![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Listening to Synchronicity has reminded me how good the 2nd side of that album is. I first heard it on vinyl (my father, for all his flaws, had pretty good taste in music, and he left his record collection). In order, it's Synchronicity II, Every Breath You Take, King of Pain, Wrapped Around Your Finger, and Tea in the Sahara. (Don't be confused by the CD track listing, as I was initially. Murder by Numbers was NOT at the end of the original LP, and I think the album works so much better without it. Tea in the Sahara is a perfect closing track.) In fact, I think it's one of the best album sides ever.
I have a theory (aside from the theory that every person capable of semi-abstract thought has a Theory of Something) that the advent of the compact disc totally changed pop music. With LPs, or even tapes, albums were divided into two halves. With a CD, it's a distinct whole.
The length of albums was also affected. I can't find a single length for 33 1/3 rpm LPs (other than the vague "usually contains 40-50 minutes of music"), but albums have definitely gotten longer in the CD era. Bands rarely release the just- longer-than-an-EP records they would've put out 30 years ago. Led Zeppelin IV only has 8 songs. If they had gone to Atlantic with that nowadays, there's a good chance they would have been told to go back to the studio. Labels want to justify the $19 they're charging for a CD. Look at what happened to Linkin Park. Meteora is only 36 minutes, and one store in DC is refusing to stock it (because of the length and the fact that it's priced $1 higher than the regular list price for new CDs).
Of course, it's almost impossible to do a double LP now either. Artists have one option: To fit into the full-length CD category.
So what we get is shittier music (more filler), and at a higher price. Yet the record companies continue to blame all their problems on piracy. It's true, piracy is up. But maybe, just maybe, part of the reason people aren't buying is because record companies treat fans like crap. If they put out better music and were more creative with delivery and pricing, maybe we'd buy it. I don't want to spend $18.98 on a CD with 2 good songs.
Even if the music were better, they still haven't really clued in to the way the Internet has changed things. They think they can go on with a delivery model that was designed for a time when people went into stores and browsed through records. In most other retail sectors, if you saw that your customers were exhibiting a clear preference for buying goods in a particular way, you'd look to meet that demand in the market. It's that or lose customers to the competition. The logical response would be to find a method for digital delivery on a per-song basis. Instead, they spend years bickering about how to do it, while the competition's boat gets further and further from shore. Yes, that boat is carrying stolen goods. You can whine about it all you like. It won't do an ounce of good. The more you try to chase it, the further it will get into waters where there's no legal jurisdiction or recourse. (In this analogy, this would mean a totally decentralized file sharing system that ISPs would not be able to block--probably achievable at some point.) And as long as there's no real alternative to the USS Piracy, customers won't feel very much guilt about it. The industry offers no real "try before you buy" process. Radio plays a fairly small subset of available tracks, and singles are incredibly overpriced. There's very little beyond that, especially if you just want a track that was released some time ago and is no longer in regular airplay.
Record companies, though, are used to being a fairly small group with good control over the market. They've spent decades being able to dictate the terms. Instead of adapting to a changed market, they've chosen to try to reassert control. Despite evidence that this is failing (decreased sales), their response continues to be that the problem is with everyone else.
I have a theory (aside from the theory that every person capable of semi-abstract thought has a Theory of Something) that the advent of the compact disc totally changed pop music. With LPs, or even tapes, albums were divided into two halves. With a CD, it's a distinct whole.
The length of albums was also affected. I can't find a single length for 33 1/3 rpm LPs (other than the vague "usually contains 40-50 minutes of music"), but albums have definitely gotten longer in the CD era. Bands rarely release the just- longer-than-an-EP records they would've put out 30 years ago. Led Zeppelin IV only has 8 songs. If they had gone to Atlantic with that nowadays, there's a good chance they would have been told to go back to the studio. Labels want to justify the $19 they're charging for a CD. Look at what happened to Linkin Park. Meteora is only 36 minutes, and one store in DC is refusing to stock it (because of the length and the fact that it's priced $1 higher than the regular list price for new CDs).
Of course, it's almost impossible to do a double LP now either. Artists have one option: To fit into the full-length CD category.
So what we get is shittier music (more filler), and at a higher price. Yet the record companies continue to blame all their problems on piracy. It's true, piracy is up. But maybe, just maybe, part of the reason people aren't buying is because record companies treat fans like crap. If they put out better music and were more creative with delivery and pricing, maybe we'd buy it. I don't want to spend $18.98 on a CD with 2 good songs.
Even if the music were better, they still haven't really clued in to the way the Internet has changed things. They think they can go on with a delivery model that was designed for a time when people went into stores and browsed through records. In most other retail sectors, if you saw that your customers were exhibiting a clear preference for buying goods in a particular way, you'd look to meet that demand in the market. It's that or lose customers to the competition. The logical response would be to find a method for digital delivery on a per-song basis. Instead, they spend years bickering about how to do it, while the competition's boat gets further and further from shore. Yes, that boat is carrying stolen goods. You can whine about it all you like. It won't do an ounce of good. The more you try to chase it, the further it will get into waters where there's no legal jurisdiction or recourse. (In this analogy, this would mean a totally decentralized file sharing system that ISPs would not be able to block--probably achievable at some point.) And as long as there's no real alternative to the USS Piracy, customers won't feel very much guilt about it. The industry offers no real "try before you buy" process. Radio plays a fairly small subset of available tracks, and singles are incredibly overpriced. There's very little beyond that, especially if you just want a track that was released some time ago and is no longer in regular airplay.
Record companies, though, are used to being a fairly small group with good control over the market. They've spent decades being able to dictate the terms. Instead of adapting to a changed market, they've chosen to try to reassert control. Despite evidence that this is failing (decreased sales), their response continues to be that the problem is with everyone else.