Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Single Albums vs Double Albums; Which do you prefer?
Topic Started: May 30 2006, 10:47 PM (612 Views)
Aqueronte
Member Avatar
Helen Wheels
It really depends on what album is to me. I enjoy listen to an album no matter if it's double or single as long as it's good. It can be just a fantastic double album, a true work of art like The Beatles or Tommy. Or anoher work of art like: The Village Green Preservation SOviety, Revolver or The Who By Numbers.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ihateguitarists
Member Avatar
v_v
working class hero
May 31 2006, 04:06 PM
nirvangela
May 31 2006, 04:36 PM
I don't understand either. Would The Beatles' "Abbey Road" really be any different or better if you broke it up into two discs? I don't get why the amount of discs matters?

That's not the issue! Way to miss the whole point! The issue is that it has more material, and isn't more better? Especially from a band like the Beatles? It isn't the amount of discs, it's the material.

Well, what really matters isn't the amount, but the quality. And how they are as a group. I mean, "The Beatles" is great and all, but (in my opinion) all 30 of those tracks couldn't amount to the 14 on "Revolver". I mean, "The Beatles" has a bunch of songs I don't really connect with, a bunch of songs that don't stand out to me, like "Wild Honey Pie", "The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill", "Don't Pass Me By", and "Good Night" to name a few. A single album with 10 really amazing tracks is stronger than a double album with 10 really amazing tracks.

EDIT: I moved this to the polls section. I didn't think it should be moved because it is a musical topic but "Who is Your Favorite Guitarist?", "Who's Your Favorite Keybaord Player?", "Great guitarists", " LED ZEPPELIN VS. CREAM", "Favorite Three-Piece Band", "Paul McCartney vs. John entwitlse", and many others were there, so I figured this fits there too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeorgeMcStarkey
Member Avatar
-.-- -.-- --..
It doesn't matter anymore in our generation because we get whole discographies rather quickly, but back when albums were being released, fans wanted new material ASAP, so a double album would be superb in comparison to a single album, although you'd have to shell out the extra cash.

I like the Red Hot Chili Peppers. They just released Stadium Arcadium, a double album, earlier this month. As a fan, I'm looking forward to getting it, but even as a fan, I'd still look forward to a single album.

Here's another example. Say the Beatles didn't release anything from 1963 through 1969, but they still recorded all of the albums. Would you be satisfied if they released a fourteen of fifteen LP box set with all of the material in 1970, or evenly spaced out through seven years? I don't know. What I do know is that this post adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. :cigar:
Click? VH
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ihateguitarists
Member Avatar
v_v
JeorgeMcStarkey
May 31 2006, 07:00 PM
It doesn't matter anymore in our generation because we get whole discographies rather quickly, but back when albums were being released, fans wanted new material ASAP, so a double album would be superb in comparison to a single album, although you'd have to shell out the extra cash.

I like the Red Hot Chili Peppers. They just released Stadium Arcadium, a double album, earlier this month. As a fan, I'm looking forward to getting it, but even as a fan, I'd still look forward to a single album.

Here's another example. Say the Beatles didn't release anything from 1963 through 1969, but they still recorded all of the albums. Would you be satisfied if they released a fourteen of fifteen LP box set with all of the material in 1970, or evenly spaced out through seven years? I don't know. What I do know is that this post adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. :cigar:

I'd rather them be released steadily over time. I wouldn't have the upfront money for a huge boxed-set! Not to mention, it'd be a lot of music to take in at once.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlematt
Member Avatar
THE JANITOR
JeorgeMcStarkey
May 31 2006, 07:00 PM
It doesn't matter anymore in our generation because we get whole discographies rather quickly, but back when albums were being released, fans wanted new material ASAP, so a double album would be superb in comparison to a single album, although you'd have to shell out the extra cash.

I like the Red Hot Chili Peppers. They just released Stadium Arcadium, a double album, earlier this month. As a fan, I'm looking forward to getting it, but even as a fan, I'd still look forward to a single album.

Here's another example. Say the Beatles didn't release anything from 1963 through 1969, but they still recorded all of the albums. Would you be satisfied if they released a fourteen of fifteen LP box set with all of the material in 1970, or evenly spaced out through seven years? I don't know. What I do know is that this post adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. :cigar:




'ey. Where's your silly "Now playing......" notation?


Take no offense, man.
When she walks she moves so fine like a flamingo
Crimson dress that clings so tight She's out of reach and out of sight

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OnlyMe
Member Avatar
!
It's the quality that counts, not the quantity.
http://www.last.fm/user/OnlyMe123lol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeorgeMcStarkey
Member Avatar
-.-- -.-- --..
beatlematt
Jun 1 2006, 09:36 AM
'ey. Where's your silly "Now playing......" notation?


Take no offense, man.

I don't put anything when I'm not playing anything.
Click? VH
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RainInAPaperCup
Member Avatar
This Boy
Easy, single albums. It's less of a chore to listen to them.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PsychicEqualizer
Member Avatar
My Sweet Lord
Double Albums. You might discover great songs and you'll get it for the price of one.

But the key word is might.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Woof Oink Baaa
Member Avatar
Now 100% more avant-garde than Ivan!
It depends! I would like to say double albums because Zeit is one and it is the greatest album of all time! But then again, you have marshmallow fluffy unicorn shit like Tommy and The Wall! Exclamation mark!
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kira
Member Avatar
Hate me, do it and do it again.
Woof Oink Baaa
Apr 15 2007, 08:24 PM
But then again, you have marshmallow fluffy unicorn shit like Tommy and The Wall!

:wub:
Posted Image
The human whose name is written in this notebook shall die.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZachAppleThrows
Apple Scruffs
White Collar Boy
Apr 15 2007, 04:26 PM
Woof Oink Baaa
Apr 15 2007, 08:24 PM
But then again, you have marshmallow fluffy unicorn shit like Tommy and The Wall!

:wub:

Tommy's not a double album, you silly geese.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeorgeMcStarkey
Member Avatar
-.-- -.-- --..
Wrong.
Click? VH
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZachAppleThrows
Apple Scruffs
I never owned no two disc copy of Tommy.

I r confused now.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chodus
Member Avatar
Thinkin' one thing and doin' another
ADeadChicken
Apr 16 2007, 02:13 PM
I never owned no two disc copy of Tommy.

I r confused now.

Original 1969 album was on two slabs of tar.
Posted Image
Running the voodoo down
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fear of Music · Next Topic »
Add Reply