smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | DanAbnrml9@aol.com |
| Subject | Elephantine Album Gestations |
| Date | Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:07:20 EDT |
[Part 1 text/plain US-ASCII (3.6 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
I just want to jump into the talk about Rooney, who will wind up having a
very long wait between albums as they're just now going into the studio to
record a follow-up...
A lot of things have been said already about why this is bad--losing your
fanbase being a main one. But one big problem is that I think you miss out on
entire "periods" of a band's career. Take this:
No Doubt's first album came out in 1992. Their (presumably) last album came
out in 2001. That's nine years, and in that time they produced four
full-length albums, plus that "Beacon Street" album, which I guess technically counts
as a fifth. Okay, 5 albums in about ten years... that's about the industry
average, if not a little faster.
Compare to the Beatles, who had a recording career that was two years
shorter (correct? I admit I am not an expert) and cranked out 12 proper albums
(including "Magical Mystery Tour", but not "Yellow Submarine" or any of the
various now-out-of-print releases that didn't quite mirror the "classic"
releases). Now I am not arguing that No Doubt was as genius as the Beatles or
anything, but consider this: If the Beatles worked on the same schedule that No Doubt
did, we probably would've missed out on entire chunks of their career,
including some of the great diversions they've become known for. If the Beatles
knew they could only get an album out every two years, would they have allowed
the while album to be so sprawling? Probably not--they'd probably want
something tight and commercial to reconnect with fans. Would they have made the bold
move that was "Sgt Peppers"? Well, maybe, but if they did then we might've
missed out on "Revolver". Their folk period might've been a passing phase
BETWEEN albums, and we wouldn't have gotten "Rubber Soul". The Beatlemania period
might've only produced one full length, and it's even possible that "Let It
Be"/"Abbey Road" would've just been new tracks on a career-ending greatest
hits. It's weird to think about, but if a band of that caliber came along today
we might not even KNOW about it because they might be so restricted by this
very system that they wouldn't be ALLOWED to be brilliant.
No Doubt, for comparison, put out two forgotten ska-punk albums, one big
(MASSIVE, really, selling over 15 million copies) new wave/punk/pop hybrid
disc--the one that really preceeded this trend that's along now--a "mature"
version of the same thing as a follow-up FIVE YEARS LATER, then a dancehall and
funk-inflected party album as their last, 18 months after their fourth disc.
Again, I don't think there are many No Doubt fans here, but isn't it interesting
to think about what was missed--about what passing musical fascinations
could've found their way to tape and proven them to a more prolific and better
band? Instead, I would argue that a big major label band stuck to this "No Doubt
Schedule" is under more pressure to stick to the script and put out an album
that their fans would expect, rather than challenging the audience the way
that many of the Beatles albums did.
And on this note, I'm upset in part because my two favorite bands are
HORRIBLE about this. After a very prolific period in the mid-90s which produced
their best 4 albums, Blur started waiting YEARS (4 between "13" and "Think
Tank") between each release. And Fountains of Wayne (who also went 4 years between
albums) have reportedly not written ANYTHING for a follow-up to "Welcome
Interstate Managers", which is now over a year old. They need badly to seize on
their momentum, and it looks like they're prepared to blow it.
--Jason
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.