The current state of music

[Enjoyed]

OK. Who wants to join me in an old-man-yells-at-cloud discussion about music at the moment?

Prompted by a few recent topics on here;
• The new Weval album, clocking in at 33 minutes,
• Our discussion about the algorithm, in regards to the recent collection of new Chems remixes
• Some personal trouble I've had tracking down "Extended" versions of tracks

On the topic of Weval, I don't think any of the tracks necessarily feel short. And an extended runtime doesn't just = better song/journey, but it does feel like there is a growing trend towards keeping things tight and tidy - again, likely for the purpose of the algorithm and an audience with a shorter attention span OR maybe just less time to spend listening to music concertedly?

On the opposite end of the spectrum is Anjunadeep. I've been a fan for a long time (ever since they put out a free compilation through Amazon, completely chock full of bangers) and made a point to listen / download and, before they sadly moved away from releasing CDs, purchase as much of their output as I could.
The CD topic is related because, as someone who still regularly buys in that format, it seems to be increasingly more difficult to consistently find things on CD. A buddy of mine here in Portland attends a lot of shows, and I'm always asking him if they have CDs available at the merch stand. It's always no. Disclosure's latest album was a real treat, and I was very much looking forward to picking up a copy for myself (and my mum who's a big fan!) but it just straight up doesn't exist!

Now, sure. CDs likely don't sell well, are increasingly expensive to manufacture and distribute and it probably just doesn't make sense for the world of "club" music where most DJs are either still rocking vinyl, or have moved completely digital. That's fine, but I do think there was a small period during the transition where some bad decisions were made that resulted in some swayed data. Back to Anjunadeep - they started releasing albums on CD with edited track lengths. Not with a "Radio Edit" label mind you, but instead without the new standard which is "Extended Mix". So, I actually didn't buy a bunch of the more recent CDs from Anjunadeep because I didn't want to listen to the edited down versions of tracks from Eli & Fur, or Jody Wisternoff. The whole point of that music is to evolve and take its time, but for some reason there wasn't the space given for the CD format.

So, my gripe is that the external draw towards making and releasing 'shorter form' music, has, in some cases at least, diminished the quality of the output. If you go to listen to Jody Wisternoff's excellent 'Welcome to My World' on a streaming service, you'll find the runtime clocking in at 55 minutes, with an average track length of 3:45 - 4 minutes. The 'proper' version (with the "Extended Mixes") is 1 hour 11 minutes. It's not even THAT much longer, but streaming the album, you'll be getting what I would argue is a vastly subpar experience.

It comes back to the question of who is it for? Are Jody fans looking for a version of 'Tales From Beyond' that is 3:15 shorter for some reason? Surely DJs want the full thing to mix in and out of, and fans want to HEAR the whole thing??? And it's not like the 'Radio Edit' makes sense here. It's the algorithm again - if the shorter version gets snuck in on shuffle for someone, maybe a shorter runtime will hook someone in to go and seek out more?
I guess that's cool and all - but tracking down the full version is not so easy! And definitely not as readily available as the edited versions on streaming platforms. I couldn't find the full versions of those Jody songs, or some other Anjuna numbers anywhere. Not even as an uploaded YouTube video - I had to go buy the full version from Beatport (fine, they win, they got my money!). I don't like to buy mp3s - I want to buy a CD, but it doesn't exist with the full length content on it!

I don't know. I'm writing this all out and ultimately just getting mad at myself. Does it matter? No. Do I have and am I able to listen to the full versions of all these things? Yes. So what's my problem? I think I'm just feeling a disconnect between the artists, labels, and whatnot putting out art that feels already trimmed and chipped away at to satisfy some unspoken collective acceptance that short is good.

Those new Chems remixes are all under 4 minutes, right? They obviously fit into a strange in-between where an edited version does kind of make sense. They might very likely end up on the radio, or in a commercial or something, and fortunately (touch wood) the "full" versions still make it onto the album (though I'd argue they skimped on the "Harvest Mix" of TDTYF!) so I guess we're OK as Chems fans, for now. Could that change though? Are we being aged out of being able to readily enjoy a nice, long, evolving, spacious piece of music?

I just remembered that Tame Impala put out a 7 minute track as the first single to his new album - so maybe I just need to shut up

--

I am curious what y'all think though. Getting some other, fresher, and almost certainly more open-minded takes on the whole thing would be great!

[shakermaker]

I read that current technology is encouraging shorter recordings. A stream pays the same regardless of whether it is one minute or 10 minutes long, so you can get more income from 10 one minute songs than a single 10 minute opus. And if you're going for a tiktok trend then only a short portion of that needs to actually be good.

So may be why you're seeing shorter versions on streaming is in part because music producers are now incentivized to stream shorter recordings.

[shakermaker]

Another trend streaming has encouraged that I dislike - when a new single is released, prior singles from the same album are included as tracks 2, 3, etc.

I get why. When you hit play on a release it will stream all the tracks until the user tells it to stop, so you can get up to 3 streams if the listener hits play on a 3 track release, while you definitely won't get more than 1 stream if they hit play on a single track release.

But from any other perspective, it's at best pointless and at worst confusing, and feels kinda click-bait-y.

I can accept the death of b-sides, but really would prefer single-track releases would be presented that way on streaming platforms.

[Enjoyed]

I completely agree!

Although, I have to admit that the trend did sadly work out positively for me not minutes ago, when shuffle played a new Daphni track, and having clicked into the "single" I was able to listen to 2 other recent releases within the same page - which was quite nice

Obviously the difference here is that I wasn't tricked into giving more track streams - I opted into it. But perhaps an argument for making the tracks readily accessible for those who might be interested in more? Fine line, for sure.

[shakermaker]

I agree. I think that one is effectively a failure of the streaming platforms to anticipate user or stakeholder (or both) desires. They could design it so that it would be easy to listen to a series of an act's recent singles in sequence, but they don't, leaving artists/owners of that music resort to these workarounds.

[Bosco]

I would say attempt to give extra attention to any artist/musician trying to give you an authentic experience. AI music or AI edited music, is already here and will be the new normal before you blink.

[Bosco]

Can we expand this conversation to Music festivals?

Coachella 2026 just released their lineup  the earliest they ever have. I don't know what that means, but I'm a bit worried that the festival isn't doing well hitting their attendance goals (See Portola 2025)

While I'll probably never attend again, this could potentially be bad news for American fans who hold out waiting for non-domestic bands that use Coachella to anchor their American tours.

Probably overthinking it, and probably smart business move by Goldenvoice. We'll see...

[Enjoyed]

While I'll probably never attend again, this could potentially be bad news for American fans who hold out waiting for non-domestic bands that use Coachella to anchor their American tours.

Except... Is it really anchoring an American tour? I would have loved to see Basement Jaxx last year, but they only played shows in California. And we know that The Chems stick pretty closely to the oceans when they're "touring" around a festival date. I think that the whole musicians visa thing is likely a larger factor that is stopping international acts from heading over.

Also, and this is of course just my personal opinion - I just can't be doing with the amount of people AND the high, high cost of music festivals these days. As someone who is extremely willing to spend money on shows (up to a point) it speaks to how something is just not alluring enough at these festivals to entice me, and potentially other parts of a core fanbase. Would I go back to Glastonbury given a set of perfect circumstances? Sure. But I'm just too tired to even think about wandering around from stage to stage to catch the 3 (looking at Portola) bands that I would absolutely want to see if I went. So, another age thing? I didn't recognize enough of the names at Portola to make the whole festival worth it for me, and the cost was too high for Chems and Confidence Man - so I just didn't.

PLUS - money is tighter everywhere, for good reason. Shows, festivals, travel in general, most recreational activities that require paying for entry in some capacity - are seeing a big hit from people rightly prioritizing their spending to things like fucking milk and eggs!

Oh. And FEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSS 

[Bosco]

the whole musicians visa thing is likely a larger factor that is stopping international acts from heading over.

Yes, visas are probably an issue, but operating cost with a limited audience is probably keeping acts like Basement Jaxx and The Chemical Brothers from ever doing tours again. When Coachella comes calling it becomes a lucrative opportunity to come to America and get massive amount of exposure, along with probably a nice payday. Do subsequent shows with their Coachella date(s) result in an extensive tour? Not necessarily, but it's at least it's something!

[shakermaker]

Can we expand this conversation to Music festivals?

I would say the state of music festivals is good, in that the festivals themselves are as good as ever. Recent trends of easier access to tickets and a not-sold-out crowd are overall a good thing for fans. Earlier lineup announcements means more time to identify friends who might be interested in going.

Struggling to sell tickets is not great for the promoters, however, especially ones who grew comfortable with having instant sellouts every year. And if they cannot sell enough tickets then we get fewer festivals. 

NPR wrote on the topic of canceled festivals last year and this year appears to be no different.

One micro-festival I am aware of here in Northern California was transparent about it this year - they notified their email list that if they did not sell X more tickets by a certain date, the event would be canceled. It seemed to work because they sold enough tickets and the event happened, but they are hinting that it may be the end for them.

I hate to even discuss it in the same topic as music festivals as I consider it completely distinct, but it is affected the same way - Burning Man is really struggling. The org grew financially dependent on selling out every year. That hasn't happened for several years now (hot on the heels of 2 years with no event at all), and they are struggling to survive as an organization. They have compromised on some of their values to try and sell more tickets, and have resorted to begging for large donations. (Donations were always a part of their model - they are a non-profit organization - but they are really leaning on it now.)

As I said, I don't think it's an issue with the events - they are as good as ever. I think it's more a reflection of the state of the economy and unemployment. Here in California some large-scale strikes in the entertainment industry two years back impacted people's expendable income. Some people are probably still recovering financially from things shutting down in the pandemic.

Perhaps in the long-run it will be a good thing. Perhaps event organizers will learn to build business models that don't count on the best case scenario (i.e. instant sellout) every year. Perhaps it will filter down the plethora of event organizers to those truly passionate, dedicated, and willing to put in the effort to make events good enough to attract people.