With news of Warner Music Group's launch of a digital-only "e-label" -- an logical step called by most either too late or too little -- some old complaints have once agained reared their heads. The album, to some an anachronistic symbol of a failing business model, is taking heat.

A typically negative view of the album format can be found at Peter Paphides' "analysis" at the Times Online. "Ten years ago, when New Order released their dodgy Republic album, fans were held to ransom: to get its three or four decent tracks, they would have had to endure six or seven of pure filler."

Here's where I disagree. That was a good album, and New Order was proud enough of those tracks to put them on the album. That's a band that doesn't rush to release an album. But it's not just that band, and the debate over the album format shouldn't center only around an assumption of label and band greed.

The album is still a defining artistic statement and the de facto measure of an artist's career. Any musician worth his/her salt has put out a good album. Not a good single. Not a good MP3 download. A good album. Do I expect future artists to think so little of themselves that they aim to release singles or three-song EPs? Not at all. The album format is still what matters. Egos will demand albums. Fortunes are made on albums. Better than the single or EP, the album portrays all a band's strengths, moods, conflicts and thoughts. If a band is one-dimensional and shallow then by all means let's relegate it to a career of one-offs. If a band is genuinely good it shouldn't stop at an EP, it needs to offer more to listeners.

Granted, there are plenty of bad albums, and there are many more that are merely mediocre. In the old days -- pre-digital era -- consumers were strong-armed into buying the entire album. But as Lou Reed sang, "These are different times." People can choose not to pay and find just about anything on P2P networks (if they want to roll the RIAA dice) or they can buy a la carte at online stores. In fact, in a time when buyers can preview online (band websites, MTV.com, VH1.com, MySpace.com) and often at retailers (listening post, new digital kiosks) there's no excuse for buying bad albums because there shouldn't be any surprise.

But buyer beware: Buying three or four tracks may encourage the mediocre to keep recording. Here's my theory on the sub-album model of the e-label: The downside of the digital revolution is that it will eventually provide a business model that will support mediocre artists who don't have the goods to make a good album. You see, good bands make good albums while mediocre bands make three good songs and a ringtone. Buying albums will foster long term artist development and more worthwhile music. The three-song-and-a-ringtone model encourages labels to seek a quick return on a flavor of the month. It won't weed out the weaker artists, and it will ruin the process of natural evolution that previously ended the careers all but the stronger artists.

That's my theory. It may hold water, it may not. Regardless, I'll stick with albums, thank you.