Double albums

Does Led Zeppelin's digital remasters triple-album count?

I suppose there are many different reasons. Some bands/artists simply don't want to part with tracks, some are talked into it by the record bosses, some have the concept in mind from start and intend to see it through....what else...probably loads.

I read once that somebody (I forget who) released a double album strictly to fulfill his contractual obligations to the label. He then switched to a different one.

*Do double albums (or the dreaded triple-album monster beloved of prog rock) actually work? * In Dylans case the answer is yes, they DO work, in fact he's made five album sets that work, albeit as retrrospectives of mostly unreleased work. Blonde On Blonde almost HAD to be a double, if for no other reason than Sad-Eyed Lady Of The Lowlands (his eulogy to his soon-to-be ex-wife), took up a whole side of an album. Mostly though, doubles tend to be singles collections with some dross added to make up the number. I have no idea who Foster is referring to, but in-fighting between artists and labels has always been rife.. CBS, who had signed Dylan for a paltry royalty (which I add, he grabbed with both hands as he was desperate for a contract), tried to blackmail him into re-signing at a later date when he was big business. They had withheld most of his royaltys and threatened to pay the lot in a lump sum if he didn't re-sign. The blackmail element was present because had they done so, Dylan would have had to pay the lions share to the IRS. In the event he told them to go fuck themseves, and signed a deal with Island for one album. In an effort to kill the sales of the album, (Planet Waves), CBS put out an album of the worst out-takes they could find in their Dylan back-catalogue. Needless to say, Dylan made a second album with Island, and seeing the folly of their ways CBS eventually gave Dylan the contract he demanded.

Wasn't it Prince, or someone like that?

I don't think it's the double album that's to blame - it's the CD. In the good old days of vinyl it was very difficult to get more than 20 minutes on a side - which meant that most albums lasted 40 mins. max. That meant that bands had to hone down their work to be the 'very best'. That created good albums. Nowadays a single CD can last 80 or 90 minutes - and a double can be twice as long. That allows a heap of dross in to recordings - stuff that the bands think is good but really could be axed. Most modern albums would be far better if only they lost half of the tracks.

I think the CD point's right. I remember when I first heard Be Here Now by Oasis thinking that it was full of half-decent three minute songs which had been allowed to run on for eight minutes. Extra space has seriously damaged quality control.

The record buying public are mainly to blame for the inclusion of crap. Many people won't buy a medium capable of up to 84mins content that is only half full. They some how feel they've been sold short. Record companies aren't without blame either, as with the advent of CD's they increased the price of an album claiming increased production costs. This was bollocks. An in-depth investigation by 'Q' magazine about a year after the introduction of CD's exposed the lie. One major label executive admitted that as CD's were an entirely new medium the public had no way of knowing the true cost. A cartel of big labels agreed it was a golden opportunity, one that may never be repeated, to boost profit margins without criticism. A result of the price hike was that consumers demanded increased content, hence the inclusion of out-takes and other assorted crap. Vinyl content (run time) varied considerably. This was at least in part due to production quality and/or artistic considerations. Some labels, (Deutche Gramaphon, for instance), would insist on using heavyweight 'virgin' vinyl in order to achieve the best possible quality. This also required limiting the run-time of a side by cutting better quality grooves spaced further apart. They would also 'master' the discs at half-speed as opposed to high speed mastering which again reduced the quality. All these considerations increased retail costs and reduced profits as there was always going to be a maximum price the record buyers were prepared to pay. Cheapo labels, (Golden Hour, K-Tel, Pickwick etc) would use some re-cycled vinyl, which wasn't so good in many respects, to reduce production costs. To boost customer demand they increased the run-time, which in turn meant smaller grooves closer together, and an overall reduction in sound quality. Although these labels were cheaper to buy the reduced production costs maintained profit margins. Artists with more integrity and vision with regard to their recorded output would insist on higher quality production, and sometimes record an album as a complete artistic concept which had little to do with maximum run-times, (hence, 'Sad-Eyed Lady Of The Lowlands', the side that Neil felt was short on length). These records were meant to be heard almost as a complete concert and listeners that heard these albums this way were not really concerned about 'concert' length. Neil, being a bean-counter would probably want maximum beans! I, on the other hand, were very happy if the sauce was top quality, both in sound and content.

talking of red hot chillie peppers, i was reading on another board, and the poster claimed that some of the tracks on this album are basically a rip off of tom petty and the heartbreakers, not heard this album, are they "heavily influenced" by TP?