|
||||||||
What caused the problems we have today? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,679
|
What caused the problems we have today?
Music at the moment seems very diluted. There was a time when acts would have about 3months break before releasing new singles. Now it seems 3 come out at anyone time.
It just seems to be RUSH, RUSH, RUSH today. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,479
|
I'm not 100% convinced it's a "problem" as such, but whatever it is is all down to downloading, and the "unbundling" of albums.
Back in physical media days (bear with me, children!), singles were loss-leaders, and basically adverts, for albums. If we liked a track, we either had to wait for it to be released as a single, or stick our hands in our pockets for the whole album... what's more, the record label had total control as to what order singles were released, and sometimes there were stand-out tracks on albums that took ages to be released as singles, but when they were, still became massive as there was still an audience for them (quick example, The Human League's "Don't You Want Me", the 4th single from "Dare".) Nowadays, anyone can buy any track off any album whenever they want, so the label has to try and race to keep up with whatever tracks the public are interested in, whether or not it's an official "single" or not (example, Adele's "Someone Like You" after the Brits). As I say, YMMV as to whether this is actually a "problem", but it certainly means album campaigns are more seat-of-the-pants than they used to be... |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,125
|
As with anything, just a matter of sorting out the wheat from the chaff, musically speaking.
Too much over-hyped carp, but still some very decent bands about. Sometimes songs are funny though. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,789
|
I dont think there is a problem, for me there is tons of music out there that i love to listen to, the sooner it all comes out the better i say!
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Holodeck 4
Posts: 21,476
|
The pop market is oversaturated so artists generally have a fiarly short shelf life (especially if they're X Factor types) so there's a push to release as much product as possible before the public lose interest.
It's the public's fault for being so damn fickle
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: London
Posts: 2,667
|
I dont think it is a problem, but the hype to sell is fast and over very quickly whereas back in the day, as explained by Metal Mickey, the marketing was different and the hype was longer and drawn out.
It probably doesn't make any differences to sales in the long term, singles wise that is, but if you take for example Madonna's 1986 album True Blue, there where five singles released over a 12 month period and the chart position where a follows: (first to last single)2 ,1,1,4,1. So the last track released, La Isla Bonita got to number 1, despite the album being a huge seller for 10 months by that time. The difference the current system now makes is that it reduces an albums shelf life/sales potetial (unless they start adding bonus tracks or your name is Adele) and also reduces the chance of a number 1 single.Although that is not such a big deal any more Arguably Lady Gaga for example could have sold more albums and had more number one singles I think if the old marketing rules where in place. Companies, even using ITunes, dont have to make album tracks available to download (go to itunes and some tracks you can only purchase as part of the album) but they choose to. As another poster has said, our attention is very short these days-Im exactly the same myself with music now. Love something for a week or two and then thats it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,000
|
The market is different and therefore the industry is different too.
Labels have got more money hungry than they've ever been.That is partly because of lazy and money-obsessed executives, but it's also about simply making ends meet.Labels have to pay much more today.Back in the 90's or the beginning of the 00's they didn't need to do exhausting promo like today.They just booked 2/3 televised performances, a radio tour and one major awards show sometimes and that was all.People used to be willing to buy albums back then, so they didn't need to have an artist in their face 24/7 to realize that they want to purchase the record.Now, if an artist doesn't promote at least 9/10 times in the 2-3 weeks before release, then it's considered "lack of promo", while 10 appearances would sound like a poorly thought joke back in the 90's.Moreover, artists could easily get airplay and TV rotation a few years ago, but now if an artist is not one of the 15-20 current industry favorites, then they are left out.So, the label has to pay even more money to launch them and create interest.What's more, the terms "irrelevant" and "flop" are rather new to the music industry.People are becoming irrelevant after 4 months of absence and they are called flops after only 1 song that did not make the top 20, so the labels have to do the best they can to sustain the artist's reputation and that costs.In order to get the money they need, they just make the artists release music all the time to make sure they're going to gain a lot and labels have come to understand that the shell life of a commercial artist is too little for them to fool around, so they just milk out and milk out until there is nothing there to milk anymore |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 14:30.


