Cuban argues for "serial music"

[nbs2]

In his blog, Mark Cuban argues that album sales are a thing of the past, and that artists would be better served by using a "season" design in releasing music. One song every week or two for several months should yield greater sales than the combined album sale. Using an RSS feed to deliver samples of new songs would boost exposure.

I imagine that a service like iTunes could reap serious rewards if it offered a nice aggregating system, allowing you to have several artists that you choose in one feed, and could offer a "season pass" design with discounts to those who order the whole "album" up front. Is there any reason this couldn't work? Cuban address the biggest issue I could foresee, that artists believe that the art of music is album driven, by pointing out that the business has changed. Artists who aren't willing to would be no different than the record executives that are fighting the shift in the industry.

Much like a season set, this could be followed by a full length album for those that want packaging and such.

 

[ucfgrad93]

I agree that the album model is dead. I really like being able to purchase single tracks at the ITMS and other places. I really don't see the point in this. It almost sounds like a subscription based service.

 

[adrianblaine]

I agree that the album model is dead. I really like being able to purchase single tracks at the ITMS and other places. I really don't see the point in this. It almost sounds like a subscription based service.

I don't agree that the album model is dead, it just doesn't hold as much value as it used to. Some artists argue that the entire album is 1 piece of work, each song a part of the whole. Unfortunately, a lot of artists make 1 or 2 really good songs per album and the rest are a little ho-hum. I can understand some not wanting to let go of this, and some never will, but I don't think Cuban's model can work for the entire music industry.

 

[nbs2]

I agree that the album model is dead. I really like being able to purchase single tracks at the ITMS and other places. I really don't see the point in this. It almost sounds like a subscription based service.

It's not a subscription. It would be no different than the method the iTMS employs for TV show distribution. You can order the season pass at a small discount, or buy the episodes as they are released. Either way, you are getting a new episode once a week (or whatever the show's schedule is). But, once you buy it, it is yours.

I don't agree that the album model is dead, it just doesn't hold as much value as it used to. Some artists argue that the entire album is 1 piece of work, each song a part of the whole. Unfortunately, a lot of artists make 1 or 2 really good songs per album and the rest are a little ho-hum. I can understand some not wanting to let go of this, and some never will, but I don't think Cuban's model can work for the entire music industry.

That's why I think it could work. The artists that hang on the "one work" idea are quickly becoming as obsolete as the industry that believes that music should be repurchased every few years. The artists that make those weak albums could see increased sales under this method, as continual hype and advertising would make even weak songs the must have song de jour from any artist.

Cuban's point - that it is easier to spend 99 cents every two weeks for five months than $10 once every five months is clearly evidenced by the success of dollar menus, Starbucks, or any other construct where people are willing to dump money into something they don't need at the expense of proper money management. People like hype and routine. Buying the new song from <fill in artist> would just be a given weekly $1.

 

[it5five]

Unfortunately, a lot of artists make 1 or 2 really good songs per album and the rest are a little ho-hum.

Most definitely not true. Maybe you just need to stop listening to bad music.

That's why I think it could work. The artists that hang on the "one work" idea are quickly becoming as obsolete as the industry that believes that music should be repurchased every few years. The artists that make those weak albums could see increased sales under this method, as continual hype and advertising would make even weak songs the must have song de jour from any artist.

How is this in any way good? The artists that make music because it's something they treat as an art would become obsolete, and awful radio-hit bands that make music for the money would make even more money?

I'm sorry, maybe I fail to see why this is a "good" idea, but I think it is absolutely awful. Or maybe I am the wrong audience for this, as I don't listen to commercial music, I don't buy digital tracks, and I still buy vinyl and CDs.

 

[adrianblaine]

Most definitely not true. Maybe you just need to stop listening to bad music.

I've listened to a lot of music in my life time and very rarely do I like every single song on an album. Perhaps I'm too picky.

 

[Mike Teezie]

I hate the idea of albums being dead.

I buy music for the album experience, not the single. Singles are usually my least favorite song on any modern music album.

 

[iMacZealot]

This reminds me of that HP Gwen Stefani, as cliché as it is....

"People think you can turn creativity on and off like a lightswitch, but it's not that way."

A finished song you may hear on the radio or iTunes certainly takes much more time than a week to complete. The writing process takes quite a long time and is dependent on the writer's current creativity. Some songs take months to write. Then, there's the recording process, which is much more of a difficult undertaking than craping out something in GarageBand. Many artists spend a week simply recording a song, which includes getting everything absolutely perfect. However, that's not all. The mixing process comes next, another lengthy operation. Also, the song needs to be played to the record label for their approval, who also chooses the single and other things.

Music production is much, MUCH more complex than crapping out a song every week for free.