Double Albums That Should Have Been Single Albums

I'm so glad the people who think double albums are too long weren't in any position to make the decision to cut material they deemed to be filler. You could just...oh I don't know...skip the songs you don't like.

Such a silly mental exercise. Everyone wants to rewrite history to suit their narrow tastes. Dumb.

 

Always thought it was a Double.
Or, made into a Single Album...or a lot of Songs were recorded during the Session.

 

That's a bit insulting. Almost every artist leaves stuff on the cutting room floor, and they do it for reasons of length, flow and punch - the exact sort of things we're talking about here. If the artist finds value in creating a no-filler 40 minute sustained piece of work, and if we take joy in consuming it, there's no reason why we can't wish other albums fit the same framework.

Otherwise, we're just saying that everything an artist creates is equal in merit, which is a strange way to be a fan. We love those 2cd 'special edition' releases, but no one would suggest the second disc of odds and sods is the artistic equal of the first disc.

 

Ah, but I love "Return of the Son of Monster Magnet." What other rock artist was doing musique concrete in 1966 (other than the Beatles' great little teaser of it on "Tomorrow Never Knows")? A very bold step.

 

To the best of my knowledge, this was the only double album in history to have actually been divided into two separate single albums a couple of months after it was released (Clive Davis' idea). It kind of did improve it, simply because it was too long, and the songs on the second disk arguably appeal to a slightly different demographic (hard-core folkies who disapprove of any amplified instruments under any circumstances).

 

Perhaps this could also apply to Cream's Wheels of Fire. Someone here (10 years ago) suggested just adding "Crossroads" to the first record and scrapping the rest, but that would kill the purpose of the album which was to present both sides of Cream, as studio wizards and as a lean and powerful live jam band. The modus operandi of the live disc was to showcase Clapton on "Crossroads", Bruce on "Traintime",Baker on "Toad", and the whole band on "Spoonful." The 12-minute drum solo on "Toad" may be a bit excessive, but I love Bruce's fiery folk-blues harmonica blowing on "Traintime", and the 16:44 "Spoonful" is a brilliantly executed marvel of controlled intensity. Bruce and Baker aren't just riffing behind Clapton. It's like they're all 3 playing solos at the same time and managing to not sound like a train wreck, and they knew when it was time to bring it home. So back on track, Wheels of Fire could possibly benefit from editing out several minutes of the middle of "Toad" (unless you really like epic-length drum solos).
The same could go for the Rascals' Freedom Suite, simply by omitting the 13-minute drum solo "Boom" which really does sound like a matter of "How are we going to fill up the rest of this side?"

 

There was a time when I would have said Exile on Main St., but the more I listen to it, the more its doubleness grows on me.

 

I differentiate between bold and enjoyable. And if the artist himself does not like it, why release it?

 

What could you cut from The Wall? Everything's bloated, sure, but nothing's filler.

Not sure it have been a 45rpm single for that matter. I bought the 'deluxe extended' version and I don't think there's a song on it I've revisited so I'd be honestly interested to know what the good songs are.

 

Valid point, but some of my favorite songs and albums are the ones the artists didn't like. Satanic Majesties comes to mind. Many artists tend to be their own worst critics.

 

This is a bit off topic, but I've always thought those "bonus" discs that come with only 3 or 4 extra songs (think Black Sabbath's 13) should have been tacked on to the standard disc....

 

I admit it irks me more than it should when someone suggests a double album would have worked better as a single, but invariably the songs people want cut are some of my favorite tracks. It always seems to be my favorite albums people claim are flawed because they're too long. I'm sorry, I think that's an incredibly silly complaint and one easily addressed in the current state of playlists, computers, etc. I vehemently disagree anytime someone suggests altering history. I find it abhorrent.

 

Michael Jackson's HIStory, oh wait, the other disc it's a hits album

 

C'mon guys, White Album it's great!!

 

I think that pretty much hits the nail on the head for me. It's simple: if you're looking for your album to be one sustained "piece", then 80 minutes is really stretching it. There are countless artists who, during the sessions for a particular album, left off a particularly strong track because it didn't seem to "fit the mood" of the album. I suppose the more-is-better types here would have preferred those be tacked on.

But if the overall theme of your album is "hodgepodge", then 80 minutes is no different than 40: you could argue it's better, since if excess is theme, might as well be in for a pound.

When it comes to the White Album, though, it's a bit different: if you cut it down to a single-length just by choosing your favourite tracks, it will be a less-satisfying, shorter hodge-podge. No improvement at all, and great stuff left on the floor. But if you pare the project back to its heart and original impetus - that brace of songs they composed in India - you have a very satisfying 40-minute album that is a completely different beast that the White Album as released. Say, for example:

SIDE ONE: Dear Prudence, Mother Nature's Son, Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey, Sexy Sadie, I Will, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Happiness is a Warm Gun. SIDE TWO: Revolution 1, Martha My Dear, I'm So Tired, Cry Baby Cry, Blackbird, Julia, Long Long Long.

I'm not saying the songs I left off are bad; some of them are quite good. Just that it makes for a different kind of listening experience (and for what it's worth if you take the remaining tracks and compile them onto a second album, it doesn't make any kind of logical sense at all).

So we can appreciate the White Album, or Sandinista!, for what they are - hodgepodges. But we can also manipulate them to tease out a theme or mood that otherwise gets drowned in the excess.

 

I'm a huge fan of doubles. However, I have a tough time getting through all of Stadium Arcadium. Mind you, the KG/SH vinyl pressing makes it somewhat easier to get through.

 

Fleetwood Mac-Tusk- Would have been a continuation after Rumors of another great album if they would have cut it to a single album.

Guns and Roses -Use Your Illusions

Beatles-White Album

Elton John-Blue Moves


Disagree definitely on Pink Floyd The Wall, it tells a story and is pretty much all quality.

 

Not exactly the same thing, but the Incredible String Band's 'Wee Tam & The Big Huge' was issued as two separate LPs in the States a few months after the UK release.

 

Who Am I
Guardian Angel
Call On Me
Vanishing Act

Four of the loveliest songs Lou ever wrote. Beyond that it's a mixed bag. Hop Frog, sung by Bowie, is a catchy little tune.

 

The White Album!


There I said it...

 

"Songs In the Key Of Life" already is a great single album - it's called LP 1.

You're nuts. The album would suffer immeasurably without these tracks.

 

You'd throw out "As"?

 

I'd sneak in the single version somehow.

 

And one minute SHORTER than the single LP that followed. (Todd was in fact meant to be a single album, but he couldn't yet find a mastering engineer willing to fit that much music on a single LP).

 

Fleetwood Mac's Tusk, and Chicago.