Well... The thing is, italics are primarily used to denote emphasis, so I think it makes for slightly awkward reading to give them another job as well. To my eyes they also look rather messy when used for album or film titles - simple initial caps work for me.
As with most questions of style, all that really matters is clarity - I've never found the Word's style unclear or confusing, so I don't see a problem with it.

Archie; as a camper in the halls of Academe, I have cause to abide/be obsessed by the Harvard Referencing system, which we must follow on pain of death. I do think italicising clarifies distinctions between songs within albums and the album itself, the same as a chapter within a book against the book's title.
It's a shame I haven't got the facility to italicise on the blog, although others seem to be able to do this. What am I missing?

and wasn't the last issue a bit of an all-round shocker from a subbing point of view? Several typos, including one in a standfirst. Tsk. Charmingly amateurish is still amateurish, you know.

a universally-accepted citation style? All the newspapers I have worked have firmly ruled against using both italics and them pesky inverted commas for referring to cultural works. (Heck, that sounds a tad clunky.) Apparently it looks both ugly and incongruous. Thus Prince's song and album are forever both Purple Rain. And rightly so, ahem.