The Insider: How the 'Albums Artist' is being strangled

this is spot on... the important thing is that this trend is reversible and we can find the next REM / long term career artist by being a little bit more patient.

I think people need to stop thinking of music as a career.

television a few years ago about the decline in album sales in which a procession of Canadian teenagers expressed utter bafflement at the concept of owning two or more albums by the same artist. To them the entire point was that you got into the current phenomenon, rode the hype wave for a year or however long it lasted and then moved on to something totally new.

I wonder how common that has become amongst those who are too young to remember an age before illegal downloads and the instant gratification of cherry picking individual 'choonz'.

In saying that Blur sold millions haven't the likes of Kaiser Chiefs and Killers sold more than that dragging up the likes of The View, Black Kids and so on through NME association in the same way?

Who's to say that bands like Animal Collective haven't done something like this with their most recent album in the same way Elbow have, being the most widely heard of their career etc? Who's to say a band like Fr. Rabbit could have a U2 or REM shaped career?

and I'm not sure they qualify as lasting acts but The Doors (who I can't stand), Hendrix. Patti Smith, Massive Attack, peaked with first album surely. What's a better career The Smiths and Pixies recording three dozen very good / great songs in 5 years or Portishead releasing three great albums in 15?

It's odd, but most of the bands I like that have been around forever never broke, so they wouldn't fit into this category (see Dinosaur Jr, Mudhoney, Sebadoh, The Replacements...). In fact I'm no fan of this type of so-called 'albums artist' (which I suppose would include Radiohead, REM, U2, etc), but you're absolutely correct in terms of sales and industry survival. Methinks it may be too late to turn back for many a label out there, particularly some of the majors.

this is spot on quite right. these articles are a brilliant read every time. the digital revolution has made the -'tune buying public' an impatient bunch and the labels know it too. as a band youll have a 5 minute window to impress, if you dont ya out and in with the next. as a member of an unsigned band, the word 'unsigned' was always a problem - a label that suggests your not 'making it', not getting anywhere. Nowadays there are very few of these big record contracts around, only reserved for NME scenesters that will flash and leave and something else will then be popular and shine for a bit. listen to the f'kin music and stop being swayed by the pink trousers and peculiar band names. the 'cool' amongst us will be into a band on music alone and should be sticking by them through the sound more than anything. RIP the conventional record deal i say - if ya good enough you should invested in full stop.

Excellent work.

And the main problem with your article is your sooo convinced your right. You can't be sure which bands who have just released a debut or about to release the second won't be here in ten years time. And recent bands such as Coldplay and Muse have grown from province to the world. I imagine in '88 '89 you would have claimed that the beastie boys were a frat boy joke, symbolic of home taping killing music or some such yet there here twenty years later.

The music business has always been a mess and a bit shit - We soon forget the scores of bands ripped off by managers, promoters ect in the 60's. 70's and 80's.

Another comparrsion is that you would never think that the greater majority of artists, actors, writers are particularly well paid yet for so long we have always imagined that musicains live these semi charmed lives of sex, drugs and huge bank acounts.

I will stop rambling..........now.

earlier

Like all pop/skiffle music in the 50's 60's ect

It's rockist for me to think that that is sad, isn't it?

Would like to know what the author thinks of The Futureheads and what they are trying to do though.

but i sort of agree with that mickmickmick bloke and am guilty of listening to albums on random and making playlists.

I love an album as much as the next music geek but its only really indie / rock that are obsesed with the album format. You go into the pop and dance worlds and its all about single tracs, compilations, mixes, clubs and stuff like that. I think some indie / rock bands get pushed into the idea of an album far to soon when they would be better just doing the odd song or EP and doing things a bit slower.

The complete and uter death of good indie radio doesn't help with this kind of thing though, but then digital sales and stuff like that would be ideal for bands doing that maybe...

artic monkeys

I was enjoying scanning through this article so much that I'm going to print it out so I can read it properly - I always find I read mor thoroughly on paper than on screen.

I was arguing these very same ideas with an Artist manager just recently - the idea of nurturing young bands on a shoe-string budget, holding back marketing costs, allowing growth, and he flat-out quashed the idea of not taking as large an advance as possible, or even of not using tracks in advertising.

All that appears to matter now is penetration as hard and fast as possible. I'd like to beleive it's not true but the idea of growing bands steadily is increasingly rare I'm afraid. Using your examples, if U2 were starting today they'd have never made it past a second album.

because they were immediately presented with Beatlemania-esque instant fame, on their first couple of singles, then the first album reached number 1 in the charts, then a top 10 hit... There was 18 months or so of development, but that's it.

it just deserves to die.

i think a lot of the problem stems from the UK being relatively small. things like punk get picked up on by the media pretty quickly, and the scene gets spoiled. not because i'm an elitist and i only want me and my friends to like a band but because thousands of copy cat hack bands join in. whatever was great about that scene gets taken over by whatever is marketable about that scene.

what i always liked about the american underground scene of the 80s and 90s (and it still goes on) was that bands needed truly independent labels because major label national success wasnt a viable option. self released records and touring networks were, be it the minutemen, calvin johnson, (early years) modest mouse, whoever. if you're free from major label or even 'career' considerations you can play whatever music you like. even if the punk music you make takes influence from rush and yes, and there's a lot to appreciate about those bands however ridiculous large parts of their output are.

my only problem with the above article is that it still comes from the viewpoint that we should be building career artists to have sustainable back catalogues for record companies. bands can build back catalogues on their own anyway if they have passion for what they're doing. plus REM arent a particularly great example of a small band made good as they got reasonable label and media attention nearly from the get-go. they werent toiling in obscurity throughout the 80s, they were a big indie band who became the biggest indie band.

anyway, there is a ridiculous number of records you can seek out, by bands who were signed to major labels and indie labels, right down to bands you're lucky to find out about at all. it's all more accessible than ever, you don't need marketing campaigns to convince you to buy any of it. would i love people to pay me for the music i make? sure. but it's not about that, it's about making records you want to make first and foremost. then share them with other bands or people who inspire you if you can, your friends if you can't, and your bandmates if your friends think your band sucks. take Guided by Voices as an example. they made 5 albums and an EP, funded by teacher loans before anyone even really heard them. no one who is serious about it needs to be nurtured by a label. i don't wanna hear records by anyone who hasnt got the interest left at the end of a working week to write music.

i leave the final word to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIgMOmbFIw0

I can never understand why people get so worked up about albums. Okay my title is exaggerated and definitely quite wrong but I felt like I needed to grab attention. Before the first album was made songs were seen as songs on their own (motown, soul, 60's girl groups). There is nothing better than a single, a 3 minute pop song. Death to the album I say. Music is NOT Art! It really isn't it's a totally different beast. Bands may get better technically as do painters but that's not say their later work exerts more emotion than their debut release. The article is well written holds a good argument, hence the posting but again it's an opinion and not one I agree with.

Rant over!

big topic pretty well condensed in this article. There's a lot of scope for developing as an artist these days, and also a lot of scope for getting your work heard. However though I like the idea of progression within the music industry, it seems as though we have to accept that with the huge amount of choice comes a bigger amount of desposability.

You only have to think how most people listen to a band for about 20 seconds on myspace to see where this lies. The lack of knowledge of big bands songs at big gigs is quite incredible these days. Have a look at any video on youtube from reading 2000 with the middle order bands (deftones/rage/idlewild) - it's fucking pandemonium. These days you'll be lucky to see a half arsed chin stroke.

I think the reason for this is then it meant more to people, like a "last chance to dance" scenario. These days people seem more bothered about making sure they go to see the right band. I know that isn't exactly linked to the post but I thin it's a visual indicator of how alternative music is perceived and received these days.

madheads - this is the most sinisterly retrogressive thing Ive ever heard. Maybe you meant pop and rock are not art, but try telling someone like Tortoise that what they do is 'not art'. As for the article, I concur. But there might also be some sort of solution where bands dont need a label as long as they dont see it as a career, just a means of creating art. If you are a band that really care about what you're doing, you wont give a toss about what a label is offering. Making the money to continue creating is important but there may be a way that bands can do this without a label. Selling individual tracks off their website? Boutique products (well packaged/individually designed sleeves...).
Uh, ramble over.

... of you to publish this. I can imagine that some of the "label offenders" who are not explicitly named, won't be too pleased to recognize themselves in this article.

Of course I am talking about this situation from a music industry perspective. If you don't think the industry deserves to survive then so be it but for those of us not just who work in it but want to see the money available to invest in genuine talent we need more bands like U2 and Coldplay at the top to start things moving at the bottom. You can't make those bands, they happen over time and this is what I am suggesting the industry has to realise and do more of. I stand by what I said about Britpop as it changed the dynamics of what bands were expected to achieve and how quickly forever. Finally, Slint did indeed make only two records and found most of their praise after they had split. Now, if you want all your bands to be starving in garrets and going to paupers graves then that's all well and dandy but I kind of prefer the idea that great musicians should be able to develop without short termist record company policies taking them in and chewing them out before they can achieve their best work. For the record, I don't think you are a moron as you do me, I just think we have differing priorities on what music should be and whether its commercial exploitation is a good or bad thing. I would observe that you seem to think the music industry is populated by one generic tyoe of person who you clearly hate which, as someone in it, is very far from the truth.

I'm prepared to be publicly mocked, even though I generally agree with what was said.

Pearl Jam
Oasis
Coldplay

Career bands whose first albums were comfortably their best in my opinion, although I must admit I've long since lost interest in all three and therefore haven't heard their most recent stuff.

sing for your supper but work for your dinner

your music and the people you went too must have encouraged that mindset - if you're playing music for kids you need to look like them; i don't really see anything wrong in that.

in fact fuck it. if you're playing music for kids you'd better actually BE kids... or else something a bit weird's going on..

i don't see why career music should be preserved. i can't think of any career pop musicians that reached their zenith late in their career. bowie was a bit rubbish after the 70s, as was dylan. morrissey's making a comeback but he's still nowhere near as good as he was in the smiths or his early solo career. The only reason these artists continued to produce was because their record labels knew that their early success would mean that people would keep buying their records. the fact is, that what they've ended up doing is fading out and cheapening their good names. it seems healthy to me to have musicians produce albums until their flair dies, or a member dies and they stop making new music.

also, i really couldn't bear the part about punk music killing off the album. image and performance is central to pop music. the idea of the rock star image has been present since the 50s (elvis), it took off in the 60s (dylan), faded in the mid 70s (yes, floyd etc) then was re-ignited by the punk movement. if anything it's been the norm.
the move from what you call the 'naive' to 'the big boys' is in fact a move from energetic and inspired to less ideas and more musical skill. i have to say though, the aftermath of punk (joy division, the fall, the cure etc) was far more interesting than anything the first wave achieved.

and anyway, who says the album's dying out? more or less every artist i listen to is an album artist. i own only a handful of singles and a silly amount of albums. the market is definitely there.

Great article! The quick buck (rather than the long-term profit that can come from developing an artiste's career...) has too often dominated the thinking of the UK "record executives" who've risen to their level of incompetence - and this is why we've had a music business in the UK whilst the USA has had a music industry.... We also used to have pro UK recording studios that helped these album bands produce their classic albums. Now the majority of pro UK recording studios have closed their doors, and the beancounters have closed some really classic UK studios owned by the major labels. UK recording has in fact turned into mainly a cottage industry, populated by people who've bought some gear but have no experience of making records, and thus no professional insight into the role of a record producer..... This impacts directly on the music, and I think we've probably lost some potentially great albums because of it. I'm not talking about "fascist dictator" producers here , I'm talking about people who know how to help a band accomplish that band's vision.....

its not that cut and dried, how would peopel find out about them? just being 'good' isn't going to do that..there are plenty of 'good' bands...some get the exposure that there music warrants, some (whose music may be just as good, even better) don't