Steve V. wrote:

Skronk wrote:Yeah, screw "Highway 61", "In On The Killtaker", "Chairs Missing", "Closer", "In Utero", "Free Jazz", "Blood On The Tracks", "Revolver", "10,000 Light Years", "Solid Gold", "My War", "Bedtime For Democracy", Double Nickels...".








Bad Idea.

"Trout Mask Replica," "Excellent Italian Greyhound," "Goat," "Spiderland," "Pull," "Hex Enduction Hour," "Stella," "Atomizer," "Metal Box,"...sorry, thought I'd just throw a few more TERRIBLE followups out there.\\

Some day, a band will come up with a way of weaseling out of a debut album.

seconded.

this is a bad idea. I think I know what the guy's talking about - Lester Bangs characterized it as "we do our work and then we're done" or something like that while talking about the Sex Pistols breaking up, or more precisely Sid Vicious - but I don't subscribe to it. Some bands only have one album in them (the Pistols are a great example) - but some bands have many more, and you can't just write everyone off the same way.

The best rock album ever made, Funhouse was a second album, so no bands should not just release one album.


Done here.

Also first albums should only have one song. The first song you write is always the best. Trying to write a second, or god forbid, a third song is just mistake.

how about this...

if you think bands should only release one album, then don't buy any non-first albums. no one's making you.

Why can't Tori get noticed? Because you wouldn't let her grow, and make better music as she matured. A good example, whether you like her or not.

Hibs1875 wrote:Well I think it's a great idea personally.

Disagree.

While War and Pain is a fine album. It pales in comparison to Rrröööaaarrr, Killing Technology, and Dimension Hatross.

Yes. Voivod. More than one album. Please.

On the other hand, Gang of Four's debut is arguably their best. And while Solid Gold is also good, it all gets kind of questionable after that.

This is a dumb thread. Why am I here?

So, how do you think the Cabbage will do next season? Will Whittaker still be there? Please give us your thoughts on that here.

Who wants to go through the work of tracking down what a band calls itself after it releases a great record?

I can appreciate changing your name if you truly think something about your band has changed. "Disbanding" often means "yeah, it's largely the same people, but we're doing something different/want to separate ourselves from this other band," or something along those lines. Lots of people have milked success by keeping a band name despite the loss of many band members, while others change members but still do a good job of "being the same band," whatever that means to you.

This is an idea not worth discussing. I already regret even posting in this thread.

bands shouldn't be allowed to release albums.

they should have to earn it.

you guys's bands suck.

Little Atlas Heavyweight wrote:

Skronk wrote:

jim primate wrote:Yeah, I don't like to add anything useful to a thread, I just act like a child, it suits me fine.

agreed.

you guys can shut the fuck up.

Skronk wrote:Yeah, take all the time in the world. In real life, it doesn't work like that.

you don't know it doesn't work like that, you're speculating, bands are and always have been allowed to release as many albums as they want.