Quote:
Originally posted by antryg:
Yorick, while I agree with you that some of the best music on an album aren't the "hits", I disagree that artists don't release songs which they know are bad. This may be done for several reasons. Some artists/groups are under mandate "finish the album by X or we will cancel the project". Sometimes artists in conflict with their label release songs which they know are poor to get out of contractual obligations. For example, Lary Norman's In the Garden was released for this very reason. I make this claim based on an article in Time magazine and hearing him state the same during a concert. Other times bad songs are released by artists who view music as just their job and not a "calling" ie. "We need to turn out a new song by the end of the day to finish this album." I have seen video interviews where several different performers have stated that they only do it for the money/fame/girls/etc. It isn't about the music for all muscians.
Personally, I never buy an album based on hearing one song. If it is a group or artist that I don't know, it could be that the one song I hear will be the only one which I will like. However, after hearing that one song, I will seek out the album and listen to it and then make a choice whether to buy or not.
|
Ant, there are many people involved in a record. One two or even seven people in the project may not care about every or any songs, but you can rest assured at least one person will care about a song at some stage of the recording or it wouldn't get done at all.
Usually each song means more to different people. Producers care more about some tracks than others, artists may care more about different tracks to the producer. If there is a band, this is quite normal. Politics come into play, and a "bad" song will be included because it is the bassplayers baby. It's his only song, he cares about it and needs it for the money and will leave the band if it's not on. So the song goes on.
Does this make the song bad? IT'S SUBJECTIVE.
Anyway, did you hear about the polish/irish/whatever musician? He's doing it for the money... (boom boom)
Sorry Ant. None of us do it for the money. If we did, we'd be sadly disappointed. It's never "just a job" to make an album. An album is not a dodgy wedding gig or badly produced 30 second ad. More often than not albums take way more than they give back, on every level.
Re. albums released because of a label conflict, these are few and far between. Compared to the amount of albums released that's a drop in the ocean.
Finally, the "finish the album" pressure is on the producer, not the artist. The artist may very well be distraught by the result of a producers rush job, and simply have to settle with the end result. This doesn't mean the songs are bad, just not totally
as intended. Again, whether this is good or bad is subjective.
I must point out, I don't think people here understand the producers role in a recording. Grojls post in particular highlights a misconception about the recording process.
The producer is the equivalent of a films director and editor rolled into one. The artist is often the starring actor of a film and may or may not be a scriptwriter as well. But without a director envisioning a completed entity the whole thing doesn't happen.
A producer can love a record even if the songs are "below par". A producer can love a record even if the artists and musicians are "below par". A producer is given clay to make some art with. Sometimes there's a lot, and clay that's easy to work with, other times the clay's wierdly coloured, or in small quantities.
But, there's no denying the time, care and energy that goes into shaping the clay no matter how much there is.
So, justifying stealing mp3s because "some songs are fillers" is an extreme insult to the people who bring you the music you love.
[ 04-21-2003, 01:53 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]