Whatever happened to the single?
Posted on 08/03/02 23:14 by Jan Willem                             
Whatever happened to the single?

CNN has a story on CD singles that seem to dissapear from the stores. And if you thought this was because everyone is getting their songs from the internet, you're wrong.

The industry does not release singles anymore because they are not profitable enough. They rather have you buying an entire album for 18$


Record retailers complain this alienates fans, particularly young ones, by forcing them to spend more than they want or -- worse yet -- retrieve songs online.

"I think they're losing a whole generation of record buyers," said Carl Rosenbaum, chief executive of Top Hits, a Buffalo Grove, Illinois, company that supplies music to 15,000 stores nationwide.

"You either have to steal it off the Internet or you just don't buy it at all," he said. "The other option is to buy a full CD for $18. If you're just introducing yourself to an act, you don't want to do that. It's hard to figure out what their thinking is."

Music executives, in turn, blame retailers for discounting singles so heavily it's impossible to make money.

"We can't work it out," said Val Azzoli, co-chairman of the Atlantic Group of record labels. "We're not an industry that works together."


Well to be honest, who needs singles, I never bought them before I had internet, and if I now like a song, I download it. If this would be impossible, then so be it, I would still not buy a single.

Read the entire article here. Very intresting !

Source: CNN.com

more cdfreaks.com news
2
Man arrested for music piracy
05:50
2
August Blu-ray movie sales drop
05:47
1
RIAA wins case after defendant deletes evidence
05:20
0
New low-price SSD's from Samsung
18:46
0
New Blu-ray media announced by Panasonic
17:30
1
New 750GB and 1TB HDD's from Western Digital
15:58
2
UK man gets jail time and fines for piracy operation
03:40
Reactions
Discuss this article with your fellow community members! We appreciate your valuable input, but please keep the reaction policy in mind and make sure your reaction is constructive.
By the111, Friday 08 March 2002 23:20
Or perhaps the lack of sales is due to worsening music, poor marketing and outdated distribution by the music companies? Just a thought!
By Everitt, Saturday 09 March 2002 00:44
I used to buy singles because i couldn't afford too many albums besides they had some sweet ass remixes on them
By eBwoy, Saturday 09 March 2002 00:54
Alright geezerz ! When I woz a lad (cos I'm knockin' on a bit now at 32 !) the singles chart really did reflect wot tunes people were really and truly splashin' their cash on. Also when I say people I mean of all ages too, not just girls from age 5 thru 16 ! Basically ya could watch a tune and actually follow the sucka for a year, it could sometimes take ages to actually enter the chart, and then maybe only get to 50 or 75 ! Infact, back then (early 80's) if a tune got into the top 100, it woz considered a success for the industry. If a tune hit no 1 - bwoy - that really did make money and would probably have sold 500000 copies or more on itz way to the big time. The point - well the greedy fuckas have killed the singles market all themselves, cos they have slowly massaged it (the chart) from a true thing to pure bullshit which iz now just a fuckin' advertising list. It reflects not one poxy bit wot people really like, or are really spending cash on. Also they now want to see a big return (even a no 1 !) on a wanky tune by a bunch of mass produced gobshites in about 2 weeks, instead of a realistic amount of time. This cheap and nasty strategy has worked for a while, but ya can only bite da hand dat feedz ya for so long, until it kickz ya in-da-bollox and falls apart. Thatz wots happening now. ahhhhhhhh ! Take it from a geezer from da ol' skool - they truly are their own worst enemy and the shit heading towards the fan woz predicted fuckin' ages ago and now itz hit it ! By the way - I'm talkin' 'bout England. Fuck - I've written too much - I'm off ! Laterz .. . :4
By Guest, Saturday 09 March 2002 10:00
well, I'm not sure about this in North America or European countries, but singles are still a pretty big thing in Asia, particularly in Japan. Any Jpop listener will know that just on March 6, Ayumi Hamasaki released her new single, and already by the next day it is the second best selling CD on the chart. Maybe it's different because of the promotion and marketing strategy.
By Guest, Saturday 09 March 2002 12:23
What happened to the single was that artists and companies became collectively lazy - producing a couple of B-Sides was too much like hard work. In Europe the single is still in existence and is still important (to an extent) although it's been strangled in the UK by consistent changes in the chart regulations which made them represent worse value for money. The thing is - for the record company, at least - why let people buy the single when you can force them to buy the album? It's similar to the whole Napster debate, and I'll quote Courtney Love... [roughly] "The people who are afraid of Napster are afraid of their own filler."
By Wiccabilly, Saturday 09 March 2002 13:46
I remember back in the days when Napster was new, I read a story in TheAge.com.au about the music industry's intention to shut down the single market. This included plenty of industry quotes including an example of how single sales of "Change the World" torpedoed the sales of the Phenomenon soundtrack. My thought at the time, having wasted my money on that soundtrack, was "Duh! It was the only decent song on the damned overpriced CD!" In another quote, we were informed that thi is an album selling business, not a single selling business. Yes and no. They sell singles all the time. On an $18 CD with 9 crap filler songs. I remember thinking at the time they were shooting their own dicks off and nothing since then has given me cause to reevaluate my assessment. In any other industry, an arrogant refusal to open your eyes to the real world results in bankruptcy. In music, it's cause for government harassment of the populace? The current state of things was not unavoidable. The RIAA CHOSE to go to war with its customers to continue ripping them off and expected the "artist compensation" propaganda to convine us to go along. HA! The RIAA sowed the wind, time for them to reap the whirlwind.
By stvastva, Saturday 09 March 2002 14:13
when 78 rpm records first came out - the only thing there was were singles. many artists didn't even get paid - but there were no collection of songs on one disk. when the long playing record or the "thirty three" became big, the single was then at an early phase out stage. then during the dance craze, the single was actually the disk to find due to its monstrous mix's that were not available on the regular LP release. right about then, the cd was introduced. I worked at a record store where we had one tiny section of cd's. then everyone started re-buying everything they already bought on record. supposedly the cd was going to sound much better. somewhere in there the single was lost. it was a shame. the single was my chance at childhood to hear a song & immediately own it. as a kid you didn't ask mom for $ for an lP. the single made it possible to get one song that i can afford, then listen to side 2. if side 2 was good, I'd try to get the album. i worked 7 weekends in a row for my father just to earn the beatles white album. the big payback for the big corporations taking away our 'hit single' was the mp3. i feel that everyone likes to hear a song & then have it if they like it. that is what singles were all about - when they took those away we figured another method to achieve the same goal - to jam the song at home over & over. napster had saved the day for sure - so has file sharing hurt single sales - ?? - heck no - the absence of affordable singles has caused all the world to turn to file sharing to get that one song - the thing is: now that there is file sharing - heck, just get the entire cd release while we are at it - but one thing is for sure - if movie makers & recording artists do not get paid because we are not paying for it, they will cease to be as we know it today.
By Dood, Saturday 09 March 2002 14:57
heavily discounted? at hmv or virgin at the moment most singles cost £4.00 each! i can buy an album for £10.00 if i order it on the net, why would i ever want to pay that much for one song?
By Guest, Saturday 09 March 2002 21:56
But you're not paying for *one* song, you're paying for one track plus two B-Sides that you wouldn't otherwise get to hear... and if you're a net shopper, you can of course get them cheaper than retail. Compare like with like!
Name: Email:



Your comment:

Receive notification on new comments?