Guy Garvey’s comments RE: iTunes

This is an offshoot based on ChrissyBoy’s thread about SSK being the last Elbow album. In that thread there was a link to an NME article where Guy declares war on iTunes for allowing users to purchase individual tracks. He seems to have 2 main problems with iTunes:

1. The availability of single tracks is killing off the album format.
2. Because iTunes doesn’t currently allow artists to lock their albums, artists lose control over how their music is presented/heard.

We’ve all discussed the first point in ChrissyBoy’s thread, and the consensus is that the album format is still appealing to both listeners and musicians, despite the advent of iTunes, and won’t be eliminated from the marketplace anytime soon.

But as to the second point, I find myself taking issue with the idea that, if artists lock their albums on iTunes and force fans to buy the whole record instead of single tracks, it will make a significant difference in the way people listen to music. Truth is, even for those of us who do buy albums regularly, we don’t always listen to the whole thing in its entirety every time. I am a Beatles freak, and Abbey Road is obviously a classic, but I refuse to listen to Maxwell's Silver Hammer ever again. That is why God gave us the fast-forward button!

And the type of fan that likes Elbow is probably not going to stop buying their albums just because the tracks are available a la carte. Let’s face it, they are not now, nor have they ever been, a singles-oriented band, so I don’t think Guy has to worry too much about how the iTunes revolution will affect the way fans hear Elbow’s songs. In fact, any artist that puts real effort into making an album that is consistently good all the way through will find that fans are going to buy and listen to the whole thing, whether they have to or not.

I savor the album experience as much as anyone, believe me, and I will never stop buying and enjoying entire albums. But I do have a problem with being told iTunes is evil because I can buy songs track by track. I think the ability to buy single songs online is a huge boon to the music consumer, and one that’s long overdue after decades of fans getting the shaft from the music industry. I don’t think the freedom to decide what we do and don’t want to buy from an online download site should be taken away from us.

So what do you think of Mr. Garvey’s comments?

You make a lot of fair points; Guy may have been being deliberately extreme in his opinion here... or, accidentally extreme! I suppose... he wants Elbow's music to be heard in the full album format, and he feels that iTune's single track downloads are making this less likely. So he's groping around for ideas on how to fix it!

Honestly though, I think the key thing is that if things were to go down the road Guy wants, only a certain type of artist will be wanting to lock their albums - the kind of artist making music for people who will be wanting the full album in the first place. In the end... there's probably not much point! Who knows

Phew, that was long. Just about the Itunes being evil bit, I disagree, because at least the bands get a share in the money made, whereas software such as limewire allows people to download whole albums without payin a penny to the band.
I don't personallt think that the album format is ever going to die, because people like to support bands by buyin them, albums are also much nicer than mp3s in the way that they are layed out and the fact that the album sleeve contains information that you just don't get on an mp3. Mp3s also die out quicker, whereas an album could be shoved into a cupboard or attic and forgot about, then re-found a few years later and enjoyed by another generation. I agree that without the necessity to always buy a full album, artists lose control over the presentation of their music. I think that overall Guy has a valid point, but in the long run, the album format isn't going to die anytime soon.

jonny wrote:

You make a lot of fair points; Guy may have been being deliberately extreme in his opinion here... or, accidentally extreme! I suppose... he wants Elbow's music to be heard in the full album format, and he feels that iTune's single track downloads are making this less likely. So he's groping around for ideas on how to fix it!

Honestly though, I think the key thing is that if things were to go down the road Guy wants, only a certain type of artist will be wanting to lock their albums - the kind of artist making music for people who will be wanting the full album in the first place. In the end... there's probably not much point! Who knows

^^WHS^^

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Chrissie, I agree with the others. All valid points you've got.

Just don't know what the answer is!

I'm thinking, the status quo should be preserved!

How I love being a 19-year-old grumpy-old-man

I think Guy is entirely right. It takes away a band's ability to present an album as they want it. Track listing is carefully selected for teh flow or story of an album and ITunes totally ruins that. If, when you've got an album you choose to skip tracks, fair enough, but if a band want to give the listeners some kind of narrative it is completely destroyed by ITunes and leaves the listener with less of an idea to the music itself. It takes so much away.

In a way I see what you (and Guy) are saying, KingBingo. From an artistic point of view, the purist in me says that the whole thing should come in a package. But I also feel that if an artist is that unhappy with the iTunes arrangement, they should choose not to market their music through iTunes, rather than demand restrictions on how the site operates or is used by consumers. I realize that iTunes is the main power in the biz right now, but there is a rapidly increasing number of alternative players/sites for digital music. Other artists are self-releasing digital downloads on their own sites, and are doing amazing business, as well as maintaining control of their music. Ultimately that should be the goal, so that neither the labels nor iTunes controls the marketplace.

And from a completely realistic perspective, once an artist puts music out there, in any format, they can't control it any longer. The public will listen, enjoy, criticize, misinterpret or ignore it as they see fit.
It reminds me of a lyric from What Light, on the most recent Wilco album. Jeff Tweedy addressed the situation 100% accurately:

And if the whole world's singing your songs
And all of your paintings have been hung
Just remember what was yours is everyone's from now on

And that's not wrong or right
But you can struggle with it all you like
You'll only get uptight

Point well made. I think, though, there could be some kind of compromise, maybe time lapsed. A new release could be locked as a full album for a couple of months so the artist can present their true vision and then unlocked. The audience a band wants to reach with a full album will buy it as intended and then the others can get on board as per usual. Or something like that.

Unfortunately ITunes is a monster in music sales terms and any band would be stupid to avoid it, unless, of course, you are The Beatles or Radiohead......

I think the quality of the product also has a huge influence. Also the timing of single releases / album release and perhaps moving away from releasing several tracks off the album.

Elbow already do this well. Am i right in saying there were only two releases from LOFW ? and to date two from SSK.

Of course if you are looking for increased exposure, then this can work against you. Arggghhhhh, marketing is more difficult than i thought

KingBingo wrote:

Point well made. I think, though, there could be some kind of compromise, maybe time lapsed. A new release could be locked as a full album for a couple of months so the artist can present their true vision and then unlocked. The audience a band wants to reach with a full album will buy it as intended and then the others can get on board as per usual. Or something like that.

A fine idea, actually; I think that would split the difference nicely.

ChrissieInFL wrote:

I realize that iTunes is the main power in the biz right now, but there is a rapidly increasing number of alternative players/sites for digital music. Other artists are self-releasing digital downloads on their own sites, and are doing amazing business, as well as maintaining control of their music. Ultimately that should be the goal, so that neither the labels nor iTunes controls the marketplace.

Spot on. Kristin Hersh is a good example of this - what I particularly like is that she's releasing stuff in FLAC format (which unlike mp3 is lossless - CD quality basically). See below for details:

http://www.throwingmusic.com/
http://www.throwingmusic.com/freemusic/
http://kristinhersh.cashmusic.org/downloads.php

Having said that, record labels will never die so long as there's your Ronan Keatings and the like making music (sorry, "product") and gullible audiences buying them...

Not to get off topic, but you just hit upon one of my biggest pet peeves - calling music (or any other form of art) "product". It aggravates me to no end. It's just so cold and generic a word to describe something so emotionally powerful.

Sorry for the sidetrack. Carry on...

lee spoons wrote:

Spot on. Kristin Hersh is a good example of this - what I particularly like is that she's releasing stuff in FLAC format (which unlike mp3 is lossless - CD quality basically).

Good example. Nine Inch Nails (Trent Reznor, really) has also just done an extremely successful job of putting out his music on his own; he offered his latest release in different packages and at at various price levels on his own site, and made more in one week than he had made to date from his last label release (2007's Year Zero). If for no other reason than financial interest, bands really need to start thinking about being their own sales force. Again, this also allows them complete creative control, if that's what they're after.

lee spoons wrote:

Having said that, record labels will never die so long as there's your Ronan Keatings and the like making music (sorry, "product") and gullible audiences buying them...

Sad, but true...

And Julie, I am right there with ya about the "product" thing!

JulieinTX wrote:

Not to get off topic, but you just hit upon one of my biggest pet peeves - calling music (or any other form of art) "product". It aggravates me to no end. It's just so cold and generic a word to describe something so emotionally powerful.

That was why I used it in reference to Ronan Keating, rather than Elbow

lee spoons wrote:

JulieinTX wrote:

Not to get off topic, but you just hit upon one of my biggest pet peeves - calling music (or any other form of art) "product". It aggravates me to no end. It's just so cold and generic a word to describe something so emotionally powerful.

That was why I used it in reference to Ronan Keating, rather than Elbow

I agree that music should not be 'product' but it is when it's in the hands of w**k**s like Cowell, Walsh, Waterman and their ilk. If you ever listen to Cowell in interview he thinks of the music as the last 'product' in a chain of 'products' used to promote a supposed 'artist' ref Keating, Leona Lewis et al. They have no soul. Good music is seen purely as a cynical money making exercise and definitely not seen as an artistic endeavour.

Fortunately bands like Elbow who write their own music and do it on their own terms redress that balance somewhat.

Now look what you've gone and done. You've got me ranting about my pet peeve.

Tell you what, folks, I think it's atrocious for any REAL music to be referred to as "product". Having said that, though I think one of the reasons most artists found themselves at the mercy of the big labels for so long is because they fancied themselves above the business side of things. It's true that the art is what's most important, but if musicians want to retain control over their creations and ensure that they (and their fans) aren't getting ripped off, they have to wake up and accept the realities of the 21st -century marketplace. The more they learn to understand and manage their business affairs (particularly music distribution, as we've discussed here), the more they'll be free to do exactly what they want creatively.

Sorry folks, no offence intended by "product".
I totally agree the sentiments about art/music etc.

However I was talking in the marketing context which i'm afraid is all about "product", place and price, regardless of what we may dislike about it. In that context it also emphasises the issue even more - which is why i used it.

Oh no, no offense taken at all, and I certainly didn't mean to get defensive. It's just something that's always rankled me, exactly because - as you say, in so many words - it's a handy way for marketers to reduce something so meaningful (in theory, anyway) to mere "product" that must only be "moved".
Which is, admittedly, their job...

Oh, God - now I've got tired-head. Is it 5:00 on Friday afternoon in Dallas yet?
No?
Damn.

lee spoons wrote:

JulieinTX wrote:

Not to get off topic, but you just hit upon one of my biggest pet peeves - calling music (or any other form of art) "product". It aggravates me to no end. It's just so cold and generic a word to describe something so emotionally powerful.

That was why I used it in reference to Ronan Keating, rather than Elbow

...Or anything Simon Cowell's had a hand in. Me-ow!