Which is more important? CDs with fewer, higher quality songs at a lower price, or as many songs as possible (about 80 minutes) at a higher price? My answer as of the moment would be fewer tracks for less, with bonus tracks and features available through the Internet so you can get them if you want them, but they aren’t clogging up the CD if you don’t. And while the whole point of the digital revolution is more consumer choice, there is still something to be said for the “official” version of an album, an album as an entity unto itself, especially at a lower price with the “filler” optional via the Internet.
Sony US president Don Ienner said something similar:
- Record labels are urging artists to put fewer tracks on albums because fans are put off by too many average songs, the Los Angeles Times has reported.
“There’s been a tendency to overload CDs because the technology permits it,” Sony US president Don Ienner said.
….Record labels are urging the clampdown on album tracks as a way of reversing a three-year-long slump in album sales.
“The final choice will always be the artist’s, but I feel – and consumer research bears it out – that the public thinks albums have too much filler,” Mr Ienner told the paper.
“We all should be concerned about giving music buyers good value, whether they’re getting eight, 10 or 20 songs.”
….The LA Times said changes would mean a “shake-up” in the music industry, which was structured around albums of up to 16 tracks selling for $12.
The article compared Bruce Springsteen’s 1975 album Born to Run – which had only eight tracks – against the recent chart-topping album Speakerboxxx/The Love Below, which had 34 songs.
Some record company executives are now saying album albums should have 10 or fewer songs, the paper reported. [BBC]