why do we expect bands two write 10-12 good to great songs every two or three years?

i suppose this boils down to another rockist/popist argument, but it really has been bothering me. when i've been listening to albums lately, it's been mostly to "zone out"...so it's been kompakt-y stuff, hex, etc. when i've really wanted to listen i've found myself focusing heavily on certain songs.

I literally would not want to listen to an album composed entirely of "great" songs. I would find that if they were all songs that I could sing along to, were catchy, enjoyed listening to all the time etc etc that I would eventually tire of the album sooner than I otherwise would if the "great" tracks were interspersed with slightly more, perhaps, slowburning songs or those of bascially lesser quality.

I also find that the lesser tracks serve to better highlight the "great" tracks as well.

IMO it's extremely rare to have an album (where you like most of the songs) with any out-and-out "bad" songs on it... I can't think of any albums in recent times where I've enjoyed most of the tracks but really hated one or two..

an album is great for me not when it's comprised of "all great songs" but when it works as a discrete unit. unfortunately this isn't how most pop albums are made. this is not a universal law, mind you, just a general rule of thumb. all of my favorite albums have a certain "flow."

as for albums made up of "all great songs", like tom i distrust people who don't buy a few best ofs per year. ;)

and of course that should be "expect bands TO write", but i am a mentalist.

i distrust people who don't buy a few best ofs per year. ;)

Who needs to buy them with mp3s around?

In response to the original question, because it's good to set one's standards high?

There's very few "Best of" albums that I would consider to be "all great songs". Most of the ones I know - even ones I like - have the odd dry patch. Which is fine, I guess.

Why do we expect blah blah blah? Beats me. I don't think I do. For me, and perhaps others, I don't know if I would call my relationship to unheard music to be one of "expectation" (requirements that must be fulfilled, hopes & dreams vulnerable to being dashed). I'd rather call it "curiousity". I don't expect the album to enthrall me, I'm merely curious to see if it does.

I don't mind a little filler. Sometimes I think you need some rest between hearing the peaks. Most of my favorite songs aren't the overwhelmingly huge classics, but rather the unassuming moments. An album that attempts to be a row of singles can often be a drag.

robert pollard can write 10-12 songs while taking a shit. and three of 'em will be GOOD.

Oh no they won't

12 good ones every three years? Didn't people used to come out with that kind of result every six months? Deadlines are a better incentive than endorsments, maybe.

Exactly. I was reminded at the Brian Wilson concert that Pet Sounds was the Beach Boys 10th album in 4 years. I'm not going to pretend that all those songs were great, many not even good but there are a damn sight more than 10-12 great ones.

To write 3-4 good songs a year doesn't seem that demanding on an artist.

If you're a professional pop artist, as against a baker who occasionally pens a lyric between loaves, then 3-4 songs a year is a ridiculously low tally.

If songwriters are committed to their craft I think I'd expect over 20 songs a year; maybe 50 or so. 10-12 every 3 years is a bit of a joke.

The question of 'good' or 'great' songs is tricky cos people will disagree about what's good anyway. But I still think a pro songwriter should write at least 10-20 songs that s/he thinks are good per year, whatever anyone else thinks.

Basically this is one question where David Q is guaranteed to be on the money.

I was once challenged to write one dance anthem per week for two months or get the chop - I managed three and didn't HAVE to write owt for years - so I didn't.

you lot are mentalists.

This is kind of hard to judge. On one hand I think what Jess says about the couple of great songs and filler is true. But er.....if it's a really good album it creates the mood which makes it kind of seamless. And it's alot easier to like certain songs in the context of an otherwise very good album. This is slightly unfair I suppose. But also quite understandable.

With regard to the main question, I guess the fact that some bands appear to be able to make more than 10-12 good songs every 2 or 3 years means that those that don't are criticised.

BTW, I have no problem with albums composed entirely of quality material.

Why mentalists?

pinefox (and everyone): mentalists as a joke, only because i think everyone misinterpreted the question because i probably phrased it poorly.

hopefully, i explain myself better here.

(Unfortunately I feel that even if you now "understand" me, it's gonna still be a case of agree to disagree.)

Wow - not only did the geezer Jess write a WHOLE ARTICLE based on an ILM thread (this one), he even turns my name into an adjective in his last para! He's my critic of the day for sure. (I'll try to get round to reading and properly understanding the argument later.)

why do we expect bands two write 10-12 good to great songs every two or three years? it's a pretty unreasonable goal for most people>

Yeah, but its our quest as music lovers (and to a degree, as consumers) to look for musical acts that can put out an album that isn't "2 hits plus 9 tracks of filler."

heh. don't take it as an article pinefox, then my random collection of half-formed thoughts actually have to be taken seriously.

I'm with The Pinefox. 50 songs a year should be no problem, maybe half of them will be good as is and the rest ditched/reworked. I guess it depends on whether the writer is a perfectionist or not. Endlessly polishing stuff doesn't work for me, most bands I've been in could write 10 new *songs* per rehearsal. Maybe we discarded half of them the next week, so what? Just bash 'em out.

I *really* love the one or two albums a year ethos of the 60's and 70's. It should be compulsory.

*songs* = either trad chord/lyric stuff that someone would bring in, or working upwards from a jam or riff.

I like 'filler' too. Often it turns out not to be, over time.

2 LPs per year rule --> ultimately produce a stronger Best Of when it's all over?