its

Feel free to elaborate and/or enlighten.

I have a theory about BB/BW fans.
We like the stuff that's better, and don't like so much the stuff that's not as good.
How's that?

And BW/BB fans, being a completely homogeneous group, obviously only like one set of songs more than others.

Bottom line though, FUM HIM THE MOURDOROUS BASTARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Praise him and you are as bad as I am!

They loose 'em, eh?

It's about devotion to all music officially sanctioned or not, and honest statement of your feelings about it.
But I ain't having someone who worships frickin' Stars And Stripes and Still Cruisin' try to patronise me and others because he envies the collections of others.

I'm not about the latter, either. And I'm not aware of it--as I said, I don't know the genesis of the thread. But I do know that a ridiculous number of posters do tend to favor unreleased over released, and it does seem to eventually boil down to no other criteria--but just that. Unreleased over released.

This is possibly the lamest, most reactionary thread I've ever had the displeasure of reading.

I have to agree. I'm all about good discussions, but this thread is composed mostly of counterproductive comments that go totally against what being a fan is all about.

How so? Is being a fan really all about the unending dedication and devotion to music that the bands you're allegedly a fan of chose not to release? Is that really being a fan? Seriously?

Identity not hidden.

Listening to Alton Brown talk about chops.

This is possibly the lamest, most reactionary thread I've ever had the displeasure of reading.

You didn't have to read it -- the title certainly makes clear what's coming. But I, for one, believe there's truth in it. Maybe it was started for reactionary reasons (I have no idea what started it), but it's a valid point.

Keep in mind, everyone, that "producer" doesn't always mean the same thing. With some bands, a producer is basically arranging, possibly performing, selecting songs, and making suggestions for engineers -- really getting into it. Other times, it's some other combination of those, more of some, less of others. Or even just being there to make sure it all happens. Nik Venet was a producer for the Beach Boys, but most people agree that Brian produced at least some of those sessions.

I believe in this Smile Syndrome, to an extent, and have commented on it on this board before. There is no doubt that many people shoot off on any comment with "Oh, but have you heard the [demo][earlier version]? It's WAY better!"

The bulk of this is just showing off. There's no better way to set yourself above newer fans or more casual fans than boasting about your endless collection of boots, and how if the uninitiated knew what you knew, the world would be so much a better place. You hear this with the California Feelin, Santa Ana Winds, Big Sur, and many others that had multiple lives over the years. 

However, as was mentioned above, the Beach Boys certainly must be among the all-time leaders in recording and then not releasing, material, and it is the opinion of many people that the unreleased material from the mid-70s on (at least) is probably better than the released. I, myself, subscribe to that line of thinking. I do prefer most of the unreleased stuff from Adult/Child to what came out on actual Beach Boys releases of the time. I do like Bamboo material more than Beach Boys releases of the time. I do prefer Stevie...and so on.  Again, as someone--mattzeus, maybe?--said, the Beach Boys clearly were a confused band, not sure what they were doing from a marketing and album-release standpoint, and whatever it was they did, it didn't work. Those points above about trying to show off one's knowledge or insider status have nothing to do with that part of it -- the Beach Boys have a lot of recorded material, and that later stuff is just a lot better than what came out. Go figure...

One thing to remember: It wasn't long ago -- what, 12 years? -- when we heard the same things about Wonderful, Wind Chimes and Heroes and Villains. That time, it was true.

I can't explain my favorite line--no idea why it does it to me--but "he said, you can't repeat the past? Whaddaya mean you can't? Of course you can..." immediately struck me as just great. One of many greats on that disc.

That's what Gatsby said to Nick in one of the pivotal scenes in the Great Gatsby.

"You've been through all of F. Scott Fitzgerald's books . . ."

Seriously though, on both Time Out of Mind and Love and Theft, there are a lot of borrowed lines, put together in a way that makes them completely new.  I know I'm not even coming close to catching all of the allusions.

I didn't say I memorized them.

I'd say that Queen II and A Night at the Opera are very stylistically diverse, yet cohesive albums. I think the trick is to have the songs written and recorded in the same time-frame so the overall feel and production of the album comes from the same place.

I think you're almost got it right. I believe having the recordings primarily done by the same people and in the same place around the same time is important. As for when the songs were written, I think that matters far less.

To answer the original question, I think certain change-ups in texture (through arrangements) are absolutely necessary throughout an album. By having a single, strong production vision, you can use different instrumentation across a group of songs and still retain a feel that the songs belong together as an album. Good sequencing is also key. An album like the new one by The Clientele is an example of how NOT to do it. It sounds nice, all quite pleasant...but it's far too similar. There is nothing but mid-tempo, vaguely backward-looking pop. by the time you hit anything diverse, the album is 85% over, and if you're spared the chore of having to review it, you've probably turned it off already. (That or it's background music to you.)

So to me, that's the key. I don't ask for a "concept album," and unless you're a rarity, you ought not attempt one anyway. Most of them are horrible and pretentious. But I do prefer an album to feel as if it is by the same artist, the same band. I want a general cohesion without sacrificing creative arrangements.

There are songs where the lyrics mean far more to me than the music; others are about equal; others the opposite. And I like (or hate) different lyrics for so many reasons, it is impossible for me to explain how or why. I don't much worry about it: if someone has the time and energy to analyze why I feel or think the way I do about them, they're more than welcome. But I try not to get too worked up about the reasoning behind my tastes.

That's what Mike Love tells me.

I always sound pissed, or so it seems.

The Smiley Smile versions of all the Smile tunes were, to me, my first exposure to the songs. All of them: Wonderful, Wind Chimes, H&V, etc. And I liked them in the same oddball, creeped-out way I do now. I consider them all inferior, but still worth hearing.

Half-Handed Cloud, Halos and Lassos.

But artist as listener has insight that a listener can't have, and therefore may be in a better position to judge. (Often not, as many artists are poor judges of their own work, at least in the popular opinion, probably because they're too close to it.)

I think you're wrong if you call it a responsibility of the listener. A right, maybe. But a listener shouldn't be required to do homework on a song that turns out to be a thoughtless accident involving last night's beans and some running tape (for a fictional example).

Why does it have to be that complicated?
Maybe he just dug the sounds they were coming up with, and decided to put em out!

Isn't allowing someone that luxury--to just dig or not dig the sounds--something you and Chris D argued against earlier in this thread? It seems to me that you were requiring listeners to analyze music, that liking it just because you "dig it" implies you're lazy. Are you putting more responsibility on listeners than on the artist?

I didn't say you were dumb, Jeff. But I did say you're wrong, and I do think you are. The second sentence I quoted is wrong. The first one wasn't my issue.

Anyway, here's where I realize that I've said my opinion, it's unpopular and will be argued against, and so I have nothing else to add, really. Then we get to the point where Ian or somebody says that's quitting and I'm admitting I'm wrong or something. Then I say it doesn't matter, it's just pop, and then I catch hell for that, too. This is the song that never ends, it just goes on and on my friend. Some people started singing it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue singing it forever just because This is the song that never ends, it just goes on and on my friend. Some people started singing it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue singing it forever just because This is the song that never ends, it just goes on and on my friend. Some people started singing it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue singing it forever just because This is the song that never ends, it just goes on and on my friend. Some people started singing it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue singing it forever just because This is the song that never ends, it just goes on and on my friend. Some people started singing it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue singing it forever just because This is the song that never ends, it just goes on and on my friend. Some people started singing it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue singing it forever just because This is the song that never ends, it just goes on and on my friend. Some people started singing it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue singing it forever just because

 

How anyone can bash Add Some Music and It's About Time and praise Solar System is beyond me.  If you like one, you should like the other.  Lyrics are peer.

Normally I don't say things like this, but since I'm under all-out attack the past screen or two...

That statement is just wrong. It's stupid. To say that I should like one song's lyrics because I like another's makes no sense, especially in the three examples you list. I DO like Solar System because it's funny. I don't like It's About Time (by the way, I listened to Sunflower a few more times today at work, so it is fresher in my mind) because it's a stupid story. The music rocks--no question. Carl sings well--no question. But that doesn't mean I HAVE to like it. I fvcking hate it. What's the difference to you? I think the "story" absolutely ruins it. I can't listen to it.  I would rather--BY FAR--listen to Brian's silly, nonsensical lyrics, whether they're intentionally funny or the product of him just being out of it, than listen to pseudo-serious, pretentious ones.*

Add Some Music, although I don't recall saying anything one way or the other (not to say that I didn't), I am ambivalent about. It has a great vocal arrangement. Its lyrics are stupid, but more harmless, to these ears.

But really, Jeff--"if you like one, you should like the other." That's just wrong.


*Speaking of having listened earlier, I am OK with some of the lyrics. The later ones, when he sings something about how we need to love one another, etc., and it seems a bit more general, are fine. I don't particularly like them, but neither am I willing to go on record against them the way I am with the earlier ones in the song.

Alito hearings again.

Some (but not all) of the albums I consider essential, barring those already listed (I think, although I can't guarantee 0 duplication):

Miles Davis: Birth of the Cool, Miles Ahead, A Kind Of Blue, Sketches of Spain, Miles Smiles, In a Silent Way, Filies de Kilimanjaro, Bitches Brew (then everything else).

Thelonius Monk: anything.

Velvet Underground: The Velvet Underground and Nico, White Light/White Heat, The Velvet Underground, Loaded (Fully Loaded Edition) and VU.

Lou Reed: Transformer (and the aforementioned Berlin)

The Beatles: everything

Tom Waits: Blue Valentine, Rain Dogs, Bone Machine, Black Rider, Alice, Blood Money

Captain Beefheart: Safe as Milk, Strictly Personal, troutmaskreplica

Simon & Garfunkel: Bookends, Bridge Over Troubled Water

Bob Dylan: Bringing it All Back Home, Highway 61 Revisited, Blonde on Blonde, John Wesley Harding, Basement Tapes, Blood on the Tracks, Love and Theft

Leonard Cohen: Songs, Songs of Love and Hate

Randy Newman: the first several albums

Bruce Springsteen: pretty much everything through the mid-80s, anyway, if not more.

Led Zeppelin: the entire catalogue

Queen: Queen II through The Game

Get it? This can go on forever. A little context would help, as I have a LOT more. It is just too tough to narrow this down.

Dennis was too limited in scope; his music was sometimes nice, but it feels like 2 or 3 songs being rewritten over and over again.

And he hardly took over at 20/20, or hung on till he died. I didn't notice him dominating the travesty of 15BO, or the Brian-laden Love You, or the sh1tty MIU. Or the awful KTSA. Dennis became pretty good by the late 60s, but the truth is, he stayed that way through the late 70s, and he was done soon after, unable to hold even the croaky notes Brian was offering up.

Anyway, that's it for me today. Be back to bicker later. A pleasure, as always.