Your comment here, and especially your “this may be my best point” simply reinforces the thinking behind my essay. It was meant to be a conversation starter, not a screed. So we agree on many points by the look of it. Let’s not forget that it was not the MP3 or the Internet that unravelled the concept of an album as a “whole,” that crashed to an end with CD players and their “shuffle” functions. The end user had the power then, with the advent of the MP3 and the myriad players and applications in which to playback those MP3s, the end user now has unlimited possibilities on how they listen to or organize music their music collections. Perhaps that is why Radiohead abandoned their ban on letting iTunes allow users to purchase single album tracks…

Yes, it was the physical limitations of phonograph records that originally set a maximum amount of time that could be recorded to them, but it is the artists themselves who defined the concept of an album that is, in itself, a full work of art. I credit artists such as The Beatles far more in defining the “album” as an art form than I do the technology.

Does a synthesizer with limitless sounds make an acoustic guitar (with only one sound and a very finite sonic range) obsolete? No, it simply increases the number of possibilities available to the musician. With the popularity of digital forms of distribution (including the browser) the “single” is a more valuable MUSIC-BUSINESS tool than ever. But the single has been around for years, and has also been an effective way of getting potential fans to listen to an artist’s larger creative work (the album). None of this makes me believe that many artists will not feel inclined to create full albums, well into the digital age.

Many artists (particularly in the last decade or two) have been releasing albums that are not meant to be a larger piece of art, but are rather a collection of singles, connected only by release date. For these artists, (which I believe the very homogeneous record labels have steered into being the majority of released material) I do agree that the album is no longer a preferred means of distributing music.

However, (THIS MAY BE MY BEST POINT) the digital era that you speak of also increases the ability of smaller and more creative labels, and even artists who are not on labels, of releasing their material in any collection-size that they choose. Because of this, many artists who have been shut out from the single-driven-world of major-label distribution will now be given a better chance to gain popularity. These are artists who many consumers would love to sit down and listen to a collection of songs from, but are perhaps too obscure or not “pop-y” enough to warrant a music video or radio single. While their collection-size is no longer limited to the length of a CD or a record, I believe many of these artists will still choose to release songs as a collection.

The culture of singles that already existed before “the browser became the new ipod” is largely responsible for the homogeny of music that has turned listeners off and depleted record sales for many years. Why buy the record when you know it is just one or two good singles that the label insisted on and a bunch of filler material? The ability to download individual songs will increase the quality of albums beyond just the singles on it. AND for those artists who are not single-oriented, the new means of distribution will allow for a way to be heard without selling out.

Honestly, the more I think about it I’m pretty sure “new digital future” may end up saving the recording album as an organizing principle.

-Ben Kane (Producer, Engineer, Musician)

But, hopefully, it ups the game, as musicians have to make every single count, whether they are selling it or giving it away

Lee Jarvis.