Bands with only one good song.

[Aaron Cheney]

(although I wasn't afraid to lift the tone arm and move that needle to the next big groove )

You just lost everybody under 20.

My daughter saw an old LP in a pawn shop a year or so ago. "Daddy," she said, "Look at the big CD-ROM!"

Aaron
http://www.voodoovibe.com

 

[Aaron Cheney]

One more thought on the LP/Tape vs. CD subject.
The fact that you had to listen to the entire album really helped bands create their music with a more of an "album mentality". They took chances with a song's style or mood or tempo to slow or increase and album's pace, or add variety.
Take Diver Down by Van Halen. Do you think a hard rock act today would put songs like Big Bad Bill and Happy Trails in their album, particularly if it only had 8 or 9 songs to begin with? (Let alone Intruder or Cathedral!)
Other bands would manipulate an album's pace or feel with long intros or slowly developing musical passages. Bands like Pink Floydd or Led Zepp.
And of course the Beatles were the masters at crafting whole albums as opposed to individual songs. Can you imagine Sgt.Peppers without Being for the Benefit of Mister Kite, or Abbey Road without Octopus' Garden?
Today, bands write every song to be a single, and a lot of the "chance taking" that gave real character and depth to albums has been lost.

Aaron
http://www.voodoovibe.com

 

[beaverbiscuit]

You just lost everybody under 20.

My daughter saw an old LP in a pawn shop a year or so ago. "Daddy," she said, "Look at the big CD-ROM!"

Aaron
http://www.voodoovibe.com

I know, I know, but I still have over 300 LPs in my house. I gotta throw those stacks of wax a bone of reference once a year or so.

Your daughter's comment is too funny. The shift from LPs to CDs is probably the most prominent reminder to me that I'm getting older — every single day I'm getting older.

 

[Apple]

which brings up my observation that albums/cd's (ie whatever you want to call a bands record) aren't as ecclectic or varied in styles as they used to be. Which is probably due to the same corporate mentallity that says radio stations should play the same 25 songs over and over (cause their data says that's what people prefer- though i've never met one) It's probably easier to fill an album with good songs if your audience expects any kind style from you. As a writer, I can't write consistently well in just one style. I've heard Def Leppard complain that they wish they could do any kind of style of music, just like REM. If I were them, I'd do it. Just make sure it's good. So I feel that, for whatever reason, and probably because the music industry is too corporate, a lot of artists feel they have to stay within a certain style rather than evolve. And, of course, knowing you can get away with putting one good song on an album doesn't help either. If you're lazy and just in it for the money.

 

[beaverbiscuit]

One more thought on the LP/Tape vs. CD subject.
The fact that you had to listen to the entire album really helped bands create their music with a more of an "album mentality". They took chances with a song's style or mood or tempo to slow or increase and album's pace, or add variety.
Take Diver Down by Van Halen. Do you think a hard rock act today would put songs like Big Bad Bill and Happy Trails in their album, particularly if it only had 8 or 9 songs to begin with? (Let alone Intruder or Cathedral!)
Other bands would manipulate an album's pace or feel with long intros or slowly developing musical passages. Bands like Pink Floydd or Led Zepp.
And of course the Beatles were the masters at crafting whole albums as opposed to individual songs. Can you imagine Sgt.Peppers without Being for the Benefit of Mister Kite, or Abbey Road without Octopus' Garden?
Today, bands write every song to be a single, and a lot of the "chance taking" that gave real character and depth to albums has been lost.

Aaron
http://www.voodoovibe.com

Another excellent point, along with Lopp's. Maybe the rise of the CD has changed listening habits more than I realize. I remember listening to LPs as a kid, and I guess I did listen to the entire album more often than not. And later, during college and after I dropped out, when my friends and I would smoke or trip and listen to music, we always listened to a whole album before moving on. So it has changed.

I think part of the blame may also lie with modern radio. Radio stations play so much crap that I spend most of my drive time flipping stations trying to find something good. Maybe that mentality tranfers to home listening, making listeners impatient to get to something they really like. Thus they skip songs that are "just okay" or whatever.

Hell, I don't know. I'm just a white boy from Indiana.

 

[King Elvis]

Take Diver Down by Van Halen. Do you think a hard rock act today would put songs like Big Bad Bill and Happy Trails in their album, particularly if it only had 8 or 9 songs to begin with? (Let alone Intruder or Cathedral!)

Back in the day, Eddie could have shoved a pickup up his ass and farted and I would have bought it. The funny thing is, DLR couldnt sing worth a damn but, as soon as Sammy came in I was like.."what the hell???" Bring back DLR. I loved Sammy solo and I loved VH with DLR, but VH with Sammy...It just didnt fit for me.

I hate when I cant edit the quote right!!!

 

[cstockdale]

Radiohead is a band that continues to make "albums", they are huge commercially, but not by radio play or video play, they are huge because for those who like their sound, you simply have to buy the album. I can't just listen to a single from a Radiohead album (from OK Computer on), I have to listen to the album, because of the emotional flow of the order of the songs, the passages that link the songs together, and just the "feel" of the whole thing. I know a lot of people who don't like Radiohead, but one cannot argue with the fact that they are huge, innovative and independent. The albums Kid A and Amnesiac were all recorded at the same time, but they chose to release two albums of 10 tracks rather than a 15-20 track epic, because each set of 10 songs flows perfectly, and the two discs have distinct characters. Although they don't sound the same, Radiohead is the new Pink Floyd: conceptually they are doing the same thing.

 

[Cyrokk]

I've heard Def Leppard complain that they wish they could do any kind of style of music, just like REM. If I were them, I'd do it. Just make sure it's good. So I feel that, for whatever reason, and probably because the music industry is too corporate, a lot of artists feel they have to stay within a certain style rather than evolve. And, of course, knowing you can get away with putting one good song on an album doesn't help either. If you're lazy and just in it for the money.

That's very true. I have read many interviews with band members that say they wish they could express themselves in a different style. No one ever says to them "uh, well you are the star right? Do it anyway". The question is never brought up, so I'm inclined to think that it must be the producers and the label who are not willing to risk that kind of change in direction. Usually the artists will create another band just for the style, or go incognito and perform under another genre.

Then there is the other side of the coin, when a band debuts an album that isnt really the kind of music they want to do. Alice in Chains and Stone Temple Pilots did this. They had two fantastic pre-grunge metallic debut albums. I was so excited when these guys showed up, but they weened themselves out of the music that got them where they were to begin with, giving their fans later albums full of alternative mud in the case of AIC, and poppish, badly written garbage in the case of STP. Somewhere down the line these guys totally sold out and totally fucked over the fans.


Cy