The album format

The only PROPER way to enjoy music is chanting it with your fellow tribals around the communal fire.

>>74945368
Pure rockism, though most of the music I listen to adheres to the LP format

>if you can't deliver a solid 40 minute project, you're a shit musician.
I'm sorry you think this

>>74945451
>I'm sorry you think this
Why? How is that wrong?

>>74945368
I don't understand this thread. Do you mean LP / EP / singles?

>>74945485
I never said it was wrong

>>74945715
Why else would you feel sorry?

Albums are only worth it if you actually take advantage of the album format. Tell a story or adhere to a uniform theme/concept. You know, give the songs a collective sense of identity. Otherwise, it might as well just be a bundle of singles for all it matters. In that light, length doesn't really matter so long as the artist does what is needed to convey that coherent identity. 40 minutes is just arbitrary bullshit that your bog standard collection of 10-12 3-4 minute songs tend to average out to.

>>74945754
>40 minutes is just arbitrary bullshit
Do millennials actually believe this?

It's the way that I typically approach music listening too, but there always exceptions and it's never good to get too strictly set in one way of thinking.

For example, think of bands like The Smiths or The Beatles. If you only listened to their album tracks, you'd not only be missing some of their best stuff but also some of the best music of their respective decades.

>>74945797

An album does not NEED to be 40 minutes long to be good. It can pretty easily be longer or shorter and still be a worthwhile album, though admittedly it's not too common to see one that's substantially shorter.

>>74945736
It's a very narrow-minded idea of musicianship

>>74945820
>The Beatles. If you only listened to their album tracks
But The beatles were an "album band".

>>74945853
How so?
>>74945851
When did I say otherwise?

File: 1433721904432.jpg (265KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1440x1080px

My autism demands completion. If I can find any reason at all to combine songs by an artist under a single collection, even if it's a best of or compilation album, I will do so and then jam in the songs I can't find albums for under the compilation album. I can't stand the thought of a lonely misfit song all by itself with no friends to sing along with it.

>>74945872
You can be a great musician without ever overseeing a "40 minute project"

>>74945910
But an even greater musician than that could.

>>74945925
>Another problem is that it’s too easy to listen to the opinion of the anonymous basement-dweller, and that’s bad for art.

>>74945872

>I personally think that if you can't deliver a solid 40 minute project, you're a shit musician.

If you meant at least 40 minutes then that's a somewhat different story but you should say what you mean. Even then, you could make a career out of sub-40 minute albums if you wanted. There's no rule saying a musician is only good if they can make a decent 40 minute album.

>>74945925
Not necessarily. In any case, they're not "shit" for failing to deliver one

>>74945946
Non sequitor
>>74945951
When did I say that?
>>74945952
Yes necessarily. An artist who can deliver quality AND quantity is inherently superior to an artist who can only do quality

>>74945976
>Non sequitor
This is your last (you) from me.

>>74945754
>40 minutes is just arbitrary bullshit that your bog standard collection of 10-12 3-4 minute songs tend to average out to.
Well what do you think? How long should a project be to be respected? 30 minutes? 20 minutes? You can't just throw out one single per year and be considered good. I feel like some longer format is necessary. Imagine if movie directors just made some 10 minute epics with incredible CGI, I don't think many people would consider it good. Of course music is much different in what it does, but there needs to be some standard

>>74945976
>An artist who can deliver quality AND quantity is inherently superior to an artist who can only do quality
That's not really related to your point about the 40 minute project. I'll say it again, you can be a great musician without ever delivering a "40 minute project."

>>74946039
>Another problem is that it’s too easy to listen to the opinion of the anonymous basement-dweller, and that’s bad for art.
>>74946059
>That's not really related to your point about the 40 minute project
I'll say it again, when did I say that about the 40 minute project?

> I'll say it again, you can be a great musician without ever delivering a "40 minute project."
So being a one trick pony is great?

>>74945854
Yes, but there's artistry in the single, too. Someone shouldn't miss out on great tracks because they aren't on a "proper" studio album.

>>74946090
Yes, but there's artistry in the album, too. Someone shouldn't miss out on great tracks because they aren't heard on the radio.

>>74946090
What Beatles song do you mean?

>>74946046

Who said throw out one single a year? Write a song, release it as a single. Write another song, release it a month later as another single. Or just release them as a collective batch of singles on a single disc. And just because I said 40 minutes is arbitrary doesn't mean it has to be shorter, it means that length doesn't matter so long as enough is done to pull off the artistic vision. If that's less than 40 minutes then great. If it's longer, also great. If it's 40 minutes on the dot, it's still great. It just doesn't have to be 40 minutes.

>>74946090
For the Beatles just get past masters

>>74946163
Oh there's plenty. Hey Jude's probably the first one that comes to mind

The artist should inform listeners what the piece of art is: whether it's the whole, thus making it an album, or the individual tracks. Doing this solves the issue I think, which comes down to what we're choosing to judge.

My feeling when I just finished my second 75 minute story album.

>>74946112
Yeah for sure, but it's a street that goes both ways.

I didn't even know the song Asleep by The Smiths existed for like five years after I discovered them because I typically just listened to studio albums.

>>74945754
Yo retard standard album length was determined by the fact that it was the most sound you could fit on vinyls.

>>74946422

And it stuck. Okay. Doesn't mean you can't deviate from it now.

Personally - the album is the best one, but others aren't inherently bad because of that. One example I think can really illustrate this is OK Computer. The tracks are good enough that if they were to be released as singles (sans Fitter Happier), they could stand out, mostly because they tell self-contained stories. But since they're all sort of touching on different variations of the same theme, the album as a whole is heightened by it.

If you're planning songs as singles, most of the time they have to be roughly self-contained; on the other hand, various songs as albums can be greater than the sums of their parts.

EPs and Mixtapes are good middlegrounds, I reckon. Sort of balance out length and how much you can make it more than the sum of its parts.

>>74946163
Not him, but a few examples include Paperback Writer, Rain and We Can Work It Out.

>>74946250
well we're in agreement then. I don't think 40 minute is a minimum, but I do feel like 20 and 30 are a bit short. The most important thing is that a musician is consistent and if he can't be consistent for "at least 40 minutes", then he's not that good.

>>74946437
What are you even trying to say? Tons of artists, from music to movies, take as much time as their project needs. The only way what you are saying holds water is when you are referring to commercial albums and films, which are specifically cut for time.

>>74946163
Their greatest song was literally a B side.

>>74946524

My point, though I do wish I had phrased it a little differently in retrospect, is that albums have their objective advantages as does any method of presentation but ultimately the formatting doesn't matter all that much if you aren't gonna take advantage of it and just want to release songs. I take umbrage with the notion that an album has to be 40 minutes long and that a musician can't be good if they can't make a 40 minute album. I think that's a silly, arbitrary concept imposed strictly by tradition and, as you pointed out earlier, technical limitations from a bygone era. The idea stuck but it doesn't mean it HAS to be that way.

>>74945368
40 minutes is way to much music by one musician sometimes. all i ask is for a deft hand when it comes to editing. if you can't do 40 minutes of solid music, then don't, i can respect that

>>74946663
I get what you are saying way better now, thank you. I don't think artists are nessesarily looked down upon for just releasing singles, which I might be wrong about, but I think it's much more difficult to look at an artist critically without a "full" body of work. Outside of tonal or story based cohesion, albums are a way for artists to explore a style in depth and that is harder to do that within a single song.