Not signed in (Sign In)
    • CommentAuthorDan Kelly
    • CommentTimeJul 8th 2011
     (10008.21)
    I'm an album listener generally.

    At the moment I have Gogol Bordello's Super Taranta coming up to track 14. Generally the only time I don't listen to a whole album is when I'm on the commute home and get there before the album come to an end.

    I actually find that having shuffle on is more disruptive than whole albums or even the radio as the suprise of the new is often too much of a distraction (the chances of my own shuffle leading to **TUNE!*** is greater than on radio (same as the ipod mindreading)). Unless an album is very new I can more or less tune it out...
  1.  (10008.22)
    Since we've established that we essentially are all album listeners, I wonder if I can slightly derail the conversation. What is it about full albums that make them inherently better? I think we all agree that an album with a mix of great songs and some dull ones (Ministry, I'm looking at you) will get fewer plays than an amazing collection of songs end to end, who flow nicely. But why does it make you a better artist if you bundle songs into albums? Clearly a concept album is its own beast, but for someone who enjoys writing songs, aren't we limiting them in their scope by saying "the songs you write should all be good and go well together." Clearly, if they are going to be sold as a package, the whole package should work, but when people like Infomancer say things like
    If a band can't be bothered to put out an album that works as a whole, then I probably don't really need to bother with them.
    I have to ask why? If a band wants to put out rock solid singles, what makes them inferior?

    Also, I wonder, how many of us who've posted on this thread are under 25? I suspect not many. That's not necessarily relevant to my questions above, but my guess, based on nothing, is that listening tastes are probably different for people who grew up in a post Napster world.
  2.  (10008.23)
    i am 30.

    and i dont agree with the 'if they cant make albums as a whole...' thing. i buy a lot of 7"s and 10"s and split records. for some bands, it is the ideal format. HAYMAKER from canada is my go-to example. the lp gets soooo borrrrrrring because a lot of songs have a similar feel. however, put 4 tracks on one side of an ep and its the perfect amount.
    •  
      CommentAuthorinfomancer
    • CommentTimeJul 8th 2011
     (10008.24)
    If a band wants to put out rock solid singles, what makes them inferior?


    It doesn't make those bands, or the people who listen to music that way, inferior per se, this is just a difference of opinion in listening habits (and yes, I'm old enough to remember a time before the internet). But for me personally, if I'm looking at two bands, one that can do a rock solid single and one that can do twelve solid songs and put them together into a cohesive and engaging whole, I'm always going to give more time and more respect to the latter. Just like I would give more time and attention to something like Transmet, which crafted an entire world with sundry detailed characters, over a one-shot issue from someone, no matter how good that one-shot was. I guess I'm a long-form kind of guy. I'd always take a novel over a short story, a trade over an issue, and an LP over a single. Even my custom playlists are thematic in nature and at least album length. (It's worth noting that I don't usually mind EPs, but if it's really good it usually just makes me wish that I had a full-length from that band.)

    It just comes down to preference really. An album is a place where my brain can go for an hour or so. Nothing wrong with one great song certainly, but if I'm listening to specific music I usually want to stay longer than three and half minutes.