Hating on the Double Album
It was an odd turn of fate which brought me here, but I currently find myself listening to Christina Aguilera's new double album, "Back to Basics". I'll come right out and say it: it's pretty good. I rather enjoy it. We've always known she can outsing her entire genre without breaking a sweat, but it becomes easier to appreciate this fact the more mature (i.e. less trashy) she becomes.
But... once again I am reminded of my long-standing gripe with the double album. I don't believe I have ever heard a double-disced musical composition that wouldn't have been better packaged as a strong fifty-or-so minutes. It all dates back to my youthful purchase of Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness (*sigh*). With the money I spent on that double album I could have picked up one single CD and eight to ten slurpees, but no. I had to hang onto such memorable tracks as "Fuck You (An Ode To No One)". Boy, did that tie the opus together.
Anyhow - if you, Mr. and Mrs. Internet have any strong examples in defense of the double album, I'd love to hear them. But for now you can consider me staunchly opposed.
Comments
The Wall...
But I certainly agree with your theory for the most part.
Also the most recent Foo Fighters album "In Your Honor" was solid all the way through, but the stylistic differences between the two discs probably mean it would have been better classified as two separate albums rather than a "double album". If you took the best five or six tracks off each disc, they wouldn't have gone all that well together.
Posted by: Greeley | August 18, 2006 05:48 AM
First: I haven't heard the new XTINA, but I have to object on principle. She wails, producing unlistenable vocal histrionics rather than actual singing. It's impressively loud and awful (and in tune, but that doesn't mean much), but I hesitate to call her a great singer. But hey, haybe her new album is a radical departure -- like I said, I'm speaking from a position of ignorance.
Second: on the double album business, I mostly agree. But one good counterexample is Wilco's "Being There". The total amount of music on the two discs actually could have fit onto a single CD (barely), but the band decided to split it up. And I think it was a good idea -- the song progressions really work well as parallel collections, at times mirroring one another and at other times diverging in ways that make you realize how the overall feeling of the album could have been altered with just a few choices.
So I think that's a case where the double album worked. But, with that said, they could have made it a single disc and still retained the vast majority of the things that make it a great album.
Posted by: tom | August 18, 2006 08:08 AM
2Pac's All Eyez on Me is actually a pretty good double album. There were probably enough hot tracks for 1.7-1.8 albums and so he figured "what the hell... let's make it a double."
I agree with your basic preimse though that double albums tend to suck...
As another example of a failed double album I would present the failed beirut "D-Sides/D-Sides B-sides" double album.
Posted by: Max | August 18, 2006 08:38 AM
Does the double album really matter in an iTunes world? I am speaking from ignorance here, as I have never used iTunes, but can't we just buy the songs we want and ignore the others? Or do they sell them cheaper as a package?
Posted by: A.J. | August 18, 2006 01:25 PM
The Fragile.
Posted by: Joe | August 29, 2006 11:38 PM