Album Format: Outdated?

[MrPoe]

Should bands even try to conform to the old album format anymore? 12 songs per album, or whatever? What if they only wrote 3 or 4 really good songs each year (or 5), and just release those without the crap, forgettable fillers just to "complete" the album format?

[Towelie]

Nah, that idea blows.

A decent band should be able to produce 10-12 good-great tracks every couple of years. If they can't then they're not really worthy of being called "artists".

Edited June 7, 2015 by Towelie

[Val22]

I hope not. I love buying new cds. I mostly listen to music in my car and I got a really good cd player now. it even has a Bluetooth mic connected to my steering wheel.

I love getting new cds to read the words to the songs and read what the band members have to say.

I doubt bands will stop making cds, because a lot of bands are now releasing albums again.

[Jakey Styley]

The fans of the bands appreciate those songs that everyone else considers forgettable. If the album format is outdated, I wouldn't say it's for this reason. I think shorter albums from a lot of artists is a good idea though.

[username]

Should bands even try to conform to the old album format anymore? 12 songs per album, or whatever? What if they only wrote 3 or 4 really good songs each year (or 5), and just release those without the crap, forgettable fillers just to "complete" the album format?

If the album format is outdated, I weep for music and the current young generation with their shortened attention span.

And 4 good songs are called an EP.

I don't like the scattered release here and song put online there attitude. I love it when things flow together and work together. I love staring at a cover and browsing through a booklet. I love the pictures and the lyrics. I love the whole musical journey thing.

I feel like a lot of artists today are less consistent. Like they come and go more quickly. Maybe that's just me being old though. But I feel like kids are less loyal too. They forget stuff more quickly and move on to the next big song. I see the movement (again, might just me being old) but I don't like it.

I think shorter albums from a lot of artists is a good idea though.

Agreed, just because cd's made 74 minutes possible, doesn't mean people should. Most great albums are between 40 and 60 minutes really.

[ZoSoRose]

A good album is like the best thing ever. It's like a painting, with lots of great components to make it whole

[Len Cnut]

It's difficult to guess i suppose because the history of recorded music is a relatively small one. The album only became a thing of note from 67 or 68 onwards and it had a good 30 something year run. Will it come back? I dunno, my guess is probably not. It's got it's niche in the market so albums will always sell but will it ever be THE thing again? I dunno, I suppose one would be inclined to think not, simply because the majority of the human experience with music has been about single songs, there was a period in history where albums were big and now they're not. People will always go for quick reference and ease of access, people were into whole albums back in the day because entertainment was like...the telly, the radio, kinda like...random stuff you may or may not like so you could imagine why people would have the patience to listen to and devour albums. I mean, thats not even a thing anymore is it, putting music on, like an album, and listening to it all the way through whilst doing nothing else, just sitting down and listening to an album. Kids don't wannabe figuring out fuckin' songs when they've got internet and playstation and all this other shit thats more immediately gratifying.

It all comes down to youth culture really, music, and by extension albums, don't sell the same anymore cuz it aint the thing for 'the kids'. Which is why popular music, rock n roll etc has such a short shelf life because it was essentially marketed for kids and what kids find appealling or cool etc is stuf relevant to them, each next generation tends to find the older shit kinda corny, it's why there is relatively little in pop music that is timeless...so one could argue that the focus on youth culture was detrimental to the art of music, whilst being healthy for the commerce aspect.

Perhaps its a good thing, leave it in the hands of the people who have a real passion and a respect for it. And this idea that you need to preserve the album format because it is somehow more related to the artistic aspect of music making and takes it kind of away from the directly commercial aspect of just marketing single songs, thats a load of bollocks too I mean...Coltrane, Miles Davis, Charlie Parker, these guys made albums that were just like, collections of their shit, do they not register on the artistic totem pole by virtue of being so? I don't think so.

Edited June 7, 2015 by Len B'stard

[Gordon Comstock]

Albums aren't going anywhere. Actually after I opened this thread I got up to flip the record I'm playing

Maybe if all you listen to is made-for-radio bands (like Foo Fighters, Nickelback etc) I could why people skip the album and get 3 songs off itunes, but there are still bands putting out good albums. And like username said, most of them don't take up all the space on a CD.

[Len Cnut]

Albums aren't going anywhere.

Surely they've already gone somewhere since albums sales have plummetted in their millions and millions in the last few years. Thats what people are asking when they ask this questions, not 'will albums ever be erased from the face of the earth', more like 'oh no! how come long haired people with make up on can't afford to buy castles on the proceeds of 40 minute collections of songs anymore'.

[Gordon Comstock]

Albums aren't going anywhere.

Surely they've already gone somewhere since albums sales have plummetted in their millions and millions in the last few years. Thats what people are asking when they ask this questions, not 'will albums ever be erased from the face of the earth', more like 'oh no! how come long haired people with make up on can't afford to buy castles on the proceeds of 40 minute collections of songs anymore'.

Well yea, what I meant by that was that there'd always be an audience for them though, cuz I took the OP as saying like "what's the point of albums? why not just release good songs as they come" and that's why I mentioned bands that are "made for radio". Obviously sales have gone down for a number of reasons though, and I honestly don't care that rockstars might have trouble affording mansions

I might be in the minority but when I'm first getting into a band I'll download full albums, cuz most bands can write 2-3 good songs and promote those on youtube but when you hear the whole album you get a better sense of the band, y'know? I don't hear 3 songs from a band and go "yea, I'm really into them!" So yea the market for albums is smaller but there will always be a market.

[chevelle]

Personally, I love the focus that recording an album provides. I think it's a different mindset when a band decides to write and record a body of work versus a handful of songs at a time, so it allows for more cohesiveness in terms of style and feel. I really love being able to sit down for 45 minutes or so and have an album to get lost in, instead of just shuffling around through some songs that were released here and there with no specific grouping, so to speak. So I guess it comes down to whether or not you prefer the narrative an artist sets by creating a full body of work or if you like to use the music in your own way, like in playlists or shuffling them around, whatever.

[Towelie]

Albums aren't going anywhere.

Surely they've already gone somewhere since albums sales have plummetted in their millions and millions in the last few years. Thats what people are asking when they ask this questions, not 'will albums ever be erased from the face of the earth', more like 'oh no! how come long haired people with make up on can't afford to buy castles on the proceeds of 40 minute collections of songs anymore'.

I think there will always be a market for albums, way beyond our generation, but it'll be more of a niche thing. The days of "event" albums and of mid-night openings to buy the latest big news release... that all died a good fifteen years ago or more. These days you can get into the British top ten album chart selling under 8k, fifteen years ago those same sales would've just about scraped the top 50. But just because people aren't buying albums on mass anymore, it doesn't mean they're not listening to them. The reason for the sharp decline is largely due to the popularity of streaming sites like Spotify, which completely nullify the need for a CD/record collection.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Towelie

[DieselDaisy]

You have to remember that before c. 1966, singles, 45s, dominated. You could argue that, in returning to individual songs and specifically chosen 'jukebox' playlists (with the onset of MP3), rock/popular music is merely returning to its default position. We however are all heirs to Pink Floyd in the sense that, the album is somehow seen as the pinnacle of our art form. We inherently feel the need to mourn its passing somehow.

[Len Cnut]

You have to remember that before c. 1966, singles, 45s, dominated. You could argue that, in returning to individual songs and specifically chosen 'jukebox' playlists (with the onset of MP3), rock/popular music is merely returning to its default position. We however are all heirs to Pink Floyd in the sense that, the album is somehow seen as the pinnacle of our art form. We inherently feel the need to mourn its passing somehow.

How is it that it takes me pages of bollocks to write what you manage to in a tidy little paragraph?

[Snake-Pit]

The fan said to the artist

"You rock and I'd buy your stuff!"

The artist said to the record label

"This format's outdated but I want it anyway. . ."

The record label said to the fan

'Ad free music for the next 30 minutes'

'Sponsored by this ad'

'And that ad'

'And this ad'

'Why not try?'..

[Mysteron]

I am not overly into the album format anymore, but I have alot of friends who collect vinyl records, so for that reason alone, the album format should stay, for now at least.

[GivenToFly]

You have to remember that before c. 1966, singles, 45s, dominated. You could argue that, in returning to individual songs and specifically chosen 'jukebox' playlists (with the onset of MP3), rock/popular music is merely returning to its default position. We however are all heirs to Pink Floyd in the sense that, the album is somehow seen as the pinnacle of our art form. We inherently feel the need to mourn its passing somehow.

It's difficult to guess i suppose because the history of recorded music is a relatively small one. The album only became a thing of note from 67 or 68 onwards and it had a good 30 something year run.

What about before that? Operas, symphonies, those are musical releases that have always been rather long. Do they count as very long songs, or are they albums themselves, with each bit being a song in itself?

Physical commercial releases only got longer once the technology allowed it, but they didn't have to. I think it says something that once it was possible to get a longer release people immediately demanded it. Maybe there is a tendency to want more than just a song or two at once. Or maybe they just didn't feel like getting up every three minutes to change the record, and it's not really relevant in the Youtube/Spotify era where you change songs with a click.

[DieselDaisy]

True in the sense that a, for example four movement symphonic work, offers a precedent for the album.

[Len Cnut]

What about before that? Operas, symphonies, those are musical releases that have always been rather long. Do they count as very long songs, or are they albums themselves, with each bit being a song in itself?

Thats sort of what i was getting at with the Jazz comparison, do they count as very long songs or are they albums themselves? Cuz is that an album in the cohesive sense of a collection of songs with some kind of common thread or some sort of overall artistic intent (without getting necessarily into the concept album end of things). But then you might have an operatic piece as Dies' mentioned with movements that tie the whole thing together? They the individual pieces always worked independently of each other too I guess?

[DieselDaisy]

You have to remember though that 90% of classical music bought today was written before recorded sound. But there is certainly a precedent there in terms of stringing together a series of pieces into an integrated whole.

[The Real McCoy]

I'm probably buying more CDs now than ever before. It'll be a sad day for me when they eventually die off...

[J Dog]

I recently read an article about Black Sabbath and the making of Sabotage, and how it was hell and a tough process and all that jazz. And I thought, how many bands are doing that now? Hunkering down in the studio and grinding out music until they get the exact feeling they want. The music industry made such a major shift in concentrating on single songs that sell on itunes, the attitude has trickled down to a lot of artists. But as long as the majority of them really try to make albums, they will hang around. But, in the future generation, I can see everyone in the industry including artists just concentrating on a good song instead of a good album. I hope I miss that.

I like the approach of acts like Faith No More and Jack White. 10 or 11 or 12 songs. To the point. Not much room for filler. That's a good way I think to keep the album going for a little while.

[DieselDaisy]

But that is what it was like before the mid '60s? We need to let go of the notion that rock music is inherently album orientated. Chuck Berry for example entered the studio to make a 45, i.e. two songs. His albums merely cobble together his last three or four singles and include four or so incidental songs, usually either genre, novelty or instrumental pieces.

[The Real McCoy]

I'm going to be the old guy that hangs on to my CD's until the bitter end. Nothing wrong with digital, and honestly, I usually just rip the originals to iTunes and put them on the shelf afterwards, but I love nothing more than adding new music to the collection at every possible turn. I've been on an import CD singles binge for a while now.

[J Dog]

But that is what it was like before the mid '60s? We need to let go of the notion that rock music is inherently album orientated. Chuck Berry for example entered the studio to make a 45, i.e. two songs. His albums merely cobble together his last three or four singles and include four or so incidental songs, usually either genre, novelty or instrumental pieces.

I get what you're saying. But why did they record that way? Back then record players weren't even in every home. But radio was. TV wasn't even in every home. It was all about getting your song on the radio. It all revolved around the radio. People sat around their homes all night to hear a song on the radio. That's how the whole music industry worked back then because of the times.

It wasn't because great talents like Chuck Berry or Hank Williams only had one or two good songs in them. The music industry didn't need albums from those guys, they just needed a song to play on the almighty radio. I'm willing to bet if the record company went to Chuck and said, take 6 months if you need to Chuck, make us like 10 or 12 songs and we will put them all out on one big record. He would be all over that.

But you are right because now the record companies don't need albums, they just need a song that will sell a bunch of itunes. The difference is, we are 50 years past the point of everything revolving around the radio and those guys having to record that way.