Are there any reasons to still make albums?

[clockwork green]

Aside from releasing vinyl, I can't see a great reason to release full albums when people just download all of their music. Maybe if you're making a concept album where the songs fit a particular theme. What do you think?

[VOLVO)))]

Yes, there is. I download the music I like/love, and whatever I catch myself listening to the most, gets bought on CD.

Happens with a lot of people.

[Baltar]

The Cult stopped making albums.  They're only releasing 3-4 song ep's now.

[El Zombre]

Sometimes it's just a format that works. A collection of songs, properly ordered but not necessarily unified thematically, can still say a lot more than a playlist on random.

[neighbor664]

I think there is something to be said for the era when musicians would release a few singles and THEN put out a full album that contained those songs plus a few more. I can see things sort of returning to that.

[Metal and Beer]

We were discussing this at practice the other night and we pretty much agreed that with some exceptions ("concept" records as Clock mentioned, maybe other groups of songs designed to go together) the days of the full-length album are coming to an end. I personally prefer bands to get in and get out quickly, whether on record or onstage, like in 20-30 min. bursts. EP's are perfect for that; rare is the band that can justify an hour's time...

[clockwork green]

Our record was only 3-songs and about 44-minutes and it's what we're tentatively planning in the next few months. One thing I could see is that if you release a song every couple of months you might either not generate enough excitement for people to care or you might keep people continually interested.

[jibberish]

then there's me.  i like CD's and media and artwork and all that hubbub.  i like buying albums.
sure an EP can be on CD format and i equate long EP's with albums.

remember albums used to be limited to 45ish minutes tops. inadvertantly, that media probably forced close to an ideal listening length limit. then you get a CD and bands filled up all 65minutes..ok these get tedious because it's almost never an hour of pure brilliance.  then there are albums like AKIII which may as well be an EP, short fucking album (waaah)

SO, i also see nothing wrong with short albums, long EP's that get back to the ideal listening time of well under an hour, but not 3 songs and out EP shit.

[liquidsmoke]

Please keep making albums, I still buy CDs. Just don't go overboard and think that just because you can record 80 minutes of music to fill up a CD that you should. 35-45 minutes is good enough, more is okay only if you are really really good.

EPs are okay but I'd rather a band spend more time writing and recording quality songs and then just put out a full length.

[Volume]

I don't care much for EP's and even less for singles, I like albums. Whether it's an actual concept album or not it's still a collection of songs that representation of a period the bands(/artists) career. An album can be and often is that much more than the sum of it's parts. It's a sad day for music when bands go to only releasing singles on iTunes. There are countless songs and albums that I didn't like the first time I heard them, have since "grown on me" and even become some of my favorites of all time. The album format allows for not only "hit" songs but also for weirder and more unexpected material.

Also from a marketing perspective a full-lenth album every 1-2 years is a good. It's a way of focusing the marketing campaign. You to get the maximum amount of exposure when you release the albums which generates (hopefully) interest and thereby sells albums, merch and tours. The time in between can be spent writing and recording. It's much easier to have these peaks once every 1-2 years than keeping a prolonged period of interest for the band. People get bored and lazy if they get too much too often. A release should be something the fan has been waiting for, that has meaning and will be remembered. That way the product, the album, will also have a lasting value.

For smaller bands especially it's also a way to save money. You can record a batch of songs in a week instead of splitting it into several weekends which saves on recording/mixing/mastering costs.

[Lumpy]

Our record was only 3-songs and about 44-minutes and it's what we're tentatively planning in the next few months.

Sounds like an album to me... Take a look at some classic albums that you might have on vinyl... an "album" used to be anywhere from 20-something to 30-something minutes (sorry that is so vague). I think the first Dead Boys album is like 18 minutes total (not a great example, but still...) If you press vinyl now, they recommend that each side has something like 18 minutes maximum, or you start losing quality (have to make the grooves closer together to fit, something like that). Yeah you can fit 72 minutes on a CD, but that doesn't mean that you have to. Apologies if my numbers are not totally accurate, I don't have time to look it up right now.

[giantchris]

I infinitely prefer albums and generally feel that if there are songs that must be skipped on an album than I feel cheated.

That being said I think the industry is moving towards more singles (and ringtones - a lot of hip hop sounds like it was made to be a ringtone) and EPs format for "popular" music.  For underground stuff the album will never go away. 

[strangelight]

i don't buy cds anymore, but i download and listen to entire albums. i don't think people just download one or two songs from albums. they get the whole thing, right?

plus, CASSETTES.

[clockwork green]

I download the full album 99% of them time unless it's some novelty song I'm feeling nostalgic for. One of the things that sucks about digital music is that I tend to listen to the beginnings of records more than the ends of them. When I get in my car and plug in my iPod or take my dog for a walk I have to force myself to start an album in the middle if I want to hear the last few songs otherwise I'll just get through the first few (especially with longer songs). With tapes you just start where you left off, with vinyl I usually make up my mind that I'm going to sit and concentrate on an entire album (artwork, lyrics and all). I'm just thinking maybe 2-4 songs (depending on length) 2-3 times a year might be right for today's ADD audience and then maybe put them all together on vinyl or a cd to sell at shows.

[LogicalFrank]

There is still a place for albums (as defined as collections of songs meant to be listened to in a certain order regardless of physical/electronic format) but it is kind of cool that digital downloads kind of make singles possible again. Growing up, the only singles you could really get were cassingles or CD maxi-singles and those were really only by very popular bands on major labels. I know indies were doing good old fashioned seven inches but honestly I feel like those were more specialty kind of one-off things and the strongest material always ended up on albums anyway. It is cool that if you want you can promote each individual song like you were Elvis or something and you don't have to pay a buttload to print vinyl.

[Harm]

I never buy any albums anymore and downloaded almost everything wich i bought before the mp3. As mentioned i also like the idea of putting 3-4 songs out as an EP wich can just aswell be digitally only. Because to me it is all about the music and not at all about the medium.

[jibberish]

Our record was only 3-songs and about 44-minutes and it's what we're tentatively planning in the next few months. One thing I could see is that if you release a song every couple of months you might either not generate enough excitement for people to care or you might keep people continually interested.

ya perfect album length actually. i believe the numbers lumpy wants are like 22 minutes per side or thereabouts.

this is why cassettes were 45min and 90 min. held either 1 or 2 albums respectively.
the allmans, pink floyd, king crimson, rush.yes and a boatload of bands broke this ground before you did with entire side=1 song or close, stuff. so yeah 44 min sounds like album to me too.

[mortlock]

We were discussing this at practice the other night and we pretty much agreed that with some exceptions ("concept" records as Clock mentioned, maybe other groups of songs designed to go together) the days of the full-length album are coming to an end. I personally prefer bands to get in and get out quickly, whether on record or onstage, like in 20-30 min. bursts. EP's are perfect for that; rare is the band that can justify an hour's time...

im in totally agreement on the get in get out philosophy..i left a band before because the lead guy would never cut anything short..fuckin 50 min to an hour set when we were done at 25 minutes. then he'd always have the nerve to complain about another bands set length when they were done in 20 minutes..

[mortlock]

i find myself buying band discography cds. the only problem with that is the bands are always broken up when the cd comes out..

[EddieMullet]

I dig the split 7 inch single you have each band putting forth their best on each side. The Mighty High/Stone Axe split 7' is a great example the Earthless/Witch, Nebula/Quest for Fire and the Wino/Scott Kelly splits are awesome, so is that Heavy Ripples thing which is like a 4 way split cause its on 2 7 inchers.

[Ranbat]

 At this point, I dig the Mick Collins philosophy of being a singles band and being able to be anything you want for that single. There are just too many styles I'd like to dabble in without starting a band for each one or having to do an album in each style. Singles make more sense to me nowadays as a musician.
As a listener, I dig singles collections unless a band can pull off a full album with no filler.

[lordfinesse]

I like albums. Chances are if I like a band enough to have one song that I listen to, on an iPod or a mix cd or whatever, I'll probably like at least an album's worth of that band's music. And I like epic stories and big picture kinda stuff.

[mawso]

The one thing I'll say for albums is that it costs about as much money to press and takes as much effort to promote as an EP.  So for the same time/$$ you get a lot more music out there.

For most bands, putting out any release is going to be more about getting press and exposure than it is about selling the recording.  Back in the old days, labels used to offer 'tour support' which was basically money down to get your band out on the road so that they could shift more units.  These days they're now offering '360 deals' where they recoup the recording costs from live performance fees and sales of merch.  So basically they're following where the money is.

I know with my band we put out an EP earlier in the year - a fairly basic, self-recorded one - and it got way more press than we expected.  A song from it went out on an issue, and it's been reviewed in some other high-circulation mags in europe.  We've only sold a handful of copies off the back of that press.  We also got some really cool reviews on the web, but those resulted.  Nevertheless the EP has opened doors to doing better shows, that pay (slightly) more and are more fun.  We also sold out of T-shirts.

Part of getting a band's name out there is just going to be attrition.  Only a few people aren't going to check you out just the very first time they hear about you.  So if you go with an EP instead of an album, you can get your stuff out there quicker and more often.  But a lot more people are going to be more interested in checking out an album, so it's a trade-off.  I know that with me personally, people can tell me about a band 100 times before I'll even bother to look it up on youtube - far less actually buy something.

All these practical reasons aside, the biggest reason any of us are doing this stuff is because we love it.  The biggest part of whether you go for an EP, or an album, is just going to be an aesthetic decision about what you think will be the coolest way to share your music.

I think there are good reasons for doing Albums, EPs, and split 7 inches.  With 180 Proof we're hoping to do one of each over the next year.

[Isabellacat]

Yea I thinkso. Not everybody downloads music and people still do buy CD's and other formats. If I saw a CD in the record store that I heard online and liked ,most likely I would buy it,plus any serious band should record an album .

[Harm]

I think CD's and LP's are not albums but the holders of it. Personally i like the sound of vinyl but the conveniece of mp3. Since i spend a lot of time behind my computer i listen to digital music so i don't have to get op every 15 minutes to change sides.