smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Jaimie Vernon" <bullseyecanada@hotmail.com> |
| Subject | Re: Elephantine Album Gestations |
| Date | Fri, 30 Jul 2004 12:22:17 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain (5.8 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
At Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:07:20 Jason wrote:
>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).
And they had their most prolific period while TOURING (which was a point
Bruce Brodeen made quite clear....not writing while on tour brings into
question the dedication to songwriting by the act as a whole).
>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.
In retrospect, I think The Beatles were doing the metric equivalent to what
bands are doing now....
Actually, after the touring stopped their recording schedule actually slowed
down....from 2 or 3 albums a year to just one (sometimes 1 1/2 if you
consider the Magical Mystery Tour EP and Yellow Fumbline soundtrack tunes).
And the Anthology discs show there was MORE output than what the public got
to hear, so technically we DID miss periods of development -- the whole Live
At The BBC phase f'rinstance....Harrison's electronic noodling around
'Wonderwall'....and Lennon's 'Plastic Ono Band' live-without-a-net
experiment. These last two projects actually show that the Beatles WERE
guilty of sensoring themselves. McCartney would have NEVER allowed something
like 'Wonderwall' to have been deemed a Beatle record cause their was no
commercial appeal....and The Beatles were about hit records, after all.
>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.
The Beatles were allowed to do anything they wanted because they were
progenitors of just about everything....the music world waited for them to
fart before deciding if farting was going to be the next trend (never
suspecting that Lennon had merely adapted the fart from some blues cat in
the Mississippi Delta).
Any other act (including the No Doubts of the world) would never be allowed
that freedom. And really, that's the difference. The only act that might be
able to claim such freedoms would be the Stones who can still do whatever
they damn well please...even if it takes them 6 years between records....or
Pink Floyd who take 7, 8, 9, 10 years between unsatisfying regurgitations of
the "Echos" bass line.
>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.
One of the test cases I always use is Alanis Morissette's "Jagged Little
Pill"....her follow-up came too long after the 15 million selling buzz of
this disc. While radio singles were still being yanked from this thing she
should have been back in the studio writing the next release....and had it
out on the heels of the tour that was promoting "Pill". Instead it was 3 1/2
years. Maverick Records mistakenly assumed they would not have to promote
"Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie" because Alanis was still gracing the
covers of magazines and being feted by the TV media and radio. Guess what?
The album sold less than 1/3 of the original album because her audience had
not only grown up without her continued output, but so had Morissette. As
Jason says, Alanis had made a personal transition BETWEEN the two records so
the fans didn't get to follow the growth period of the artist...and went
about their merry way looking for other artists to fill the void.
In retrospect, I think The Beatles were doing the metric equivalent to what
bands are doing now....
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.