

Ask YC: what will replace the music album? - Tichy

If in the future there will be no more CDs or music albums, how will people listen to music? Will everything just be "random shuffle"? Will they select genres and shuffle through them? Will they create their own playlists by arduous work? Will playlists become valuable content?
======
ian
I think it's interesting to look at genres of music where the album has never
been particularly important - for example dancehall and ragga in Jamaica.
Dancehall producers will create an instrumental (riddim) and then release it
publicly as a dub plate for the many different MCs to rhyme over. This results
in a large number of versions of the same instrumental being played by DJs in
clubs around Kingston. Quickly the response from the dancefloor combined with
the DJ's opinion filters out worse versions and leaves one track standing
above the rest. This track will then be the big smash on that riddim and
really blow up. That track is typically the best vocal on the best riddim.
It's wisdom of crowds applied to the composite elements of the track.

As the free availability of individual tunes results in more remixing, more
collaboration and more playlisting a system that determines the optimal
permutations will be very valuable. My guess is that the optimal permutations
will be inferred from the behaviour of music fans on the web so no one will
own it as such, however the experts and tastemakers will become more visible
and may be able to monetise this ability.

Live recordings will become more important because as albums get broken up by
file sharing the selection an artist chooses in concert will become more
meaningful.

~~~
agentbleu
its getting simpler to make and listen to your music.

<http://myplaylist.biz> is a good example

------
nkohari
I really hope albums don't go anywhere. For a lot of groups, an album of songs
showcases their artistic perspective at a certain point in time. Usually, the
overall tone of a band changes between albums.

I'll even go so far as to say that the music will be less enjoyable if it
wasn't for albums. For example, compare U2's The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby,
both of which are fantastic examples of "tone" albums. If you would have taken
half the songs from The Joshua Tree and put them on Achtung Baby, and vice-
versa, both albums would have sounded like a mess. I don't think the
individual songs would have had the same impact as they did when combined with
other songs with similar tone.

And that's not even considering concept albums, which are always interesting.
A world with no Dark Side of the Moon is not one I want to live in! :)

------
pg
Music will be free for individual use. Musicians will make money from concerts
and licensing. The album may persist as a form, but lengths will start to vary
more.

~~~
colortone
I agree.

Don't forget about that other "format" between single and album: the "EP". As
a musician, I've always liked it: not as time consuming to produce as a 40+
minute "album" but more robust than a single track or two.

It's easier to digest and get your brain around (for listener and creator).
Which means a lot...granularizing music consumption is good, I think more
artists need to think in terms of EP when they are trying to break themselves.
Plus, it trims the fat (i.e. filter _yourself_ ;-)

~~~
BristolStoolMan
Allows you to release stuff more often as well. Every 3 months you release an
"EP", let people pay what they want for it. As long as the music is good,
people will buy. I hope. :)

------
paulsb
Albums are great. Singles have always been released as a means to get people
to stump up cash for the album, and this should still be the case. There are
many albums that have great songs on them, but these songs are probably too
unsuitable/unprofitable to be released to the mainstream audience; thus, the
release of "appealing" singles to get fans and new fans to go and buy the
album. Albums also provide variety by exposing listeners to different styles X
if everyone just bought the singles, then everyone would only buy the "club
bangers" that get released or become popular.

If the whole system goes to a buy-per-single model, albums, per se, will
probably evolve into "bodies of work" for that period of an artist's life,
which could actually benefit the artist because it will allow them to release
material that would not normally make it onto an album, essentially allowing
the artist to say "buy whatever you want". Buying-per-single will also be a
real ball-ache if you have to preview every song to find the ones you want;
hence, my support for albums.

If the music becomes free, then money will probably come from concerts,
merchandise, etc. Heaven forbid that there will be no ad-supported model!
Imagine having to listen to adverts between tracks...oh, the inhumanity!

Personally, I like albums and will buy them over a couple of singles because
it will add up to the same cost and be much more convenient. Ideally, the
whole industry should follow the model of a particular website where you buy
music by the megabyte, which is obviously linked to the quality that you have
it encoded at.

------
buckpost
My guess is new music services will emerge that will analyze your digital
music collections, and create playlists for you. There are, of course, many of
these around already but you'll see a flurry of activity soon. If the music
labels were smart, they would be right in the middle of the action by offering
a free service that would pay for itself by providing download services,
Webcasts and advertising.

------
izak30
What I want to see (this really applies to TV as well...with the writer's
strike and all, the timing seems more apt to them):

I want an artist to release how they _want_ to release. I think some artists
would be fine only releasing singles or covers or mashups. I think that others
want a group of songs that are only meant to be together, with some physical
content (album covers, etc, has anyone seen Tool's releases? I'm not really a
fan of the music, but aesthetically and conceptually they are amazing), -and-
some that may only be released with videos. I want to see distributors and
publishers take a much smaller cut, but from more artists. This would take a
cue directly from long-tail economics.

I want artists to be artists, and not to starve. The 'album' isnt dying, it's
just shrinking, because it's relavence has dwindled, most artists make groups
of singles that should be released as such, and the 'Dark Side of the Moon's
and the 'Physical Graffiti's of the world are disappearing.

------
rglullis
A few months ago I saw on TV a story about people working as "personal music
stylists", or something like that. Their job is to find the right music or set
list for events and parties, or to define a playlist for a gym class, or to
just load someone's iPod with music of a given genre.

In short, they get money to act as a music recommendation filter.

------
voidfiles
Marshal McHluhen said that the medium is the message. This I think applys well
here. Albums are a medium for music distribution, in otherwords albums are
albums, and the other forms of distribution are different. I think that as we
see the shift from destination, or event listening. ie popping the record on
the turntable and consuming a whole album, to a networked fill in the cracks
type listening we will see a new form of music consumption. Their will always
be people who love the album, but I think the new world order is on demand
anywhere in the world. That means short punchy songs, and everyonce in awhile
something longer. The web can save the long format audio though, if you can
think of a internet site as emmersive you might be able to do a long format
animation and sound combined thing that you can watch on the web.

------
mynameishere
For decades, singles were the main money-maker and albums were released
afterward with not much expectation of success. Buddy Holly and the Beatles
started releasing albums without filler material, and that became the standard
mode for a while. Led Zep, Pink Floyd, the Stones, etc, could pull off an
entire album of decent, coherent music, but I doubt any bands today can. The
overall degree of talent is just completely different now, and I'm frankly
shocked to hear even a _single decent song_ anymore.

Truth be spoken, I'm not sure it matters anymore. Maybe I'm wrong. Does
anybody know any albums that can compare with the greats of the past?

As went classical, so went pop music. It's just finished, and all the artistic
people seem to have shifted to video games, which just keep getting better and
better.

~~~
dood
_Led Zep, Pink Floyd, the Stones, etc, could pull off an entire album of
decent, coherent music, but I doubt any bands today can. The overall degree of
talent is just completely different now, and I'm frankly shocked to hear even
a single decent song anymore._

Don't mistake the pathetic state of pop for the state of music overall. There
is loads of great stuff, perhaps more than ever - the difference is that
little of the good stuff gets on the radio because the traditional music
industry is killing itself, and is now in its death-throws.

I predict (or at least hope) that the web and a resurgence of live music will
bring about a new golden age of sound (for all - not just those who make the
effort to dig up the good stuff).

Edit: I'm not being allow to reply to mynameishere's request, "Name some",
presumably because I've made too many comments in a short space of time
(though I can't imagine there will be many spammers with 400+ karma). Anyway,
here's what I was hoping to post:

It depends what genres you like - music is now extremely diverse and
fragmented, and I am generally interested in less mainstream stuff, so I don't
know about many great artists working in the traditional pop/rock genres. So
here is a random, eclectic selection of groups that use guitars and that
spring to mind (though I am a little out of touch for the past couple of
years): Mars Volta, Deerhoof, OOIOO, Lightning Bolt, Strapping Young Lad,
Mogwai, Neurosis, Godspeed You Black Empreror, Tool...

There are a host of other interesting genres with amazing artists and a lot of
creativity you wouldn't hear from if you didn't look, like IDM, Dubstep, Hip-
Hop...

I will readily agree that there isn't much like Hendrix or Led Zep and similar
- but I would argue the current pop industy climate effectively prohibits the
emergence of those sort of rock-stars.

~~~
mynameishere
_There is loads of great stuff_

Name some. I'm always willing to listen to new acts.

~~~
nkohari
Red Hot Chili Peppers, Muse, Queens of the Stone Age, The Bravery, Spoon, Rilo
Kiley, The National, Interpol, Modest Mouse, Arcade Fire, Shiny Toy Guns, Foo
Fighters...

The real problem is that ClearChannel has dominated FM and sapped all of the
good content out, replacing it with the McNuggets and more advertising.
Solution: get XM radio. Worth every cent.

~~~
mynameishere
_Modest Mouse...Foo Fighters_

Those two I'm familiar with and they don't compete at all.

Compare:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_in_music#Albums_released>

Highlights:

    
    
      Abbey Road - The Beatles
      Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin
      Led Zeppelin II - Led Zeppelin
      Let It Bleed - The Rolling Stones
      Live/Dead - Grateful Dead
      At San Quentin - Johnny Cash
      Ummagumma - Pink Floyd
      The Velvet Underground - The Velvet Underground
      Yellow Submarine - The Beatles
      Yes - Yes (debut)

~~~
far33d
As time goes on, cherry-picking the list of amazing albums becomes easier,
since you judge not just the music, but those albums' influence on all the
acts of the next 30 years.

That said, 1969 surely was a watershed year for rock music, and there are few
years that can compare.

------
rrival
I'd like to find a way to assess the role that predictive popularity filters
have on the longevity of new artists
(<http://www.hitpredictor.com/about.php>). How does having something like this
in place not invite continuously creating the moving average of derivative
crap?

Further, is the current lack of quality a reflection that artists are pushed
before they have time to develop longevity or that talent isn't 'recognized'
unless it fits the mold du jour?

Is the ClearChannel effect, the automation of radio, contributing to this need
for homogenized pulp? It's such a large system to diagnose.

------
davidw
I could see picking and mixing singles right now because so many of the groups
... well... aren't all that good, so you only get the one or two good things
they do. If people went back to actually liking groups that have more staying
power, perhaps that would strengthen the idea of the album again?

------
dood
The notion of artists releasing a collection of ordered tracks in a batch is
pretty ingrained, I don't see that idea going anywhere soon. Or are you posing
a hypothetical assuming otherwise?

~~~
Tichy
I've read news items that the album is already going away, for example the top
sellers on itunes are individual songs, not albums.

~~~
dood
I'm not sure this means the album will go away altogether, its a nice format
if you like the artists' work. The pick-n-mix thing is probably more suited to
artists you don't care about so much, but like individual tracks. I think both
albums and cherry-picking individual tracks can coexist quite happily.

------
ivankirigin
A set of bits of music with a consistent theme is a very old and good idea.

The shrink-wrapped $20 piece of plastic you buy today will soon be less common
than vinyl.

------
dood
I'd love to see mashups become more legit.

