A question for older fans who lived in the vinyl age (about Multi-LP albums)

[The Letter M]

Back in the day, in discussions among your friends and fellow fans, when an album came out that was a double or triple (or more) vinyl album, did you say things like "oh this song is my favorite off the first vinyl" or "the second vinyl isn't as good as the first"...or were these albums treated as unified whole pieces (which, IMO, as they should be).

I think in the era of the CD, fans are quick to dismiss the fact that some double albums are meant to be single pieces of works, but the time limitations of CDs don't allow some 80+ minute releases to be on a single disc. And because of the portability of them, it's easy to just bring only half an album along. With vinyls, it was easier to listen to things in one go - a 75 minute double album would almost HAVE to be done in one sitting (for those who DO listen to whole albums), just because you're already there investing time in putting on the vinyl and setting the needle - it's almost ritualistic. With CDs, you just slide it into the player and it plays.

Fortunately, in the digital age, it's easier to let a whole album play without having to worry about changing vinyls or discs - it just plays if you let it, so I think the idea of "double albums" might be phased out if digital music remains a popular (and growing) medium. Every major release would just be an ALBUM, as the terms of double and triple only hold meaning to the medium upon which the album is on - for example, The Who's Tommy was a double vinyl LP when it was originally released, but now it's on a single CD.

And as much as I would hate physical formats being phased out, I think it would be there wouldn't be anymore arguments about "which disc is better" in a double album - all albums are single units in my eyes...but then again, this is from a fan who listens to a LOT of music that spans 2 CDs.

-Marc.

[bobs23]

Actually, what I used to do was the first play was to a 90 minute Maxell XLII cassette. 2 sides would usually fit on one side of the cassette. During that time I would check out all the artwork, liner notes and credits. Since there is no skip function on cassette, I always listened to the whole thing.

[Lowdz]

I used to refer to them as side 1, 2, 3, 4. Ahh they were the days... staring at the artwork, being able to read the lyrics because they weren't printed in a microdot... Treating the vinyl with care 'cos one scratch and it was all over.

[The Letter M]

I'm so glad there are fans who still listen to whole (long) albums, but there were never any arguments in the 70s or 80s about "Oh, the first vinyl to _______ is better than the 2nd", or similar things?

I think I've read things like that about Genesis' The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway, but that's about it. The most popular one I see about that is that the 2nd disc/vinyl has more filler than the 2nd, and is thus not as good, but as I said - if the album was on ONE piece of media, there'd be no arguments like that. It'd be ONE album - none of this "the 2nd half isn't as good as the first".

-Marc.

[bobs23]

I still listen to and buy whole albums. I think it might be a generational thing, I have yet to even visit ITunes (or similar). This is just my opinion, not saying any view on this is right or wrong.   

[King Postwhore]

Well, I listened to whole albums so it was a mentality thing about side 2 or album two.  Now, it does blend in together.  Like I-Tunes with the Rush Live in Cleavland, it puts it on I-Tunes and my I-Pod as one solid play so it has lost a little but I think it's just a mental thing. 

Look at The Incident.  Everybody talks about the 4 other songs separate but it that because it's not part of the suite?  I think so.


No big whoop though.

[Jaq]

Vinyl albums in general were sequenced in very particular ways, usually to emphasize the singles and the best songs. With a double vinyl album, sometimes that was diluted since a great many multi-disc albums were either conceptual or live, but, usually, the best songs did tend to be on the first album of the two. You had exceptions-Comfortably Numb and Run Like Hell, which are two of the more played songs off of The Wall, were on side 3 and side 4 respectively-but generally, the songs with the best chance of success tended to be on the first album.

That being said, no one back then really picked a side or an album and said which was better. That was partly because, much like CDs, you could lift the needle and go to the song you liked most, with the only difference being you had to flip or replace the album in question. But mostly because, we just didn't do it. It was pretty well subconsciously known that the lay out of most vinyl albums, at least the ones with commercial aspirations, that usually the opening three or so songs on side one were single worthy, at least one on side two was single worthy and the back halves of vinyl sides were for the experiments and oddities. This wasn't a hard and fast rule, but it works shockingly well.

[seasonsinthesky]

It was pretty well subconsciously known that the lay out of most vinyl albums, at least the ones with commercial aspirations, that usually the opening three or so songs on side one were single worthy, at least one on side two was single worthy and the back halves of vinyl sides were for the experiments and oddities. This wasn't a hard and fast rule, but it works shockingly well.

indeed, hence why King Crimson's more commercial-sounding '80s era was laid out exactly that way on all 3 albums — with Three of a Perfect Pair even being advertised as such in its press releases at the time.

so, to get to the heart of sir M's post — did no one talk preference over which sides were better than others?

[jammindude]

In my experience....even though the album was listened to as a whole, you did tend to separate it in your mind into sides.   We didn't refer to Record 1 or Record 2.  But we DID refer to *sides* 1, 2, 3 or 4.

As an example.  Rush's ESL, Side 3 was usually held up above the others...but all sides had their moments.   Side 1 had NP's most memorable drum solo, Side 2 had a phenomenal performance of Jacob's Ladder, and Side 4 was the definitive version of La Villa (at that time).    But Side 3 felt the most like one complete piece of music, with an extended intro to The Trees (in the form of Broon's Bane) and the GORGEOUS blend into Xanadu.   

[Jaq]

Indeed, if people did express a preference, it was for a side, not an entire album. But most people I knew back then, myself included, really didn't get hung up on where the good songs were, we just went and found them. It is funny though that I still think in terms of sides, even here in the CD/MP3 age. 

[The Curious Orange]

We're not that old - you make it sound like we used to sit around the campfire after a hard day hunting wooly mammoths, and wind up the old gramophone to listen to some vinyl...

I miss vinyl. With CD, it's easy to skip songs you're not keen on. With vinyl, it was such a kerfuffle to lift the needle and try to guess where to put it back down, it was easier just to listen to the song. The effect of this, of course, was that you got to listen to the less immediate tracks until they grew on you, often becoming favourites. With MP3s, it's even easier to skip tracks.

I find it interesting that Peter Gabriel recorded In Your Eyes to be the last track on So. The audio deterioration that happens over a side of vinyl (as the grooves get shorter and closer together) mean that the track had to be moved to the first song on side 2 - this is the reason why the last track on a side of vinyl was usually a ballard or softer track.