3 ms·

Forced in the sense that if you walk into a grocery store for a quart of milk, they refuse to sell it to you unless you also purchase some carrots, a container

by deveac 12y ago

Forced in the sense that if you walk into a grocery store for a quart of milk, they refuse to sell it to you unless you also purchase some carrots, a container of yogurt, a sack of nuts, some table salt, a wooden spoon, a bottle of vinegar, and a pack of tooth picks as well. That model is broken and the alternatives are numerous and successful because they make more sense. Singles on iTunes, Spotify, piracy...all better than paying a lot of money for content you don't want. We're seeing the same pressure applied to cable TV in the US, where consumers are tired of having no choice but to pay for content they do not want. Increasingly, they have a choices and are exercising them.

res0nat0r 12y ago
Or, more like you are complaining to the store manage that you only want to buy one egg for .01c vs a carton. But they don't sell individual eggs and you unfortunately are out of luck.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  I just go to the place that'll sells me the one egg. I can get my egg anywhere. Same with music.
  - res0nat0r 12y ago
    Except for Garth Brooks Farm Fresh eggs.
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      The market, for which, isn't that large.
krapp 12y ago
That only makes sense if you consider the different songs on an album as completely unrelated items. It's more like you walk into a bookstore, pick up a anthology, then tear out everything except the parts you want to read, and insist on only paying for those pages. Yes - they can be distributed separately, and sometimes are, and I would agree that it would be better for the consumer to be able to pick and choose, but they were produced as part of a set, a single work. If that's the way they want to distribute it then it's not 'force' because you happen not to like most of it - it's their decision to make and yours to take or leave. It's not unfair. edit: I should not have jumped on 'force' the way I did... it's clearly derailed the thread a bit.
- jerf 12y ago
  "Yes - they can be distributed separately, and sometimes are," I'd observe, unless I'm way, way more out of the music loop than I realize, that the correct terms are that they are almost always things that can be distributed separately, and very few "albums" have more than a faint trace of coherence between the songs. That is, sure, an album might alternate "upbeat" and "downer" songs or do some other basic management beyond "random ordering", but that's usually the top end of coherence. Contrast with The Wall or something, where it really is difficult to pick out separate tracks, excepting the ones that Pink Floyd deliberately made separable so some part of it could be played on the radio. And really, people, let's stop trying to pick apart the word "force" as if several people up thread haven't been extremely clear what they mean by the term. "Forced bundling" is a perfectly reasonable use of the term, and trying to equivocate with other sorts of force is, well, that fallacy I named.
  - krapp 12y ago
    >I'd observe, unless I'm way, way more out of the music loop than I realize, that the correct terms are that they are almost always things that can be distributed separately, and very few "albums" have more than a faint trace of coherence between the songs. Who said that an album has to be coherent, or follow a narrative flow, for the distribution model to be justified? That's an entirely subjective way of seeing it - not invalid, but also not relevant to the question. There are probably plenty of people who would consider most of The Wall to be crap as well - and that coherence to be rambling nonsense (note: I loved the Wall, but I also really liked the Division Bell so what do I know?). My point is, there's nothing 'broken' about the model, even if there may be more convenient models available.
- deveac 12y ago
  >That only makes sense if you consider the different songs on an album as completely unrelated items. Not at all. It also makes sense if you merely want one particular song and do not want the others, because they are not the song you want to hear. > it's not extortion or 'force' because you happen not to like most of it. If you look above, I defined the precise way the word 'force' was being used in order to avoid this kind of overly pedantic argument. If you can't roll with the term as it was defined directly above, feel free to disregard it entirely or substitute any word that matches the clarification following it, which is the point :) Finally, remember that singles have been central to the recorded industry from the days of the 45 straight on through the LP era to the present. A good friend of mine is a studio owner that records many major acts everybody has heard of, and the idea that albums are cohesive collections meant to be listened to together is anathema to how the single-driven business works in many cases. In fact, that's been one of the major complaints against the industry for decades :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqmFxgEGKH0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqmFxgEGKH0

by deveac 12y ago

res0nat0r 12y ago

Or, more like you are complaining to the store manage that you only want to buy one egg for .01c vs a carton. But they don't sell individual eggs and you unfortunately are out of luck.

toomuchtodo 12y ago
I just go to the place that'll sells me the one egg. I can get my egg anywhere. Same with music.
- res0nat0r 12y ago
  Except for Garth Brooks Farm Fresh eggs.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    The market, for which, isn't that large.

krapp 12y ago

That only makes sense if you consider the different songs on an album as completely unrelated items. It's more like you walk into a bookstore, pick up a anthology, then tear out everything except the parts you want to read, and insist on only paying for those pages. Yes - they can be distributed separately, and sometimes are, and I would agree that it would be better for the consumer to be able to pick and choose, but they were produced as part of a set, a single work. If that's the way they want to distribute it then it's not 'force' because you happen not to like most of it - it's their decision to make and yours to take or leave. It's not unfair. edit: I should not have jumped on 'force' the way I did... it's clearly derailed the thread a bit.

jerf 12y ago
"Yes - they can be distributed separately, and sometimes are," I'd observe, unless I'm way, way more out of the music loop than I realize, that the correct terms are that they are almost always things that can be distributed separately, and very few "albums" have more than a faint trace of coherence between the songs. That is, sure, an album might alternate "upbeat" and "downer" songs or do some other basic management beyond "random ordering", but that's usually the top end of coherence. Contrast with The Wall or something, where it really is difficult to pick out separate tracks, excepting the ones that Pink Floyd deliberately made separable so some part of it could be played on the radio. And really, people, let's stop trying to pick apart the word "force" as if several people up thread haven't been extremely clear what they mean by the term. "Forced bundling" is a perfectly reasonable use of the term, and trying to equivocate with other sorts of force is, well, that fallacy I named.
- krapp 12y ago
  >I'd observe, unless I'm way, way more out of the music loop than I realize, that the correct terms are that they are almost always things that can be distributed separately, and very few "albums" have more than a faint trace of coherence between the songs. Who said that an album has to be coherent, or follow a narrative flow, for the distribution model to be justified? That's an entirely subjective way of seeing it - not invalid, but also not relevant to the question. There are probably plenty of people who would consider most of The Wall to be crap as well - and that coherence to be rambling nonsense (note: I loved the Wall, but I also really liked the Division Bell so what do I know?). My point is, there's nothing 'broken' about the model, even if there may be more convenient models available.
deveac 12y ago
>That only makes sense if you consider the different songs on an album as completely unrelated items. Not at all. It also makes sense if you merely want one particular song and do not want the others, because they are not the song you want to hear. > it's not extortion or 'force' because you happen not to like most of it. If you look above, I defined the precise way the word 'force' was being used in order to avoid this kind of overly pedantic argument. If you can't roll with the term as it was defined directly above, feel free to disregard it entirely or substitute any word that matches the clarification following it, which is the point :) Finally, remember that singles have been central to the recorded industry from the days of the 45 straight on through the LP era to the present. A good friend of mine is a studio owner that records many major acts everybody has heard of, and the idea that albums are cohesive collections meant to be listened to together is anathema to how the single-driven business works in many cases. In fact, that's been one of the major complaints against the industry for decades :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqmFxgEGKH0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqmFxgEGKH0