# RIP: Good Music Albums



## bento (Mar 22, 2007)

This morning's drive to work I was listening to XTC's Black Sea on tape and was amazed by all the good songs on the album.  "Respectable Street", "Generals and Majors", "Towers of London" being some of the more well know songs on it. Narry a one that wasn't memorable or good.  

I have other albums in my music collection that I feel the same way - great from beginning to end.  It's like the artists & producer carefully created the music and it's placement on the album to guarantee the greatest listening satisfaction.  

Some albums I think are great:
* The Police - Synchronicity
* Ryuichi Sakamoto - Smoochy
* Led Zeppelin - Houses of the Holy
* Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon
* David Bowie - Heroes
* REM - Reckoning

Everyone of these I listen to, I rarely hit the fast forward button.  But today with the way music is packaged, you rarely get to hear more that one or two songs by an artist.  Everything is based on singles, and when I listen to a more contemporary artist's album, I think most of it is filler.  The only great albums coming out are "best-of" where you know all the songs anyway.  No "diamonds in the rough" on these.

Questions for you:
What albums do you consider great from start to finish? (not a "greatest hits")
Do you know any artists or groups recording today that have albums that are "great" all the way through - each song is memorable and catchy, with no filler?

Thanks!


----------



## billd91 (Mar 22, 2007)

I don't subscribe to the notion that the albums you list are really any different from any other album in the way they were produced or even marketed by the record companies. They were all subject to the way record companies pushed singles just like records are now. It's a practice that predated _Dark Side of the Moon_ by many years. And the fact that _Dark Side_ had some good singles material helped market the album and give it air time on the radio.

What these albums are, primarily, are examples of record albums made at times when the artists were firing on all cylinders. _Dark Side_, for example, marks the height of Pink Floyd's accomplishments as a band where all members were sharing the same basic vision of what they were doing. Albums after that, while still excellent, weren't as blessed with the same level of artistic cooperation.
Certainly I don't think being relatively artistically in sync is a necessity for making a good album. _Synchronicity_, by the Police, is an ironic title because the divisions in the band were nearly at their height, probably only surpassed by their lack of cooperative spirit when mixing the follow-up "Don't Stand So Close to Me 86" single. Yet the musical craftsmanship is still top notch. But also note that some songs were heavily promoted as singles.

I think your lament has to do more with the general lack of quality 'second offerings' by a lot of today's artists. This really is nothing new, however, since a lot of very popular bands on classic rock stations, known for iconic songs, have absolute dogs on some of their albums. Not every musical idea is a gem even if the artists and producers originally thought the material good enough to include on an album. It met the criteria at the time, though the song may not stand up to critical scrutiny.

Other excellent albums where I think the quality of work is pretty consistently good:

Fleetwood Mac _Rumors_  - a truly amazing album
Billy Bragg _Talking with the Taxman about Poetry_
AC/DC _Highway to Hell_
Jethro Tull _Aqualung_
Midnight Oil _Blue Sky Mining_
Van Halen _Van Halen_ (everything slides from there, if you ask me)
Sting _Ten Summoner's Tales_
the Pogues _If I Should Fall from Grace with God_


----------



## Faerl'Elghinn (Mar 22, 2007)

The White Stripes: _White Blood Cells_.
Pearl Jam: _No Code_ (or really any of the first 4, but this one has a particularly high killer-filler ratio, IMO).
Audioslave: _Audioslave_.


----------



## Wombat (Mar 22, 2007)

Different albums work for different people at different times.  

When I was in junior high school, I couldn't get enough of Neil Diamond's _Hot August Night_.  While still decent, there are parts that kinda make me cringe now.  Equally, while I like a lot of the songs by The Beatles, there are not a lot of their _albums_ that I am crazy over, especially the early ones.  

There is a very recent group that has put out two albums where I love every single song on them -- The Ditty Bops. Both _The Ditty Bops_ and _Moon Over The Freeway_ are wonderful collections of songs, to my ear not a clunker on them.  

... then there is Beethoven's 9th Symphony ...  

I have a lot of albums where I love every single cut -- Siouxsie & the Banshees _Tinderbox_, Fleetwood Mac _Rumors_, Tori Amos _Little Earthquakes_, The Who _Who's Next_, The Chad Mitchell Trio _Live At The Bitter End_, Bruce Springsteen _Born to Run_, The Pretenders _The Pretenders_, Flanders & Swann _At The Drop Of A Hat_, David Bowie _Scary Monsters (& Super Creeps)_, etc.  They come from different times and different styles.  It's all a matter of taste & timing.


----------



## jonathan swift (Mar 22, 2007)

There used to be very few albums that I could listen to all the way through. Lately however, this has expanded a lot. Here are some:


Murder by Death: _In Bocca Al Lupa_ and _Who Will Survive and What Will Become of Them?_
Starflyer 59: _My Island_ and _Portuguese Blues_
Joy Electric: _Hello Mannequin_
Say Anything: _...is a Real Boy_
The Appleseed Cast: _Low Level Owl 1&2_
Sunny Day Real Estate: _Diary_ and _The Rising Tide_

And that's just the top of the list, from a kid with major music ADD. Normally I can barely finish listening to a song when I'm out driving.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Mar 22, 2007)

For my money:

The Beatles _Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band_
Metallica _Ride the Lightning_
George Harrison _All Things Must Pass_
Led Zepplin _IV_ (cliche I suppose but I think it is a tight album)
Guns 'n Roses _Appetite for Destruction_
The Beach Boys _Pet Sounds_
Jimi Hendrix _Are You Experienced?_
The Smashing _Pumpkins Melon Collie and the Infinite Sadness_
Nirvana _Nevermind_
Soundgarden _Superunknown_
Black Sabbath _Paranoid_
The Clash _London Calling_
Radiohead _OK Computer_


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Mar 22, 2007)

I don't own a single album, past or present, on which I like every single song.  The only exception would be album length classical pieces which are essentially a single 'song,' such as it is.

Actually, thought of another one:

Final Fantasy Tactics Original Soundtrack.  I may not be in the mood for every single track at a given time, but there is not, IIRC, a single BAD track on the whole two-CD set.


----------



## bento (Mar 22, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I don't subscribe to the notion that the albums you list are really any different from any other album in the way they were produced or even marketed by the record companies. They were all subject to the way record companies pushed singles just like records are now.




True, but I'm sure there are some albums produced where the record company exec has to really work to find which song has the best hook.   



			
				billd91 said:
			
		

> What these albums are, primarily, are examples of record albums made at times when the artists were firing on all cylinders.




Maybe that's a better way of stating what I'm thinking.  That the artist managed to pick 9 to 12 songs that every one of them were unique, unifiying and were at the height of their craftsmanship.


----------



## bento (Mar 22, 2007)

Wombat said:
			
		

> When I was in junior high school, I couldn't get enough of Neil Diamond's _Hot August Night_.  While still decent, there are parts that kinda make me cringe now.




That's funny because Neil Diamond has become one of the few artists I cringe less to than when I was younger.  Maybe because I'm willing to revel in the smarminess of his music!

Bowie's Scary Monsters is another all time favorite of mine!


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Mar 22, 2007)

Albums that are amazing from start to finish. 

Pearl Jam - Vs. / Pearl Jam
Iron Maiden - Killers/The Number of the Beast/Seventh Son of a Seventh Son
Nevermore - This Godless Endeavor
David Bowie - Ziggy Stardust
Steely Dan - Aja
Vader - De Profundus


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Mar 22, 2007)

The Arctic Monkeys' "Whatever People Say, That's What I'm Not"

Sons & Daughters' "The Repulsion Box"

Most albums by Sonic Distortion

That said, the music industry has moved away from an album model to a singles model. I'd get an iPod (or comparable) and a tape deck adapter (they sell these as portable CD player adapters) and discover the joys of podcasts. Coverville and Post Modern Rock Show are both full of great tunes.


----------



## ShadowX (Mar 22, 2007)

You are looking in the wrong places, bud.  What do you expect from a popular music industry structured exactly how you depicted it?  Not that most recent bands have any creative qualities to speak of anyway, but the big labels drain the little they harbored.

Hit the more esoteric genres.  I will use metal because that is the genre I am most familiar with.  The popularity of metal, while waxing, still doesn't attain the levels where it can garner any radio play.  Combined with the tight and critical community, bands must nurture and polish their albums to garner any success.  Of course, many downsides to such a situation also exist and not every band is very good (in fact, most completely blow, but that is the case in most things).  I discover a few no-skippers from among new releases (though the amount pales in comparison to 80s stuff), but those excepted, the good stuff still only has a couple fillers.  Because let's be honest, album lengths increased with the CD format and it is hard to write consistently top quality material for 45 minutes or more.

Then again, part of this is the music audience's fault.  Take a look at Darth Shoju's list.  Not to offend Darth, but his list enunciates the lassitude of most people towards music.  The band's album with the most popular singles translates into their best with no effort to discover the rest of the catalogue.  I know for most people Rush begins and ends with Moving Pictures and Permanent Waves, this even goes for self-proclaimed Rush fans.  God forbid the band's singles stop receiving airplay; then they drop right off the face of the Earth.

I don't know if this is your problem, but I suggest you stop relying on highly-processed mainstream music to supply you with new material.  If you are serious, go conduct an extensive search on music that appeals to your tastes.  The internet allows people with eclectic hobbies to establish connections and help each other.  Something is out there for you.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Mar 22, 2007)

Muse's _Black Holes and Revelations_ is one of the best albums I've heard in a very long time.

Thrice frontman Dustin Krensue has a solo album full of acoustic/country rock spirituals that are really cool.  Especially coming from a band like Thrice, who play a style of music I dislike.

If you like concept albums, Dreamtheater rarely disappoints.

The Mars Volta - _Francis the Mute_

I actually listen to John Mayer's _Continuum_ quite a bit; it's a fantastic blues-rock album.  I never liked his earlier stuff, but this one grabbed me.



> That said, the music industry has moved away from an album model to a singles model.




I agree with your point, but I don't think that's anything new.  Hell, selling a record with 2 or 3 or 4 songs used to be a necessity because that was the maxium length of a 2-sided record.  Singles are probably cheaper to produce and easier to sell, so in many ways it's a no-brainer.


----------



## bento (Mar 22, 2007)

ShadowX said:
			
		

> You are looking in the wrong places, bud.  What do you expect from a popular music industry structured exactly how you depicted it?  Not that most recent bands have any creative qualities to speak of anyway, but the big labels drain the little they harbored.
> 
> Hit the more esoteric genres.  I will use metal because that is the genre I am most familiar with.  The popularity of metal, while waxing, still doesn't attain the levels where it can garner any radio play.  Combined with the tight and critical community, bands must nurture and polish their albums to garner any success.  Of course, many downsides to such a situation also exist and not every band is very good (in fact, most completely blow, but that is the case in most things).  I discover a few no-skippers from among new releases (though the amount pales in comparison to 80s stuff), but those excepted, the good stuff still only has a couple fillers.  Because let's be honest, album lengths increased with the CD format and it is hard to write consistently top quality material for 45 minutes or more.
> 
> ...




Trust me, I have some very esoteric tastes when it comes to music and I certainly understand that one size does not fit all.  The examples I provided before were to reach a common "middle ground" with others on this thread.

The point of my post is that there are some artists that try to put their best efforts out there, while others only come up with two or three good songs and fill up the rest of an LP with crap.  Maybe it comes down to artistic vision, or in connection with the zeigeit of the times.  

This thread was to acknowledge those that strive to be the best of their craft, whether it is the Swans, Throbbing Gristle and Dead Can Danse or its the Beatles, AC/DC and Fleetwood Mac.


----------



## Bayushi Seikuro (Mar 22, 2007)

I'm going to go with Richard Cheese's 'Lounge Against the Machine' - however, it is all singles by other artists (I admit, I prefer his version of 'I'm Only Happy When it Rains' by Garbage to the original).  However, every song is performed in a different style than his other lounge-versions on the cd.

Of course, I just woke up from a nap - why do you ask?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Mar 22, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> I agree with your point, but I don't think that's anything new.  Hell, selling a record with 2 or 3 or 4 songs used to be a necessity because that was the maxium length of a 2-sided record.  Singles are probably cheaper to produce and easier to sell, so in many ways it's a no-brainer.



It's not new, but it's a model that has been increasingly dormant since Sgt. Pepper first hit like an a-bomb. Everything HAD to be an album for decades, whether or not the artist had it in them or whether anyone really needed, say, 25 Weird Al tunes at a go. (And yes, I know here at ENWorld, there will people who will say that yes, yes, they do need 25+ Weird Al songs at a time. )

Nowadays, though, many of the albums that will be popular in two years are EPs or singles today. If you use iTunes, watch their free singles of the week -- it's often six months or more before any of those songs show up in any compiled form, and often they just show up on an EP and THEN eventually that EP forms the core of a later album for folks wedded to the album system.

And, frankly, it's OK by me. I'd rather pay 99 cents for a song that I like than $9+ on an album that will have two or three songs, at most, that I like. If I find myself buying more than one or two songs off an album, I preview all the tracks online in iTunes or on the artist's Web site and buy it then, but most of the time, it's just a track or two here, a track or two there, and that's it.

Unlike the OP, I don't see this as a bad thing.


----------



## Wayside (Mar 22, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Muse's _Black Holes and Revelations_ is one of the best albums I've heard in a very long time.
> 
> Thrice frontman Dustin Krensue has a solo album full of acoustic/country rock spirituals that are really cool.  Especially coming from a band like Thrice, who play a style of music I dislike.



Pretty much everything Muse puts out is worth a listen. Kensrue's _Please Come Home_ is great; so is Frank Turner's acoustic album, _Sleep Is for the Week_. Some other favorites from the past few years:

Million Dead - _Harmony No Harmony_ (Frank Turner's old band)
Dredg - _Catch Without Arms_
Cat Power - _Your Are Free_ (_The Greatest_ is also quite good) 
Ulver - _Blood Inside_
Lou Rhodes - _Beloved One_
VAST - _Turquoise & Crimson_

I think Cat Power is the oldest of these, with _You Are Free_ dating to 2003.


----------



## Pseudonym (Mar 22, 2007)

Beastie Boy's Paul's Boutique.


----------



## bento (Mar 22, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> And, frankly, it's OK by me. I'd rather pay 99 cents for a song that I like than $9+ on an album that will have two or three songs, at most, that I like. If I find myself buying more than one or two songs off an album, I preview all the tracks online in iTunes or on the artist's Web site and buy it then, but most of the time, it's just a track or two here, a track or two there, and that's it.
> 
> Unlike the OP, I don't see this as a bad thing.




But at the same time, if everyone only purchased the "hot hit single" they would never really find some real gems that an AR person didn't feel had enough hooks.  

Think about those obscure songs you would have never heard if you hadn't purchased the album.  Example: I've had XTC's "Pink Thing" stuck in my head for a few days.  It was never a single because it deals with, erm, manly things.  If I hadn't picked up their LP "Oranges and Lemons" I would be living a poorer human experience.    

Same with the B side of David Bowie's Heroes album, which is mostly insturmental.  Those songs lead me to albums by Brian Eno (he produced the LP), then to Kraftwerk (they inspired some of the songs) and Roxy Music (Eno's former group).  

The album concept opens you up to deeper music that while it may be more challenging, can be infinitely more rewarding that sampling the one or two songs that were hits.


----------



## Richards (Mar 23, 2007)

I'll add the following:

Supertramp, "Breakfast in America"

Tom Petty, "Full Moon Fever"

Jill Tracy, "Diabolical Streak"

ELO, "Discovery"​
Johnathan


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 23, 2007)

bento said:
			
		

> Questions for you:
> What albums do you consider great from start to finish? (not a "greatest hits")
> Do you know any artists or groups recording today that have albums that are "great" all the way through - each song is memorable and catchy, with no filler?
> 
> Thanks!




Albums I consider great: 2112, Moving Pictures (Rush), Little Earthquakes (Tori Amos), Jagged Little Pill (Alanis Morissette), Girlfriend (Matthew Sweet), I've got that old feeling (Alison Krauss)

New albums I consider great all the way through (in answer to the second part of your question): 

Straight outta Lynwood (Weird Al) maybe his best album ever, certainly in years

Why should the fire die (Nickle Creek) Maybe the best album I've bought in 10 years. An amazing group that defies being pigeon holed into those AOR boxes radio stations love so much (I would probably say Bluegrass if pressed)

Lonely Runs Both Ways (Alison Krauss)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Mar 23, 2007)

bento said:
			
		

> But at the same time, if everyone only purchased the "hot hit single" they would never really find some real gems that an AR person didn't feel had enough hooks.



The music industry's gotten decentralized. An A/R guy has no say as to whether or not a band puts a song on their MySpace page or in their podcast for fans or whatever. Yes, they can decide to not push it as a freebie iTunes single of the week, but that's only one of a host of options available nowadays.



> The album concept opens you up to deeper music that while it may be more challenging, can be infinitely more rewarding that sampling the one or two songs that were hits.



There's certainly good albums out there, and I've continued to buy good albums in the iPod era. But it's nice that I no longer feel compelled to _not_ buy an album when I know I'll only like a single song: I just buy the single instead. The artist wins, the recording industry wins and I win.


----------



## bento (Mar 23, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> There's certainly good albums out there, and I've continued to buy good albums in the iPod era. But it's nice that I no longer feel compelled to _not_ buy an album when I know I'll only like a single song: I just buy the single instead. The artist wins, the recording industry wins and I win.




Peter Gabriel's "So" album convinced me of that - I bought the album and never listened to it because the songs I liked on it were driven into the ground by local radio, and the remaining were meh.  Dire Straits' "Brother in Arms" runs a close second in that department.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 23, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> There's certainly good albums out there, and I've continued to buy good albums in the iPod era. But it's nice that I no longer feel compelled to _not_ buy an album when I know I'll only like a single song: I just buy the single instead. The artist wins, the recording industry wins and I win.




The trouble with this is, you don't know you'll only like the singles or that the other songs won't grow on your. Where would a song like "Shine on You Crazy Diamond" be without "Have a Cigar" or "Wish You Were Here" driving album sales? Or for that matter "Great Gig in the Sky"? All excellent stuff, but not the singles driving their respective albums.

I like the other stuff on albums, sometimes even more than the singles. Sinead O'Connor's "Jump in the River" is, I think, a far superior song to "Nothing Compares to U", which is dead boring. 
I would argue that if people are just buying the singles, since they aren't exposing you to the rest of their musical ideas, the artist isn't really benefiting. Not if they have more complex musical ideas that aren't easily fitting into the single format. "Thick as a Brick" and "Passion Play" by Jethro Tull fail under that model, as do songs like "Echoes" by Pink Floyd.


----------



## Pants (Mar 23, 2007)

bento said:
			
		

> Questions for you:
> What albums do you consider great from start to finish? (not a "greatest hits")



Led Zeppelin - IV (ditto on the cliched part, but hey this album rawks)
Iron Maiden - Number of the Best and/or Powerslave
Megadeth - Rust In Peace
Metallica - Master of Puppets
Guns n' Roses - Appetite for Destruction
Pink Floyd - Dark Side...
Bon Jovi - Slippery When Wet



> Do you know any artists or groups recording today that have albums that are "great" all the way through - each song is memorable and catchy, with no filler?
> 
> Thanks!



I really dig 'Wolfmother,' but their CD has maybe one or two tracks that I kinda half-listen to. Still good listenin.


----------



## Nightfall (Mar 23, 2007)

Pants,

They do have a mandatory Metallica here in Morgantown. They manage to play some songs from Master of Puppets.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Mar 23, 2007)

ShadowX said:
			
		

> Then again, part of this is the music audience's fault.  Take a look at Darth Shoju's list.  Not to offend Darth, but his list enunciates the lassitude of most people towards music.  The band's album with the most popular singles translates into their best with no effort to discover the rest of the catalogue.  I know for most people Rush begins and ends with Moving Pictures and Permanent Waves, this even goes for self-proclaimed Rush fans.  God forbid the band's singles stop receiving airplay; then they drop right off the face of the Earth.




Did I somehow give the impression that I limit myself  to a band's most popular album? The question was what do you consider a strong album with little filler. I listed albums from my personal experience that I felt answered the question and were recognizable. I could have listed others that few people have heard of outside my neck of the woods (Our Lady Peace's _Naveed_, Men In Kilts' _Commando _to name a couple) but where would the point be in that for such an exercise? I suppose a few people could end up looking into some of these bands, thereby giving them more exposure, but without details on what kind of music they represent I don't see that as being terribly likely. 

I agree that mainstream music is often "safe" or "processed", but it is also often very good. I find it fairly irritating when people jump into discussions like these and decry mainstream music and rattle off some obscure performers in an effort to look knowledgeable and discriminating (not that I am accusing *you* of this...someone out there must know what they are talking about and you could very well be one of those people...I'm certainly not going to pretend to be). I had a friend in highschool who loved to find undiscovered bands and tell people about them until they became popular, then abandon them and mock them as "mainstream". Its in the same vein as people who slam Hendrix or Clapton as hacks and then tout some unknown studio/session musician as an under-appreciated genius (not that there aren't talented session musicians out there I imagine). I guess I can appreciate recognizing the talented performers who don't get the exposure they deserve, but deriding music just because it is popular makes little sense to me (again, not that I am claiming that is what you are doing, I guess your post just struck a chord with me).

And up here, Rush songs _always _get airplay.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Mar 23, 2007)

An interesting thread.  Here's my take:

In the 50s and through to the mid 60s, the emphasis was on singles - not LPs.  Albums were quite incoherent until the LP became the favored media.

Mid 60s  though the 70's to about 1985 or so was of course very much an Album Rock period, where there seemed to be an emphasis on the overall product at 22 mins a side or so.

If you think about it though, technology had its hand in this. You put on an album on the turntable in those days - _and you let it play_.

It was a pain in the ass to change it. Up needle -over arm - new album - over arm  - down needle. And that's never minding a swipe with a brush on the vinyl or degauss the needle or whatever.

The concept still played out a bit from the established artists and producers who were used to the older traditions - so that as vinyl died, vinyl styles persisted.  Tapes were a pain in the ass to forward through too - until the tech came out for fast forward cueing to compete with the news CDs. For a time in the mid to late 80s, we were in a transition between styles as vinyl, tape and CDs were all on store shelves. 

Soon enough, vinyl was dead, the CD ascendancy over tape was complete by the end of the 80s *and it was over*. We were in a song centred approach to music, away from the album rock of the 1965-85 period. CD "albums" became more of a collection of singles than a coherent whole because the technology facilitated that approach.

And because hit singles are damned hard to write, its pretty rare that you get a disc with a lot of em on there in a row - let alone all of em. 

So by 1990, we had come full circle. We were back to the 50s, essentially.

With the Mp3, it's even worse. It's Sesame Street on bennies. ADD reigns supreme. We're lucky to make it through listening to the whole  song, let alone the CD.

So - for those listing "albums" from the 90s and onwards: nope. Sorry. I know you may love your particular CD or band  - but it doesn't count. It just doesn't. By then a complete CD was an accident of production - not the result of focused intention. Not only were you born too late and missed the boat - but you have missed the point, too.

To add to the list:

_AC-DC: Back in Black. _ There is no need  - and generally no desire - to skip songs on this album.

_Kansas: Leftoverture:_ Art rock meets album rock. Like _Dark Side of the Moon_ - meant to be played at the beginning and left to the end.

_Kiss: Music from the Elder:_ Now  - this is neither  a great album nor a very good example of Kiss. It's pretty iffy stuff. But it is an excellent example of making an album to be an album - and not a collection of songs.

_Pink Floyd:_ Add in everything after _Dark Side of the Moon_ up until _The Final Cut_ and the departure of Roger Waters. It all counts as the essence of album rock.

_Boston: Boston:_ Do you really need to skip songs on this album? Nope.  You don't.

_Sting: Nothing Like the Sun _(better than _Ten Summoners Tales_ because a) it is; and, b) it's coherent. _Ten Summoners Tales_ was CD era and Sting getting lucky after swinging for the fences.)

_Rush: Hemispheres to Hold Your Fire and all else in between: _ as examples of album rock  - with _Moving Pictures_ being the most popular and _Grace Under Pressure_ as the most coherent.

_U2: Joshua Tree and Unforgettable Fire.: _  These were released at a time when you could still get em on vinyl. The end of an era, indeed.


----------



## bento (Mar 23, 2007)

Steelwind,

I think you're right about history and ideas behind the movement.

Do you think if artists today continued to follow the practice held 20 years ago (trying to make a full album with all the tracks rating a point or two around 7 rather than one that has two songs at 9 and the rest around 3) that the music industry might improve?  It seems like the music industry has little to lose by pushing both approaches.    

I guess I wanted to hear from folks like Darth Shoju as well as us old foggies if they still bougth albums from newer artists that they thought still held this practice.  I had heard that bands like Rage against the Machine and Tool still put out consistenly good LPs in the past 10 years or so.  

Most of my purchasing today, the little I do, is either soundtracks, greatest hits or esoteric stuff from the 1950s (jazz & lounge).  The last full "rock" album I bought was Tom Petty's "Damn the Torpedoes" and it left me feeling like I should have bought the GH instead.  :\


----------



## Darth Shoju (Mar 23, 2007)

bento said:
			
		

> Steelwind,
> 
> I think you're right about history and ideas behind the movement.
> 
> ...




It's been a while since I've bought an album that I thought was more killer than filler. Since you mentioned Rage Against the Machine...I bought their _Battle of Los Angeles_ album and thought it was pretty decent alltogether. It didn't jump out at me to list but it had a pretty good ratio overall. Makes me hope that they stick together after this summer's reunification gigs. Other than that, the last full albums that I bought were The Beatles and older Metallica, so I don't think that really helps to judge the modern album.


----------



## death tribble (Mar 23, 2007)

To my surprise and joy someone else reckons that Siouxsie and the Banshees Tinderbox has no duff tracks.

I also back Nirvana's Nevermind, Soundgarden's SuperUnknown, Alannis Morrisette's Jagged Little Pill, Radiohead's OK Computer and Fleetwood Mac's Rumours.
Others I would pick are Enema of the State by Blink 182, Parklife by Blur, Out of the Blue by the Electric Light Orchestra, Garbage by Garbage, Employment by the Kaiser Chiefs, Hopes and Fears by Keane, What's the Story Morning Glory by Oasis, Americana by Offspring, J Ju by Siouxsie and the Banshees, Soul Mining by The The (Tape version), Eye to the Telescope by K T Tunstall, Get Behind Me Satan by the White Stripes and Pretty Hate Machine by Nine Inch Nails


----------



## BadMojo (Mar 23, 2007)

Some of my favorite best albums:

"OK Computer" - Radiohead
"Raindogs" - Tom Waits
"Aenima" - Tool
"Robot Hive/Exodus" - Clutch

Each one, IMO, perfect from start to finish.


----------



## ghettognome (Mar 23, 2007)

There was a favorite music thread in the off topic forum, here seems to be posting more just good cd's.

Gogol Bordello - any of it is good, but the Underdog World Strike is a great one to start with.
The Exies - Head for the Door
The Union Underground - An Education in Rebellion
The Knife - Silent Shout
Juno Reactor - Bible of Dreams (though pretty much all of it is awesome)
Metallica - Ride the Lightning, Master of Puppets
Primus - Frizzle Fry
Lorenna McKennit - The Visit
Chicago - sndrk from movie
Bloodhound Gang - One Fierce Beer Coaster
Bouncing Souls - (the recent one, can't think of name)



there are more, just can't think of them right now.. will add later.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Mar 23, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> The trouble with this is, you don't know you'll only like the singles or that the other songs won't grow on your.



I listen to 30 second clips of all the songs on iTunes. Amazon typically has a different set of 30 second clips from each song. From there, I usually have a pretty good idea.

I don't buy the singles that the _record company thinks are singles_. Ugh, that would be nuts! I pick the songs I like from having heard them in podcasts or from my own previews of the album online.



> I would argue that if people are just buying the singles, since they aren't exposing you to the rest of their musical ideas, the artist isn't really benefiting.



Making some money instead of no money is a benefit in my book.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Mar 23, 2007)

bento said:
			
		

> Do you think if artists today continued to follow the practice held 20 years ago (trying to make a full album with all the tracks rating a point or two around 7 rather than one that has two songs at 9 and the rest around 3) that the music industry might improve?



You need to define improvement. The singles-driven sales are shooting up -- iTunes is now one of the largest retailers of music in the world. If you want CD sales to return, making better albums might help, but I think there's many more reasons that CD sales are in the toilet, among them high prices, narrow genres that aren't marketed to all the people who might like a group if they were exposed to them (once upon a time, people bought botht he Rolling Stones and the Temptations, and today, they'd never be on the same station) and many more issues.



> It seems like the music industry has little to lose by pushing both approaches.



More studio time costs more money. At least a segment of the music industry would fight that tooth and claw, even if everyone else thinks the end result would be better (and more salable) music.

And folks not finding good new artists out there need to change their approach. Even if you only listen to it on your computer, start downloading music podcasts. They tend to focus on lower profile acts and you will be exposed to a lot of variety very quickly, much of it extremely good.


----------



## Tauric (Mar 23, 2007)

I don't want to talk about the record industry, but yay! a list!

My 'no skip' albums

The Cure:  Disintegration
Rush: Caress of Steel, Power Windows, and Presto
Tori Amos:  Little Earthquakes
NIN: Pretty Hate Machine
Metallica:  Master of Puppets
Weezer:  Make Believe and the Blue Album
Beatles:  Abbey Road
Steve Earl: I Feel Alright
Son Volt:  Trace
Dwight Yoakam:  Last Chance for a Thousand Years
Crash Test Dummies:  Ghosts That Haunt Me
10,000 Maniacs:  Our Time in Eden
Barenaked Ladies:  any record
Cake:  any record
A Perfect Circle:  Mer De Noms


----------



## Glyfair (Mar 23, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Fleetwood Mac _Rumors_  - a truly amazing album




I agree.  Also, I think this helps point out part of a reason why great albums are becoming rarer.

Look at _Say You Will_, Fleetwood Mac's album from a couple of years ago.  IMO, it had an album's worth of great songs on it.  However, because it was on a CD, they didn't feel the need to edit the songs down to the best.  That was mandatory in the days before CDs.  Sure, some bad decisions might leave a great song of an album (witness "Silver Springs" being left off _Rumours_).  However, you'd usually get that song somewhere as a 'B' side.

The best album I have that came out since 2000 was Peter Gabriel's _Up_.  IMO, it had one clinker of a song, and the rest is amazing.  Keeping with PG, "Melt" (aka Peter Gabriel III) hits my list as a true no skip album.

If you want a lesson on how to make a great album, look at the Beatles.  They have a number that have no weak songs on them (Sgt. Pepper's, Abbey Road come to mind).


----------



## Steel_Wind (Mar 23, 2007)

bento said:
			
		

> Steelwind,
> 
> I think you're right about history and ideas behind the movement.
> Most of my purchasing today, the little I do, is either soundtracks, greatest hits or esoteric stuff from the 1950s (jazz & lounge).  The last full "rock" album I bought was Tom Petty's "Damn the Torpedoes" and it left me feeling like I should have bought the GH instead.  :\




_Damn the Torpedoes _ was what... 1979? Youch. This isn't about a lack of good music. Dude, you are just an out of touch old fogey. 

Just because the vinyl album rock style has pretty much vanished does not mean that those who started in the vinyl tradition don't manage to maintain it.  

Sometimes, vinyl means coherency as opposed to Album Rock too. Frankie Goes To Hollywood's _Welcome to the Pleasure Dome_ had *nothing* to do with album rock, but it was still coherent and not a bad song on there.  But yeah - it was still very much a vinyl era product.

As recently as last year, Green Day's _American Idiot _ maintains that old-skool  consistency. (GD's _Nimrod_ in 1997, even more so).  

Arguably Trent Reznor's Nine Inch Nails have always bucked the trend and approached each disc as a coherent whole.  Maybe that *is* fair to say - but NIN are the exception to the rule in about everything that they do.

The Tragically Hip's _Day for Night _ managed little more than middle of the road interest in the USA. In Canada though, The Hip they packed stadiums coast to coast on that album. Even moderate sized Canadian cities filled the stadium fields to bursting. Not one damn song on that disc was bad - but the disc was born of another tradtion and not that of album rock. I actually used to be roommates with the Hip''s lead guitarist, but that album was... lucky.

Ditto with Alanis' _Jagged Little Pill _ - in the post vinyl era, some artists swing for the fences with a collection of songs approach and get lucky.

Last note: as for the "Why can't they just be like the Beatles?" uhmm... they try.   They all try sir. As well ask the playwright to "just be like Shakespeare" or "why not that GB Shaw guy, why can't they be more like him?"

400+ years ago, Shakespeare's work graced the stage at the Globe. It's still performed today, whereas Marlowe is mostly ignored (and some of his works were lost too).

400 years from now, I expect they will still be performing the Beatles in some way, shape or form. Little else from the cultural history of the 20th century will be of interest in 2407 I expect, but the Beatles are a true moment in cultural history where the rules changed and artists were so gifted as to become living history that cut across language, culture, taste, fashion and economic status.

And they still do. And I expect - they still will, in some measure.

Music buffs in the 25th century wil visit McCartney's tomb at Westminster Abbey's Poet's Corner and _sigh_.

You won't see something like the Beatles again in your liftetime. Lightning like that strikes once a few centuries... if you are lucky.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 23, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Look at _Say You Will_, Fleetwood Mac's album from a couple of years ago.  IMO, it had an album's worth of great songs on it.  However, because it was on a CD, they didn't feel the need to edit the songs down to the best.  That was mandatory in the days before CDs.  Sure, some bad decisions might leave a great song of an album (witness "Silver Springs" being left off _Rumours_).  However, you'd usually get that song somewhere as a 'B' side.




I think this is only a factor because you can fit a bit more recording time on a CD than you could on vinyl. There is, however, still a limit. If a band has more hot songs than they can fit in that time, sure, they'll have to make some tough choices. But I think it's not a different process than it was under vinyl.


----------



## Eonthar (Mar 23, 2007)

There are a couple that I have to add:

Green Day - American Idiot  (Great album full of great songs - you should listen to it from beginning to end)

Evanescence - Fallen


----------



## bento (Mar 24, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> _Damn the Torpedoes _ was what... 1979? Youch. This isn't about a lack of good music. Dude, you are just an out of touch old fogey.




I guess the only thing that could make me fogey-er is I purchased it along with Cheap Trick's Greatest Hits!


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 24, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> You won't see something like the Beatles again in your liftetime. Lightning like that strikes once a few centuries... if you are lucky.




Eh, I disagree. Like most truly explosive artistic movements, the Beatles had some running buddies, stars that burned, perhaps not as bright, but will burn as long. Just like Shakespeare had Marlowe and Jonson, the Beatles had the Rolling Stones and the Kinks.


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 24, 2007)

I also have to say I see a lot of people approaching middle age engaging in "these kids today!" type behavior.

No, they didn't stop making good music when we turned 30. We just got old. We're not into what the kids are listening to anymore. 

I mean... there were plenty of crappy one-hit wonders during Elvis' day too. But since it's 50 years later, we only hear the good stuff. 

As a music major in college, I played some absolutely horrid stuff written around the time of Bach and Mozart too. Again, we can gloss over it now and go right for the goods. 

Some of my favorite albums, that are great all the way through, have been released in the past couple of years. But it's not really stuff you'd hear on the radio I expect.

Which, really, is just how it was in the past. Most GOOD bands dont get much radio play and never have. Sure you have the occasional monsters that are both great musicians and have popular acclaim, like the Beatles or Johnny Cash, but for every one of them there's 200 Britney Spears' that are a passing fancy. 

So investigate off the beaten track a little (especially with all the great tips dropped in the thread) and I'm sure you'll find good music hasn't died after all.


----------



## Nightfall (Mar 24, 2007)

I prefer Fogerty over fogey.


----------



## rom90125 (Mar 24, 2007)

90125 - YES
After The Snow - Modern English
76:14 - Global Communication
Sines & Singularities - Bluetech


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Mar 24, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I also have to say I see a lot of people approaching middle age engaging in "these kids today!" type behavior.
> 
> No, they didn't stop making good music when we turned 30. We just got old. We're not into what the kids are listening to anymore.



There was actually a study recently that said it's a brain chemical thing. After age 25 or so, unless you actively work against it, you get set in your ways and think whatever crap you listened to in high school and college is pretty much "it" for great artists.


----------



## Felon (Mar 25, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> You won't see something like the Beatles again in your liftetime. Lightning like that strikes once a few centuries... if you are lucky.



I'll settle for bands that play their own instruments, write their own songs, and in general have control over their own music. 

And that's what the old fogeys are missing. There was a show on TV a few years back called "Popstars" (both a U.S. and British version IIRC). Man, a show like that would've been considered a joke in decades past, as some executive comes in and explains that all the big decisions will be called for them, and the "stars" primary job is just to hit their cues.

Give us our garage bands back, dammit.


----------



## Felon (Mar 25, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I also have to say I see a lot of people approaching middle age engaging in "these kids today!" type behavior.
> 
> No, they didn't stop making good music when we turned 30. We just got old. We're not into what the kids are listening to anymore.




Meh, that's just jejune. The movie industry has just gotten its act together too well. They own all the radio stations now, which is a big problem. Rock has been relegated to "alternative music". What "I'm not into" is formulaic music by people who aren't trying very hard. I don't think Fifty Cents sucks because I'm old. I think he sucks because looping some 5-second hook while reciting one more set of lyrics about how much money you have and how many women you fornicate with and how jealous everyone is of you is just plain stagnation.


----------



## Heckler (Mar 25, 2007)

I'd like to add to the list:

Brian Setzer's _Guitar Slinger_ and the Traveling Wilbury's first album.


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 25, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Meh, that's just jejune. The movie industry has just gotten its act together too well. They own all the radio stations now, which is a big problem. Rock has been relegated to "alternative music". What "I'm not into" is formulaic music by people who aren't trying very hard. I don't think Fifty Cents sucks because I'm old. I think he sucks because looping some 5-second hook while reciting one more set of lyrics about how much money you have and how many women you fornicate with and how jealous everyone is of you is just plain stagnation.




Right, but it was ALWAYS like that. Back when there was rock on the radio, in the days you're talking about, some of it was still Quiet Riot. 

95% of all music will always be bad, tragically hip or transitory, disposable entertainment you listen to a few times and never want to hear again.


----------



## bento (Mar 25, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> There was actually a study recently that said it's a brain chemical thing. After age 25 or so, unless you actively work against it, you get set in your ways and think whatever crap you listened to in high school and college is pretty much "it" for great artists.




I heard about that on All Things Considered (NPR) with Robert Crolich.  I like his science reports!


----------



## bento (Mar 25, 2007)

Heckler said:
			
		

> I'd like to add to the list:
> 
> Brian Setzer's _Guitar Slinger_ and the Traveling Wilbury's first album.




I liked the TW's first album also.  Out of that I purchased a Roy Orbison GHs and probably was part of the reason I picked up the Tom Petty album, although Jeff Lyne had nothing to do with it.   

For me it's not that I'm seeking safe music, I think it's like Felon just wrote - most of the music I hear today is by people who aren't really putting much into it.  I'll take the Chili Peppers from 10 years ago over anything they do today.  

Maybe we're at the point where "it's all been done" so no ones really willing to color outside the lines....

As for Quiet Riot, they ROCKED in 1984.  Big Black Cadillac!


----------



## Felon (Mar 25, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Right, but it was ALWAYS like that. Back when there was rock on the radio, in the days you're talking about, some of it was still Quiet Riot.



Yes, there was always pop music. In the 1970's, there was The Monkees. In the 1980's, there was The New Kids on the Block. The difference? Those bands were considered jokes back then, and whatever success they experienced was considered a fluke. They were for little girls. 

To be a teenager back then, and to hear that the guys this in this band weren't friends who played in their dad's garage--that they were, in fact, a bunch of strangers who couldn't play any instruements or sing, they just met some formula for attracting girls ("heartthrob","big brotehr type", "bad boy")...man, that's not a real band. It was time to turn off the radio and put some good stuff in the cassette player. 

But now the industry has refined the science of creating pop music. They don't need to have agents sitting in seedy clubs looking for garage bands. When was the last time a song with a killer electric guitar solo hit #1 on the billboard charts?


----------



## Nightfall (Mar 25, 2007)

All hail classic Metallica forever! 

Well at least the Metal head.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Mar 25, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Yes, there was always pop music. In the 1970's, there was The Monkees.




1 - The Monkees were the 60s - they broke up in 1970;

2 - They Pre-Fab Four were a joke because they were intended to be a joke. 

3- Despite all that, they were also one of the top selling bands of the 60s,  and outsold the Beatles in 1967. They had 4, count em FOUR no 1 albums that year.

Serious music? Maybe not - but they were never NKotB.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Mar 25, 2007)

Albums from new bands that I think are pretty awesome:
Scissor Sisters
Wolfmother
The Panic Channel
The first album by The Killers
Marty Casey and the Lovehammers

Not quite so new albums that completely rock:
Foo Fighers: The Colour and the Shape
Radiohead: Kid-A
Pearl Jam: No Code, Binural
Iron Maiden: Seventh Son of a Seventh Son, Strange New World
Led Zeppelin: Physical Graffiti
U2: All that You Can't Leave Behind
Stone Temple Pilots: Tiny Music... Songs from the Vatican Giftshop
Paul McCartney and Wings: Band on the Run
Mark Knopfler: Sailing to Philadelphia
Roger Waters: Amused to Death


----------



## Nightfall (Mar 25, 2007)

Darrin,

See I don't mind you chose some good bands, just questionable albums of theirs. Like U2's. I thought that Joshua Tree was a much better album.

But eh.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Mar 25, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> I thought that Joshua Tree was a much better album.



Love it, one of my faves. 

But then I am more into 80s music. I like The Police and Chicago the best.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Mar 25, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Darrin,
> 
> See I don't mind you chose some good bands, just questionable albums of theirs. Like U2's. I thought that Joshua Tree was a much better album.
> 
> But eh.




Yeah, I realize that Joshua Tree was probably their most commercially successful album, but it isn't the one I enjoy most. I think some of the albums I listed are severely underrated.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Mar 25, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> I'll settle for bands that play their own instruments, write their own songs, and in general have control over their own music.



There's a huge independent music scene. Has been for decades. It meets all your criteria and shares your disdain for the mainstream. 



> There was a show on TV a few years back called "Popstars" (both a U.S. and British version IIRC). Man, a show like that would've been considered a joke in decades past, as some executive comes in and explains that all the big decisions will be called for them, and the "stars" primary job is just to hit their cues.



That was how most groups were produced in the 1950s and 1960s. It's not a new phenomenon.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Mar 25, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> 1 - The Monkees were the 60s - they broke up in 1970;
> 
> 2 - They Pre-Fab Four were a joke because they were intended to be a joke.
> 
> ...




Yes and one of them could even play the guitar and another one could sing and made David Bowie change his name (to David Bowie). The other two were scenery. 

But the point is sound; corporate bands can be very financially successful-just look at Journey, Creed or the Spice Girls. Does that equate to quality music? I'd say no, but they must have some sort of appeal at least. Sometimes even bubblegum pop can be worth listening to, even if for just pure mindless entertaiment. I know I have a hard time not singing along when Journey comes on the radio...

"Just a city boy,
born and raised in south Detroit.
He took a midnight train going an-y-where..."


----------



## Nightfall (Mar 25, 2007)

Darrin,

Well not sure about "commerical" but it's the one I listen to the most all the way through.

Fru,

See this is where my belief that you are an alternate version of me comes into play. Cause while I like the Police and Chicago fine, I'm not that into 80s music. Some hair metal, but only after Guns and Roses.


----------



## Felon (Mar 25, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> Serious music? Maybe not - but they were never NKotB.



Sooo...is that you love The Monkees or despise the New Kids?


----------



## Felon (Mar 25, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> There's a huge independent music scene. Has been for decades. It meets all your criteria and shares your disdain for the mainstream.



OK, I'll bite. Who are our guitar legends of the 21st century? Gimme some songs to look for.



> That was how most groups were produced in the 1950s and 1960s. It's not a new phenomenon.



Right, and then came the emergence of hard rock in the seventies, only to die down in the late nineties in favor of prefabricated formula bands all over again. Not sure what music white teenage males were spending their money on then, but way to go, young whippersnappers.  Now rock in virtually all its forms is relegated to "independent" or "alternative" music, with rock stations hard to find on the radio and getting little attention on MTV. What I do hear is pretty awful. I know "Panic at the Disco" actually was a garage band that went mainstream, but god I hope they aren't supposed to be the torchbearer of modern rock.


----------



## Felon (Mar 25, 2007)

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> But the point is sound; corporate bands can be very financially successful-just look at Journey, Creed or the Spice Girls. Does that equate to quality music? I'd say no, but they must have some sort of appeal at least. Sometimes even bubblegum pop can be worth listening to, even if for just pure mindless entertaiment. I know I have a hard time not singing along when Journey comes on the radio...
> 
> "Just a city boy,
> born and raised in south Detroit.
> He took a midnight train going an-y-where..."



Hmm. Well, by what standard do you put Journey in the "corporate band" category? The members had been around since the early seventies. They transitioned into melodic, radio-friendly rock, but I dont' think pursuing mainstreem success through power ballads and arena rock makes one a corporate band automatically; there's gotta be a noticable compromise in quality (as there was with Creed). Heck, I almost get teary-eyed thinking of when you could turn on the radio and there'd be three or four mainstream rock stations to flip between. If that was still the case, I suppose I'd be quick to join Steel Wind, Vigilance, and Whizbang in tut-tutting other fogeys for their inappreciation and general ignorance of modern rock.

Steve Perry and the gang certainly weren't what you'd call prettyboys. Good lord, remember the video for "Separate Ways"? Those guys weren't cut out for primping. Still, I'd say my favorites would be a couple of their most mainstream: "Only the Young", which was actually recorded for the soundtrack for _Vision Quest_ (a truly awful movie that managed to yield two decent songs, the other being Madonna's "Crazy for You"). and "Girl Can't Help It".


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Mar 25, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Fru,
> 
> See this is where my belief that you are an alternate version of me comes into play. Cause while I like the Police and Chicago fine, I'm not that into 80s music. Some hair metal, but only after Guns and Roses.



What about Quiet Riot, Metallica, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Nirvana, etc.

I'm into all that too.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Mar 25, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Sooo...is that you love The Monkees or despise the New Kids?




That would be option #2


----------



## LightPhoenix (Mar 25, 2007)

I should preface this with it being my experience in the US, and not anywhere else.  I know the music scene is different elsewhere... for example, while prog rock declined in the US, it still goes strong in Norway.

I don't think that young kids are really taught to appreciate music, or even really anything about music.  I went to one of the best high schools in the US with regards to music, and I found myself shockingly ignorant of most types of music until I went to college.  Sure, I learned a bunch about classical music... but almost nothing about rock, country, rap, jazz, or even pop.  That's to say nothing of how the music industry works.  All of that I had to learn on my own time.  That's pretty silly, considering I think you could fit a large part of modern music into a year-long course.

I think this deficiency in teaching is in part because we're just not doing it - there are isolated counter-examples (Paul Green being a big one), but they're few and far between.  I think it's in part due to socio-economic pressures - we'd rather have our kids playing piano and violin than guitar and non-classical singing because it "looks better," supposedly.  I think a part of it is that kids generally have different tastes - as we grow up, we tend to like things a little subtler and more complex.

Instead of condemning the RIAA for generally being a bane to the existence of music (which they are), I think perhaps we should seek to educate children about music, let them experience everything that it has to offer, and let them be a more informed consumer.  That's really the only way that the RIAA will change its practices, especially since they're crapping their pants scared in the face of a rapidly changing music environment, what with mp3 players and iTunes-like stores and rampant piracy.

Oh, and random plugs for my prog rockers' albums:

_Scenes From A Memory_, by Dream Theater.
_Brave_ and _Clutching At Straws_ by Marillion.

All three are great albums all around.  Also, consequently, all concept albums.  Go figure.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Mar 25, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Hmm. Well, by what standard do you put Journey in the "corporate band" category? The members had been around since the early seventies. They transitioned into melodic, radio-friendly rock, but I dont' think pursuing mainstreem success through power ballads and arena rock makes one a corporate band automatically; there's gotta be a noticable compromise in quality (as there was with Creed). Heck, I almost get teary-eyed thinking of when you could turn on the radio and there'd be three or four mainstream rock stations to flip between. If that was still the case, I suppose I'd be quick to join Steel Wind, Vigilance, and Whizbang in tut-tutting other fogeys for their inappreciation and general ignorance of modern rock.
> 
> Steve Perry and the gang certainly weren't what you'd call prettyboys. Good lord, remember the video for "Separate Ways"? Those guys weren't cut out for primping. Still, I'd say my favorites would be a couple of their most mainstream: "Only the Young", which was actually recorded for the soundtrack for _Vision Quest_ (a truly awful movie that managed to yield two decent songs, the other being Madonna's "Crazy for You"). and "Girl Can't Help It".




Well it was probably unfair of me to lump Journey in as "corporate" rock-I was likely parroting an opinion of the band propagated by many music critics. I was mainly referring to the revolving line-up of the band and the transition to a more commercial sound with the arrival of Steve Perry. Anyway, I was mostly saying that more commercial music can still be entertaining, if in a vacuous sort of way. IMO there needs to be that distinction between safe commercial music and innovative indie music. The more innovative you are, the more likely you will mainly appeal to a smaller fanbase (with possible exceptions). In order to be wildly successful, by nature your music must be somewhat more generic (to have that wider appeal, people's tastes being what they are). Still, there has to be some sort of balance between innovation and "selling out" and I think some of the best performers find that balance (though it is a shifting balance at times). It's tricky, as you don't want commercialism to stifle creativity, but it is difficult to get widespread exposure without paying some attention to it. At the same time, the record labels need to keep indie music alive and untainted so it can continue to produce the next "sound" or "scene" for them to latch onto (eg. the Seattle scene of the early 90's and the rise of "grunge"). It's a bit of a nasty symbiotic relationship. 

And I understood Steve Perry was fairly popular with the ladies...but I wasn't exactly old enough to really notice at the time.


----------



## bento (Mar 27, 2007)

The following appeared on Salon.com yesterday, which was quoted from the New York Times:

_The end of the album? Ten years ago, record companies had almost ceased putting out singles -- but with the rise of iTunes, as the New York Times writes today, the buying trend has switched so drastically that now it's the album whose days may be numbered. "Last year, digital singles outsold plastic CDs for the first time," reports the paper, and so far this year, "buyers of digital music are purchasing singles over albums by a margin of 19 to 1." Some new artists are being given contracts not to record entire records, but a few songs and perhaps a ring tone -- which might lead to an album if there's a hit. "I think the album is going to die," one media consultant tells the Times. "Consumers who have had iPods since they were in the single digits are going to increasingly gravitate toward artists who embrace that." ("The Album, a Commodity in Disfavor," New York Times) _ 

from Bento the trendwatcher!


----------



## DonTadow (Mar 27, 2007)

My favorite albums are albums where i can pop the cd in and want to replay every song back to back. 

In my top five

Train's first album Train.  Their best work.  Drops of Jupiter was nice but since then the writing has gone down hill.

Matchbox Twenty's first album. A good album of a band who didnt know they were going to make it, just wanted to make good music in florida

The Tony Rich Project "Missing you" and "Butterfly" His songs were far too deep for commercial use. The one hit he had that went to the radio was only popular because people misunderstood the lyrics.  It was the first album I heard were every song fit the central theme of the album, which was about how much he missed his ex-wife.  Butterfly, equally as good, but the theme is a little happier as he has reconciled with his wife. 

Tupac Shakur F*** The World
Sadly most of the new generation of Tupac fans will never really know how talented a writer and producer he was because of the crap stuff they put out of his and the commercial feel of his last two (living) albums . This was the last album he wrote and produced before he got "really" popular. 

Green Day
American Idiot
The best album in recent years.  It amazes me how they produce 11 good tracks and tell a really good story in the process.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Mar 27, 2007)

bento said:
			
		

> The following appeared on Salon.com yesterday, which was quoted from the New York Times:
> 
> _The end of the album? Ten years ago, record companies had almost ceased putting out singles -- but with the rise of iTunes, as the New York Times writes today, the buying trend has switched so drastically that now it's the album whose days may be numbered. "Last year, digital singles outsold plastic CDs for the first time," reports the paper, and so far this year, "buyers of digital music are purchasing singles over albums by a margin of 19 to 1." Some new artists are being given contracts not to record entire records, but a few songs and perhaps a ring tone -- which might lead to an album if there's a hit. "I think the album is going to die," one media consultant tells the Times. "Consumers who have had iPods since they were in the single digits are going to increasingly gravitate toward artists who embrace that." ("The Album, a Commodity in Disfavor," New York Times) _
> 
> from Bento the trendwatcher!




The article continues with:



> In some ways, the current climate recalls the 1950s and to some extent, the 60s, when many popular acts sold more singles than albums. It took greatly influential works like The Beatles’ “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” and the Beach Boys’ “Pet Sounds” to turn the album into pop music’s medium of choice.




Hmmm. Back to the 50s and early 60s you say? Do tell. 



> Many music executives dispute the idea that the album will disappear. In particular, they say, fans of jazz, classical, opera and certain rock (bands like Radiohead and Tool) will demand album-length listening experiences for many years to come. But for other genres — including some strains of pop music, rap, R&B and much of country — where sales success is seen as closely tied to radio air play of singles, the album may be entering its twilight.




Yesterday's NY Times article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/26/business/media/26music.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

So it's vinyl tradition rock styles vs. Mp3 Sesame Street playlists.

I do believe I read that recently...  

/me takes a bow with a flourish.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Mar 27, 2007)

I didn't answer the guitar-driven modern albums question from before. While nothing today sounds exactly like the guitar-driven stuff of the 1970s (which didn't sound exactly like the guitar-driven stuff of the 1980s, either, because that was a different era), folks wanting guitar-heavy rock should check out the Arcade Fire's newest album and the Arctic Monkeys.

I also like the one single I know from Angels & Airwaves -- "The Adventure Begins" -- which has as many soaring guitars as anyone could ever want.


----------



## Nightfall (Mar 28, 2007)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> What about Quiet Riot, Metallica, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Nirvana, etc.
> 
> I'm into all that too.




Yes well there's we "collide" so to speak, alternate reality wise.


----------



## Pants (Mar 28, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Right, but it was ALWAYS like that. Back when there was rock on the radio, in the days you're talking about, some of it was still Quiet Riot.



Who be hatin' on the Riot? 



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> When was the last time a song with a killer electric guitar solo hit #1 on the billboard charts?



While not classic metal really, 'Avenged Sevenfold' can play a mean guitar. They're a little whinier, grungier, and emo than my usual tastes but, their guitarist kicks some butt.



			
				Nightfall said:
			
		

> All hail classic Metallica forever!



Damn right.

Though I prefer Megadeth to Metallica. Bing on 'United Abominations!'


----------



## Nightfall (Mar 28, 2007)

Eh Megadeth has its albums but still not as classic as Master of Puppets or Ride the Lightning. 

Avenged Sevenfold is an awesome band.

*doesn't hate the Riot* Still feel the noise from those boys.


----------



## Pants (Mar 29, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Eh Megadeth has its albums but still not as classic as Master of Puppets or Ride the Lightning.



Blaspheme! 

Meh, I like both.


----------



## Nightfall (Mar 29, 2007)

Pants,

I do that a lot and while I'm more Metallica than Megadeth, it's just as much as I'm more CCR than I am Beatles.


----------



## rom90125 (Mar 29, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I also like the one single I know from Angels & Airwaves -- "The Adventure Begins" -- which has as many soaring guitars as anyone could ever want.




I have this album (gotta love iTunes) and it rocks start to finish.  The album (and band, for that matter) took a lot of flak for sounding like U2-rip off's, but, I really thought this disc was entertaining.


----------



## Nightfall (Mar 29, 2007)

Everyone thinks Emo is a rip of U2. It's not, just not all of it is as good as U2 is.


----------



## Chairman7w (Mar 31, 2007)

"Dirty Mind" or "1999"        Prince
"Sleeping with the Past"    ELton John
"License to Ill"                 Beastie Boys


----------



## Mycanid (Mar 31, 2007)

Hmm ... I'd have to say Oxygene by Jean Michel Jarre - his first, and many still say his best work, which came out in 1976 I think.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Mar 31, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> The article continues with:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The new iTunes "Complete My Album" feature is being rtied to address this some.  Now if you purchase a single, you don't have to pay for it again when you buy the album.  This will allow people to download a single to two from an album, and hopefully after leaving them wanting more, they will go back and purchase the rest of the album.  

Having to pay again has stopped me from buying an album on a couple of occasions because I had already bought a song or two.  I could have just individually purchased the rest of the singles, but some albums have "album only" tracks, and some albums come at a discount to purchasing each of the singles separately.

A few albums to add: 

Kate Bush - Hounds of Love
Planet P Project - Pink World
Midge Ure - Answers to Nothing
Sisters of Mercy - Floodland


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Apr 1, 2007)

David Bowie - _The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars_
Kirsty MacColl - _Titanic Days_
Blondie - _Parallel Lines_
The Tubes - _The Completion Backward Principle_
_Spring Awakening_ - Original Broadway Cast
The Beatles - _Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band_
Pink Floyd - _The Wall_
The Who - _Tommy_
Jerry Goldsmith - _Alien_ soundtrack
10,000 Maniacs -  _In My Tribe_

If I did the list over in another year or two, I don't think it would change much.  All of these have stood the test of time for me, except _Spring Awakening_ which just came out in December.  But knowing myself, I already know it will forever be on my lists of "greats."


----------



## greymist (Apr 1, 2007)

I think Steel Wind hit the nail on the head in describing how the music industry has changed over the years. There was a time when an album was seen as a single piece of work, not a collection of singles. 

Some additions to the list of albums that need no skip track button: 

any of the Police albums
Kings of the Wild Frontier - Adam and the Ants
Billy Idol
Rebel Yell - Billy Idol
Cuts Like a Knife - Bryan Adams
The Cars
Let's Dance - David Bowie
Rio - Duran Duran
I Just Can't Stop It - The English Beat
Kick - INXS
The Kings Are Here - The Kings
Bad Habits - The Monks
A Night At the Opera - Queen
Once Upon A Time - Simple Minds
Stop Making Sense - Talking Heads


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Apr 1, 2007)

greymist said:
			
		

> I think Steel Wind hit the nail on the head in describing how the music industry has changed over the years. There was a time when an album was seen as a single piece of work, not a collection of singles.



In _theory_. The reality was, most of the time, there were a few good tracks on any album, and the rest was crap.

There's still good albums out there -- plenty of modern ones have been mentioned on this thread.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Apr 2, 2007)

greymist said:
			
		

> Kings of the Wild Frontier - Adam and the Ants




Thank you for reminding me that I really need to get this album.  I used to play my brother's copy over and over again.


----------



## DethStryke (Apr 8, 2007)

Plenty of choices I agree with here. One I did not see mentioned:

Counting Crows: August & Everything After

In the larger discussion of the music industry and bands, CC is on their own wave. One of the only bands I know of that has an open agreement for their music distribution that actively allows and encourages live concert bootlegs.

http://trading.countingcrows.com/


----------



## Testament (Apr 19, 2007)

My personal list (heavy on the metal, since that's what I love to listen to)

_Emperor_: Anthems to the Welkin at Dusk, In the Nightside Eclipse
_Nile_: Black Seeds of Vengeance, In Their Darkened Shrines
_Pink Floyd_: The Wall, Dark Side of the Moon
_The Beatles_: Revolver
_Green Day_: American Idiot
_Nine Inch Nails_: The Downward Spiral
_Mayhem_: De Mysteriis Dom Sathanas
_Jet_: Get Born
_silverchair_: Neon Ballroom

I'd put some of Sunn O)))'s work on there (especially Altar and Black One), but they don't have songs, they have waves of sound that blur into one another to make an album


----------

