Bands Urged to cut album tracks.

[Nathan F]

OK, so they want to curb declining sales by putting LESS on CDs? Anyone else think that is incredibly dumb?

[aerius]

It might help if these bands weren't also under pressure to release 1 or more CDs/year, with plenty of touring to go around.

And that there is part of the solution. Unless your name is Prince or Ani DiFranco you simply can't write quality songs that fast. When their contracts force them to release new albums every year a bunch of filler will inevitably be present. Of course this assumes the band has some talent to begin with, you could give N'Synch 5 years to write an album and it'll still suck ass.

The record companies have to allow their artists to develop their careers and release music when the artists are ready to. Cutting the number of songs on albums is bullshit, you're not going to get better music that way, you just get less bad music.

[Dark Hellion]

Buy from Saddlecreek, most of their stuff is quite good.

Thats my shameless plug of the day.

[dummnutzer]

This maybe an attempt to make copy-protected "CD"s more popular.

Currently, you tend to get the castrated CD-Audio (no error correction etc.), a dubios PC-Media-Player and some low-quality PC-audio files with DRM.

Reducing the CD-Audio part of a CD will free space for a higher quality DRM-PC-Audio part.



But this is just an idea, I stopped buying CDs years ago.

[Peregrin Toker]

I might sound like I'm right-of-center politically (which I'm not), but I see this as the most redundant and stifling regulation I've ever seen. Musicians should have the freedom to make albums as long as they want, end of story.

[Durandal]

I might sound like I'm right-of-center politically (which I'm not), but I see this as the most redundant and stifling regulation I've ever seen. Musicians should have the freedom to make albums as long as they want, end of story.

Their contracts with the record companies may say differently. In the end, the record companies are the ones who make, market and sell the albums. They have plenty of leverage as to what an artist puts on his album. Sure, the artist can tell the RIAA to go fuck themselves, but they can just turn around and cut the marketing budget for that album in half.

Yet another argument for eliminating the recording industry as a useless middleman clinging to a dying business model is brought to light by the recording industry itself.

[Peregrin Toker]

Their contracts with the record companies may say differently. In the end, the record companies are the ones who make, market and sell the albums.

But it's the artists who record the music. They should have a right to decide how much they record.

They have plenty of leverage as to what an artist puts on his album. Sure, the artist can tell the RIAA to go fuck themselves, but they can just turn around and cut the marketing budget for that album in half.

D'oh!! I forgot the RIAA. Then again, many of my favourite bands are signed on to labels which are NOT part of the RIAA.

[Graeme Dice]

Considering just how few songs get recorded by an artist in a year anyways, this doesn't really bother me. Just compare them to the Beatles, 13 LPs in 6 years versus the modern standard of one every two or three years.