|
Grex > Music > #29: The Twenty-Sixth "Napsterization" Item |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 87 responses total. |
edina
|
|
response 27 of 87:
|
Oct 10 22:23 UTC 2006 |
Do not take the brown acid, I repeat, do not take the brown acid.
|
tod
|
|
response 28 of 87:
|
Oct 10 22:34 UTC 2006 |
No brown spinach..i repeat...
|
cyklone
|
|
response 29 of 87:
|
Oct 10 23:52 UTC 2006 |
Richard is either a closet conservative or a DEVO fan.
|
edina
|
|
response 30 of 87:
|
Oct 10 23:59 UTC 2006 |
Not that there's anything wrong with it...
|
richard
|
|
response 31 of 87:
|
Oct 11 17:58 UTC 2006 |
Actually the proper thing to be eating while staring at an album cover
and listening to the record is brownies :)
Truth is, if you study the history of popular music, the advent of the
album heralded a glory time for the genre. For decades, the artists
didn't write the songs, the songs were written down on TinPan Alley
(where all the music offices used to be located, here in NYC near
Chelsea) The songs were released one at a time, they had to be a
certain length and no longer and they were kept simple. Elvis sang
three minute songs and he didn't write any of them. He performed what
he was told to perform. It wasn't until the advent of the album that
artists started to really break out and expand the genre. A great
album is like a book, you listen to it from beginning to end and it
tells a story. A collection of singles from the Rolling Stones doesn't
have the same impact as a great, cohesive album like Exile On Main
Street-- which is as a whole greater than the individual songs on it.
Bob Dylan did "Like A Rolling Stone" as a six minute plus song. In the
singles era, he'd never have gotten away with that. You didn't do six
minute singles. A song that long only gets recorded when its going on
an album. You'd never have seen The Who do "Tommy" in the singles era,
what, you're going to do a rock opera on a stack of 45's?
I mourn the closing of Tower because it was one of the last big places
that showcased albums. It went down because people of younger
generations don't have the patience for albums anymore. They don't
want the entire Mona Lisa painting, they just want the smile in the
middle of it. Listening to a song outside the context of the album is
like reading the reader's digest version of a novel. Music as art
suffers when you do this.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 32 of 87:
|
Oct 11 18:08 UTC 2006 |
I don't agree that the younger generation doesn't want albums anymore. I think
they'd gladly pay for an album of good quality music. But have you listened
to the albums out there. They'll have one good song that's made it on all the
radio stations and about 9 or 10 songs that are total crap. No one wants to
pay close to $20 for one good song.
Artists also aren't releasing most of their songs in the albums. Used to be
that an artist would release at least 5 or 6 songs in an album, so you knew
what you were getting. Now it seems that every album has one, maybe two
signature songs that will be released, and people are expected to judge a
whole album based on that.
People caught on. No one likes being ripped off.
|
richard
|
|
response 33 of 87:
|
Oct 11 18:19 UTC 2006 |
I agree that the decline in the quality of albums in the last ten years
played a significant role in what has happened. Some studios started
realizing that if many people bought albums just for one or two songs,
that as long as those songs are recorded, why should they pay for the
artist to take months or years to come up with the rest of the songs
that would make an album. Artists are under pressure to get the
product out now, studios won't give them the time to do their best work
anymore. As a result you see songs placed on albums to fill them out
that were recorded out of context and have nothing to do with each
other. Its as if a publisher didn't want to wait for an author to
write a whole book, so he takes the two great chapters he has done, and
takes this chapter and that chapter from other books the author's been
working on, lumps them all together and calls it a "novel", when its
actually just a mismash of odds and ends that don't fit together into
an overrall arc. In the neverending quest to make money, these studios
sell out the artists.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 34 of 87:
|
Oct 11 18:22 UTC 2006 |
Right - so blame the studios then, don't blame the patrons.
|
easlern
|
|
response 35 of 87:
|
Oct 11 18:22 UTC 2006 |
Not every album is a concept album.
|
easlern
|
|
response 36 of 87:
|
Oct 11 18:25 UTC 2006 |
Also, make sure you distinguish between types of consumers. There are plenty
of people who appreciate the value of an album over the value of a single,
but they're not as high-profile as your average teeny bopper making a mixtape
of their favorite Justin Timberlake and Beyonce songs. Maybe you're looking
at one group of consumers and stereotyping the rest?
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 37 of 87:
|
Oct 11 18:30 UTC 2006 |
What's wrong with Justin Timberlake? His music is so much better than the
boyband's he was in
|
easlern
|
|
response 38 of 87:
|
Oct 11 18:34 UTC 2006 |
I know it sounds snobbish but Justin's not exactly an "artist" in my book.
But he is a fantastic singer!
|
bru
|
|
response 39 of 87:
|
Oct 11 19:46 UTC 2006 |
Viseo killed the radio star, then went on to kill the video star and the album
(video, that is) as well.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 40 of 87:
|
Oct 11 20:15 UTC 2006 |
Hey richard, are you familiar with American Idiot?
|
edina
|
|
response 41 of 87:
|
Oct 11 20:32 UTC 2006 |
Oooh - what a *great* album.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 42 of 87:
|
Oct 11 21:50 UTC 2006 |
And somehow the "concept" needed no fancy LP album art!
|
twenex
|
|
response 43 of 87:
|
Oct 11 22:56 UTC 2006 |
Re: #41. Yes it is!
|
twenex
|
|
response 44 of 87:
|
Oct 11 22:58 UTC 2006 |
Hey! What's wrong with concept albums?!
|
richard
|
|
response 45 of 87:
|
Oct 12 16:09 UTC 2006 |
Listen to the Beach Boys "Pet Sounds" all the way through and tell me
if the songs don't mean more collectively than they do individually...
|
edina
|
|
response 46 of 87:
|
Oct 12 16:28 UTC 2006 |
As it's one of the best albums ever made - some say the best ever
made - it's hardly a fair comparison.
|
tod
|
|
response 47 of 87:
|
Oct 12 20:28 UTC 2006 |
Pet Sounds was stupid. If it was so profound at the time then the Rolling
Stones never would have become the legend that they are. I also think Dylan's
departure from social commentary lyrics contributed to the Beach Boys
mayonaisse being somewhat a "safe" place for young Kresge shoppers to get
their records without pissing off their parents.
Give me Mahogany Rush and MC5 and I'll show you collective ingenuity.
|
easlern
|
|
response 48 of 87:
|
Oct 12 20:38 UTC 2006 |
Re 47: Did you really listen to Pet Sounds though? I can't think of a more
moving song than "Caroline, No". The whole album is really phenomenal. It does
take a few listens to find out why it's not just a "surf" pop album. It's
worth the patience though.
|
tod
|
|
response 49 of 87:
|
Oct 12 20:41 UTC 2006 |
re #48
Yea, I had to listen to the stupid album for a Rock and Roll History class
at South Seattle Community College. Frankly, I was not impressed. It would
take a bit of work to convince me the Wilsons with their perfectionist father
were more talented than the Funk Brothers of Motown or the Wall of Sound music
that came out of Harlem.
|
easlern
|
|
response 50 of 87:
|
Oct 12 21:03 UTC 2006 |
Re 49: If it helps, Brian Wilson was pretty much the sole creative mind for
Beach Boys. He drew on influences like Phil Spector ("wall of sound") and
George Martin (Beatles) to produce Pet Sounds. Afterward, he went on to write,
produce, perform the best-selling single in history. IMHO, most talented
artist of his time.
|
tod
|
|
response 51 of 87:
|
Oct 12 21:36 UTC 2006 |
The lyrics were drawn from where? The Hardy Boys books?
|