• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Albums Are Dead - Ola Englund's Thoughts

I agree with his basic premise. Albums are dead, and people do find new music primarily by YouTube videos. However I disagree that its inherently sad, or a mess. It's just different, in the same way the album era was different from the state fair tours of yesteryear.
It's sad because a good album has a personality and a meaningfulness. It has an intactness, a meaningfulness derived simply by being its own entity. Fans argue about which album is better, which album destroyed the band's sound (some have never forgiven Signals, while others love it). A good album isn't simply a compilation of singles but the record (no pun intended) of a band's moment in development and self-conceptualizing. Listening to one or two songs is like reading excerpts from a long novel; you might get a general sense of writing style, you've entirely missed the deep reality of the work. I find new albums on YouTube, btw. I don't hate the change in medium and structure, but I recognize the loss of the old.
 
Most people look at this subject thinking about the money or about getting free music.

I'm the opposite. The experience, the search, the quality of the recordings, the booklet, etc., with streaming I just have the music. Sterile, isolated, with lesser quality. It's like it is of little importance. It's quite the opposite.

+1 to this. I still love looking through liner notes, reading the thanks yous and looking at the pictures and lyrics. Some of the younger people now probably don't even know those things exist. Especially since they buy vinyl just to hang it on the wall as "art".
 
What about artists like this who give people a reason to buy physical albums?



View attachment 3126289

I used to live with a musician who did this kind of added value thing. He only sold about 50 CDs but each cd was a unique packaging which included a unique photo from a canister of film he had developed. I think it really nails your sales, even if it doesn't translate into larger number of sales. I don't have time for that, but I really respect the passion of making collector targeted releases. I think fans like that value too.
 
Your new album (Ire Wolves) presented in its entirety has 485 plays on youtube and zero comments after more than a year. I listened to some of it and like it. It's good, but you literally can't give it away in this format. I wonder how many more ears it would reach if it were packaged and marketed differently. Again, it's a good album, well played and produced. Nothing wrong with it musically.

This is a great point and I like how you're not insulting in the way you stated it. But what about crowdfunding as an alternative?

Mike Doughty and Ben Folds Five and Amanda Palmer were able to engage an audience before recording their albums. Sure, you can make the argument that they already had a sizable audience that you and I don't. But how many Mike Doughty fans were waiting around for him to release a new album? He got a portion of old fans who probably wouldn't have bought new music from him to preorder an entire album by giving them exclusive content. He raised 300% of his goal. Add to that whatever sales he did after the album was released.

As a fan, I love stuff like this.
 
There are almost no bands getting famous by selling vinyl, or even making a good living because of vinyl. I can only think of one band who seems to make a lot of money on vinyl, special editions etc. Also, the folks who said "as a prog fan, long form albums matter to me" -- umm, ditto. There are almost no prog bands getting famous or making a good living on prog OR vinyl. Dream Theater is probably the top earner, with almost everyone else way below. The topic here is not "niche genres" it's about mass marketing. The idea here isn't even that long form albums are dead, the idea is that marketing today involves a near-constant presence on social media and steady flow of press releases, video uploads and so on. Sure, go ahead and collect your individual songs into a full length album... AFTER you've released those songs one by one (or the 'singles' anyway).

Also, in the big picture, vinyl sales are still pitiful. Yes, a big surge in the past few years... because sales went from virtually zero, to a pitiful amount.
 
I can concede not having the physical media/album in my hands, but I need to be able to buy the album as a download at least. Albums deserve to be recorded and listened to as a collective. They convey an artists thoughts and creativity at the time of the recording, that's why they bunch them together like that.

Streaming is like one continuous, no-feel mix tape that just bounces around without direction. It reminds me of that non-musical friend that you have that constantly changes the song before the last one gets halfway through.

I hate the idea of not having an album stored somewhere either. I don't have magical cell service everywhere I go.
 
This is a great point and I like how you're not insulting in the way you stated it.
I'm still listening to it. It's a good album. If you like doom metal, check it out. ;)
As for band strategies, I'm completely stumped! The only success I've had has been by releasing stem material to other musicians. I've never crowd funded or anything like that. I'm always DIY or networked production projects. I write and record my own material and bring in others as needed.
I wish I knew the answer! I just am pretty sure albums by a single artist are done. Could be compilations are coming back. I've been toying with the idea of doing some "collective" albums. -Like an album of various artists who collaborate for one album remotely, then move on. Rap and hip-hop do this constantly. I firmly believe we have to outsmart the system rather than buck it.
 
There are almost no bands getting famous by selling vinyl, or even making a good living because of vinyl. I can only think of one band who seems to make a lot of money on vinyl, special editions etc. Also, the folks who said "as a prog fan, long form albums matter to me" -- umm, ditto. There are almost no prog bands getting famous or making a good living on prog OR vinyl. Dream Theater is probably the top earner, with almost everyone else way below. The topic here is not "niche genres" it's about mass marketing. The idea here isn't even that long form albums are dead, the idea is that marketing today involves a near-constant presence on social media and steady flow of press releases, video uploads and so on. Sure, go ahead and collect your individual songs into a full length album... AFTER you've released those songs one by one (or the 'singles' anyway).

Also, in the big picture, vinyl sales are still pitiful. Yes, a big surge in the past few years... because sales went from virtually zero, to a pitiful amount.

But no one is making money off Spotify either. So the singles model isn't working either.
 
Albumns are difficult because it takes work, planning, maturity, and discipline not because they are not desired or have intrinsic value. While digital technology has become increasingly cheap (read as jammed and promoted ad nauseum), it does not improve the musicianship and or talent..."...play that last measure again, and I'll just drop it in..." "...don't worry I'll clean it up for you..." "...man, that vocalist really sucks...can you adjust by sharpening her a bit??"
I am currently in the process of burning ALL my MP3's to disc... and my old AND new albums to disc. When the hard drive and or "Smart" phone dies, where did all your music go? Current gig recorded and released a 6 song EP several years ago; only reason we did NOT press vinyl at that time is because it was cost prohibitive. We did have some cassettes-yes cassettes-duplicated even with sleeves. Why? Old school will always work, and sound better.
Just my 2 Cents.
 
This is really a conversation for people who have a chance at "making it" in music. Lets be honest, that's not most of us. If there is really no chance that you might be a hugely successful musician, then don't even worry about things like mass marketing.
On a related note, some of the responses are "I like albums because that's how I've always listened" etc (i.e., "back in the old days, things were better...!") which is somewhat related to my first comment. If you're old enough to feel alienated by what young people prefer, it's likely that the goal of achieving mass popularity (among those same young people) isn't really something you need to be concerned with.
 
My two cents: the only real viable option to grow a new band, without massive label support/debt, is a steady stream of single releases with accompanying video content.

That means having an album's worth of singles finished, and having the patience to long play the release.

The band that I currently tour with managed over 1M Spotify plays and 500,000 Youtube views using that strategy last year.

Once the album finally came out, there was serious buzz to the point of newspapers and TV stations requesting interviews.

Releasing an album without any buildup, regardless of how good it is, will do nothing for you: there's WAY too much content being released on a daily basis to blow your whole load in one shot like that.
 
Most people look at this subject thinking about the money or about getting free music.

I'm the opposite. The experience, the search, the quality of the recordings, the booklet, etc., with streaming I just have the music. Sterile, isolated, with lesser quality. It's like it is of little importance. It's quite the opposite.

agreed. I also find that when I can listen to anything I really don't listen to much of anything.
 
I'm still listening to it. It's a good album. If you like doom metal, check it out. ;)
As for band strategies, I'm completely stumped! The only success I've had has been by releasing stem material to other musicians. I've never crowd funded or anything like that. I'm always DIY or networked production projects. I write and record my own material and bring in others as needed.
I wish I knew the answer! I just am pretty sure albums by a single artist are done. Could be compilations are coming back. I've been toying with the idea of doing some "collective" albums. -Like an album of various artists who collaborate for one album remotely, then move on. Rap and hip-hop do this constantly. I firmly believe we have to outsmart the system rather than buck it.

I hear ya, man. I'm not crapping on your point about the album being dead. Like you, I'm a guy with strong opinions.

Indeed, it's tough times for artists. The old way no longer works. I'm working on putting together a kickstarter campaign for some screen printed posters I'm working on. It seems like a good way to go for me. I've targeted a niche market, figured out where they hangout online and I'm in the process of making a unique product. For me it seems like a good way for me to figure out what will sell before I invest money. If kickstarter works, great! If it doesn't, I'll try to figure out something else people will buy. The only thing I've lost is my time, but I love the process so I'm still a winner. It's a win/win.

On a related note. I read the other day "To Make a Living You Only Need 1,000 True Fans."
 
We did have some cassettes-yes cassettes-duplicated even with sleeves. Why?
I haven't seen a cassette player recently. CD's are dead tech too. I recently saw a colleague put a thumb drive in a car stereo, and I recall thinking it seemed retro, although practical on the long drive. I don't like the idea of everything in music culture being stored in the cloud, but that's where it is. Putting it on my hard drive as mp3s doesn't change the trend, but I still do it for piece of mind...
Music is a form of communication, as is all art. Denying the current trends in communication methods and excluding them just shuts down the functionality of the art form.
 
One man's thoughts on the state of things. I can't say I strongly disagree with him.

(a bit of NSFW language)


He's not a household name, but he's got 225K YouTube subscribers, with over 56 million video views. He's been in some decent metal bands, and he's started his own guitar company. I'd say he might be worth listening to for 5 minutes.

I saw this video yesterday by accident when I was browsing around for something else.
I don't know if I strongly agree with him, but think he has a point to a certain degree.

One of the first things he says is that record labels don't matter. My experience in a small local band and watching others blow past me makes me think this isn't true. Having a real label supporting you has a lot of perks. First, you can get reviews. Even small foreign language online sites won't touch your stuff if you aren't on a label of some kind. Also, labels can get you opening slots for bands touring through town. They also can put together small package tours that will actually make money. Doing any of this on your own means essentially becoming your own label, which then cuts into your practice\writing\recording time.

I do agree with his statements about needing a plan. You can't just build it and expect people to come. The internet is now lousy with people vying for attention. Just throwing your stuff out there is just more static. You need to have an idea for something that will make your project stand out. I don't personally agree with the "get into everyone's face as much as you can" theory. Common Wisdom would tell you it works, however as a consumer myself I will actively avoid something that is trying too hard to get my attention. I will ignore it just out of spite.

Is the "album format" dead? Understanding that we aren't talking strictly about vinyl albums, which for some dumb @$$ reasons are increasing in popularity, I would say it depends on the genre. Certain styles of music are meant to be consumed in small bites. Pop has always lived in the world of the 45, hit single, one hit wonder world. Very rarely is a pop album good from start to finish. Michael Jackson's Thriller has stood the test of time so well because there isn't one clunker on that record. With many pop releases, you can tell which one the producer got all up into because it sounds completely different from the rest of the songs on the CD. My personal example of this is 3 Doors Down; Kryptonite was a devil of an earworm song but the rest of the album stank on ice. Pop, EDM, HipHop, Rap, etc is perfect for the world of digital purchases and streaming.
That doesn't apply across the board, though. As you point out elsewhere, all the forms of metal are very much album oriented. Prog rock, jazz, and classical are also genres where the album tells a story; it is something to be moved through. Sometimes those deep cuts are your favorite tracks. Because people that are attracted to these genres are more into the details of music, they want a 5 course meal, not a candy bar.

Of course the bottom line is "show me the money." I think we have all read at least a dozen threads about this. The fortunes of musicians have changed greatly with the digital age. Unlike many forms of art, music is highly commoditized. Digitization is a sort of inflation on artistic currency. Labels certainly aren't going to take the hit, so they are passing their losses down the line. Studios, instrument makers, venues, merch suppliers, etc still expect some kind of payment or they will go out of business. So who gets the left over crumbs? Musicians. Why. Because **** you, that's why. You're creativity and time spend honing your craft are your loss; one that a million other suckers are willing to except. The musician's loss is everyone else's gain.
 
Consider the technical work and mastering that goes into making a full length 11 song album; all of the recording and mix balancing and track ordering. It's frankly just a waste of money at this point even before one tackles the problem of getting it into people's ears. As musicians we worry about gear value and gas prices for gigs, etc., but we miss the big picture sometimes. The basic strategy has to be driven by efficiency and economy if we want to have anything more than art for art's sake. Not that there's anything wrong with art for art's sake if someone can afford to make it.
True, but the barrier to not only distribution of music, but also the recording of music has greatly shifted. Home recording is better than ever, and frankly is only going to improve. That lowers the $ input into making your art. Add something like bandcamp which has a potential wide audience built in, which again is a lower barrier of entry and 'distribution' of music.

Who wants to fo the traditional method of pressing/printing physical media and trying to physically distribute it to those who might be interested? Bandcamp and other streaming allow the audience a bigger buffett of music to peruse, but the advantage as an artist, is that it potentially brings the audience to you. The trade-off though is that if the cosumer only wants that one song of yours they are not stuck buying the full phyical album.

I find it strange that the traditional majors are still trying to approach this in terms of the 'CD era'. Namely, still tying on huge investments of time/$ in studios, producers, making full albums, when they are really just usually trying to sell singles. But hell, they still make expensive videos just for youtube. Where they make $0 directly from consumers. And they have the nerve to bemoan streaming.
 
It's sad because a good album has a personality and a meaningfulness. It has an intactness, a meaningfulness derived simply by being its own entity. Fans argue about which album is better, which album destroyed the band's sound (some have never forgiven Signals, while others love it). A good album isn't simply a compilation of singles but the record (no pun intended) of a band's moment in development and self-conceptualizing. Listening to one or two songs is like reading excerpts from a long novel; you might get a general sense of writing style, you've entirely missed the deep reality of the work. I find new albums on YouTube, btw. I don't hate the change in medium and structure, but I recognize the loss of the old.

ABSOLUTELY THIS!!
 
Albums? You kids don't even know what a record album is! (says the 42 year old)
Before the LP was invented (and for some time after, until 33 rpm turntables finally achieved ubiquity) pretty much everything was released on a 45 or 78. You'd collect all of your singles, and put them in a book called an album - much like a photo album. I have one, full of old 45's.
And even after the advent of the LP, it was common for artists to primarily record and release singles, and the record companies would later assemble the material, often from multiple recording sessions, into albums. In some genres (Jamaican dancehall music comes to mind) it's always been driven by singles, many artists never make an album.
So, really, technology has just brought us full circle back to a point where artists just record and distribute music in small batches. Personally I'd rather record an EP of 4 or 5 great songs than an LP that's half garbage.

^^^ All true and well said. I was going to post something similar, but gtlover beat me to it and said it more eloquently and succinctly than I could.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gtlover