Sunday Times and CDs

PaulBrewer

Does anyone have any thoughts on Mick Heaney's article in today's paper?
The headlines were -

" 'A leap into the unknown' - Irish Artists are desperate to find ways of reaching listeners who have ditched albums. Can sticking to singles or teaming up with Starbucks save them ? "

Very interesting article featuring Ash ( doing an A to Z tour with 26 singles to match )

David Kitt mentions sales of 50,000 albums in 2001 but 2 thousand of the current one.

Bell X1 are now signed to a US indie label.



One of the 'cyclical' things one sees with bands is the aim to make an album - many never get there and most of the ones who do then fail to make an impact with it.

So the question arises 'Why bother?' if no one wants it ?

My theory is that the idea of the 'album' is in fact the only thing that keeps many bands together, take that away (as the universe is in the process of doing) and for many bands the Raison d'être is gone.

Interestingly too is the fact that our brothers in the Electronic music scene have adapted to this scenario much better than bands.

ogy

maybe itll lead to some better live acts/more success for bands who are focussed on playing great gigs. don't get me wrong, theres a lot of great live acts out there, but some of the big bands of 00's were awful live e.g. franz ferdinand, chili peppers, strokes etc...

imho the album is as beautiful a format as a sonnet or a suite of classical pieces. but great albums are exactly that, they have some thought put into the overall concept, not just a random smattering of songs. doesn't have to be prog rock concept style but just a planned creative coherency.

no ones owed anything, things change, people have to adapt with demand and work out ways of being in a position to achieve their artistic goals.

DamagedTrax

no ones owed anything, things change, people have to adapt with demand and work out ways of being in a position to achieve their artistic goals.

bang on.

madtheory

Yes, that's dead right, well put.

Bands should be focussed on gigging surely, not recording? I think most are nowadays, there are far more gigs and people are touring more frequently than before.

Adapt or die- publishers had to do it when the record was invented. Now it's the turn of record companies. And many of them are- they've become "music companies" and are involved in merch and touring.

Recording is over rated. We had an 80 year blip in the history of music, where you didn't have to perform to make a living as a musician. It's back to the old way now. Play.

raindog.promo

Possibly an emergence of Album as "best of" singles collection with a few unreleased songs (as they do on best of collections now), collectors artwork and all that jazz.


What about bands like Tool that release albums as a whole concept? Are sales for those type of bands dropping?

Dord

Stepping away from the fact that I'm a musician... as a listener I'm more likely to buy a bands album or cd based on their live performance. Bands need to step up their game in terms of live performances. I've been to some shows where the recorded music from the band is great but the live show... not so much.

telecaster

I thought it was interesting that Tim Wheeler said that all anybody was talking about with the A-Z singles thing was the concept of it rather than the music itself. Pretty much the article was about that too. It's more a gateway to publicity than anything else.

I think the answer to ''why bother'' making an album is that its just what songwriters/musicians do. You write and record. Recording and production is in itself part of the artform. Not every song is worthy of being a single. I'm sure Ash know this!

TelePaul

My 0.2 cents:

BellX1 are signed to a US indie label because in reality, they were never as good as the initial hype suggested. The Irish music-buying public have a habit of placing indie/alternative acts upon a pedestal - why are we so surprised that these 'flavours of the month' fade into nothingness when someone new comes along? If the Rolling Stones released an album, it'd sell...because they're a great band. If you have a decent fan-base, are a well-established live act, and the material produced on an album is good, it'll sell.

In short, if you're not selling albums, it's because nobody likes you. Take the hint! Albums havn't been viewed as bodies of work since Astral Weeks (mildly exagerrating here)

Seziertisch

ogy wrote: »

maybe itll lead to some better live acts/more success for bands who are focussed on playing great gigs. don't get me wrong, theres a lot of great live acts out there, but some of the big bands of 00's were awful live e.g. franz ferdinand, chili peppers, strokes etc...

I've seen Franz Ferdinand a number of times and they were really tight on every occasion. My brother went to see the Chilli Peppers at both Slane and the Phoenix Park a few years ago. The Slane gig was great (I was there myself) and I wouldn't be a mad fan of them, but my bro said the Phoenix Park show was a non-event. The Strokes ... bloated from drink, disinterested and apathetic ... though for some reason the audience loved it (they were at the height of their "cool" powers at the time).

PaulBrewer

telecaster wrote: »

I thought it was interesting that Tim Wheeler said that all anybody was talking about with the A-Z singles thing was the concept of it rather than the music itself. Pretty much the article was about that too. It's more a gateway to publicity than anything else.

I think the answer to ''why bother'' making an album is that its just what songwriters/musicians do. You write and record. Recording and production is in itself part of the artform. Not every song is worthy of being a single. I'm sure Ash know this!

Good Points Telecaster.

The 'why bother' was more why spend a whole heap of cash on an album, (and anything that sounds even passable in a band context usually costs) as opposed to buying Great Equipment a PA and a Van and getting some fans cooking to be interested in this 'Album'.

It often seems like putting the CD Album Cart before the Get Someone Interested Horse which a good single or two will.

It's a process I've seen fail ever year for the last 20+ and as often the case with the social sub group 'Band' ... I'm left confused.

madtheory

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Good Points Telecaster.
It often seems like putting the CD Album Cart before the Get Someone Interested Horse which a good single or two will.

Haha, brilliant! Well put sir.

PaulBrewer wrote: »

It's a process I've seen fail ever year for the last 20+ and as often the case with the social sub group 'Band' ... I'm left confused.

Ya, it's mad isn't it. Happens over and over again. It's like banking on winning the Lotto. Very few bands have actually considered their market potential and sat down and thought about what they actually want, and what they can achieve.

ogy

I've seen Franz Ferdinand a number of times and they were really tight on every occasion. My brother went to see the Chilli Peppers at both Slane and the Phoenix Park a few years ago. The Slane gig was great (I was there myself) and I wouldn't be a mad fan of them, but my bro said the Phoenix Park show was a non-event.

fair enough. judging franz ferdinand from a few things i saw on mtv that sounded muck, always think the chilis can't pull the newer stuff off live whenever i hear it, and kiedis' voice is always ropey. but i guess the point im driving at is like that programme where modern bands tried to recreate sgt. peppers with the original equipment/engineers etc. kaiser chiefs couldn't actually play through 1 song after numerous attempts without falling apart. they kept complaining about the old gear and how they just loop everything in the studio.

PaulBrewer

I read an article in one of the papers yesterday that said you're more likely to get Kidnapped by Terrorists than winning the Lotto.

So as a corollary of that you're more likely to get Kidnapped by Terrorists than be in a Successful Band ..

ogy

the odds of the average male adult dying of an unknown random heart condition at any given moment is better than the odds of winning the lotto. So if its 5 o clock, and your sitting there holding your ticket, and the draw is at 6, theres a better chance you will die before the draw then there is that you might win!
(can't remember what comedian i robbed this off:))

PaulBrewer

ogy wrote: »

fair enough. judging franz ferdinand from a few things i saw on mtv that sounded muck, always think the chilis can't pull the newer stuff off live whenever i hear it, and kiedis' voice is always ropey. but i guess the point im driving at is like that programme where modern bands tried to recreate sgt. peppers with the original equipment/engineers etc. kaiser chiefs couldn't actually play through 1 song after numerous attempts without falling apart. they kept complaining about the old gear and how they just loop everything in the studio.

I always had Franz in the 'Are you sure about that, Lads?' Drawer ...

Your point is valid Ogy, as one rarely comes across a band guy, certainly in the Indieish genre, who wants to keep playing til it's 'right' or even 'alright' - then you get the opposite lads who can shred for days, but have no reason to do so!

Funny ole World innit ?

PaulBrewer

ogy wrote: »

the odds of the average male adult dying of an unknown random heart condition at any given moment is better than the odds of winning the lotto. So if its 5 o clock, and your sitting there holding your ticket, and the draw is at 6, theres a better chance you will die before the draw then there is that you might win!
(can't remember what comedian i robbed this off:))

To confirm you're more likely to get Kidnapped by Terrorists and die from Heart Failure in the hour before a Lotto Draw ..........................................

Than be in a Successful Band, Ja ?

telecaster

it should of course be remembered that the problems of Ash and David Kitt need a degree of perspective....Kitt only shifted 2000 albums, having sold 50k before.

Most of us wont sell 2000 cds, downloads, t-shirts or anything else in our entire careers. Kitt was the lo-lo ball of a certain place and time, and I hope he enjoyed the ride. Ditto The Thrills for example, and of course Ash. Nothing against any of these acts personally, but the ''fashion'' aspect of a band in my opinion has a greater bearing on their success (as measured in airplay, album sales, media exposure) than their ability.

The great bands sell big album after album, tour after tour. Most bands that achieve some success are a passing fad, no better or worse than maybe 50 other bands playing the same style who didn't get the same breaks.

That shouldn't sound bitter, its just a reality I've experienced.

There's a reason U2, REM & Oasis sell big every time. And there's a reason why Franz Ferdinand, The Strokes and Kaiser Chiefs will be footnotes in early 21st century music come 20 years.

Remember The Verve headlined Slane? A year later they'd have stuggled to sell out The Point. They were no better or worse a band.

I'd really like to have David Kitt or Ash's problems

PaulBrewer

telecaster wrote: »

I'd really like to have David Kitt or Ash's problems

Indeed, but taking advantage of the Zeitgeist is an opportunity open to all ( a bit like the Lotto)

The bands who do 'good' often do the same things i.e. they operate in the same way irrespective of genre.

I can think of 3 bands local to the midlands toiling away expensively (and in my opinion pointlessly) on Albums.
Made even worse as not a minute (or a Euro) has been spent on thinking about what happens when it is done.


Is the only 'point' because they 'want to?'

telecaster

Maybe I've digressed a little.

Certainly making an album, or even ''getting signed'' does not indicate the end of a task, its merely a portal to pass through on the way to the far more daunting and difficult challenge of selling the thing.

As will be no news to anyone on this particular forum, bands can now make self funded albums in a way that was impossible 15 years ago due to the proliferation of recording access and the shift from hardware to software.

If a new band has not caught anyone's attention with a single, then they are unlikely to be able to do it with an album. The lads in the midlands might be better served by working on their good songs until they are great songs rather than putting together 12 songs that are 'alright'. But then again maybe they are just married to the idea of ''making an album'' regardless of whether anyone buys it or not.

Each act will break through in its own way, and everyone will immediately do the exact same thing in a bid to squash through that same door....I wonder how many offers for female backing singers Damian Rice gets a week!

PaulBrewer

telecaster wrote: »

Each act will break through in its own way, and everyone will immediately do the exact same thing in a bid to squash through that same door....

The problem usually is they're actually no where near a door ... or even a window ....



So ... what to do ?

telecaster

PaulBrewer wrote: »

So ... what to do ?

Be great, or be lucky. Ideally both.

PaulBrewer

telecaster wrote: »

Be great, or be lucky. Ideally both.

Definitely Both

BumbleB

Seziertisch wrote: »

My brother went to see the Chilli Peppers at both Slane and the Phoenix Park a few years ago. The Slane gig was great (I was there myself) and I wouldn't be a mad fan of them, but my bro said the Phoenix Park show was a non-event. The Strokes ... bloated from drink, disinterested and apathetic ... though for some reason the audience loved it (they were at the height of their "cool" powers at the time).

I think Slane is a real bad indicator of a gig because your usually tanked to the gills with cans . Even I was singing Oasis songs at Slane and I hate them !. Beer mind control .

ogy

yeh, like you don't have to be a shred lord (in fact that would the last thing i would want you to be) but most great bands were pretty good musicians even if the genre is not particularly known for its musicianship e.g. the clash/blur

i think its a massive mistake to think if you invest loads of money in an album your gonna "make it", but i love the idea of making an album purely for its own sake, to stand as a piece of music/art whatever.

Rockshamrover

telecaster wrote: »

Be great, or be lucky. Ideally both.

Luck is the deciding factor.

If you're mediocre and lucky you can be successful.

Being great is no guarantee of success.

If you are lucky for long enough you can become great.

jtsuited

just on the david kitt point.

the Big Romance was released by Blanco y Negro and already was being regarded as the most uber-cool record of the century before it even came out. Jeff Travers from rough trade was pushing that record to all the right people.

I still think it's his best album. It was in a time before every quirky singer-songwriter had figured out how to use drum machines (or even record for that matter). Artistically it worked and the sales reflected that i think.

Then Square 1 was released on WEA (Warners). Square 1 was a very risky album to make and production wise was a lot cleaner and 'better'. But it didn't suit him. Having a massive label release an album like that was always a bad idea. Sales weren't quite up to the Big Romance and he was dropped by Warners along with a load of other artists in a restructuring exercise.

Nowadays he's releasing the stuff himself on his own label and has not got 1 tenth the profile he had in around 2001/2002. To compare sales figures from now and then is a little bit misleading when you take a whole load of other factors into account.

Seziertisch

BumbleB wrote: »

I think Slane is a real bad indicator of a gig because your usually tanked to the gills with cans . Even I was singing Oasis songs at Slane and I hate them !. Beer mind control .

I don't drink at gigs, it takes the edge off my concentration. I genuinely think they were on fire that day. Queens of the Stone Age had been great earlier on in the day, and I thought they would be the highlight, but not so. In fact the Chillis gig was released as a DVD so anyone who wasn't there can check it out for themselves.

BumbleB

Seziertisch wrote: »

I don't drink at gigs, it takes the edge off my concentration. I genuinely think they were on fire that day. Queens of the Stone Age had been great earlier on in the day, and I thought they would be the highlight, but not so. In fact the Chillis gig was released as a DVD so anyone who wasn't there can check it out for themselves.

fair enough , most people(not excluding myself) at slane were hammered .I do remember the prodigy were excellent.

jimi_t

Seziertisch wrote: »

In fact the Chillis gig was released as a DVD so anyone who wasn't there can check it out for themselves.

Flea playing the trombone, the 5 minute 'OLE OLE OLE' session Absolutely stunning gig, esp. the fireworks at the very end. They got complacent after though, especially in the later summer gigs they started doing in Marley Park.

old gregg

yea but PJ Harvey was by far the hottest act on stage that day

gerborg

I think bands almost have to go down the album route! Your not going to get very far or make much money playing your own stuff around Dublin (don't know what its like in other part of the country) I've seen some bands over the years gigging a few times a week to relatively decent crowds but they never seem to get further than this. I reckon the best thing to do once you have a bit of interest is to take your chance on recording an album. If you go down the EP route and release a single, if the single does get decent airplay and sales you need to have something to follow it up quickly while the interest is still there. I also think that a record label won't look anywhere near a band that doesn't already have a decent fanbase, a good live show and an album finished/in the process of being made cause they're not going to fork out on this! They want the finished product so they can make their quick buck IMO!

PaulBrewer

gerborg wrote: »

I think bands almost have to go down the album route! Your not going to get very far or make much money playing your own stuff around Dublin !

Ger - you're not going to make ANY money making an album no one wants either.... in fact you'll most likely have a big Jack'n'Jill .... oh, and the attic full of CDs.

Record Companies are no longer in the equation at all at this stage.

gerborg

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Ger - you're not going to make ANY money making an album no one wants either.... in fact you'll most likely have a big Jack'n'Jill .... oh, and the attic full of CDs.

Record Companies are no longer in the equation at all at this stage.

Yeah I know deep down this is true but if ya still have the "dream" i think you need to be the full product so these "music companies" can make money off you. But your right there's no point doing it unless you're very good and you have a market already.
Although I suppose if Lily Allen is to be listened to even established acts are only making records so they can tour?

PaulBrewer

gerborg wrote: »

Yeah I know deep down this is true but if ya still have the "dream" i think you need to be the full product so these "music companies" can make money off you. But your right there's no point doing it unless you're very good and you have a market already.
Although I suppose if Lily Allen is to be listened to even established acts are only making records so they can tour?

Deep Down is what bands need to listen to.

The ones who succeed do.

gerborg

PaulBrewer wrote: »

The problem usually is they're actually no where near a door ... or even a window ....



So ... what to do ?

So we're back to what to do?!!!:)
The last answer was to be great and be lucky!
What if you genuinely were the former but were not the latter?! Any ideas of good strategies within this business?

jimi_t

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Interestingly too is the fact that our brothers in the Electronic music scene have adapted to this scenario much better than bands.

In traditional bands the touring was used to promote the album, in DJ'ing and 'live' electronica the album is pretty much used to promote the touring.

DJs/Producers will make peanuts off of even wildly successful singles/albums but can make top dollar on gigs off the back of this. Also, it's usually only one or two people compared to 4+ for a band, and transport costs/backline/riders are minimal so everyone makes more moolah.

PaulBrewer

gerborg wrote: »

So we're back to what to do?!!!:)
The last answer was to be great and be lucky!
What if you genuinely were the former but were not the latter?! Any ideas of good strategies within this business?

You can make the latter - the former is with the Gods.

(there's little evidence of them existing either)

madtheory

There is no secret strategy gerborg!

It's simple. If you can't pack a venue after doing a good year's worth of touring and co headliners with similar acts, then no one likes your music. So there's no point making an album. Don't take it personally, just try something else- either a different style, or another job entirely.

In a way, gigs are like market research. You wouldn't try selling a product until you were sure people wanted to buy it, would you?

Instead, some bands complain that people don't appreciate original music, and carry on deluded.

That said, it's nice to make an album as a piece of art, as long as you're not under any delusions of making a career out of it, and you enjoy the process.

PaulBrewer

jtsuited wrote: »

j
Nowadays he's releasing the stuff himself on his own label and has not got 1 tenth the profile he had in around 2001/2002. To compare sales figures from now and then is a little bit misleading when you take a whole load of other factors into account.

It was Kitt himself who made that observation.

PaulBrewer

madtheory wrote: »

There is no secret strategy gerborg!

It's simple. If you can't pack a venue after doing a good year's worth of touring and co headliners with similar acts, then no one likes your music. So there's no point making an album. Don't take it personally, just try something else- either a different style, or another job entirely.

In a way, gigs are like market research. You wouldn't try selling a product until you were sure people wanted to buy it, would you?

Instead, some bands complain that people don't appreciate original music, and carry on deluded.

That said, it's nice to make an album as a piece of art, as long as you're not under any delusions of making a career out of it, and you enjoy the process.

Mad , how dare you say most bands are shyt ?

gerborg

madtheory wrote: »

There is no secret strategy gerborg!

It's simple. If you can't pack a venue after doing a good year's worth of touring and co headliners with similar acts, then no one likes your music. .

I think there's more to it than this, I remember one night going to The Button Factory to see a band whom a friend had recommended cause they were friend of friend kinda thing. They were a Dublin band getting a little bit of media and a good bit of hype around the "Dublin scene". The Button factory was packed that night but I couldn't believe how mediocore this band was.
After they finished I went over to Dorans! to see another friend of a friends band. Dorans was empty and this was a Friday! They were playing to the sound engineer basically. Who was the better band? The Dorans band by about a mile IMO!
You could argue that maybe my taste in music doesn't represent your typical gig going demographic, but I honestly think if you could somehow do a survey and play each bands music to people the large majority would go for the Dorans band.
So why was the Button Factory band the more successful in this example? They were much better at the other stuff that has to be done. They had an "image", they had created a bit of hype, they were very hard working. Why was Dorans empty for the other band? They're probably idealists who think the writing and playing great tunes is enough! Which of the 2 bands did I go to see again?? The Button Factory band for the simple reason that I'd have a better night going to see them in terms of the social outing.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that bands have to do a lot more than they might of done in the past to be anyways successful. Your music can't do the talking, ya gotta do some of that yourself!!:)

madtheory

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Mad , how dare you say most bands are shyt ?

Are you trying to wind me up?

telecaster

I think the core point that any act can take from the article and beyond the article is that the creative process can not end in the studio if you have any ambition of getting the music noticed.

Creativity in getting your music out there is the new game. Ash have won some media attention for their creativity in how they are releasing/promoting their music. They've got a headstart on any of their peers who currently have a similar sized following because they are getting media attention and consequently the opportunity to get new fans. Ultimately the quality of their new music will dictate how successful that will be, but they certainly have the upper hand on anyone else releasing a single that week.

So whether its Starbucks, A-Z singles, Free USB Keyrings with your EP already loaded, your CD enclosed with every Christmas card you send this year....whatever it is, it's got to get you attention.

We can all be creative with our musical tools to varying degrees, and admittedly the image of musician or artist may not sit comfortably with that of a shrewdly calculating marketing/promotions/pr operator. But unless you can convince such a pr guy that you have something worth selling, then that job of selling belongs to the band.

It is, as Derek Sivers, once said....the MUSIC-BUSINESS. Thats Music and Business. You'll need to be proficient at both to do anything that sustains itself.

PaulBrewer

telecaster wrote: »

I think the core point that any act can take from the article and beyond the article is that the creative process can not end in the studio if you have any ambition of getting the music noticed.

Creativity in getting your music out there is the new game. Ash have won some media attention for their creativity in how they are releasing/promoting their music. They've got a headstart on any of their peers who currently have a similar sized following because they are getting media attention and consequently the opportunity to get new fans. Ultimately the quality of their new music will dictate how successful that will be, but they certainly have the upper hand on anyone else releasing a single that week.

So whether its Starbucks, A-Z singles, Free USB Keyrings with your EP already loaded, your CD enclosed with every Christmas card you send this year....whatever it is, it's got to get you attention.

We can all be creative with our musical tools to varying degrees, and admittedly the image of musician or artist may not sit comfortably with that of a shrewdly calculating marketing/promotions/pr operator. But unless you can convince such a pr guy that you have something worth selling, then that job of selling belongs to the band.

It is, as Derek Sivers, once said....the MUSIC-BUSINESS. Thats Music and Business. You'll need to be proficient at both to do anything that sustains itself.

Tele, are you Seamus Heaney ? You're certainly a Poet ....

Even though what you say is obvious to anyone who isn't an eejit.

telecaster

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Tele, are you Seamus Heaney ?

no, but I'm considering forming a Heaney tribute act

that just gave me another thought....

Heaney has a poem called Digging which talks of how he now emulates his forbearers by using his pen as his tool as they used a shovel before him. He was ''digging with his pen''. He adapted in a new environment. That is the challenge to us all. The music business has never been so equitable. It's arguably never been easier to break through.

PaulBrewer

telecaster wrote: »

Heaney has a poem called Digging which talks of how he now emulates his forbearers by using his pen as his tool as they used a shovel before him. He was ''digging with his pen''.

Sounds like a load of pretentious bolloqs to be honest - you'll be a long time filling a sand bag with a pen

Rockshamrover

I have to say guys, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

It was never easy to make music that people want to buy. No matter what era you look at, only a tiny percentage of bands/artistes made any money. The ones that did usually got ripped off anyway.

Enjoy your music for what it is. I wouldn't recommend changing what you do in the hope of getting a deal. That's assuming you like what you do.

Aren't Elbow an example of a band that stuck to their guns and made money eventually. Was making money the driving force for them? I doubt it.

The music business is not just about selling records and concert tickets. I reckon more money is made in the music business from selling instruments, DAWs, outboard gear and plugins to people who will never make a penny from it.

PaulBrewer

Rockshamrover wrote: »

I have to say guys, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

It was never easy to make music that people want to buy. No matter what era you look at, only a tiny percentage of bands/artistes made any money. The ones that did usually got ripped off anyway.

Enjoy your music for what it is. I wouldn't recommend changing what you do in the hope of getting a deal. That's assuming you like what you do.

Aren't Elbow an example of a band that stuck to their guns and made money eventually. Was making money the driving force for them? I doubt it.

The music business is not just about selling records and concert tickets. I reckon more money is made in the music business from selling instruments, DAWs, outboard gear and plugins to people who will never make a penny from it.

The fuss is about the idea that a lot of bands don't follow your suggestions
- that they do aspire to make an 'album' - a format that is failing fast and probably has no future.

It's that wasted effort we're talking about combined with unrealistic expectations.

madtheory

Elbow were always making money. Cottage industry. They're just making a lot more now than before they won the award. Plenty of other bands in the UK doing that- Ozric Tentacles, XTC/ Any Partridge, Marillion, etc. etc.

I like the Gift Grub Séamus Heaney quote "Standing errect in the field, like a giant human potato"

PaulBrewer

madtheory wrote: »

Elbow were always making money. Cottage industry. They're just making a lot more now than before they won the award. Plenty of other bands in the UK doing that- Ozric Tentacles, XTC/ Any Partridge, Marillion, etc. etc.

I like the Gift Grub Séamus Heaney quote "Standing errect in the field, like a giant human potato"

And our own Bell X1 and the Frames were making cash in the US and Australia touring ....

Speaking of Cottage Industries the Cranberries Tour will pay for their shopping next year .

Rockshamrover

PaulBrewer wrote: »

The fuss is about the idea that a lot of bands don't follow your suggestions
- that they do aspire to make an 'album' - a format that is failing fast and probably has no future.

It's that wasted effort we're talking about.

I suppose it all depends on why they're making the album. If it's an attempt to make money or just break even then yes it's 99% likely to be a waste of time and money.

If it's a way to express yourself and communicate your ideas to whoever wants to listen and you can afford it, then it serves some purpose.

Does the album format work today? No. Modern times. Too many other distractions for your potential audience. There's probably a very high proportion of people under a certain age who have never listened to a complete album.

What's the solution? Make friends in the film/games industry and get your songs on the soundtrack of a blockbuster movie/game. Or go on X Factor:D