| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| RJB |
Posted - 08/01/2004 : 05:51:22
I realize I'm going to take some heat from all the drones and cultees but I'll go ahead and say it anyway...
I think Frank Black is too prolific
He needs to be a harsher critic with his own material. His last four albums are each at least one-third filler material. The reason I say this is because I'm actually a rabid FB fan and I would love to see him propelled to the heights and glory that his talent could take him.If he cut out some of his weaker songs from album to album I would have even more respect for the guy as a songwriter. Imagine adding consistency to his list of attributes?
And just so nobody gets too livid about my blasphemy I want to let you all know I firmly believe FB is the greatest singer-songwriter of the last 15 years...its just, well, I think he could do even better if he filtered out a bit more and slowed down. I think FB should go and work on an album for a year or two and come out with a masterpiece, I think if anyone is capable of such a thing it would be him.
What do you think?
When a woman has hands |
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| VoVat |
Posted - 08/08/2004 : 13:55:48
quote:
When it comes to this music stuff, there is no real Objectivity.
Uh-oh. Better not tell Ebb!
Cattle in Korea / They can really moo. |
| n/a |
Posted - 08/08/2004 : 12:10:12
I totally agree with all you said Langdonboom!
For me there are, of course, musics that I like more than others, it depends on the day and on my state of mind.
But none of them has ever let me down! I was never desappointed!
It´s still a big mistery for me, the Pixies and Frank Black´s music!
I can try hard but I can´t find a music that I can say that I don´t really like...
... I´m learning!... |
| langdonboom |
Posted - 08/08/2004 : 07:38:32
I like hearing this back-and-forth, especially since everyone seems really intellegent about how to discuss it. Of course its super-murky. But I tend to agree with the almost-paradoxical sounding theory that the ones who are 'rabid' fans are the most objective (or at least have the position to be so, though any individual could always be nuts) since they know the songs in the most detail. Though its a chicken-or-the-egg question, since why would they bother to get to know the songs as well as they do if something in them didn't speak to them in the first place?
With that said, I'll just add that I am a rabid Frank Black fan, I have never felt let down by any of his songs, even though yes, I like some better than others (Naturally) but to point out a particular difference I have with the original poster -- THE SNAKE is a song that I almost NEVER listen to ONCE -- its always instantly repeated. I LOVE IT. If we want to start a thread about defending what you consider "filler" songs, I'd be glad to offer my 2 cents. Though this is the kind of thing you need to look each other in the eyes, feel each others excitement, listen to the songs together to really transmit one person's feelign to the other -- words and logical arguments pretty much fall flat when discussing these things (great rock criticism nonwithstanding).
Anyway, what a great thing to debate! How much BETTER could Frank be? The mind boggles.
Finally, I'll add that the man's soul speaks to me in a way that any disscetion of his musicality or musicianship itself wouldn't quite get at. Perhaps like trying to find someone's personality by cutting him open on the coroner's table. Sorta the wrong arena for invetigation of these things.
Alienation confers freedom. Obscurity will keep you pure. Pray that you won’t be discovered young, so that you won’t be tempted to sell out early, or won’t be seduced by celebrity.
--THE PATH OF THE ARTIST |
| jediroller |
Posted - 08/08/2004 : 00:27:01
There are three of you?
--
Everything I say to you is gonna come out wrong anyway |
| Jason |
Posted - 08/07/2004 : 15:40:48
When it comes to this music stuff, there is no real Objectivity. Different people value different things, and the best anyone can do when reaching for any kind of objectivity is be objective within their own subjective paradigm.
If you think think melodic, verse-chorus-verse guitar rock is a debased form of music and the great classical and jazz musicians are the only guys who made real art, then objectively any Frank Black & the Catholics song -- or any rock song -- is bad.
I think anyone's informed opinion is valid (informed meaning you've at least heard the music before criticizing or categorizing it -- and I'd say RJB's opinion is informed). You can be a casual fan and have very valid, interesting things to say.
And this board isn't much of a "worshipper's circle" (at least in RJB's vision of one that will defend en masse every single thing Frank does). Sometimes I feel like I'm one of only three people here who thinks Pistolero is a flawless album, for example. |
| ElevatorLady |
Posted - 08/07/2004 : 11:32:01
If I may just add, there is a nice little paradox here: Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the "worshippers circle" fans are extremely subjective in evaluating FB's music, and other "casual" fans are very much objective in this. That would make the "casual" fans better judges on what is good and what is not, right? On the other hand, only the "worshipers circle" knows the music well enough to be entitled to make such judgments. They know every album and every song in detail. A casual fan, no matter how objective he is, can in no way say which FB album is the best and which one is the worst, because he probably hasn't heard all of them, and even if he has, he probably didn't listen to all of them thoroughly enough to be able to make such judgments.
I'm over-generalizing, I know, but anyway.
Besides, I'm sure there are many out there who would consider everything FB has ever done complete crap... Do you think those people are too objective, or too subjective?
______________________
When in doubt, sqare. |
| RJB |
Posted - 08/06/2004 : 20:36:46
quote:
Originally posted by jediroller
"I firmly belive that there is room for some objectivity."
That's where you are wrong. Or are you faking naivety?
Who could be considered "objective" on such a subject?
I'm speaking generally.
Of course there is going to be people that disagree, and of course I'm not suggesting I be the ultimate judge.
Take this list for example, its a compilation of some great artist's weaker albums:
Bob Dylan: SAVED or Dylan
David Bowie: Never Let Me Down or Tonite
Springsteen: Human Touch...
See most fans that aren't total devotees would be able to consider these generallities(not a word...hmm), most would admit it if they're outside of the worshippers circle. But once you get into the worshippers circle no such generallities can be discussed. You get called naive for suggesting that one album might be almost universally panned or generally thought of as weaker.
I'm saying I thinkDevil's Workshop, Pistollero,and Black Letter Days would go on that list for FB albums, and so would most people I know that are totally into music and totally into FB( just not as much as you guys I guess, and that one guy is right, what do I expect, this is a FB forun and place where the most devout FB come, and I'm not being facetious, I dig that you guys like him that much.)
So yeah, I'm gonna stop beating a dead horse here, I think he needs to be more meticulous you guys disagree.
Frank Booth: Here's to your f*ck!
Ben: Here's to your f*ck, Frank.
-"Blue Velvet" |
| usedtobenavajo |
Posted - 08/06/2004 : 15:53:06
I think everyone here has some frank black songs that they find to be mediocre or bad. But, as these songs are different for everyone, if frank were to put a certain filter on his work, he would please some fans and displease others. So if his goal (or the perspective that we are taking) is to provide a pleasureable album experience to everyone in his (relatively) small cult following, then it is hard to call very many of his songs filler.
If we are looking at this through any other perspective: flow of album, overall strength of material, etc, then we can begin throwing that label around.
Most of the people who have responded have been looking at pleasure for all of frank's rabid fans.
Just a thought.
So Im headed for the stereo store, to get a white noise maker, and turn it up to ten. |
| Jason |
Posted - 08/06/2004 : 13:00:45
fellas, fellas...
by all means, anyone should post any opinion about Mr. Frank that they want to post here. But where is this hubub over the posts disagreeing with the top post a' comin' from? The frankblack.net board (the 'Frank Black' sections, at least) is where the Frank Black GEEKS (like myself) post. It's who the board is for. You're gonna find some folks here who like everything and you're gonna find folks who may disagree with your criticisms. So what?
And I don't apologize for my 'Pixies setlists' comment. I like the idea of Music Talk being a little like Sports Talk. Sometimes you make cutting and/or outlandish comments, and it's all in fun. I disagree with all kindsa stuff I read here and some very nice folks may disagree with me. And it's all fine. In the two or so years I've posted here, I don't think I've ever been in one of those super-cool (not really) "internet fights" with anyone, despite disagreeing with 72.3% of I what I usually read here. I let stuff bounce offa me.
Let some stuff bounce off you. Try to enjoy the board without letting things turn into Ego Matches. Cuz then things usually stop being enjoyable. |
| jediroller |
Posted - 08/06/2004 : 10:54:42
"I firmly belive that there is room for some objectivity."
That's where you are wrong. Or are you faking naivety?
Who could be considered "objective" on such a subject? A musicologist? On what "objective" criteria do you base your dismissal of certain songs as "filler"? As is the case with lots of other board members, one of the songs you mentioned happen to be my very favourite off "Show Me Your Tears", so I'd like to know how my judgment is flawed. What did I miss about "Everything is New" that makes it a weak song? What does it lack? What does it have that it shouldn't?
Yes, good on you for posting this thread... Of course. No one told you to shut up, did they? But can you please back your point of view with a bit more arguments and a bit less whining about "ridiculously loyal fans"? The harsher answer you got was the one line you quoted (twice in fact) about "Pixies setlists", every single other response (and every single other line in Jason's replies) were definitely level-headed.
I'm aware that Frank produces a lot of material, and that it would be dumb to ask everybody to love all of it. I don't. There are quite a few songs that do nothing for me. But there's a gap between admitting that and claiming that the songs you don't like are necessarily weak material that shouldn't have been put out. That's what make me uncomfortable about your post RJB, not the fact that everything Frank writes is not equally good - I assume that's news to nobody here - but the fact that you should be the one to decide what is good enough to be released, and what isn't.
That's all. Have a nice day!
--
Everything I say to you is gonna come out wrong anyway |
| BLT |
Posted - 08/06/2004 : 08:41:57
Good on you for posting this thread. Anyone who is offended by it deserves to be offended by it. |
| RJB |
Posted - 08/06/2004 : 08:14:04
quote:
Originally posted by glacial906
quote:
Originally posted by RJB
ok, what did I expect?
you're all right and I am wrong Frank Black's songs are like your children you must love them all the same; one's no better than the next and ...and ...and.
bah
Frank Booth: Here's to your f*ck!
Ben: Here's to your f*ck, Frank.
-"Blue Velvet"
I don't really think that's what's been said here. I think that you should just understand that what you consider as "filler" might not be the same as what someone else does. I don't like every Frank Black song I've ever heard. But, my likes are more than likely different from yours, and that's a pretty expected thing, and you really shouldn't be surprised.
That being said, you proffered an opinion. I take it you're not satisfied with the result. Does your dissatisfaction stem from the lack of parallel viewpoints? Or just the frequency and vehemence of those opinions that differ from yours? Some of my favorite songs from Frank are what others consider "filler" and some of the songs I consider "filler" are absolute favorites among all the other members of the forum.
In your post to start this thread you mentioned "consistency" as a way for Frank Black to propel himself to "heights and glory." What does that consistency entail? Is this an issue with the "sound" of his music, or what you would consider the quality? What you would believe to be "consistent" in quality would be wholly subjective to your own personal likes and dislikes. I would admit, on the other hand, that Frank Black's music, when listened to song by song, does not have a particular "consistency" to the sound of the album. But, in a way it gives his listeners a broader spectrum of music than is present in most contemporary musicians. (In other words, there aren't too many FB songs that sound the same.)
Take me, break me, tell me a good one and maybe I'll cry
Your thoughtful response is appreciated.
I realize that people here are rabid, somewhat overprotective FB fans and so I guess I got my just deserts. It's quite similiar to visiting any fan forum, like David Bowie's teenage wildlife fan page (http://www.teenagewildlife.com), that is to say, one cannot convince ridiclously loyal fans to try and be somewhat objective. i.e., Never Let Me Down is one of Bowie's weaker albums; to most, a fact, but to the David Bowie loyalists, saying anything is weak or weaker is in fact a blasphomy that needn't be considered... let alone uttered.
I get the same vibe here, from most.
I recognize that FB doesn't have a catalogue that varies as much as Bowie's but I still get the same vibe from most posters here(incredibly unobjective rabid fans) that you have little appriciation for negative opinions, hence that one dude telling me, "hey go away, we all know you came here for pixies set lists" or whatever he said, which is beyond stupid.
True, art is highly subjective but I firmly belive that there is room for some objectivity; some stuff is generally considered worse and some stuff is generally considered better...usually true.
And for me and many people I know we think FB is an amazing artist, probably, if you go on sheer talent alone one of the very best in the world, but if you go by consitency(quality of tracks/quality of albums) he can improve if he slows down and filters a bit more.
Disagreeing with me is fine. Great even. Please just remember that pondering FB quality/quantity is not a sin.
|
| glacial906 |
Posted - 08/04/2004 : 21:43:30
quote:
Originally posted by RJB
ok, what did I expect?
you're all right and I am wrong Frank Black's songs are like your children you must love them all the same; one's no better than the next and ...and ...and.
bah
Frank Booth: Here's to your f*ck!
Ben: Here's to your f*ck, Frank.
-"Blue Velvet"
I don't really think that's what's been said here. I think that you should just understand that what you consider as "filler" might not be the same as what someone else does. I don't like every Frank Black song I've ever heard. But, my likes are more than likely different from yours, and that's a pretty expected thing, and you really shouldn't be surprised.
That being said, you proffered an opinion. I take it you're not satisfied with the result. Does your dissatisfaction stem from the lack of parallel viewpoints? Or just the frequency and vehemence of those opinions that differ from yours? Some of my favorite songs from Frank are what others consider "filler" and some of the songs I consider "filler" are absolute favorites among all the other members of the forum.
In your post to start this thread you mentioned "consistency" as a way for Frank Black to propel himself to "heights and glory." What does that consistency entail? Is this an issue with the "sound" of his music, or what you would consider the quality? What you would believe to be "consistent" in quality would be wholly subjective to your own personal likes and dislikes. I would admit, on the other hand, that Frank Black's music, when listened to song by song, does not have a particular "consistency" to the sound of the album. But, in a way it gives his listeners a broader spectrum of music than is present in most contemporary musicians. (In other words, there aren't too many FB songs that sound the same.)
Take me, break me, tell me a good one and maybe I'll cry
|
| Skatealex1 |
Posted - 08/04/2004 : 00:30:49
I want to add that I wouldn't mind if Frank Black released a new cd every 4 months :)
The Truth Is Out There |
| robotblood |
Posted - 08/04/2004 : 00:01:42
jason...
funny you mention GBV, because i was about to present bob pollard as somebody who could be considered too prolific and somebody without the ability to self-edit. i think it has hurt his chances of making a major impact on the commercial rock market and will limit him to being an indie rock hero (not so shabby). if you're releasing a minimum of 40 songs to the public each year, for over 10 years, something must suffer. don't get me wrong, i'm a huge fan... but i can understand how most mainstream types don't GET the GBV.
with that said, i don't think frank is prolific to a fault. he's a working musician with a penchant for songwriting. while 4 LPs in 3 years might seem like alot to digest, it's not much more than many indie rock bands release in the same amount of time. i regards to the original post, frank current style of music will NEVER reach the heights of glory RJB is looking for. even the recent straight rock stuff is too weird for the general population.. and that's a good thing from where i'm sitting. |
| Jason |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 18:52:35
quote:
Originally posted by usedtobenavajo
And furthermore (I just thought of this) has had 15 albums (17 lps) in 17 years WHILE reinventing himself 3 times. Alt rock innovator- pop rock tunesmith - garage rocker - folk-rock singer-songwriter. AND he has 2-3 (who knows what to believe with the pixies) albums ready for release.
He could have easily worked on the 60's-70's schedule
I actually think one reason why rock music today is often less exciting and less forward-moving than it used to be (in my opinion, of course) is because the 60s and 70s schedule isn't the norm anymore.
Up until the early 80s or so most signed musicians were obligated to put out something new every year. But today the music business is so bloated that most labels milk what they can from one record for at least two years before they're ready to even consider putting out something new.
And I s'pose there are pros and cons to that for everybody, but I think one result is that lots of the chatted-about musicians these days don't evolve in very interesting ways. The Beatles, Bob Dylan, and David Bowie, etc. evolved constantly and did so much in so short a time because they had to. They had to deliver new music every year.
A few musicians these days keep up that fight (and have the loyal cult followings to justify annual releases). Other than Frank, I believe The Melvins are pretty consistent about putting out new stuff each year. And GbV, of course. |
| usedtobenavajo |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 15:15:55
And furthermore (I just thought of this) has had 15 albums (17 lps) in 17 years WHILE reinventing himself 3 times. Alt rock innovator- pop rock tunesmith - garage rocker - folk-rock singer-songwriter. AND he has 2-3 (who knows what to believe with the pixies) albums ready for release.
He could have easily worked on the 60's-70's schedule
So Im headed for the stereo store, to get a white noise maker, and turn it up to ten. |
| n/a |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 15:02:36
well you've got to expect opinion to differ from yours, some people like different tracks is all.. one mans filler is another mans thriller... thats a fucking awfull analogy
Frank Black ate my Hamster
|
| usedtobenavajo |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 15:02:12
I agree with jason. But frank is still pretty prolific: In their first 5 years of exsistence, FB and the catholics released 7 lps worth of studio album material (Black letter days would be a 2lp on vinyl.) In the first 7 years of his career (counting pixies), frank released 7 lps of material (TOTY was a double of course) containing exactly 3 covers. the rest are originals. Impressive.
So Im headed for the stereo store, to get a white noise maker, and turn it up to ten. |
| RJB |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 14:36:13
ok, what did I expect?
you're all right and I am wrong Frank Black's songs are like your children you must love them all the same; one's no better than the next and ...and ...and.
bah
Frank Booth: Here's to your f*ck!
Ben: Here's to your f*ck, Frank.
-"Blue Velvet" |
| Blaireau Man |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 11:21:32
this old hertach and everything is new are weak??? that's 2 of the best songs on the album!!!!
NH3 OH I LOve YoU So Much |
| remig |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 10:42:41
quote:
Originally posted by vilainde
To me the only song played by Frank that I would consider being a "filler" is Bam Thowk. And it's not even written by Frank. So there.
Denis
I agree with you Denis.
SMYT: No filler, all killer!
A filler: studio outakes on early beach boys album for example (you hear them practicing in studio) but they did 23 Lp in 10 years! |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 07:29:23
Well put Jason.
 "When 5000 posts you reach / Look as good you will not, hmmm?" |
| vilainde |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 01:00:20
Totally agree with Jason. We could add:
Roxy Music: from 1972 to 1982, 10 albums plus 5 by Bryan Ferry solo.
David Bowie: from 1969 to 1979, 12 studio albums.
Led Zeppelin: from 1969 to 1976, 7 studio albums.
Hüsker Dü: in 6 years, 8 studio albums.
and the list goes on and on...
Denis
|
| Jason |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 00:47:24
In the past 11 years (post-Pixies), Frank's put out 10 studio albums (counting Oddballs).
In his first 11 years making records, Bob Dylan put out at least 12 studio albums (two of them doubles).
In their first 11 years, the Rolling Stones released 15 studio albums. And the Kinks also put out about 15 LPs in 11 years.
In his first 11 years as a solo (or 'with Crazy Horse' guy) Neil Young put out about 13 albums of new material. And that's not counting his work with CSN&Y.
In 7 years, the Beatles put out 12 studio albums and enough singles to fill at least two more LPs.
Get more familiar with classic rock and Frank's rate of output seems pretty normal and traditional. |
| vigorstrength |
Posted - 08/02/2004 : 17:49:55
quote:
My Favorite Kiss
The Snake
Coastline
This Old Heartache
Everything is New
See these songs in my opinion are pretty weak,
Are you insane? Some of these are the greatest folk songs ever written.. the snake simply needs to be turned up to eleven.
_______
www.againandagain.net - dynamic acoustic rock |
| DruggedBunny |
Posted - 08/02/2004 : 17:39:08
quote:
"we needed something to fill up the space..."
He said at the time that this referred to the track lacking something, hence Jef Feldman providing the (aural) space filler with tablas and dumbek (whatever the hell they actually are)...
--
"Nothing to do about it..." |
| RJB |
Posted - 08/02/2004 : 15:43:11
quote:
If that annoys you then maybe you oughta go back to analyzing the Pixies reunion setlists (which is probably the reason you came to this board in the first place).
foolish conclusion
Frank Booth: Here's to your f*ck!
Ben: Here's to your f*ck, Frank.
-"Blue Velvet" |
| VoVat |
Posted - 08/02/2004 : 11:46:48
Has Frank really even released that much in the way of albums? The Pixies have four regular albums, one mini-album, a live album, and a B-sides collection. Under the Frank Black name, there were nine regular albums and a rarities collection. That's nothing to sneeze at, certainly, but I'm sure you can find plenty of artists who have released more. It's not an especially daunting catalog. It could easily BECOME one if he keeps up his present pace, though.
Cattle in Korea / They can really moo. |
| the tolerant |
Posted - 08/02/2004 : 11:01:48
its all opinions and whose is the best.....who knows. but i'm with the crowd on this one RJB. fillers? frank? not to be said so easily and with conviction in the same sentence. just wanted to add my opinion on this one soon as i saw 'everything is new' up for an award for top filler.
no way. its one of my fave off SMYT.
Frank is prolific but if i had my way i'd have cds upon discs of all his throw away songs. the ones none of us will ever here. bet theres a few gems out there. |
| Jason |
Posted - 08/02/2004 : 10:25:25
"Space (I Belive In)" admits that it's filler in the lyrics ("we needed something to fill up the space...").
Anyway those of you for whom ONE Frank Black album a year is way too much to handle should stick to bands like REM. They push out something once every four or five years.
For the past few years, Frank has made music for the "cult". And that means that each album doesn't have to be A Rare Event. He already has a loyal cult following who will want it and no amount of time or effort in between is going to expand that cult by leaps and bounds. It's not gonna happen.
Lots of artists in all fields of art stay consistently active year-in year-out. They don't build up to a big statement every 4 years. They continue to create because that's what they do. They keep going. It's their job. An artist (or some of them, at least) is a lot like a farmer in some ways. A farmer doesn't take a three-year break from growing corn. He's out there every season keeping the fields fertile. Frank's always gone be around. He's a farmer, he's a soldier, blah blah.
If that annoys you then maybe you oughta go back to analyzing the Pixies reunion setlists (which is probably the reason you came to this board in the first place). |
| vilainde |
Posted - 08/02/2004 : 08:02:24
To me the only song played by Frank that I would consider being a "filler" is Bam Thowk. And it's not even written by Frank. So there.
Denis
|
| PsychicTwin |
Posted - 08/02/2004 : 07:51:56
quote:
Originally posted by RJB
quote:
Originally posted by billgoodman
which songs on smyt are filler?
 "I joined the Cult of Frank/Nobody wanted to join my Culf"
My Favorite Kiss
The Snake
Coastline
This Old Heartache
Everything is New
I know it all comes down to opinion...
but how do you justify calling "Coastline" filler?? that is just insane. the song is great. |
| whoreatthedoor |
Posted - 08/02/2004 : 02:34:00
quote:
Originally posted by ivandivel
quote:
Originally posted by whoreatthedoor
As I have always said, I like Pixies songs over Frank solo or Catholic stuff, but I'm pretty sure (And Frank will agree with me) that his unique filler period will be dated around "Trompe le Monde".
....
But as I said above, Frank Black (Not Black Francis) has never edited a filler.
 "Join the Cult of the whore at the door / And You'll find no answers, but real fun"
Fillers on trompe le monde? Right. And does that include Bossanova and Frank Black? And what does "Frank Black (Not Black Francis) has never edited a filler" mean?
Well, that was my way to refer the Charles Thomson Pixies period (This is not totally correct, 'cause he is still Black Francis). About Trompe, this doesn't mean it's a bad album. But well, I think he wants to finish it in a hurry (And I'm pretty sure it was exactly what he wants to do in that moment).
"Join the Cult of the whore at the door / And You'll find no answers, but real fun" |
| ivandivel |
Posted - 08/02/2004 : 02:04:29
quote:
Originally posted by whoreatthedoor
As I have always said, I like Pixies songs over Frank solo or Catholic stuff, but I'm pretty sure (And Frank will agree with me) that his unique filler period will be dated around "Trompe le Monde".
....
But as I said above, Frank Black (Not Black Francis) has never edited a filler.
"Join the Cult of the whore at the door / And You'll find no answers, but real fun"
Fillers on trompe le monde? Right. And does that include Bossanova and Frank Black? And what does "Frank Black (Not Black Francis) has never edited a filler" mean?
I always thought that filler tracks were tracks necessary to release material as a complete album. You have 2-3 killer tracks, 4 pretty good ones - and a couple of fillers - and you have a pretty good album actually. Thus - to be a little academical - a filler is not defined by it's quality but by its function on the album. Further - what was included as a filler may very well be perceived as a killer.
Anyway - Frank Black's material is a gigantic buffet and we are free to dive into it and eat eat eat and eat whatever we like. I'd like it to stay that way. He can't please us all - so he should please himself. And if he is pleased by putting out this much - great for us - and we can filter out the stuff that doesn't suit out taste.
We have been served with a bunch of 2-track recordings - some fantastic and some so so - and now we'll soon get a multitrack-recording again - with new people. I can't complain.
|
|
|
