Maybe Tommy Lee isn't so crazy after all.....

ultmetal wrote:

I disagree that it's a waste of time, however, he's not completely wrong. I have 17 & 19 year old kids, and a lot of teenage and twenty-something family members. They don't care about albums at all. They don't even care about buying music at all. They have iPods full of stolen music and don't think anything of it. They only care about hits and singles, not albums or music as an art.

However, for me, I'm not part of the MP3 generation that only seems to care about singles. I listen to albums, not hit singles.

But again you have many young metalheads buying all the records they can, and they are only 18 or 20 years old. But of course most of the young people care more about having shous of 150 dollars, or a phone of 200 then buy a cd for 9 dollars. Sad but true.

Quote :

They only care about hits and singles, not albums or music as an art.

Music for people who don't like music.

Quote :

most of the young people care more about having shous of 150 dollars, or a phone of 200 then buy a cd for 9 dollars. Sad but true.

They think nothing of dropping $60 on a new video game but won't drop, as you say, $9 on a CD. So much music, music that is "visible" to the mass public, is so soulless and mass-produced that it's all one big blur and they only listen to what their friends listen to who only listen to what TV (not even radio) tells them to...

Damn... I didn't expect this much talking on the subject I have to get some time and read all of this.

The new Yes album follows the 50min. limit. It clocks in at about 47:28, a single Lp.

even their double album Tales From Topographic Oceans clocks in at 81:15, only a minute and change over what can fit on a single cd.

EP's are even verse when you speak of value for volume.

Quote :

"I'm thinking more EPs, though – small bodies of work. You know, slaving for a year in the studio to make a whole album when the public only wants one song, it's just smurfing stupid. It makes no sense on any level. That's my opinion for my solo stuff and MÖTLEY CRÜE.

I'd be fine with this. The less I hear from Motley Crue or Tommy Lee, the better.

kmorg wrote:

EP's are even verse when you speak of value for volume.

Vampire speak. "EVEN VERSE THAN VANTING TO BITE YOUR NECK!"

I can't see a band like King's X doing 5 song EPs... That concept just doesn't work for all bands.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

The members of Down are planning on doing the same thing. I just read (either Kirk or Pepper, I forget) that Down is going to release 4 eps, each one different, but with a similiar theme that ties them all together.

They were saying basically all the same things Tommy mentioned. Noones buying albums, it's cheaper, easier, yadda, yadda, yadda.

I guess if that what bands need to do to survive, that's what they gotta do. However my jaded, cynical mind thinks there's another reason for this...

You know after the band releases 4 eps of music and you buy each one seperatly, a little while down the road, the "super-duper-deluxe version, featuring all 4 eps together on 1 disc, with a 2nd bonus disc of 3 new tracks and bonus dvd" will be released, making you want to buy them all over again.

I think in Down's case, they're just trying to be "artistic" more than anything... They want to be a modern Led Zeppelin and show off all their different angles.

S.D. wrote:

kmorg wrote:

EP's are even verse when you speak of value for volume.

Vampire speak. "EVEN VERSE THAN VANTING TO BITE YOUR NECK!"

Quote :

I think in Down's case, they're just trying to be "artistic" more than anything... They want to be a modern Led Zeppelin and show off all their different angles.

I didn't get that from the article. I think it was just them facing the facts about album sales in general. I can't remember if I read it online or in Classic Rock magazine.

And the word "artistic" should never be used when describing anything related to Phil Anselmo.

Troublezone wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

The members of Down are planning on doing the same thing. I just read (either Kirk or Pepper, I forget) that Down is going to release 4 eps, each one different, but with a similiar theme that ties them all together.

They were saying basically all the same things Tommy mentioned. Noones buying albums, it's cheaper, easier, yadda, yadda, yadda.

I guess if that what bands need to do to survive, that's what they gotta do. However my jaded, cynical mind thinks there's another reason for this...

You know after the band releases 4 eps of music and you buy each one seperatly, a little while down the road, the "super-duper-deluxe version, featuring all 4 eps together on 1 disc, with a 2nd bonus disc of 3 new tracks and bonus dvd" will be released, making you want to buy them all over again.

I think in Down's case, they're just trying to be "artistic" more than anything... They want to be a modern Led Zeppelin and show off all their different angles.

Down need to try harder if they want to be next Led Zeppelin

One of the things I'm doing with Rottweiler isn't so much e.p., but "short albums". 10 songs! No more. Kinda like the old Kiss albums. 9-10 songs and we are golden!

"10 songs" only works if they are standard 4 minute tracks. What if you have a band that does 8 minute songs?

I'm with a lot of you that an album should be no longer than 45-50 minutes worth. The rest of the time can be used up for Best Ofs or live albums not for studio albums. I actually said this same thing when Phoenix Reign was deciding how many songs and how long the album should be. I couldn't stress enough about it not being any longer than 45-50 minutes because any more than that it really is over kill. From time to time I put it on for the hell of it and it actually does make you wanting more songs or another album which is what you want.

Quote :

And the word "artistic" should never be used when describing anything related to Phil Anselmo.

Well, in his mind...

Porcupine Tree always records way more material than ends up on the albums, they usually release an EP afterward with the remaining songs.

Wilson decided on "less than 55 minutes", so Fear Of A Blank Planet was about 53 (and they released the Nil Recurring EP afterward).

For "The Incident", they just did the EP as a second disc together with the concept album (which clocked in around 51 minutes).

rawr! wrote:

copyright infringement (downloading music) isnt theft---it is illegal based on the imaginary concept of intellectual property, which is simply idea commoditization, a capitalistic approach to thinking that is obviously not univerally valid. free music doesnt have to kill the arts, and it doesnt even have to kill the industry. people just need to get their heads of their asses and work towards a system that provides for the needs of artists and art consumers. capitalism fails as a means to supporting art, especially music, and insuring posterity is provided with a rich and genuine music experience.

i think there is still a somewhat healthy appeal out there for more material rather than less, especially taking into account the fact that teenagers/"generations now"ers, while often a sizable portion of the consumption of music, do not make up tons of what goes on in the world of music consumption. and even among the young there are fans of music, as opposed to fans of hit singles.

looking at it from the point of fans, any band that has more than a couple fans usually has people that love their entire discography. marketability is pretty much moot aside from the unfortunate fact that more money can often mean more music, but in the end, id prefer music that was made out of a love for the art and the scene, even if it means independently financed records that take a bit longer to come out, or digital-only releases.

it absolutely is stealing and intellectual property isnt imaginary - its very real. There really is no excuse to steal in this day and age - most new recordings are available in a digital or physical. Respect the law and shell out the bucks to buy what you enjoy.

Those that think downloading (without paying the artist) "isn't stealing" are the ones that put us in the position we're in now. Even though some of the record labels were greedy... at least there was an industry and music stores.

Troublezone wrote:

Those that think downloading (without paying the artist) "isn't stealing" are the ones that put us in the position we're in now. Even though some of the record labels were greedy... at least there was an industry and music stores.

well said.

It doesn't make sense if a band wants any sort of shelf life. Those "bangers" will get old very quickly if there's nothing else. The reason why we still love so many great songs from the past—the classics, if you will—is because there are a thousand times more good songs out there. We enjoy the good songs, but we love the great ones. Take the former away, and we'll not find nearly as much enjoyment in music.

exact33 wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

Those that think downloading (without paying the artist) "isn't stealing" are the ones that put us in the position we're in now. Even though some of the record labels were greedy... at least there was an industry and music stores.

well said.

And I've said it before, greed is a disease we're all susceptible to. Labels might have screwed over the bands, but these bands now in control of their own work are screwing over the fans. In my eyes, that's far worse.

I don't ever remember paying over $20 for some worthless CDR put out by a record label. But bands? Yeah, they do that ALL THE FUCKING TIME!

Eyesore wrote:

exact33 wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

Those that think downloading (without paying the artist) "isn't stealing" are the ones that put us in the position we're in now. Even though some of the record labels were greedy... at least there was an industry and music stores.

well said.

And I've said it before, greed is a disease we're all susceptible to. Labels might have screwed over the bands, but these bands now in control of their own work are screwing over the fans. In my eyes, that's far worse.

I don't ever remember paying over $20 for some worthless CDR put out by a record label. But bands? Yeah, they do that ALL THE FUCKING TIME!

yep. the last Kings of the Sun 'cd' was over $40 and it was a cdr! Direct from the band with no label - they didnt even mention it was a cdr.

The CDR thing happens when a band realizes they'll never be able to make back their money on doing a full pressing. Many jazz CDs are only CDRs now, because the market is so small it's not a valid expense.

S.D. wrote:

The CDR thing happens when a band realizes they'll never be able to make back their money on doing a full pressing. Many jazz CDs are only CDRs now, because the market is so small it's not a valid expense.

i get that but i think the band should at least say its on a cdr before selling it.