Recording Idiots’ All-consuming Avarice
I'm not very current on the latest bands or songs that are out there. This probably has something to do with the fact that I pretty much despise commercial radio. If I have the radio on I want to listen to music, not some DJ trying to break into stand-up comedy, and most definitely not commercials, most of which are only slightly less annoying than fingernails on a chalkboard. Morning radio is the worst. I can drive the 20 minutes to work and hear one song if I'm lucky.
I occasionally tune into an Internet radio station to get a listen to what's currently out there. The other day I heard a song by Evanescence. Intrigued, I tried to find the album on Rhapsody, my music service of choice. The album is not available for on-demand listening. Every time I go looking for an album only to find it is not available for on-demand listening, the RIAA drops one more level on the evolutionary scale. At this point, they are about equivalent to pond scum.
Let me start this rant by pointing out that I am a fairly conscientious person and prefer to buy my music, whether it's buying actual CDs (I know, how 20th Century) or individual tracks from Rhapsody or iTunes. However, I am not going to buy an album I haven't listened to in its entirety, the whole thing, not random 30 second clips from each track. What numbskull decided 30 seconds was enough to decide if a song is good or not? I especially love the clips that span a long bridge and end just as the artist begins singing again.
Now let me explain why I will never, ever buy an album without listening to it first. It is simply because the record labels have this nasty habit of releasing albums with one good song, two if you're lucky. I'm not going to spend $16 for the privilege of listening to a single track. Oh, and how many times have you bought a Hits of the [insert time period/band here] CD only to find five or six tracks that you and your friends have never heard of?
Now that I can buy tracks individually, that tends to mitigate the single track album problem. That is until someone decides they don't want to make an album available digitally. What possible justification is there for that these days? Absolutely none that I can think of. Every CD I have purchased in the last couple of years I have listened to on-line first. In fact, there are some I discovered there and would never have purchased otherwise. If I opt not to buy an album, I still I pay a monthly fee to listen to music on-line. If the digital age is wreaking havoc on the RIAA's business model, don't expect me to feel bad that record company execs have to drive a Cadillac instead of a Bentley because of declining revenues. The number of CDs I buy is about budgetary considerations. On-line availability has nothing to do with it.
Opting to not make an album available for on-demand listening, only increases the number of people who will download the music illegally. If I cannot preview the album via legal venues, I will go download the music elsewhere. Now, being the kind of person that I am, if I like the album I will buy it. How many other sales are they losing to people who would pay for a digital copy if it were readily available, but will just give the RIAA and their draconian policies the finger and download the music rather than go buy a CD?
It looks like I'm going to have to pick up Evanescence's latest album Fallen, though I must confess it the finger option is very tempting.