Drummer Tommy Lee Says "No One Buys [Complete Albums] Anymore"

With me, if the album is by a group I like, or even a group I am just exploring - I buy the whole album. I never buy singles (exception: singles/EPs with bonus tracks not on the albums) or never just buy one track (I don't buy via downloads anyways, which is what I think you are talking about).

Most of the time I don't hear an album before I buy it anyway, but if I do and decide I don't like it enough, then I don't buy it period. But I never, ever, just buy one song because I like that song but not the rest.

I'm an album kind of person, I like the whole album listening experience. That is how I grew up. I guess most (if not all) of the bands I dig, the records I buy, they are "album bands" anyway, and I can't really think of one record that I've bought in the last 40 years where I thought "gee I wish I only bought track one and track eight but not the rest".

I think a big part of where you are coming from is the whole download world way of acquiring music. Where you have been accustomed to picking and choosing what track you want. You download a bunch of different songs on your ipod or whatever and are not into the "album experience" as a body of work. Not trying to criticize, different strokes for whoever, but that doesn't work for me. I don't even like "greatest hits" collections I prefer the whole body of work (the album) and digesting it. Just how my brain works. How I grew up being exposed to music.

Probably a bad analogy, but I also need to watch something like an ENTIRE baseball game to actually get into it, the flow of it, the real drama, the weirdness that happens, as opposed to just a couple innings. Most people aren't real baseball fans and that bores them to death though.

 

With the advent of iTunes, people can cherry pick songs and such. I would not say the entire buying public has quit purchasing complete albums....

 

You just described me!

 

The fact of sales may be correct, but he's making it all the consumer's fault. Which it isn't really.

Very few bands are making albums that play as a whole. Very few bands can now.

If artists release 10 track records that have bad continuity and no overriding message or concept, then people aren't going to listen to them start to finish.

Haven't we been here before, culturally, as well? What about the 45 culture of the 50's? Albums back then were mostly collections of hit singles cobbled together. (Jazz aside).

Tommy may be taking a lot of crap for his comments here (although people aren't wrong, his dating achievements have outpaced his musical ones for a decade now), but people are mostly responding negatively because we actually DO like playing full albums, but there just aren't that many of them being made. Guys like Tommy say it's because the audience doesn't have the attention span. But I'm saying it's the ARTISTS that don't have the attention span.

What was I talking about? Ah, forget it. Where's my ipod?

ccm

 

I've never ever bought an album. I don't care about the album era. Adults are stupid...they're paying for weak album tracks.

See how easy that is to turn around?

 

I only buy albums but I can see how downloading from iTunes is changing behaviour.

 

If I think I may like the album, i'll sample it on iTunes first. Otherwise, i'll just find the songs I want.

I grew up on mostly singles and hit radio. I have no problem just collecting just songs in many cases. I like comps, too. I'm not a completest. I do not need an artists's entire output to be happy. I just pick the stuff I like.

Besides, I don't have the money to be buyin' whole albums blind.

 

People don't like change. News at 11.

 

Change is inevitable. Tell them to deal with it! No matter how hard it's resisted, it will happen.

 

Yup, all change is great and inevitable. Never question it, the powers that be know better what's right for you than you do. The change is here to stay, just accept it, roll over, resistance is futile, etc etc etc.

Anybody remember "New Coke"?

 

Totally agree. People act as though every album released in the 90s to early 2000s (or even beyond) had a good single and then was padded with 40 minutes of absolute crap. And of course albums like this do exist, but they've existed since the beginning of the format and let's be honest, they're pretty rare. I can think of tons of albums off the top of my head that, maybe they aren't perfect, but every song is enjoyable and worthwhile. I can only think of one with a really great single + one other very good track + a lot of weak filler (Filter's Short Bus).

Just because it's not something like Revolver, where every song is absolutely spectacular (and I'm sure some would disagree with "Love You To," "Yellow Submarine" and/or "Doctor Robert" being described as such) doesn't mean the single is the only song you can stomach hearing a second time.

 

Grooveshark. Library. Friends.

How do I know? After forty plus years of music listening, for pop music I have become very adept at separating wheat from chaff after one or two listens. I won't claim the same for my classical and jazz listening.

Among some fans there seems to be this idea that if you listen to an album you don't like repeatedly, you will discover hidden treasures. If a song is not well-crafted, I can hear it right off the bat. I'm not going to listen 10 times trying to "get it." I love Rush generally, but I never listen to Test For Echo. From the first listen, it sounded like the songs were stitched together leftover pieces of other songs. I have no time for that. Listening more is not going to make the songwriting better.

It boils down to this. I know what I like and why I like it. I'm open to new things, and I may give them a chance if I perceive a core of quality, artistic achievement, and pleasant listening (whatever that means -- I find some raucous stuff pleasant listening at times).

Let's be specific, for illustration. I like Madeleine Peyroux, and Pat Metheny, who both have new albums out. I'm not going to buy these in hope. I will wait until I can hear them. I might buy selected tracks I like. I might buy the album if it is mostly good. I'm not going to buy them and hope they grow on me.

 

Well, you said it. Tactlessly, but truthfully.

At 50, I think I can claim to be kind of, sort of, an adult. And I don't buy weak albums, unless it's a used CD so cheap that I can buy it for one or two songs and not care about the rest.

 

Of course, that's how music is presented these days. Half *ssed...

 

I can't see myself buying lossy stuff from iTunes or Amazon unless it's some pop junk, in which case, why would I bother?
I buy CDs and records. I got into records a couple of years ago, when buying "albums" was in steep decline, and I'm sure most regular people would think, "wtf?" Yet on my Facebook page people find it interesting. Anyway, I'm more and more digging in my heels; I've always enjoyed music this way and I refuse to change - I want it on MY terms. I am a very discerning consumer of everything, which immediately puts me at odds with modern society, but that's the way it goes. No surrender!

 

I can't say that I listen to entire albums, because with the exception of a few, I only care for maybe half the songs. But the fact that artists are not producing cohesive work (call it an "album" if you like...) is kind of a bad trend (imo). Maybe that is because most of the best music done in the past 40 years was in the form of an "album". Consumers seem to be shaping the way (the form) music is produced.

 

What Tommy Lee says is basically correct. It's old news. There is no reason for Motley Crue to bust the bank recording a new album. It will never recoup. If they can put their hearts and souls into one great song that gets airplay, generates a buzz and attracts new fans to gigs that would be the best thing for them to do. If they have an artistic motive to make an album, then go ahead and do it.

What kind of sales does it take to get a #1 album these days? How many copies did The Decemberists sell to get to #1? They're lucky their fanbase is traditional-minded... Motley Crue's is not.

I will say that, for me, the album is the ideal listening format. I don't want to be jumping around from artist to artist at 3-minute intervals. That can be fun - basically deejaying - but deejaying is like being a music curator and it takes disciplined focus and knowledge to do it well. Otherwise it's just ADD volleying, as others have said.

 

Money over art? For some acts that's fine by me, but what about the bands that have "a little more to offer?"

Personally, I'm thrilled that most of my favorites continue to record full length albums.

 

No one buys complete albums any more - they just download them.

 

I think at this point bands such as Motley Crue are about a live draw over new material anyway. I agree the chances of them recouping on the production costs of an album are stacked against them (and other bands too). Not that it isn't possible to do it but it's getting harder. Especially with bands like Crue where the fan base is more about the older songs and the live show. In general anyway I think that is the case.

So it makes sense to release a song or an ep and put it out there online as a download and maybe a physical cd for those that want it. Just order it online. Maybe a few will get into the shops.

Many of the number 1 albums these days probably would not have been anywhere near the number 1 spot in the old days. I remember a friend who released a cd single in the UK telling me that at the time even 1000 singles would probably get your into the top 10. This was the era when number 1s were selling 10K and then dropping off the list almost as fast as they appeared.

Like you I do prefer the album format. But I have bought singles and not much more of some artists. In those cases I usually have a playlist or compilation of similar type artists so I still get a sense of something similar as you would get if you listened to an album by one artists. It's all about time and place really. But one cohesive album listen is more satisfying for me (in general).

Eddie

 

Without change, you become obsolete. It isn't change that's the problem, it's how you react to it that makes the difference. Are you going to whine about change, or are you going to make it work for you?

 

There was a great article in the last issue of The Word about the length of cds. I've long maintained that in many cases 75 mins of music usually means 30-45 minutes of great stuff and a bunch of filler that would have been relegated to b-sides in the past. I also maintain the ability to include more music on a cd (at least easier to do an a cd than lp) means longer songs that would actually work better if they weren't so long.

I have noticed more releases coming in at a reasonable 30-45 mins these days.

I think shorter albums pack a bigger punch too. You get 30-45 mins of excellent music and it leaves you wanting more. These days there are times when I have to skip tracks or do a little fast forwarding.

 

Oh, me too. And like I said at the end of that paragraph, if Motley Crue has an artistic ambition to make an album they should go for it (not that I'm a fan).

I don't know if downloading has killed The Album, but the CD format sure took a lot of steam out of the format. Mainly through the major label mandate that all albums had to be 50-minutes-or-more in length. There were way too many magnum opusses (opusai?) being foisted on the public. A lot of young bands are comfortable with 40-minutes-or-less again and thank god. We probably have the vinyl resurgence to thank for that.

EDIT:

You posted a few minutes before me, but our minds were on the same wavelength there.

 

But Motley Crue has been around for 30 years now and I doubt many of the fans they have are new fans. Which means the average age for a Motley Crue fan is 40+ which is the typical age group that still buys CDs. The problem for them is that the younger generation, of the past 20 years, knows Motley Crue is a joke. They havent released anything worthwhile or relevant in 20 years. So nobody young is going to buy an album by them. And any real Motley Crue fan from the 80s [I cant imagine they are many of these left] would, in 2011, know by now that they are well past their prime and incapable of making anything worth listening to at this point.

 

The "album" got big, bloated, and sloppy. Much like the record industry itself. Albums should be 10 or 12 songs and no longer than 42 minutes or so and cost $7.99 or less for a physical copy and $5.99 for downlowad.

16-track albums that are 78 minutes long are rarely worth listening to the whole way through, and definitely not worth $16-18.

fix those things; length (both in total running time and number of tracks) and price, and you'll go a long way towards fixing the "album problem".