While I won't argue that the guy is a serious douche, one of my favorite albums took three days to make, all the while the musicians were tripping on psilocybin mushrooms. I'm just saying that the duration of the recording process doesn't necessarily reflect quality. For example, Chinese Democracy was worked on and off again for, what, sixteen years? I've yet to hear the album, but I very seriously doubt that it is "sixteen years" good.Originally Posted by mkdisciple
The fiery red Torino rolled to the curb, we hit the pavement ready for action.
Yes, but 16 years is a point of diminishing returns. Generally, if you work on album for about 3 weeks, it is going to feel and sound rushed, which 808's did. I didn't really like the direction he took it in, although he shows promise as being someone who can do his own hooks fairly well.
If you take the extra time to work and shape an album; being an artist and shaping it to be 'just so,' the time, quality and attention will be reflected in the work that you do, and your fans will appreciate it. While there are exceptions to the rule, generally speaking, 21 days does not an album make. I find some bands put together a shitty album after having a year to make it.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks