Do we place too much emphasis on "Album Bands" or great complete albums?

Many of the tacks I listen to nowadays with playlists and even years ago with mixed tapes, were songs by artists taken from various studio albums and eras. Even the acts who are known for having a few great albums all the way through, still have songs on those albums that may blend better with other songs from previous or latter releases. I think a lot of acts who released too many albums too quickly probably could have had more complete albums had they waited for more inspiration, therefore blending all the best from an era on too one album at a time. If and act has tons of great songs in their career should they be critized for not having enough or any albums where a bunch are on one?

 

Yes. I can't help it, I love unified works of art. The only time albums are not the main focus of my attention are with singles oriented acts like Elvis,James Brown and Motown groups.

 

I think so, I tend to listen to artists who have really good albums.

 

not enough

 

Personally, I'm an album listener. Growing up in the 60's, albums could be hit-or-miss deals, but I developed a pretty good skill set in avoiding "Hit single plus filler" collections.

But I do love a good mixed tape or mixed disc. That's the DJ in me.

 

I've always been an "album guy," not a "singles guy." I rarely bought an album for "just that one song" and I have never been a big one for mix tapes/compilation albums. To this day, when I put a CD on, I start at track one, and I listen to it all the way thru to the end before putting on another one.

 

I guess I'd be a "singles guy", except when it comes to artists I really like. Steely Dan for example, I just don't like them enough to buy one album that may contains 2 songs that I like. However, I do own multiple Bowie, Zeppelin and Floyd records and own all The Beatles records, etc etc. I have a bunch of Greatest hits albums that do it for me, like the Eagles, Three Dog Night or even the Who. I personally don't like to listen through a bunch of filler on bands that I'm not crazy about.

 

I don't think we place too much emphasis on it. As a musician you get into the business to make albums and play gigs, maybe not in that order. I don't know of any musicians who said I only want to write a couple good songs a year.

 

Yeah, I think so. Music is a performing art, so, I think in some ways we place too much emphasis on recordings period, but it's an audiophile forum dedicated to the playback of recorded music. Then, in hundreds of years of the history of music, the "album" as a unit of work meant to be some kind of art piece not only occupies a small portion of history -- you know the greatest creators of music from Monteverdi and Bach to Robert Johnson and Hank Williams never spent a day in their lives thinking about "making albums." And even in the realm of pop music in the recorded music era, the idea of the primacy of the album as something particular made as such and not cobbled together from a collection of singles, or containing a bunch of singles and filler, is kind of a blip. I mean, it came in the mid '50s, flowered in the '60 and '70s, and not really we're back to a kind of singles era in pop. Not so say that great albums aren't great. But I do think they're over emphasized by some fans, and sometimes I get a sense that many are connoisseurs of a certain kind of recorded music object more than of music per se.

 

Right and we're undoubtedly better off for it. The idea of an album as a cohesive work is fine but wholly unnecessary in the creation of great music.

 

I hear what you're saying, but that's why modern music (I'll randomly say post 1950) is so unique historically speaking. Much if it IS a product of the studio. The album IS the music, it is the art piece. In many cases it really only exist in that form, without any intention of being performed live. That said i do agree that there's no particular reason that we should put such an emphasis on the album vs the single. It's easy enough to appreciate both, great work is great work.

 

A lot of great music - Blues, Soul, Reggae, Ska, Funk, Rock & Roll, 60's pop and girl groups, early Jazz and Punk was made by people who were not thinking in terms of albums. Of course the reverse is true as well. There's merit and talent to both approaches.

 

Personally I enjoy listening to full albums, but also have sessions where I listen to one track off whichever record or CD or wave file that come to mind. But I've always loved a complete work of art. The closer to how the artist intended it the better, in my mind. Never was a fan of e.g. some of the Blue Note CD issues where they place bonus tracks in the middle of the album etc...

The sweetest feeling is listening to an album back to back for the first time and really feeling the spark, which turns into a fire about 100 listens later. Then you know you've got a winner on your hands... Often times you listen to an album and just want to not know about it, then put it on days or months or years later and then it may click... Or it may still be in the crapper... Either way, a full album, especially those conceived in the album age (e.g. early 1960's pop groups and such were not album-albums if you know what I mean, but they still came out that way originally and are thus very tough to not grasp outside that sphere) makes the most sense on its own, not interspersed or spliced up in any way.

Also there are albums which are very patchy and not intended as albums at all that actually work too. It's all about personal taste in the end.

 

The bands usually didn't have a choice.

Most record contracts demand a certain number of albums (or albums + singles) to be delivered over a specific period of time.

Then they'd send them out to tour to promote said album... then quickly send them back to the studio to record.

This was especially true in the 60's and 70's (and likely 80's), when the "suits" were all thinking that pop groups' popularity would be short-lived so the labels wanted to be "riding the gravy train" when the goin' was good.

.

 

A good friend of mine of 50 years has shared a love of music with me. He started collecting when he was 12-13 and 45's (singles) were very popular. I didn't really start until 19-20 to get my own collection. By that time albums had become more the focus. It is interesting to me that to this day he has remained song centric where I see the song as only a part of the album.

The truth is though my listening habits are more playlist oriented shuffling a diverse selection of songs from many albums. Yet if I take note of a song while listening I almost always will reflect upon what album the song is from and a part of.

 

I'm not just refering to singles but any song that's good, single or not? I thought about this potential thread as the OP when I was in the mood to hear a certain song that is part of a great album but I wasn't in the mood for the other songs. While I listened to that song I thought to myself, What if I had first heard this song outside of the contexts of the great album? Would I have liked it any less? And how many other great songs that are part of great albums do I seek out without playing the entire album?

 

In a word, YES. I'm strictly a song-by-song person. When I listen to music, almost always I pull out a stack of CDs and play selected favourites from each.

 

That's basically where my buddy is at. He doesn't buy singles anymore, that is simply how he started. His interest now is mostly certain songs from albums.

 

I almost exclusively listen to entire albums. To me: Listening to just one song is like reading a random chapter in a book. It doesn't make as much sense, without the context around it. To each his own though. We all perceive art differently and everyone enjoys it in their own way.

 

I have neither the time nor interest to listen to singles. I only care about listening to entire albums.

 

It really doesn't make any difference to me. I have as much admiration for an artist who makes great singles, as I do for an artist who makes great albums. It's a question of how much I like the work, not how much of it there is on a given release.

 

I know what you mean but great songs often don't need anything surrounding them for context. I don't think The Kinks 'You Really Got Me' gains anything being on an LP surrounded by cover versions and average 60's beat pop like it is on their debut LP. For hundreds of established and influential classic songs the single was the context. The impact is weakened by surrounding it.

 

Absolutely not. You're denying the very definition of "album". For the sake of personal preference, you're condemning (strong word, I know) circumstantial and era relevant band history. Facing facts, you're referring to the subjective here anyhow. Your best song from their (whatever band) linear history is certainly not going to find a preferentially parallel gauge to what would be implied by the musical subjectivity of someone else. The precise same comparison can be made to and with the rest of their albums. Naturally if all you are doing is making a statistical comparison of radio hits, or album sales, all accounting for taste is off the table and there's no need for a discussion to begin with.

Realistically, if most bands or artists were to "wait" as one might suggest from their most comfortable listening perch, they (bands/artists) wouldn't have a clue what to release anyway. Unless you are a professional song or jingle author, most artists circumspect to their own historically observed output potentials, do not have a clue as to what will be a hit and what will not. This is evident via thousands of known examples of hit songs thrown together on the spur of the moment by bands/artist just to make for album filler that ended up being the biggest hit off the album. Happens all the time. Warren Zevon's Werewolves of London being a classic example. Sometimes the harder we try, the further from the mark we actually get.

There is simply nothing characteristic or predictable, minus hindsight of course, concerning the historically observed subjective nature of artists and their creative contributions to whatever field you're considering. Thus was born the Greatest Hits concept. Ever notice how there really is no such thing? One is always apt to ask oneself "why wasn't this song, or that song, included here?" Or, "why in the name of audio decency did they include this, that, or the other song?"

There is simply so much more to the album experience than just listening for that toe tap inducing titillation. It's a slice of that band or artist's creative culture relevant history. Listening between the lines one might say.

 

There are album bands (Pink Floyd) and singles bands (The Smiths.) I don't think there's any need (or cause) to consider one type of artist superior to another.

Do I think we short change singles themselves in favor of albums? Yes, if for no other reason that there are so many albums that really should have been singles.

Y'know what we need more of? EPs.

 

Different artists will be remembered for different things, as others have said. Zeppelin are defined by their albums, James Brown for his singles. Both for their live acts. Peter Frampton is defined by his live album. 60s Motown acts like the Four Tops and Supremes are largely defined by their singles, 70s acts like Marvin Gaye and Stevie Wonder by their albums. It depends on the artists, and to some extent the era.