Comments
"If they just want the single, they gotta get the album."
Written By Tyme on Nov. 20, 2007.
10 Comments
Report Note
+ Clip This
That is a quote from Jermaine Dupri.
Did consumer complain? Maybe so. But at what point does any business care when consumer complains about the money? Why do people not care how we - the people who make music - eat? If they just want the single, they gotta get the album. That was how life was. Today we should at least have that option. Yeah, it's about the money, but it's also about quality. Creating each album as a body of work that means something gives the consumer something better to listen to, It's that simple. Otherwise all anyone would care about is making a bunch of ringtones.
Bunk. The reason why singles became popular (in the genre I listen to): there were one or two good songs and the rest was crap. I agree the artist should have the option but know upfront that people are going to get that single if they want it bad enough without buying the album.
What Jermaine is forgetting is that "back in the day" the internet didn't exist. If people wanted the single the only way they could get it was to either record it from the radio or buy the entire album. Today it's a different ballgame. Today within minutes a person can get exactly what they want.
And the people are speaking back. I love the comments:
"iTunes is not the music industry's problem. It is the industry's checkmate. Few artists made okay albums prior to iTunes because, very simply, they did not have to."
"If the album was supposed to be listened to from start to finish, why are there track divisions? If I can skip ahead in a CD to a particular track, aren't I undermining the artist's intent?"
"Consumers have been ripped off for years because of the exact attitude Mr Dupri advocates: If you want the single you have to buy the album. I can't count the number of times I've bought a cd on the basis of one song only to discover that the rest of it was not that good."
"Simply put, the practice of chopping up albums into individually purchasable singles is a rational response on the part of the consumer to decades of the labels forcing us to pay for 10 awful tracks for every good one."
You wanna eat Jermaine? Gonna have to earn that meal son.
jensized
Written Nov. 20, 2007 / Report /
JD ain't heard of 45's, obviously.
I'm a whole lot more inclined to pay $1 for 1 song I like than $10- which is what I'd be doing if I bought an album for the single. You want $1 or $0? Beggars can't be choosers.
JPhill
Written Nov. 20, 2007 / Report /
Why complain about releasing singles. If make good music, people will buy the whole album. So, like Tyme said, you have to earn it. You can't just made shit lyrics and think people will buy it just because your name is on it.
RightOn
Written Nov. 20, 2007 / Report /
What Jermaine is forgetting is that "back in the day" the internet didn't exist. If people wanted the single the only way they could get it was to either record it from the radio or buy the entire album.
I was just gonna say.... uhhhh 45's dood. I have PILES of single recordings dated before the these tubes were installed.
dreamweaver
Written Nov. 20, 2007 / Report /
That attitude is a guaranteed way to NOT get ANY of my money at all. And yes, is this guy too young to remember 45's?? Damn, I feel old.
RightOn
Written Nov. 20, 2007 / Report /
I'm only 28 and I remember 45's so....
jensized
Written Nov. 20, 2007 / Report /
My boyfriend and I still buy 45's (I'm 24 but I literally grew up in a record store so I may be special). Quite a few garage and indie bands release 7-inches that aren't available on CD, too.
Tyme
Written Nov. 20, 2007 / Report /
Well, in truth they didn't release the 45s for every song - only the popular ones.
One thing I don't like is that these artists/celebrities make the entries but they never respond back. On something like that I would jump in and say something, try to interact with people.
He used this example:
Soulja Boy made $4M on those singles...he can eat just fine.
RightOn
Written Nov. 20, 2007 / Report /
Well, in truth they didn't release the 45s for every song - only the popular ones.
Well that's the purpose of singles... but now with iTunes you can make your own singles and it's not like these poor guys are starving. Hell I'd gladly swap paychecks with the likes of Metallica or ANYONE of these major artists for a year.
Tyme
Written Nov. 20, 2007 / Report /
@RightOn - I'd take the singles income and you wouldn't hear a peep out of me. I'd be grateful I had people that appreciated my music enough to buy it. There is a line between profit and greed.
shadowsun7
Written Nov. 21, 2007 / Report /
I suppose this depends on the kind of music you listen to. A lot of (commercial) artists put out albums with one or two good songs, and the rest are filler material. Not worth listening to. But then you get players like Radiohead and Bloc Party (two personal faves here), and not buying their albums are really an insult to you as a fan.
Radiohead in particular have very compelling arguments against buying just the single (they don't have singles, coincidentally). They structure their albums with a narrative/theme, and they're meant to be taken in as a whole, rather than catchy little pieces you hum on your way home.
Different kind of music = different kind of consumption.
They're not in iTunes, btw. Kinda explains why they released In Rainbows the way they did.
Note: It was 9rules that originally got me exploring Radiohead. My thanks to Oli and Josue.