Comics Creators

The Music Thread


It’s in the discography. Number 7 on the Billboard charts, only one other made top 10 was “Wasted on the Way” which I’d also never heard but sounds very MOR stuff.


they did a cover of the Madness song?


Different, older song supposedly written by Graham Nash about his and Joni Mitchell’s house. :wink:


Ever since Annihilation I’ve had Helplessly Hoping regularly running around my head.


Dylan isn’t a band though you argue for the Jimi Hendrix Experience. If I included solo artists Queen would drop out of the top 30!


They are these days.


Saying “band” limits the list very arbitrarily, though. For the majority of Dylan’s tours and albums there was a band behind him. Sometimes literally The Band :wink:


Yeah fair enough, I do know that one. Only number 30 in the US, strange.


Blame Mojo not me!:grinning:

Personally I’d put Nick Cave and Prince in there as well but most people think of them as specifically solo artists.


To be fair that’s pretty accurate with Prince. Even when he had The Revolution and New Power Generation he wrote, recorded, performed 90% on his own. He was completely in charge and fired whoever he fancied at will.


The Byrds were a HUGE influence on Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, who arguably had more hit songs than the Byrds and CSNY combined.


On a completely different topic:


They don’t give the criteria they use for deciding what is pop and what is rock, so presumably there’s some flexible margin of error in the figures. But there’s still a pretty clear trend here. The article doesn’t offer any theories for why this has happened, though:


Not that I’m a huge Sheeran fan but he isn’t really ‘one man and a guitar’ as the article mentions.

If you watch this clip from the Brits I would say the first bit is rock by many definitions, it’s not metal but it’s stuff that many rock bands would play or maybe ‘country rock’ played with a full band and not an acoustic performance. Is Tom Petty ‘rock’ or U2? Sounds not far from that.

Then he shifts into a dance/grime track with Stormzy.


Couple of interesting graphs. Nothing radical, you’ve probably all seen these figures before, but I like the way it highlights the impact* of Napster and iTunes:


. * I know, correlation doesn’t imply causation. Except in this case I think it probably does.


To be fair, CD sales are probably the anomaly that inflated sales, a bit like DVD sales did for film for a while.

The music industry not getting out ahead of digital music was probably its downfall. Had they been there first selling digital music rather than making it a pirated effort, I think the landscape would have been much different.

I would think iTunes also represented a shift from people mostly buying albums to buying singles. At the time, the model of a lot of bands/musicians was a few singles per album with the rest being filler.


I’m not sure. The DVD boom was based really on people for the first time being able to own films (although technically that started at the tail end of VHS it had just started taking off). Before that there were only rental copies or laserdiscs at very high prices and before that only the cinema or wait for it to turn up on TV much much later.

CD was just a format in an industry where that ownership had been the norm for decades.

The music industry did react too slowly but I think it may have been unavoidable anyway. Music is just too easy to copy and the internet expanded that catalogue from tapes your friend might have had in school to every song ever made. That meant the legal version whacked the price down so low, today (not inflation adjusted but actual price) a single costs 25% less on iTunes than I paid for my first one in 1983. Film has a buffer because copying during early release is hard and if it is out there usually poor quality, plus the social aspect of going to the cinema, so DVD took the hit but box office not so much.

The album part is probably valid though, as much as David will object outside of his favourite genre which is focused on the longform, a lot of albums can be 3 good songs and a lot of filler.


I don’t object at all. I just take it as evidence of the superiority a genre which is able to sustain a musical idea for more than three minutes :wink:

I’m not sure why any “pop” band (I use the term loosely, it’s an inexact definition but you’ll know what I mean) makes an album these days. Why not just record singles on a regular schedule and keep the revenue stream constant, rather than slave away unpaid for weeks to record 12 of them and hope they sell more as a block?

But that’s not a new approach. In the 50s and 60s, releasing singles as an end in itself was normal. You only did it the other way round (recording an album then releasing the best tracks as singles to promote it) if you were someone the record company had a lot of confidence in.

If you’ve got 60 minutes of music that needs to be released as a block (i.e. a symphony or a concept album), fine. Otherwise I don’t see the commercial or artistic benefit.


Prog albums have two good songs and a lot of filler, but the two good songs are at least 8 minutes each.


Some prog albums have ONLY two songs:

Tubular Bells is the debut album by English musician Mike Oldfield, released on Virgin Records on 25 May 1973. It comprises two mostly instrumental compositions of over twenty minutes each.


That’s one way to cut out filler.