Has streaming ruined "the album"?

[Crungy]

@spudmunkey I hadn't even considered the technology, going from vinyl to mp3 players. I definitely didn't skip much on vinyl and cassette as a kid. Especially with tapes because it seemed like that chewed up batteries lol

 

[The Pierce Paradox]

I’m still an album guy. Even with streaming. Select the album on my phone and then go. Especially with proggy stuff. DT, Haken etc

 

[p0ke]

I still listen to full albums back to back almost exclusively despite also streaming exclusively. The exception being when checking out a new band or when a single gets released. I also still buy ~10-15 albums per year even though I basically never even take the CD's out of their cases, because streaming is just that convenient.

But yeah, I guess in terms of exposure it makes sense to drop one song at a time these days, but it can definitely be done without killing the album. It seems like most bands drop half the album as singles one song at a time during the promotion period, and I don't see any problem with that.

Maybe in terms of mainstream pop music the album is indeed dead, but in metal it's definitely just as alive as ever IMO.

 

[ItWillDo]

I think the album in its classical form (f.e. compact disc with 8-13 tracks) made a lot of sense in the 80s/90s/2000s as it solved the logistical problem of delivering music to the consumer. The downsides of it were that artist/producer would of course try to cram as much content as they possible could on it, which often also resulted in filler songs.

The latter logistical problem simply doesn't exist anymore due to streaming services, so I also don't see a need to distribute music in large albums. Considering producing music is now much easier than it ever has been, I think bands should revisit classic strategies as well. Instead of putting out an album in one big drop, you're probably much more able to retain interest among the competitors if you just put out (qualitative) stuff on a regular basis.

For introductions/new bands, I think the EP format with 3-5 songs still makes most sense as it gives a much better idea of the direction/vision of a band than just releasing one song.

 

[Demiurge]

For introductions/new bands, I think the EP format with 3-5 songs still makes most sense as it gives a much better idea of the direction/vision of a band than just releasing one song.

I agree that EPs are good for both offering a concise introduction to a band as well as enforcing some QC. The issue I think is that a touring band- even if they're new- needs enough of a repertoire to fill a set. It's probably hard to write a full set of material and elect to not record & release it all.

I say this as last night my wife took me to see a new band she likes. Their debut came out last month and their headlining set was every song on the record and went for less than an hour. If that duration sits on the borderline of what's enough, how many EPs do there need to be for a headline-worthy set?

 

[ItWillDo]

I agree that EPs are good for both offering a concise introduction to a band as well as enforcing some QC. The issue I think is that a touring band- even if they're new- needs enough of a repertoire to fill a set. It's probably hard to write a full set of material and elect to not record & release it all.

I say this as last night my wife took me to see a new band she likes. Their debut came out last month and their headlining set was every song on the record and went for less than an hour. If that duration sits on the borderline of what's enough, how many EPs do there need to be for a headline-worthy set?

To be fair this sounds like a very rare/luxurious position to be in as a starting band though haha! I know back in the days, we used to opt for a cover song/crowd pleaser or 2 in case the set wouldn't do. But it was also a matter of being level-headed and maybe giving more space to the other bands in case we know we couldn't fill it.

 

[SalsaWood]

There are a ton of bands who do nothing but release an EP and then disappear. I don't know why, but I assume it's because they run out of creativity or realize that being an amateur musician sucks ten miles of dong per second, per second. It's weird it happens so much nowadays, but I guess viable studio recording is a lot more accessible which would explain most of it. It's a shame, though. Lots of them are/were very talented and worth seeing even if their sets would be as short as their EP.

 

[budda]

I agree that EPs are good for both offering a concise introduction to a band as well as enforcing some QC. The issue I think is that a touring band- even if they're new- needs enough of a repertoire to fill a set. It's probably hard to write a full set of material and elect to not record & release it all.

I say this as last night my wife took me to see a new band she likes. Their debut came out last month and their headlining set was every song on the record and went for less than an hour. If that duration sits on the borderline of what's enough, how many EPs do there need to be for a headline-worthy set?

Short sets rule. Especially when bands take their sweet time setting up and tearing down. Most sets are 20m unless you’re the headliner. If your EP is 12min and you talk or have breaks to fill 3 minutes, you probably just got the show back on schedule.

 

[Perge]

I think the current album/merch/tour/repeat cycle that all but the biggest bands are stuck in right now just to be financially viable has more to do with it. Add in the fact that FOMO sells and it makes more sense to crank out limited edition singles and merch than get stuck on a cohesive album theme for too long, especially if it doesn't sell how you thought it would. I get it. Look at how The Acacia Strain dropped Decay. People buying multiple copies to trade for the ones they couldn't get ahold of. Dropping each single with multiple variants. That's making the new model work for you as a producer.

But as a consumer? Nah. Streaming has made full albums more accessible than ever. You just have to be willing to put the time in. As a person who loves listening to music, my metal and punk playlists are full of full albums. If you like laid to rest, you're probably going to like the rest of ashes of the wake. If you like cuntcrusher, you're probably going to like the rest of the palpable leprosy of pollution.

This idea a full album has to be the equivalent of a seventh son of a seventh son musically to be "worth it" as album is dumb.

 

[wheresthefbomb]

Short sets rule. Especially when bands take their sweet time setting up and tearing down. Most sets are 20m unless you’re the headliner. If your EP is 12min and you talk or have breaks to fill 3 minutes, you probably just got the show back on schedule.

I remember opening for a punk/grind band on a national tour, we're a podunk town and don't usually get stuff like that. The woman doing the booking at the bar was asking me about set times because I put the lineup together and goes, "they're flying 3000 miles to play 10 minutes!?! that doesn't seem right..." I told her she could ask them that

 

[MFB]

Individual songs are for Pandora/Youtube/playlists, but if I'm going to Spotify, you bet your ass I'm in for a day of listening to albums front to back; shit, I'll go further and say I don't trust anyone who doesn't listen this way, and can ONLY listen to music as individual songs. Like, what the fuck is wrong with you? You mean to tell me after you hear, "Bodom After Midnight," your brain isn't hard-wired to want "Children of Decadence" to follow? And when THAT'S over, you're not just waiting for the GOAT of the entire album "Everytime I Die" and that sweet No More Tears-style opening lead? The fuck outta here!

 

[Emperor Guillotine]

> 2004: "the ability to conveniently purchase single, individual songs off iTunes has ruined the album format!"

> 2024: "the ability to conveniently stream any songs that have been licensed to music streaming platforms has ruined the album format!"

Glad to see that some topics never change even decades later.

Technology hasn't "ruined the album format". Consumers have simply rendered the traditional, full-length album format superfluous.

 

[GunpointMetal]

The industry ruined the album 40 years ago when they needed bands to put something out ASAP after a previous release.

 

[budda]

The industry ruined the album 40 years ago when they needed bands to put something out ASAP after a previous release.

The industry ruined bands.

 

[gabito]

My take is that most people never listened to full albums. They used to buy albums because that's where the music was available, but they only cared about the hits.

Now they can choose. Or they can let some algorithm choose for them, like the radio and MTV did before.

That said, I don't care much about singles or EPs. I usually listen to them a few times and forget about them. I like albums, and I think that a 45 minutes or so album is ideal. I don't usually skip songs, unless it's a ballad.

 

[Emperor Guillotine]

The industry ruined the industry.

Fixed.

Or alternatively, consumers ruined the industry.

 

[SalsaWood]

Yea, blame them. God, I hate them/that. All their fault.

Meanwhile I would download a free rip of a literal library (true story), a car, a gun, a house- YOUR house, your mom (another true story), your dog, and your seas if I could.

 

[Xaios]

I do think that not all albums have the legs to be full albums and could be improved by cutting out filler, and that many albums don't really deserve to exist as the product they're marketed as due to the presence of said filler. However, I also feel like a great albums have a higher ceiling of... well, greatness, than any collection of singles has. As such, I'd rather tolerate the existence of albums that only have a few songs worth listening to amongst the filler if it means that the occasional great album that might not exist in light of a paradigm shift away from albums in general will also still get made, as opposed to potentially tossing the baby out with the bathwater.

I don't think the album is actually likely to die anytime soon though, so meh.

 

[Demiurge]

My take is that most people never listened to full albums. They used to buy albums because that's where the music was available, but they only cared about the hits.

Now they can choose. Or they can let some algorithm choose for them, like the radio and MTV did before.

For the most part, I'm sure you're right. People who just want the hits aren't exactly wringing their hands over how the music industry has changed. It's only getting easier for them to get the experience they want.

On the other hand, there's always talk about such-and-such gear, genre of music, publishing format, etc. being declared dead or irrelevant at every turn. But they're not- they're just unpopular. And if we're here, it's probably because we make or at least enjoy things that have never been popular which means we should feel free to do what we want. Make your LP. Make your EP. Or, do what I'm doing, and work on a 45 because competently recording two short songs feels like enough of a fucking feat on its own right now

 

[GraemeH]

I can think of plenty of albums where, when taken in isolation, half the tracks may sound like "filler" - as in you'd never go out your way to play that one track on its own because you craved listening to it - but when you're taking the time to listen to the album as a whole, are critical to the "vibe" and the "journey" and you appreciate their presence.

Sometimes bands also just have funny tastes in what they consider the single tracks; DragonForce's new album's least good two songs (Triforce and Doomsday) were the pushed singles and are the two they play live. Every *OTHER* track is a banger.

It also depends on how established a band is; if a young band is still hustling for recognition and engagement, they're incentivized more heavily to lean into the single structure and get those two or three tracks shared as much as possible to boot-strap the network effect of awareness. If your band pre-dates streaming and you have a loyal and established fan base, singles do almost nothing for you.

When a band I know I like bring out a new album, I'll listen to it 2-4 times a day for at least a week so I don't misjudge it and dismiss it if it lacks "single-ey" tracks.

tl;dr; superficial music gonna be superficially consumed, who cares.