The Death and Resurrection of the Album

I can’t begin to count the number of shithead bloggers, newspaper columnists, Billy Corgans, record label heads, man-on-the-street types who have all said the album is dead.  I can only assume because “downloaders” (in this case, likely referring to teenage girls) listen to their music in easily grasped, bite-size packages for somewhere between 2 minutes and thirty seconds and 4 minutes.  Any more and they tune out.  Any less and it’s not a song.  But, far be it for me to judge.  Oh wh0 am I kidding.  I’m Judgy McJudgerson.

Still I wonder, have things really changed that much?  Am I the only person left alive under 30 who has the capability of listening to an album in its entirety?  Or maybe those CORPORATE FATCATS WITH THEIR PLATINUM CLUB SANDWICHES AND IVORY BACKSCRATCHERS are just out of touch with what’s really goin’ on in the streets, maaaaaaan.

Nothin’ like a little Marvin Gaye to class up the ol’ blog.

Ok.  So unquestionably, people are buying singles more than ever.  For that reason alone, you can’t fault retarded music executives for pushing the shit out of what’s selling at the moment.  They’re just doing what comes naturally to them, repeating the same behaviors and hoping lightning strikes twice.  That’s why we have been inundated with suspiciously similar indie bands all latching onto the same twee-as-fuck sound that sold millions of Arcade Fire’s Funeral.

The problem with this is that this mindset doesn’t allow for artists to grow and change at all.  Record labels are interested in instant profits and fail to see the purpose of long-term investment.

Wait a second, this is sounding familiar…

Sailing The Seas Of Dreck: bringing you all the thrilling political commentary you’ll ever need.

Given the economics of the matter, you can’t really blame dumbass label heads for latching onto what’s selling at the moment.  For all the arguments that vinyl is coming back (not really) digital singles are selling in vast quantities by comparison.  Because of this, I think most people in the music industry ave accepted the notion of declining sales when it comes to cds and have proclaimed the album itself dead as a means for listening to music.

But what do they even mean when they say “the album is dead”?  Personally, I think it speaks to the stronger focus on digital sales rather than sales of hard media like compact discs, vinyl, cassettes, etc.  I think that while labels are apprehensive about the whole notion of digital media, they would ultimately prefer to be able to sell you a nebulous collection of mp3s as opposed to a cd.   It’s ultimately far cheaper to distribute 10-15 mp3s online than it is to have the music pressed onto a shiny plastic disc.  Not only do you bring down your overhead, but you can wind up charging even more, given the public’s perception that a song should be worth 1 dollar, give or take 30 cents either way.

And I can’t really argue with them there.  I think that, logically, it’s only a matter of time before distribution is wholly digital, save a few hold-outs.  This is largely dependent on the fact that there are still parts of the world on dial-up or have their bandwidth limited to only a few gigabytes per month.  Whatever the reason, not everyone has the capability or even the desire to switch over to a digital music distribution method exclusively.

Unleash the fucking tubes!

So, in terms of short-term gain, selling singles is unquestionably where you want to be.  And if you do have that ability, all the power to you.  Just look at Kesha or Lady Gaga.  These are people who seem to sell another million albums every time a new single hits the internet.  Why else would Lady Gaga release the same music more than once?  Why else would Kesha push 4 singles from the same shitty album seemingly within the span of 6 months?

However, if you are exclusively a “singles band”, you can look forward to about zero in terms of longevity.  From a marketing standpoint, while it is important to be able to have a single, most bands who have stuck around for quite some time don’t hinge their entire careers on ONE SINGLE SONG.  Even though you might be able to get away with that even 10 years ago, but the public is so inundated with music that unless you can build a lasting connection, you are going to remain forgettable.

It is those lasting connections which truly make for a successful artist.  Most of the well respected artists I am aware of didn’t succeed because of their singles.  They became successes in spite of them.

Like the fury of a thousand Mega Mans.

So, what does all of this have to do with Genghis Tron’s Board Up The House?  I am firmly of the mind that it was created with the intention to be listened to as a whole.  Despite “Things Don’t Look Good” and the title track, there aren’t very many single-worthy moments on the album.  Yet, when you listen to the entirety of the album with each track in context with the next, you discover just how well the record flows together, creating something that is largely greater than the sum of its parts.

And that is truly what makes Board Up The House an important record.  Because it is an album that grasps the concept of context.  Most bands fail to understand just how important and useful context can be when considering the structure of the album, putting together 13 samey sounding songs.  Or worse, ignoring how their album should flow altogether.

In my opinion, for all the talk of the death of the album, Board Up The House seems to render the doomsaying completely limp.  Even if the record is not a financial success (I honestly have no idea how well it’s sold), it still stands as a vital argument for the importance of the album itself.