I have always had these strange theories about music, bands, albums, songs, singers. Today, I thought I would lay out for you some of these observations.
- Most artists put all these great songs on their first album because they probably don't know whey they will get the chance again. I had the crazy idea that an artist should hold back 1-2 songs that they know to be good. This song will be saved until they need it possibly during a sophomore slump album. The record company would say: Quick! Lady Gaga's Born This Way is slumping! Let's put Pokerface on there! Imagine that Pokerface had not been released yet. My theory is that an artist's first songs are usually their best because they have generally spent years trying to come up with them, while a second album or third album merely covers a few years, if that
- A band's second or third album would probably be just as groundbreaking or popular, if the band in question was new. I have always felt that The Strokes second album would have been just as seminal a force as Is This It if they had been given the benefit of the newness factor. Second album's are generally extensions of the first album anyway, but the second album is always the killer for pleasing anyone. It is many times called the First Album Part 2, but if in subsequent albums, the band does not do that, people then get pissed. Bands are in a no win situation. If they like The Strokes make a Room on Fire, then people say this is nice but I heard it before. If they like Weezer make a Pinkerton, then people say this is nice but I really liked the Blue Album better. Many bands do not go the Pinkerton direction until the 3rd or 4th album, then find out they probably should make the same thing over and over if they want to make any money. Fans hate change. Some critics hate change. The real bands. Those that really last are the ones that give those groups a big middle finger and do whatever they want. Yet, people never account for the fact that an artist is brand new. I think what happens is that people overload on something brand new so much that they are sick of it after awhile. Lady Gaga is a prime example of that phenomenon. After that first wave, how successful your career is will ultimately depend upon how hard the artist works at making good albums. Strong music always can cancel out the fact an artist is old hat to a lot of people. Take for example successful reboots by U2 and Kings of Leon.
- Bands that break up should never put out an album of original material after reuniting. I was get an empty feeling when listening to this music. These groups should only do live shows, not try to recreate the music. They could recreate a shining replica of one of their classic albums, but what happened is 20 years have passed. Time has a way of fucking with how people even hear new music. The other part of it is that every song the listener will seek out the former magic that these groups can no longer attain. I have never seen a reunited older band make a buzzworthy album. I cannot even explain this phenomenon, but it like they completely forgot how to make good hooks, good lyrics. The Stones are prime culprits of this fact. Mick's lyrics from Big Bang Theory are borderline moronic. So when I hear that an old band is making an album of original material, I don't get too excited. Expectations become too high, the disappoint that these guys are no longer younger sets in, and it probably just sucks anyway. That is the other thing here. Maybe the music just ain't as good as it used to be. Music needs a time and a place. This time and place is always very pertinent to the experience of listening.
No comments:
Post a Comment