Digital...
I like music. I like music a lot. Old, new, mixed, remixed, or somewhere in between, chances are I will listen to it and appreciate it. But I fear for the future of an industry.
This morning, while perusing my iTunes collection, I decided to purchase something new. I typically buy an album every few weeks as another form of compensation for my cubicle-dwelling lifestyle. This time, I had my eye on Gnarls Barkley's debut album, St. Elsewhere. I listened to a few samples (liked what I heard), read a couple of reviews (liked what I read), and then "googled" Gnarls (disliked what I read). Here's what I found from our good friend - cough, cough - Wikipedia: "Crazy [by Gnarls Barkley] is the first ever single to top the UK singles chart purely on download sales as it was released online a week before it was released as a CD single." You've probably heard the song - it's saturating the air waves - and you more than likely enjoyed it. I'm not surprised at all it's spent 9 weeks at the top. But is that okay?
In my opinion, probably not.
For quite some time now, I have been concerned that the "digital era" poses serious problems for the music industry. Products like iTunes makes it far too easy to download a hit song, listen to it as much as want to, and then ignore it once you've over-played it. There's no strong incentive to explore music. An obvious example is the album. Once considered a life's work, the album has become a vehicle for one, maybe two singles, five skits, and then a whole bunch of bad filler. It's as if many artists only bother with a solid 15 tracks because they're contractually obligated to do so. If singles pay the big bucks, why worry about the much harder task of creating an album?
This morning, while perusing my iTunes collection, I decided to purchase something new. I typically buy an album every few weeks as another form of compensation for my cubicle-dwelling lifestyle. This time, I had my eye on Gnarls Barkley's debut album, St. Elsewhere. I listened to a few samples (liked what I heard), read a couple of reviews (liked what I read), and then "googled" Gnarls (disliked what I read). Here's what I found from our good friend - cough, cough - Wikipedia: "Crazy [by Gnarls Barkley] is the first ever single to top the UK singles chart purely on download sales as it was released online a week before it was released as a CD single." You've probably heard the song - it's saturating the air waves - and you more than likely enjoyed it. I'm not surprised at all it's spent 9 weeks at the top. But is that okay?
In my opinion, probably not.
For quite some time now, I have been concerned that the "digital era" poses serious problems for the music industry. Products like iTunes makes it far too easy to download a hit song, listen to it as much as want to, and then ignore it once you've over-played it. There's no strong incentive to explore music. An obvious example is the album. Once considered a life's work, the album has become a vehicle for one, maybe two singles, five skits, and then a whole bunch of bad filler. It's as if many artists only bother with a solid 15 tracks because they're contractually obligated to do so. If singles pay the big bucks, why worry about the much harder task of creating an album?
posted by Dr. Cook at 12:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home