Rock bigger than pop in album sales now.

viz

chillidoggy said:

viz said:

It's changed the way albums are constructed. Now every song on an album has to be designed to be an individually downloadable track. Before, the songs were more coherent. A "record" was a "record" of an event, that usually took place in a recording studio in Switzerland with real people in a real month. Now it's a random collection of useless 3 minute bits of candyfloss.

Years ago, an album was a snapshot of where a band was at that point in time, musically.

Dog, you just elloquently said in 18 words what I clumsily tried to in 66.

Lixarto

EricTheWeary said: But, y'know, I think I was having this argument when I was 12.

Yes, me also. It was dull then too.

RocknRollDave

Some people appear to be suggesting that a song can only be any good if it comes packaged with a load of other good songs....which must surely be a load of nonsense, no?

PolarityMan

No the implication is that some "artists" only have one "good" song in them so there's no point buying the album because the rest of the tracks will be toss. Course from my point of view the "good" track is probably also toss but im not the amrket for that music.

Drew_TNBD

RocknRollDave said:

Some people appear to be suggesting that a song can only be any good if it comes packaged with a load of other good songs....which must surely be a load of nonsense, no?

That is a very... strange reading.

chillidoggy

viz said:

chillidoggy said:

viz said:

It's changed the way albums are constructed. Now every song on an album has to be designed to be an individually downloadable track. Before, the songs were more coherent. A "record" was a "record" of an event, that usually took place in a recording studio in Switzerland with real people in a real month. Now it's a random collection of useless 3 minute bits of candyfloss.

Years ago, an album was a snapshot of where a band was at that point in time, musically.

Dog, you just elloquently said in 18 words what I clumsily tried to in 66.

 

 

Maybe, but I knew what you were saying, Viz. And I agree.

ICBM

I'm not sure it's totally true that albums were a record of a band's musical place and time - many classic albums were recorded over quite a long time period and in several different studios. And some of the ones that were recorded in a day or a week aren't musically coherent in any other way really, they're just a bunch of songs that the artist wanted to record. Until the late 60s the idea of complete albums as opposed to collections of individual songs didn't even exist really.

So I don't think *that* much has changed really - except that buyers now think of albums differently from how they did in the classic rock period, and actually more like they did in the jazz age and early rock era.

ChrisMusic

Maybe take a look at this recent BBC program: When Albums Ruled the World

duration 1:26

viz

chillidoggy said:

viz said:

chillidoggy said:

viz said:

It's changed the way albums are constructed. Now every song on an album has to be designed to be an individually downloadable track. Before, the songs were more coherent. A "record" was a "record" of an event, that usually took place in a recording studio in Switzerland with real people in a real month. Now it's a random collection of useless 3 minute bits of candyfloss.

Years ago, an album was a snapshot of where a band was at that point in time, musically.

Dog, you just elloquently said in 18 words what I clumsily tried to in 66.

 

 

Maybe, but I knew what you were saying, Viz. And I agree.

so can I have a wisdom please?

chillidoggy

Seeing as you asked so nicely....