CD Killed The Great Album

[Pete The Cat]

Well not quite, but...

I know it's part of the human condition to reach a "music's not what it used to be" stage in life, but for a while I've been feeling that the past couple of decades haven't yielded quite as many great albums as, say, the 60's, 70's and 80's. Also, I sometimes find it hard going to listen to more recent albums completely end to end in one sitting.

Am I misguided - or is it down to the fact that the CD format really changed the game in terms of what's expected ?

Looking randomly at artists who spanned the vinyl-CD period ;

Rolling Stones "Let It Bleed" (1969) - 9 tracks ca 43 mins ; "Voodoo Lounge" (1994) - 15 tracks ca 62 mins
AC/DC "Let There Be Rock" (1977) - 8 tracks ca 41 mins ; "Black Ice" (2008) - 15 tracks ca 56 mins
David Bowie "Let's Dance" (1983) - 8 tracks ca 39 mins ; "Reality (2003) - 11 tracks ca 50 mins

I know there are many exceptions, but my point is that CD either encourages or requires modern day artists to make albums of today about 30% longer. That's a much tougher challenge. Imagine if your favourites from the 70's had 4 extra tracks of flab, would they be quite so cherished ?

Somehow I'm more comfortable with new albums that are unashamedly about 40 minutes, with an appendix of tracks that are clearly demos or out-takes, than a bloated so-called album that's weak. I rarely feel like an album's "all killer, no filler" these days...

Pete

[John]

I am not sure I agree just think its called getting old and not feeling as connected into new music
BUT i do wonder if the download might kill the great album

[Stratmangler]

It only takes a CD remaster with added bonus tracks to realise that many great albums are distilled greatness, and that the playback time limitations were used to the betterment of the final record.
The poorer material was removed.

All CD has added to proceedings is to include the dross, instead of all being diamond.

Of course some of the remastered albums with additional bonus material do contain gems, different versions and outtakes which are worth having, but it's rare.

[Tim]

I can't agree at all I'm afraid, I think there's an unbelievable wealth of superb music out there, just waiting to be discovered. And with modern media like Spotify, it has never been more accessible. I'm buying music at a higher rate than at any-time in my life, with some truly glorious new CD's in my collection.

[Pete The Cat]

I'm delighted if people don't agree - it means folks are getting the "hit" that great music provides.

I'm sure there's more to it than me feeling "things ain't what they used to be" though. I still buy new music, read the music press and hang out with music-obsessives as much as ever. It's just that there seems a quality divide between what you get in 9 tracks at 40 minutes and 12-15 tracks at 60 minutes.

I'd say one's lean and fit and the other's saggy but that'd take us into another dimension altogether... :eek:

Pete

[Alex_UK]

In general I'd agree the track count and length has gone up, but I'd also agree with Tim that I've found many absolutely fab albums in that category. Gill Scott-Heron bucked the trend with his last album though, at under half-an-hour - and 15 tracks - though half of them were interludes or really short... Cynics might suggest that was a marketing ploy as the track listing makes it look longer... and some sites sell downloads at a cost per track...

As always though, Mr Absolute comes to town - some great albums that go on for nearly 80 minutes or even onto a second CD - others absolutely full of guff just to get a few good tracks onto the "shelves."

One other good point about CD though is that you're not constrained by side length like you are with vinyl - so tracks can (within reason) be as long as the artist likes, and the running order can be whatever they like without having to work within the constraints of two slabs of vinyl.

[Welder]

I agree with Tim.

I’m about 50/50 new and old music but I reckon I’m running 10 years behind overall.
I’m still discovering stuff that I either haven’t heard or dismissed for some reason or other when I first heard it.

Interestingly, the albums I can think of that are start to finish compulsive listening are very few so I think the filler tracks have always been there.

What I do think is overall, the volume of published music has increased and one becomes more exposed to the less “interesting” stuff because of this.

What I am pleased about is my taste has broadened as I’ve got older. But that could be because my hearing isn’t all it could be.

Quiet Alex! :lol:
I saw what you wrote about my musical tastes.
:lolsign:

[WAD62]

There certainly was a trend for a CD to be at least an hour long, i.e. a desire to fill the available space. But I've found recently (in the last year or so) that bands are now recording their albums to fit vinyl again. As the music industry is trying to push the vinyl format again...no copy issues, and you can charge double the price of the CD

I've just checked all my albums released this year and only 3 are over 50 minutes in length.

I actually feel a bit jipped, get back to an hour you work shy fopps!!!! ;)

[Macca]

It's very rare that I listen to anything recorded after about 1995. I would like there to be more good, contempory bands, the fact is that for me they just don't exist. I have checked out some of the 'modern' bands recommended on this site - most recently Fleet Foxes and Munford & Sons. Boring, samey - totally ho-hum.

IMHO it has all been done before and better.

Songs are no longer properly structured, there are no hooks, no talented playing, lyrics are rambling and self indulgent, the whole look and sound of the bands is boring and anodyne. Just nothing special at all.

Or maybe I am just a miserable old bastard and I am expecting way too much of today's 20 somethings?

[WAD62]

It's very rare that I listen to anything recorded after about 1995. I would like there to be more good, contempory bands, the fact is that for me they just don't exist. I have checked out some of the 'modern' bands recommended on this site - most recently Fleet Foxes and Munford & Sons. Boring, samey - totally ho-hum.

IMHO it has all been done before and better.

Songs are no longer properly structured, there are no hooks, no talented playing, lyrics are rambling and self indulgent, the whole look and sound of the bands is boring and anodyne. Just nothing special at all.

Or maybe I am just a miserable old bastard and I am expecting way too much of today's 20 somethings?

Perhaps it's no longer served up, and needs to be looked for...and as you get older the tips start drying up, anyway here's a few to try

Caribou
FourTet
Battles
Do Make Say Think
Mogwai
Flying Lotus
God Speed You Black Emperor
Grizzly Bear
TV on the Radio
The Earlies
Eels
The Cinematic Orchestra
Bonobo
Quantic
Polar Bear
Animal Collective
Acoustic Ladyland
...oh and of course Radiohead

[Rare Bird]

I wouldnt care if the whole industry self destructed, there's been noting but shite thrown at us for the last 38 years imho :)

[webby]

I'm finding that the music of my formative years (10-15) still amazes me now. In fact, some of the stuff from the early 80's that I didn’t like then, such as ABC's Lexicon of Love, I've found are absolute classics. Artists like Howard Jones, ABC, Tears For Fears, Simply Red, Talk Talk, Duran Duran, Blondie et al made some of the finest albums of the decade and all within the vinyl format era.

I recall when Tears For Fears' The Seeds Of Love came out, Roland Orzabal said of it's track count "well, yes, there's only 8 songs, but they're 8 really good songs".

Albums from that time still stand the test of time today. I personally don't see that happening with today's albums, and the track/time count may be an issue when evaluating an album as a body of work.

Maybe it's nostalgia for a bygone era, or maybe it's old man cynicism. Maybe in 30 years time my kids will be saying that the albums of today were great.

The fact that there were so many bands from the 70's & 80's reuniting for tours and new albums recently just goes to show that there must be a strong feeling for music from that era. Not to mention all the remastered re-releases of such material.

[WAD62]

The fact that there were so many bands from the 70's & 80's reuniting for tours and new albums recently just goes to show that there must be a strong feeling for music from that era. Not to mention all the remastered re-releases of such material.

That's just because their CD revenue has dropped off, and they need the cash ;)

[WAD62]

Artists like Howard Jones, ABC, Tears For Fears, Simply Red, Talk Talk, Duran Duran, Blondie et al made some of the finest albums of the decade and all within the vinyl format era.


Sorry chap you've just about listed everything I hated about the 80s...;)

[webby]

That's just because their CD revenue has dropped off, and they need the cash ;)

"or maybe it's old man cynicism" ;)

[WAD62]

"or maybe it's old man cynicism" ;)

Indeed ;)

[Alex_UK]

"CD Killed The Great Album" - assuming you agree with the sentiment, maybe part of it is that with vinyl you tend to listen to the whole thing (or at least a whole side) - with CD it is much easier for people (though not me, usually) to whizz past the tracks you don't like as much, rather than listen to the whole piece of work in the order the artist intended?

[Pete The Cat]

Alex,

Yes, I agree that the experience is definitely different in that respect.

Linked to that, another flakey half-baked theory of mine about how CD has changed "behaviour" among artists and record label people is in the shape of an album's sequencing. In my perception vinyl albums more often tended to be clearly "W" shaped - uptempo and relatively instant tracks at the start, middle (side changeover) and end. With CD it's sometimes hard to see what side two track one would be if they were on vinyl.

Will's point about people filling the available space is well made. Dear Members, I give you U2 - "Boy" (1980) 11 tracks ca 42 mins ; "No Line On the Horizon" (2009) 11 tracks ca 54 mins :doh:

Pete

[Tim]

Gosh, there are some deep thinkers here :scratch:

[Pete The Cat]

I know, it's only rock 'n' roll, but it saves us from contemplating the really serious stuff... :(

Pete

[Tim]

I know, it's only rock 'n' roll, but it saves us from contemplating the really serious stuff... :(

Pete
:lol: I'll drink to that :cool:

[Macca]

Perhaps it's no longer served up, and needs to be looked for...and as you get older the tips start drying up, anyway here's a few to try

Caribou
FourTet
Battles
Do Make Say Think
Mogwai
Flying Lotus
God Speed You Black Emperor
Grizzly Bear
TV on the Radio
The Earlies
Eels
The Cinematic Orchestra
Bonobo
Quantic
Polar Bear
Animal Collective
Acoustic Ladyland
...oh and of course Radiohead


Cheers Will I will check some of them out although you lost a bit of cred with mentioning Radiohead because they are total @##<:lol:

[WAD62]

Cheers Will I will check some of them out although you lost a bit of cred with mentioning Radiohead because they are total @##<:lol:

...each to their own Macca, but there's a bit of variety there anyway :)

Actually I think you mentioned Fleet Foxes earlier, so you might also like Bon Iver, The low Anthem, and possibly Bat for Lashes too...it's always hard to second guess peoples preferences, one man's meat etc. :)

[jostber]

I agree with the OP that many CD albums are too long. If a CD album verges over 50 minutes it is getting close to being too long. I know from recording myself that putting together a release also involves a selection process, and you should not put everything on it because you have room. That's one of many things that are great with vinyl, the format decide the total size.

I would say that if someone feels for releasing a double album they should put that on 2 CDs instead of cramming everything into 1. I have seen CD albums verging close to 75 minutes, which is not really necessary. Put the classics on the album, and let the lesser songs, B-sides and outtakes be released later on their own album.