Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
IMO it isn't so much that the powers that be don't want to release music that will inspire people to protest the shit music that is being released, it is that the business model has changed so it has become harder for the record companies to make money. When I was a kid it was all about the album. Labels signed acts, put out albums and helped the artists build up an audience by promoting their music. If the band hit and started selling a lot of albums the label profited by selling those albums. Now the industry is based on the single. If an artists hits instead of selling a buying the full album fans just buy a song or two that they like. Add in streaming services like Pandora and Spotify and Youtube and there are a lot of people who don't pay for any music. On top of that piracy and the ease of downloading full albums and you have an industry that can't afford to spend 2-5 years developing an act.
These days it is not uncommon for an act to get signed and release a single. if the single does well the act then gets to record a full album. If not, they get dumped before they even make an album.
|
I totally agree. When iTunes first came out I did my best to raise holy hell about reducing the product down to $0.99. It undercut artist development, de-valued the entire product (music) and set in an era like we have today.
But the 'protests' I meant were people marching in the street to stop a war, an unfair economic policy or the reach of Big Government. Music was a soundtrack to those protests so of course it had to be stopped. It was in the corporate interest to do so.
But yes, the biz model changed indeed and now we have all these crappy singles.