|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 13, 2021 18:27:47 GMT
I think individual songs are definitely the focus for listeners. Not to say nobody cares about albums, that's not true. (Absolutes are never true, to use an absolute in my disclaimer of them.) But it seems clear to me that most people stream songs more than albums. Playlists, whether curated, random, or self-curated, seem to be the deal.
Where it is--and where MTV was--different from the older, traditional singles is in sales. People used to buy singles. During the MTV era, I think people mostly were influenced by singles (on MTV or to a lesser degree, radio) to buy albums. Cassette singles, I would bet, were never as commercially popular as traditional 45s.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Aug 13, 2021 18:46:40 GMT
During the MTV era, I think people mostly were influenced by singles (on MTV or to a lesser degree, radio) to buy albums.
Oh, yes, definitely. Back in the days of MTV videos, I remember at the bottom of the screen at the beginning and ending of the video, it listed the album title. People noticed it, remembered it, and wanted it. Free advertising!
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 13, 2021 18:49:15 GMT
Yep. I believe it was like:
Guns 'n' Roses Appetite for Destruction Geffen Records
Something like that.
My point was that yeah, singles (focus tracks!) were still the entry point, but in different and changing ways.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Aug 13, 2021 18:51:53 GMT
But, I agree with lonelysummer, the industry seems to be shifting back to singles....er um focus tracks these days. You're even seeing legacy artists starting to stray from full albums. Ringo just released an EP today. I've said before, but I really think the "album as an artform" notion isn't as present today. I agree, too, but I also think it's been going on longer than we realize. As I posted above, I think MTV in 1981 was just an extension of the radio. Those videos were playing/featuring singles. Instead of turning on AM/FM radio, you turned on your TV. To listen to...songs. And, as soon as MTV started to fade, along came Napster and itunes and Spotify and the like. Are people turning to those outlets more for albums or singles? I think that's true, at least in the 1980s. But, I still think the album was still a viable artform in the 1980s and 1990s. When I say the industry is shifting back to singles, I mean that I think, as a whole, the music business is getting back to the way it was in the 1950s and the first half of the 60s. I think that'll happen more and more as the old guard shifts into retirement or the other world.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Aug 13, 2021 18:55:35 GMT
I agree, too, but I also think it's been going on longer than we realize. As I posted above, I think MTV in 1981 was just an extension of the radio. Those videos were playing/featuring singles. Instead of turning on AM/FM radio, you turned on your TV. To listen to...songs. And, as soon as MTV started to fade, along came Napster and itunes and Spotify and the like. Are people turning to those outlets more for albums or singles? I think that's true, at least in the 1980s. But, I still think the album was still a viable artform in the 1980s and 1990s. When I say the industry is shifting back to singles, I mean that I think, as a whole, the music business is getting back to the way it was in the 1950s and the first half of the 60s. I think that'll happen more and more as the old guard shifts into retirement or the other world. Agree again, and I think the CD was very instrumental in keeping albums alive and well. IMO anyway, in several ways the CD was superior to the old...less durable, more inconvenient...vinyl. And, I know that will make some enemies...
|
|
|
Post by kds on Aug 13, 2021 18:59:35 GMT
I think that's true, at least in the 1980s. But, I still think the album was still a viable artform in the 1980s and 1990s. When I say the industry is shifting back to singles, I mean that I think, as a whole, the music business is getting back to the way it was in the 1950s and the first half of the 60s. I think that'll happen more and more as the old guard shifts into retirement or the other world. Agree again, and I think the CD was very instrumental in keeping albums alive and well. IMO anyway, in several ways the CD was superior to the old...less durable...vinyl. And, I know that will make some enemies... I actually agree with you. Although I'm biased because CDs were the dominant media when I really started getting into music. But, they're still for me. Even if I listen to a lot of music via Spotify for convenience sake. And I also agree that having something tangible to buy, be it a record, a tape, or a CD, drove albums a lot more than streaming. Now, if you hear a song on the radio or see a video on the internet, you can just pull it up on your favorite app or download it for $1.29 without having to add 10-12 other songs to your collection that you may or may not want.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 13, 2021 19:02:05 GMT
I think the best thing vinyl (and cassettes) had over CDs is the format: two sides, four to six songs apiece. I love that. A CD is just a single playlist, start to finish, 10 or 12 or 15 or 18 songs.
For my third (!!) reference to this same Jakob Dylan interview that I'm STILL listening to--honestly can't recommend it enough for talk about the industry--he actually discussed this exact thing: the differences in sequencing an album for vinyl/cassette versus a CD.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Aug 13, 2021 19:22:58 GMT
I think the best thing vinyl (and cassettes) had over CDs is the format: two sides, four to six songs apiece. I love that. A CD is just a single playlist, start to finish, 10 or 12 or 15 or 18 songs.
For my third (!!) reference to this same Jakob Dylan interview that I'm STILL listening to--honestly can't recommend it enough for talk about the industry--he actually discussed this exact thing: the differences in sequencing an album for vinyl/cassette versus a CD. I do think the Side A / Side B thing is pretty cool. And, as much as I love CDs, the fact that the CD format lead to bloated album runtimes could be a contributing factor in fans opting for digital once the option was there.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 18, 2021 14:08:04 GMT
This post could go in any one of several threads, but I'm going here because I think it actually was groundbreaking in this context maybe more than interesting in others.
Thirty-five years ago today, Bon Jovi released Slippery When Wet. According to Sirius host Eric Alper, it was the first metal album to spawn three Billboard Top 10 hits: "You Give Love a Bad Name," "Livin' On a Prayer," and "Wanted Dead or Alive." The former two both reached #1, making Bon Jovi the first metal band to have consecutive singles reach #1.
There is a lot to be asked or said. Is Bon Jovi a metal band in the first place? (Not really...) Were they good or bad for hard rock and metal music, and the popular music scene in general? Regardless of one's own feelings, they obviously influenced popular music: a softer, radio-friendly hard rock / light metal became very big. A ton of bands along those lines were signed and promoted. "Metal" (even if it wasn't quite metal) wasn't just for guys anymore: girls and women became big fans as the hard rockers showed more sex appeal and released power ballads.
I think the impact on singles would be clear if we were to go through the Top 100 and compare the percentage of singles that were from hard rock bands in the five years prior to Slippery When Wet and the five years after.
So happy birthday, Slippery When Wet. I still remember dubbing a friend's copy onto cassette way back when (and being amazed at the talk box effect of "Livin' on a Prayer," which I'd never heard or heard of before...I thought it took special skill, as opposed to a piece of hardware!).
|
|
|
Post by kds on Aug 18, 2021 15:46:29 GMT
Even as a Bon Jovi fan, I had to laugh at the word metal being used here. Great album though.
|
|