Blog imitates life, for this week anyway, it is a reflection of what I've been up too lately...much inactivity. I took the week off after getting out of school and I don't have much to show for it except we got showtime free for six months so I've been watching and tivo-ing lots of movies. The sundance channel rocks.
Anyway, to the point. Maybe some of you more savvy music folk (Eddie) can help shed some light on a discussion Brent and I had over dinner tonight. Due to an ipod random pick, I was expressing lament over a group in which I only enjoyed their first album (at least a daily listen in junior high). Since then their successive albums (as a whole body of work) have all just sounded mediocre to me. A sign of a great band is an ability to progressively evolve over time and sadly this does not seem to happen with some. Brent's theory is that a band may be playing together for several years before getting signed to a major label. Once a band is signed, they are forced into playing the best tunes they've made over the years because the studio sees this as the best mode of capitalization. So, it follows the "first" major album ends up being much better.
I disagree. Even if a band plays together several years then gets signed, the album that will be produced should be of their most recent material. Unless a band or label really digs old tunes they made years ago, I can't see a record becoming the "best of before we were signed" album. That's the basic gist of our conversation. Our limited knowledge on the subject hinders our ability to talk intelligently about this so we are basically using logic.
Anyway, to the point. Maybe some of you more savvy music folk (Eddie) can help shed some light on a discussion Brent and I had over dinner tonight. Due to an ipod random pick, I was expressing lament over a group in which I only enjoyed their first album (at least a daily listen in junior high). Since then their successive albums (as a whole body of work) have all just sounded mediocre to me. A sign of a great band is an ability to progressively evolve over time and sadly this does not seem to happen with some. Brent's theory is that a band may be playing together for several years before getting signed to a major label. Once a band is signed, they are forced into playing the best tunes they've made over the years because the studio sees this as the best mode of capitalization. So, it follows the "first" major album ends up being much better.
I disagree. Even if a band plays together several years then gets signed, the album that will be produced should be of their most recent material. Unless a band or label really digs old tunes they made years ago, I can't see a record becoming the "best of before we were signed" album. That's the basic gist of our conversation. Our limited knowledge on the subject hinders our ability to talk intelligently about this so we are basically using logic.
2 comments:
i do agree that bands generally loose some creativity and control once they are signed. whether that's due to touring, the changes that come with being signed or label input. in the end the artistic aspect often suffers in order to promote and sell albums.
I see your points and it is expected that eddie would agree with brent. I guess some bands handle the pressures/ constraints of being signed better than others. A few bands that I can think of in which I feel this way about are still pretty popular with the general public but their subsequent releases just aren't as poignant. Its pretty subjective too, what I see as devolution others might see as progress.
Post a Comment