bitflipper

Remember when listening to music was an activity unto itself?  

Yep - like in "Steve has just bought "Close to the Edge" so all round to his house". Three or four spotty oiks would then sit for 45 minuets listening, not saying a word.Then a bit of a discussion, then play it again.We used to descend on one friends house because his dad had a better hi-if (and his parents were out a lot). Listened to King Crimson, Santana, Pink Floyd, Yes, The Strawbs, and many others, We would also get out his dads Buddy Rich, Oscar Peterson and Frank Sinatra albums form time to time
 
 
It used to be really exciting to save up, go to the record shop, browse, hand over your hard earned cash and get those gate fold albums back home and listen. I remember paying between three and four pounds for an Album back in the 70's. Music was a lot expensive then compared to now when you account for inflation but it was valued more.  - Yes it was the defining thing of my generation.

I listen to an entire album every time I go to sleep. It's a good/bad thing.

Several posters have identified what I believe to be the real issue with album sales. Music isn't really marketed as an album or collection of songs. If you go to itunes and look at music you purchased it's all listed as tracks per artist. If you buy an album with 10 songs and then 2 singles, it's listed as artist X, 12 tracks.

Some bands are taking a stand and refusing to sell their albums as individual tracks. Can you imagine if you bought Abbey Road a little bit at a time? The epic side 2 comes out as nonsense if each track isn't linked in the proper order.

I have a good friend who's a solo artist and when he does an album he spends a huge amount of time trying to figure the best order for the tracks. In some cases it causes good tracks to be removed because there's no good place to fit them in due to style, tempo or whatever. It seems the album concept is on life support.

Glyn Barnes


I can't remember which albums, but I know some were released on CD with a different running order to the original LP. That was really disconcerting.

Peter Gabriel's 'So' is definitely one, 'In Your Eyes' ends the CD whereas it starts side two of the LP.

My default position on older people making definitive declarations on how younger people experience music is that the older people pretty much definitely don't know what they're talking about, and could only be right by accident if they were right. Further to that, the claim that younger people (or people in general) are just "blocking out the world" when they listen to music doesn't describe any of the young people that I know.

Thinking about it some more... I may be reading too much into it here, but several of these posts seems to rely on the assumption that listening very attentively to album-length recordings is the "correct" or "best" way to experience music. That seems dubious to me.

My daughter listens to her music before sleep, and I'm sure she listens to full albums as much as individual songs. I know some of her favourite night time listening is by our very own Bill Davies (Tonecarver).

SteveStrummerUK


Although it's not really relevant to the discussion, I find it quite interesting that the major difference between the LPs I bought in my younger days and CDs is the playing time. Most single LPs were around 30 to 45 minutes in length, yet CDs are generally speaking much longer, many well over an hour long.

I realise that's because of the physical capacity of both media, but a CD does take a lot more listening to than an LP. In conjungtion with so many other activities vying for our attention, maybe CDs are just too long? Even re-releases of original (LP) recordings are usually filled out with singles that weren't on the originals, plus the ubiquitous 'alternate takes' and edits.

I've encountered a lot of CD's over the years that would have been much better, IMHO, had they been shorter.

And interestingly, the 33 1/3 LP record was only introduced in 1948. Before that, 78 RPM records only had a playing time of a few minutes. Or people listened to the radio or live performances. 

Since I'm guessing "most people" didn't have an LP player until sometime much later, the LP era was really fairly short in the grand scheme of things.

It just happens to coincide with when many of us happened to be around.

UbiquitousBubba


I don't know if this is relevant or not (I'm guessing "Not"), but it seems to me that music used to be one of the defining characteristics of our generations and their culture.  We identified ourselves with our music.  It was an integral part of who we were and our worldview.

As time went on, the culture changed.  The music was still there, but it was a backing track to the rest of our lives.  You could ignore it, dance to it, bury yourself in it, or change it to suit your whims.  It became an unimportant, insignificant dull roar rather than the muse that inspired a generation.

Album sales are down, in some part, due to the fact that we, as a culture, just don't care about the noise.  Sure, we all think we're musically hip, but the reality is that the vast majority of people are too busy multi-tasking to focus on listening, really listening, to the music.  Do you remember how we used to sit alone in a dark room, with no distractions, as the music filled up the space around us, pouring into our ears, seeping into our pores until it was the only thing in our universe?  No one does that anymore.

Most of our youth don't even know how to listen because they weren't taught the value of being still and letting the music flow.

I told you it might not be relevant.

This.

John T


My default position on older people making definitive declarations on how younger people experience music is that the older people pretty much definitely don't know what they're talking about, and could only be right by accident if they were right. Further to that, the claim that younger people (or people in general) are just "blocking out the world" when they listen to music doesn't describe any of the young people that I know.

Without wanting to be mean or on the left, good luck with your own kids! Not all music and crap out there is about blocking the world, and some of it is far better than ignoring the world and not giving a damn!
 
And, btw, if that's all that generation is about ... good luck! All I can say is, I hope they wake up one day, because that is not going to get them anything, anywhere in any art!

Edit; Just remembered..I don't actually care.

jamesg1213

Moshkiae


QUALITY is inversely proportional to QUANTITY.

How does that chime with your usual assertion that 3 minute pop songs are beneath contempt and 40 minute 'improvisations' are much more worthy of our attention?

Jonbouy

John T


Also: a group of people sitting in silence for 45 minutes listening to an album = worst night in ever.

I beg to differ.

Totally smashed together with a few jars and group of gorgeous birds used to be one of my favourite recipes for a night in ever.

They all used to wear Biba in those days too.  Oh my!

Of course YMMV.

 
But how can you chat to said birds sitting in silence?
 
Sign language? Semaphore? Telepathy?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

Moshkiae

That's just a serious distortion as to what I think, or like in music ... like there are no small songs that I care about, and you know you are full of ****! 

**** = pork?


Ja.


BECAN!!!!!

The thing is, that most fans here, are strictly song oriented, 3 to 4 minute people that could not do anything beyond that.
 
I think that people that can only do "songs" and pieces about that girl yet again, are the ones that do not like longer things and will criticize Tales from Topographic Oceans and Close to the Edge, or The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway as "pretentious", when in the end, these are the massive "operas" of the time and place that we were lucky enough to hear and see.

That's what I think.


Or is it?