On the joys of dull albums

Revolutions

Listening to Tom Petty this morning & it struck me that a collection of singles can actually be really tiring. Without the lulls and low points of his albums, the hits started to be a little oppressive.

It made me think of the most rewarding albums in my collection, and how many of them were the hardest to understand. Big Star & Leonard Cohen are two that spring to mind. The Band are another one: their later albums are generally disregarded, and yet those are the ones I find I go back to more often.

I suppose that reflects my vinyl listening preferences: mostly early morning with coffee & in the evening with a book. I wonder if it might be a slight kink around enjoying music that others have disregarded, or maybe my tastes have changed & I don’t crave wall to wall bangers. Not sure where this is going, but interested in hearing others’ experiences with surprising music tastes etc

DannyP

Even 'Rumours' gives you a bit of foreplay before ladling out the hits.

Litterick

I too find compilations tiresome. Real albums were meant to be played in one sitting, with a half-time break to turn over the record. The tracks were ordered to create peaks and plains. But then came the CD player with its shuffle function, and the artistry of making an album as an event was lost. The record companies rushed to release remastered special editions, with bonus tracks — the songs that were not up to scratch for the original. And with streaming we have tracks without context.

drofluf

I think it’s more a matter that the tracks on albums were generally written at the same time so will have a common theme, style, production etc. and so work together well as a whole whereas compilations are always a set of disjointed tracks connected only by the artist. 

Philly_Q

Litterick said:

I too find compilations tiresome. Real albums were meant to be played in one sitting, with a half-time break to turn over the record. The tracks were ordered to create peaks and plains. But then came the CD player with its shuffle function, and the artistry of making an album as an event was lost. The record companies rushed to release remastered special editions, with bonus tracks — the songs that were not up to scratch for the original. And with streaming we have tracks without context.

I'm very much the sort of person who still listens to whole albums, and I'm also a collector, so I have to buy all the remasters and deluxe editions for certain bands.... but I always feel vaguely resentful towards the bonus tracks, like they shouldn't really be there.  If there's a second disc of remixes or live tracks I'll probably only listen to it once.

Agreed about compilations too, in general, although sometimes they're worth buying just for the "hits".  Some bands have "deep cuts" on their albums, some just have filler.

GoFish

The Original sin of CDs was in being too long -  or rather the race to make more product to fill the length. The best albums are in and out long before 74 minutes. The Apline Symphony may take up that space, but should it?

ewal

Buzzcocks - Singles Going Steady. 'Wall to wall bangers' as you say and a fine album of great singles. But also as you say, not an album to listen to on a Sunday morning  - one for when you're getting ready to go out. A few decades ago anyway, when getting ready to go out was a regular event..

Stuckfast

As a counter to this argument I give you the masterpiece that is Donovan's Greatest Hits.

darthed1981

Litterick said:

I too find compilations tiresome. Real albums were meant to be played in one sitting, with a half-time break to turn over the record. The tracks were ordered to create peaks and plains. But then came the CD player with its shuffle function, and the artistry of making an album as an event was lost. The record companies rushed to release remastered special editions, with bonus tracks — the songs that were not up to scratch for the original. And with streaming we have tracks without context.

That concept of the album is a very narrow one from a very short period, even in the history of recorded music.  I quite like it myself in some ways, but albums have also been a great tool for getting people to buy a whole 12 songs for one they actually like.

To address the OPs point, music is an intensely personal thing.  You may simply not like what is critically considered "the greatest album of all time", and that's fine, conversely you might love the album in a band's catalogue a lot of "fans" consider to be rubbish.

Basically any idea of objective quality in music, apart from basic competence of the people producing it, and even that can be worked around by a skillful producer, is nonsense.  You like what you as an individual were wired to like.

Some of my personal quirks...

I've never liked Dark Side of the Moon much, but I love Wish You Were Here...
I've not listened to the Manic's Holy Bible in years, I listen to Lifeblood all the time...
I absolutely LOVE greatest hits records, put all a band's hits on one disc?  Brilliant!
I listen to classical music to chill out, so most acoustic or folk rock leaves me cold.
I love soundtracks.
I can't stand most folk music, but love the Wicker Man soundtrack...
I love female-fronted pop music.
There's nothing wrong with Coldplay.

Litterick

darthed1981 said:

Litterick said:

I too find compilations tiresome. Real albums were meant to be played in one sitting, with a half-time break to turn over the record. The tracks were ordered to create peaks and plains. But then came the CD player with its shuffle function, and the artistry of making an album as an event was lost. The record companies rushed to release remastered special editions, with bonus tracks — the songs that were not up to scratch for the original. And with streaming we have tracks without context.

That concept of the album is a very narrow one from a very short period, even in the history of recorded music.  I quite like it myself in some ways, but albums have also been a great tool for getting people to buy a whole 12 songs for one they actually like.

To address the OPs point, music is an intensely personal thing.  You may simply not like what is critically considered "the greatest album of all time", and that's fine, conversely you might love the album in a band's catalogue a lot of "fans" consider to be rubbish.

Basically any idea of objective quality in music, apart from basic competence of the people producing it, and even that can be worked around by a skillful producer, is nonsense.  You like what you as an individual were wired to like.

Some of my personal quirks...

I've never liked Dark Side of the Moon much, but I love Wish You Were Here...
I've not listened to the Manic's Holy Bible in years, I listen to Lifeblood all the time...
I absolutely LOVE greatest hits records, put all a band's hits on one disc?  Brilliant!
I listen to classical music to chill out, so most acoustic or folk rock leaves me cold.
I love soundtracks.
I can't stand most folk music, but love the Wicker Man soundtrack...
I love female-fronted pop music.
There's nothing wrong with Coldplay.

You might dislike the album most people consider to be the greatest, but they bought the album and made it a success. You might love the album the fans consider to be rubbish, but the fans outnumber you. Musical taste is not intensely personal; it is a group activity. Albums are made for demographics. Rock was made for young white males, and other genres for other social groups. As Bob Stanley wrote of rock fans in the seventies, if you had O-levels, you liked prog; if you did not, you liked metal. Individual tastes are influenced by broadcast media, by peers, and by availability.  Individuals have particular tastes but overall, people buy what is made for them. The fans buy all the albums, the fanatics buy everything, and the casual listeners buy the greatest hits package.

darthed1981

Litterick said:

darthed1981 said:

Litterick said:

I too find compilations tiresome. Real albums were meant to be played in one sitting, with a half-time break to turn over the record. The tracks were ordered to create peaks and plains. But then came the CD player with its shuffle function, and the artistry of making an album as an event was lost. The record companies rushed to release remastered special editions, with bonus tracks — the songs that were not up to scratch for the original. And with streaming we have tracks without context.

That concept of the album is a very narrow one from a very short period, even in the history of recorded music.  I quite like it myself in some ways, but albums have also been a great tool for getting people to buy a whole 12 songs for one they actually like.

To address the OPs point, music is an intensely personal thing.  You may simply not like what is critically considered "the greatest album of all time", and that's fine, conversely you might love the album in a band's catalogue a lot of "fans" consider to be rubbish.

Basically any idea of objective quality in music, apart from basic competence of the people producing it, and even that can be worked around by a skillful producer, is nonsense.  You like what you as an individual were wired to like.

Some of my personal quirks...

I've never liked Dark Side of the Moon much, but I love Wish You Were Here...
I've not listened to the Manic's Holy Bible in years, I listen to Lifeblood all the time...
I absolutely LOVE greatest hits records, put all a band's hits on one disc?  Brilliant!
I listen to classical music to chill out, so most acoustic or folk rock leaves me cold.
I love soundtracks.
I can't stand most folk music, but love the Wicker Man soundtrack...
I love female-fronted pop music.
There's nothing wrong with Coldplay.

You might dislike the album most people consider to be the greatest, but they bought the album and made it a success. You might love the album the fans consider to be rubbish, but the fans outnumber you. Musical taste is not intensely personal; it is a group activity. Albums are made for demographics. Rock was made for young white males, and other genres for other social groups. As Bob Stanley wrote of rock fans in the seventies, if you had O-levels, you liked prog; if you did not, you liked metal. Individual tastes are influenced by broadcast media, by peers, and by availability.  Individuals have particular tastes but overall, people buy what is made for them. The fans buy all the albums, the fanatics buy everything, and the casual listeners buy the greatest hits package.

I can't remember a situation where I've ever disagreed with anyone more...

Your overall opinion seems to be "but if more people believe something, it's probably correct".. which is clearly horse shit.

Opinions eh!

Philly_Q

Litterick said:

You might dislike the album most people consider to be the greatest, but they bought the album and made it a success. You might love the album the fans consider to be rubbish, but the fans outnumber you. Musical taste is not intensely personal; it is a group activity. Albums are made for demographics. Rock was made for young white males, and other genres for other social groups. As Bob Stanley wrote of rock fans in the seventies, if you had O-levels, you liked prog; if you did not, you liked metal. Individual tastes are influenced by broadcast media, by peers, and by availability.  Individuals have particular tastes but overall, people buy what is made for them. The fans buy all the albums, the fanatics buy everything, and the casual listeners buy the greatest hits package.

I don't know who Bob Stanley is, but I think he's full of shit.  And I have a full complement of O Levels.

DannyP

He's responsible for improving that Neil Young song.

fretmeister

DannyP said:

He's responsible for improving that Neil Young song.

That's hardly a difficult task.

fretmeister

Litterick said:

darthed1981 said:

Litterick said:

I too find compilations tiresome. Real albums were meant to be played in one sitting, with a half-time break to turn over the record. The tracks were ordered to create peaks and plains. But then came the CD player with its shuffle function, and the artistry of making an album as an event was lost. The record companies rushed to release remastered special editions, with bonus tracks — the songs that were not up to scratch for the original. And with streaming we have tracks without context.

That concept of the album is a very narrow one from a very short period, even in the history of recorded music.  I quite like it myself in some ways, but albums have also been a great tool for getting people to buy a whole 12 songs for one they actually like.

To address the OPs point, music is an intensely personal thing.  You may simply not like what is critically considered "the greatest album of all time", and that's fine, conversely you might love the album in a band's catalogue a lot of "fans" consider to be rubbish.

Basically any idea of objective quality in music, apart from basic competence of the people producing it, and even that can be worked around by a skillful producer, is nonsense.  You like what you as an individual were wired to like.

Some of my personal quirks...

I've never liked Dark Side of the Moon much, but I love Wish You Were Here...
I've not listened to the Manic's Holy Bible in years, I listen to Lifeblood all the time...
I absolutely LOVE greatest hits records, put all a band's hits on one disc?  Brilliant!
I listen to classical music to chill out, so most acoustic or folk rock leaves me cold.
I love soundtracks.
I can't stand most folk music, but love the Wicker Man soundtrack...
I love female-fronted pop music.
There's nothing wrong with Coldplay.

You might dislike the album most people consider to be the greatest, but they bought the album and made it a success. You might love the album the fans consider to be rubbish, but the fans outnumber you. Musical taste is not intensely personal; it is a group activity. Albums are made for demographics. Rock was made for young white males, and other genres for other social groups. As Bob Stanley wrote of rock fans in the seventies, if you had O-levels, you liked prog; if you did not, you liked metal. Individual tastes are influenced by broadcast media, by peers, and by availability.  Individuals have particular tastes but overall, people buy what is made for them. The fans buy all the albums, the fanatics buy everything, and the casual listeners buy the greatest hits package.

I've got post grad quals and I'm not a fan of prog.

Albums are not made for demographics, but record companies do select from available bands / albums to appeal to a very specific demographic: the one that will spend money on music.

I really never thought I'd see a half-arsed nature/nurture argument filter into what music I buy.

fretmeister

Back onto the OP though - I agree. I do have greatest hits albums and I've often used them as a taster to see if I might like an artist, but the constant onslaught of the short punchy hit single gets tiring very fast.

I like the ebb and flow of a well ordered album that gives me a chance to breathe a bit when listening.

I have the same reaction when I put together a playlist - it ends up as a greatest hits of a variety of artists and it's equally tiring unless it has a specific purpose like party music.

These days I tend to listen to complete albums instead. Even live albums / performances are planned to have variety and allow some rest.

BahHumbug

The OP strikes a chord with me.  I have generally found that with albums full of hooks and hits, I've tended play them on repeat for two weeks after buying, by which time I'm done with them.  On the other hand, the less accessible records are the ones I'm still coming back to years later.

Blueingreen

Philly_Q said:

Litterick said:

You might dislike the album most people consider to be the greatest, but they bought the album and made it a success. You might love the album the fans consider to be rubbish, but the fans outnumber you. Musical taste is not intensely personal; it is a group activity. Albums are made for demographics. Rock was made for young white males, and other genres for other social groups. As Bob Stanley wrote of rock fans in the seventies, if you had O-levels, you liked prog; if you did not, you liked metal. Individual tastes are influenced by broadcast media, by peers, and by availability.  Individuals have particular tastes but overall, people buy what is made for them. The fans buy all the albums, the fanatics buy everything, and the casual listeners buy the greatest hits package.

I don't know who Bob Stanley is, but I think he's full of shit.  And I have a full complement of O Levels.

Bob Stanley is a nicer and cleverer bloke than this reference implies (although I often disagree with him).  What it doesn't capture is his ironic tone.  In saying 70s rock fans with O levels like prog and those without liked metal, Stanley would be saying something he thinks has a grain of truth in it, but also something he expects his readers to recognise as a daft generalisation. He's winking at the reader when he says this stuff. 

Philly_Q

Blueingreen said:

Philly_Q said:

Litterick said:

You might dislike the album most people consider to be the greatest, but they bought the album and made it a success. You might love the album the fans consider to be rubbish, but the fans outnumber you. Musical taste is not intensely personal; it is a group activity. Albums are made for demographics. Rock was made for young white males, and other genres for other social groups. As Bob Stanley wrote of rock fans in the seventies, if you had O-levels, you liked prog; if you did not, you liked metal. Individual tastes are influenced by broadcast media, by peers, and by availability.  Individuals have particular tastes but overall, people buy what is made for them. The fans buy all the albums, the fanatics buy everything, and the casual listeners buy the greatest hits package.

I don't know who Bob Stanley is, but I think he's full of shit.  And I have a full complement of O Levels.

Bob Stanley is a nicer and cleverer bloke than this reference implies (although I often disagree with him).  What it doesn't capture is his ironic tone.  In saying 70s rock fans with O levels like prog and those without liked metal, Stanley would be saying something he thinks has a grain of truth in it, but also something he expects his readers to recognise as a daft generalisation. He's winking at the reader when he says this stuff. 

Fair enough, I'll have to take your word for his unseen winking....
I'm not sure if it's part of the Bob Stanley quote - I assume not - but musical taste is intensely personal as far as I'm concerned.
I like metal and prog, by the way.  But mostly metal.

Blueingreen

He'd 100% agree that musical taste is intensely personal. If he has a critical bias it's that the kind of pop music that gets dismissed as lowest common denominator fluff is often much better than its given credit for.  In other words he's a defender of peoples' entitlement to like what they like.

Philly_Q

^^ I'll agree with that.  And I expect @ICBM would agree about the fluffy pop music.