The End of Double-Albums

This is for all those out there who tag your mp3's with 'disc #' and 'total discs' metadata. And this is for all of those who, like me, choose to take the high road and leave that metadata out. And this is for all of you who don't yet care or didn't yet realize we're in a period of great turmoil.

I was talking to a friend the other day who asked me, "When you listen to music originally made for vinyl, do you inconveniently pause the music right in the middle, as if to simulate turning over the album?" My answer was obviously "No." Because even the mentally challenged know that's a stupid idea.

He continued, "And do you tag your old music with 'side A' and 'side B' and sometimes 'side C' and 'side D' so you never forget the imperfections of a world without computers?" Of course I answered, as we'd all answer, with another "No." Because we all know better.

He got to the point then, "And did you know that a lot of people still haven't stopped tagging their music collection with disc numbers, even when those CDs were purchased (or downloaded) in a singular container?" And I said, "No, but I do think that some people need convincing before they give it up." Because we all have to make the change sooner or later.

Eventually, CDs, like vinyls and cassettes, will be a thing of the past. In much the same way that the average albums grew from 10 minutes to 40 minutes to 50 minutes to 60 minutes to now, often more than that, as technology progressed, the internet has made available the opportunity for artists to present albums of different lengths today.

No longer does the medium dictate how long an album should be. Thanks to the endless progress from past to better, internet musicians are now free to release albums as short as they like or as long as they like. The near future might realize 24 hour albums, perhaps even infinite albums. The sounds and perceptual experiences we will have will shake the very foundation of what music was traditionally. And yet, we will still be able to keep the traditional in both form and content.

Yet, there are some people that still use the 'disc #' and 'total discs' tags. It is my understanding that those people had their reasons for doing it when they started, and now, perhaps only through a little bit of encouragement or useful suggestions will they change.

If even one of these logical reasons to ditch the outdated tag resonate, that can be enough for you to make the leap and join the rest of us as tomorrow becomes today again. What is an excellent reason for someone else may not be nearly as important or indisputable as what you find to be an excellent reason. The very fact that there are multiple reasons should entice you, in itself.

1. If the musician released the album on the internet or on any future medium, they would probably not have divided the music into albums. In much the same way that the side A and side B of Abbey Road are still distinct experiences, we have unanimously elected to discard the tagging of 'sides'.
2. To continue tagging 'discs' would be like including change-reel markers on your DVD videos, because when you see a film, they have to change reels at those points. We don't do it and everybody knows why!
3. In much the same way that you might be embarrassed if you did not own a refrigerator or a telephone, using 'disc' metadata does have the tendency to send a message which can be roughly translated as "I am not flexible and I am not aging positively." I would want to be the opposite of that.
4. A strict adherence to tagging 'discs' will hinder the progress of the music industry and individual artists alike in the years ahead. We now have the potential to explore new explorations of musical presentation and connectedness, and the memory of a dying medium's 74-minute limit will most certainly be of detriment to our exploration. Take iTunes $10 album as an example -- that is a bias against albums which are shorter than 10 songs or longer than 15. Imagine that that kind of bigotry will continue until the end of the era of 'disc' metadata.

My suggestion, very simply, is that for all extended compellations and multi-albums that are intended to be listened to in one sitting, we should have a continuous line of track numbers from 1-n, even if n is equal to 50 or more. Examples are The Beatles' White Album, Pink Floyd's The Wall, Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds' Lyre of Orpheus/Abattoir Blues, The Red Hot Chili Peppers' Stadium Arcadium, Philip Glass's Einstein on the Beach, and Robert Ashley's Perfect Lives.

Remembering that there is another group of albums of with many discs (or sometimes one disc) whose contents is not of similar sort or is not meant to be listened to at once, we should do the opposite. For those collections, we should split the albums into their component sections, title the albums separately, and renumber the tracks from 1 to n. As an example, you would be hard pressed to find a Beach Boys cd that was not distributed in sets of two albums joined on one CD with bonus tracks on top. Clearly, the albums and the bonus tracks should be given separate 'album title' metadata for a total of three tracks.

I hope that through this discussion, you've found the inspiration to make the necessary modifications to your music collection, perhaps because you've realized that this method is the only way to protect the artist's original intention and presentation, despite the convenience of a 74-minute album or the historic restriction that required a singular arc of music be divided between multiple CDs.

What are your thoughts? What are your conditions? Have you made the jump yet? Are you ready? Are you waiting for some reason that was not voiced here?