On Albums pt 1 of a million

If you haven't yet, read this intriguing interview with one of the most happenin' voices of music criticism on the web, Discographies. His (her?) twitter feed is always insightful and very exact and always incredibly clever. I don't always necessarily agree, but I can always get what he's trying to say, and he says it so concisely.

He makes a good point about what separates "what separates this batch of material from that batch of material." Despite the free-for-all availability of music on the internet, we still take our music input in the albums-and-singles format prescribed way back in the 60's, when they'd fold in the two hit .45's with (in Phil Spector's words) "ten pieces of junk" (which aren't junk in capable hands) to make an LP. Maybe because we're used to it, or maybe because it's useful. Not everything can be a greatest hits, and commercially, it makes sense to keep this form of output up. As much sense as anything else.

But I'm not here to philosophize about why albums are, but how I take them. Specifically, what makes a good album versus a "great one."

A good album, I thought to myself earlier today, is a collection of songs you like hearing. Maybe, like anything else, it has some bad cuts, but generally, it's full of enjoyable material you'd re-listen to.

A great album -- very important in this day and age where we're far beyond spinning vinyl, in the world of CDs and iPod shuffles -- is one where you can't bear to listen to the songs apart. You probably do, but you'd much, much rather hear them together.

They belong that way. And not just because there's a crossfade.

That's my somewhat idealistic take on it anyhow.