"The Rock Album is not dead it just needs to be rebooted"
Tom Ewing is the writer of the Poptimist blog over at Pitchfork. Pitchfork is a music website I admittedly have mixed feelings about, but I tend to like his observations so I read his work. His recent blog post caught my attention. (http://pitchfork.com/features/poptimist/7945-poptimist-37/).
Notice that I called him a 'writer' and not a 'blogger'. This is an important distinction, because his recent post about the 'state of the album' (at least that's what I think it was about) really seemed to be about declaring things 'dead'. Pitchfork is a music website and music websites (i.e. blogs) are just music magazines rebooted. The internet was supposed to kill magazines, but magazines are no more dead than websites will be if iPad Magazines take off. The terminology just morphs and changes.
See, at some point in the last decade writers became bloggers, because the term 'writer' is associated with old media and new media is trying to declare old media dead. Old media is not dead and it never will be. Just like the album is not dead and never will be. Just because you change the packaging of something doesn't mean it's dead. All media, art, or creation for that matter is in a current state of flux, but nothing is 'dead'. It's all just being redefined... reinvented. It's too easy to just declare things dead.
This is a tough topic to write about because it's comes down to opinions, differences in perception, and artistic nuance. I have all all the respect in the world for people like Tom whom write good pieces about music consistently. Sometimes I think I could and then I tackle a subject like the 'death of the album' and I realize how tough writing well about something like music truly is. That said, I think most music fans of any genre would agree that the 'album' as we know it is in need of some new blood. Hey-ho-let's go.
1.
To understand how the album can be saved we have to understand why it failing in it current state. As a 20+ year old music fan all I can do is state my experiences both as lover and collector of music and someone who worked in a used music shop. Watching the collapse of the old record business the past 5 years has been equal parts interesting, entertaining, and ultimately gratifying. It needed to be dismantled. The internet is the great equalizer of creation and consumption and no one understands this better than the record industry.
In my early years as a record buyer (8-12) I loved 45's and cassette singles. My dad was a disc-jockey so I grew up with loads of 45's around the house. I love the single. Once upon a time (the late 50's & early 60's) the record industry embraced the pop single as the little works of art they can be. Albums still sold well, but the single was the format. It was both a great way to introduce an artist and not to invest too much in them… a great way to test the waters. Albums had a place, but on radio the pop single reigned supreme. This happy trend continued for the most part in America through the early 90's. The album grew in popularity throughout the 60's, 70's & 80's, but the single still had a big place. That is until the labels decided they didn't want it around as much. And while people state that the internet killed the music industry the last decade I will argue it was the CD in the 90's that did them in.
See, a generation of music buyers grew up during the alternative rock 90's when a lot admittedly somewhat mediocre artists wrote some really good tunes. Unfortunately, the indies (where a lot of these rock bands would've comfortably fit) were bought by the majors and 'singles' were not the toast of the hour… albums were. Those artists (mainly rock bands)played shows, signed contracts with the record industry based on a good song or two, and they produced a 15 track album. Again, with maybe a few good songs in their repertorie. These bands, inspired by the attitude of Pearl Jam, Nirvana, etc, all the sudden became to be 'album bands' (either by choice or committee) and the record industry was all for it. I mean from business angle who wouldn't like to make 15 bucks instead of 4 off of a piece of plastic? Therefore not a whole lot CD Singles were to be found, especially in America.
A lot of these rock bands were not Nirvana.. hell, they weren't even Toad The Wet Sprocket. With no CD single to buy and the cassette single dying as a format consumers threw down 15 bucks for an album-15 bucks for a song in some instances. Sometimes we were pleasantly surprised with the result(Jeff Buckley). Often times we felt burned(Candlebox). A lot of bands that would've been happy turning out a few 7 inch singles and touring to get their feet wet were signed to major labels. They made mediocre, half-baked albums and even more mediocre sophomore albums. Then these bands also found themselves deep in debt to the label along the way.
This harmful trend continued after the alterna-boom, into pop crusade of late 90's, and into internet era. Even with some CD singles being produced; they were often grossly overpriced. A lot of times a whole album(CD) would be on sale for 10 or 12 bucks and the single (with six remixes of the same song) would be 4 or 5 bucks. So you bought the album, obviously. And don't even get me started on imported singles. The single was so marginalized, especially in America that I have to say I'm elated it's making a comeback. Much like the current state of publishing, the record industry was victim of it's own overpriced glut of average product. Technology is leading the consumer revolt.
2.
Tom Ewing's article fails to directly mention iTunes which, quite frankly, saved the record industry and rebooted it back to its 1960's roots when the single mattered. Before the 50's & 60's sheet music sales were what dictated the charts, but the 45rpm changed all that. The 'album as art form' ( a whole other cultural impact topic) did the same thing to rock music music in the 60's, but bubblegum & disco took back the single in the 70's. New wave & MTV moved singles in the 80's. This trend goes back and forth.
He states that "pop music is becoming a medium based on singles". It once was and, arguably, it always should be a medium based on singles. That goes for rock bands too. Artists shouldn't feel compelled to deliver an album to their audience until they have enough good songs to fill it. I don't care what genre you are. The line between Rock and Pop is very thin, much thinner than anyone will admit, and I think the single and album format have a place in both genres. In fact, I would argue that 'chart success' during a certain period is the only defining differentiator between those two genres. I mean seriously, during the 90's R.E.M. was just as popular as Mariah Carey. They were both played on pop radio ad nauseum
Furthermore, Tom uses Train's "Hey Soul Sister" as the measuring stick for the current state of rock's popularity, but that's like using Eminem as the bar for the current state of hip-hop. They both get played a lot on the radio and get a bunch of downloads, but neither are indicative of what's happening at the DIY level of popular music. I do think rock music is in a rut, but I hardly think Train is the band I would use to show the state of the union. Arcade Fire winning a Grammy for best album is a better jumping off point in my opinion. There are signs of life, but the rock bands need to be a little more creative.
Contrary to Tom Ewing's thoughts, I don't think 'pop' or 'rock' are in a bubble. I think all music genres are in a healthy re-invention phase. The single has been reinvented as the download, MTV is now YouTube, and where does that leave the album? Well, it needs to be reinvented too and it's probably up to rock & roll to figure out how. I mean, let's face it, the 'album as art form' is a rock creation. How about some ideas?
For starters, who says an album has to be a collection of songs that come out at the same time? Much like magazines being re-envisioned on tablet computers or television being rethought as subscriptions. Maybe rock & roll needs to think outside the box a bit more. I mean rock bands are supposed the great creators of popular culture and yet most are clinging to old paradigms of distribution and packaging. Maybe the album just needs a good old-fashioned reboot.
There are unlimited tools at a band's disposal to create interactive and inventive music experiences. The first thing is great songs, but you also have: the web, social networking, new ways to distribute music, apps, publishing, YouTube, and music playing devices that can serve as a portal of unlimited creativity. The album experience needs to reinvented.
The single should just be the key you offer to a bigger a door for your listener. For some the key will be enough, but if you make it interesting enough you can get them to open the door. Then you save the album experience for something you control. By all means put your album in the shops or iTunes, but I don't think the money is in the 'unit sales' of albums or singles anymore (if it ever was). It's in experience of the artist you sell to your fans; and there can be so much more for you to offer now if you truly want to create an experience for your listener. Some rock bands get it, but not enough. It's a multi-faceted approach that will let the artist make some money.
The resurgence of the pop star was lucky enough to coincide with the both the DIY aesthetic of internet marketing and people's willingness to buy singles; which plays to the strength of pop music. If you look at Lady Gaga, Little Boots, Florence, Adele, etc. they completely control their persona; much the way rock bands or hip-hop stars of the past have. And you know what those 'pop stars' are selling singles and a lot of albums… because their whole record is good. I realize the the word 'good' is subjective, but maybe sometimes a genre falls into cultural insignificance because they are not producing the best music of a time period.
The album isn't dead. Rock isn't dead. Nothing is dead. Artists just need to write good songs, make good albums, and figure out ways to make them experiences. This keeps people buying records and not torrenting them, although lets face it, that Pandora's Box is never gonna close. But if you can create an experience 'un-torrentable' then you succeed.
At the end of the day I think a lot of record buyers don't distinguish between rock or pop music. It's just all just a varying degree of whatever is in fashion during a time period. People who consume music just want good songs. If you are an artist who writes enough good songs people are gonna buy your album; whether it be Taylor Swift or TV On the Radio. Maybe pop music just sounds fresher than rock music the last few years, but if there's one thing we all know about music: the next tide shift in taste could be just around the corner.
