Great point, Ken! Very few "rookie" artists had double-LP debuts (I can't even think of any....anyone?). It seems one had to earn the right to become indulgent! On the label side, of course, their thinking was that an artist had to earn the right to be that prodigious, with the higher price point inherent, as well as "will sales at all be hindered by" the added bulk, not to mention (as you highlighted) the extra material to wade through.
"Frampton Comes Alive" is an album I've always pointed to as a double-album landmark (curiously, Peter was previously a part of a double-live 5 years before with the "Performance, Rockin' the Fillmore" Humble Pie....also on A&M!). After the "Comes Alive" album went thru the roof, labels began, not just OK-ing, but, clambering for their acts to pump out double-live sets! Interestingly, maybe A&M was encouraged by Kiss Alive, released just 4 months before Frampton's (1/76). I'd love to see sales numbers comparing the two, within each's first year of release!
Cheap Trick, Ted Nugent, Neil Young, Ramones, Thin Lizzy, UFO, The Band, Gentle Giant, and Lynyrd Skynyrd, all came with double-lives in the ensuing 3 years. Even Townes Van Zandt was granted a double-live in '77!
The album's Wiki page (they list references). First, it was on Verve, a label a lot more interested and used to the experimental. Plus, to hear Zappa tell it years later, producer, Tom Wilson, thought the Mothers were a white blues band!
Anyway, several other fascinating tidbits are revealed--like "F.O." was only the second rock double-album, released just a week after Dylan's "Blonde on Blonde", and indeed, the first debut rock double album!
Yeah, I toured with a bunch of the Mothers, post-Zappa (I just saw Don Preston two days ago), I heard the stories about that. They all told me Zappa benefitted from the record companies having zero idea what they were up to in the beginning.
I love to own a physical copy of music I love but, like Mark, I also tend to stream first to decide whether or not I want to buy. If an album runs much over 40 minutes, my heart always sinks a little. A great album I can play on repeat. I would much rather that than have to deal with filler which only dilutes the overall greatness. My favourite band have had a self-imposed ten song limit on every record since album two and I personally think it is the perfect solution. They’ve yet to make a misstep imo.
This preponderance of newer releases being double LPs and including all sorts of crap that should’ve been left on the cutting room floor (wrong medium, but you get what I mean) is probably more to do with the world we live in where a 10-30 second clip on TikTok can go viral in an instant (and somehow then seem “relevant”).
The combination of young people that have grown up with endless space, not constrained by the length of a record, a cassette, or a CD and the tiny attention span that our digital age seems to have spawned are the big culprits here.
Had these sort of releases been coming out 40 years ago they would have been seen as self-indulgent. Now I think it’s just down to “kids being kids” maybe.
This is one reason that I’ll always continue to stream even when I do get back into vinyl - so I can really get to know an album well before deciding to buy it on vinyl. I’m still very much an album guy and for me to love an album (i.e. enough that I would want to buy a physical copy) I really need to at least like every song.
Thank you, Mark! I agree. There's also this need to "justify" the expense -- so reissues get expanded and packed with a lot of stuff so that people feel it's "worth" paying for a physical copy.
I also use streaming as my inbox in terms of music I don't know or I feel I need to get more familiar with before I decide whether or not I like the album enough to invest in a physical copy.
As a collector/avid listener, I tend to stay away from new albums on LP for a few reasons:
1. Quality is lacking. 8 songs at 5 minutes a piece and only 1 or 2 are worth listening to again.
2. They charge the price of 2 LPs and waste so much space on the vinyl. It could easily be 1.
3. I prefer 2 minutes of 30 seconds of something in the 60s because careful thought was put into each song on the album. It didn't feel like filler at all.
3. I prefer 2 minutes of 30 seconds of something in the 60s because careful thought was put into each song on the album. It didn't feel like filler at all.
All these points are spot on, Joe. Sadly this is the case with many new releases (at least in the soul/R&B genre which is the one I tend to follow the most).
Well, I know you haven't explictly written about the question I posed a few weeks ago, but in some ways, this feels like your answer to whether new artists should wait to release vinyl until they've earned it. The answer is probably yes, but make those first releases AS IF they were going to be on vinyl -- because if you make it, someday they will earn the right to be.
Thank you, Faith! I'm still giving your very interesting question careful thought. I'm planning on making a full post about it (of course giving you credit for coming up with such a fascinating question). Interestingly, when I wrote that, I was thinking that artists should, actually, be allowed (sometimes even encouraged) to record on vinyl, merely for the exercise if nothing else, but now, when you say "AS IF", you make me wonder again, as this possibility did not occur to me... which means... back to the drawing board 😂 This must be the most thought-provoking question anyone has asked me in a long time. Hard work, but I love every single bit of it.
RIght, and for practical reasons even beyond what we're talking about here -- because *if* the artist's career endures and let's say they create an early album that stands the test of time, then it would be very inconvenient to have said album be too long to put on vinyl.
Yes, good point! Lots of food for thought. I don't generally like long albums (as a rule, there are exceptions of course), but I realise this is purely subjective.
you can see that most people don't, when you look at streaming numbers for long albums and the way they tend to dwindle with anything that's not an established classic. (of course this also relates to indreasingly short attention spans, which is why we're back in the era of the single again)
*Needless to say, I am not talking about legends and their double-LP masterpieces (White Album, The Wall, and Songs in the Key of Life, to name a few). These artists have more than earned their right. Have I, in fact, earned my right to enjoy them? I’m not sure, but I’m grateful for the privilege.*
is REALLY interesting and very very wise, and I would like to hear more about this.
Thank you! I knew you'd be among the very few (if not the only one) who would pick up on this. I added that sentence at the very last minute, to be honest with you. My original intention was to play a little bit with the difference between "right" and "privilege" on the back of my legal background which I mention earlier in the text. Very broadly speaking, the main difference between a right and privilege (in case you or anyone reading is unaware) is that a right is generally considered to be inherent, i.e. a given, whereas a privilege is granted upon meeting certain requirements and, as such, can be "revoked" or taken away by the issuing authority at any time (e.g. if the conditions or requirements are no longer met). This is (one of the reasons) why we talk about "human rights" as opposed to "privileges", and this is also why freedom of speech is generally considered a right whereas citizenship by naturalisation is typically a privilege which can be revoked on national security grounds if, say, the individual in question engages in terrorism or commits an act of treason.
Purely from a technical point of view, I thought: OK, so I'm not sure I am entitled to this right (is anyone really entitled?) but as things stand now, I can listen to these masterpieces, as they are publicly available, so I am grateful for the privilege.
The legalese word play was my main intention but I did fantasise with a world in which you need to meet certain requirements, kind of "prove" your knowledge/experience, before you can access some works... Haivng said that, if our other dilemma (on artists being able to press their work on vinyl) is controversial enough, I am not sure how this one would go down with, you know, the strong inclusivity mark here on Substack... but I do like to provoke every now and then 😉
It's an interesting question -- do we have the "right" to art? I think artists have a right to create art -- well, anyone has the right to create art -- but do we have the right to experience art? I'd say that the two go hand-in-hand, but that's without giving it serious thought.
And then of course, there's the privilege of earning one's way into connecting with art that's more complex. And that comes from intention and probably also some life experience and a development of one's palette, in terms of discernment.
It took me until about a year ago, for example, to connect with The White Album, and I recognise that was because I wasn't ready to hear and feel what needs to be heard and felt about that album. (Someday that will be an Abbey piece.) And now I can't get enough of it. In fact, I'm vibrating with the need to hear it right now even as I type.
As to strong inclusivity, that's always a great starting point, but there's also merit in having to earn things, including a vinyl release! I think I have one vinyl album by a current artist, not even a new artist, just an artist currently at their peak (Kris Delmhorst's Long Day in the Milky Way) because it's so exquisite I wanted to support her work and to have the vinyl experience with it. Everyone else will have to wait a decade or so before I go there with them.
What you say (everything you are saying) resonates a lot with me. The right v. privilege and, more generally, the "right to art" debate is definitely an interesting one. I also think that not everyone has the inclination/predisposition/ability to work harder and establish deeper connections with art, notwithstanding what they say about "enjoying it". For example, I am sure that, by the standards of most mortals, you already had a very deep and meaningful connection with the White Album, even when you felt or thought you didn't. But then, as you embarked on your own journey (in general, and with that album in particular), you reached new heights, a whole new level of understanding and connection with the album. Saying it "grew on you" would be an understatement and you know what I mean. It's that extra hard work you are willing to put in (sometimes, you may feel compelled, but I believe it ultimately comes from the realm of desire) which, in my view, makes you way more "deserving" of art than the average listener (there, I said it 😂). Just in case any sensitive souls read this and decide to have a go at me, I'm not saying others should necessarily be excluded. But we have to be honest; we can't pretend we all connect with art in the same way...
defintely true about The White Album. and for me, what connected me with it more deeply was a deeper connection with what was happening among the four of them while it was being recorded, which happened because of my hours and hours of research and writing, and also the emotional labour of opening myself up to the story.
I struggle sometimes with interacting with "music people" because unless I have an emotional connection with the artist, I find it almost impossible to connect emotionally or deeply with their art, no matter how masterful it might be, and I won't generally listen to them more than once or for any reason other than research because I don't get much from it when I do.
For me at least, connecting deeply and emotionally with an artist is like falling in love -- no, it *is* falling in love. There's that magical initial spark that no one has an explanation for, and then the emotional commitment to deepening that spark into a relationship. I've only been able to do that with a handful of artists ever -- I could count them on less than one hand -- and with the Beatles most of all.
Without that spark, for me, music no matter how intellectually or aesthetically interesting, isn't anything I'd listen to more than occasionally -- which is why Kevin's "what are you listening to this week?" is a fascinating experience for me. I participate as and when I can, but it puzzles me that so many people can so easily find appreciation for new music in such quantity every single week (or even at all) and with such passion. So every time I tune in to his Monday post, I'm fascinated and confused and a little overwhelmed, wondering if I'm the only one who relates to music in this more (as it were) monogamous way. (I'll let him know about this comment if we wants to weigh in)
This now goes to a whole sideline about why it's especially hard for me to connect deeply with female artists (I never have, actually), but I don't want to get us in trouble on your substack, so I will refrain.... and it also gets us into the territory of the problem of conflation of personal taste with quality, which I also won't get into here, but will get into in the podcast.... if it ever gets written.... and speaking of which, back to it....
Thank you, Faith! It's so interesting to hear your thoughts on this. I can relate with a lot of what you say, particularly the struggle with getting excited about new music in the way you have described. While I do keep an open ear, so to speak, I've always preferred furthering the "bonds" with the artists that have really (as in REALLY) moved me. I think you and I are quite similar in that regard. Are we obsessive and passionate? Most definitely. But it's one of those things which are both a need and a choice.
I don't have that male/female divide you mention, but I can understand it intellectually. At the end of the day, it all comes down to who you connect the most with. Not to dissimilar to sexual preferences: it's not that one discriminates, or wants to exclude, but some things/people/things move us more than others. Good luck with the podcast!
I have recently discussed the great double LP, 'Out Here' by the brilliant band Love with Dan Epstein. Had it been edited down to a single LP it might well be in the discussion with their universally recognized classic 'Forever Changes.' But some filler songs, a ten-minute drum solo, and a ten-minute guitar solo (neither of which ever reaches the heights of John Bonham or Eddie Hazel) make the golden gems somewhat lost in the fluff.
Same with Radiohead's 'Hail To The Thief.' Serious editing would have made it a much better album.
Now, let's talk about the Grateful Dead - live, they would jam for three or four hours and play like three songs! Ok, exaggeration, and they were tripping their brains out on acid - so some grace is given. But Jerry's noodling goes on and on and on. To the casual listener - it's a "for fucks sake, just get on with it!" moment. To the devoted Deadhead (I like them, but I am not a DH), it's absolute bliss.
Thank you, Michael, for your comment! I have less of an issue with length when there’s actual music (e.g. a guitar or piano solo) than when there’s just “stuff” being added as mere ornaments. It was one thing when Janet, Mary J. and Usher did it in the 90s or early noughties… I think many up-and-coming R&B artists have been, understandably, influenced by them… but instead of taking inspiration and creating their own thing, many just go and try to replicate exactly the same… in 2024 🤣
Totally agree that less is more. One of the ‘rules’ I have set myself for each of the albums I have released over the years is that it is never more than 45 minutes, or the length of a C90 cassette which was so important to me growing up. I understand that this might seem pointless to many people but it gives the album focus. Say what you need to say and then leave the room.
Thank you so much, Jason, for your comment, which is particularly relevant as you have released records yourself. I think the “rule” you have set yourself is wonderful, and that your listeners appreciate it probably more than they realise. Thanks again!
Great post. The format question for artists is an interesting topic. If you stick to a format where’s the opportunity to innovate? If you do not at least understand the format is it even possible to go off piste and innovate? If you don’t stick to a recognised format will you gain an audience? To innovate you’ll probably have to make a lot of mistakes / failed attempts… can you take that risk?
I remember being in a fuck-the-format frame of mind in a studio once, a friend, a great musician, came in to have a listen to what started out as a very simple short song but had turned into like a 7 or 8 minute rambling journey. After the playback, he sat back and looked at me, and very politely and mildly said ‘the idea is really great, but don’t you think there’s just a little too much for one serving?’
Thank you, Nic! You raise very interesting and thought-provoking questions. Of course it's tricky to generalise, but I find (and this is purely subjective) that I tend to feel more admiration for artists who manage to innovate and grow without having to tear down the four walls. There are, of course, exceptions, and some works actually do need a complete demolition of at least certain standards. But when artists do that all the time (i.e. when they can only innovate by tearing everything apart), I feel they're kind of taking the easy way out.
That studio anecdote is fantastic. "Just a little too much for one serving" is such a great way of putting it. I think there should always be room for experimentation and creativity, but the whole journey does not always need to be fully accounted for.
Great topic, Andy, and as Marc correctly opined, well written! Your English classroom banner made me think of the late, great Martin Mull's phrase I've quoted for decades (thanks, Marty!)...."Some people have a way with words; others, not have way."
Now, HIS point was slightly different than our topic here, granted. But, I think it can be adopted for this! Martin was able to make his point briefly, and in so doing, he was able to make it no less clear.
It's actually fun to contemplate the limitations to art that may or may not exist when/if we constrain the artist to a shorter format (software). What would Tolstoy have come up with if we had limited his "War and Peace" to a simple pamphlet? "Sorry, pal; leaflets are the wave of the future! Deal!"
What if, instead of an entire ceiling, Michelangelo was confined to, oh, I dunno, just a rudimentary canvas? "Sorry, Mike....your ceiling sales have dwindled lately; I'm afraid all we've got for you is this, from Hobby Lobby! Deal!"
See my discourse, somewhere here, on double-live albums! Would "Kiss Alive" or "Frampton Comes Alive" been any less bitchin' (or more incredible) had they been "limited" to just one slab o' vinyl, however bitchin' and monumental the sales figures for each were? We'll never know. In those instances, those double-lives altered a label (and listener) mind set, pretty much for good (or, at least, for a long time, artistic value judgments notwithstanding)!
You did good, little buddy.......you got me thinking on a Sunday morning!!😁👍
Thank you so much, Brad, for your very kind words. Means a lot, esepcially coming from you!
Yes, that Martin Mull's quote is so good (I think you shared it with me a while back).
You raise very interesting points. I did make a point of excluding masterpieces but then again, when does a masterpiece become a masterpiece? In other words, did these artists know that their work would be considered a masterpiece one day?
More generally, though, I like to make a distinction between works that deserve, or at least call for, a certain format or length, and those which are, in all honesty, merely jumping on a bandwagon, trying to copy or emulate what others did, but without adding a whole deal of creativity of their own. A typical example, as I mention to Michael K. Fell above (or below, depending on your screen) is modern R&B records. It was one thing when Janet, Mary J. Blige and Usher included phone/answering machine "bits and pieces" in their records, kind of like a novelty, given the age of those recordings. But when brand new artists do it now, in 2024, I feel it is so.... reductive, in a way, and no longer relevant.
In addition, as is often the case with soul/R&B, in many cases it's all about the singing, and it frustrates me that many brand new artists seem to be talking or rapping more than they are actually singing. It was one thing for Mariah to make her official crossover into urban when she asked ODB to rap on her "Fantasy" remix in 1995 (with incredibly complex vocal lines of her own, on top of that). That was genius, but it was three decades ago. It paved the way for many more of this type of collaborations that followed over the years. It is now up to the newer generations to come up with something original, some kind of novelty of their own... I'm still waiting! 😂
As for live albums, these are okay, in my view, as concerts tend to be longer than your average studio recording, and live albums will try to replicate (more or less) the concert experience. A lot of fillers, therefore, matter greatly here ("this next song..." intros, audience cheering/reactions, etc.). All of this is part of a live recording so I don't mind these "extras" in this case, as they are important elements that help recreate the live experience.
I just had a conversation with a friend who works at a record store about this. I quit purchasing vinyl about the time I started driving (86-87?) preferring to get cassettes to listen in the car. A brewery does vinyl night on Wednesdays, and next week they are doing the theme of “female artists,” so I looked through what remains of my vinyl collection, and not many women. So, I figured I would be able to find some used vinyl to beef up the female artists in my collection. Of course the 90s was the explosion of female artists, but also when they stopped putting things out on vinyl. I picked up a copy of Fiona Apple Tidal and immediately asked “Why is this so heavy?!” Because it was a double album! I was questioning why a double album, and he was explaining how a lot of stuff from the 90s was longer because the format had changed to CD, which expanded the time available for the recording. Of course they had zero used 90s female artists’ vinyl, but a ton of reissues that were $40-60. Honestly, it was the same for any 80s female artists I checked as well. And I was hugely disappointed. I did leave with a $25 reissue of Sinead O’Connor’s the Lion & the Cobra. It’s one that was originally in my collection, that I loaned to someone and never got back - and one I never would have sold when I was starving in college lol (I sold off a lot of my collection to eat and pay rent in my college days).
Thank you, Kristin! This is so interesting. Of course, 90s records were considerably longer than their 70s and 80s counterparts as the limitations of vinyl were no longer there. I often find that it is still possible to get second-hand early pressings in good condition (and at reasonable prices) of records released in the early 90s (say 1990-1992). Anything more recent than 1992 as a vinyl first press gets tricky (and expensive). Sadly many of these reissues are overpriced and don't sound great compared with the original pressings, but some have been very well made (Amplified Heart by Everything but the Girl comes to mind, as well as Sheryl Crow's Tuesday Night Music Club).
For me, side three was the hurdle every double album, even the great ones, had to clear.
Great point, Ken! Very few "rookie" artists had double-LP debuts (I can't even think of any....anyone?). It seems one had to earn the right to become indulgent! On the label side, of course, their thinking was that an artist had to earn the right to be that prodigious, with the higher price point inherent, as well as "will sales at all be hindered by" the added bulk, not to mention (as you highlighted) the extra material to wade through.
"Frampton Comes Alive" is an album I've always pointed to as a double-album landmark (curiously, Peter was previously a part of a double-live 5 years before with the "Performance, Rockin' the Fillmore" Humble Pie....also on A&M!). After the "Comes Alive" album went thru the roof, labels began, not just OK-ing, but, clambering for their acts to pump out double-live sets! Interestingly, maybe A&M was encouraged by Kiss Alive, released just 4 months before Frampton's (1/76). I'd love to see sales numbers comparing the two, within each's first year of release!
Cheap Trick, Ted Nugent, Neil Young, Ramones, Thin Lizzy, UFO, The Band, Gentle Giant, and Lynyrd Skynyrd, all came with double-lives in the ensuing 3 years. Even Townes Van Zandt was granted a double-live in '77!
Frank Zappa and the Mothers' debut record, Freak Out, was a double-LP
Holy outlier, Batman! Well, I knew there had to be....just didn't know/couldn't remember! Thanks for that!
Yeah, I can't think of another. Zappa audiences are another breed, so I'm not sure any grand logic applies here!
I think I found the answer....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freak_Out!
The album's Wiki page (they list references). First, it was on Verve, a label a lot more interested and used to the experimental. Plus, to hear Zappa tell it years later, producer, Tom Wilson, thought the Mothers were a white blues band!
Anyway, several other fascinating tidbits are revealed--like "F.O." was only the second rock double-album, released just a week after Dylan's "Blonde on Blonde", and indeed, the first debut rock double album!
Yeah, I toured with a bunch of the Mothers, post-Zappa (I just saw Don Preston two days ago), I heard the stories about that. They all told me Zappa benefitted from the record companies having zero idea what they were up to in the beginning.
I believe Chicago's debut was a double, no? "Chicago Transit Authority" on Columbia ca. 1969, too long then and too long now.
Yes, indeed...forgot about that one
I had never thought of this but you raise a very interesting point!
In short… Well written!
Thank you, Marc! I really appreciate your kind words 😊
I love to own a physical copy of music I love but, like Mark, I also tend to stream first to decide whether or not I want to buy. If an album runs much over 40 minutes, my heart always sinks a little. A great album I can play on repeat. I would much rather that than have to deal with filler which only dilutes the overall greatness. My favourite band have had a self-imposed ten song limit on every record since album two and I personally think it is the perfect solution. They’ve yet to make a misstep imo.
Thank you, Lou! I feel the same way. Of course there are exceptions but, as a rule, I tend to favour albums with a runtime of 40 min maximum.
Very interesting what you say about your favourite band -- may I ask which band it is?
Of course! It’s We Are Scientists. They are very much an indie rock/pop band but I love the way that they keep evolving and are hard to pigeonhole.
So cool. Thanks! I’ll check them out
This preponderance of newer releases being double LPs and including all sorts of crap that should’ve been left on the cutting room floor (wrong medium, but you get what I mean) is probably more to do with the world we live in where a 10-30 second clip on TikTok can go viral in an instant (and somehow then seem “relevant”).
The combination of young people that have grown up with endless space, not constrained by the length of a record, a cassette, or a CD and the tiny attention span that our digital age seems to have spawned are the big culprits here.
Had these sort of releases been coming out 40 years ago they would have been seen as self-indulgent. Now I think it’s just down to “kids being kids” maybe.
This is one reason that I’ll always continue to stream even when I do get back into vinyl - so I can really get to know an album well before deciding to buy it on vinyl. I’m still very much an album guy and for me to love an album (i.e. enough that I would want to buy a physical copy) I really need to at least like every song.
Thank you, Mark! I agree. There's also this need to "justify" the expense -- so reissues get expanded and packed with a lot of stuff so that people feel it's "worth" paying for a physical copy.
I also use streaming as my inbox in terms of music I don't know or I feel I need to get more familiar with before I decide whether or not I like the album enough to invest in a physical copy.
As a collector/avid listener, I tend to stay away from new albums on LP for a few reasons:
1. Quality is lacking. 8 songs at 5 minutes a piece and only 1 or 2 are worth listening to again.
2. They charge the price of 2 LPs and waste so much space on the vinyl. It could easily be 1.
3. I prefer 2 minutes of 30 seconds of something in the 60s because careful thought was put into each song on the album. It didn't feel like filler at all.
3. I prefer 2 minutes of 30 seconds of something in the 60s because careful thought was put into each song on the album. It didn't feel like filler at all.
this. and i wasn't even alive during the 60s
I know, right? Same here, on both counts!
All these points are spot on, Joe. Sadly this is the case with many new releases (at least in the soul/R&B genre which is the one I tend to follow the most).
Well, I know you haven't explictly written about the question I posed a few weeks ago, but in some ways, this feels like your answer to whether new artists should wait to release vinyl until they've earned it. The answer is probably yes, but make those first releases AS IF they were going to be on vinyl -- because if you make it, someday they will earn the right to be.
Thank you, Faith! I'm still giving your very interesting question careful thought. I'm planning on making a full post about it (of course giving you credit for coming up with such a fascinating question). Interestingly, when I wrote that, I was thinking that artists should, actually, be allowed (sometimes even encouraged) to record on vinyl, merely for the exercise if nothing else, but now, when you say "AS IF", you make me wonder again, as this possibility did not occur to me... which means... back to the drawing board 😂 This must be the most thought-provoking question anyone has asked me in a long time. Hard work, but I love every single bit of it.
RIght, and for practical reasons even beyond what we're talking about here -- because *if* the artist's career endures and let's say they create an early album that stands the test of time, then it would be very inconvenient to have said album be too long to put on vinyl.
Yes, good point! Lots of food for thought. I don't generally like long albums (as a rule, there are exceptions of course), but I realise this is purely subjective.
you can see that most people don't, when you look at streaming numbers for long albums and the way they tend to dwindle with anything that's not an established classic. (of course this also relates to indreasingly short attention spans, which is why we're back in the era of the single again)
PS This --
*Needless to say, I am not talking about legends and their double-LP masterpieces (White Album, The Wall, and Songs in the Key of Life, to name a few). These artists have more than earned their right. Have I, in fact, earned my right to enjoy them? I’m not sure, but I’m grateful for the privilege.*
is REALLY interesting and very very wise, and I would like to hear more about this.
Thank you! I knew you'd be among the very few (if not the only one) who would pick up on this. I added that sentence at the very last minute, to be honest with you. My original intention was to play a little bit with the difference between "right" and "privilege" on the back of my legal background which I mention earlier in the text. Very broadly speaking, the main difference between a right and privilege (in case you or anyone reading is unaware) is that a right is generally considered to be inherent, i.e. a given, whereas a privilege is granted upon meeting certain requirements and, as such, can be "revoked" or taken away by the issuing authority at any time (e.g. if the conditions or requirements are no longer met). This is (one of the reasons) why we talk about "human rights" as opposed to "privileges", and this is also why freedom of speech is generally considered a right whereas citizenship by naturalisation is typically a privilege which can be revoked on national security grounds if, say, the individual in question engages in terrorism or commits an act of treason.
Purely from a technical point of view, I thought: OK, so I'm not sure I am entitled to this right (is anyone really entitled?) but as things stand now, I can listen to these masterpieces, as they are publicly available, so I am grateful for the privilege.
The legalese word play was my main intention but I did fantasise with a world in which you need to meet certain requirements, kind of "prove" your knowledge/experience, before you can access some works... Haivng said that, if our other dilemma (on artists being able to press their work on vinyl) is controversial enough, I am not sure how this one would go down with, you know, the strong inclusivity mark here on Substack... but I do like to provoke every now and then 😉
It's an interesting question -- do we have the "right" to art? I think artists have a right to create art -- well, anyone has the right to create art -- but do we have the right to experience art? I'd say that the two go hand-in-hand, but that's without giving it serious thought.
And then of course, there's the privilege of earning one's way into connecting with art that's more complex. And that comes from intention and probably also some life experience and a development of one's palette, in terms of discernment.
It took me until about a year ago, for example, to connect with The White Album, and I recognise that was because I wasn't ready to hear and feel what needs to be heard and felt about that album. (Someday that will be an Abbey piece.) And now I can't get enough of it. In fact, I'm vibrating with the need to hear it right now even as I type.
As to strong inclusivity, that's always a great starting point, but there's also merit in having to earn things, including a vinyl release! I think I have one vinyl album by a current artist, not even a new artist, just an artist currently at their peak (Kris Delmhorst's Long Day in the Milky Way) because it's so exquisite I wanted to support her work and to have the vinyl experience with it. Everyone else will have to wait a decade or so before I go there with them.
What you say (everything you are saying) resonates a lot with me. The right v. privilege and, more generally, the "right to art" debate is definitely an interesting one. I also think that not everyone has the inclination/predisposition/ability to work harder and establish deeper connections with art, notwithstanding what they say about "enjoying it". For example, I am sure that, by the standards of most mortals, you already had a very deep and meaningful connection with the White Album, even when you felt or thought you didn't. But then, as you embarked on your own journey (in general, and with that album in particular), you reached new heights, a whole new level of understanding and connection with the album. Saying it "grew on you" would be an understatement and you know what I mean. It's that extra hard work you are willing to put in (sometimes, you may feel compelled, but I believe it ultimately comes from the realm of desire) which, in my view, makes you way more "deserving" of art than the average listener (there, I said it 😂). Just in case any sensitive souls read this and decide to have a go at me, I'm not saying others should necessarily be excluded. But we have to be honest; we can't pretend we all connect with art in the same way...
defintely true about The White Album. and for me, what connected me with it more deeply was a deeper connection with what was happening among the four of them while it was being recorded, which happened because of my hours and hours of research and writing, and also the emotional labour of opening myself up to the story.
I struggle sometimes with interacting with "music people" because unless I have an emotional connection with the artist, I find it almost impossible to connect emotionally or deeply with their art, no matter how masterful it might be, and I won't generally listen to them more than once or for any reason other than research because I don't get much from it when I do.
For me at least, connecting deeply and emotionally with an artist is like falling in love -- no, it *is* falling in love. There's that magical initial spark that no one has an explanation for, and then the emotional commitment to deepening that spark into a relationship. I've only been able to do that with a handful of artists ever -- I could count them on less than one hand -- and with the Beatles most of all.
Without that spark, for me, music no matter how intellectually or aesthetically interesting, isn't anything I'd listen to more than occasionally -- which is why Kevin's "what are you listening to this week?" is a fascinating experience for me. I participate as and when I can, but it puzzles me that so many people can so easily find appreciation for new music in such quantity every single week (or even at all) and with such passion. So every time I tune in to his Monday post, I'm fascinated and confused and a little overwhelmed, wondering if I'm the only one who relates to music in this more (as it were) monogamous way. (I'll let him know about this comment if we wants to weigh in)
This now goes to a whole sideline about why it's especially hard for me to connect deeply with female artists (I never have, actually), but I don't want to get us in trouble on your substack, so I will refrain.... and it also gets us into the territory of the problem of conflation of personal taste with quality, which I also won't get into here, but will get into in the podcast.... if it ever gets written.... and speaking of which, back to it....
Thank you, Faith! It's so interesting to hear your thoughts on this. I can relate with a lot of what you say, particularly the struggle with getting excited about new music in the way you have described. While I do keep an open ear, so to speak, I've always preferred furthering the "bonds" with the artists that have really (as in REALLY) moved me. I think you and I are quite similar in that regard. Are we obsessive and passionate? Most definitely. But it's one of those things which are both a need and a choice.
I don't have that male/female divide you mention, but I can understand it intellectually. At the end of the day, it all comes down to who you connect the most with. Not to dissimilar to sexual preferences: it's not that one discriminates, or wants to exclude, but some things/people/things move us more than others. Good luck with the podcast!
I have recently discussed the great double LP, 'Out Here' by the brilliant band Love with Dan Epstein. Had it been edited down to a single LP it might well be in the discussion with their universally recognized classic 'Forever Changes.' But some filler songs, a ten-minute drum solo, and a ten-minute guitar solo (neither of which ever reaches the heights of John Bonham or Eddie Hazel) make the golden gems somewhat lost in the fluff.
Same with Radiohead's 'Hail To The Thief.' Serious editing would have made it a much better album.
Now, let's talk about the Grateful Dead - live, they would jam for three or four hours and play like three songs! Ok, exaggeration, and they were tripping their brains out on acid - so some grace is given. But Jerry's noodling goes on and on and on. To the casual listener - it's a "for fucks sake, just get on with it!" moment. To the devoted Deadhead (I like them, but I am not a DH), it's absolute bliss.
By the way, this comment is 178 words! 😉
Thank you, Michael, for your comment! I have less of an issue with length when there’s actual music (e.g. a guitar or piano solo) than when there’s just “stuff” being added as mere ornaments. It was one thing when Janet, Mary J. and Usher did it in the 90s or early noughties… I think many up-and-coming R&B artists have been, understandably, influenced by them… but instead of taking inspiration and creating their own thing, many just go and try to replicate exactly the same… in 2024 🤣
Totally agree that less is more. One of the ‘rules’ I have set myself for each of the albums I have released over the years is that it is never more than 45 minutes, or the length of a C90 cassette which was so important to me growing up. I understand that this might seem pointless to many people but it gives the album focus. Say what you need to say and then leave the room.
Thank you so much, Jason, for your comment, which is particularly relevant as you have released records yourself. I think the “rule” you have set yourself is wonderful, and that your listeners appreciate it probably more than they realise. Thanks again!
The slogan is a keeper :-) Hadn't heard that one before. Great (and concise) piece and I couldn't agree more
Thank you so much! Really appreciate your kind words. Yes, the slogan is definitely a keeper, and I love how "universal" it is.
Great post. The format question for artists is an interesting topic. If you stick to a format where’s the opportunity to innovate? If you do not at least understand the format is it even possible to go off piste and innovate? If you don’t stick to a recognised format will you gain an audience? To innovate you’ll probably have to make a lot of mistakes / failed attempts… can you take that risk?
I remember being in a fuck-the-format frame of mind in a studio once, a friend, a great musician, came in to have a listen to what started out as a very simple short song but had turned into like a 7 or 8 minute rambling journey. After the playback, he sat back and looked at me, and very politely and mildly said ‘the idea is really great, but don’t you think there’s just a little too much for one serving?’
Thank you, Nic! You raise very interesting and thought-provoking questions. Of course it's tricky to generalise, but I find (and this is purely subjective) that I tend to feel more admiration for artists who manage to innovate and grow without having to tear down the four walls. There are, of course, exceptions, and some works actually do need a complete demolition of at least certain standards. But when artists do that all the time (i.e. when they can only innovate by tearing everything apart), I feel they're kind of taking the easy way out.
That studio anecdote is fantastic. "Just a little too much for one serving" is such a great way of putting it. I think there should always be room for experimentation and creativity, but the whole journey does not always need to be fully accounted for.
Great topic, Andy, and as Marc correctly opined, well written! Your English classroom banner made me think of the late, great Martin Mull's phrase I've quoted for decades (thanks, Marty!)...."Some people have a way with words; others, not have way."
Now, HIS point was slightly different than our topic here, granted. But, I think it can be adopted for this! Martin was able to make his point briefly, and in so doing, he was able to make it no less clear.
It's actually fun to contemplate the limitations to art that may or may not exist when/if we constrain the artist to a shorter format (software). What would Tolstoy have come up with if we had limited his "War and Peace" to a simple pamphlet? "Sorry, pal; leaflets are the wave of the future! Deal!"
What if, instead of an entire ceiling, Michelangelo was confined to, oh, I dunno, just a rudimentary canvas? "Sorry, Mike....your ceiling sales have dwindled lately; I'm afraid all we've got for you is this, from Hobby Lobby! Deal!"
See my discourse, somewhere here, on double-live albums! Would "Kiss Alive" or "Frampton Comes Alive" been any less bitchin' (or more incredible) had they been "limited" to just one slab o' vinyl, however bitchin' and monumental the sales figures for each were? We'll never know. In those instances, those double-lives altered a label (and listener) mind set, pretty much for good (or, at least, for a long time, artistic value judgments notwithstanding)!
You did good, little buddy.......you got me thinking on a Sunday morning!!😁👍
Thank you so much, Brad, for your very kind words. Means a lot, esepcially coming from you!
Yes, that Martin Mull's quote is so good (I think you shared it with me a while back).
You raise very interesting points. I did make a point of excluding masterpieces but then again, when does a masterpiece become a masterpiece? In other words, did these artists know that their work would be considered a masterpiece one day?
More generally, though, I like to make a distinction between works that deserve, or at least call for, a certain format or length, and those which are, in all honesty, merely jumping on a bandwagon, trying to copy or emulate what others did, but without adding a whole deal of creativity of their own. A typical example, as I mention to Michael K. Fell above (or below, depending on your screen) is modern R&B records. It was one thing when Janet, Mary J. Blige and Usher included phone/answering machine "bits and pieces" in their records, kind of like a novelty, given the age of those recordings. But when brand new artists do it now, in 2024, I feel it is so.... reductive, in a way, and no longer relevant.
In addition, as is often the case with soul/R&B, in many cases it's all about the singing, and it frustrates me that many brand new artists seem to be talking or rapping more than they are actually singing. It was one thing for Mariah to make her official crossover into urban when she asked ODB to rap on her "Fantasy" remix in 1995 (with incredibly complex vocal lines of her own, on top of that). That was genius, but it was three decades ago. It paved the way for many more of this type of collaborations that followed over the years. It is now up to the newer generations to come up with something original, some kind of novelty of their own... I'm still waiting! 😂
As for live albums, these are okay, in my view, as concerts tend to be longer than your average studio recording, and live albums will try to replicate (more or less) the concert experience. A lot of fillers, therefore, matter greatly here ("this next song..." intros, audience cheering/reactions, etc.). All of this is part of a live recording so I don't mind these "extras" in this case, as they are important elements that help recreate the live experience.
Thanks again!
Makes me think of Mark Twain's aphorism -- "I'd have written you a shorter letter, but I didn't have the time." Truth. It's always harder to be brief.
Spot on!
THAT'S funny....and, oh so true!
I just had a conversation with a friend who works at a record store about this. I quit purchasing vinyl about the time I started driving (86-87?) preferring to get cassettes to listen in the car. A brewery does vinyl night on Wednesdays, and next week they are doing the theme of “female artists,” so I looked through what remains of my vinyl collection, and not many women. So, I figured I would be able to find some used vinyl to beef up the female artists in my collection. Of course the 90s was the explosion of female artists, but also when they stopped putting things out on vinyl. I picked up a copy of Fiona Apple Tidal and immediately asked “Why is this so heavy?!” Because it was a double album! I was questioning why a double album, and he was explaining how a lot of stuff from the 90s was longer because the format had changed to CD, which expanded the time available for the recording. Of course they had zero used 90s female artists’ vinyl, but a ton of reissues that were $40-60. Honestly, it was the same for any 80s female artists I checked as well. And I was hugely disappointed. I did leave with a $25 reissue of Sinead O’Connor’s the Lion & the Cobra. It’s one that was originally in my collection, that I loaned to someone and never got back - and one I never would have sold when I was starving in college lol (I sold off a lot of my collection to eat and pay rent in my college days).
Thank you, Kristin! This is so interesting. Of course, 90s records were considerably longer than their 70s and 80s counterparts as the limitations of vinyl were no longer there. I often find that it is still possible to get second-hand early pressings in good condition (and at reasonable prices) of records released in the early 90s (say 1990-1992). Anything more recent than 1992 as a vinyl first press gets tricky (and expensive). Sadly many of these reissues are overpriced and don't sound great compared with the original pressings, but some have been very well made (Amplified Heart by Everything but the Girl comes to mind, as well as Sheryl Crow's Tuesday Night Music Club).
Thank you! Idlewild by Everything But the Girl is in my collection. I’ll have to look for Amplified Heart! I like Sheryl Crow too!
The half-speed remaster of Amplified Heart sounds great -- it's worth every penny. And much cheaper than an original pressing.