In case you’re somehow out of the loop on this inane debate, I reference Jeff Leeds’ article in tomorrow’s "New York Times":  Labels Halt Downloads to Increase CD Sales

I’ve got a revolutionary idea.  Why don’t the single and the album come out on the same DAY!!  This is the way it USED to be, before marketing triumphed over music.  Oh, maybe you could hear "Carry On" for a couple of DAYS before "Deja Vu" hit the stores…  Then again, it wasn’t like today when everybody broke out the new product on a Tuesday.  You used to call your local store EVERY DAY to find out if the record had come in.

What’s up with this first week sales mania?  What’s up with this short term thinking?  What’s up with the lack of focus on careers? What’s UP with all this holding back when the Internet promises everything available at all times.  Shit, hear me now when I tell you in the future there won’t even BE albums, just a steady stream of work from ARTISTS!  It’s only fly by night acts that need to be trumpeted, run up the charts with an advance single so their unheard album will sell big in its first week, before it’s forgotten come Grammy time…

And ain’t that just the point.  The acts of yore weren’t about the public eye, being mainstream, hyped to high heaven, winning awards, but being UNDERGROUND!

Ne-Yo’s album could have been released the day the single went on the radio.  The smart business strategy wouldn’t be to hold the track back from iTunes and Rhapsody but to make the whole ALBUM available immediately, both digitally and at physical retail.  But then IDJ wouldn’t have gotten that POP with that impressive first week number.

What, is this a SPORTS competition?  Last I checked, they weren’t giving out any awards for entering the chart at number one, certainly no cash bonuses, so why are the labels so INTERESTED IN IT?  So they can have bragging rights amongst the club of million dollar execs?  So their lawyers can use it as ammunition in contract renegotiation?  If you sell a million albums, does it make any difference whether you do it in a month or a year?  Hell, I’d argue, and I can make a PERSUASIVE argument, that it’s better to TAKE a year.  The longer period implies discovery.  It means that the act can garner fans and respect.  It means that sledgehammer marketing would be absent.  I’ve never even heard Ne-Yo’s record and I ALREADY hate the dude.  Yup, I hate EVERYTHING oversold by the major labels.  And I’m not the only one.  They think they’re operating in the mainstream, but they’re functioning as a SIDESHOW!  True music fans aren’t buying what’s hyped and played on Top Forty, what’s near the top of the chart, but CAREER acts, that they’re finding out about in alternative ways.

Hell, what was ARCADE FIRE’S first week number?  Where did it enter the chart?  Did single sales cannibalize the album?  Shit, people BELIEVE in Arcade Fire.  Because they didn’t oversell themselves, because they didn’t play the major label game.

One of the stupidest things of all time is advertising something that is UNAVAILABLE!  And that’s what radio airplay with no buyable product is.  So, you create a fervor the first week.  What about after THAT?

Boy is this business screwed up.

(P.S. Ever notice how Steve Jobs announces products during his speeches and says they’re available RIGHT NOW, in Apple Stores? And then there’s a MASS EXODUS to buy up each and every item in inventory as soon as he stops speaking?  The only time he announces something unavailable is when the speech is prescheduled, like the annual Macworld keynote.  Otherwise, he holds off presentations until the product is ready.  THAT’S consumer satisfaction.  Immediate GRATIFICATION!  Then again, the record labels don’t want to be like Apple.  They don’t want their stock to triple.  They don’t want record sales and profits.  There’s no money in being ahead of the curve, better to live in the PAST!)