March 25, 2008

Have Albums Become Irrelevant?

by TreyShelton in Opinion, Music, Entertainment

The Smashing Pumpkins just revealed that they will be abandoning the album format in favor of a less formal 3-4 song EP approach. “Anyone under the age of 24 just buys songs,” Corgan explained. “It’s just in our best interest to release blocks of songs.”

This format makes sense as singles have far replaced albums in digital sales. Why should an artist invest so much energy in a 10-15 song album on which they will be judged for the next 1-2 years? As album production costs have reduced substantially, artists could now start releasing new EPs every three to six months constantly feeding fans bite-sized doses of new material. An artist could even take bigger chances with new musicals directions since fans know they will have new material coming out a few months later.

Sales wise this could make even more sense. Fans could be more willing to pay $1-$2 for an EP versus $9 for an album. A subscription model could also work where fans can sign up for an entire year’s worth of releases as part of an overall fan club. Brands could come on to sponsor the EP with the songs in the brand’s commercials and the mp3’s only available at a special brand micro-site.

Concept albums are great if you are a band that can create a cohesive 45 minutes of music, but with an increasingly distracted audience would your fans ever be able to fully sit still to listen to it?

12 Responses to “Have Albums Become Irrelevant?”

tobiaswright
Posted from: 168.238.128.4
March 25th, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Yes, yes, yes. I was thinking a while ago, this is exactly the way things need to go. It keeps the ban relevant, fresh and response from the band’s fans could be reflected in the next release. Rapid development for music.

I actually think in edition to the EP format bands should release singles with a “B” side.

At any rate, bravo to SP
Rob Myers
Posted from: 80.3.251.85
March 25th, 2008 at 1:18 pm

EPs were always cooler than albums. Except double albums. A good up and coming band can fill EPs without breaking their stride. A good established band can fill a double album. A single album just fits the recording industry’s fill-a-cd-then-tour-for-two-years business model, not fans’ desires or musicians’ ambitions. Abandoning this is reform, not innovation.
Martin
Posted from: 209.155.84.178
March 25th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Actually, the Raconteurs’s approach states the opposite. Albums still have a lot of relevancy today and there are many artists who wish that the consumer wasn’t able to split their albums into individual units. I would argue that Billy Corigan just doesn’t have the creative chops to put out a quality album anymore, thus his only choice is the EP.
Ryan
Posted from: 216.115.180.7
March 25th, 2008 at 3:05 pm

It’s not like it’s an either/or choice, folks…Billy boy can always still produce an album down the road if he sees fit. Or manages to muster the “creative chops.”

I think the point of this is not “abandonment of the album”…but rather that fans could very well end up with an increased frequency of exposure to their favorite bands (through, say, quarterly EPs) promoting longer relevancy for the bands and (perhaps) a deeper interaction with each released recording.
Scott
Posted from: 38.114.71.19
March 25th, 2008 at 3:44 pm

i hate singles and EPs. I really only purchase albums because I need a bigger picture. I can’t stand being lured with a single only to later find all their songs sound the same…or worse.

I agree with Ryan…it’s not like you have to have it one way…i just personally feel a larger scope of work speaks louder than a catchy single or EP.

sPb
Jason Gingold
Posted from: 68.178.28.242
March 25th, 2008 at 4:39 pm

I have to say I’m saddened by Billy Corgan and others here. In fact, I’m disappointed in all forms of the watering down the arts. And whereas, yes, by looking solely at where sales trends go, it is understandable if an artist wants to cater to releasing singles. But several important facts need to be noted:

1. singles will sell if they are good. if there are 10 great songs on an album, they will all sell. if there are 0, none will. the same holds true for an EP or a single. if the music is good, people will want it.

2. deciding that fans don’t have the attention span for a full length album is the exact mentality that will create a society in which that is true. it would be like HBO creating commercials rather than television programming, or a playwright writing a sketch.

3. the most lauded bands on the market today are still heralded for their albums, not a great single. it is the difference between Flo Rida, who will (IMHO) not be heard of this time next year and Vampire Weekend, whose sophomore album will be highly anticipated.

ok. too much written here. it’s supposed to be a comment, not an entry. my bad.

-jG
Smashing Pumpkins Smashing Tradition « MyMediaMusings
Posted from: 72.233.2.48
March 25th, 2008 at 6:08 pm

[…] PSFK points […]
josh
Posted from: 69.181.0.105
March 26th, 2008 at 10:24 am

Smashing Pumpkins might prove that albums aren’t necessary, but that doesn’t mean they’re irrelevant.

Would Radiohead’s pay-what-you-want release have worked as well if it was a single or an EP instead of an album? I don’t think so - it would not have seemed significant enough.

In any case, does Smashing Pumpkins even have fans under the age of 24?
TreyShelton
Posted from: 69.201.186.181
March 26th, 2008 at 11:09 am

I think the real point here is escaping the album format. Why should a release be 10-15 songs lasting roughly an hour?

I love the Radiohead album, but I rarely listen to more than 3-4 select song off the album which are usually mixed in to a larger playlist.

If Rahiohead released an EP every 4 months with 2-3 new songs and perhaps a remix or video attached as well, I would be paying those guys $2-3 every 4 months like clockwork. That’s far better than the one time $6 I gave them back in October that has to last them until their next album in perhaps 2009.

The main holdback I see in advising any artist to release an entire album is that if that album doesn’t connect with fans then the band has wasted 1-2 years of market time. The album sales fall, the tour falters, and fans disconnect thinking the artists best days are behind them. If instead they are releasing new material on a regular basis, they can keep a dialog going with their fans. If a certain EP doesn’t connect, they instantly know and can change direction for the next release in 3-4 months time.

Communication is obviously one of the keys to business these days and if you only artistically communicate with your fans every 1-2 years in one big spurt, then you are missing the whole advantage of web 2.0. EP’s seem like the easiest route for a more regular communication, but if your band can crank out more material then go for it.
-jG
Posted from: 68.178.28.242
March 26th, 2008 at 12:56 pm

trey,

while i agree with you that the advantage of communication is 2.0’s great offering, i must disagree with the premise that 2.0 communication is best used by the musician’s ability to respond and adjust to fan reaction. i wonder about the success rates of musicians, no, let’s go broader, of artists developing material across any medium based on the desires and inklings of mass audiences. consider any piece of your favorite fine art, literature, film, or (yes) music and ask yourself if having instant feedback and opinion would have helped or hindered the result you have come to appreciate.

you raise important points about time-saving and time-wasting, but i would argue that the anticipation of what’s to come is an essential part of the joy of modern music. i also believe that the “feedback and feedbag” model you’re advocating would create overexposure, quickly wear out a band’s welcome, and make an attempt to democratize the creative process in an environment in which having a distinct point of view, sound, style, and a healthy dose of experimentation and growth are critical. i continue to fail to see where in your argument you consider the actual artistry of the musician.
Greg Rollett
Posted from: 204.215.37.130
March 27th, 2008 at 12:25 pm

This model makes sense for people with affordable and consistent studio access. Hip-hop artists can pump out songs quickly and the quality is up to par if they are being released online. Why not have fans pay $5/month or $20/year and get access to all your tunes, videos, etc. Great way to keep money in house.
The Record Industry Revisited « If not, toss it.
Posted from: 76.74.248.174
April 1st, 2008 at 7:00 pm

[…] Record Industry Revisited Have album’s become irrelevant? This is an interesting extension on that last post. If you ask me, I don’t think albums are […]