This is my understanding: an ‘album’ is a discrete collection of songs by an artist (single or collective). Such collections retain their coherence, and constitute an identifiable category, by dint of a recognizable musical, sonic or lyrical signature. At the same time, they are constrained (to a greater or lesser extent) by the technological limitations which were instituted by the invention of vinyl in the 1940s - which is to say: approximately 30 – 50 minutes of music, organized into ‘songs’, dispersed over two sides of a 12-inch, 33-rpm record.
I think it’s possible to regard most CDs since their invention in the early 1980s as operating along the same continuum as vinyl albums, because they adhere more or less to this model - i.e. an artist releases a collection of new songs with which they are identifiably associated.
To my mind, such a model allows for a multitude of texts - 'albums' - but is clearly set against other texts, models and practices, including:
* Best
of
… and Greatest Hits collections;
* random compilations of the Now That’s What I Call Music variety;
* random compilations organized in terms of genre (e.g. folk or jazz), style (e.g. punk or Britpop), scene (e.g. Northern Soul or Seattle), era (e.g. 1960s), or any other arbitrary category;
* recordings of works conceived under the auspices of alternative musical dispensations – e.g. symphonies, lieder, opera; this would also bar recordings of event-oriented dance music (e.g. trance or house) unless intentionally released by an artist as a coherent collection;
* alternative formats generated as a result of digital technology (Spotify, iTunes, Amazon, etc.).
The key issue, so far as I can see, is that between the ‘album’ and the ‘record’, which in itself mirrors the difference between the ‘novel’ and the ‘book’. There are some great ‘books’ (poetry, drama, cookery, travel, history, etc.) that would be out of place in a club dedicated to discussing ‘novels’; just so, from my perspective there are some great ‘records’ that are out of place in a club dedicated to discussing ‘albums’.
The only thing I don't quite get the rationale for is things like symphonies and operas as they were conceived as one coherent work and fit nearly all your definitions of an album in my opinion.
ReplyDelete*
Interesting point.
I think symphonies and operas emerged as forms in response to very specific musical and socio-historical contexts - and very different to those in which the album emerged. For one thing, the ideal consumption context for both is live performance; that doesn't mean that they can't subsequently become albums (although usually highly edited - i.e. truncated if they're too long, or included with additions if too short). In any event, neither the symphony nor the opera is the articulation of the artist who composes it: it is reliant on 'interpretation' by a range of people from set designers, conductors, singers, orchestras, record company executives, etc. We have no record of Verdi singing Verdi, or Beethoven playing Beethoven.
*
In terms of performing your own work, where do cover versions come in? Many albums contain some covers, some are completely covers (Patti Smith recently did an album of covers but it was definitely her work - you just did one on James Joyce). In fact my choice of Roy Bailey would be inadmissable under that criterion as he does not write his own songs but tries to make an album with a theme and some integrity.
Live performance is best for most music I would say.
*
I would say an 'album' of cover versions is admissible as long as it adheres to the definition of 'album' contained in my first mail - to wit, 'a discrete collection of songs by an artist (single or collective) ... Such collections retain their coherence, and constitute an identifiable category, by dint of a recognizable musical, sonic or lyrical signature.' An album which was comprised of 'new' covers specifically recorded for that event or occasion would be admissible; a collection of such covers from previous events or occasions would not. So, say Roy Bailey goes into the studio and records 14 songs by Woody Guthrie and releases an album called 'Roy Bailey Sings Woody Guthrie' = that is admissible; but supposing a record company comes along and puts an album of Roy Bailey covers since the 1970s. That in my view is inadmissible.
*
But why is this different to an opera or symphony interepereted by people who weren't the composer?
*
For the reasons described in my previous mails: an album of covers (or an album including some covers) retains the signature of the recording artist - it is part of an 'album' and is intertextually and formally linked to the ideal 'album' - i.e. the two-sided vinyl object capable of supporting 30 - 50 minutes worth of music that was developed in the 1940s. That format put certain constraints - and at the same time afforded certain opportunities - to every artist who followed in its wake. You can squeeze a symphony into that shape if you want, because they share a common language (music); but they are fundamentally separated in terms of outlook and expectation and intention and consumption. A play by Shakespeare functions differently on the stage and on the page, just so, symphonies might make acceptable - or even good - records but they are not 'albums'.
*
Not sure if I entirely agree though as I still don't see the diffence between a cover version and an orchestra interpreting a composer.