Having grown up late 90s into the 2000s I went from buying cds to lime wire to spotify.
In the last 6 months I have found such a greater appreciation for just putting on a whole album and listening to it front to back.
I feel there is a huge loss when going from one artist to another to another all random.
Today I am listening to Refused, The Shape Of Punk To Come
For many, absolutely! That’s how they were intended, and they deserve it.
Others, it’s just ten songs randomly arranged.
Pretty good litmus test on whether they’re good musicians or just corporate karaoke.
9 times out of 10, I prefer full cohesive albums.
That said, this is an absurd statement. Musical talent has nothing to do with it.
I’m not saying that the musicians in corporate karaoke bands aren’t talented, but I’ll give more credit to a composer than a talented cover band any day.
You’re free to feel differently.
Is a book of short stories or poems not art, just because it is not a monolithic novel.
An Album with 10 independent songs can still be a fully artistic package. Maybe each song is ment to be experience on it’s own. Maybe the art form is to deliver a succinct and complete piece in 3-5 minutes?
If someone took a photograph of the Mona Lisa, do they deserve all the accolades of Da Vinci?
Of course not. Feel free to say thank you for showing this to me, but that’s about all the credit they deserve.
Sorry if you’re a member of Maroon 5, or some other band that purchases random songs and performs them as your own, but to me, that’s the same as taking photos of OTHER people’s paintings and putting them in a coffee table book.
A non-sequitur reply that says a completely different thing than what was discussed in the thread.
I thought it made sense in context, but maybe not since so many people seem to not understand what I’m trying to say.
Plenty of very talented people write individual songs instead of conceptual albums, and songs on a record often sound cohesively only because they were written in approximately the same period. I don’t know where you got the notion that it’s either whole albums or songs written by others, nothing in between.
For example, Velvet Underground operated pretty much in pop industry’s recording mode despite their experimental approach to the sound and themes. ‘The Velvet Underground & Nico’ straight up opens with one of the poppiest songs they have, and the tracks aren’t thematically linked aside from being generally about people at The Factory. Songs about drugs and BDSM are interspersed with heartfelt songs about Edie Sedgwick, Warhol, and a poor girl who wants to party. They also recorded a bunch of great songs that went unreleased for fifteen years, until the compilation ‘VU’.
I don’t know where anyone got that notion, because that’s definitely not what I was trying to say.
I mean, that’s how your comments read.
🤷🏻♂️ makes perfect sense to me.
Write your own album > play a series of songs that you paid other people to write for you.
You can disagree with that, or maybe you’re offended because you’re in a band that can’t write songs. That’s fine, but it doesn’t change my opinion on the matter.
Nobody here brought up cover songs though…?
Did you not know that record labels buy pre-written songs for bands to play as their own?
Agreed. There’s so much pointless elitism and snobbishness in this thread; very disappointing from so-called music fans.
Disappointing, but not surprising.
Hahaha, I’ll be stealing that!
Yeah that’s what I think too, an album if approached as a whole piece of art is great compared to random singles