Is this the end of the classic album? - Music

Bork
Executive Hillbilly

Location: Vinson Mountain, GA

I'm gonna sound old on this one. This is a case of technological advancement creating a situation that is worse for all. In the past the album was your vehicle for selling your music, whether a big buck contract band or some rebellious upstart the album was THE way to go. That lead to a bunch of great albums, from both sides of that spectrum. Then, as now, the music industry did care little about the quality of the music they put out. They cared, and care, about the money they could squeeze out of it. The difference is that then, you still made an album, and sometimes it would turn out to be a great one through a weird symbios between the band and the record company. Today, the money knows that you're not gonna make the big buck off of albums. Sure, some old-timers and purists will still buy the album so let's give them one. But don't spend time or money or effort on anything but the singles as these people will buy the album no matter what crap we put on the sides. Sadly that has pushed anything and anyone with artistic ambitions way back into the basements and garages and they are having a hell of a hard time getting out of there. Today we have bands with genuine talent that lack the machine that has historically been very good at turning it into something palatable, and we have bands without talent but that can be exploited, marketed, and sold a la carte to an audience that thinks McDonald's is the height of culinary art.

Popular music is in worse shape than it has ever been before.

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

It is interesting how Rock n' Roll has gone through its phases of albums vs 45s vs singles vs 99 cent songs.

When the Beatles first started out, it was all about the singles/45s. LP for pop music was rare. They changed that with Sgt. Pepper's. Now we are back to where we were, but with itunes.

Before rock n' roll, there were singles with Jazz, but most music before that was like an LP- Full Symphonies, etc.

Interesting...

Will we go full swing from Album to single to Album again?

gtroda

Black Dog wrote:

I think the biggest reason we don't have as many classic albums these days is bands feel obligated to fill 60+ minutes of CD space. In the past bands were limited to about 45 minutes per album. This is one reason why such a high percentage of classic albums are from the 70's (pre-CD)

8 to 10 really good songs make for a cohesive, high quality album. Throw in the extra "filler" tracks and you really hurt your chances of coming up with a masterpiece. Very few bands have the ability to come up with 10 good songs per album, so 12-14 songs can lead to an average listening experience.

It is funny to see this here as I was thinking the same thing today. I've been listening through my albums in chronological order in an attempt to update my chart. Sometime around the early 90s it seems that CDs took over as the predomenant form of selling and distributing music. All of a sudden the albums got longer since a single CD could hold a lot more music. There are many single CDs that are longer than some of the classic double albums. I agree with Black Dog and don't think it's coincidental that around this time the amount of classic albums starts declining as there are more and mroe filler tracks on each album.

junodog4
Future Grumpy Old Man

Gender: Male
Location: Calgary

Black Dog wrote:

I think the biggest reason we don't have as many classic albums these days is bands feel obligated to fill 60+ minutes of CD space. In the past bands were limited to about 45 minutes per album. This is one reason why such a high percentage of classic albums are from the 70's (pre-CD)

8 to 10 really good songs make for a cohesive, high quality album. Throw in the extra "filler" tracks and you really hurt your chances of coming up with a masterpiece. Very few bands have the ability to come up with 10 good songs per album, so 12-14 songs can lead to an average listening experience.

Not only does the CD result in longer albums with more filler (hence reducing the potential for great albums) but it means we have wait longer between albums. Creating 70+ minutes of quality songs is twice as difficult as creating 35 minutes worth. We often wait 2, 3, 4 or more years between albums from many artists. In the past, artists often released an album every year, or 4 in 3 years.

I agree with those who've argued that we could be seeing a return to the singles era of the 50s and 60s. This might not be all bad. In a greatest albums chart, epic artists like Elvis, Buddy Holly, Sam Cooke and the Supremes get overlooked because they came from that era, without great albums.

Jackwc
Queen Of The Forums

Location: Aaaanywhere Sex: Incredible

If the album dies... what will become of our precious site?

; _ ;
_________________
A dick that's bigger than the sun.

Music sucks. Check out my favourite movies, fam:
http://letterboxd.com/jackiegigantic/

TheAstralPlane

I think that it is a valid concern, however I am confident that the album will continue to stay alive. There will always be new artists with a vision that reaches past just a single or an EP. Also Vinyls have had a considerable comeback in recent years, leading me to believe that consumers will still buy albums.