Unknowning Fans as Unknowning Publicist

I'm going to try an experiment.

It dawned on me the other night that the press mailings I did when Life Is Loud was released were incredibly ineffective. The first mailing of about 40 CDs, sent to very specific writers who write about my kind of band/music/guitar playing produced a handful of reviews and pretty much zilch increase in sales or internet traffic. More importantly, the whole point of these mailings was to spread the word about the album, not to the writers, but to the potential fans out there. Hello? You out there?

So here's my experiment. Writers, you're fired. Not that you cared in the first place. Instead, I'm going to see if I can find a dozen or so regular people out there that would like my music, and ask if I can send them a copy for free. In exchange, I just want to know what they think.

If I'm able to look at somebody's internet presence (Facebook, MySpace, blog, Twitter, Last.fm, etc.) and determine that they would probably like my music, I'm betting that they would be more likely to spread the word on their own. I'm not asking them to blog about the music, but if they write a blog, chances are good they just might do it (what else do we blog about?).

I'm not looking for friends who blog, I'm looking for bloggers that don't know me who fit the M.O. of a Cameron Mizell fan.

I mentioned this to a couple friends, and they didn't quite get it. "Shouldn't we be doing this anyway?" Well, kind of. But I'm looking for people kind of like me. If John Scofield personally sent me his next album and wanted my opinion (ahem), I would not only tell him, but I'd share the experience with friends. Not that I'm Sco, but if somebody hadn't heard of me and all of a sudden I wanted to send them my CD, I bet they'd want to figure out who I am, and what's wrong with me.

All I have to lose is a few CDs that would otherwise end up in the abyss of journalists' desks.

What can we learn from Christmas music?

As soon as the dishes are cleared from Thanksgiving, many people cue up the Christmas music. Maybe there's a nap somewhere in between.

My wife is one of those people that loves Christmas music, because of the nostalgic feelings that surround the most wonderful time of the year. To envoke nostalgia, you usually want to hear the same music you heard growing up, or at least the music you've heard in the past that is tied to those happy feelings. Therefore, we end up listening to the same few albums over and over again.

I tend to look for variety. I have no problem with Christmas music, but I like hearing new ideas, new songs, and avoid too much repetition. That's not to say I don't have my favorites. I could sing every lick Vince Guaraldi plays on A Charlie Brown Christmas just like I know Kind Of Blue like the back of my hand. But because I'm a musician, I probably process the music differently than my wife (although she has a strong background in music herself).

Christmas music is the gold mine of specialty music for both of these reasons. Bing Crosby's classic White Christmas will sell for eternity, passed generation to generation through nostalgia. But at the same time, there will be ridiculous amounts of new Christmas music being recorded and released, and it will sell because there are people who want to hear something different.

To successfully capture some of that nostalgia, new Christmas music needs to become a part of somebody's tradition. That's not something you can market. But it is something that can grow with time through a persistent presence every holiday season.

This has never been easier than with today's technology. When we play music around our apartment, it's usually off one of our computers. I have a Christmas playlist that holds all the music we like to listen to, both Jill's classic favorites and the slightly more obscure titles I like to hear for variety. Set it to shuffle and we're all happy.

The rest of the year, there's plenty of other music to listen to. Plenty new releases to explore. Can we learn anything from the trends around the holiday?

I think so. The music people listen to around Christmas is usually serving a purpose. Nostalgia is one. Atmosphere is another. Participation (caroling) is another. The music becomes tradition. It represents a moment in time.

What can your music represent? What might people do listening to your music? What kind of tradition might your music play an important (or relatively minor) role? Can it be embraced as part of an existing tradition because it adds variety to the status quo?

Does your artist name make a difference?

Flipping through my iTunes library today, I noticed that most of my 6,376 tracks are by artists whose names are in the first half of the alphabet.

This could be quickly filed as a useless statistic, except I don't think I favor that end of the alphabet. For all the Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen I have, I've got more Stan Getz. I've got a lot of James Brown and Jimi Hendrix, but I also have plenty of The Meters, Miles Davis, and Radiohead. (And it's worth noting that for people, iTunes organizes by FIRST name, where a store organizes by LAST name.)

The difference is in the bands with an album or less in my collection. Those are the groups I wanted to try out. Buy a little, see if I like it, maybe buy some more later.

The music in my library comes from four sources, more or less in this order by quantity:

1) A few hundred CDs that I bought in an actual store, which I keep in some of those big folders.
2) Music that I bought online, mostly as downloads, a few from Amazon or CD Baby.
3) Music from friends, either by ripping their CDs or mp3s they send me.
4) CDs I got while working at Verve, either for free or at an employee discount.

Believe it or not, I never did any massive free downloading. I just never wanted all that junk on my computer. And despite all the free music I got from work, and the huge options I have amongst my friends music, it makes up a pretty small fraction of the music on my computer.

So I have to wonder whether or not there's some reason for this? Am I (are we?) conditioned to start at the beginning and work our way back? If we find something we like by the time we get to the J's, do we buy it before getting to the Z's? Is there a disadvantage? Does the internet help or hurt the issue?

Turn your music into money.

There are many ways to make money as a musician, and we're trying to learn how different musicians are doing this over at MusicianWages.com. Yeah, yeah, I've been plugging that site a lot, but I think it's a pretty cool project, so go check it out already.

Today I spent a good part of my day writing an article about making money from original music. I think that's the one thing nearly every musician would love to do, yet it's usually the most difficult. But I've managed to have some success, at least I've built a steady stream of income that in turn funds future releases, new equipment, and even helps pay some bills.

If you're interested, here's the link to Creating Income with Your Original Music.

Let me know what you think.

And don't forget to vote.

Twitter

There are at least 4,397 social networking blog websites for us to choose from, and for those of you out there doing the whole independent musician thing, you realize that you're only cool if you have profiles on at least 1,000 of them. Bonus points if actually log into them all once a month.

My approach has been to focus on one at a time and see what happens. I set up a Twitter account on August 11 after reading some press about how various companies are using it for customer service and bands are able to... etc. Enough for me to check it out.

The first thing I noticed was that many of my friends were already on Twitter, but most had stopped using it. Next I noticed that I'm long winded, because Twitter is a mini blog, and you can only post 140 characters and spaces or less. That's hard for us Mizells.

Other problems... how often do you Tweet? Should new Tweets have anything to do with previous Twits? Is it lame if you only Tweet once a day?

In any case, I have found some interesting information thanks to Twitter. Plus the search function allows you to track queries that might be relevant to you. I'm following terms as varied as "Cameron Mizell" and "cameronmizell" and "Cameron Mizell is awesome." So far the RSS feed is empty, but I haven't given up all hope!

In all seriousness, I'm trying this out for a while to see what happens. This is the only way to figure out what sites work best for me. Ultimately, I'm just trying to reach a few more people that might enjoy my music.

Follow me at Twitter!

Fan Mail Gets Dear John Letter

Yesterday I read a short news story about Ringo Starr posting a video on his website asking fans to not send any fan mail or "objects to be signed" after October 20th. It will be tossed. The 68 year old has too much to do.

I can only imagine. Even if he didn't, the guy is allowed some peace and quiet (and love), right? He's almost as old as John McCain for Pete's sake. He's almost as old as the phrase "for Pete's sake."

Of course he comes from an entirely different generation. The Beatles were like nothing we've seen before or since. The way they interacted with fans in the early days probably set the tone for modern super star bands having so many restrictions and security surrounding their shows, or any public appearance. It comes as no surprise that Ringo would still be getting loads of fan snail mail. It also doesn't surprise me that he answers it, and now that he's made the decision that he can't do it anymore, he has some feeling of guilt so he posted that video.

But bands today interact with fans differently. Blogs, websites, videos, contests (by the way, all of these things exist on ringtostarr.com), all give the fans some extras to go along with the music. It's all about the experience, but today it's all about instant experience.

I wonder what will happen 40 years from now when a band decides they don't have the time or energy to do these extras? How will the next generation interact with their favorite bands?

Don't Overestimate Free, Part 2

Earlier I talked a little bit about why free doesn't work. One thing that might not have been clear is that it's not that free never works, and by 'works' I mean helps a musician maintain a career playing music, it's just that it's not as easy as a lot of people think it is. My point, in my typical long-winded fashion, is that simply making all your music available for free is not going to give anybody any incentive to take it. You must position it so that it's relevant and valuable. Otherwise it feels more like picking discarded CDs out of a dumpster.

Hugely popular artists seem to do well despite, or arguably because of, widespread free downloads of their music. In this past year, Coldplay, Lil' Wayne, Usher, and Metallica all sold over 500,000 CDs in the week following the release of their latest albums even though people could get their hands on the albums for free before the release date.

For guys and gals like me--independent, developing, or niche musicians--it's entirely different. I doubt anybody is scouring the internet looking for free music by Cameron Mizell. In fact, here's a link to a track for you to download. On the house. If you're reading this, you're probably a lot more interested in hearing it than someone that randomly finds it because you're connecting it to a person, or at least the person you imagine me to be based on what you can find out on the internet (hint: there's more than one Cameron Mizell on the internet... I'm the one with the hat and glasses).

More importantly, I actually make most of the money from the sales of my music, and it's what helps keep me on my feet. I currently use CD Baby to distribute my music to digital retailers. When you pay $.99 for a track on iTunes, I get $.64, and likewise $6.37 per $9.99 album. Those are good margins. Granted, I'm not selling boatloads of music, but it always does sell. I'm currently generating income from seven albums on iTunes. Some of these are with other people, so I'm splitting that profit. Even so, it's a nice steadily growing revenue stream.

This isn't to say I don't offer some free music here and there. Every time I finish an album I make two or three tracks available for free across a few different websites. I choose sites where people that listen to my kind of music hang out. I also don't mind if people burn my CD for their friends, or email MP3s. Just don't act like you're helping me. If you've gotten this far, you know that each sale actually makes a difference to my bottom line. Plus I'm not selling that much music, and I still need to buy groceries and pay rent. Not to mention, freelance musicians, like most small business owners in America, can't afford health care (cough, cough).

It's very possible that a day will come where I give away all my music. Revenue streams shift or dry up. But as the industry changes and trends for buying music shifts, independent musicians like myself have the flexibility to quickly adjust.

Globalized Fan Base

How do you build a fan base when the hundreds or even thousands of people listening to your music are spread out across the world?

Have you ever seen that "Demand it!" widget on MySpace? Whenver I see this on a band's page that might have 10,000 'friends' and rack up a ton of plays, I usually see small tallies of people in many, many areas. This would make for a 150 date U.S. tour with an average draw of what, five people per gig? Even if there's a $20 cover and everyone buys two t-shirts and multiple copies of all of your CDs, you can't afford it!

This is something I've been trying to figure out. I don't really have the answer, but here's how I see the situation:

By looking at a site like Last.fm, there are about 900 people that listen to my music with about 3,600 plays recorded. On Last.fm, listeners are added up when either somebody with the Last.fm software listens to one of my songs on their computer or somebody streams my song on the Last.fm site. Whether a person listens to only one of my songs once, or plays all my music repeatedly, they still only count as one listener. Let's assume about half of these people stumbled across my music unintentionally, heard one track, but probably won't be repeated listeners. I can't consider them fans. That leaves about 450 listeners with maybe 3,000 plays, which is less than 7 plays per listener. There's a lot of room for error, so I'll just assume 100 of these people are actually fans. Sounds kind of bleak, but then again, do you use Last.fm? Most people don't, so it's a pretty narrow poll.

What's more important is that most people that use Last.fm live outside the U.S., and the vast majority of my music sales are to people in this country. Plus I only really perform in New York City, so the fact there are 100 people around the world that are into my music is actually pretty cool. Really, the fact over 900 people have heard my music around the world is pretty cool. If I factor in all the music I've sold, I'm comfortable saying that worldwide, there's probably 1,000 people that are fans of my music. Probably more depending on how widely available my music is on P2P sites.

One reason the internet and all these social network sites are so great is that it allows me to interact with my fans in Chicago, Portland, Madison, New York, Philadelphia, Boston, not to mention London, Paris, Moscow, Tokyo... should I go on? Even if there's just one person in Lynchburg, VA that bought my album, they have the same access to me as anyone else, with the exception of seeing live shows. Hopefully my new digital camcorder and YouTube will help change that.

It's difficult to nurture both the local scene, where I book and promote gigs, and also the global scene. I've sold more music in New York than any other single city, but it still makes up less than 10% of the total sales. So I can't ignore the bigger picture. It's just difficult to find the balance.

Don't Overestimate Free

There's a lot of hype about just giving your music away for free.

"Think of the exposure! So many more people will hear it and buy your concert tickets and t-shirts! They'll all want to buy your albums in the future!"

But this is false. It works well in theory, seems to make sense, so it gets all that hype. Using a completely unfounded statistic based on zero research other than what I've been reading by music industry theorists, I've concluded that 99.9% of those that hype the "Power of Free" are not musicians trying to break through obscurity.

Everyone can think of a time they turned down something free. Why'd you do it?

- Free doesn't work because there's no such thing as free. First, people assume you want something in return. Even if you don't, your music will occupy space on their shelf or hard drive. They have to invest the time and effort to listen to your music. And more often then not, people don't want free things because they have to figure out how to get rid of it if they don't like it. Even throwing it in the trash seems like a chore. People on the street wouldn't take the samplers because they would have to carry them around all night knowing they'd probably just throw it in the trash later.

Sure, people have huge appetites for music. My iTunes folder has 6,267 tracks--which is apparently 21.4 days worth of music. But there's a Public Enemy track on here that hasn't been played since December of 2006! Do I even like that song? If I'm not listening to some of the music I paid for, give me a good reason to listen to yours!

Along similar lines, people who might scoff at the size of my collection are likely people that just horde music (or they're trying to compensate for some other insecurity). There are people who will take anything and everything that's free, but that doesn't mean they're going to be your fan or even listen to your music. And it's highly unlikely that they'll buy anything from you, music, merch, or otherwise.

- Free doesn't work as a solution to massive distribution and exposure because it is too random and not focused on a particular group of people. Specifically, it's not focused on the people that would like your music. Giving away your music to 100 random people does not mean any of those people will like it, or even listen to it. But if you use a piece of criteria to find 100 more specific people, your music ends up in the hands of someone that might actually listen to it. My favorite piece of criteria is a similar but better known artist. You like the Meters? Then studies show you'll like my music! Which takes us to the next point...

- Free doesn't work without a trusted reference helping your target audience feel comfortable taking candy from strangers. Why do you think grocery stores use ladies that remind us of our grandmothers to hand out free samples? Because we won't suspect the poison. Similarly, this is why tracking "twinsumers" online is so helpful. The whole "listeners also bought" idea gives us a since of trust and direction as we browse online.

People need to feel their time, space and energy is worth your free music. Free suggests no value, and that's unattractive. That's one reason I think people are still buying music. But there are alternatives to creating value other than money. You can give away music in exchange for another product or service. You can ask for email addresses. You could even ask for people to spread the word. In fact, somebody needs to create a widget that gives away free music after the user forwards a note to 10 friends recommending that they check out your music. That idea's on the house, but let me know when you figure it out.

Placing some value on your music is key. It helps the right people find your music and let's them do something they're comfortable with in exchange. Sometimes it's give you money, but sometimes it's something entirely different.

Shared thoughts on embracing Long Tail content

Here's an interesting report from Digital Music News publisher Paul Resnikoff in Los Angeles. If you didn't understand what I was talking about here, maybe this will help confuse you more.

--------------------------------------

Second Life Lessons: Underestimate Niche at Your Peril

(10/2/08) September roiled the recording industry, and tightening consumer wallets could spell a vicious fourth quarter. That is part of a bigger, multi-year slide for major labels, a downward spiral driven by a tanking CD.

But not everyone is getting the doom-and-gloom memo, including EMI Music senior vice president of Digital Strategy Cory Ondrejka. During a late-day keynote at Digital Music Forum West in Hollywood, Second Life cofounder Ondrejka offered a snappy, smart, and optimistic outlook for the beleaguered label. Tossing words and phrases like collaborative filtering, community formation, entrepreneurship, and crowdsourcing, the incoming brain focused on niche audiences, microtargeting, and rapid responses to consumer needs. "Underestimate niche at your peril," Ondrejka urged.

But the coveted niche exists within a very, very large potential audience. "We basically have access to half of the earth," Ondrejka said, pointing to collective internet and mobile penetration rates that easily surpass three billion (1.2 billion internet users, 3.2 billion mobile users). "We have billions of fans, and zero marginal costs."

If Ondrejka at times seemed like a digital dreamer, he also realistically pointed to a business model and cost structure that has been focused on big hits, big artists, and super-sized marketing campaigns. But Ondrejka also placed emphasis on Long Tail theories throughout, and was clearly motivated to energize more focused audiences. "Those artists way out on the curve are valuable, and this can be scary in a hit-driven world," Ondrejka said. "The top of the curve is dropping faster than the market as a whole. That is the curve flattening out, this is the Long Tail that Chris Anderson talks about. The niche actually monetizes better, and if you doubt that, you should probably go check out eBay, or Google, or Second Life for that matter."

Of course, label revenues are clearly declining, though Ondrejka pointed to massive increases in music consumption, across both free and paid channels. "This is actually a really great time, in some ways this is the best time ever to be in music," Ondrejka said.

Ondrejka was recruited by Douglas Merrill, an ex-Googler and EMI newbie who shares a similar digital brilliance and optimism. The combination is certainly refreshing, though largely incongruent with technophobic strategies like file-sharing lawsuits and arduous licensing approaches. Those touchy topics were left untouched, though the broader question is whether Merrill and Ondrejka can quickly solve an urgent monetization riddle.

Using iMixes to Effectively Promote Your Music: Part 3

UPDATE (10/26/08):

This article has move to another website: MusicianWages.com

I am a regular contributor to that site and will continue to post relevant articles there. It is a great resource for musicians. If that's you, check it out!

Using iMixes to Effectively Promote Your Music: Part 2

UPDATE (10/26/08):

This article has move to another website: MusicianWages.com

I am a regular contributor to that site and will continue to post relevant articles there. It is a great resource for musicians. If that's you, check it out!

Using iMixes to Effectively Promote Your Music: Part 1

If there's one small piece of advice I can give other musicians in regards to promoting their music, this is it. This is the one thing I've done that has generated more money, reached more fans, and helped me target other types of promotions, all with no cost other than a little thought and time. And that one thing is create iMixes in the iTunes Music Store.

UPDATE (10/26/08):

This article has move to another website: MusicianWages.com

I am a regular contributor to that site and will continue to post relevant articles there. It is a great resource for musicians. If that's you, check it out!

The Recommendations Game

Word of mouth has always been the most invaluable form of marketing. In fact it's so invaluable, you can't buy it. People have a way of seeing through paid actors or manufactured buzz for what it is, traditional marketing. But with the internet, websites can generate recommendations based on consumer buying habits, which are basically the same as word of mouth (if not better, since somebody actually spent money).

Amazon is great at this. I get regular emails recommending new products or books based on what I've bought in the past. In fact, when I log in, they even tell me what I searched for last and what other people who did the same search also looked at and ultimately bought. This makes it so easy to look past the hype that I feel like my online shopping experience is quick and painless.

iTunes and a whole list of other online music destinations are also good at this game, and it's a great benefit to lesser known independent musicians like myself. More people listen and by more music online, the more likely my music will be recommended to the right crowd. On iTunes, people that buy music by Grant Green, Soulive, John Scofield, Greyboy All-Stars, Global Noize, Robert Walter, etc. will be pointed in the direction of my music via iTunes' "listeners also bought" section and the new Genuis sidebar. My tracks will get streamed on Last.fm thanks to user tags or listening habits that match up similar artists. I love it.

So how does one get the ball rolling? How do you get people that don't know who you are to find your music in the first place so it those connections to similar, better known artists are established? Simple. Playlists.

The Power of Playlists

I was drafting this blog before iTunes 8 became available, but now it just makes my point more relevant.

Remember when you'd make tapes off the radio? Sit around, wait for your favorite song, and hit record? If you really wanted the first note, you'd hit record before you even heard the song and stop and rewind when it was something else. Then you prayed the DJ wouldn't start talking over the last chorus. Maybe I'm dating myself a little. I'm only 27, but talking about tapes seems ancient. I don't even have a cassette player anymore.

That was the first time I'd make custom playlists. Then I'd make tapes for my car when I started driving. I made tapes to listen while running. Now we have iPods, so I make playlists for commuting on the subway, running, Saturday mornings, reading, Monday mornings, rainy days, doing dishes, long walks on the beach, lists of songs to practice, songs to learn, songs I haven't listened to in a long time, my favorite tenor saxophone solos, favorite jazz rhythm sections, funky bass lines...

Today, playlists take virtually unmanageable digital catalogs and organize them by usefulness. Music is now so readily available that we need help knowing what to listen to, even in our own collections.

Enter websites like Last.fm, Pandora, Playlist.com, etc. that let either let users create custom playlists or create them for you based on recommendations (a subject I'll address later). iTunes has allowed users to post iMixes to the store since 2004 and now create them for you with this new Genius button.

When done right, playlists are very powerful tools to get your music to the masses. But doing it right is the trick, and I see a lot of indie artists making some pretty misguided playlists. Here are some considerations

- Make playlists you actually like. If you wouldn't want to listen to it, why would anyone else?

- Don't throw all your music into the playlist. Unless it's a Best Of playlist, which sort of defeats the purpose here, use about the same number of songs for every artist in the list.

- Use artists/songs that are either similar to your music or fit the mood of the playlist. Jack Johnson would not work with my trio's music, unless I was creating a playlist for a backyard barbeque and used one of my laid back tracks. But going to far out of your genre could encourage negative feedback.

- Include some obscure tracks. As more and more back catalog gets digitized, it's possible to find a lot of rare cuts online. Use these to your advantage. Especially if it's an underrated cut that you love, people with similar tastes are going to love that you found it for them.

- Own up to what you're doing and don't be shady. People aren't dumb. After they see your music in a bunch of playlists with their favorite artists, they'll put that together with the fact they've never heard of you and figure you're making the playlists. As long as you're making good playlists though, this is a good thing! I've received emails from people that truly enjoyed my playlists, discovered not only my music but some of the other lesser known artists I love. These folks have always bought my CD, told their friends, etc. Musical tastes truly connect people.

Most importantly:

- Don't think like a marketer, think like a fan. Better yet, just be a fan.

Reinventing the Wheel

While watching TV with my wife the other day, one of those razor commercials came on. You know what I'm talking about... now with five blades! I'm convinced that in my lifetime we'll see a ten blade razor that vibrates and has a mini vacuum pulling the hairs up off your face. My wife commented, "Instead of just reinventing the wheel, why don't they invest in something different?"

My favorite shave is with my straight edge, which I sharpen on a leather strop. I get the razor so sharp that if you hold a piece of hair between two fingers and let it hang straight down, you can cut the hair by simply passing the blade through it. Gravity creates all the tension you need. You can't beat a blade that sharp. Of course, if you know me, you know I don't shave very often. So on the occasion I need a good shave, I enjoy the ritual of carefully sharpening the blade, getting a warm shave lather on my face, slowly shaving, cleaning the blade, and putting it all away. Disposable razors offer speed and convenience. That's a different audience, with a different need.

My wife had a point. It's really not about how many blades you have, but it's the most obvious way to improve the product. After a certain point it's not going to made a bit of difference.

Think about how this applies to the music industry. Is it really worth the effort trying to get radio play anymore? Is it even worth making physical formats? Will it make sense to keep trying to sell music a few years down the road? The answers are different for everybody, depending on what kind of music you make and who makes up your audience, but maybe it's time to try something totally different.

The New Singles World

We're not talking about the dating scene.

One of the major reasons Napster and subsequent file sharing services became so popular is that they allowed people to cherry pick hit singles. If you think about it, that is probably the root of file sharing. Give me just what I want and not the other baggage (now this is starting to sound like dating). Up to roughly 1999, you had to buy an $18 CD to get the one song you really wanted. So file sharing was never solely about getting that song for free, it was just about not spending all of your beer money to get that one song. If it had been easier to buy that song for $.99, or even half that, I bet a substantial amount of tracks would have been sold. It would still be eclipsed by the free downloads on P2P's, but a lot of people will pay a little for some convenience. I'm one of those people. Enter iTunes.

iTunes is a huge force in music retail. I believe it makes up about 30% of total US music revenues, and according to at least one source, is the top music retailer in the US. One reason is the deep catalog and long tail economics of selling less of more. From personal experience, I can report over 80% of my revenue from music sales is from iTunes, with the rest being physical albums and all the other digital service providers.

Ok, I've said nothing new so far, so let me get to my point.

There are still holdouts at iTunes, perhaps the most notable being The Beatles. Here's a Wall Street Journal article that does a decent job discussing "why" bands do this. In short, these artists want to stick to selling their music in the album format and avoid letting people choose one or two tracks. Even so, their music is easily found across torrent and P2P services for free.

Holding out seems like a noble thing to do and all, but come on guys, you're missing the point. For starters, your real fans are still going to buy the whole album. While your tracks will still be traded freely on the internet, you might pick up a few sales from people willing to pay for the convenience of iTunes.

More importantly, there's the artistic debate. The artist wants you to buy the whole album and listen to it start to finish, in order. Well, here's where it gets tricky. I see albums in three categories.

First, there will always be pop acts that play the singles game, and those singles usually get released on an album with eight or nine "filler" tracks. Filler, in this case, means phoned in pieces of crap that should be an embarrassment to all those involved. These are usually the kinds of acts major labels got in the habit of using to support themselves. Once there was an option to avoid the filler, the focus was shifted back to the single. Only today you can exploit it with with mobile products, videos, etc.

At the other end of the spectrum there's the concept album. The first band that comes to mind is Pink Floyd. Sure, they had some great songs, but in the context of the whole album, holy shit, it was a whole new experience. Why would you want to miss out on it? Fact is, most people don't. Go look at The Wall on iTunes. It's $24.99. Originally released as a double LP, it's now just 26 tracks (you can tell it's on two CDs because it's numbered 1-13 twice). A bunch of the tracks are under two minutes, and there are maybe just two or three songs people would actually listen to outside of the whole album. Yet the "filler" tracks here are functional pieces to a larger concept, and to get the whole picture you gotta buy the whole thing. If you look at that graph in the WSJ article, you'll see that people are buying as many Pink Floyd albums as they are digital tracks.

Finally, somewhere between the pop acts and the concept albums are simply great albums. The Beatles would be a great example here. So many of their albums are loaded with songs you want, you just buy the whole thing. One of my favorite albums by an independent musician is The Hill by Mike Stocksdale (you can get it for free on his site but I STRONGLY encourage you to go buy it and support this guy). Mike just wrote a bunch of great, tasty songs. A few of these could be singles, but quite frankly, you're missing out if you don't get the whole thing and listen start to finish.

The bottom line is either your album is either good start to finish or it's not. Not selling your tracks as singles makes no sense to me. Your fans are allowed an opinion, and in today's climate they expect to be able to buy a track or two first before deciding your new masterpiece is worth their time and attention to listen start to finish. Look, I understand that many tracks are Album Only on a variety of services based on length (see any jazz album), licensing (see any soundtrack), and occasionally publishing (which makes little sense to me), but those are not artistic decisions. If you think your album so great that it MUST be listened to start to finish, which ought to be the way we all make albums anyhow, then throw it out there and let the fans figure it out. Everybody wins.