Quote:
Originally posted by Melusine:
With pushed artists who didn't get where they are on their own merits, I maintain their albums often contain a number of songs with hit-potential, the singles, and a number of songs which simply don't cut it. That's what I meant. [img]smile.gif[/img] I'm not talking about a difference in taste, or about hard-working artists creating an album: I'm talking about songs put out for the sole opportunistic reason of making a lot of money.
|
I agree.
Often, most of these pushed and prefabricated artists have the same team of "masterminds" behind them; the same people who discovered them, producers, the real song composers and writers, record company bobo's, image specialists... They've basically got one "major" pool of songs and song-ideas, probably not even knowing for which artist they will be used during the writing process.
They'd be nuts to give all the best songs to only one of their acts, knowing they could only pull it off to release 3, 4 singles of that same album to make it financially worthwhile anyways; and they're most likely not making those albums for the critics, but for a mostly single-centered public... So if they realize that one of those never-to-be-released-as-a-single songs intended for the album one of their acts could be a big hit if launched as a CD-single by one of their other acts, why not do it that way?
Sure, maybe "filler" is a bit of a harsh term, but it's not even that strange that the albums of these prefabricated artists mostly have a few singles on it to "sell" it; those who buy it will most likely do it because of those singles or the image of the artist and won't really care that much about the quality of the other songs on it... Those "filler" songs, while not single material, are often sufficiently satisfactory enough and close enough to the hit singles to please the target audience, anyways.
[ 04-18-2003, 07:48 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]