[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

LONG: Re: warning: semi-long news item! sloan considers releasin



Hi friends,

Shant says, on the subject of double albums:
> i dunno, i sorta disagree.  very few bands have put out double albums, or 
> at least double-length albums that are really worth the trouble.  i'd say 
> the clash's "london calling" is one of the few that i've heard that works 
> the whole way through....unlike their triple lp followup "sandinista" 
> which fails miserably.
> the beatles' "white album" has a lot of filler crap that could have 
> easily brought it down to a single lp. same thing with fleetwood mac's 
> "tusk"...a multi-million dollar flop which has some really great songs on 
> it (especially the lindsey buckingham tracks...), but has some terribly 
> lacklustre songs (i,e,-christine mcvie).

On the other hand, many seem to point to the "White Album" as one of 
the best albums the Beatles recorded (i.e. those who were open to 
more than "Ticket to Ride" and "Love Me Do"). Being the first album 
the Beatles recorded for their own label, they decided to explore 
every possible style of music which could hold an interest to them, 
even John's curiosity of the obscure ("Revolution #9"). Of course, at 
this point in time, it has been said that the group was working as 
"John and a backing group, Paul and a backing group, George and a 
backing group, and Ringo and a backing group..." What was odd was 
that sales didn't really slow down before Capitol decided to up the 
price tag of "Abbey Road" on its release, as well as raise prices on 
their last three albums, due to a renegociated royalty clause with 
Allen Klein... Of course, "Paul is Dead" changed all that... S;^D

As for Fleetwood Mac (my unsung heroes... Nobody who's stayed 
together through God knows how many fights, spats, intra-group love 
affairs, just because they believed in their music deserve a medal 
of honour.), you have to put "Tusk" into perspective. Warner Bros, in 
all their greed, decided to put a hefty $16.98 tag on a double album, 
compared to, say, the usual $12.98 (maybe I'm remembering 
incorrectly, although I'll check the "Fleetwood" bio just to be 
sure), thinking it would sell anyway because "Rumours" was so much a 
cultural phenomenon. (Although another story adds clout to Shant's 
words: in Mick Fleetwood's book, he states "When the (record execs) 
heard Tusk, they saw their Christmas bonuses flying out the window." 
Add the fact that the Rock Radio One Network broadcast the album _in_ 
_its_ _entirety_, meaning many just stayed at home and _recorded_ the 
whole thing off the air and totally avoid buying the album in the 
first place, and you begin to understand why "Tusk", the follow-up to 
the Mecca-platinum "Rumours", only sold a poor _2_ _million_ copies. 
Add to that the extra spice of not releasing "Tusk" on a "Super 
Saver" CD series (as was done with "Rumours", "Fleetwood Mac (1975)" 
and "Mirage"), and you start to get an idea why this album is 
considered a failure, not on the part of the band, mind you, but of 
the people who have the final decision in how to "market" the 
product. But with what are we left? An album which has more than 
enough Lindsey songs to satisfy the Lindsey fan ("I Know I'm Not 
Wrong", "Save Me A Place", and "Tusk" are favorites), enough Stevie 
ballads to satisfy those who put on the album to, a-hmm-hmm ("Sara", 
"Angel", "Storms", and "Sisters of the Moon" deserving 
mention), and, yes, the commercial hit potential of Christine "I love 
you and I've decided to write a song about that to make us feel good"
McVie ("Think About Me", "Honey Hi" and "Never Forget" have that 
classic FM feel to them.) "Tusk" remains the favorite album of most 
members of the group. S:^)

The "bad handling of a good album" situation might eventually be 
linked to the same reason why Sloan decided not to return to Geffen 
for release of their third album, OCTA. Of course, to some of you, 
this may come off as uninteresting fodder from someone who can't keep 
his mouth shut. For those of you who are interested in this, you may 
be (or very well should be) the next great company executive of a 
winning record company, or perhaps the owner of your own record 
company.

Food for thought: When Wilco's "Being There" first came out, a 
certain well-known Canadian chain of record stores had it on sale for 
$13.99. Although both CD's were only half full, this double CD at 
$13.99 challenges the notion that a double album must be more 
expensive than a single album. Check it: a CD only costs about $2 to 
produce, right? (The CD itself, not the cover artwork, copyrights, 
etc.) So just what is causing the jump from regular price $24.99 to 
regular price $32.99?

Cheers,
Glen (aka Barney Rubble)