I was once waiting for a friend in the lobby of an office building in New York while they were preparing to display a piece of Roy Lichtenstein's work. I don't know what its exact dimensions were, but what they were setting up was gargantuan. It had to be at least a hundred feet tall (the lobby was immense, and my suspicion was that the painting still wouldn't fit). I never saw the piece up and displayed, which I regret now.
I don't know how you would even go about looking at a painting that vast. Where would you study it it from to get a sense of it? Half a mile away or so?
But Lichtenstein's greatest talent lay in mockery, and he surely realized the painting could only be seen (at least by people inside the building) in separate, meaningless parts -- especially when you consider his style of painting, which calls attention to the limits of detail by mocking painting itself, rendering it in comic book ink dots. He was, I am now strongly inclined to believe, ridiculing the people who commissioned this preposterous art display and the men in suits who would be walking past it, no doubt thinking it might reflect a kind of classiness on them. Idiots.
It's all a question of scale.
Paintings tend to fall within a certain size, and there's a reason for that. They're flat surfaces, so beyond that size, the effects of perspective can distort the way the painting is seen. We (quite reasonably, I think) expect something that you can take in as a whole from about five or ten feet away, and that might perhaps reward a bit of closer examination of details. Artists are endlessly looking for rules to break, but this rule you can only break if you've already made a considerable success of your art career, and can impress people with your name. I'm sure Lichtenstein laughed himself silly over this gig.
Movies tend to run between ninety and a hundred and twenty minutes. There are no good movies over three hours long. I checked. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly? Two hours, fifty-nine minutes. The Godfather is two hours, fifty-five minutes. Titanic clears three hours, but it's dreadful (sorry if you had your hand raised). But how is it I (and I'm not alone here; lots of other people I've spoken to have confessed to doing the same thing) can sit around entire weekends watching a full season box set of House or Entourage? It's not just because I can smoke during it or get up and grab a soda without standing in line (although those are considerable factors). It's because beyond a certain point, the irritation at having to sit still and follow a story and be quiet and be in the dark just reach critical. Film is illusion, and illusions can be tremendously entertaining, but boredom and annoyance are real, and they need only raise their heads and remind you of their presence to shatter the illusion, no matter how great the first two hours and fifty-nine minutes of it. Break it into separate, digestible parts, however, and we can go all day. That's why the same rules of scale don't apply to novels: we can put them down, and read only as much as suits us at a sitting.
Songs, like movies, are designed to be taken in as wholes, not parts. The longest song ever to reach the Billboard #1 spot was "American Pie" by Don McLean. Eight minutes, thirty-six seconds. And it's a great song, with intriguing lyrics, a marvelous singalong chorus. The second longest #1 Billboard hit is less than half its length ("Macarena" by Los del Rio, four minutes and thirteen seconds, if you're curious). We don't like our pop songs too long. An eight-and-a-half minute #1 song is a deviation from the pattern worth exploring, but for now, let's discard it as an anomaly. If we include it, the average length of a #1 pop hit, 1940-present, is three minutes and seven seconds. If we disregard it, the average length (impressively) drops an entire second. But we seem to have figured out roughly how long to make a pop song.
Albums, I am increasingly convinced, are out of scale. They're the wrong length, and they're broken into too many pieces (or songs, as some call them). I can't think of a single album I really sat down and listened to all the way through since... Hmm... Probably not since Green Day put out American Idiot. What's that, four years? Creating a truly great album just isn't in most musicians. But record companies sign artists by the album, and until that changes, most people who write and play songs for a living are going to spend more than ninety percent of their time, effort, money and skill creating filler. Bad songs they have to put out, quite possibly before they had a chance to percolate into the form of good songs. I have 3,549 songs on my iTunes, and not one single complete album. The album is a form imposed on us by a combination of past technological limitations, unimaginative businessmen and inertia. There are truly great ones, but I've yet to come across one that played straight through, beginning to end, without a song I'd take out (and do, thanks to iTunes) or a significant relaxation of quality standards on my part (which is impermissible). Sgt. Pepper's would have been better if they'd cut out "With a Little Help from My Friends." Abbey Road would have been better without "Octopus' Garden" and that "Quando obbligado" song, whose title escapes me at the moment.
Breaking creative works into certain sizes is sensible, but the album is due for rethinking, says I. An album should either be a complete artistic statement unto itself, or it shouldn't be there. Most musicians are lucky if they've got one single great song in them, and forcing them to create forty-five minute creative outbursts bracketed on either side by a year of imposed silence is a bad idea. These kids might have a hit in them; do you really want to force crap out of them just because the convention is to release pop music that way? It's bad for consumers (who have to pay, ultimately, for time wasted recording lesser material); it's bad for record companies, who have enough problems already; it's bad for musicians, who are (to my experience) a rather sensitive and insecure bunch, and don't like putting out anything they're not completely convinced is good. Which usually means something like 93% of an album.
They made me happy when I was a kid, too. I love albums, when I'm not busy arguing passionately for their elimination (or their existence only in the form of coherent works of art, anyway). But an album should be more than just a bunch of (ideally) good songs laid side-by-side. Songs add up; they create a collective momentum. A song is easy to manipulate and control; a group of songs isn't. Unpredictable things happen, unfortunate comparisons become inevitable, weaknesses are exposed that shouldn't be exposed. Let bands who write songs write songs. Let bands who make albums put out albums. The former is vastly easier than the latter, but has a lot of real merit to it. Let the concept of "filler" become an embarrassing memory. We love good albums, but we NEED good songs, in a wide variety of styles, constantly -- I wouldn't say quite like we need food, say, but perhaps the way we need... Sunlight. That's it.
Oh; and speaking of good songs, here's a bit of despair from the lovely Aimee Mann!
My Trusted MOGs
I've been thinking, thinking about this album thing of yours.
I have been trying to think of albums I love in their entirety. Gotta say that's a short list.
Even still that list is odd for one reason. All the records I can think of are debut albums.
The Violent Femmes
Velvet Underground
B-52's
REM
and so on and so on.
Could it be artists get a sort of performance anxiety when it comes to dishing up new stuff if there is a second record?
I don't know.
I do know you may be on to something (or on something, I haven't figured that out yet).
My Trusted MOGs
Or maybe both, I.
But actually, there's really a pretty straightforward reason why bands' debut albums are so often their greatest work: they've had their whole lives to write those songs. After that, you get a year. That's why it's frequently an act's second album that gives you a real sense of what to expect.
I suppose mine is a fairly radical proposal, but then, the record industry might require something radical. To tell the honest truth, I did kind of go for the provocative when I first suggested it, but as I sat around thinking about it, I began to realize how numerous and sturdy were its underpinnings. Boy; I save the planet without even having to try, huh?
Oh; and R.E.M.'s first real album was called Murmur, not R.E.M. And their first release was an EP (Chronic Town). But each of your picks, as I pick them up and hold them to the light, comes damned close to beginning-to-end greatness.
And I appreciate your giving some thought to my idea. It's really not as crazy as it seems at first, is it...?
My Trusted MOGs
Well I forgot Devo in there.
Your right, the second comes after the band picks their barroom faves.
Not crazy just insane.
So, do you suggest putting out songs as they happen? Making a slightly longer than EP length disk?
I also thought about the consumer. Would you pay 15 bucks for a disk that cashes in at 24 minutes? Where is the value? Personally my value is in the physicality. I like to hold the music in my hand. While I am sitting on a largish collection of digital stuff, I still like to read the liner notes. What is the optimal size for an 'album'?
Hey next time you know your going to NYC you better get a hold of me.
My Trusted MOGs
Devo! Another superb example of the phenomenon. Were the late 70's-early 80's really the Argentine Age of rock (Golden I reserve for '65-'69) they seem like to me, or was it that I was (we were?) young, and music held so much more to learn? It seems like a silly, unimportant question, but I do find it returning to my thoughts unbidden sometimes...
Of course I'm right. zarpex is always right. No, but, seriously; I used to wonder about the relative greatness of first albums, and I mentioned it to a music lawyer. That was his explanation, and boy, it made a ton of sense. One more nagging puzzle solved. If I can figure out another five before I die, I will shuffle off this mortal coil gratefully and regret-free. Fun ride, really; I'll recommend it to everyone.
"Mad!? You call me mad!? I, who hold the secret to eternal love!? You call me mad!?" --Cramps
I was thinking about that question. If you're not putting out albums, or only putting out a few really solid ones, what form would most musical output take? I see nothing wrong with treating each song as a one-song album. Just singles. Or, then again, I think how satisfying just one side of an LP can be, and how often I lift the record lovingly from the turntable, marveling at its greatness, without the slightest curiosity about side 2. I think somewhere between twenty and twenty-five minutes of pop is like a pint of beer. It's exactly the right amount. Ever read 1984? But actually, yet a third possibility occurred to me. What if -- oh; this will not go down easily -- what if the suits became a real part of the creative effort? I mean, it would mean new requirements for label employees. They'd have to know music on a musician's level, not just how to market it or spot talent. Which I think would be a very good thing, actually. So maybe labels don't so much put out music as music puts out labels. The best songs by rookie bands -- the ones they've had their whole lives to write, the ones they'll be lucky ever to approach again -- might become part of what whiskey drinkers call a "blend" (and the finest whiskey in the world, Bell's, is a blend: there's no sane reason not to blend whiskeys in order to compensate for identifiable weaknesses). Stiff Records used to do exactly that. But let's take it a step further: the label becomes, essentially, the producer of an album showcasing not just its new talent, but its own musical sensibilities. Which would tell us a lot about them. Turn those great songs into a whole. Chop them, cut them, fold them, spindle, them, mutilate them. But put them together into a real album. Let the songwriters submit parts, and the label form the whole. "What, zarpex?? Are you crazy!?" Hear me out.
You know the people who are actually getting rich off rock music? It's not the suits, except maybe the very top suit at a few labels. Clive Davis, Jimmy Iovine. It's not the musicians. It's not the managers or the agents or the lawyers (well, again; a few managers, a few agents, a few lawyers). But the ones getting really rich as a group, not just a subset of bigshots among them? Producers. I just had two of them stay over last night (in fact, one of them is still here, it suddenly dawns on me; I'm being a bad host), and their musical talents utterly dwarf any mere musician's I know of. Their improv act last night was what live shows ought to be. Anyone in the room could just bark out the name of damned near anything and these guys would immediately launch into it, in perfect key, knowing every line perfectly, harmonizing like they'd been practicing their whole lives together. A real musical prodigy is a thing to behold; two together, a little drunk and in a room full of different musical instruments and a good-size handful of regular, non-prodigy humans like me whose small, lucky minds they'd decided to blow? Man; why do I write these gigantic comments instead of posts? Anyway, long story short: producers should exchange a degree of wealth for a degree of power, and take responsibility for labels not as businesses, but as creative entities. It's a complex solution, but by God, I think it might be the right one...
The consumer?? The stooge?? Well, for appearance's sakes, it's probably best we feign interest. But seriously; the industry would no longer be producing record after record of track after track of rubbish that will, in the massively overwhelming majority of cases, never possess any value, of any sort. They won't get licensed by anyone, no one will buy them, no one will play them on the radio. And they're expensive to make, all these little microflops. Exercise some quality control -- fewer but better bands, fewer but better songs -- and the costs come down. A lot. And those savings (assuming record companies still possess some shred of reason at this point) will be passed on to the consumer. They'll pay less money, and they'll get fewer songs, but the extra songs they would have gotten before, they'd never listen to anyway. And the optimal size of an album is still 12" by 12". That was always perfect.
Didn't know you were NYC-based, amigo. Next time I'm out there, definitely!
My Trusted MOGs
Not NYC based just fairly close.
Well now your having me on. (synonymous with, yanking my chain)
How did you do it at Norton? A small label that is adaptable and on the fly. Are you thinking of a model to try out?
I could say this, everything you mentioned is happening right now. Small labels known for a specific type of music be it genre, politics, or approach are everywhere.
I think labels should get more collaborative. I'm sure the details in cut would be a nightmare to hammer out but it is something to consider. Many of the small labels are regionally based. They have very local followings and support. How hard would it be to get label A to commit resources ie. manufacture, recording and distribution, to something bigger? Sharing talents, ideas, and labor. Build a company from smaller companies.
I feel a bit out of my league discussing the 'back end' of the music biz. Especially on MOG. We have some great minds that make me look like a drooling fan boy who knows nothing. I offer my comment as a thought and nothing more.
My Trusted MOGs
First, I'll start by poking one tiny hole in your thesis. One of my top ten films is "Reds", which clocks in at 190 min. Lets see you keep a dry eye at the end of that classic.
How in the world can a songwriter or the "industry" know which song is going to be the one that captures the biggest cross-section of public interest? Certainly, they can follow the path of proven history, analyze the beats, rate it for danceability, and then offer up to the masses the golden egg. That is not the reality I choose to live in.
Music, for me, is not solely the expression of that joyous pop moment when everyone is singing in unison. I do not want to be trapped in an endless Coke commercial. That's just more commercialism, not art.
And how is a songwriter to attain those focused hit-single moments if they are not allowed to practice their craft? So you suggest the work outside your best-of-best class be unrecorded and relegated to low-lit, smoke-filled, back-room performance? (if at all?)
"Hey! Let's go see latest-greatest wonder this weekend! The concert starts at 8 and they ought to be done with all those great songs by, oh, say 8:17! It'll be fun!!"
C'mon Z, if your gonna start a fire, you gotta do more than pile up a bunch of words and dump outdated sterno on em!
And as for recordings that (at least, I ) can thoroughly enjoy all the way through?? cripes, I'll limit to max 3 per artist
Alice Cooper-Love It To Death and Easy Action
Big Audio Dynamite-Tighten Up Vol 88
Be Bop Deluxe-Modern Music
Bowie-Hunky Dory, Ziggy, Aladdin Sane
Can-Ege Bamyasi
Cheap Trick-1st, In Color, Rockford
The Clash-London Calling
ELO-Out of the Blue
Elvis Costello, My Aim Is True, This Year's Model, Imperial Bedroom
Eno-Tiger Mountain, Another Green World, Before and After Science
Foghat-Rock n' Roll
Zappa-Hot Rats
Health-Health
Hybrid-Wide Angle
Ian Hunter-1st, Rant
Joe Strummer-Global A Go-Go
Jules & the Polar Bears-Got No Breeding
LEO-Alpacas Orgling
Labradford-A Stable Reference
Led Zep-Houses of the Holy, III
Low-I Could LIve In Hope
Mott the Hoople-All the Young Dudes
Oh! Astro-Champions of Wonder
Ozark Mountain Daredevils-The Car Over The Lake Album
Pale Saints-In Ribbons
Paul McCartney-Red Rose Speedway
Pinback-Offcell
Pink Floyd-Wish You Were Here
Presidents of USA-1st
Queen-Sheer Heart Attack
Robert Palmer-Pressure Drop
Robert Wyatt-Rock Bottom
Roderick Falconer-New Nation
Roxy Music-1st, For Your Pleasure, Avalon
The Sensational Alex Harvey Band-Next
Tahiti 80-Wallpaper for the Soul
Talking Heads-Remain In Light, Fear of Music
Television-Marquee Moon
The Weakerthans-Reunion Tour
Todd Rundgren-A Wizard a True Star, Liars, Faithfull
Unicorn-One More Tomorrow
And that's just what's under my fingertips and brain cells at the mo.
Chris, I used to firmly hold on to the physical, but that's gone. It's all about the music now.
Z, at my work, the art department hung an article on their door decrying any attempt to hurry the creative process. Well, we laugh at that, because these guys are designing graphics for mass market bicycles - not Roy Lichtenstein masterpieces. I don't want the same approach with the music I choose. I'm willing to let the artist show me all they have to say. And that's all I have to say. Good night.
My Trusted MOGs
C'mon Z, if your gonna start a fire, you gotta do more than pile up a bunch of words and dump outdated sterno on em!
Booya!
My Trusted MOGs
Another thing:
Like jounalism, the music industry is subjective.
I think Scotty's list shows that in spades. Just what I would expect from a man who knows what he likes.
If everyone liked the same type of music the world would be like Orwell's 1984. Monolithic and heavy.
My Trusted MOGs
Oh, sure; pile on zarpex. I thought I made a fairly convincing case. Then again, look who's telling you.
But give me a moment to work out which of you through which coldcock at me; one or two actually touched.
[Oh; Chris -- you're obviously under no compulsion of any sort, but, uh... (leans in closer; lowers his voice) I really do enjoy the anonymity here, so I'd be obliged if you could resist bringing up EN (although it's certainly a subject relevant to ours, I understand why you would do it, and little doubt it was unintentional).
I wasn't aware that some labels were already beginning to take the initiative. Good for them. The big record companies might have to resign themselves to the indignity of actually competing with indie labels, instead of just squashing them or buying them (the latter option is preferable, by the way). Boy; I'd like to be there to watch. But I should add that, yes; a record label inevitably becomes associated with a certain kind of "sound," or attitude, and I'm thinking bigger (mind you; this is only one of two or three different plans, but it's the craziest, so I like it best) than mere consumer impressions. If the suits want to save their industry, they have to become musicians. Literally. Well, or be replaced by musicians. And yes; I do realize that in many cases labels have sought out musicians and producers as employees, but they're usually either using them as lures to build up the trust of a band they want to sign, or simply using them as real employees, which is a waste of their real abilities. The suits must come to the snot-nosed punks.
This approach was never tried at EN, because I get my inspirations only when they're no longer of any benefit to me. EN had a couple decent years, but as a whole, the enterprise lost money. It was fun, at least, though.
Everyone's bewildered by the record industry now, Chris. The people who really know it are expecting drastic change to come, so their intimate knowledge of how to find the cafeteria at the Capitol offices or which assistants will put out at ICM provides them little solace.
scot, I did stab you to death in a drugged-out haze, so I suppose I had that coming.
I saw Reds when it came out, and I assure you my eyes were quite dry at its ending. Like most of the other theatergoers, I had forgotten to bring a pair of toothpicks to prop their lids open during the endless speeches about... Well, before I fell asleep I remember a lot of idealism and emotion and Jack Nicholson's bewilderment at playing Eugene O'Neill. In fact, I remember pasting my ticket stub in my journal that night and writing about how it was really the first time I could ever recall having fallen asleep while seated upright.
There's no reliable way to pick "the" hit song from a group, but there are plenty of semi-reliable ones. I wouldn't be sending guys in lab coats to "rate it for danceability," personally. I'd just decide whether I liked it or not. In instances where I didn't quite dislike it, and didn't quite like it, that means I didn't like it. I'm not always right, and some of my decisions might come back to haunt me (if it were the 50's, and I were at RCA, I'd have argued ferociously against signing Elvis. If I were at Sire in the 80's, I'd have done everything I could to prevent Madonna from getting a deal. In fact -- true story, here -- (leans in closer, lowers his voice) nobody at Sire wanted to sign Madonna. But she was Jellybean Benitez' girlfriend, and Jellybean was a big deal at the time. Everyone, but everyone, at Sire loathed her. So reliability? Forget it. I can't read popular opinion perfectly, or even especially well. What I can do though, is I could suggest some changes in the way they've been running things, and I'm confident (not certain) they'd work.
I don't know how the notion entered your head that I was crafting some scheme to homogenize the world's musical tastes and consign humanity to life in a Coke commercial. But if everyone had the same taste, it would be a lot easier on record companies and musicians, and those people in Coke commercials look pretty happy to me. If I had to choose between living in, say, Cleveland and living in a commercial, I'll take the commercial every time.
You know what I distrust more than some slimy record industry glad-handing show-off suit? An artist who claims to be indifferent to or contemptuous of commercial success. "Yeah; all that wealth, praise, recognition, respect of my peers, trappings of luxury? Screw it, man. I'm above all that." Never turn your back on that guy. Commercial success may come to the undeserving, and it may evade the worthy, but nobody despises it. Unless they're on their deathbed or something, and have nothing better to do -- literally -- than try to impress anyone standing nearby.
I'm a little confused by the next bit, where I'm somehow preventing songwriters from writing songs. I suppose I could have them under 24-hour surveillance or something, but he could be composing in his head. Better cut it off, just in case. I can do that, too, because my suggestions for saving the record industry make me a smiley-faced megalomaniac who has a plan to control people's minds and make them live in some kind of commercial. Coke, right? But as for a band's bad songs? I don't mind them being recorded, but I'm not paying for it, and please don't play them for me. My post concluded: "We love good albums, but we NEED good songs, in a wide variety of styles, constantly -- I wouldn't say quite like we need food, say, but perhaps the way we need... Sunlight. That's it." Where in heaven's name did you come up with the idea that I wanted to prevent songs from being written?
I suffer -- sometimes with rather dramatic symptoms -- from claustrophobia, so you'll never see me at a concert, unless I'm backstage. Even then I don't like them, really. Sadly, my proposal would do absolutely nothing to hurry along their extinction, or even have any effect on them, really. In fact, now that I chew at it a little, just think! Bands could play all their terrible songs to precisely that minuscule handful of people who would ever have listened to them, anyway. They'll consider themselves privileged to have heard unreleased songs. I'll bet a half-empty bottle of Coppertone® sunscreen, here and now, that its effect would be to increase ticket sales.
Now, scot; you know I love you, right? You've been a friend to me here since my second week, and you've stood up for me in a couple of disagreements, made insightful, valuable comments on many of my posts, and written several posts of your own that quite blew me away. I believe I said as much in comments on several occasions. But "C'mon Z, if your gonna start a fire, you gotta do more than pile up a bunch of words and dump outdated sterno on em!"? A bunch of words, huh? That hurt, mate. I apologize if my posts run a little longer than most, and I'm grateful that you often take the time to read -- and to criticize, which I regard as a very kind service -- my thoughts. I sometimes just like to get them out fully, which may be a kind of imposition on others. And it's a bit thoughtless of me to use my online acquaintances to bounce ludicrous theories off, anyway. I'll try to keep future posts a little shorter.
Mmm... No, actually; I take back the last one. I'm a writer, by temperament, training and trade. I LOVE writing. I will try, as I always have, to make my posts as entertaining as possible, but for those of you who might be intimidated by the prospect of reading what may amount to the equivalent of three, perhaps even four, pages of a mass-market size paperback, may I direct you to my previous-to-last post? Or perhaps to some kind of facility that offers care to the stupid and lazy? I can write short ones, too, y'know. Short's easy. If I want to express myself properly, though, there'll be another big pile of words dumped carelessly up here before too long, in all likelihood. Of course, you're under no obligation to read them, and let me repeat that I'm grateful when you do.
You've bared a part of your musical soul to me, scot, and I certainly won't say anything disparaging about your list. Those are sacred to you, and I respect that. But you do, of course, realize that as a person who would hold a song in low regard because it had been contaminated by its neighbors on an album, you serve as a marvelous illustration of how my plan would increase sales, right? The songs you had before discarded because of their dubious company would become sales -- to you, at least, and to anyone whose hard-earned cash went somewhere besides the friendly folk in the record industry. This is a good thing, not a bad thing, for my idea.
I'm not sure exactly what you were saying in your last paragraph, but I'm not rushing anyone's creative process. And I repeat my advice: judge the art, not the artist. There was a bit of a last-you'll-ever-see-of-me tone to those last couple lines; I certainly hope that was a misimpression on my part. I'd hate to have written all this to see it go unread by you...
My Trusted MOGs
I was gonna comment, but you lost me at minute 3, second nine. I would agree that it's pointless for some bands to fill an album with other songs, when they have only one good one. I'm sure CodyB could weigh in on the downfall of the music biz and it's shift away from the singles market. I think the internet will provide the proper distrbution for those who can make and want full albums vs those who make a good song.
My Trusted MOGs
You're not getting rid of me that easily. Our differing views of "Reds" points, like Chris suggests, at how we keep that Orwellian existence at arms-length. I want to say I'm honored to be able to put a chink in the dagger-weilding bow of the H.S. Zarpex, but really I'm just sorry if you're really (looks around, mistrusting movement in the shadows) hurt by what I said. It's just that I did not see your argument convincing.
Toothpicks aside, I'm certainly ready for the "Reds" intermission when it comes. There's only so much that can be absorbed and enjoyed in one sitting...agreed.
I'm convinced there's no dearth of great new music out there. If you had told me a couple years ago that my myspace favorites of new bands would be as long as it is, I'd have scoffed. Your honesty about Elvis and insight on Madonna are appreciated mucho. Please don't shorten your posts on my account (or any account). Nothing's reached novella, or even short story length, so its all good.
I guess that since I deal with business all day all the time in my mundane roll, it's about the last thing I wanna talk about when the music starts. Over-involvement with bankruptcy, business plans, and financial models have probably left me sensitive, my responses are shaded by my disdain of these things. Yet, I personally find your argument lacking. As a fan, I want to be the one deciding if an artist has lived up to expectations.
My view of Cleveland, as someone on my list once said, is that it rocks. Well at least it used to. I love the shows, but not much comes near my Shirelike locale.
Have at my list Z, they are things I love but "sacred"? That's a whole other level. It's only rock n' roll brother.
Just because your proposed model doesn't sit well with me doesn't mean it would not work with the younger set, it's almost like you are recreating the "hit single" process, straining the musical substrate for cash cows to keep it alive.
My closing was not so much a protest against rushing the creative process, but an endorsement for giving the artist free reign over what they create. I realize the financial ramifications of that statement can't be taken to absurd levels, but the impasse here is art vs. money.
Quit being so apologetic you windbag! Oops...there I go again. :)
My Trusted MOGs
A bunch of thoughts:
1. Max Ophuls - The Sorrow and the Pity. 4 hours. A masterpiece.
2. The Doors live at The Matrix on March 7 and 10, 1967, shows that they had already written 90% of the first two albums. The hard part must have been deciding what to leave off the first album.
3. The Beatles, The Stones, The Beach Boys didn't really start to roll until about album 5 or 6.
4. David Bowie really started to get world-class with Young Americans. What's that - album 6 or more?
3a & 4a. Some people have 1 great song in them. Some people take a few years to really hit their stride.
5. Brilliant first album: The Ramones. Even more brilliant second album: The Ramones Leave Home.
6. Never let marketing guys run a record company. Most of your arguments about albums and filler stem from those dickheads getting the upper hand.
7. 'Bohemian Rhapsody' is somewhere past 8 minutes and got to Number One in the UK. But your point is well made.
8. Carole King heard Neil Young's 'Chrome Dreams' and said, "It's a great collection of songs, Neil. But it's not an album." (He never released it.)
My Trusted MOGs
contra! I see too little of you, sport; thanks for the comment you were going to make but somehow did. You're right about the internet as the new record store (which adds, or eventually will, with any luck, the further advantage of obviating distributors). The problem of signing acts by the album still remains, though; it just makes recording the loser tracks even more wasteful. Before, people would buy them because they came attached to the song they were really interested in. Now that they're optional, their expense is even more pointless. I'm still a bit of a vinylsaur, myself, so (like I am, a.k.a. Chris) I worry about the disappearance of packaging, liner notes, art, etc., but you can't stop progress. Sigh. Has Cody been making similar arguments? I wasn't aware. Where the hell is he, anyway?
Get rid of you, scot? Heavens forfend! I'd sooner get rid of Tim Lincecum! I was just worried you were washing your hands of this thread. The H.M.S. Rock (not the zarpex -- I'm the Captain, not the ship) is a fast healer, and whatever doesn't sink her makes her stronger. I don't think I'd say there's quite a "dearth" of good music, but it's getting harder and harder to find. And actually, I've spent time in Cleveland, and it's no fouler a hellhole than any other city, but it has, through no real fault of its own, become comic shorthand for "awful place." Although the Cuyahoga catching on fire didn't help its image much. Oh; and if I was too apologetic, I apologize. : )
Jonh, I'll address your points one at a time, as they were presented:
- So firmly ingrained is my three hour-theory that I must confess I haven't seen The Sorrow and the Pity, even though someone gave me the DVD a year or two ago, and it sits downstairs, unwrapped but, as yet, unwatched.
- The Doors are yet another act that, like Elvis and Madonna, I would never, but never, have signed. But it's true; some bands do have enough material written for two albums before they get a deal. I still bet they pile their favorite stuff onto the first release, though...
- I think The Beatles were great from the beginning, but it's true; they didn't hit mind-shattering greatness until Help!. The Stones are yet another act I'd have passed on. Like I said, nobody's always right.
- Young Americans was actually Bowie's 11th album, believe it or not, but Hunky Dory (which I consider his first visit by the genius fairy) was his 4th, so your point stands.
- (I can't get this thing to say "3a & 4a, so I'll call it 5): The years it takes for so many great artists to hit their full stride is one of the things my plan would fix. The expense of making albums is why so many bands have to hit big on their debuts. You get one, maybe two chances these days; Bowie would have returned to miming if his music career had started today. But if all he'd released had been singles, music companies could afford to let him continue evolving, instead of dropping him. How many bands that might have gone on to be fantastic have been let go because their first efforts didn't break big? Elton John for another example...
- I'll take Leave Home over the The Ramones, but only if it's the original Leave Home with "Carbona Not Glue." And my favorite is still Rocket to Russia...
- You're quite right. The marketing department is always the place to go in a record company if you're looking for a jerk. My plan is to put record producers in the top seat.
- "Bohemian Rhapsody," according to my iTunes, is five minutes, fifty-five seconds. And I was shocked, in doing my research, to discover that neither it nor "We Will Rock You/We Are the Champions" reached the top spot in America. You bloody English...
- See? Carole King knows what I'm talking about! And so does Neil Young!
Thanks for the contributions, guys; I appreciate it.My Trusted MOGs
Toche Zarpex, toche! Great post =) I have to say for me, at least this summer, Viva La Vida and Fleet Foxes' Sun Giant EP have been able to hold my attention from start to finish. But I sooo agree that it's a rarity to find such albums. There always seems to be those few songs in an album that I breeze on by...
My Trusted MOGs
Thank you, Nella; I'm so glad you enjoyed it! : )
The real point to throwing out these ideas isn't to prove anyone's wrong or right -- as we all know, we're ALL right -- it's to have fun.
My Trusted MOGs
For more Aimee Mann">http://www.aimeemann.co.uk">Aimee Mann work, visit her website http://www.aimeemann.co.uk