How to make your album CD iPod-friendly
At the moment everyone’s talking about the recently-announced Apple iPhone, which will have iPod functionality on it. One angle I’d like to take is that it represents just how far the iPod has become, and hints at how the iPod will become even more ubiquitous in the future. Most of the people I know now have an iPod. I know a few more with non-iPod MP3 players, but most have iPods. Furthermore, most of the tracks on most of these iPods got their via being ripped from a commercial album CD at some point, either directly or via a friend (or Bittorrent).
Listening to album CDs on a portable MP3 player has become so common, it’s probably time that artists and record companies started printing CDs with this usage in mind. I’ve been thinking about this for a few days, and have put together a handy list of things that should be done to make the whole transferring-a-CD-to-your-iPod experience as friendly and useful as possible. If you think of anything I’ve missed, let me know.
- Don’t use copy-protection on the CD. This is the big one, as doing so will prevent people from being able to transfer the CD to their iPod at all.
- No ‘hidden’ bonus tracks! There has been a trend on CDs to make the last track contain a really long silence at the end, and then play a bonus track when people aren’t expecting it. Whilst a nice CD gimmick, once the track gets onto an iPod, and then shuffled around, the long silence becomes really annoying. So the hidden bonus tracks have to go.
- First five seconds count! When your track gets shuffled randomly on someone’s iPod, people need to be able to recognise the song within the first five seconds. Otherwise they’re likely to skip. So make an impact early!
- Hard start, soft finish. Following from the previous point, most iPods now cross-fade between songs. Most songs fade out towards the end, so take advantage of this by having a hard start (strong vocals or a drumbeat) to mark the start of your song. In return, expect people to miss the last few seconds of your song, so stick with a gentle fade-out or soft finish.
- No leading silences. Have your song start on the very first second, so there’s no pause when people hit ‘play’.
- Cover art is important, but needs to be recogniseable when quite small. Most iPods now will display the cover art when playing a track (if the person has an iTunes store account), so this is still worth paying attention to, but any detail will be lost on a tiny iPod Nano screen.
- Don’t expect your songs to be played in order. Sequential ‘concept-album’ style narrative can get lost if people are shuffling your songs up with loads of others.
- No overly long or overly short tracks.
- Make good use of stereo effects. Headphones have complete seperation of sound between left and right channels, so any stereo effects are much more noticeable.
- Make track and album names easy to spell. Otherwise there’ll be loads of spelling variants floating around the peer-to-peer networks.
Musicians shoud, of course, feel free to break any of these guidelines should they have a reason to do so (music is all about innovation after all), but for your bog standard indie album release, it’s worth thinking about how the music will be consumed on an iPod.
Update:
Thanks for all the comments so far. They’ve all given me a chance to further think about and reflect upon some of the ideas that I touched on in this post – so much so that I’m halfway through a follow-up post, but haven’t gotten around to finishing it yet. I’m going to elaborate more of the concept of ‘writing to a format’, as Ed puts it, and what this might mean for the iPod (other MP3 players available, etc etc). I’m not seriously suggesting that these ideas should become constraints upon music, but rather look at ways in which artists might best adapt and write to the formats and behaviours that iPod-style devices have given rise to.
Matt said:
I’m going to disagree with your fundamental point here Frankie… I don’t think that ‘most’ people have iPods; and I don’t think that Apple have anywhere near the market penetration required to prompt such considerations from the music industry.
On the contrary, I know people who are turning away from the iPod brand; let down by the manufacturing quality and the related bad press that Apple have received.
I believe we’ve tired of the iPod as a fashion accessory – we don’t want to be replacing our mp3 player every 6 – 12 months…
That said, perhaps that is where the iPhone will fit into the market. We’ve just about come to terms with replacing our phones each year as we renew / replace contracts; and increasingly phones have become multimedia devices; Sony with their W-series phones are one example, whilst network providers are now offering mobile tv, a concept pioneered by Vodaphone.
I think standalone mp3 players are old news… but Apple have a long way to go to catch up with the established players in the mobile market…
Frankie Roberto said:
Hi Matt,
I’m judging the ubiquity of iPods based on the number of my friends and family that have one, and the number of white headphones I see on the tube.
Even if people have other branded MP3 players, the above advice still applies.
E said:
Creative players ship with white headphones too.
The concept of “iPod friendly” music is CREEPY and WRONG.
E said:
Though writing to the format is an interesting concept; They Might Be Giants did a CD that included 30 or so very short songs on different tracks (as well as 12 regular tracks) so the CD became radically different each time when you shuffled it. And Python did an LP with multiple grooves on one side so depending on where the needle landed you got a different record.
I can’t see a similar application for the iPod (I suppose you could have some software with the music to do weird stuff like randomising only certain tracks… hmm).
James Cridland said:
>>No ‘hidden’ bonus tracks!<
On the contrary: use hidden bonus tracks; but do them to the CD standard (which is to mark the beginning of the track, but add a 15-second gap before it which you only hear if you’re playing the CD all the way through). For an example, try The Beatles’ Abbey Road – from memory (and I’ve thrown all my CDs away), as the CD player trips over to this track, it counts down from “-15″ all the way to 0 before playing the track.
But I totally disagree that musicians should make any changes to their music for the iPod’s sake. And as for your suggestion that “don’t expect your songs to be played in order”: you clearly don’t listen to albums! The Beatles’ “Love” album needs to be listened-to in order, otherwise it makes little sense (and is far less powerful).
Evan Roberts said:
“Make good use of stereo effects. Headphones have complete seperation of sound between left and right channels, so any stereo effects are much more noticeable.”
When wearing headphones, there is nothing worse than over zealous stereo effects. Stereo recordings are generally intended to be played back on speakers, where each ear hears both channels, but with a natural delay. When using headphones, instead of hearing a sound effect whizzing around your head, you just feel like you have gone temporarily deaf in one ear, a rather unpleasant sensation.
Matt said:
To add more weight to support James’ point, I can think of many other albums on which the tracks are designed to be listened to ‘chronologically’.
One of the biggest being Green Day’s ‘Rock Opera’ American Idiot.
That said, I guess there’s nothing wrong with appreciating each track as an individual work… but there is a synergistic effect which shouldn’t be ignored.
Martin Belam said:
Not only does The Beatles “Love” album need to be listened to in order, it would be nice if after George Martin & co spent 2 years making it, my iPod didn’t think it could improve upon it by adding 2 miliseconds of silence every two minutes as the track number increments ;-)