There are
lots of reasons artists have given for serial releases, and it
usually has something to do with the fans; they couldn't wait for the
whole thing to be finished, they didn't want it all shoved down their
throats at once, there was demand for the other half of those songs from the internet... I'm a fan
of all three of the bands I mentioned in the first part of this post, but I'm also not stupid.
I don't like to wait an extra year and a half for you to complete
your vision, but I'll do it. You have the right as an artist to
ration your artistic vision, but I don't recall thinking I'd have
enjoyed double albums by Nine Inch Nails and Smashing Pumpkins more
had they been separated and released periodically over time. And, I
might be interested enough in your band to seek out songs that didn't
make the cut, but I don't necessarily feel great about them being
packaged together and sold to me under the guise of a “new album”.
At the end
of the day, we have to entertain the notion that these bands chose to
do things this way for the benefit of themselves rather than the
benefit of their fans, as they so often claim. To illustrate this,
let's have a look at the sales numbers for some of the albums I
mentioned in the first part of this article, shall we?
(Numbers
based on approximate worldwide sales figures):
Load: 7
million
Reload: 7
million
Combined
total: 14 million
Best
selling aside from those: Metallica – 30 million
Kid A: 2.6
million
Amnesiac:
2.1 million
Combined
total: 4.7 million
Best
selling aside from those: OK Computer – 4.5 million
Mezmerize:
10 million
Hypnotize:
8 million
Combined
total: 18 million
Best
selling aside from those: Toxicity - 12 million/14 million*
*Sales of
Steal This Album are approximately 2 million if you care to count it
as the second half of Toxicity)
Granted,
Metallica's self titled album is one of the biggest selling albums of
all time. But, to think of Load and Reload, widely considered by many
who call themselves Metallica fans to be lacklustre if not downright
awful, selling 14 million copies? Wouldn't have happened as a single
album. And, what of Radiohead? Nearly everyone agrees that OK
Computer is their artistic pinnacle, and the sales figures agree.
However, by separating Kid A and Amnesiac into two releases, they
actually surpassed the sales of their undisputed masterpiece. Then, we
have System Of A Down, whose lightning-in-a-bottle success with
Toxicity wrangled them 12 million in sales, a feat that no one
thought could be equaled. So, they surpassed it by 6 million by
splitting their next project into two separate albums.
Serial
releases are most assuredly carried out with fans top of mind, and
many fans are more than willing to take as much material as often as
possible from their favourite artists. But, make no mistake; it's
very possible that your fandom is being taken advantage of. Green Day
knows their fan base is rabidly anticipating new songs; that
anticipation will be thoroughly put to the test with three albums
being released over a short five month span. By the time their
trilogy closes in January, fans will have shelled out an average of
$45 (based on average new release sale prices) to hear the band's
complete artistic vision, an assumed estimate of 36 new songs.
For what
it's worth, The Clash's Sandinista has 36 songs on it, and was
originally released as a triple album, in one jacket, all at once.
You can buy that (as a double CD) for $20.
What of
Coheed and Cambria, and Stone Sour? Their double albums are actually
being marketed as single entities divided into two parts. It's really
quite a brazen move, when you think of it; it's selling half an album
at a full album's price, and asking fans to come back in six months
and pay again. It's the same dick move Quentin Tarantino pulled with
Kill Bill, and I'm positive I blasted him for it on one of my old
blogs back in the day.
What I
believe it comes down to is this: established bands with established
fan bases are always under pressure to come up with ways to make more
money, especially in times like these. The math is somewhat sinister
from a label perspective; you can get away with charging $15 for an
album, and you might like to charge $25 for a double, but it's bad
business to ask for more than $20 in today's climate. However, if you
split that album up and space out the releases, you can get $30 for
it. Or, in Green Day's case, you can take that $20 double album,
split in into three and get $45. Then, there's Red Hot Chili Peppers,
who are more than happy to employ some sinister math of their own;
their 18 non-album-worthy B-sides can be yours through their webstore
for the low, low price of $75.
However,
there are examples of bands that have made exceptions out of that
rule. In 1996, Wilco famously worked out a deal with their label at
the time that saw them receive less money as a sacrifice for selling
their double album Being There for the price of one. And just this
year, Baroness released their amazing Yellow & Green as a double
album, choosing two discs of differing styles and moods over cramming
it into one 75-minute disc. It was sold as a single unit for the
price of a single album, and they were rewarded with the best sales
of their career.
Is it fair
to assume that a band employing the serial release strategy is
gouging their fans? Not exactly. Where a devoted fan base is
concerned, most agree that two albums by their favourite band is
better than one, and will gladly pay to add those extra songs to
their collection. At the same time, I firmly believe that it's
completely unfair for a band and/or their label to stretch a
collection of songs out over time and overcharge for what could
easily have been released as a singular unit. It's a rather ugly
trend that's emerging, and if these forthcoming serial releases are
successful (they will be), expect to see it happen on a regular basis
moving forward.
Indeed, as
long as us fans are willing to make return trips to the record store
for our favourite bands, they'll think of ways to make us do it. If
you love a band, I'm not at all suggesting that you don't support
them in this kind of endeavour. But, we need to be aware that we're
paying more than we probably should.
Comments
Post a Comment