One thing I hear/read again and again is that people these days won't buy an album without hearing it first. Often music acts have entire albums available to stream for free via official channels, both prior to launch and actually in parallel to the album being available. Arguably we now have a situation where fans in a lot of cases only have to pay for music they enjoyed listening to, after listening to it, if they still want to.
So why and how has music ended up in a totally different position to film? There isn't a conventional norm to release an entire film for free streaming as a promotional tool for a paid product. I don't see this ever changing either but do you? Though it may slowly change, my own personal experience seems to suggest that people are still more likely to buy a DVD/Blu Ray than an album. Is it purely the physical product thing, or is it a quality thing? Or is it just because people view films different to music?
I'm not talking about paid subscription streaming services like Spotify/Netflix etc though their influence (and that of illegal downloading sites) can't be ignored as a contributor to this trend. I'm talking about bands releasing non monetised entire album streams on soundcloud/youtube.
Your thoughts?
Comments
I remember the days of films coming out on VHS literally years after they had finished in the cinema. It was felt that the home release would detract from bums on seats in the cinema. Interesting that these days when you can buy the DVD weeks (in some cases) after the cinema release, it doesn't seem to harm the film industry - if anything the two keep each other in good health.
I don't know what my point was ...but anyway I think bands/ record companies are paying the price now for people paying way over the odds in the 80's/ 90's for albums that were loaded down with filler. We want to see the pig before we'll pay for the poke now, if you see what I mean.
With music, it's different as it does bear repeated listening (in fact, you could argue that repetition is part of music's appeal, in some ways).
Some folk still like to have a collection of original DVD's/ Blu-rays etc..
I'm kind of a bad example as I have lots of DVD's...but 90% of them are music!
Anyhoo:
On Virgin on demand a lot of the films can be watched free for the first ten minutes now, there is a similar thing on my new smart tv which is an app for watching this kind of thing as well. This kind of thing brings the two ideas closer together maybe?
With film by and large you pay more for the novelty ie costs more to see it at the cinema, bit less to buy a dvd, less again for on demand services and eventually ( sort of) free on tv channels. Music roughly mirrors this but perhaps it could more closely - brand new Artic Monkeys full price for cd or download, two months after release half price, two months after that bargain bin and after that free on Spotify ( if you don't mind the ads). How much you pay depends on how keen you are to hear it. This ignores free rip off downloads but then I'm ignoring film bootlegs as well.
This model would only 'work' for established acts with regular release schedules and fan bases ready to buy as each album comes out. In all honesty most of the albums I buy have been out at least a year if not a couple of years before I buy them. It isn't always a case of not being keen to hear more often a case of I'm not aware of it yet.
It works for film as you don't usually watch a film whilst walking about so not reliant on a crappy 4g signal.
Where as music you do need a digital copy as you listen on the move. One you have a digital copy it will be cracked. Now I do buy a lot of DVDs/blurays, but I rip them immediately so they Don't get damaged by the kids. However with fast broadband connections download is actually quicker than ripping. Alas at the moment there is no subscription service that releases movies the same day as the DVD.
A song is rarely a story - it's more often a state of mind that we want to "load", a film can put you in a state of mind but it's an aweful big investment of time... I find watching Ironman gets me into a DIY phase again... full of energy.. it can last for weeks (so a worthy investment).
I think at one stage, before colour TV and hobbies (quite a recent occurence) watching films several times was the norm. Before gramophones, hearing a song was probably as expensive as going to the cinema.
So whilst on the face of it the question appears to have an obvious answer it actually is rather interesting exploring how this perception has changed over a few lifetimes.
hmm how do we invite people who'd have that experience without offending them? @Fusionista, @Phil_AKA_pip any ideas how we can invite people who've witnessed the shifting role of cinema into this discussion?
Ease of access: New music can easily be copied and put on YouTube so why not do a Coldplay and give people the chance to listen to a new album online. A record company can add other content like videos, live recordings and interviews and create a buzz around an artist. In the case of big acts a CD launch could coincide with a tour so selling tickets could be important.
Streaming: Spotify is now mainstream and Apple iTunes will be offering a similar service soon. I have a Spotify account and use it to listen to new albums and find interesting artists. If an album is really good then I'll buy it. I tend to find too many albums these days are full of filler. Just becuase a CD can hold over 60 mins worth of music doesn't mean you have to fill a CD up with 60 mins worth of music. There's something to be said for the LP record.
And as people have said - a film will be watched a few times. An album or individual tracks can be listened to 100s of times.
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
A - I can get it when it aires in the states rather than here
B - no adverts, probably my main reason
C - fuck Rupert Murdoch and how much they charge for Sky tv now.
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!