Quote:
Originally posted by Melusine:
I know you're talking from your own perspective, Hugh, and from that point of view I agree with you dear!! I haven't heard a single song of your either that I'd dare call a filler!! Of course it's insulting if you worked hard at a song and someone called it a filler. But (unfortunately!) not all artists are like you. I cannot help but stick to my opinion when I consider the "constructed, mass-produced" artists who would never have been able to write a single good line themselves, who cannot even hit pure notes most of the times and whose blunders on the recordings are smoothed out with all the cool tech stuff we've got nowadays... They do NOT "make it" by strength of talent but simply by being snapped up by some smart manager with a good sense of timing, lots of contacts in the right places and a well-oiled promotion machine.
Be honest - we both know that in every respect, you are a FAR, far better singer than say Britney Spears. A lot of teen boys would disagree, but I also daresay you are better looking than her [img]tongue.gif[/img]  . Yet she is world famous and you are not - even though by force of talent and will-power, you deserve it more!
I know even the crappiest hobby bands are proud of what they do, and calling a song a filler to their face would be rude. But that doesn't mean they ARE quality songs! Sorry Hugh, but it's NOT always insulting to call a song a filler (even though if you talk directly to the creator of it, you should be tactful). You have got to agree with me that there are good songs and bad songs out there. I have *known* bands who wanted to make an album but weren't good enough writers to fill it with good stuff , so they recorded a badly covered song off someone else, or quickly wrote a song of their own that they knew was crap...
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.
Good to see you too, Hugh! I hope you're doing well [img]smile.gif[/img]
|
Sarah, there are a couple of things here. The first is Britney may be talentless... but her producer Max Martin is a genius. Max Martin is the musical genius behind many "manufactured" and hugely successful acts in pop music. The sheer volume of hours and the groundbeaking creativity in his work, especially in making her sound good for example, is without question. He created that whole genre of pop. The Britney "oh baby baby" big lrft hand piano/huge vocal sound.
The best songs are not always the singles. Length alone dictates what a single is. 3 mins is optimum. 6-7 mins? forget it. It automatically excludes the song from single possibility. Are you suggesting all songs that are six minutes are not good? Simply because it doesn't have "hit potential" doesn't mean the song isn't great, or even the best on the record.
Secondly, what you're calling "fillers", the more obscure, harder to appreciate material off an album, often is what helps a band achieve longevity. Creating fans of greater loyalty. The "filler" is where an artist or producer can be experimental, without the constraint of three minutes, and radio limitations. The "filler" is necessary to musical growth with our culture. They introduce new ideas and sounds into the sonic world, which allows singles to then develop from the familiarity of hearing that sound. Jeff Buckley creates obscure work, along comes a more commercial Coldplay with his sound in a more accessible format and bang. Bigger hit. It happens again and again. The Cranberries on the back of the obscure yet incredibly beautiful sound the Sundays developed. U2 created Achtung baby on the back of sounds developped by obscure artists. In turn, the songs which were NOT hits, contained stronger elements of that musical language, which seminally influenced countless artists.
Without the "filler", as a society, we'd only have collections of singles. Bottom feeding on themselves.
This is part of my beef. By only taking the initially appealing songs, the singles from an album, and ignoring the more experimental, challenging and often more expressive songs, we as a culture will "dumb down" the musical horizon. I've heard it said Sting used to record a couple of singles to sell the album out of necessity, and pour his artistic soul into the rest of the album. His heart went into the "fillers".
Albums ARE designed as a whole. The public face - the single - which spearheads promotion of the product; and the "filler" - the heart and soul, the meat and potatoes of an album - which achieves loyalty and longevity from a fan base. It's a good thing that not everyone likes every song on an album. Only the hardest core fans will.
Plus, albums are extremely satisfying to make.
So, I repeat. A fan does not download an artists individual songs without permission or paying.
[ 04-20-2003, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]