Korean Job Discussion Forums

pkang0202 · Joined: 09 Mar 2007

Fans are free to pick individual songs to buy and download, so why are major bands still making full length albums?

Instead of releasing an album of 10+ songs once every couple years, why not release 2-3 songs every few months?

Seems like a great idea to me. A musician has a great song idea, they record and it its on the airwaves within a month.

In this day and age, is it really necessary to wait until you have an album full of songs before releasing it?

the ireland · Joined: 11 May 2008 Location: korea

agreed, but an album launch usually meansa tour is just around the corner so it generates publicity

I like your idea though, cos i'm sick of waiting for four years for damien rice to release stuff

blaseblasphemener · Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:33 pm Post subject:

I read an interview with Billy Corgin of Smashing Pumpkins on this subject. His label was adament that he release in albums, even though Corgin said people are not interested in albums anymore. Could be an old mindset that still needs to be overcome, or it could be that the Labels know something we don't.

RACETRAITOR · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Location: Seoul, South Korea

I know a lot of underground musicians who release a single song every few months. It's good, but it really doesn't raise a lot of attention. The full-length album killed the single, and now that the full-length album is dying, we can't just go back to that.

What I've seen a lot of bands doing is putting out EPs of anywhere from three songs to ten songs. This gets them almost the same attention as a full-length, and is cheaper to make.

GreenlightmeansGO · Joined: 11 Dec 2006 Location: Daegu

Well, as far as I can see, a lot of singles are released prior to the album and are available for purchase in some stores and on the net. I agree that the concept of an album is outdated...especially considering that many many many albums these days only have one or two good songs.

A certain advantage of not releasing albums is the freedom from the massive distribution costs.

I wouldn't suggest that artists never release albums, but they do need to think of the opportunities releasing an album creates. Think of concept albums, or creative, collectible packaging.

sharkey · Joined: 12 Oct 2008

just download

Underwaterbob · Joined: 08 Jan 2005 Location: In Cognito

An album roughly equates to enough material to fill a concert, counting outtakes. The industry has changed in terms of how it distributes recorded material, but the average band still makes the majority of its money from concerts and touring.

VanIslander · Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:23 am Post subject:

you simply don't get it:

for three to four decades touring was about pimping records/tapes/c.d.s

nowadays it's really old school: the money is in TOURING itself!

and having a full album helps pimp the tour!

sojourner1 · Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:27 am Post subject:

Itunes is an expansion of the single concept. We've bought singles for years, because albums usually only have 1 or 2 good songs. Now you can slice and dice albums paying only 99 cents for each single to make your custom library.

Why is that large recording companies have musicians only put 1 or 2 good songs on each album instead of letting the musician do his/her true thing? I always thought if they can make good songs, then they can make good albums, but they don't. They've been doing this since the 1980's. This is why singles were a hit back then.

greedy_bones · Joined: 01 Jul 2007 Location: not quite sure anymore

I can see why it would be better for the artists to continue releasing albums in order to generate publicity.

Personally, though I would prefer concerts that weren't album tours. Many times I start listening to a band, I prefer their old stuff to their current stuff, or only a couple of songs from their current albums.

For example, I'd like to see the Wu-Tang Clan in concert, but I'd much rather see them performing songs from 36 chambers than songs from Iron Flag or Eight Diagrams.

Mochi · Joined: 20 Oct 2008

For less-than-gold selling bands, touring is a big expense that the record company eats in order to promote their bands. Most tours are money-losers.

It's not cost effective to record albums piecemeal, that's why they still make them the same way they used to (add a good dose of reluctance to change) and the same goes for releases. Promoting almbums is expensive - record companies have to get songs to radio and do all kinds of advertising.

I think the public is also slow to change. They still want something they can hold. How well did that last internet-only Radiohead release do?