I generally enjoy getting new music. Listening to a new album for a first time is like opening a gift, where you don’t know how much you’ll enjoy what’s inside, but still just appreciate receiving it. Buying new music is one of my simple pleasures in life. Acquiring and listening to new music is generally a very pleasant experience.
Here are five annoying things that bands, or their record labels, do that make this experience a little less pleasant. Why they do these things, I do not know, but I really wish they would knock it off.
1. Hidden Tracks
Picture this: it’s the late 1990s. You just bought a new CD, and you pop that bad boy into your oversized stereo system. You listen to it while you post about Pogs or Beanie Babies or whatever on a message board with your dial-up connection. The last song finishes, and you opt not to get up since you’re totally a 90s slacker dude. Then, after several minutes of silence, a new song starts up! Maybe it’s amazing, maybe it sucks, or maybe it’s just a bunch of random noises (see: Beck). Regardless of its quality, you’ve just been introduced to the hidden track.
Back in the days when physical albums were the norm, including hidden tracks was more understandable. You only had the tracklist written on the sleeve or case to let you know which songs were which, and anything off of this list was uncharted waters. The first time someone discovered a hidden track on a CD, they might have been encouraged to check every other album for more of them. They’re a little like a post-credits scene in a movie in this regard. However, once discovered, think of how much of a pain in the ass it was to find them again. Some bands were generous enough to include their hidden songs as separate tracks, and just omitted them from the written tracklist as a surprise. For the others that include several minutes of silence before the hidden song starts, you would have to carefully drop the needle, fast forward the cassette, or seek the CD to the approximate start point.
Fortunately, digital media has led to a sharp decline in hidden tracks. To start, if you see a final track with a runtime of 15+ minutes on an album full of 3-5 minute songs, that usually means there’s something hidden included (unless that final song is “Impossible Soul” by Sufjan Stevens). Finding where these hidden songs start is also much easier, since you can just drag your finger or click your mouse until you find the right point. Lastly, since almost no one relies on written tracklists anymore, few will notice any discrepancies between the tracklist on a physical sleeve/case and what’s actually on the album. Since hidden tracks aren’t all that hidden anymore, maybe let’s just agree to list them with the rest of the tracks on the album?
2. Deluxe Albums, Compilations, and EPs Full of Fluff
I feel like it’s well documented here how much I love non-studio album tracks, from bonus tracks to B-side compilations to EPs. Ideally, hearing these less-popular songs allows listeners to get a better, more comprehensive sense of an artist and their creative process. I imagine it’s not easy for artists to decide which tracks make the cut for their studio albums, and it’s always interesting to hear these various outtakes. Yes, a lot of it is not the artist’s best, and you’ll often realize why these tracks were kept as a B-side or relegated to an EP. However, you’ll sometimes hear songs that are just as good, if not better than, anything on a studio album. On rare occasions, these will be something deemed too “different” from the sound of a particular album that really blows you away.
With this in mind, there’s nothing more annoying than seeing compilations, bonus track listings, and EPs full of remixes, live recordings, demo versions, and alternative takes. I consider these “fluff” because they’re not new or original material. I almost never buy remix albums or live albums, but I do appreciate the artists who utilize them instead of using these types of songs to pad the track lists of other albums. Demo and alternative (usually acoustic) versions of songs are only marginally more interesting. All of these fluff songs rely on the original/studio version being so good that you want to hear different versions of it, and appeal only to the most diehard of fans. I like a whole lot of bands enough to check out deluxe versions of their studio albums, but will take a hard pass on them if the bonus tracks are fluff. I’d estimate that of the fluff tracks I’ve heard, only 10% aren’t skippable, and I would almost always prefer an aggressively mediocre but original song.
3. Anniversary Re-Releases with Very Little New Content
For better or worse, there’s no shortage of bands and musicians that acknowledge they struck it big with one album released several years ago. Maybe they don’t necessarily live in the shadow of that album, but they do owe most of their fanbase to it, and people come to their shows to hear songs from it. To please these fans (and make money), the bands and/or their labels often re-release these albums with extra content.
However, these re-releases almost always include the original album in its entirety, making them a tough sell to anyone who already owns it. The fact that the songs are usually remastered probably won’t impress anyone but the most astute audiophiles. If you get a physical copy, most re-issues will include things such as posters, tour diaries, or expanded notes on the recording of the album. They also almost always include extra tracks, which is what I’d like to focus on here.
The best re-releases include plenty of songs with a “previously unreleased” next to their titles, or several B-sides. The worst re-releases try to draw you in with only the “fluff” described above. Many mix the two, which is understandable, but the real question is how many extra tracks are there? Some have dozens, while others have only 2 or 3. Re-releases already tend to cost more than the original album, and are those few songs really worth that much more? If your fans like you enough to shell out for a re-release, at least reward them with a plethora of new content.
Finally, I can tell I’m getting old because a fair amount of bands I follow have been issuing not just 10th anniversary editions of these breakthrough albums, but I’m also starting to see a lot of 20th anniversary editions.
4. Albums with Too Many Versions
Imagine you have a friend who lives in a different country, and you two start talking about the most recent release by a band you both like. You say something like “I really like that final track, especially the piano part,” and your friend seems confused because the final track doesn’t have a piano at all. You soon realize that you each have different versions of what should be the same album.
I’m going to put the blame for this one on the labels, and won’t pretend to know the intricacies of why albums owned by different international subsidiaries have different track listings. Sometimes this is just limited to bonus tracks, which you’ll see most often on Japanese versions of albums. Allegedly, Japanese labels do this to incentivize buyers to go for the more-expensive domestic versions rather than cheaper imported ones. However, market-exclusive bonus tracks aren’t limited to Japan, and things can get quite messy when you see different bonus tracks for different countries (e.g. the Canadian version, the UK version), different vendors (e.g. iTunes version, Target version), and different formats (e.g. CD version, vinyl version). I can’t think of anyone other than the most loaded and most devoted of fans being willing to “catch ‘em all” with albums like these.
The “too many versions” problem isn’t confined to bonus tracks either. Occasionally, the core track lists of albums will vary. For example, the Clash’s debut album has very different track listings on the U.S. and U.K. versions. The vinyl version of Modest Mouse’s seminal The Lonesome Crowded West has a different track than its other formats. Re-releases on different labels will occasionally scramble track listings around. I have no idea why this is a thing. It could be a case of bands reconsidering an early track listing and wanting to improve things, which I’d be fine with. However, if it’s entirely label-driven, it’s really annoying.
5. Physical-Exclusive Albums
Even though I buy a whole lot of CDs and the occasional record, I do 99% of my music listening on my phone or my laptop. Almost all new releases I buy are digital albums. I only have so much space for physical albums, and do a lot of my listening while walking or driving. As much as audiophiles might lament the great shift towards digital music, you can’t exactly play a record in a car.
As someone who enjoys trying to complete discographies, nothing throws a wrench in this faster than physical-only releases. I audibly groan each time I learn that I can’t buy a digital version of an album from the artist/label’s website, Bandcamp, Amazon, or iTunes. This means if I want to own the release (rather than just stream it), I have to somehow get my hands on a CD or vinyl version. If I do buy a CD, I’m just going to upload it to my laptop so I can later put it on my phone, so why create the mandatory extra step of the CD? For vinyl, your only option for mobile convenience is praying the record includes a download code, which defeats the “physical only” aspect anyways. The only reasons why I can imagine artists/labels would do this are to make some releases into “collector’s items” through artificial scarcity, or wanting to preserve some “artistry” by making sure listeners are only appreciating the most high-fidelity versions of recordings. Either way, it’s pretty annoying.
You must be logged in to post a comment.