I see a lot of good responses to my questions, but I think everyone's approaching it from the "based on my listening habits" or "the artists I like to listen to" angle. But what about the population at large? Since we all know this boils down to dollars and cents, what if the pay-per-single mechanism becomes more profitable?

True, artists nowadays go into the studio to record an album, though I think a lot of "fudging" goes into that process.. A lot of times, an old track will find its way onto a new album, and bands will often record two or three other songs at another studio a few months later to "fill out" an album. The album is also the vehicle for creating live tours, but that could evolve into a "we tour after we've released enough singles to generate interest" process, or even "we release 10 singles at one time and tour on the strength of those" process. I guess my point is that there are other logistical reasons why the album concept works, but none of them seem like showstoppers.

For instance, in response the "same producers and engineers" angle, wouldn't it behoove record companies to put out singles first, to find out which producer/artist combinations yield profitable tracks, and then keep going to the well with that combination?

I totally agree with the art of song placement, even on non-concept albums. And I personally am with all you guys who are defending the concept of the album as art... I just think that the artistic angle is the ONLY angle that's really holding it up. Well, that, and the big labels' refusal to ever try anything new... But really, it's one of those "what's old is new again" things, because music started out with singles... I was just seeing if anyone else thought that electronic distribution might be signaling a return to those days.