i had the same thought the other day.
and yeah for the artists who cant afford to spend days on end recording an album, it does make sense whether you have a following or not.
if you dont have a following this lets you test the waters, so to speak, and build up a following without it costing you your house.
if you do have a following, wouldnt you rather release say a single a month that your loyal fan base will happily, and more importantly, can easily buy? as a musician, i would much prefer a certain monthly sum that i can count on as opposed to investing heavily into something that may or may not work.
$1 every month or so to support an artist i like is no big deal, especially if i like the song. but no matter how much i like an artist, i still hate it when i buy an album and its mostly shit or even not as good as i expected.
and your singles are just as much a body of work as 2-3 months locked up in a studio,... and if you manage to make it big enough, put all your singles into a cohesive album, granted its not the same as a one shot album but i think it still has merit.
i raised this issue with a couple of local musicians and all i got back was " yeah but if we sell singles at $1 a pop that devalues our "art""
so somehow $10 for a 15 song album is more valuable than $1 a song......
a few got the point i was making, but it seems like, atleast where i am, they need to learn basic math before anything else
but yeah i agree, its back to the way things started, which i think is a good thing overall.