fuzmeister: The Bloated Double Album
There's a lot of talk on the internet and amongst music fans regarding the double album (and some even discussing the elusive triple LP). There have been times when I agree with the critics and times when I do not.
One example is the Beatles' self-titled album (white album). As a pretty hardcore Beatles fan, I don't really believe that too much Beatles is an issue. Also, I've always felt like the variety of styles on that album keeps it from feeling stale. I always hear people cite this as a prime example of why the double album isn't a good thing. George Martin himself thought they should have whittled it down to just the best tracks!
Another fine example of the double album is Pink Floyd's "The Wall." At only around 81 minutes, the double album would have almost fit on a compact disc today. I think that this album works really well - again, there's enough variety in the tracks and the overall mood changes drastically enough during the course of the album that it works. Of course, I don't think I ever really appreciated the album until viewing 1982's film version.
Some double albums such as Foo Fighters' "In Your Honor" would work better with each disc being a separate release (for you non-fans, one disc is a rock record while the other is acoustic material). While I've never heard the two most recent albums by System of a Down, they took the approach of releasing the albums months apart, but acknowledged them as sort-of comparison pieces.
Overall, the double album is a very strange beast indeed. I'm trying to give "Physical Graffiti" another chance this afternoon, but it just feels like so much of it isn't prime Zeppelin material.
What does everyone else think about double albums? What about the album format in general now that we're in the era of iTunes?
Mood: Fatigued
Music: Led Zeppelin - Ten Years Gone
Tags (beta): music
There's a lot of talk on the internet and amongst music fans regarding the double album (and some even discussing the elusive triple LP). There have been times when I agree with the critics and times when I do not.
One example is the Beatles' self-titled album (white album). As a pretty hardcore Beatles fan, I don't really believe that too much Beatles is an issue. Also, I've always felt like the variety of styles on that album keeps it from feeling stale. I always hear people cite this as a prime example of why the double album isn't a good thing. George Martin himself thought they should have whittled it down to just the best tracks!
Another fine example of the double album is Pink Floyd's "The Wall." At only around 81 minutes, the double album would have almost fit on a compact disc today. I think that this album works really well - again, there's enough variety in the tracks and the overall mood changes drastically enough during the course of the album that it works. Of course, I don't think I ever really appreciated the album until viewing 1982's film version.
Some double albums such as Foo Fighters' "In Your Honor" would work better with each disc being a separate release (for you non-fans, one disc is a rock record while the other is acoustic material). While I've never heard the two most recent albums by System of a Down, they took the approach of releasing the albums months apart, but acknowledged them as sort-of comparison pieces.
Overall, the double album is a very strange beast indeed. I'm trying to give "Physical Graffiti" another chance this afternoon, but it just feels like so much of it isn't prime Zeppelin material.
What does everyone else think about double albums? What about the album format in general now that we're in the era of iTunes?
Mood: Fatigued
Music: Led Zeppelin - Ten Years Gone
Tags (beta): music
![[Valid RSS]](themes/mario-world/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
One the other hand, Moby's 'Hotel' was a 2-discer, the first being some of his absolute finest work while the second was a forgettable bunch of ambient tracks. I think of Disc 2 as bonus tracks and that lessens the sting.