"the alternative audience isn’t alternative anymore"

musicismylife78

So says Billy Corgan. Harkens back to a thread I started last week about how you turn on "alternative rock" radio and it isnt alternative really. There isnt the same feeling it had in 1993 or whenever.

However the next sentence Billy says something I was wondering about

"So doing a 10-minute song, nobody will listen to it. We have to come up with singles like “1979,” and come up with songs that sound good on the radio."

No question music tastes have changed. And no question people that use iTunes are doing essentially what billy talked about in alot of interviews, they go to iTunes, get the singles of a band, and dont listen to or pay attention to the non "hit" songs. WHile I agree thats what seems to be the norm, how many people do you think do this?

And more to the point, do audiences really not have the patience for 10 minute songs anymore? That would mean bands like Tool or Mars Volta would have audiences that would not listen to their more out there songs. Is this accurate? Mars Volta's latest didnt have any long long songs like on past releases, and 10,000 days seemed to sell well, even with the 7 or minute long opening single of Vicarious.

So if a band releases a 10 minute song, I guess my main question here is, does anyone listen? Does it get heard?

Brisk.

Well the hardcore museo's like us will, i dont care how long the track or the name of it or whatever i'll listen becuase its new music.

This is very interesting interview of billy and the whole thing:

http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/videos.html?id=996704482

He says something like why bother releasing an alubm when people only download a few songs and listen to them repeatedly.

soulsinging

I BrisK I wrote:

Well the hardcore museo's like us will, i dont care how long the track or the name of it or whatever i'll listen becuase its new music.

This is very interesting interview of billy and the whole thing:

http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/videos.html?id=996704482

He says something like why bother releasing an alubm when people only download a few songs and listen to them repeatedly.

The short of that interview is that he is every bit the pretentious jackass people have called him over the years. I read it a few weeks ago and just thought "man what a douchebag."

As to itunes... Billy needs to stop whining. His music has sucked for years, now he wants to blame it on people wanting singles... no Billy, people don't listen to you because your songs are no better within the context of the album than they are as singles.

In the heyday of rock, singles were the way things were done... how many hit songs did the Beatles have that were never even on an album? Singles were the way of things. Yes, bands made great albums in the 60s-80s, but most of those were under 40 minutes or 10 songs... we practically call that an EP nowadays. Even so, singles were readily available.

The "album" only came to be revered as a record company profit-increase attempt. When they switched to cd's, singles were all but completely phased out in an effort to make people pay more money for full albums. Albums had to be longer (to fill the 80 minute cd) which lead to tons of filler on most albums. Hell, even greatest hits compilations on cd purposefully left off major songs in the hopes it would force people to buy another cd to get all the songs they really wanted.

itunes is not insidious plot to kill albums and art by focusing on singles. It's always been that way. The 90s were an anomaly spawned by the coincidence of record companies trying to gouge listeners and overly serious artists acting like having a hit single was a bad thing because mass appeal was equivalent to a lack of artistic merit.

As to long songs, the Beatles have maybe 10 songs over 4 minutes, and most of their hits were under 3. Metallica stayed underground for years because they refused to edit songs down for radio, which meant they didn't get played until the Black Album, which featured songs more radio-ready. Even the Who had a number of later songs edited down for radio... anyone ever hear the travesty that is the 3.5 minute "Won't Get Fooled Again"? Long songs don't get played... it's too much time on one artist for the ADD listener and cuts into commercial and ad revenue for stations that guarante "5 songs in a row!!!"

DeLukin

I definitely think the digital age has redefined how people 'listen' to albums. The a la carte method of buying music today is like audio A.D.D. - instant gratification for the masses who only buying the songs they want, instead of the way the artist meant for their work to be consumed. It's definitely more convenient for the consumer, but I can see how bands who pour their heart and soul into an album would rail against it. I also think that it allows people to jump genres more easily. So you don't have to be completely into hip-hop or spend a ton of money to own a couple of hip-hop songs. That means that Billy Corgan isn't only competing with alternative acts, but hard rock, hip-hop, raggae, etc. The game has changed. But good music is still good music. Billy needs to spend less time whining and more time creating compelling music that people will want to listen to. If it's good enough, 10 minutes isn't too long. I don't think the album is dead yet, but it's definitely on life support. That's unfortunate, because front-to-back is the way I prefer to listen to the bands I love.

LikeAnOcean

Depends what stations you listen to. Most alternative radio stations have never really been alternative. Even back in 1993.

wolfbear

I think this is one great thing about the renewed popularity of vinyl. If people buy an album they will listen. I sure hope the trend continues.

intodeep

I like 10 minute songs that are done well.

Loved Real Emotional Trash by Stephen Malkmus & the Jicks last year. that song was really cool and I enjoy all 10 minutes of it. That is just a recent example there are many more

BinFrog

A lot of my all-time favorite songs top the 7-8 minute mark. But I know I am in the minority. Some people don't have patience to let a long song (or jam) develop.