Digital music reinvents the single

By Nekesa Mumbi Moody
The Associated Press

May 13, 2007
NEW YORK -- It sounds like a horror movie: a beloved friend is callously exterminated, then reincarnated in a different form to wreak havoc on the killer.

That's the nightmare facing the music industry. Almost a decade after virtually eliminating 45s and cassette singles, thereby forcing fans to spend more money on whole albums, the digital single is largely responsible for the industry's woes.

Consumers no longer need to buy an album if they want that cool jam they heard on the radio -- and in growing numbers, they're choosing 99-cent downloads over $15 CDs.

Some worry this trend is worsening the quality of albums as a cohesive musical work, and that label executives are more and more interested in quick hits than music or artists.

The vast majority of music consumers still buy CD albums, but they are buying fewer, while digital tracks are exploding: According to Nielsen SoundScan, sales of physical CDs this year have declined 20 percent from the same point in 2006, from 112 million to 89 million. Digital tracks are up to 288 million from 242 million at the same period last year. And that's not counting millions that are illegally downloaded.

"Now, we're in a very different place in terms of the single business," Jim Donio, president of National Association of Recording Merchandisers, said in an interview. "The single business is alive and well, and it's in the form of track downloads."

The same cannot be said, however, for albums. Even counting albums that are downloaded along with physical CDs sold, album sales are down 10 percent from the same period last year, according to Nielsen SoundScan, continuing a decline that has been growing for several years.

The industry's hard times are evident in recent label consolidations, widespread layoffs, reduction in budgets and an overall air of belt-tightening.

In 1996, music companies shipped more than 1.1 billion units -- all physical product -- for a value of $12.5 billion, according to the Recording Industry Association of America. Ten years later, despite a decline in physical product sold, they industry has "shipped" approximately 1.6 billion units -- but its value is down by a billion dollars, to $11.5 billion.

"There's probably a fair amount of purchases that would have been albums but are now individual track sales instead," said Geoff Mayfield, director of charts at Billboard magazine.

And at 99 cents or so, singles bring in much less profit than albums (which is why iTunes has been pressured by record companies to raise their prices).

Other signs show of the singles-driven market: One of the most consistent album chart-toppers is the blockbuster "Now That's What I Call Music!" series, which features a compilation of the hottest tracks of the season and routinely debuts at No. 1.

And of course there is the enormous popularity of music download services like iTunes. Recently, iTunes introduce its "Complete the Album" feature, an enticement which gives credit for songs purchased from an album toward purchasing the rest of it.

The question remains whether consumers are as interested in completing the albums as they used to.

Ciara hopes so. The 20-year-old's latest platinum album, "The Evolution," on Jive Records (a unit of Sony BMG Music Entertainment, a joint venture between Sony Corp. and Bertelsmann AG) wasn't designed to provide just hits, but as an entire experience about her development into a woman, complete with interludes between the tracks.

"For me growing up, there was nothing like listening to an album that you could literally sit down and listen to from the beginning to the end," she said. "It can't just be about singles. That's the purpose of an album, it's almost like a story within itself."

Avril Lavigne, 25, who's latest album "The Best Damn Thing" on RCA (also a part of Sony BMG) debuted at No. 1, is also still in love with the album: "I'm so all about going to the store and buy a CD."

"(But) times are changing," she added. Someday "people aren't going to do records, they're just going to do singles, probably."

That would have been hard to believe just a few years ago, given that the single -- which gave birth to the recording industry and dominated it for decades -- was virtually phased out at a time of huge industry profits. While there are still physical singles in stores, the numbers are so minute that Nielsen SoundScan doesn't even track them.

"We tried to stop selling a commercial single because people were making great, great records and albums were selling like hotcakes," says longtime music industry executive Steve Rifkind, founder Street Records Corporation, home to platinum singer/producer Akon, and Loud.com.

But removing the option of purchasing a single may not have helped the album much, either -- and may have actually boosted the original illegal downloading services like Napster, says Mayfield.

"The notion that someone would jump to an album-length purchase because they couldn't find the one song they wanted available was a naive one," he said.

Rifkind acknowledges that "we are definitely in a singles market," -- but blames the problem on a lack of creativity and "lazy" executives.

"People are going after one hit. They are not really caring what the album sounds like ... They are not into artist development anymore. If us as an industry went and started developing talent again, and not worrying about one hit, it would be more than a singles-driven business again."

In a recent interview with The Associated Press, Jay-Z, the superstar rapper and president of Def Jam Records, also blamed the quality of the music for the current climate.

"We're making disposable music. You can't make disposable music again and again and again and again and not expect anything to happen. We have these huge radio records ... and then won't sell any records," he said. "If you're making just songs, they'll listen to it in the clubs, that's great, they'll listen to it in their car, that's beautiful. Will they buy it? No."

If someone really likes an artist, they tend to buy their albums. If someone likes a particular recording of a certain song, they just opt for the song. (Why SHOULD anyone be forced to buy an album just for that single track?)

Smart artists and labels would provide as many options as possible instead of trying to force customers down any restricted path.

The RIAA isn't smart. Just greedy.

i want to know who the chick it that pic is

I think it is Avril Lavigne (or, however the fork it is spelled.)

She's a current RIAA slave.

Although, I have seen signs of her tryin' to reach for some "street-cred" over the past year or two, (by publicly sayin' certain publicized "one-liners" that appear sympathetic to OUR side...)

It is STILL just marketing mucky muck IMHO so far.

Oh, and she's probably still under 21.

I'd avoid falling in love.

lol

she's 27 and dresses like a schoolgrrl

This article is stretching it a bit but I'm not sure why.

"According to Nielsen SoundScan, sales of physical CDs this year have declined 20 percent from the same point in 2006..."

There are thousands of acts that sell their CDs on their own websites and Nielsen does not track them. Nielsen is an extrapolated guess.

"In 1996, music companies shipped more than 1.1 billion units -- all physical product -- for a value of $12.5 billion, according to the Recording Industry Association of America."

According to the RIAA, in 1996, they shipped 1137.2 million physical units. In 1999, they shipped out 1160.6 units. Why use the lower number??

"Ten years later, despite a decline in physical product sold, they industry has 'shipped' approximately 1.6 billion units"

The word "shipped is in quotes in the article because the industry only shipped 642.6 actual units

"...but its value is down by a billion dollars, to $11.5 billion."

The "value" is an RIAA fantasy. It cannot be used as an indicator of anything.


"We tried to stop selling a commercial single because people were making great, great records and albums were selling like hotcakes,"

Gee, it seems like just yesterday that the decline in singles sales was absolutely without a doubt caused by peer-to-peer.

Now the move to kill singles was intentional, but the decline in album sales is due to a) an increase in singles sales and b) peer-to-peer.

"We're making disposable music."

Then stop already. Make something meaningful and maybe someone will give a shit.

George is right on target.
As is Shmoo's post of 1:09 PM today.

And:
". . . Label executives are more interested in quick hits than music or artists."

That too.

"Nielsen is an extrapolated guess."

Yes, it is. AND it ONLY deals with/cares about being a "big name/industry" barometer.

(Conclusion: Nielsen means NOTHING.)

"(But) times are changing," she added. Someday "people aren't going to do records, they're just going to do singles, probably."

Funny how things change, the more they stay the same. Albums didn't boost the music industry. Singles did. In the 50's and 60's, the single was king. Why should anyone be surprised it is king again??

"We tried to stop selling a commercial single because people were making great, great records and albums were selling like hotcakes," says longtime music industry executive Steve Rifkind,

I laughed so hard at this I almost peed my pants!!! You didn't stop selling singles because your albums were great. You stopped because you weren't MAKING ENOUGH MONEY from the single. You got greed, dumbass. Funny how you won't admit your own mistakes.

Rifkind acknowledges that "we are definitely in a singles market," -- but blames the problem on a lack of creativity and "lazy" executives.

REALLY? This statement provides another clue as to why the music industry is floundering. Because morons like this guy are running it. The singles market NEVER went away. You and your music cronies tried to FORCE it away. If you would have opened your eyes to this fact, you could have made millions on the singles market. But you'd prefer to sue financially defenseless college students, disabled moms, dead grandmas, and 12-year-old girls.

You suck Rifkind.

"We're making disposable music. You can't make disposable music again and again and again and again and not expect anything to happen. We have these huge radio records ... and then won't sell any records," he said. "If you're making just songs, they'll listen to it in the clubs, that's great, they'll listen to it in their car, that's beautiful. Will they buy it? No."

can't say it any better than that

I agree whole heartedly with this thread. Right on!

Agree with you all.
Good thinking one and all.

~Code

easy to see the article is written from an riaa prospective. Only the riaa-industry is talked about, the truely independant artists are not even in this realm.
eexcutives know marketing and sales, they don't know music and fans.
Tip the band at the bars before the riaa figures out a way to take 90% of that!
and yeah, great posts on this thread

Yeah, doesn't that just exasperate us no end how so many of these news stories or op ed articles omit any mention of independent artists and their music.
To me, it's almost as if there's an undercurrent of intent, predicated on perpetuating the self-serving interests of the big labels at the expense of the indie movement. From my perception (and please correct me if I'm mistaken), it's hard enough to have to contend with the cartel, but then you've got the news media ignoring your rights too.
Oh, and let's not leave out our venerable legislators either.
Talk about an unfair uphill struggle, good grief!

doublethink about it for a few pessimist, the news media is owned by the same people who are RIAA members, if the news mentions the Truely Indepentants then it's free advertising. Many myths about the riaa-backed industry are kept alive with duckspeak such as calling filesharing copyright infringment "stealing" and calling a band successfull when they sign a contract.

Re: "the news media is owned by the same people who are RIAA members"


DAMN! MAJOR UNFAIR PROBLEM!
(That pisses me off, big time.)