Gar Veteran Member Posts:1676  
| 1/29/2005 12:13 AM |
|
|
What do people think of bands who release numerous albums in the one year?
I know that The Coral complained from the very start that the record companies just couldn't keep up with the band's pace, hence two albums and a mini album for a relatively new band. Bright Eyes has just released two albums today. I think that The Frames are working on another album too. So maybe its good that the artists we want to pay money to see and have their songs release more tunes.
I get annonyed waiting so many years for certain artists to release another album. And when the album finally comes along, it contains about twelve songs. Is that worthy enough for the fans of their music? Ok, the argument can be made that those twelve songs were the best out of all the one's recorded and it suited the tone, duration of the album. But maybe, just maybe, if they released a double album. For example, Oasis are due an album. Noel says that he has tons of songs while Gem, Andy and Liam are all writing aswell. So what if they released a double album? The first cd could be the album properly produced, edited etc while the second cd could be the other tracks that they think their fans might want to hear. Sometimes their bsides are better than the songs that make the albums.
In saying that, the price wars would then erupt. Would you be willing to pay more for a double album? Would you rather just buy whatever song you want from itunes? Would you be willing to make seperate purchases if numerous albums were released? I'm sure you all have very strong opinions on these questions, let's hear em....but wouldn't it be nice to have the option of hearing more from artists you enjoy more than others? Or are the record companies and the artists themselves just milking the market?
Here's a link to a story about how Ryan Adams is releasing three albums this year. I for one am interested in this, some of you might not be though:
www.nme.com/news/111214.htm
|
|
|
|
BinokularVeteran Member Posts:1665
| 1/29/2005 12:16 PM |
|
|
I think as long as the albums are genuinely good, no problem. When someone is on a roll creatively, they should go for it and keep going. This idea of 1-3 years between albums is more of a record company thing to space out releases and get maximum exposure for each album. Radioheads Kid A/Amnesiac were recorded in the same sessions apparently, but the releases were spaced apart. I think as long as someone doesn't start diluting down what good be a truly great album for the sake of making a couple of OK ones, then theres no problem.
|
|
|
|
Rev JulesVeteran Member Posts:1041
| 1/29/2005 4:22 PM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gar
Here's a link to a story about how Ryan Adams is releasing three albums this year. I for one am interested in this, some of you might not be though:
www.nme.com/news/111214.htm
Prince started doing this just before he lost his mojo and started writing 'slave' all over his face. |
|
|
|
mick Basic Member Posts:411
| 1/31/2005 1:49 AM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Binokular
I think as long as the albums are genuinely good, no problem. When someone is on a roll creatively, they should go for it and keep going. This idea of 1-3 years between albums is more of a record company thing to space out releases and get maximum exposure for each album. Radioheads Kid A/Amnesiac were recorded in the same sessions apparently, but the releases were spaced apart. I think as long as someone doesn't start diluting down what good be a truly great album for the sake of making a couple of OK ones, then theres no problem.
no need to type it again :) bang on man.
|
|
|
|
Mully Advanced Member Posts:849
| 1/31/2005 9:15 AM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gar
For example, Oasis are due an album. Noel says that he has tons of songs while Gem, Andy and Liam are all writing aswell. So what if they released a double album? The first cd could be the album properly produced, edited etc while the second cd could be the other tracks that they think their fans might want to hear. Sometimes their bsides are better than the songs that make the albums.
Noel has said that the plan was for a double album, but seeing as its theie last for Sony, he didnt want to give them too much. |
|
|
|
mutchBasic Member Posts:392
| 1/31/2005 12:51 PM |
|
|
I am curious to know why artists that have too much material for a commercial release (i.e. I think 11 is the optimal number of songs on any standard release) wouldnt stick mp3's up on their sites for the more serious music fans, such as most of us here, to go and investigate.
It has been done already as a means of luring people into purchasing CD's (i.e. a code unique to each genuine copy of a cd gives web access to an unreleased track). Just curious about this.
An example that comes to mind is the Waterboys. For the fisherman's blues recording sessions they, apprently, had about 50 recordings of about 50 songs (i.e. some different versions of the same songs, I'm afraid I dont know the details). Ten of the "ones that got away"(sorry, couldnt resist!) were officialy released a while back as a separate album. But would'nt it be great if you could access all 50 through the web?
Just a thought, probably some really sensible reasons why its not a more common practice, outside of web only releases.
I mean as far as I can see, it's cost free in the case of songs already recorded, no distribution costs required, no hello money to large stores, no manufacturing, no sleeve design and promotion wise, possibly just an ad on the sleeve of the accompanying standard release would suffice to entice serious fans to see what else the band get up to when writing! (Mixing and mastering are of course probably the largest obsticles cost wise, but surely a few grand on that is acceptable?.)
I know many artists claim the songs belong together as a whole piece of work (Lars Ulrich's vapour thin excuse for insisting a true fan of HIS band would buy a hard copy and help pay for those silly looking drum kits) but this is not true of all acts.
|
|
|
|
GarVeteran Member Posts:1676
| 1/31/2005 1:15 PM |
|
|
Good points raised there Mutch. U2 have a boxset available to buy in the itunes music store that contains rare bsides, live tracks etc. So the online listening or buying option is certainly improving all the time. But I'm a person who likes to have a hard copy of an album. I'd just like to have the oppurnity to buy or hear more songs from artists instead of waiting so long for them to release another album, which mightened be as good as the album that was released.
|
|
|
|
mickBasic Member Posts:411
| 1/31/2005 2:26 PM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by mutch
I am curious to know why artists that have too much material for a commercial release (i.e. I think 11 is the optimal number of songs on any standard release) wouldnt stick mp3's up on their sites for the more serious music fans, such as most of us here, to go and investigate.
i'd say alot of bands would be afraid of doing this incase they lost some of the hardcore fans...
if you're in a full time band, your "job" is to write songs. i guess not all of the time they will meet your personal standards. sometimes recording a song and adding some production will make it brilliant in your eyes and worthy of release where maybe before it wasnt, this (i think) is why its important for bands to record all their material for an album and take the best 10, 12 or 14 tracks to make the album. the other tracks may be good, but not good enough to get on a representation of where your band/career is at at that time. and i guess if they arent good enough to make an album perhaps you might say they arent good enough to be given to the public ear. |
|
|
|
loserbrian New Member Posts:46
| 1/31/2005 2:32 PM |
|
|
you cant just release stuff as you wish if your signed. If you had fifty versions of songs and said to the label im gonna put them on the web they would laugh at you. They often own those masters and are not gona jepordise sales of cds which they make 90% of by giving stuff away on the web. Obviously the code thing means someone has bought the cd but giving them more means they are not dieng for more music from the band and reduces demand for another cd. That is what the marketing heads would say anyway.
|
|
|
|