I hilariously don't have i-tunes.  I hate mp3s.  They sound way too compressed.

They always sounded the same as CDs to me- never noticed the difference.

I've done direct comparisons, it never sounds as good to me.  Mp3s also sound very digital, kind of like how a badly encoded video will look digital.  Vinyl is usually even better, but I hate how it slowly deteriorates into clicks and pops, so yeah CDs all the way.

I also hate what i-tunes has done to people's perceptions of music.  I like asked my friend yesterday what her favorite albums were, and she told me she only listens to songs and never albums, beause of how she just downloads songs she likes from i-tunes.  To me that's like watching a scene from a movie but not the whole thing.  To me, the album is the main experience.  O___O

So it's like technology has actually caused music to de-evolve back to the 1950's, where everything was only singles.  And not the cool Devo kind of de-evolution.  xD

I do make a lot of music mixes, but damn if I could pick my 10 most listened to songs. Lotsa Christmas songs these days, though

I used to love getting a new album and listening to the whole thing - reading along with the lyrics, studying the artwork... I don't think I've done that since The Black Parade by My Chemical Romance. Albums are truly becoming a lost art form.

Yeah, I got out of listening to "albums" as soon as I could. A lot of my CDs were mixes or downloaded stuff already- I got way too tired of having a few good songs on an album, then "Filler" for the rest. I nicknamed this "Foo Filler", because the Foo Fighters released a bunch of CDs with one or two guaranteed hits, and then filled the rest with just some random stuff. Kind of unfair, since the Fighters are a MUCH better band that many others who do far worse (Nickelback chief among them). Most albums don't need to be listened to as a whole unless they were "Concept Albums", far as I think.

I'm nowhere near enough of an audiophile, I guess. I still use the headphones that came with my iPod (I'm assuming that's a cardinal sin & anathema to audiophiles ), and I'm pretty sure I got the cheapest speakers possible for my computer, so I doubt I'd notice a difference anyways. I already seem to enjoy the music just fine, so I don't even know what I'm missing out on.

Well, I kind of think if an artist only has a few good songs on an album, they're really not that good anyways.  Real artists are going to try to push for an entire album of good songs.  If there's only a few stand out songs, I think that's a tell tale sign that artist is either too commercial or is trying to go pop.  If you're trying to go pop, you focus on producing singles instead of an album, and everything else feels like it's half-@ssed.  I blame the record industry for pushing artists like that, but I don't think it means there aren't genuinely good albums out there.

I don't really feel an album needs a concept to roll together sonically.  I mean let's take Beastie Boys - Paul's Boutique, which seems to have no defining concept.  On their own, the tracks are pretty good, but when you listen to those things back to back in sequential order it's a totally immersive experience into their world of dusty samples and hilarious obscure references.  Every time I put that thing in, I have to listen to it all the way through.  I don't get that experience if I say listen to a Beastie Boys best hits album, because the tracks from different albums weren't designed to gel together in that same way.

Not really an audiophile.  I still need to buy a new stereo and new speakers for this computer.  I can still tell the difference out of these really inferior speakers I have on my computer, but yeah, you're mileage may vary.  Everyone experiences things differently.

I also hate what i-tunes has done to people's perceptions of music.  I like asked my friend yesterday what her favorite albums were, and she told me she only listens to songs and never albums, beause of how she just downloads songs she likes from i-tunes.  To me that's like watching a scene from a movie but not the whole thing.  To me, the album is the main experience.  O___O

I got iTunes, so I could download specific songs when I don't want the whole album (for example, when Fergie or Nicole Scherzinger guests on someone else's album).

This is why the Album Only option infuriates me. Greedy jerks.

Then there's the case of "HIStory" by Michael Jackson. Buying the entire two-disc album (including all of the hits from previous albums) cost LESS than buying only the new songs. I guess they REALLY wanted people to get those hits.

Anyway, iTunes is nowhere near representative of my musical tastes (I listen to a lot of Kumi Miyasato, Belinda Carlisle, Gundam, Bubblegum Crisis, etc. on my comp, and Lara Fabian's "The Dream Within" might be my favorite song EVER), but here ya go (everything that has more than one listen in descending order):

New Divide - Linkin Park
What I've Done - Linkin Park
Monster - Paramore
What I've Done (Acoustic Version) - Marie Digby
Reflection (Soundtrack Version) - Lea Salonga
The Holly and the Ivy - Lea Salonga
Disney Medley (Live) - Lea Salonga
Beat It (Demo) - Michael Jackson
God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen - Belinda Carlisle
Don't Cha (Live) - The Pussycat Dolls
Whatever U Like - Nicole Scherzinger
Man In the Mirror - Michael Jackson
Beat It 2008 - Michael Jackson and Fergie
Billie Jean (Long Version) - Michael Jackson

With "Quotas" and such, I find it unlikely that anyone could made an album of 10-12 good songs in only a year or so's time, which is what a lot of bands do. Maybe I'm too critical, but I don't think I've EVER found an entire album of great songs- usually at least 20% just end up "passable" and I skip 'em over most times I listen. Even albums I REALLY like, by artists I REALLY like, end up getting this ("Wicked" is my favourite Broadway play ever, but it's got a half-dozen songs that are really there for exposition and filler).

I probably own like 400 albums.  I think there's probably 20-30 that I think are that plagued by filler.  Some of those weren't even designed as albums.  Some of them are anime sound tracks. 

Some of those albums were released with one year gaps.  A lot with two.  Most, though, have three year gaps.

Not trying to judge your musical tastes.  Don't get me wrong.  However, if you think every album is filled with filler, I think maybe you are listening to the wrong records.  Maybe you're just super picky and will only like 1 or 2 songs regardless, but I don't think most people that are big into bands or genres can relate to that experience.

Of course, it's not always a sign of being too commercial/poppy (I consider those definitions for Hipsters anyways ). It could just be a sign that they're not that good.

Commerical/poppy music isn't something snobby music nerds came up with.  It's just something that is.

The important thing I think is are the people that are making this doing it with passion and conviction?  Or are they just making the artistic decisions they do because it's a job?

I'm usually one that finds people criticizing things for being popular a bit annoying, but there's definitely meat to the argument about how messed up the music industry is.  I'm fine with trying to give the people what they want, but in this case it's like giving what a few old guys in business suits want to use to fill in their marketing schemes.  Two different things I think.

I remember a group I really liked, Jurassic 5.  They did three really good underground oldschool style hip hop records and had that awesome oldschool group chemistry where they would sing and chant parts of the song as a group.  Something you really don't see anymore and is completely lost on today's rap audience, but is fantastic to listen to. 

They got some video airplay on MTV2, etc. because they were good.  Not huge airplay, but they got some attention at least and developed a following.  I saw them at the House of Blues in Chicago and there were a lot of people there, enough for them to make a living I'm sure.

Then comes their 4th record, they suddenly try to switch it around and go for a more "commercial, mainstream" sound, which is certainly something that exists and they went for.  Unfortunately, the plan fails terribly.  It didn't catch on with that mainstream commercial audience like the wanted to, their fans disregard the album, it sells quite badly, and the band literally implodes and breaks up like a few months later.

Instead of continuing to have a following and a career, they threw it all away in an attempt to sell out.  This is the nature of the music business I think. 

Obviously, there are some people who transcend this and are able to do whatever the heck they want to anyways with in the scope of "pop music."  For example, I wouldn't put Michael Jackson into this category.  He was for real.  He made his music with conviction and did what he wanted. 

However, everyone else that is smaller does not get that kind of luxury.  A lot of artists don't get a second chance I think, because the meat grinder is always looking for new blood.

I'll admit, I'm pretty jaded against the music industry.  I think I have a good reason though to be.  About 95% of the people I looked up to in hip hop were literally shoved out of the business in the mid to late 90's.  It's not because they didn't have enough material to make more albums, it's because that's what the corporate overlords decided after their control of radio airplay was consolidated in the 90's thanks to the politicians they lobbied to for that right.  This didn't happen naturally, everyone was cleaned out like it was the St. Valentine's Day Massacre.  Even people that had been doing it for 10 to 15 years.

Mean while, some of the old white rock bands that the people at these big labels looked up to were allowed to continue existing even if they were now just releasing duds without the same kind of passion of the stuff they did in the 60's and 70's.  Certainly no justice I think.

I think this experience helped open my eyes though on the relationship between corporations and art.  It's never really pretty, and it is rarely if ever fair.

Oddly, the most insightful thing I've ever heard about the music industry came from the Archie Americana series- a Little Richard parody shouts at a record executive who dismissed The Archies as "pop"- "Listen up! There are TWO types of music- GOOD music and BAD music!"

Sadly, it's never really that simple.  Sometimes, good musicians are forced to make bad music.  Sometimes good musicians are not allowed to release good music on actual record labels.  True but sad.  This is why it's important to cherish the good stuff that is released.

I think the biggest case of "Selling out" ever was... Puddle of Mudd? I think that was them. They were one of those generic "Angry Rock" bands that came out when Limp Bizkit & Nickelback were pretty big, and had some hits. Then they MAGICALLY shifted genres to "Whiny Emo Rock" because that was what was popular. Total selling-out, and I think that was shameful. Not that I ever cared for Puddle of Mudd, because I have none of their stuff.

Sometimes I think I'm too cynical for only liking some songs on an album, but then again, I have 948 songs on my iTunes "Top Rated" (songs rated between **** and *****, meaning that I think they are totally awesome), so obviously I enjoy plenty. But even the best CDs, by the best bands, have a lot of skippable stuff. I mean, my Beatles collection has plenty of my favourite songs ever ("While My Guitar Gently Weeps", "Yesterday", "Happiness Is a Warm Gun"), but then I find a lot of their weirder stuff skippable (I never understood why people liked "Eleanor Rigby", and a lot of their earlier stuff is kiddie and annoying rather than catchy- I don't like "She Loves You Ya-Ya", but I DO like "From Me To You").  To say nothing of "Revolution No. 9". "Octopus' Garden" is hilariously bizarre, though. I'm not a fan of most "We wrote this on heroin" music, but it's inventive and fun.

The Smashing Pumpkins' "Mellon Collie" is a really good album with TONS of hits that are both accessible AND very good, but with TWO CDs, I find a lot of filler, but an equal number of kookie experimental stuff that I kinda like ("We Only Come Out At Night" is the antithesis of "popular music", but is fun and a worthy addition to a CD... having 2 CDs to fill means you can easily fit those on there). On that whole album though, there's eight songs I rated ** (basically "not bad, but I usually skip it unless I'm in a 'whole album' mood"), and two songs rated *. But it's the FOUR ****+ songs, and TWELVE *** (ie. good, but not, like, PHENOMENAL) songs that make me really enjoy the album as a whole.

Billy Corgan actually had a pretty good comment on an interview show about "how much great music gets destroyed by corporations", and how certain artists are held back, so I definitely agree that corporate music is a bad thing overall. An inevitable thing, perhaps (the big corps mostly STARTED as little ones), but still it's had a negative effect. Granted, it's hard to take Corgan seriously there because he hasn't released a good CD in over a decade.

Even on Greatest Hits albums I find songs I just don't care for. I consider that mostly natural for me- even by bands I REALLY like, like Dire Straits.