Vinyl just seems more tangible, I have some vinyl from long ago including brother in arms, dark side of the moon, many blues albums and a 12" version of Crocketts theme by Jan hammer from Miami vice. These days I tend to rely on digital downloads and streaming. But the simple fact is that you can't get all the data needed in that format that is needed for a truly full listening experience.
The most I'd be willing to compromise for a music format would be an iPod.
While I do understand your position, its much too inconvenient for me to be listening to vinyls due to sound restrictions where I live. Plus, for me to really enjoy music it would at least have to be at a certain volume which I just can't raise it up to with a vinyl. And I can't put on headphones, can I? Doesn't that ruin the whole point of playing a vinyl?
Plus, if one wanted one song from an album and it wasn't a single, my understanding was that you'd have to buy the whole record which is an awful waste of money on something that you do not enjoy. CDs shared the same issue. iPods (while the only downside might be modern iTunes) don't have issues of this nature.
While they may look pretty (and admittedly nostalgic for some of you), I will never get it.
Plus, if one wanted one song from an album and it wasn't a single, my understanding was that you'd have to buy the whole record which is an awful waste of money on something that you do not enjoy. CDs shared the same issue. iPods (while the only downside might be modern iTunes) don't have issues of this nature.
The most I'd be willing to compromise for a music format would be an iPod.
While I do understand your position, its much too inconvenient for me to be listening to vinyls due to sound restrictions where I live. Plus, for me to really enjoy music it would at least have to be at a certain volume which I just can't raise it up to with a vinyl. And I can't put on headphones, can I? Doesn't that ruin the whole point of playing a vinyl?
Plus, if one wanted one song from an album and it wasn't a single, my understanding was that you'd have to buy the whole record which is an awful waste of money on something that you do not enjoy. CDs shared the same issue. iPods (while the only downside might be modern iTunes) don't have issues of this nature.
While they may look pretty (and admittedly nostalgic for some of you), I will never get it.
Yes you can use headphones, and as much as I appreciate the convenience of downloading my music and having thousands of albums on my phone the sound quality just doesn't compare to c ds or vinyl.
Plus, if one wanted one song from an album and it wasn't a single, my understanding was that you'd have to buy the whole record which is an awful waste of money on something that you do not enjoy. CDs shared the same issue. iPods (while the only downside might be modern iTunes) don't have issues of this nature.
While they may look pretty (and admittedly nostalgic for some of you), I will never get it.
Dirty I'm wondering how old you are and when you first started listening to music? it seems you think of music in terms of the song and don't have a sense of the album itself as an artform.
Nothing wrong with that, I think those of us who appreciate the album as a thing in and of itself just happened to start listening to music at a particular point in time, most likely the 1970s.
Recorded music was distributed in the form of singles long before there were albums, and new media like MTV in the 1980s helped make the album format less relevant long before downloading and streaming were even conceived of.
Check out this thread Barbel created a while back: https://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/49123/is-the-era-of-the-album-really-over/
Some of the music Barbel and others are talking about in that thread can only be appreciated in album format.
Pink Floyd in fact sued their record company to prevent their songs being available for streaming outside the context of the complete album.
While I do understand your position, its much too inconvenient for me to be listening to vinyls due to sound restrictions where I live. Plus, for me to really enjoy music it would at least have to be at a certain volume which I just can't raise it up to with a vinyl. And I can't put on headphones, can I? Doesn't that ruin the whole point of playing a vinyl?
I'm not understanding this, you say you cant get enough volume out of a turntable to properly hear the music? there is a component called a pre-amp you may be missing, needed to boost the output of a turntable before it reaches the receiver ... some receivers have built in pre-amps as part of the turntable input, others do not.
...and I gotta point out: the plural of vinyl is vinyl, there is no "s", and no article for the singular ... though I guess at this point language has evolved
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
The most I'd be willing to compromise for a music format would be an iPod.
While I do understand your position, its much too inconvenient for me to be listening to vinyls due to sound restrictions where I live. Plus, for me to really enjoy music it would at least have to be at a certain volume which I just can't raise it up to with a vinyl. And I can't put on headphones, can I? Doesn't that ruin the whole point of playing a vinyl?
Plus, if one wanted one song from an album and it wasn't a single, my understanding was that you'd have to buy the whole record which is an awful waste of money on something that you do not enjoy. CDs shared the same issue. iPods (while the only downside might be modern iTunes) don't have issues of this nature.
While they may look pretty (and admittedly nostalgic for some of you), I will never get it.
The value of vinyl sound, when heard through quality headphones, is undiminished. And I only collect records that are solid from beginning to end; otherwise, I’ll look for the 45 RPM single.
To each their own...but it’s your loss, IMO. Cheers -{
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I am young enough to have an understanding of vinyl and have seen and heard some but was born well into the CD/iTunes revolution.
I think it would be safe to say that we are most likely a generation apart. My earliest memories of music and the man who helped shape my music taste today is my father. I got my first music player when I was just about 10 and I would sync up songs that I heard and liked, with the biggest influence on my music taste being my father. In essence, you are correct that I never experienced an album as a whole (if you get what I mean). Songs have been and still are the way I perceive music but it may not be too late for me to change that. I primarily listen to music on Spotify these days thanks to most of music library being destroyed in a hard drive failure and my iPod no longer syncing up. (Shame that I don't like the music being released today and I can't even bring myself to hear it on my own. For example, I believe good pop has been dead since 2010.) I am aware of the history of albums and singles (Not sure if it is true but I heard that McCartney still hasn't spent the money he earned from The Beatle's first single) but I appreciate the time you took to write that up. I'll most certainly check out the link you provided. About the second part, it isn't the equipment, it's that it isn't allowed to play loud music in my area because it will disturb other residents. Headphones are the way to go for me, by default. Hope I cleared some details up for you and helped you understand my situation better. Vinyl (which I find odd that it doesn't have a plural as I based it off the fact that there is a plural of it in my mother tongue) was just past my time. CDs are relevant to me, even today but Vinyls never clicked with me even if it's hip in some circles nowadays.
But if it is what makes you happy, power to you.
a reasonable rate of return
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
Well...we can agree about today’s music, anyway {[]
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Dirty hits upon a point though... in previous eras, having to buy the entire album meant it really helped if a band had lots of good songs. Therefore, a band like The Beatles were premium, simply because you got value for money, you weren't ripped off. Also, as teenagers were the fanbase and had limited pocket money, that was important. Thirdly, there just weren't so many great songs around then as pop was in its infancy, and even then developing all the time so last year's great songs were old hat.
Now, there's a glut of good songs from so many bands, and nobody discriminates against songs from decades ago. So a band having lots of really good songs like the Beatles is, well, so what? Plenty of other bands with even better songs frankly, and on the iPod there's a kind of new democracy. The fact one song is off Rubber Soul or Revolver is neither here nor there when it pops up on random.
Also, the formats by which Dirty listens to stuff is MP3 so the thinner sounding music works better, it may be his tastes follow that line.
The iPod experience does seem to follow that online thing they're talking about where you are never really sated, you keep clicking on new links.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
Which is all well and good - I have thousands of iTunes songs on my phone. It has its place, although it’s a symptom of a generationally shrinking attention span. In a way, for me it’s the difference between a sit-down steak dinner...and a hastily-purchased drive-thru hamburger you eat behind the wheel.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Dirty I like your story about getting your musical tastes from your father. You were a smart lad to learn from your parents. I don't think that's typical. Not when I was a lad (early 80s), at that point musical tastes were a means of differentiating ones identity from ones parents. The very goal was to get them to shout "turn down that noise!!". Even the music from a few years before was unfashionable, following the punk era the term "boring old fart" was commonly used to dismiss any artist whose best days were behind him. You'd lose cool points for listening to the Beatles, never mind Frank Sinatra. So I find it sort of funny/sad to see so many teenagers wearing classic rock t-shirts these days, like they don't have their own new music to identify with.
A few years back I was talking to my mum about Sinatra, and she said she would never play her vinyl LPs again, and would I like her teenage record collection. It was all 50s pressings of Sinatra, Billie Holiday, Nat King Cole, that sort of stuff. I would not have appreciated it as a teenager, but I have a taste for the spooky ballad so I sure appreciate it now, and also because I am interested in the history of the vinyl LP format.
Sinatra was the first star of the album age. The 33 1/3 rpm LP was introduced by Columbia records in 1948, and Sinatra began creating albums worth of material from dedicated recording sessions based around unified themes. Some uptempo, but lots of "music to slit your wrists by" type ballads, as one reviewer notoriously put it. These are often called "concept albums" but not in the same sense that the 70s prog rock bands did concept albums. Rather because of the unified theme, and the deliberately structured sequence of songs. I added a few more vintage Sinatras on my own to the collection, but these too are starting to command higher prices, I'm not the only one who appreciates their place in music history or their inherent musical qualities. Its almost impossible to find a vintage copy of In the Wee Small Hours, his first 12inch LP for Capitol.
... in previous eras, having to buy the entire album meant it really helped if a band had lots of good songs. Therefore, a band like The Beatles were premium, simply because you got value for money, you weren't ripped off. Also, as teenagers were the fanbase and had limited pocket money, that was important.
the idea of value for money was one reason the single was revived during the punk rock era. It was seen as more democratic, less elitist. Punk bands would put out lots of singles on independent labels, and my punk-loving friends when I was a teenager were more likely to have the singles than the albums.
Even for more mainstream bands, in the mid/late 80s, the single became more important than the album once again. Especially the 12inch single format, which would often have an extended/remix version of an album cut as its A-side, and non-LP exclusive bonus tracks as the Bside. so those 80s 12inch singles are worth tracking down. They would often have better sound quality than the album as well, as a smaller quantity of music could be spread out, meaning wider grooves, more detail, bigger bass.
... ...there just weren't so many great songs around then as pop was in its infancy, and even then developing all the time so last year's great songs were old hat.
Now, there's a glut of good songs from so many bands, and nobody discriminates against songs from decades ago. So a band having lots of really good songs like the Beatles is, well, so what? Plenty of other bands with even better songs frankly, and on the iPod there's a kind of new democracy. The fact one song is off Rubber Soul or Revolver is neither here nor there when it pops up on random.
As for the argument there "weren't so many great songs around then as pop was in its infancy", I gotta disagree. There've been great songs as long as music has been recorded. The "tin pan alley" songsmiths were cranking out pop classics in sheet music form even before there was a popular recording industry. The thing with the Beatles is they began writing their own material, which was not typical before. I think only Duke Ellington had previously made a point of only recording music he himself had written. The obvious advantage is you get to keep more money if you record your own songs, instead of covers.
Once the Beatles succeeded as songwriters, every new rockband tried to do the same thing. Trouble was, they're not all as creative as Lennon, McCartney or Harrison. Talented artists like Janis Joplin or Rod Stewart don't seem to get taken so seriously because the don't write their own material. Others who are genius songwriters are not necessarily the best interpreters of what they have written (for example, I have big Bob Dylan issues). And of course there have been many many albums recorded by people who can neither write nor sing, yet insist on doing both!
Anyway, I'd say the challenge to fill an album with quality original material was one of the downfalls of the album format. Particularly in the cd era, when there was 80 minutes to fill instead of two 20minute sides. A lot of those albums that came out in the 90s, that filled up every last minute, I find to be tedious listening, with lots of below average filler, and no sense of beginning middle and end. Even the doubleLP albums of the 70s were often criticized at the time as being "bloated", and musicfans make intellectual games of how (for example) Exile on Main Street or the Lamb Lies Down on Broadway might work better as an edited-down single album.
so in conclusion: the vinyl album, great format with lots of potential for those who have the talent to fill it, but its true not everybody can
it seems to me today, that new mainstream album releases are more about marketing strategies than creating a cohesive work of art. If some pop star has not released new material in two or three years, they can put out a concentrated glut of new singles, videos, remixes and a tour and unify it with a brand identity, to focus attention. So it helps to have a title, a logo, a graphic identity for this latest marketing campaign. But an album in the old sense may not actually be the product per se.
... ...Now, there's a glut of good songs from so many bands, and nobody discriminates against songs from decades ago. So a band having lots of really good songs like the Beatles is, well, so what? Plenty of other bands with even better songs frankly, and on the iPod there's a kind of new democracy. The fact one song is off Rubber Soul or Revolver is neither here nor there when it pops up on random.
I'm a bit slow-witted, now I get what you're saying. (1) There is a much greater accumulated back-catalog of recorded music now than there was when I was a lad. (2) But there is also the digital distribution, available now, that did not exist then. That entire history of recorded music is accessible instantly with an internet connection, search engine and media player. And that in itself removes some of the relevance of the album format. Prior to this the album was the only way to get a song, aside from relying on the radio to share your tastes
Thanks for your well thought out responses, Mr Potts.
Yes, everything gets whittled down. Rubber Soul has some v good songs on it and is a great vinyl mono album. But have it on the iPod and songs on random... I don't know that You Won't See Me will sound much better than a classic Byrds song, if at all.
The Beatles are a better band than Abba. But on random, how many Beatle songs would sound better popping up on your iPod than Dancing Queen or Mamma Mia? Same goes for the Bee Gees and top hits like Night Fever. That's before you get into the superior recording techniques of the 70s.
In fact, song for song, you could easily argue the 70s were a better era for pop than the 60s. I know the Beatles are better than Wings, and the Stones did better stuff earlier. But there was just more of it, and the one-hit wonders like More More More by The Collective, or Afternoon Delight. Love Grows Where My Rosemary Goes or other stuff like Brand New Pair of Rollerskates and hundreds of others knock 60s crap like I Like It or How Do You Do It into a cocked hat. That's before you get to the New Wave renaissance which was just brilliant. Again, the Beatles are a better band than The Pretenders... but really, Talk of the Town and Don't Get Me Wrong are just brilliant really.
For all that, the Beatles were great at creating an atmosphere with their albums, as were other top bands, and that's why they work so well in the original vinyl format.
As for there always being great songs, that's true-ish, but of course a teen in the 60s wouldn't listen to Sinatra or Holliday necessarily, things got dated quicker then so songs got restricted.
Oh, and I was interested in the superior quality of the 45s, that's cool. They also spin round quicker, which is exciting for a pop record...
I never got whether than meant 78s were even better quality still or whether that was negated by inferior recording techniques back then anyway. Is that why some LPs redone today like The Joshua Tree are spread out over more sides, to give the tracks better quality.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
You can't have a sit-down steak dinner on the go, if that's what you mean.
Quite right. One should pause occasionally, and savor quality.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Oh, and I was interested in the superior quality of the 45s, that's cool. They also spin round quicker, which is exciting for a pop record...
I never got whether than meant 78s were even better quality still or whether that was negated by inferior recording techniques back then anyway. Is that why some LPs redone today like The Joshua Tree are spread out over more sides, to give the tracks better quality.
I had to think this through ... one revolution of the record is a finite amount of information, with physical limiting factors (molecular structure of the vinyl, precision of the cutting equipment) ... so if its 33rpm, one revolution is just slightly under two seconds, whereas 45rpm is, er, an even smaller unit of time ... same physical amount of information spread out over smaller unit of time should mean more detail per unit of time, so yes, that does make sense
I was actually thinking about the width of the grooves when talking about the sonic advantage of 12inch singles: when a record has more than 20 minutes per side the sound quality suffers because the grooves are too narrow, especially the revolutions closest to the center (smaller circumference would also mean less physical information per unit of time) ... the converse is that a single five minute song over that same area would have space for wider grooves (more detail, less wear) and would not be forced into the narrower circumferences closer to the centre
I suppose in theory a 78rpm vinyl record would hold even more physical information per unit of time, but when 78s were the format they weren't pressed on vinyl, they were pressed on shellac. Shellac discs are very fragile (they shatter when dropped) and apparently the grooves wore out much more quickly. I don't think the material could be cut nearly so precisely. The change from shellac to vinyl was needed for the 33rpm LP format to happen, 33 1/3rpm LPs were originally advertised as "microgroove technology"
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
Observation: The Rolling Stones’ recent Blue and Lonesome is a double-LP that could easily have fit onto one platter, in terms of a total running time of 42 1/2 minutes...but it sounds amazing on vinyl, with just 2 or 3 songs per side at 33 1/3 RPM.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Makes you think they missed a trick not reissuing the Beatle LPs in that format, Sgt Pepper spread out over a double album. Or maybe that's just their next trick.
Interesting to read about the Stones' double LP...
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
Makes you think they missed a trick not reissuing the Beatle LPs in that format, Sgt Pepper spread out over a double album. Or maybe that's just their next trick.
Interesting to read about the Stones' double LP...
It's brilliant, actually: all cover tunes, most of them 1950s blues songs. A lot of Stones fans call it their best album since Some Girls. It's a hard point to argue.
My most recent acquisition, also a double LP that could nearly fit onto one platter, is 2015's Hollywood Vampires - an Alice Cooper-led project that features actor Johnny Depp on rhythm guitar (he's actually pretty good!) plus a host of guest stars: Paul McCartney, Slash, Aerosmith's Joe Perry, The Doors' Robby Krieger, Perry Farrell of Jane's Addiction, Dave Grohl, Joe Walsh, Zak Starkey and the surviving members of the Alice Cooper Band, with a spoken-word introduction by Sir Christopher Lee B-) A smattering of original tunes, along with covers of songs by the Who, Small Faces, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Harry Nilsson, T. Rex, John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix and Pink Floyd. Great fun, and an engaging listen on 180-gram.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
While I do understand your position, its much too inconvenient for me to be listening to vinyls due to sound restrictions where I live. Plus, for me to really enjoy music it would at least have to be at a certain volume which I just can't raise it up to with a vinyl. And I can't put on headphones, can I? Doesn't that ruin the whole point of playing a vinyl?
Plus, if one wanted one song from an album and it wasn't a single, my understanding was that you'd have to buy the whole record which is an awful waste of money on something that you do not enjoy. CDs shared the same issue. iPods (while the only downside might be modern iTunes) don't have issues of this nature.
While they may look pretty (and admittedly nostalgic for some of you), I will never get it.
Yes you can use headphones, and as much as I appreciate the convenience of downloading my music and having thousands of albums on my phone the sound quality just doesn't compare to c ds or vinyl.
Nothing wrong with that, I think those of us who appreciate the album as a thing in and of itself just happened to start listening to music at a particular point in time, most likely the 1970s.
Recorded music was distributed in the form of singles long before there were albums, and new media like MTV in the 1980s helped make the album format less relevant long before downloading and streaming were even conceived of.
Check out this thread Barbel created a while back: https://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/49123/is-the-era-of-the-album-really-over/
Some of the music Barbel and others are talking about in that thread can only be appreciated in album format.
Pink Floyd in fact sued their record company to prevent their songs being available for streaming outside the context of the complete album.
I'm not understanding this, you say you cant get enough volume out of a turntable to properly hear the music? there is a component called a pre-amp you may be missing, needed to boost the output of a turntable before it reaches the receiver ... some receivers have built in pre-amps as part of the turntable input, others do not.
...and I gotta point out: the plural of vinyl is vinyl, there is no "s", and no article for the singular ... though I guess at this point language has evolved
The value of vinyl sound, when heard through quality headphones, is undiminished. And I only collect records that are solid from beginning to end; otherwise, I’ll look for the 45 RPM single.
To each their own...but it’s your loss, IMO. Cheers -{
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I think it would be safe to say that we are most likely a generation apart. My earliest memories of music and the man who helped shape my music taste today is my father. I got my first music player when I was just about 10 and I would sync up songs that I heard and liked, with the biggest influence on my music taste being my father. In essence, you are correct that I never experienced an album as a whole (if you get what I mean). Songs have been and still are the way I perceive music but it may not be too late for me to change that. I primarily listen to music on Spotify these days thanks to most of music library being destroyed in a hard drive failure and my iPod no longer syncing up. (Shame that I don't like the music being released today and I can't even bring myself to hear it on my own. For example, I believe good pop has been dead since 2010.) I am aware of the history of albums and singles (Not sure if it is true but I heard that McCartney still hasn't spent the money he earned from The Beatle's first single) but I appreciate the time you took to write that up. I'll most certainly check out the link you provided. About the second part, it isn't the equipment, it's that it isn't allowed to play loud music in my area because it will disturb other residents. Headphones are the way to go for me, by default. Hope I cleared some details up for you and helped you understand my situation better. Vinyl (which I find odd that it doesn't have a plural as I based it off the fact that there is a plural of it in my mother tongue) was just past my time. CDs are relevant to me, even today but Vinyls never clicked with me even if it's hip in some circles nowadays.
But if it is what makes you happy, power to you.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Now, there's a glut of good songs from so many bands, and nobody discriminates against songs from decades ago. So a band having lots of really good songs like the Beatles is, well, so what? Plenty of other bands with even better songs frankly, and on the iPod there's a kind of new democracy. The fact one song is off Rubber Soul or Revolver is neither here nor there when it pops up on random.
Also, the formats by which Dirty listens to stuff is MP3 so the thinner sounding music works better, it may be his tastes follow that line.
The iPod experience does seem to follow that online thing they're talking about where you are never really sated, you keep clicking on new links.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
A few years back I was talking to my mum about Sinatra, and she said she would never play her vinyl LPs again, and would I like her teenage record collection. It was all 50s pressings of Sinatra, Billie Holiday, Nat King Cole, that sort of stuff. I would not have appreciated it as a teenager, but I have a taste for the spooky ballad so I sure appreciate it now, and also because I am interested in the history of the vinyl LP format.
Sinatra was the first star of the album age. The 33 1/3 rpm LP was introduced by Columbia records in 1948, and Sinatra began creating albums worth of material from dedicated recording sessions based around unified themes. Some uptempo, but lots of "music to slit your wrists by" type ballads, as one reviewer notoriously put it. These are often called "concept albums" but not in the same sense that the 70s prog rock bands did concept albums. Rather because of the unified theme, and the deliberately structured sequence of songs. I added a few more vintage Sinatras on my own to the collection, but these too are starting to command higher prices, I'm not the only one who appreciates their place in music history or their inherent musical qualities. Its almost impossible to find a vintage copy of In the Wee Small Hours, his first 12inch LP for Capitol.
Even for more mainstream bands, in the mid/late 80s, the single became more important than the album once again. Especially the 12inch single format, which would often have an extended/remix version of an album cut as its A-side, and non-LP exclusive bonus tracks as the Bside. so those 80s 12inch singles are worth tracking down. They would often have better sound quality than the album as well, as a smaller quantity of music could be spread out, meaning wider grooves, more detail, bigger bass.
As for the argument there "weren't so many great songs around then as pop was in its infancy", I gotta disagree. There've been great songs as long as music has been recorded. The "tin pan alley" songsmiths were cranking out pop classics in sheet music form even before there was a popular recording industry. The thing with the Beatles is they began writing their own material, which was not typical before. I think only Duke Ellington had previously made a point of only recording music he himself had written. The obvious advantage is you get to keep more money if you record your own songs, instead of covers.
Once the Beatles succeeded as songwriters, every new rockband tried to do the same thing. Trouble was, they're not all as creative as Lennon, McCartney or Harrison. Talented artists like Janis Joplin or Rod Stewart don't seem to get taken so seriously because the don't write their own material. Others who are genius songwriters are not necessarily the best interpreters of what they have written (for example, I have big Bob Dylan issues). And of course there have been many many albums recorded by people who can neither write nor sing, yet insist on doing both!
Anyway, I'd say the challenge to fill an album with quality original material was one of the downfalls of the album format. Particularly in the cd era, when there was 80 minutes to fill instead of two 20minute sides. A lot of those albums that came out in the 90s, that filled up every last minute, I find to be tedious listening, with lots of below average filler, and no sense of beginning middle and end. Even the doubleLP albums of the 70s were often criticized at the time as being "bloated", and musicfans make intellectual games of how (for example) Exile on Main Street or the Lamb Lies Down on Broadway might work better as an edited-down single album.
so in conclusion: the vinyl album, great format with lots of potential for those who have the talent to fill it, but its true not everybody can
it seems to me today, that new mainstream album releases are more about marketing strategies than creating a cohesive work of art. If some pop star has not released new material in two or three years, they can put out a concentrated glut of new singles, videos, remixes and a tour and unify it with a brand identity, to focus attention. So it helps to have a title, a logo, a graphic identity for this latest marketing campaign. But an album in the old sense may not actually be the product per se.
Yes, everything gets whittled down. Rubber Soul has some v good songs on it and is a great vinyl mono album. But have it on the iPod and songs on random... I don't know that You Won't See Me will sound much better than a classic Byrds song, if at all.
The Beatles are a better band than Abba. But on random, how many Beatle songs would sound better popping up on your iPod than Dancing Queen or Mamma Mia? Same goes for the Bee Gees and top hits like Night Fever. That's before you get into the superior recording techniques of the 70s.
In fact, song for song, you could easily argue the 70s were a better era for pop than the 60s. I know the Beatles are better than Wings, and the Stones did better stuff earlier. But there was just more of it, and the one-hit wonders like More More More by The Collective, or Afternoon Delight. Love Grows Where My Rosemary Goes or other stuff like Brand New Pair of Rollerskates and hundreds of others knock 60s crap like I Like It or How Do You Do It into a cocked hat. That's before you get to the New Wave renaissance which was just brilliant. Again, the Beatles are a better band than The Pretenders... but really, Talk of the Town and Don't Get Me Wrong are just brilliant really.
For all that, the Beatles were great at creating an atmosphere with their albums, as were other top bands, and that's why they work so well in the original vinyl format.
As for there always being great songs, that's true-ish, but of course a teen in the 60s wouldn't listen to Sinatra or Holliday necessarily, things got dated quicker then so songs got restricted.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I never got whether than meant 78s were even better quality still or whether that was negated by inferior recording techniques back then anyway. Is that why some LPs redone today like The Joshua Tree are spread out over more sides, to give the tracks better quality.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Quite right. One should pause occasionally, and savor quality.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Agreed, very well put.
I was actually thinking about the width of the grooves when talking about the sonic advantage of 12inch singles: when a record has more than 20 minutes per side the sound quality suffers because the grooves are too narrow, especially the revolutions closest to the center (smaller circumference would also mean less physical information per unit of time) ... the converse is that a single five minute song over that same area would have space for wider grooves (more detail, less wear) and would not be forced into the narrower circumferences closer to the centre
I suppose in theory a 78rpm vinyl record would hold even more physical information per unit of time, but when 78s were the format they weren't pressed on vinyl, they were pressed on shellac. Shellac discs are very fragile (they shatter when dropped) and apparently the grooves wore out much more quickly. I don't think the material could be cut nearly so precisely. The change from shellac to vinyl was needed for the 33rpm LP format to happen, 33 1/3rpm LPs were originally advertised as "microgroove technology"
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Interesting to read about the Stones' double LP...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
It's brilliant, actually: all cover tunes, most of them 1950s blues songs. A lot of Stones fans call it their best album since Some Girls. It's a hard point to argue.
My most recent acquisition, also a double LP that could nearly fit onto one platter, is 2015's Hollywood Vampires - an Alice Cooper-led project that features actor Johnny Depp on rhythm guitar (he's actually pretty good!) plus a host of guest stars: Paul McCartney, Slash, Aerosmith's Joe Perry, The Doors' Robby Krieger, Perry Farrell of Jane's Addiction, Dave Grohl, Joe Walsh, Zak Starkey and the surviving members of the Alice Cooper Band, with a spoken-word introduction by Sir Christopher Lee B-) A smattering of original tunes, along with covers of songs by the Who, Small Faces, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Harry Nilsson, T. Rex, John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix and Pink Floyd. Great fun, and an engaging listen on 180-gram.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Like most Englishmen, I start the day as inappropriate and hope to graduate to appalling before the setting of the sun.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Oh, yes. I'll have one {:)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
this is the album Tiffany Case is listening to when Bond enters her apartment
Side 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IBOERC6nyE