smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "largro13" <largro13@yahoo.com> |
| Subject | Re: The Shazam "Meteor" |
| Date | Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:19:02 -0000 |
[Part 1 text/plain ISO-8859-1 (3.2 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
I'm judging the music on its own merits. But doesn't it seem to you that a longer period of time to work on a project would lead to greater quality? Like an album that took two years to make would be twice as good as one that took one year to make. Or and album that took four years to make would be twice as good as one that too two years to make.
Of course I guess thinking like this also presumes that the band writes songs at a constant rate, and a constant level of quality, like maybe 18 songs a year. And that out of the 18 songs, four are really great, seven are usable, and seven are below par. So thinking like this, you'd figure that everytime a year passes the band has four more truly excellent songs.
To my way of thinking, at six years, or whatever it's been, "Meteor" should have been a tour de force, double album, without a weak link on it.
"Meteor" also seems quite a bit different, and also more ambitious than the Shazam's earlier work. I know this comes at things from a totally different way of thinking than my "greater time spent on the project/greater quality" idea. But in a way, I also feel a 'missed presence' of maybe songs they wrote but didn't release that might have been the in-between albums. I'll use the Beatles as an example because I think most of us are familiar with their group of albums. But another thing that I think bothers me slightly about "Meteor" is you get the feeling that you're skipping from "A Hard Day's Night" to something like "Revolver" or "Sgt. Pepper" without knowing the work that came between, to maybe gradually adjust your expectations of the band.
I mean I know bands aren't of earth shattering importance or anything, and these things shouldn't disturb me, and really don't to the extent that a post like this probably makes it sound like. But still you get both the feeling that maybe it could have been better with the (perceive on my part) time that went into it, and then you also feel like maybe you missed 20 or 30 songs where the band gradually changed their style, that they just didn't release.
No big deal though. Different strokes for different folks.
WDR
--- In audities@yahoogroups.com, "Holmes Online" <bholmes_fm@...> wrote:
>
> >>It's just that it's not as 'blockbuster' as you might imagine, given the
> >>amount of time that they took between albums (and theoretically making
> >>this album).
>
>
> Haven't heard it yet, so I can't comment on the music, but the above
> sentence raises an interesting question: Do you judge the music on its own
> merits, or does the length of time factor into your evaluation?
>
> I wish I could honestly answer that it's always the former, but I'm not
> certain I always adhere.
>
> Conversely, few compare pre-work times for a debut record, where an artist
> theoretically has their whole life (to that point) to write; why treat a
> later album that way? So much we don't know, anyway - even if a few years
> gap, was the whole thing written in the last six months? Or were some of
> those songs even hanging around a much *longer* time? (Think CT and The
> Latest).
>
> Looking forward to hearing it LOUD,
>
> b
>
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.