I think we've run out of "sell-out" criteria.
"They released a SECOND album? What, are they Rush now?"
Bands should only be allowed to release one album - discuss
62Hibs1875 wrote:It's a notion that perhaps shouldn't be looked at retrospectively, as hard as that is.
There just seems to be something mildly fucking irritating about bands that stick around long enough to release a 2nd album.
Hey, I know what I mean, even if no one else does.
If you find second or follow-up albums irritating, don't listen to them. I'm sure your life will be much better for it.
While we're at it, don't read second novels, movies, short stories, etc.
Don't you hate it when talented people bang out the product?
You can go sit in the corner now.
Available in hit crimson or surprising process this calculator will physics up your kitchen
Bands should only be allowed to release one album - discuss
63This is a terrible, stupid idea. What is the precedent or the reasoning behind such a plan? Would you also advocate restricting pilots to flying only one trip, or architects to designing only one building?
Think about the repercussions of such a rule.
The music industry would be inundated with ever more lame, untalented newbies as the churn-and-burn business model that exists now at the corporate level would accelerate to an insane degree.
For the musicians, the stress of producing an album would be multiplied by the knowledge that this is their one and only shot that will either make or break them for all posterity.
Or else bands would just change their name with each release, making it more difficult for people to follow their careers, not to mention exacerbating the serious shortage of band names, which is already reaching crisis proportions, having resulted in such abysmal names as Box-O-Car, Neutral Milk Hotel, Fountains of Wayne, Big Head Todd and the Monsters, Toad The Wet Sprocket and Rapeman.
Think about the repercussions of such a rule.
The music industry would be inundated with ever more lame, untalented newbies as the churn-and-burn business model that exists now at the corporate level would accelerate to an insane degree.
For the musicians, the stress of producing an album would be multiplied by the knowledge that this is their one and only shot that will either make or break them for all posterity.
Or else bands would just change their name with each release, making it more difficult for people to follow their careers, not to mention exacerbating the serious shortage of band names, which is already reaching crisis proportions, having resulted in such abysmal names as Box-O-Car, Neutral Milk Hotel, Fountains of Wayne, Big Head Todd and the Monsters, Toad The Wet Sprocket and Rapeman.
Bands should only be allowed to release one album - discuss
64Mark Hansen wrote:I own an open top two person kayak. It looks like a cross between a canoe and a kayak.
I hope this is your *first* kayak?
Bands should only be allowed to release one album - discuss
65I still have a thing called a Surf-Ski. You sit on it and paddle to catch waves.
Kinda shitty to be honest, I used to use it before I could surf for real.
Kinda shitty to be honest, I used to use it before I could surf for real.
run joe run wrote:Kerble your enthusiasm.
Bands should only be allowed to release one album - discuss
66I dunno! I'm thinking of Superchunk's debut record - it really is a couple singles filled out by crap. Or Led Zeppelin's first record. Or Husker Du's first (that one is a little less extreme compared to my first example, but still no contest compared to what they came up with later) Final contemplation: nah.
Bands should only be allowed to release one album - discuss
68It picked up once it became about Canoeing.
run joe run wrote:Kerble your enthusiasm.
Bands should only be allowed to release one album - discuss
70Didn't Derek Bailey say something like his albums, ideally should only be listened to once?