C/D: The Album

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
As the iPod may already be sounding the its death knell, shall we evaluate the success of the once standard-bearing, now increasingly downplayed musical format?

Its champions often uphold an ideal of a self-contained musical experience, a long musical work somewhat akin to a symphony, suite, or opera, but few albums seem to approach this ideal. I never quite found Sgt. Pepper's to be as unified as folks say it is, nor do I quite get the "concept" (the Lonely Hearts Club band is singing all of the songs? And?). Pink Floyd is more successful in that they know how to weave songs into one another, recapitulate themes, etc. Pet Sounds succeeds in that it sustains a certain sound, mood, and a sort of adolescenct love/growing pains theme. Gang of Four's "Entertainment" does the same with anxiety about entrapment in a bourgeoise lifestyle. Yes's "Close to the Edge" almost takes the single piece of music idea too far.

But most bands don't seem to be able to pull off the concept album/unified work thing. First of all, unlike symphonies, albums are usually generated first as individual songs, and stitching them together with nice transitions doesn't conceal this. Themed concept albums like Sufjan Stevens's Michigan too often fall back on gimmickry, and rock operas ... let's not go there. Furthermore, most rock and pop musicians just don't have the formal training to write an effective 40-70 minute unified musical work (by which I mean them no disrespect).

More often, great albums are simply collections of songs that represent a period or moment in an artists career. They might have a unified sound, but it's really a stretch to think of them as musical wholes.

If anything, the iPod might leave only the truly unified albums standing -- maybe I'd rather not listen to After The Gold Rush or The Blueprint all the way through, for example, but Dark Side is better intact.

Hurting (Hurting), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 06:30 (twenty-one years ago)

I think we should go back to categorising things in opus numbers.
Or say, Ned could catalogue the Cure's work and and we'd refer to their songs with Ragget Numbers. AlexinNYC could do the same for Killing Joke and Ja Rule.
As each song is released, on its own or in bunches of three on the interweb, it would be assigned its number. Thus we keep track of an artists developement, and we can make our own albums if we want.

Bumfluff, Wednesday, 1 December 2004 06:55 (twenty-one years ago)

sort of the way the roots number all their songs, bumfluff?

Shmool McShmool (shmuel), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 07:47 (twenty-one years ago)

haha, fools with ipods.

what will they think of next..

reo, Wednesday, 1 December 2004 07:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Furthermore, most rock and pop musicians just don't have the formal training to write an effective 40-70 minute unified musical work (by which I mean them no disrespect).

I think you are wrong here. I think most do. It's just that they don't do this as much.


More often, great albums are simply collections of songs that represent a period or moment in an artists career. They might have a unified sound, but it's really a stretch to think of them as musical wholes.

Possibly, but just because they don't tell a story from beginning to end, doesn't mean that there is no logical sequence. How many tracks work in context, and do not work played on their own?

mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 08:45 (twenty-one years ago)

MORE ALBUMS WERE SOLD IN THE UK LAST YEAR THAN EVER BEFORE. IT IS NOT A DYING FORMAT. fgs

Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 09:49 (twenty-one years ago)

I'll never stop buying CDs. "Ipod" has its place as far as portability goes, but there are certain aspects of owning a CD or album that can't be replaced.

Cheek0 (Cheek0), Thursday, 2 December 2004 01:08 (twenty-one years ago)

commodity fetishism vs. digital ether

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 2 December 2004 01:12 (twenty-one years ago)

the ipod has not made me stop listening to albums as a whole.

cutty (mcutt), Thursday, 2 December 2004 01:14 (twenty-one years ago)

although i do love a good shuffle.

cutty (mcutt), Thursday, 2 December 2004 01:14 (twenty-one years ago)

the iPOD and its ilk are just personal radio stations, nothing more.

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 2 December 2004 01:15 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't have an Ipod, and I doubt I will ever have one. Albums forever!

Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Thursday, 2 December 2004 01:17 (twenty-one years ago)

note that radio existed well before the album format, and the album format got along pretty well with radio.

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 2 December 2004 01:18 (twenty-one years ago)

i think things will keep changing. the album won't mean what it used to mean in the 60s/70s/80s/90s. it already doesn't mean as much to millions of downloaders/ipoders. my brother-in-law is 28 and all he has is one of those books filled with cdrs of mixes and songs AND albums, but the actual albums collected on his cdrs probably don't mean that much to him anymore. cover/art/songs in one particualr order/etc. that kind of thing. ipod-like devices will definitely be the norm for most. download the songs onto a device. plug the device into whatever. car/stereo/hairdryer/etc.

scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 2 December 2004 01:21 (twenty-one years ago)

A lot of kids don't give a damn about albums are 13, and then, at 20, they still get into albums.

Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Thursday, 2 December 2004 01:26 (twenty-one years ago)

i see all albums as collections of songs these days. i rarely listen to anything that isn't compiled and shuffled. as a result "clever" segues and incidental pieces are lost on me, and frequently just irritate the piss out of me instead.

the surface noise (slight return) (electricsound), Thursday, 2 December 2004 01:33 (twenty-one years ago)

Has vinyl died out yet?

Masked Gazza, Thursday, 2 December 2004 01:49 (twenty-one years ago)

I long for the day when I can experience music without
needing to listen to it with my auditory machines;
feed the info straight into my brain and memory banks.
Ears are for suckers.

Masked Gazza, Thursday, 2 December 2004 01:53 (twenty-one years ago)

those are called DREAMS.

cutty (mcutt), Thursday, 2 December 2004 01:54 (twenty-one years ago)

I mostly dream in silence

Masked Gazza, Thursday, 2 December 2004 01:55 (twenty-one years ago)

an effective 40-70 minute unified musical work

Bloody Cds. Albums should be 10 songs 40-45 minutes tops. 80 minute CDs = 2x more filler. Bah!

Ben Dot (1977), Thursday, 2 December 2004 02:02 (twenty-one years ago)

27 to 35 minutes is the optimum length of an album. anything more is just bloat.

scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 2 December 2004 02:08 (twenty-one years ago)

no way dude! 29 to 37 minutes forever!!!!

cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 2 December 2004 02:10 (twenty-one years ago)

you crazy kids and your freewheeling optimal album lengths.

scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 2 December 2004 02:12 (twenty-one years ago)

the sale of singles is dieing more and more and more each year.
It seemed that back in the 60s singles was where it was at. 7inches.

Ipods dont' really change the way people feel about whole albums.
- now there are completeist downloaders. rather than record collectors.

Savin All My Love 4 u (Savin 4ll my (heart) 4u), Thursday, 2 December 2004 02:14 (twenty-one years ago)

40 MINUTES.

cutty (mcutt), Thursday, 2 December 2004 02:16 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't really care so much about what format sells better (albums vs. singles). I'm more interested in the album as a musical form. Obviously people still buy plenty of albums, but I'd imagine we're going to see increasingly that people put those songs on their iPods and hit shuffle. That's the point -- that like Scott and Surface Noise, people may no longer care about the album as a whole. It doesn't mean people will buy more singles -- after all it's often preferable to get a whole collection of songs by an artist rather than just one.

Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 2 December 2004 02:48 (twenty-one years ago)

For the last couple of years, I've listened to almost all music through my iPod or through my Mac wired up to my stereo. I've got rid of a lot of weak tracks, and even where I haven't, I very rarely listen to an album the whole way through. This trend started for me when I got a CD player, in fact.

I kind of think I've overdone it a bit. I'm so track-focussed these days, I've kind of started believing albums that I'll love from start to finish won't be made anymore.

In this new environment, I love music more than I have ever done, but the loss of the album experience must count as the downside, I guess. I think the problem lies, as well with the flexibility of mp3 listening itself, in having too much new stuff coming in (both directly and indirectly as a result of the internet) to have the time to get to know albums. That's why I don't understand those who are even worse than I am, buying dozens and dozens of albums a year. They are often the people who go on about albums being important, but I don't see where they fit in the multiple repeat listens that the important albums in my life have required. Most of the albums I really love, and know inside out, were bought when I was a kid and hadn't got the money to buy many records.

Albums I have that relationship with have slowed down to about one a year now, for me. I just feel I haven't got room in my heart or head for any more than that. Maybe it's nothing to do with the internet. Maybe it's just getting older.

I was listening to Luomo's The Present Lover earlier for the first time, and maybe that would be a candidate. The lush, romantic sweep of it. Though I didn't finish listening to it - ha! I'd just bought three other albums (two were V/A comps) and needed to hear some of them. Plus I was downloading stuff.

So it goes.

Alba (Alba), Thursday, 2 December 2004 02:53 (twenty-one years ago)

I only recently got the iPod myself, but my two favorite features are 1) Being able to salvage the one or two (or three or four) good tracks from an otherwise mediocre album, and 2) Being able to eliminate the one or two stinkers on an otherwise great album (i.e. Pet Sounds without "Sloop John B")

There are very few albums on which I wouldn't at least eliminate one track, given the choice.

Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 2 December 2004 02:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh, by the way - I'm planning to get a turntable again, and pick up old albums in charity shops.

I'll sit in an old chair and soak them in, far away from my computer. Well, as far away as I can get in this room.

It's the awful halfway house of CD players that I want to confine to the dustbin.

Alba (Alba), Thursday, 2 December 2004 02:58 (twenty-one years ago)

The album and the ipod aren't neccessarily mutually exclusive. Wouldn't the ideal contemporary album be a collection of individual tracks each so great that they belong in your ipod but sequenced together in a way that flows and compliments the tracks like a good mix?

On the other hand maybe "filler" tracks serve a useful purpose. Do lesser tracks help to lead into greater tracks and in a way cleanse the pallet between the peak moments? Is there room for experimentation without filler & b-sides?

I have a love/hate relationship with Sloop John B. So many times I simply skip past it without a second thought. But when I take the time to listen I actually enjoy the song. I imagine my experience of the album would be much different if I were listening on vinyl. In some ways that song is essential in its awkwardness.

walter kranz (walterkranz), Thursday, 2 December 2004 03:26 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm still trying to come to terms with the plateaus and peaks thing. You're right, but I've always got my eye on the high.

Alba (Alba), Thursday, 2 December 2004 12:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Lots of great albums have been between 50 and 55 minutes. Particularly during prog rock. Albums that are longer than that are usually too long.

Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Thursday, 2 December 2004 12:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Anybody who is generalising in any way, whether it be pro song, pro album, pro file, pro CD, pro vinyl or pro fucking cylinder, is missing the point. Listen to music how you want to listen to it - be that on random while walking around the city, or listening intently to CDs in sequence via headphones in your living room - there is no right or correct way to listen to music; a song is no more the platonic essence of pop than an album is, both are totally arbitrary constructs and you shouold take them or leave them according to how much you enjoy them. Sometimes I just play individual songs, sometimes I like to sit through a whole album. Sometimes I skip less favoured tracks on albums I love to get to the good bits, other times I need to contextualise the good bits, earn the pay-off, delay the gratification to intensify it - I love "New Grass" by Talk Talk, but removed from the context of the album it's less powerful to me; it's beautiful and redemptional because of all the chaos and hard work that preceeds it. And sometimes I just wanna slam on "B.O.B." without bothering with anything else on Stankonia, and that's fine too. Sometimes with the iPod on random and album track I've never paid attention to comes on and I see it in a new light and learn a new way to listen; sometimes something I'm not keen on hearing right now comes on and I skip it. These are both alright too.

Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 2 December 2004 13:44 (twenty-one years ago)

I think it's you who might be missing the point (I love missing the point accusation contests). Yes, you can listen to music however you want. But as music delivery trends change, you might find that there are fewer Laughing Stocks being made. The question is whether this is true and whether it matters.

Alba (Alba), Thursday, 2 December 2004 16:17 (twenty-one years ago)

I think it's you who's missing the point - the Laughing Stock style album isn't the only way it's possible to enjoy an album, and just because you have enjoyed that kind of album in the past doesn't mean you can't enjoy a different type of album again in the future.

This game will never end.

Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 2 December 2004 16:22 (twenty-one years ago)

But maybe there will cease to be albums at all.

Alba (Alba), Thursday, 2 December 2004 16:25 (twenty-one years ago)

More sold last year than EVER before - I do not think that is a viable possibility any time soon.

Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 2 December 2004 16:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, we're talking about the future, trying to look at the seeds of it now.

Alba (Alba), Thursday, 2 December 2004 16:30 (twenty-one years ago)

(personally, I am buying more compilations as compared to 'proper albums' than ever before, and not necessarily ones that are more than the sum of their parts)

Alba (Alba), Thursday, 2 December 2004 16:32 (twenty-one years ago)

The seeds of the future are that album sales are increasing year-on year - people need to get the songs to rip them to the net for other people to download them in the first place.

Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 2 December 2004 16:37 (twenty-one years ago)

This reminds me of Western attitudes to the Soviet Union in the 1980s.

Alba (Alba), Thursday, 2 December 2004 16:40 (twenty-one years ago)

the album has been dying for ME. it is very rare for me to listen to an album from start to finish these days. i am not atypical enough as a consumer for this to be a problem for the music industry for the foreseeable future tho, but ten years from now will be interesting.

Frankenstein On Ice (blueski), Thursday, 2 December 2004 16:46 (twenty-one years ago)

More sold last year than EVER before

depends what this stat is based on but isn't it the case that there are more albums being MADE than ever before as well, so how does the ratio of sales vs releases balance against ratios of previous eras?

Frankenstein On Ice (blueski), Thursday, 2 December 2004 16:48 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't know why this album sales thing is relevant. You've got to look at acceleration, not increases. Yes, they might be up, but downloads are up by far more. They might be a tiny percentage at the moment, but as long as they accelerate faster than physical record sales, they will take over eventually. Look beyond the headlines and that's what the figures from last week were saying. And no, most people don't download an entire album.

Alba (Alba), Thursday, 2 December 2004 16:52 (twenty-one years ago)

And no, most people don't download an entire album.

do you mean out of the people that frequently download? if so i disagree. if not then yeh but MOST people (in the broadest sense) still don't download.

Frankenstein On Ice (blueski), Thursday, 2 December 2004 16:59 (twenty-one years ago)

What percentage of big selling Albums are comps or greatest hits collections?

In fact does anyone know of anywhere online where you can see CD sales breakdowns?
(It'd come in very handy when the sort of 'Rock is Dead' or 'the kids are all into xxx these days' grand claims are made.)

Bidfurd, Thursday, 2 December 2004 17:04 (twenty-one years ago)

In this argument, you will also have to take a look at how many of of the downloads are actually legal and being paid for.

Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Thursday, 2 December 2004 17:05 (twenty-one years ago)

What percentage of big selling Albums are comps or greatest hits collections?

At this time of year, quite a lot.

Anyway, it seems that there is still a huge album buying age group from around 20 and up. The kids download tracks rather than albums, but this just means that the album market is changing, and that the album market will increasingly be aimed at a more grownup market.

Of course, what happens in the future depends whether today's 14-year-olds will still download tracks rather than buying albums at 24. I doubt they will.

Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Thursday, 2 December 2004 17:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Stevem, I'm talking about legal downloads, ie. the ones that will shape how the record industry will release music in the future.

(I'm not even sure you're right about illegal downloaders - if those who dl stuff from me are anything to go by, it's usually individual tracks, but maybe that's a Limewire thing)

Alba (Alba), Thursday, 2 December 2004 17:10 (twenty-one years ago)

i don't suppose these sales figures can reflect the boom in online second hand trading via ebay and the like.

I'm not even sure you're right about illegal downloaders

most users i've encountered regardless of the software being used are sharing albums and i doubt that many of them ripped the CDs direct (tho i have in several cases).

Frankenstein On Ice (blueski), Thursday, 2 December 2004 17:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Even on Soulseek, I am surprised how many people are downloading single tracks rather than entire albums.

Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Thursday, 2 December 2004 17:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Steve - for looking at current trends, surely you have to look at what they download, rather than at what they are sharing (and can only guess at the provenance of anyway?)

Alba (Alba), Thursday, 2 December 2004 17:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Wow- a thread on the viability of the album. This really takes me back to the glory days of ILM. I'm sure a little digging around in the archives would turn up some interesting threads on this topic.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 2 December 2004 17:30 (twenty-one years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.