/mu/ - Music (Temp full images)

it's because bleps only listen to single tracks so doing that occasionally would make you an occasional blep

because most of the music /mu/ likes comes in an album format

Because that is the way the artist intended you to listen to their music, as an entire album.

>>36760487
because songs are packaged as an album and so there is the intention to experience it as a whole and listening to only one song dilutes the experience of the music - i.e., the album is more than just the sum of its parts because of how the songs are arranged

>>36760535
kinda like most of the photography /p/ likes comes in a series/exhibition/set format so that's why you always have to look at the whole set in the correct order if you wish to look at a photograph

>>36760571
[citation needed]

you're supposed to listen to albums from start to finish without skipping, that's what the artist intended.


you don't look at 1/4th of a painting, you look at the whole painting.

also if you delete songs of an album leave this board

>>36760646
If they didn't, then why did they present it like that?

>>36760487
I really think pop artists should just release EP's full of all their singles. No need to pad the release with a bunch of filler crap.

However, I would not want the album format to disappear. I can appreciate an artist that still strives to creates music that fits into the "album" model-I'm a sucker for concept albums, which I do think should be listened to in a specific way.

>>36760654
but not every album is meant to be listened to as a whole, there are plenty of albums where the tracks have no connection to each other

it's just the way i prefer most of the time

that's all

Listening to single tracks is like going on YouTube to watch a 2 minute clip of a movie

>>36760692
yeah shitty pop top 40 albums

>>36760654
was about to make this analogy in >>36760589
but ended up not doing it but yeah thats basically how i feel about it

>>36760654
>that's what the artist intended.

aahahahahahahahahahah

No, thats what the record label intended because they make more money (not from /mu/tants obviously).

Only concept albums = books

>>36760692
That music is not worth listening to

>>36760692
>I don't see a connection in the tracks
>therefor the artist never intended it
nah

>in car with gf
>put on album
>"let me see your iPod anon"
>"wtf why am I scrolling through artists?? go to songs!"
>i-i only listen to albums
>"you're so weird. such a hipster"
>wtf
>proceed to have her go through all the songs and find creep by Radiohead

>>36760720
>only listening to albums produced by record companies

>>36760720
>>36760720
[citation needed]

>>36760708
>>36760727
Yeah right.

>>36760654
a music album is an album of music pieces, a painting is a single piece that is often a part of a series

fuck fuck fuck ass dick why do people suck at analogies when it comes to this matterso bad

>>36760720
>record labels make money from albums

>>36760757
>I think there's no connection between songs, so there must not be a connection between songs

>>36760760
>what is mixed media art
>what is collage
lol

it's just my personal preference to listen to albums in their entirety

>>36760736
also that was the only song she knew besides obligatory Beatles shit.

>>36760757
Yeah, and that was obviously intended for people to hear one song and none of the rest, amirite?

>>36760760
upset?

Some albums are meant to be listened to as a single cohesive unit and tracks often build off each other and have great transitions. Black Foliage and 666 for example

But this is not true for all albums and the hivemind is stupid for thinking it

>>36760783
You know that it's a compilation album right?
>>36760796
Your reading comprehension is terrible.

>>36760802
>I'm a tripfag, therefore I'm right

>>36760817
>listening to compilation albums
ok that's more embarrassing, let's talk about that

I think a lot of you are missing the point. I'm not attacking the album format, I'm attacking the mindset that it is the ONLY correct way to hear music.

Because if you are going to make a judgment about a band or musician, IMO it's better to go off of an album instead of hearing just one song.

>>36760707
more like watching a single episode of a series
HOW DREADFUL

>>36760787
what does namedropping unusual media have to do with anything
>what is conceptual art
#SERVED lelelelelele

>>36760802
If it wasn't though, then the artists would have split the album into singles.

But they didn't. Hence it was intentional and needs to be listened at once.

>>36760646
>kinda like most of the photography /p/ likes comes in a series/exhibition/set format so that's why you always have to look at the whole set in the correct order if you wish to look at a photograph

this is the best way to put it really, it gives the work context.

CD > AIFF > v0

rip and tag yourself

>>36760854
>not listening to compilations
wow check out this pleb

>>36760817
>compilations

>>36760854
why shouldn't I listen to the most important cool jazz album of all time?

Listening to a single song is like watching a single scene from a movie

The reason the format is like that is because back in the day when everyone was listening to vinyl records, it was much more of a hassle to skip through songs and pick the ones you want, so most people would just let the whole album play through, and it's for that reason we expect albums to be solid/consistent all the way through
Singles had their own format

>>36760858
>what does namedropping unusual media have to do with anything
Look up what I am describing, maybe you'll understand how you are wrong. :3

>>36760858
watching only a single episode of a series is fucking stupid though

what like you only watch the 5th episode of season 2 of breaking bad? that's ridiculous

>>36760858
Only watching S02E06 or something of Breaking Bad is kinda dreadful actually

>>36760895
>compilation
>album

I bet you tell people you listen to Miles Davis without even listening to his full length albums

>>36760904
Season 2 Episode 5

>>36760908
Season 2 Episode 6

>>36760858
>more like watching a single episode of a series
This is actually a pretty accurate analogy.
Many shows can only be watched in order and you have to watch the entire series to understand what is going on. However, other shows allow you to skip around and only choose your favorite episodes to watch from each series. However, there are often small connections between each episode so you're missing out on a little bit extra if you only watch individual episodes.

>>36760487
It's unfortunate the way you're prescribing a course of action to such a large group of people. It might do you good to generalize less. Furthermore, listen to things the way you like, and don't get defensive if other people think you're doing it wrong. As long as you're happy, that's what matters.

Faggot.

>>36760896
>Listening to a single song is like watching a single scene from a movie
bullshit

>>36760487
it's like only watching some scenes from movies, which noone does

>>36760929
damn, I think this is the correct answer

>>36760921
are you seriously trying to dismiss it just because it's a compilation album?

>>36760868
Which is more efficient, to release 10 songs togehter on one record or 10 songs on 5 different smaller records?

>>36760834
I'm not allowed to give my opinion because I use a trip?

>>36760908
>>36760904
>>36760896
>>36760858
>>36760707

>all these fucking idiots

a scene of a movie or an episode of a series is nothing like listening to a song you retards.

most songs are designed to work as standalone pieces of art.

i can't even believe i'm having to explain this to you

ITT: some anons think this is 1955

>>36760720

>he actually thinks this

>Hey do you like Full Metal Jacket?
Yes, I love that movie oh my god
>What's your favourite scene?
lol I only watch the first 10 minutes

>Hey do you like Radiohead
Yes, I love that band oh my god
>What's your favourite album
lol I only listen to Creep it's awesome

>>36760980
.....except you called me an idiot for agreeing with you

>>36760972
yes.

>>36760980
>most songs are designed to work as standalone pieces of art
That are collected into one standalone art, the album. Do you seriously have trouble comprehending that?

>>36760972
basically, that's like listening to Radiohead's greatest hits album and saying you listen to Radiohead

>>36761007
>>36761020
What if the artist compiled the compilation themselves?

>>36761007
>>36761020
so I guess a boxset of Beethoven's 9 symphonies is shit as well because it's a compilation album?

>>36760896
an album is usually not a single piece

it is not

no

>>36760904
what if you watch it every now and then if there's something special to enjoy about it, or maybe you give it another watch because there's something essential about the storyline that went over your head on the first time

wow fucking ridiculous what the fuck wow who would do that

>>36760787
those can be part of a series, artists do that all the time, especially with mixed media.

>>36761048
well a boxset of albums wouldn't be a compilation, I'm talking about throwing on random songs from different albums and putting it onto 1 album

>>36760868
No they wouldn't. Why the fuck would anyone do that.

>>36761051
i don't say you should only listen to songs as an album

but if you have never listened to the album you're retarded

>>36760929
exactly, and then there are series that are abstract in nature (just like most of the entire fucking medium of music) that have some kind of a scriptual or aesthetic backbone that isn't necessarily essential to the experience

I find listening to full albums more convenient. Usually when I listen to music I have as much time as I want, and I find it tiring to have to choose many single songs just to take up an hour. However, I can easily pick 1 or 2 albums I feel like listening to, In addition, I listen to all my favorite albums as full pieces and listening to a song from them without the context of the previous and next tracks would feel incomplete.

>>36761051
if you do that then you're not entitled to hold an opinion on the series because you have absolutely no idea what's going on, save for those few episodes

this entire thread is fucking stupid.

unless there is clearly a unifying theme across all the tracks in an album, the artist almost definitely did not intend for you to listen to the album from start to finish every single time.

why would you assume that the artist wrote every piece of the album in connection with the other pieces. can't someone just write standalone pieces that they put together as a compilation that is their album?

fucking senseless retarded /mu/fag elitism

>/fit/ reporting his 2 cents

>>36761068
but thesongs on birth of the cool hadn't appeared on other albums yet, that doesn't change that it's a compilation album

>>36760980
There are some shows whose episodes standalone, which why I think the analogy works. The Simpsons doesn't have much continuity between episodes, and is a great show. Similarly, some albums are made with tracks that are related, but don't need to be listened to in order, and don't necessarily form any kind of cohesive unit.

>>36760589
Well that is idiotic. Most bands have the album format because it is expected. There is no rhyme or reason for their order other than they needed to come up with an order to package it for the plebs out there. Of course some albums are the exception but most have no logic behind the order of the tracks.

>>36761000
listening to single tracks =/= listening to exclusively single tracks

listening to single tracks =/= not listening to albums

>not wasting your time listening to mediocre filler songs
>not being autistic
shiggy diggy doo

>>36761059
My point is that the artist assembled one piece from unconnected sources. That is the analogy to an album of unrelated songs. Both should be taken as a whole, even when the pieces are unrelated.

>>36761097
okay, but when an artists chooses their tracklisting they usually put a lot of thought in it and plan it out with the mindset that their listeners are going to listen to the album from start to finish

>>36761078
Is that all you got?

>>36761019
oh my god you're actually this fucking stupid

watching a scene of a movie requires context, the movie follows a narrative and you need to have seen the film up to that point to understand what's going on. the correct comparison to this would be... listening to a clip of a song.

now please fuck off forever

>>36761097
BUT IF YOU LISTEN TO SINGLE SONGS IT MEANS YOUVE ONLY HEARD A FEW SONGS AND NEVER LISTEN TO ANY ALBUMS

>>36761156
How is that any different than an album? Are you saying that songs need no context?

>>36760671
>keeping shitty songs

^_^ oh, anonn

>>36761111
nice quads

but even with the simpsons there's the little things that carry over between episodes and the reoccurring characters/jokes/themes. You won't miss out on a whole lot, but you'll be missing stuff if you didn't watch the series from beginning to end, like an album

>>36760796
The point was that the songs had no connections to each other. Don't backtrack because you were proven wrong.

If it is some major mainstream artist, then listening to it through album order is not a big deal because executives and producers decide the order.

if it is an independent artist then album order has been crafted by the artist itself, so it would make sense to respect.

pleb.

ITT: faggots who only listen to big label albums and think song order doesn't matter

>>36761043
if you take songs from albums that are related in some way or find a new way to relate them and create new context for the pieces that in can make sense. that being said it's not always the same as a 'best of' album entire made up of singles.

>>36761152
Do I really need anymore? That's a stupid idea. How much is a single? $5-$10? How much is a album? $12-$15? People often want to buy full albums, because they get more for their money. Similarly, for record companies it's more economical to release songs in larger groups on one physical object than to press a record or make a CD for every one or two songs.

>>36761249
You didn't answer my question. Try again.

>>36761051
>what if you watch it every now and then if there's something special to enjoy about it, or maybe you give it another watch because there's something essential about the storyline that went over your head on the first time

that would require watching the entire series first you dolt.

>>36761176
yes, and that is exactly why you NEED to spend 7 hours watching a Simpsons season on one sit for consistency and full experience

You listen to the entire album until it's coherent, then you can enjoy the songs separately.

>>36761273
In the digital age when music can be released for $1 or less?

Think harder and try again. Albums are released because that's what the artist intended. You simply can't get around this fact and have been avoiding it all through this thread.

F# A# infinity is better when listened completely from beginning to end. The Haxan Cloak's Excavation is better when listened from beginning to end. They are like that because the songs/parts are really, really long and the whole album feels like an experience. But there are also albums that you just listen through the first time, then pick the cherries and listen to those alongside with other good picks.

But I think real /mu/tants know that you listen what you want, how you want and are just here to give recommendations and guidance.

>>36761290
Except albums are usually around an hour long.

>>36761285
yes but >>36761125

>>36761290
cool strawman, albums are usually not 7 hours long

>>36761176
Sure, the songs on albums are going to be mostly written, almost definitely recorded, around the same time. So they'll have some relationship. But it's not necessarily going to contribute much, and it's possible that the artists did not have any intention of the songs being listened to in order. I'm sure some albums are just put out because the band needed to put out an album, and these are the songs they had written.

>>36761068
>>36760921
>>36760895
>implying that most jazz albums aren't essentially compilations

>>36761344
so you only listen to major label albums. please leave.

>>36760757
Compiliations are a different format than albums in the same way that boxed sets are.

>>36761309
yes, and that is why there is no excuse to spend 5 minutes listening to a single track when you can listen to 10 others, that you don't want to listen to, at the same sit

>>36761305
>albums that you just listen through the first time, then pick the cherries and listen to those alongside with other good picks
NO YOU NEED TO PICK ONE

you either listen to full albums like a patrician or single songs like a plebeian

>>36761352
>thinks he knows jazz music by listening to 5 jazz albums

>>36761352
NO THERE NOT COMPILATIONS THE ARTIS SPEND LOTS OF TIME THINKING BOUT THE TRACK ORDER

>>36761396
What if the artist spent lots of time thinking about the track order of a compilation?

I guess this is why every thread on /mu/ is filled with unintelligent morons who throw out their invalid opinions and claim it's valid; if you don't listen to the full album from start to finish you are not entitled to an opinion on the album an shouldn't be discussing it.

The way I see it, it's not about continuity or even listening to an album as a standalone piece of art, or even the artist intending for you to listen to the music in a certain order. If someone releases a disc full of music, they probably want people to listen to all of it, because why else would they play all that music and make it available to you? If you only listen to a few tracks off of an album, you're devaluing all the hard work that went into the other songs that they want you to listen to.

>>36761409
NEEDS TO BE LISTENED IN ONE SIT ITS ALBUM THAT IS SINGLE PIECE OF ART TO BE ENJOYED IN ITS ENTIRETY

>>36761128
oh sorry i misread your post. I actually agree with you.

>>36761425
this

>>36761427
If someone releases a disc full of music, they are offering a collection of pieces that can be experienced in it's entirety

>>36761444
That is correct.

I tend to either listen to music by album or in a playlist I've put together. I don't like the idea of putting an album on shuffle though, seems counter to what the artist intended. That said though, I don't have any problem just listening to individual songs and it's pretty stupid to get one's panties in a knot about it.

>>36761377
Now that's just utter bullshit m8, or then being a patrician = listening to shit and saying it's good.

>>36761300
If there is an exclusively digital album, like when In Rainbows first came out, then of course it was intended to be listened to that way. But I don't think that the existence of the album indicates that it was intended to be exclusively listened to as a whole (or why would there be separate tracks?). Recording time is also more conveniently purchased in chunks, and most of the time there is a record or CD pressed, which pretty much necessitates an album.

Either way, I think music would still be released as albums just as a hold-over from times when releasing single tracks wasn't an option. Record companies aren't about to overhaul their paradigm unless it's obviously going to make them more money.

>>36761316
okay

so am I supposed to always listen to Wagner's ring cycle in one siting as well?

I'm deeply confused.

So, having listened to a full album for the first time (which, once again, I never said was a bad thing) what do /mu/tants do when they find they like the whole album but hate one track? (because obviously they do given how negative everyone is constantly. it's never enough to just like an album, you have to whine that Electioneering 'ruins the flow' or whatever). Do you then force yourself to listen to a track you hate whenever you listen to this album?

>>36761558
>listening to Classical music

Of course you're not FORCED to listen to an album in its entirety every single time - mainly for practical reasons - but you certainly have to if you intend to properly analyse it. We have come a long way since albums were just collections of singles, and in several genres separated from popular music the concept of a single (or dettachable parts even) doesn't even make sense. Length and track placement play a role in what the artist is trying to convey and express through a particular format (the album), it's not just a random compendium of unrelated pieces (or at least shouldn't).

The closing track in Converge's Jane Doe doesn't nearly have the same impact when listened alone. It's still an amazing piece of music, but the obvious intent of its placement within the album is lost. Take a single track out the middle of Music for 18 Musicians and it still sounds beautiful, but you're missing the sense of progression, the buildup and the realisation that it's part of a bigger scheme of interacting patterns and complex intrincacies.

That said there's nothing wrong with enjoying individual tracks, but albums are meant to be listened in their entirety.

>>36761581
Wagner was romantic you idiot

>>36761581
>not listening to classical
plenus maximus

>>36761574
you won't fully digest an album after 1 listen, it will take multiple listens. When I come across an album where once song is bad and listen to it anyway; sometimes that song will grow on me and I'll actually end up liking it. It's happened pretty often.

>>36761648
>misspelling pleb
summer already?

how do any of you people cope in social situatio-

oh, right. haha

>>36761678

>>36761678
>being this new
new arrival of /b/tards already?

>>36761681
>on mu
>how do YOU PEOPLE
whatever you say

>>36760487
Obviously it's because most of rock music is served primarily in album formats, which is 90% of what a typical /mu/tant listens to.

The rest is self-explanatory as out our /mu/goer applies the exact same logic to the other non-rock 10%. This is how Boards of Canada or Portishead fans happen.

>>36761700
>>36761681
#rekt

>>36761097
you're right but you were apparently trolled.

only idiots and new people think you HAVE to sit through and listen to every single album.

there's a bunch of good answers here that are similar to yours but OP and/or other people are trolling you into replying to them again.

>inb4 trolls try to troll and/or insult

>>36760654
>>36760732
>>36760727
>>36760708
Hey can you guys tell me how to listen to The Seer? I mean, the record has a TOTALLY DIFFERENT track order from the cd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seer_%28Swans_album%29


it's almost like, I dunno, you guys are all retarded.

>>36761700
>>36761717
wow, is it that easy to troll nowadays?

>ctrl+F: pacing
>no results found
Enough with the bullshit analogies, the biggest reason to listen to a full album (besides a concept, if there is one) is pacing and context. Songs are chosen in an order to (hopefully) bring out the best in each track. A song might be pretty good on its own, but then becomes amazing when placed at the end of an album, with all the previous songs leading up to a final line of lyrics or musical motif. Hell, even the simple idea of staggering slow and fast songs helps to amplify their qualities.

For a recent example, the interlude tracks on the new Deafheaven album are pretty good on their own, but work beautifully as breaks between the bigger, louder tracks. On top of that, they help the others tracks seem EVEN BIGGER in comparison. Context is everything.

>>36761574
You can skip the songs that suck, but you have to give each song a chance at least
just skipping through willy nilly on your first listen is going to completely fuck the flow of the album, but any time after the first listen I say it's ok

I try to balance my listening of single songs and albums, it usually just depends on my mood. Often with groups like Anco or Can I will often listen to the whole thing, but If I want to hear MF DOOM I'm gonna listen to my favorite songs off different albums

>>36761793
if that's what you call trolling

>>36761795
please see >>36761778

>>36761778
if you have the record, listen to it the way they intended it to. If you have it digital or on cd, listen to it the way they intended those formats to be listened to


do you have autism?

>>36761814
lol nice damage control

you got trolled hard bro, deal with it

>>36761795
THIS SO MUCH.

Are you trying to tell me that miss fortune would be nearly as mind-shattering if it didn't have possibly the greatest 2 song build-up of all time leading up to it?

>>36761826
One of those tracklists makes for a much better listening experience than the other (the CD one), showing that context and pacing are indeed important.

>>36761745
>>36761745
>This is how Boards of Canada or Portishead fans happen.

I don't even know what this means. I like both those bands. But if occasionally I just happen to feel like listening to Glory Box or Aquarius or something, what's so wrong with that?

>>36761856
g2bed CLT

>>36761856
yes

>>36761881
probably with the LP they paced it so that when a side ended it flowed well

>>36761905
That's not Ke$ha

>>36761881
See, now you're using your own judgment to decide how to listen to the album.

Do, do you see how that makes you stupid?

>>36761778

You honestly can't tel the alternative sequencing on vynil is determined by format limitations? And even in that case they probably took some time thinking how to properly organise the tracklist. If you think a band like Swans approaches questions like this in a "lol watever" way you are most likely the retarded one.

>>36761901
I implied that bands of that kind are only really taken seriously by rockists who search for a full album experience they are used to

>>36761942
If you prefer the LP tracklisting than cool, no problem. My point was simply that context and pacing are important and a good reason to listen to a whole album. Not really sure what you're trying to argue here.

>>36761942
jesus christ, just listen to the fucking album. NO MATTER WHAT MEDIUM YOU HAVE IT ON JUST FUCKING LISTEN TO IT THEY WAY IT CAME IN

some artists change up the LP tracklist so that side A,B, C, D etc. flow well with eachother and don't abruptly stop a song


jesus christ guys. fuck.

>>36761915
Well you'd be wrong, if that album had any other track order it would completely fuck the flow

Imagine how shitty it would be if they started with Miss Fortune and ended with Why do You Eat Carrots?, it wouldn't make sense. The end of MF is a complete summarization of the entire theme of the album, it completes the cycle and all of the abstract motifs and concepts are realized at once, it is the defining moment of the album, it gives sense to the noises you just experienced.

I'm gonna listen to Remain in Light starting with Houses in Motion right now, and it's gonna be awesome.

>>36761121
Maybe if you listen to shit music. Any musician who takes their work seriously would put at least some thought into how the songs are arranged.

>>36762023
n-no p-please don't

ITT: Kids who never strayed from the instructions that came with their lego.

I saw a documentary about this a while ago. I think a lot of people would do well to watch this.

What it basically said was up to the 50s and 60s albums were never really packaged as a whole piece of art and often just featured popular songs and packed with filler to make up sufficient material for release, it was just about justifying the price of admission rather than treating it as a single entity with interconnected tracks. A lot of early albums were essentially no different from compilations. It was a lot more common for artists to use covers of other songs in their albums rather than writing entirely new material. Bands took a lot of liberties back then, for the most part.

Supposedly Bob Dylan was one of the first artists to change the way people viewed albums as it was unusual for something to release an entire album of original music. The way albums were viewed as a complete work was a paradigm shift that occurred during the 60's. Bands like The Beatles who originally started out releasing shameless pop songs and a lot of filler grew artistically and obviously pioneered more experimental music with concepts in the mainstream as they matured as a band

It's actually all very interesting how the modern album format came about and because of the reputation of how album formats can be used to effect a narrative or artistic connection between songs, people are more considerate of the artists' intentions and themes that run in albums. That said, some albums don't follow any narrative and still are, in the simplest sense, a collection of songs. I don't need to provide examples, I think we all have our own opinions and can think of albums which follow either trend. Context is everything.

>>36762064
I hope you understand how bad the analagy is (albums are "pre-built" by the artist).

Album or single piece, it depends on the listener's personality. I much believe that according to MBTI, judger types prefer full albums more than perceiver types.

There is no right or wrong in this question. Whoever listens to single tracks isn't like "HURRDURR Imma feel liek eeroplain ova da see den IM dun xd". Single track listeners usually prefer compiling track order by themselves. For example, compiling tracks to go from easy-listening to progressively more thoughtful, from happy to sad, starting out from liquid DnB and moving on to more massive anthem trance/hardstyle etc.

Of course there are also people who love order and "originally intented by artist" so they prefer albums by albums, rather than individual compositions of single or cherry picked tracks.

I also agree that if you are passionate about the artist and listen to whole album, it adds extra dimension, in a way of storytelling, but once you have gone through the story, why not combine your favourite chapters from good albums tastefully into a single 3 hour playlist?

>>36762118
>analagy
Fuck. You know what I meant.

>>36762016
it could possibly make it a worse album, but nevertheless the quality of music would stay the exact same

pacing is not really as important as you'd might think

>>36762023

Side A is supposed to be the funkier one, while the other one's more ambiental. The sequencing in that album is pretty obvious. Of course, you're still entitled to listen to it the way you please, even if it goes against the band artistic intent.

>>36762005
You are angry. Don't be angry.

Also, don't tell me how to enjoy music. That is not only ridiculous, but pretty arrogant, too.

>>36761997
My point is that there is not one "right way" to listen to an album. Just because the artist had a reason to put the songs in a certain order doesn't mean it's the best one. Otherwise, every album would just be a single track.

>>36761984
I know why they did it, but it still means there are at least two "right ways" to listen to the album. So if I were to listen to the CD version in the LP order, the earth probably won't collapse in on itself. Stands to reason, then, that there are other "correct" ways to listen to music.

>>36762135
>it would make it worse
>but it would stay the exact same

that makes sense, flawless logic bro

>>36761795
and then there are tons of neutral tracks that offer an experience of the same quality inside and outside context and you can listen to them whenever the fuck you want

>>36762064
ITT: varying degrees of mental disabilities

>>36762124

>MBTI

That's it, the thread hit rock bottom

>>36762124
>why not combine your favourite chapters from good albums tastefully into a single 3 hour playlist?
Because after I've listened to an album enough times to call it a favorite, I can't break it up. Once one track finished, I anticipate the next and it would feel wrong to have a different song follow it.

The OP was one of the only rational things ITT

>>36762151

>Stands to reason, then, that there are other "correct" ways to listen to music.

... No? Because every other track sequencing is your interpretation, not the artist's.

>>36760692
>>36760720
>>36760946
>>36760980
>>36761506
>>36761097
>>36761121
>>36761156
>>36761344

All of you need to listen to better music

>>36762231
what about other good albums?

>>36762151
>>36762161
To clarify, I was never trying to claim that there's a right way to listen to music, I was simply giving OP a reason why many people choose to only listen to albums, which is what he originally asked.

>>36761558
If you want to gain a full appreciation for Flight of the Valkyries, then yes.

No one is going to fucking arrest you if you listen to single songs, but context and development of ideas matters.

Well I guess people see it like, 'well you woudn't only read certain chapters from a book, would you?', but i listen to single tracks all the time anyway

>>36762279
a track that doesn't need a pretentious concept monolith to back it up is certainly better than a one that does

>>36762363
but it's 15 hours long, I really do not have the time for that

>>36762301
Same thing. If I haven't listened to an album enough to have all the tracks connected in my mind, I'll listen to it fully some more so I know I'm not missing anything important on each listen, and eventually I will view the album as a full piece.

>>36761121
I've seriously never hoped this hard in tenure on /mu/.

>>36762257
Ridiculous. Imagine all of the old albums (pre-cd) that would have different track orders if cd's had been around at the time. Only reason the re-releases on cd's are in the same order is just for consistency. Imagine all the extra, boring filler you'd have in every album if LP's were capped at 120 minutes instead of 70. You are taking the end result for granted.

>>36762348
ah ok, I agree with you then.

>>36762399
K

>>36762157
Quality of an album depends only on how aptly the tracks are placed around. This is the main disadvantage of the format, because the final reaction may depend on the order in which they will hear them.

I probably wouldn't even like Faust if it wasn't for its aesthetic. Pacing and even the composition only really relate to the continuity, which is of much more value in an album format.

>>36762394

I can tell how limited your exposure to music is from that reply alone.

>>36762460
>they
mental leap, I mean the listener

>All these plebs coming out of the woodwork

No wonder this board has been shit lately.

>>36762348
>I was simply giving OP a reason why many people choose to only listen to albums, which is what he originally asked.

No, I was more asking about the first part. I thought I made it pretty clear that there's nothing wrong with listening only to full albums if that's what you want, I was questioning the attitude that it is the only correct way to listen to music.

TBH this thread has not given much of an answer beyond "/mu/tants are unpleasant autists"

>>36762394
>30-80 minute album
>pretentious concept monolith

If you say so

>>36762446

lolwut

When albums were defined by the LP format, artists would shape their length and sequencing with that format in mind. Now they do the same for CDs.

Did you just suggest that artists feel compelled to fill the entire length of CDs or LPs just because? Because most of them didn't even fill 70m LPs.

>>36760487
I prefer listening to whole artists. I like to take in their whole discography and decide if I like the band or not.

>>36762670
>band
lmao drop trip

>>36760487
>limit the range of ways they can listen to it
Not true, I also go and see live performances of music.

It's not the only way to listen to music but as a method of appreciating the work of an artist it's truer to their visions to observe the album as a cohesive piece of work. If an artist wants a single track from an album to be heard by itself they release it as a single, normally accompanied by a music video to the enhance the experience of that single song.

>>36760720
If record labels wanted to make more money they'd release each track as a single with a higher individual price than the combined price for an album.

>>36762817
Except they wouldn't, because if this worked, they would already be doing it.

The fact is most artists do not have the songwriting talent to release every song they write as a single. (Of course according to the people ITT, writing a successful single requires no talent whatsoever, but that's another discussion entirely)

>>36762888
>Except they wouldn't, because if this worked, they would already be doing it.
They already do.

/mu/ likes concept albums, which are good to listen to straight through.
However, they don't have to be. A good concept album will have good songs, regardless of whether or not they're listened to straight through. You might reach a slightly better understanding of the particular song, but it should also act as a good standalone.

Some albums are meant to be listened to as a whole, even if they're not quite concept albums the rest of the album still provides proper context.

For other albums that are little more than a collection of singles (or even compilations and best of) it's still more enjoyable to listen to similar music in 45 minute chunks than in 3 minute chunks.

>>36763623
>>36763863
Most concept albums are just a ploy to make you listen to the whole thing even if you just want to hear a single part.

Jesus, just how stupid are people around here? You are getting forcefully fucked up the asshole and you ask for more. It's almost like you're unaware of how much of fucking tools the recording companies make you, like children.

>>36764029
Except that most music is independently released.

>>36764029
What the fuck are you talking about? Concept albums are an attempt to utilize the media (CDs, albums) for some kind of artistic purpose. Why the hell would a record company care whether their hot new artist releases a concept album or a regular album, or whether their customers are listening to the whole thing or just one song as long as they bought it? Most people only buy singles off iTunes now anyway unless the entire album is worth listening to, so I don't know where the fuck you're coming from with this force feed shit.

>>36764029
But what I'm saying is that a good concept album would allow you to do both. Pay the fuck attention.

is that michael cera?

>>36761537
Separate tracks are there because most musicians write short songs and then focus on getting those songs as good as possible. Most musicians put their all into every single song that shows up on an album; and, while the songs are separate, the assembly of those songs in a coherent order is usually up to the artist in question (the labels don't really control this).

Most musicians have more than a single song in their repertoire, so if they splurge on recording time they're gonna try to get as many down as possible, sure. But keep in mind that most people these days, if they're so inclined, can record for fucking nothing if they've already got a computer and the proper stuff. If you're talking recording time in a label studio, also keep in mind that they own the studio and they can charge themselves money to record shit because they can write that money off. Of course, part of them getting you in that studio in the first place is to have you working with people who are very good at making you yourself sound good (or, if you're good already, better) because you're a goddamned investment.

>>36764226
And yet most concept albums are not independently released. Surely that's a coincidence though.

>>36764597
So you are saying most concept albums are released on major labels?

That is an incorrect assertion.

>>36764316
>Why the hell would a record company care whether their hot new artist releases a concept album or a regular album, or whether their customers are listening to the whole thing or just one song as long as they bought it?
because, uh, that would make them earn even more with future releases?

>>36764597
8/10

>>36764597
>the only concept albums I know are The Wall and Animals
>they were released on a major label
>thus all concept albums are released on major labels
Is this what I'm dealing with here?

>>36764403
but Pink Floyd is shit