This discussion was started in The Avalanche thread but I thought this was a new discussion. Personally, I believe The Album as an art form. I don't want to have to skip half of Cold Roses or Illinois because the artists don't have a real grasp on what makes them good. Albums shouldn't be treated as a bunch of seperate ideas or singles.
Have you heard I Can Hear the Heart Beating as One or I Am Not Afraid of You and I Will Beat Your Ass by Yo La Tengo? If so, what do you think of those? (I'm listening to "Daphnia" off the new YLT right now.)
I realize that they might not be so "prolific", but there's lots of music on those, and they don't really seem like the songs all fit together, but as with many Beatles albums, I think they do.
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
Posts: 12884 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004
Usually, I'm with you. I like tight albums with good flow and a common theme. A few good songs among 15-25 isn't going to get me to buy an album -- I'll just download the tracks I like.
But as mark pointed out, there are some good exceptions. The Beatles' White Album comes to mind as an album that's full of random ideas with no real common thread. But nearly all the songs are fantastic, so it doesn't bother me a bit.
----- Stay gold, Ponyboy. Stay gold.
Posts: 5358 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 19 June 2005
The Beatles' White Album comes to mind as an album that's full of random ideas with no real common thread. But nearly all the songs are fantastic, so it doesn't bother me a bit.
You're right, the white album is an exception. Of course, The Beatles were revered enough at that point to take that risk. People like Ryan Adams shouldn't assume we want to hear every half-baked idea they have. A very good point, though.
Originally posted by thetreesgetwheeledaway: This discussion was started in The Avalanche thread but I thought this was a new discussion. Personally, I believe The Album as an art form. I don't want to have to skip half of Cold Roses or Illinois because the artists don't have a real grasp on what makes them good. Albums shouldn't be treated as a bunch of seperate ideas or singles.
What YOU think makes an album good and what the ARTIST thinks makes an album good may be totally different. If Ryan thinks both discs of Cold Roses are necessary to the story he's trying to tell, so be it. What you call a 'half-baked idea' might be a fully-formed concept to him. Even so, that doesn't mean that I have to like or even listen to every track. I like the concept of Album as art form, but sometimes, I don't want to hear track seven because I think track seven sucks. Even in the days where my collection was mostly vinyl I would skip dud tracks. It's just that much easier in the age of CDs and MP3s.
Posts: 3875 | Location: ATL, GA | Registered: 25 May 2004
It seems this is the more appropriate place to post now.
As a musician, I strongly believe that there is a moral obligation not to waste time. That's not to say I don't enjoy the occasional epic length album. But in my perfect world, everything that goes on the release must have a reason for being there. Ie, it must have a function and the inclusion of every song must benefit the album as a whole.
I realize I'm being anal, Sufjan's really a nice guy and he's not trying to rip people off, etc. But I still believe that things would be better overall if everybody thought like I do, ha ha ha.
Originally posted by vitunkrapula: As a musician, I strongly believe that there is a moral obligation not to waste time. That's not to say I don't enjoy the occasional epic length album. But in my perfect world, everything that goes on the release must have a reason for being there. Ie, it must have a function and the inclusion of every song must benefit the album as a whole.
Why is 'not wasting time' the moral obligation? Why not 'provide maximum value to consumers'?
Either way, the issue still comes down to how YOU feel about a particular song. If you think Artist X has included a song that doesn't add to the functionality of the album as a whole, you're within your rights not to listen to it. But if that artist thinks that song DOES serve a purpose, then you just don't understand his project. I like my records to mesh as organic wholes, too, but it's a little presumptuous of me to try to say "that song doesn't fit Artist X's vision" because it's not my vision. Now, if someone admits to padding records with junk, that's another story.
Another example: Guided By Voices. Bob Pollard packs plenty of partially-gestated song ideas into his records. I just don't think it's my place to try to say that Bob has violated some moral obligation not to waste fans' time. Maybe some fans would rather get more stuff, and wean out what they don't want to hear again. I know I would.
Posts: 3875 | Location: ATL, GA | Registered: 25 May 2004
Why is 'not wasting time' the moral obligation? Why not 'provide maximum value to consumers'?
Either way, the issue still comes down to how YOU feel about a particular song. If you think Artist X has included a song that doesn't add to the functionality of the album as a whole, you're within your rights not to listen to it. But if that artist thinks that song DOES serve a purpose, then you just don't understand his project. I like my records to mesh as organic wholes, too, but it's a little presumptuous of me to try to say "that song doesn't fit Artist X's vision" because it's not my vision. Now, if someone admits to padding records with junk, that's another story.
I'm not sure that it's as subjective as you'd like to believe. Sufjan includes one minute bits of chimey noise. I can't think of any justification and I doubt he can either.
I like my records to mesh as organic wholes, too, but it's a little presumptuous of me to try to say "that song doesn't fit Artist X's vision" because it's not my vision. Now, if someone admits to padding records with junk, that's another story.
Ok, I'll put it a different way: I don't have time to listen to 5 discs of xmas music, and I don't feel bad because of that.
Originally posted by thetreesgetwheeledaway: I'm not sure that it's as subjective as you'd like to believe. Sufjan includes one minute bits of chimey noise. I can't think of any justification and I doubt he can either.
Why can't an instrumental interlude be a crucial part of the album as a whole?
Personally, I find many of the little quirky bits in Sufjan's music annoying, and I don't think they make it better, but maybe he's got a reason and I just don't get it.
Posts: 3875 | Location: ATL, GA | Registered: 25 May 2004
Why does an album have to contain just songs?I believe an album isnt a collection of songs but a collection of music...i also believe that sufjan's many interludes are a central part of the album's idea, especially with michigan and illinois. For instance track 18 on illinois "In this temple...". I read the title before listening to the track and it makes sense...i suppose his many references to people and places is a sort of push to do a little research on the idea...Michigan and Illinois are about those states, they are tributes, 'getting' the idea is about travel and imagination
