Discussing
Katy Perry, Michael Jackson and the misnomer of hit singles

However, nearly a quarter century ago Jackson’s radio domination resulted in the sale of over 30 million copies of “Bad,” while Perry’s “Teenage Dream” hasn’t even cracked the two million mark.

Aside from the all-you-can-eat-for-one-low-price approach of Spotify and the (probably highly overstated) effects of piracy, I think the answer is, in part, encoded in the problem. Katy Perry has produced a collection of singles, so people buy *the singles*; Michael Jackson produced a cohesive album, and even in a time when people were buying singles (granted, to a far lesser extent), they bought his *album*. Her sales don't show up on the album bottom line; his did.

When people can buy only the songs they want—all thriller, no filler—"artists" like Perry are going to way, way undersell on their albums. And true artists like Mumford and Sons, who continue to put together cohesive albums and release strong songs from those albums as singles, will continue to soak up those album sales.

"But in a world of all-you-can-eat music for one low price, where people have every album they ever loved and every new release right there at their fingertips, how will we find them?"

Simple. Noisetrade.com

Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with Noisetrade, but I am friends with one its co-founders.

But in a world of all-you-can-eat music for one low price, where people have every album they ever loved and every new release right there at their fingertips, how will we find them? 

The same way people have always found good music, a way that's only becoming more powerful in the age of social media: Friends will recommend good music to them. 

I know my friends, and I know what kind of music they like—so if I come across a new band or singer that I think they'd enjoy, I send it their way. They do the same for me. 

Cheaper digital recording equipment is putting the ability to record, mix, and master high-quality music in the hands of more and more people, rather than requiring a million-dollar studio to put out an album that sounds halfway decent.

The "traditional gatekeepers," whose corporate-based preferences once told everyone What They Should Be Listening To and essentially shut out all but the big (5/4/3) record companies, are going the way of the dodo.

And because I don't have to worry about "can I find this in my local record store?" if I hear a new band I like, it means I can buy not just their current music—which, particularly for bands that haven't "made it big" yet, wouldn't have been in Tower Records—but also to their entire back catalog if I find that I really enjoy it and want to hear more. And things like the Amazon MP3 store and iTunes make it so that I can easily, and happily, pay them for the music they've made.
And all that, I think, is only a good thing for people who like making—and listening to—good music.

I appreciate what Derek Webb did.  When he started to realize that downloading was here to stay, instead of sending lawyers after his customers, he started giving away his albums and giving those customers permission to distribute them to one another.  Suddenly, what started happening?  Well, he sold deluxe packages of his albums, including books, downloads and t-shirts to those who spent the extra money.  As a result, more people knew of him and started coming to his concerts.  When artists appeal to peoples' integrity instead of their baser instincts, they discover that people will pay to hear them.

Entire communities of fans are finding music they love online, purchasing it, sharing it, and increasing it's popularity by word of mouth. Just about every other day someone posts a link on facebook to an artist I've never heard.

Small concert venues are filling up for bands no one ever heard on the commercial radio. Artists within a specific genre are promoting one another to their fans.

Affordable software and ever improving technology is allowing more and more artists are producing their own music and putting it out there without having to be signed to a studio.

Independent bands are out there and they are gaining fans every day. I love it!

Not to get too hyperbolic here but ... 

... it's so encouraging to me to read a Christian article intelligently discusses music, art, and technology in a nuanced way. Thanks for that.

I like Mumford & Sons but want to know why they had to follow the trend of having unnecessary swearing in some of their songs.  It is better music than much of what is being produced-- but should not their vocabularies reflect some redemptive aspects as well?

...and I say this as a father who can't rock out to some of their songs with my children in tow!

I believe "Little Lion Man" is the only song with swearing in it. Correct me if I'm wrong. IMHO, it's not their best song anyway. Still, it's confusing to me as well why, right in the middle of such a rich, spiritually satisfying album, they have to stick in a song with the f word in it. I can't figure it out, either. I'd like to ask them someday.

My guess is that they include the word because it's honest. I don't see why musicians should shy away from a serious portrayal of their true thoughts and feelings just because it includes a naughty word—and moreover, I find the strain in Christian culture that assumes that anything not fit for a child's ears isn't fit for anyone's ears really problematic. Is there something inherent to the "f word" that makes it necessarily incompatible with a "redemptive aspect" to the music?

That said, I heard a radio edit of "Little Lion Man" that silences out the offending word. I don't know if it's available on iTunes, but I'm sure it's out there somewhere.

"G" and anyone else offended by the official version can go to You Tube and search for "Little Lion Man messed up version". It is not available on itunes. You will see the difference in emotional depth but it does become family listening. 

I had never heard this song until I noticed the post last night and would normally agree that swearing in songs is not necessary. I could not believe the raw power of this song of confession and the bridge is amazing. I think it is supposed to make you feel dirty because the song is sung from a dark honest raw confession of guilt. It is like sandpaper on the nerves relieved by the grace of the bridge.
The bridge ah....ah ....AH .. rises out of that confession with no resolution except the a further acceptance of the singers own guilt. No excuses, No requesting forgiveness or absolution. (That is my interpretation for what it is worth)Have you ever seen the dark place in your soul where you don't think you have any right to ask God or anyone else for forgiveness? "I messed up" just doesn't cut it. The lead singer has a personal story behind this song that he doesn't share. I hope some day he will find the courage to share that story.

One of the great things about the itunes is that you can buy the songs individually and load the iPod for walking separate from what you play for the kids.

That's right. And to put in a shameless little plug for a podcast I work with: Under the Radar (radarradio.net) does a great job of exposing music fans to indie artists making great art--but not getting wide exposure.