IT'S A GAS, GAS, GAS!!
MESSAGE BOARD
Return to Gasx3 Board Homepage
Name: Turner
E-Mail: mcauley2@optonline.net
Subject: True test of an album's quality
Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Time: 8:41:33 PM
Remote Address: 67.85.102.101
Message ID: 164992
Parent ID: 0
Thread ID: 164992
This post is inspired by something Fancymanblues wrote in an earlier thread. (Welcome Fancyman!) He said the true test of an album's quality was where it ranks with fans 6 months or a year down the road. I agree with this philosophy. Just this morning I was rocking out to the new Oasis album and I was amazed that I was still playing it non-stop months after its release. So to slightly modify what Fancyman said, I think a good test is how much you're still listening to a new record 6 months or a year down the line. Of course, if you don't like an album at first, a good test is if it grows on you. I remember hearing Achtung Baby for the first time and not liking it. After I heard it live I thought it was a masterpiece, and I still think it's U2's best album. I thought Bridges To Babylon was a joke when it came out. It took a while to grow on me, but I now think it's the best of the post Undercover records. I'll never understand the mystery of how music can grow on a person. I mean, it doesn't sound any different the tenth time. I remember hating Estranged by Guns n' Roses the first 50 times I heard it, but something compelled me to keep listening to it, and after a year it became my favorite song ever by anyone, and it remains in my top spot to this day. Funny.
However, I have one full proof test of an album's quality, if the album in question is released by an already successful band like The Stones. How many of the songs do you want to hear live when the band swings through town? If you'd rather just hear the old hits, then the new album can't be very good. In this respect The Black Crowes' last album Lions was pretty weak. There are only a handful of songs on that record I really want to hear live. (Unfortunately they always seem to play the others!) With the new Oasis album on the other hand, I'd love to hear almost every song and would actually be pissed if they didn't play most of them. The Stones are in a tough position with this test, because they could release a totally decent record and fans might still just want to hear the old stuff. However, if The Stones had toured in 1984 I would have wanted to hear Undercover Of The Night and She Was Hot, as well as several others from Undercover. So clearly The Stones were capable of releasing interesting records long after the great 4, or even long after Some Girls. I mean, what's the point of releasing music your fans don't wanna hear live?
What do you guys think of this test? (or anything else in this post?)
Note: Do not hit the "Post Message" button more than once, even if it is taking a long time to post your message. Doing so may cause a double post to appear and could slow down your posting time even more.
Download your free, customizable Burton Networks Message Board now!
© 1998 - 2010 by Keno Internet Services, except where otherwise noted. All rights reserved.