Albums and Your Ass
The album is dead. Or so I keep reading. The theory is that now that we're all apparently downloading music, we don't have the patience for songs that we haven't heard. This is the same theory that the marketing geniuses at Clear Channel apply to commercial radio, leading to a panoply of bland that can bore even the shallowest of tastes.
I also keep reading about how the online release of Radiohead's In Rainbows will change the music industry. This album, by an album oriented band, was released as a single zip file, making it impossible to download single tracks from the official site*. So even if you wanted just one of the songs, you still have to download them all (And once you have them all, does it make sense to delete the others?). Radiohead are pushing their whole album on you and their download scheme is the savior/killer of the music industry, right? I guess they didn't get the memo about how the album is dead.
At the dawn of the phonograph era, songs came on 78 rpm records and it wasn't possible to put a whole collection of them on one record, so the clever makers of these records put them on several discs that came packaged in a book similar to the sort you would use to keep photos. It was an album. You can still find these actual albums at the occasional garage sale (and you may even be able to find a turntable to play them on there too). Eventually, improvements made it possible to put all the songs on one record, but we still called the song collections albums, because we get set in our ways like that.** It's just as well that albums no longer come in books, because I wouldn't want to haul around anything that heavy just so I could hear music of my choosing.
My personal relationship with the album goes back further than I can remember. Some of my earliest memories are listening to the loud classic rock that my dad or my uncles played on the hi-fi. I figure I was ten or so when I started acquiring albums of my own. It was cheesy stuff like the Star Wars soundtrack at first, but it progressed to things I saw on MTV or (rarer) heard on the radio. And by the time I was in middle school, I was riding buses around town to nowhere in particular, listening to cassettes of albums that my friends had made for me. And this is where I really developed a preference for albums.
Mix tapes were all the rage then, but they were rare for me. I preferred to listen to an album because, while I don't have anything against the sampler platter, I prefer the entree because you can really dig in and get your fill. You get a deeper appreciation for what's going on. So most of my friends just recorded the whole album for me.
I've resisted the shuffle function on the iPod (which I have replaced, in case you were wondering), but I listen to a lot of my music while driving now and it's tough to switch albums without looking at the thing, so gradually I have been converting because shuffle is more convenient than constantly hitting "next." Soon I may never listen to albums at all. Maybe the Man is right; maybe the album is dead.
*Sure, it's possible to get In Rainbows via BitTorrent, but even then only some clients support selective downloading, so you're still going to get the whole album.
**This makes a sort of sense, since the records were still collections, even if they weren't packaged in books anymore.
I also keep reading about how the online release of Radiohead's In Rainbows will change the music industry. This album, by an album oriented band, was released as a single zip file, making it impossible to download single tracks from the official site*. So even if you wanted just one of the songs, you still have to download them all (And once you have them all, does it make sense to delete the others?). Radiohead are pushing their whole album on you and their download scheme is the savior/killer of the music industry, right? I guess they didn't get the memo about how the album is dead.
Memorandum
From: The Man
To: Underlings
Subject: Albums and Your Ass
It has recently come to my attention that some of you are still recording albums. I don't want to have to say this again: Stop. This is costing me a whole lot of money that I can better spend on yachts and golden toilets. I'm trying to get the word out that people are no longer buying albums and if you keep recording them, I have to work even harder. And I'm really bad at the working thing. If you fail to comply with my orders, I will be forced to dock your pay. HA! Just kidding! That's what I would say if I actually paid any of you, but since I don't I'll just have to say that it's in your best interest to do as I say, lest you find yourself with no career. Or worse. Capiche?
The Man
President and CEO, The Music Industry
cc: David Geffen
At the dawn of the phonograph era, songs came on 78 rpm records and it wasn't possible to put a whole collection of them on one record, so the clever makers of these records put them on several discs that came packaged in a book similar to the sort you would use to keep photos. It was an album. You can still find these actual albums at the occasional garage sale (and you may even be able to find a turntable to play them on there too). Eventually, improvements made it possible to put all the songs on one record, but we still called the song collections albums, because we get set in our ways like that.** It's just as well that albums no longer come in books, because I wouldn't want to haul around anything that heavy just so I could hear music of my choosing.
My personal relationship with the album goes back further than I can remember. Some of my earliest memories are listening to the loud classic rock that my dad or my uncles played on the hi-fi. I figure I was ten or so when I started acquiring albums of my own. It was cheesy stuff like the Star Wars soundtrack at first, but it progressed to things I saw on MTV or (rarer) heard on the radio. And by the time I was in middle school, I was riding buses around town to nowhere in particular, listening to cassettes of albums that my friends had made for me. And this is where I really developed a preference for albums.
Mix tapes were all the rage then, but they were rare for me. I preferred to listen to an album because, while I don't have anything against the sampler platter, I prefer the entree because you can really dig in and get your fill. You get a deeper appreciation for what's going on. So most of my friends just recorded the whole album for me.
I've resisted the shuffle function on the iPod (which I have replaced, in case you were wondering), but I listen to a lot of my music while driving now and it's tough to switch albums without looking at the thing, so gradually I have been converting because shuffle is more convenient than constantly hitting "next." Soon I may never listen to albums at all. Maybe the Man is right; maybe the album is dead.
*Sure, it's possible to get In Rainbows via BitTorrent, but even then only some clients support selective downloading, so you're still going to get the whole album.
**This makes a sort of sense, since the records were still collections, even if they weren't packaged in books anymore.
12 Comments:
I listen to the iPod shuffle while driving, and the iTunes shuffle when at home, and I will still vehemently resist this ridiculous "the album is dead" thing til I die, mostly because when I REALLY want to intently focus on music, I always listen to an album. The rest of it is because I want to live life with a near constant soundtrack of some sort, and/or I equate a rich life in part to one that is suffused with music. But essentially as much as I love it and listen to it, it's still largely background. If I want to really concentrate on something, I listen to an album, all the way through, because to me, it's a great summation of where some musician or band was at a particular place and time in their evolution, and in whole, it's supposed to show the full breadth of what they were capable of and focused on during that little sub-era of their development. I value that snapshot, and I value the variety and breadth that an entire album can display. Maybe that's why I like double albums so much, and am really not a fan of brief albums and EPs...
the idea that we're only going to listen to pop songs in the future is rubbish. i submitted two songs from philip glass' dracula for the podcast this week even though they probably won't make much sense outside of the context of the whole album. wish i could have just submitted the whole album/cd/multi-song experience.
i have three letters for you, my friend: AOR. album oriented rock. remember AOR radio stations? non-existent now. and no, classic rock stations don't count. now i'm not against the song and i wished more bands would put out 2-song 45s. but in my home i enjoy the hell out of whole slices of records. (excuse me while i put on some springsteen. more after the jump.)
do they have a radio station with that 'eclectic' format known as "jack" in your town (wink, wink)? it's like shuffle for the radio. no djs. no format. the end is near, i tell you.
but back to AOR. are new records by old rock and rollers (and i include radiohead in that group) even played on commercial radio anywhere in the country? or is touring and VH1 classic the only way they survive?
the idea that we're only going to listen to pop songs in the future is rubbish.
I don't think the idea is that we will all be listening to pop songs, just that we won't buy whole albums. You're right that some songs don't make any sense out of context, but others work okay--even some of the non-pop ones. As I mentioned, though, I prefer the album.
do they have a radio station with that 'eclectic' format known as "jack" in your town
"Jack" stations also go by "Bob" or "Dave," depending on the market. There is even a Spanish language version that goes by--and I'm not kidding here--"José."
good post justin.
Its seems the concept of "death" in this thread refers to not being consumed by the masses and not being funded by the 3 or whatever number of major record labels there are now. By that definition almost every kind of music and packaging method is dead. I mean, is death metal dead? are 78s dead? are 8-tracks dead? is ragtime dead? is disco dead? the list of the dead by that definition is endless, and what are we left with? Britney and Bono?
However if one thinks of something as being alive as long as there is a small group of freaks in some corner of the word still listening to that, then i would think the album is as alive as its ever been (except for maybe that stretch between Sgt Peppers and The Wall).
It's like saying that just because something does not have an instant impact on popular culture that its not worth recognizing. absurd!
Oh, and it's nice to see you reaching back into those musical moments in your youth that did not change your life. (wink)
Well, you'll always be able to go back and listen to your existing albums, just as you would be able to go listen to a 78 or an 8 track. And sure, there are death metal and disco bands. But it doesn't cost a bunch of money to start a death metal band. Albums, on the other hand, require resources. And if those resources dry up, will there be new albums? Sure, not every album has to be a billion dollar extravaganza like The Wall, but they do require a little more time and money than a single pop song. I mean, I could make a pop song in an afternoon. An album, on the other hand, I don't think I could.
I agree that just because something doesn't have an instant impact on pop culture (or any impact, for that matter) doesn't mean that it doesn't have value. But I don't make all the decisions and it's not my money that will have to go towards making new albums.
I guess we'll have to see how it all shakes out. It's not like we can do a damn thing about it one way or the other.
But it doesn't cost a bunch of money to start a death metal band. Albums, on the other hand, require resources.
Do you reckon it costs that much more to record BEE THOUSAND than it does to buy seventeen toms, three bass drums, eleven cymbals, and a bitching snare? And that's just the drummer. Certainly, the participants in NaSoAlMo (starting Thursday!) don't find it economically prohibitive resource-wise to make an album.
More broadly, I really don't get your seeming absolutism on this topic. Is it possible that there will become fewer albums as "album as commercial repository for singles bands" vanishes? Sure. Is it likely that albums will disappear? Only when musicians are no longer interested in making album-length statements, and considering how many musicians have grown up with the album, it seems like a legacy that's apt to endure for quite a while yet.
And I say this as someone who's been listening to iPod shuffle for seven years. Sometimes you want yr KTRU simulator, sometimes you want an album.
It's not like we can do a damn thing about it one way or the other.
This doesn't even make sense if you argue it's a resource question. If you care about albums, vote with your dollar. (Personally, I think albums will continue to exist even if they were proven to be economically unviable. They just wouldn't be released by major corporations.)
Do you reckon it costs that much more to record BEE THOUSAND than it does to buy seventeen toms, three bass drums, eleven cymbals, and a bitching snare?
I do. Remember that not only metal bands have drummers. And it's not just the investment of money, it's the investment of time, something fewer people will be able to do. I grant you that Pollard was able to do it, but I would hesitate to say that the lo-fi of Bee Thousand is any sort of model to aspire to, but that's just my taste.
More broadly, I really don't get your seeming absolutism on this topic.
I'm not really absolute about it (or many things). Maybe I wasn't clear that I think that the reports of the album's death are exaggerated. But I do think there is a new trend in the way people listen to music in the shuffle mode. I don't know whether that approach will eventually eclipse the album approach, but there's no denying that people do tend to be attracted to the familiar. I would guess that given the choice, fewer people will opt for more adventure, no matter how X-Treme they say they are.
If you care about albums, vote with your dollar.
I surely will vote with my dollar the way I always have, but if other dollars outnumber mine, my vote may well end up doing about as much good as many of my recent presidential votes.
I think there will always be long artistic statements, but I also think that resource limitations are going to mean that they will be fewer and possibly lower quality (again, quality is subjective). There may never be another Wall, where a band can record for eight months in studios all over the world, but will there even be the option to spend a month in their hometown?
I thought your post was not very absolute but yr. comments seemed much more absolute, which was throwing me.
I don't know whether that approach will eventually eclipse the album approach, but there's no denying that people do tend to be attracted to the familiar.
That's why I listen to albums. I listen to shuffle mode when I want to be surprised. I probably haven't heard half the songs on my iPod.
There may never be another Wall, where a band can record for eight months in studios all over the world
Thank Christ.
but will there even be the option to spend a month in their hometown?
Tim Lucas just spent the last 30 years writing a book on Mario Bava that came to a couple thousand pages. Compared to that, pulling together a few weeks of studio time - or a few months of home recording - seems in the reach of many, should they choose to spend their time in that manner. Personally, I think we could use fewer albums, and a higher percentage of albums made by people who care about the album.
Where's Ramon "my band just put out an album" Medina to give his two cents?
My band Brown Whörnet has just come full circle in the digital age. We are now releasing all of our music in podcast format. So you get the convenience of downloadable music that you can listen to on your mp3 player, computer, etc., but each podcast album (we call them brownloads) pretty much has to be listened to in its entirety. These are really more like EP's than albums. Each one will have about 20 minutes of music. If anyone wants to take a listen our first one is up at http://www.brownwhornet.com. If you subscribe with iTunes you will get a new brownload every month or so.
Wow. Brownload? I have mixed feelings about that name.
It's interesting that you're going to the opposite end of the listening spectrum in forcing people to play the whole thing.
Well albums are a mixed bag. So are mixes. I had some moments listening to KTRU on the freeway where everything came together like magic and many moments where I couldn't find a damn thing anywhere on the dial worth listening to.
I hate Willie Nelson's concept album.
Sort of torn on choosing "album" as THE word. It only brings to mind album rock, but that ties in nicely to Clay's comment because the rather short album rock period coincided with and fully utilized changes in technology (stereo, LP, FM). Album rock faded with the emergence of new technology (video, cd). But conceptual dealies consisting of collection of songs will always have a place. I can think of a couple of good recent conceptual dealies right now both of which have an everything-old-is-new-again feel: the Dirty Projectors Rise Above and In Rainbows.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home