IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Bye Bye albums
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Tony May |
I agree with a lot of what you say Pru. A good album should be something planned, worked towards and evaluated before its put out into the marketplace not simply enough songs to fill up a CD or ten songs for a vinyl album etc.
I do agree with you JK when you point out that albums can allow artists to be very self indulgent. For me though, and I have made a few albums myself, it is all about working with the right people, trusting in your producer and (if needs be) leaving your eh=go at the front door. If an artist has some good people about him who are not scared to tell him the truth and that artist is prepared to accept criticism and use it to inspire him to up his/her game then some seriously good stuff can come of the 'conflict'.
I would love to try and work on you JK to see if I could not change your mind about albums. A lot of the points you make are valid and I hear that you have already voiced that there are exceptions to the rule but overall you seem pretty entrenched in your unfavourable view of the format.
The JK I hear on record is a fantastic lyricist who is clever and quirky and has a cute sense of humour but we never REALLY get to learn much about him as a person. The way that you are in the habit of fading records very quickly also makes me think that even when you do release an album each track has 'one eye on single release'. What is/was the idea behind so quick a fade on your records JK? The Bubblerock 'Rock Around The Clock' song fades incredibly quickly - was this done with radio play in mind?
I'm a right one for tapping into the emotional side of things and I guess that's why your work fascinates me JK but then again I am such an open book that I often get told off for 'burdening the rest of the world' with my thoughts and feelings!
Please don't feel 'under the microscope' JK - I'd like you to think of these words as a compliment in the respect that I am so interested. God knows, for most of us APATHY towards our work reigns supreme! Did your family/friends ever take an interest in your stuff? My lot are more supportive now but for years I could have been No 1 in every country of the world and they wouldn't have known about it!  |
|
Pru |
Again, I think it's down to the ability and intention of the artist rather than the form itself. You might as well say speeches encourage speakers to self-indulge - if it's a humourless bore giving the speech, then yes, you'd certainly want them to tweet instead, but if it was a brilliant, witty speaker you'd sit back and not want it to end. Same with movies - directors who don't know what they're doing (eg most actors turned directors) turn a ninety minute story into a 180 minute snoozefest. Not the genre's problem but the artist's. Surely it's the same with albums. I like the Stones but I rarely wanted to sit through every track on their albums - I think your argument applies well with them. The Beatles, on the other hand, as I said above, knew the difference between singles and albums and treated both with equal care and respect. The artists who have the talent and the wit and the discipline make albums a delight for me - Randy Newman, Paul Simon, Dr John, Elvis Costello, Queen, etc etc. So I do think intention is key - if you think of an album as a mere container for individual songs, release them all as singles and just do a greatest hits album every ten years. But if you want to USE the genre, do it. It CAN be glorious. |
|
JK2006 |
Of course there are albums that are exceptions that prove the rule - Rumours being, in my opinion, the greatest. I'm a massive Springsteen fan and recently bought a pretty comprehensive collection of his best and biggest tracks - was amazed, on listening to the whole thing, by how many tracks I didn't like and, worse, how the relentless quantity of repeated tricks, vocal, instrumental, melodic and production, detracted from my love of some old great favourites.
Michael Jackson's squeak is a good example. What a fantastic talent - singer, writer, performer - but some clever tricks can become extremely annoying if not ironed out (Quincy Jones once said he spent ages cutting those squeaks out of tracks and there are still far too many remaining).
Albums encourage and allow artistes to self indulge dreadfully. |
|
dixie |
Pru wrote:
I always admired The Beatles' principle of keeping their albums separate(ish) from their singles. And their albums, in stark contrast to those of the Stones, were always creatively engaging, IMHO, all the way through. I have huge respect for JK's argument, but I'm not sure it's entirely right here. Isn't it partly about intention and partly execution? If you treat an album as a ragbag, then that's what it will be. There's no guarantee it will be any better if you treat it as a cohesive piece of work, true. But don't novels work on similar principles? I don't read a great novel and wish it was a short story. In the same way, I don't read the best short stories and wish they were novels. I don't blame bad execution on the genre, I blame it on the artist. But there was such a sense of adventure, of courage, of bravado, of fun, in the old albums. Most important of all, when you listened to them, you sensed they'd made them, planned them, ordered them, for YOU. In that order. In that package. That's what's gone. They're now just a thin disposable plastic bag of disparate items. Due to be bunged in the green bin for Duffy to re-record next year.
I have to say, Pru, you echo my thoughts exactly - except I don’t understand your last sentence. But Duffy is a case in point. Her first album was a crafted project. Her management, Rough Trade/Janette Lee put together a fantastic team who created a body of work that was actually rather good. The package was complete. Duffy and her team worked hard and the album sold well. Then, for reasons I don’t know why, Duffy changed management, changed her team and put out a very inferior second album, which gives the perfect reason to say that you don’t like albums. |
|
Pru |
I always admired The Beatles' principle of keeping their albums separate(ish) from their singles. And their albums, in stark contrast to those of the Stones, were always creatively engaging, IMHO, all the way through. I have huge respect for JK's argument, but I'm not sure it's entirely right here. Isn't it partly about intention and partly execution? If you treat an album as a ragbag, then that's what it will be. There's no guarantee it will be any better if you treat it as a cohesive piece of work, true. But don't novels work on similar principles? I don't read a great novel and wish it was a short story. In the same way, I don't read the best short stories and wish they were novels. I don't blame bad execution on the genre, I blame it on the artist. But there was such a sense of adventure, of courage, of bravado, of fun, in the old albums. Most important of all, when you listened to them, you sensed they'd made them, planned them, ordered them, for YOU. In that order. In that package. That's what's gone. They're now just a thin disposable plastic bag of disparate items. Due to be bunged in the green bin for Duffy to re-record next year. |
|
|
|
|
