Last week we celebrated the last gasp of the album, the CD, the long player.
The thousandth album to reach number one in the UK charts since such counting began in 1956 had been announced and it was a chance to look at some quirky album stats. You can find the column online at SunLive if you fancy a recap.

But, sadly, that was putting the cart before the horse, so to speak, the wake before the funeral. Because the funeral for the album has already happened, even if no one's really noticed yet. (Warning: I'm going to quote a guy called Bob Lefsetz quite a lot this week. He writes a regular thing called The Lefsetz Letter where he expounds upon all things music-biz-related. He knows a lot and seems very smart, if sometimes depressingly realistic. You can find him at http://lefsetz.com/wordpress.)
What set me to this latest unhappy line of thinking was a recent letter from Lefsetz which started in this fashion: 'The album is dying in front of our very eyes... This is not emotion, this is statistics. The shelf life of news is shorter than ever. The shelf life of art... you blink and it's done.”

An outdated view

Now this is clearly bad news for someone with my apparently now outdated view of the music scene. Which is probably the same view that many musicians, though possibly only musicians over the age of 35, share. That holds that roughly how things work is that a band goes out and gigs, while getting together a good swag of original songs, then perhaps records an EP - say four songs – or just a single with an accompanying video and flogs that around to whoever on radio or television will play it, then, hopefully with a little publicity generated from the first recording, records a full album which is - again, hopefully – widely reviewed and has another single on it which gets radio play and then the band tour to great acclaim and sell a bunch of albums on the strength of that and the singles and accompanying videos.

That was the old model. I like it for two reasons. Firstly, by selling albums and touring, a band can actually make a bit of money; secondly, as I've banged on about before here, the band makes an album. Sure, having one good song, a great single, is a feat in itself. One great single is worth a hundred mediocre albums. But a great album, where songs can resonate with each other and work together to produce something that is greater than the sum of its parts – be it Highway 61, Odelay or Elephant – that is really something worth aspiring to. Except that the album is dead.

A watertight case

Lefsetz makes a pretty watertight case. He points out the Katy Perry new album sold only 287,000 copies on its debut. Which is a truly pathetic number. Why?
'The youngsters are streaming singles and the oldsters are staying home. How do I know? Elton's album isn't even in the Top Fifty and McCartney's album barely broke 20,000 this week, and there wasn't a better oldster hype than for these two projects. People just don't want 'em.” That's a worry. Changing lifestyles and lower attention spans.

'We've turned into a nation of grazers. And the artist's job is to constantly be at the smorgasbord. Not to deliver one big meal that is picked at and thrown away, but a constant presence in the public's face... You put out these albums and in almost every case, the public moves on in a matter of WEEKS! A few bought it, they heard it, and they're satisfied, and left waiting for years until you grace them with a new release. The rest of the public is just waiting for a hit single to burble, and if it does, they'll tap their toes and snap their fingers...”

And who can deny it? The figures say it all.

The sad thing is that we are being reduced to art of instant gratification. Soon all we'll be left with is the single that you love on first listen but hate after the next ten, not the more thoughtful album track that you first pass over but which grows on you until it becomes an indelible part of your life.