Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 02:14:57 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Pop Idle

Started by Partridge's Love Child, March 17, 2004, 03:00:59 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Are today's rock n roll types a bunch of lazy gets, or is there something deeper at work?

I ask as a consequence of my refound addiction to vinyl, whereupon I've unceremoniously nabbed all my dad's old Beatles records.  The Fab Four's long-player basic discography reads thus:

Please Please Me (1963)
With The Beatles (1963)
A Hard Day's Night (1964)
Beatles For Sale (1964)
Help! (1965)
Rubber Soul (1966)
Revolver (1966)
Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967)
The Beatles [White Album] (1968)
Yellow Submarine (1969)
Let It Be (1970)

That's eleven albums in seven years.  Certainly no slouching around.  David Bowie too was amazingly prolific during the 1970s in particular.  In fact, take just about any half decent or half successful band that were around up to, ooh, lets say 1990, and odds on they released an album a year - Paul Weller knocked out a Jam long-player per 12 months, then followed that up with regular Style Council albums.  Roxy Music slapped out many a sleazy covered treat, even U2 were on an album a year up until they shipped off to Berlin to record Achtung Baby and nearly split up.

So, why are bands these days so tardy in getting their stuff written, recorded and in the shops?  The Coral have released three albums in two and a half years, and The White Stripes are similarly capable of producing - this feels prolific, but it used to be the norm.  Is it simply that albums are longer these days - no longer held to the restrictive 12 inches of vinyl they used to have to cram their wares into?  Is it that new ideas are running dry, so it takes longer to produce an long-player, because everything has already been done?  Is it that new technology has led bands/artists to spend far too long finding just the right sound at just the right volume?

Or are they just bone idle?  The Prodigy's follow-up to Fat Of The Land, for example, is long overdue.

european son

as a Bowie & Beatles freak, this is something i've often wondered about. thing is, there are a few mitigating circumstances.

Please Please Me, was half covers, and there were quite a few covers on the albums up to and including Help which cut down on writing time. after that the Beatles didn't tour, which frees up a lot of time for the studio.

also, B-Sides. Every Beatles track of note is on one of those albums above, Oasis, say, pissed away two albums worth of tracks on the B-Sides for their first fourteen singles.

some of the other reasons you've mentioned definitely bear repeating. albums are longer these days. Station to Station is what, eight tracks long, Revolver clocks in at half an hour. most albums today are longer.

you're right about technology too. in the old days, you'd have a mike in the middle of the room, and Buddy Holly smashing out the chords and singing whilst the Crickets did their thing. even by the last Beatles LPs you're still talking 4, maximum 16 tracks at most. all analogue. as studios get more hi-tech, bands (for better - Loveless, or worse - Be Here Now), will spend more time in them.

also, bands are more lazy, simple as that. they get a lot richer a lot quicker off their first 2 LPs, and then spend the money on coke and houses in LA, chucking us a half-assed creation every 2-3 years.

concerning the Prodigy, i reckon they're gonna do the decent thing and quit music, devoting their lives to seeking out and destroying all copies of Baby's Got A Temper.

Almost Yearly

Def Leppard had a quite reasonable reason that time ...

elderford

I believe it is all to do with marketing.

(I'm taking it for granted that we are talking about huge international acts, because of the Bowie/Beatles mentions).

Consider how long it would take Sony to gear up for an international promotional campaign to enable its product to reach full saturation. This probably goes someway to explaining why it takes years for an album to get released.

Quote from: "european son"as a Bowie & Beatles freak, this is something i've often wondered about. thing is, there are a few mitigating circumstances.

Please Please Me, was half covers, and there were quite a few covers on the albums up to and including Help which cut down on writing time. after that the Beatles didn't tour, which frees up a lot of time for the studio.

also, B-Sides. Every Beatles track of note is on one of those albums above, Oasis, say, pissed away two albums worth of tracks on the B-Sides for their first fourteen singles.

The Jam's b-sides featured some of their best work

Quotesome of the other reasons you've mentioned definitely bear repeating. albums are longer these days. Station to Station is what, eight tracks long, Revolver clocks in at half an hour. most albums today are longer.

Air's Talkie Walkie is only 38 minutes long, Franz Ferdinand's debut is about the same length, Original Pirate Material is just long enough to fit on one side of TDK C90.  Though yes, I do think walbums do tend to be that bit longer now.  'Ere, does anyone else get pissed off with "hidden" tracks these days?  It used to be a nice little bonus surprise, but now everyone does it, and you just end up with a huge list of tracks you've no idea the title of.

european son

Quote from: "Partridge's Love Child"'Ere, does anyone else get pissed off with "hidden" tracks these days?

god yes. if the tracks a load of noise/jam, (endless nameless, or the end of Second Coming), then fair enough. but proper songs (SFA's Citizen's Band) should just be on the damn album.

i remember when The Miseducation of Lauren Hill came out, posters advertising it said "featuring a hidden track".... not very hidden that.

heh, also, when the NME tried to have Citizen's Band on a cover CD, they fucked up; instead of having the track (accessible by "rewinding" the CD from Check It Out), they had the hidden 4 second "Don't Go Chewing Now!" by mistake. idiots.

Tokyo Sexwhale

Quote from: "Partridge's Love Child"Are today's rock n roll types a bunch of lazy gets, or is there something deeper at work?

I ask as a consequence of my refound addiction to vinyl, whereupon I've unceremoniously nabbed all my dad's old Beatles records.  The Fab Four's long-player basic discography reads thus:

Please Please Me (1963)
With The Beatles (1963)
A Hard Day's Night (1964)
Beatles For Sale (1964)
Help! (1965)
Rubber Soul (1966)
Revolver (1966)
Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967)
The Beatles [White Album] (1968)
Yellow Submarine (1969)
Let It Be (1970)

That's eleven albums in seven years.  Certainly no slouching around.  

You've missed Abbey Road and Magical Mystery Tour (albeit only an extended EP).  Also, consider that most of their singles and b-sides were not included on albums, and that more than makes up for the cover versions.

They also found time to make two films (three, if you include "Let It Be") and towards the end of the 60's John and George also made solo albums.

Tokyo Sexwhale

Quote from: "european son"
also, B-Sides. Every Beatles track of note is on one of those albums above, Oasis, say, pissed away two albums worth of tracks on the B-Sides for their first fourteen singles.

I don't understand this point, the majority of The Beatles singles and b-sides did not appear on albums e.g. Hey Jude, I Want to Hold Your Hand, She Loves You/I'll Get You, From Me To You/Thank You Girl, I Feel Fine/She's a Woman, Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane, Paperback Writer/Rain, We Can Work It Out,/Day Tripper, Hello Goodbye,/I Am The Walrus, Lady Madonna/The Inner Light

I've probably missed a couple too.  Basically anything that's on Pastmasters 1 and 2.

pretty dead boy

half of it's down to the relevance of albums--

QuotePlease Please Me (1963)
With The Beatles (1963)
A Hard Day's Night (1964)
Beatles For Sale (1964)
Help! (1965)
Rubber Soul (1966)
Revolver (1966)

rubber soul's often quoted as being one of the first albums that was actually that; a piece of art in itself rather than a collection of songs, a way that popular groups released their singles with some fillers.  there are no definitive phil spector lps; no definitive hank williams lps; no barcharach/david singers lps, etc etc., as the medium wasn't that important then.

QuoteSgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967)
The Beatles [White Album] (1968)
Yellow Submarine (1969)
Let It Be (1970)

things slow down to one a year when they're in the swing of making albums as a whole.  revolver and rubber soul were quicker and maybe simpler that something like sgt pepper or the white album.

as for why it takes so long now - i suppose you can add four months an lp for flitting around; promotion, complete pressing, marketing, design etc.  the length of the process is astonishing.  spiritualized recorded amazing grace in october 2002.  it got released, after comprehensive mastering and a couple of delays, in september 2003.  and they're still touring it now.

the main reason is because there's bands like muse who want to give off the impression of having made a tortured masterpiece that took ages, and that bands nowadays are all bums.

although bands'll often spend ages recording an album now, and perhaps this happens more often than in the past, it's largely the surrounding flit that makes things take so long.

pretty dead boy

oops, missed this--

Quotealso, B-Sides. Every Beatles track of note is on one of those albums above, Oasis, say, pissed away two albums worth of tracks on the B-Sides for their first fourteen singles.

nah ...
don't be silly.  don't you love that they're all b-sides?  i got in to oasis in about ninety five, being young, but doesn't it inspire you to think of people going to the shops and buying supersonic, and, instead of getting supersonic and three other songs, they got supersonic, take me away, i will believe and the mad columbia white label (which, if you play it against what they release now, is factual evidence that they're rubbish)?

the best thing about them, and what made oasis top (other than the songs), was that buying singles would get you an a-side and nice artwork, but things like headshrinker, fade away, underneath the sky, listen up etc ...

(ps, on a personal note, i admire your posts, name and taste from afar european son -- do you like isn't anything as well?)

gazzyk1ns

When listening to "A Hard Day's Night" (just the song) as a child, I thought the lyrics were "And when I get to the loo, That's when I do a big poo... and then I feel, aaaaaall right..."

european son

Quote from: "Tokyo Sexwhale"
I don't understand this point, the majority of The Beatles singles and b-sides did not appear on albums e.g. Hey Jude, I Want to Hold Your Hand, She Loves You/I'll Get You, From Me To You/Thank You Girl, I Feel Fine/She's a Woman, Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane, Paperback Writer/Rain, We Can Work It Out,/Day Tripper, Hello Goodbye,/I Am The Walrus, Lady Madonna/The Inner Light

I've probably missed a couple too.  Basically anything that's on Pastmasters 1 and 2.

argh, you're right... and i stand very much corrected.... i listen to Past Masters loads and have kind of stuck them in my head as Beatles LPs, which they clearly aren't....

it's not that you didn't understand my point as such.... i was just talking bollocks. sorry!


Quote from: "pretty dead boy"don't be silly. don't you love that they're all b-sides?

in some ways, yeah. that's why oasis singles were always worth buying, and why She Is Love/Little By Little/My Generation was the laziest and most disappointing single anyone's put out for decades.

Quote from: "pretty dead boy"(ps, on a personal note, i admire your posts, name and taste from afar european son -- do you like isn't anything as well?)

ah, cheers.... isn't anything is tops... best news site about these days for mbv stuff (inc boxset rumours and that) which you probably already know about is to here knows web

pretty dead boy

Quotein some ways, yeah. that's why oasis singles were always worth buying, and why She Is Love/Little By Little/My Generation was the laziest and most disappointing single anyone's put out for decades.

well, no more so than the singles which were just bad.  it took me until stop crying to stop buying the shit that they release, and i didn't buy the lp either.  i was their bitch.  just cut yourself loose and give up!  have a night in and play fade away and listen up, and then play ... well, even if you were playing let's all make believe and, mmm, fuckin' in the bushes it'd still be clear.  they're awful.

i posted this in another thread, in another anti-oasis rant, alongside a pretty snide picture of liam nowadays.  you can see it in his eyes there, now they're just a pastiche; trademark sneered vocals and too many riffs, they've just grown in to what they got described as in the way that all bands do.  ie, a rock and roll band with beatles influences, which they never had, but the last lp was all wank ringo drumming and ... grr, getting carried away.

Quoteah, cheers.... isn't anything is tops... best news site about these days for mbv stuff (inc boxset rumours and that) which you probably already know about is to here knows web

heh, yeh, i'm on the forum there, as pretty dead boy or x depending if it lets me post without logging in - it's lost many valuable anecdotes because the forum's a bit funny.  and get with the programme: i still don't believe that box set stuff, it sounded like fantasy.  the most recent words-from-kevins-mouth were that only put city girl out to prompt himself into releasing something to better it, and wants to start releasing his massive backlogue of music from the last twelve years.

isn't anything is boss too ... i'm listening to some spacemen 3 singles at the mo but might put it on, if not just to hear the 'every time, i look at yoooouuu ...' on cupid come ...[/quote]

Quote from: "Tokyo Sexwhale"You've missed Abbey Road and Magical Mystery Tour (albeit only an extended EP).

Well, that was silly of me.  Particularly considering Abbey Road is possibly my favourite Beatles album (though I'm really into Rubber Soul at the moment).  I purposefully left Magical Mystery Tour off, because as you say it was orinially an EP that they subsequently chucked some extra tracks on.

Someone mentioned Muse before.  I would think that they spend ages on their albums attempting to find a way to overblow it just that bit more.  My mate claimed that they were "the best English band around at the moment".  I nearly laughed him out of the room.

pretty dead boy

QuoteSomeone mentioned Muse before. I would think that they spend ages on their albums attempting to find a way to overblow it just that bit more. My mate claimed that they were "the best English band around at the moment". I nearly him out of the room.

ha ha ...
i can just imagine a night where the singer spends a couple of extra hours in the studio so that he can talk about the madness and late nights when he gets interviewed.  they're the ultimate in bands where there's hoodie-wearing teens with asthma, and beads in their hair, gawping at the musical intricacy of the songs.  none of it's good, just complicated while he tries to jeff buckley his voice over the top.

i wish i could find the publicity picture of them that was on the brits poster in hmv windows; they're the most offensive awkward band in the world ...

boki

Bands can find themselves spending anything up to 2 years touring an album these days (although they usually end up regretting it), so that doesn't really help much I guess.

Another factor occurred to me the other day.  Is it that bands earn more brass these days - or at least reap the benefits quicker?  I really don't know, so I pose it as a question, but if you need to keep the bank balance ticking over you're more likely to pull your finger out and get your wares into the shop.  If you're bank manager is happy and your mortgage is paid for the month you're more likely to sit around smoking absynthe and snorting tea off of Patsy Kensit's tits.

Bilko

On reason why bands/artists made more records in the 60s/70s is because their managers and records company took all the money they made from sales. Bands/Artists were on terrible deals having to make an album every year. As the 70s progressed the bands/artists gained control and had better rights to their sales.

Doctor Stamen

Quote from: "european son"
heh, also, when the NME tried to have Citizen's Band on a cover CD, they fucked up; instead of having the track (accessible by "rewinding" the CD from Check It Out), they had the hidden 4 second "Don't Go Chewing Now!" by mistake. idiots.

I remember that too, the fools.  There's a 'hidden' track at the start of Outspaced too, I forget what it's called though.  Going back to the original point, SFA have probably been one of the most prolific bands in recent years.  They managed to put out an album every year between 1996 and 2001, though one of those was a b-sides compilation.  I just think most bands are either just lazy arses or they probably get a lot more pressure from record labels to get out there touring and therefore flogging a few more units, as that's what its all about.