The Myth of the Album

After lamenting the shortcomings of digital music, my good pal Ed posted a great comment on the history of the single, from 78s through Itunes. I strongly recommend giving his posting a read.

But the issue of the single, or individual song, verses the album or LP is one that I think shapes and often distorts appreciation of rock music. As Ed points out, the notion of an album as anything more than a collection of singles only began sometime around the 1960s. People often point to Sgt. Pepper or Pet Sounds as the first "concept albums," and while these certainly aren't the truly long-form operatic works of a Pink Floyd album, they are probably some of the earliest (mainstream) examples of artists crafting the sound of the album as a whole.

As the pageantry of bands like Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin came to dominate rock in the 70s, the album trumped the single as the true mark of musical supremacy. From this notion sprung the belief among rock purists that ALL songs by ALL bands are intended to be consumed only in the context of their given album.

I myself was long afflicted with this condition. Early on, in an effort to hone my rock appreciation, I scoffed at my previously collected Greatest Hits albums as, in the words of Kids in the Hall's Bruce McCullough, being "for housewives and little girls." From that moment on, my collection was built on honest, God-fearing albums and boxed sets. Not only that, but if I liked a song by an artist, I withheld judgment on the artist until I could confirm that the album the song came from was any good. If, as often happens, the song was quality but the album was rubbish, I denied my enjoyment of the song as merely a cheap tease.

While some artists truly produce albums, many do not. Rolling Stones albums, for instance, have never felt to me like any more than a collection of singles written over the same period of time. I defy any album Nazi to explain to me the difference between "Yield" and "No Code" era Pearl Jam. But it would be tough to argue that the Stones or Pearl Jam have never written any music worth listening to.

Nick Hornyby's recent "Songbook" is a great collection of essays paying tribute to the single. The official Rock Guy of Literature outs himself as a devotee of the song, one who spins the same 3-minute cut repeatedly in search of something more. He's also not afraid to confess his admiration for tracks by The Boss and Nelly Fortado.

This is not to say that the album shouldn't be appreciated and revered as a form in itself. The album is the feature film of popular music. Whatever a great song can do for 3 minutes, a great album can do for 45. If the house was burning down, I'd say goodbye to "Gimme Shelter" and "Betterman" and grab a hold of "Revolver" and "Nebraska." As limiting as it is to only appreciate the album, a sole focus on the single is probably worse - spawning "Now That's What I Call Music, Vol. DIE ALREADY!"

I guess the challenge is to appreciate each 3-minute single on its own merits, and hey, maybe even use Itunes to build a collection of them. Maybe digital music will even allow artists who work in smaller chunks to release their material that way - without surrounding the gems with a bunch of filler Album Nazi's will call "essential context."

And for those who do work in terms of albums, give me a disc I can hold onto, cover art and 45 minutes to enjoy.