smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "jkosmicki" <jkosmicki@cccneb.edu> |
| Subject | Re: albums, albums, where are you? |
| Date | Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:36:06 -0000 |
[Part 1 text/plain ISO-8859-1 (3.4 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
actually, I'm not that short-attention span. I listen to whole albums
a lot, but after I read the article from USA Today, I looked over my
collection and began asking myself if there were any albums that I
simply HAD to listen to as a whole. This is not the same thing, in my
mind, as asking if there were albums where I like everything on them.
I also love the Posies "Dear 23," but it wouldn't be sacrilige to my
ears to hear "Golden Slumbers" or "Everyone Moves Away" by themselves
without the rest of the album. it might make me want to pull out the
rest of the album, though.
I was thinking more along the lines of an album where you really,
truly do need to hear the whole to experience what it's about. That
while the songs are interesting enough on their own, they take on a
more complete meaning only in the context of the rest of the album. An
earlier poster referenced "Jump" by Van Dyke Parks, and that's about
the closest i can think of. As much as I love this album (and I play
it regularly and would love to see it turned into a musical if only so
more people would know it), I've never pulled an individual song out
of it to put on a mix tape.
I just watched "Gigantic, A Tale of Two Johns" this weekend, and at
one point in my life "Flood" would have been a natural answer for a
great album, but I have found that lately, once I get to about the
10th track, my attention begins wandering. Those first 10 tracks are a
solid unit, but the overkill and less interesting tracks begin there
for me, lately. (the lone exception is the "theme song" that just
about closes the album).
It seems to me that many people's answer to this query has been the
same as USA Today's list: just list albums that I think are great,
where every track is good. But I really was after something more with
this question -- the album that truly exists as an individual work of
art, that is damaged beyond repair if broken down into single tracks.
Many answers seem to be personal, as they should -- music is
ultimately personal. But just because you like to listen to an album
all the way through every time doesn't mean that it has to be that way
-- that can simply be a comfort zone thing.
And as for the Beatles, I am American and have to admit that even
though I now have and almost solely listen to the British versions of
their albums, they will always, in my mind, have the American track
listings. And again, just because they were released without official
singles does not mean that they are coherent albums. they can still
simply be a collection of songs that were ready to release at that
particular time, right?
--- In audities@yahoogroups.com, "Groove Disques" <info@g...> wrote:
> I consider myself a subscriber to short-attention span theater, but
you may
> take the cake, Jim K:) Plenty of great *albums* have been made since the
> days of the Beatles. I won't further "correct" you on the particular
Beatles
> albums that people pointed out, but a few of the great, cohesive
albums that
> I've loved over the last 25 years include Talking Heads' Fear of
Music, Sam
> Phillips' Martinis and Bikinis, Paul Simon's Rhythm of the Saints, Elvis
> Costello and the Attractions' Imperial Bedroom, blah blah blah. I think
> people often look for some grand "concept" album to satisfy the
concept of
> an album, but I would argue that's not necessarily the point.
>
> Jim
> http://www.groovedisques.com
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.