http://variety.com/2013/biz/news/katy-perrys-prism-a-good-example-of-how-albums-dont-work-anymore-1200824933/
 
Personally, I'm an "album" kind of guy - always been. These days, however, albums have become so incredibly long (while our attention span was taking a dramatic dive) that I rarely listen to recent albums. That's not even mentioning poor songwriting and arrangements and how repetitive contemporary music often is.
Couple that with the fact that modern production makes them indigestible anyway, and it's obvious that 80 minutes would be unbearable.
 
I'm glad I got to live in the good old days of LPs, sit back and enjoy those 30-45 minutes journeys...
 

I think it's funny how everyone used to always hear the singles, THEN they would consider getting the album.  Now were back to just singles.
 
Can you even imagine how much would be missed if Albums like Abbey Road were never made?  I can think of several other examples too.

Since using Spotify I hardly ever think in terms of albums any more. I think my interest in them started waning with the advent of MP3's, and Spotify killed it. I just like songs on their own merit.

Also, I listen to a lot of electronica and there is so much banal crap out there that I very rarely like an artist's output consistently. I'll like maybe 3 or 4 songs and think the rest of it is uninteresting. So many of these electronic artists are filling up their albums with pretentious little 1 minute fillers which consist of generic ambient textures and FX and which don't go anywhere. I looked at one particular electro album on Spotify last night and over half of it was "songs" under a minute long. They were all completely pointless and I would have been thoroughly upset if I'd bought the CD.

I think that the paradigm shift is affecting the pop market. The Beatles started making albums that were more than just a collection of singles as they were moving into more "uncharted territories" and music was becoming something you'd listen to not just dance to to paraphrase something I've heard once.
 
I guess its disposable nature is finally catching up again with pop.
 
I would think that heavy metal fans still enjoy albums - though in recent years, even classic bands like Iron Maiden have started offering longer and longer albums, and I'd certainly like to see them go back to 45 minutes max kind of albums. Likewise, classic rock, and jazz and all...
 
I think there's still a market for albums. I can't imagine David Gilmour fans being happier with a single than a full length album.
 

Another reason I like albums is that very often there are so-called "filler" songs on them that I end up liking more than the singles that are used to sell the album (and overplayed on the radio).

craigb
Another reason I like albums is that very often there are so-called "filler" songs on them that I end up liking more than the singles that are used to sell the album (and overplayed on the radio).

And when the single is Something+Come Together and the fillers are songs like She's So Heavy, Because, Oh Darling and such, well, uh, you know you should be glad...

Modern 80 minute LPs are such a drag. I mean, double LPs have always been tricky; not even the Beatles really pulled it off.

I've just recorded an LP with a band, and obviously I'm biased, because I worked on it, and I love the band and the songs. But it's 9 songs in 30 minutes, and it's probably my favourite LP this year, can't stop listening to it. And the brevity of it is a big part of that. It just gets the hell on with it, no filler whatsoever, leaves you wanting more, so you play it again right away.

As to whether the LP as a form is dying; I don't think so. The reality is that most acts weren't album acts, ever, really. I think people who do it well will continue to do so. There are lots of artists that work better as singles artists, and I can see that becoming more of a thing; I like Katy Perry, she's made some big stomping pop tunes. But I don't think anyone needs a Katy Perry LP. Not saying that snarkily, I think she's really good.

Heh, and then there's prog bands like Djam Karet that we've been talking about in another thread.  Their "album" is really only one song - lol!

 

John T
Modern 80 minute LPs are such a drag. I mean, double LPs have always been tricky...

Exactly.
 
As a general rule, all the best double LPs I bought back in the day were live albums (the only notable exception that comes to mind off the top of my head is The Clash's London Calling). An hour and a half live set was a perfect fit for two LPs, and 35~40 minutes for a studio album was just about right, with the added advantage that one LP would fit nicely on to one side of a TDK C90 for the motor.
 
Another relevant, but related factor is that it's little wonder that back in the 70s and 80s, most bands seemed to be much more prolific with their albums than they are today. It's pretty obvious I suppose seeing as they only had to write and record half the amount of material per release compared to filling an 80 minute CD nowadays.
 
I suspect that, in general, current bands probably don't write any more or any less in the CD age than their forebears did in the 'golden' age of vinyl. And not just because they might only release an 80 minute CD album half as frequently as they would a 40 minute LP. My theory is that the change is a little more subtle than that, in as much as a lot of the 'filler' tracks that now find their way onto a CD album would have, at one time, been published as the 'B' sides of singles.
 
But even though I know I'm still getting the same amount of music, I still think I'd prefer bands that I follow to release 40 minute CDs, just twice as often.
 
And don't get me started on the difference in the artwork between an LP and a CD.