smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Michael Bennett" <mrhonorama@hotmail.com> |
| Subject | Re: Elephantine Album Gestations |
| Date | Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:58:12 -0500 |
[Part 1 text/plain (4.7 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
No Doubt is an interesting example, because they are a commercial band that
has tried some different stuff. I have a theory that the long lag between
albums makes most artists more conservative -- when you spend so much time
between releases, it actually inhibits artistic growth, due to a fear that
if you change too much, you lose your audience. But when you record a lot,
the growth is a natural by-product -- if you're recording a new album every
9 months, you'd get bored doing the same thing.
This is a generalization, but I think most commercially successful acts who
don't release more than an album every two or three years tend to play it
safe.
Mike Bennett
Record reviews and more at http://fufkin.com
Find out about Chicago shows:
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/chicagopopshowreport/
>From: DanAbnrml9@aol.com
>
>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
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.