Albums Redefined

by George Howard

Rethinking the “album”

Albums used to be songs, liner notes, and cover art. Doesn’t work any more. Albums now must be the collection of social objects created during the process of writing and creating the songs. Once the album is completed, the artist’s site (not their damnable MySpace page) becomes the central repository/point of dispensation for these social objects. People come to the artist’s site to gather the social objects. They then share these social objects in order to convert others. These others then come to the artist’s site for more.

Rethinking the album process apropos of social object creation

In order to fully appreciate the importance of social objects, consider the process of making a record.

The process itself becomes a social object. Prior to note one being recorded, a micro site/blog dedicated to the project/album (which is connected to the artist’s main site) is created. The microsite/blog is shareable; it exposes and (hopefully/axiomatically) attract people to the artist’s main site.

As the project continues, so too does the creation of more social objects.

The micro site/blog for the project (again housed on/connected to the main site) collects email addresses/Twitter followers/FB friends and communicates to these followers regarding the process.

Notes on the progress of the recording are posted to the blog, demos of songs are posted, videos are posted, photos are posted. Naturally, all of these are shareable/embed-able. Naturally, they all reference the artist’s main site.

The documentation continues with the making of the record; video, sample tracks, interviews, photos, commentary. All of these represent social objects being created.

Importantly, these social objects operate at their highest level when they are not a monologue but rather a conversation. As the songs are posted, the constituents could, for example, have a say in the order of the songs on the record, etc. The result is an injection of energy.

If the tools used to create these social objects are things like Flip cameras and a blog, there is little cost involved with either the creation of the social objects or the platform.

It’s important to differentiate the album/project’s microsite/blog from the artist’s main site. The blog/micro site serves a different, albeit related, purpose than the main site. The main site is gathering place for the artist’s tribe. The microsite/blog is the central repository/dispensation point of the accumulated social objects connected to the specific project.

Remember, the album redefined is a collection of social objects.

Over time, an artist will create numerous interconnected blogs/microsites that each represent the neo-album (the collection of social objects for specific albums/projects). Each are connected with the others and with the main site, but each have a unique perspective and purpose. Ultimately, these become the artist’s new catalog.

The old concept of the album is dead. However, we now have an opportunity - if we think in terms of social objects - to reinvent the album.

Comments

[Michael Hofbauer]

Okay, it seems to me that we all know the music industry has changed. But to say the album is dead and that music is a social object (along with blogs, and myspace pages, ect...) is to limit creativity. What if Rush's 2112 album were released today? Would people would miss the story that the artists intended? I released "Woodsong" with the very intention of people listening to the whole album as they had their Sunday morning coffee. It is intended to create a "mood" for the listener, and while each song can stand on it's own, the best effect is obtained by playing the whole thing, so that the mood is not shattered. I have other songs, as yet to be released, that are intended to be listened to by themselves. So I disagree with ablums being "dead". Also, if attention spans are so short that a whole album cannot be listened to, than who has the time to read blogs about and during the "Social Object's" creation? Yes I am old, and Old School-I prefer to read liner notes, and enjoy album artwork. I miss the days of Roger Dean, and Hipgnosis album covers. Yes I know the world has changed, but there is still room for artists to create the way that they want to. I may never become famous or rich, but I will not compromise my art to conform to the limiting model of a "social object". One more thing that I've noticed: where once radio used to be the medium that would introduce new artists, television is the new medium of choice. The internet is a good delivery medium, but is waaaaay to overcrowded to be a vehicle to discovery. This is why looks are so important. Now that the accountants have started running things, you can't just make and sell music. Now you have to sell fashions, videos, games, lunchboxes, makeup, cars, etc.... the music is just a background. If the album is dead, so is art.

[Simon]

The term ALBUM referrs to physical media, it comes from albums used as package for shellacs back in the beginnig of recording industry. Why not goig futher and give up the idea of the album completely? So the whole work of an artist becomes a conitiniously growing collection of social objects.

Simon - MiNIPOP records
htt://minipop.de

[Simon]

The term ALBUM referrs to physical media, it comes from albums used as package for shellacs back in the beginnig of recording industry. Why not goig futher and give up the idea of the album completely? So the whole work of an artist becomes a conitiniously growing collection of social objects.

Simon - MiNIPOP records
htt://minipop.de

[Cagle & Nash]

Earl, you are, in my opinion, right on the money with your comments.

Back in the 60's, and I was there, it was so much more about the music. And of course A&R really meant A&R in those days too. Now with the 1 for 10 method that labels are using, they figure if they are going to invest two or three million each in ten artists in hopes of one of those ten hitting, they had better pick someone with a pretty young marketable face and not spend anything on A&R to develop that talent. Throw ten darts at the board and sweep away the nine that miss the mark and fall to the floor.

Old folks like me have to really on the truth and quality of our music prevailing over the wrinkles.

[Jeff Shattuck]

I just discovered this blog, so I'm a bit late to the party. To me, the fundamental point being made in the article is that the album has been redefined. Whereas it was once a box it a disc in it, it can now be so much more deep. Along with the box containing a disc, there are tons of other elements it can contain, especially online: videos, interviews, photos, etc. Equally important, an album no longer has to be the explosion that happens then dies away into the long tail. Rather it can be sustained through web releases and the like. However, given that an album can contain so much more value, how does the maker of the album make more money? Some say it's as simple as doing more touring and licensing; me, I'm not so sure. i would wager that there is a pricing approach yet to be discovered that would be a lot better than or choices today, which are free, pay what you want, .99 per song or $9.99 per album.

Jeff
www.cerebellumblues.com

[Pram Maven]

In a way, going from album format to "by the song" format is a good way to prevent artists from putting a lot of filler material in their albums with one or two great songs on it.

The converse of that would be the band that doesn't have any filler material- no concept art for the album either. At least, not in the traditional way. Getting used to this will require adjustment, but the "by the song" business model just might be what saves music- especially if people are willing to pay for it.

[Pram Maven]

In a way, going from album format to "by the song" format is a good way to prevent artists from putting a lot of filler material in their albums with one or two great songs on it.

The converse of that would be the band that doesn't have any filler material- no concept art for the album either. At least, not in the traditional way. Getting used to this will require adjustment, but the "by the song" business model just might be what saves music- especially if people are willing to pay for it.

[kash earley]

How do we tell those of interest how to find our CD: A Beans Musical Concert. We are also unable to find it at ITunes. If you have a telephone number please list so that we can solve this problem.

Thank you, much, Kash Earley

[STEED]

This is a very worthwhile thread. I've read all the comments and there's some good info; it's great to see a real discussion with people really involved in the topic versus the usual "you're such a *&%$ because you disagree with what I think" blah blah.

I like some of the points Mark Mason made. I realized after reading it that I myself don't listen to complete albums anymore; I usually listen to maybe 4 or 5 songs but then I move on. I think he makes a very valid point about redefining what an "album" can be. Since everything else has changed, why can't the idea of what an album is too? Maybe mini-albums of say 3-6 songs can become the "new" album format.

I appreciate the need to promote and market and I am absolutely in favor of the new freedom and opportunities the internet and sites like Tunecore have opened up to us. But it's a double-edged sword; it's nice to be able to do everything yourself but then you do have to do everything yourself all of which takes time.

An album takes a long time to make; If an album can become 3-6 songs then that leaves more time to promote and market it, while enabling you to shorten the development cycle for the next one if and when you do start to gain momentum in a fan base and sales.

I hope this discussion thread continues with this great input!

[Mark Mason]

I like this idea, but I think the idea of a collection of songs as expansive as an album is an archaic idea. Why not take it back to the Single/E.P.? Release songs or at the most a very small collection of songs. This provides the artist more flexibility to record in various manners with a natural progression of sound. Most people don't listen to albums anymore; they fill their iPod with a lots of songs from different artists. Since each piece is more than likely listened to separately it is better to treat each song as a separate thought. If a song has to be with another song you can merge the two together, and not separate them into separate tracks. At the end of the year you could reward your fans with more boutique physical releases, and the lurkers/outsiders can enjoy the pieces they want.

You could still create micro-sites/blogs, but for each song. What a wonderful opportunity to hype/promote one song. Since the focus is on the one song, more attention would be paid to creating the best music possible.

[MikeAlike ( a.k.a KDrone)]

End of story, if a good record is kick ass music, then no one
shouldn't have to rethink anything. That is not the case however, for the reality behind the music "industry"- which I will write is also an illusion- being, there is no one music machine cranking out a system or a plan from lucifer/hell (a.k.a Corporate Music Product, Inc.) that dampens the soul in order to sell it to the masses- infact there are a few "major" labels and each is a seperate business entity- and it (they) manufacture-s (cough cough), produces, their own product (that is if they not plagurizing another artists work- imitating a present or past success story from another label to "create (cough cough)" a public ploy and marketing/profiteering scheme/commercial product ( notice it doesn't read art or music) in order to control the sale of "your" record (NOT THEIRS) - if you got a good record I say then make sure it gets up and out-
One serious question I have is didn't "Napster" start the whole free music trend or was it a bunch of greedy music business affiliates who profited from the public and sum and then, then, Napster started their site and "new" business program?
Didn't Napster make a few pennies from their claim of things should be "free"-
And is that a bit contradictary and hypocritical?
What it comes down to from this post you read, is this- I wouldn't think too hard if a record is really good for real- the important thing is making sure a major label can find a way to suck the life out of that project and destroy your pyschology-right or reverse?

[Aron Gibson]

This is very timely advice. I'm actually in the process of completing my first full-lenght LP. I started a blog but got lazy and didn't keep up with it. Now that my record is about half way done I'm going to follow EVERY word of your advice. It is amazing how much has changed over the last 10 years and I think the musicians that are going to be successful will really need to re-learn the business altogether. Thanks so much!
Aron Gibson
The Swagger Sticks
myspace.com/theswaggersticks

[renovatio06]

I've skimmed over a few replies and I can see that the general response to George's post being a divided one.
On reading some of the opposing notes, I was on the verge of having second thoughts myself about George's nicely laid-out article. But when taking a deep breath and looking at that anachronism that used to be the music industry, looking at ever-changing consumer behaviours, weighing in the dynamics and side-effects of the (social) web 2.0 and finally also factoring in my personal experiences, both as an IT person as well as musician, I tend to go along with George's ideas a near 100%. The only unanswered question to me is how to monetize your work in those changing times (i.e., if you intend to squeeze a buck out of your work here and there). It will be a fine line to walk of giving away free samples or snippets as well as involving the potential audience at a degree that won't turn them away with info overload. Also, the finished material has to have an extra value that people may find worth spending a buck on.
But generally, I couldn't be happier about control being back in the hands of the artist to a large degree, as almost everyone can afford the necessary technological tools required to go about the creative as well as (self-) marketing and sales process. With a fast-emerging number of sites helping artists to get exposure and even sell their material, I think it's all up to everyone's creativity, self-startedness, perseverance and ultimately faith in themselves to get where your vision placed you in the first place. Or in a bluntly summed up statement: Opportunity? Absolutely!

[Darrell Heath]

You all have very good points have a great Holiday season!!!

Heath and Miller

[Shadobii]

Sites like myspace, youtube and tunecore have changed the way people make and promote their music.

It's all well and good to sit back and revisit the golden years of liner notes, record sleeves and the like but please don't forget that none of us saw the likes of myspace, youtube, itunes blah blah looming right around the corner circa the napster days, and even if we had predicted it, i doubt there's anything we could've done about it. The industry was so horribly f*cked up in the late 90s that it had to eventually be put down.

Backstreet Boys anyone?

I feel the internet has given us more choice than we know what to do with in that respect and the average chances for making money, getting famous or even just spreading your music for free are way higher than in the 80s or 90s. I know lots of people who are myspace successes and have been clever enough to land great record deals and gigs through their hard work and perseverance. Check out Flying Lotus for instance. Back in 06 he was just getting started online and now he's carved out his own little niche, makes good money and plays great shows all over the world and *still* manages to shuffle units of vinyl and cds. oh and he's signed to warp records.

It's a game and anyone can play now. Just don't expect your 5 chord crappy song written on a detuned guitar and recorded with a computer microphone to get you "discovered". The kids out there are 5000 steps ahead of that already with their laptops, daws, synths etc.

My point being: Get with it. Don't wait around hoping for a return to the glory days of a music industry that you somehow felt you "understood" or fit into. Stop blaming your looks or location. Carve your own space out and shit will work out eventually, provided your music speaks for itself. Blogs and microsites and just the wrapping paper and your music is the core.

I think George has a point to make and if you use say Radiohead as a mental reference whilst reading his post you might recall their website and their blog dead air space handling most of what he's talking about. Their online presence set the theme for most of In Rainbows and it was extraordinarily well done.

happy music making people :)