTunes Store. Why not tell that to GM! Ford and Chrysler too! Why don't we raise the price for SUVs! Make more on each one! Eureka, that's the solution! But at least most drivers only need and purchase one automobile. Whereas we're now in the golden age of music acquisition. Kids who might not have owned any music in decades past now possess thousands of cuts. And believe me, they didn't pay a buck for each. And this is good, the more people music own, the more enriched their lives are. Furthermore, the greater benefit to the acts' whose tracks have been stolen. File-trading kept Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and AC/DC alive. How else would kids have heard this music? And now AC/DC are going to go on the road and sell every single ticket. This wouldn't have happened without the easy, in this case free, acquisition of music online.
And unlike the Eagles, AC/DC is not a geriatric act. Kids like AC/DC. To keep them off the iTunes Store is an insult to the band's fanbase. Like forcing you to go to a liquor store to buy Coke, refusing to sell it in the supermarket. The Eagles may have sold millions of albums, but in the consciousness of America, their latest double album, Long Road Out Of Eden, is an incredible stiff. It had zero cultural impact. Are you only interested in short term money? Not the act's good will, career and legacy? Then make a deal with one retailer with a guaranteed payment. You're on a direct train to the graveyard.
The Eagles are unique. No one expected a new album and the band didn't need it, they're coasting on their hits, they can tour until they die. But what if you still have an active career? What if you need your music in the public consciousness? What if you are still building? To keep your music off the Internet is like writing a novel and refusing to publish it. Believe me, kids barely know what a CD is, and they don't want to go to a store to purchase it. I do my best to never go into a retail store, it's easier to shop online, where inventory is plentiful and one can easily find the lowest price and delivery is straight to your door.
As for delivering CDs via the Internet... That's like selling typewriter ribbons via the Net. Like delivering dot matrix printer ribbons. Why online would we want anything but files?
As for making users buy the complete album, a la Amazon... This just ends up frustrating the user base, causing revolt. The RIAA/major labels are hated by the average consumer, kids know artists get lousy royalty rates, and this is because of the backlash against overpriced CDs with only one good track and the useless anti-piracy scheme known as suing file traders.
Kid Rock is a career artist who is seen as an album artist. He happens to have the single of the summer. This is driving CD sales. How often is this formula replicable? If we're lucky, we've got one single of the summer, and it usually can't be predicted in advance. And oftentimes, it's by a one hit wonder. And, outside of the U.S., Kid Rock's music is available on iTunes...
And then we've got the strange case of the Rolling Stones. They sold essentially double the online singles of Pink Floyd and the Eagles, but only half the albums. Could it be that the consumer is smart? And knows that whereas Pink Floyd is the quintessential album act, with the Stones it's now about the singles? Maybe you've got to buy Beggars Banquet, then again, when was the last time the Stones played "Parachute Woman" in concert? In other words, if you want the customer to buy complete albums, you've got to make better albums!
I'd say it's best if music labels stopped trying to scam their way to profits. Yes, it's not the consumer who's underhanded so much as the sellers. They're looking for endless ways to rip off their customers instead of producing music so desirable that it sells itself.
2 comments:
I knew there had to be another reason that I like Melissa besides her cheery disposition. Like Melissa, I too prefer album length CDs to individual songs (see how old I am that I still use "album"!). However, I might be a little more choosy than Melissa regarding the CDs that I buy.
The main reason that I prefer CDs is my romanticised notion that a complete CD is a work of musical artistry. It's like a book with chapters rather than a short-story anthology. On many more occasions than the contrary, I find myself growing attached or more attached to the non-hit or non-singles released songs (in old-school record parlance, B-sides and album-cuts) over time and repeated listening.
Another nice thing about CDs is that I can transfer any songs from the CD onto my computer and then re-transfer and mix the songs on my portable digital player (I won't shell out the clams for an actual iPod) while leaving my CD perched on the shelf in its glossy case with the readily accessible "liner notes" (to use more LP jargon).
I know this doesn't address Brandy's rant about music labels' issues with iTunes. So in response, the marketplace will eventually dictate the actions of the music producers/distributors IF they are concerned about profits. However, should producers/distributors and the musicians be more concerned about the musicians' artistic vision, then the market will have to buy the CDs or illegally rip and burn songs from people like Melissa and me.
I agree that the CDs are about the artistry--that's why I like the fact that I can go through iTunes and listen before I buy. And there is always the option of getting the rest of the CD later. Which I have done, depending on my mood. Melissa likes the CD in her hand, the covers, and probably the smell (which is intoxicating, I agree). But I would rather buy from my house a few songs here and there than go to the store most of the time (because I don't care how talented some artists are, there are always going to be a few duds in their albums--like they only put them in to fill in space. Much like a book--to use Scott's analogy--that may be well-written in most areas, but sometimes inundates you with unnecessary information).
Anyway, I do buy some CDs, but it's not important to me to see it there. I can always record them on disk and put them in my CD player if I am charging my iPod or whatever. And besides, iTunes has allowed me to expand my musical horizons--I listen to and buy music from more independent artists now, less well-known bands, than I did if I was just looking at the cover of the CD.
Post a Comment