Favorite Solo Album? | Page 4 | Fab forum

Any band today will take the most "commercial" song as viewed as the label. The Beatles were willing to put Inner Light on a B-side; that's saying something.

Or just listen to your local alternative station. (Oh wait – you're an American. Never mind.) But to make this half on topic, Paul's Chaos and Creation is great.

That's my point. Down in the US, they almost force you to listen to Katy Perry, etc through mass exposure. We at least have these alternative stations to play good stuff like Fitz and The Tantrums, Stone Temple Pilots, etc. But if you are ever in Canada, put on CBC Radio 2. A perfect mix of Funk, Classic Rock and alternative stuff now now. But, this seems like more of a discussion for Derail.

We only have 6Music in the UK, local stations tend to be as commercial as Radio 1. Local BBC stations aren't as bad, actually.

Anyway, the year I was born, albums released included Foo Fighters, Different Class, The Great Escape, The Bends and (What's The Story?) Morning Glory. All of those were young, upcoming bands who tried to stretch the boundaries and also managed to have an impact in the charts. 

One of my two favourite albums of the year so far was made by a bunch of middle-aged men who essentially invented alternative rock (R.E.M). They've been recording for 30 years ffs! That's a growing trend, though. Good rock music tends to be made by middle aged men. If a new band gathers a sizeable number of fans, they'll be given a three-album contract by a record label (if they are lucky), and if the third album isn't Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band they'll be dropped. After three albums The Beatles were still at Hard Day's Night ffs!

The only modern band to make that sort of leap to artistic greatness are Arcade Fire, who are signed to indepedent record labels. I doubt most of my friends could name an Arcade Fire song.

When the public are taught that music consists of an attractive person miming along to someone else singing, they're not going to see why they should buy four or five of an artist's albums whilst they refine their sound. The Dark Side Of The Moon was Pink Floyd's eighth album, Exile on Main Street was The Rolling Stones' tenth album, Rubber Soul was The Beatles' sixth, VGPS was the Kinks' sixth, Ziggy Stardust was Bowie's fifth, Green was R.E.M.'s sixth, Highway 61 Revisited was Bob Dylan's sixth album…

To be honest, I think it comes down to piracy. If people will insist on stealing music, then bands will rely more and more on touring in order to make money, and will spend less time in the studio making music that people will just steal. Everybody who posts on this forum knows what a massive leap forward The Beatles' music took when they were spending more time in the studio.

Sorry, that absolutely dwarves Gnik's rant.

All three albums were massive hits here. My friends aren't really music people though.

Really, I pine for the ideals of Reprise Records. Not EMI, not Capitol, of Reprise. Frank Sinatra got it right in thinking that artists should make the call, not a non musical CEO with more care for money then talent or musical success. Mo Astin said "Artists were given control over both what you heard and what you saw; the recording sessions and album covers were subject to their input and ultimate approval." That was shocking then, and really, what we need now. And, they were willing to give up a small price for future riches, another lesson needed. So, we need to look at the past, but not to the 60's we normally talk of, but another aspect of them. But, looking around now, it's mainstream crap. But that's not what you really see, but that's what they make you think. Music now is far from dead, but the good stuff is just hidden – but they say the thrill is in the chase.

(By the way – why is the last "why" in your sig spelled "hhwhy," Gnik?)
It's true. Something (or someone) needs to change. The problem is nobody is willing to change a booming business. To them it's "Why fix something that ain't broke?" Whereas we think "FIX BABY FIX (10 apples to any one who gets the joke). It's a joke that people can become famous on limited work. The Beatles never had "American Idol" or YouTube to get them famous. The system is a sham that conspires against the truly talented.

The first album is usually all the best songs the band members have written in their lives up until that point. The second album is any left over songs, plus any that have been written since the debut. You can see where this is going…

I think bands also can become complacent. After having loads of energy in an attempt to gain fans, get a record deal and sell an album, they relax after having several top 10 singles and take their eye off the ball. The Artic Monkeys had two UK #1s with Whatever People Say I Am…, Kaiser Chiefs had four singles in the top 11 off Employment (and then Ruby). In the case of the Kaiser Chiefs, I think they've given up on the album format (though they have the talent to put out a really good one) and the Artic Monkeys have obviously had that lull.

The Strokes had a good debut, I think that's rapidly becoming a different era of rock though. Is This It and Your New Favourite Band (The Hives's breakthrough album, though not their debut) were released in 2001… the same year that Pop Idol debuted. I think that killed off the image of music being "garage" and reinforced the idea that pop is pop.

Even then, The White Stripes didn't really peak until Elephant, their fourth album in 2003, by which time they'd quite possibly have been dropped if they were with a major record label and the album wouldn't have had the publicity a blockbuster needs. There does need to be more patience from record producers, which needs the public to buy more albums. 2009 or 2010 was the first year since 1967 that singles outsold albums, and given how high album sales were that year, I think that's a bad sign.