Apologies for the late post. I've been settling into my new home and new job, leaving this space empty whilst more important parts of my life take priority. However, I have a bit of spare time so I thought I'd go ahead and type up some bits and bobs about something every music fan is familiar with.
Compilation Albums.
We've seen them advertised on TV and dotted around record stores. We mostly just assume they're a collection of well known songs by the band from all their albums on one handy CD, but there's a little bit more to them than that. Some bands decide to add tunes from a select number of albums across 10 years and a few even choose to add lesser known tracks just because they're favourites among band members.
Either way, for every magnificent compilation representing the band's greatest triumphs of Rock and Metal (although usually Rock), there's one that's clearly been churned out by means of generating cash by the record label. If you're like me and find yourself occasionally buying the old compilation album from a band you're not hugely into but still enjoy listening to, maybe you'll agree with some of these cardinal sins and shining diamonds in the world of musical anthologies.
Firstly, Dos!
DO learn the difference between "Greatest Hits" and "Best Of"
Technically, bands should never release Greatest Hits OR Best Of albums if they're still recording music, since it's basically them saying "Yeah, we're still making albums but fuck it, the songs we recorded 20 years ago shit all over them. You might as well not bother. We certainly didn't!". However, if you're a band that realises that fans will always see the classic material as the collection of superior tunes (or if you're Deep Purple), there's no point pretending anything you write now can be considered the best of your efforts.
So you come out with a compilation album. What do you call it?
WELL, if you're releasing a compendium of all your most successful songs that comprise fan favourites, chart topping singles and/or songs that gained popularity through use in the media, you go with "Greatest Hits" or "The Singles Collection".
If, however, you're choosing songs that consist of both well AND lesser known tracks that are highly regarded by fans and band members alike, you call it "The Best Of".
The number of fucking times I've seen an album boasting the "Essential" songs by a band, only to find some of their most awesome tunes absent is too damn high. What's more, it shows that whoever named it couldn't be arsed to actually listen to the songs included, which means the album is no more worthy of your ears than a Spotify playlist assembled by a deaf tween.
DO include stories about each song from band members in the leaflet
If the band are popular enough to have a compilation album and you like them enough to buy it, chances are you're at least a little bit interested in their history. Plus, some of these songs that'll probably end up on compilations have some rather fascinating stories behind them. If you're not bothered about that, you don't have to read the leaflet but the info in there about each song is a lot better than some blurb about the band in general written by their manager or some pillock who works for a music magazine.
"Oh but what if there are songs that don't have fun stories behind them?"
Song ideas have to come from somewhere, whether it's a bad day, a strange encounter, a handy dream or just plain ol' life experience. If a guitarist came up with a riff because he wanted something to sing in the shower, I call that a good enough story to share. The point is that songs included on these compilations can't just be ones that the band made by fucking about and even if they are, that's an anecdote in itself. Don't believe me? Check out the story behind Sweet Child O'Mine.
DO include album versions of songs
9/10 times, the album version of the song is a lot better than the single edit. Some songs work better with an edit, yes, but when a compilation butchers songs and removes some of the awesome elements like the guitar solo or an extra verse, forcing you to either settle for a substandard edit or pay more money for the full album version, it feels like a slap in the face. The only time single edits are suitable on compilations is when they're on "The Singles Collection". "Greatest Hits" is debatable, "Best Of" is a giant no-no.
And now for the Don'ts!
DON'T include live versions
This is the ultimate fuck you from whoever's responsible. I don't care if it's because the record label only has permission to use live tracks or if the band think they're better than the studio versions, it's a giant middle finger and nothing else. It's very rare for a live version to be better than the original (unless you're there at the gig, you're a fan of that band or it's pre-plane crash Lynyrd Skynyrd*) and it's even rarer for people to want the live version on a compilation.
OK, if a live version was released as a single, it has its place then. Also, if you include the original on one disc and a live version on another, that's understandable too. But live versions without the studio on a compilation album? Hell. Fuckin. No. The same can also be said for "remixes". Remasters are fine, remixes can piss right off.
DON'T release US and UK versions with different songs
A while ago, I acquired a Billy Joel compilation album. Recently, I revisited it after seeing the same album online with the song Scenes From An Italian Restaurant. But what's this? My version didn't have that track. So for some reason, a different region wants different songs, right?
WRONG!!
Nobody wants that. Same compilation, same tracklist. Every time; no excuses.
DON'T release a load of them with a mishmash of tracks across compilations
So a band decides to release a compilation that you go out and buy? Good. Same band release another compilation with different songs on it? Great! Band release another compilation with most the songs previously used on existing compilations? NO NO NO!
I accept that sometimes this is inevitable. If a band have existed for over 30 years and the compilation was released near the start of their career (an aforementioned sin), it might be necessary to include the earlier songs on a large compilation also including a lot of unused songs. However, including the same songs over and over whilst neglecting some that deserve a place more than the same hit used five times is a result of only one motivation. Greed.
Aerosmith are guilty of this and Black Sabbath had the fucking cheek to release two different compilations with exactly the same tracklist on both. I shit you not! There had to be better ways of promoting their godawful recent album than to rip off gullible fans like that.
In fact, there has to be a better way of handling compilation album tracklists in this digital age. There should be a company like Spotify that has access to entire back catalogues from bands and allows you to pick a selection of the band's material to burn onto a blank CD, which they send you for a price. Minimum 10 songs, maximum...I dunno, 15-20? Depends how much CD space there is.
£7.99 for 10 songs (plus small postage fee), £12.99 for over 15, custom album artwork from a selection of pictures on a band's "page", you can choose between studio, live, alternate and re-recordings and the money is split between the website and the band. I have no idea if a concept like this already exists for compilations but if it doesn't, the idea originated from me on August 31st 2014 and this blog post is proof.
I think the Kaiser Chiefs did something like this for their fourth album (pity it wasn't as good as their second) but an idea like this would be perfect for people who want a large selection of the band's entire existing material without spending a small fortune. It would also show bands which album tracks or B-sides people want to hear due to how often they're selected, in case they're struggling to think of new songs to add to a live setlist.
I guess people are moving to digital media rather than purchasing CD's so this idea probably wouldn't take off in the same way iTunes did but I dunno, I think it could work if done correctly with a wide selection of musicians supporting it. Anyway, that's it from me. Do you have any pet peeves about compilation albums? Let me know in the comment section. Until next time, be seeing you!
* Even though "One More From The Road" boasts material that blows nearly all of Skynyrd's studio work out the water, I would still want the originals on a compilation. If you want the live versions, buy the fucking live album.
Showing posts with label Rants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rants. Show all posts
Sunday, 31 August 2014
Sunday, 6 July 2014
Digital Streaming/Downloading vs. The Artist(s)
NOTE: In this post, Digital Streaming/Downloading applies to legal content people pay for. This isn't an argument about bands vs. online piracy, although if I get really bored/desperate I might voice my full opinion on that another month.
The year is 2014.
...Well, at the time of typing this up, it is.
For all I know, some lone survivor in the apocalyptic wasteland of New Korea has just picked up a cracked iPad with this blog post inexplicably on the screen.
If that is the case, hello survivor! Sorry 'bout the whole end of the world thing. Hang in there, K?
...where was I?
Oh yeah, music (or to the survivor, noise that isn't explosions or children screaming)!
So it's 2014 and the idea of having music streamed/downloaded to an electronic device of your choice is more commonplace than the knowledge of how to make music without said device to do all the legwork for you. Despite expensive licensing fees for iconic bands such as The Beatles or Led Zeppelin, they still appear in the iTunes library for you to access for less than £1 a song.
There are various articles online that discuss whether this is fair to the band, especially with subscription sites like Spotify that don't demand money to listen to each song and pay peanuts to the musicians. For this reason, there are many bands who disagree with these services using their music and, as a result, are absent from the online database.
These absent bands include Slade, Def Leppard, Scorpions and The Black Keys, although not all necessarily due to financial disagreements. Granted most people couldn't give half a fuck about Slade not being easily available (even though 1981's "Till Deaf Do Us Part" is one for all Hard Rock fans to check out, especially if they like Whitesnake and Motley Crue) but I know for a fact that all of these bands are capable of producing great material and would like the chance to listen to it via the most convenient medium.
I could always listen to scattered discographies on Grooveshark (a great and totally free music service that's perfect for locating more obscure tunes along with hits, if you're interested!) but I'm still intrigued to know what these bands have against services that the majority of existing musicians seem to have little to no problem with. It may have taken bands like AC/DC and Metallica a while to cooperate but in the end, they realised that it benefits a lot of people (presumably including themselves).
Nigel Godrich and Thom Yorke of Radiohead have gone on record as stating Spotify is bad for new musicians and is better for old bands who want people to hear their music again. Whilst Yorke may have a point about there being a better way to provide musicians with the money they deserve for their efforts, he seems to be missing the fact that musicians don't do what they do for themselves, unless they're Pop stars.
Yes, I'm speaking as a consumer but surely Spotify is primarily for consumers. It's allowing listeners to hear a wider selection of albums than they'd hear via radio or other methods. From that, they develop a taste for a band and decide to buy their albums or go to their concerts. I can't tell you how many albums I've bought as a result of listening to them first on Spotify or how many songs I've discovered through spending evenings digging through the plentiful selection of 70's and 80's Rock, an experience that's the closest to rooting through CDs at a second hand record shop most kids today will ever get to enjoy.
The Black Keys seem to have a similar stance, claiming that they haven't released all their albums on Spotify because they believe it's unfair to the artist but are open to it when a better deal comes along...in other words, they want more money. As for the older bands I mentioned, I have no idea why their albums aren't readily available, especially with Scorpions and Bob Seger who have a selective catalogue of live albums and a few studio ones available.
Maybe it's a region thing, as I know there are Americans who can't access albums in the UK/Europe versions of iTunes and Spotify, even though organisations who insist region blocks are necessary consist of nothing less than Fucking Cunts. However, the main point of this post is to decide whether or not one side is in the "right". Are the bands doing the right thing by saying their material shouldn't be available in digital format or are they being complete tools and inviting themselves open to piracy?
In my opinion, it's the latter all the way.
There are lots of things that piss me off but big bands getting high and mighty with their own material, making it harder for people to pay for their product and pretending that they're doing it for the greater good by depriving fans of their art? I see no flawless excuse for it. It's either greed, stupidity or misguided disdain.
I seem to recall Pink Floyd arguing that their music was designed to be listened to as a whole album, not as individual tracks to purchase whenever necessary. This would be a good argument if you never heard Pink Floyd songs as individual tracks on the radio. Clearly you CAN listen to songs on their own, so why stop people from buying the songs that they want?
Def Leppard have some of their recent live/re-recorded albums on Spotify and several studio ones available in America, despite being a British band. I doubt this applies to them but I know some bands get pissy about fans wanting their old material and not paying attention to the newer albums. Whilst this is an understandable irritation from an artist's perspective, they owe their own history more respect than they're giving it. Without their iconic albums and hit songs, it's doubtful that they'd ever be in a position to say "Hey, I've got a new solo Indie record out, go check it out BUT DON'T ASK ME ABOUT THE ALBUMS I RECORDED THAT MAKE YOU GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ME IN THE FIRST PLACE!"
Also, some of these big-headed Rock-divas need to get some fucking perspective. Do you think it's ever occurred to them that maybe, just maybe, their newer material isn't as good as their older classics? Songs become hits for a reason and if Robert Plant's new single doesn't reach the same level of acclaim that Stairway To Heaven, Whole Lotta Love or Immigrant Song received when they were released, surely that tells you something. Just because he's got a million dollar name doesn't mean he's entitled to have swarms of flies buzzing around every turd he craps out.
Then there's the Anti-Glee argument that Dave Grohl gave us a while back during one of his finer moments. Long story short, after Slash and Kings Of Leon said no to the dickbag in charge of Glee when asked for permission to use their songs, Dickback then went off on one and basically called them jerks for not allowing kids to hear their music. Dave Grohl then stepped in and said something along the lines of "not every band aspires to be in fucking Glee", followed by the Internet cheering in unison at this magnificent middle finger to someone who well and truly had it coming.
Well, the same argument could apply here. It's not compulsory for bands to give their music away and they should be well within their own right to say "You know what? No. I don't want my music on the same place as those other bands", so long as they're happy with the fact that people will pirate their music if they can't buy it. With most pirates, it's not a simple matter of laziness or being a cheap twat. People are happy to pay 99p for a song IF it's available. If the artist has made it difficult to access their song, people will turn to the next easiest method which is probably ripping it from Youtube or using some other site.
Now, if the artist is happy with that, then there's no problem. If they're happy to let their fans access their music for free in shitty quality because of their own beliefs against a service that seeks to provide art to those willing to pay a small fee, that's their prerogative. It's not one that I agree with but I'm not gonna protest it. I would argue that with Glee, it was a matter of taking a Rock song and turning it into a bland, soulless showtune sung by mediocre actors and drug abusers, whereas this is still their original song. I would argue that but it doesn't change the outcome.
What I will argue is a band claiming this when really they're against the service for a different reason are a band who need to sort their shit out. When a band claims they're doing it for "the smaller bands" when really they mean their own little solo project? When a band doesn't want people to buy songs individually because they want people to buy the more expensive album instead? That's when they need to pull their head out their arse and perhaps even release an album that has more than one or two worthwhile songs on it.
Another reason that I haven't mentioned is due to the record companies. A lot of bands have had to swap record labels and, as a result, haven't got a portion of their career on these sites due to the record industry that owns certain albums being wankers. I know it's easy to blame greed when it comes to record labels...so I'm gonna blame greed. Damn, that WAS easy!
Sometimes, it simply takes time to sort this issue out. Bands like The Eagles, Styx and Slayer have started off without notable albums on Spotify but over time, their back catalogue has been gradually added, presumably after the company earned enough money to meet the record label's demands. The last reason a band might disagree is because the band might have beef with someone who owns one of the organisations (see Black Keys again).
Again, can't blame them for not wanting to pay an arsehole but they seem to be forgetting that the service isn't meant for the arsehole. If Spotify's entire purpose was to let people make members of the band fellate the CEO by playing their music, that reluctance to cooperate would make more sense. It'd also see me single-handedly funding the company just by leaving Wheatus on repeat but that's not the point nor the purpose of Spotify. For the billionth time, and say it with me here folks, IT'S FOR THE CUSTOMERS!
The whole point of releasing albums is for people to listen to and enjoy or reflect upon. So you have to help fund a piece of shit, big deal! Everyone works for a knob at some point in their life. You can bitch about it and refuse to chip in to buy him a new private jet but at the end of the day, who are you hurting more? Some tosser who's already got enough money to hire footballers to fight to the death or the people who care about you enough to want to hear your work?
To recap, I can understand why a band or artist disagrees with iTunes, Amazon or Spotify (among other companies whom I've not bothered mentioning because nobody gives a shit about them; looking at you, Google Play) and appreciate some of their motivations towards keeping their music off those sites for now.
I don't fully agree with it and I'm sure there are other reasons I've missed that make a lot more sense than ones I've written about, but obviously I can't comment on them until I know what they are. If you have any opinions or better knowledge on this subject matter, feel free to educate me in the comment section.
In a perfect world, we'd be able to listen to any band we wanted to without ads, lag, region lock or DRM issues. I would've thought a paid subscription service like Spotify would help break down those barriers and allow people to enjoy the widest collection of music available in peace but between the CEOs or record companies demanding more cash for someone else's work and the tired artist angry at the percentage of profit they get relative to the number of times someone plays their new single, someone needs to back down for the people actually spending the money.
The year is 2014.
...Well, at the time of typing this up, it is.
For all I know, some lone survivor in the apocalyptic wasteland of New Korea has just picked up a cracked iPad with this blog post inexplicably on the screen.
If that is the case, hello survivor! Sorry 'bout the whole end of the world thing. Hang in there, K?
...where was I?
Oh yeah, music (or to the survivor, noise that isn't explosions or children screaming)!
So it's 2014 and the idea of having music streamed/downloaded to an electronic device of your choice is more commonplace than the knowledge of how to make music without said device to do all the legwork for you. Despite expensive licensing fees for iconic bands such as The Beatles or Led Zeppelin, they still appear in the iTunes library for you to access for less than £1 a song.
There are various articles online that discuss whether this is fair to the band, especially with subscription sites like Spotify that don't demand money to listen to each song and pay peanuts to the musicians. For this reason, there are many bands who disagree with these services using their music and, as a result, are absent from the online database.
These absent bands include Slade, Def Leppard, Scorpions and The Black Keys, although not all necessarily due to financial disagreements. Granted most people couldn't give half a fuck about Slade not being easily available (even though 1981's "Till Deaf Do Us Part" is one for all Hard Rock fans to check out, especially if they like Whitesnake and Motley Crue) but I know for a fact that all of these bands are capable of producing great material and would like the chance to listen to it via the most convenient medium.
I could always listen to scattered discographies on Grooveshark (a great and totally free music service that's perfect for locating more obscure tunes along with hits, if you're interested!) but I'm still intrigued to know what these bands have against services that the majority of existing musicians seem to have little to no problem with. It may have taken bands like AC/DC and Metallica a while to cooperate but in the end, they realised that it benefits a lot of people (presumably including themselves).
Nigel Godrich and Thom Yorke of Radiohead have gone on record as stating Spotify is bad for new musicians and is better for old bands who want people to hear their music again. Whilst Yorke may have a point about there being a better way to provide musicians with the money they deserve for their efforts, he seems to be missing the fact that musicians don't do what they do for themselves, unless they're Pop stars.
Yes, I'm speaking as a consumer but surely Spotify is primarily for consumers. It's allowing listeners to hear a wider selection of albums than they'd hear via radio or other methods. From that, they develop a taste for a band and decide to buy their albums or go to their concerts. I can't tell you how many albums I've bought as a result of listening to them first on Spotify or how many songs I've discovered through spending evenings digging through the plentiful selection of 70's and 80's Rock, an experience that's the closest to rooting through CDs at a second hand record shop most kids today will ever get to enjoy.
The Black Keys seem to have a similar stance, claiming that they haven't released all their albums on Spotify because they believe it's unfair to the artist but are open to it when a better deal comes along...in other words, they want more money. As for the older bands I mentioned, I have no idea why their albums aren't readily available, especially with Scorpions and Bob Seger who have a selective catalogue of live albums and a few studio ones available.
Maybe it's a region thing, as I know there are Americans who can't access albums in the UK/Europe versions of iTunes and Spotify, even though organisations who insist region blocks are necessary consist of nothing less than Fucking Cunts. However, the main point of this post is to decide whether or not one side is in the "right". Are the bands doing the right thing by saying their material shouldn't be available in digital format or are they being complete tools and inviting themselves open to piracy?
In my opinion, it's the latter all the way.
There are lots of things that piss me off but big bands getting high and mighty with their own material, making it harder for people to pay for their product and pretending that they're doing it for the greater good by depriving fans of their art? I see no flawless excuse for it. It's either greed, stupidity or misguided disdain.
I seem to recall Pink Floyd arguing that their music was designed to be listened to as a whole album, not as individual tracks to purchase whenever necessary. This would be a good argument if you never heard Pink Floyd songs as individual tracks on the radio. Clearly you CAN listen to songs on their own, so why stop people from buying the songs that they want?
Def Leppard have some of their recent live/re-recorded albums on Spotify and several studio ones available in America, despite being a British band. I doubt this applies to them but I know some bands get pissy about fans wanting their old material and not paying attention to the newer albums. Whilst this is an understandable irritation from an artist's perspective, they owe their own history more respect than they're giving it. Without their iconic albums and hit songs, it's doubtful that they'd ever be in a position to say "Hey, I've got a new solo Indie record out, go check it out BUT DON'T ASK ME ABOUT THE ALBUMS I RECORDED THAT MAKE YOU GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ME IN THE FIRST PLACE!"
Also, some of these big-headed Rock-divas need to get some fucking perspective. Do you think it's ever occurred to them that maybe, just maybe, their newer material isn't as good as their older classics? Songs become hits for a reason and if Robert Plant's new single doesn't reach the same level of acclaim that Stairway To Heaven, Whole Lotta Love or Immigrant Song received when they were released, surely that tells you something. Just because he's got a million dollar name doesn't mean he's entitled to have swarms of flies buzzing around every turd he craps out.
Then there's the Anti-Glee argument that Dave Grohl gave us a while back during one of his finer moments. Long story short, after Slash and Kings Of Leon said no to the dickbag in charge of Glee when asked for permission to use their songs, Dickback then went off on one and basically called them jerks for not allowing kids to hear their music. Dave Grohl then stepped in and said something along the lines of "not every band aspires to be in fucking Glee", followed by the Internet cheering in unison at this magnificent middle finger to someone who well and truly had it coming.
Well, the same argument could apply here. It's not compulsory for bands to give their music away and they should be well within their own right to say "You know what? No. I don't want my music on the same place as those other bands", so long as they're happy with the fact that people will pirate their music if they can't buy it. With most pirates, it's not a simple matter of laziness or being a cheap twat. People are happy to pay 99p for a song IF it's available. If the artist has made it difficult to access their song, people will turn to the next easiest method which is probably ripping it from Youtube or using some other site.
Now, if the artist is happy with that, then there's no problem. If they're happy to let their fans access their music for free in shitty quality because of their own beliefs against a service that seeks to provide art to those willing to pay a small fee, that's their prerogative. It's not one that I agree with but I'm not gonna protest it. I would argue that with Glee, it was a matter of taking a Rock song and turning it into a bland, soulless showtune sung by mediocre actors and drug abusers, whereas this is still their original song. I would argue that but it doesn't change the outcome.
What I will argue is a band claiming this when really they're against the service for a different reason are a band who need to sort their shit out. When a band claims they're doing it for "the smaller bands" when really they mean their own little solo project? When a band doesn't want people to buy songs individually because they want people to buy the more expensive album instead? That's when they need to pull their head out their arse and perhaps even release an album that has more than one or two worthwhile songs on it.
Another reason that I haven't mentioned is due to the record companies. A lot of bands have had to swap record labels and, as a result, haven't got a portion of their career on these sites due to the record industry that owns certain albums being wankers. I know it's easy to blame greed when it comes to record labels...so I'm gonna blame greed. Damn, that WAS easy!
Sometimes, it simply takes time to sort this issue out. Bands like The Eagles, Styx and Slayer have started off without notable albums on Spotify but over time, their back catalogue has been gradually added, presumably after the company earned enough money to meet the record label's demands. The last reason a band might disagree is because the band might have beef with someone who owns one of the organisations (see Black Keys again).
Again, can't blame them for not wanting to pay an arsehole but they seem to be forgetting that the service isn't meant for the arsehole. If Spotify's entire purpose was to let people make members of the band fellate the CEO by playing their music, that reluctance to cooperate would make more sense. It'd also see me single-handedly funding the company just by leaving Wheatus on repeat but that's not the point nor the purpose of Spotify. For the billionth time, and say it with me here folks, IT'S FOR THE CUSTOMERS!
The whole point of releasing albums is for people to listen to and enjoy or reflect upon. So you have to help fund a piece of shit, big deal! Everyone works for a knob at some point in their life. You can bitch about it and refuse to chip in to buy him a new private jet but at the end of the day, who are you hurting more? Some tosser who's already got enough money to hire footballers to fight to the death or the people who care about you enough to want to hear your work?
To recap, I can understand why a band or artist disagrees with iTunes, Amazon or Spotify (among other companies whom I've not bothered mentioning because nobody gives a shit about them; looking at you, Google Play) and appreciate some of their motivations towards keeping their music off those sites for now.
I don't fully agree with it and I'm sure there are other reasons I've missed that make a lot more sense than ones I've written about, but obviously I can't comment on them until I know what they are. If you have any opinions or better knowledge on this subject matter, feel free to educate me in the comment section.
In a perfect world, we'd be able to listen to any band we wanted to without ads, lag, region lock or DRM issues. I would've thought a paid subscription service like Spotify would help break down those barriers and allow people to enjoy the widest collection of music available in peace but between the CEOs or record companies demanding more cash for someone else's work and the tired artist angry at the percentage of profit they get relative to the number of times someone plays their new single, someone needs to back down for the people actually spending the money.
Thursday, 24 October 2013
HMV: Sinking Ships & their Idiot Captains
Hello there ladies & gentlemen! An album has come out recently that I plan on reviewing soon but, until I get my arse in gear, here's something I wrote over a year ago about HMV. It's, uhhhhh...rather critical. Enjoy!
Not too long ago, it was announced that many HMV stores around the UK would be shutting down. For those unaware of HMV, they're kind of like media department stores depending on their size in the area they're located. Bigger HMVs will have multiple floors, selling clothing as well as their usual stock but most HMVs will be average sized and have CDs, DVDs, video games and other random pieces of entertainment ranging from iPod accessories to books. For years, I've continuously supported my local HMV despite feeling as though the employees know about as much as music as I do about the employees of the HMV.
I've stated before that the people in my area have barely any fucking knowledge about Rock music and though they may be wise beyond their years in the field of Clubbing Anthems and Wank Pop, less than 2% probably know the difference between Hard Rock and Metal, hence the reason why bands such as Queens Of The Stone Age & AFI are under the Metal section in my HMV. There's one bloke who works there that actually seems to know his stuff. I've had great conversations with him about recommended Metal and he's actually informed me about top quality Classic Rock bands...everyone else seems to know total jack about Rock, and that applies to Woking as a whole too.
But I'm not here to have a pop at the employees of my local...fuck it, Woking HMV. I'm not here to criticise how their recommendation sections for 60s Rock have had 70s CDs and how they've recommended live albums by bands who aren't really popular for being amazing live and therefore just picked any album by an old group. I'm here to fully slag off HMV's business model and talk about why they deserve to fully go under as a business. For the record, I hope they don't. They're the only music shop in Woking and if they go, I don't believe I have a reason to go into Woking town centre any more...and I need the exercise that the walk into town does me. I just think they deserve to fail as a result of the following.
Firstly, there's the matter of having employees who don't strike me as experts in their occupation, which is straight away the sign of amateur companies. Hiring people who did D of E Gold over people who can recite entire back catalogues of multiple bands spanning several different genres and decades. I admit that HMV aren't just a music shop and I imagine that the other employees at the Woking branch and other branches probably know their film and video game trivia but I've never walked into an HMV and felt the same level of respect for employees as I do when I enter...I don't know, an Apple store. They're paid to know their shit. HMV pay people to do general work that a moron can and more than likely is doing whilst you're reading this rather harsh hate letter.
Secondly, there's the service. Allow me to tell you about how I tried to order 3 different albums from the HMV Woking store. The albums in question were "Another Perfect Day" - Motorhead, "Rust In Peace" - Megadeth and "The Ritual" - Testament. Hardly piss-weak obscure albums by nobody bands and yet they weren't stocked. I believe the only one that was was "Rust In Peace". One album that came with a bonus live disc but cost a bit extra. Not wanting to pay the extra for content I wasn't arsed about, I decided to order a standard copy.
I placed an order for the Motorhead and Megadeth albums, also learning that the Megadeth album will come with their album "Countdown To Extinction" for the same price. I was happy to pay that because I was actually interested in listening to the other album of different material. They claimed they'd text me when the albums arrive in less than a week. One week later, I've received no text. I pay the guys a visit and learn that one of my albums has arrived, the Motorhead one. Thanks for the text, lads. For the next month, I pop in every now and then to ask about my Megadeth album. I get the same reply. "It's not arrived yet".
They told me it's down to the company delivering the album, which I can respect, but it doesn't make HMV look very professional when they can't deliver a basic service that any other shop and (most importantly) the Internet can. Eventually it arrived and, feeling generous, I ordered another album, the Testament one. Same deal, we'll text you when it gets here. A week later, I pop in and it's arrived. No text again. They did text me about the Megadeth album but since I was literally standing inside the store when I received it, I'm not awarding them any brownie points for that.
As a result, I have no interest in ever ordering anything from HMV ever again. I know I could order it online from their website for a speedy delivery but frankly, why order it from HMV when I could order it from Amazon or eBay or a trusted company? So that's my stance there. They fucked up repeatedly and now I'll only be buying things they have in store. Anything else I may have been tempted to order can wait. Hardly a major victory for myself but take into account the number of people who have already made the transition to buying music online and I'd imagine they need all the customers they can get, so there's no reason for shoddy service.
Thirdly, aside from having pretty lacklustre stock and employees who have no specialist skill set that would make them useful to have in a modern record shop, the people running the show seem to be completely oblivious to modern progressions in music purchasing too. Damn near everyone has iTunes and if they're not pirating tracks, they're paying to download them online. CDs are a dying format and soon record shops will be extinct. What HMV need to do is find a way of integrating the ability to download MP3s into their shop. Imagine if HMV had some kind of bay or plug-in mini-computer system where your iPod would fit and you could browse their entire catalogue to pick and choose songs you wanted.
OH WAIT! They already do! They're just total fuckwits.
In the interest of fairness, I visited HMV Brighton whilst I was in Brighton (best place to be if you want to visit HMV Brighton). Same lyrics, different song. Pretty lame stock selection, mediocre recommendations but what's this? They had little screens on the walls where you could pop on headphones, scan their in-store items and according to the writing on the front of it "Download MP3s"...or at least you could if they fucking worked. I found 2 of these touch-screen mirrors sitting idle and after touching both screens to no result, I decided to leave. I can forgive Woking for not having this technology. I bet it's expensive and if shops are already falling, they can't afford to spend cash on something that people may not even buy into. But HMV Brighton? You guys fucking suck.
You have something that could work! You have something that, with a bit of adjustment, could give people a reason to go into your shops to buy single songs! Plug in your iPod, pay 50p to keep it charged, sign into your iTunes account, browse the library, pay for songs you want, download them straight into your iPod, have playlists based on what's actually playing in the store because the dumbass employees have no pissing clue, offer extra points or whatever it is you do, offer discounts for album purchases, charge their iTunes account and let them get on their way without having to waste time at the front desk.
Hell, you could even order CDs from those touch screen systems! Type in personal details and have it fucking delivered, I don't care just have something! All they have is the equivalent of a half painted bedroom and a sleeping dad lying next to a barely assembled crib. You were nearly there and then you fucked up and couldn't be arsed to carry on. Lazy bastards. Whilst I'm angrily ranting, how about this for a way of making buying CDs from HMV less annoying? Ever seen those CDs with "2 for £10" on them? Ever noticed how the CDs picked for those offers usually make no cocking sense? Here's an idea, how about we sort that out?!
Instead of making Greatest Hits albums with 2 discs and up to 30 tracks "2 for £10" and simultaneously ignoring other albums that have 8 songs and are priced £15, how about a system where you can pick two albums and request a price? Maybe one of those touch screen computer systems could calculate how popular they are, how many tracks they have, how long they've been out and how many more albums they have in stock and get you a reasonable offer? If fucking pizza companies can have a "Find me a great deal" option on their website, how is it that a music and media shop can't? Oh yes, that's why, because they're apparently a bunch of Fucking Amateurs.
So that's my piece. I apologise to HMV employees who may find themselves reading this but you've kind of brought it on yourself. As for people in charge of HMV, I offer no apologies. You're clueless, idiotic fucking clowns who deserve to lose your jobs to someone who actually has a fragment of business sense in their head. Luckily HMV have DVDs and games to fall back on but, by the sounds of it, hard copies of those titles will soon be gone in less than a decade...as I imagine HMV will.
Aaaaaaaaand that's it! Expect a review coming within the next month and (hopefully) it'll be more positive than the last three things I've posted here. Be seeing you!
Not too long ago, it was announced that many HMV stores around the UK would be shutting down. For those unaware of HMV, they're kind of like media department stores depending on their size in the area they're located. Bigger HMVs will have multiple floors, selling clothing as well as their usual stock but most HMVs will be average sized and have CDs, DVDs, video games and other random pieces of entertainment ranging from iPod accessories to books. For years, I've continuously supported my local HMV despite feeling as though the employees know about as much as music as I do about the employees of the HMV.
I've stated before that the people in my area have barely any fucking knowledge about Rock music and though they may be wise beyond their years in the field of Clubbing Anthems and Wank Pop, less than 2% probably know the difference between Hard Rock and Metal, hence the reason why bands such as Queens Of The Stone Age & AFI are under the Metal section in my HMV. There's one bloke who works there that actually seems to know his stuff. I've had great conversations with him about recommended Metal and he's actually informed me about top quality Classic Rock bands...everyone else seems to know total jack about Rock, and that applies to Woking as a whole too.
But I'm not here to have a pop at the employees of my local...fuck it, Woking HMV. I'm not here to criticise how their recommendation sections for 60s Rock have had 70s CDs and how they've recommended live albums by bands who aren't really popular for being amazing live and therefore just picked any album by an old group. I'm here to fully slag off HMV's business model and talk about why they deserve to fully go under as a business. For the record, I hope they don't. They're the only music shop in Woking and if they go, I don't believe I have a reason to go into Woking town centre any more...and I need the exercise that the walk into town does me. I just think they deserve to fail as a result of the following.
Firstly, there's the matter of having employees who don't strike me as experts in their occupation, which is straight away the sign of amateur companies. Hiring people who did D of E Gold over people who can recite entire back catalogues of multiple bands spanning several different genres and decades. I admit that HMV aren't just a music shop and I imagine that the other employees at the Woking branch and other branches probably know their film and video game trivia but I've never walked into an HMV and felt the same level of respect for employees as I do when I enter...I don't know, an Apple store. They're paid to know their shit. HMV pay people to do general work that a moron can and more than likely is doing whilst you're reading this rather harsh hate letter.
Secondly, there's the service. Allow me to tell you about how I tried to order 3 different albums from the HMV Woking store. The albums in question were "Another Perfect Day" - Motorhead, "Rust In Peace" - Megadeth and "The Ritual" - Testament. Hardly piss-weak obscure albums by nobody bands and yet they weren't stocked. I believe the only one that was was "Rust In Peace". One album that came with a bonus live disc but cost a bit extra. Not wanting to pay the extra for content I wasn't arsed about, I decided to order a standard copy.
I placed an order for the Motorhead and Megadeth albums, also learning that the Megadeth album will come with their album "Countdown To Extinction" for the same price. I was happy to pay that because I was actually interested in listening to the other album of different material. They claimed they'd text me when the albums arrive in less than a week. One week later, I've received no text. I pay the guys a visit and learn that one of my albums has arrived, the Motorhead one. Thanks for the text, lads. For the next month, I pop in every now and then to ask about my Megadeth album. I get the same reply. "It's not arrived yet".
They told me it's down to the company delivering the album, which I can respect, but it doesn't make HMV look very professional when they can't deliver a basic service that any other shop and (most importantly) the Internet can. Eventually it arrived and, feeling generous, I ordered another album, the Testament one. Same deal, we'll text you when it gets here. A week later, I pop in and it's arrived. No text again. They did text me about the Megadeth album but since I was literally standing inside the store when I received it, I'm not awarding them any brownie points for that.
As a result, I have no interest in ever ordering anything from HMV ever again. I know I could order it online from their website for a speedy delivery but frankly, why order it from HMV when I could order it from Amazon or eBay or a trusted company? So that's my stance there. They fucked up repeatedly and now I'll only be buying things they have in store. Anything else I may have been tempted to order can wait. Hardly a major victory for myself but take into account the number of people who have already made the transition to buying music online and I'd imagine they need all the customers they can get, so there's no reason for shoddy service.
Thirdly, aside from having pretty lacklustre stock and employees who have no specialist skill set that would make them useful to have in a modern record shop, the people running the show seem to be completely oblivious to modern progressions in music purchasing too. Damn near everyone has iTunes and if they're not pirating tracks, they're paying to download them online. CDs are a dying format and soon record shops will be extinct. What HMV need to do is find a way of integrating the ability to download MP3s into their shop. Imagine if HMV had some kind of bay or plug-in mini-computer system where your iPod would fit and you could browse their entire catalogue to pick and choose songs you wanted.
OH WAIT! They already do! They're just total fuckwits.
In the interest of fairness, I visited HMV Brighton whilst I was in Brighton (best place to be if you want to visit HMV Brighton). Same lyrics, different song. Pretty lame stock selection, mediocre recommendations but what's this? They had little screens on the walls where you could pop on headphones, scan their in-store items and according to the writing on the front of it "Download MP3s"...or at least you could if they fucking worked. I found 2 of these touch-screen mirrors sitting idle and after touching both screens to no result, I decided to leave. I can forgive Woking for not having this technology. I bet it's expensive and if shops are already falling, they can't afford to spend cash on something that people may not even buy into. But HMV Brighton? You guys fucking suck.
You have something that could work! You have something that, with a bit of adjustment, could give people a reason to go into your shops to buy single songs! Plug in your iPod, pay 50p to keep it charged, sign into your iTunes account, browse the library, pay for songs you want, download them straight into your iPod, have playlists based on what's actually playing in the store because the dumbass employees have no pissing clue, offer extra points or whatever it is you do, offer discounts for album purchases, charge their iTunes account and let them get on their way without having to waste time at the front desk.
Hell, you could even order CDs from those touch screen systems! Type in personal details and have it fucking delivered, I don't care just have something! All they have is the equivalent of a half painted bedroom and a sleeping dad lying next to a barely assembled crib. You were nearly there and then you fucked up and couldn't be arsed to carry on. Lazy bastards. Whilst I'm angrily ranting, how about this for a way of making buying CDs from HMV less annoying? Ever seen those CDs with "2 for £10" on them? Ever noticed how the CDs picked for those offers usually make no cocking sense? Here's an idea, how about we sort that out?!
Instead of making Greatest Hits albums with 2 discs and up to 30 tracks "2 for £10" and simultaneously ignoring other albums that have 8 songs and are priced £15, how about a system where you can pick two albums and request a price? Maybe one of those touch screen computer systems could calculate how popular they are, how many tracks they have, how long they've been out and how many more albums they have in stock and get you a reasonable offer? If fucking pizza companies can have a "Find me a great deal" option on their website, how is it that a music and media shop can't? Oh yes, that's why, because they're apparently a bunch of Fucking Amateurs.
So that's my piece. I apologise to HMV employees who may find themselves reading this but you've kind of brought it on yourself. As for people in charge of HMV, I offer no apologies. You're clueless, idiotic fucking clowns who deserve to lose your jobs to someone who actually has a fragment of business sense in their head. Luckily HMV have DVDs and games to fall back on but, by the sounds of it, hard copies of those titles will soon be gone in less than a decade...as I imagine HMV will.
Aaaaaaaaand that's it! Expect a review coming within the next month and (hopefully) it'll be more positive than the last three things I've posted here. Be seeing you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)