Boards
Gigs, Tracks or Albums - which do you prefer?
This isn't meant to read like some sort of trolling thread, but I've been pondering this a little and I'm curious which order you put gig-going and album vs track listening in these days - in terms of a priority or which consumes the biggest chunk of your time or attention... As in, do you prefer to goto gigs than listen to albums or do you now spend more time listening to tracks (on playlists or as videos) rather than going out to gigs? And does this vary from genre to genre?
For instance, I know I much prefer tracks by electronic acts (often consumed in nice playlists or short bursts of albums, as some electronic records can tend to get a little be samey after 6 or 7 tracks), and have a lot less inclination to see them live. Whereas with rock bands I'd much rather see them live than listen to their albums. When it comes to discovering music, obviously tracks make it much easier to get a quick taste of something, and you fall in love with one song, and then get into the record, and then really want to see the band live... which I guess is why I have an issue with the prevalence of 'new music' everywhere in the media and how 'festival bands' seem to have become central to the music biz, because there's often no album(s) to get your teeth into, and you end up going along to a show to curiously see a band who could benefit from a better understanding of who they are and how to hone their sound (which usually comes from the production process of making an album or three).
Overall, I'd say:
1. Albums
2. Tracks
3. Gigs (which in my early 20s would have been number one)
I'm still far more interested in albums because I love repeatedly going through a record and finding new sounds and textures nestled in depths of the production (one of the many reasons why Pinkerton is so brilliant is how much you still discover on the 50th listen).
I guess I find that some of the bands I love can be a little bit disappointing live - due to poor sound in the venues or idiots talking over the quiet bits (or cunting-a-long at the top of their lungs throughout the gig - I guess I haven't really mellowed and become more tolerant of humanity...). Obviously, a lot of bands are now making more of their living from gigs, and you read a lot about how tracks are replacing albums, but for me it seems to be the same as it ever was. The process of making an album should be really important to an act becoming an incredible live beast, but perhaps people have gotten rather used to a much lower level of average, that they have no idea what an exceptional live band (someone like Les Savy Fav) is any more? I guess that's a whole other thread.
Albums, gigs, tracks
Track by track listening is a hollow fix for me.
gigs mostly
I don't really go to so many gigs as I did aged 17-23
And when Hype Machine was in its prime I used to scour for new artists and remixes and listen to loads of stuff by a disparate range of artists, some of whom I only had one or two songs / remixes by
Now I almost exclusively listen to albums in their entirity - especially since going back in time and uncovering lots of new-wave / post-punk albums which I wasn't familiar with until relatively recently, e.g XTC's / Devo discography and so forth
so
albums
tracks
gigs
Albums
Are the form which I can relate to my own life the most. They form so much more of my routine than tracks and gigs ever have.
Albums>Gigs>Tracks
My intro to most music is almost always through listening to artists albums in their entirety, then go and see them live based on how much I like their album. I'm not really into electronic music but can see how listening to tracks would be more common for that genre. I rarely listen to individual tracks unless its a one off pop tune I like or playlists for parties.
Albums fo sho
Frankly, I disdain the track-centric direction music media is going in...I figure an album exists for a reason (including the bad songs even), so it is meant to be taken as such. I love gigs too, but with a baby now, can't go to a lot of those anymore.
sometimes I wonder...
...whether the track-centric shift allows a lot of acts with mediocre albums but a few killer tracks, to get away with it. Obviously criticism is subjective, but I've seen a lot of disproportionately positive reviews based on the love the writer has for those few songs. These seems to especially be a factor with rushed reviews, when critics have to go into labels to hear albums or turn around a review of something like Bowie or King of Limbs within half a day of it being 'released'. Seems to me like this approach to things, which seems to be weirdly positive (almost as the critic as celebrator rather than someone to trust and rely upon*), could be lowering the quality of music journalism as well as the reason why a lot of acts get this buzz and bust career trajectory when they hit their song album, and writers and fans-alike seem a lot less forgiving.
* = related read http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/102828/Select-Shape-Celebrate.aspx
Agreed
Thanks for the reply - I had read that article when you tweeted recently. It's interesting, and really a conundrum for the critic - mostly to make them feel better about what their doing and to protect themselves from the trap of feeling they need to be overly negative (stemming from a mostly incorrect notion in society that being "critical" means you are looking down on something). However, what the critic really needs and wants is probably at odds with what the general public wants. The public enjoys a lambasting negative review as much as a gushing positive one. They want to know what is bad just as much as what is good. They want simple pros and cons and quantitative measures of the value of something. When I think of assessing something, I always shudder at the notion of what I would assign to it numerically speaking. Ironically, it is something the public views as being "objective" when it is clearly subjective across different people.
As for the track/album thing, I am very much a Luddite - I buy albums, almost exclusively physically rather than digitally. I never buy tracks on their own for the reasons I mentioned above. It's interesting to think what really is more beneficial - to be able to sell the good half of an average album rather than not at all, but potentially get people to buy it on the strength of a couple good singles in a world in which you could only buy the album.
Both of these things are a curious struggle between the public, media, and recording industry. Generally, the public is winning I would say, otherwise everyone would drop their ratings on reviews and iTunes would go out of business. I'll keep my albums and long-form reviews though!
Albums
they ain't dead round my house, no siree
Albums > Gigs > Tracks
hate how people just have 'odd tracks' on their phones or whatever and don't even know where they are from half the time. FUCK THAT.
Albums 4 lyf.
sub-question: are you for or against the concept of greatest hits albums?
Greatest hits albums are for those bands that you will never love but like.
I only own one album by Led Zeppelin, The Police, Desmond Dekker, The Clash, The Jam, Al Green, T- Rex, The Undertones, Siouxsie and the Banshees and Pink Floyd and they are all greatest hits compilations. Maybe I'm missing out, but I'm fine with that.
Tracks > Albums > Gigs
Tracks make albums and gigs worth while so it has to be them.
the track came first...
...the tracks make the album... its the tracks you sing along too... its always going to be the track.
Gigs, Tracks, Albums
Gigs are a shared experience. Some of my best times have been watching live music. Made so many great friendships.
As there are so few albums I listen to from start to finish, it has to be tracks before albums. I like the variety of shuffle on an iPod.
Kid A > Malahide Castle, June 2008 > I Will (No Man's Land)
Were you there?
I was there.
tracks, gigs, albums
i often only like a few songs by artists. I would probably also enjoy an album being played in full live than listening at home.
I find it weird that we all have so much reverence for albums (me included),
when essentially it's entirely arbitrary - the standard length was established because that was how much material you could fit onto the disc... it could all have been so different.
I like tracks from albums that bands play at gigs
Albums > Tracks >> Gigs
I enjoy hearing my favourite artists play live. I don't enjoy standing up for 3/4 hours straight and not being able to see a sodding thing. I also don't enjoy the £20 train fare and the added 3hr round trip to get to Manchester from Blackpool. Grump.
I dunno they are all different things
I think it's always been albums,
even when I was in my 20s and seeing 3 or 4 bands a week. I guess I grew up with my dad's record collection (all '60s and '70s albums) and that drilled into me that the album was the band's big artistic statement. Tough to choose between gigs and tracks though. I'd say gigs > tracks just because the last one I went to (Loscil & Pye Corner Audio) was a bit special.