On the joys of dull albums

Kurtis

Stuckfast said:

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

Queen and Bob Dylan are a couple of favourites for me.

Bob marley legend too.

Lynyrd skynyrd G&P is a good one.

Stuckfast

I don't know who Bob Stanley is either, but the existence of prog metal would seem to be a problem for his argument.

GJK1959

Tubular Bells ( original recording), and Neil Young’s Tonight’s the Night are my favs 

ICBM

Philly_Q said:

And I expect @ICBM would agree about the fluffy pop music.

Indeed . A lot of fluffy pop music is very well-written, arranged and recorded - that’s why it sounds easy on the ear, not necessarily because it’s lightweight. I also like more challenging music, and I don’t think either makes the other wrong.

Likewise, I like both complete original albums and best-of/greatest hits compilations. I often have both by the same artists, often because there are non-album songs on the greatest hits, but sometimes just because they also make a great album to listen to if you’re in that sort of mood. I once posted a huge list here of artists I only own compilations of - I’m just not into them enough to have the full albums, but wouldn’t want to be without the hits. (Sometimes even after owning several of the full albums.) The list of artists I have both of is even larger, maybe even double. It’s all good.

Kurtis

What about live albums like live after death?

Then there's the difference between "greatest hits" and "best of". 

Revolutions

Kurtis said:

Then there's the difference between "greatest hits" and "best of". 

Please enlighten me?

Kurtis said:

What about live albums like live after death?

I think the difference is in the third word of that question.

Kurtis

Revolutions said:

Kurtis said:

Then there's the difference between "greatest hits" and "best of". 

Please enlighten me?

Kurtis said:

What about live albums like live after death?

I think the difference is in the third word of that question.

Well best of doesn't have to be actual hits.

Do you not like live albums? 

Placidcasual79

one of the albums I think rewards sitting through start to finish is (ironically) the Beta Bands 3 E.Ps....... there is allot to get into -  sound wise, it can move through dense and textured to minimal and sparse..... it has some classic melodic songwriting and some less structured instrumental passages.....

Revolutions

Kurtis said:

Revolutions said:

Kurtis said:

Then there's the difference between "greatest hits" and "best of". 

Please enlighten me?

Kurtis said:

What about live albums like live after death?

I think the difference is in the third word of that question.

Well best of doesn't have to be actual hits.

Do you not like live albums? 

I guess I view greatest hits vs best of as a tenuous difference 

I love live albums. It’s not a best of to me, even if it’s a set packed with the biggest songs. Got a v different feel.

Litterick

darthed1981 said:

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!

You have completely misunderstood me, but never mind.

Litterick

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. 

No. Read the book.

darthed1981

Litterick said:

darthed1981 said:

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!

You have completely misunderstood me, but never mind.

Well the bit I had particular issue with is....

"Musical taste is not intensely personal; it is a group activity."

Which isn't very ambiguous - and is nonsense.

If you want to get something else across mate, go for it.

GoFish

I like the Kinks.

Sometimes I want to listen to all of The Kinks Kontoversy and Face to Face. Sometimes I just want to put my 20 track compilation cd on and rock out, knowing that at their best tey were untouchable. Both have their place.

I agree with some of @Litterick's thoughts about demographics and the album form. It does only provide a partial picture though. Music reaching it's cultural peak around the same time as The Album is a related phenomenon, along with the rise of serious music criticism which sought to punch down at pop music as that is where their preferred genres originated (and outgrew, allegedly). Jazz was also written off as too pretentious and funk and soul were barely bothered with. I wonder why?

So buying, trends, genres, radio play, in and out groups - they were all demographically discrete. Tastes however are much messier and cross over many of these categories. For many so-called serious music listeners, liking ABBA was quite transgressive in it's day. From the mid 80s onwards, acknowledging their talent was just common sense imo. The pendulum has undoubtadly swung far the other way now.

Albums do still provide a good snapshot of an artist in time. Aretha Franklin was, given her genre etc, primarily a singles artist. Yet her run of consecutive classic albums from 66 - 72 rival the Stones' or anyone else. In other words, she was good enough and consistent enough to suceed in the Album format, despite the constraints of genre and demographics. The Kinks had one good album.

darthed1981

GoFish said:

I agree with some of @Litterick's thoughts about demographics and the album form. It does only provide a partial picture though. Music reaching it's cultural peak around the same time as The Album is a related phenomenon, along with the rise of serious music criticism which sought to punch down at pop music as that is where their preferred genres originated (and outgrew, allegedly). Jazz was also written off as too pretentious and funk and soul were barely bothered with. I wonder why?

Music DIDN'T hit it's cultural peak around the same time as "The Album" though - that's just something that rock music fans who grew up in the 70s think.   Music was at it's cultural peak from the late 1950s until the late 90s when the perfect storm of Napster, Social Media and Video Games significantly reduced it's cultural relevance - unless you are Taylor Swift.

It's a bit like cinema fans saying cinema hit it's peak with Star Wars, ignoring that by far the most successful movie of all time (adjusted for inflation) came out in the 1940s.

I'm not really disagreeing with you in the story, I just think the mythos is all bullshit.

The late 60s/early 70s were the time that rock music started, as you say, taking itself very seriously indeed.  People were now making Art, with a capital A... not the three-minute ear-worm.  This was great for everyone except possibly the consumer. 

Artists could treat a studio session as making AN ALBUM instead of 12 songs.  They felt elevated.  Record labels could insist you bought the ALBUM for what in modern money is the equivalent of about £40 instead of the single for about £5 in modern dosh, and critics could write books, with great tragic stories, where they previously could just write "here is a great new track for the hit parade..."

Artists who died after drinking or drugging themselves to death in a couple of years were tragic heroes, not mentally ill people who desperately needed help but didn't get it because nobody wanted to stop the gravy train.  That's probably the saddest outcome.

Thing is, strip away all the bullshit, if you think of any great rock song, even ones going on for nine-minutes, they are really just great pop songs.  Rock music is often great, you have thousands of great songs, but it's just a genre of popular music, really no more or less likely to produce an enjoyable song than any other.

Funkfingers

GoFish said:

The best albums are in and out long before 74 minutes.

The Stooges - Fun House - 36:35

Grumpyrocker

I do love the pace of a well ordered album. I much prefer to listen to music that way than shuffled or playlists. 

Litterick

darthed1981 said:

Litterick said:

darthed1981 said:

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!

You have completely misunderstood me, but never mind.

Well the bit I had particular issue with is....

"Musical taste is not intensely personal; it is a group activity."

Which isn't very ambiguous - and is nonsense.

If you want to get something else across mate, go for it.

It's not me, it's the institutional theory of art.

GoFish

darthed1981 said:

....

Music DIDN'T hit it's cultural peak around the same time as "The Album" though - that's just something that rock music fans who grew up in the 70s think.   Music was at it's cultural peak from the late 1950s until the late 90s when the perfect storm of Napster, Social Media and Video Games significantly reduced it's cultural relevance - unless you are Taylor Swift.

It's a bit like cinema fans saying cinema hit it's peak with Star Wars, ignoring that by far the most successful movie of all time (adjusted for inflation) came out in the 1940s.

I'm not really disagreeing with you in the story, I just think the mythos is all bullshit.

The late 60s/early 70s were the time that rock music started, as you say, taking itself very seriously indeed.  People were now making Art, with a capital A... not the three-minute ear-worm.  This was great for everyone except possibly the consumer. 

Artists could treat a studio session as making AN ALBUM instead of 12 songs.  They felt elevated.  Record labels could insist you bought the ALBUM for what in modern money is the equivalent of about £40 instead of the single for about £5 in modern dosh, and critics could write books, with great tragic stories, where they previously could just write "here is a great new track for the hit parade..."

Artists who died after drinking or drugging themselves to death in a couple of years were tragic heroes, not mentally ill people who desperately needed help but didn't get it because nobody wanted to stop the gravy train.  That's probably the saddest outcome.

Thing is, strip away all the bullshit, if you think of any great rock song, even ones going on for nine-minutes, they are really just great pop songs.  Rock music is often great, you have thousands of great songs, but it's just a genre of popular music, really no more or less likely to produce an enjoyable song than any other.

I agreee with (gulp) everything you have written.

My wordng regarding "cultural peak" was probably clumsy. Your dates sound about right to me. I meant it in terms of "cultural capital", along with eg: journalism and mass market cinema, the 70s  gave us the high water mark of it being seen as respectable, well paid, important stuff, due to rthings like ock music fans, The Album, and the auteur led 3 hour minstream film which was very much a mirror image of the same.  It didn't produce the best or most important example of the work, except for perhaps Watergate.

Star Wars and ABBA ( and the Pistols) were the reaction to alll that, albeit without challenging the foundations of the sytem.

The stuff about tragic heroes is also true. Self destructive tendencies and mental illness amongst mercurial outsider artists have been leeched by the creative indistries since their inception and have been exploited too. It's a lot better now, but it does still go on

FWIW, I think you and @Litterick do also agree more than you don't, without getting bogged down in semantics. I  think, when discussing broader treands, we are all outliers just by virtue of being interested enough in music to talk about it.

darthed1981

GoFish said:

FWIW, I think you and @Litterick do also agree more than you don't, without getting bogged down in semantics. I  think, when discussing broader treands, we are all outliers just by virtue of being interested enough in music to talk about it.

Almost certainly on both counts!

Vintage65

This is a bit of a rambling conversation but Robert Smith does discuss the importance of album track running order, and even talks about writing a "happy" song to make the Disintegration album work.