Quote:
Originally Posted by pure_mercury
I don't think that's it. I don't mind a really produced, slick album if the songs are solid. That is rare, though. I feel like there are few songwriters who can turn in an album's worth of great material these days. They take more time between albums and the albums are longer, whereas I think it's better to be more like the old days, i.e., an album every 18-24 months with 10-12 songs, rather than an album every 3 years that's 14-15 songs, plus a tour, then a big amount of time off. Most great bands improve through writing and playing a lot, then put out their best material once they get enough time, money, and control to record the way they want. They rapidly fall off if they put on gigantic tours followed by extended periods of time off, unless you are the rare U2, REM, et al.
|
With pop music it's alright, but I mainly don't like it with rock music, not only because it will make them seem shitty live in comparison but I feel like overproduction is often used to compensate for the bands/artists lack of talent. e.g. shitty singers having all those effects on their voices.
I think the reason that nowadays popular artists aren't putting out really quality music is because since MTV, music becomes more about image year after year. Popular artists used to be in their 20s and 30s, now they are in their less talented and experienced teens, and early twenties.