In this month's edition of Esquire, Andy Langer asks, What is Music Worth? In his article, he suggests that by raising the price of albums we'll force artists to give us higher quality tunes. His theory is based on the fact that artists like Led Zeppelin and the Beatles continuely sell well even though their albums are sold at full retail prices. Here it is in his words:
Admittedly, raising prices on music will sting. It might even suck outright. But the free ride is over. And a price hike could indeed unite us, raising the stakes for everyone. It's good ol'-fashioned Darwinism. We'd simply raise prices on every record across the board and see what survives. And this much is clear: Paying more for music will mean we're bringing fewer bad albums into our homes, because this is a plan that effectively taxes shitty taste. Fans of Celine Dion have every right to keep her in business, but they'll have to pay extra to do it.
At this point, the idea is totally and completely ridiculous. He does make a concession though.
To encourage us to take a chance on new artists, upstarts would be exempt from the hike for their first two records or their first 100,000 albums sold, whichever comes first.
That helps, because I was concerned about the effect his plan would have had on unproved artists, but I'm still miffed. I just can't understand how raising prices will improve quality. There are bands out there where it might take three our four records before they come up with something the public wants. Despite your personal opinion, take Vertical Horizon as an example. They release three albums of acoustic folk-rock, then switch up their sound (or sell out, depending on who you talk to) for their fourth record and sell a couple million copies. Under this proposed plan, that record wouldn't have been released.
Additionally, you are keeping out new fans of established bands. If I had never heard the Morissey before, but I wanted to buy his new album when it comes out later this year, I'd be forced to shell out $22 to find out about him.
I would consider following Langer's plan if you gave it a twist. Imagine if each shopper had to pay more for each record by a particular artist, regardless of which record he/she buys. I'd say that each album you buy goes up $2, starting at $10. So, if I'm interested in R.E.M., I can buy Automatic for the People for $10 and then go back and buy Document for $12 if I liked the first one. There would be a cap of, say, $18 an album. Granted, this would require some sort of record-buyer registry, but it would be great in a perfect world. My one rule is that for each subsequent record sold, the artist gets a higher percentage of the royalties. This way, if a label wants to exploit an artist by releasing greatest hits records or b-side compilations, they have to pay the artist more to do so.
The benefit of my plan is that you're still forcing a long-time fan to pay more for your album, but you're not making that decision based on album sales or on no basis at all. In other words, you are not allowing album sales to dictate whether a record is of high quality.
I appreciate that Andy Langer recognized there is a problem with the industry's attitude towards new bands, but I don't think raising prices across the board will help anyone. His plan is a populist one, yet he criticizes artists based on his personal critiques of their merit (i.e. Celine Dion). Essentially, he thinks raising prices will cut the crap, but it'll just give us fewer options that aren't necessarily better. Neither of our solutions are perfect, but I commend him for raising the question.
03/10/04 8:05 PM
That idea blows. In no way would higher album prices guarantee a better product. At most, it would promote the status quo of artists releasing albums with a couple really good songs - enough to sucker someone into buying the album - with 11 remaining tracks of crap.
Plus, it would probably encourage more people to rip off albums. Why would they pay an inflated price for an album when they could burn it from their buddy that already has it?
It's true, we should somehow promote a better product, but this solution does not address online music and file sharing, which is way too big a part of the way people get music these days.
03/11/04 1:07 AM
Ok, after much discourse and brainstorming, I agree that Mr. Langer's suggestion-while provactive-would not solve anything. I think it would create a disinterest in experimentation and the world would be left with pretty people signing Pop tunes written by some old fat guy with market research data. Wait, that already happened...
I think that there is a crisis in the music industry, and I don't think its the artists' fault exclusively. Labels and the RIAA have disenfranchised thousands of music-lovers and instead fostered a hostile environment that rewards sales rather than innovation. While exceptions do exist (see Outkast, Radiohead and The Flaming Lips), tried and true formulas of song writing have been by far the most pervasive movement in music. But is this really a new phenomenon? No! Look at every genre of music and you'll see that its selective borrowing of elements has existed since the 12 bar blues was invented.
But to improve the quality of music, we must examine the industry as a whole. The major outlet for exposure of new acts, radio, is as corporate as IBM, Citibank, and Enron. With the deregulation of media legislation, there are fewer people controlling a larger share of those outlets. When ClearChannel has a 40% national market share , and owns the number one concert promoter (SFX), they basically dictate who gets played and who gets seen. If you don't go on tour with SFX, you don't get played on the station. It should come as no surprise that ClearChannel is a huge campaign contributer to George Bush. Forget Disney, ClearChannel is the real evil empire.
Anyway, in terms of pricing, I would be a advocate of artists releasing more EP's. Not singles (you can go to iTunes for that), but EP's. Five or six songs of true artist expression. Sell it for under $8 (or if you're really ball-sy, go for a dollar/song). It allows a group to record more often than once a year or more, which in turn allows them to be promoted more often. The consumer takes a lesser financial risk, and is rewarded with real songs that are not an attempt to have 12 songs on an LP when there are really only 5 of substance.
It could bring more fans into music stores more often and could bring back the quality records many of us long for.
03/11/04 2:06 PM
dan, the ep suggestions is top notch. i also concur that the music industry is basically broken and needs to be totally restructured, but i have no constructive suggestions on how to accomplish this.