I agree with Oate's comments mostly...but want to comment on this statement he makes:
So my question is this: Why make a weak and watered down album in the first place? There is no rule that says only 4 songs per album should be great.
If you've got an album of great material, it's always better to make a full album, imo. You'll see a faster recoup selling a $15 disk than a $5 one. I find EPs to be pointless for anything but a demo, actually, but there is no reason why you can't sell many types of merchandise at your product table.
Now, regarding your comments about "can't make much on CD sales" I have to disagree. For the indie, you don't have to sell as much to succeed.
By "succeed" I don't mean getting rich. I mean paying the bills and making a living as a musician/songwriter. If you produced your own CD, then pressing it can be reduced to about $1.20 or less. Once your initial studio costs have been recouped, you're making $10-12 per sale of a full-length CD.
If you can sell only 10, 000 copies you've made at least $100,000. If you only sold 3,000 copies you're able to afford being a musician full-time. (assuming you don't have to divide it 5 ways for a band)
The biggest problem one will have to sell that many CDs is that you can't do it to the same audience. You have to travel. You have to keep finding new audiences, and coming up with new product for your regular audiences. You'll also need to be paid for live performance outside of CD sales and get some help with expenses. Not impossible.
It's not easy, but it's not as hard as being a carpenter either. It's a matter of where one focuses their energy.
1. The album’s dying. Oates acknowledged that audiences no longer invest the time it takes to absorb a whole album, admitting that splitting up the album into two sides during the LP era made it easier for listeners to digest a string of connected songs. Even though that sounds discouraging artistically, the shift frees up musicians to focus on pouring their energy into recording powerful singles instead of weak and watered-down albums. A single bad track can lead to poor reviews and lackluster sales, while a string of “hot” EPs can build real audience support over time, Oates said.
So my question is this: Why make a weak and watered down album in the first place? There is no rule that says only 4 songs per album should be great.
If you've got an album of great material, it's always better to make a full album, imo. You'll see a faster recoup selling a $15 disk than a $5 one. I find EPs to be pointless for anything but a demo, actually, but there is no reason why you can't sell many types of merchandise at your product table.
Now, regarding your comments about "can't make much on CD sales" I have to disagree. For the indie, you don't have to sell as much to succeed.
By "succeed" I don't mean getting rich. I mean paying the bills and making a living as a musician/songwriter. If you produced your own CD, then pressing it can be reduced to about $1.20 or less. Once your initial studio costs have been recouped, you're making $10-12 per sale of a full-length CD.
If you can sell only 10, 000 copies you've made at least $100,000. If you only sold 3,000 copies you're able to afford being a musician full-time. (assuming you don't have to divide it 5 ways for a band)
The biggest problem one will have to sell that many CDs is that you can't do it to the same audience. You have to travel. You have to keep finding new audiences, and coming up with new product for your regular audiences. You'll also need to be paid for live performance outside of CD sales and get some help with expenses. Not impossible.
It's not easy, but it's not as hard as being a carpenter either. It's a matter of where one focuses their energy.
It is what it is until it isn't



