Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
you are 100% wrong,
read this to see why the things you have observed happen happen.
there's not quite as much mythology in it as you like.
the album was conceived by RCA
you're missing the reason they did it, which was the whole point of my post. economies of scale buddy, its more economical. I'm not 100% wrong, you 100% missed what I was saying.
Speaking for my own level of projects it is completely impossible to work on this level with singles. cold hard economical reality of 21st century for the genre and level I work in. you can tell me it isn't so but you'd be pulling it out of your arse if you did..I think the fact that people are making more music than ever rather obviously counters that argument,
its got practically nothing to do with what I'm talking about,
I was simply outlining the economics behind making music from my experience. if it seems illogically to you that's fine, maybe its in the way I explained it, but its one of the considerations I make when I get involved with an artist and from many of the labels I've talked to its a consideration they all make to. Artist do say, we want to make an ep or a single and there is little business motivation to do them these days. Unless that one hit wonder is staring you right in the face you have to go about it from the a fore described route.
I don't make singles purely for manufacturing cost issues. pure common sense. not a hard concept to get your head around.
I notice arch hill don't put out singles or eps either.the reason people do make singles or albums is cos their artist does have one good moment and really can't come up with the goods convincingly to expand on that, not because it is a better format for them to make their money off. If the choice of an album of similar material was there it would be taken. if it was a lame arse single it wouldn't be made, the only reason to do a single is "I have one singular good idea and otherwise I'm crap, sorry"
.electronic music for example.
gee, one of the lowest overhead genre's around. now you know why. cos it cost em fuck all to record it, those costs didn't have to be recouped later in the process and they can opt for the media that favours them, ie an album of electronic is pretty hard to sustain, although kraftwerk did ok with it,
The fact is, whether you like it or not, the album is increasingly marginalised as a format
Its got nothing to do with me liking it. I was simply outlining the business logic behind an album. The reasons it makes sense, the costs it's trying to cover, how it's trying to do, and why. It's not rocket science, it's text book economics, you'd know this if you hadn't been bunking class.
it's given the industry some new vitality, whether you can see it or not.
jesus, are we back to the broad sweeping generalisations already?
care to back up your claim which seems to be that the demise of the album has caused this mysterious new vitality you've personally detected in your circle of experience, far be it for you to speak as though your experience represents everyone else's?There is so much music being made at the moment and so much of it is so very fucking exciting (is 2009 shaping up to be a huge year for new sounds or what..lots of people seem to be saying it is, myself included)
That must be cos your hip and on the street. Your statement is bollocks cos it's so much a matter of perspective and personal opinion. surely the time to see 2009 as a boom year for creativity is in like 10 years? your statement reeks of industry hype, "The best band eva!!!", yeah right, let me think about that for a couple of years before I agree with you.
just cos people are making and releasing a swag load of music doesn't mean it's a good year for it.
look at the mid 80's they were terrible compared to the years that came before them, but that's all a matter of personal taste which you seem to continually let colour your argument.as for you doom and gloom statement I wasn't preaching any in my budget discussions,
I was trying to explain to anyone who cares to read it a little bit of what has to be considered behind the scenes of making a hi, or any song recording.
you're in a position with what you do now to come in at the end of the process and cherry pick, and make your exorbitant profits off the top, but that is not the only process going on. It might be for you, but its certainly not for many other participants in the process. -
This adds what to the conversation, really?
thanks keir
just ignore him. I find it relatively easy. -
like hell you know a lot about 'language' and its 'possible origins'
-
should never have been forced to make an album
and they weren't forced.
They thought you actually liked their music, all of it, not just their highly entertaining crowd pleaser. everyone's here to stay till the tide of fashion turns its back on them. OMC can walk up and grab the award for that as much as anyone. -
Has it changed yet?
no, but it must.
-
But you miss the point,
or you miss mine, which I'll restate for you, and I think you're even making this point yourself.
your reflex action to argue against every word I say seems to have kicked in. i've got an excuse for wasting time arguing on the internet (its too friggin cold to go outside, but you live in paradise)i'm saying lets not get too excited about the singles music model. its very hard, one might say exceptionally to cover the costs of a total project from the sale of one song, not impossible as your excellent example of one of the best selling singles nz has ever produced demonstrates, but you really must agree that these are exceptions.
Off the top of my head I can think of a dozen or more from recent history that have more than covered costs from the various returns from a single.
wow, a whole dozen, out of the many thousand music projects in recent history. That's hardly the foundation for a sustainable industry.
I'm not sure what your point is.
Are you arguing that the music industry moving over to a track at a time model is a much more stable way of operating and that everyone is doing it?Many acts should never have been forced to make an album, but the system required it, because the it needs those returns from album sales to cover the financial structure of record labels,
nice dig at the evil label again but its a bit short sighted.
it wasn't the record label that needed to be sustained, its the whole process of making music. you could take the label out of the picture and you'd still have similar issues.
To make those one hit cherry picked wonders you have to make a lot of muffins. You must know this yourself. some times the hit single doesn't reveal itself till after the lot has been recorded. some songs transfer well to recorded medium, some don't, some shine brighter than they ever did live. It's the way of the process and you must know this from your involvement with bands.
The big single shines through, great, sales, wonderful, bills to pay, yep, every single one of those tracks that didn't make the journey to hit single have to be paid for. it's a project expense. it would be nice to weed out the chaff and only do the hits but it simply doesn't work that way. I'm sure you know this.
The album concept didn't come about because some evil label thought it would be a good way to cover their cocaine parties, it came about and continues till today because the manufacturing cost of making a one song disc is the same as making a a full album. people are only willing to pay a certain amount for one song. lets say $5. if it costs you $3 to make that single and the shop takes $2.25 to sell it then you make -.0.25.
If its an album then you sell it for $17 (or $12.85 if you have a distributor) and keep the $14 (or $9.85). Economies of scale. 5th form economics.
you're going to troop out that well worn cliche that you only like one song on an album and that's cos you like talentless happy accident bands who produce hits like monkeys writing Shakespeare on typewriters (I kid, you'e too much of a music addict to be that shallow), but by my argument the cost of producing that one song isn't the cost of buying one single, its the cost of the project, which no ones going to pay for one song so they get fed an album instead to make the pill easier to swallow.
Luckily I like mostly bands that fill 60 mins with ease so I very rarely feel ripped off with the album concept.Economies of scale aside for manufacturing there are still economies of scale operating for producing hits, even for promotion them.
Now yes, downloads have changed the manufacturing model, it can work for one hit wonders who don't produce any chaff on the way, but it's a much less stable model to operate under.
are we disagreeing on that? -
they've had a variable pricing structure for about six months now.
Yes, but you understand my point.
in all new releases for one week they didn't all cost the same to make. allowing for discounting for promotional effect the prices don't vary. same with retail, its $24.95, $29.95, $34.95 or import.
They're pretty standardised units, and mostly no one bucks the trend.Where as project costs vary greatly.
A reasonable one hit wonder can also cover costs pretty quickly.
you're calling how bizarre a reasonable one hit wonder?
If I called it pretty exceptional its still a massive understatement by nz standards.truth is you have to not just be a hit but absolutely out of the ball park to kick into the territory needed to cover the rest of the project, which is why the artists strive for the album model.
What are the top 5 singles that have done as well from nz kicking it internationally?.
don't dream its over
How bizarre -
xnet now filtering hotfile links.
They seem really committed to getting in the way of pirate material transfers -
The problem is, the record labels, big and small, but especially the big ones, have learned to reply on me spending that $25 but I no longer do and thus the economics that define their very existence are threatened by the fact I don't.
Acknowledged and agreed.
what often isn't understood is that that one track did not cost $1.59 to make. It probably cost a hell of a lot more and that cost was evened out over some less expensive tracks grouped together in an economical package called an album. Some abuse the system and offer some really crap filler, some aren't up to the challenge of producing a whole album of good stuff and some completely deliver on ever single track, that doesn't negate that the cost of the project which spawned that one song you like is not $1.59, The album model helped make that fact easier to swallow. Even the ep was a good way to scrape a little more together.
luckily most of the bands I follow deliver again and again.What are the options for those producing one hit wonders?
raise the price of that one song to reflect the actual total cost of producing it?
I attended a price optimization seminar and the lecture said a very interesting thing,
not all customers are the same, so why treat them as such.
Itunes one price fits all method hides and straight jackets a very diverse process. we've also allowed our retail models to be conformed by the same thing. not all media costs the same to produce so why price it as such. convenience and simplicity etc sure, but it really does make it difficult to budget for projects which each are different. -
but from a multi billion dollar corporation's pov
I guess that's part of the problem, I'm not interested in the picture from their point of view, its completely irrelevant to me what they feel, I look at it from the huge growing independent point of view. you gave us the figures some time back re profit to indies, I'm unsure on a products released basis how much indies release compared to the major 4 but I'd hazzard a guess of 10000 albums a huge percentage are indie based, granted not hugely profitable but its worth noting.
tainting your view on what 4 big corporates do is a mistake. its part ofthe picture for sure but it is not "Music" capital m in its entirety.