Bands with only one good song.

  • Thread starter Thread starter tjohnston
  • Start date Start date
tjohnston

tjohnston

New member
Fuck that. Im getting tired of this shit. I hear a good song; I buy the cd; I throw it out the window on the way home. Damn I just paid 20 dollars for that shit. Its like they make one for production and the rest is just plain sounding boring filler.
 
Yes it is very exasperating and the business is so tainted that you’re no longer required to write or produce first-class music as long as your album is comprised of one song that will get played.
 
That is a big part of the reason why sites like Napster are so popular, and a big part of the reason why music distribution is about to go through the biggest revolution since its inception. I really doubt any of us will be buying albums in another 5 years. We will be buying songs and burning our own CD's - or whatever the popular format might be then.

Can you say "Play that Funky Music"?
How about "Black Betty"?


Aaron
http://www.voodoovibe.com
 
I think part of the problem, aside from the money hungry labels willing to make a fast buck regardless of talent and the large flocks of people with no musical taste who buy these CDs, is that the majority of artists and producers don't really know how to approach the CD format. With vinyl, we had a fairly inexpensive (and lower quality if you had a typical consumer grade turntable) format with limited time. Somehow the idea of two sides to an album made it easier to take in for the listener. Many artists used this type of format well and thought of albums as entire concepts as opposed to focusing on individual songs.

CDs challenged the artist to provide more music in a larger time format (that is kind of awkward for the listener. What the hell do you do that lasts 74 minutes?), and they failed miserably. So now we have these disks that last a minimum of forty years, fairly durable, a little long in the tooth, and full of (maybe, if youre lucky) half an album's worth of decent material with the rest being filler that the artist or band couldnt fill qualitatively. Oh, and they also made sure the customer would pay more for a smaller package with smaller artwork.

Don't get me wrong. I love CDs. The sound quality is superb. No scratches, outlasts me, and worth the extra costs when you are replacing your old album collection. But in many cases, producers and artists have no clue how to make a good record on these things.

Cy
 
You know..... I think that is a very good observation.

In the vinyl days albums were more evenly paced becuase you had two different start/ end spots, and limited time. Most albums were 8 songs or so.
Now the average CD seems like it has 15 songs on it, and all the good ones are loaded in slots 1-4, becuase there's no reason to break them up towards the middle of the track list.
I mean, if Michael Jackson's Thriller (9 songs) were done today, would you put the two best songs (Beat It and Billie Jean) in slots 5 and 6, where they were originally slotted?

Aaron
http://www.voodoovibe.com
 
If record companies do feel the need to fill up all the usable space on CDs, then I don’t know where they got that idea. Perhaps they think that you will think you are getting more for your money if they fill it up. But it should be quality over quantity.

I think one reason music might have been better in the old vinyl days is because artists had more creative freedom and more control in earlier times. I believe the people who made records were more interested in producing good music instead of making money.

I’d like to see record companies squeezed out of the picture. We don’t need them so much anymore. Artists and listeners can reach each other through the Internet. We don’t need record companies to tell us which artists are good and which aren’t.
 
this ladies 'n gents...is why buying the 3 dollar punk compilation cd is the best way to go. its the best of eachs band and they put it out for the consumption for hopes that you will buy thier real cds. so either way you cant lose, even if you dont like it, its only 3 bucks. so friends, dont waste your money on full cds from one artist when you can experance many songs from many bands, all from a wide range of styles and skills.

i would recomend the "hopelessly devoted to you" cds and the "fat music for fat people" or just known as "fat music" cds. along with any of the large compilations made for a donation based organization. like the "plea for peace" which most of the earnings go to the 1-800-suicide hotline. so even if you dont like the money isnt going to some huge label. these people arent in it for the money, its all about the music.


freak
 
I noticed this horrible decline as well. And getting rather pissed about it.
My wife liked some song by a band, and didn't seem that bad. So I went and baught it for her.
That song was the ONLY song that was worth a shit.... album was total failure.
And I blew 15 bucks for this?!?!
Back to winmx.
This is why i'm producing my bands album. I may not beable to make the best songs, but I'm at least gunna make an actual effort. Which is way more than I can say for the bands these days, along with their shitty companies.

Alas... is there any hope for the true artist anymore?

P.S.
I remember the good 'ol days, when I could buy a disc, and just about EVERY song on it was good.
 
I think that the artists today have forgotten what it is like, or are just too young to know any better. There was a time my friends when the 45 was KING!!! Albums hardly sold, the industry focused on singles and that is how Rock and Roll started. In the 60's groups like The Beatles and The Stones, who grew up on 45's, saw the album as a viable medium and strove to make works of art with their albums. Listen to the White Album or Abbey Road. They put a lot into making an ALBUM not just a collection of singles. Led Zep did the same kind of thing. I think that somewhere in the late 70's and early 80's the artform of the album was lost and we just never got it back!! Nobody strives for what The Beatles or Stones strove for.
 
Aaron that is a very interesting point that you made. People buying to songs....not a whole album. You know if that was affordable I would be all over that personally.

Yes I agree with the though that the peer to peer file sharing has dawned with albums flat out sucking. I think that we all have bought albums for the one song that we dig and to find out that he rest of the album blows. Very frustrating!!!
 
I think there are subscripton services for that now. YOu pay like 10 bucks a month for unlimited MP3 downloads. The catch is that the quality is just MP3 quality. Once there is a way to get the audio quality up, and CD burners (or whatever) are cheap and ubiquitous enough, that's when the major shift will occur.
I think albums will still be around for the really die-hard fands, but for pop songs, I think they will be sold individually over the web.

Certain bands still do a good job of creating an album, but mostly "old-school" guys. Sting comes to mind. He keeps his albums to about 10 songs, and they are all well-crafted.

Aaron
http://www.voodoovibe.com
 
It's all about a the few making a lot of money for not a lot. Kind of like the situation the Beatles helped undo in the early 60's. A Fabian or a Frankie Avalon were the Backstreet Boys or Britney Spears of that time. For a short while, they were considered the thing to listen to. And, used to be, you could hear any style of popular music-as long as it was good-on the same station. And there were lots of small record companies trying to do something. Lots of record companies means lots of competition and variety. And more chances for more artists with talent to be discovered. The Bealtes, for the reasons you are complaining about, never released most of their singles on an album. They meant for their albums to stand on their own and took them as seriously as their singles. They set a standard. And, because of their popularity, it had to be followed. Unless you were a record company that didn't mind not selling records or making money.
 
Just about every cd I buy, I like every song on it. But I don't buy popular music. There are artists out there that still do a good job creating an album. They just aren't affiliated with the big record companies. This kind of leads me to believe that the record companies are more to blame for the one song crap than the actual artists.

And all the whining that is done about file sharing killing record sales is crap. If an album is worth buying, people will buy it. But no one is going to pay $18-25 for one song. That's ridiculous.
 
PC recording has to accept a part of the blame too guys. Every group with a hint of tallent, a little desire, and a computer can do just what we are doing..... sit at home and record an album. And off it goes with some element of exposure and someone has a "hit". Music can be produced at ones liesure and tossed out there. In addition a group or a dude can promote the bi-jesus out of any one of his tunes via a website and develope a mild fan base....
 
I don't know about that. The first big lesson you learn in home recording is that it ain't easy to sound really good. Yes, there have been artists that have made hits recording at home, but the odds are still against us homebrewers with the prosumer equipment. I really don't think pc home recording guys are much of a problem, because out of all those who try to record at home, a large portion goes about it the wrong way, creating a rush job piece of crap that no one, not even themselves will listen to. I'm not referring to anyone here mind you, but those guys who say "I just bought me a guitar and amp at radio shack. I took a couple lessons so I should be able to record at home and sound like [enter famous favorite artist here]. The rest of us are either very talented and realistic, doing this just for the love of the art, or we are out there doing gigs and working with studios and trying to make the most of our bands and musical endeavors.

I subscribe to TapeOp. I read it cover to cover. No one outside of this passion/hobby/endeavor/reason to live has even heard of the homebrewers who's latest project they just released. So, if the general public hasn't heard of these people, how are a large enough portion of them going to come in and buy enough CDs to make a difference to record companies? Nope. Their real fear is this whole MP3 file sharing mess.

I used to waver on this issue, but now, considering how badly the consumer is getting screwed out of quality music I fully support the MP3 revolution. Seriously, in a free market, it is up to the producer of the product to ensure that it isnt crap. The artist has no real legitimate claim outside of the initial distribution. (this is just like tape cassette trading, which was called into question many moons ago and it was determined that since the product was already purchased by the consumer that the consumer had the right to trade it with others, as long as profit wasnt generated. Although it does get a little muddy when the MP3 services are charging for their services, this would in turn be analogous to a used cd store. At any event, the artist already got his meager share anyway).

Cy
 
... and furthermore, even if a home recordist wrote a great song, performed it well, and produced a killer recording on his PC, chances are he doesn't have the money to market it to an audience large enough to compete with a big label.
You are lucky to get a song like that put into rotation on some podunk college station, let alone a megawatt Clear Channel station.
If the PC revolution has done anything to dillute the talent pool, I think it's this: you have a generation of musicians that can produce great sounding demos to submit to labels, but have never performed live in their life. If an AR guy has to pick from that pool, why not pick the pretty ones that can also turn a buck selling Pepsi?

Aaron
http://www.voodoovibe.com
 
scottboyher said:
Yes it is very exasperating and the business is so tainted that you’re no longer required to write or produce first-class music as long as your album is comprised of one song that will get played.
Click to expand...

To perhaps finish your sentiment, about the ONE hit song that WILL get played - and played, and played, and played, and... ;-P
 
To follow up on Aaron and Cyrokk's original points about LPs:

One thing I remember with tapes is that they forced me to listen to all of the songs. For example, I'd listen to a tape up to a ceratain point and later would have to either rewind it or resume from that point. Since it was a pain to search for my favorite song, I ended up listening to the entire tape at various times. This forced me to become familiar with and eventually like the other songs.

These days, someone can buy a CD based on being familiar with a certain song on the radio. They may not be as familiar with the other songs and may not give them a chance. Especially because they can just zip to their fave each time they pop in a CD. This reduces their ability to appreciate the other songs. Thus, they may perceive the other songs to be of poor quality because they neve gave them a chance.

Damn young whippersnappers. :p
 
Aaron Cheney said:
Can you say "Play that Funky Music"?

Aaron
http://www.voodoovibe.com
Click to expand...

So true, Parissi is a DJ now I think. Wild Cherry Put out an album long before Funky Music, but broke up around 1975. Some of those guys went on to play with other groups (one of which had some regional success). Parissi put another group together to make Funky Music which was the only tune that went to #1 out of 3 LPs. He just didn't know when to go back to Rock n Roll.


bd
 
Lopp said:
To follow up on Aaron and Cyrokk's original points about LPs:

One thing I remember with tapes is that they forced me to listen to all of the songs. For example, I'd listen to a tape up to a ceratain point and later would have to either rewind it or resume from that point. Since it was a pain to search for my favorite song, I ended up listening to the entire tape at various times. This forced me to become familiar with and eventually like the other songs.

These days, someone can buy a CD based on being familiar with a certain song on the radio. They may not be as familiar with the other songs and may not give them a chance. Especially because they can just zip to their fave each time they pop in a CD. This reduces their ability to appreciate the other songs. Thus, they may perceive the other songs to be of poor quality because they neve gave them a chance.

Damn young whippersnappers. :p
Click to expand...
Good point, Lopp. I catch myself doing this all the time with CDs, skipping to songs I know and love.

But at the same time, I can't make myself listen to songs that are doing nothing for me, whether emotionally or even intellectually. (I'm talking about really listening, BTW, not putting on a disc while I'm cooking dinner or folding laundry — during those times I might hear a whole disc of tunes but not really listen to any of them, dig?) On first listen I give every song a chance, but if it leaves me cold I probably won't listen to it in the future. I'll always skip "Enter Sandman" to get to "Sad But True," for instance. (But then I'll always skip Metallica for Master of Puppets, too, but that's another thread waiting to happen. :p )

I will agree that tapes and LPs made it more likely to become familiar with a whole album of music (although I wasn't afraid to lift the tone arm and move that needle to the next big groove :D ). I'll even admit that I have a lot of favorite songs that I picked up from hearing the entire album rather than just the radio cuts or whatever. At the same time, there are a lot of songs that will always be filler, no matter how many times you listen to them. I may once in a great while give these tunes another chance, but I usually end up skipping past them before they finish.

The most amazing thing to me is just how many albums exist that have only one or two songs of quality. It's a sad day when you look forward to a band's future Greatest Hits release so that you can have all the good songs in one place. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top