|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
03-21-2017, 03:09 PM | #11 (permalink) |
Born to be mild
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: 404 Not Found
Posts: 26,992
|
This is true. For a long time an album was seen as nothing more than a sort of support act for the singles, and filler they could certainly be. Quantity doesn't really trump quality: I'd rather have a really good album every 2 or more years than four substandard albums a year, or whatever.
__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018 |
03-21-2017, 03:21 PM | #12 (permalink) |
Music Addict
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 157
|
I'd agree that a lot of stuff on albums from the 60s was filler, but there again most new albums are also primarily filler in my opinion. There are very few albums that I like every single song from (three exceptions are The Remote Part by Idlewild, One By One by Foo Fighters (ironically people went on about how much of it was filler) and Ring by The Connells - I like pretty much every song on all of them), though that's just my opinion.
|
03-21-2017, 03:23 PM | #13 (permalink) | |
Zum Henker Defätist!!
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Beating GNR at DDR and keying Axl's new car
Posts: 48,199
|
You know, indie rock is not actually the only music on earth.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
03-21-2017, 03:30 PM | #16 (permalink) | |
Zum Henker Defätist!!
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Beating GNR at DDR and keying Axl's new car
Posts: 48,199
|
But that's the point, even if the little slice of the music world you listen to isn't the most exciting thing on the planet to you, there's thousands, even hundreds of thousands of other artists in countless genres that are not bound by the cultural inertia that indie rock is.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
03-21-2017, 04:09 PM | #18 (permalink) |
Born to be mild
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: 404 Not Found
Posts: 26,992
|
Like rostasi says, it's different now. Back in the 70s and 80s I could listen to whatever albums I could afford, often secondhand ones, so getting them at the rate I did suited me, left me time to listen to them. Nowadays, with itunes, torrents, Spotify, all kinds of music sites (to say nothing of YouTube) you're hard pushed enough to listen to the albums you download, without asking for more. Some of my favourite artistes have released albums two or more years ago that I have yet to listen to. There's just too much, and in an oversaturated marketplace it makes little sense to shorten the release schedule and release even more product into the equation.
__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018 |
03-26-2017, 11:25 AM | #20 (permalink) | |
...here to hear...
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: He lives on Love Street
Posts: 4,444
|
I think there are two main reasons why 60s artists were often so prolific:
Firstly, pre-Pet Sounds and Sgt. Pepper, the production process was much simpler. Secondly, many artists only got to the recording studio by being locked into some 3-albums-a-year record deal. The record sellers were dictating how many albums the artist had to make. Quote:
Something less rarified than Generative Music is the way we consume music. Whereas I was once a proud collector of albums, I now -like everyone else- have playlists and electronic files; there is no particular reason for YouTube clips and other electronic formats to be tied down to, or released as, albums. Years ago in an interview David Byrne suggested that artists might release music ad-hoc onto the internet, only putting it into "bundles of songs" if it suited the artist for some reason. If that should be tl;dr :- The album is a pleasing format that many of us grew up with, but it's going to become increasingly anachronistic imo. Don't be surprised if artists are already shifting away from it as their principal form of expression.
__________________
"Am I enjoying this moment? I know of it and perhaps that is enough." - Sybille Bedford, 1953 |
|
|