WaspStar

I know a lot of people who hate CDs if only for the reason that they make skipping songs so easy; it seems that there's a certain type of music fan who dismisses the shuffle function as pointless. They also tend to consider compilations not "true" albums, even when said comps include a wealth of non-album tracks.

While I can see where they're coming from, and certainly many albums operate best when listened to in sequence, I really believe that skipping tracks helps one to appreciate a given work. There are plenty albums (or album sides) that I love that I'd never have appreciated had I listened to the entire things all the way through; chalk it up to a faulty attention span or a skewered way of appreciating music, there are usually two or three songs that act as my gateway drug into a given album. No, those songs are, in fact, rarely the singles or the "big" songs.

It might seem foolish to say, but for me at least, this even applies to something like Tommy. I'm not interested in hearing "Tommy, can you hear me" or "see me, feel me" a thousand times each in the course of an hour. Annoying interludes that only function to advance the story and endlessly repeating phrases only distract from the great songs (Sally Simpson, We're Not Gonna Take It, Cousin Kevin) on that album.

This doesn't mean that I never listen to albums all the way through; in fact, the opposite is true. Still, if I'm not in the mood for a certain song, I don't hesitate to skip it.

I guess my position is that I'd rather have twelve great (but unrelated) songs than twelve medicore songs that fit together.

Obviously, there's no "right" or "wrong" here (as with most music related topics), just value judgments. Discuss...

__________________
"This sure doesn't look like 'Crazy Ernie's Amazing Emporium of Total Bargain Madness!'"

Piss Me Off

If you're a truly brilliant artist then you should have brilliant albums, one's that i can listen to fully in one go and appreciate not only for their music but other factors such as a message or concept or the artwork, etc. Even some of my favourite albums have tracks i don't like but it doesn't matter because it takes nothing away.

As far as i can see the album format isn't sacred so much as it is necessary. If you take them out of the equation what do you have? Bands continously releasing singles or releasing single songs off of their website? It's impractical and a certain specialness is taken away.

I think this only really applies to 'proper' music fans though. I'm sure loads of people are happy with Limewire and an Ipod.

__________________


Last FM
Rate Yr Music
Muxtape

WaspStar

How is it impractical and lacking a "certain specialness"? Some great artists (especially in the soul/R&B fields) have never made great albums. Chuck Berry, Johnny Ace, etc. Even bands like the Who are best represented by their singles. One could make a case that "old school punk" (i.e., 1975-1979 or thereabouts) owes its reputation to singles, not albums.

After all, the "album" format is a fairly recent innovation. Traditionally, songs had to stand on their own. Now one can chalk up a mediocre song to being part of the bigger picture.


Oh, definitely! But, for me at least, I only get that orgasmic (sorry!) satisfaction when the songs themselves stand up. Listening to Skylarking all the way through, I feel somewhat cheated at the end. If I skip Mermaid Smiled, well, the final experience is totally different, in a good way.

If I find myself losing interest in an album, sometimes I'll even skip one of my favorites if I'm not in the mood for it. No sense in boring myself and getting irritated with an album just for the sake of continuity.

__________________
"This sure doesn't look like 'Crazy Ernie's Amazing Emporium of Total Bargain Madness!'"

RoemerMW

I hate to be nitpicky, but I personally think that Chuck Berry is best represented by some of his albums, particularly Chuck Berry Is on Top and St. Louis to Liverpool.

__________________
My Music Collection

OOS

I think that the best albums are ones that flow perfectly and have no bad tracks. The Blue Album and Pinkerton by Weezer are perfect examples of this, as is Origin of Symmetry by Muse.

Still, I think I would take a collection of great songs with no flow over a collection of mediocre-great songs with great flow.

WaspStar

I do like SLTL, but the singles are by far the best tracks (well, I'll give you Liverpool Drive and Our Little Rendezvous). Little Marie and Go Bobby Soxer are pretty generic, and Christmas songs are universally crummy...


But you're talking in a purely business sense; I'm talking from an aesthetic point of view. One could argue that the album format actually encourages filler, because bands with a handful of good tracks will write a bunch of clunkers to fill out the album (this is even worse now, with many CD's clocking in at lengths unheard of in the vinyl era).

Comps aren't celebrated among critics and most fans simply because they have an ugly reputation as "non albums." While most comps are ripoffs, some, particularly those that have a wealth of non-album tracks, are just as valid as the "proper" albums. There are plenty of Smiths fans who will swear that Hatful Of Hollow is better than most of their albums, just as I'll defend Turns Into Stone over either official Stone Roses album.


I'm a child of the cassette/CD medium, but when I'm listening to vinyl-era albums, I like to break down the album into proper sides, at least mentally. It really helped me to appreciate a lot of those albums, especially double ones like Blonde On Blonde and Exile On Main Street.

__________________
"This sure doesn't look like 'Crazy Ernie's Amazing Emporium of Total Bargain Madness!'"

Piss Me Off

Same with singles though, loads of artists will release a single just for the sake of it. Sometimes there's going to be crap music out there whatever form it's in.

I haven't got too much of a problem with Hatful of Hollow style compilations (as long as they're the same sort of quality of course, not all bands have those quality b-sides and such) and hell there's a few bands which are best known for their best of's (Buzz****s come to mind) but there's still a reason why most of hardrive is taken up by albums, they just rock that much more.

__________________


Last FM
Rate Yr Music
Muxtape

Piss Me Off

It's impractical because as far as i can see modern music works around the album format. It dictates how they tour, how they afford studio time and musically, for some, how they develop as artists (that could be argued against though). I know singles were a bigger format years ago and still with most pop artists but overall for most artists the album is where it's at.

Regarding albums being special, think of all the thousands of albums that are celebrated against the number of best-of's that are celebrated.

__________________


Last FM
Rate Yr Music
Muxtape

Janszoon

I can go either way. I appreciate some bands for their individual songs and some bands for their albums. One thing I think the album bands really have going for them for me though is that I love being able to immerse myself in for an extended length of time like you can with a unified-sounding album. Sometimes a single song just isn't a long enough experience for me.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

Schizotypic

Yeah this is pretty much where I stand also. I can enjoy a single but I prefer having the experience of a good album because it lasts longer and a lot of the time is also a little richer... depending on the single anyway. There are some really great singles when it comes to Reggae, Soul, Funk etc.

I can also see what people were saying about an album full of singles. I have some pretty sick compilations that are like that and they just seem like great albums to me.

That is this thread. =/
Edit: Oh, I see, the threads were merged. My bad.