Well, this should get people talking. Even Radiohead have never attempted anything as bizarre as this:
So basically, for people who are more meh/theyre ok about them, this was a very good marketing gimmick.
Hardcore fans will buy two albums, those who like some of their stuff but not other bits can spend time working out an album they like. Will be interested to see how this works out for them...
But this is cracking and innovative idea - well done!
That link goes to some seemingly unregistered website
Will they pick the most popular tracks, someone elses playlist, their own playlist or release a (god forbid) a double album?
Either way, i think its a decent idea to get them some media coverage, if nothing else.
you pick the 10 you like for 7.50. and that's your album. You can then post your album on the site and if someone else buys it, you get One English Pound.
How is this devaluing music?
Sorry, I've taken the bait
'put it in whatever order you like; it's entirely unimportant for this to be even considered as a whole'
just seems sad.
cheers for clarifying
It wouldn't work for more album oriented artists but for a bunch like them I don't see a problem really.
And hey - it'll still be full of filler, but now you can hand pick your own filler! Yeah!
but it does seem like a rather perverse gesture for a band whose success has previously been predicated on a handful of big indie-pop singles... also can you pre-listen to everything before you make your choice..? Would be odd if not.
Enough to make a best of, I'd imagine. Meanwhile, hardcore fans will walk away with a double album today, and the Kaisers will walk away with £15. A lot of people will baulk at this, but I still think musicians should be paid for what they do (if they want to be paid) so fair play to them.
Going to listen tonight to decide whether to do one album (I prefer the poppy stuff of theirs) or double dip and make them rich.
More a last gasp attempt to throw some publicity on an album that no-one's going to buy anyway.
I've wondered for a while if downloads are going to result in albums disappearing (because music consumption has always been dictated by format) but I don't really understand the point of forcing people to buy an album's worth of songs. As someone said above, seems like an attempt to double album sales to their dwindling fanbase. Bit cyncial really.
is a bit uncomfortable. Like some sort of weird pyramid scheme/referral thing.
A pyramid scheme involves people investing money that they're unlikely to make back because the maths simply doesn't add up, or at the very least working hard on false hopes for very little gain while the company makes a load of money.
This is just you choosing your favourite ten tracks, posting up that tracklisting and if you're lucky you might make a few quid.
But it does veer towards 'we'll give you a quid to spam people about it'.
The people most likely to hawk to any degree will probably be superfans who've 'bought two selections' (aka bought both albums).
Realistically, though, there won't be /that/ many 'referrer sales'. Not enough to outweigh the sales gained cos of the 'innovative business model' PR factor, anyway. Certainly not enough to cannibalise their £7.50 sales.
But even if everyone /did/ buy the album via fans' tracklisting pages, all it ultimately means is that they're selling the album for £6.50 instead of £7.50, with the £1 allocated as 'marketing'.
Summary: online street teaming.
But you can select whichever tracks you like to make it a single album. As per pretty much any other mp3 album available on Amazon/iTunes/etc.
Fair enough, they've indulged in some album art and social networking doo-dah-ing for the keener fans.
But that's pretty much the sum of it, isn't it?
also, nobody wants to make their own artwork. maybe we should make the music too?
why am i posting in a kaiser chiefs thread
All feels a bit self-service checkout.
as some kind of competition before release would be a better thing.
that they'd have to sift through.
devalues the album and makes artist's more lazy. Why worry about having to put together a cohesive piece of art that stands the test of time. Just record some tracks and chuck em out. I think this is just a confession that they don't really know how to put an album together. I mean if you can just create your own tracklisting then it's not really an album is it? Why even title it?
...rather than just a set of individual songs. If you choose the best songs, theoretically speaking it'll be a good album anyway.
And could we really call the other 3 kaisers albums meaningful pieces of art? Seriously?
...but /most/ people prefer books as novels rather than short story collections.
And /most/ people who buy books that are story collections prefer someone else to have edited/curated the thing, rather than an author/publisher throwing a pile of manuscripts at you and saying 'oh, sort it out yourself'.
(Yup, we've reached the spurious analogy stage of the thread.)
I actually like the idea of this being a double better then one that has arbitrarily changing tracks.
No idea if it's going to be a 10, 12 or 20 track release though.
"It’s what you make it, literally, and as a result it can be as good, or as bad, as the listener designs it to be".
i'll look into this when i get home.
I don't say this for lulz reasons, but for thinking that surely however long it's been since I Predict A Riot there's still plenty enough interest and potential sales in a Kaiser Chiefs record.
http://www.kaiserchiefs.com/sheeldz but don't buy it...
but I'll say that if the right 11-12 tracks are chosen this could be a really good album and easily the best Kaiser Chief's album (I know that's not saying a lot). Many of the tracks are more adventurous and stylistically different then anything they've done. It's possible the method of releasing this will overshadow what should have been a work that revitalized the band critically and commercially.
This gimmick is a miracle in doing what people thought was once impossible-getting people talking about Kaiser Chief's again.
That the gimmick of £1 back for every one bought would not work. It'll only work for those who were in there right at the beginning or from those who already have money/authority. Listened to about half of the tracks so far and only about half of them were kinda interesting
Surely, if other people like the artwork/set of songs you put together, then they'll just copy it on the album creator so they can also try and make a little money (completely in vain, of course).
Its like britpop circa 2001/2002 where they all release a middling final album, charts poorly and everyone splits up the year after.
I must have listened to it every day for months when I was 12. I still think it's a good album but I may just be blinded by nostalgia.
I feel old
everyones a bit to cynical, seems a fun idea
pity it's the kaiser chiefs though, don't really like them enough to do it
the album as an art form further devalued. One step from just releasing a dozen ringtones.
I love albums as much as the next man, but the idea that the album is something continually eroded by internet etc, is bollocks. I don't listen to Kid A and think, well I used to think this was perfectly sequenced, but now the Kaiser Chiefs have let me tracklist my own album, all albums are ruined!
It is perhaps a little bit sad to see it decline as a format true, but formats change and so does music, and there are still plenty of bands who care about sequencing out there, ultimately the album's monopoly on how music is heard died a long long time ago.
and it works fine for them. This is an interesting way of releasing such an album and it doesn't ruin other more cohesive albums or mean other bands will stop putting thought into the sequencing or devalue the art form in anyway whatsoever.
We all know that record has loads of problems, but at least it's got an attitude, unlike the twee and boring folk music that's so popular at the moment," he commented.
The start of that quote is Nick Hodgson's said Be Here Now influenced the album.
sorry, we're struggling to fix this speech mark issue.
I'd pay for that
who feel their album would be ripped to shreds by reviewers if they decided the tracklisting themselves.
Also seems a cynical attempt to create some noise and interact with fans etc to get their waning career back on track.
the music isn't too shabby. The best they've done since the debut. Okay, so the other two were utter dog-shit, but the point still stands.
Why the hell would I buy a fan made album with 10 tracks when they released 20? I'd just buy/download the full 20 tracks and then move on.
What the hell drugs were they doing when they thought this up?
Report this thread