matthewgehrett
did not cause the economic crisis.

Some opinions about the album

June 16th, 2011 · 3 Comments · News

Lemme ask you a trick question: Which album was “Hey Jude” originally released on?

Trick answer: Uh, none. One of the most recognizable Beatles songs (Naaa na na NANANA-NAH!) was, as was customary at the time, released as a single but never repackaged on an album. This is true of many of our favorite songs from the 1960s, when record companies had the decency to not ask us consumers to buy the same song multiple times.*

Therein lies, I think, one possible answer to the question posed here, paraphrased as “why release an album when people only buy one song at a time?”

I agree wholeheartedly with Jonathan’s answer to the question. Albums are more interesting than singles. Albums, even when they are not “concept” albums, reveal patterns in the artist’s abilities, emotions, and influences at a certain point in time. As a whole, this collection of patterns, usually digested in 35-55 minute doses, provides a snapshot – frozen in time – of who the artist is. A string of “singles,” released at random and with no connection to each other, is like replacing a photograph with an assortment of sketches.

I usually avoid arguments that involve the phrase “we live in an age of…”, but here goes: we live in an age of tragically short attention spans. In other words, Twitter is great and all, but jesus god some things can’t be said in 140 characters. Anyway, the argument goes something like this: “The Twitter generation can’t pay attention to your 35-55 minute opus. They don’t have time. They get bored. So no albums. Release a song, go viral, jump in a swimming pool full of fleeting fame, rinse, and repeat.”

Here’s my problem with that. One of my favorite Beatles songs is “Your Mother Should Know,” on what I think is the most underrated Beatles album – Magical Mystery Tour.** “Your Mother Should Know” reflects the heartfelt emotion and nostalgia of the songwriter (Paul), who famously adored old-timey music (see “Honey Pie” and “When I’m 64″). It’s a simple little tune, the same lyrics repeated a few times over music that establishes a theme, varies it, and never ventures too far away from the core idea. It’s a brilliant song, because it is a simple, almost forgettable statement. But it was an important enough statement for Paul to make that he sat down and wrote it. And I’m thankful that he did.

“Let’s all get up and dance to a song that was a hit before your mother was born.”

Fast forward to today. You’re releasing one song at a time. Every release is important, because of the energy and social media capital spent cajoling your followers to spend 3 minutes listening to your new effort. Does “Your Mother Should Know” ever get released today as a single?

Ah-ha. Turns out we have a analogous situation here. As I explained, artists in the 1960s released certain songs as singles but did not put them on albums. “Hey Jude” was, and is, a perfect single (though a bit long by today’s standards). It was released as a single. A song recorded during the same sessions, like, say, “Rocky Raccoon,” is not exactly single material. But I adore that song, and you probably do too, and can you imagine the White Album without it? Without “The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill”? Without “Why Don’t We Do It in the Road”? The White Album is full of wonderful songs that probably wouldn’t have been released, or even created, without the album format to give them a home. And it’s not just the White Album. Every artist, on every record, has songs like this. It would be a shame to see them go.

Okay, it’s today again. Digital distribution has made it easier than ever to buy your favorite songs and skip the skippable songs. People are buying music a la carte, while artists stubbornly release music on set menus. It doesn’t make sense, right? The album is dead, long live the single. Regularly releasing a song or two, instead of 10-15 every two years, will shorten the promotional cycle, reduce costs, and keep artists from getting washed away by the tides of shifting attention. It’s just the new reality. Right?

Probably. But I still love albums. I love everything about them, even when there is usually a song or two I skip through. And I always, ALWAYS*** buy complete albums instead of cherry picking songs. So, soon****, I’m going to release my own album. I will have the temerity to hope that some people will pay for it – the whole thing – and at least once listen through it all in one sitting. Then, I’m going to record and release some new songs as singles. Then, when it feels right, I’ll record another album, and I won’t even put the singles on it. The new reality, maybe, should just be the old one.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*

*This would change late in the Beatles’ run, with some songs being dual-released (single and album) even before “Hey Jude.” But for more examples, look up almost any song on their “Past Masters” compilation. Except for a few tracks (mostly alternate takes or different edits), those songs were all singles that were never released on an album (until the Past Masters were compiled in 1987 to keep people from needing to buy all the singles).

**A small clarification: Magical Mystery Tour is a strange Beatles album. It was originally (in Britain) a six-song EP, but in the United States it was repackaged with 5 singles and sold as a full-length album. That means, yes, my argument is based on a song on an album that kind of destroys my argument. Just blame it on America.

***With notable rare exceptions.

****Soooooooooooooon.

Tags:

3 Comments so far ↓

  • Angelos

    Interesting. And I agree about albums. I am a rock guy, a lyrics guy, and “artist” guy, so I am an album guy.

    I want Pearl Jam’s next ALBUM, Mike Doughty’s next ALBUM, Lyle Lovett’s, etc… I’ve been playing the hell out of the new Foo and Arctic Monkeys and Adele.

    Nothing like an album where you can just press play and not want to skip anything.

    If I was more into dance pop, sure. 99c for the latest Rihanna single that I’ll party to for two months until the next Beyonce single until the next…

    I get it, but it’s not me.

  • Neil Parekh

    Matt,

    I agree, but want to expand on what you wrote. In addition to being a “snapshot in time” albums there is a reason that groups/artists/songwriters put their songs in a certain order.

    The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

    Almost all of the Beatles albums (particularly Sgt. Pepper’s and Magical Mystery Tour); U2′s Joshua Tree, John Legend’s Once Again; Lyle Lovett’s Joshua, Judges Ruth; Zeppelin’s IV, Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon; Paul Simon’s Graceland…There are many more.

    The album itself tells a story. The songs flow from one to the other. There’s a pacing.

    I agree. I prefer albums over individual songs. The other benefit is that sometimes you discover a song that’s not a “hit” but that becomes a personal favorite – only because you listened through the whole album.

  • Matthew

    Neil – yes, exactly. The order of songs on an album is extremely important. It sounds funny, but sometimes when I’m writing a song I can almost feel where it would go on an album. For example, when I wrote “For Your Reconsideration” almost 5 years ago, I knew it would be the last song on an album. I didn’t even have any other songs to put on that album!

    Jennifer and I argue all the time about whether Rubber Soul or Revolver is a better album. I say Rubber Soul, because the songs sound like they belong together and flow well together. But the transition from “Here, There, And Everywhere” to “Yellow Submarine” should almost come with a neck brace to protect you from the whiplash. Revolver might have a better roster of songs, but in terms of the construct of an album, I think Rubber Soul is better.

    Man, I love talking about this stuff. Thanks for the comment!

Leave a Comment