It may be archaic and even somewhat quaint to younger readers, but musicians used to spend a long time deciding the make-up of an album. Deciding what songs were selected wasn’t simply about which ones were best; many acts often left storming tracks go out as b-sides because they didn’t fit the concept of the album as a whole. Oasis’ ‘Masterplan’, R.E.M.’s ‘Ages of You’ and The Smiths magnum opus ‘How Soon Is Now?’ all made their way to the public as back-up to a single rather than an album track.
Similarly, it was important to get the track listing right. The album had to flow, it couldn’t be loaded up with the singles at the front, it had to be organic. Why? Because the audience would be listening to it as a whole, as one collective work of art.
Now in these days of music being consumed by the individual jukebox that is the mp3 player, that idea no longer seems to be a consideration. People listen to tracks. Does the album as a concept have any relevance now?
Guy Garvey thinks so. The Elbow singer has called for artists to be given the right to choose whether tracks on their albums are split up and sold individually on digital services such as iTunes.
He told BBC Garvey told 6 Music’s The Music Week that decisions about how their music is sold “should reside with the artist.”
“It’s a matter of artistic integrity. If the end game for you is an album, you should be able to sell it as an album. If the end game for you is a collection of songs, which for many people it is, then that’s how your music should be enjoyed as well.
Garvey said it was important “to protect the album as an artform”.
“Every single second on every Elbow record has been considered and debated and argued about, and for it to be then somebody else’s decision as to how that’s sold, I just don’t think that’s fair.”
Garvey was speaking in the wake of a recent court victory for Pink Floyd. A judge decided their contract with EMI, which stipulates that their songs should not be sold separately, should apply to online sales as well as physical formats.
Does it matter? Should you only be able to buy singles and albums, with nothing in between? Or is it simply the case of a successful musician getting a bit arsey about something he doesn’t like and tilting at windmills? Although Garvey has got a point, it is unlikely that he’ll be able to revive the album, a concept which has been eroded since the 80s and at it’s lowest ebb now. But perhaps the idea of the album will simply go the way of the vinyl record – loved by some, but ignored by the masses.
Now, hands up if you’ve bought an individual track from Metal Machine Music?
Filed under: General Stuff Tagged: | albums, Elbow, emi, guy garvey, music, pink floyd, the sun
I am with GG on this one insofar as the artists should have the freedom to decide how their work is sold. It may seem old-fashioned, but it is their work and their livelihood.
That said, it also depends on what contracts that they are signing with the labels, etc. No justification to taking the cash and then bitching about the conditions.
Also, do not see why that such freedom would end up making it a singles/albums market all over again. Am sure that many artists do not have the same views as GG holds and that they would happily sell their work on a “per song” basis…
Agree with Longman Oz….should be up to the artist. Each artist should have choice to make available individual songs or entire album.
I agree with LO too – it should be down to the artist, but only if they agree it at the start or release their own records.
I also think anyone doing it, unless they are an already-established act, is pissing against the wind. For such a creative industry, it’s actually quite sad at times how often they seem to think they can put the genie back in the bottle.
Perhaps but artists (genuine ones) don’t really care so much about ‘lost sales’ in a Metallica stylee….they are concerned with ownership of their work and its context.
A young chap burns a CDR with 160 songs on it…no artirts, no titles. How does that work for the artist?
Creative types would I assume like the songs to remain theirs and not disappear into cyberspace anonymity. This may seem ‘backwards’ but is entirely justifiable and correct. How do we make it happen? Technology I assume.
I dunno – I laugh at some of those acts who go on about ‘artistic integrity’. They suck as much dick as anyone on the way up, it’s only when they make it they get all pissy.
The other argument is that if a young chap does (legally) burn 160 songs onto his CDR and that’s the way he likes to experience the music that he’s paid for, then who are the artist to stop him? It’s like ordering a steak and the chef telling you how you’ll have it.
By all means, insist that songs are sold by-album only, but do it from your first release.
you’ll have your steak rare like a normal person!
Medium!
Medium, you might as well have it while wearing a dress and drinking a white wine spritzer!
I think morally GG is absolutely right. However I think anyone but the most ardent fans will be put off if they have to spend £7.99 for the whole album rather than buying one or two tracks first. I think its a dilemma for all musicians and I guess it comes down to this: are they successful enough to put art first and money second.