Singles?

Mick Jaggar was interviewed on NPR the other day. He mentioned something to the effect that when The Rolling Stones first broke into the mainstream back in the early 1960’s that singles were the predominant trend in the music industry. Then bands like Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd were pioneers in the evolution of the album. He believes that it has come full circle because singles, particularly because of downloads; will now become the focus once again and the album will no longer have the same significance.

This is true to a certain degree. But it doesn’t work the way it once did. Back in the early 1960’s, the artist's record label battled to get singles played on the radio and then battled for the single to gain traction with heavy rotation. This then lead to increased sales and popularity opening the door for television appearances and the opportunity to take the music on the road.

In 2007, radio doesn’t mean s**t. Who is listening? Consumers have so many outlets to find and listen to their music. The old game doesn’t reach the audience it once did and the old game isn’t influential like it once was. Back in the 60’s, if you totally were into a single, you went out and bought it – and that was it, there was nothing else, maybe an accompanying album would follow, and you would spin the same track over and over on the record player. Now, you can play fair and download it for $.99, or steal it, or have a friend copy it for you. You can find live versions on the internet, complete concerts from the artist, etc. The single is just one piece of the pie and if you get sick of it, you simply delete it from your hard drive – music does not hold the same value it once did.

So, if Mick’s view is spot-on, then it really is a sign that the apocalypse is coming. Labels cannot survive in a “singles” business and artists can’t either (unless they have a huge following for their live work).

The real reason some believe that it may become some sort of singles business again is simply because a lot of music sucks. The album no longer has the credibility it once did. For over two decades the quality has become worse with every passing year. The labels slowly jacked up the price of the album and the content became weaker and less interesting as time passed. Suddenly, consumers are faced with albums with maybe one endearing single (two if they are lucky) and twelve filler throw-away tracks for up to $18.

Certainly there are still talented artists and good bands out there. But if they haven’t been commercial enough, if they haven’t been willing to play the game, they have been passed over in favor of fluff that now has the major labels in a sling. The album is dead because the labels helped kill it by being short-sighted and by not developing artists.

For example, if The Who had signed a record deal in the 2007 landscape, they probably would have been dropped after “A Quick One” and definitely after “Sell Out.” The world may never have had a chance to hear the legendary “Tommy” album and two years later the sensational “Who’s Next” album. Granted, the band was feeling pressure from their label back in 1968 to deliver something big, and fortunately for them “Tommy” was a hit, but they were given time to develop and reach their potential.

I dig a good single. I have a great 80’s playlist on one of my iPods with some fantastic singles by bands that never produced much more than one quality track. As good as some of those songs may be, they simply cannot compete with a full-length quality album. I love Hendrix’s “All Along The Watchtower,” but I prefer to listen to the entire “Electric Ladyland” album.

If an artist cannot create more than one great song, so be it. I’ll enjoy the one track. But if artists are turned away from producing more extensive bodies of work because the focus turns to issuing singles on a whim, then everyone will lose - especially the creative process. Creating a great album is something artists should strive for. As it currently stands, a lot of the mainstream artists are simply trying to fill a CD with 12 songs and hoping one takes off.

But Albums don’t sell anymore. Or at least they don’t sell at the levels music executives think they should. Yeah, Kanye West and 50 Cent moved some big units a few weeks back, but there has been a continuing sharp decline in album sales for the past few years. Springsteen was #1 again this week and he sold less than 100,000 copies. That is a horrible sales figure in the current music climate. It is the fourth quarter of the year, the biggest sales season, and the #1 album has sold less 100,000 for the week. But, you don’t kill the concept of the album simply because it isn’t selling like it once did.

Some will argue that in a country of nearly 300 Million people with all the marketing and promotional outlets artists have today at their disposal, that it is alarmingly bad that albums can’t sell. They blame CDs, the over-pricing of CDs, peer to peer trading, downloads, etc. Perhaps the music executives and labels do not see things clearly because their views are warped from past glories. Is it reasonable to think that a big title should move 10 Million units? Should albums like “Born In The USA,” “Brothers In Arms” and “Supernatural” be the norm in terms of sales? Should this happen every sales quarter? For a long time, this was the trend (and radio played a big role in it). A big name album would sell insane amounts. Suddenly this scenario is gone, a thing of the past. Yeah, some albums have a big week or two, but then the sales sharply drop off. Maybe this is how it is going to be from here on out (with a few exceptions). Maybe it isn’t about how to get it back to how it once was; maybe it is time to realize the current landscape is not the same and that there is no going back.

Music consumers do not believe in all of this hoopla like they once did. There are so many outlets for one’s entertainment dollar. Maybe consumers only want to pay $.99 for a few tracks; maybe they’ve embraced this concept. You can’t get them back. You can’t convince the general consumer to consistently drop $18 - $20 on new CDs for casual listening. Before iTunes, albums sold a lot more because the consumer usually had to buy an entire CD just for a single they liked on the radio – talk about getting screwed. The hardcore music fanatics like me will drop money on music because we are addicted, but a lot of people aren’t. The labels, executives and even the artists have gotten used to expectations that are now unreasonable. Maybe the financial expectations by all parties involved needs to be readjusted. There is still money to be made, but possibly not as much. That is a hard concept to swallow for many, but it may be a reality.

In the current climate of the business, if an album doesn’t sell over a million copies, it is a failure. How can this be? Well, like I said before, unrealistic expectations have clouded the judgment of a lot of music executives. Those involved need to get creative; figure out a way to get consumers excited about music and inspire them to purchase it. The album shouldn’t die simply because most do not move over 1 million copies anymore. The sales potential for albums is just currently lower in this era. The fact that there are very few traditional record stores in existence doesn't help matters either.

It wasn’t always about greed and moving millions and millions of units. Yes, sales have always been important, but the art form of music once was the real driving force. Just look at the classic Blue Note Jazz catalogue – the music was the main thing. The label wanted profits (who doesn’t?), but the music came first. It cannot be that way right now with the way things currently stand because the major labels have shareholders to answer to – they can’t let a band like The Who develop over the course of 4 albums before delivering the goods. The majors are too corporate. Their greed and short-sighted business model is coming to a screeching halt.

The album will never die. A true artist strives to create a great album. They believe in the power of the album. So, Mick Jaggar may see singles leading the way in the future, but that will only appeal to the casual music consumer and the casual artist. The real talented artists will look back at all the great records like “Sgt. Peppers” and “Pet Sounds” and aspire to achieve that same creative process and outcome. As a musician, what can be better than making that kind of bold statement?