• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Individual songs or Albums?

Which applies to you more?


  • Total voters
    22

Noel

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
613
MBTI Type
INFP
I too like indvidaul songs more than groups. I do like the following for the most part though.

Taken from the thread NFs and music, I think this question warrants a new thread.

Here is my theory: I think the listener can break down music into two camps: pleasure and art. The former, constitutes individual songs from a particular album. Lets say a catchy pop song that you like listening to while dancing. Nothing wrong with listening to particular songs-I do it too. The latter on the other hand, constitutes every song on a particular album. Why? Certainly all the songs are pretty good for starters but then you begin to think that perhaps these songs are interwoven in a particular way (an explicit example being song order). Lets say Chopin's Nocturnes that you enjoy while contemplating.

In essence, I think people that exclusively have individual songs rather than albums are missing out on a big part of music: its composition as a whole.
 

pure_mercury

Order Now!
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,946
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Taken from the thread NFs and music, I think this question warrants a new thread.

Here is my theory: I think the listener can break down music into two camps: pleasure and art. The former, constitutes individual songs from a particular album. Lets say a catchy pop song that you like listening to while dancing. Nothing wrong with listening to particular songs-I do it too. The latter on the other hand, constitutes every song on a particular album. Why? Certainly all the songs are pretty good for starters but then you begin to think that perhaps these songs are interwoven in a particular way (an explicit example being song order). Lets say Chopin's Nocturnes that you enjoy while contemplating.

In essence, I think people that exclusively have individual songs rather than albums are missing out on a big part of music: its composition as a whole.


I feel somewhat the opposite. I think that rock has gone too far in the direction of album-as-art. In the 1950s, 1960s, and early-1970s, rock n' roll artists produced fully-formed, stand-alone singles that (many times) have stood the test of time. As the '70s wore out, and rock became a more self-consciously artsy form, I think that the single-as-statement started to fall by the wayside, for better and for worse. Disco, R&B, pop, and punk ended up being the singles genres, with hard rock and classic rock being the album-oriented rock genres. This has been problematic. A tremendous album is an amazing experience, but far fewer musical groups in the last thirty years have had the talent and longevity to produce multiple albums with solid songs throughout. How many great white-guys-with-guitars rock ALBUMS that were great have you heard in the last five years? Ironically, the great singles rock bands of the '60s (The Beatles, The Stones, The Kinks, The Who) grew into the great album rock bands of the time, as well! The '70s had exceptions (Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, etc.), but I think that the single remains the purest distillation of what popular music can be, and I think that you MUST make good singles to make good albums.
 

GZA

Resident Snot-Nose
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
1,771
MBTI Type
infp
I'm definitely an albums guy. I generally listen to whole albums, I love hearing how the same musician does different things in different styles and ideas and everything.

Merc, you have a fantastic point about the album thing being over done. Some bands take it to far and try to make an album of giant, 8 minute-epics that are way overproduced and consist of a million guitar solos. Some people can do that wonderfully well, but a lot of people make it completely contrived. They try too hard to be "artsy" or whatever, or think that having 18 toms on your drum kit and a series of overlapping 12 string guitars constitutes as great music automatically. 8 minute epics can be great when done right, and when surrounded by shorter, more to-the-point songs, but some people take it to far.

Writing a great "single" -a great, simple, three minute song that is well written to state it's point powerfully and quickly with a great melodic break- is an art in itself. Max Martin, the guy who writes all those annoying pop songs for Britney and the Backstreet Boys, must be a freakin genius. Just like The Beatles were freakin geniuses for their ability to write so many great, simple songs that never get bored because they have so much depth in their simplicity (Beatles are obviously better than Max Martin, but you get it :p).

Also, not all albums are interwoven messages. They don't, and shouldn't, have to be and many or even most great albums don't have a common theme or concept outside of the writer's own state of mind throughout the recording and writing process.

I listen entire albums though, and I have little interest in getting an album if the entire thing is not worthwhile.
 

pure_mercury

Order Now!
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,946
MBTI Type
ESFJ
I listen entire albums though, and I have little interest in getting an album if the entire thing is not worthwhile.

There's the rub! How many 12-, 13-, 14-song and 60-minute albums are truly great?
 

Noel

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
613
MBTI Type
INFP
I feel somewhat the opposite. I think that rock has gone too far in the direction of album-as-art. In the 1950s, 1960s, and early-1970s, rock n' roll artists produced fully-formed, stand-alone singles that (many times) have stood the test of time. As the '70s wore out, and rock became a more self-consciously artsy form, I think that the single-as-statement started to fall by the wayside, for better and for worse. Disco, R&B, pop, and punk ended up being the singles genres, with hard rock and classic rock being the album-oriented rock genres. This has been problematic. A tremendous album is an amazing experience, but far fewer musical groups in the last thirty years have had the talent and longevity to produce multiple albums with solid songs throughout. How many great white-guys-with-guitars rock ALBUMS that were great have you heard in the last five years? Ironically, the great singles rock bands of the '60s (The Beatles, The Stones, The Kinks, The Who) grew into the great album rock bands of the time, as well! The '70s had exceptions (Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, etc.), but I think that the single remains the purest distillation of what popular music can be, and I think that you MUST make good singles to make good albums.

I predominately listen to Metal but Metal itself seems to follow your Rock assertion pretty well. I know you're Mbtic's Rock-go-to-dude, so I trust ya. The most excellent Metal came out of the eighties and nineties. It's few and far between now to spot some quality albums. On the contrary though (regarding singles), Metal (at least the artists I listen to) have practically zero air time whether on the radio or streaming internet radio. Sure they release an LP, but those are rather uncommon.
 

Kyrielle

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,294
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
You make some interesting point, Noel, but it also depends on whose album it is, what kind of music, and what album in my case. For example, it is hard to listen to Pink Floyd or The Beatles without listening to every song on the album in order, since their songs either weave into each other or continue a story. On the other hand, it's very easy for me to listen to chosen songs from the B-52s, Django Reinhart, and Tom Petty without even feeling inclined to listen to the whole album.

I suppose it comes down to the artist. Some drive to compose their albums as a whole, some not so much. I do think the more successful ones are able to at least find a common theme for the songs when grouped together, but they don't always link together to create a magnificent 60+ minute experience. It's like the difference between a novel and a collection of short stories. Both are good in their own ways.
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
7,312
MBTI Type
INTJ
My knee-jerk reaction is to prefer the album, though I recognize pure_merc's point. I guess I'd say that while a great album needs a great single or two, a single in itself is rarely as satisfying as a great album. The kinds of music I tend to listen to, with the exception of Motown, lend themselves to the album form and perhaps that's why I favor it. I also think that rock bands continue to make great albums even in the present day. I don't see the dropoff.
 

GargoylesLegacy

Kickin' Ass since 1984
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,399
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
8w9
For me it really depends. When I buy the Linkin Park or Fort Minor CDs, I surely buy the whole Album and not only single Songs. I collect every freaking Demo of them. So...HELL YES! Album!

When it comes to Artist "I like, but that are not my very Favorites", I normally get single Songs only. Good Thing we live in a Century where you can actually get single Songs too. :yes:
 

Noel

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
613
MBTI Type
INFP
You make some interesting point, Noel, but it also depends on whose album it is, what kind of music, and what album in my case. For example, it is hard to listen to Pink Floyd or The Beatles without listening to every song on the album in order, since their songs either weave into each other or continue a story. On the other hand, it's very easy for me to listen to chosen songs from the B-52s, Django Reinhart, and Tom Petty without even feeling inclined to listen to the whole album.

I suppose it comes down to the artist. Some drive to compose their albums as a whole, some not so much. I do think the more successful ones are able to at least find a common theme for the songs when grouped together, but they don't always link together to create a magnificent 60+ minute experience. It's like the difference between a novel and a collection of short stories. Both are good in their own ways.

Great analogy. I think you're right in that music genre certainly affects an album's composition as well as the artist's decision to do so. The albums I listen to tend to favour both conceptual albums and nonlinear albums. I don't dislike either of them because I enjoy listening to both all the way through. It's rare for me to skip ahead. Certainly, I've had the urge to skip ahead to the best song on the album but I find the build up with solid songs makes it sounds so much better. To each their own.
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,511
MBTI Type
ENTP
It depends on the album. Some clearly had a lot of thought put into the sequence of the songs. Some are just thrown together. I love an album that's more than the sum of it's parts. The songs all flow together and it's epic. But that's rarer than a catchy song.
 

pure_mercury

Order Now!
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,946
MBTI Type
ESFJ
It depends on the album. Some clearly had a lot of thought put into the sequence of the songs. Some are just thrown together. I love an album that's more than the sum of it's parts. The songs all flow together and it's epic. But that's rarer than a catchy song.

I can deal with albums that are just sums of parts, if the parts are great. I'd rather listen to a Greatest Hits compilation than a good album that has skip-over tracks. It definitely depends on the artist. Like, I love The Buzzcocks, but Singles Going Steady is the only full album I would play, because it's a hit parade. No filler at all. With an album like Suede's Dog Man Star, however, you really have to listen to the whole thing to get the full impression of what is going on, even though there are a couple of obvious singles. Entire albums of great songs are so rare nowadays, though, and MP3s so convenient, that I find myself listening to my music collection as one gigantic, schizophrenic radio station of just great songs. It's a good soundtrack to my life.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
I like to listen to whole albums even if they aren't really specially arranged or anything. It lets me try to figure out patterns in the artist's music, and how one song compares to another in the order. I will be stuck on one album for ages, though, 'til I never want to listen to it again.
 

Splittet

Wannabe genius
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
632
MBTI Type
INTJ
I prefer albums by far. I had a period where I almost exclusively listened to classical music and I learned to listen to complete works, instead of just movements, and since I have always listened to the complete work, mostly meaning the album, instead of just songs. The whole is indeed greater than the sum of its parts.

There's the rub! How many 12-, 13-, 14-song and 60-minute albums are truly great?

I think your knowledge on such music might be rather slim. The progressive metal band Opeth has released 9 studio albums, and the average song length is close to 10 minutes, and they must be the most consistent band of the 90s and 00s. Every release is very strong, with a couple of masterpieces as well as Blackwater Park and Still Life. As far as even longer songs goes, a couple of albums comes to mind indeed. You have many progressive rock classics from the 70s, like for example the one song album Thick as a Brick by Jethro Tull. There is so much from that period... Modern examples could be the album Crimson by Edge of Sanity, consisting of one 40 minutes song. You also have Light of Day, Day of Darkness by Green Carnation, consisting of one 60 minutes song. The EP I by Meshuggah is also just one song that is 21 minutes long. All of these are acclaimed.
 

Valiant

Courage is immortality
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Messages
3,895
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Individual songs... I only listen to what i perceive as motherfucking brilliant.
 

INTJMom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
5,413
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Taken from the thread NFs and music, I think this question warrants a new thread.

Here is my theory: I think the listener can break down music into two camps: pleasure and art. The former, constitutes individual songs from a particular album. Lets say a catchy pop song that you like listening to while dancing. Nothing wrong with listening to particular songs-I do it too. The latter on the other hand, constitutes every song on a particular album. Why? Certainly all the songs are pretty good for starters but then you begin to think that perhaps these songs are interwoven in a particular way (an explicit example being song order). Lets say Chopin's Nocturnes that you enjoy while contemplating.

In essence, I think people that exclusively have individual songs rather than albums are missing out on a big part of music: its composition as a whole.
Your theory might not be broad enough, but I see where you're going with the concept.
I hate to be accused of being less than an appreciator of art simply because I can't stand all the work of a particular artist.

I owned about 100 albums when I was a teen and I have to say there were very few from which I enjoyed every song - probably none from which I enjoyed every song. There may have been a few from which I enjoyed most of the songs from, but most of the time I felt like I got ripped off for spending all that money on an album when I only liked a few of the songs. For that reason, I started collecting "Greatest Hits" albums.
I much preferred collecting individual songs (which were on 45's in those days).

I am not a fan of the artists; I am a fan of great songs.
 

pure_mercury

Order Now!
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,946
MBTI Type
ESFJ
I think your knowledge on such music might be rather slim. The progressive metal band Opeth has released 9 studio albums, and the average song length is close to 10 minutes, and they must be the most consistent band of the 90s and 00s. Every release is very strong, with a couple of masterpieces as well as Blackwater Park and Still Life. As far as even longer songs goes, a couple of albums comes to mind indeed. You have many progressive rock classics from the 70s, like for example the one song album Thick as a Brick by Jethro Tull. There is so much from that period... Modern examples could be the album Crimson by Edge of Sanity, consisting of one 40 minutes song. You also have Light of Day, Day of Darkness by Green Carnation, consisting of one 60 minutes song. The EP I by Meshuggah is also just one song that is 21 minutes long. All of these are acclaimed.

I am not as familiar with power metal/progressive metal, no. I was purposefully leaving out jazz, classical, and experimental music, because they don't really do "singles" the same way as pop/rock music. If it comes in suites and movements, then, of course, it would be albums. A band like Jethro Tull were all right in the early-1970s, but never a top 10 rock band during the heyday, IMHO. I love Zappa, Can, King Crimson, etc. I actually got to see Damo Suzuki last year, which was very cool.
 

GZA

Resident Snot-Nose
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
1,771
MBTI Type
infp
There's the rub! How many 12-, 13-, 14-song and 60-minute albums are truly great?
This is in the eye of the beholder, of course, and this beholder has about 100 albums and counting that I can listen to start to finish and enjoy the whole way through with few exceptions. Of the exceptions, I might skip one song of the 12+ if it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Some albums have a few flashes of true greatness and then the rest is still at least pretty good, making it at least fun to listen to, even if it isn't truely great. The amount of truly great albums is definitely low, and to get a collection of truly great albums you have to look at all kinds of musical genres. But after the truly great albums come the albums that are still pretty damn good even if they arn't the best and most great.

I don't mind listening to individual songs at all, but if there is an entire album of great stuff, why not listen to the whole thing? Because of the internet, I can research the music I buy extensively, so I rarely buy an album and regret it.

By the way, another great example of singles-based acts that went on to make great albums is Marvin Gaye.

My favourite album ever is probably Are You Experienced? by Jimi Hendrix. Everything on it, song for song, is amazing and I never get tired of it.
 

pure_mercury

Order Now!
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,946
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Marvin's album-length work was hit-or-miss, though. Even What's Going On, which is awesome, has three knockout singles and some slightly lesser material. Stevie Wonder had a better transition, I think. Still, Motown is perhaps the ultimate singles machine, and I think people appreciate that.
 

ZiL

New member
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
511
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
567?
It depends on the album. Some clearly had a lot of thought put into the sequence of the songs. Some are just thrown together. I love an album that's more than the sum of it's parts. The songs all flow together and it's epic. But that's rarer than a catchy song.

I agree with this.

I tend to like the long haul of an album. I like it when the songs taken as a whole form a larger picture, and when each individual song is a microcosm of this awesome whole. Even when I don't like all of the songs on an album, I feel like song-skipping is some sort of copout :D.
 
Top