with the recent thread on iTMS' rising album prices (Thread ), i was thinking about the hypocracy of artists/record labels on the issue of albums... when the concept of iTMS - mainly the requirement that songs had to be sold individually - was introduced, a lot of artists and labels opposed this for two reasons: 1) labels argued that the album sales will be awful. 2) artists argued that they didn't want to "break up" their creation - because they are creating albums as a whole and not just throwing together their music to make an album. #1 has been proven somewhat incorrect, with almost half of iTMS sales coming from album downloads. in addition, i imagine that hit singles have sold to more than make up for any loss of album sales. #2 is where i see the hypocracy. if musicians really are making albums as a whole, why should there be any correlation at all between the number of songs in an album and the album price? i believe one of the justifications given to high album prices on iTMS is the number of songs. it is somehow thought to be ok to charge $20 for an album if it contains 30 songs. i don't get this. if album is the expression of musician's creativity, it should take the same amount of creative effort to record a 5 song/30 minute album as a 30 song/90 minute album. does it take more time? yes, but artists are not paid by the hour - they are paid for their creative effort. if painter was asked to paint a piece, he/she won't get paid by the amount of paint used or the size of the painting. if painting as a whole is the expression of artist's creativity, the resulting size is just a mere consequence of his/her creative idea. however big or small it takes to "correctly" express his/her idea... i think we, the consumers, are correct in what we've been saying for a while - that many albums are full of fillers. that artists/labels want to put in filler music to inflate the number of songs in an album so they can charge us more... any thoughts?