Xscape General Discussion

[jjason782]

Re: News and discussion about upcoming MJ album [Update Pg15]

Lets hope

 

[h0opman31]

Re: News and discussion about upcoming MJ album [Update Pg15]

Is the update still on page 15 ? Looking for an update, not trying to read too many pages

 

[HIStoric]

Sometimes there are still big sellers - see Adele's 21 - but that too was 2 years ago and even since then general sales numbers have gone down. The top 10 best selling album of 2013 in the US:

1. Justin Timberlake - "20/20 Experience" (2,427,000)
2. Eminem - "The Marshall Mathers LP 2" (1,727,000)
3. Luke Bryan - "Crash My Party" (1,521,000)..
4. Imagine Dragons - "Night Visions" (1,402,000).
5. Bruno Mars - "Unorthodox Jukebox" (1,399,000).
6. Florida Georgia Line - "Here's To The Good Times" (1,350,000).
7. Drake - "Nothing Was The Same" (1,344,000)
8. Beyonce - "Beyonce" (1,301,000)
9. Blake Shelton - "Based On A True Story…" (1,109,000).
10, Jay Z - "Magna Carta…Holy Grail" (1,099,000)

Those numbers are pathetic, to be honest. The music industry is really struggling nowadays.

no wonder when there is such bullshit of music out there today. i dont listen the music from today anymore. i can not listen to such a bad quality of music. we have here in austria radio channels that play all that bullshit.
and there is one single radio channel that plays ONLY the really good music from the 60-80s&early 90s. and that is enough for me. i only listen that one.
noone need that b-stars from today. thats only a waste of time. thats only a moneymachine and manipulated charts, and nothing else. music from today is only absurd. and i would not describe that as real music anymore.

Well no, I wouldn't really say it's because music today is 'not real' or that it's 'bad quality', as there are many albums being released today that are still highly rated by both critics and fans of all ages.

I think the main reason for the lower, more pathetic album numbers is that obtaining music these days is so different from the past. It is insanely easy to download a high quality copy of an album. As a teenager, most people I know these days will download an album before they consider buying it because they want to know what they're buying before they do. They have the power to do so now - it's not the 1990s where you bought a CD for $30 for a song or two and hoped that the rest of the album was good. There will be people who will download it and like it enough to purchase the album, but of course, it seems that most of the time people don't end up purchasing the album, even if they like it! They already have it for free, many don't feel guilty as these stars are already multi-millionaires, they couldn't really care. Could you pirate back in the 1980s? Sure, but you'd first need to know someone with a copy of the album, you'd need a stereo that can record CD/vinyl/cassette onto tape, you'd need the tape itself, and you'd need to wait 40-80 minutes for the entire album to be recorded. It took longer and was more of a bother. Even though I already have it, I could easily have Beyonce's new album on my computer, without anyones help, in the next 10 minutes if I wanted to. It's insanely easy.

The standout is obviously Adele's 21, how did it do so good? Well sure, it was a great album (I have it on CD myself) but a large number of Adele's target audience were people who wouldn't know how to download an album for free for the life of them. While that wouldn't be the only reason as to why 21 was so successful commercially, it would be a reason of enough merit. Then you have increasingly popular services such as Spotify that allow you to play all these new albums for free and as far as I know, playing an album on Spotify does not contribute to album sales. Spotify has grown exponentially in the past year or two so that would be another significant reason as to why album sales are down even more. I haven't even mentioned YouTube yet, which many people use to play music now (I know that official playcounts on the music videos can count to a higher position on the chart, but I don't believe they contribute to album sales).

But what about concert tours? Believe it or not, they're doing better than ever, as you can see here. All, but one or two, of the top ten highest-grossing tours have been since 2000. You can get an album for free but is it possible to get into a concert for free? Not really, unless you somehow break into the stadium from the back entrance or something (haha), but even then all seat numbers can still be sold. I know many people who won't really buy the albums of these artists but will gladly pay to go see them live. For example I went to see Beyoncé in concert recently (amazing performer I might add), a few of the friends I went with hadn't even purchased an album by her but were still crazily excited to see her perform and were first in line to do so. I know people who spent hundreds and hundreds on seeing artists perform last year, but spent jack all on the actual albums. Maybe that's just the people I know, idk, but figures seem to back that sort of attitude up. I think that's how most artists are making their money these days, through touring.

TLDR: It seems that with the advent of music downloading, people have shifted towards supporting an artist by going to their concerts instead of purchasing their albums. That's just my two cents.

EDIT: I think it's also pretty interesting to note that singles are largely unaffected and continue to sell millions upon millions, as you can see here.

 

[HIStory]

^ I think it's a combination of many things and to blame it all on downloads is a convenient cop out.

You bring up tours but did you notice that ALL of the acts on that list you linked in are old acts? Not the Beyoncés, Katy Perrys, Justin Timberlakes and Justin Biebers of this world. It's Rolling Stones, U2, Pink Floyd, AC/DC, Police, Bruce Springsteen etc. Most of those artists haven't had a hit record for decades, but people go because they want to hear their old hits. Even in 2013 the highest grossing tour was Bon Jovi's followed by the MJ Immortal show. So if anything that list actually supports MJChris's point. By the way that Wikipedia list isn't accurate, as Immortal is now the 9th highest grossing tour of all times and it's not there. Also when we are talking about how current tours gross higher than back in the day, it's unfair to conclude that's because tours are better now or people are more interested in concerts. The value of money also changed, generally ticket prices went up etc. - so that's probably the biggest contributing factor of why tours gross higher now than earlier. They will gross even higher as time goes by because of how the value of money changes, prices go up etc.

I agree about Adele that her 21 album is such a stand-out in terms of sales because her main target audience is older than the "download generation". So I don't say downloads do not matter at all. But I think another factor why Adele was so successful is that she was a breath of fresh air in this world of manufactured electro-pop/hip-hop that today mainly rules the charts where everyone sounds the same. I don't think she would have stood out so much in the 80s or 90s because there were so much more creative, naturally talented artists back then and so much more diversity on the charts. But in today's climate, with so much manufactured electro-pop around, people were so hungry for some "real music" that once someone came up with a record with genuine feelings and sound it sold like hot cakes.

I don't think everything sucks today, but I think most good artists unfortunately struggle to get into the mainstream these days.

As for downloads, it doesn't only have its downside. Yes, it makes piracy easier, but it also makes it easier for people to actually buy. Back in the day you had to go to a record store, had to hope that they had the record you wanted and physical albums were also generally more expensive. Now I can buy anything on iTunes with two clicks and it's also cheaper than to buy physical records. I think that's exactly what singles sales reflect on. Where I live back in the day record stores did not even keep singles, because people rarely bought them. But now I'm more inclined to go to iTunes and buy a song for $1-2 if I like it.

 

[Bubs]

Re: News and discussion about upcoming MJ album [Update Pg15]

Well no, I wouldn't really say it's because music today is 'not real' or that it's 'bad quality', as there are many albums being released today that are still highly rated by both critics and fans of all ages.

I think the main reason for the lower, more pathetic album numbers is that obtaining music these days is so different from the past. It is insanely easy to download a high quality copy of an album. As a teenager, most people I know these days will download an album before they consider buying it because they want to know what they're buying before they do. They have the power to do so now - it's not the 1990s where you bought a CD for $30 for a song or two and hoped that the rest of the album was good.

I wouldn't go to say that todays music sucks either.
I think iTunes and other similar outlets are fault, as nowadays you do not have to buy the whole album, you can just buy the songs you like, thus the strong single sales.
My two young nieces (and other youngsters) either download from youtube(shame on them) or buys from iTunes only the songs they like.It is rare occasion that they buy the whole album.

"The standout is obviously Adele's 21, how did it do so good? Well sure, it was a great album (I have it on CD myself) but a large number of Adele's target audience were people who wouldn't know how to download an album for free for the life of them."

lol
Maybe its not that those adults know who to download it for free but more like, they know that if you don't pay, you are taking away their livelihood. I personally think, it is not fair that they work their butts off and doesn't get paid for it. If you want something, you should pay for it, and thats what I told to me nieces too

 

[HIStoric]

Re: News and discussion about upcoming MJ album [Update Pg15]

^ I think it's a combination of many things and to blame it all on downloads is a convenient cop out.

Yup, it's not solely because of downloads - even if it is a very substantial reason. There's a ton of other factors coming into play. I did intend to mention that in my post but I must've got carried away or something. Whoopsie

You bring up tours but did you notice that ALL of the acts on that list you linked in are old acts? ...Also when we are talking about how current tours gross higher than back in the day, it's unfair to conclude that's because tours are better now or people are more interested in concerts.

Huh... fair point. I've looked into it further (specifically the top 15 tours of 2013) and while current artists may not top the best selling tours of all time, they still did pretty well in 2013. Of the Top 15, 7 are current popular acts, 6 are 'old' acts, and there's about 2 or so artists on there I don't recognise so I won't comment on. It seems to be quite a balance, people are very much interested in old acts as you say, but there still seems to be a bit of attention towards current acts too. So I take that back partially: Current artists may not be the most successful, but they're still certainly doing well for themselves.

For the record, I did not say that tours are better or worse now, that will come down to how you view the artists and is, generally, subjective. I myself enjoy watching concerts of older artists, but I also very much enjoy the concerts that I go to today. I suppose that what I was trying to say is that, while album sales are down, people who aren't buying their albums are still very much interested in these artists in concert. Just an insight on my behalf I suppose.

I don't think everything sucks today, but I think most good artists unfortunately struggle to get into the mainstream these days.

As it has always been, there are both good and bad mainstream artists. I don't think music today sucks either. We have our fair share of crap music and it'll be forgotten, just like all the crap music from past decades has been forgotten.

On the topic of other potential reasons as to why album sales has decreased, there has been a massive shift in how people listen to music today. People no longer just buy records to listen to the music, they consume them through other means such as, but not limited to, YouTube, Spotify and music piracy. Many of these methods may contribute to chart positions, but they don't contribute to overall album sales.

I think it's also important to realise the importance of the internet and how it has changed how we find and consume music. You don't have to be signed with a label anymore to produce and get your music out there anymore. There's not much stopping anyone from buying some instruments, microphones and computers and producing some absolutely amazing material - you don't have to rely on mainstream music to find some really good stuff anymore. Perhaps you could suggest that as another reason for why album sales are down for mainstream artists. Maybe some people are focusing now on these non-mainstream artists and choosing to support them instead? Maybe not so big, but it could still be a factor none the less?

As for downloads, it doesn't only have its downside. Yes, it makes piracy easier, but it also makes it easier for people to actually buy.

Yup, very true, I agree with you there. I think that's why singles continue to be successful today, they're cheap and easily accessible. Perhaps you could suggest that the current generation doesn't think an album is worth as much as the label's think it does?

There probably a number of external influences on this aspect too. For example, many of those artists target audience are teenagers and young adults who are in university. In many countries, university is quite expensive, easily running into the tens of thousands (apparently hundreds even in America). If students can now get their music for free (or instead pay one low cost - i.e. Spotify Premium) and instead use the money on something else, why wouldn't some? Many students struggle with money so there's got to be a decent number who do this. Of course, there are a number of students (including me) who will continue to support their favourite artists by buying their albums and/or go to their shows but yeah.

Good point Bubs, I forgot about that! There is no longer any need to actually purchase the whole album anymore. The majority of the albums on iTunes let you pick the individual songs you wish to purchase instead of the full album, and many use this to their advantage. That right there may be a substantial reason.

I like discussing this sort of stuff. It's a very interesting topic to me with many different factors to discuss ^_^

 

[HIStory]

Re: News and discussion about upcoming MJ album [Update Pg15]

^ Yes, I like this discussion too, although it may be off topic in this thread, so maybe the mods will want to put it into a seperate thread. I don't know.

Perhaps you could suggest that the current generation doesn't think an album is worth as much as the label's think it does?

Wasn't there a week when Lady Gaga sold her Born This Way album for $0.99? And it still did not sell better than stars of her caliber sell these days. BTW, such cheap prices would be impossible with physical albums, so again you can see how digital downloads also have their advantage. But you know even for 0.99 I just did not have the desire to buy and own that album, knowing I would probably never listen to it. And maybe many people just feel this way about most current music (and it's not just Gaga).

Good point Bubs, I forgot about that! There is no longer any need to actually purchase the whole album anymore. The majority of the albums on iTunes let you pick the individual songs you wish to purchase instead of the full album, and many use this to their advantage. That right there may be a substantial reason.

Obviously people will give out 1 or 2 dollars for a song easier than $15 for an album. But it's not like we used to buy full albums just for one or two songs back in the day. We just recorded that one song we liked from a certain album from the radio then. I certainly did not buy a full album if it was just one or two songs I liked from it. So download actually makes me more of a buyer now than I was back then from this respect.

Also, let's not be so US centric. I'm from Eastern Europe and when I was a kid most albums I could buy were pirate copies. Because they were cheaper, more available (lots of albums that weren't available in stores you could buy on the black market) and also at the time we did not really have an understanding about how it hurts the artist you like. So the first MJ albums I had were pirate copies - Bad, Dangerous, Thriller, OTW. It's also because as a kid you do not have your own income, you do not have a lot of money (so it's not just a problem of current University students). The first time I bought a real non-pirate copy was HIStory. Then as I grew and got my money and also understood how it hurts the artist, of course I bought real copies of all those albums. The point is that there were many forms of piracy even back then.
And let's not forget that these days the market for each artist is a lot bigger. Something is released in the US today and it is available to almost everyone in the world at the same time. Accompanied with the same hype, same advertisements, same videos. It wasn't the case back then. In the 80s there was the Iron Curtain, there was the difficulty of getting those albums in many countries, radios did not play the same Top 40 music all over the world etc. etc. MTV Europe did not even start until 1987 - let alone YouTube. It's much more globalized now and with all the whining about downloads (I'm not talking about you but generally about the industry's whining) it should also be acknowledged how the Internet actually helped to globalize the market and make it a LOT bigger than it used to be. This is why I said it's too simplicistic to blame it all on the Internet and downloads and too convenient as well, without the acknowledgement that maybe, just maybe the quality of music also has a little to do with the decline of sales.

From personal experience I only buy the albums of those artists who I really, really like generally - and not just one or two songs from them. But that was also the case back in the CD, cassette and vynil days also.

 

[HIStoric]

Re: News and discussion about upcoming MJ album [Update Pg15]

Wasn't there a week when Lady Gaga sold her Born This Way album for $0.99? And it still did not sell better than stars of her caliber sell these days. BTW, such cheap prices would be impossible with physical albums, so again you can see how digital downloads also have their advantage. But you know even for 0.99 I just did not have the desire to buy and own that album, knowing I would probably never listen to it. And maybe many people just feel this way about most current music (and it's not just Gaga).

Yeah, if I recall correctly, Amazon proposed a deal to Gaga where they would sell a digital copy of BTW on Amazon.com for 99c and pay Gaga the full price for every album (which, of course, they didn't turn down). The main purpose was to advertise some new Cloud service Amazon was advertising, where you had to buy a digital album to get access to it. I believe some people bought that album for that purpose. In regards to what you feel about the album, that's allgood, each to their own taste ^_^

(Oh and in regards to the first week sales of BTW, I believe it sold 1.1million copies in the first week, 460,000 of which were from Amazon.com or something. That's off the top of my head).

And let's not forget that these days the market for each artist is a lot bigger. Something is released in the US today and it is available to almost everyone in the world at the same time. Accompanied with the same hype, same advertisements, same videos. It wasn't the case back then. In the 80s there was the Iron Curtain, there was the difficulty of getting those albums in many countries, radios did not play the same Top 40 music all over the world etc. etc. MTV Europe did not even start until 1987 - let alone YouTube. It's much more globalized now and with all the whining about downloads (I'm not talking about you but generally about the industry's whining) it should also be acknowledged how the Internet actually helped to globalize the market and make it a LOT bigger than it used to be.

I was thinking about this 'globalisation' thing earlier actually. I think a factor to remember, however, is that it is somewhat easier to avoid this promotion and hype now. Back in the 1980s/1990s, if you wanted to watch a music video, you had to go on MTV. You would have to sit through multiple videos and advertisements in hope that your desired video would be played. It wasn't easy to avoid hype for new albums. These days? You want to watch a video? Cool, just YouTube the video you want and not only do you have to sit through other videos that build up hype for new albums, but you also avoid advertisements for these upcoming albums in commercial breaks. So you're right in some ways about the globalisation, but I also think this is an important factor to consider too. In the past, it was harder to avoid. These days, while you sometimes can't avoid it outright, it can be easier to avoid the hype and promotion of some albums. Hope this makes sense? I'm quite tired at the moment haha.

 

[HIStory]

(Oh and in regards to the first week sales of BTW, I believe it sold 1.1million copies in the first week, 460,000 of which were from Amazon.com or something. That's off the top of my head).

The bigger point was about the price. You said that people buy less albums these days because they are overpriced. Well, I don't think that's the case. 1) Digital albums tend to be cheaper than physical ones so if anything there are cheaper ways to buy an album now legally than in the past, 2) The example of Gaga shows that it's not all about the price. You hardly can get any cheaper than 0.99 cents for an album. Yet it did not sell crazy amounts even with that. 1.1 million copies are great for first week sales, but not exceptional, nothing that artists can't produce these days even with a normal price.

BTW, it's also an interesting phenomenon that while overall album sales went down drastically, first week sales went up. It seems like at the age of iTunes, Internet etc. 80% of an album's overall sales tend to cummulate in its first week. Then it drastically drops on the second and third week and then quickly disappears from the charts. So even these albums which sell 1-1.5 million copies in their first week end up with an overall sales number of about 2 million and that's about it.

At the same time the real huge sellers have a very different chart history. They usually start slow and then they climb up and keep selling and selling and selling week after week. It's longevity that makes an album a true big seller and a classic, not first week sales. Like Thriller started at #11. Then slowly climbed up to Top 10 then to #1 and eventually it spent 37 weeks at #1. It kind of counters your argument IMO that in the past people just blindly bought albums without knowing its content. Well, actually it's when they heard the songs play on radio and liked them that's when they bought the album. You can say that was in the past with different mechanisms in the music industry and it's true, but exactly the chart history of 21 by Adele shows that it still works the same way with real big sellers. 21 also did not start out as massive as some of the other albums these days - it sold about 300k in its first week, which is not bad but not as great as some other albums first week sales these days. But then 21 had longevity and eventually outsold all those 1-1.5 million first week sellers by a huge margin.

If it's good then it will stick with people and it will keep selling and selling. But most albums these days just have a huge first week rush and then drop like a brick after the fan base of that artist bought it on the first week.

I was thinking about this 'globalisation' thing earlier actually. I think a factor to remember, however, is that it is somewhat easier to avoid this promotion and hype now. Back in the 1980s/1990s, if you wanted to watch a music video, you had to go on MTV. You would have to sit through multiple videos and advertisements in hope that your desired video would be played. It wasn't easy to avoid hype for new albums. These days? You want to watch a video? Cool, just YouTube the video you want and not only do you have to sit through other videos that build up hype for new albums, but you also avoid advertisements for these upcoming albums in commercial breaks. So you're right in some ways about the globalisation, but I also think this is an important factor to consider too. In the past, it was harder to avoid. These days, while you sometimes can't avoid it outright, it can be easier to avoid the hype and promotion of some albums. Hope this makes sense? I'm quite tired at the moment haha.

You have to realize that traditional advertisement is just one thing. You cannot deny that information flows easier and that's what is important not whether you get people watch advertisements on TV. I'm much more informed about what album comes out when now as back in the day when we had music magazines which came out monthly or every two weeks and they either wrote about an album or they didn't. It's simply undeniable that information now is quicker, more fine tuned (eg. Facebook and other websites track your interests and they will come up with suggestions and ads which correspond one's taste). You will also meet the hype no matter what.Through social media, through online ads, through ads on iTunes, through articles etc. etc. I remember when Pink's latest album came out it was like any website I went to there was an advertisement for it. Or Beyoncé's latest shows very well how hype can be built up through social media. Obviously the means changed and the focus is not on traditional TV advertising any more, but the bottom line is that hype and advertisement and information is a lot more global now than back in the day. We get the same hype, same info about an album here in Eastern Europe as you guys in the US or UK. It wasn't the case in the 80s. I can't see how anyone can deny that. It isn't called the information age for nothing.

 

[bobmoo79]

Re: News and discussion about upcoming MJ album [Update Pg15]

I just want to say that this is a very interesting discussion! Good points on both sides.

 

[HIStoric]

The bigger point was about the price. You said that people buy less albums these days because they are overpriced. Well, I don't think that's the case.

I didn't say that exactly. What I meant is that, perhaps, by having every album available at our fingertips for free, it may have undermined the value of an album to some people. I have seen people on the internet from time to time suggest that album prices are too high now. It was merely a suggestion, not a definite "this is what has happened".

Though perhaps I am wrong. After all, the sales of vinyl records have been rising quite a bit over the past few years and they do tend to cost a little bit more than a CD/digital copy.

It kind of counters your argument IMO that in the past people just blindly bought albums without knowing its content. Well, actually it's when they heard the songs play on radio and liked them that's when they bought the album.

I don't know if you intended it, but you've made it sound like I suggested that everybody blindly bought albums without knowing it's content. Obviously not everybody would do it, but I imagine some would because there wasn't really any way to preview an album unless a friend had it or something. How else would you hear most of an album? The obvious answer is the radio, but would the radio stations back then play a lot of non-singles from most albums? (I'm not actually sure so it's a genuine question, I almost never listen to the radio these days and it might've been different back in the 1990s etc).

I also suggested that because I have read about how some people would like to buy a song or two they heard on the radio, but the only way they could buy the songs was by buying a full priced CD, of which they might not have known what the rest of the album was like. As you said yourself, many shops didn't stock singles.

I didn't disagree with you on flow of information, if anything I actually agreed with you ("you're right in some ways about globalisation"). I still think it is easier to avoid the hype of some albums if you want to. Back when people got their music videos through the TV, they had to watch the advertisements in between every couple of videos. If you wanted to read the latest news and gossip, you couldn't avoid the advertisements in newspapers or magazines. These days this has completely changed as the consumer has the tools now to get rid of these advertisements.

As we all know, albums are still advertised quite heavily through ads, before-video ads, banner ads, social media ads you see on the sidebar of Facebook. You can install tools such as AdBlock (which is quite reasonably commonplace) that eradicate these online ads almost completely, so you wouldn't have the ad for Bruno Mars' new album before your YouTube video, nor should P!nk be covering the sidebars of your favourite news/gossip website. They get rid of the paid social media ads you see on Facebook too. Does it allow you to completely avoid the hype? Not entirely. You'll always witness hype and advertisements you can't avoid (i.e. billboards, ads in physical magazines/newspapers, on the radio and iTunes Store homepage) but these days, you at least have the power to disable some significant forms of hype and advertisement and yet still gain access to the information you want. So I do agree with you in the sense that you will always meet hype, it's just that these days consumers have the power to at least reduce the amount of hype and advertisements they see.

There will always be albums that gain attention through strong word of mouth and significant social and news media presence ('21' and 'BEYONCÉ' for example) and you'll never be able to avoid the hype of those albums unless you become anti-social and don't check up on the news or something. If anything that form of advertisement (word of mouth + social + news media) is much more stronger now, thanks to the information age as you mentioned.

 

[MIST]

Re: News and discussion about upcoming MJ album [Update Pg15]

I don't know if you intended it, but you've made it sound like I suggested that everybody blindly bought albums without knowing it's content. Obviously not everybody would do it, but I imagine some would because there wasn't really any way to preview an album unless a friend had it or something. How else would you hear most of an album?

You could listen to it in the shop.
I remember I was there with headphones and listened to music.

 

[HIStoric]

Re: News and discussion about upcoming MJ album [Update Pg15]

You could listen to it in the shop.
I remember I was there with headphones and listened to music.

Yeah, I thought of that. I imagine they wouldn't let you play it in it's entirety though so you'd have to skim through the album (but I suppose that's no different than listening to the 90 second previews on iTunes)

 

[HIStory]

Re: News and discussion about upcoming MJ album [Update Pg15]

Obviously not everybody would do it, but I imagine some would because there wasn't really any way to preview an album unless a friend had it or something. How else would you hear most of an album?

You could listen to the album in the record store before buying it. A record is about 45 minutes long and probably most people would not listen to it from start to finish there but you could if you wanted. At least it was the case with record stores here.

The fact that albums rarely went to Nr 1 in their first week back then (while it's almost the norm now for major artists) does indicate that people first liked to get a feel of an album, hear the singles, hear the news from those who bought it whether it's any good, listen to it at some neighbour's who had it etc.

As we all know, albums are still advertised quite heavily through ads, before-video ads, banner ads, social media ads you see on the sidebar of Facebook. You can install tools such as AdBlock (which is quite reasonably commonplace) that eradicate these online ads almost completely, so you wouldn't have the ad for Bruno Mars' new album before your YouTube video, nor should P!nk be covering the sidebars of your favourite news/gossip website. They get rid of the paid social media ads you see on Facebook too. Does it allow you to completely avoid the hype? Not entirely. You'll always witness hype and advertisements you can't avoid (i.e. billboards, ads in physical magazines/newspapers, on the radio and iTunes Store homepage) but these days, you at least have the power to disable some significant forms of hype and advertisement and yet still gain access to the information you want. So I do agree with you in the sense that you will always meet hype, it's just that these days consumers have the power to at least reduce the amount of hype and advertisements they see.

Yes, if you actively seek to avoid advertisements you can. You could back in the day as well. There's the remote control during ad breaks and you don't have to read the advertisments in papers. Those who actively seek to avoid ads do so because they just don't care for certain products - those people would not buy that product whether they saw the ad or they didn't. Someone who is generally interested in music though would probably seek to be updated about music news, latest releases etc - and he is the target audience who would likely also buy. It's like back in the day you saw record ads in music magazines, not in political papers. So if someone is not interested in pop music that person probably did not buy music magazines and in political magazines he did not see the latest records advertised. But if someone was a buyer of music magazines chances are that he would also be interested in what's released and what's hip.

Maybe you are too young to even imagine that world, but I don't know how someone can deny how much more global hype and information is now with the Internet and everything compared to the 80s. It's not even close. Now virtually the whole world listens to the same music and gets the same things at the same time accompanied with the same hype, same videos etc. It just wasn't the case back then. Not music, but I remember that Star Wars got here YEARS later compared to the US! I haven't seen a music video until the end of the 80s when MTV Europe started. And that's when I discovered Michael Jackson. I don't remember ever hearing about Thriller before that. And then I bought my pirate copy on the black market. And my first copy of Bad was a cassette that my father copied for me from a friend. So that's how piracy worked back then. LOL. Probably piracy was less widespread in Western countries but here it was "normal". I rarely saw kids who had a real copy of a record.

 

[HIStory]

Re: News and discussion about upcoming MJ album [Update Pg15]

Yeah, I thought of that. I imagine they wouldn't let you play it in it's entirety though so you'd have to skim through the album (but I suppose that's no different than listening to the 90 second previews on iTunes)

They did let you if you wanted.

 

[mj_brainiac]

Re: News and discussion about upcoming MJ album [Update Pg15]

a poster on Okayplayer.com named Johnbook posted this about the decline of physical and download sales:

Hard to do when artists don't make albums worth buying


Let's go back to the 1990's when people would complain about buying a CD, spending $13.99 to $18.99 for an album where they ended up only liking three to four songs.
It became a ritual to buy the CD, dub the good songs onto cassette or burn it on CD, then return the CD for an exchange.
The MP3 changed that. No longer did you have to buy the album, but you could buy the songs you wanted and eliminate "the excess fat".
To make it worse, you didn't have to buy the album officially.


On one side, pop music proves you absolutely don't need an album to get buy.
It used to be where album sales could carry you for years, but when albums are leaked a week or two before an official release, everyone gang-downloads it and it's hated within the hour, there is no time to "let it simmer" or appreciate it with time.
There is no time for appreciation when you have to download the next 50 albums on the list.


On one hand, it eliminates wasteful spending on unwanted music.
On the other hand, it takes away the importance of creating full projects that aren't appreciated as they should.
Erykah Badu was quoted as saying something to the effect that "I don't create 99 cent songs" (or something close to that.
She wants people to consume her music in full, as a complete project.
Albums were originally meant to be representations of the live experience, or what you could enjoy in a live setting.
Now look at concert attendance and ticket sales. In some places, sales are lower than ever.


I have another hand to show you. Look at Timberlake's album. His album featured long and drawn-out takes of songs, only two of which were edited to single lengths (I believe there are four different edits of "Suit And Tie", I'm sure there are a few more for different markets).
Today's music audiences aren't used to long and drawn out songs that are equal to jam sessions.
Yet what made THE 20/20 EXPERIENCE so good is the fact that it felt like an album of extended/long/disco versions, where he let each song carry on and "travel" on its own pace.
It sold because the music was consistent and very good. Of course, it sold because "he is Timberlake" but he couldn't be Timberlake if the music wasn't good.
Arguably, the same could or should be said for any artist but when the music isn't a real factor, then they can release anything and everything it would be considered a hit and believed that it is so.


A few years ago, I had said that Beyonce is more of an EP artist, in that her hits do very well and no one needs the fluff.
Yet at the same time, tell that to a diehard Beyonce fan. They'll like the hits and the album cuts.
Are they consumed in the same way? Does it matter if they do? Maybe a Beyonce album isn't listened to in the same way that a Timberlake album is, but I'm not a Beyonce fan.
Maybe Beyonce is one hell of an album artist, and knows how to construct her works to be heard in full. If so, good.


In some genres, the single will always remain king. Album cuts aren't listened to in the same way they are in other genres, where a lot of times the album cut is far better than the single.
Try saying that in pop genres. "The album track is better than the hit? Who listens to the album tracks?"
You remove the importance, or at least the existence of the variable and there will be no reason to care.
Yet those who do care about the album format are often neglected, now considered wasteful, or people think their albums are not "up to par".
People are mixed about the Elvis Costello/Roots album, with some Costello fans feeling The Roots aren't up to par, while Roots fans will say "you can't forget what Costello said way back when" or "why would tell collaborate with him?"
I honestly feel those who didn't get the album the first time around, it will come back to them in 5 to 10 years.
In a music industry where the turnover rate is high and frequent, some artists don't have 5 to 10 years to make it or break it.
It's hard enough to exist, yet they still persist.


Albums are great, because it offers more than three to four songs you'll hear on the radio frequently.
Variety is the spice of life, and I want to hear variety, the spices, and life itself. Yet the importance of the album is almost gone.
The bad thing about that is younger music fans will find it difficult to care unless they believe in its strengths and are aware of its tentative weaknesses.
The good thing is that there are many, like myself, who still care and worship the power of a great album. A single is a partial picture.
An album is the full book, and when there are illustrations or liner notes, it enhances the music in a small way.
A strong single is great, but an incredible album can rule the world, as it has many times over.

 

[mj_brainiac]

Re: News and discussion about upcoming MJ album [Update Pg15]

They did let you if you wanted.

Yep.

Here in the US, stores like Camelot Music, Sam Goody, and Musicland, they had "listening booths" where you could put on ear phones and listen to full albums or snippets/preview versions. I'm 26 so I remember going to stores and listening to parts of HIStory before getting it for my birthday and other albums like Janet's Velvet Rope before buying them on CD or cassette (a format I do not miss lol)


Question for those who remember, does it feel like you appreciated or consumed music differently back then?

 

[HIStory]

Question for those who remember, does it feel like you appreciated or consumed music differently back then?

Good question. And I think it relates to what that poster said in your previous post:

On one side, pop music proves you absolutely don't need an album to get buy.
It used to be where album sales could carry you for years, but when albums are leaked a week or two before an official release, everyone gang-downloads it and it's hated within the hour, there is no time to "let it simmer" or appreciate it with time.
There is no time for appreciation when you have to download the next 50 albums on the list.

I feel that too that it kind of became a "fast food" world we live in. If your album does not sell immediately it probably never will. Immediate impulses and results are needed. There is no time for a slow build-up. People listen to an album or a song and if they like it immediately they take it and if they don't they don't give it a second chance, because as the poster above said "you have to download the next 50 albums on the list". But sometimes I like a song immediately but after a couple of listens I realize it's not that good, it becomes boring and annoying. And vica versa, sometimes I do not like a song immediately but after a couple of listens I discover its beauty and then it becomes an all time favorite. So one listen is rarely enough to truly judge a song, let alone an album. But often people do not give any more chance to an album than one listen.
Back then I think the pace was slower in everything (not a bad thing) and maybe that's another reason why people maybe had more patience for albums, not just for singles.

I also agree with the poster that it's a vicious cycle: because people get more focused on singles, pop artists rarely care about making great albums any more, they too are just focused on scoring a hit single. (Beyoncé talked about how she tries to go against this trend with her latest album and with the concept of how it was released.) I think there are also genres where its more typical to have albums artists (rock) and there are genres where it's more typical to have singles artists (dance, pop). There are exceptions though: for example, Michael - even though he was a pop artist he was always more an albums artist (with the exception of the J5 era, where they were more singles artists). I always appreciated the entirety of his albums. Back then when he created Thriller it was a declared goal of his to create an album where every song is a hit, there are no fillers and he did. Out of the 9 songs of the album 7 (every single that they released from it) were Top 10 hits. And then Bad produced 5 Nr 1s etc. I think his albums were always very strong, had great song after great song, and that's why he was more of an albums artist rather than a singles artist. I personally agree with the sentiment of that poster that I appreciate albums and I also tend to value a strong albums artist more than a singles artist.

The difference between consuming music? It's a lot easier now to get the songs you want. Back then you waited until they played it on the radio and recorded it. (I never bought a full album just for one song and singles weren't in the picture here.) Now you just download it. If I truly appreciate an artists and a song I try to download it legally. Then there are my very favorite artists from whom I like most things or I'm interested in their full body of work and from those I download albums (legally). And then the top category in my book is (Michael is in this one of course) when I love an artist very, very much then I'm not satisfied with downloading from iTunes, but I want to have the physical copies. It's not in every artists case - mainly because of lack of room to have everything physically - but from those who are my very favorites I want to have the physical albums.

 

[Hess]

Re: News and discussion about upcoming MJ album [Update Pg15]

Hope for some news soon so we can get back on topic and discus the new album... (Not that the current debate about album sales etc. isn't interesting!)

I SO hope for an album with maybe 12-14 songs!! - I think Michal with only 10 songs and a lenght on less than 50 mins was too short! - I know they only have a limited number of songs, but still! add 2-4 songs and give us AT LEAST 1 hour of great MJ music! 70 mins would be great of course!! :lol: :lol:

 

[DanGerouS-]

Re: News and discussion about upcoming MJ album [Update Pg15]

12-14 new songs as an album (prepared for chart success and without features like Justin Bieber).
+ a deluxe edition with loads of demos / video footage.

MJ deserves at least one more #1 hit. PLEASE

 

[Snow White 1937]

Re: News and discussion about upcoming MJ album [Update Pg15]

I SO hope for an album with maybe 12-14 songs!!

Yes, please! :wub: My guess is that it'll be only 10 songs though. But who knows, I'm still crossing fingers.

MJ deserves at least one more #1 hit. PLEASE

Yes, he does! Absolutely!
Just the other day they played Remember the Time on the radio and I wistfully thought of the good old times. I would love to hear a new MJ song on the radio which is a smash hit. And I agree, no Bieber or any of these other forgettable artists. Just MJ alone.

 

[HIStoric]

Re: News and discussion about upcoming MJ album [Update Pg15]

I think it'll probably be 10 songs as the Estate will have to take into consideration the amount of 'finishable' songs left in the vault that are of substantial quality. Maybe 12 if they have a Deluxe Edition.

I'm happy with either, 10 songs is the perfect length of an album for me and I'll be more likely to play the whole album in one go if it's that length

 

[AlwaysThere]

Re: News and discussion about upcoming MJ album [Update Pg15]

My expectations are between five and eight new songs. There more than likely won't be a Deluxe/Collectors Edition or any kind of huge bonus feature.

Re the conversation on sales: I won't get into the long debate about why the music industry is at an all-time low, as pretty much everything I could possibly say has been detailed in the past few pages. What I WILL say is that there is no chance this album will sell five million copies. It's a generous idea and would be phenomenal, but it's just not in the cards. Hell, Michael sold around 2.2 million copies, and even that astounds me considering how many fans boycotted its release.

If the Estate can deliver a quality product, market it with good singles and proper promotion, I have no doubts that it could chart high and sell well. Five million? Definitely not. One or two million? Very doable.

 

[sonijacim]

Re: News and discussion about upcoming MJ album [Update Pg15]

I hope we will get something like BAD25 - untouched demos plus some mixes to released songs.

 

[Zakk]

Re: News and discussion about upcoming MJ album [Update Pg15]

hold my hand was the song getting played on the radio when the 'Michael' album was coming out & i saw the advertisement on television several times. it peaked at #3 on the uk album charts. going on to sell 3 million around the world in one year. if they use the same techniques & they play at least one song to the radio (i'd choose can't get your weight off me, if on the new album) then i'm fairly sure it can eclipse or do better.

 

[bobmoo79]

Re: News and discussion about upcoming MJ album [Update Pg15]

hold my hand was the song getting played on the radio when the 'Michael' album was coming out & i saw the advertisement on television several times. it peaked at #3 on the uk album charts. going on to sell 3 million around the world in one year. if they use the same techniques & they play at least one song to the radio (i'd choose can't get your weight off me, if on the new album) then i'm fairly sure it can eclipse or do better.

I don't believe 'Michael' sold 3million. I have never seen any proof of that number, and most times people talk of around 2.4million (I haven't seen proof of that number either).

I know mediatraffic is not the most reliable source, but it tracks the most significant markets for music sales and so it's about as good as we can get for tracking worldwide sales figures. In the 2010 year end album sales chart, Michael sold around 1.2million copies. The album isn't featured at all in the 2011 year end chart, which suggest it sold less than 1.1million copies in 2011 (the #40 album in the chart was by Susan Boyle and sold 1.1million). Given that album sales are heavily front loaded, particularly when there are no successful singles and no ongoing promotional campaign, it is highly likely that 'Michael' sold far less than 1.1million in 2011. Possibly as low as a few hundred thousand IMO. Anyway, using Mediatraffic we can assume that 'Michael' sold less than 2.2million copies in total, and IMO much less than 2million because the vast majority of sales would have been in 2010. This is backed up by album charts from around the world which show that the album had fallen out of just about all of them by 2011. Unless somebody has proof that mediatraffic is very wrong, I would personally assume that Michael sold between 1.5million and 2million copies in total.

I'd love for somebody to come forward with some verifiable proof that shows I'm wrong but I don't think anybody can.

 

[KOPV]

Re: News and discussion about upcoming MJ album [Update Pg15]

I would put money on the album having around 10 tracks.. Could reach 12, but I highly doubt more..

Naturally I would see them wanting a full album to satisfy the audience, yet not too many tracks so they can continue releasing music down the road.. The more they skim tracks out the more potential for future releases there are.

I would be happy with 10, and I would hope for at least 3 songs (minimum) that I have never heard.. that would be a realistic thumbs up for me..

 

[Aykut85]

It would be terrific if 12-14 songs on the Albüm would be, but maybe I'd be satisfied with 10 songs, while the majority is not composed of already leaked tracks. At least half, that means not less than 5 songs should be completely new. I would be very dissapointed, if they give us only 2-3 tracks that will be never heard anyone. That would be a track list of which I would be very pleased for example.

1. X-Scape (Alternative version. I love the 5 sec. snippet from the demo)
2. Maybe we can do it
3. Slave to the rhyhtm
4. Fall again (that song must be heard from the general public, I love it)
5. She was lovin me
6. Bang your head
7. Can't get your weight off of me
8. Red eye
9. Chicago 1945
10. A place with no name

4 already leaked songs. 5 never heard songs. (only 7 sec. snippet from CGYWOOM) and 1 song which we know, but not heard from Michael yet......

 

[AlwaysThere]

Re: News and discussion about upcoming MJ album [Update Pg15]

3 never before heard songs? Against 7 that we have heard? Personally I wouldn't buy the album if that's what it was.

 

[IMWhizzle]

News and discussion about upcoming MJ album [Update Pg15]

3 never before heard songs? Against 7 that we have heard? Personally I wouldn't buy the album if that's what it was.

I would. Would love to have these gems in CDQ, or even better a HDTracks download (high audio resolution, studio quality, uncompressed).