Billboard Magazine, Old Media, Album Nostalgia and a Fateful Lack of Vision
April 4th, 2009 by Dave Allen
Leave it to Billboard Magazine, a scion of the fading music industry, to resort to old media tactics. This editorial on their web site is worthy of discussion but unless you happen to subscribe to the magazine for $24.95 a month you do not have the ability to comment. Clearly what happens as a result of this madness is that Billboard’s music business subscribers can hold up this editorial as a sign of “things aren’t so bad after all chaps…” and then continue to ignore the future of their business whilst looking backwards at the good old days. [Ironic note: check the image above and note the arrow in the right corner and the line 'Teen music spending drops.']
It’s not my ego nudging me to write that I can’t help thinking Steven Wilson is talking about my article, ‘The End of the Album as The Organizing Principle‘ when he sarcastically writes about ‘industry experts’ here – “Reports that CD sales continue to decline—they fell 14% in 2008 compared with 2007—have once again inspired a pundit-led roll call of the music industry’s dead and dying institutions: major labels, record stores, terrestrial radio and the CD itself, to name but a few. Recently added to the obituary page is the album itself, thanks to industry “experts.” However, I’m happy to say that the reports of the album’s death are greatly exaggerated.”
I am pleased to say I don’t consider myself an ‘industry expert,’ at least not a ‘music industry expert.’ Although I have had a long career as a professional musician [Gang of Four, Shriekback] and have run record labels etc, I would rather be remembered for jumping feet first into the future of music by joining eMusic.com as GM in 1998.
Unfortunately Wilson’s editorial completely ignores what is actually happening at the MP3 stores that he mentions – Amazon MP3 Store and Apple’s iTunes – music fans are buying more single tracks and not so many albums. He recognizes that the vinyl album is making inroads into the market place once again but he misses the point about the end of the organizing principle whilst admitting that people don’t have the attention span these days – “When the computer becomes a listener’s main source of listening to music, it’s hard to focus for 40 minutes, let alone 70.” It’s not about the computer Steven, it’s all about the Cloud and what Rio Caraeff, EVP of Universal Music’s eLABS understands when he says “the browser is the new iPod.” The browser is everywhere on almost all mobile devices, millions of them around the world – and users are not listening to album after album on them, most likely they are listening to their own playlists.
And here’s Wilson’s killer ‘make the recording industry feel better’ moment – “…. the argument that technology killed the album is a diversion—the mere availability of downloadable music is irrelevant to the question of the format’s viability.” The part of that statement that I have bolded out is simply an idiotic statement.
Technology doesn’t kill anything. In fact it moves things forward. For artists, technology and the advent of almost ubiquitous broadband has brought unparalleled freedom of expression. I wrote in my article, with regard to the early technologists who devised the album-length organizing principle, that – …..musicians and bands were not part of that decision in the first place then why would they complain of what modern technology now brings – their craft has been unchained from early technological limitations and they now have endless amounts of time and bandwidth to spread their creative message far and wide; along with unfettered artistic control.
I also wrote –
How music was delivered used to be in the hands of the few – bands, concert promoters, record companies and their retail distribution companies, radio, and video shows such as MTV. In tech-speak this system embraced ‘push’ – we the mighty and powerful will “provide you” [at a price determined by "us"] with access to our treasures when “we” feel like it. These days that system is rapidly breaking down as music fans now ‘pull’ what “they” want to listen to.
Control has moved from the few to the millions of many. Dull labels and dull bands offering dull, flat, non-experiential product – e.g. a CD, will go the way of the CD as it goes the way of the Dodo. Consider what Cirque Du Soleil provides as an experience compared to Barnum and Bailey’s circus. Or Burning Man compared to your average music festival. Even the Las Vegas Beatles-themed show ‘Across The Universe’ wipes the floor with most rock concerts these days.
If these ideas and opinions, not to mention the debate around them, are ignored, then the recording industry and Billboard Magazine will definitely follow the CD into extinction…
Tags: Album, Billboard, CD, NemoHQ, Old media, Organizing Principle, Porcupine Tree, Steven Wilson, Vinyl
April 5th, 2009 at 5:55 am
I’m shocked that they only allow subscribers to comment, especially when other newspapers and magazines are willing to give away so much free content online and have blogs, etc. It seems like if they loosened up and offered editorials, it would drive up interest in their magazine instead of cannibalizing it. And, it’s hilarious that he mentions you in the article…at least people can access what you’re writing and get your opinion FOR FREE, just like he did.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:52 am
Nubby,
He doesn’t quote me but I think it’s very coincidental that my article dropped about 4 days before his. Of course I could be absolutely wrong too. I wrote an email letter (how quaint) to the Billboard Biz editor with a link to my article as a rebuttal.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:25 am
[...] Read the post at Social-Cache.com [...]
April 5th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Oh horrors….Billboard will ‘become’ irrelevant. Like HITS magazine.
SO sad. Not.
April 5th, 2009 at 10:29 am
meanwhile Brian Solis [always a great read re PR 2.0] posts about The Decline of Newspaper Revenue and the Promise of the Human Network. Here’s the link
April 5th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Dave Allen: Woops! I read the line “It’s not my ego nudging me to write that I can’t help thinking Steven Wilson is talking about my article, ‘The End of the Album as The Organizing Principle‘ when he sarcastically writes about ‘industry experts’ here” way too fast…
Either way, you’re paying attention to current trends while many of the music magazines that used to seem downright prestigious are feeling antiquated now in comparison.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:51 am
David,
Great article, although I can’t help but think that maybe you missed something in reading Steven Wilson’s editorial.
First, I think he agrees with you entirely that the ubiquity of broadband has freed the artist. He writes about album artwork that “the ability to present images and lyrics is no longer limited by physical packaging or label budgets, only an artist’s imagination.” Likewise, in other place, Wilson has praised the distribution methods of Trent Reznor and Nine Inch Nails, while lamenting his inability to do likewise.
Secondly, while I think that it is clearly true that more people are downloading singles rather than albums, I find that secondary to Wilson’s point. He’s not talking about those people at all – he’s simply saying that there are album lovers (myself among them). I despise the very notion of a single and have never been able to listen to songs out of context. I adore the album, the packaging, and the artwork.
What Steven is saying is that there are album lovers left, and that technology has made the album’s survival a near certainty. As costs for distribution drop, and record labels lose power, the artist can be freed to use whatever organizing principle they like; for Steven Wilson and Porcupine Tree/No-Man/Blackfield/etc., that principle will be the album. And I, with many others, will be able to enjoy it.
The end of the article then, is merely a question of how to do this profitably. Obviously, music is a business. Steven points out that deluxe editions of albums are a moneymaker; for non-album centric artists, singles sold through iTunes, Amazon, et. al. will be moneymakers.
Also, CD’s do not equal albums. Near the end of your article you nearly equivocate the two. In fact, Wilson proves this very well with his recent “Insurgentes.” The Deluxe Edition shipped with a gorgeous full-color book that illustrated the songs very well. Seeing that opened my eyes to depth in the songs that could not have been experienced otherwise. The artwork, also, was fabulous, as was the video for the song “Harmony Korine.” If you want to see someone who is refusing to cave to industry “dullness”, then your model man is Steven Wilson. Oh, and the album was released as a digital download, too.
I could go on, but I will end with this: Steven Wilson is the frontman for Porcupine Tree. Their last full length album, “Fear of a Blank Planet” is entirely about the dangers of “the Cloud” and the effects of technology on children and adolescents. There is a lot behind the statement that “When the computer becomes a listener’s main source of listening to music, it’s hard to focus for 40 minutes, let alone 70.” You are right to say that the computer is not entirely at fault here. It is “the Cloud” and on demand entertainment that is to blame, as well as a myriad of societal issues.
April 7th, 2009 at 10:46 am
It is pretty easy to believe that Steven doesn’t know who you are. You aren’t the only person who has been predicting the end of the album. That’s why the article talks about “experts”, with an “s”. Certainly Bob Lefsetz has been saying many things along these lines for years now. He probably has at least one article every month which says something on the topic of albums.
I find myself agreeing with Bob, and yet agreeing with Steven too. On Bob’s side of the debate, there are an awful lot of acts who put out CD’s which only *have* a few decent songs on them. So, people buy the good songs and now refuse to buy an entire album for a few good songs.
On Steven’s side, there are groups who can write an album’s worth of material, and there are some fans who want that kind of music. Not as many as in the heyday of Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin, but enough that *some* artists can make a living from that fan base *if* they can deliver an album.
Steven and Porcupine Tree have been delivering albums for more than ten years now, and have slowly built up enough of a fan base that they’re pretty successful with albums. Again, I admit it’s not the diamond-platinum levels of success that record labels used to thrive on, but enough enough that the band makes a living off their musical projects and tours.
Note that I do agree with the idea that one has to build a fan base first, and that it’s easier to do that with a few separate songs and EP’s than trying to pull together a full album. But as a music fan for many years, I do also hope that we continue to have some bands who can write full, cohesive albums.
April 7th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Also note that Steven is saying that technology is not going to kill *albums*. He is not saying that record *labels* should sit back and feel confident that they still have the same golden goose they they used to count on. The history of Porcupine Tree has been to do their own albums, instead of having some record company give them a big advance and then tell the band what songs to write. That’s why they can make a living off the albums that they do sell, because they don’t have some huge bill that they owe to some record company.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
>>>I’m shocked that they only allow subscribers to comment, especially when other newspapers and magazines are willing to give away so much free content online and have blogs, etc.
It’s worth keeping in mind that the “newspapers and magazines [that] are willing to give away so much free content online” are all doing terribly. I have a bias here: I’m the executive editor of Billboard, although the pay-wall decisions were made by higher-ups before I started. But Web advertising simply doesn’t command a high enough CPM (cost per thousand) to run a professional news organization, even one that covers a relatively modest part of the world.
More broadly, I question your idea that the new world of ubiquitous broadband is somehow inherently less commercial than the traditional music business. Every time you download a digital file, legally or otherwise, you justify a monthly broadband bill, get targeted for online advertising and leave a train of digital breadcrumbs for multinational companies that are building dossiers on the tastes and online activities of everyone in the world. Often, “free music” is a commercial transaction for everyone *but* the artist. All our engagement with art is slowly being commodified – exactly the kind of problem predicted, with significant genius, by a band called Gang of Four.
Also: While you’re certainly free to say what you like about Billboard, the article you’re referring to was an op-ed that does not represent the thoughts of the staff – just the person who wrote it. (It was written before your piece appeared, incidentally.) As an admirer of eMusic, as well as Gang of Four, I’d like to invite you to write a response . . .
Best,
Rob
April 8th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
NOTE–this became really just a rant about cloud computing. The piece was a pretty good read, Dave.
That’s like the umpteenth time I’ve heard someone mention cloud computing in an article/conversation/etc. in the past two weeks. Was there some big world announcement, like “It’s finally ok to talk about Cloud Computing, Microsoft won’t sue you” in the past month (and if so, can we start talking about Linux and OpenOffice as well now)? It’s baffling to me that some people don’t really understand it, or bring it up in odd places. Like investment articles, where they act like it’s some new supertechnology (or confuse it with clustering), or site reviews, where they confuse it with dynamic content (which is actually accurate, just not in the way they say it is). At least it means something, unlike the much-touted “Web 2.0″, which I’ve been hearing “experts” talk about for years and is, as far as I can tell, a lot like “Web 1.0″, just with endless “Which ______ are you?” quizzes.
Accessing a website is essentially utilizing cloud computing. Opening an application on an office intranet is cloud computing. Whenever you use a search engine, access a site coded in .php or .asp or any number of coding languages that are server-side, use any dynamic site that integrates with SQL, MySQL, or any other server side database (like, for example, this site, or an online store), you are utilizing a cloud. Google Apps is cloud computing. Cloud computing is just external machines processing something and sending you the results (and, often, storing the data for you). And the most amusing thing is I have seen webhosts who offer “cloud computing” accounts. Guess what? ALL server accounts are clouds, that’s the point. You just need to install software for users to utilize (this is both a verbose definition as well as a gross oversimplification, all depending on what your end goal is).
There was really no contextual problem with your reference, the above was just a rant, but I don’t fully agree with your point–the cloud holds the content, the browser is the interpreter, and the computer/webTV/cell phone/whatever is the tool to access it all, which is really not very different from what we have now (or have had for years), except that data storage and much of the processing/specified operating structure are handled externally. I think it’s one of the more cyclical ironies, since networked computing began with terminals connected to host machines, and it is returning there. So it’s not that the browser is the new ipod, it’s that the new ipod has a browser. An ipod is just a computer, albeit a smaller one with a specialized interface.
It’s a minor point, but I just find the recent obsession with a decades old approach to working amusing. I am also amused that my spellcheck allows “umpteenth” but, oddly enough, not spellcheck.
April 9th, 2009 at 7:37 am
@ Jason C,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. Perhaps Steven Wilson and myself are closer than we think about the album yet much farther apart on the idea of the Cloud. You mention his album considered the dangers of the Cloud “….“Fear of a Blank Planet” is entirely about the dangers of “the Cloud” and the effects of technology on children and adolescents.” I don’t agree that technology has weird effects on kids or adolescents than TV has on them.
I stick to my premise that those clinging to the CD for an album release are being nostalgic, yet the CD has only been around for what, 25 years? The true experiential atmosphere surrounding an album comes both in sound and tactile quality via the vinyl record. And who was it that rushed CD technology to market – yes the labels. As I say in my essay The End Of the Album as The Organizing Principle, artists or musicians were never consulted about playback length on different technologies since playback became available. With today’s technology, artists have nothing to stop them creating the most experiential piece of work they could ever dream of. Only their imagination will create the barriers to what they can offer.
April 9th, 2009 at 7:45 am
@Garance,
Thanks for your comments. I won’t endlessly repeat my mantra here but I will say that I don’t disagree with the notion of artists without labels pressing up, say, a 1000 CDs to sell directly to fans. I would argue though, as I have written, that the work on those CDs need not be the permanent, everlasting work that the band has recorded – it should be a calling card to a better experience online.
BTW, it’s worth pointing out that The Organizing Principle theory works in the world of recording contracts too, just as it does for newspapers and books. Not having a deal with a label and going it alone, hanging on to your master and publishing copyrights, is about resisting the Organizing Principle too.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:05 am
@Rob,
Thank you for your gracious reply. Although I admire the ranting of Bob Lefsetz I don’t aspire to be that hot-headed. My piss and vinegar response to Steven’s article was based in my frustration at not being able to respond quickly and concisely directly on your web site. I still stand by my comments though. And thank you for inviting me to write a response, I’d be happy to do that.
It’s interesting that you mention the “pay-wall” with regard to charging for online content on Billboard as I have been researching the newspaper’s decline recently and reading some very concise pieces on the doom and gloom surrounding that industry. No doubt that will be yet another essay or perhaps a bulleted post pointing to the writings of far greater minds than mine – Clay Shirky and Jay Rosen.
I will say with confidence that Billboard could move its business model away from charging for online content or at least separating the cost of access to web-only and print-only subscriptions. I say this because Billboard is part of a “community.” Unlike newspapers Billboard has a following within the music industry – your community. My day job at Nemo has me researching and considering social media models for ourselves and our clients. My free advice to Billboard is that you turn the print edition into a long-story, deeply insightful magazine with guest editorial, in-depth original stories about the future of the music business, the concert business. radio etc. The online version should be the down and dirty quick-strike breaking stories – not salacious or gossipy, just up-to-the-minute breaking news in those industries I mention. Couple that with a strong social media platform push and I think you’d be a healthy operation.
Meanwhile, I never said that broadband ubiquity would be less of a commercial endeavor than any other enterprise. Nothing is free [although Chris Anderson would argue otherwise.] Downloading a music file from the Amazon MP3 store costs more than the .89c that they charge – you have to factor in your time and the ISP charge at a minimum. And, though you don’t mention it here, I can not be accused of trying to stop artists being paid for their work – I strongly believe they should. They have to move beyond all of the organizing principles to get to the money. Steven did it by getting out of the label contract system.
The experience around the music is where they will be able to make their money. As I’ve said before in a couple of keynote speeches – Musicians are in the T-shirt business these days….
April 9th, 2009 at 9:57 am
@Todd
All good points but I believe that we are beyond what you say is merely a server system. Cloud computing is not owned by Microsoft nor any other company, it is merely a term that’s used for storing your data online and also using online Apps such as GMail and other open source doc apps thus ending the need for robust laptops- instead we are moving to Net Books for instance, small light computers that have flash drives and a browser and very little else.
With music it comes down to “does the music fan want to own music” and I’d say that they are moving away from ownership toward more ubiquitous access. G4 will speed up this transition so the likely winners in the music space may well be subscription services on platforms, such as Zune and Rhapsody. For musicians this means ensuring that they are in all of the best digital music aggregation systems so that they get their slice of the pie..
Meanwhile vinyl with the download coupons inside will rule my music collection for a long time to come…