Jo Stafford’s brilliant “Ballad Of The Blues” is a good example of this
Another thing is music was driven by songwriters till the album became the rule. Even till the early 70s it was common for songwriters to try and get their songs to as many artists as possible. Then you’d watch on Billboard and Cashbox, to see the “Battle of the Covers” and which version would sell more.
The issue was cost in several different ways. Getting a license for an AM station was difficult because they were scarce and the profit-making corporations wanted those frequencies. The government reserved one end of the FM band for non-profits, though, which is why you still see today so many college and public radio stations at the end of the FM “dial”. In addition, FM could be extremely low power, as little as 10 watts, IIRC. That would reach the college campus but no farther and not interfere with anyone else in addition to being inexpensive.
The other issue was that AM had huge static problems. FM did not. That meant everything to people who wanted to hear real music over real stereo systems and not transistor radios.
In 1972, when college radio was starting to get big, my campus station wanted to broadcast to the whole city. They put in a 20,000 watt transmitter. And melted the equipment* in the chemistry building next door. They were off the air by the end of the day.
No question. Some of my first album buys were the Greatest Hits packages by the Kinks and Donovan. But by definition there were far fewer greatest hits albums than regular albums in that era. (Today there seem to be five for each original album. :rolleyes: )
- Hyperbole. Get a grip, people.
I dunno so much about hyperbole, Exapno. Nalgene was just coming into heavy use as a cheaper substitute for glassware, and 20kW of electromagnetic energy, well, let’s just consider how many watts your microwave oven dissipates…
As is Duke Ellington’s Black, Brown, and Beige.
Still, neither of you has really answered my question. Granted that FM sound was “better,” why should AM technology inherently have precluded an “album-type” format before FM came around? Why couldn’t an AM station have played Sargent Pepper’s, other than the cost issue of needing to squeeze in ads? What if FM had never been invented? Would Sgt. Pepper’s never have been produced?
The exposure I had to AM (about a year) was in a small town station that was all things to all people (in that town) and we did play some album music (I had a jazz show on Sundays) but during the week there just wasn’t time (between commercials!) for longish album cuts. We had the shortened versions of things like MacArthur Park designed for AM daytime play. On my jazz show I would play 10-minute or longer cuts with no qualms. It was more the format than the technology, to put it more plainly.
Buying albums predated the Beatles by a few years, but except for being a few years off, your father is mostly correct, for 4 reasons:
-
The album was a lot more expensive than a 45
-
Most people played 45’s most of the time, and 33’s and 45’s were not interchangeable because of the different sized hole in the middle - also lots of record players did not have a 33 speed
-
Every town, every little store, including “(S.S. Kresge) dime stores” carried 45’s, but only a few places actually sold albums, so it was actually hard to find albums, especially in small towns. The local Dime store and the local drug store sold 45’s but they didnt have any albums. Albums for sale were pretty hard to find unless you visited a big city music shop.
-
There are 12 songs on an album and it was virtually impossible to find an album with 12 good songs. Heck, it was hard enough to find a 45 with 2 good songs. A double sided hit was a rare thing.
What your father is wrong about, is the exact time period and also that buying albums did not “start” with the Beatles. People buying albums started a few years before the Beetles with albums by** Elvis, Annette, Ricky Nelson**. In the early 1960’s kids were so crazy about Elvis, Annette, and Ricky Nelson, etc. that they actually wanted to hear all 12 songs sung by them.
It is true that the Beatles sold a lot of albums, but only AFTER Elvis sold a lot of albums.
I forgot to add that FM was stereo. It’s currently possible to broadcast stereo on AM but wasn’t at the time. That alone was a deal-breaker. So, a combination of stereo, inherently better sound, and lack of time constraints at a time when the music had already headed in that direction of length and sound quality.
I don’t believe in “what ifs.” It’s possible that if FM didn’t exist some way would have been found to convert AM earlier. But FM did exist, so that question is meaningless.
Did all LPs have exactly 12 songs in the early '60s? This obviously isn’t true of LPs today.
I have to say, I don’t understand what makes Sgt. Pepper qualify as a concept album. It’s got a framing device that ties into its handsome sleeve, but otherwise, it’s a collection of songs with no particular common thread or interrelation. What, then, is the concept?
What if we pretended to be another band?
That’s pretty much it.
No, because the implicit question of the OP is whether the Beatles fostered the marketing of recordings as albums over singles, and sh1bu1 suggested that FM had a lot to with it.
I wonder myself. If it’s a concept album, then what exactly is the concept?
Here’s the actual questions:
There’s the literal answer and the implied answer.
The literal answer is that since Sgt. Pepper’s was produced at a time when Britain had no equivalent of FM radio stations, and virtually no FM radio station in the U.S. that mattered at all had album rock playlists, it’s clear that Sgt. Pepper would have been produced and so would *Blonde on Blonde *and Disraeli Gears and Surrealistic Pillow and all the other albums from 1967. Many of those groups were responding to changes in studio equipment from 3-track to 4-track to 8-track to 12-track to 16-track machines, almost overnight, which radically changed studio production techniques and tended to make longer and more complex and layered songs possible; to the revolution in live music, the development of long concerts with expected improvising and hour-long guitar solos; and adding that to the sudden change-over from low-fi “hi-fi” sets, often mono, to true stereo systems with great speakers and amps and pre-amps and graphic equalizers driving turntables with diamond-tipped needles. Both were considerably more important than radio station play before about 1970.
The implied answer assumes that what you were asking was whether the album industry would have continued to evolve in the same way without FM as we know it. Beats me. Maybe AM would have evolved differently. Maybe stereo equipment would have become even more important. Maybe whole new technologies would have arisen. Maybe the rock era would have died an ugly death. Maybe dinosaurs would have returned and eaten all the rock stars. Alternate world speculations are meaningless. I understand that others love to jump into that murk. Not me. Once you make a change you have to accept the totally unforeseen, even unimaginable, logical and illogical consequences of that change and you have to allow in other changes as preposterous and staggeringly unexpected as the ones that happen in the real world every day. Change one thing and anything, literally anything can happen, and you can’t make any claims of greater or lesser plausibility. It’s a game I won’t play.
If things were different, different things would happen. Nobody can say what.
If we’re going to go for instrumental albums, then The Ventures were even earlier - their 1961 album, “The Colorful Ventures” consisted entirely of songs with colors in the titles.
Singles were the dominant format for rock music prior to The Beatles. However, if my family is any indication, albums were dominant for non-rock. My parents had quite a few albums by the likes of Frank Sinatra, Frankie Laine, Burl Ives, Kay Starr, Billy Vaughn and his Orchestra, and many others. Early on, albums came in both 10" and 12" sizes, though after the early 50s, 12" records took over the market.
A decent sized album collection for my parents generation would have been maybe 50 - 60 albums. After The Beatles, album collections in the hundreds were pretty common. I myself had about 800, about 600 of which I still own.
I don’t know about country music. In the 50s, a lot of country singles were played on AM radio alongside rock and other music (rock didn’t own the show until after The Beatles), but I never cared enough about country to pay much attention. The audience for country music was fairly limited in the north, where I came from, except for some cross-over artists like Johnny Horton.
All classical music was on LPs, because of the length of the compositions. Prior to that, classical music came in actual albums of 78s (like photo albums, but containing records), which is where the term “album” came from in the first place.
Albums were smaller sellers for early rock because the going marketing idea was to release the album with a hit single or two plus a lot of filler. After The Beatles, who did good song after good song, there was increasing pressure to minimize the filler.
Rhetorical questions aren’t really meant to be answered, but thanks anyway.
Where would we be without rhetorical questions?
The concept is that a band besides the Beatles wrote and recorded the music, as already mentioned upthread. Not that the songs have a specific thread binding them together. It’s not a narrative album or a rock opera, like later concept albums, but that doesn’t mean it’s not significant. What it comes down to, literally, is the thought behind it. “Hey, guys, let’s do an album like this…” instead of their earlier process, which is that John and Paul wrote a bunch of songs, brought them in, worked on them, worked on them, recorded demos, worked some more, and then selected the best ones for the album (with no thought of song order or unification).
There’s a literal and an implied answer to that. 