Just as often, though, the main benefit of buying the whole album is that I discover some 'gem' songs that I'd have never heard if I'd only listened to the hits that make it to the radio. They can continue marketing these songs easily over the Net, if that's what they want. They could give lesser-known songs as freebies to tag along with popular ones, or rely on the availability of the iTunes preview feature.

In any case, with high-quality recording technology artists have been loosing control of album sequencing for years. I can buy several CDs in a store and re-arrange the order to create my own compilation without downloading a thing of the Net.

I think this must really be about finding a way to sell the less popular songs, and I think they can do that without boycotting the iTunes sales model. Even if it really is the art of album-making they want to preserve, these bands ought to realize they'd be better off adapting their art to the new world order, rather than running from changing technology. If people really want albums, and artists can produce quality ones, the market for whole album sales will remain despite the availability of new technology.

...until they turn around and release a CD single. There are a lot of bands I can think of that release "albums" as opposed to a collection of singles: tool (especially), radiohead, and I can even see Linkin Park making this claim (a lot of their music flows from one song to the next). But when the band turns around and then sells CD singles of the songs (and every band I mentioned has done this), then they give up the right to shield themselves with "but you're not taking in the album as a whole" defense.

psxndc