The Album as an art form

[videoheadcleaner]

I was once told by a lecturer of mine that music has gone from a 60s / 70s belief of an album (and music in general) that it is "art for art's sake" to a modern ethos of "art for money's sake". Probably true (Greed Is Good) for a majority of albums and "artists" out there. You can tell those with little talent but good marketing are only there for a one hit wonder and rake in the royalties.

A rather busy thread revolving around two influential bands has touched the surface of this but I think it needs further investigation. When did the album become an art form? Seems a concensus of this is the Beatles treating Sgt. Pepper's as a work of art not just a playlist of songs written within the year. But this was the beginning. Others after the Beatles must have other works of art (Pink Floyd, Queen, The Cure, Radiohead, Mars Volta, just a few to start with).

For me, only a few albums are treated as an art form and by a select few. But the movement from an album a year to one every 2-4 years should really be a foundation for art. So what modern albums (mid 90s to now) are works of art for you? Muse's Absolution is one for me. You can feel a throughline of action within the music, building with Sing For Absolution and concluding with Ruled By Secrecy. As a whole, the album is a piece of art.

So, a thread for discussion on the album as an art form. Mind you, this will probably turn into a primitive exchange of insults but at least I tried.

[RFNAPLES]

I am not sure I fully grasp the question/subject. Personally I consider music art. Are you talking about concept albums vs. 12 unrelated songs on one disc? Or are you talking about commercially successful albums vs. esoteric albums? I know you are not talking about album/cover art or industrial art/package design.
_________________
Top 100 Greatest Music Albums by RFNAPLES
Bubbling Under The Top 100 Greatest Mus...y RFNAPLES

[videoheadcleaner]

[40footwolf]

Here are albums that from the last few years, to me, represent the album as an art form:

Lateralus-Tool
Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots-The Flaming Lips
The Moon and Antarctica-Modest Mouse
Traced In Air-Cynic
Crack the Skye-Mastodon
In The Aeroplane Over The Sea-Neutral Milk Hotel
Songs For The Deaf-Queens of the Stone Age
Fort Nightly-White Rabbits

Hmm...not as many as I thought there would be.

[RFNAPLES]

[purple]

Of course an album of "unrelated" songs is art, each song still comes from the views of the bands and what they're trying to express. Some of the greatest albums ever are composed of "unrelated" songs but they seem cohesive enough because they fall under the general world view of the artists.

As far as canon, I believe these albums are necessary for rock music listeners, a holy trinity of rock music if you will:
The Beatles--Revolver
The Velvet Underground--Nico
The Clash--London Calling

As far as cool, cohesive albums of the decade, I've seen nothing else like Deloused in the Comatorium; there's a reason they played it straight through live. But of course, the "uncohesive" albums, like Is This It, Funeral, and Kid A are better then Deloused in my opinion.

[Norman Bates]

I think there is a difference between any album consisting of a collection of songs considered as art by critics, because music is art, and the collection might be excellent, and how the album became considered by the artists themselves like an art form it itself, the album as a whole being an art media stronger than just the addition of its components. Jazz put aside, and for popular music only, I'd say the turning point is around 66 with Pet Sounds. I'm no historian, but I believe Pet Sounds to be one of the first pop albums to be designed as a whole to be a work of art in itself (a case might be put in for Revolver, although to my mind Sgt. Peppers would be the Beatles' clearest effort to make a whole album a work of art. Revolver is better - the sum of its components is stronger to my mind - but the intention was different I think). Pet Sounds was designed to be a response to Revolver which Wilson considered outstanding, and therefore was designed as a whole rather than just the sum of brilliant components.

Of course I might very well be completely wrong : )

[cartoken]

without too much thinking i would say:

The Flaming Lips - Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots

[Kiki]

Almost all music can be considered art. If its created through feelings that the artist genuinely felt at the time then yes it is.

What I do find annoying is when some artists try and make "art" for the sake of making "art" and sometimes end up making an unlistenable album, which is then hailed by some people who claim to listen to it to look "cool". (Although some may genuinely like it, which makes my point redundant )

Thus creating the musical equivalent of "modern art".

Maybe the problem is that so many people are taking the art route which has caused a slump in the overall amount of good albums in the 00s?

Would it be better if bands reverted to the 60s method of making good songs that are "listenable" over "credible"?

I'll try and make these thoughts more concise later

Back to the original question:
While this is obviously going to be biased towards my own musical preferences, I'll post a few (I'll end up posting everything otherwise)

In The Aeroplane Over The Sea-Neutral Milk Hotel (this album is something else)
Rush - 2112
Orbital - Snivilization
Kate Bush - The Dreaming
Manic Street Preachers - Journal For Plague Lovers
Manic Street Preachers - The Holy Bible
The Clash - London Calling
Arcade Fire - Funeral
A lot of albums already being listed so far

When did the album become an art form? I'll stay safe and say the 60s

Albums mid 90s till now I consider art? The ones I listed above which fall into this category. Their is countless more I'll list later.

Edit: I've changed my mind, I really have no clue. Ignore this post.

[Mr. Shankly]

Some big questions here. I'm not so sure I want to take on the art question, as that "art" is largely subjective and in the eye/ear of the beholder.

When did the album become an art form? For rock, it's clearly the mid-60's, and yes, The Beatles get most of the credit here. As for other genres like jazz or classical, the album had been an artform long before that, but the mid-60's was the beginning of the album revolution. The real question is, is the album still an artform, and will artists continue to treat it as such in the future? It looking less and less like that will be the case. Love 'em or hate 'em, Radiohead is one band that has consistently treated the album as an artform. That, along with their album standings overall on this site, was the rationale of the comparison to The Beatles.

As for the question of a canon, I think all you have to do is look at the "official" lists and see how many times the same albums appear repeatedly and it should be pretty clear that the critics have created a canon of sorts. I think the top 10 overall on this site epitomize the rock canon. But that doesn't mean the canon isn't open to challenge. Also, certain albums are representatives of movements and sub-genres in rock. For example, The Velvet Underground and Nico is ranked highly (and I don't think it's their best necessarily) partly based on the fact that it inspired punk, indie rock, and alternative music. An album that is the catalyst for a new musical movement is going be canonized.