Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2019 16:15:22 GMT -5
Double (Dual?) Albums are almost like a separate genre of music in and of themselves, in my opinion. To me, they're the audio equivalent of the 3~4 hour "roadshow" films of the 60s, when Hollywood was trying to compete with TV by being more epic. (Though they were made in other eras too--Gone With the Wind is a good example. Anything with an Overture, Intermission and second act really.)
Similar to those epic movies, Double Albums can be really grandiose in a way you just don't get with single albums. However, it also makes them somewhat exhausting to sit thru at times--at least to me. Often, even if the individual songs are great, I find myself drifting, getting restless, checking my watch, etc long before the end. And then a good number of them descend into excess and indulgence too.
I'm gonna talk about some of the specific Double Albums I've heard:
All Things Must Pass is really a Triple Album of Beatles' Era outtakes for the first two discs and studio jams on the third.
Last night I finally got around to hearing Todd Rundgren's Something/Anything? for the first time. I've really liked it, though the album itself seems like it's trying to give you a break here and there, with the spoken word "Intro" for example. Even though there are some tracks I personally didn't like, it truly feels as though Todd Rundgren had enough material that warranted the extra length.
Goodbye Yellow Brick Road is my favorite Elton John album.
^I see these three as my favorite kind of Double Albums, where the artist in question just honestly had a huge back catalog of music or an extremely creative period and thought to release it all at once. It's all standard length tracks, so the album doesn't feel bogged down anywhere.
Freak Out! is great, but arguably the entire second disc is just unfiltered studio experimentation. It's not bad, but I usually end my listens after track 11 personally. The last few tracks do a lot to show what Zappa was willing and capable of producing but don't fit very well with what came before. Still, I appreciate that he kept that material to the end where it's easy to avoid if it's not your thing.
Wow/Grape Jam is more like two separate albums released in one package, with a new studio collection of tracks on one disc (Wow) and a set of loose improvised jams on the other (Grape Jam.) Functionally it's similar to Zappa's approach, with all the clean, listener-friendly stuff first and the free form experiments tucked out of the way.
^This category is my second favorite. It's not as cohesive as the former, but it allows the artist to experiment with interesting audio collages without sacrificing room for more traditional songs. Best of both worlds.
Electric Ladyland has some of Hendrix' best work on it. The title track, Watchtower and House Burning Down are among my favorite songs he did. However, the entire middle section is really drawn out and it always makes me hesitant to give this one a spin. It's the poster child of using a double album to make longer takes of a jam session, for better or worse.
^This is my third favorite category, the "extended cut" kind of album, with longer cuts spliced in (in this case, Voodoo Chile and 1983).
The Beatles' White Album is a mess, and the quality varies wildly from track to track. It doesn't feel like a cohesive work that had to be so long, it's just all the typical outtakes from any album session getting left in due to ego. It would be infinitely better had they whittled it down to a single disc in my opinion.
^This one's in a category all its own. I can't think of another album made a band in such a contentious state, where nobody backed down so they just threw every scrap on there to placate everyone's ego.
Tommy and Quadrophenia are very good albums, but even though I'm enjoying the music, it's often so bombastic, goes on for so long and is paired with the most ridiculously over the top stories that I've listened to each once, about two years ago, and have yet to want to listen again.
The Wall from Pink Floyd is much the same in that regard. I feel like Piper at the Gates of Dawn is one extreme of Pink Floyd, the inquisitive, whimsical side and Wall is the other extreme as this bombastic, pompous side. Where the band worked best in the post-Syd years for me is when they were able to balance the two extremes (Dark Side, WYWH, Animals). I hate the story because it's just as pretentious as the Who's, yet not nearly as well thought out. There's a few songs I like but as a whole it's less than the sum of its parts for me. I've tried to get into it three separate times now, because it's so iconic that I did want to love it, but I just can't.
^This is my least favorite category, the big self-indulgent rock opera. It's just not my style.
As it happens, I've also heard Bob Dylan's Blonde on Blonde and the Rolling Stones' Exile on Main Street but neither really grabbed me. You could put BoB in Category 1 or 2 as it has mostly standard length tracks for the first 3 sides and then an 11 minute finale on the fourth. EoMS is pretty solidly category 1.
Similar to those epic movies, Double Albums can be really grandiose in a way you just don't get with single albums. However, it also makes them somewhat exhausting to sit thru at times--at least to me. Often, even if the individual songs are great, I find myself drifting, getting restless, checking my watch, etc long before the end. And then a good number of them descend into excess and indulgence too.
I'm gonna talk about some of the specific Double Albums I've heard:
All Things Must Pass is really a Triple Album of Beatles' Era outtakes for the first two discs and studio jams on the third.
Last night I finally got around to hearing Todd Rundgren's Something/Anything? for the first time. I've really liked it, though the album itself seems like it's trying to give you a break here and there, with the spoken word "Intro" for example. Even though there are some tracks I personally didn't like, it truly feels as though Todd Rundgren had enough material that warranted the extra length.
Goodbye Yellow Brick Road is my favorite Elton John album.
^I see these three as my favorite kind of Double Albums, where the artist in question just honestly had a huge back catalog of music or an extremely creative period and thought to release it all at once. It's all standard length tracks, so the album doesn't feel bogged down anywhere.
Freak Out! is great, but arguably the entire second disc is just unfiltered studio experimentation. It's not bad, but I usually end my listens after track 11 personally. The last few tracks do a lot to show what Zappa was willing and capable of producing but don't fit very well with what came before. Still, I appreciate that he kept that material to the end where it's easy to avoid if it's not your thing.
Wow/Grape Jam is more like two separate albums released in one package, with a new studio collection of tracks on one disc (Wow) and a set of loose improvised jams on the other (Grape Jam.) Functionally it's similar to Zappa's approach, with all the clean, listener-friendly stuff first and the free form experiments tucked out of the way.
^This category is my second favorite. It's not as cohesive as the former, but it allows the artist to experiment with interesting audio collages without sacrificing room for more traditional songs. Best of both worlds.
Electric Ladyland has some of Hendrix' best work on it. The title track, Watchtower and House Burning Down are among my favorite songs he did. However, the entire middle section is really drawn out and it always makes me hesitant to give this one a spin. It's the poster child of using a double album to make longer takes of a jam session, for better or worse.
^This is my third favorite category, the "extended cut" kind of album, with longer cuts spliced in (in this case, Voodoo Chile and 1983).
The Beatles' White Album is a mess, and the quality varies wildly from track to track. It doesn't feel like a cohesive work that had to be so long, it's just all the typical outtakes from any album session getting left in due to ego. It would be infinitely better had they whittled it down to a single disc in my opinion.
^This one's in a category all its own. I can't think of another album made a band in such a contentious state, where nobody backed down so they just threw every scrap on there to placate everyone's ego.
Tommy and Quadrophenia are very good albums, but even though I'm enjoying the music, it's often so bombastic, goes on for so long and is paired with the most ridiculously over the top stories that I've listened to each once, about two years ago, and have yet to want to listen again.
The Wall from Pink Floyd is much the same in that regard. I feel like Piper at the Gates of Dawn is one extreme of Pink Floyd, the inquisitive, whimsical side and Wall is the other extreme as this bombastic, pompous side. Where the band worked best in the post-Syd years for me is when they were able to balance the two extremes (Dark Side, WYWH, Animals). I hate the story because it's just as pretentious as the Who's, yet not nearly as well thought out. There's a few songs I like but as a whole it's less than the sum of its parts for me. I've tried to get into it three separate times now, because it's so iconic that I did want to love it, but I just can't.
^This is my least favorite category, the big self-indulgent rock opera. It's just not my style.
As it happens, I've also heard Bob Dylan's Blonde on Blonde and the Rolling Stones' Exile on Main Street but neither really grabbed me. You could put BoB in Category 1 or 2 as it has mostly standard length tracks for the first 3 sides and then an 11 minute finale on the fourth. EoMS is pretty solidly category 1.
