Did the CD-length album kill the album?

That option was around from the moment of tape recorders. Home made compilations long preceded CDs.

 

Maybe it was the LP that killed the album. The standard popular album in the forties consisted of three or four 10-inch 78s. Six or eight songs, 20 to 25 minutes.

 

Yep. I used to have a whole bunch of these.

 

I don't know if CD lengths are solely responsible for doing away with the concept of more focused albums but, in my opinion, it does often feel that way.

I think the main reason for this was inherent with the format of an LP itself. Albums by function were crafted to produce an "act one" and an "act two". Even 45's too (although they used a much smaller two song presentation). The best ones had a very deliberate rhyme and reason for sequencing the tracks into act one and into act two. It also allowed the listener to "take a breath" if you will. As a result, the literal crafting and presentation of albums was often done with the format itself in mind.

It's very hard for a continuous CD, especially a lengthy one, to deliver a work that allows you to breathe, reflect and appreciate the "acts" or moods within an album. For example, some double albums would gain a loved reputation for having a "mellow side" or a "country-flavored" side, (note sides two of both "The White Album" or "Exile On Main St"). Such concepts are completely lost when the albums are played in one continuous stream. The shifts are still there of course but a listener is less aware of the intentional breaks that were meant to isolate and spotlight each "act". Nor does he or she have to do any work in involving themselves with the experience of the album by manually engaging in the excitement of wondering what is in store on the other side.

Which is not to say that albums made for CD can't be great works of intentional art. Prince, as far back as 1988, did such a thing with his "Lovesexy" album. You didn't even have the option of "dismissing" tracks you may not like - the CD played like one long song! So albums where the tracks merge or play as one long piece offer great opportunities in terms of being heard and experienced uniquely via CD.

So albums can still be cleverly crafted and come alive on a CD, but I do feel that it is more difficult. And, as many have mentioned, the vast space on a disc almost "invites" less care in sequencing or pacing since an artist can simply stuff the space with more music, be applauded for giving more value for money, and not have to really worry about how songs "come off" or how they are presented to the listener through such things as "sides" or "acts".

I am glad to see vinyl surging again, not just for the enjoyment it brings in savoring re-issues and cover art aesthetics, but also how it might revive the power the format has intrinsically in presenting moods, acts, and spaces within albums.

 

That's not exactly true, because in the heyday of albums, many artists released two, even three and sometimes four albums a year. Now, it really is mostly once every two to four years (sales and marketing strategy), except for extremely struggling indie artists who try to put out a minor label thing every year or so

 

I know when CD's took off, we saw the common album jump from 40-45min to around 60-65 and compilations reaching over 70min.

I remember with CD's "hidden tracks" were all the craze.

It does seem like 50-60min is the new average now. JUST long enough to press everything on two records. *sigh*

 

I think mp3 and streaming killed the album format. Even though CD length spread most artists too thin, they were still big sellers and existed. By returning to an era of 'singles', the album has become a commercial disaster. Most artists don't see the value in spending millions of dollars and months on end on a product that yields no returns. Which is a shame, because the art suffers.

 

Actually that was exactly what I meant. Think you misread something in my post.

 

Or, I guess I mis-wrote. Thanks for your patient words!

 

I misread it, too!

 

The older I get, the more I appreciate the album side as my preferred vehicle for listening to music. 17 - 22 minutes, 4 - 7 songs are just right. You can turn it over and play the other side if you want, or you can put on something different.

 

Shall I be the first to mention Tool in this thread?

 

It didn't necessarily kill the album, but it certainly lessened my interest in them. I think one reason us older folks aren't into new music is because of the extreme length of these releases. Hip hop is worse than rock in this regard. It was the skits in the 90's and the guest verses in the 00's and today. If they eliminated those, you'd get a much tighter, enjoyable album, but with them, 3 minutes songs are stretched to 5-6 minutes and you can't wait for them to be over. On the other hand, it's helped jazz and free improv because the extra time gives the song time to stretch out, and classical music because you can listen to a piece uninterrupted.

 

True, but the flipside is that having to release 1 to 2 albums per year on top of touring caused many bands to burn out.

 

It is not the CDs fault but the digital streaming ages fault, and ultimately of course my fault, but I can most of the time barely tolerate listening to even the length of an album side in a row by one artist anymore. (And I began my record accumulating in early 80s, have collection of over 3000 lps, over 1500 cds, and at this point over 25K digital tracks I own.) But 90 percent of my listening, which all tends to be while at work desk via a laptop-thru-$300 speakers set up, tends to be shuffling either through my digi tracks or thru Spotify playlists I invent. (Or my fave oldies radio feed, the miraculous KFXM-FM 96.7 out of Lancaster CA.) This may change, I hope it does, but even 20 min blocks of same artist or "unified intent" make me antsy nowadays.